So I’ve been wanting to do this thread for a while and as usual, I’m hoping people who know more than me, academics especially, chime in. The question: when did “bipartisanship” become an important value in American politics?

Obviously members of opposing parties have always worked and passed things together when interests align. But when did collaboration become not only an actual policy goal in itself but a virtue worthy of extolling?

Consider this 1960 article from historian Henry Graff in the NYT on the incoming Kennedy admin. “In domestic matters, bipartisanship is, naturally, impossible and undesirable. Although some legislation will...enjoy bipartisan support, our politics remain by nature partisan.”

“Naturally!” And Graff evidently wasn’t alone. An earlier article that year from one Douglass Cater suggested ominously that divided government after the 1960 election would be not only undesirable for domestic policymaking, but a national security risk.

If you think these were fringe ideas, here’s a '68 NYT editorial on Nixon's election. “Except in time of war...history suggests that self conscious bipartisanship does not work very well in this country…a peacetime coalition could only serve to blur the lines of responsibility"

Rs made gains in state legislatures in 2020. Even where manual audits are conducted, they rarely include state races. 😢

“Ds spent big to take control of state legislatures but lost their key targets. Now they’ll be on the sidelines as new maps are drawn”

I reported on the sorry state of election auditing laws in the US in this pre-election piece for @NYRDaily. This must change. #RobustManualAuditsNOW
1/

2/ “Earlier this year, ... Republicans blocked federal legislation, the SAFE Act, which would have required such [manual] audits for most federal races.”

3/ “America’s preeminent election-auditing expert, Philip Stark, a professor of statistics at...UCB, told me a few weeks ago that “only a few jurisdictions currently audit elections in a way that has a good chance of catching and correcting wrong reported outcomes.” @philipbstark

4/ “That requires a trustworthy paper trail—primarily hand-marked paper ballots kept demonstrably secure throughout the election and the audit—and [what is known as] a risk-limiting audit using that paper trail.” #HandMarkedPaperBallots

Let's give the devil his due: he's tireless. He has an iron constitution. . He wasn't just a politician; he was a desperate man, and from his desperation he drew the power to hypnotize vast crowds. 1/

He was never anything less than a finisher, which is what made him dangerous, especially down the stretch in an election. Even today, he couldn't do anything but try to make the sale, even to people who supposedly loved him. 2/

Even today, he couldn't think of anything to say to them but the classic kiss-off of a bitter man: "Have a good life." 3/

I give the devil his due in order to give the other character in this historic drama his due -- the character whose virtues his opponent could never understand. 4/

He is, after all, an old man. He did, after all, have a speech impediment. He failed, after all , in two previous runs for the presidency, the first time for ignominious reasons. 5/

#Thread Take action to defend free speech 📢

Stage 2 scrutiny of the Hate Crime Bill begins tomorrow, Tuesday 2nd February. Members of the Justice Committee will debate and vote on various amendments. It is vitally important that more, significant changes are agreed.

We still believe the best course of action is to drop the controversial stirring up hatred offences altogether. At the very least, MSPs must back changes previously promised by the Scottish Government.

The govt has pledged to: restrict the offences to ‘intent’ only; strengthen a free speech provision covering religion and insert a new provision on trans identity; remove provisions on 'inflammatory material' and provide an objective test for what ‘abusive’ behaviour means.

Other useful amendments have been lodged to: remove the vague term 'abusive' altogether; insert a broader trans free speech provision; provide a ‘dwelling defence’ for words spoken in the home; and insert a 'prosecution lock' requiring consent from a senior law officer.

Please take the time to write to Justice Committee MSPs and ask them to back these vital changes. Details of the amendments and how to contact MSPs are below.

#FreeToDisagree

Kamala Harris is the president-in-waiting. Here's how the VP is balancing building her own brand against serving as a loyal soldier on Team Biden. https://t.co/2HTKlpmEd9 by @rbravender & @TinaSfon ($) @businessinsider

Kamala Harris is the president-in-waiting.

It's the awkward reality that has always come with being second-in-command. The vice president's principal job function is to be ready to step in if she's needed.

At the same time, Harris can't appear over-eager to get the top job, and Democrats bristle at questions about whether she's interested in a future White House run or whether Biden — the oldest president in US history at age 78 — intends to try for a second term in 2024.

So — just like (the male) veeps who came before her — Harris & her team must walk the fine line of protecting her image & building a brand while also portraying her as a loyal Biden soldier & dismissing any speculation that she's eyeing another presidential run of her own.

Harris was "an icon before she even set foot in the White House," said Joel Payne, a Democratic strategist who worked on Hillary Clinton's 16 campaign. "I think she's a bridge to the next generation of Democrats" and a bridge to progressives, women, and people of color, he added.

11 January 2020 #MAGAanalysis #Overturn

Information, Disinformation, And Overwhelm

In these weeks since the election, I feel like I've begun to come to understand the world of intelligence officers and analysts a great deal more than ever before.

My MP @RobertLargan has made public his desire for his whole voting record to be recognised and not just, say, his votes on opposition day motions.

On Tuesday, he voted 9 times on amendments to the #TradeBill.

https://t.co/7fh5abYJTp

At his own request, let's take a look..

Amendment 1: To give parliament and the devolved nations a role in the scrutiny and approval of trade agreements.

Mr Largan voted against this.

11 Tory MPs rebelled against this removal of their own powers.

Mr Largan did

Amendment 2: to assess the human rights violations of countries with which we have or are contemplating forming trade agreements.

Mr Largan voted against this.

1 Tory MP rebelled in this vote. It was not Mr Largan.

Amendment 3: to consider the revocation of any trade agreement with a country that has committed genocide.

Mr Largan voted against this.

34 Tory MPs rebelled in this vote. Not Mr

Amendment 4: to protect the NHS and care organisations from control from outside the UK via trade agreements with other countries.

Mr Largan voted against this.

So did every other Tory MP.

🧵 For those who have been as interested as I am in the discussion about Congress using Section 3 of the 14th Amendment against Trump, this is a thread of scholarly commentary on the subject. Please feel free to add additional links.

Historian Eric Foner was among the first to suggest using it and he later wrote up his argument in the WaPo here:

Two legal scholars, Gerald Magliocca and Bruce Ackerman also argued that using section 3 may be more effective than impeachment:

In the @nytimes, @brianbeutler and @deepakguptalaw say it section 3 should be used as a compliment to impeachment.

Political scientist and professor of law Mark Graber makes the case that section 3 can be invoked by legislation passed after Trump leaves office, which would also "retroactively void any action taken by President Trump after January 6, 2021."

THREAD

1)
U.S. charges political scientist Kaveh Afrasiabi with acting as an agent of #Iran's regime.

https://t.co/fJq6jRtBha

Afrasiabi is one of many “scholars” lobbying & pushing Tehran’s talking points in the West.

cc:
@TheJusticeDept

[thread]

I am going to do a thread on several numbers

1

2,996

4,494

43,730

106,158

Now

We go back into the dim and distant past in British politics

We go back over 2 decades

A lesson from the past

Now I am going to focus on the words of two politicians

Two politicians who have held high offices in this land

And I am going to agree with their words

So those with a long memory

May have already figured out perhaps what I am going to do based on the first two numbers

And you'd be right

So let me get going on the journey

In my first post

I deliberately anonymised those numbers

Let me now give them context

1 Princess Diana or Margaret

2,996 9/11

The final 3 are UK coronavirus death tolls:

4,494 (5th April 2020)

43,730 (30th June 2020)

106,158 (1st February 2021)

As @AndrewSparrow at the @guardian points out, Johnson led Vote Leave and then wrote the following in the Telegraph after the referendum result. Line by line analysis of the key part?: /1

"I cannot stress too much that Britain is part of Europe, and always will be."

Well, he can't change geography, but the centre of gravity in politics and economics in Europe is not in the UK, and the UK is relegated to the periphery with a very limited relationship to the EU. /2

"There will still be intense and intensifying European cooperation and partnership in a huge number of fields: the arts, the sciences, the universities, and on improving the environment."

No: no partnership and none will intensify. Env only because EU insistence on LPF? /3

"EU citizens living in this country will have their rights fully protected, and the same goes for British citizens living in the EU."

No: 'settled status' not the same for EU citizens and Windrush-type scandal expected. /4

"British people will still be able to go and work in the EU; to live; to travel; to study; to buy homes and to settle down."

No: free movement ('proudly') ended. Short visits only, visas for work, massive bureaucracy. Only Brits with a 2nd nationality keep the benefits. /5

1. The Real State of Affairs in America; All will change in the Public’s Eye within Weeks!

Patriots and awakened souls, what you witnessed on 1/20/2021 was an illusion of [B]iden getting sworn in. This was fantasy and a big joke, just like many optics that past [d]eep state...

POLITICS AS CELEBRITY

I knew this crap was coming sooner or later. People are suffering & these mafuckas out here doing sorority photo shoots. Miss me w/ this bullshit. More of the same. Stop treating politics like its a damn elite club & path 2

Stop playing games w/people's lives & maybe then you wouldn't have so many people suffering. I'm going to file this bullshit next to Michelle Obama's $8,000 Versace dress & $4,000 Balenciaga boots. This shit is

Remember when Barack Obama 1st ran for president & Mrs. Obama was heralded as "The J. Crew" 1st Lady who shopped at Target was just like every other American? That bullshit was a lie. Balenciaga & Versace Michelle is who she always was, but she masked it 2 aid her husband's rise.

Now Kamala Harris, like Michelle Obama, out here w/a Marie Antoinette "let them eat cake" tone deafness while Americans are suffering, the Capitol is burning , a pandemic is raging, people are dying & a civil war is brewing, but Kamala skee-weeing on Vogue covers in pink & green-

like she back on the yard at Howard about to do her probate show. Meanwhile, the Obamas globetrotting w/billionaires, gotta half Bil Netflix deal & hv mansions in Chicago, DC & Marthas Vineyard. Nevermind how they got this entire life of wealth & celebrity was through politics &

The man on the left is David Armanasco. He has been doing free public relations for @MCoSheriff Steve Bernal. 🤔

He is best buds with Leon Panetta.

The @mcweekly met with Armanasco as Steve Bernal was poised to enter office (from deputy to sheriff) and agreed to go easy.