Category Archives: Blog

9-11 Plus 20

I doubt I will go to witness the ceremony of remembrance at the 9-11 Memorial this year, the twentieth anniversary of the terrorist attack. I am never comfortable when I am at the 16-acre site of the World Trade Center in Manhattan. It’s not the memories. Those come and go depending on what is going on in the world. It’s the images which lingered before me for months after that day. Now they almost never return. Unless I am at the site.

On September 11, 2001, my wife Amy and I lived in Battery Park City in lower Manhattan. We had moved there from midtown just a few months earlier. Our apartment building was at the south end of the neighborhood, south and west of WTC Tower #2. I was the New York Bureau Chief and Senior Correspondent for public television’s Nightly Business Report and the newsroom/production facility/broadcast studio was just across West Street, even closer to the tower, due south of the site. Tower #2 filled the window of my bedroom, and of my office.

I was putting on my tie when I heard a noise I later described as the sound of a dump truck unloading gravel at my feet. Running to the window, I saw smoke coming from the top of Tower #1, the view partially obscured by #2, which was closer to me. I had been through the 1993 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, so I did think of that. But I thought in terms of a bomb planted inside, or an explosion on one of the equipment floors toward the top of the building. It was 8:46am.

I called Mark Landsman, our veteran assignment desk manager and reported that I was going right to the scene. And I called Howard Grossman, our senior technical staff member. Howard also lived in Battery Park, in a building at the north end. I asked him to grab a camera and meet me. Amy and I went down to the street. We would not leave each other’s sight for a full week.

On the street the talk was of an airplane hitting the north tower. Know-it-all that I can tend to be, I opined as to how ridiculous that idea was. I knew flight patterns over the Hudson River included a visual approach to LaGuardia at higher altitudes and a sightseeing route for small aircraft at lower altitudes. But the weather was clear and the idea that a two-pilot commercial jet would hit the towers was inconceivable. Perhaps a solo pilot could lose control. But it seemed to me there was much too much damage, a large gaping hole in the south side of Tower #1, for it to have been caused by a light aircraft. The idea that a jet had been intentionally steered into the tower never crossed my mind.

As we walked north along South End Avenue, toward the towers, we sensed rather than saw a shadow come up from behind, where the Statue of Liberty stood welcoming people to the United States. Then came a massive explosion right in front of us, along the south face of Tower #2. The second jet had come in from the south and slammed into the second tower. Now there was no question that we were witnessing a purposeful attack. We ducked instinctively behind parked cars as debris rained down from the building. The plane was moving away from us and went all the way through the building to the north side, where most of the heavy debris landed. We were safe where we were. People on the ground on the north side were killed by falling debris. It was 9:03am.

As unbelievable as these events were, I had no idea that they would get even worse. As the day unfolded, the images, the ones I can’t avoid seeing when I visit the site, began to build up. Through it all, I was a numb reporter doing what he was programmed to do, shooting pictures, and taking notes. We saw people streaming out of the buildings, frightened, sweaty, many covered with soot, some bleeding from cuts and more serious injuries. We saw police and firemen heading into the buildings while at the same time telling civilians to get away from the area. I first heard the sirens and then turned to see scores of emergency vehicles barreling out of the Battery Park underpass which connects the east side to the west side at the bottom of Manhattan Island. It seemed that every ambulance in New York was headed right at us.

There is one more image, still difficult to talk about. From the North Tower, we had noticed what appeared to be some unusual debris, small, dark spots falling from the upper floors. We shot pictures, and then realized what it was. People were falling from those incredible heights. They had elected to jump to certain death rather than face what must have been the hell of the heat and flame that was upon them. The inferno was the result of burning jet fuel from the fully loaded airplanes. We did not broadcast those pictures that day.

After a time, Howard suggested he walk a considerable distance to the east, away from the site, so that he could get a long shot that allowed the entire height of the towers to appear in the frame. I agreed. I already had a variety of ground shots; people pictures and even a few interviews with dazed survivors. Amy and I headed south, to the bureau office. It was about 9:30am.

We had been standing right across Liberty Street at the base of Tower #2, in front of the fire department company for the area, along the row of restaurants and fast-food joints that were frequent luncheon destinations on workdays. Less than half an hour later Tower #2 would collapse. The fire station, known as “Ten House,” Engine 10, Ladder 10, would be crushed under tons of debris. Five members of the company would die.

I updated our headquarters by phone. I was standing in front of the window, watching the south tower, now half hidden by smoke. Amy was on one side of me, Erika Miller, a Nightly Business Report reporter, on the other. Suddenly we could see that something was happening to the tower. For want of a better word, it seemed to shimmer, to go out of focus. It took several seconds before the meaning of the strange scene registered, the tower was collapsing, dissolving it seemed, coming straight down. I pushed Amy and Erika out of my office into the newsroom in the center of the bureau, away from the windows.

If the tower had fallen over to the south, it would have landed on our building at 74 Trinity Place. As we know now, each tower’s weight was carried by the steel shell, and as the structure holding the upper floors to the frame literally melted from the heat, the floors fell in one by one. Many lives were probably saved because the building collapsed inward on itself, rather than falling over onto the surrounding buildings.

The bright and sunny day turned into the pitch dark of night. Wave after wave of thick black smoke and debris roared past our building. It would seem to pause, get somewhat lighter, and then another wave would hit. The speculation is that secondary explosions accounted for that effect. I wondered if our 100-year-old office building would hold. It did, but a fine layer of debris penetrated the old window frames and settled throughout. A smell like burning rubber filled the air. That smell would linger for many months.

To my surprise our electric power and our electronic connections to the outside world continued to operate. It did begin to get stuffy and hot, probably because the filters on the intakes for the air conditioning system on the roof became clogged with debris. We could see the reporting on cable news on our newsroom monitors. NBC had a camera across the Hudson in Jersey City and another on top of 30 Rockefeller Plaza, both giving a clear view of the destruction.

Slowly the realization hit me. Although I knew many people had evacuated the building, I was sure many had not gotten out in time. Certainly not the police and firemen. The idea that the tower would completely collapse was something else that had never ever crossed my mind. I concluded that I had just witnessed with my own eyes the death of hundreds if not thousands of people. My thoughts also turned to Howard and the other members of the two crews I had out on the streets recording video. Had my assignments cost them their lives? It took about 20 minutes before they were able to get dial tones on their mobile phones and call in. Both crews had ducked into buildings as the debris raced toward them down the famous canyons of Wall Street. One had even recorded what looked like a dust cloud coming down the street. All of my people were safe. A few minutes later, the north tower collapsed. It was 10:28am.

For the rest of the day, in fact, for the rest of the week, I was on autopilot, doing my job as if in a trance. The police ordered us to get out of the area. But before we abandoned ship, we transmitted our video and we lit up the studio and I sat down for two interview reports, one for our own program and another with Ray Suarez of the PBS NewsHour. I was in a jacket but not wearing a tie, sweaty and disheveled. No one complained.  I still have that tape. As it happened, since the stock market never opened for business that day, our program was preempted to make way for an expanded NewsHour. My interview did appear on the NewsHour, describing with reasonable calm what I had seen and done through the day, along with the pictures shot by our dedicated and brave crews.

The rest of the week was spent improvising. But improvise we did and although we lacked access to our studio and some of us lacked access to our apartments, we filed reports for each broadcast.

We didn’t have time to be frightened on that day. The fear came one day the following week. That day the stock market reopened, and we returned to Wall Street to cover the event. It was an armed camp with national guard armor on the streets and armed soldiers at checkpoints carefully inspecting our news media credentials as we walked from the City Hall subway station, as close as we could get on public transportation, to the New York Stock Exchange. The unspoken thought on everyone’s mind was how great a target we made if anyone was planning another attack.

Over the years I have had time to reflect on the impact of that day. For more then two hundred years we in the United States had a belief in our invulnerability. There had never been a real attack on the homeland, separated as it is from threats on the other side of oceans. Now we had lost our innocence. We were suddenly living in a land of stoplight-like “threat level” indicators, loaded with security guards, and identification checks at every turn. We are fearful. And I believe that has had a major negative effect on our national psyche.

We also have lost our sense of invincibility. Having prevailed in multiple worldwide conflicts to become the world’s only superpower, we now faced wrenching structural change to our society at the hands of a radical terrorist operating out of the near primitive backwaters of humanity. And when we announced that we would avenge the killing of nearly three thousand of our fellow citizens by sending the world’s most powerful military to destroy the man behind the attack, he managed to escape.

It took ten years to kill Osama bin Laden, the terrorist a Senate Foreign Relations Committee study said was, “within our grasp” when he was holed up in the mountains at Tora Bora in Afghanistan three months after 9-11. Another ten years having gone by, the same people who sheltered bin Laden, the Taliban, have taken control of Afghanistan again. This is a disaster for Afghans there who have been helping Americans for the last two decades.  Not to mention what will happen to Afghan women and any Afghan with an education. Twenty years of American effort to secure that country ended in a failure we haven’t seen since Vietnam. And our adventure in Afghanistan also led to our excursion into Iraq from which the only beneficiaries seem to be Iran, Russia, and Turkey.

Our initial reaction to the attack was bipartisan. Republicans and Democrats alike screaming for retribution. But in the aftermath as we failed to fell the foe and seemed bogged down in a country of questionable strategic interest the finger pointing began. We relied on faulty or fabricated intelligence to justify the invasion of Iraq and the declaration that Iraq, Iran and North Korea form an “axis of evil” that presents an existential threat. We tortured prisoners and we used unmanned drone aircraft to execute enemies on a global scale. The good will our special nation had built up in the eyes of the world following the Second World War has been expended. We built a massive domestic police force at the control of the federal government. We can’t recognize ourselves. And we are divided to an extent we haven’t seen since the Civil War.

Our costs total several thousand more American soldiers dead. Trillions of American dollars spent. An exhausted American military unable to meet its own readiness standards. And real questions as to just how well our incredibly expensive armies would do if they were to face a real existential threat to the homeland. Did we fight a war with bid Lade,n and lose?

All those images and emotions and concerns return when I stand at the Trade Center Site. And that is why I am not eager to visit that place.

A new One World Trade Center tower stands tall near the site where the original twin towers stood. And other new buildings surround it.

I think they have done a remarkable job on the 9-11 Memorial itself. While it was considered essential to redevelop the site to demonstrate our resolve to carry on in the face of a great tragedy, planners were able to leave the actual footprints of the twin towers open.

They have been turned into recessed pools; water falls gently over the walls that encompass them. On the parapet on top of those walls are the names of the people who died. It is solemn and peaceful and very moving when you stand there. The gentle sound of the falling water obscures the sounds of the city and gives rise to thought and reflection.

Still, when standing there I need only to look up and see, just across Liberty Street, the spot where I stood just minutes before the towers fell. I am acutely aware of the fact that while I survived that day, along with my family and my colleagues, so many lost their lives. When I stand here the images come back. And I’d rather they not.


A Guest Blog From The ICU

I know it has been a while since I last wrote. I’ve been dealing with some legal problems which I may be writing about in the future but for now are all time consuming. I do have a half written blog about the resurgence of Covid-19 and the idiots who refuse to get vaccinated which may see the light of day after my court deadline on Friday. But for now I want to share this blog from an Intensive Care Unit nurse which was posted on Twitter. It is brilliantly written and heart rendering. Please read.


I became an ICU nurse at the end of July in 2020, during one of the first peaks of Covid when it was all still so new. I learned how to be a nurse behind a respirator and a yellow gown, amidst the constant beeping and hissing of ventilators that couldn’t support failing lungs. Because I was so new, I had no baseline for what normal nursing looked like; I just had a vague sense that it couldn’t look like this. The unit was bleak and everything we did felt futile, and I realized at some point I felt more like a ferryman to death than anything else. Some people lived, if they never got to the point they needed Bipap. Most didn’t. By the time they came to us they were too sick, their lungs too shredded, kidneys already failing and blood already clotting and so often beyond the power we had to heal. I would watch, feeling helpless, as they would go from a nasal cannula to a Vapotherm to a Bipap, and then when their chests started heaving and they started sweating I knew with heavy dread that soon they would be intubated.

Read more

GOP ∞ – Democracy 0 – Roberts 😉

The racist party scored another infinite victory in the United States Senate with all 50 Republicans voting against even discussing legislation to overhaul election law in America. Of course the Constitution says in case of a tie vote the Vice President, currently Democrat Kamala Harris, breaks the tie. But this democratic majority rules standard doesn’t apply here because this wasn’t a vote on passing into law the “For the People Act.” This was a “motion to proceed to consideration.” This little bit of nonsense, known as a cloture vote, requires a three-fifths vote. A 50-50 tie doesn’t cut it. You won’t find this “filibuster” rule in the Constitution either. It has been a tool of the racists for years.

The law would protect voting rights, end partisan gerrymandering, establish new ethics rules for federal officials, and curb big money in politics. No wonder it didn’t stand a chance. Republican senate leader Mitch McConnell called it a “power grab” by Democrats.

Let’s just make a little reality check here. Senate Democrats represent 43 MILLION more people than Senate Republicans but 41 Republicans representing just 21% of the voters in the country can block the For the People Act, which is supported by 68% of Americans. Democracy is the loser here.

And what exactly are the terrible things this For the People Act would address? They are the things that would combat the seemingly never ending attempts to keep in force the Jim Crow laws which are designed to prevent primarily people of color from voting. These laws institutionalize the practices which interfere with the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of the right to vote.

  • Partisan gerrymandering as a tool for disenfranchising voters.
  • The principle that people should choose who represents them instead of the other way around.
  • That we should make it easier for people to vote, not more difficult.
  • That corporations should not be able to buy elections.
  • That dark (or untraceable) money does not belong in politics.
  • That government should work for the people, not the special interests.

These are all things Republicans cannot stand for the simple reason that when people vote, Republicans lose. And Mitch McConnell doesn’t like to lose. The man who represents the four and a half million people of Kentucky just loves telling presidents elected with 80 million votes where they can stuff it. He blocked the agenda of Barack Obama. Now he’s blocking the agenda of Joe Biden.

But McConnell isn’t the only winner in this vote. Let’s not forget that it represents a great victory for John Roberts, Chief Justice of the United States. John Roberts has made the destruction of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 his lifelong crusade. His opposition to the Act dates back to his days as a law clerk for then Associate Justice William Rehnquist. Rehnquist, also to become a Chief, notoriously wrote a memo in 1952 stating, “I think Plessy v. Ferguson was right and should be re-affirmed.” Plessy was the infamous “separate but equal” case institutionalizing racism in public schools. It was overturned by Brown v. Board of Education in 1954.

Roberts, made Chief by President George W. Bush in 2005, got his ultimate chance to fight back for the cause of racism in America in 2013, demonstrating the hypocrisy of the typical Republic talking point that the courts should defer to the legislative branch and refrain from “activism” in their interpretation of law. In Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder, Attorney General et al. Roberts, writing for a 5-4 conservative majority, gutted the Voting Rights Act. In Shelby, Roberts struck down the Act’s formula determining which states had to receive advance federal approval for their changes in election law and procedure. Roberts complained that the “preapproval rule” for some states should not remain in force for such a long time without Congress updating the data on racist regulation in their territories which led it to enact the remedy. He mocked critics, telling them the states would not be so bold as to resume their racist activities. “Our country has changed,” he concluded.

Five years after the ruling, nearly 1,000 polling places had closed, many of them in predominantly African-American counties. Research shows that changing and reducing voter locations can reduce voter turnout. A 2018 report by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (a bipartisan, independent commission of the United States federal government) found that there had been an increase in laws making it harder for minorities to vote. The commission found that at least 23 states enacted restrictive voter laws, such as closures of polling places, cuts to early voting, purges of voter rolls, and imposition of strict voter ID laws.

According to the nonpartisan Voting Rights Lab, so far 18 states have put in place more than 30 laws restricting access to the ballot. These laws will affect around 36 million people, or about 15% of all eligible voters. In Georgia, a new law means that county election boards will no longer be bipartisan but will be appointed by Republicans; other states are similarly stripping power from Democrats to put Republicans in charge.

Roberts does not limit his disfavor to legislation designed to protect voting rights. Housing rights are on his radar as well. Is the Chief a racist or is he just naïve? His history indicates he is getting exactly what he wants.

There are some Democrats who believe the loss of this vote, preordained and expected, is just part one of a series of battle that will eventually produce voting rights legislation that will be less expansive than the For the People Act but still effective. One can only hope.

But history shows wishful thinking is not a viable political strategy and I see little likelihood Republicans will do anything that can be labeled bipartisan. The only answer seems to be to keep the votes, and losses, coming and run on these issues in 2022.

Perhaps a few extra seats in the Senate can be won by Democrats. But with Republican state legislatures left to gerrymander the boundaries of their districts, see my personal favorite abomination below ,designing them to disenfranchise people of color in Houston, one has to wonder if there is any hope for Democrats. Or for Democracy.

Texas 2nd Congressional District

The district is represented by Republican Daniel Crenshaw, who is one of the insurrectionists who tried to overturn the 2020 presidential election of Joe Biden. The boundaries of the district have been drawn to take as many black and Hispanic voters out of the other districts more generally in Houston, to reduce their numbers, while still being fewer than the number of white suburban voters included. That insures a Republican seat and renders ineffective a large number of minority voters who might prefer a Democrat. What a racket.

#####

What is a Joe Manchin?

Yeah. I know. An easy one, right?

A Joe Manchin is a United States Senator. Represents the great state of West Virginia. One of two senators representing about 1.8 million people. Claims to be a member of the Democratic party. Loves the spotlight. Is a royal pain in the butt.

Whose butt? Mine for one. I didn’t vote for Manchin. I did vote for Joe Biden. Remember him? He’s the one who ran for president. Got 81 million votes. Won the election. Has promised a wide range of popular reforms on taxation and spending designed to rebuild our aging infrastructure. Prepare us for the competitive world we face. Care for those who have not benefited from the great growth of the American economy in the last century. Narrow, at least a little, the gap between those who have done very, very, very well (and pay little or nothing in taxes) and those who could use a little help.

But we are unlikely to get any of these things, because Joe Manchin doesn’t want us to. In the United States Senate, 1.8 million people outvote 81 million. Or put another way, 41 votes beats 59. That’s because Joe M. believes in the filibuster come hell or high water. The high water will be arriving soon because new laws to help protect us from climate change can’t get 60 votes in the Senate. That’s what the filibuster rule requires and that makes the United States Senate about the least democratic institution in any modern democracy.

Just remember, the filibuster has nothing to do with the Constitution. The framers did not think it up. They clearly believed 51 votes out of 100 should be sufficient to pass new laws through the Senate. If anything the filibuster was a mistake written into the Senate rules controlling debate. The rule went unnoticed until segregationists hit upon it as a way to create a deadlock and prevent anti-discrimination laws from being voted on. That is the great tradition Joe Manchin is upholding.

Of course he’s not the only one. But he is one of two or three Democrats willing to torpedo the entire Democratic platform for…. Actually, I’m not sure what for.

Manchin says he has a strong belief that no legislation should pass unless it is bipartisan. I’ve written before about the days when Everett Dirksen and Lyndon Johnson could get together over a bottle and do some horse trading resulting in compromise legislation. But those days are long gone.

Mitch McConnell, the current Republican leader in the Senate, has dug in his heels on voting reform while Republicans across the country are passing law after law designed to suppress Democratic votes in future elections. McConnell also says revisiting the huge two trillion dollar 2017 Trump tax cuts for the rich and for big business is out of the question, and Democratic plans for increased infrastructure spending and social programs are not going to be paid for with tax increases as long as he has his 41 votes.

Meanwhile the turtle from Kentucky is warning that if Republicans regain control of the Senate in 2022 he’ll keep Joe Biden from appointing anyone to the Supreme Court. Probably from appointing anyone to any other court as well. McConnell is sent to Washington by a state with only about four and half million voters. Still he gets to tell Democratic presidents to go to hell any time he wants. Go figure.

Meanwhile Manchin won’t remove the filibuster to pass the voting rights law, the “For the People Act,” without Republican support. And Manchin won’t support use of the so-called “reconciliation” process to side step that blockade on Democrat’s tax and spending proposals, even though the Republicans used that process to pass the 2017 tax cuts.

There is really nothing one can do to solve the Manchin problem in the near term. The only solution for Democrats is to overcome the odds and win more Senate seats in 2022. A Democratic majority not counting Manchin, or the frequently unpredictable and always strange Krysten Sinema of Arizona, would render those two nominally Democratic senators irrelevant. That’s the title both so richly deserve.

At least good old Joe is keeping the political cartoonists busy:

#####

Republicans Are Afraid of YOU!

You. Yes. You. Republicans are petrified you might discover the truth. Scared you might hold them accountable for the January 6, 2021 insurrection when a mob inspired by Donald Trump stormed Capitol Hill.

Thirty-five Senate Republicans ran from Washington, D.C. this week like rats deserting a sinking ship after driving another nail into the coffin of democracy. They were headed for another vacation. This one, ironically, to commemorate the sacrifices made by those brave men and women who put their lives on the line to protect the democracy the senators had just turned their backs on. They had just refused to cast votes to create a bipartisan, independent commission to investigate the January rebellion.

Don’t forget their names. Remember them when you see them on your ballot.

  1. John Barrasso of Wyoming
  2. John Boozman of Arkansas
  3. Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia
  4. John Cornyn of Texas
  5. Tom Cotton of Arkansas
  6. Kevin Cramer of North Dakota
  7. Mike Crapo of Idaho
  8. Ted Cruz of Texas
  9. Steve Daines of Montana
  10. Joni Ernst of Iowa
  11. Deb Fischer of Nebraska
  12. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina
  13. Chuck Grassley of Iowa
  14. Bill Hagerty of Tennessee
  15. Josh Hawley of Missouri
  16. John Hoeven of North Dakota
  17. Cindy Hyde-Smith of Mississippi
  18. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin
  19. John Kennedy of Louisiana
  20. James Lankford of Oklahoma
  21. Mike Lee of Utah
  22. Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming
  23. Roger Marshall of Kansas
  24. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky
  25. Jerry Moran of Kansas
  26. Rand Paul of Kentucky
  27. Marco Rubio of Florida
  28. Rick Scott of Florida
  29. Tim Scott of South Carolina
  30. Dan Sullivan of Alaska
  31. John Thune of South Dakota
  32. Thom Tillis of North Carolina
  33. Tommy Tuberville of Alabama
  34. Roger Wicker of Mississippi
  35. Todd Young of Indiana

It is a who’s who of cowards. What do they fear? Afraid the commission will conclude that Donald Trump instigated the violence? Afraid some of their own members, or their fellow travelers in the House of Representatives, had aided and abetted the mob leaders? Did some help raise money to bring the rioters to Washington? Did others give special reconnaissance tours in the days leading up to the riot? Did the brother of disgraced former Trump national security advisor Michael Flynn, himself a Lieutenant General and a top Pentagon official, delay sending national guard forces to defend the Capitol? Inquiring minds want to know!

This is not the first time I’ve written about that day. I doubt it will be the last. After the 9-11 attacks on New York’s World Trade Center and the Pentagon in Washington in 2001, Congress created a bipartisan, independent commission to investigate. For the January 6 attack on Congress itself, the Republicans demanded the same kind of investigation, fearful the Democrats might use a partisan investigation for political advantage.

Heaven forbid! Might Democrats try to politicize an investigation like the Republicans did, spending millions of dollars of taxpayer money investigating the murder of diplomats in Benghazi, right-wing myths about email servers in the Ukraine and the contents of a laptop belonging to a former aid of Hillary Clinton? Yes, heaven forbid.

Still, Democrats agreed. They gave Republicans equal power on the commission, even though they have the majority votes in Congress. They agreed to have the commission report before the end of the year to avoid having the commission’s findings become a topic of the 2022 elections. Those were the Republicans’ demands.

But true to their history, Mitch McConnell, Senate Republican Leader, and Kevin McCarthy, House Republican leader, reneged on their word. Given everything they demanded, they decided it wasn’t enough. But they offered no alternative. Declined to entertain any debate. Refused to consider amendments. In truth the Republicans only proved the theory that the party now stands for nothing at all. Except for the retention of power by whatever means necessary.

McConnell’s change of mind was no surprise. The man the Internet has branded “Moscow Mitch” has been playing the Democrats for fools for years, repeatedly adopting the position that no policy involving Democrats should ever be enacted. Still Democrats pursue bipartisanship. An unattainable goal. In imploring Republicans to vote no on the commission as a personal favor to him, McConnell accused Democrats of playing politics with the investigation. The most infuriating thing is that McConnell stands on the floor of the Senate and makes these statements without a hit of emotion and in the same, droll monotone with which he makes any other hypocritical statement.

McCarthy was a little more of a surprise. On January 6th he was heard on the telephone with Trump pleading for national guard assistance at a time when the lives of both the Vice-President and the Speaker were in danger. McCarthy will most likely be called as a witness in any investigation. But now, having gone down to Mar-a-Lago for a meeting with his lord and savior, he is now apparently ready to do whatever Trump demands. And Trump demands no investigation which just might accuse him of inciting a riot. The House passed the legislation by majority vote. One hundred and seventy-five Republicans voted no.

In the Senate the commission was supported by 54 of the 100 members. But because of the arcane filibuster rule in the Senate the bill died due to its failure to achieve a supermajority of 60 votes. Once again the Senate demonstrates how undemocratic American government truly is.

We did hear from the Democratic Senate leader, New York’s Chuck Schumer. Schumer was clearly angry, although you would never know it from his statement on the floor. I am amazed that we have sent two of the dullest and most soft spoken debaters to the top positions in the United States Senate. Neither McConnell nor Schumer seem to be able to make an argument that seems like an argument.

So the Republicans continue to avoid an investigation, intent it appears on covering up the events of January 6th. Better to help them maintain their alternative universe charade, where an election that has survived at least 60 formal legal challenges was somehow tainted and the Big Liar in Chief is still President of the United States.

What will be interesting now is how Democrats react. It would be nice if this is finally the straw that breaks Joe Manchin’s back, driving the nominal Democrat from West Virginia to support efforts to get rid of the filibuster. But I doubt it. Which almost certainly also means the progressive legislative agenda of Joe Biden has little chance of being enacted.

Hopefully the House will at least take up the reigns and create a select committee to investigate January 6. Since the 9-11 commission model was not acceptable to 2021 era Republicans, Democrats can now dust off the Republican’s anti-Hillary playbook and put it into action instead. I’d like to see the committee report come out in the summer of 2022, just in time to inform voters before the 2022 midterm election.

I’d also like to see the House pass the Biden agenda. Yes it will get filibustered in the Senate. But at least Democratic members can run for election by pointing out all the things they did for the benefit of the average voter and stressing how much more could have been done it the Republicans hadn’t blocked them at every turn. If voters can’t be convinced by those arguments, I don’t see much hope for the future.

#####

Just a Normal Day on Capitol Hill

Yeah, sure.

On May 12 Rep. Andrew S. Clyde (R-Ga.) downplayed the Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol, comparing the mob’s breaching of the building to a “normal tourist visit:”

“Watching the TV footage of those who entered the Capitol and walked through Statuary Hall showed people in an orderly fashion staying between the stanchions and ropes, taking videos and pictures…. You know, if you didn’t know the TV footage was a video from January the 6th, you would actually think it was a normal tourist visit.”

Rep. Andrew S. Clyde et. al. May 12 Congressional Hearing
Read more

Pay to Play: The American Way

Money has always been a big factor in American politics. You can’t outright pay politicians in return for their vote on an issue of interest to you. That’s bribery and it’s a crime. 18 U.S. Code § 201. But you can come very close. That’s because it costs a tremendous amount of money to run for public office and we leave it to the politicians to raise their own funds.

State-wide races for governor, state legislator, or U.S. House or Senate seats can cost hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars. A major state-wide campaign requires a hefty advertising budget and paid staff to handle things like communications, strategic planning, finances, and legal compliance.

So the holders of public office, from the smallest local post to the highest in the land, spend a great amount of their time raising money to finance their elections. In fact, both the Republican and the Democratic parties have offices located within walking distance of the Capitol. That’s because it is illegal for members to raise money from offices paid for by taxpayer dollars. The party offices contain phone banks and members are expected to put in time working those phones. Dialing for dollars as it were.

What does the donor get for those dollars? As previously stated it is not as crass as, “You make the donation and I’ll vote your way.” But it’s damn close. Consider this scenario: Two constituents are on the line, both want to talk to you about a piece of pending legislation. One is an individual wage earner who is barely making ends meet and either doesn’t contribute to your campaign fund at all or gives a token $25 each election cycle. The other is a professional lobbyist who represents a Fortune 100 company. That company contributes $250,000 each year to a political action committee which runs negative advertisements about your political opponent. Which call will you take?

The Curse of the First Amendment

It is, I must painfully admit, our wonderful First Amendment which is primarily responsible for this problem. While many countries have limits on how much money can be spent on political campaigns, and restrictions on how much money can be contributed, we have to cope with the wisdom of the framers who wrote:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

U.S. Constitution, First Amendment

There is little question that the right of free speech allows one to stand on the tallest soapbox one can find and speak in favor of one’s favorite political candidate. Or that the right of a free press allows journalists to write what they will about the candidates. And that right to petition the Government? That is the right both our individual constituent and the lobbyist were exercising in the example I described above.

Make no mistake about it. Political speech is exactly the kind of speech the framers were writing about when they drafted the First Amendment. This was the kind of speech that could get your head separated from your body if you uttered it back then in many of the countries of Europe and the reigning monarch happened to take offense. So for our long history as a nation political speech has been some of the most protected.

That makes it extremely difficult to restrict the political speech of individuals and does give the rich an advantage. They can afford to buy expensive television commercials and web advertisements promoting their favorite candidates and policies. At least, that’s how Mister Justice Gurvey sees it.

Citizens Dis-United

But I am unlikely to preside from any bench other than the one in my garden. And those who sit on the federal benches of the United States have a far more expansive view of first amendment freedoms. I read the Constitution to apply to the relationship between people, as in the opening words of the preamble, “We the People,” and their government. Our federal judges have thrown corporations into the mix by ruling that corporations are people.

To me the concept is absurd. Business entities that survive the lives of their owners were well known to the framers who wrote the Constitution. In fact, most of the colonies were themselves business entities in the form of royal charters or grants. If the framers wanted these business entities to have the rights of people they would have said so. They did not. And that should be that for any originalist, textualist, or whatever the term the judges on the conservative right like to cite. Except, that they want corporations to have the rights of people. So consistent judicial logic goes out the window and they wave the rules of textualism where failure to do so might lead to a legal result inconsistent with their overriding ideology. Thus speaks the hypocrite.

All of this came to a head in Citizen’s United v. Federal Elections Commission, a 2010 Supreme Court decision that eviscerated federal election law which Congress had developed over one hundred years and which put significant restrictions on corporate attempts to influence elections. Critics charge the effect has been to greatly increase the already outsized influence of corporations, wealthy donors, and special interest groups. And the Court isn’t finished. Just last month it heard Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Rodriquez, a case that may make the situation even worse.

The Confession of Ted Cruz

So if you want to play the “let’s write the laws” game you have to pay the law-writers. But while “Pay to Play” is, thanks to the Supreme Court, perfectly legal, there is still one rule most people follow: You pay to play but you don’t talk about Pay to Play. That’s because it looks bad, because it is bad. And politicians are afraid of looking bad. At least in front of the voters.

Unless of course you are Ted Cruz, a man so out of touch with reality, or just so dumb, that he just puts it out there. Texas’s answer to all three stooges recently wrote an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal complaining about corporations that are “woke.” By that he means, corporations like Coca-Cola, whose CEO James Quincey criticized voter suppression laws now being enacted in dozens of Republican controlled states saying he opposed “measures in the bills that would diminish or deter access to voting.” Quincey said Coke’s political action committee will not contribute to the campaigns of politicians who support these laws.

Well then, huffs and puffs Cruz, Senator guy who escaped for a vacation in Mexico while the people of his state were freezing during a power outage, if you don’t pay, don’t expect to play, Yes, Cruz supports voter suppression laws, and he tweeted:

There you have it. Pay to play. The Ted Cruz way.

#####

« Older Entries