HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » DemocracyMouse » Journal
Page: 1


Profile Information

Name: Mouse de la Soul
Gender: Do not display
Hometown: New Jersey
Home country: USA
Member since: Sat Dec 9, 2017, 01:41 PM
Number of posts: 2,275

Journal Archives

A blood curdling parallel: Trump is the ghost of Andrew Johnson

To save our country, I sincerely believe we must become a (non-violent) army of democracy nerds, beginning with this great article in Mother Jones:

Trump’s Not Richard Nixon. He’s Andrew Johnson.

Betrayal. Paranoia. Cowardice. We’ve been here before.


It’s not hard to think of a historical precedent for President Donald Trump’s attempts to trade military assistance to the Ukrainian government for actionable dirt on his chief political rival. The pathetic desperation of the crime itself, the bungling attempt at a cover-up, the incriminating transcript—“it really is stupid Watergate,” one Democrat told the Washington Post in September. The similarities to the scandal that forced Richard Nixon from office in 1974 extend to the people talking about it. An attorney on Nixon’s House impeachment committee, Bill Weld, is running for president. John Dean, Nixon’s White House counsel, and Carl Bernstein, who helped break the scandal, are CNN contributors. A Nixon dirty trickster, Roger Stone, recently went on trial for doing more of the same for Trump. And of course there’s Trump himself, channeling Nixon’s appeals to the “silent majority” and “law and order,” and pillorying the “enemy” press. There’s even an attempt to cover up a break-in at the Democratic National Committee—read the partial transcript of Trump’s call with the Ukrainians and you’ll find the president floating a cheese-brained conspiracy theory absolving Russia of its 2016 hacking of the DNC.

But coverage of the Trump fiasco is focus­ing on the wrong impeachment. The best parallel to Trump isn’t Nixon; it’s Andrew Johnson, a belligerent and destructive faux-populist who escaped conviction in the Senate by the thinnest of margins. Yet for more than a century, the official narrative of the first presidential impeachment has been butchered and distorted, reduced to a historical curiosity, a showdown between two irresponsible factions in which voices of reason ultimately triumphed. You were likely taught (if you were taught at all) that the 1868 fight to remove Johnson from office centered on an obscure and dubious law, the Tenure of Office Act, and that “Radical” Republicans—their influence inflated in the aftermath of the Civil War—overstepped their bounds in a quest for even more power.

Andrew Johnson was a sort of anti-­Lincoln—a stumpy, vengeful, subliterate tailor who rose through the ranks of the Democratic Party in East Tennessee by railing against elites. In 1861, he was the only Southern senator to stay loyal to the Union, leaving him not only without a state but largely without a party. Lincoln appointed him military governor of Tennessee, and later, hoping to shore up his support ahead of his reelection campaign, added Johnson to the ticket. Johnson showed up drunk to his own swearing-in, then hid out at a friend’s house in Maryland, ashamed to show his face. A few weeks later, Lincoln was murdered and Johnson was president. As the historian Brenda Wineapple explains in her lively 2019 book, The Impeachers: The Trial of Andrew Johnson and the Dream of a Just Nation, the road to impeachment began in the violence and political turmoil that followed the assassination, as Johnson wrestled with Republicans in Congress about what postwar Reconstruction should look like. The impeachment process was rife with bumbling and paranoia, but nonetheless centered on a profound question: whether the nation would continue on its path toward a pluralistic democracy or revert to the white supremacist state that had existed before Fort Sumter.

Alarm bells began to sound early on. Johnson was erratic. He was wavering. Frederick Douglass met with him at the White House and came away disturbed. In the meeting, the president had suggested deporting millions of freedmen and appeared not to know that Douglass had been enslaved. Johnson granted mass amnesties to Confederate soldiers and appointed ex-Confederates to key posts. In the spring and summer of 1866, a wave of racial pogroms broke out in the cities of the former Confederacy, targeting African Americans—34 killed in New Orleans; 46 killed in Memphis. Why hadn’t Johnson done anything to stop it? Why was he suddenly blocking every effort by Congress to bring white supremacist violence in the South under control? People who had once seemed enthusiastic about the project ahead were beginning to talk about the I-word.

Posted by DemocracyMouse | Fri Dec 20, 2019, 04:50 PM (0 replies)

Authoritarian Surveillance for Christmas

This isn't a Russian disinformation scare tactic. It's our 3rd world-caliber unregulated tech industry:

‘Our jaws hit the floor’: Why a shocking new report on cellphone tracking is absolutely terrifying

December 20, 2019 By Common Dreams


The New York Times‘ on Thursday sparked calls for congressional action by publishing the first article in its “One Nation, Tracked” series, an investigation into smartphone tracking based on a data set with over 50 billion location pings from the devices of more than 12 million people in the United States.

The data, from 2016 and 2017, “was provided to Times Opinion by sources who asked to remain anonymous because they were not authorized to share it and could face severe penalties for doing so,” explained reporters Stuart A. Thompson and Charlie Warzel. “The sources of the information said they had grown alarmed about how it might be abused and urgently wanted to inform the public and lawmakers.”

Readers and fellow journalists quickly turned to social media to draw attention to the reporting. Laura Rosenberger, director of the Alliance for Securing Democracy, tweeted: “This is the most important article you should read today. Period.”

Aaron Zitner of the Wall Street Journal concurred, writing on Twitter: “This is surely the most consequential piece of journalism published today, and its presentation is the highest form of storytelling. Think of what an authoritarian state is already doing with this technology.”

Posted by DemocracyMouse | Fri Dec 20, 2019, 02:55 PM (3 replies)

It's label time. The screaming Republicans are now plainly a unified phenomenon with only one name:

And they shall be called:


And the Heavens shall rain down the label upon the people that they shall have an accurate, meme-friendly phrase to repeat with joyful voices. Instead of warriors (which they like to think of themselves as, justifying belligerence and endless lying), they are nothing but Clowns of Moscow.
Posted by DemocracyMouse | Thu Dec 19, 2019, 03:15 PM (4 replies)

A Pledge for Journalists

A Pledge for Journalists

Whenever I am producing any sort of media on the topic of Trump, I solemnly swear to preface any and all statement's along these lines:

Donald Trump, a known criminal still occupying the office of the President and supported by a majority of the Republicans, many of whom are known to receive support from Russia, an enemy of the United States, said today... ______________.
Posted by DemocracyMouse | Thu Dec 12, 2019, 12:02 AM (4 replies)

A Patriot's Pledge

If and whenever I am speaking to the press or producing any sort of media, I solemnly swear to preface any and all statement's about Donald Trump thus:

Donald Trump, a proven criminal still occupying the office of the President and supported by a majority of the Republicans, many of whom are known to also receive support from Russia, an enemy of the United States, said today _______________________.

Posted by DemocracyMouse | Wed Dec 11, 2019, 09:24 PM (0 replies)

Warren's "Blue New Deal" is way too useful and smart

...for Republicans.

But it might actually motivate a groundswell of intelligent, concerned Democrats to get to the polls. In other words, convincing Trump's minions is futile... but a Blue New Deal for a Blue Wave sounds pretty reasonable to me. Millions of younger voters who give a fuck about having a future will eat this proposal up like M&Ms on a licorice stick. It might even peel off some independents.

Elizabeth Warren Pitches ‘Blue New Deal’ To Fortify Coastal Economies
The Democratic presidential hopeful is betting offshore wind and new seafood policies can win her votes.

By Alexander C. Kaufman


Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren unveiled a proposal for a “Blue New Deal” to revitalize coastal economies by building climate change-ready ports, spurring new markets for sustainable seafood and reshaping the offshore energy sector to tap more wind and curtail oil drilling.

The nine-page plan adds to more than half a dozen campaign planks the Massachusetts senator has put forward to lower planet-heating emissions and adapt the United States to the changes already baked in from more than a century of unchecked fossil fuel burning and industrialization.

The proposal stands out as one of the most comprehensive plans yet to emerge to specifically target working waterfronts. Coastal economies were considered a blind spot in the Green New Deal movement that emerged over the past year and calls for a federal climate policy that guarantees good-paying jobs and rapidly transitions the country off fossil fuels. The resolution introduced in Congress in February outlining a Green New Deal made only a passing mention of oceans.

The focus on waterfronts comes as the United Nations climate summit in Madrid pays what activists would call overdue attention to the ways global warming is affecting oceans, which generate at least half of all oxygen in Earth’s atmosphere and have absorbed an estimated 93% of excess heat from emissions.

“While the ocean is severely threatened, it can also be a major part of the climate solution – from providing new sources of clean energy to supporting a new future of ocean farming,” Warren wrote in a campaign memo outlining the policy. “That is why I believe that a Blue New Deal must be an essential part of any Green New Deal – helping us fight climate change, protecting our health, and creating good, high-wage union jobs in the process.”

The campaign said the proposal did not include new investments beyond the $3 trillion Warren pledged to spend so far on climate efforts. Instead, the Blue New Deal outlines a suite of executive and regulatory actions.
Posted by DemocracyMouse | Tue Dec 10, 2019, 11:55 AM (2 replies)
Go to Page: 1