Every once in a while, I have to remind folks of some basic facts about Alabama Senator Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III. This is one of those times.
In 1986 (otherwise known as the year of Iran-Contra), President Ronald Reagan nominated Beauregard the Third to serve as a judge on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama. During the Judiciary Committee hearings on his nomination, it became clear that Sessions suffered from a common conservative fear: namely, mouth-rape.
Like so many of his Republican brethren, Sessions was terrified of having things “rammed down his throat” by the NAACP, ACLU, or some “un-American” and “Communist-inspired” guy who might decide to attack his home with a small arsenal.
When it became clear that Jefferson Beauregard the Third was not only named for the president of the Confederacy and one its more more effective generals, but actually held the same beliefs in common with those two gentlemen, the Judiciary Committee declined to send his nomination to the floor. Alabama Senator Howell Heflin decided that Sessions was simply too racist to serve on the bench in Alabama, and so Reagan had to go back to the drawing board.
Of course, Sessions got his revenge by getting elected to the same Senate that had rejected him as a judge and then winning an appointment to the same Judiciary Committee that had declined to send his nomination to the floor. Keeping Alabama racism at bay is like trying to drown a cork, and Sessions soon defined himself as one of the most extreme and intemperate opponents of Latino immigration in this country’s power structure. He was also the first U.S. Senator to endorse Donald Trump, and that’s now paying dividends.
In the Senate, Jeff Sessions (R-AL) may not have been a backbencher, but his extreme positions on immigration relegated him to the fringe of his party during the 2013 immigration debate when many Republicans came out publicly in support of giving immigrants a chance to stay in the U.S. legally if not a path to citizenship. After the Republican National Committee’s autopsy report outlined the need to make inroads with Hispanic voters, Sessions’ positions were seen as a relic of the past. Now, he is smack dab in the middle of the Trump campaign…
…”He’s right now the congressional guy most connected to the campaign so right now if there is any question about anything we want to raise with the campaign, he’d probably be the guy you’d want to go through,” says Sen. John Thune (R-SD), a member of the GOP leadership team.
Something similar has happened over on the House side, where Lou Barletta of Pennsylvania and Rep. Scott DesJarlais of Tennessee have seen their profile and influence rise substantially as a result of their early endorsements of Trump.
Barletta rose to prominence as the mayor of Hazleton, Pennsylvania, where he enacted a series of local ordinances that were so anti-immigrant that they were ultimately ruled unconstitutional. His reward was a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives representing the Party of Lincoln.
Scott DesJarlais was recently dubbed “America’s worst congressman” by the National Review, and for once the Review had a good point.
In 2014, [DesJarlais] won his primary election by 38 votes after reports surfaced that DesJarlais, a doctor, “had sexual relationships with two patients, three coworkers and a drug representative.” It was reported that in one instance the anti-abortion advocate had encouraged one of the women he’d had a brief affair with to have an abortion.
I know that winning by 38 votes is not a lot, but is there anything a Republican can do besides agree to pay our bills on time that will get them beaten in a primary?
In any case, DesJarlais is no longer the House Republicans’ biggest embarrassment:
As establishment Republicans in Washington come around to a bombastic Trump, DesJarlais has emerged as a liaison between skeptics, the media and the Trump campaign, massaging fears that Trump is a loose cannon with promises that Trump is more reserved and thoughtful behind the scenes.
DesJarlais says he helped organize a meeting between the Freedom Caucus board and Trump’s campaign operative Paul Manafort last week. And before Trump met with House Speaker Paul Ryan last month, DesJarlais was one of a handful of members who sat down with the speaker and encouraged Ryan to unite behind the nominee.
As for Barletta, Talking Points Memo reports that he “now spends more time in the middle of the action and has sent his policy ideas over to Trump on immigration.”
If history is our guide, those ideas on immigration policy are probably unconstitutional.
So, we begin to see something take form, which is how the rise of Trump will change the Republican Party by empowering some of its worst people.
In this way, Trump’s campaign will do damage to our country even if he loses in a landslide.
And that’s not even considering what it will do to your neighbors who find ways to excuse Trump’s moral lapses and hate-baiting, thereby losing a tight grip on their moral compasses.
I thought Trump was “dragging down” other candidates and “destroying the party.”
How is that inconsistent with what I wrote?
Elections decide that.
I’m sorry; I wasn’t clear. I just meant, how come the guy whom everyone in Washington was running away from as fast as they could because he’s so toxic — they can’t even use his name in a sound bite; they call him “the candidate” — suddenly become the guy who everyone’s flocking towards, with the early arrivals at his side becoming the new “power brokers”?
I don’t think we’re seeing the normal amount of flocking.
I mean, the point here is that his endorsers (which are still quite few) have to act as liaisons to the party leadership and even the rank and file, because no one knows Trump and Trump doesn’t trust anyone.
where DA PHUQ have they been?
this is ridiculous.
should have been formed the day after that horrendous SC decision.
………………………………..
The Voting Rights Caucus gets to work
05/25/16 10:42 AM
By Steve Benen
The list of caucuses in Congress isn’t short. These officially recognized groups of lawmakers, who get together in pursuit of a common agenda, include names that are probably familiar to many Americans – the Congressional Black Caucus, for example – but there are plenty that are far more obscure. Before this morning, for example, I’d never heard of the Congressional Bourbon Caucus or the Congressional Explosive Ordnance Disposal Caucus, both of which evidently exist.
Up until yesterday, however, there was no Voting Rights Caucus. Yesterday, as the Star-Telegram in Fort Worth reported, Rep. Marc Veasey (D-Texas) changed that.
The caucus appears to already have 50 members, and though the list doesn’t identify lawmakers by party, a quick review suggests all 50 are Democrats.
Agree with you, but then again will say the obvious: better late than never, I guess.
Our “representatives” “hard at work.”
If they accomplish some push back, I will be happy to see it. Woulda been nice to see some activity before now, and that’s for d*mn sure.
This exemplifies one of my issues with the D party. Allegedly “representing” the Hoi Polloi… I guess when they’re finished with the Bourbon Caucus and nothing else distracts them…
Every once in a while, I have to remind folks of some basic facts about Alabama Senator Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III.
As a Black person in America, all I ever needed to know about him was his name. Never needed to know anything else. Never needed to research. His name told me ALLL about him.
And what would you say about William Jefferson Clinton?
It would say an increase in the drug war, the end of welfare, private prisons, “free trade” that ships working class jobs overseas, the merging of media into a few large megacorporations, the implementation of ECHELON spying program, the death of a half million Iraqi children, the dismantling of Yugoslavia.
Um, I was looking for a reply from rikyrah. He claimed to know Jeff Sessions politics purely on the basis of his name, which includes “Jefferson”. Well, Bill Clinton’s middle name is also “Jefferson”, so does rikyrah believe he can infer anything about Bill Clinton’s politics from that simple fact?
I guess you really really really dislike both Clintons, but 1)you’re not rikyrah, and 2)your reply did not address the question I had asked.
I doubt the ‘tell’ on the name is the ‘Jefferson’, which is not all that uncommon, and a person could be named for another ‘Jefferson’ besides Jefferson Davis. It’s the combination of Jefferson and Beauregard that is the tell.
The combination makes it very difficult to explain away his parents intentions, and the lessons he was taught as a child.
.
And of course the actions linked to that name for the last 35+ years which are public record any one interested in fairness and equality could research.
Jefferson Beauregard is as treasonous to the actual spirit of the US constitution in our times as his name sakes were in theirs.
A treason against the spirit of the constitution rooted in simple bigotry, and hatred.
Not somebody who back the traitors of the confederacy that unprovoked attacked The United States of America military forces in order to actively defend the institution of slavery, one of the central themes of succession;
read their own words here
They admit in their succession statements slavery was the central theme of their treason.
Sessions celebrates that treason,
Clinton does not.
See the difference now?
Still hoping for a reply from rikyrah.
And BTW you meant “secession”, not “succession”.
Interesting post.
One of my numerous concerns is: win or lose, what then happens with Trump’s many supporters? They may be in a minority – time will tell – but they are out there and very vocal and very into this campaign.
Even if Trump loses, they’re not going to go quietly. And they’re not going to suddenly change their viewpoints and biases, which, despite some publicized arguments to the contrary, are STILL being stoked by the M$M white supremacist, racist, bigoted, biased, sexist, homophobic propaganda Wurlitzer.
Just saying… it’s a huge problemo, methinks.
Regardless of the outcome of the Presidential election, with the xenophobic and racist genie now completely out of the bottle, I would expect that for probably the rest of my lifetime (I am 57) we will be fighting against a belligerently loud and proud, not insignificant, number of racists and haters who will be dominating a sizable portion of the non-Democratic side of the political ledger. I just don’t see any of them going quietly into the night. And I don’t see any kind of movement developing among establishment Republicans to try and mitigate the effects of the ridiculous views and demands of their crazy base.
My fear is the Trumpism will be the default view of one of our two major parties for a long time to come.
You write:
Actually…read this article from WAPO.
It goes on…read it.
I personally believe that if Trump is defeated…or even worse wins and is then impeached (Read that one too.)…it won’t be the “political ledgers” that will be dominated by these people, we will soon see a full-fledged, nativist terrorist movement right here in the U.S. They’ll give up on trying to legislate and instead start trying to dominate.
Watch.
“Hogwash!!!,” some people will say. “Our lawful armed forces and police systems would mop them up like the amateurs they are!!!” But…think on it a little. How many members of those armed forces and policed systems would sympathize with these people? Why can’t Pakistan and Afghanistan…just to name two prime examples…clean up their own terrorist problems? Because they cannot trust their own military and police, that’s why.
May you be born(e) into interesting times.
AG
The country is presently awash with these nativist “patriot” groups, and has been for awhile. I would be interested to hear your thoughts on why they haven’t staged any insurrections to date.
Why?
Not enough popular support.
Yet.
Can you tell me why what seems to be at least a near majority of Americans are currently…and quite passionately…supporting two candidates who are both waging campaigns that are essentially aimed at the ongoing failings the Permanent Government?
A political opposition.
So far.
What if it fails? Especially if it looks like it failed because of collusion between the two parties.
Carl von Clausewitz said:
Watch.
Further domestic trouble no matter who wins? More losing wars? More urban unrest? An economic disaster? Worse? A feeling that the government…again, no matter who wins but especially if Clinton wins and somehow fucks up or Trump wins and looks to set up some kind of de facto dictatorship?
Watch.
A match on tinder.
Like I said, there is not presently enough popular support.
Yet.
Watch if there is some sort of serious trouble in the country in…oh, say less than a year into the new presidency.
Watch.
AG
Which suits the Peter Thiel’s and other CEO’s/rich people just like him.
My fear is the Trumpism will be the default view of one of our two major parties for a long time to come.
It already is, Dear.
They’ve been out there. Your choice: the hard fascism of Trump or the softer fascism of H. Clinton. Mussolini’s definition of his fascist movement was a merging of state and corporate power. I cannot think of an administration more merged with the oligarchy than Obama’s. But I can imagine, and I don’t see oligarchs disappearing from the corridors of power with Clinton.
Usually, the progression into violent fascism happens when normal politics finally collapse. So we’ve got a few years before it’s full-blown fascism time. We’ll have the warm fuzzy fascism of Clinton giving lip service to minority rights while the working class continues to sink and the corporate wars overseas continue to rage.
Enjoy.
You write:
Or…we may not have to wait that long. Trump wins and the wars overseas rapidly pale in comparison to the violence we will see here if he tries to round up 11 million people and deport them.
At which point he declares martial law and all hell breaks loose.
Could happen…bet on it.
AG
AG, Trump will no more round up and deport the 11 million mostly minimum wage workers, than he will be handing out diplomas from his now defunct university.
He will spout tons of trash take for the hoi polloi, but if he wins it will be the moneyed interests he will aqueous to, and they most of all don’t want to lose 11 million sub minimum wage workers who are very reluctant to report abuses to any state or federal bureaucracy because of the fear of deportation.
He’ll hand the idea off to the states and do as much as possible to prevent the federal government from stopping people like Arpaio and his ilk from doing their dastardly deeds.
If they actually accomplish deporting many people Trump will take the credit, if they fail he can blame them as ineffective.
Trump will be much more invested in stacking the deck for his rich compatriots than worrying what he promised the hoi polloi.
as you say;
bet on it.
Clif,
The real danger is the title of this post, and you can already see his effects,
He empowers the haters. And they are not just a few, they are in every city and town. It’s the little hatreds that make life unlivable. Minorities already face this in ways majorities do not, but it would multiply.
He give haters agency.
His DOJ won’t investigate cop killings, his Supreme Court won’t protect voting rights.
He won’t deport 10 million, but his minions will have free reign to make their live miserable.
.
Those dangers existed before trumps self-serving campaign. All he has done is allow people the idea that they can come out of the shadows. The people they want to denigrate or subjugate already know lots about them and their actions. trump has them removing their PC respectability masks they felt forced to ware.
Yes for a time, but for justice to go forward, the less opaque the haters are, the more people of the country have to deal openly with this issue. This instead of allowing the dog whistle style of politics to be how they hide when confronted. Now with no dog whistle the question can be asked of the entire country,
Is this who we really want to be? In some way for the country to actually move forward to a much more equal for all society, that question much be debated and answered. Until we do openly, those who feel justified by trump will continue. Trump is forcing the republican party to debate and admit things they wanted to use covertly, and never actually solve.
Just like Fox News, Limbaugh, Et Al have done for a couple of decades after the more openly style of hatred and discrimination became Politically incorrect.
As I stated above we need this. Since he opened that Pandora’s box, we might as well fight for as much as we can to get a better, more open and equal for all society as we can.
No they won’t which is why the fight against him and the haters much be as open and direct as all of us can make it. The actual answer is open to all legal voters, however we cannot shrink from the fight and push for a resolution to this couple of decades of sweeping it under the rug of dog whistle politics to get along.
Like they already have agency to do so today.
Joe Arpiao, the cops who caused the Black Lives Matter response, the Tea party and ALEC attacks on civil right and help for the poor.
They have been doing so since the 60’s with the effort ramped up ever since that failed hollywood actor helped spread the dog whistle around and cement the religious right and southern bigots into the republican answer to not enuf Wall Streeters to control the government to their economic benefit.
Trumps ripping off the band-aid of the dog whistle, is very helpful if you want this issue openly discussed in PC company. As long as the issue is framed as states rights, voting fraud, religious rights, the actual issue of discrimination is never discussed or resolved. But if the discussion goes back to the underlying hatered of the other, whether racial, sexual orientation/idenity, or misogamist roots, then those whom would prefer to keep away from those hot button issues because of their next election cycle or status will have a much harder time slinking away from the fight to gain equality for all.
Could be. That would be better than the scenario I sketched out above. But I am not sure about that part of him. If he sees an open route to total control, he will take it. That’s what he does. And…he’s not stupid. Not by any means. Read about his tutelage at the feet of Roy Cohn…here and here, just for starters.
He’s vicious.
Viciously ambitious. To the max.
Bet on it.
AG
When I see the words “Clinton” and “fascist” I stop reading. Godwin.
Yup. Indeed.
Puhleeze.
“[T]he softer fascism of H. Clinton.”
I think it’s time for the writer to read a bit about the rise to power of European fascism in the 1920s and 1930s, and what those folks actually did once in power.
But just keep telling yourself that there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. That way you can pat yourself on the back when you spoil your ballot in November.
Do these posters strike you as people who care about anything beside hyperbole?
.
To think the republicans think they can replace Obama with Trump;
Thanks Obama
In one short interaction, everything is there.
Haters gotta hate, but
We are gunna miss him.
.
Thing is, there are plenty of people who will vote for Trump who aren’t haters. They may be diehard Republicans who just automatically vote for the GOP candidate. They might be people who hear Trump’s crazy remarks and decide he’s not serious. And so on.
I was talking about the haters closer to hand, but your comment might still apply.
.
The Republican convention is over 7 weeks away. The Trump brand is going to be seriously weakened by then. He has peaked, imho.