Mediaboss Marketing

On Wednesday, the Senate will most likely vote to acquit President Trump. The vote should send shock waves through our democracy. It is not so much that the Senate is absolving him of all charges of obstruction of Congress and abuse of power; the shock waves should emanate from how his Republican allies go about it. By rejecting a conviction, the party will demonstrate that it believes anything goes in winning elections.

Most Republican senators have insisted that in pressuring Ukraine to investigate the Bidens, Mr. Trump did nothing wrong. A few say he crossed a line, but they have never explained why his actions fall short of conviction, or what it would take for them to consider a conviction.

Rather than reining in a president who clearly abused his power for personal gain, most Republicans have conceded to Mr. Trumps overarching defense: that his re-election would serve the public interest. That argument was enough, for his Senate allies, to override campaign finance laws and the norms of governance that have prevailed in our country until this presidency.

This defense is a natural outgrowth of the unitary executive theory, a legal doctrine advanced by apologists for the imperial presidency, including Attorney General William Barr. It was Alan Dershowitz, the Harvard law professor representing Mr. Trump, who gave this idea its most outrageous frame: Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest, he said. And if a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.

If this were simply verbiage in service of his client, one might almost forgive Mr. Dershowitz for his claim. But Republican senators and other party leaders have embraced this theory as if our Constitution was in fact a pact to establish a monarchy. Roy Blunt of Missouri, a close ally of the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, declared that Mr. Dershowitz had said the presidents actions were not impeachable, and I dont disagree with that.

In other words, the core message from Senate Republicans is this: No matter how dangerous or incompetent any president might be, he or she has only to think that remaining in office serves our nation to justify any act to stay there.

This is a five-alarm fire for democracy. The Republican Party has aggressively sought to rig elections in its favor, including voter purging, vote suppression and gerrymandering. Paul Weyrich, co-founder of the Heritage Foundation, the American Legislative Exchange Council and the Moral Majority, explained his support for vote suppression at an evangelical Christian campaign rally for Ronald Reagan in 1980. Many of our Christians have what I call the goo goo syndrome good government, he said. They want everybody to vote. I dont want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of people.

That statement has been the foundation of the Republican approach to elections ensure that only the people you want to vote can vote, and if you cant win even with vote suppression, look the other way when Russians intervene. Mr. Trumps defense in the Senate is in keeping with this no-holds-barred approach. Anything in service of victory is permissible.

This impeachment is as much about what happens in November as it is about Mr. Trumps actions. With the Republicans in thrall to a demagogic leader, will it accept the results if Mr. Trump loses the election? Will Mr. Trump vacate the White House next Jan. 20, or will he claim that the election was a fraud?

Or even more likely, will allies in swing states like Florida, Ohio and Arizona contest results in favor of Mr. Trumps opponent? We have already seen how Floridas Republican governor and Legislature have thwarted the will of the voters, who last year approved a ballot initiative to allow former felons to vote: They enacted the equivalent of a poll tax, in defiance of the Constitution.

The time for those who believe in our Constitution and our democracy to act is now. We must prepare in every possible way to counter efforts by the Republicans and Mr. Trump to rig the coming election and to nullify it if they lose. While the statements during impeachment and the lock-step way the Republicans follow Mr. Trump might look like the temporary aberration of a party in the grip of a cult of personality, the roots of this anti-democratic impulse are much deeper. What Mr. Trump has laid bare is the true emptiness of the Republican Partys commitment to fair elections and its antagonism to the rules of democracy.

If we dont work now to prepare the public and the machinery of voting around the country for an end-run around our representative form of government, we shall be akin to nations like Russia, where elections are just cover for autocracy.

Caroline Fredrickson (@crfredrickson) is the author of The Democracy Fix: How to Win the Fight for Fair Rules, Fair Courts and Fair Elections and a senior fellow at the Brennan Center for Justice.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. Wed like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And heres our email: letters@nytimes.com.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.

View original post here:
After Acquittal, Its Anything Goes for the Republicans - The New York Times

The truth is that Mr. Obama was only sort of techie. More important, his administration did not challenge the industry in any significant way. In the Obama years, Silicon Valley consolidated its influence and centralized its power without oversight. In addition, the idea took hold that the tech industry was full of liberals, when in fact it is more libertarian-lite with a strong proclivity for an unusual combination of live-and-let-live social mores and dont regulate my innovation or tax me business attitude.

In fact, from the start of the internet age in the 1990s, the right has been more clever than its rivals in exploiting ever-morphing tech to influence vast numbers of people with targeted messages.

While its hard to forget in the age of Fox News ubiquity, a couple of decades ago most of the truly powerful media outlets were centrist (or slightly left of center), and mass-media broadcast technology was not readily available to the emerging conservative movement.

Thus, these outsiders latched on to the web, which in many cases meant they were among the first to effectively use highly targeted email and search ads. Back in the early 2000s, people like the evangelical political strategist Ralph Reed showed us what was coming: campaigns that are fought and won online, and power shifting to those who know how to move the tech levers.

Right now thats people like Mr. Parscale, whose tactic is to use the entire arsenal of weapons that companies like Facebook, YouTube and Twitter have provided in the most creative and sometimes nefarious of ways. And, as loath as I am to say this, why shouldnt he create a raging digital fire of confusion and propaganda and microtargeted lies and truths if no one is making rules to stop him? It is not meant as a compliment, but right now being the best tech arsonist is what rates.

Meanwhile, as it all burns, the Democrats in Iowa are fiddling away on an app that cant tally what is a relatively simple set of data. Long ago, during a debate about the Obamacare site mess and what it meant for eventual online voting, I suggested to a panel of Washington power players that maybe we get a start-up like Tinder to run the voting system, since it did complex matching calculations in real time.

My comment was greeted by looks of horror, with one panel member asking me why our democracy should rely on dating app technology.

The answer was simple: because it works.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. Wed like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And heres our email: letters@nytimes.com.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram, and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter.

Go here to see the original:
Sorry, Republicans Rule the Internet - The New York Times

David A. Graham: Mitch McConnells Potemkin trial

Trump still doesnt inspire the same level of cultish devotion among Republican officeholders as he does among Republican voters. Time and again during his political career, he has said or done something that has appalled, mortified, or scandalized GOP politicians: There was the Access Hollywood tape in October 2016. There was the week in May 2017 when he fired FBI Director James Comey, then shared classified material with Russian leaders. There was his obsequious appearance with Vladimir Putin in Helsinki in July 2018. Each time, the initial reaction has been horror and even condemnation from Republican officials, followedwithin a few short daysby acquiescence and acceptance.

This happened twice during the impeachment drama. In the early stages of the scandal, Republicans criticized Trumps call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Senator Lindsey Graham said hed be very disturbed if Trump had engaged in a quid pro quo. But eventually the GOP settled down, and Graham now says the quid pro quo is perfectly fine.

The second example arrived this week. After news of former National Security Adviser John Boltons book, which confirmed the factual case alleged by House Democrats, Republican senators seemed to be reeling. Senator Angus King, a Maine independent who caucuses with the Democrats, and is apparently very naive, predicted that as many as 10 Republicans would vote to hear witnesses. Reports said that McConnell didnt have the votes to block witnesses. Now, of course, it seems obvious that witnesses are out, leaving things right where they were before the Bolton revelations.

Why is it that these moments bend but never break Republican support? This is politics, and the simplest answer is probably political. Vulnerable senators like Cory Gardner of Colorado and Martha McSally of Arizona are risking their seats by lining up behind Trump. Both face tough races in November. Gardner will likely run against the popular former governor John Hickenlooper. McSally lost an election last November, was appointed to fill another Senate seat, and is struggling against the Democratic challenger, Mark Kelly.

Yet its not clear that going against Trump would help either Gardner or McSally, and the opposite is more likely. Candidates occasionally try to run away from presidents of their own party who are unpopular in their state, and it almost never works. Such a maneuver is unlikely to win over Democrats and moderates who dislike Trumpespecially for first-termers like Gardner and McSally, who dont have a long-standing relationship with voterswhile it might alienate Republican voters the senators desperately need to hold.

In 2010, for example, some moderate Democrats attempted to distance themselves from Barack Obama, and they were almost entirely swept out of office. Then again, other Democrats tried to stay close to Obama, and many of them were swept out of office too.

Read the original here:
Republicans Are Prepared to Go Down With Trump - The Atlantic

Former Illinois Rep. Joe WalshJoe WalshWeld warns of Republican Party split, Democratic takeover of Senate GOP spokeswoman likens Sanders rise to Trump: 'You shouldn't just brush off a side' Trump allies to barnstorm Iowa for caucuses MORE (R) said Tuesday that he does not believe President TrumpDonald John TrumpButtigieg says Iowa 'shocked the nation' in caucus night speech Sanders predicts he'll do 'very, very well' as Iowa continues to wait for results Trump campaign slams Iowa Democratic caucuses amid reporting inconsistencies MORE can be defeated in a GOP primary.

Walsh tweeted a string of messages following Trump's overwhelming win in the Iowa caucuses, calling for a new political movement for conservatives such as him, while blasting the modern-day Republican Party as a "cult."

"I spoke in front of 3,000 Iowa Republicans last night. It was like a MAGA rally. I told them we needed a President who doesnt lie all the time. The crowd booed me. I told them we needed a President who wasnt indecent & cruel. The crowd booed me," Walsh tweeted.

"Afterwards, I realized again that my Republican Party isnt a Party, its a cult. I realized again that nobody can beat Trump in a Republican primary. And most importantly and most sadly, I realized again that I dont belong in this party. I have no home in this party," he continued.

"And I realized again that something new needs to begin. Whether its a political party, or a movement, I dont know. But there needs to be a home for conservatives who are decent, principled, and respectful. Conservatives who embrace all Gods children, acknowledge thatclimate change is real, get serious about our debt, abide by our Constitution, and tell the truth. I hope to be a part of this new party. This new movement. But job #1 in 2020 is to stop Trump," Walsh concluded.

I spoke in front of 3,000 Iowa Republicans last night. It was like a MAGA rally. I told them we needed a President who doesnt lie all the time. The crowd booed me. I told them we needed a President who wasnt indecent & cruel. The crowd booed me. 1/

to stop Trump. Lets make sure Trump is defeated in 2020, then we get back to respectfully debating issues. Instead of talking about Trump everyday. Lets put aside our differences on certain issues now and understand that Trump is the single greatest threat to this Republic. 9/

Walsh was one of two GOP candidates, the other being former Massachusetts Gov. Bill WeldWilliam (Bill) WeldTrump wins Iowa GOP caucuses Weld warns of Republican Party split, Democratic takeover of Senate Advocacy group launches tour to encourage religious voters to vote against Trump MORE (R), who competed and lost to Trump in Iowa's GOP primary Monday night.

Read more from the original source:
Joe Walsh: I've realized 'nobody can beat Trump in a Republican primary' | TheHill - The Hill

Presidents have been impeached, but none have been removed from office due to impeachment. Confusing? Here's how. USA TODAY

Until Trump, I found something to like or respect about most politicians I encountered, even those I strongly disagreed with. That's no longer true.

Back in 1999, I spent a long day tooling around Iowa with Lamar Alexander. At the time of our travels in a Winnebago,accompanied by a couple of aides and a press corps consisting of me and an AP photographer, he was a former Tennessee governor and a presidential candidate trying to compete with the rock star campaign of George W. Bush.

What I remember most from that day was a dramatic back story that, to my puzzlement, he did notmention in his pitch to voters. President Bill Clinton had been impeached by the House and tried in the Senate in a consuming saga of sex, lies and investigations. Voters seemed ready for someone of, as they say, unimpeachable character. Enter Alexander, at least theoretically.

Who would be more perfect for the moment than a man who had taken over a state amid a gubernatorial pardon-selling scandal so seriousthat he was sworn in three days earlyin a secret 1979 ceremony, to cut short outgoing Gov. Ray Blantons corruption spree? So sensational they made a movie about it, called Marie, in which a lawyer (and future senator) named Fred Thompson played himself?The obvious narrative was that Alexander knew how to restore trust in government he had already done it in Tennessee.

Alexander never became president, but in 2002, he was elected to his first of three terms in the Senate. He was known in Washington for pragmaticbipartisanship a senator who quit leadership in 2011 so he could work across the aisle more often, and who made good on thatmost recentlyin partnership with Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash.,on education and health policy.

Now Alexander's just another Republican cowering at the prospect of crossing President Donald Trump, one of the many people I dont recognize despite having covered and followed them for years or even decades.

Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolinais another. We first met on Sen. John McCains 2000 presidential campaign, when Graham and Thompson were all in with the McCain brand of straight talk, rebellious independence and cross-party relationships.

Sens. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., and Patty Murray, D-Wash.,on Capitol Hill in Washington on Jan. 21, 2015.(Photo: Susan Walsh/AP)

Theres also Floridas Marco Rubio, who wasinstrumental (with Graham) in getting a landmark bipartisan immigration bill through the Senate in 2013. Alaskas Lisa Murkowski, whose primary loss to a Tea Party candidate in 2010, and subsequent win as a write-incandidate, should have meantshed never owe her party anything, and who played key roles in bipartisan negotiations I wrote about in The Art of the Political Deal.Theres even Susan Collins, who with her moderate Maine colleague Olympia Snowewas so notorious in conservative circles for occasionally going her own way, she evinced disgustfrom an Arizonan fed up with both McCain and "those two women who vote with the Democrats all the time."

Feeling like a jilted lover: Trump impeachment inspired the Senate I loved to commit institutional suicide

These politicians are now strangers to me. Their whole party is untethered not just from reality and its own history, but also from the Constitution itself. I found three pocket copies of it in a drawer the other day and was reminded of how well Ive gotten to know it these past few years. After this, there will be no way to take seriously any GOP argument that relies on the original intent of the Constitution.

I have no doubt many Republicanswill try to deploy it, especially in defense of gun rights. But I ask you, what has changed more since the 18thcentury,the existence of foreign powers whod love to weaken us and the potential for a president who has no problem selling us out, or easily available weapons of war ina country of 329million?

Theres no contest. The Founders never could have foreseen the inventionof semiautomatic weapons or the millions now in private hands. But they well understood "the dangers fromforeign force and influence" and warned about them repeatedly in the Constitutionand in Federalist Papers Nos.2, 3, 4 and 68, for a start.

They also were all too familiar with "the misconduct of public men," asAlexander Hamilton put it inFederalist 65, which is why the Constitution includes an impeachment option.

A lost decade: From Scott Brown to Donald Trump, can Democrats recover from the traumas of the 2010s?

For the 40 years I have written about politics, there hasbeensomething to like or respect about nearly every politician I've encountered.Even when I passionately disagreed with someone on tax or gun or war policy, there was always at least one thing: They welcomed immigrants, wanted to save the planetor were willing to defy elements of their own partyto seek a "grand bargain" on taxes and spending. Maybe they were dishonest and had to resign in disgrace, but not before creatingthe Environmental Protection Agency and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

Lately, the Founders have also been top of mind. Many of the most prominent owned slaves, and it's hard to get past that, even considering their times. But they also laid what they hoped was a permanent foundation for an aspirational nation striving toward its ideals. They clearly anticipatedand feared someone like Trump, and tried to give usthe remedies and protectionswe'd need.

Those safeguardshave failed. Let's hope the union the framers envisioned doesn't fail, as well.

Jill Lawrence is the commentary editor of USA TODAY and author of"The Art of the Political Deal:How Congress Beat the Odds and Broke Through Gridlock."Follow her on Twitter:@JillDLawrence

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

Read or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/voices/2020/02/04/trump-impeachment-cowering-republicans-strangers-column/4642177002/

Go here to read the rest:
I used to cover Republicans who are cowering to Trump. I don't recognize them now. - USA TODAY