Mo Brooks vows to vote no on H.R. 3005
Tuesday, Congressman Mo Brooks announced Tuesday that he will vote “No” on H.R. 3005. The bill calls to replace the bust of Roger Brooke Taney in the Old Supreme Court Chamber of the United States Capitol with a bust of Thurgood Marshall. It also calls to remove certain statues from areas of the United States Capitol that are accessible to the public and remove all statues of individuals who voluntarily served the Confederate States of America from display in the United States Capitol. Chief Justice Taney became best known for writing the final majority opinion in Dred Scott v. Sandford in 1857. The court declared that African Americans were not citizens of the United States and could not sue in Federal courts. This decision further declared that Congress did not have the authority to prohibit slavery in the territories. H.R. 3005 states, “Chief Justice Roger Brooke Taney’s authorship of Dred Scott v. Sandford, the effects of which would only be overturned years later by the ratification of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, renders a bust of his likeness unsuitable for the honor of display to the many visitors to the United States Capitol.” The Bill also states, “While the removal of Chief Justice Roger Brooke Taney’s bust from the United States Capitol does not relieve the Congress of the historical wrongs it committed to protect the institution of slavery, it expresses Congress’s recognition of one of the most notorious wrongs to have ever taken place in one of its rooms, that of Chief Justice Roger Brooke Taney’s Dred Scott v. Sandford decision.” Rep. Brooks argues that the bill will allow other states to determine what statues other states can display. Currently, the U.S. Capitol’s National Statuary Collection has 100 statues, 2 from each state. Alabama’s two statutes are Helen Keller and Joe Wheeler. Wheeler was a Confederate general who later become a United States general. General Wheeler oversaw Teddy Roosevelt and the Rough Riders and is buried in Arlington National Cemetery. Alabama also has a third statute honoring Civil Rights leader Rosa Parks. Both the General Wheeler and Rosa Parks statutes are in places of prominence in the old House Chamber (now known as Statuary Hall). Helen Keller is prominently honored and displayed in the Capitol Visitor’s Center. The 1864 law establishing the National Statuary Collection provides that each state may “furnish statues…of deceased persons who have been citizens thereof, and illustrious for their historic renown or for distinguished civic or military services such as each State may deem to be worthy of this national commemoration.” Brooks stated, “The 1864 law that establishes the National Statuary Collection defers to states the power to determine who they wish to honor with a Capitol statue. And that makes perfect sense. Just as it would be wrong for Alabama and other states to dictate to New York and California who they must honor, it is similarly wrong and repulsive for New York, California, or other states to dictate to Alabama who we must honor. Yet, H.R. 3005 seeks to do exactly that by empowering other states to dictate to a single state who that state can, or cannot, honor.” Brooks continued, “Cancel culture and historical revisionism are precursors to dictatorial government and the destruction of individual liberty and freedom by elitists who claim they know more than regular citizens and, hence, should be empowered to dictate what regular citizens can and cannot think or do. Ultimately, it’s all about political power in the hands of a dictatorial few coupled with the loss of freedom and liberty by the masses. “I reject cancel culture and historical revisionism. I reject Socialist Democrat intolerance. I support federalism and a state’s right to decide for itself who it should honor. As such, I will proudly vote ‘No’ on H.R. 3005. Alabama, not New Yorkers, Californians, or anyone else, should decide who we wish to honor in Alabama’s contribution to the National Statuary Collection. Socialist Democrat states should butt out,” Brooks concluded. Brooks commented on Twitter, “Cancel culture & historical revisionism are precursors to dictatorial government & the destruction of individual liberty & freedom by elitists who claim they know more than regular citizens & should be able to dictate what regular citizens can think or do.” Cancel culture & historical revisionism are precursors to dictatorial government & the destruction of individual liberty & freedom by elitists who claim they know more than regular citizens & should be able to dictate what regular citizens can think or do. https://t.co/63HV28f1O6 — Mo Brooks (@RepMoBrooks) June 29, 2021 The House Press Gallery posted on Twitter earlier today, “A recorded vote was requested and postponed on H.R. 3005.” A recorded vote was requested and postponed on H.R. 3005. https://t.co/IxmDeJmzlN — House Press Gallery (@HouseDailyPress) June 29, 2021
Martin Dyckman: A European perspective on Donald Trump
“Associate yourself with Men of good Quality if you Esteem your own Reputation; for ‘tis better to be alone than in bad Company.”– George Washington‘s 56th rule of civility and decent behavior. A recent cruise in the Baltic Sea took us to eight northern European nations where we were impressed yet again with how much alike all the world’s people are. But there is a dark side to that. In 1932, amidst a grave worldwide depression, Americans elected President Franklin D. Roosevelt, a decent man who told us we had nothing to fear but fear itself. At almost the same moment, the people of Germany — perhaps the most advanced nation in Europe — got Adolf Hitler. When we toured Berlin and beheld a friendly and prosperous city with an enviable quality of life, the hideous events of the Nazi era seemed almost improbable. A visit to the impressive Jewish Museum Berlin is the antidote to selective memory. To see the exhibits of Jewish life in Germany in the millennium before the Shoah, one first must pass the exhibits dedicated to the Holocaust. Nothing is held back Yes, the people who did that were decent and highly civilized by all the standards of their times. I have never thought that what happened there could not happen here in similar circumstances. And now it is happening here. A man who emulates Adolf Hitler in significant ways is poised to be the nominee of a once great, now degraded political party, and could become president of a nation whose proudest boast is to be the leader of the free world. If you doubt the parallels, read the British historian Alan Bullock‘s magisterial biography, “Hitler: A Study in Tyranny.” Like Hitler, Donald Trump inflames the latent, and not so latent, prejudices of a substantial element of the populace. The targets are different, but not the hate-filled rhetoric. Like Hitler, Trump is capitalizing on the public’s justifiable dissatisfaction with the apparent political paralysis in Washington. Hitler’s promise to end a similar situation and make government function again was his primary issue in the pivotal 1932 campaign that he won with only a plurality. Like Hitler, Trump spews hate at people — not just journalists but critics in his own adopted party — who oppose or criticize him. Like Hitler, he would tame and muzzle the judiciary. Could any threat be clearer? Like Hitler, Trump has no coherent policy positions — other than bigotry — and is conspicuously disinterested in the details of how government works. He would have his vice president do all the real work. Nothing in the Constitution contemplates that. No president has been so blissfully ignorant and lazy. Many industrialists and politicians in Germany rationalized that Hitler, their inferior in every respect but cunning, could be put to their use. They learned better, to their sorrow. Rick Scott, Paul Ryan and the other opportunists scurrying aboard Trump’s ship figure they can use him too. Ryan, for one, claims to believe that Trump would promote the congressional Republicans’ entire far right agenda. Can’t they see that Trump will do only that which promotes himself? They don’t love their country half as much as they hate Democrats in general and Hillary Clinton in particular. They would sooner see America ruined than muddle along, if not prosper, under Clinton. Why do I say that? It’s because Trump’s presence would defile an office in which almost every occupant has tried to project the senses of dignity and responsibility that are so grossly lacking in that vulgar, thuggish, bombastic, bullying, fundamentally amoral man. Trump as a successor to George Washington? Abraham Lincoln? Teddy Roosevelt? FDR? George H.W. Bush? It makes one want to vomit. Vladimir Putin likes Trump. The bloodstained boy dictator of North Korea likes him. David Duke, the professed Nazi and Ku Kluxer, likes him. What company you keep, Speaker Ryan. Welcome to the sewer, Governor Scott. Where is your integrity, Mel Sembler? Have you forgotten the Holocaust? The foreign dictators relish the prospect of someone so unfit, unprepared, unworthy and amoral defiling the White House. They figure that America would become a laughing stock, an irrelevancy, a faded former power in the hands of such an unfit, unprepared, unworthy person. You have to wonder, though, whether they weigh the risk of such a thin-skinned, irascible bully’s finger on the nuclear button. Trump’s apologists argue that he can’t be compared to Hitler because he has never had a perceptible, consistent ideology and lacks the organized cadres — the Hitler Youth, the brownshirts — who put the muscle and murder into Hitler’s campaigns. But he does have an ideology. It’s his Id, his ego, the persistent, insatiable promotion of himself, his greed. No one could be more dangerous. And he has the brownshirts too, lacking only similar organization. The people harassing Muslims and other foreigners, roughing up protesters at Trump rallies, bedeviling journalists with unspeakably anti-Semitic emails and telephone calls, are their equivalent. And, as in Germany, their vocal and physical violence is provoking the opposition into replying in kind. Two wrongs make no ri0ght. Clinton is far from a perfect candidate but, as intellectually honest conservatives have observed, the country would survive her. That it would survive Trump is far too great a risk for any honest patriot to want to take. ___ Martin Dyckman is a retired associate editor of what is now the Tampa Bay Times. He lives in Asheville, North Carolina.
Darryl Paulson: It’s now or never for #NeverTrump
The opposition to Donald Trump has been constant from the start of the 2016 presidential campaign. However, it has been unfocused and essentially leaderless. Many Trump opponents believed he would not enter the race. When he entered, they believed he had no chance of winning. Now that Trump has won the nomination, they believe he can be stopped by an independent or third party campaign. As early as December 2015, before the first caucus or primary, Mike Fernandez, a Coral Gables, Florida health care executive and financial backer of Jeb Bush, took out full-page ads in the Miami Herald and other newspapers stating that he would support Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump. Fernandez described Trump as a narcissistic ”Bullyionaire” with a hunger to be adored. Fernandez was critical of fellow Republicans “blinded by the demagoguery” of Trump. In January 2016, National Review devoted an issue to conservative writers who made the case that Trump was not a conservative, and his nomination would do long-term damage to conservatism and the Republican Party. The issue contributed to the formation of the #NeverTrump movement, but it failed to stop Trump from winning the GOP nomination. With Trump having secured the nomination, many Republicans now look at the race as a binary choice: Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. Most Republicans, unlike Mike Fernandez, see Trump as the preferred option. Foster Friess, a Wyoming financier and supporter of Republican candidates and causes, said Trump was not his first choice, but “he’s better than Hillary.” During the presidential primaries, even Jeb Bush stated that “Anybody is better than Hilary.” Some of Trump’s strongest critics have now jumped aboard the bandwagon. Texas Governor Rick Perry, who called Trump a “cancer” on the GOP who would lead the party to “Perdition,” has now offered to help Trump win the election. Oh, by the way, he would also be interested in being Trump’s Vice President. Many Republicans believe it is now a question of party loyalty. As Republican strategist Ford O’Connell observes, “political parties are not meant to be ideological vessels, but competing enterprises whose job is to win elections.” Rick Wilson, one of the most vehement anti-Trumpers, described the party loyalty argument as nothing more than “the DC establishment rolling over and becoming the Vichy Republicans we all know they would.” The last hope of the #NeverTrump movement is recruiting an independent or third-party candidate to provide an alternative to Trump and Clinton. RNC Chair Reince Priebus calls such efforts a “suicide mission.” Supporters argue that an independent candidate would not only give discontented voters a choice, but they believe such a candidate could win. At the very least, such a candidate could siphon off enough electoral votes to throw the election into the House, where the Republican majority could select someone other than Trump or Clinton. Supporters of an independent option argue that recent polls show 58 percent of voters are not happy with their choices, and 55 percent say they support an independent candidate. Historically, the idea of an independent candidate is more appealing than the reality. Teddy Roosevelt and his Bull Moose Party is widely regarded the most effective third-party movement. Roosevelt actually came in second and swamped incumbent Republican President William Howard Taft. Roosevelt received 27.4 percent of the vote and 88 electoral votes to only 23.2 percent and 8 electoral votes for Taft. In 1948, Governor Strom Thurmond of South Carolina won only 2.4 percent of the national vote but, because it was concentrated in a few Deep South states where Truman’s name did not appear on the ballot, Thurmond captured the electoral votes of four states. Twenty years later, Governor George Wallace replicated much of Thurmond’s success in winning 13.5 percent of the vote and 46 electoral votes in five southern states. In 1992, Texas businessman Ross Perot and his Reform Party won almost one out of five votes, but failed to capture a single state. At one point, Perot led both George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton but, as Election Day approached, many of his supporters returned to support their traditional party. To run as an independent or third-party candidate, there is one important requirement: you need a candidate. So far, the #NeverTrump movement has not found a willing person to oppose Trump. Among the possible candidates are Mitt Romney, the 2012 Republican presidential nominee. Romney has name recognition and money, and would likely qualify for the debates. Romney was opposed by many conservatives in his 2012 race which would once again be a problem. In addition, Romney’s enthusiastic acceptance of Trump’s endorsement in that campaign would be another concern. Marine Corps General James Mattis seriously considered running before backing out. Mattis would have commanded support as a military figure and a political outsider. But, Mattis is not an Eisenhower and is an unknown commodity. Marco Rubio‘s name is being tossed about as a possible candidate. Rubio is young, charismatic and has appealed to woman and minority voters. The downside is that Rubio won only in Puerto Rico, Minnesota and the District of Columbia, and badly lost his home state of Florida to Trump. In addition, Rubio signed the pledge to support the Republican nominee “and I intend to keep it.” Ben Sasse, a first-term Republican Senator from Nebraska, has been a leader in the #NeverTrump movement. Sasse is only in his second year as a senator, which will raise questions about his experience. He also is unknown outside of Nebraska. Finally, former House member and Senator Tom Colburn has expressed interest in running and is highly respected by conservatives for his attempts to cut federal spending. Colburn has stated that Trump “needs to be stopped,” but recently said he would not be the candidate. One of the maxims of politics is that it takes something to beat nothing. So far, nothing looks like he has the race all wrapped up. ___ Darryl Paulson is Professor Emeritus of Government at USF St. Petersburg.
