The dysfunction in the GOP was a pre-existing condition

Lean McElrath tweeted:

Read this thread.
Teach your children.

I told my daughter not to talk even if they told her it would help them catch someone who was killing puppies. Because they’re allowed to lie, and they do.

This thread is one by Molly Armour who reviews what to do when stopped by police or federal thugs. She begins this way:

If you’re arrested, grabbed, or stopped by police or fed law enforcement . . .

Say: “I’m going to remain SILENT, and I want to speak with a LAWYER.”

Then — actually remain silent.

I’ll summarize more of what she said.

Remain silent because you can’t talk yourself out of arrest, but you can talk yourself into trouble. They will apply pressure. They will try to engage in small talk, which they will use to try to draw more out of you. Do not try to deny allegations. Wait for the lawyer.

Exception: Give your name and ID. Tell them if you need food, medical attention, or are in physical danger.

Law enforcement must get warrants to search. They don’t like to get warrants. So they will ask, Can I just have a quick look around? Can you unlock your phone for me? Can you pop the trunk for me? Can you show me what’s in your bag? The answer to all of these is, “No, I do not consent to searches.” Say anything else and you’ve given up rights.

You can’t stop an arrest. If they are going to take you in, that’s what’s happening. Even if it’s unconstitutional! Even if they’re lying! Even if they are being violent. Invoking your rights won’t stop the arrest. But, it will help you FIGHT it.
…
And listen, invoking your rights won’t make clouds part or right injustices. In fact, law enforcement may totally ignore your rights. Lie to you. Search anyways. You can’t control them. They have guns and state power.

You assert your rights so you’ve got a fight in court.

I’ve written the nasty guy is not acting to win the election. Here’s another example, this one from Kos of Daily Kos.

Because of Supreme Court rulings on abortion (they preserved it) and LGBTQ rights (they we agree we have them) conservatives are feeling betrayed. They are cheering the nasty guy’s promise to apply even more stringent purity tests to future judicial candidates.

But the public is much further to the left than these rulings (Kos provides details). Which means shifting judicial appointments even further to the right is opposite of what the public wants. Which means the nasty guy is appealing to an even smaller crowd. Which is the opposite of what one does when trying to broaden the support to be reelected.

So in the suburbs, key to the GOP’s electoral collapse, voters are pro-LGBTQ rights, pro-immigration, and pro-choice. And the Republican response is to weed out any conservatives who might harbor any such sympathies?

I’ve been arguing that Trump is incapable of doing the things he needs to do to win. Throw this in the pile of evidence that when it comes to charting a path toward Election Day, Trump and his party are still incapable of broadening their coalition. They don’t want to do it, and so they won’t.

Quite the opposite, in fact.

I’ve mentioned this Sarah Kendzior quote before. Here’s a longer version of it from Crooks and Liars.

Trump is not concerned with winning the election. He is trying to steal the election. A person concerned with winning tries to expand their base. They try to win people over. They try to seem more engaged and more popular. They don't let their base die of coronavirus for example so those are all things to take into account as we move forward.

Anthony Scaramucci tweeted:

He is basically telling you he is super worried about PA and Texas. Campaign in full blown panic.

Benjamin Franklin replied:

Former trump henchman assures is we’re winning while trump openly states his intention to sabotage mail voting and people fall for it.

William Barr, head of the Department formerly known as Justice, testified before the House Judiciary Committee. He was there as they investigate his abuses of power. Rep. Pramila Jayapal scored some direct hits. She pointed out protesters with guns and swastikas were in Michigan and talked about lynching, shooting, and beheading the governor. Barr, the chief law enforcement officer, says he knew nothing about it. Jayapal then said:

But when Black people and people of color protest police brutality, systemic racism, and the president's very own lack of response to those critical issues, then you forcibly remove them with armed federal officers, pepper bombs, because they are considered terrorists by the president. You take an aggressive approach to Black Lives Matter protests but not to right-wing extremists threatening to lynch a governor if it's for the president's benefit.
…
Mr. Barr, let me make it clear: You are supposed to represent the people of the United States not violate people's First Amendment rights. You are supposed to uphold democracy and secure equal justice under the law, not violently dismantle certain protesters based on the president's personal agenda.

Elsewhere in the hearings Barr made a big deal saying he didn’t talk to the nasty guy about what cases he wanted Barr to interfere in to protect him, that Barr made those decisions according to law.

I reply: Barr didn’t need to coordinate with the nasty guy. He either knew the lay of the land or was told when he was hired and the person who told him didn’t need to be the nasty guy. Interfering on behalf of the nasty guy was what he was hired to do. It was what he has been doing for the GOP for decades.



I’m very much in favor of vote by mail. I’m also aware of the threat posed by the Postal Service slowdown. Laura Clawson of Kos put some numbers to it. In the March primary more than 100,000 ballots in California were rejected because they weren’t postmarked in time.

Yeah, the GOP has been wanting to destroy the USPS for quite some time now. That it happens at a time when it becomes critical in an election is a bonus. For them.



Robert P. Jones wrote an opinion piece for NBC News. I didn’t read the piece. Here’s the tweet announcing the article:

Racism among white Christians is higher than among the nonreligious. That's no coincidence.

Greg Dworkin, in his pundit roundup for of Kos, quoted Charlie Sykes of Bulwark:

Can you defeat Trumpism by defeating Trump but leaving his bootlickers in power?

As George Will has said, Trump has been a “Vesuvius of mendacity,” but the rot obviously runs much deeper than the president himself. Trump himself is a horror show, but the most horrific story of the last four years has been the complete surrender of the GOP to Trumpism, not just on policy but on everything. The party that once imagined itself to be about ideas became a cult of personality for one of the most deplorable personalities in political history.

This suggests that the dysfunction in the GOP was a pre-existing condition; and that bringing the party back to sanity won’t be easy. As a matter of political hygiene, getting rid of the Orange God-King is necessary but far from sufficient.

Kos suggests we might be able to get rid of a lot more. The GOP one-sentence description has been “Family Values, lower taxes, and a strong national defense.” The nasty guy mocks both family values and the Christian conservatives who both trumpet family values and claim the nasty guy is their man. The nasty guy has ruined international relations and shrugs at the story Russia has a bounty on American soldier’s heads. Yeah, he’s lowered taxes, but “bailing out billionaires” is not a winning slogan (for those who aren’t billionaires).

Kos then notes the dramatic drop in the number of people who call themselves conservative – six points in six months. So Kos says, the nasty guy is breaking conservatism itself, showing how empty it always was.