NPR Politics Podcast, in the show notes for the August 30, 2024 episode:

In this episode we incorrectly say the veterans’ organization Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) called Donald Trump’s remarks related to a confrontation at Arlington National Cemetery “asinine.” In fact, the VFW described Trump’s previous remarks in which he described the Presidential Medal of Freedom as superior to the Congressional Medal of Honor as asinine.

Glad they cleared that up.

Arelis R. Hernández, writing at The Washington Post:

[Mary Ann] Obregón was one of four Latina women, three of whom were in their 70s and 80s, who said they were intimidated by the morning visits from armed investigators while they were still in their pajamas. Lidia Martinez, an 87-year-old retired educator, and Inelda Rodriguez, 73, a Dilley City Council member, were forced to turn over their phones and laptops.

“It was horrible, gestapo-style,” said Martinez, who added that investigators spent three hours searching her drawers and garage during the raid. “I thought we lived in a free country, not Russia.”

This is absolutely vile, in every conceivable way. It’s voter intimidation at its most glaring.

Coincidentally, I’m sure, Texas has seemingly moved to “Leans Republican” from “Likely Republican” according to 270toWin.

Hernández, again: 

State investigators tied to state Attorney General Ken Paxton’s office executed search warrants last week at homes across three counties, as part of what Paxton said was a two-year investigation of alleged fraud and vote harvesting.

The Republican officeholder said in a statement that his office had “sufficient evidence” to confiscate cellphones, laptops and documents. Paxton’s office targeted a Democratic legislative candidate in a swing district important to state Republicans, her political consultant, campaign workers, a local mayor and a city council member in raids on their small-town homes.

Paxton—impeached but acquitted by his fellow Texas Republicans—is considered a possibility for U.S. Attorney General in a second Trump administration. This is part of an ongoing audition for that job, and an indication of how the Justice Department will likely operate if Trump wins.

There’s this small moment, right at the end of last night’s Democratic National Convention, which tells me so much about Kamala Harris. A little kid comes over to say hi to her and her husband, Doug.

Her husband gives the kid a solid, perfectly acceptable handshake, treating them as an adult.

Kamala stoops down to the kid’s level and makes direct eye contact, treating them as an equal. She even has a few words for the kid, then gives a little pinch of the chin.

It’s a subtle moment. Beautiful, empathetic, and, I’m guessing, instinctive. She clearly loves being around kids. Maybe this is why Gen-Z loves her.

Eighteen years of Downfall parodies have led to this. Every line is a political evisceration. It’s absolutely savage, because it’s easy to imagine a conversation uncomfortably close to this happening in Trump camp.

(Via sundaedivine.)

Madiba K. Dennie, writing in Balls and Strikes:

In July 2022, a high school graduation party in upstate New York turned into a melee. Police officers arrived on the scene after receiving reports of multiple fights. Then, a partygoer walked right up to the cops and introduced herself. “I’m Erin Gall,” she said. “I’m a Supreme Court judge.”

Dennie’s story from a few days ago focuses, rightly, on the abusive and abhorrent behavior of the judge, and that, based on her conduct, she should lose her job.

She pressured the officers to arrest four Black teenagers, saying she “might have to call the chief of police” if the cops didn’t comply. She insulted the Black kids’ intelligence, saying that they “don’t look like they’re that smart” and were “not going to business school, that’s for sure.”….

She also threatened to shoot the teens, claiming that she was allowed to do so to trespassers. “I’ll shoot them on the property,” Gall said. (It is important to note here that the property was not even hers.)

New York State doesn’t have a “stand your ground” law. In fact, it has a “duty to retreat” law, except when an attacker is in your home, or in cases of robbery, burglary, kidnapping, and sexual assault. None of which applied here. Not only does she seem to be racist and biased, it appears she’s not even a competent judge.

The full complaint against Gall is absolutely jaw dropping and well worth reading; it goes into full detail on the depth of her rage and privilege that evening.

She absolutely deserves to lose her judgeship, and any cases which ever came before her involving police or Black people should probably be reviewed, if not tossed outright.

Yes, her behavior is that appalling.

But can we take a moment to acknowledge the responding officers?

Dennie writes,

The cops, who I assume are the most self-aware police officers in the tri-state area, resisted Gall’s directives.

I think she massively undersells this. When cops show up, they often escalate an already tense situation, often with deadly results.

Not these cops. These officers were calm, polite, helpful. They shut down the racist, violent rhetoric coming from the judge and her family and friends. They were solicitous toward the young Black men who were the focus of her diatribes. They wished everyone safe rides home, and it sounded like they meant it.

They were everything we’re told police officers are supposed to be.

Early in the video, as he clears everyone out, an officer approaches two of the young Black men who were part of the altercations. The officer immediately expresses concern that one of the guys may be hurt, reaching out to touch the guy’s shoulder and face. He asks if he needs medical attention, suggests the injury may need stitches, and calls someone over to help. He then asks what happened; the second young man moves closer, and starts to explain, with an opening caveat:

Officer, officer, I don’t want you think I’m touching you or nothing—

He does this with his hands raised, arms bent at the elbow, palms out. The gesture is unmistakable: I’m harmless, no need to fear me. Hands up, don’t shoot.

The officer responds immediately:

Nah, nah, you’re alright.

Immediate de-escalation.

Toward the end of the evening, as the last people are leaving, there’s this exchange between a young Black woman in her car, and the officer:

Woman: Have a good night, officer. Thank you for being respectful.

Officer: It’s the only way.

Attendee: Definitely.

You can hear the appreciation, verging on relief, in her voice as she drives off.

Imagine if all police were this self-aware.

Pretty good introductory video (community, Nebraska, military service, teacher, football coach, common good…), but it’s this Instagram video with his daughter, Hope, that I find is absolutely endearing.

I noted earlier, of VP Harris’s VP selection:

The pick was announced on Instagram first, a full ten minutes before it was released on X/Twitter. This is good. Politicians (and others) need to deemphasize Musk’s awful site when breaking news.

Jason Sattler, AKA LOLGOP, guest posting on framelab:

Go “Twitter Last.” Campaigns from Harris for President on down should clarify that they will post to Twitter only after updating other platforms. Steering the media away from Twitter helps democracy. Announcing you will make news elsewhere will send reporters and users to these other platforms, as will every announcement the media makes that says, “As the campaign noted on BlueSky…” etc. Political strategist Murshed Zaheed calls this going “Twitter Last.” A huge announcement – like naming a vice presidential nominee – would be a great time to try this strategy.

This has been on my mind since President Biden announced his decision to step down as the nominee, and to endorse VP Harris, on X/Twitter. I’m glad to see Harris “took” the advice.

Sattler summarizes the problem with using X/Twitter:

There has never been a threat to democracy quite like Elon Musk. Now is a great time to stop helping him.

Announcing on X/Twitter, or even just using it, gives power to a platform and a person very much biased against democracy. As Sattler explains, the issue is Musk himself:

The Tesla CEO emerged as the most prominent supporter of Donald Trump who isn’t on the Supreme Court (or isn’t Vladimir Putin). And no one has taken Kamala Harris’s exuberant rise worse than Elon. Possibly not even Trump.

Musk’s weaponization of Twitter in the information war worsens daily, using tactics pioneered by Trump.

So why do politicians, pundits, and journalists remain—and break news—on X/Twitter? Inertia, says Sattler:

Let’s be honest. For many people, Twitter is the “sunk-cost social network” for those who don’t want to learn a new platform or give up the following or news feed they may have spent more than a decade building.

He notes:

Unfortunately, despite its dwindling audience, Twitter remains a hub for many of the nation’s top journalists, celebrities, and influencers. Their credibility heightens Musk’s unprecedented perch in society. He’s a mogul as powerful as Rupert Murdoch with a voice louder than any cable news pundit.

In January 2023, Dan Gillmore wrote that Journalists (And Others) Should Leave Twitter. Here’s How They Can Get Started; his advice for journalists holds for politicians too, and for anyone who wants to loosen the grip of Elon Musk on our global discourse.

It’s doesn’t really matter whether you join Mastodon, Bluesky, or Threads; pick one or two, and find your people. I’ve settled on Mastodon, but I have Bluesy and Threads accounts too. The more people who depart X/Twitter, the less mass remains to keep people there, and the better we’ll be long term.

Dan Pfeiffer, writing in The Message Box:

The political logic of the Walz pick is less obvious than with Shapiro and Kelly, the other two finalists. This is especially true with Shapiro, a very popular governor from the critical state of Pennsylvania. Harris likely has no path to the White House without Pennsylvania.

And:

In picking Walz, Kamala Harris looked at something broader than winning one state. She sought a running mate to help her in all seven battleground states. Winning Pennsylvania alone is not enough to get to the White House. Presidential politics is more chess than checkers, and choosing Walz is evidence that Kamala Harris is looking at the whole board.

Lest we forget, the queen is the most powerful piece in chess.

Kamala Harris, via her Instagram account:

I am proud to announce that I’ve asked @timwalz to be my running mate.

A great pick.

It wasn’t the expected choice, although it seemed more likely after calling MAGA folks “weird”, a word that’s stuck, is driving the other side bonkers, and shows he can be an “attack dog” without being “nasty”. I’m sure it raised his profile tremendously.

He seems as midwest as midwest can be, with a definite “everyone’s favorite uncle” vibe, which balances Harris’s “cool Cali auntie” chic. It helps, too, that he’s won in areas that have strong a Republican electorate who might have stayed home this cycle.

Walz also compares remarkably well against J.D. Vance. In some ways, it’s feels like “Actually Midwest” vs. “Hollywood’s image of Midwest.”

I can’t wait for the vice presidential debate.

(Worth noting: The pick was announced on Instagram first, a full ten minutes before it was released on X/Twitter. This is good. Politicians (and others) need to deemphasize Musk’s awful site when breaking news.)

From AWilderDoctor on X/Twitter. (I don’t like linking to X/Twitter, but this one was too good.)

The painting is Blue Monday, by the late Annie Lee.

It’s an evocative use of this painting as a Black, South Asian woman is asked to defend democracy, and tens of thousands of Black women from across the country wearily but resolutely rise with her.

(Via NAACP.)

I originally planned to post this over the weekend, as an example of the vice president’s ability to energize and engage a crowd. The audience loved her. They riffed together. Her energy, passion, and, yes, charisma shone through.

My headline was going to be More of Vice President Harris Speaking, Please.

That will no longer be an issue.

Dorothy Thompson, Harper’s Magazine:

It is an interesting and somewhat macabre parlor game to play at a large gathering of one’s acquaintances: to speculate who in a showdown would go Nazi.…

I have come to know the types: the born Nazis, the Nazis whom democracy itself has created, the certain-to-be fellow-travelers. And I also know those who never, under any conceivable circumstances, would become Nazis.…

Nazism has nothing to do with race and nationality. It appeals to a certain type of mind.

It is also, to an immense extent, the disease of a generation—the generation which was either young or unborn at the end of the last war.… It is the disease of the so-called “lost generation.”

This essay is shockingly relevant today, some 83 years after it was first published in 1941. Simply replace “Nazi” with “MAGA.” 

Actually, you might not even need to do that.

Kind, good, happy, gentlemanly, secure people never go Nazi…. But the frustrated and humiliated intellectual, the rich and scared speculator, the spoiled son, the labor tyrant, the fellow who has achieved success by smelling out the wind of success—they would all go Nazi in a crisis.

We’re seeing this play out in real time, as crypto bros, venture capitalists, and social media tyrants rush to support Donald Trump (especially in light of his VP pick, J.D. Vance, who worked in VC and was a protégé of Peter Thiel).

Bobby Allyn, at NPR:

[Marc] Andreessen, who has historically supported Democrats, said the “final straw” with his shift away from Biden was the president’s policy aimed at the super rich: a 25% tax on unrealized gains on households that are worth more than $100 million.

These cosplaying “masters of the universe” will cheerfully sell out this country before they share even a minuscule fraction more of their unimaginable wealth, happy to usher in an autocratic regime which allows them still more unchecked power, as they become even more absurdly wealthy.

They would be pathetic if they weren’t such an existential threat.

Madiba K. Dennie, attorney, professor, and author of The Originalism Trap: How Extremists Stole the Constitution and How We the People Can Take It Back.:

So Originalism is the idea that the meaning of the Constitution is fixed in time. Originalists say that we have to interpret the document today the same way it would have allegedly been interpreted 200 years ago. Now, this might sound really steeped in history, but it’s actually a relatively modern idea.

A fantastic and illuminating conversation, with three exceedingly erudite and engaging speakers. An important watch that highlights the inherent inconsistency of constitutional originalism.

Dennie, late in the discussion:

They just have to play their little game of telephone with dead slaveholders first, and then they’ll get right back to us.

That aside—on why SCOTUS takes so long to make (often awful) decisions—cracked me up. It also happens to succinctly summarize their perspective.

As a bit of background, this discussion is presented by The 92nd Street Y, New York, which regularly hosts wonderful conversations. This one explores

originalism’s controversial hold on constitutional interpretation, revealing its flaws and advocating for an inclusive constitutionalism that upholds equal rights for all.

In addition to Dennie (whose book is the catalyst for the conversation), the speakers include:

• Melissa Murray, Professor of Law at NYU, host of the podcast Strict Scrutiny, and author of The Trump Indictments: The Historic Charging Documents with Commentary.
• Elie Mystal, attorney, Justice correspondent at The Nation, and author of Allow Me to Retort: A Black Guy's Guide to the Constitution.

Jennifer Weiss-Wolf, of NYU Law’s Birnbaum Women’s Leadership Network is the host.

Three moments (of many!) worth highlighting:

Dennie, explaining the origins of originalism:

We saw this first start to bubble up in the backlash to Brown v. Board, really ramp up, responding more to the Civil Rights movement, and then formalized and crystallized during Ronald Reagan’s Justice Department, which basically became a sort of in-house originalist think tank for formalizing these ideas and getting them out there, as if this was a legitimate model of legal interpretation rather than cover up for conservative reactionary politics.

On why she decided to write The Originalism Trap:

Things are becoming exceedingly clear that the Court feels fully comfortable using the idea that women didn’t have rights then—at this point in time that I cherry-pick—so they can’t have rights now, or saying… the country didn’t regulate muskets in a particular way so they can’t regulate AR-15s. It’s just an intellectually bankrupt way of interpreting the Constitution that has been used to make our lives as Americans, as people who live here, a lot more dangerous.

Elie Mystal, on how he would decide cases:

14th Amendment, or GTFO.

It’s an extremely educational, fast-moving fifty minutes. (Watch at 1.25x speed if you’re short on time.)

Vice President Kamala Harris:

On behalf of the American people, I thank Joe Biden for his extraordinary leadership as President of the United States and for his decades of service to our country.

I am honored to have the President’s endorsement and my intention is to earn and win this nomination.

And in a follow-up:

I will do everything in my power to unite the Democratic Party—and unite our nation—to defeat Donald Trump and his extreme Project 2025 agenda. If you’re with me, add a donation right now.

Harris has already garnered significant support for her candidacy from several prominent Democrats, including Bill and Hillary Clinton, Gov. Josh Shapiro, Rep. Jim Clyburn, Rep. Pramila Jayapal, Rep. Adam Schiff, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Sec. Pete Buttigieg, and Gov. Gavin Newsom, making it likely, perhaps even inevitable, that she becomes the nominee.  Update: The Washington Post has a running list of Harris endorsements from among the “263 congressional Democrats and 23 Democratic governors.”

In addition, the Biden for President organization is now officially Harris for President, following a name change filed with the Federal Election Commission.

Democrats with serious aspirations of becoming president are unlikely to challenge her, out of self-preservation if nothing else. Only a fringe candidate and former Democrat have so far suggested they would; those will not be serious challenges.

The next several weeks leading up to the Democratic National Convention are going to be absolutely wild.

(One interesting logistical observation: When I checked around 3 p.m. (Pacific) today, ‌kamalaharris.com was not operational. About an hour later—perhaps in conjunction with the FEC filing?—it started redirecting to joebiden.com. I’m guessing a lot of IT and web folks are scrambling to stand up a full campaign site in record time. They’re already updating ‌unitedforharris.com with today’s news.

Update: kamalaharris.com now redirects to an Act Blue donation page.)

President Joe Biden, writing to the American people:

It has been the greatest honor of my life to serve as your President. And while it has been my intention to seek reelection, I believe it is in the best interest of my party and the country for me to stand down and to focus solely on fulfilling my duties as President for the remainder of my term.

It’s an unprecedented move by a sitting president running for reelection.

And in a follow-up:

My very first decision as the party nominee in 2020 was to pick Kamala Harris as my Vice President. And it’s been the best decision I’ve made. Today I want to offer my full support and endorsement for Kamala to be the nominee of our party this year. 

I’ve been vocally against the push for President Biden to step down as the Democratic nominee. I’ve been equally vocal that if he did step aside, only one person should be seriously considered for the top of the ticket: Kamala Harris.

President Biden’s performance during The Debate (as it will now always be known) was painful, not because of what he said, but because of how he said it. As I wrote on Mastodon that night:

It frustrates me that this election will likely come down to bluster-filled lies vs. good policies delivered weakly.

From that moment, the entire Democratic establishment, the commentariat, and the media (especially the execrable New York Times) pushed the narrative that Biden was unfit to run. This exit became almost inevitable. In many ways, the pressure campaign felt like a slow-moving coup.

Despite the way this came about, it’s now imperative that the Democratic Party coalesce behind Vice President Harris. Early reports suggest this is happening, and I expect we’ll see many more over the next few hours and days.

Given the circumstances, VP Harris is not only the obvious choice to be the new nominee, I think she’s the best choice. Prosecutor vs. felon. Youth vs. age. Progressive vs. fascist. Many of the attacks Trump/Vance lodged against President Biden are blunted against VP Harris. It would be farcical, verging on negligent, to suggest VP Harris is somehow the “wrong” person to lead the ticket.

The wildcard, as always, is the American electorate. This country’s unexamined racism and misogyny will make this more challenging than it should be, but I’m sure of one thing: If a majority of today’s America is unwilling to vote for an intelligent, progressive, qualified candidate because she has brown skin and boobs, they alone own the autocracy that comes with the alternative. 

I said last week:

Some moments in our life we recognize immediately as capital-H Historic.

This election is now inescapably Historic.

Leigh McGowan, AKA PoliticsGirl:

Now there’s a point where we have to ask ourselves how competent and qualified a woman, especially a woman of color, has to be in this country to be taken seriously, because to say someone with all of those qualifications is incompetent or unready to lead just makes no sense.

Whether you support Kamala Harris, dislike her, or know nothing about her, take ten minutes and watch this video. It’s filled with gems I could quote at length, but really, just watch.

But allow me one more:

if we can just put aside our country’s sad history with racism and misogyny, and realize that we are in an incredibly powerful position with a kind, competent, forward thinking incrementalist running for reelection, and a powerful, passionate, brilliant progressive waiting in the wings, we will see that we have a winning ticket. And the sooner we realize that, the less powerful those who seek to undermine it will be.

I don’t know how I’ve not heard of PoliticsGirl before today. I instantly subscribed to her YouTube channel based on this one video, and the rest of what I’ve since watched are equally impressive.

She also has her first book coming out, which I’ve preordered.

Apropos of my aforelinked piece is this, from Pew Research:

Nearly two-thirds of U.S. adults (65%) say the way the president is elected should be changed so that the winner of the popular vote nationwide wins the presidency.

Younger people are more in favor of it than older people. 82% of Democrats support it, while only 47% of Republicans do.

The ideological divide is unsurprising. Democrats wish to press their small numerical advantage. On the flip side, Republicans recognize the massive power imbalance the Electoral College gives them.

In fact, the more politically savvy Republicans are, the more they support keeping the status quo:

[72% of] [h]ighly politically engaged Republicans overwhelmingly favor keeping the Electoral College….

[51% of] Republicans with a moderate level of engagement [want] to keep the system as is….

[70%] of Republicans with lower levels of political engagement… back moving to a popular vote.

In summary, less-engaged Republicans may believe “one person, one vote” sounds fair. More-engaged Republicans realize this likely means losing most presidential elections.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia…. It has been enacted into law by 17 states and DC with 209 electoral votes…. It needs an additional 61 electoral votes to go into effect.

When last I looked at this site (in 2016), there were 165 electoral votes. Back then I called it “a brilliant hack.”

Since 2016, seven more states have signed the bill into law. Each of those states voted for the Democratic candidate in 2016 (when the popular vote candidate lost the election) and again in 2020.

Eliminating the effect of the Electoral College may be the only way to ensure meaningful presidential elections, but securing those 61 electoral votes may prove Herculean: No solidly Republican state has yet to sign on.

Donald Trump, today:

After lengthy deliberation and thought, and considering the tremendous talents of many others, I have decided that the person best suited to assume the position of Vice President of the United States is Senator J.D. Vance of the Great State of Ohio.

J.D. Vance, 2016:

Trump is cultural heroin. He makes some feel better for a bit. But he cannot fix what ails them, and one day they’ll realize it.

J.D. Vance, 2016:

I go back and forth between thinking Trump is a cynical a--hole like Nixon who wouldn't be that bad (and might even prove useful) or that he's America's Hitler.

J.D. Vance, 2016:

I’m not a Trump supporter, but I even feel a certain attachment, and I get a little bit cheery when he says certain things on the campaign trail, when he criticizes the elites.

Says the bestselling author, Yale Law School graduate, Silicon Valley venture capitalist, and protege to billionaire Peter Thiel (who donated $10 million to Vance’s 2022 Senate campaign).

Also:

Vance, whose full name is James David Vance, will turn 40 in August.

Not yet 40, with eighteen months of political experience, and he’s now the GOP’s Vice Presidential nominee. Sounds right.

A reminder that Sarah Palin was older (44), and more experienced (a two-term mayor, and Governor of Alaska for eighteen months) when she was selected as John McCain’s VP pick. We remember how well that turned out.

So my only question is: Who plays J.D. Vance on SNL?

My pick is Seth Rogen.

Timothy Snyder at Thinking about...

If a radical-right politician such as Donald Trump is the victim of an assassination attempt, should we not presume that the perpetrator is on the radical left?

No, we should not.

That sort of presumption, based on us-and-them thinking, is dangerous. It begins a chain of thinking that can lead to more violence. We are the victims, and they are the aggressors. We have been hurt, so it must have been them. No one thinking this way ever asks about the violence on one’s own side.

Snyder offers an historical perspective from the 1920s and 1930s to Saturday’s shocking violence.

(via Dave Spector.)

John Gruber at Daring Fireball:

Do not accept, not even at this fraught moment, the claims of anyone blaming yesterday on Democrats describing Trump as a threat to democracy. Saying so is not even on the spectrum of hyperbole. We saw what we saw after the 2020 election, and especially on January 6.

Do not fret, either, that yesterday’s event somehow cedes the election to Trump, on the grounds that he survived and projected strength. The side that wants a strongman was already voting for him.

Spot on.

We also ended with similar calls to action:

So here is what the Democrats should do. Tomorrow morning Chuck Schumer should put on the floor of the Senate a law mandating strict background checks for all gun purchases….

Give it a name like the “Anti Political and School Violence Act”.

Way more professional than mine.