This week at progressive state blogs is designed specifically to focus attention on the writing and analysis of people focused on their home turf. Let me know via comments or Kosmail if you have a favorite state- or city-based blog you think I should be watching. Here is the November 12 edition. Inclusion of a blog post does not necessarily indicate my agreement with—or endorsement of—its contents.
|
Cowgirl herself at Montana Cowgirl writes This Land is Your Land: At Least Until TEA Partiers Give It to Real Estate Moguls and Stick You with the Tab:
GOP Vice Chair Jennifer Fielder has published a screed in the Billings Gazette telling us that the shrinking land takeover group she runs has met and decided to keep pushing its land takeover scheme. This in spite of the fact that “for many on both sides of the aisle, no issue seems as wasteful, ill-conceived or dead on arrival as the transfer of public lands.” Indeed, Montana’s legislature has panned this idea over and over, and a University of Montana poll found that 2/3 of Montanans oppose the idea.
If you’re reading this blog, you probably already know that any time you hear a TEA Partier spout “give greater control to the states” they’re talking about hokum that wouldn’t fly under any kind of serious analysis, but would do just fine in Sanders County militia land where they believe wildlife research on local bear populations are part of a conspiracy to conduct surveillance on the militia movement. (No joke.) We already know GOP attorneys general from 15 western states, including Montana’s own Tim Fox, found that this land takeover nonsense is a veritable garbage fire in the legal viability department.
But just because an idea is ludicrous never stopped imbeciles in the TEA Party from beating Republicans over the head with demands to support it. TEA Party land-boarder Matt Rosendale and Fielder, who is also a militia-affiliated TEA Partier state senator are still clinging to this unconstitutional land takeover scheme even though it is a financial black hole for Montanans and a nightmare for Montana’s economy.
Susan Demas at Eclectablog of Michigan writes—When Post-Election Bullying Hits Home
For the last week, I’ve been trying to process the election, both as a political analyst who got a lot wrong, and a human being who believes this was a potentially disastrous outcome. Donald Trump’s move to install the owner of a white nationalist website as one of his chief advisers does not assuage the dread.
But much of my time has been consumed by something closer to home. My 14-year-old daughter, Angela, has made news of her own. Two days after the election, she brought a homemade sign to Okemos High School that said, “We Will Fight for America.” She crossed out the words, “We Failed America,” which is something she had heard a lot and doesn’t believe is true. As a member of the school Political Club and Prism (LGBTQ students), she’s no stranger to speaking her mind.
However, when Angela walked through the halls with the sign, a group of older boys surrounded her and started screaming, “Lock her up!” One got up on a bench and loomed over her. Like all of us, Angela had heard that phrase before in watching Donald Trump rallies. And while I found it unacceptable for Trump supporters to scream that about Democratic presidential Nominee Hillary Clinton, I was especially saddened to see teenagers take that cue to bully another student.
The school district has handled this and other incidents swiftly and with sensitivity. This is just one of dozens of school incidents in the news. Not all schools have responded like Okemos administrators did. The video of kids harassing Latino students in the Royal Oak school cafeteria with “Build a wall!” is particularly hard to watch.
Pete McRoberts at Bleeding Heartland of Iowa writes—Building a Statewide Party:
It’s almost impossible to find a silver lining in the outcome of the 2016 election – almost. But the truth is, people in Iowa deserve any silver lining we can find. They deserve more than us blaming one or the other candidate and they certainly deserve more than anything walking up to losing faith in voters. Peoples’ lives will be affected by this election, and if even just a few of the winning candidates keep their promises, then we’re looking at a rough patch.
But there is something we have which we didn’t have on election day. We know to a precinct what people are thinking, at least as expressed by their votes. We don’t have to guess or go on our instincts. We can go with what we know and we can go to the people who have told us what they think and what they need from Democrats.
I believe we have a path to showing more and more Iowans that this party can be there for them, too, and that we can not only listen to them but govern for them. Let’s go get into the field – let’s get into the state. Let’s show voters that we trust them, and that they can trust us. If we do that – then we will truly be a party for all Iowans.
Regina Willis at Better Georgia reports—Gov. Nathan Deal appoints 5 new judges. And they’re all white:
Gov. Nathan Deal just appointed five new judges, and they’re all white.
The day after the election, Deal’s office announced three new state Supreme Court Justices and two new judges to the Georgia Court of Appeals. Five out of five of these appointments are white folks, and four out of five are white men.
The governor’s lack of interest in diverse leadership is disturbing and disheartening. Georgia is rapidly on track to become a “majority minority” state in the next decade, and our judicial system should be well on it’s way to reflecting that.
However, as a group called Advocacy for Action — which seeks to create a more diverse and representative judiciary — has noted, Deal (as well as his predecessor Gov. Sonny Perdue) seemed to have little interest in the judicial talents of women and people of color.
The group notes that from 2003 – 2015 (covering both Gov. Sonny Perdue and Nathan Deal’s appointments), people of color only received four percent of 73 Superior Court judgeships. Four. Percent.
Bob Lord at Blog for Arizona writes—How Bad Things Will Happen (If They Do):
The specter of White nationalism is real. We ignore it or discount it at our peril. [...]
Could terrible things happen here, under a Trump Presidency? Already, the incidence of hate crime is off the charts, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center:
Pulling from news reports, social media, and direct submissions at the Southern Poverty Law Center’s website, the SPLC had counted 201 incidents of election-related harassment and intimidation across the country as of Friday, November 11 at 5pm. These range from anti-Black to anti-woman to anti-LGBT incidents. There were many examples of vandalism and epithets directed at individuals. Often times, types of harassment overlapped and many incidents, though not all, involved direct references to the Trump campaign.
White supremacists are emboldened, to say the least. They think they won the election. They think they are the ones in charge.
Will they be? Only if they’re allowed to be. That will depend on how first Trump, then the Republicans in Congress, then the billionaire class in America handle it. Watch carefully for what I’ll call a chain reaction of cravenness. First, will Trump forcefully and quickly denounce the hate crimes, or will he do so only because he has to? Remember how slow he was to reject the endorsement of David Duke, ducking the question when posed to him, saying he didn’t know who David Duke is, then claiming his earpiece was not functioning. A response like that, even if he ultimately condemns the violence, will be a massive warning signal.
Next, if Trump does not forcefully confront the problem, look to how Republican operatives, particularly members of Congress, react. Will they eviscerate Trump with their criticism, or will the criticism be more muted?
dave-from-hvad at Blue Mass Group writes—Warren nails her theses to the Dems' church door:
We can insist all we want that Donald Trump won due to voter suppression and because he opened the floodgates of racism and misogyny. But the obsessive focus on those arguments puts us in danger of missing the real lesson to Democrats from the election.
Elizabeth Warren nailed it yesterday. The Democrats have offered no substantive alternatives to the Republicans on issue after issue, from globalization to health care. Even Obamacare was not “transformative.” We bailed out the banks, not homeowners in the financial crisis, and no one pushed to prosecute the Wall Street brokers who caused the crisis.
Most importantly, the Dems did nothing to save the vanishing middle class and offered little to induce minority voters to oppose Trump and vote for Clinton. IMHO, contempt for the average citizen has become a hallmark of governance in both political parties, and it exists just as much in state government here in Massachusetts as it does in Washington.
I hope Warren keeps hammering this message home. It’s time to stop whining about Trump and start rethinking the role and purpose of government in America.
William Tucker at Miscellany Blue of New Hampshire writes—Did independent Aaron Day single-handedly derail Sen. Kelly Ayotte’s reelection bid?
Independent candidate Aaron Day, who received over 17,000 votes in his race for the U.S. Senate, claims his campaign led to Sen. Kelly Ayotte’s narrow defeat. “I guarantee it did and I did it deliberately to knock her out…” he told Portsmouth Herald reporter Jeff McMenemy. “And I don’t regret it.”
Day’s feud with Ayotte dates back to 2014 when he denounced Ayotte as a “miscreant” for opposing former state House Speaker Bill O’Brien in his bid to retake the House Speakership. [...]
Did the majority of Day’s votes come from disaffected Republicans who might have otherwise voted for Ayotte, as Day claims? We compiled the voting data from the Secretary of State’s office to look for clues.
We analyzed the Senate vote by town, comparing the percentage of vote each candidate received with the partisan leanings of each town (measured by our Partisan Voting Index, which is based on the presidential vote in 2008 and 2012). [...]
While this analysis finds there is no relationship between Day’s share of the vote and each district’s partisan leanings, it does not definitively rule out Day’s claim that a majority of the individuals voting for him did so to punish Ayotte.
As UNH political scientist Dante Scala told the Portsmouth Herald, “It’s always tricky with third-party candidates to know exactly where they’re pulling votes from. Were these voters discontented Trump voters who were looking for a place to put their votes, maybe?”
DocHoc at Oklahoma Blue writes—Positives Emerge From Tuesday’s Election:
Anyone following Okie Funk or its Facebook page knows I’ve gone from denial to anger to acceptance, or something along those lines, after Tuesday’s election massacre, but please fully realize I’m not defeated, and I’m going to keep fighting on a political level with my words and by showing up when I need to show up. [...]
I urge you to stay engaged, too. By all means, cry your heart out in hefty sobs, curl up in a fetal position and sleep for six more straight days, maybe stay drunk but don’t drive for another week, but stand with me and fellow progressives and liberals to work for change. We will be triumphant eventually.
Having said that, I do need to note that there were some positives both local and nationally in Tuesday’s election.
Locally, the most obvious positives were the defeat of State Question 777, the so-called “right to contaminate our drinking water” initiative and the passage of State Questions 780 and 781, which, in more seriousness than what I just said about SQ 777, will hopefully kickstart a trend to completely decriminalize simple drug possession here and treat rather than punish addiction. Both 780 and 781 could also reduce our chronic prison overcrowding in this place of prison horror stories and massive incarceration.
James at BlueNC writes—Does any Republican Senator have a conscience?
I expect nothing resembling a conscience from people like Thom Tillis and Richard Burr. Those two are old school greeders, driven by nothing but self interest. Bank Run Burr got his name for a reasons, and he's slightly worse than Tillis. But both are shameless partisan whores. Power and money are the only currencies they operate with. The common good is an irrelevant concept.
Is that true for all of the Republican Senators in Washington today? Are they all "just fine" with having a unapologetic liar and sexual predator in the White House? [...]
Surely one of them must be feeling a deep sense of dread about the direction this country is moving. Surely one of them is considering taking a stand for common decency.
Which Republican Senator will save our democracy? All it would take is one brave soul who would be willing to put America ahead of their own petty interests. All it would take is one brave soul saying, "Enough. I will not be party to this horror show. I hereby resign from the Republican Party. As an independent, I will caucus with Democrats to protect women, to protect decency, to protect Social Security, to protect our Supreme Court, to protect Medicare."
Which Senator has the integrity to do the right thing? Is there not even one?
Of course there's not. And when the world goes to shit because of Trump's psychopathic ego, not one Republican Senator will step up and take responsibility.
Mark Hefflinger at Bold Nebraska writes—Army Corps Withholds Final Dakota Access Pipeline Permit, Will Consult Further With Standing Rock Tribe:
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers announced in a statement on Monday, Nov. 14 that additional discussion and analysis with the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe is warranted, over the possible re-route of the Dakota Access pipeline near Lake Oahe in North Dakota.
The Army Corps stated that it will not grant the final easement needed by Dakota Access to bore under Lake Oahe until its new consultation with Standing Rock is complete.
“The Army will work with the Tribe on a timeline that allows for robust discussion and analysis to be completed expeditiously,” the Army Corps wrote in its statement.
“We are encouraged and know that the peaceful prayer and demonstration at Standing Rock have powerfully brought to light the unjust narrative suffered by tribal nations and Native Americans across the country,” said Standing Rock Sioux Tribe chairman Dave Archambault II. “Together we can inspire people across America and the globe to honor each other and the Earth we hold sacred. Millions of people have literally and spiritually stood with us at Standing Rock. And for this, you have our deepest thanks and gratitude. The harmful and dehumanizing tactics by the state of North Dakota and corporate bullies did not go unnoticed because of you. Not all of our prayers were answered, but this time, they were heard.”
Bold Alliance president Jane Kleeb added: “President Obama deeply understands the risks that pipelines like Dakota Access pose to the land and water. Pipeline fighters continue to hold the line with our Native allies and farmers who know no amount of safety conditions make an unnecessary pipeline acceptable.”
A staffer at Colorado Pols writes—Yes, Trump Gets a Colorado Capitol Rotunda Portrait:
As FOX 31’s Michael Konopasek reports, to the victor go the spoils:
State officials soon will begin the lengthy process of commissioning a portrait of President-elect Donald Trump to hang in the Colorado State Capitol.
In the statehouse rotunda is a tribute to the American presidency and the 43 men who have served it.
Every day, visitors admire the art by Lawrence Williams, who painted each portrait from President George Washington to President George W. Bush.
Konopasek reports that the artist responsible for all of the Colorado Capitol rotunda presidential portraits died before completing one for President Barack Obama, and the task then fell to a gifted Colorado Springs painter named Sarah Boardman.
Boardman is certainly qualified to paint Donald Trump’s portrait, and we expect she’ll get the job–but it occurred to us there are plenty of them on the market already. And it’s possible others might want to take a (pardon us) fresh crack at it.
Ellen Brown at Dick and Sharon’s L.A. Progressive writes—Trump’s $1 Trillion Infrastructure Plan: Lincoln Had a Bolder Solution:
Donald Trump was an outsider who boldly stormed the citadel of Washington DC and won. He has promised real change, but his infrastructure plan appears to be just more of the same – privatizing public assets and delivering unearned profits to investors at the expense of the people. He needs to try something new; and for this he could look to Abraham Lincoln, whose bold solution was very similar to one now being considered in Europe: just print the money.
In Donald Trump’s victory speech after the presidential election, he vowed:
We are going to fix our inner cities and rebuild our highways, bridges, tunnels, airports, schools, hospitals. We’re going to rebuild our infrastructure, which will become, by the way, second to none. And we will put millions of our people to work as we rebuild it.
It sounds great; but as usual, the devil is in the details. Both parties in Congress agree that infrastructure is desperately needed. The roadblock is in where to find the money. Raising taxes and going further into debt are both evidently off the table. The Trump solution is touted as avoiding those options, but according to his economic advisors, it does this by privatizing public goods, imposing high user fees on the citizenry for assets that should have been public utilities.
Raise taxes, add to the federal debt, privatize – there is nothing new here. The president-elect needs another alternative; and there is one, something he is evidently open to. In May 2016, when challenged over the risk of default from the mounting federal debt, he said, “You never have to default, because you print the money.” The Federal Reserve has already created trillions of dollars for the 1% by just printing the money. The new president could create another trillion for the majority of the 99% who elected him.