Dispatches

RFK JR’S APOLOGY OVER SUPER BOWL AD DOESN’T PASS SINCERITY TEST. In 1960, John F. Kennedy became the first Democratic candidate to effectively use TV spot ads in a presidential race—a strategy that helped him win a close race against two-term Vice President Richard Nixon. At a time of rising Cold War tensions, Kennedy faced two major obstacles. At age 43, he was bidding to be the youngest person ever to be elected president. And he was also seeking to become the first Irish-Catholic president, Charles Jay noted at Daily Kos (2/12).

JFK’s media team came up with a catchy campaign song which was then edited to create shorter TV spots. The lyrics dealt with his youth and creed: “Do you want a man for president who’s seasoned through and through, but not so doggone seasoned that he won’t try something new.” And later the lyrics posed this question: “And do you deny to any man the right he’s guaranteed to be elected president, no matter what his creed? It’s promised in the Bill of Rights to which we must be true, so it must be true, so it’s up to you.”

The ad urged people to “Vote Democratic” and features photos of former presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman as well as Eleanor Roosevelt. It seems this ad may have inspired someone else.

During the first half of the Super Bowl, the American Values 2024 super PAC supporting RFK Jr.’s campaign paid $7 million to run a 30-second ad using an edited version of the campaign song and imagery from the 1960 campaign ad.

It almost makes for a good example of one of those “Can you spot the differences?” puzzles..

The lyrics have been changed to take a swipe at President Joe Biden’s age: “Do you want a man for president who’s seasoned through and through. A man who’s old enough to know and young enough to do. Well it’s up to you.” And there is a photo of the 70-year-old Kennedy on skis to underline the message.

There are photos of Kennedy family members, but no images of other Democrats. And the message reads: “Vote Independent.”

Last October, when RFK Jr. decided to run as an independent presidential candidate rather than continue a futile bid for the Democratic nomination, four of his siblings—former Maryland Lt. Gov. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, former Rep. Joseph Kennedy II, Rory Kennedy, and Kerry Kennedy—signed a statement denouncing his plans.

“The decision of our brother Bobby to run as a third-party candidate against Joe Biden is dangerous to our country,” their statement read. “Bobby might share the same name as our father, but he does not share the same values, vision or judgment. Today’s announcement is deeply saddening for us. We denounce his candidacy and believe it to be perilous for our country.”

And right after the Super Bowl ad ran, another Kennedy family member, his cousin Bobby Shriver, called him out in a post on X, formerly known as Twitter:

“My cousin’s Super Bowl ad used our uncle’s faces — and my Mother’s. She would be appalled by his deadly health care views. Respect for science, vaccines, & health care equity were in her DNA. She strongly supported my health care work at @ONECampaign & @RED, which he opposes.”

RFK Jr. responded that night with a post on X that read:

“Bobby, I’m so sorry if that advertisement caused you pain. The ad was created and aired by the American Values Superpac without any involvement or approvals from my campaign. Federal rules prohibit Superpacs from consulting with me or my staff. I send you and your family my sincerest apologies. God bless you.”

But how sincere was that apology?

Despite his apology and claim that his campaign was not involved, the ad remained at the top of his X profile Tuesday morning (2/13), with this message:

“Our momentum is growing. It’s time for an Independent President to heal the divide in our country.”

American Values 2024’s website declares that it is supporting Kennedy to “help restore the soul of democracy to America by taking back our political system from corporate interests.”

But that also doesn’t ring true because American Values is drawing donations from Trump backers. RFK Jr. is seen as a potential spoiler who might draw some Democrats away from Biden simply by playing on his family name, as was the case with the super PAC ad that ran during the Super Bowl.

NBC News reported that American Values 2024’s biggest donors include Tim Mellon, a large Trump donor who gave $15 million to the pro-Kennedy group in 2023, according to campaign finance records. FEC filings show Mellon also donated $10 million to MAGA Inc., the main pro-Trump super PAC, last year.

DNC Rapid Response Director Alex Floyd, released this statement after the Super Bowl ad ran: “It’s fitting that the first national ad promoting Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s candidacy was bought and paid for by Donald Trump’s largest donor this cycle. RFK Jr. is nothing more than a Trump stalking horse in this race.”

And the last word goes to Robert Shrum, a longtime Democratic political strategist and consultant for former Senator Edward M. Kennedy wrote in a post on X:

“This RFK Jr. Super Bowl ad is a straight out plagiarism of JFK ad from 1960. What a fraud- and to quote Lloyd Bentsen with a slight amendment, “Bobby, you’re no John Kennedy.” Instead you are a Trump ally.”

TRUMP ECHOES HITLER FINAL SOLUTION RHETORIC. Over the weekend, America was treated to one of the great spectacles that has become a tradition over decades. Not the Super Bowl—that other big American festival. The one where major media outlets fixate on some perceived flaw in a Democratic candidate to ignore a Republican threatening to bring on the end of the republic, this time with a side order of World War III, Mark Sumner noted at Daily Kos (2/12).

On Friday evening (2/9), Donald Trump spoke at an NRA event, the eighth time he has spoken to the organization. Besides bragging that during his time in the White House he “did nothing” to control guns in any way, Trump promised a door-to-door effort to sweep the nation of migrants and place them in enormous detention camps along the border “within moments” of taking office.

The speech—which included such bizarre claims as insisting that if he didn’t win “they” would change Pennsylvania’s name, and saying that he had personally witnessed a migrant stealing a refrigerator—ended with some of the most chilling words any American politician has ever uttered, words that make it clear that Trump has been studying hard from that book of Hitler speeches he keeps at his bedside.

The second most frightening thing may be that Trump has said it all before. Many times. The most frightening thing of all may be the complicit silence of the national press.

Trump isn’t quite promising a “final solution” to the “Jewish problem.” Instead, he’s promising a “final battle” to “drive out globalists.” Which is … not at all different.

The idea of casting out the communists, another Hitler favorite, isn’t new. Neither is that “final battle” phrase. Trump used both in his “I am your retribution” speech in March of 2023. That speech ended in much the same way as Trump’s two most recent appearances.

“With you at my side, we will demolish the deep state. We will expel the war mongers ... We will drive out the globalists. We will cast out the communists. We will throw off the political class that hates our country … We will beat the Democrats. We will rout the fake news media. We will expose and appropriately deal with the Rinos [Republicans in name only]. We will evict Joe Biden from the White House. And we will liberate America from these villains and scoundrels once and for all,” he said.

He gave an almost identical closing at a rally in North Carolina in June. And at an Iowa rally in September. And a New Hampshire rally in January.

These words, which seem so potently venomous written out as a single small block of text, aren’t some random, one-off firing of Trump’s jangled synapsis. This is his standard closing. This is what he is saying to millions of Americans. This is his promise to the nation.

Trump is promising to drive out globalists. He’s promising to cast out communists. He’s promising to throw off the political class. There is not one idea here that has not been expressed before. They haven’t just been written down on pages and cheered before adoring crowds. They have been etched across the world in blood and flames.

There is a word for what Trump is promising when he says he wants to expel, drive out, cast out, throw off, rout, and evict. That word is pogrom.

Trump posted this capsule summary of his plans in the same weekend in which he informed European allies that he intended to violate the NATO treaty requiring mutual protection and would “encourage [Russia] to do whatever the hell they want.”

Still, the front page of the New York Times on Saturday (2/10), had three stories about President Joe Biden’s age, and nothing about Trump’s repeated threats, or his claim that “they” were out to get Pennsylvania. On Monday (2/12), the Times did a little better, with a block of stories about Trump’s promise to break the NATO accords. And about how Republicans are falling into line to pretend that Trump doesn’t mean what he says.

POLL: MOST REPUBLICANS ARE FINE WITH TRUMP GETTING AWAY WITH ANYTHING. On the heels of a unanimous ruling of a federal appeals court panel that Donald Trump is not immune from criminal prosecution, a new NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll finds that 68% of Republicans think Trump should have immunity for actions he took as president, such as fomenting an violent insurrection, Kerry Eleveld reported at Daily Kos (2/7).

But the Republican faithful who back Trump’s absolute immunity claim have basically sequestered themselves on an island of alternative facts.

Meanwhile, back on the “mainland,” 65% of Americans overall say Trump should not be immune from prosecution, including 91% of Democrats, 65% of independents, and even 31% of Republicans.

The survey is another reminder that Republicans and their voters are living in a completely different reality.

It’s also worth noting that many voters don’t seem aware of the sweeping immunity claim Trump is making, even if as president he were to order SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political rival.

The findings of Navigator Research swing-state focus groups released Feb. 1 revealed that Republican, independent, and Democratic voters alike were aghast when they learned the scope of Trump’s claim.

“It’s ridiculous,” responded an independent Wisconsin woman who leans Republican. “So he’s saying if he killed somebody, he’d be immune.”

“Yeah, I think that’s crazy too. That’s too much power,” said a male Georgia independent who leans Republican.

But crazy as it is, this new survey suggests nearly 7 in 10 Republicans are just fine with Trump getting off scot-free with any action he took as president.

With the ruling by the D.C. appeals court, Trump moved one step closer to facing trial for stoking a violent riot at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021 with the intent of blocking the peaceful transfer of power. But he also appealed that decision to the Supreme Court (4/12), hoping to further delay the trial.

TRUMP ATTACKS ANOTHER MILITARY FAMILY BECAUSE THAT’S WHO HE IS. Donald Trump continues to go low in his attacks against primary opponent Nikki Haley. During a rally in Conway, S.C. (2/10), Trump mocked Haley’s husband’s absence from her campaign appearances. “Where’s her husband? What happened to her husband? Where is he? He’s gone.”

In fact, Maj. Michael Haley is a commissioned officer with the SC National Guard and is deployed with the 218th Maneuver Enhancement Brigade at Camp Lemonnier, a military base in Djibouti, on the Horn of Africa.

Yes, Trump was mocking a member of the US military, Jessica Sutherland noted at Daily Kos (2/10). It’s not the first time he’s mocked the spouses of women who challenged him. It probably won’t be the last.

But Sutherland also noted that Melania Trump has not been spotted at Trump campaign appearances, either. As the New York Times reports:

“Cloistered behind the gates of her three homes, she sticks to a small circle — her son, her elderly parents and a handful of old friends. She visits her hairdressers, consults with Hervé Pierre, her longtime stylist, and sometimes meets her husband for Friday night dinner at their clubs. But her most ardent pursuit is a personal campaign: helping her son, Barron, 17, with his college search.

“What she has not done, despite invitations from her husband, is appear on the campaign trail. Nor has she been at his side for any of his court appearances,” though she did endorse his re-election in May.

“These are the days of Melania Trump, former first lady, current campaign spouse and wife to one of the most divisive figures in American public life …”

CHANGES IN CHILD TAX CREDIT WOULD HAVE OUTSIZED IMPACT ON RURAL CHILDREN. The families of more than a quarter of all children living in rural America would benefit from a proposed expansion of the Child Tax Credit that has passed the US House of Representatives and is now under consideration in the Senate, Claire Carlson reported at the Daily Yonder (2/7).

The expansion would change the credit’s eligibility criteria to include low-income families who don’t get the full tax credit per child because they don’t pay enough taxes to qualify. The current credit phases in until family earnings reach a certain threshold. Most low-income families – usually ones who make under $40,000 annually – receive partial or no credit.

“Because of that structure, it particularly disadvantages children who live in rural areas largely because pay is typically lower in rural areas,” said Stephanie Hingtgen, research analyst at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. “Clearly this is upside down.”

Under the proposed legislation, more than 80% of the children who don’t get the full credit would see a boost in their family’s income from the credit, according to Hingtgen. The legislation would also increase the credit slightly, from $2,000 to $2,100 per child.

A study from a Harvard University research center found that when families are given a higher child tax credit – as they were in 2021 during the temporary COVID-19 pandemic relief effort – depression and anxiety rates among parents were lower, possibly because of reduced financial worries.

An estimated 27% of all rural children would benefit from the proposed expansion, compared to 22% in metropolitan areas, according to Center on Budget and Policy Priorities data.

The benefits could be even larger for rural families of color, who on average earn less than white families. In rural areas, 46% of Black children, 39% of Latino children, and 37% of American Indian and Alaskan Native children would receive more money under the Child Tax Credit expansion. For each demographic group, a significantly higher proportion of children from rural areas would benefit than children from urban areas, the analysis showed.

The House of Representatives passed the legislation in a rare bipartisan vote. Now the Child Tax Credit expansion is being considered by the Senate. If passed, the change would go into effect for the current tax filing season (2023) and continue for three years, ending after the 2025 filing season.

“This is Congress’ only shot this year to pass legislation that would substantially boost the incomes of millions of children and families with low incomes and substantially lower child poverty,” Hingtgen said.

ARIZONA ‘FREEDOM CAUCUS’ MEMBER HAS BILL TO KEEP SATAN OFF PUBLIC PROPERTY. Arizona state Sen. Jake Hoffman, a Republican member of the “Freedom Caucus,” successfully pushed SB 1279, which prohibits “Satanic memorials, statues, altars or displays or any other method of representing or honoring Satan may not be displayed on public property” through the Senate Government Committee (4/7) on a 5-1 party-line vote. Hoffman has named it the RESPECT Act, an acronym for “Reject Escalating Satanism by Preserving Essential Core Traditions,” Walter Einenkel noted at Daily Kos (2/9).

Democratic Sen. Juan Mendez asked Hoffman why he was singling out one religion. Hoffman responded, “It’s not a religion. Satanism is not a religion. Satan is implicitly antithetical to religion.” Mendez replied, “I guess I’m trying to understand the motivation for that. Is it because it’s insulting to your religion?”

The debate was heated and lasted about 30 minutes. Micah Mangione, representing the Freedom from Religion Association, testified that the First Amendment is pretty clear about this kind of buffoonery: “I am genuinely impressed that in only 25 words this bill seems to violate three separate clauses of the First Amendment to the US Constitution.” He added, “If you can go after the Satanic Temple, which is a religion, what about paganism next? What about Judaism next? How about Islam? How about LDS?”

Hoffman attempted a gotcha moment as an unidentified woman testified against the bill, asking, “So you think that it’s okay, that it’s both legally and constitutionally okay to argue that Satan—so someone like I explained earlier—who is universally known to be explicitly the enemy of God, antithetical to God. You think that’s targeting your religion?“ The woman responded with her own question, “Universally known to you?” Oh man, these Freedom Caucus guys are so bad at gotcha moments!

Hoffman, who believes in a specific Christian God, responded, “No to literally everyone. Like, that’s not a–that’s not a point. That’s not debatable. Saying this is the enemy of God. Would you not say that Satan is the enemy of God?” To which the woman responded, “No.”

So satisfying. Mendez was also flabbergasted by Hoffman and his fellow Republicans’ obtuseness, said, “I don’t understand how we all don’t see this as an attack on the Constitution.”

In the meantime, Arizona is facing budget deficits and the need to come to an agreement across the aisle. Republicans want to rush the budget through before more budgetary forecasts are available. “They definitely don’t want to still be discussing the Grand Canyon State’s budget issues as more and more information comes out about how much of an educational and financial disaster conservatives’ private school voucher program has been for taxpayers,” Einenkel noted.

CITING ‘THE WIRE’ HAWAII SUPREME COURT REBUKES SCOTUS ON 2ND AMENDMENT. A 2022 US Supreme Court ruling paved the way for states to weaken gun safety laws, but the Hawaii Supreme Court made clear (2/7)—with the help of the character Slim Charles from HBO’s “The Wire”—that the high court’s regressive decision would not force the state to allow residents to carry unlicensed firearms in public, Julia Conley noted at Common Dreams (2/8).

The court unanimously upheld the state’s ban, saying that “states retain the authority to require individuals have a license before carrying firearms in public.”

The 5-0 decision was at odds with New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, the 2022 case in which the Supreme Court’s right-wing majority ruled that laws and regulations pertaining to firearms must fall within the United States’ so-called “historical tradition.”

Last year, Bruen upheld a decision by a federal judge in Virginia that 18-to-20-year-olds could not be barred from purchasing guns since men as young as 18 were permitted to join armed militias at the time of the US’s founding.

“Time-traveling to 1791 or 1868 to collar how a state regulates lethal weapons—per the Constitution’s democratic design—is a dangerous way to look at the federal constitution,” wrote Hawaii Supreme Court Justice Todd Eddins in the ruling. “The Constitution is not a ‘suicide pact.’”

Eddins acknowledged that the state’s constitution, like the US Constitution, says, “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

“Those words do not support a right to possess lethal weapons in public for possible self-defense,” he wrote.

The court issued an unequivocal rebuke of the importance the Supreme Court placed on the United States’ “historical tradition.”

“As the world turns, it makes no sense for contemporary society to pledge allegiance to the founding era’s culture, realities, laws, and understanding of the Constitution,” wrote Eddins before citing the words of Slim Charles, the fictional character from the popular series, who once said: “The thing about the old days, they the old days.”

From The Progressive Populist, March 1, 2024

Populist.com