Actually, I now agree that not everyone should vote, and ask @NRO them to join me in my new pursuit of limiting the franchise to those who aren’t yet retired, since people of advanced age have less stake in the future of the country, and are deeply dependent on state largesse.
They’re also more prone to be confused about public matters (all matters, really) so erecting barriers before them to the ballot box is just common sense.
Williamson and Lowry know exactly who they don’t want voting, of course, they’re just hiding behind a fake principle, and demonstrating the phoniness of the principle is trivial.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
McConnell’s position seems to be that corporate free speech is sacrosanct when it manifests in endless streams of dark money to right wing advocacy, but punishable with selective tax and labor enforcement when it’s actual words, such as ‘making it hard for people to vote is bad.’
Of course, when Dems introduce legislation to tax corporations and encourage unionization and step up antitrust enforcement on a neutral basis, Republicans will oppose it unanimously. The message is be good soldiers and we’ll take care of you, step out of line and it’s the lash.
The mainstream press has repeatedly bowed to pressure to call this “populism” but it’s much more like fascism.
What happens is Republicans pretend to be outraged and reporters pretend to believe them. Because if a party is outraged, there must be a controversy. Take that wink and nod routine of the equation and it’s clear big media companies don’t actually see a huge story here.
Having vented my personal frustration with media’s contrived gullibility to Republican nonsense, I want to add that if Democrats are frustrated, too, they should attack the gullible for being complicit with the inhuman treatment Cornyn unwittingly alludes to here.
Conventions at legacy outlets basically forbid reporting that kind of thing plainly but it’s 100% what’s happening and everyone knows it. Republicans oppose any commission empowered to look beyond narrow security failures, unless they’re allowed to mire it in ANTIFA whataboutism.
To me, the commission itself is a bit of a red herring, since Dems can:
1) Let Republicans vote it down. 2) Impanel a joint committee, give it subpoena power, hold hearings in prime time. 3) Abolish the filibuster and create the commission anyhow, if they think it’s important.
I think what’s happened is that over time people have grown increasingly aware of the absurdities of the Senate, and the senators’ insistence on hiding behind them, so some bluffs are being called.
One reason I’m thrilled to see filibuster abolition go mainstream, and which I’ve been bleating about for 15 years, is that as constituted it inverts accountability. When a bill fails in “the Senate” it’s usually because of the minority, not the party in charge. LIKEWISE...
Absolutely pathetic. The Raskin proposal was one hour Zoom depositions and document subpoenas. That should be the baseline for negotiations and Coons should resign to let someone who isn’t a complete coward serve his constituents.
Get Romney in there, come up with some cap on the number of witnesses, divided between both sides, final call on witness relevance goes to the whole Senate, that’s the agreement. Just keep Chris Coons as far away from negotiations as possible.
What a horrendous failure this would be, and it’ll be entirely on Democrats. With the opposition cornered and in a blind panic, they will...call the whole thing off? Total betrayal.