Chris Cillizza misses one "bucket" but still makes very good points, prompted in part when
Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski appeared for a discussion earlier this week at the annual leadership summit of The Foraker Group at what the Anchorage Daily News described as "the state's largest gathering of nonprofit and tribal leaders."
(Note the accuracy: not "Indians" or "native Americans" but "tribal" individuals.)
The ADN emphasized Murkowski's comments regarding "the tumult of tariffs, executive orders, court battles, and cuts to federal services under the Trump Administration" or as the Senator herself put it, "the fatigue of the chaos." The Alaska Republican noted that the emerging House budget bill includes "devastating" cuts in Medicaid and health care reductions which would be a "nonstarter for me."
Nonetheless and understandably, national pundits emphasized Murkowski's comment
We are all afraid It's quite a statement. But we are in a time and a place where i certainly have not been here before. And I'll tell ya, I'm oftentimes very anxious myself about using my voice because retaliation is real. And that's not right.
This is consistent with the Senator's remarks in March when she stated
I'm going to take- take the criticism that comes and it may be- it may be that Elon Musk has decided he's going to take the next billion dollars that he makes off of Starlink and put it directly against Lisa Murkowski....
They're looking at how- how many things have been thrown at me and say "maybe I just better duck and cover." That's why you've got- why you've got everybody just like 'zip lip'- not saying a word because they're afraid they're going to be taken down; they're going to be primaried. They're going to be uh, they're going to be given names in the media.....
That would place Murkowski, whose recent remarks prompted this video by veteran Chris Cillizza, in "bucket" #2 cited by the veteran journalist/pundit.
Cillizza enumerates three buckets of GOP elected officials who do not speak out about Donald Trump . The first of these is comprised of individuals, most of whom rose in politics when or shortly after Trump did, who actually like the President. The second includes persons such as Murkowski who fear political retribution, who would be criticized and attacked by the President who, more importantly, would support a primary candidate against the incumbent.
Democratic professionals, elected officials, ex-officials, strategists, and- to a lesser extent- media figures emphasize the second group. Most of them not being stupid, they realize many GOP officials agree with Donald Trump but choose to believe Republicans are, in their very core, fine people. Given that the Democratic officials must work with those Republicans and that the media cannot offend them lest they refuse to appear before their cameras on their shows, their naivete/and or disingenuousness is nearly as understandable as it is lamentable.
Cillizza fails to recognize one significant group, or "bucket." Thee are many Republicans who disagree with the President and even recognize the harm he is doing to the country and to their own constituents but who realize their political viability is tied in with the credibility of their party Such credibility, unfortunately, is diminished when members of a political party squabble with each other- or even question their leader's direction.
Responsibility for that lies with the mainstream media. Journalists and broadcast personalities emphasize the divisiveness within the Republican or Democratic parties when politicians within that party aren't singing from the same hymnbook. It's portrayed as evidence of both uncertainty and weakness. Whether a sense of "we sink or swim together" or of sunk cost, a lot of Republicans believe that they're just in too deep to get out.
Nonetheless, it's far less consequential that Cillizza doesn't acknowledge this than his awareness of, even emphasis on, his third bucket.
Cillizza notes that some Republicans fear not only political retribution but physical retaliation. Speaking out (or of course, voting against) the President "subjects the member to the real possibility of physical violence." Intimidation obviously is an integral part of this, yet a "threat you don't hear about."
It's more a threat than a physical reality, Cillizza concedes. However, though largely disregarded in the media, the threats are now so clear and widespread that disastrous political violence is nearly inevitable. The hatred, viciousness, and cruelty are now ingrained in the right. So is the belief that the President of the USA, friend to January 6 criminals, who states that he is "retribution" and who asserts the right to violate any law he chooses would approve of virtually any action of theirs.
As recalled by mycentraljersey, the son of US District Judge Esther Salas was murdered when
On July 19, 2020, 72-year-old Roy Den Hollander, a self-proclaimed anti-feminist attorney who had a case before Salas, went to the family's home dressed as a delivery person with the intent of attacking the judge....
When both Daniel and his father, attorney Mark Anderl, answered the door, the gunman opened fire. Daniel was killed and his father was seriously injured.
Now, in a story largely ignored outside of the small portion of the small state in which the murder took place
Salas said at least a dozen pizzas have been delivered to judges across the country in her son's name.
The pizzas are being ordered online through chains like Pizza Hut, Papa John's and Domino's that allow cash on delivery, as well as DoorDash.
According to Salas, a colleague received back-to-back pizza deliveries at 10:30 p.m. one evening when family members were already asleep. She said the pizzas were sent in her son's name.
Salas views the deliveries as a strategic, coordinated plan with the goal of intimidating judges.
"Who is doing it, we don't know," said the judge who wants to see the people responsible brought to justice.
The "unprecedented attacks" on judges come as some Republican members of Congress and others with social media platforms have called for some judges to be impeached because they are ruling against the Trump administration.
Salas said the judges are being targeted because they are doing their jobs and are being called "rogue" and "corrupt" without any basis.
The seeds are planted and he signs are all around us for serious political violence. This Good Friday would be an appropriate time to apparatchiks of the tyrant are not well regarded by future generations.
Credit should be given to Republican senators Susan Collins
of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and Mitt Romney of Utah for deciding to
vote to confirm the nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson to the US Supreme
Court. The Washington Post noted that 47 Republicans had voted against
confirmation
But to three Republican senators, the narrative that Jackson
was a partisan extremist did not ring true. Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said
Jackson had the “experience, qualifications, and integrity” to merit
confirmation and, in backing Jackson, appealed to her colleagues to step back
from the partisan brinkmanship that has increasingly dominated Supreme Court
confirmations.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said much the same, decrying
the “corrosive politicization of the review process for Supreme Court nominees,
which, on both sides of the aisle, is growing worse and more detached from
reality by the year.” Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah), meanwhile, declared Jackson to
be “a well-qualified jurist and a person of honor.”
You can be forgiven if you believed those GOP votes were
pivotal, or even significant. Collins
made her announcement on March 30, thereby, as The Post noted, "becoming
the first Republican senator to publicly back President Biden’s nominee and all
but guaranteeing Jackson will become the first Black female justice in history.
"
The following Monday, Senator Murkowski announced that she
would vote for Jackson and Senator Romney followed a couple of hours later.
That was all for show.
The real news had come five days before Collins' statement when on March 25
Senator Joe Manchin announced
that he will vote for
Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to be confirmed to the Supreme Court, clearing the
way to an all-but-certain confirmation.
The West Virginia Democrat has become a pivotal vote in the
evenly divided Senate, as he often sides with Republicans, and his opposition
could have blocked Jackson from becoming the first Black woman to sit on the
bench.
President Biden needed support from all fifty Democrats,
thus ensuring approval of the nomination with the tie-breaking vote of
Vice-President Kamala Harris.
Harris was present on Wednesday to preside over the Senate
but her vote would not be needed because of support of the three GOP senators.
However, their vote became moot once Joe Manchin gave his thumbs-up. It was
only then that Senator Collins, followed by senators Murkowski and Romney,
decided to throw in with the majority and be on the winning side.
Republicans don't suffer apostates gladly. Of the GOP House
members who voted to impeach Donald Trump after January 6, 2020
in the year since the deadliest attack on the Capitol in
centuries, none of the 10 lawmakers have been able to avoid the consequences of
a fundamental miscalculation about the direction of their party. The former
president is very much the leader of the Republicans, and it is those who stood
against him whom the party has thrust into the role of pariah.
Since they cast their impeachment votes on Jan. 13,
Representatives Anthony Gonzalez of Ohio and Adam Kinzinger of Illinois have
announced their retirements amid death threats from voters and hostility from
colleagues. Representative Liz Cheney of Wyoming has gone from a star in the
House Republican leadership to an exiled party gadfly and truth teller.
Representatives Jaime Herrera Beutler of Washington, Peter
Meijer of Michigan and Fred Upton of Michigan have Trump-endorsed primary
challengers on their heels and uncertain political futures. Four others — John
Katko of New York, Dan Newhouse of Washington, Tom Rice of South Carolina and
David Valadao of California — have gone to ground, silent if not silenced, in
the apparent hope that the entire episode will be forgotten.
But what has been the reaction of politicians or voters of the Republican Party? Thus far, at least: crickets. Confirmation of Judge Jackson was, as Joe Biden would have put it at a younger age, "a big f-"- well, you know the rest. For the media and much of the Democratic base, it was a big deal because Ketanji Brown Jackson thus became the first black woman on the Supreme Court. For those less impressed by an individual's pigment or chromosomal makeup, it is because the Court has gained another liberal voice, and a highly impressive one at that.
Nonetheless, senators Collins, Murkowski, and Romney have not incurred criticism for breaking ranks with their party colleagues and the betting here is that they will face little or none. Those 47 other Republican senators and the GOP members of the House- including such luminaries as Lauren Boebert, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Matt Gaetz, and Paul Gosar- know the score. So does Donald J. Trump, who generally tolerates no disloyalty. They knew the die was cast when Joe Manchin decided to back Jackson.
It's likely that had Manchin declared opposition to the nomination, neither of the three Republican senators who voted for the judge would have done so. Any Republican who dared to cross the GOP leadership would have provided the Democrat's crucial 50th vote in the Senate, and none would have done so. Senator Manchin ultimately was responsible for three votes aside his own.
Having cast their irrelevant votes, Collins, Murkowski, and Romney will return to voting as right-wing party loyalists. Joe Manchin will continue to be Joe Manchin, who is no prize. But in the matter of filling out the Court with someone so worthy, the West Virginia senator did come up big as the 50th Senator Ketanji Brown Jackson, Joe Biden, and the country needed.
In announcing that she would vote against the Senate calling
witnesses, Sen. Lisa Murkowski suggested that her decision was made in part to
spare Chief Justice John Roberts from having to face a 50-50 tie, allowing him
to avoid a legal and political storm.
"It has also become clear some of my colleagues intend
to further politicize this process, and drag the Supreme Court into the fray,
while attacking the chief justice," the Alaska Republican said Friday
afternoon.
Her statement appeared to be a direct response to Sen.
Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, a Democratic presidential candidate who had
essentially forced Roberts to speculate about his credibility on national
television.
Warren had submitted a question for the chief to read:
"At a time when large majorities of Americans have lost
faith in government, does the fact that the chief justice is presiding over an
impeachment trial in which Republican senators have thus far refused to allow
witnesses or evidence contribute to the loss of legitimacy of the chief
justice, the Supreme Court and the Constitution?"
Roberts, as part of his prescribed duties, read Warren's
query from the dais. Word for word without expression.
Now it seems Warren's question was part of the reason
Murkowski came to a "no" vote.
Murkowski said, "We have already degraded this
institution for partisan political benefit, and I will not enable those who wish
to pull down another."
"I will not stand for nor support that effort,"
she said.
Lisa Murkowski would not stand nor support an effort to
embarrass Donald Trump and thus incur his wrath and ridicule. She also did not want to displease Mitch
McConnell and possibly jeopardize his campaign to load the federal judiciary
with right-wing judges. Once she learned that hers would have been the 50th
vote to allow witnesses in the Trump impeachment trial, the die was cast.
Still, Murkowski may have been rattled by Warren, who before
becoming a US Senator was appointed by President Obama as one of the five members
of the board overseeing the the Troubled Asset Relief Program. In September, Politico's Alex Thompson noted that with her monthly
mandatory reports
Warren surprised members of her own staff by producing
monthly videos of herself explaining each report. She and aides also created a
comprehensive website with a regularly updated blog. Commonplace now, these
digital tools weren't being used by many members of Congress in 2008....
Her most sensational moments, however, were when grilling
(Timothy) Geithner. The new secretary of the Treasury had been president of the
New York Federal Reserve in the lead-up to and during the worst of the
financial crisis. Obama believed Geithner’s selection would help ensure
stability across administrations while the financial system was on the brink of
disaster whereas Warren saw it as putting the people who helped create the
crisis in charge of solving it.
A former student once dubbed Warren’s teaching method as
“Socratic with a machine gun.” In 2009 and 2010, Geithner was at the end of the
barrel. Her questioning was so brutal at times that it stunned some of the
Republicans on the oversight panel.
This is not a public official who believes in going gently
into the good night.
In July 2011, nearly a year after he signed the Dodd-Frank
bill and after Warren had spent 10 months standing up the agency in a way that
impressed even some critics in the Treasury Department, Obama took the middle
ground. With Warren by his side, Obama nominated former Ohio Attorney General
Richard Cordray to lead the CFPB. That same day, progressives called on her to
run for Senate. Less than a month later, Warren began a “listening tour” in
Massachusetts to explore doing so. The field thinned and no other big-name
candidate stepped forward to challenge her. She promised she wouldn’t go back
to Washington just to be the “100th-in-seniority,
be-polite-and-make-no-difference senator from Massachusetts.”
It was always a long shot that Majority Leader McConnell
would allow even three members of his caucus to accept witnesses. But given it was a possibility, someone had
to fire a warning shot reminding the Chief Justice that the whole world was
watching. Even that might not have been
enough for him to weigh in to support a fair trial. If Lisa Murkowski wants to pretend that upset
her fragile feelings, so be it. She
wouldn't be the first public figure to learn that Elizabeth Warren will afflict
the comfortable as much as she will comfort the afflicted.
We don't know how the vote will proceed on the Corporate Tax Scam of 2017 once it's reconciled but as for now, good on you, Bob Corker. And John McCain gets a pass, even though he was captured because, well, because he was captured, tortured, and then he refused release. But....
as for you, Ben Sasse: candidate Donald J. Trump tweeted "@Ben Sasse looks more like a gym rat than a U.S. Senator. How the hell did he ever get elected?"
as for you, Marco Rubio: candidate Donald J. Trump tweeted "Little Marco Rubio the lightweight no show Senator from Florida is just another Wahington politician." (Rubio reportedly is 5'10"; the average American male, 5'9").
as for you, Rand Paul: candidate Donald J. Trump: Donald J. Trump tweeted "Why would anyone in Kentucky listen to failed presidential candidate Rand Paul re: caucus. Made a fool of himself (1%.) KY his second choice!" (Translation: "get rid of him, Kentucky voters.")
as for you, Ted Cruz: candidate Donald J. Trump tweeted "Wow, Lyin' Ted Cruz really went wacko today. Made all sorts of crazy charges. Can't function under presure- not very presidential! Sad!" (Also, he linked your father to assassination of John F. Kennedy.)
as for you, Lindsey Graham: candidate Donald J. Trump gave out your cell phone number and publicly called you an "idiot" and "lightweight." (In fairness, you have tried to prove him right.)
as for you, Dean Heller: President Trump at a White House luncheon quipped "You weren't there (on ACA repeal) but you're going to be." After the desired laughter, it was "Look, he wants to remain a senator, doesn't he?" (Nice little Senate seat you have there. Be a shame if something happened to it.")
as for you, Jeff Flake: President Trump tweeted "Great to see that Dr. Kelli Ward is runing against Flake Jeff Flake, who is WEAK on borders, crime and a non-factor in Senate. He's toxic!" ("WEAK on crime" from a guy accused of sexual assault (by conservative definition, not this one) at least twice and sexual harassment several times.)
as for you, Lisa Murkowski: President Trump tweeted "Senator @lisa murkowski of the Great State of Alaska really let the Republicans, our our country down, yesterday. Too Bad!" (Admittedly, a relatively mild rebuke for voting to uphold the ACA. He's a misogynist; of course he treats women differently than men.)
And so you have it. Forty-two Republicans, including the sainted Susan Collins, voting for the Corporate Tax Scam of 2017 because, as Graham and Rep. Chris Collins admitted, they're scared of their donors or, as Rubio revealed, it will create the pretext for going after Medicare and Social Security.
Then there were the other senators, who will give all manner of excuses. However, there is one thing certain: each was humiliated, receiving a boot up their rear end by Donald J. Trump. All of them now have voted to enhance the prestige and power of that same man by simultaneously voting for his unpopular tax cut plan and health care mandate repeal. There are eight GOP senators (seven if Lisa M. is generously excluded) who have no spine but like the feel of the Timberland up their rear end.
Rush Limbaugh recently took a break from inciting racial animosity among his followers for a lie about health care, as well as commentary about Lisa Murkowski reflective of the patriotic impulse of today's conservative Republicanism. And this in a week in which Rush graced the airwaves only thrice, turning the microphone over to right winger Mark Steyn Thursday and Friday.
On Monday, Limbaugh put words into the mouth (in itself a legitimate tactic) of Paul Krugman and remarked
".... We think we've succeeded in beating back this whole notion that there are death panels here," and of course anybody with any common sense knows that this is a dead ringer for the British health care system and rationing of health care, if this thing is not repealed, if it holds up.
The British health care system is called the National Health Service, established in the 1940s. It emphasizes preventive care which, even with passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will not be a hallmark of the American health care system. Aside from prescription care and dentistry, the NHS typically pays for health care services. If a public option (which Senator Barack Obama supported and President Barack Obama opposes) had been proposed and adopted, something similar would have been available for the few Americans who would have been eligible. Alas, at least in part as a sop to Republicans and moderate/conservative Democrats, it was not seriously considered. Some of those Republicans still attack it as "socialistic" and at least as big government run amok, and many of those Blue Dog Democrats have been unceremoniously rejected for admission to the next Congress.
Surely, British doctors would not recognize the health care reform Congress enacted. They are paid directly by the federal government, whereas doctors in the U.S.A. will continue to be paid privately, by patients and health insurance companies. Even single payer advocates never suggested, as Limbaugh could not have failed to notice, that doctors themselves be socialized.
And of course he noticed that direct payment of doctors was not advocated or implemented, Medicare and Medicaid remain the only competitors to the private insurance system, there is no public option, and single payer, endemic to the British system, is nowhere to be found in the colonies. Unlike in the U.S.A., where health care will remain predominantly in the private sector, care in England is socialized, as Limbaugh likely knows. It is, in all likelihood, precisely why the comparison was made to Britain; if Rush had compared "Obamacare" to health care in the Netherlands, which relies primarily on the private market, it would have clashed with Limbaugh's theme that Obama is trying to destroy the health care industry. Even by the standards of Rush Limbaugh, equating the two systems is brazenly dishonest.
Not as dishonest but arguably more revealing were Rush's comments this past week about the once and future senior Senator from Alaska, Lisa Murkowski. Once upon a time- even just a few years ago- it would have been unremarkable for a Republican or a Democrat to say of the President of the United States
I will tell you, I am not one of those who wants Obama to fail. If he does well, that means the country's doing well. We don't have time as a nation to spend all of what we do blocking. We have got to figure out how we get to a point where we can be sitting around the table and talking about these difficult problems and advancing some solutions.
Now, we have a conservative blogger remarking "In other words, Murkowski wants Obama to succeed — in destroying America" and Rush labeling Murkowski "stupid" because
how can someone even consider themselves a Republican, like Murkowski, and even run as a Republican when she's saying that if he succeeds or the things that he wants to do will succeed, then that will be good for the country?
It's heresy! Heresy, I say! for a Republican to say that she wants the President to succeed because that would mean the country is doing well. If that (apart from challenging the GOP nominee in a general election, which was not Limbaugh's point) makes a conservative Republican a RINO, it says more about Rush Limbaugh and the modern Republican Party than about Lisa Murkowski. A lot more.
