Historian Doris Kearns Goodwin to visit Birmingham on September 19
The Public Affairs Research Council of Alabama (PARCA) is hosting historian Doris Kearns Goodwin for “An evening of cocktails, discussion, and a special book signing” in Birmingham on Tuesday, September 19. Doris Kearns Goodwin is a world-renowned presidential historian, public speaker, and Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times #1 best-selling author. PARCA is a 501c3 nonprofit whose mission is to work to inform and improve the decision making of state and local leaders in Alabama through objective research and analysis. PARCA studies state and local finances and taxes, school performance, workforce development, and government operations. Since 2020, she has worked as the executive producer for the History Channel’s miniseries events “Washington,” “Abraham Lincoln,” and “Theodore Roosevelt,” with more projects in the pipeline. The event will include a reception for all guests, a private cocktail reception with Goodwin, a fireside chat, a book signing, and a dessert reception. Priska Neely, the regional managing editor for the Gulf States Newsroom, will be the moderator. Goodwin is a frequent news media and late-night TV guest to discuss leadership and provide historical context for current issues, including the impact of the COVID-19 global pandemic, presidential politics, and the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Ms. Goodwin’s seventh book, “Leadership In Turbulent Times,” was an instant bestseller and published to critical acclaim in Fall 2018. Focusing on Presidents Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, and Lyndon Baines Johnson, the book provides an accessible and essential road map for aspiring and established leaders in every field and for all of us in our everyday lives. Goodwin graduated magna cum laude from Colby College. She earned a Doctor of Philosophy degree in Government from Harvard University, where she taught Government, including a course on the American Presidency. Goodwin has been a critic of former President Donald Trump. Goodwin previously authored six critically acclaimed and New York Times bestselling books, including the Carnegie Medal winner “The Bully Pulpit: Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, and the Golden Age of Journalism,” which is in part the basis for a film being developed about Ida Tarbell, the famous muckraking journalist of the era. Ms. Goodwin’s award-winning “Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln” was the inspiration for Steven Spielberg’s film “Lincoln,” which earned 12 Academy Award® nominations, including an Academy Award for actor Daniel Day-Lewis for his portrayal of the 16th president. Ms. Goodwin earned the Pulitzer Prize in History for “No Ordinary Time: Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt: The Home Front in World War II.” Her “The Fitzgeralds and the Kennedys” was adapted into an award-winning television miniseries. Goodwin worked with President Johnson in the White House and later assisted him in the writing of his memoirs. She then wrote “Lyndon Johnson and the American Dream,” which became a national bestseller and achieved critical acclaim. It was re-released in Spring 2019, highlighting LBJ’s accomplishments in domestic affairs. Goodwin has served as a consultant and has been interviewed extensively for PBS and HISTORY’s documentaries on Presidents Johnson, Roosevelt, and Lincoln, the Kennedy family, and on Ken Burns’ “The History of Baseball” and “The Roosevelts: An Intimate History.” She was a consultant on HBO Films’ “All the Way,” starring Bryan Cranston as President Johnson. She played herself as a teacher to Lisa Simpson on” The Simpsons” and a historian on “American Horror Story.” The event will be held at the Birmingham Red Mountain Theatre Arts Campus. Proceeds for this event will go toward PARCA’s mission to inform and improve the decision-making of state and local leaders in Alabama through objective research and analysis. General admission tickets start at $100. PARCA is a 501c3 nonprofit whose mission is to work to inform and improve the decision making of state and local leaders in Alabama through objective research and analysis. PARCA studies state and local finances and taxes, school performance, workforce development, and government operations. To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com.
This year marks 160th anniversary of the Battle of Gettysburg
From July 1 – 3, 1863, the armies of the United States of America and the Confederate States of America faced off in an epic battle in and around Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, that largely decided the Civil War for the Union. Today Gettysburg is a National Battlefield Park dedicated to preserving the memory of the hundreds of thousands of Americans who fought on both sides of that battle. To date, Gettysburg was the largest battle ever fought in the history of the Western Hemisphere. Over 10,000 men were killed or mortally wounded, over 30,000 were wounded, and another 30,000 were captured or were missing. In 1863, Union forces under General Ulysses S. Grant besieged a Confederate army at Vicksburg on the Mississippi River. The fall of Vicksburg would give the Union unfettered control of the vital Mississippi River and effectively divide the Confederacy in half. General Robert E. Lee, seeking both a victory and an opportunity for his hungry and poorly equipped Confederate Army to live off the land of the North, took his Army of Northern Virginia north into Pennsylvania. Lee was uncharacteristically left blind by Confederate Cavalry under General Jeb Stuart, whom Lee thought would keep him abreast of Union troop movement. Instead, Stuart took the Confederate Cavalry raiding. Unbeknownst to Lee, his army’s drive north had been shadowed by the Union’s Army of the Potomac, and the two were about to collide. President Abraham Lincoln had only recently promoted General George Meade to command the Army of the Potomac. Lee had given Confederate Major General Henry Heth strict orders not to engage any Union forces. On July 1, 1863, ostensibly seeking shoes for his men, Heth took an entire division towards Gettysburg for what was essentially a reconnaissance in force. He did not realize that doing so would have enormous consequences. Outside of town, they encountered Union Brigadier General John Buford’s cavalry dismounted, maintaining a line of defense outside of the town of Gettysburg. Believing they could easily push aside the smaller force and not knowing that the full Army of the Potomac was so close by, Heth attacked. Buford realized the importance of the moment and sought to hold it for as long as possible. He was soon reinforced by Union Major General John Reynolds’ Corps. Reynolds repulsed Heth’s attack, though it cost him his life. More Union and Confederate forces arrived on the battlefield, and things rapidly escalated that first day. Meade then put Major General Winfield Scott Hancock in command of the forward elements of the Army of the Potomac in the place of the fallen Reynolds. At Hancock’s urging, Meade committed his full force. Perhaps over-eager to win a crushing victory over the Union, Lee ordered an all-out attack, committing his full Army of Northern Virginia. From almost immediately following the battle to the present day, military historians debate the decisions made by commanders in those three days. If Lt. General Dick Ewell had attacked with more vigor and taken Cemetery Ridge, if the Confederates had committed more forces to the assault on Little Round Top, if Lt. General James Longstreet had hit harder on Day 2, could the Confederates have won? If the South had prevailed, what does the world look like today? While the battle was a Union victory, Lincoln was terribly disappointed that Meade did not pursue Lee and crush the Army of Northern Virginia. Could the war have ended in July 1863 rather than dragging on for two more years? Meade’s defenders argue that if he had pursued Lee, then Lee could have turned the tables in the rematch. Those questions will never be decisively answered. What we are left with is that thousands of Americans, including many Alabamians, fought on that field 160 years ago, and their memory will not be forgotten. To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com.
Dan Sutter: A national divorce and economic policy
Comments from U.S. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene have brought attention to the idea of a national divorce. A national divorce would enable the enactment of the economic agendas of the left and right and is worth thinking about. National dissolution has been broached via calls for secession following the 2012 and 2016 elections. Michael Anton of the Claremont Institute, author of the influential essay “The Flight 93 Election,” recently penned a brilliant dialogue on national divorce for The Asylum. The dialogue is between childhood friends Tom and Malcolm, who have grown apart on ideological grounds. Tom recognizes how Blue state residents, including his former friend Malcolm, hate everything about Red state conservatives. If this were a marriage, the spouses would be separated and talking exclusively through insults. Why not end this nightmare marriage peacefully? Malcolm’s not unexpected dismissal of national dissolution leads Tom to wonder, if Blue America so hates everything Red, why not break up? The answer: Blue America intends to subjugate and rule folks like Tom through legal manipulation, if not outright force. Mr. Anton notes Abraham Lincoln’s observation that North and South shared 99 percent of values and differed only over one thing. That one thing, slavery, was a doozy, but other common values offered potential for continued union. And Lincoln was right; after a terrible Civil War ended slavery, we eventually healed back into a United States. Today’s differences are far more extensive, including economic policy (taxes, spending, and regulation), the form of government (the desirability of the Constitution), and culture (religion, abortion, parental rights, etc.) Red and Blue America seemingly cannot even agree on who is a woman! A divorce differs from secession in being mutual. Precedent for peaceful dissolution exists, most notably division of Czechoslovakia into the Czech Republic and Slovakia in 1992. What is the alternative to a divorce? Polls suggest that many Americans fear civil war or descent into authoritarian rule. When the FBI investigates parents speaking at school board meetings as domestic terrorists, we may already no longer be a liberal democracy. To be clear, some polls indicate more common ground between Americans than suggested by MSNBC and Fox News. During the selection of Kevin McCarthy as Speaker of the House, television cameras caught Democrats and Republicans talking cordially to each other! Pursuit of clicks and followers may drive the news media to be excessively venomous. A national divorce offers benefits and not just avoid conflict. Economists view nations in terms of institutions, things like property rights, the rule of law, and constitutional limits on government. Red and Blue America want different institutions, not just slightly more or less government spending. America was founded on freedom, which in 1776 meant not being ruled by a king. Multiple visions of freedom have since evolved. Liberals (generally) favor economic rights and expansive government to liberate people from necessity. Conservatives and libertarians want limited government and view high taxes as negating freedom. One nation cannot have two sets of institutions. Government cannot both spend half of the GDP and only 10 percent of the GDP. We cannot have government control of the economy and free markets. Pinballing between these extremes every four or eight years might be even worse. Perhaps we just need to decide the correct vision of freedom. This has not worked. We are no closer to consensus now than fifty or one hundred years ago. Waiting for consensus means never implementing either vision. The seeming authoritarian turn in American politics reflects, I think, an unwillingness to never achieve our preferred vision of freedom. Blue and Red America see each other as preventing the realization of a just America. Yet the only true barrier to implementing both visions is remaining one nation. Perhaps America is still the land of the free, but we embrace different and incompatible visions of freedom. Should we never implement either due to a lack of consensus, have half the country try to force their vision on the other, or try to realize both through mutual separation? Daniel Sutter is the Charles G. Koch Professor of Economics with the Manuel H. Johnson Center for Political Economy at Troy University and host of Econversations on TrojanVision. The opinions expressed in this column are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the views of Troy University.
Celebrating Presidents Day
Today is Presidents Day. It is a federal and state holiday, so banks, post offices, government offices, courthouses, schools, and businesses will be closed. This is the annual observance of President George Washington’s birthday. Washington was the first President of the United States, head of the Constitutional Convention, the commander of the Continental Army during the Revolutionary War, a delegate to the Continental Congress, a hero of the French and Indian War, and one of the most revered Americans in history. Washington’s actual birthday is Wednesday, February 22, but we celebrate it on a Monday to have a three-day weekend. Abraham Lincoln’s birthday is February 12. This holiday has evolved into rather than just celebrating Washington’s memory. All 46 U.S. Presidents are remembered and honored today. George Washington is one of the four Mount Rushmore presidents, along with Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, and Theodore Roosevelt. Washington was born on February 22, 1732, in the Virginia Colony. Washington was the son of Augustine and Mary Ball Washington. Washington was the oldest of their six children. His father also had three children with his first wife, including Lawrence Washington. His half-brother Lawrence was an inspiration and mentor to the young George Washington after their father died in 1743. Washington inherited land and slaves from his father and inherited Mount Vernon from Lawrence’s widow in 1761. Washington could have enjoyed a life of luxury on his inherited estates. Washington was a very enthusiastic farmer. Washington was an active breeder of mules, and generations of American farmers were influenced by Washington’s advocacy for the animals, which are a sterile hybrid cross between a donkey and a horse. Washington was also a very cutting-edge sheep breeder and agronomist. As much as he loved Mount Vernon and managing his lands, Washington spent much of his life elsewhere. He was an accomplished surveyor and mapmaker. He was one of the top military officers in the Virginia Militia. Washington spent years fighting the Revolutionary War, leading an army that had not existed before and training them to fight as an army. Gen. Washington had to fight smallpox, exposure, and malnutrition, which collectively killed more of his soldiers than the British did. Washington’s victory at Yorktown shocked the world. An entire British Army was trapped – and would have been wiped out if the British had not surrendered. Following the War, Washington resisted calls from some of his troops to seize the government by force and instead went home to his farm. When it became clear that the Articles of Confederation were not working, Washington joined calls for a new Constitution and led the Constitutional Convention that drafted the U.S. Constitution. Washington was elected the first president of the United States and served two terms. He could have easily been elected to a third term but chose to go home to his farm instead. Despite poor health, he came out of retirement during Adams’ presidency to head the U.S. Army for an anticipated war with France. Fortunately, Adams averted that War with diplomacy. Washington died at Mount Vernon in 1799. This Presidents Day celebration is overshadowed by the breaking news that former President Jimmy Carter, age 98, has been sent to hospice. Carter, who was President from 1977 to 1981, and Bill Clinton are the last two living twentieth century Presidents. To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com.
Today is Robert E. Lee Day
Confederate General Robert E. Lee’s birthday is on January 19, but it is celebrated by the State of Alabama today. Robert E. Lee Day has been an official state holiday in Alabama since sometime in the late 1800s. Lee was the most renowned general of the Confederacy in the Civil War. Today is an official state holiday. State offices and most schools will be closed in observance of the holiday. Federal offices, post offices, and many businesses will also be closed, but that is because today is also Martin Luther King Jr. Day. Alabama and Mississippi merged its Lee celebration with MLK Day after President Ronald Reagan signed legislation, making it a national holiday. Some state legislators have advocated for dropping Robert E. Lee Day from the list of official holidays and making the holiday observance for Dr. King alone. That legislation has not advanced in past legislative sessions. Robert Edward Lee was the son of Revolutionary War hero General Henry “Light-Horse Harry” Lee. Lee was born in Stratford Hall, Virginia, in 1807. His father was a hero, a governor of Virginia, and the dignitary was chosen to write the eulogy for President George Washington. By young Robert’s birth, the Lee’s fortunes had turned sour, and Light Horse Harry served time in debtor’s prison. The older Lee’s health declined, and he passed away in the West Indies without ever getting to know his young son. Robert received an appointment to the United States Military Academy at West Point, where he graduated second in the class of 1829. Lee married Mary Anna Randolph Custis. Lee spent most of his early military career as an engineer, where he supervised and inspected the construction of the nation’s coastal defenses. During the Mexico-American War, Lee served on the staff of General Winfield Scott. Lee distinguished himself in that war and became a colonel. He was the Superintendent of West Point from 1852 to 1855. He then took command of the cavalry. In 1859 he crushed abolitionist John Brown’s attempted insurrection at Harpers Ferry. President Abraham Lincoln offered Lee the command of the Union Army being assembled to invade the South. Lee declined and resigned from the army when Virginia seceded. The Confederacy made Lee a general. His first military engagement in the Civil War was at Cheat Mountain (now West Virginia) on September 11, 1861. On June 1862, he was given command of what he would rename the Army of Northern Virginia when General Joseph E. Johnston was wounded. Lee would become a legend in that command. He won several victories against vastly superior Union forces. Ultimately though, his two attempts to invade the North at Antietam and Gettysburg were failures – costly failures that the outmanned Confederates could not sustain. After the simultaneous Union victories at Gettysburg and Vicksburg, Mississippi, Ulysses S. Grant assumed command of Union forces. Rather than making Richmond the aim of his campaign as previous generals had done – with no success – Grant attacked Lee’s Army. By the summer of 1864, the Confederates were forced into waging trench warfare outside of Petersburg. On April 9, 1865, Lee was forced to surrender his depleted army to Grant at Appomattox Court House. Lee returned home from the war and eventually became the president of Washington College in Virginia (now known as Washington and Lee University). He died on October 12, 1870, in Lexington, Virginia. His life and military exploits have been revered by generations of southerners. To connect with the author of this story, or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com.
Brandon Moseley: Celebrating Thanksgiving
Today is Thanksgiving. 401 years ago, the Pilgrims celebrated their first harvest in the New World with their Wampanoag Indian friends with a feast. We remember that celebration each year with a feast of our own. We eat turkey, dressing, ham, macaroni and cheese, butter, rolls, dressing, green bean casserole, corn on the cob, applesauce, sweet potato casserole, pumpkin pie, apple pie, decorated cakes, cranberry sauce, mashed potatoes, stewed onions, and other treats. But is this what the Pilgrims ate at the first Thanksgiving? Not quite. Most of us serve turkey on our Thanksgiving Day table. Did the Pilgrims? We don’t know. William Bradford tells us that the Pilgrims found lots of wild turkeys in the area, and the local Indians may have had domesticated turkeys. Turkeys were first domesticated in what is now Mexico as early as 800 B.C. The Anasazi raised domesticated turkeys in the southwestern United States by 200 B.C. The Indians of the Southeastern U.S. of the Mississippian culture were raising turkeys as early as the thirteenth century A.D. The first domesticated turkeys appear to be raised for their feathers which were used for feathered blankets, and headdresses and to improve the accuracy of Native American arrows. The Spanish Conquistadors brought the bird to Europe, where they were a popular Christmas dinner in England by the mid-sixteenth century. Some of the Pilgrim men went hunting prior to the feast, and they collected a large number of “wild fowl.” It is likely that these “wild fowl” included turkeys, but they likely also harvested wild geese, ducks, pigeons, doves, and other wild birds. You can have a roast or prime rib on your Thanksgiving Day table, but the Pilgrims did not have beef at the first Thanksgiving. In fact, the only animals we know for sure that came on the Mayflower were two dogs: an English mastiff and an English spaniel because they are mentioned in the annals of the Pilgrims. We know there was no beef and a major butter shortage as a result of not having cattle. The ship ‘Anne’ arrived in 1623, bringing the first three cows: nicknamed the “Great Black Cow,” the “Lesser Black Cow,” and the “Great White-Backed Cow.” More arrived on the ‘Jacob’ in 1624. Now many of us have ham on our Thanksgiving Day table. It is not known for sure when the first pigs arrived at Plymouth. It appears that they had chickens because Edward Winslow gave chicken broth to Massasoit when he was sick in 1623. That year Emmanual Altham visited Plymouth, and reported there were six goats, fifty pigs, and many chickens. If there were any pigs at the First Thanksgiving (and that’s debatable), they were probably in the growing and multiplying stage, so they likely weren’t on the menu. Now, if you have venison on your Thanksgiving Day table, you are being very historically accurate. We know that the visiting Wampanoag Indians brought five deer to the feast. If you are serving seafood, you are also likely being historically accurate. Bradford tells us that the Pilgrims were able to successfully dig up eels at night from their beds and that mussels were plentiful. Cod would also have been a common foodstuff at the time. If you have corn on your table, you are being accurate to a point. The Pilgrims had corn, wheat, and oats, so they were able to make breads and porridges. Now they did not have sweet corn, so corn on the cob or kernel corn would not have been present. Many of us have mashed potatoes or potatoes au gratin. While potatoes were grown in the Americas since ancient times by the Native Americans – that was in South America, not North America. The first potatoes in North America were gifted by the Governor of the Bahamas to the Governor of Virginia in 1625 – after the Thanksgiving feast. Likewise, there were no sweet potatoes at the first Thanksgiving as they weren’t in North America yet. There also were no apples. The Pilgrims likely had cranberries – they did not have cranberry sauce as there was a major shortage of sugar. Certainly, squash and pumpkins were at the first Thanksgiving, but without butter and sugar, the pies and cakes that we eat in our deserts today would have been impossible then. They also had not had time to build ovens yet so most of the food was cooked in a pot or a spit over an open fire, which further limited what those Pilgrim chefs could do. The Pilgrims had onions, carrots, peas, turnips, beans, and other foods from their home gardens. Many of these were stuffed into the waterfowl or were served boiled, and gravies and broths are also likely historically accurate. The Pilgrims would also have had walnuts, acorns, and chestnuts in quantity as those trees were commonly found in the forests of the day. We love our macaroni and cheese, but it was not invented until the 19th century, so no, the Pilgrims were not eating mac & cheese (they also had no cows – so no cheese). We also like to eat green bean casserole, but it was not invented until the mid-20th century. The Pilgrims brought beer, cider, and wine with them, but they would have run out of any stores in that first year, so there likely were not any such drinks served. To connect with the author of this story, or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com.
Jim Zeigler: Thanksgiving all year round
Pilgrims and Native Americans in Massachusetts held the first Thanksgiving celebration in the New World in 1621. George Washington issued a proclamation creating the first Thanksgiving Day designated by the federal government in 1789. On October 3, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln proclaimed a national day of “Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father” to be celebrated on the fourth Thanksgiving in November, and the official holiday of Thanksgiving began. Hopefully, Thanksgiving is more than just a single day of celebration. It is a lifestyle, a way of life. We are told in 1st Thessalonians 5:16-18: “Rejoice always, pray continually, give thanks in all circumstances; for this is God’s will for you in Christ Jesus.” Is this even possible? Yes. Is it easy? Not always. When we give thanks, we acknowledge the goodness of God. We recognize that our joy comes from the Lord, not our circumstances. By giving thanks, we focus on what we have rather than what we wish we had. Our hearts experience joy, and real thanksgiving happens. During this season of Thanksgiving, we should thank God for His provision and His plans for us even when we do not understand all our circumstances. As you count your blessings, you cannot help but be overwhelmed by God’s goodness and grace. There is an old Southern hymn that sings of thanksgiving as a lifestyle. When upon life’s billows you are tempest tossed And you are discouraged thinking all is lost. Count your many blessings, name them one by one And it will surprise you what the Lord has done. Count your blessings, name them one by one. Count your blessings, see what God has done. Count your blessings. Name them one by one. Count your many blessings see what God has done. Jim Zeigler is the State Auditor of Alabama.
Gary Palmer calls out Joe Biden for divisive speech
Thursday, President Joe Biden delivered his controversial speech, deriding Trump-supporting Republicans as a “threat to democracy.” Congressman Gary Palmer called the speech “disturbing” in a statement on Friday. “The overwhelming majority of Americans understand that a house divided against itself cannot stand,” Palmer said in a press release, quoting Mathew 12:25, which was the basis of a famous President Abraham Lincoln speech. “Apparently, given his divisive speech last night, President Biden and the Democrats in control of Congress do not.” “If history properly reflects President Biden’s political address to the nation, it will be viewed as one of the most disturbingly divisive speeches from the mouth of an American President,” said Palmer. “There is no doubt that our nation is deeply and dangerously divided, perhaps more so than any time since the Civil War. In designating people who truly want a more secure and prosperous future for themselves and their children as threats to our democracy, President Biden literally divided our nation even further. His speech will only serve to incite suspicion and fear between neighbors, coworkers, and even among members of the same family simply because they voted for a candidate the far-Left Democrats loathe and fear.” “I would like President Biden to answer this question—what is wrong with wanting to make America,” said Palmer. “Great Again? Moreover, why isn’t making America great again and restoring to all Americans the hopes and dreams of a nation that is secure, prosperous, and respected your top objective? Why do you and the Democrats in Congress continue to make life harder for American families by increasing their cost of living? Why do you continue to put our national security at risk by not securing our border? Why do you continue to allow China and Mexican cartels to kill our people with fentanyl?” “To categorize people who want to make America great again as threats to democracy is both wrong and dangerous,” Palmer said. “Words have meaning and the power to inspire people to achieve great things or incite them to do destructive things. Once spoken or written, words cannot be taken back; they are like arrows in flight, they cannot be returned. The words loosed from the mouth of President Biden in a speech about America’s soul struck with poison tips. We can only hope that his words missed the intended mark. Instead of inciting Americans to turn on one another, hopefully his words inspired the American people to turn out in record numbers in November to reject the destructive agenda of Joe Biden and the Democrat Party.” President Biden’s Battle for the Soul of the Nation speech was a talking point for many Republicans over the weekend. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy said on Facebook, “Instead of trying to bring our country together to solve the MANY problems he has created, President Biden has chosen to divide, demean, and disparage his fellow Americans—simply because they disagree with his policies. Mr. President: you owe millions of Americans an apology.” Congressman Mike Rogers commented on Facebook, “If you are a law-abiding, tax-paying citizen that believes in religious liberty, the Second Amendment and are proud to be an American, then Biden believes you are a threat to democracy.” Gary Palmer is in his fourth term representing Alabama’s Sixth Congressional District. To connect with the author of this story, or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com.
Liz Cheney loses Wyoming GOP primary, ponders 2024 bid
Wyoming Rep. Liz Cheney, Donald Trump’s fiercest Republican adversary in Congress, soundly lost a GOP primary, falling to a rival backed by the former president in a rout that reinforced his grip on the party’s base. The third-term congresswoman and her allies entered Tuesday downbeat about her prospects, aware that Trump’s backing gave Harriet Hageman considerable lift in the state where he won by the largest margin during the 2020 campaign. Cheney was already looking ahead to a political future beyond Capitol Hill that could include a 2024 presidential run, potentially putting her on another collision course with Trump. On Wednesday, calling Trump “a very grave threat and risk to our republic,” she told NBC that she thinks that defeating him will require “a broad and united front of Republicans, Democrats, and independents — and that’s what I intend to be part of.” She declined to say if she would run for president but conceded it’s “something that I’m thinking about.” Cheney described her primary loss on Tuesday night as the beginning of a new chapter in her political career as she addressed a small collection of supporters, including her father, former Vice President Dick Cheney, on the edge of a vast field flanked by mountains and bales of hay. “Our work is far from over,” she said, evoking Abraham Lincoln, who also lost congressional elections before ascending to the presidency and preserving the union. The primary results — and the roughly 30-point margin — were a powerful reminder of the GOP’s rapid shift to the right. A party once dominated by national security-oriented, business-friendly conservatives like her father now belongs to Trump, animated by his populist appeal and, above all, his denial of defeat in the 2020 election. Such lies, which have been roundly rejected by federal and state election officials along with Trump’s own attorney general and judges he appointed, transformed Cheney from an occasional critic of the former president to the clearest voice inside the GOP, warning that he represents a threat to democratic norms. She’s the top Republican on the House panel investigating the January 6, 2021, insurrection at the U.S. Capitol by a mob of Trump supporters, an attack she referenced in nodding to her political future. “I have said since January 6 that I will do whatever it takes to ensure Donald Trump is never again anywhere near the Oval Office — and I mean it,” she said Tuesday. Four hundred miles (645 kilometers) to the east of Cheney’s concession speech, festive Hageman supporters gathered at a sprawling outdoor rodeo and Western culture festival in Cheyenne, many wearing cowboy boots, hats, and blue jeans. “Obviously, we’re all very grateful to President Trump, who recognizes that Wyoming has only one congressional representative, and we have to make it count,” said Hageman, a ranching industry attorney who had finished third in a previous bid for governor. Echoing Trump’s conspiracy theories, she falsely claimed the 2020 election was “rigged” as she courted his loyalists in the runup to the election. Trump and his team celebrated Cheney’s loss, which may represent his biggest political victory in a primary season full of them. The former president called the results “a complete rebuke” of the January 6 committee. “Liz Cheney should be ashamed of herself, the way she acted, and her spiteful, sanctimonious words and actions towards others,” he wrote on his social media platform. “Now she can finally disappear into the depths of political oblivion where, I am sure, she will be much happier than she is right now. Thank you WYOMING!” The news offered a welcome break from Trump’s focus on his growing legal entanglements. Just eight days earlier, federal agents executing a search warrant recovered 11 sets of classified records from the former president’s Florida estate. Meanwhile, in Alaska, which also held elections on Tuesday, Sen. Lisa Murkowski, another prominent GOP critic of Trump, advanced from her primary. Sarah Palin, the GOP’s 2008 vice presidential nominee and a staunch ally of Trump, was also bound for the November general election in the race for Alaska’s sole U.S. House seat. But most of the attention was on Cheney, whose defeat would have been unthinkable just two years ago. The daughter of a former vice president, she hails from one of the most prominent political families in Wyoming. And in Washington, she was the No. 3 House Republican, an influential voice in GOP politics and policy with a sterling conservative voting record. Cheney will now be forced from Congress at the end of her third and final term in January. She is not expected to leave Capitol Hill quietly. She will continue in her leadership role on the congressional panel investigating the January 6 attack until it dissolves at the end of the year. And she is actively considering a 2024 White House bid — as a Republican or independent — having vowed to do everything in her power to fight Trump’s influence in her party. With Cheney’s loss, Republicans who voted to impeach Trump are going extinct. In all, seven Republican senators and 10 Republican House members backed Trump’s impeachment in the days after his supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol as Congress tried to certify President Joe Biden’s victory. Just two of those 10 House members have won their primaries this year. After two Senate retirements, Murkowski is the only such Senate Republican on this year’s ballot. Cheney was forced to seek assistance from the state’s tiny Democratic minority in her bid to pull off a victory. But Democrats across America, major donors among them, took notice. She raised at least $15 million for her election, a stunning figure for a Wyoming political contest. Voters responded to the interest in the race. With a little more than half of the vote counted, turnout ran about 50% higher than in the 2018 Republican primary for governor. If Cheney does ultimately run for president — either as a Republican or an independent — don’t expect her to win Wyoming’s three electoral votes. “We like Trump. She tried to impeach Trump,” Cheyenne voter
William Haupt III: If all government is local, so are elections
“In local government, you are only a few blocks away from those that you serve.” – Valerie Jarrett When you have a street light that goes belly up, a stop sign that’s hidden behind an untamed tree, or an intersection you cross daily with a prayer in heart, who do you turn to for help? Rather than shift through volumes of unfriendly municipal websites, you contact your local county or city official. When local elections are held with no state or federal races, they are a mere afterthought. Voters either don’t know there is an election or don’t care. Even when they are held during the general election in November, far too often, it is only special interests that know the issues and know the candidates. Turnout for presidential elections is considered low when it dips below 60% and in midterms when it is less than 40%. Yet local elections that draw a shameful 10% or 20% turnout are common across our nation. Turnout for local elections has always been historically low, but recent data show that it is getting even worse. “Elections are determined by people who don’t show up.” – Larry Sabato If it is so important who serves on your county commission or on city council, why is there such a low voter turnout for these offices? The number one reason why turnout is low for local elections is simply: most voters don’t even know there is an election, who is running, or where or when to vote? The 1965 Voting Rights Act states it is disenfranchisement not to inform voters of an election. Yet counties and cities either don’t know this or care. A Portland State University study finds the few who always vote are older and more affluent, while all others make up a fraction of the electorate. The Portland study found less than a third of voters cast ballots during a local election. This is easy to comprehend when voters aren’t notified of an election. If the election is not held during a general election, less than 50% of the electorate is even aware there is a local election and who is running. Our system doesn’t make it particularly easy to vote. It’s a familiar story. Most municipal elections are held during odd-numbered years, far away from November. Only five states, Arkansas, Oregon, Kentucky, Nebraska, and Rhode Island, hold local elections in November or with general elections. If local elections are held during a primary or general election, it is the candidates who are notifying voters about the election – begging people to vote for them, not the county or the city governments. “The only people bound by campaign promises are those who believe them.” – Christopher Hitchens Local governments started holding elections separately from state and federal elections during the 20th century Progressive Era. They hoped this would keep state and local elections from being overshadowed by national partisan races. That’s still an argument used today. But if we look closer, the devil is in the details. As the late, great Paul Harvey use to say, “Now for the rest of the story.” In her book, “Timing and Turnout,” Berkeley political scientist Sarah Anzia notes that not much has changed in local elections. “A small subset of voters who tend to be wealthier and older are those who vote during stand-alone municipal elections.” This enables special interest groups to “capture” local elections. “If something is broken but works for the right people, they won’t fix it?” – Gary Martin Rice University’s Melissa Marschall, head of the Local Elections Project, noted local governments are in no hurry to reform local elections. “When the political machines ran municipalities, isolated elections decreased the influence of immigrants breaking the political machines. When fewer non-English speakers turned out, this effectively allowed governments to shelter the political machines.” Marschall noted it is no accident that many “local school district elections” are held in standalone years. Since these elections draw so few voters to the polls, it is far easier to elect union-friendly candidates. She notes by isolating school district elections, they can limit turnout to supporters. The average teacher salary is 3% higher in these districts than in those that hold concurrent elections. Marschall believes that, “Holding local elections on separate dates has outlived its usefulness.” And although there is a growing interest for states and municipalities to move local elections to coincide with general elections, there is a lot of local resistance. This is especially true for special interests. Last month the California Assembly approved a bill to force localities with low turnout of less than 25% to move local elections to overlap with state or federal contests. What sounds like a good idea is not welcomed by everyone. There is steep resistance from school boards and local politicians. California State Rep. David Hadley is arguing against holding concurrent elections. He claims that this will hurt those vying for local support since it, “Forces them to compete with state and federal races for money, volunteers, and for voter attention. I believe this will hurt us more than help us.” During the 18th and 19th centuries, “political machines” ran large U.S. cities. They helped organize and build big cities, but they also controlled them. Special interests, business, and elected officials were all intricate parts in the machines. The key to their success was controlling the local elections. “The appearance of the law must be upheld – especially when it’s being broken.” – Boss Tweed Although the “political machines” of the past are gone, they’ve been replaced with political parties. The politics of local elections continues to favor incumbents, and they control local elections. Many of these offices are billed as “nonpartisan.” Party politics or not, it will always be politics as usual. Robert Ingersoll told us, “Ignorance is not bliss; it is punishment.” We hear about what is going on in Congress each day and what our state reps are doing also. But if we want to find
Lonnie Coffman sentenced to nearly 4 years in prison for January 6 charges
An Alabama man who parked a pickup truck filled with weapons and Molotov cocktail components near the U.S. Capitol on the day of last year’s riot was sentenced Friday to nearly four years in prison. U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly said she still hasn’t heard an explanation for why Lonnie Leroy Coffman had “almost a small armory in his truck, ready to do battle.” She sentenced Coffman to three years and ten months in prison, giving him credit for the more than one year he already has served since his arrest. Coffman, 72, of Falkville, Alabama, said he never intended to hurt anybody or destroy any property. He said he drove to Washington alone “to try to discover just how true and secure was the (2020 presidential) election.” “If I had any idea that things would turn out like they did, I would have stayed home,” he wrote in a handwritten letter to the judge. More than 770 people have been charged with federal crimes related to the Capitol riot when supporters of outgoing President Donald Trump stormed the building in an effort to disrupt lawmakers’ formal certification of his reelection defeat. Five people died, and scores of Capitol Police officers were seriously injured. Over 240 participants in the attack have pleaded guilty, mostly to misdemeanors punishable by a maximum of six months imprisonment. More than 130 have been sentenced. Coffman is one of nine defendants whose prison sentence exceeds one year. Coffman, a Vietnam War veteran who served in the U.S. Army, pleaded guilty in November to possession of an unregistered firearm and carrying a pistol without a license. He was carrying a loaded handgun and revolver without a license as he walked in Washington, D.C., on January 6, 2021, according to prosecutors. He isn’t accused of entering the Capitol or joining the mob during the riot that day. When Coffman parked his truck a few blocks from the Capitol on the morning of January 6, it contained a handgun, a rifle, a shotgun, hundreds of rounds of ammunition, a crossbow, machetes, a stun gun, and a cooler containing eleven mason jars with holes punched in the lids, according to prosecutors. Each jar contained a mixture of gasoline and Styrofoam, which are components of the homemade incendiary devices called Molotov cocktails, prosecutors said. Law enforcement officers found the cache of weapons and ammunition when they searched Coffman’s truck. They had been sweeping the area after pipe bombs were found near the headquarters of the Republican National Committee and Democratic National Committee. Later, investigators also found Molotov cocktail components at Coffman’s home in Alabama. “Possession of so much dangerous weapons in our nation’s capital is uniquely offensive to our cherished, democratic political traditions,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Friedman said. Handwritten notes found inside the vehicle included a quote attributed to Abraham Lincoln that said, “We The People Are The Rightful Masters Of Both The Congress And The Courts, Not To Overthrow The Constitution But To Overthrow The Men Who Pervert The Constitution.” The notes included a list of “good guys” and “bad guys,” with a federal judge named in the latter category, and contact information for a member of a Texas militia group known as the “American Patriots,” prosecutors said. “The handwritten notes also included an address for a reported gathering place in Texas called ‘Camp Lonestar,’ where militia groups had reportedly sought to patrol the border looking for illegal aliens,” prosecutors wrote. Investigators had previously identified Coffman as an armed participant at Camp Lonestar, according to prosecutors. Coffman, a retired machine operator, had traveled to Washington in December 2020 and tried to drive to the home of a U.S. senator who isn’t named in a court filing by prosecutors. He also called the senator’s office in an effort to “help with the election fraud he saw.” “A staff member at the Senator’s office recorded that the defendant seemed ‘unbalanced’ or ‘not 100% there’ during the call but did not seem threatening,” prosecutors wrote. Prosecutors recommended a prison sentence of approximately three years and six months. Defense attorney Manuel Retureta said a prison term wouldn’t be appropriate given Coffman’s age and medical condition. Coffman didn’t have a criminal record before this case. “At my age, one of the most precious (things) we possess is time, and I have wasted almost a whole precious year,” he wrote in his letter to the judge. Republished with the permission of the Associated Press.
Will Sellers: The terrors of justice
Eighty years ago this month, with the stroke of a pen, President Franklin Roosevelt in Executive Order 9066 effectively relegated 120,000 Japanese Americans to internment camps. Many of these American citizens were afforded no rights to object to their removal, and there was no procedure to prove loyalty to the United States. These citizens were interned solely because of their ancestry, nothing else. In the aftermath of Pearl Harbor, there was widespread fear that the Empire of Japan might invade the West Coast. No doubt people were scared and on high alert, and, certainly, there was anxiety that turned rational people into frenzied xenophobes. But rather than deal with the reality of the situation, political leaders galvanized the country into transferring all these concerns into a government campaign to round up almost the entire population of Japanese Americans and relocate them. Granted, they were not sent to concentration camps organized along the German or Soviet models. There was no plan to cleanse America of Japanese influence by premeditated death through forced labor. Nevertheless, these citizens were forced to leave their homes, abandon their businesses, and take their entire families to detention centers surrounded by barbed wire, guards, and dogs. And all of this was accomplished through legal and judicial means. Congress had passed an act giving the President broad and sweeping emergency powers to organize the country for total war. These wartime powers had precedent as Abraham Lincoln also used similar powers to suspend the writ of habeas corpus and incarcerate pro-secessionists. Ironically enough, Chief Justice Roger Taney, who authored the Dred Scott decision, warned Lincoln that such actions potentially violated his oath of office and could mean that citizens were no longer living under a government respecting the rule of law. War, like other national emergencies, set in motion a series of restrictions subjugating the rights of individuals to the needs of the state. Fighting a war and making the decisions necessary to win cannot be done by consensus but must be determined by leaders who have both national support and critical judgment to implement a plan for victory. Roosevelt’s almost dictatorial power was derived from legislative mandate, not usurpation. The hindsight of history clearly shows that he, like Winston Churchill, was the man for the times. But the internment of loyal Americans was perhaps an excessive use of presidential authority and a blot on American values. The need to systematically detain these citizens was no doubt a knee-jerk reaction to Pearl Harbor. But leadership is more than succumbing to situational whims and should be based on evidence or some proof that a threat existed. In fact, the exact opposite was true. Military intelligence and the FBI found no disloyalty among the Japanese Americans. They uncovered no organized network of spies or saboteurs ready to support an invasion. The only reason for the detention was a suspicion based upon fear and a complete misunderstanding of Japanese American culture. With no basis in fact, an assumption was made that anyone of Japanese ancestry would remain loyal to the Emperor. Like all foundations of racism, there is an assumption that people of similar backgrounds and appearance must share other, monolithic traits attributed to them by imaginary, irrational views. Political and military leaders simply agreed that these citizens would be disloyal, were probably spies, and posed a threat even though no evidence existed to support these assumptions. Thus, the President who told his country that “all we had to fear is fear itself” incorporated a racist fear into his policies that detained 120,000 Americans. Despite the fact that this incident was humiliating and demeaning, almost 35,000 Japanese American men and women demonstrated their loyalty as United States citizens by serving in the military during World War II. In some cases, sons and daughters fighting for Roosevelt’s four freedoms had relatives detained by the same Uncle Sam. Units comprising these Japanese American troops were sent to the European Theater and distinguished themselves in battle. If there can be any humor to both the internment and the war, there was a story that Germans fighting in Italy were captured by one of these units and thought that the Japanese had changed sides and joined with the Americans to defeat the Third Reich. Perhaps one of the most interesting aspects of deporting people based on race was the number of prominent liberals who blindly went along with the procedure. It is easy to see that military commanders on the West Coast truly believing that an invasion was imminent would want to evacuate civilians from a potential war zone. But it is difficult to understand how leaders normally inclined to support the rights of minorities, expand civil liberties and limit the powers of government would so easily embrace wholesale deportation without a hint of due process. Despite the fact that this incident was humiliating and demeaning, almost 35,000 Japanese American men and women demonstrated their loyalty as United States citizens by serving in the military during World War II. In some cases, sons and daughters fighting for Roosevelt’s four freedoms had relatives detained by the same Uncle Sam. Units comprising these Japanese American troops were sent to the European Theater and distinguished themselves in battle. If there can be any humor to both the internment and the war, there was a story that Germans fighting in Italy were captured by one of these units and thought that the Japanese had changed sides and joined with the Americans to defeat the Third Reich. Perhaps one of the most interesting aspects of deporting people based on race was the number of prominent liberals who blindly went along with the procedure. It is easy to see that military commanders on the West Coast truly believing that an invasion was imminent would want to evacuate civilians from a potential war zone. But it is difficult to understand how leaders normally inclined to support the rights of minorities, expand civil liberties and limit the powers of government would so easily
