How Many Democratic Voters Stayed Home Because of Merrick Garland's Failure to Prosecute Trump for Insurrection?

Was it enough to cost Kamala Harris the election?  

The slow-walking, almost deliberate and intentional failure to bring Trump to trial by Attorney General Merrick Garland and the United States Justice Department hasn't been the topic of discussion in any post-election coverage in the mainstream media.  I haven't even heard anyone on MSNBC put together the inconsistency between Democratic party rhetoric that Trump is "an existential threat to American Constitutional Democracy," and the complete and total failure of Garland and the justice department of the Biden administration to prosecute him for obvious crimes he committed that would have made him ineligible to run for President and neutralized the threat he posed.  

I don't expect the mainstream media to provide an honest assessment of the factors leading up to Harris' "razor thin" election loss.  They've done nothing but cover every move Trump has made every single day since he left the White House in 2021, giving him a much larger platform than they did to the sitting President of the United States.  We won't hear anything they don't want us to hear.  

Personally, the painfully and deliberately slow movement of the justice department under Garland's leadership in pursuing the incitement of the January 6th insurrection by Trump, was a huge frustration.  How is it that the House of Representatives can conduct an investigation, uncover mountains of irrefutable, obvious and direct evidence that Trump was directly responsible for all of the planning and organizing, including having right wing militants already at the Capitol when the crowd he incited arrived, and lay that out in a nationally televised series of hearings, which convinced over 60% of the American people that he was directly responsible for it, but the justice department doesn't actually get around to prosecuting it in a timely matter?  

That makes me damn angry.  

Apparently, this is not just a surface issue with other Democrats.  It has come up, multiple times since the election, on several talk shows that I listen to, brought up not just by callers, but by guests that have been featured on the programs.  It's been the subject of several social media discussions on at least two platforms that have drawn hundreds of responses from people who question how in the world it could have taken so long to get things moving on something so obvious, why the executive branch under Biden appeared weak and powerless in the face of an issue that was the centerpiece of his campaign for President, and why the one thing that would have ended Trump's existential threat to democracy was not pursued with the seriousness that the campaign rhetoric established.  

I haven't seen any exit polling or any research that has been done to indicate the effect the failure of the justice department to prosecute Trump and end his threat to American democracy on democratic voters staying home, or independent voters deciding that the Democrats weren't really serious.  But it would be an educated guess, considering how razor thin the margins were in enough swing states to change the election results, that Merrick Garland's failure to prosecute Trump for serious crimes against the American people was one of the major causes for Democrats staying home, and for Harris losing the election.    

Another Case of Democrats Failing When it Comes to Messaging

Is Trump an existential threat to American democracy?  

Then, when he committed a crime to carry out that threat, isn't the simplest and easiest solution to the problem legal prosecution for insurrection, a crime which the 14th amendment states the penalty is disqualification from serving in public office?  So, if the Democrats were serious about their claim of Trump's threat, why didn't they mobilize the justice department to get this case prosecuted before the mid-term elections even rolled around?  

Threatening the existence of the American Republic is as serious as it gets.  If we miss our guess about that, it means the end of America as we know it, which is exactly what we are facing now with a second Trump term in office.  And that makes the failure of an irresolute, dithering Attorney General an equal threat to democracy.  It also opens the door to question why the executive branch, under President Biden's leadership, didn't use the power of the office to move this forward immediately following the House's investigation and get this to trial before the mid-term elections, while Democrats still had majorities in both houses.  

The excuse that it would "look political" is weak, considering the very real consequences that we now face as a result of this failure to protect American democracy. We already saw the "political" effect of the failure of the justice department to prosecute the crimes committed by Trump, outlined brilliantly and clearly in the Mueller Report.  Failing to prosecute those crimes, with irrefutable evidence, was as blatantly political as it could get.  So I can't even begin to understand why that would even be a consideration of the Biden administration.  

The message was that Trump is an existential threat to American Democracy.  The solution to the problem was within the grasp of the administration, with a majority in both houses and a case that was a slam dunk as far as legal experts were concerned.  The means to permanently remove the threat was within their grasp.  But the subsequent actions that were taken did not convey the conviction of the message.  And that was bound to be the cause of a major loss in the confidence of voters.  

One of the Biggest Lost Opportunities in American Politics

Masses of legal experts, from Joyce Vance, Jill Wine-banks, and Lawrence Tribe have said that it would have been no problem for the justice department to expedite this case, cut through the legal wrangling and red tape, and get it to trial, especially after how crystal clear the crimes were linked to evidence turned up by the House's investigation.  Nor would finding an impartial jury, or getting it in the courtroom of a competent, unbiased federal judge have been a problem.  

I read through the written report of the House investigating committee, which included two Republicans, Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, who had the integrity to put their political career on the line to protect American Constitutional Democracy.  How many Democrats have done the same, at this point?  The report is as thorough, and as detailed as what was presented publicly in the hearings.  They got him.  It is more damning than the Mueller Report was, if that's even possible.

They proved, beyond any shadow of doubt, that Trump initiated the idea of interrupting the electoral vote count as a means of staying in power, of submitting fake elector ballots from states he lost, and creating confusion and disorder in the hopes of delaying or stopping altogether the count of legitimate ballots.  The language of the communication and the actions that took place pointed to Trump as the single instigator of the whole idea, as did the testimony of multiple persons who were involved.  

It was a slam dunk case, as was the case involving his theft of classified documents.  But the opportunity slipped through their hands.  And we are now facing the consequences of that failure.  

Is There a New "Democratic Message" Coming Out? 

"Maybe Trump won't be that bad."  

"Surely, the constitutional guardrails that are in place will keep him in check, correct his worse abuses, and prevent the worst case scenarios we have imagined from taking place."  

Take a look at what's going on right now.  We already have an oligarchy of billionaires, one who invested enough money in helping Trump win that he thinks he can directly call the shots.  What guardrails are we talking about here?  Six bribed, corrupt, incompetent Supreme Court justices who are there to get their piece of the pie?  Republicans in Congress?  The courts whose rulings will ultimately be subject to the incompetent, bribed Supreme Court?  

The guardrails are gone.  We had control of it on January 20, 2021.  That's when steps to prevent anything like the first Trump term should have been taken.  He should have been tried for insurrection first, convicted, then tried for stealing classified documents, convicted, then sent to prison and banished from politics.  The state courts in New York and Georgia should have come after that, instead of being expected to show more courage than the justice department.  

I know it's controversial, but we should have broken the senate filibuster when we had a chance to do it, and then, amended the judiciary act and packed the Supreme Court with judges who would have established the principle that the President is not above the law, and is not immune from prosecution for any crime committed in office, whether it is an "official duty" or not.  There are ways, once all of that had been done, to make it difficult to reverse.  Yes, it would have been a risk, but if American Constitutional Democracy is threatened, aren't some actions worth the risk?  

Our only hope now is that popular resistance will make it impossible for Trump and the billionaire oligarchs to function.  I don't know that the ability exists, in a financial world where 1% of the population has control of 99% of the wealth, to use our power as consumers to make much of a difference, though not all of the "one percenters" are on board with Trump.  We have lost our free press.  We can hope that the razor thin margins produce enough pressure on the few politicians whose political career depends on them to keep the worst abuses from happening.  

I hope that there is an opportunity for the next generation of Democratic party leaders to exhibit the kind of resolute conviction and be bold enough to take the kind of risks necessary to protect those values and promises of American life that we once thought were so important to us, like our freedom.  Partisan protocol and tradition won't protect that, we must do it ourselves.  

  

Significant Decreases in Funds Resulting From Political Involvement with Trump Cult Threaten Southern Baptists' Venerable 'Cooperative Program'

 CP's 'Long Term Stability' Considered as State Conventions Rethink Allocations

Decreased Offerings Cause Baptist State Conventions to Cut Giving to National Causes

The Increasing Intrusion of Right Wing Extremism into Conservative Evangelical, Pentecostal and Charismatic Churches is the Major Cause of Severe Membership and Attendance Decline

It's been a little over nine years since Trump came down the escalator in his New York office building and announced he would be a candidate for President of the United States in 2016.  That same period of time happens to coincide with a staggering decline in the membership and attendance within the churches of the nation's largest Evangelical denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention.  Is there a correlation?  Of course there is.  And similar drops in membership and attendance are occurring in other segments of the broader spectrum of conservative Evangelicalism that are overwhelmingly white, and overwhelmingly influenced by right wing political extremism. 

Southern Baptist leadership has, until recently, been very tight lipped about the decline of their membership.  Membership plateaued at 16.2 million around 2000, and remained there, with tiny annual increases until 2008, when a drop of about 38,000 members was recorded.  The decline continued at about the same rate, just under 50,000 annually, until 2016, when a loss of just over 200,000 was reported.  The membership dropped by 240,000 in 2017, and 280,000 in 2018 before a sharp drop of 435,000 happened in 2019.  Then, from 2019 to 2022, the annual losses exceeded 450,000 until the decline slowed in 2023, with a reported loss of 241,000 brought the total down to under 13 million for the first time since the 1960's.  

Altogether, since 2006, the Southern Baptist Convention has lost 3,324,156 members, Average weekly attendance has dropped, over the same period of time, by more than 2.2 million.  That is a loss of 38% of its total average weekly attendance, and over 20% of its total membership, most of that occurring in the last decade, and the steepest declines occurring since 2016.  Only someone blind to reality would insist that the intrusion of the very worldly, immoral, corrupt style of right wing extremism into the churches of this denomination, in which over 75% of its members are self-identified Trump voters, didn't have anything to do with the decline. 

Of course it did.  

The author of this article is one of those 3.2 million members, and 2.2 million weekly attenders, who can be subtracted from the ranks of those who belonged to a Southern Baptist church at its peak in 2006.  In 1996, after some major, personal deconstruction of doctrine and theology resulting from the surge of conservative fundamentalism in the denomination that started in 1979, I joined a congregation that, while still affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention, had distanced itself by joining a new group of more moderate, more historically Baptist, less fundamentalist churches that had formed out of years of battling over things like whether women could be ordained, and over the emphasis placed on the values in the practice and ministry of the church, with less emphasis on doctrinal conformity.  

In 2008, along with the more than 1,200 other members of this congregation, we voted virtually unanimously to sever our ties with the Southern Baptist Convention, subtracting 1,226 members and about 850 in weekly attendance average from their numbers, along with a substantial amount of money we gave each year in support of the denomination.  We were one of more than 100 such churches to do the same thing in 2008.  Political extremism intruding into conservative Evangelicalism was one of several factors causing membership losses even back then, along with fundamentalist doctrine that had turned churches into legalistic cults.  Being a Bush voter was one of their requirements for being a true Christian, in their perspective.  

Of course, when Trump came along, accepting his brand of right wing extremism meant having to deny core values of Christian practice.  Lying, adultery, fraud and financial and business corruption had to be normalized and as a consequence of that, people who still followed the Christian gospel, and saw the practice of Christianity as a lifestyle reflecting its values found congregations full of Trump supporters intolerable.  Many of them headed for the exits.  It was happening not only in the Southern Baptist Convention, but all across the spectrum of conservative American Evangelicalism, more than a dozen denominations have either reported membership and attendance losses in excess of 30%, or they stopped reporting membership figures.  

Non-denominational, independent churches are experiencing the same thing, including those whose doctrine identifies them as Pentecostal or Charismatic.  These are some of the more extremist, far to the far right groups, whose leaders come up with some of the most ridiculous, and dangerous, predictions and false prophecies.  There's a lot of brainwashing, and emotional imprisonment in many of these churches, but people are seeing how hypocritical it is to give political support to someone who openly denies what they consider valuable spirituality.   

The Financial Decline is Also Significant

Both of the linked articles have to do with the long term financial future of the Southern Baptist Convention.  It would take much more space than I have here to explain the layers of this denomination's organizational structure, but administration of the resources given for denominational ministry work by 45,000 churches is complicated.  The Southern Baptist Convention, at its national level, is a relatively tight organization.  It is supported by 41 "state conventions" who receive their contributions directly from the churches, and then allocate a percentage of that income to the national denominational body, led by an executive committee headquartered in Nashville.   

That money supports two mission boards and somewhere around 5,500 missionaries around the world, six theological seminaries that train most pastors and church staff, the executive committee, which meets four times a year, and a convention annual meeting once each June, the political arm of the denomination, the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, and the largest Christian publishing house in the United States, Lifeway Christian Resources.  Lifeway is self-supporting, from the sale of its books and literature.   

Up to this point, the state conventions have protected the national denomination from financial disaster by cutting their own budgets, as contributions from the churches decline, mainly to preserve funding for the two mission boards.  But most of the state bodies have cut to the bone.  Some are selling off property, including extravagant, under-used office buildings, or giving up their interest in, and control of the colleges and universities affiliated with them. The decline in actual attendance, which includes the majority of those who are financial contributors to their churches, has been about 30%, not including what they lost that hasn't returned from the pandemic.  So church offering plates are coming up short, and that means the amount of money they contribute to each state organization is less. 

Even Lifeway, which markets its products well beyond the parameters of the Southern Baptist Convention, has seen a significant drop in product sales and is in the process of a second downsizing that includes selling off its second business location in Nashville and relocating to leased space.   

These budget cuts, as can be seen from the reports, are significantly affecting the operation of Southern Baptists.  

Will They Ever Wake Up to Reality?

There's been a pattern to this whole looming disaster that is typical of the response of this particular denomination, and common to most Evangelicals.  It's called "denial."  

Southern Baptists get their membership and attendance data directly from churches which report them every year.  So when the numbers plateaued around 2000, it was attributed to churches that failed to send in their reports.  But the number of churches reporting their data each year has been very consistent. And when a church doesn't report in any specific year, the previous year's data is included in the total.  

Research on membership and attendance trends, and on what's going on within the denomination and churches is done in house, at Lifeway publishers, which provides analysis of the annual data.  Trust me when I say that a straight answer about what's causing this sudden, rapid decline in membership and attendance is not forthcoming.  The largest declines in membership have all taken place since 2015, directly correlating with the intrusion of the more invasive brand of extremist politics associated with Trumpism, which is completely incompatible with the Christian gospel, in every way.  

There may be some other underlying causes for a loss of some members, though nothing that corresponds directly with the intrusion of Trumpism into the churches.  A sexual abuse scandal, primarily involving pastors, church staff members and mission personnel, which is a reflection of the manner in which women are viewed in these fundamentalist churches, is likely one reason for some membership losses.  

The denomination's credentials committee has removed several churches for having women in positions designated as "pastor."  The most notable one of these was Saddleback Valley Community Church of Mission Viejo, California, the largest church by membership in the denomination, whose former pastor, Rick Warren, is author of The Purpose Driven Church and The Purpose Driven Life.  The church, and its 40,000 members on multiple campuses, were excluded from the denomination last year for having three women designated as "pastor."  They were followed by several other megachurches in short order, leaving on their own as a result of this action.  

Don't expect that they will ever acknowledge Trump politics or its intrusion as a cause for the staggering loss of membership and attendance, and the budget woes they are now experiencing.  They will disband as a denomination before they will blame the corrupt, immoral, anti-Christian politician for anything.  He's their declared savior now, they've thrown Jesus under the bus and they've bid him goodbye.  

Rahm Emanuel Outlines "The Road Back to Power for Democrats" in the Washington Post

Rahm Emanuel: The Road Back to Power for Democrats 

Don't worry.  I'm a lifelong Democrat, I am well educated, especially in the domain of social studies, American History and government, which I taught to high school students for a couple of decades, and I'm an active, observant, contributing volunteer.  I have an opinion about what Democrats need to do that is developed out of all of that, from the grass roots level of the party.  I'm not an "I told you so" kind of guy, but there are times when I'm on the record and I've been caught being right when the pundits and prognosticators got it wrong.  

I realize there are a lot of Democrats who don't like, and don't trust Rahm Emanuel.  But let's take this at face value.  This is a guy who has been immersed in the workings of Democratic party politics in what is a core Democratic party culture.  And the fact of the matter is that he didn't get where he is now by either being perfect, or without some knowledge, discernment and some expertise in how Democratic party politics operate.  He chaired the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee that led to flipping the House and Senate with more Democrats than have been elected during the 21st century.  He's an insider  from both the Obama and Clinton administrations.  And that gives his advice to Democrats a huge amount of credibility.  

From where I sit, his analysis, and his remedy, resonate with me because I have observed a lot of what he addresses.  His experience includes mistakes he's made and solutions he's found to problems that work.  Politicians like Emanuel are not always popular, because they see solutions and take action that, while it resolves the problem at hand, sometimes don't make a lot of people happy.  

"Democrats Have Been Blind to the Rising Sea of Disillusionment"

Tracing a disenchantment with establishment politics which dates back to the Iraq War, and the banking crisis, both during the Bush Administration, Emanuel points out that Trump seized on the disillusionment, a moment Democrats somehow missed.  Democrats, he says, abandoned their disestablishment credentials during the pandemic, and "enthusiastically morphed into the establishment."  

This isn't a warning unique to Emanuel.  There are plenty of others who have been warning about Democrats not seeming to be able to control the narrative, missing the message to the working class and losing working class and minority voters along the margins.  That's what the exit polling data is showing, too.  Democrats,  shuttering schools and the economy during the pandemic, got caught in a dialogue with ourselves over "pronouns, bathroom access, renaming schools and adopted terms such as care economy and Latinx, to win over voters."  

That did not work.  

"Democrats have been here before," he says.  "The road back out of the wilderness begins with messages and messengers that meet the moment."  

Wow, did he nail that!  Just prior to the election, in an interview with David Pakman, political scientist Rachel Bitecofer, answering the question as to whether the Harris-Walz ticket had a chance to eke out a narrow win when the polls were showing a razor thin race said much the same thing.  It was possible, but the biggest problem was, first of all, getting control of their messaging and focusing on the perceived issues that were causing voter discontent and anxiety, and the other problem, finding a way to saturate the electorate with that message effectively, in time to affect the outcome of the election. 

Here's the problem.  The price of gasoline and groceries was rising, due to the inflation that was essentially due to a lot of post-pandemic reasons, including the increased prosperity as the pandemic lifted, the supply chain issues, global market adjustments and increasing wages.  Democrats know that the solutions to these problems are long term economic policy, and that there's little a President can do that will cause a noticeable, immediate drop.  But the messaging doesn't connect their solutions, which were practical, workable, reasonable and effective in bringing down inflation, with how that will affect prices of gasoline and groceries in the long run.  And the sound bytes about this policy or that legislation doesn't get into the minds of voters.  

What Emanuel is saying is connecting with the voters in a simple, but effective way wins the election.  Then, after we're in, we can do anything we want to do with bathrooms, renaming things, a 'care economy' and anything else that needs attention.  And that puts a high level of importance on finding a way to saturate the electorate with the party's clear, simple message.  We just keep thinking that mainstream media is fairly representing our side when it is obviously not doing that at all. 

Peel Off Trump's Populist Veneer

It did not take long, after the 2016 election, for the majority of the electorate to realize that Trump was inept, incompetent and unable to serve as President of the United States.  He promised to drain the swamp, but all he did was dig it deeper. 

"Far from draining it," says Emanuel, "Trump and his administration will soon be bathing in it."  

Everything he is going to do will reveal him as a plutocrat, says Emanuel, and that needs to be the main point of Democratic party messaging, to make sure that enough voters along those same, narrow, close margins that won him the election this time see him for what he is, and vote that way when they have a chance. Look at his tax and tarriff proposals, and the plans to get rid of all kinds of regulations for the powerful billionaire class.  None of that will benefit the working class, in fact, it will cost the working class and Democrats need to make sure voters are aware of this.   

"With everyone from Big Oil and Big Pharma lining up for their share of the spoils," he says, "we will need to be strategic in how we strip away Trump's populist veneer.  By returning to our roots as the voice of the middle class, we can unite both moderates and progressives in a fight against the well-heeled and the well-connected."  

Address the Issues of Crime and Immigration, Even If We Can See There's Not a Problem

The fact of the matter is that whether or not it is accurate, voters have been led to believe that Democrats are soft on crime, and we want a completely open border.  Neither of those things are true, in fact, the crime rate is down considerably.  But Trump has succeeded in creating a much different perspective, and Democrats have not done anything to reverse that perspective.  The President, in fact, issued an executive order doing what a bipartisan border bill would have done when Republicans in Congress followed Trump's orders to make sure the border policy was left for him to run on as a political issue.  I knew it.  Reporters on MSNBC talked about it.  

What Emanuel is advocating here is more than just something that looks political.  It needs to be something people can see, and feel, and understand that it is a serious attempt to resolve a problem that is a major concern.  

"Trump was successful on these issues because his words tapped the public's frustration," said Emanuel.  "Ours communicated permissiveness."  

He is exactly right.  This is one of the reasons why Rahm Emanuel is controversial.  When he was mayor of Chicago, the public perception was that the city was spending money extravagantly, especially on its school district.  And the facts confirmed this to be the case.  It wasn't popular, but with declining enrollments, and in some cases, crumbling buildings requiring huge expenditures of capital to repair, the decision was made to start closing schools and merging student populations.  In spite of the criticism, especially from the teacher's union, the closed schools resolved the city's budget problems at the time, and did not result in the academic crash that was predicted.  

Note that Emanuel was Chicago's last mayor to be re-elected.  After he closed some declining, crumbling schools. 

Recruit and Run Candidates for the Mid-Terms Who Aren't Career Politicians

Well, he would know.  His efforts in 2006 and 2008, as the Democratic party's Congressional Campaign Chairman, produced results, including the biggest flip in Congress from red to blue this century.  He points to candidates during 2024, running for congressional seats from New York and California, who aren't conventional politicians, who flipped seats this time around, helping Democrats add one seat to their house delegation in spite of losing the White House.  

"In 2206, 2008 and 2018, we recruited and ran candidates whose biographies communicated authenticity.  They were war veterans, sheriffs, small business owners and former football players.  Crucially, they weren't career politicians," he says.  

And I'll add, that they won in all of those years. 

"If Democrats are to make the most of the next election, they must ready their message and messengers, abandon failed orthodoxies, and embrace strategies with a record of delivering seats, success and real prosperity," he concludes.  

Yeah, So What's the Point? 

Well, the point is that, 1.) He's right, and 2.)There are plenty of Democrats who see this and take this seriously who are saying almost exactly the same thing.  

I think the theme of "abandon failed orthodoxies" can be applied to every single point that has been made here.  We've lost the free press, it no longer exists in the world of corporate billionaire controlled media for profit.  We don't need "out own outlet, like Fox News is for the GOP," as is the solution that is often proposed, what we needed to do, when we had majorities in both houses and the White House, was to pass legislation that would have protected the free press, and broken up the gigantic billionaire corporations that own media networks.  That means getting rid of the damned filibuster in the Senate, packing the damned Supreme Court and passing legislation defining and defending constitutional free press, ruled on by a court that understands how essential it is to the preservation of Democracy. 

And I'll add this to the rest of it.  We cannot affort to be irresolute in the face of direct threats to American Constitutional Democracy, like Donald Trump's insurrection.  If that danger materializes into the dissolution of the American Republic, as many of our political scientists, experts, and many Americans, think that it very well could, then the failure of Merrick Garland to take hold of a Congressional investigation and turn it into guilty verdicts then history will blame President Biden for allowing it to happen, along with Trump being blamed for carrying it out.  

Rahm Emanuel has to be regarded, not only as one of the more successful Democrats in electoral politics in recent history, but also as an expert in the behind-the-scenes kind of organization, political knowledge and skill required to chair congressional party campaigns, and serve as one of the chief advisors to two of the more successful Democrats to serve as President of the United States.  And it's not possible to serve in those kind of positions, along with municipal government and Congress, without making a few enemies along the way.  

As I said up front, I'm a lifelong Democrat.  During a relatively short part of this election cycle, we experienced panic, and then confusion and disorder, following the first Presidential debate, the aftermath of which was having the President, and the party's nominee, step down just three months before an election.  The loss of the White House, and control of the Senate, while razor thin, as the polls predicted, has left the party in a bad spot, still trying to cope with the loss while at the same time preparing for an existential threat to democracy to materialize.  So what Rahm Emanuel has to say is important to consider, if we ever want to think about the possibility of a recovery.

A Month Away From a Presidential Transfer of Power: How Will Democrats Handle Themselves Moving Forward?

There is no shortage of speculation, in the aftermath of the most consequential election of our time, about what Democrats should do, or ought to do, or aren't doing, or won't do.  I've read plenty of speculation, but I think I'm capable of making my own observations without the assistance of a journalist pundit who is missing some critical thinking skills and analytical thinking ability.  

My first step, and it's one I highly recommend to anyone else in this country who understands exactly what we are about to face in a second Trump Presidency, is to read through Timothy Snyder's book, On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons From the Twentieth Century.  That's an important piece of information which will guarantee the ability to define exactly what is occurring in order to form reasonable, effective resistance.  

The Democratic Party Has No Choice But Full Unity and Commitment

We are not a party "in tatters", "in need of an overhaul", or "in disarray".  

Fixing blame for why we lost the White House will lead to the loss of time and valuable resources.  The political ignorance of the American electorate was underestimated.  The loss of a genuinely free press, and the amount of time the media spent giving face time and coverage to virtually everything Trump did or said, from the moment he left the White House was a critical factor.  I've challenged readers to do some research and find any 24 hour period in the past four years when there was not at least one Trump news item on any of the major networks, or on the cable news programs.  And I've challenged them to find research indicating how much more time Trump got during the Biden Administration than President Biden got.  

I'd bet that there wasn't one single day that went by without Trump getting some news coverage for something, and that he got more than four times as much as Biden did.  Trump waged a four year campaign for re-election, against an eventual Democratic nominee who waged a campaign for about 70 days.  Trump had full media saturation, Harris never did, even with over a billion dollars for the campaign.  And even with all of that, he still didn't get half the popular vote, and his electoral college victory is as narrow as Biden's was in 2020 and as his was in 2016, separated from defeat by a fraction of a percentage of votes in just three states.  Somehow, over 80 million Americans who registered to vote never made it to the polls.  

If we consider the causes that motivated the Democratic party in this election as priorities, then blame for the loss is a dead issue.  Gone are the days in American politics when the opposition party that lost an election shook hands, congratulated the winner and pledged bi-partisan support for whatever it was that could be supported.  We Democrats set up the parameters for this election, rightly so.  We called it "the most consequential election of our time," and we declared that Trump "was an existential threat to Democracy."  

Well, was it?  Was he?  

If we act like it wasn't either of those things, then we have no credibility.  We're liars, just like they are.  It was all a political game and it's back to business as usual and politics as usual and hope we can do better in 2026.  It will be very tempting for those Democrats who are now still in office as a minority party to try and protect what they have through self-interest, to try to hang on to their perks and privileges rather than take the kind of risks that are necessary to unify this party, fight Trump's real threat to this constitutional democracy, and find a way to defeat creeping facsism once and for all.  

Real leaders will step up and take risks, rather than try to hover and protect their piece of what's left.  Real leaders will take the risks that will bring genuine unity, and will motivate followers to get up off their rear ends, inform themselves about what is going on and fight for their constitutionally protected liberty.  

So we need leaders who are not afraid to act like this was the most consequential election of our time, and that Trump is an existential threat to constitutional democracy.  And we need to start acting like that now, before he ever takes a second oath of office that he will ignore.  

Leadership Among Democrats Can No Longer Be About "What's in it for Me?" 

The Democratic Party can no longer afford business as usual, pandering to the status quo and protecting an elitist group of "next in line" potential leaders, waiting their turn, paying their dues or whatever political catch phrases describe that futility these days.  Would our nominee have had a better chance at winning the White House if the party leadership around the President had gently, but firmly talked him out of running again, when many of them had already seen what the rest of us saw in his first debate performance?  And what does it say about leadership that saw the potential of a loss, with Biden on the ticket, and knew how consequential this election was, but wouldn't step out of the accepted protocol to be part of a necessary change that, had it happened a year before the election, might have provided a much different outcome?  

The single most effective house speaker of the post-World War 2 era was Nancy Pelosi.  The very mention of her name among conservatives drew their vitriolic, caustic criticism, because she was also highly effective.  She new how to manipulate that criticism to the advantage of whatever she wanted to get through the House of Representatives.  She was fearless.  I will never forget the image of her, sitting behind Trump during one of his State of the Union addresses, seeing her disgust and disapproval in her facial expressions, her remaining seated when the Vice-President stood to applaud, and then, when the speech was over, ripping it into shreds while the cameras were still on.  She violated every protocol of a house speaker at a State of the Union address, in order to send a message, and she rebuffed her critics.  

That took courage.  

We need Democratic party leadership, inside and outside of Congress, who have it.  

There are some real people out there that we need to consider.  Over the past six years, it's the kind of leadership we in Illinois have come to expect from our governor, J. D. Pritzker, who goes toe to toe with conservatives, willing to take chances even with the threats of lawsuits and retaliation.  His leadership in Illinois during the pandemic not only saved lives and spared one of the country's most populous states and cities from the kind of disaster that occurred elsewhere, he made decisions he knew would not be popular, but which turned out to be right in order to protect the people of the state.  

David Hogg has been one of the most courageous and effective gun control advocates we've seen, ever.  The gun lobby is one of the most intimidating, threatening, dangerous groups in the country, and he's faced them down and refused to buckle under their pressure. Here he is, running for a leadership position in the DNC.  As a high school student, when that young man went to a microphone to speak, it was obvious he had his facts together and he sure knew more about civics and the constitution than some of the members of Congress.  

There are a lot of others who are in this group of courageous, potential party leaders who have faced down opposition and continued to do the right thing--Pete Buttigieg, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Keith Ellison, and yes, I'll put Kamala Harris and Tim Walz in that group too.  The Democratic party needs to move forward, and it needs leaders who will push it that way, not spend time on protocol and traditional politics, both of which are dead and should have been buried thirty years ago. 

We tried to turn Joe Biden's decision to step down and endorse Kamala as the Democratic nominee into a courageous act of consideration for the American people, above his own desires.  We didn't really have the media coverage or the internal messaging to make that universally known.  But that's the example of the kind of selfless courage that the Democratic party must have in order to survive these next two years, and to put together a campaign that will win control of Congress back during the mid-term elections.  

Selfless courage.  

Do Not Obey in Advance

This is the first principle in Snyder's book, and it is foundational.  He calls it "anticipatory obedience."  Democrats claim that Trump is an existential threat to democracy.  That's a claim based on exactly what we saw from him during his first term in office.  He laid it out, though he is an inept bumbler who has difficulty getting ideas into actions.  He finally did leave the White House, but not before inciting an insurrection against the Capitol building and Congress, which, under the fourteenth amendment, should have made him ineligible to even run for the Presidency again.  And then, he took hundreds of classified documents illegally, risking the nation's security and defying its authority to take them back.  

The irresolute manner in which this was handled was anticipatory obedience.  Congress laid out an investigation and all of the evidence necessary to prove he incited an insurrection, but the Justice Department fumbled the handoff and was irresolute in taking it to the next level in a quick, effective manner.  We still have not been given a satisfactory answer for this monumental failure that completely undermines the Democratic party's belief that Trump really is an existential threat to the American constitutional democracy.  

If he is, then how is it that we could not get him prosecuted, even though we had the better part of four years to carry it out?  

We need leaders who not only won't stand for this kind of irresolute fumbling and bumbling, but will take the initiative to get the ball rolling and follow through to the finish.  

Do This First, and Then Ask Me For My Support

Over the years, I can't keep track of how much money I've given to Democratic party campaigns and Democratic candidates.  I've made hundreds of phone calls and knocked on hundreds of doors in six states.  I started this blog, originally to use as a means of putting into writing political thoughts to put in social media posts.  I'm willing to invest time and energy, my personal presence and labor, my ideas, whatever it takes to help Democratic candidates win elections and now, to resist what's coming down the road.  

Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger were willing to risk the loss of their congressional seats, and whatever went with that, to stand for a principle and protect American democracy.  I find little in their political perspective with which I can agree, but I also find them to be examples of the kind of courage Democratic party leadership needs to fight a battle that's already started.  The least I can do is to be supportive of the American Democracy.  

In a few months, I'll have plenty of time.  I'll be happy to give myself to the Democratic party, if the party is willing to demonstrate the kind of courage it needs to save the country from tyranny.  

Just ask.

 

A University's Football Coaching Hire and Some Right Wing Political Hypocrisy

West Virginia University just did something this week that is rare in college football.  They rehired a former successful coach who had left in 2007 for a head coaching job at Michigan.  

Usually, when a college coach leaves a school, it is for one of two reasons.  There's a bigger, better opportunity waiting that's been offered elsewhere, or the team he coaches isn't winning like the fans expect, and he gets let go.  Rich Rodriguez, who played at WVU, his alma mater, and coached there from 2001 to 2007, and whose coaching tenure there led the Mountaineers to most of the high points it experienced in football, including several Big East conference championships and a 2006 Sugar Bowl victory over the Georgia Bulldogs, and a 2007 2nd place ranking during the season, was just rehired by the university this week as their head coach, replacing Neal Brown, who was fired after six years of futility.  

Rodriguez made a lot of WVU supporters and fans angry by the manner in which he left in 2007, to accept a much more prestigious, and higher paying position as Michigan's head coach.  There were those who thought that he was distracted during the final game of the season with WVU's bitter rival, Pitt, and that distraction cost him the game.  He had also said, prior to the offer being made, that he wasn't considering a move, but accepted the Michigan position and left before WVU beat Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl that year.  

Things didn't work out for Rodriguez at Michigan, where the retirement of the former head coach had drained the talent pool of players, and left him nothing to start with.  His teams and his record improved each year, but not enough to please Michigan's fan base, which expects to be among the top teams in the country every year.  The players he recruited went 11-1 during the next regular season after he was let go, but that, of course, is water under the bridge.  

His next coaching job came three years later, at hard luck Arizona.  Rodriguez's tenure with the Wildcats is the only stretch in the last decade reflecting a consistent pattern of winning.  Rodriguez took Arizona to five bowl games, including one of the New Year's 6, the Fiesta Bowl, got into the only Pac-12 conference championship in which Arizona had ever played.  He's the only coach with a winning record at Arizona since 2000.  

He was fired from the job, in part because there were some critics of his loud and aggressive coaching style on the field, and because his administrative assistant filed a sexual harassment complaint against him, and sued the university, claiming he forced her to keep quiet about an alleged affair he was having.  Like the rumor mill at West Virginia, swirling around his departure there, a lot of facts never really reached the public.  In spite of the fact that the sexual harassment claim was discredited, and later dismissed, and so was the lawsuit, the University let him go and paid out his contract settlement.  

After coaching as an assistant at a couple of different places, Rodriguez landed at Jacksonville State University in Alabama, when it became a "group of 5" member of the Conference USA.  He won the CUSA title his second year there, this past season, and got the school into a bowl game.  And that's when West Virginia came looking.  

Well, why not?  He is a WVU alum and former player, and former coach.  It's been 17 years since he left, and the rumor mill never really got the facts right about his departure.  Of course, everyone is entitled to their opinion and there have been some strong ones at WVU through the past three coaching tenures, about whether bringing Rodriguez back would also bring the kind of success he had while he was there, which was the program's football pinnacle.  His name surfaced in all three of the recent coaching departures since he left in 2007.  

Here's Where the Politics Come In 

Social media has been buzzing about Rodriguez since Neal Brown was fired after the last game of the season.  While a lot of those who were opposed to his return went back to the manner in which he left WVU for Michigan, there were a lot more who cited "moral concerns" about his alleged affair, and sexual harassment leading to his dismissal at Arizona as the reason they didn't want him back.  

And that's what I found interesting.  

In each of the last three elections, West Virginia has been one of the most supportive states, in terms of percentage of voters casting ballots for Trump.  It's been above 65% all three times.  And there were a few people, in the social media melee that surrounded the coaching discussion, who pointed out that it seemed a bit hypocritical for people who more than likely voted for Trump in past elections to consider rumors about an affair to be a disqualifier for hiring a head football coach.  

I mean, if people are all that concerned about the dishonesty, lack of integrity and immorality reflected in the character of someone who had an extra-marital affair, shouldn't that be a much bigger concern with regard to putting someone in the Presidency, where character matters and where that kind of dishonest lack of integrity and morality could endanger the entire country, than it would be in coaching a college football team?  

Trump had multiple extra-marital affairs, some surreptitiously, some he bragged about to boost his own brand.  In once case, he committed multiple felonies, 34 to be exact, to cover up an affair he had with a porn star.  But it doesn't appear that was enough to disqualify him, at least, not as far as the people of West Virginia were concerned.  So why should unsubstantiated rumors of an affair by a former football coach, and all charges dropped regarding the sexual harassment suit after an investigation, be a problem for West Virginia football fans, many of whom obviously voted to put the proven, three time adulterer in the White House?  

There were some posts on social media which pointed this out, and to their credit, there were some individuals who noted that they didn't support Rodriguez' return because of what had transpired at Arizona, and they also had not voted for Trump, because integrity, ethics and morality were high on their list.  But for the most part, in the same way it went by the wayside in the election, it was ignored in this particular issue as well.  Sad to say, but it is clear that a majority of Americans prefer winning over morality in sports, and corruption over integrity in politics. 

Somewhere in the midst of all of the rumors around Rodriguez are the facts.  He has exhibited a measure of repentance, admitted making mistakes, including in the way he left WVU for Michigan, and in what occurred at Arizona, and has apparently settled the issues with those who were directly involved and who are closest to him.  Trump, on the other hand, remains unrepentant, claiming there's nothing wrong with his lifestyle and exhibiting neither regret nor any desire to behave differently.   

I think West Virginia University made the right choice for their football program, extending the kind of forgiveness and a second chance to one of their own who has asked for both.  

I think the country is already starting to regret the choice they made at the ballot box in November. 

The New York Post Admits the Biden Administration Has Been One of Significant Achievement

Not that anything the New York Post would write could be considered factual or credible, when it comes to its "reporting," if it can be called that, about the Biden administration.  But in its own way, this tabloid is venting its frustration over the fact that it cannot change the record on one of the best and most accomplished Presidential administrations since Lyndon Johnson, and the frustration and consternation that is working its way into the coverage of its final weeks is not only hilarious, but quite telling when it comes to what they know as opposed to what they write.  

With this piddling list of complaints, apparently all they can come up with, the Post is acknowledging the significant achievements of the Biden Administration.  They can't complain about the long list of achievements and legislation that has worked so well, so they complain about what hasn't, in this tiny little list of virtually insignificant stuff.  

It's unfortunate that, in order to put it into context, I must link one of their articles so readers can see this display of propaganda and editorial moralizing.  Authored by the Post's editorial board, that piece can be found here.

Wow, Are They Still Heated and Cooked to a Crisp Over the Pardon

The bottom line here is that they were caught off guard, stunned, and burned to a crisp over the pardon given by the President to his son, Hunter Biden.  That has eliminated any and all possibility of the Post's editorial staff's ability to think straight, if they ever had that ability in the first place.  Privileged use of the government's power for personal and family benefit is supposed to be the exclusive domain of the Republican party, for goodness sake!  The world has been turned upside down by an honest Democrat in the White House doing something they think is in the exclusive domain of the corrupt Trump.  

It was reasonable, given the fact that almost all of Biden's commutations and pardons so far have involved either inequities in sentencing that appears to have been politically motivated, or affected by a high and unusual degree of news coverage, or in cases similar to Hunter's, that, had the person not been in a very visible position, would likely not even have been prosecuted.  

And this one really burns bad, because when Trump left office, the pardons he issued involved a much greater level of personal favor granting and misuse of the power of the pardon, a circle of self-protection which put up barricades to shield him from further prosecution for the monstrous crimes he committed while President.  

They're really in between a rock and a hard place on this one, because they weren't critical at all when Trump let his former advisors off the hook, anticipating what was coming regarding January 6th.  So coming from the Post, this criticism is a huge compliment to Biden. 

The criticisms of Biden's most recent round of commutations and pardons just adds to the praise of Biden's judgement.  There isn't anything in that whole list of some 1,500 names that comes close to the heinous and traitorous acts of those Trump pardoned on his way out, and they know it.  They just can't get over the fact that Biden became a realist and did something anyone else would do.  

And that's all they've got. 

What Else They're Griping About 

They've had to resort to their standard criticisms of "built in government inefficiency" to finish out the editorial.  The work from home deal which benefits 42,000 workers in the Social Security Administration isn't different than hundreds of such deals corporations have with their work forces, and to be honest, if this is something that's included in the list of things that are damaging the government on their way out, then they are really grasping at straws on this one.  As a recent recipient of Social Security myself, I have so much appreciated not having to stand in half day long lines at the Social Security office to complete five minutes of paperwork or have a simple question handled.  

I see absolutely nothing wrong with vetoing a bill that would create more federal judgeships for Trump to fill.  I guess that's the partisan side of me coming out, not like the Post editorial board restrains theirs.  I consider every federal judicial seat Biden fills as critical to preserving the American constitutional democracy in the face of the dictatorial onslaught we are about to face.  And to me, that makes Joe Biden one of the greatest of our time.  

The very mention of things like grants for high speed internet, and the inclusion of CHIPS "handouts" all of which are not only very popular with the American people, but also got bipartisan support, but says one thing very loudly and clearly, and I'll put it into words for the Post's editorial staff, which seem to be at a loss for them.  The Biden Administration did a great job, so thank you.  

This is All They've Got 

There's nothing in their list of complaints that is anywhere near as important as sustained economic growth for four years, the lowest sustained unemployment rates in over 60 years, nor the fact that when the country faced a crisis created by global inflation, our administration, by then crippled by a confused and disorganized Republican majority in the house, fought back and managed to gain control of it without triggering a recession.  Majoring on this crap, while leaving all of everything else out tells us very clearly that the editorial board knows Biden was a highly successful President, and their leaving out of anything except a mention of Trump at the very end tells us they don't expect much from him. 

The editorial initially contained complaints about the way the administration was "handling" the issue regarding the drone sightings on the east coast.  But, of course, facts got in the way of what they were reporting and changed much of the perspective they wanted to convey, to the point where they had to drop that because it wasn't supporting their contention.   

So the New York Post has, inadvertently, in their own backhanded way, in this list of nothingburgers,  recognized the significant achievements of the Biden administration.  If you'd like a much better written and researched perspective, you can click the link below and enjoy some factual, honest reporting. 

Why Joe Biden's Accomplishments Didn't Translate into Political Support

Why Do They Get Away With It and We Don't?

The parade of incompetent, corrupt, sexually promiscuous buffoons and druggies that Trump is nominating for positions in his administration reminded me of someone from the recent past who, while he may not fall in exactly the same category as the assorted deplorables Trump is choosing, is one of those extremists on the far right who, regardless of the incredible lack of integrity and ethics in public comments that they make, manage not only to escape criticism or accountability, but somehow get rewarded for their insanity.  

Let me introduce you to Wiley Drake.  Drake is pastor of the First Southern Baptist Church of Buena Park, California, or, at least, he was a decade ago when some of these events happened. Originally from Arkansas, Drake is an activist of sorts who turned his church recreational building into a makeshift homeless shelter without consultation with the neighbors or the city of Buena Park.  Then, when city officials tried to enforce ordinances that were, in effect, the will of the people, he played the role of the poor, persecuted guy who was being harassed by liberal government officials for just trying to do some good.  

He was convicted of violating building and property usage codes  I don't know whether he served time or paid a fine, but eventually the church sought, and got, the permits necessary for operating the shelter and kitchen they operated. Turning a relatively unused church building into a homeless shelter and kitchen is a good thing, of course.  But the attention was focused on the fight with the government officials to get it done, and not to the homeless who were attracted to the shelter.  

The church also houses a radio station, hosting Drake's own program which is a combination of ultra conservative religious mish-mash and social issue advocacy, particularly raging against the usual targets of abortion rights activists, and the LGBTQ community.  But he made a name for himself among his Southern Baptist brethren by calling for "imprecatory prayer" against President Barack Obama.  For those who may not recognize that term, an imprecatory prayer is a prayer for someone to die as punishment for disobedience to God. It's mentioned in the Old Testament, most frequently in the Psalms, associated with King David who prayed for God to deliver him from his enemies and there are occasional, less subtle prayers asking God to deliver the death of an enemy.  

But imprecatory prayers are not part of the Christian gospel.  In fact, Jesus turns this idea completely upside down early on, instructing his followers not to resist an "evildoer," but to turn the other cheek, to love their enemies, and pray for their persecutors, not against them.  Noting that in the context of Christianity, one of its essential core doctrines is the belief that Jesus is divine, is the son of God and was sent to reveal God to humanity, these words of Jesus take precedence over everything in the Old Testament, imprecatory prayer would be an act of disobedience to Christ.   

But yes, there are people who actually do this, believe in it and think they are right.  Doctrinal and theological conformity are the driving forces behind conservative Evangelicals, who's criticism of any form of Christianity that doesn't conform to their basic interpretations or definitions can be caustic and condemning.  That now includes lock step agreement on politics.  They have created a hierarchy of humanity, ranking those who do not share their religious convictions or believe that being Christian means also being Republican as unworthy of consideration of the sanctity of human life.

Now, imagine the outrage and anger that would be directed at any liberals or progressives who called for people to pray for someone to die, because, in the self-righteousness of the one doing the praying, they think they can judge someone else's behavior when they don't conform to their own way of thinking.  They would be called "elitists," and accused of hating conservatives and not believing in God.  The wailing and caterwauling would be endless.  There would be death threats and violence, and there would be those who would make an effort to separate them from their livelihood.   

But the result of Wiley Drake's call for imprecatory prayer against President Obama was some laughter and snickering on the part of the conservative, Evangelical right, and then he was nominated and elected to serve as second vice-president of the Southern Baptist Convention.  

That's not really a position with much in the way of power inside the Southern Baptist Convention.  It's usually an office reserved for mid-level influence peddlers as some kind of consolation prize or reward for some kind of favor granting that's been done, or because some of the pompous pastors who are part of the tightly wound inner circle of shot-callers that run the Southern Baptist Convention needed a place to strut for the Baptist press.  There are some who claim that Drake, who frequently approached microphones on the convention floor to make motions and bring up social issue minutia or make political statements, was nominated as a "joke."  

Nevertheless, in spite of the fact that this position is elected on a late ballot when most of the messengers have left the hall for the hallway and exhibits, Drake won the position.  And he set about using the additional publicity and influence that it offered him to continue to push his own causes, especially is call for imprecatory prayer against President Obama.  

Aside from the clear theological error that I pointed out, a call for imprecatory prayer is, as far as Jesus is concerned, equal to murder. Jesus addresses the issue, recorded in Matthew 5:21-22.  As far as I know, though, no one ever addressed this or pointed out to Drake and he completely ignored Jesus' teaching in the New Testament.  He wouldn't have included President Obama in Matthew's application of the term "brother" or "brothers and sisters" but the term is inclusive of all humanity in the manner in which it is used there.  

You have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, "You shall not murder" and "whoever murders shall be liable to judgment."  But I say to you that if you are angry with a brother or sister, you will be liable to judgment, and if you insult a brother or sister, ou will be liable to the council, and if you say, "You fool!", you will be liable to the hell of fire.  

So Jesus would equate imprecatory prayer with  murder.  

Progressive liberals, Democrats, even political moderates, would never be able to get away with that.  But among the conservative religious element that has allowed an ungodly, licentious intruder (See Jude v.4) into the various fundamentalists, Baptists, Pentecostals, Charismatics and non-denominational conservative, right-wing Christian churches in the form of right wing political extremism, it's become the brand.