Donald Trump celebrated the national 4th of July holiday weekend by using the backdrop of our national monuments to try and “gaslight” the nation again on coronavirus while hoping to spark a race war to jump-start his flagging re-election effort. So, how did your Independence Day weekend go? But, first up on today’s BradCast…[Audio link to show is posted below summary]…
A number of countries around the world have now all but defeated the COVID-19 virus within their borders. In the U.S., on the other hand, thanks to our failed/non-existent national strategy, new infections and hospitalizations continue to explode, hitting new records for each of the past 27 days. That, as Trump and his White House continue to hope that by ignoring the pandemic, it will simply go away or that Americans will simply “grow numb to the escalating death toll” by Election Day. Good luck with that.
His own FDA Commissioner didn’t have the courage over the weekend to contradict Trump’s false claim at the White House on July 4 that, for 99% of people who contract the virus, it’s “totally harmless”. Iowa Sen. Jodi Ernst (R), who described President Obama’s eradication of the Ebola epidemic in the U.S. with just two deaths as “failed leadership”, didn’t have the courage to describe Trump’s leadership as “failed”, despite nearly 3 million confirmed cases now in the U.S. and more than 130,000 deaths from COVID-19. Ernst is up for re-election in the Hawkeye State in just four months. Hopefully voters will keep her cowardice and its deadly consequences in mind.
Former Trump National Security Advisor Tom Bossert, however, came much closer to telling the truth to the American people on Sunday, by warning that “We are in trouble.” And that if the virus continues on its current trajectory in the U.S., “we could top 500k US deaths this year.” Good luck ignoring or becoming numb to that.
In U.S. Supreme Court news on Monday, the Justices on the Republicans’ stolen Court released two interesting opinions on Monday. In a 6 to 3 ruling, the Supremes struck down a statutory exemption written into the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 that allows for the federal government to make otherwise banned robocalls on cellphones. The court found that exemption unconstitutional, but allowed the rest of the law to stand in what could be a good omen for a challenge coming up next year at the High Court to the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). And, in a unanimous decision today, SCOTUS found that states may bar so-called “faithless electors” from casting votes at the Electoral College that contradict the popular will of state voters. We’ll discuss more about both opinions on tomorrow’s BradCast.
Today, however (amid a tribute to the late great Ennio Marricone) we’re left to make sense of Trump’s astonishing, aggressive, political, campaign-style rallies held on the 3rd and 4th of July at Mount Rushmore and at the White House in which he, according to our guest today, HEATHER DIGBY PARTON of Salon and Hullabaloo, all but ignored the deadly coronavirus pandemic, along with its accompanying economic disaster, to offer “angry declarations of war against fellow Americans on the day the country celebrates freedom and independence.”
By declaring war on what he described in the shadow of our nation’s founders as “far-left fascism” and a “merciless campaign to wipe out our history, defame our heroes, erase our values, and indoctrinate our children” by “unleash[ing] a wave of violent crime in our cities,” Parton concedes that at least he’s being transparent. “If nothing else, I think we can see what the contours of the next four months of the Presidential campaign are going to be,” she tells us, “and how he and his people have decided that they are going to deal with the real crises that are manifesting themselves in the country — the obvious one is COVID-19 and the rapid spread of it throughout the country, and the other is the ongoing protest of unarmed black men being killed by police and systemic racism in general.” That, as we discuss, instead of offering actual Presidential leadership during the most deadly pandemic in more than a century which might have otherwise assured his re-election.
Parton also offers her thoughts on last week’s mind-blowing allegations that Russian military intelligence paid bounties to members of the Taliban in exchange for dead U.S. troops in Afghanistan while Trump has done absolutely nothing in response, and the too-overlooked story from Carl Bernstein late last week in which former Senior White House officials, from Trump’s former SecDef, Sec. of State, Chief of Staff, two National Security Advisors and others confirm that Trump was “uninformed” and “delusional” during phone calls with world leaders; never got better at it over the years; was sycophantic in dealing with adversarial autocrats; and “near-sadistic” in his treatment of U.S. allies, especially the female leaders of the U.K. and Germany who he called “stupid” during at least one of the phone calls.
That conversation and few listener calls round out the hour, as we are now exactly 120 days from Election Day, November 3rd…not that anyone’s counting…
Hi Brad “” I have a question for your SCOTUS/constitutional law expert who will be on the show today (July 7). As you know the “National Popular Vote Interstate Compact” is an agreement among a group of U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their electoral votes to whichever presidential candidate wins the overall popular vote in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. When enough states have signed the compact to have the majority of the Electoral College votes to win a presidential election, it is to be automatically be enacted. At that time, the effect of the Electoral College to put someone who loses the national popular vote will be canceled without having to have a constitutional amendment.
Therefore, my question is: since the compact mandates that all the signer states mandate that their electors vote for the NATIONAL winner, even if one or more signer states voted for the loser, does Monday’s Supreme Court decision saying that all electors in each state MUST vote for their state’s popular vote-getter, in effect, outlaw the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact? The whole purpose of the compact is to do away with the inequality of Electoral College and doesn’t this new decision actually strengthen it? Doesn’t doing away with rogue electors actually forbid the mandate of the Interstate Compact?
Thanks “” Susan (4earth)
Susan –
Sorry I didn’t happen to catch this comment BEFORE I had Mark on to ask him about it. That said, based on what he did say in my questions, I believe that yes, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact would be allowable (at least based on yesterday’s opinion). The opinion doesn’t say state’s MUST vote in the electoral college for whoever wins the popular vote in the state. It says that states may require electors to vote that way.
Mark also noted that state legislatures, for example, could decide to vote for the person who didn’t win the popular vote if they so choose!