If That Were True….

There are moves afoot, mostly Republican-originated, to amend State constitutions and to otherwise pass legislation that would explicitly allow only US citizens to vote in US elections. A House Administration Committee on American Confidence in Elections: Preventing Noncitizen Voting and Other Foreign Interference explicitly addressed that question at the national level. Progressive-Democratic Party politicians opposed, loudly, the effort. Congressman Joe Morelle (D, NY) was especially vociferous.

This hearing is about preemptively covering Donald Trump’s lies. The hearing isn’t about law and order. It’s about laying the foundation for the next big lie. It’s about saying that illegal voting is the cause of an election defeat.

Congressman Terri Sewell (D, AL) added to the cacophony, insisting that no non-citizens were voting in US elections anyway.

To the extent Sewell is right, then while the proposed explicit blocks on non-citizen voting wouldn’t change much, neither would they do any harm, and they could be useful in preventing some future illegal voting problems.

Regarding the larger matter, Morelle’s objection, it would seem especially useful for Progressive-Democrats to enthusiastically get behind the efforts and speed them along. Surely eliminating a major basis for objecting to election outcomes, for claiming election thefts, and the like would be good for the Progressive-Democratic Party and the perception of legitimacy for those Party politicians who do get elected.

Presidential Debates in 2024

Karl Rove wants a return to simplicity:

A return to simplicity would mean fewer diversions….

His idea for achieving this:

The first presidential debates between the parties’ nominees, Kennedy and Nixon in 1960, were done in small TV studios. Only the moderator, a panel of journalists, and a handful of network executives were present.

Except in 1960, the press wasn’t nearly so biased as it is today—and nakedly, proudly so today.

And a pressman moderator? Recall even in the 2015-16 Republican primary debates, how blatantly Moderator Wolf Blitzer, during that debate’s Audience Question Time, took the question that an audience member asked on national television and completely distorted it into something that Blitzer wanted asked instead.

Rove’s idea isn’t particularly balanced in its simplicity.

On the other hand, it’s hard to see how much simpler it could get than a two-hour debate in a town hall setting with Trump and Biden, and RFK, Jr, if he’d be willing to show up; Each debater would take turns taking questions from the audience that each debater then would answer. There would be no moderator from the press to screen the questions; the debaters would simply take their chances on selecting an audience member to ask his/her question.

The two hours would give the viewers and the town hall audience ample opportunity to evaluate policies on offer (if any); the ability of each debater to concretely answer the question asked, even to stick to each question’s subject over the two-hour course; and the ability of each debater to remain focused and clear for the duration.

Then do at least two more such town hall debates. Trump wants more debates than just the three the Commission on Presidential Debates, in its irrelevance, wants; it’d be interesting to learn how many of the other parties’ candidates would be amenable—and who those candidates would be.

Trusting the Department of Justice

The level of trust is such that several States are explicitly barring DoJ personnel from those States’ polling places in the November general elections.

When the DOJ announced that it was sending election monitors to polling sites in multiple states for the 2022 midterm elections, Florida and Missouri said that the department employees would not be permitted to observe the polls. Now, eight other states have said that they will also not allow DOJ election monitors to enter polling sites during the election this November, with some saying that banning them prevents federal interference in elections.

Unfortunately, those States are entirely justified in barring officials of a “Justice” Department that accuses traditional Catholics of being right-wing extremists and treats mothers objecting to wokeism in their children’s schools as domestic terrorists, and that routinely lies to the FISA court in its pursuit of surveillance warrants against American citizens, that pursues cases in Article III courts seeking to overturn voter-protection laws, and that has run guns to Mexican drug cartels.

It’s also the case that today’s Progressive-Democrat nominated and populated DoJ is substantially the same as the post-2008 elections Progressive-Democrat nominated and populated DoJ (the names are different, but the bias and the ideology are the same) that refused to prosecute two members of the New Black Panther Party who were engaged in armed voter intimidation at the entrance to a Philadelphia polling station.

This is an indication of how far the believability of the DoJ has deteriorated.

“We are the source of truth for most questions about the elections we run.”

Maricopa County election officials and the Arizona Secretary of State are colluding with social media to control what gets said about elections and election procedures in the county. But do not fear, it’s for the voters’ own good.

The offices of both the Maricopa County recorder and the Arizona secretary of state work together with third parties to censor social media content that they believe is mis- and disinformation, including drawing up plans to ban social media users from the county social media accounts and using influencers to spread their message, according to public records obtained from both Maricopa County….

The Gavel Project obtained a number of documents from the county and from the State SecState that make this plain.

Some of those documents amply the breathtaking arrogance of the county and SecState officials and their just as appalling contempt for the average Americans resident in Maricopa County. Here’s Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer:

I posit that the gravest threat to voting rights and our elected form of government is no longer the systematic disenfranchisement of a particular class of people, but instead the undermining of the entire election system through lies and disinformation. And it is in this respect, that the Constitution today is in some ways a thorn in the side of my office. Specifically the First Amendment.

Maricopa County Board of Supervisors Chairman Bill Gates:

We are the source of truth for most questions about the elections we run.

Trust us. We’re from the government.

Presidential Debates

Former President Donald Trump (R) not only wants Presidential candidate debates, he wants them to occur much earlier than they have in prior campaign seasons.

The Trump campaign has asked the Commission on Presidential Debates to schedule the anticipated matchups between him and President Joe Biden earlier in the election cycle, signaling Trump’s willingness to work the panel on date and venue.

I agree, with a caveat.

Trump shouldn’t give the CPD much time to agree to an accelerated schedule. If they don’t meet an appropriately nearby deadline to get earlier debates scheduled, or if Progressive-Democrat President Joe Biden won’t agree to the schedule, or won’t agree to debate at all, then the Trump campaign should schedule the debates, including the venue (my preference here would be town hall style venues, with the majority of questions coming from the audience).

In addition to that, the Trump campaign should invite Robert Kennedy, Jr, Cornell West, Marianne Williamson (who has reactivated her campaign), and Jill Stein to the debates. If any of them decline to participate, then the Trump campaign should place empty barstools (that being the preferred seating arrangement at townhalls) labeled with the names of the candidates who didn’t want to appear.

And then proceed with the debates.