Mediaboss Marketing

Earlier this month, Team Trump claimed in court that their efforts to nullify Joe Bidens victory could not possibly have been fraudulent or be described as a criminal conspiracy, because those in and around the White House had merely been acting on the basis of sincerely held suspicions.

This sparked the latest round in the never-ending debate over whether or not Republicans actually believe that the election was stolen from them. Politically, it is important to push back against the opportunistic ways in which Republicans up and down the country have been using the big lie. But if we are trying to understand what is animating the rights rapidly accelerating radicalization against democracy, binary assumptions of Republicans as either true believers or power-hungry cynics are not very helpful and actually obscure more than they illuminate. In some fundamental way, Republicans are both. What we really need to grapple with is why so many Republicans are convinced the outcome of the election was illegitimate regardless of whether or not there were specific procedural irregularities.

Surveys have consistently indicated that a clear majority, probably about two-thirds, of Republicans consider Biden an illegitimate president. Its highly likely that many of them are well aware that some of the specific conspiratorial claims emanating from the right fake ballots? Lost ballots? Illegals voting? are bogus. But they dont seem to care about the specifics. They just believe Biden shouldnt be president.

What is most alarming is the underlying ideology that leads so many on the right to consider Democratic victories invalid even if they concede there was nothing technically wrong with how the election was conducted. It has become a core tenet of the Republican worldview to consider the Democratic party as not simply a political opponent, but an enemy pursuing an un-American project of turning what is supposed to be a white Christian patriarchal nation into a land of godless multiracial pluralism. Conversely, Republicans see themselves as the sole proponents of real America, defending the country from the forces of radical leftism, liberalism and wokeism.

Even if they dont subscribe to the more outlandish conspiracies propagated by Trumpists, many Republicans agree that the Democratic party is a fundamentally illegitimate political faction and that any election outcome that would lead to Democratic governance must be rejected as illegitimate as well. Republicans didnt start from an assessment of how the 2020 election went down and come away from that exercise with sincerely held doubts. The rationalization worked backwards: They looked at the outcome and decided it must not stand. In other words, accusations of fraud gain plausibility among conservatives not because of empirical evidence, but because they adhere to the higher truth of who is and who is not legitimately representing and therefore entitled to rule real America.

It is worth paying attention to how reactionary intellectuals have been dealing with the 2020 election. We certainly wouldnt expect Trump, most Republican officials, or the conservative base to devour rightwing treatises. As much as they would like to believe it, these reactionary thinkers are not leading the movement. But they tend to articulate the radicalizing authoritarian spirit that is threatening American democracy in strikingly stark terms. In this way, the rightwing intellectual sphere provides a crucial window into the energies and anxieties that are animating the right more broadly.

In March 2021, the magazine American Mind published a particularly instructive essay by Glenn Ellmers, entitled Conservatism is No Longer Enough. American Mind is a publication of the Claremont Institute, a rightwing thinktank in California that has become home to some of the most outrightly pro-Trumpian intellectuals. It is notable that Ellmers makes no claim that the 2020 election was stolen he doesnt allege manipulation, voter fraud, or conspiracy, and in fact explicitly acknowledges that more people voted for Biden than for Trump. He does not peddle conspiracy theories. Yet Ellmers maintains that the outcome of the 2020 election is illegitimate and must not be accepted.

According to Ellmers, Bidens presidency represents an un-American idea of multiracial pluralism something that is fundamentally in conflict with what he refers to as authentic America. In his view, everyone who voted for Joe Biden and his progressive project of narcotizing the American people and turning us into a nation of slaves is also un-American and therefore not worthy of inclusion in the body politic. Ellmers declares that most people living in the United States certainly more than half are not Americans in any meaningful sense of the term. Only authentic Americans are allowed in Glenn Ellmers United States a racialized idea of the people, most clearly represented by the vast numbers of heartland voters.

On the other side are un-American enemies, not coincidentally characterized by their blind admiration for a young Black artist: If you are a zombie or a human rodent who wants a shadow-life of timid conformity, then put away this essay and go memorize the poetry of Amanda Gorman. Ellmers racist, anti-pluralistic vision is remarkably radical: he wants to redraw the boundaries of citizenship and exclude over half the population.

Ellmers is outraged precisely because he accepts the fact that a majority voted for Biden, that authentic Americans have become the minority in a country which they are supposedly entitled to dominate. Here we have a striking glimpse of the depth of despair underlying the pervasive siege mentality on the right. Whats scandalous about the 2020 election, in this interpretation, is not that it was stolen, but that un-American forces straightforwardly won.

Reactionaries like Ellmers have internalized the idea that they represent a persecuted minority, fighting with their backs against the wall in a desperate effort to defend authentic America. They dispute the legitimacy of the 2020 election not necessarily on the basis of fraud and conspiracy but because democracy itself subverted the will of real America by allowing the wrong people too much of an influence on the fate of the country.

Trumps incessant lies represent a vulgar, clumsy, narcissistic strand of conspiratorial thinking; those lies are shared by some, opportunistically used by many, and widely accepted on the right because they adhere to a higher truth: we are entitled to rule in America. Thats what is behind the widespread support for, or willingness to accept, any kind of suspicion, regardless of whether or not there is any shred of empirical evidence. If an election doesnt result in us being in power, it must be illegitimate, as we are real America; if it puts them in charge, it cannot be accepted, as they are out to destroy the nation.

Whether or not Republicans actually believe conspiracy theories about the 2020 election, most are absolutely convinced the result was illegitimate and they are all too willing to use allegations of fraud or ally with conspiracy theorists if it helps prevent future illegitimate outcomes. It is precisely the mixture of deeply held ideological convictions of white Christian patriarchal dominance, of what real America is supposed to be and who gets to rule there, and the cynical opportunism with which these beliefs are enforced that makes the assault on democracy so dangerous.

Thomas Zimmer is a visiting professor at Georgetown University, focused on the history of democracy and its discontents in the United States, and a Guardian US contributing opinion writer

Go here to read the rest:
The real and far scarier reason Republicans think Biden is illegitimate - The Guardian

Rusty Roberts, former chief of staff for U.S. Congressman John Mica, has entered the race for his boss' old seat, bringing the total number of known Republican candidates to 12.

Florida's 7th District,held by Democrat Stephanie Murphy, will be vacant with her decision to retire from Congress. And redistricting is expected to shift the district from blue to red, with new boundaries crossing over into the southern half of Volusia County while also comprising all of Seminole County and a smaller portion of Orange County.

So it's attracted a slew of Republicans, including three who've proven to be prolific fundraisers: Brady Duke, who'd raised more than $900,000 by Dec. 31; Cory Mills, with nearly$760,000 at that point; and Anthony Sabatini, who'd gathered $733,000.

Florida redistricting: 3 burning questions about what lies ahead for Volusia, Flagler

Election year update: Florida redistricting dominoes begin to tumble, with Chase Tramont switching races

War back home: Volusia resident from Ukraine shares fears during interfaith prayer vigil in Deltona

Starting in March, months behind those and other candidates, Roberts istying his candidacy to his previous work on Capitol Hill as the top aide for 18 years to Mica, a 12-term congressman and former chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

I will be a congressman who works not just talks.My work with John Mica helped secure positive results for Seminole, Volusia and Orange counties," Robertssaid in a news release Tuesday.

Roberts listed a number of Mica's accomplishments, including:

Roberts also was chief of staff for former U.S. Rep Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Miami and for six years was South Florida director for former U.S. Sen.Paula Hawkins.

After Mica's upset loss to Murphy in 2016, Roberts has worked as a vice president for Brightline Trains, the private high-speed rail project linking Miami to Orlando. He sits as a Gov. Ron DeSantis appointee on the Florida Transportation Commission, overseeing the Florida Department of Transportation.

Here's a look at some of the other leading candidates:

Benfield, of DeBary, is a businesswoman and former DeBary City Council member and vice mayor. She ran unsuccessfully for Florida House District 27 in 2020. Born in Puerto Rico, she has lived on the mainland U.S. since age 6. She owns Florida Living Quarters, an interior design firm, and Design or List It, a real estate brokerage. She is married and has three children.

A former member of Navy SEAL Team One, Christian minister and law-enforcement trainer,Duke is the father of five children. He lives in Oviedo with his wife Julie. Duke served in the military from 2006 to 2015, deploying in Afghanistan in 2009 and 2010 as a sniper and breacher.

Mills, who lists a business office in Winter Park as his address on an FEC document, is a husband and father who served in the U.S. Army with deployments in Iraq, Afghanistan and Kosovo. He was injured, struck twice by explosives in 2006, and earned a Bronze Star. Following his service, Mills cofounded Pacem Solution International and Pacem Defense LLC with his wife, Rana. The contract service has provided risk assessments, intelligence and security abroad.

Sabatini, a lawyer from Howey-in-the-Hills, serves in the Florida House of Representatives in District 32, a Lake County seat. He is married and a captain in the Florida Army National Guard. Sabatini is known for attacking Republican Legislature leadership, calling House Speaker Chris Sprowls a "RINO" and filing bills including one proposing to prohibit transgender surgeries on children. His legal work includes numerous lawsuits against Florida local governments' emergency orders during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Other candidates who have filed, either with the Federal Election Commission or state Division of Elections, include:

Allek Pastrana of Orlandois the only Democrat to file with the state.

Never miss a story: Subscribe to The Daytona Beach News-Journal using the link at the top of the page.

View post:
Crowded field emerges for 7th Congressional District, expected to include southern Volusia - Daytona Beach News-Journal

Eight Republicans voted against legislation to revoke normal trade relations with Russia over its invasion of Ukraine in a Thursday vote.

The eight were on the other end of a lopsided 424-8 vote to punish Moscow with the removal of normal trade relations. The legislation would raise tariffs on imports from Russia and Belarus, which has backed Moscow's bombardment of Ukraine.

It would also givePresident BidenJoe BidenEx-Trump personal assistant appears before Jan. 6 panel Defense & National Security Russia sends warnings to the West On The Money Feds propose new disclosure rule for public companies MORE power to impose even stricter taxes on their goods.

The eight GOP "no" votes were Reps. Marjorie Taylor GreeneMarjorie Taylor GreeneGOP efforts to downplay danger of Capitol riot increase The Memo: What now for anti-Trump Republicans? Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene says she's meeting with Trump 'soon' in Florida MORE (Ga.),Matt GaetzMatthew (Matt) GaetzHere are the eight Republicans who voted against ending normal trade relations with Russia Congress must strengthen protections against insider trading by its members and their families Far left, far right find common ground opposing US interventionism MORE (Fla.), Lauren BoebertLauren BoebertHere are the eight Republicans who voted against ending normal trade relations with Russia 16 House Republicans vote against bill to promote education on internment camps Five things to watch for during Zelensky's address to Congress MORE (Colo.),Thomas MassieThomas Harold MassieHere are the eight Republicans who voted against ending normal trade relations with Russia 16 House Republicans vote against bill to promote education on internment camps Far left, far right find common ground opposing US interventionism MORE (Ky.),Andy Biggs (Ariz.),Dan Bishop (N.C.),Glenn GrothmanGlenn S. GrothmanHere are the eight Republicans who voted against ending normal trade relations with Russia Far left, far right find common ground opposing US interventionism The 17 lawmakers who voted against the Russian oil ban MORE (Wis.) andChip RoyCharles (Chip) Eugene RoyHere are the eight Republicans who voted against ending normal trade relations with Russia 16 House Republicans vote against bill to promote education on internment camps Congress must strengthen protections against insider trading by its members and their families MORE (Texas).

All eight Republicans in the House who voted against the anti-war measure have made it a point to stand out in the far-right wing of the GOP and have been holding tight to former President TrumpDonald TrumpOhio GOP Senate candidates tout MAGA bona fides at debate Ex-Trump personal assistant appears before Jan. 6 panel GOP sounds alarm bells over Greitens allegations MORE as he plots a potential run for president in 2024.

Greene, in a video posted online, said she couldn't support the U.S. intervention in the war because Americans have more pressing issues.

If we truly care about suffering and death on our television screens, we cannot fund more of it by sending money and weaponry to Ukraine to fight a war they cannot possibly win," she said. "The only effect, more arms and more money from America will be to prolong the war and magnify human suffering."

She bemoaned the attention that Ukraine has received as the Kremlin's attacks have escalated.

"All were hearing is potential war with Russia over Ukraine," she said on the House floor. "Ukraine is not a NATO member ally and President Biden had told them we would only be standing with our NATO member allies."

The vote came just after Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky made a virtual plea to Congress for more assistance, as thousands have died in the ongoing war.

Massie said on Twitter that he thought the legislation granted too much power to the president to sanction other countries.

Gaetz last month expressed frustration over Americans providing financial assistance for the war.

"Why should Americans have to pay the costs for freedom elsewhere when our own leaders won't stand up for our freedom here?" Gaetz said during the Conservative Political Action Conference in Orlando, Fla.

View post:
Here are the eight Republicans who voted against ending normal trade relations with Russia | TheHill - The Hill

WASHINGTON Republicans are intensifying their attacks on Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson after weeks of publicly reserving judgment on President Bidens Supreme Court nominee, ahead of historic hearings on the first Black woman to be put forward as a justice.

Republican leaders, wary of engaging in a potentially racially charged spectacle that could prompt a political backlash, have promised a more dignified review of the latest Supreme Court candidate, after a series of bitter clashes over the court. But in recent days, with the approach of the Senate Judiciary Committees hearings on her nomination that begin on Monday, their tone has shifted.

Last week, Senator Josh Hawley, a Missouri Republican who sits on the panel and will question Judge Jackson, claimed his review of her judicial record had determined that she had been lenient in sentencing some sex offenders and those convicted of possessing child pornography. He also suggested that, as a member of the United States Sentencing Commission, she worked to reduce penalties for those caught with child pornography. A detailed background paper prepared for the Judiciary Committee made a similar case.

At the same time, Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the minority leader, has doubled down on his suggestion that Judge Jacksons experience as a public defender could influence her view of the law and lead her to favor criminal defendants.

Her supporters look at her rsum and deduce a special empathy for criminals, Mr. McConnell said in a lengthy floor speech in which he argued that her work on behalf of the accused was a blot on her record. I guess that means that government prosecutors and innocent crime victims start each trial at a disadvantage.

The increasingly hostile critiques of Judge Jackson suggest that her confirmation hearings might not be the sober, drama-free proceeding that many had anticipated when she was nominated to replace Justice Stephen G. Breyer, who has announced he will retire at the end of the courts current term this summer.

Her confirmation would not change the ideological composition of the court, which is tilted 6-3 toward conservatives. And Judge Jackson has previously been confirmed three times by the Senate for two judgeships and a spot on the sentencing commission. Nothing surfaced on those occasions to impede her approval. Republicans concede she has the legal experience and educational qualifications for the lifetime position.

Mr. Hawley, who is regarded as a potential Republican presidential contender and has not voted for a single Biden administration judicial nominee, was never considered a likely supporter of Judge Jackson. Still, his detailed takedown of her record on sex crimes has generated concern among Democrats, who worry it could deter some Republicans who are considering supporting her, or even rattle some senators in their own party, all of whom will likely be needed to win confirmation.

The White House and Senate Democrats have pushed back forcefully, accusing Mr. Hawley of intentionally disseminating misleading information and taking material out of context to paint a distorted picture of Judge Jacksons record.

Attempts to smear or discredit her history and her work are not borne out in facts, said Jen Psaki, the White House press secretary.

Administration and Senate officials say that Judge Jacksons sentences in pornography cases were at or above recommendations from probation officials and comparable to what other federal judges were handing down under guidelines that were considered badly outdated. They also point to her strong support from law enforcement groups and prominent police officials.

Those individuals would be surprised to learn that they are supposedly soft on crime, said Andrew Bates, a White House spokesman who has been working on the confirmation. He called Mr. Hawleys allegations toxic and weakly presented misinformation that relies on taking cherry-picked elements of her record out of context and it buckles under the lightest scrutiny.

As for the criticism of the sentencing commission, the White House and Senate Democrats note that the sentencing recommendations it made during Judge Jacksons tenure were approved unanimously by the bipartisan panel, with members appointed by presidents of both parties and ultimately accepted by Congress.

One Republican-appointed member of the panel who served with Judge Jackson, Judge William H. Pryor Jr., the chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, confirmed that the recommendations of the commission were almost uniformly supported by all its members as the panel sought to eliminate disparities and improve sentencing.

We worked by consensus, and that is the tradition of the sentencing commission,, he said in an interview. Virtually all of our votes were unanimous and data-driven.

Judge Jacksons service as a federal public defender, and her work for some detainees held at the U.S. prison at Guantnamo Bay, Cuba, was always going to be an issue in her confirmation. But Mr. Hawleys accusation added a new element to the debate, focusing more on her time as a federal district court judge and a member of the sentencing commission. Other Republican members have said they intend to pursue the issue with Judge Jackson.

The days of broad bipartisan support for Supreme Court nominees are long gone, but Democrats have held out hope that Judge Jackson could get at least a handful of Republican votes given her experience and the possibility that some would want to be counted in support of placing a Black woman on the court.

But just three Republicans backed her last year when she was confirmed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and persuading senators to support a candidate for a higher court after opposing her for a lower one is a difficult task.

Still, Judge Jackson, with her White House entourage in tow, has engaged in a charm offensive in the Senate, meeting with 44 senators of both parties and all 22 members of the evenly divided Judiciary Committee.

Democrats have been effusive in their praise and support of Judge Jackson, calling her an ideal candidate for the court with the capacity to work with other justices to try to develop more consensus rulings.

Republicans who have met with her report privately that she is very engaging, presents a memorable life story of achievement and speaks admiringly of Justice Antonin Scalias view that judges should interpret, not make the law. But they say they have also been frustrated by her unwillingness to lay out a specific judicial philosophy and her refusal to take a stance on whether the Supreme Court should be expanded, as progressive groups have proposed.

She will be pressed on those subjects and many more during questioning by senators on Tuesday and Wednesday, after a session on Monday in which each of them will deliver statements, Judge Jackson will be introduced, and she will make opening remarks.

Despite the historic nature of her nomination, Supreme Court confirmations have become intense struggles, and the recent shift in tone among Republicans suggests this weeks proceedings could be no different.

Given the increasing role of the court in settling political and social questions, activists on both sides of the ideological spectrum are deeply invested in its makeup. Democrats are still livid at Republicans blockade of Merrick B. Garland, President Barack Obamas 2016 nominee to the court, and the rapid manner in which they rammed through the confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett, former President Donald J. Trumps pick, just before he lost the 2020 election.

Republicans remain irate about the confirmation hearings for Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, which were marred by allegations of sexual assault.

Against that backdrop, Senate veterans say a fight over Judge Jackson is probably inevitable.

It's a fact that we are now living in very partisan times, said Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois and the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, who will for the first time be overseeing a high court confirmation.

More:
On Eve of Confirmation Hearings, G.O.P. Steps Up Attacks on Jackson - The New York Times

If a new coronavirus variant surges in the United States this yearperhaps the one currently tearing through Europetheres a reasonable chance that the country will be unprepared to fight it. You can thank Congress for that.

Last week, lawmakers passed a massive spending bill without any additional funding for COVID-19 relief, despite White House pleas for more. Democrats would like to fulfill the administrations request. But Republicans have taken the position that Congress has already done enough. We dont need COVID funding, GOP Representative Randy Feenstra of Iowa told me. Most people would say were done. We have more issues with inflation than COVID right now.

Politically, Republicans feel safe making this argument. New cases of COVID have been decreasing for weeks, and hospitalizations are on the decline too. Most cities that had mask mandates have gotten rid of them. Many Americans tell pollsters that theyre ready for the country to move on; people are focused on other issues, such as Russias war in Ukraine and rising gas prices. But more than 1,000 people are still dying every day from COVID. Experts predict that the new BA.2 subvariant could be the dominant strain in the United States in a matter of weeks.

Read: Another COVID wave is looming

In other words, refusing to approve new funding is a risk. People want us to be prepared in advance and stabilized, the Democratic pollster Celinda Lake told me. Republicans are voting against both. If COVID gets much worse over the next few months, Democrats will rush to blame the GOP, especially if Republican members strike down a stand-alone vote on COVID relief. Theyre forcing a situation thats going to make it worse for them in November, Lake said. Of course, by election season, a spring debate over COVID funding will be a distant memory. If a new variant has overwhelmed the country by then, the partisan discourse will probably center on mask mandates and vaccines instead. Perhaps Republicans are right to bet that voters wont punish them for blocking new funding.

Republicans were skeptical about approving more money to combat the virus; theyd suggested that the government simply repurpose any funds that states hadnt yet spent (but may have already earmarked). After many Democrats balked at this idea, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stripped COVID aid from the funding bill entirely, hoping to deal with it separately later. Democrats may soon try to pass COVID relief as a stand-alone bill, but the chances of getting it through the tied-up Senate are slim.

The White House is now warning that as soon as next week, the government will have to cut shipments of monoclonal-antibody treatments by a third, as my colleague Ed Yong wrote earlier this week. By next month, it wont be able to reimburse health-care providers for treating uninsured Americans with COVID. By the summer, itll have to cut funds for test manufacturers. Perhaps most crucially, itll scale back global vaccination efforts that would help keep new variants from emerging.

Democrats want to answer the White Houses call, though theyre divided on how to do it. Some members are a bit more closely aligned with Republicans, and would prefer to take an accounting of current COVID funds and redirect them to fulfill the White Houses needs. There is a lot of money sloshing around, Representative Elissa Slotkin of Michigan told me. People understand the desire to sweep unspent funds; I just want that conversation to be fair. Others, mainly progressives, support new spending, and even authorizing emergency funds for COVID relief. We just put enormous amounts of money into defense spending for Ukraine, Representative Pramila Jayapal of Washington, the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, told me. Were literally asking for very little money here to deal with this global pandemic.

Republicans, on the whole, believe that Congress has already spent enough money combatting COVID in the past two years. Everybody obviously is tired of all this, and I dont mean that in a dismissive way, Representative Tom Cole of Oklahoma told me. The administrations requests are legitimate, but we have the money; we dont need to go deeper into debt. Using up resources that have already been allocated is more important, GOP members argue. When I asked Representative Ron Estes of Kansas whether the possibility of a surge in cases due to a new variant would change Republicans views on funding, he told me that its one of those things that well have to see how it plays forward. Estes also suggested that more Americans have natural immunity now, after so many contracted the most recent Omicron variant.

Read: Bidens uncertainty principle

To pass COVID relief on its own, rather than tucked into some larger package, Democrats would likely have to pair any new funding with spending cuts elsewhere to get it through both chambers of Congress. All epidemics trigger the same dispiriting cycle, Yong wrote earlier this week. First, panic: As new pathogens emerge, governments throw money, resources, and attention at the threat. Then, neglect: Once the danger dwindles, budgets shrink and memories fade.

In Washington, D.C., the easiest thing to do is nothing. If lawmakers fail to pass any more money for testing or research or monoclonal-antibody treatments before another variant is raging through the United States, their neglect wont be a surprise. But their panic might come too late.

Link:
Republicans Think They Can Win the COVID Funding Fight - The Atlantic