34 Comments
Apr 11, 2023Liked by Thom Hartmann

This is another fine article about historical and current aspects of the system, bringing home once again the critical role of the senate in terms of all things related to courts and the justice system.

It appears that the blue slip practice has as much legitimacy as the notion that the Supreme Court should remain fixed at nine, a number originally (but no longer) corresponding to the number of circuits comprising the federal judiciary.

When you have something like the voting rights act firmly in place, these types of procedural courtesies would not make as much of a difference. But it's a whole different story now that we are living under a completely dismantled voting rights act, thanks to the court, and we are also living under elevated efforts to suppress voting rights.

Why Durbin has faltered on this is certainly a big issue. The larger question may be where is Mr. Biden on all of us, given his whole range of experience with the Senate and the judiciary committee.

As reflected in another comment, this as well as other political issues recently covered here show the continued weakness of Democratic Party as long as it stays a cosmopolitan / educational elite party. Their focus on only certain limited areas is a losing strategy due to the senate and electoral college. As commonly discussed, demographic shifts are likely to mean that soon about 30 percent of country will control the majority of the senate. This spells more democratic disaster.

The new democratic campaign slogan should be - "it's the senate, stupid!"

Expand full comment

I would whole heartedly agree with you except for this statement: " weakness of Democratic Party as long as it stays a cosmopolitan / educational elite party. Their focus on only certain limited areas is a losing strategy due to the senate and electoral college."

Don't see the party as a cosmopolitian/educational elite party. That is exactly how the Republican party has tagged the party. Rather the problem with the party as I see it is that it is beholden to the donors

For years I have seen the two parties as the left wing and right wing of a corporate bird, each dependent on donor funds. Increasingly since Nixon, the Republican party has differentiated itself by appealing to the racist, misogynistic, paranoid right, but not so obvious, because it enabled Rahm Emanuel's (or is it Larry Summer"s) sock puppet Bill Clinton to say "It's the economy stupid", when it really wasn't.

The election of Trump was a seismic shift in that which divides America.: Democratic vs Authoritarian values. Racism, misogyny. theocracy, conservatism can not exist in a pluralistic society and a pluralistic society can only exist in a democracy.

Trump did not cause this tug of war between authoritarianism and democracy, he only gave the fascists license to come out of the closet.

Yet, the oligarchs, the corporate elite still have a head lock on the Democratic party, as evidence I submit that it was 17 Democratic Senators that voted to repeal Dodd Frank.

Expand full comment

Different breakdowns here for where the funds come from. Broken down by money per industry. "Business services" where dems are out in front may be surveillance and other techno /communications companies. https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/industries

Expand full comment

Thanks, much appreciated. Conspicuous by their absence is PhRMA. I do not appreciate Health and Life insurance being classified as Insurance. Health Insurance is the real player here. That is where all the money is. One good thing George W Bush did, to his credit, sign GINA https://www.eeoc.gov/genetic-information-discrimination, which prohibits a health insurance provider from using your DNA (genetic information) to underwrite your health insurance, but like all laws, when congress stops squabbling it can get down to brass tacks, like delivering for the donor.

PhRMA and AHIP (Association of Health Insurance Poviders) have played a major role in denying us single payor health insurance.

When the Obama administration was dickering with the ACA, it excluded single payor advocates from the White House, but there was a revolving door for lobbyists and experts from the health insurance companies.

Same with the House under Nancy, 600 pages, some of which were unconstitutional (the sop to the insurance industry.. the tax penalty) when all they had to do was amend the Medicare Enabling legislation,which they have done before when they raised the eligibility age from 65 to 67, by changing a few words to eligible at birth, but AHIP is big donor

They also have oil and gas, but no mention of the coal and chemical industries.

Expand full comment
Apr 11, 2023Liked by Thom Hartmann

I have two great Democratic senators, so I will also call on them to have a discussion with Senator Durbin. Let's hope that the Dems are talking strategy all the time. It is absolutely time to change our game plan. We are not dealing with honest brokers or the loyal opposition in any way shape or form. Tell the staffer that answers the phone just that.

Another good point to bring-up is what has happened with the Mifepristone situation. It's a great way to express the consequences of the way their colleagues on the right are behaving. Statistics tell us Judge Kacsmaryk's actions will result in pain, misery, and the deaths of women. We must protect them and ourselves from these ruthless Republicans.

Expand full comment
Oct 10Liked by Thom Hartmann

I agree. The rules are always changing, so Democrats need to get in the game and play!

Expand full comment

Thanks Thom. I've felt for a long time that Durbin was past his useful life. He has never been an inspirational Senator and simply gained power in the Senate due to longevity. This is another example that the leadership positions in the Senate should not be based on seniority.

Expand full comment

Its a shame . I have a friend that is a staunch Democrat , he has said many times . “Democrats

do not know how to use power” he’s right and if they don’t figure it out soon, Mr Durbin, we wont have any Democracy .

We deserve not only an answer from Mr . Durbin but a change from his pandering to the GOP who are obviously twisted in their motivation.

Expand full comment

Apparently there is no daylight between common destructive thieves of democratic values. I am so damn tired of hearing there is no both sides arguments. That is another Big Lie pushed out by centrist democrats attempting to help corrupt indecent Republicans. Shameful. Harris, Booker, Klobuchar all knew they had no chance in hell of winning POTUS yet bailed on their sole job on the Judiciary to stop the 280 Trump unqualified judge’s from sitting on Federal bench. Look where that put us now...scrambling to get religious rightwing Christian fascists from removing life saving drugs. Stolen elections have consequences.

Expand full comment

Centrist is code for conservative. Until Trump there was not a dimes worth of difference between a "centrist" Democrat and a centrist Repubican, both were beholden to the money powers and did their bidding, otherwise the Telecommunications act of 1996 would not have been repealed,nor would NAFTA have passed the Senate, nor would Glass Steagall had been repealed, and then there is the repeal of Dodd Frank Seventeen Senate Democrats joined with every Republican in voting to roll back some bank rules..

Since Trump the battle lines are more defined, except when it comes to rules governing financial institutions and corporations. Did not Biden recently approve drilling in Alaska?

The Democratic voting base needs to get as organized as the Republican voting base, and stop making excuses or apologizing for so called centrists.

We keep electing fake Democrats to keep a majority,yet when we have a majority they don't do jack squat, especially in the senate because they allow the racist filibuster rule to remain in effect,where the Republicans have shown that when it impedes their grand designs, they will ignore or revoke the filibuster.

Here is a list of proven conservative Democrats: Hassan, Shaheen, Carper Coons, King, Kelly, Mendendezk Rosen, Masto, Klobuchar, Cantwell, Kaine, Heitcamp, Stabenow.

17 Democrats voted against Dodd Frank https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/15/why-senate-democrats-voted-for-bank-bill-to-ease-dodd-frank-rules.html

Including Claire McCaskill, who paid the price for her vote:

Harry Truman:

The people don't want a phony Democrat. If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat, and I don't want any phony Democratic candidates in this campaign." Harry S Truman, May 17 1952 trumanlibrary.org/…

Expand full comment

Keep in mind that when HST said that, a sizable chunk of the Democratic Party comprised white Southern Democrats. Because the South was basically a one-party state and only whites could vote, those Southern Democrats exercised huge power in Congress. At least until the early 1970s, I would have taken a New England Republican over a Southern Democrat any day, and the likes of Mark Hatfield and John Sherman Cooper weren't bad either.

Expand full comment

Definitely, but his words still ring true Only now instead of Democrats being blue collar racists, and there are sill some in the party, the party leadership, under guidance and precedence set by Bill Clinton administration and his New Democrats is now courting the same class as the Republicans, the donor class, with only lip service to it's base.

The American descendants of Slaves are fed up with the situation also, they are courted, driven by fear of the racist right, but when those that court them are elected to office, they soon forget them, happens with other constituencies too.

Constant and persistent from the left, is the only way to drive the Democrratic party into a true champion of democracy and equity.

Expand full comment

They may ring true to you, but to me they ring racist and between-the-lines sexist. The absence of women, especially women who aren't allied with men, from your comments is also telling. Your version of "the left" is a dead end for women as well as people of color (and, need I say, those who are both). The way the Democratic Party has ignored Black women in particular, who are its most stalwart supporters, is disgraceful. I do believe that "constant and persistent" pressure from women, especially women of color, is going to kick the Democratic establishment's butt. Indeed, it's already doing so.

Expand full comment

I agree with your sentiments, but I fear that you read too much into what I said.

Regardless of what the Democratic party was like back in the 1950's Truman's sentiments still ring true, and there are still a lot of left overs from the old Democratic party, just like there were still left overs from the old Republican Party .many of whom I now think are Never Trumpers

That is not my version of the left. I am sore pissed now, you are accusing me of something of which I am not guilty, because you read things into a statement that excited you.

In fact you wound up saying the same thing I've been saying.

Here is something to consider, The women of color in the Democratic party, can and have picked the Democratic candidate, but that is a Pyrrhic victory.

For by doing so they elected Donald J Trump. Their candidate of choice was an establishment candidate, beholden to the oligarchs, not the people.

Biden did not so much as win, that Trump lost. 81 million people were so tired of Trump that a head of cabbage could beat him.

Unless SCOTUS rules in favor of Moore v Harper, which will enable the legislature to select their own electors, Trump will go down in flames in 2024, but the Republicans are ruled by their own myopic base, just as the Democrats have a myopic base.

What good if you win the battle, but lose the war. That is what these women did in 2016. 2020 was a fluke, because even many Republicans had enough of Trump, not to mention the libertarians.

There are no independents, everyone has a side and an opinion.

You are justifiably incensed about the treatment of people of color, especially women, as am I, but this myopic approach to politics is self defeating.

There is a hell of a lot more at stake than women of color, there is the LGBT community, equality, fairness, the rule of law and democracy at stake, not just POC and WOC.

Expand full comment

I would add to your list the two spooks out of Virginia and Michigan.

Expand full comment

Please define the word spook, What do you mean. Spook is slang for spy,and it is used as an alternative for coon, jungle bunnies, the N word. So what Michigan and Virginia democrats are spooks, and why?

Expand full comment

I'm guessing Eponastribe is referring to Abigail Spanberger (VA) and Elissa Slotkin (MI), both of whom worked for the CIA. So, when you all have drummed everyone you don't like out of the Democratic Party, what do we have left? (Assuming that campaign finance remains a playground for big money . . .)

Expand full comment

It is not a matter of drumming others out of the party, but of holding them accountable and pushing them to do the right thing, if we don't and we give them all a pass, What do we have? An ineffectual weak partner to the Republican party.

Silence is consent.

Expand full comment

SCOTUS gutted not only the Census knocking over 18 million off voting rolls but also managed to decimate the 65’ Voters Rights Act to protect minority citizens ability to fight back against...wait for it...white racist gerrymandering and voter suppression for over 200 years of precedence. The remedy to end the newest white christian theocrats madness was to remove the filibuster which ironically gives the GOP minority control. Two democrats refused. Tell me again how that isn’t carrying the piss water for Republicans?

Expand full comment

Because that is what dems do! KOWTOW Clinton did, Obama did!! They did not listen to Howard Dean and his 50 state strategy. If Only!!

Expand full comment

They fear alienating the donors. They have ignored the example of Bernie Sanders, who raised record amounts of cash, from the voters, not the oligarchs.

Expand full comment

It seems like the Democrat party died when JFK was assassinated. The FDR liberals were replaced with Republican religious interests who just want money and fame and don't have a clue how to lead. Not all dams are like that, but the ones with half a brain like how Frank and and Weiner sure got kicked out in a hurry.

Expand full comment

Bob, I was basically brainwashed into being a Republican by my mothers god mother, who gave me a subscription, every Xmas to Readers Digest, that and I lived in a project in a ward which was then Republican and my mother, to curry favor with the powers that be, did some door belling ringing for Republicans.

From that I blossomed into a real right winger. My mom and dad had been divorced for years, my step father, whom I barely knew since I had to leave home so he could move in, had been a friend of John B Kelley. John was the largest contractor in the city of Philadelphia, his daughter Grace married Prince Ranier of Monaco.

John was also a friend of Joseph Kelley and what you might call the Irish Mafia. This was when JFK was still a congressman, and Russell (my step fathers name) told us about this cavorting stud, with mistresses, Congressman John F Kennedy from Mass.

Armed with that piece of info and my "conservatism" I voted for Nixon when he ran against Kennedy. I honestly thought that he, JFK, was a communist, and that the Cuban missile crisis, was a hoax, that he betrayed the Cuban exiles at the Bay of Pigs All manner of things that I now know are BS. I mention this just to say that the Democratic party didn't start to die with his assassination it started when LBJ signed the Civil Rights act which per the eyes of racists, was more egregious than Eisenhower deploying the 82nd Airborne, to stare down Arkansas National Guard in the desegregation of Central High in Little Rock,AR

The Democratic party of JFK was blue collar and racist, but that changed with LBJ, it took a year for southern and midwest Democrats changed their party affiliation. My grandparents, old timers that Arkansas considered to be pioneers, were living in Louisiana one of the first states to sign up for Medicaid, and it prolonged their lives by another 20 years, thanks to LBJ,. I never got to talk politics with them, but my uncle who owned the house they lived in, was a racist, bigoted Southern Baptist Preacher and he sure had a lot say about that N.. loving LBJ, didn't shock me because I was still a Republican

The expulsion of Al Frank was a travesty it just goes to show you how weak and feckless the leadership of the party is, Weiner on the other hand, while i liked his words, the man was a fool and should not have been in a leadership position nor represented anyone. A man who takes pictures of his genital and then puts them on the airways is a fool, he lets the smallest of two heads do the thinking and should not be trusted with the levers of power (for one thing too easy to blackmail).

Expand full comment

I read an article in the TNR soapbox that explained that the main problem is that Dianne Feinstein is out with shingles plus her age. What would kneed to happen is for her to resign, and Governor Newsom to appoint a new Senator. New republic.com.

Expand full comment

The problem with conservatives, and moreso with extremists and reactionary types is that they cannot be honest with themselves. They have never quite mastered the “know thyself” concept and their default position is rationalization to force reality to fit into a preconceived format or irrational theoretical framework. Taking unfair advantage of compulsively nice guys such as Durbin and those who wish to appear reasonable or those who show any sign of weakness is second nature for them. Pretension and façade maintenance or face-saving are their M.O., and being always right and certain of their beliefs and perceptions provides great security. They are chronically in defense mode. We liberal progressives scare them to death with our true liberty and freedom and we are recognized in their inner circles as their enemies, yet they need us to like them and they genuinely like most of us as individuals in our private lives. They wish we could all just get along, but when we are honest about what we think and feel, we represent erroneous ideas and a pernicious evil in their paranoid perspectives. In Congress and in certain political and social circumstances, collegiality and fraternity are utilized to keep them on an even keel. They want the game to remain friendly and life to be peaceful. Unfortunately, they cannot trust others and they particularly cannot trust the “libs”. Trusting them is foolhardy, however, obviously. A lot of the people who lean left seem to find that hard to understand or accept as the crude and cruel reality.

Expand full comment

The situation with conservatives is not about hypocrisy or self honesty. They know exactly what they are about.The end justifies the means, that is what they are about.. what they want is a universe in which the white Christian male is completely in charge, and his supremacy is not threatened or challenged.

Expand full comment

We are not in disagreement, I’m sure. Conservatives typically operate on an “ends justifies the means” philosophy or principle as you say. Most do likewise think that the white Christian male should be in charge. However, the things which distinguish them or that generally cause them to think and act as they do are virtually always an inability to comprehend their own motivations and biases or to learn a more sane, democratic, and truly Christian way of dealing with people and life. One does not need training as a psychoanalyst to recognize that the more extremists on the right lack insight, intuition, or self-awareness and that is at least in part why they lack empathy. They cannot be trusted because they are incapable of trust, yet their behavior is often ambiguous because they want or need affirmation and attention and they feel on some level the need for connection to people who are more human and autonomous. It is hard to “normals” to recognize just how devious and inconsistent they can be because we have learned that trust is ordinarily rewarding and satisfying for all people.

Expand full comment

I fully appreciate what you are saying, and you apparently are a person who assumes good faith. I would like to and do so at the outset, but after consistent exposure, I am unable to assume good faith, that and the fact that my personal background is that of an "ultra" conservative. I won't say how ultra for that would taint the "jury pool"

Religion and religious values are important to some people, especially those that self identify with a religion. I've met a few who really believe in the teachings of their religion and honestly try to live by them.

Vincent Peale was a devout Christian and wrote The Power of Positive Thinking, which Trump read and Hitler could have read, because both lived their lives and acted with the power of positive thinking and look what that wrought

From personal experience, I am of the opinion that those on the right are acting on their self interest, nothing else matters, and their self interest is a return to Mosaic law and an old testament world, which by the way is no different than the Islamic world, minus the necessary accommodations made to exist politically in the 21st century..

There is no compromise, no appeal to humanity, no appeal to morality (they have their own definitions for those anyway), no facts, no reasoning that can get through to these people, on occasion the son or daughter of of these bad actors, who followed in their Daddy's footsteps does something, sees something, encounters a reality which wipes the Saitic veil from their eyes. That happened to me, what is not open to discussion or revelation, it just happened.

And now I see the light, and understand the fear, anger, angst that drives them. Emotions that can not be bridged, unless by self.

The world is full of fools willing to follow a cult, that promises to keep them warm, fed, nourished and loved, and once ensnared in the cult they are told that they have been, are and will be victimized and rejected by the world.

IMO religions and political parties are cultish, there survival depends on fear and a feeling of "specialness".

A singular man,knows that he can't be the alpha male of all society, not be the alpha in the occupation that he has undertaken to put bread on his table, but he can be the alpha of his own harem, his own minuscule domain called home, wife, kids.

We really aren't that much advanced from the skin wearing caveman who beats others into submission, be they male or female, only humans have learned to use a tool that is superior and longer lasting than brute force...Words. Word controlled humans, that is society. When words fail humans resort to force.

To successfully reproduce males are evolved to dominate, other males as well as females. True in practically all species including human.

Humans are social animals, with the ability to communicate, to reason, and thus socially have evolved, almost, from the brutish caveman, but are still driven by the same primal urges, fears and needs.

Males are driven to dominate, females biologically evolved to supplicate (the need to find a mate that will protect and provide for them and their offspring).

We humans have evolved, for the most part,past those primal urges, but they are still there and that is apparently why some of us will support people, whose motives and actions are not in their best interests.

Lets take the current abortion broohah. With the exception of persons very heavily propagandized by hormone assisted mantra of killing Unborn babies" the Real motivation in large part is about men having control over, ownership of women, their bodies and of course the womb. Religions like Catholicism oppose it, not for morality reasons, though that is their excuse, but to conquer the world via fecundity.

Females, and this is not an indictment of women, but it is obvious that those anti abortion women, have bought into supporting the males, camp followers they were called. They see their situation in life being better buttered by not only supporting but reinforcing male supremacy (until their chose male chooses to replace them, happens often, then they see the light).

And of course there are the types called in earlier centuries, the weaker sex, the over emotional, the sob sisters,these are by and large those afflicted with religiosity.

Strong, self willed, self guided women are called by these caricatures of men, names like harridan, dykes. femiNAZIs. etc. Believing that they can be silenced and bullied into submission with slurs. Slurs seem to work on the left or with liberals, they have succcesfully bullied into the closet with charges of socialist or communist, even liberal has become a slur, actually became a slur during Nixon's reign.

There are no better angels on the right. Just one huge amygdala fearfully motivated to wipe out of existence everyone and everything that frightens them, and what frightens them is the threat to male hegemony (even among man of color., though not so much these days, for leaders like Al Sharpton has learned that you can't marginalize LGBT while demanding equal respect and rights for people of color.

Expand full comment

You are correct to recognize the power of words and you use them quite effectively. But as I think you also recognize, words have little or no effect on cult members. As Thom has said, either we get the people out to show up in protest and to vote, or we will see our precious democracy go by the wayside. And, those who represent us, such as Sen. Durbin need to be made aware that trusting reactionaries to reciprocate and trying to appease or reason with them is suicidal.

Expand full comment

Oh definitely agree that words have no effect on cult members. After all cults are us. We are surrounded by cults.. Word Controlled Humans, we call them religions :) .

As regards protests. Not so sure about them anymore, they are more like pressure relieve valves.

What has the Occupy Movement produced How about the Million women march on D.C.

What produces change is the fear of violence and property damage. The Powers that Be could care less about human lives and carnage,but they do care about property, especially theirs.

The PTB hold up as something to emulate, Mahatma Ghandi and non violent protests.

But it was the "ghost" of Subra Chandra Bose and the Indian National Army, that scared the beejus out of the Brits, not non violent protests and fastings.

If you never heard of Subras Chandra Bose and the Indian National Army try wikipedia.

Here you had millions of armed Indians fired with nationalism and ready to throw out the colonizers.. If all they had was Mahatma to worry about, nothing would have happened.

Same thing with civil rights advances, it wasn't MLK's non violent campaign, it was the cities erupting in fire that convinced them to at least give lip service to change.

Recast the racist, fascist, theocrats as bullies. The only way to stop a bully is to bloody his or her nose.

Expand full comment

Democracy is ostensibly the antidote to all that violence and intimidation and threats of violence. The people are empowered with the franchise, ideally and theoretically. Unfortunately, we have let that slip away from us by buying into faulty beliefs and strategies or ideologies and by accepting the ludicrous notion that the citizenry will be well-informed and educated if they are required to attend schools for 12 years. We relinquished power and influence, giving it to officials, bureaucrats, wealthy influencers and pretend-educators. We may still have enough opportunities to take back our agency and power without violence. But now, we are being threatened with civil war and violence and the movers and shakers are moving and shaking with great force and determination. It may be too late.

Expand full comment

That is what they got in the dark ages. It didn't work out too well for them. Religion seems to crank out violent angry narcissistic people of all races. In America, if the right wing was not religious, they would not be a threat to our democracy. The current whipping up a civil war in my opinion is more about religion than it is about racism. They are just using racism as a cover. The religious have never liked truth or truth seekers or free thinkers. It looks like global warming is going to polish them off.

Expand full comment

They all vote and choose, according to the wishes of their highest contributors. Illinois has a lot of corporate interests; Durbin is just selling himself. Both sides of the aisle are guilty. Sometimes I think the Dems are worse; they talk the talk but don't walk it.

Expand full comment

That has been my complaint, and when the person, such as you or I, stick out head of the burrow, it gets whacked with some apologia, or excuse like "be quiet" you are only helping the Republicans. In other words shut up and fall in line.

It is said that Republicans fall in line, but Democrats fall in love. Truth is that we may fall in love, but when it is learned the hard way, that we fell in love with empty promises, then we are batted back into line.

Enough of that, I am a fire breather, not an establishmentarian. Without apology, Hillary Clinton was toxic, but she was female and that was enough for many in the parties, and she had a cultured myth of being active in civil rights or something, unlike Bernie Sanders who actually marched and was arrested. in 1963.

Hillary Clinton claimed that she went undercover in Alabama in 1972 to uncover blacks being discriminated in a school. Fool, no need to go undercover to prove that.

So a group of"wise women" in SC and the DNC put their thumb on the scale to put a tired old race horse that had been stomping around in the paddock earning her credentials in foreign policy, her turn at the starting gate, only what they actually did was to make DJT president.

Instead of a contest between populist left and populist right, the contest was between an establishment left and populist right, who actually turned out not be a real populist at all, but his supporters don't really care, because he was their avatar for the return of male supremacy, which is the essence of conservatism, Looking backwards and preserving the status quo as it once was.

Expand full comment