The extent to which Democrats have lost the midterms before the midterms have even started, because Democrats did not restore the Voting Rights Act, fix the Census, or do anything about gerrymandering, is underreported somehow.
Like, we can "debate" on stupid Twitter about "Shor-ism" or CRT or whatever the hell else floats people's boats for a week. But this battle has largely been fought AND LOST without Democrats ever really taking the field.
What's wild is that people, otherwise serious and knowledgeable people, will be gearing up to have "takes" on how the midterms were a "referendum" on some thing or another.
IT'S A REFERENDUM ON MAP MAKING. And the GOP WON. A WHILE AGO.
The rest is shouting.
(Ahem) I have an entire chapter on gerrymandering in my upcoming book Allow Me to Retort, available on 1/11. My dad was "a gerrymanderer" and I've seen the process up close. (I've got to get better with this ads somehow)
In the meantime, Mark Meadows (who was allegedly cooperating) decided to skip out on his deposition, so I supposed we're, what, a month now from him being indicted too?
*Now* we can play the game I explained a month ago:
"A criminal contempt proceeding is essentially a prosecution for noncompliance with the law. It doesn’t really exist to make witnesses testify but to punish people who do not. It’s a criminal proceeding, just like any other"...
"The defendant is entitled to a fair jury trial and an appeals process. The whole thing could take years, even if Bannon is found guilty of criminal contempt. Which itself is not a sure thing: The last official who was indicted for criminal contempt was acquitted."
People who care about civil rights and civil liberties would be demanding that Rusten Sheskey, the police officer who shot Jacob Blake six times in the back, be brought to justice.
People like Glenn are demanding that white boys get away with murder.
If you, like Glenn, find a whole lot of energy to try to free Rittenhouse, but can't find that same gear to hold cops accountable, I'm allowed to assume that you, like Glenn, are in it for the permissiveness of white violence, and not criminal justice reform.
These people defending Garland's inaction are like the LemonLyman club who would defend Josh Lyman's *secret plan* to fight inflation.
If Garland had empaneled a Grand Jury, we'd know it, just like we know when Cy Vance does.
If Garland or the FBI had interviewed key Congressional conspirators, we'd know it, because these people love complaining to Fox every time something bad happens to them.
If Garland were serious about holding everybody accountable for trying to overthrow the government, we wouldn't have ACTUALLY JUDGES complaining that the sentence recommendations FROM THE DOJ'S PROSECUTORS are too light.
ONE black juror in the trial of the killers of Ahmaud Arbery, the judge literally says he sees INTENTIONAL discrimination in the selection process... but he lets the trial go forward ANYWAY.
In my upcoming book I have a whole chapter on jury selection, why the white Supreme Court continues to allow all white or mostly white juries, and how we can stop it if Dems took the courts seriously barnesandnoble.com/w/allow-me-to-…
26 percent of the county is Black... ONE Black juror.
I do not know any black people who are saying the GOP appeals to racism were ineffective. The question is what Dems should DO about that SELF-EVIDENT REALITY.
MY suggestion is "fight racism" as opposed to the centrist Dem strat of "don't talk about it and hope it goes away."
But I'm open to other suggestions, like "PASS LEGISLATION" or "SEND NON COLLEGE WHITES TO COLLGE FOR FREE" or even "JUST GIVE PEOPLE ENOUGH MONEY TO STOP CARING WHERE TRANS PEOPLE PEE"
But "Try to be more racist" seems like something we've tried that doesn't work.
That's for real a poll I want to see:
"You listed CRT as your top concern. How much cash money do you need to not care?" Tell me the PRICE POINT 10% of these assholes sell out for, and let's start CUTTING SOME GODDAMN CHECKS.