I heard Shannon Freshour's take on AG Merrick Garland's failure, thus far, to act on the criminal referral regarding Steve Bannon's snub of the 1/6 Committee's subpoena. For the record, we're at about Day 17 with no action. For those who missed Freshour's take, her position is that it takes a long time to develop a federal criminal case and that Garland is doing his job by making sure that all the I's are dotted and T's are crossed before deciding whether to proceed. She cited her experience in a support role in litigating cases, and noted how long it takes to get a case ready.
I've been an attorney since 1987 so let me tell you why she is wrong on this case. She is right that most federal criminal prosecutions require extensive time to develop the facts. But this is an issue of enforcing a subpoena - the facts are already developed and are straightforward. There is no factual record to develop. The only issue is the application of the law to the failure to comply with the subpoena. Research of the case law and statutes regarding federal subpoena enforcement and executive privilege wouldn't take more than a few hours at best.
There is no justification for Garland's delay. None. But it brings me back to my constant emphasis that Congress needs to use its inherent contempt power to enforce its own subpoenas.
"Democratic Mainstay" here, which actually surprised me for a whole New York micro-nanosecond.
I have to say, I am certain I disagree with Lynn Cheney on *at least* 95% of policy questions. But that's the way it's supposed to be; it's the back-and-forth tussling over issues that is how they are resolved with whatever level of progress results.
I am, also, 100% on not only the same page, but the same line and same word with her regarding what we face now, and what we must be willing to do. And I am really glad to see it is she - who I would not have expected to see doing this - who demonstrates the moral clarity and integrity to stand as she does.
I always love it when people live up to my hopes instead of down to my expectations.
Surprise, I'm an establishment liberal. Okay, not really a surprise. I very much fit in with the clintonian ideal of 'do what works to win power, then do what you want with it.'
I would say though that, by and large, it's not surprising that the 'progressive left' is smaller. Activists are always those on the fringes trying to move the Overton window where they want it to be. But I think the most alarming thing is that the 'faith and flag' right is the largest group on the right, tied with the 'ambivalent' right. As I've said before, those fighting for something will always beat those fighting against something, provided all things are equal. It's much harder to fight against something when you don't know what you want in its place, and status quo is hard to maintain. But this explains why the right was so easily taken over by trumpism, if the main group of supporters comes from angry, transformational types. If the left had similar amounts of progressives, you'd probably see the same thing.
Instead, most of the fights between liberals and progressives are because there's a more even breakup between their groups. And I imagine that many liberals end up looking like a scatter plot rather than a line graph when it comes to ideas. Example, there are liberals who are very much on the racial justice train but are cooler on abortion, and liberals who are the opposite. Liberals tend to be a constellation of issues, whereas the right is very much about keeping or reversing trends. Though that conservative tendency to yell stop has a problem when things don't stop, and that's why there aren't as many conservatives in higher education. Trying to claim that everything was great before and there is no need for further inquiry, that truth has already been discovered, is the domain of religion, not education.
I have little in common with Ms. Cheney's political positions. Nor do I want to make her a target of ridicule by supporting her (I'm a self-identified Democratic liberal). She was raised right. Say what you will about former VP Dick Cheney, he raised a lioness of a daughter. God bless both of them.
Couldn’t take the quiz because I hated the first question. It completely lacks nuance and symbolizes everything that’s wrong with politics. Reminds me of this story I once heard:
A priest once asked a man, “Do you believe there are different types of people?”
He responded, “Of course. There are tall people, short people. There are men and women, rich people and poor people. Do you believe there are different types of people?”
The Priest responded, “Yes, there are two different types of people: those who believe there are different types of people, and those who don’t.”
I joined the SAM Party because it’s the only one trying to break us out of the ideological gridlock this quiz, however unintentionally, reinforces. I love Charlie but hate this quiz.
I did the quiz and got ambivalent right, but i don't see my views reflected in the Bulwark - at least not as much as one would think. I do like the bulwark and read/listen faithfully.
Establishment liberal, though I feel like on almost every single issue I could be persuaded to a more conservative view. Maybe that's what a liberal is? Someone John McCain said won't take his own side in an argument?
Democratic Mainstay here. Would like to point out, however, that answers that offer absolutes as responses will not be good at capturing what might be much more nuanced points of view. (Case in point - the question about corporations and profits. A binary choice doesn't capture my thinking on this at all!).
All that said - there is one topic, however, on which there cannot be a nuanced take. And I think (or rather, hope!) that a lot of us right now - on either side of the aisle - are single issue voters on this particular matter. Which is our support for democracy and our abject terror at all the efforts we see around us that are chipping away at this. None of the categories listed in the survey will matter if we lose ground there.
HI Charlie, I agree about Liz Cheney. Your quiz says I am a Dem mainstay, but I have felt a little farther right than that, having been called an Enigma from time to time... I have now given to Liz's campaign and also Adam Kinzinger's group as we are in Boo Coo trouble IMHO for the future of our country. I would like to be more vocal about things sometimes, but in my business I deal with many people and so keep my head down so I don't end up living in a van down by the river.
I came out as "Establishment Liberal" which is not where I expected. My primary issue with these sorts of tests are that often we are given a binary choice. I find little in life is actually so clear cut and I want a box that allows to me say "yes, but what about.....?"
Guess I will now have to go buy a tweed jacket with elbow patches.
I got Establishment Liberal, which was a bit of a surprise since I answered the immigration and trans questions on the slightly conservative side. My big hobbyhorse is sticking it to the man and taxing the hell out of corporations and the rich, so perhaps that did it.
Could Sununu deciding not to challenge Hasan be a signal that maybe the 2022 Senate elections aren't going to be as easy for Republicans as people have been thinking?
I heard Shannon Freshour's take on AG Merrick Garland's failure, thus far, to act on the criminal referral regarding Steve Bannon's snub of the 1/6 Committee's subpoena. For the record, we're at about Day 17 with no action. For those who missed Freshour's take, her position is that it takes a long time to develop a federal criminal case and that Garland is doing his job by making sure that all the I's are dotted and T's are crossed before deciding whether to proceed. She cited her experience in a support role in litigating cases, and noted how long it takes to get a case ready.
I've been an attorney since 1987 so let me tell you why she is wrong on this case. She is right that most federal criminal prosecutions require extensive time to develop the facts. But this is an issue of enforcing a subpoena - the facts are already developed and are straightforward. There is no factual record to develop. The only issue is the application of the law to the failure to comply with the subpoena. Research of the case law and statutes regarding federal subpoena enforcement and executive privilege wouldn't take more than a few hours at best.
There is no justification for Garland's delay. None. But it brings me back to my constant emphasis that Congress needs to use its inherent contempt power to enforce its own subpoenas.
"Democratic Mainstay" here, which actually surprised me for a whole New York micro-nanosecond.
I have to say, I am certain I disagree with Lynn Cheney on *at least* 95% of policy questions. But that's the way it's supposed to be; it's the back-and-forth tussling over issues that is how they are resolved with whatever level of progress results.
I am, also, 100% on not only the same page, but the same line and same word with her regarding what we face now, and what we must be willing to do. And I am really glad to see it is she - who I would not have expected to see doing this - who demonstrates the moral clarity and integrity to stand as she does.
I always love it when people live up to my hopes instead of down to my expectations.
Democratic Mainstay here, but I would vociferously argue that the questions aren't nearly nuanced enough to capture someone's true principles.
I will also continue to affirm (to anybody that will listen) that far too many voters are just too damn ignorant to be considered "informed".
Surprise, I'm an establishment liberal. Okay, not really a surprise. I very much fit in with the clintonian ideal of 'do what works to win power, then do what you want with it.'
I would say though that, by and large, it's not surprising that the 'progressive left' is smaller. Activists are always those on the fringes trying to move the Overton window where they want it to be. But I think the most alarming thing is that the 'faith and flag' right is the largest group on the right, tied with the 'ambivalent' right. As I've said before, those fighting for something will always beat those fighting against something, provided all things are equal. It's much harder to fight against something when you don't know what you want in its place, and status quo is hard to maintain. But this explains why the right was so easily taken over by trumpism, if the main group of supporters comes from angry, transformational types. If the left had similar amounts of progressives, you'd probably see the same thing.
Instead, most of the fights between liberals and progressives are because there's a more even breakup between their groups. And I imagine that many liberals end up looking like a scatter plot rather than a line graph when it comes to ideas. Example, there are liberals who are very much on the racial justice train but are cooler on abortion, and liberals who are the opposite. Liberals tend to be a constellation of issues, whereas the right is very much about keeping or reversing trends. Though that conservative tendency to yell stop has a problem when things don't stop, and that's why there aren't as many conservatives in higher education. Trying to claim that everything was great before and there is no need for further inquiry, that truth has already been discovered, is the domain of religion, not education.
I have little in common with Ms. Cheney's political positions. Nor do I want to make her a target of ridicule by supporting her (I'm a self-identified Democratic liberal). She was raised right. Say what you will about former VP Dick Cheney, he raised a lioness of a daughter. God bless both of them.
Couldn’t take the quiz because I hated the first question. It completely lacks nuance and symbolizes everything that’s wrong with politics. Reminds me of this story I once heard:
A priest once asked a man, “Do you believe there are different types of people?”
He responded, “Of course. There are tall people, short people. There are men and women, rich people and poor people. Do you believe there are different types of people?”
The Priest responded, “Yes, there are two different types of people: those who believe there are different types of people, and those who don’t.”
I joined the SAM Party because it’s the only one trying to break us out of the ideological gridlock this quiz, however unintentionally, reinforces. I love Charlie but hate this quiz.
Ambivalent Right. Will be fun to get a glimpse into Charlie's readers' political leanings here...
I did the quiz and got ambivalent right, but i don't see my views reflected in the Bulwark - at least not as much as one would think. I do like the bulwark and read/listen faithfully.
Establishment liberal, though I feel like on almost every single issue I could be persuaded to a more conservative view. Maybe that's what a liberal is? Someone John McCain said won't take his own side in an argument?
Democratic Mainstay here. Would like to point out, however, that answers that offer absolutes as responses will not be good at capturing what might be much more nuanced points of view. (Case in point - the question about corporations and profits. A binary choice doesn't capture my thinking on this at all!).
All that said - there is one topic, however, on which there cannot be a nuanced take. And I think (or rather, hope!) that a lot of us right now - on either side of the aisle - are single issue voters on this particular matter. Which is our support for democracy and our abject terror at all the efforts we see around us that are chipping away at this. None of the categories listed in the survey will matter if we lose ground there.
I got Stressed Sideliner. I'm not disinterested in politics, though. I'm very interested.
HI Charlie, I agree about Liz Cheney. Your quiz says I am a Dem mainstay, but I have felt a little farther right than that, having been called an Enigma from time to time... I have now given to Liz's campaign and also Adam Kinzinger's group as we are in Boo Coo trouble IMHO for the future of our country. I would like to be more vocal about things sometimes, but in my business I deal with many people and so keep my head down so I don't end up living in a van down by the river.
It's frustrating at times.
I love you guys!
I came out as "Establishment Liberal" which is not where I expected. My primary issue with these sorts of tests are that often we are given a binary choice. I find little in life is actually so clear cut and I want a box that allows to me say "yes, but what about.....?"
Guess I will now have to go buy a tweed jacket with elbow patches.
I also got Ambivalent Right, I think their typology needed more questions on the authoritarian/libertarian axis though.
I got Establishment Liberal, which was a bit of a surprise since I answered the immigration and trans questions on the slightly conservative side. My big hobbyhorse is sticking it to the man and taxing the hell out of corporations and the rich, so perhaps that did it.
Could Sununu deciding not to challenge Hasan be a signal that maybe the 2022 Senate elections aren't going to be as easy for Republicans as people have been thinking?