Time to stop shaping our conversations about vaccine-hesitancy and voter "confidence" in elections around the feelings of Trump supporters. The specter of alienating those voters is being widely abused by bad faith actors, and we should say so. My latest: washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/…
Remarkable:
Texas Republicans are pushing for an audit of 2020 votes -- but only in the biggest counties.
Its chief sponsor, asked why the audit doesn't include smaller counties, actually says this:
"What's the point? All the small counties are red.”
Yes, Republicans are starting to urge vaccines. But they're also pushing deeply destructive storylines that *undermine* confidence in the government's vaccine effort.
When it comes to solicitude toward vaccine hesitancy, we need a limiting principle:
The bad actors who tell us to tiptoe around red-state voters' feelings are also pumping their heads full of lies and pushing those feelings in a more destructive direction.
Anyone pleading for solicitude toward those feelings should grapple with that:
Relatedly, @brianbeutler is right that Dems need to accept the implications of all this bad acting. No amount of cooperative spirit toward Republicans will dissuade Rs from this kind of sabotage governing or get political media to stop normalizing it: mailchi.mp/crooked.com/bi…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
In this response to NYT/Joe Kahn fiasco, I try to pinpoint five conventions of political reporting that obscure the Trump threat and work against Kahn's own stated goal of informing voters.
First, the "two different realities on democracy" fallacy:
Second, the failure to clearly describe Trump's plan to cancel prosecutions of himself and other elements of his legal strategy as threats to the system itself, that is, as efforts to put himself above the law:
As an example of number 2, look how @nytpolitics today describes Trump's plan to end prosecutions of himself. NYT editors: Do you really think casual readers will grasp how abnormal/threatening to the system this is? Tell them what the stakes truly are.
Dems could also use the hearings to voice core principles: It's possible to call out antisemitism while also insisting it's not antisemitic to criticize Israel's war conduct. Or that one can call out violence while also condemning police overreaction.
Fox News propaganda about Trump's trial has taken on some serious North Korea vibes: It absurdly portrays him as exerting total mastery over the proceedings and even depicts his dozing off as an act of heroic defiance.
Trump has been posting video of Fox personalities gushing about what a huge winner the trial has been for him. But privately, NYT reports, he's raging at his lead lawyer, which suggests he doesn't actually think things are going too well for him. 2/
One Fox News personality even tried to push the idea that Trump's trial is good for him because it means he can't do rallies, denying the media an opportunity to "twist Trump's words."
Trump is Owning The Media and the media doesn't even know it! 3/
NEWS --> Prominent conservative Michael Luttig excoriates the right wing SCOTUS justices as "radical," predicting that in the 1/6 case, they'll protect Trump entirely.
“I now believe that it is unlikely Trump will ever be tried," Luttig tells me.
Also in our interview: Michael Luttig, who has strong conservative credentials, is harshly critical of the lines of questioning from Samuel Alito and the other right wing justices.
Luttig says a grant of immunity would "license all future presidents to commit crimes against the United States while in office with impunity."
Michael Luttig predicts that either a delay will enable Trump to cancel Jack Smith's 1/6 prosecution if he wins the election, or that SCOTUS will grant Trump immunity so he never even gets tried.
Liz Cheney just said something deeply troubling: If SCOTUS delays immunity ruling, voters might be denied critical info about Trump's conduct while the mob raged, which Jack Smith has. That would reward Trump allies for their coverup.
Jack Smith has testimony from top Trump advisers about how Trump acted *during the attack* that the 1/6 committee could not get. SCOTUS delay could keep that buried.
In this piece, a senior 1/6 committee staffer explains what this means. Deeply sobering:
Those who deny that 1/6 was an insurrection rely heavily on severing Trump's incitement of the mob from the procedural coup. But Jack Smith likely has evidence showing they are one and the same story. It would be scandalous if *that* remains buried.
Important but overlooked: Mike Johnson explicitly says he's acting on Ukraine because believes what our intel agencies say about the awful consequences of abandoning it.
That's a striking rebuke to MAGA's lies about the "deep state" and the war. 1/
“I really do believe the intel and the briefings that we’ve gotten,” Mike Johnson said, noting that Ukraine aid will stop Putin from expanding his conquest later.
Remarkably, he's saying that on these matters, the "deep state" is telling the truth. 2/