I think William Otis does not understand the significance of January 6th. Congressman Peter Meijer stated that when the House reconvened after the attack, he expected members who had been about to vote against recognizing the electors from Pennsylvania et. al. to reconsider and accept the election results, having seen the consequences of Trump's temper tantrum. Instead, he was shocked when members who had called the Biden electors legitimate told him they were switching sides and would vote against recognizing the electors, because the riot convinced them that voting against Trump's wishes could get them or their families killed.
Using violence to get voters or politicians in a democracy to do something one cannot persuade them to do through the normal political process is the definition of terrorism. This makes the January 6th riot a terrorist attack. In one way it was worse than the September 11th attacks, because it actually succeeded. Al Qaeda wanted to intimidate us into withdrawing forces from the Middle East; it didn't work -- at least not for at least ten years, then in small steps. The January 6th attack, however, actually got congressmen to change their votes out of fear. This makes it the most effective terrorist attack in the history of this country.
So when Mr. Otis writes "And it’s not just that the rioters never came close to succeeding..." I conclude he does not understand the situation. They came damn close to succeeding. The rioters did succeed in changing votes, and they went quite a long way to succeeding in their goal of overturning an election through fear. Imagine if Republicans had a majority in the House -- they weren't far from it -- and more members had shown the cowardice of Meijer's interlocutors. The House could have blocked the election. Imagine if more such rioters had deployed to terrorize state election officials; there were plenty of threats as it is. Even if the public would not accept a claimed Trump victory, blocking popular vote counts in states or electoral vote counts in Congress would push off Biden's inauguration. That would go a long way to stopping democracy.
Perhaps people have forgotten, but among the reason Trump won the nomination in 2016 was threats against Republican convention delegates. As I recall, a wealthy Trump supporter and real estate developer from New York made death threats against Trump opponents from Utah, and one Trump opponent was told by her state chairman that she "would be taken out" if she got in the way. Who knows whether these made the difference in the failed bid for a roll call vote on the rules? The January 6th attack is part of a pattern of terrorism.
Just very briefly for now: First, the purpose of the riot was to prevent counting the electoral votes for Biden, and it did not succeed in altering the count by a single vote. They were counted in Congress exactly as tallied in the states. If I recall correctly, the riot might have caused a delay of about two hours in the count, but I'm not sure of that. Your argument consists mostly of "they might have done this" or "if they had done that." Perhaps I should argue that it I had different parents, I might be a foot taller, and if in addition I'd been born 50 years later, I'd be playing in the NBA right now.
Second, the reason Trump won the nomination is that he won the bulk of the primaries and had the delegates he needed coming in. This is not even contested by serious people.
Third, if this were terrorism, the Garland Justice Department would have so charged at least some of the hundreds of defendants. But it didn't for the simple reason that it had no terrorism case. Indeed, most of them got charged with misdemeanors or got pled down to misdemeanors.
The riot was a crime and an affront to the legal processes our democracy has adopted, and should have been met with greater force ab initio. But months of George Floyd yelping guaranteed that wouldn't happen, and it didn't. But the riot posed absolutely no realistic prospect of changing the result democratic processes had reached.
I agree that the riot did not achieve the goal of stopping the counting of electoral votes. It did, however, succeed in changing the votes of members of Congress, at least according to Meijer. This is not just potential damage but actual damage to democracy. If a Klan attack in 1876 intimidated five thousand blacks from voting but the black congressman still won, would you say that this shows the attack did not damage or threaten democracy? A string of "if"s is precisely what the difference between making no progress and making some progress looks like.
That the DOJ has not pursued this line is partly due to their lack of imagination, partly due to the difference between arguing points of principle and points of law, and partly due to the difficulty in allocating responsibility for the collective actions of a mob to individual members. The element of terrorism stems from some people chanting "Hang Mike Pence," others storming through the Capitol looking for him, others bringing an imitation gallows outside, and others breaking glass. As a whole it was a terrorist attack, but pinning criminal blame on any one of the participants is difficult.
Trump did not have "delegates" before the 2016 convention. The delegates were only "bound" under the purported rules of the Republican National Committee. The Convention's authority superseded the Committee's, and the delegates were free to vote to approve or reject the Committee's rules. They approved it under a voice vote after astounding pressure was applied. Some of it was run-of-the-mill politics; Sean Spicer wrote that he bought off a DC delegate not to support a roll-call vote by promising him that either Trump or the platform -- I forget the details -- would take a favorable view of gay rights. Some delegates, however, did not support Trump and were swayed by threats.
Well...I don’t see anyone motivated to do anything by his cri de coeur. That doesn’t project an aura of strength. A year and a half is a long time to be sure, but even absent this outburst he hasn’t looked strong for quite a while. It seems to me that the first and perhaps most important test for a GOP presidential candidate is to beat Trump in the primaries, should Trump run, by winning over a substantial number of Trump’s voters. Anyone unable to do that is unlikely to win the general election anyway.
Ahh...and if Trump doesn’t run, that GOP candidate still must win over most of Trump’s voters to win the general. It’s not about Trump, and never has been. Trump simply gave voice to a part of the GOP base that has been taken for granted for quite some time: a part that may have wised up. Does the national GOP know how to address that? Does it even want to? They haven’t shown much knowledge or will to this point. If that’s correct, then Trump is by far the least of the GOP’s problems. It’s possible that the midterms revealed that too.
Six years after Trump descended that escalator, Democrats and Republicans alike remain transfixed by the man: For Democrats he’s the latest and greatest bogeyman, for all too many Republicans he’s a very convenient distraction from their own inadequacies as politicians and party. It is beyond pathetic that six years in the GOP still has no answer for Trump beyond the emergence of a regional governor in Florida: a testament to the party’s utter ossification.
I think the Republican Party will do fine if it just returns to its basics: Capitalism-based opportunity for all regardless of identity, low taxes so you keep what you earn, small government so you run your own life, law and order so criminals pay the price for their behavior rather than victims, and unapologetic pursuit of American interests in the world. So far as I know, DeSantis supports all those things.
The devil, as always, is in the details. However, if DeSantis wins the nomination and the general, I doubt that it will be because he did a cover of Reagan.
Yup
I think William Otis does not understand the significance of January 6th. Congressman Peter Meijer stated that when the House reconvened after the attack, he expected members who had been about to vote against recognizing the electors from Pennsylvania et. al. to reconsider and accept the election results, having seen the consequences of Trump's temper tantrum. Instead, he was shocked when members who had called the Biden electors legitimate told him they were switching sides and would vote against recognizing the electors, because the riot convinced them that voting against Trump's wishes could get them or their families killed.
Using violence to get voters or politicians in a democracy to do something one cannot persuade them to do through the normal political process is the definition of terrorism. This makes the January 6th riot a terrorist attack. In one way it was worse than the September 11th attacks, because it actually succeeded. Al Qaeda wanted to intimidate us into withdrawing forces from the Middle East; it didn't work -- at least not for at least ten years, then in small steps. The January 6th attack, however, actually got congressmen to change their votes out of fear. This makes it the most effective terrorist attack in the history of this country.
So when Mr. Otis writes "And it’s not just that the rioters never came close to succeeding..." I conclude he does not understand the situation. They came damn close to succeeding. The rioters did succeed in changing votes, and they went quite a long way to succeeding in their goal of overturning an election through fear. Imagine if Republicans had a majority in the House -- they weren't far from it -- and more members had shown the cowardice of Meijer's interlocutors. The House could have blocked the election. Imagine if more such rioters had deployed to terrorize state election officials; there were plenty of threats as it is. Even if the public would not accept a claimed Trump victory, blocking popular vote counts in states or electoral vote counts in Congress would push off Biden's inauguration. That would go a long way to stopping democracy.
Perhaps people have forgotten, but among the reason Trump won the nomination in 2016 was threats against Republican convention delegates. As I recall, a wealthy Trump supporter and real estate developer from New York made death threats against Trump opponents from Utah, and one Trump opponent was told by her state chairman that she "would be taken out" if she got in the way. Who knows whether these made the difference in the failed bid for a roll call vote on the rules? The January 6th attack is part of a pattern of terrorism.
Just very briefly for now: First, the purpose of the riot was to prevent counting the electoral votes for Biden, and it did not succeed in altering the count by a single vote. They were counted in Congress exactly as tallied in the states. If I recall correctly, the riot might have caused a delay of about two hours in the count, but I'm not sure of that. Your argument consists mostly of "they might have done this" or "if they had done that." Perhaps I should argue that it I had different parents, I might be a foot taller, and if in addition I'd been born 50 years later, I'd be playing in the NBA right now.
Second, the reason Trump won the nomination is that he won the bulk of the primaries and had the delegates he needed coming in. This is not even contested by serious people.
Third, if this were terrorism, the Garland Justice Department would have so charged at least some of the hundreds of defendants. But it didn't for the simple reason that it had no terrorism case. Indeed, most of them got charged with misdemeanors or got pled down to misdemeanors.
The riot was a crime and an affront to the legal processes our democracy has adopted, and should have been met with greater force ab initio. But months of George Floyd yelping guaranteed that wouldn't happen, and it didn't. But the riot posed absolutely no realistic prospect of changing the result democratic processes had reached.
I agree that the riot did not achieve the goal of stopping the counting of electoral votes. It did, however, succeed in changing the votes of members of Congress, at least according to Meijer. This is not just potential damage but actual damage to democracy. If a Klan attack in 1876 intimidated five thousand blacks from voting but the black congressman still won, would you say that this shows the attack did not damage or threaten democracy? A string of "if"s is precisely what the difference between making no progress and making some progress looks like.
That the DOJ has not pursued this line is partly due to their lack of imagination, partly due to the difference between arguing points of principle and points of law, and partly due to the difficulty in allocating responsibility for the collective actions of a mob to individual members. The element of terrorism stems from some people chanting "Hang Mike Pence," others storming through the Capitol looking for him, others bringing an imitation gallows outside, and others breaking glass. As a whole it was a terrorist attack, but pinning criminal blame on any one of the participants is difficult.
Trump did not have "delegates" before the 2016 convention. The delegates were only "bound" under the purported rules of the Republican National Committee. The Convention's authority superseded the Committee's, and the delegates were free to vote to approve or reject the Committee's rules. They approved it under a voice vote after astounding pressure was applied. Some of it was run-of-the-mill politics; Sean Spicer wrote that he bought off a DC delegate not to support a roll-call vote by promising him that either Trump or the platform -- I forget the details -- would take a favorable view of gay rights. Some delegates, however, did not support Trump and were swayed by threats.
Well...I don’t see anyone motivated to do anything by his cri de coeur. That doesn’t project an aura of strength. A year and a half is a long time to be sure, but even absent this outburst he hasn’t looked strong for quite a while. It seems to me that the first and perhaps most important test for a GOP presidential candidate is to beat Trump in the primaries, should Trump run, by winning over a substantial number of Trump’s voters. Anyone unable to do that is unlikely to win the general election anyway.
Ahh...and if Trump doesn’t run, that GOP candidate still must win over most of Trump’s voters to win the general. It’s not about Trump, and never has been. Trump simply gave voice to a part of the GOP base that has been taken for granted for quite some time: a part that may have wised up. Does the national GOP know how to address that? Does it even want to? They haven’t shown much knowledge or will to this point. If that’s correct, then Trump is by far the least of the GOP’s problems. It’s possible that the midterms revealed that too.
Six years after Trump descended that escalator, Democrats and Republicans alike remain transfixed by the man: For Democrats he’s the latest and greatest bogeyman, for all too many Republicans he’s a very convenient distraction from their own inadequacies as politicians and party. It is beyond pathetic that six years in the GOP still has no answer for Trump beyond the emergence of a regional governor in Florida: a testament to the party’s utter ossification.
I think the Republican Party will do fine if it just returns to its basics: Capitalism-based opportunity for all regardless of identity, low taxes so you keep what you earn, small government so you run your own life, law and order so criminals pay the price for their behavior rather than victims, and unapologetic pursuit of American interests in the world. So far as I know, DeSantis supports all those things.
The devil, as always, is in the details. However, if DeSantis wins the nomination and the general, I doubt that it will be because he did a cover of Reagan.