Wednesday, January 27, 2021

State Republican Parties Embrace Qanon, False Flag, Stolen Election Conspiracies

If you think the Trump-Qanon crazies have only invaded the GOP at the national level, think again. Vox reports:

Donald Trump’s departure from the White House left a giant question mark hanging over American democracy: Would the GOP reckon with its embrace of Trumpism, or would it continue down the extremist path it has been traveling for years?

The evidence from the past few weeks has not been promising. But one of the most disturbing signs — and one of the most underappreciated — has been the wild behavior of certain state-level Republican parties in recent days. Three examples — in Oregon, Hawaii, and Arizona — really stick out.

On January 19, the Oregon Republican Party passed a resolution condemning the 10 House Republicans who voted to impeach Trump.

In that resolution, the state party ludicrously claimed that “there is growing evidence that the violence at the Capitol was a ‘false flag’ operation designed to discredit President Trump,” warning of “a frightening parallel to the February 1933 burning of the German Reichstag” and “Leftist forces seeking to establish a dictatorship void of all cherished freedom and liberties.”

This Saturday, the official account of the Hawaii Republican Party sent tweets defending QAnon believers and praising the “generally high quality” work of a YouTuber named Tarl Warwick, who has denied the Holocaust.

The party deleted and condemned the tweets; the communications official who sent them resigned. But this is not the first dance with extremism from the Hawaii state party: In 2020, the founder of the Proud Boys Hawaii, Nick Ochs, ran for a statehouse seat under the party’s banner. Ochs later participated in the storming of the Capitol and was arrested at Honolulu’s airport on January 9.

Also on Saturday, the Arizona Republican Party passed official resolutions censuring three prominent party members — Gov. Doug Ducey, former Sen. Jeff Flake, and Sen. John McCain’s widow Cindy McCain — for supposed deviation from GOP ideology

I have written about how stupid the Arizona move is.  Arizona is a battleground state that had more Republicans crossing over to vote for Democrat Joe Biden than any other state in the country.  Attacking principled Arizona Republicans doesn't seem like way of reviving the GOP in that state.

Then you have the Texas GOP led by former Floridian congressman Allen West who has suggested the Lone Star State should secede from the union.  West has asked supporters to follow it on the media app "Gab" which is home to right wing extremists and Qanon conspiracy believers.

OOP's short takes:

  • It turns out in that Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Qanon) in 2018 and 2019 indicated support on Facebook for the execution of Democrats.  But, hey, don't worry.  Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy said he's going to have a talk with her.  That should do it.
  • During a vote yesterday, 45 of 50 Republicans took the position that the Senate can't convict an impeached ex-President, i.e. that the impeachment clause only applies to current officeholders.  While I don't agree with that assessment, it's not exactly a shock that they GOP Senators are taking that easy exit ramp.  
  • Yesterday on the Bulwark podcast, James Wallner, a professor of political science at American University, took the position that the impeachment clause does not apply to ex-officeholders and thus the Senate cannot convict Trump on the impeachment charge because he is no longer President.  When podcast host Charlie Sykes pointed out that Wallner's approach was nonsensical as it would allow an impeached officeholder to avoid disqualification by simply resigning (free to run again later), Wallner said that such person would face other legal proceedings, such as criminal prosecution.  Wallner (as well as perhaps Sykes) seemed unaware that federal courts have held that conviction of a person for a felony does not disqualify that person from running for federal office.  If my iffy 14th Amendment option (discussed below) doesn't work, then the only option for disqualification is through the impeachment clause.  Even if Trump is sitting in a prison cell, convicted of multiple felonies, he can still be a candidate for President in 2024.
  • still think both houses of Congress should pass a censure resolution, only needing a majority vote, condemning President Trump for his efforts at overturning the election results. and fomenting the January 6th attempted insurrection.  As part of that effort, Congress should use the 14th Amendment, Section 3 to disqualify him from ever serving in any elected office ever again.  (That section clearly applies to officeholders who are no longer in office.)  Opponents of this approach point out the uncertainty of who, under Section 3, decides whether the person was involved in an insurrection, or even if  "executive officer" applies to the President.  My response is, who cares?  Put the ball in Trump's and his Republican allies court to prove that it does not.  This approach would make Republicans in Congress vote up or down on Trump's behavior without the easy impeachment off-ramp provided by the fact Trump is no longer in office.


leon dixon said...

ROGER SIMON: Can Rand Paul Save the Senate?
Every day in every way I like Rand Paul better. He gives libertarianism a good name by standing for something, unlike almost all his colleagues, right and left.
Just the other day he stood up to the tedious hyper-partisanship of ABC’s George Stephanopoulos.
Tuesday he weighed in, to great effect, on the impeachment issue, although I suspect it wasn’t just his impassioned and eloquent speech, a point of order actually, that swung 45 Republican senators to his side.
The Kentucky senator pointed out the obvious, calling the Democrats’ second impeachment charade utterly unconstitutional and forcing the one hundred lawmakers to stand up and be counted on the question.
The result was 45 out of 50 Republican senators—whether reluctantly or not we will never know—agreed with him, making the coming trial moot (the two-thirds necessary for conviction nearly impossible) and most likely an embarrassment to the politically bloodthirsty Democrats and their addled president who keeps telling us he wants to bring us together.
But, as I mentioned, something else was going on.
As important, possibly more, was the new poll Rasmussen took for John Solomon’s Just the News of an imaginary 2024 presidential election. It’s ridiculously early, of course, but it showed Donald Trump’s as yet nonexistent Patriot party garnering 23 percent of the vote to the Republicans 17 percent. (The Democrats were at 46% with “other”—whatever that is— winning 14 percent, barely trailing the Republicans.)
This wasn’t really surprising—not to me and probably not to most of you—but it apparently was to a group of seemingly-clueless Republican senators who only a few days ago registered the possibility that they might vote to convict a president of their own party who was not even still in office.
The poll must have scared the proverbial bejesus out of them. Anyway it should have.
So we won’t forget the original Republican reprobates, they were, according to a Jan. 25, 2021 report here at The Epoch Times:
Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.)
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)
Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.)
Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine)
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska)
Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah)
Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.)
Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio)
Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska)
Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.)
Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.)
Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho)
Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.)
Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.)
Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.)
Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.)
How quickly things change. After Tuesday’s vote, sixteen were reduced to five in a flash!
Only Collins and Murkowski (perpetual outsiders), Toomey (not running for reelection), Sasse (looking for QAnon under every rock) and, of course, Romney remain. Call them The Five (not to be confused with Greg Gutfeld et. al.).
We needn’t belabor that only a day or so ago newly-ensconced minority leader McConnell was touting the inevitability of a trial he just voted against as unconstitutional. How embarrassing.
Another list exists at the same Epoch Times article of those whose leanings we did not know, at least yesterday. Today, of course, we can assume that are all squarely in Trump’s camp.
Whether it was Rand Paul or Rasmussen that finally woke those people up is ultimately irrelevant.
What is relevant is how few of them stood up for Donald Trump during what we might call “crunch time,” when he needed them to support Sens. Hawley and Cruz in their attempt to get a measly ten-day period with which to study the allegations of election fraud to see if they amounted to anything.
As Ed Morrissey wrote yesterday, Rand Paul can’t derail the Senate trial, but he “can take all of the suspense out of it” – and did just that." I guess you have 5 "Republicans" in your cabal.

leon dixon said...

Your Guy? "REALLY, MITT? REALLY? “You know what, I was a big Trump supporter, I was really pulling for Donald Trump, but he lost fair and square.”

Plus: “I’m not seeing the whole transcript, but to really lean into the demonstration of honesty, Romney should acknowledge the dismissals that were for a lack of standing. I’d like to see him engage with what Rand Paul said last Sunday. . . I agree that the time for contesting the election has passed, but I don’t think the way Romney is speaking will convince Trump supporters to give up their belief that something went wrong. Telling them the courts found it laughable, and they should give up and move on is going to make true believers more suspicious. And I’m sure they don’t buy the assertion that Romney was ever ‘a big Trump supporter.'”

Well, that’s because it’s laughably false." Keep humping for your style of RINO but note that Bernie made money from mittens....

leon dixon said... I'd gu ess that this lady is one of the neo con members whose exposure as such has made her unpopular. Neo cons are/were an important part of your Republican Party but exposure for what they are leads to these sorts of results.

Paul K. Ogden said...

How in the world is Liz Cheney a "neo-conservative? Neo = new. Conservative = Conservative. A "neoconservative" is literally a "new conservative." Neo-conservative is a label given to anti-Communist Democrats who switched over to the Republican Party because of the GOP's hawkish foreign policy. Someone like the late Jeane Kirkpatrick, a former Democrat, who because U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations under Reagan, is a "neo-conservative." Liz Cheney is from a prominent Wyoming Republican family and has been a conservative Republican all her life. She is not a "new conservative."

If we had more Liz Cheneys in Congress, Republicans who were willing to stand up for principle, honesty and integrity, we in the GOP wouldn't be in the mess we are right now with the stench Trump and his ilk have left on the party and, more importantly, the conservative movement..

leon dixon said...
And, of course, I have not much use for polls. And, yes, Liz lands in the neo con camp along with her dad.

Paul K. Ogden said...

Sorry, you just don't get to make up a new definition for "neoconservative" because it sounds like something that is bad and you want to apply it to Liz Cheney.

Paul K. Ogden said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Paul K. Ogden said...

Just now saw your first post, Leon, and posted it.

Certainly not all 60 plus cases the Trump campaign lost were because of standing. Many, if not most of them, were summarily dismissed because Giuliani didn't have any evidence to back up his claims. (The idiotic Texas lawsuit was dismissed by the SCT b/c of standing, but that wasn't the Trump campaign.

I get a kick out of someone who supports a lifelong liberal Democrat from New York, i.e. Donald Trump, someone who has not a conservative bone in his body, calling lifelong conservative Republicans, like Romney, a RINO.

Do you believe the Qanon conspiracies? Do you believe the invasion of the Capitol on 1/6 was done by Antifa who fooled people by wearing MAGA clothing? Do you believe that Trump switched bodies with Biden and it was actually Trump who was sworn in on 1/20? Certainly you believe in the "stolen election" conspiracy foolishness. They had all this evidence of fraud but no judge anywhere, including Trump appointed federal judges, would listen to any of it. Sure, that's what happened. Trumpers are not patriots and are not principled conservatives. They are members of a cult. You are in a cult.

leon dixon said... I understand that Heinz is fixing to sell off Planter's Peanuts. A shame, for there are many NUTS in congress especially in the House. So, why do you fixate on just the one potential pick of Planter's while ignoring TONS OF OTHERS? In normal years don't we have a few instant books on The Making Of The President 2020? Where are they? Where are all of the pundits exclaiming how basement dweller captured the hearts and minds after his dismal showing in the D primaries where the total of the crowds he attracted did not equal one such gatherings numbers of Bernie? And, how long will duh media protect round heels? She dropped out of the presidential race for lack of any real support. In a binary choice, it appears to me that you chose THEM. That will get you points with the running dogs but their praise is quite worthless.

leon dixon said...

leon dixon said... I am 50' into it and wonder what Powell has, what the other lawyer has, both have cases on the SC docket for 2/19 . The challenge here is to take a drink of strong beverage so as to open your closed mind and see then if any of the documentary makes any sense at all. If you can't do that then who is in a Cult?

leon said... That old, dumb party, is gasping for breath in the dustbin.