A Different Kind of Birthday Fundraiser

[Artwork by Kelly Latimore, La Sagrada Família.]

Around this time of year, I usually run a short birthday fundraiser, which, I realize, would be an even harder ask than usual this year, given all the campaign fundraising texts and ads under which we're being buried, and the fact that Donald Trump's disastrous policies have driven up the price of everything everywhere.

Nonetheless, I am making a fundraising pitch. But this year, it's not on my own behalf. I'm asking you to kick in a few bucks to support our local Springfield Immigrant Action Network (SIAN), because ICE has landed in Springfield.

From their Facebook page:

Dear friends and neighbors,

ICE is in Springfield, and as part of their strategy of harm and disruption, they no longer publicly announce locations/areas where they conduct raids. They want to prevent and avoid community organizing and they are counting on people to be too afraid to talk. We will not be silent.

Yesterday and today, ICE detained and took at least four adults, and today, half a dozen children went home to find that one of their parents was taken. Make no mistake: the people taken had rights and they were approached in public places, they were followed, chased, and taken, mostly, based on racial profiling and not criminal or judicial warrants. Who they are, where they live, the other details are not public information, and those who care about their safety and wellbeing will not treat their stories as social media content, nor do anything that could compromise rather than contribute to their safety. We will instead center the needs of those affected. These children are citizens and they also have rights.

SIAN’s efforts are currently focused on providing support to families and their children, and knowing that food would be scarce, loss of income is pervasive and inevitable, and mental health services for children and adults that speak languages other than English are difficult to access and secure, we are asking for your help...

I've known the leaders of this group since they came together early in Trump's first term. They're terrific people who've been doing the Lord's work on a shoestring, helping some of the most vulnerable residents of our city in the face of this monstrous regime's escalating savagery.

If you were inclined to kick a couple of bucks my way for my birthday, many thanks. This year, I'd appreciate it if you'd instead contribute to the good work SIAN is doing in Springfield, Illinois. 

I'll keep this post pinned to the top of my blog for the next week, with any new posts I do appearing beneath.

Here's the link to their website.  

The donate button is on the upper right of that screen.  Tell 'em driftglass sent you :-)

The Three Weird Tricks To Fix Our Democracy That No One Talks About

Other than electing Democrats by overwhelming margins for the next 50 years, there are three ways to begin reversing the massive damage Republicans have inflicted on our democracy.

But no one talks about them.

Are they invoking the 25th Amendment, impeaching and removing Donald Trump, or making Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico, or Guam a state?

No.  Because the first two will never happen, and the third would require the aforementioned overwhelming Democratic victories.  But people do talk a lot about these as if they were Easy Buttons, don't they?

What about getting rid of the Electoral College, or ranked-choice voting?  Ranked-choice voting is an interesting idea, but it's not the sweeping solution to our critical problems, even though far too many people pretend it is.  And as to getting rid of the EC, well, that would require a constitutional amendment, which means passage by two-third of the House, two-thirds of the Senate, and ratification by three-quarters of the states.  

Side note: let's agree to put any noble ideas about fundamentally changing the structure of the government on the far back burner for now.  I, for one, would love it if, overnight, we became a constitutional democracy. Open the system up to multiple political parties and coalition building.  But that's not going to happen in my lifetime. 

Also, put not your faith in some third party that will attract enough Democrats, Republicans, and independent voters to do anything other than siphon votes from one major party and help the other squeak into power.  Of course, as long as the republic stands, there will continue to be bumper crops of grifters selling third-party Fool's Gold, and plenty of credulous dopes buying it, but they will solve nothing and change nothing. 

What about everyone's favorite, "Getting the money out of politics"?  Well, best of luck with that!

So, having cursorily examined everyone's favorite democracy-saving magic bullets, let's consider mine.

First, the Conservative media -- all of it -- agrees to get out of the business of spreading lies, slander, bullshit conspiracies, and racist garbage.  

This would cut off the poison that's killing the country on the supply side.  

Second, Republican voters choose to stop seeking and heeding lies, slander, bullshit conspiracies, and racist garbage.

This would cut off the poison that's killing the country on the demand side.  

Third, the legacy media -- all of it -- agrees to stop the "Both Sides" false equivalence nonsense, and instead report bluntly and honestly on the gargantuan asymmetry between American fascists and the opponents of American fascism.  

This would leave undecided/swing/independent voters no place to hide.

Now all three of these genius ideas of mine are, of course, ludicrous. Literally unthinkable.  Fine.  But let's you and I take the next step and ask a more important question.  Why?  Because you'd have to agree that any one of those three weird tricks would be sufficient to back us away from the abyss, and all three together would heal this country almost overnight.  

So why are my ideas so obviously laughable, impossible, and unthinkable, while so many of those other impossible magic bullets fly so easily -- almost reflexively -- off the tongues of so many people?  

If I may hazard a guess, I'd guess that things like impeachment or amendments to the Constitution come from a persistent, credulous belief that the problem lies with the machinery of government.  That if we could just get under the hood and sufficiently tinker with the transmission and carburetor of America's government institutions, we could both crush American fascism here and now and preclude its future recurrence.

Which is, sad to say, ridiculous.  A lovely and vain hope that this is all some kind of Seldon Crisis --

A "Crisis" or "Seldon Crisis" are significant events predicted to occur by Hari Seldon's psychohistory affecting the Foundation. The Foundation, as predicted by Seldon, will encounter these Crisis and, hopefully, prevail.

-- and it is the inherent nature of American democracy which will save itself in the end.  

But it's not democracy that needs fixing.  

I'm sure all the reforms on your personal wish list are worthwhile, and we'd all be better off with them enacted into law, but let's face it, it's not that institutional reforms are worthless. It's that no set of reforms can compensate for a political culture willing to abandon the principles those institutions were built to protect.

If the last ten years have proven anything beyond any doubt, it's that the guardrails of our democracy are no match for a sufficiently large and motivated mob of bigots and imbeciles led by degenerate monsters, narcissists, looters, and wannabe tyrants.  Not when roughly a third of eligible voters couldn't be bothered to cast a ballot in the 2024 presidential election—not even when the future of their own democracy was on the line. Not when fascist propaganda outlets are free to flood the country with garbage all day/every day.  Not when billionaires can spend unlimited sums of cash to effectively buy American elections and legally bribe elected officials.

We don't have an institution problem: we have a people problem.  And the reason my suggestions are, on their face, more ridiculous than the others is that, deep down, everyone knows that the Conservative propaganda industry would never voluntarily give up its core business model of selling malignant racist filth to idiots.  And the legacy media would never voluntarily change its core business model of telling reassuring, toxic "Both Sides" fairy tales to the cowardly and the credulous.

And since none of these private enterprises have any incentive to stop the very profitable business of poisoning American democracy, why dwell on the impossible idea that they would ever consider putting country over profit?  

Because the problem isn't that these people don't understand what's happening. The problem is that what's happening is working for them.

The propagandists get richer. The politicians get power. The media gets access and ratings. The voters get to believe whatever makes them feel righteous. And the rest of us get to live in the country they've made.

So we keep proposing constitutional amendments, parliamentary systems, ranked-choice voting, public financing, and all the other perfectly sensible mechanisms of a functioning democracy.

Which amounts to drawing up blueprints for a house, many of whose occupants have decided they would rather burn it down.

And we keep telling ourselves that if we can just fix the wiring, replace the plumbing, and shore up the foundation fast enough, everything will be fine.

But you cannot patch up a democracy faster than its citizens can be persuaded to destroy it. And no constitutional amendment can save a country where enough of its people no longer want to be saved.

Burn The Lifeboats

Professional Left Podcast Episode 1033: Brush Up Your Shakespeare

"Lord, what fools these mortals be!"  -- Shakespeare, A Midsummer Night’s Dream

• 
  

The Persuasion Project Is Hydrogen Fuel

There is, abroad in the land today, a particular kind of political advice that sounds sensible, humane, and eminently reasonable -- right up until you ask how much time, money, and effort it would take to make it work in the actual world.

That advice falls broadly under the umbrella of what we'll call the Persuasion Project, and that project is the hydrogen fuel of political strategies.

And before the pedants come for me, yes, I realize that's a deliberately strained metaphor. Hydrogen can be produced using intermittent energy sources like solar and wind, making it a potentially useful way to store and transport energy that might otherwise go unused. It's whatchacall an "energy carrier".  

But hydrogen isn't something you can simply dig out of the ground and burn. It has to be produced, usually from natural gas or water, and that process requires energy. Depending on how it's made, you can wind up spending substantially more energy producing a fuel than you get back when you use it.

And that, more or less, is the problem with the Persuasion Project.

Once upon a time, there might have been large, harvestable deposits of Republicans who could be coaxed down out of the Stupid Tree with logic, evidence, and a clear, honest presentation.  There may have been a world, long ago, lost to history, in which you could make your case, patiently answer their stupid questions, show your work, and perhaps persuade them that the world was a little more complicated than Rush Limbaugh told them it was.

But that was all before Conservative media spent decades building an alternative political reality in which facts are whatever the Dear Leader says today, expertise is demonic, and telling the mopes anything they don't want to hear is taken as proof that you're part of the conspiracy.  (Fair point.  I am.)

The conservative political project didn't merely fail to persuade Republicans to abandon reason. It built a media ecosystem in which abandoning reason became a condition of membership. And then the people who built that ecosystem turned around and demanded that Democrats turn away all of that wrath with gentle answers and a better PowerPoint deck.

Which means that The Persuasion Project, like an inefficient fuel-production process, has a negative energy balance.

Oh, sure. Give yourself limitless patience, all the time in the world, and a Republican willing to sit still and listen indefinitely, and I'm willing to believe that eventually you might succeed. Like the bird in the Brothers Grimm story “The Shepherd Boy,” which sharpens its beak against a mountain once every thousand years until the mountain is finally worn away, you might persuade your subject that not all Democrats are baby-murdering demons, that tax cuts don't magically pay for themselves, and that perhaps the people who keep promising to make their lives better while making them measurably worse don't deserve their loyalty.

But even that could only happen under a very particular set of circumstances.

You'd need a media vacuum in which Fox News and Hate Radio and the internet did not exist as readily available alternatives. You'd need a Republican willing to listen to an argument that might threaten their sense of identity, their friendships, their political loyalties, and their entire understanding of the country. And you would need the conversation to take place one person at a time, because, in case you hadn't noticed, there is no fucking "Liberal" media.  Nothing remotely comparable to the well-funded propaganda machine that delivers bullshit by the metric ton to the MAGA masses daily.  

And even if there was a genuine Liberal media with some real cops, you absolutely couldn't count on any of those teeming masses of bigots and imbeciles to tune in voluntarily. Unless you took away their remotes, strapped them into chairs, and forced them to watch "A Clockwork Orange"-style, why would they submit themselves to a persuasion campaign whose premises they have already been trained to reject?

And finally, who the hell has the time, energy, and access to devote to this project?

Suppose you are one of those unusually patient, indefatigable souls. You spend months, perhaps years, building a relationship with a Republican voter. You answer every objection. You patiently correct every falsehood. You find just the right words, the right examples, the right moment. And finally, after all that labor, you succeed.

Congratulations! You have persuaded one Republican to become an independent.  Maybe a couple of 'em.

Now what?

One person is not an electoral strategy. A handful of conversions is not a political realignment. And a satisfying personal story about a former Republican who decided that, just maybe, there was some wisdom in what you said is not evidence that the underlying machinery of right-wing misinformation has been dismantled or even mildly inconvenienced.

To make any Persuasion Project work at a scale that could change elections, you would need millions of liberals willing to devote enormous amounts of time and effort and the patience of Job to the task of persuading Republicans, one conversation at a time. And you would need millions of Republican counterparts willing to show up, listen with open minds, and seriously consider the possibility that everything they've believed is wrong and everyone they've trusted has lied to them.

In other words, the strategy depends on an immense supply of labor from one side and an immense supply of good faith from the other.

And the very political and media system you're trying to overcome has spent decades making the second requirement nearly impossible to find.

That's the part the advocates of the Persuasion Project never account for. They're still acting as if the only thing standing between a Republican voter and enlightenment is a sufficiently patient liberal with a sufficiently compelling argument. They act as though the playing field is level, the information environment is neutral, and the MAGA morons are simply waiting for someone to explain things properly.

But the playing field isn't level. The information environment isn't neutral.  The people who built the machinery of conservative grievance have spent years teaching their audience to regard anyone trying to explain things properly as an enemy.  And by the way, we tried all of this already!  In detail.  For years.  It was called "The Obama Administration".  

Jesus, Mary and Harry Hopkins, am I the only one who remembers what these people were already like before Trump showed up? 

You can spend all the energy in the world refining the fuel. If the system is designed to reject it, you're not going to power the country with it.  

So at some point, any sane person acting in good faith would have to stop asking why the persuasion engine isn't producing enough energy and start asking why they're still running it.

Burn The Lifeboats

Professional Left Podcast Episode 1032: Here Come 'The Independents'

"Science is magic that works"  -- Kurt Vonnegut, Cat’s Cradle.

• 
  

I Got My Medicare Bribe Check From Trump last Week

We spent it almost immediately.  

No Half Measures

Here Come The "Independents". Again.

I don't know how many times I've inflicted Kurt Vonnegut's word, "granfalloon" on you --

"...a proud and meaningless association of human beings"

-- since 2009, when I first used it to convey my observations about so-called "independent" voters.

That first time, 17 years ago, was triggered by the sudden appearance of a bumper crop of newly minted "independents" -- a singular event that just so happened to coincide with the first year of Barack Obama's first term as president.  

Quelle surprise!

The savviest pundits in the land squinted real hard and pretended that these "independents" -- most of whom just so happened to skew Right and line up with Republican values (Quelle surprise again!) -- had just hatched out of the ground and since they constituted a huge block of concerned citizens, it behooved the new president to take heed and veer to the Right to appease these fresh off the vine "independent" voters.

However, I, being low and perverse and forever unwelcome among the ivory towers of the Punditocracy, saw things very differently.  Back then, I concluded as follows:

Most newly minted “independents” seem to be little more than Republicans who are fleeing the scene of their crime, but at the same time still desperately want to believe in the inerrant wisdom of Rush Limbaugh. They are completely incapable of facing the horrifying reality that they have gotten every single major political opinion and decision of their adult lives completely wrong, so instead they double down on their hatred of women and/or gays and/or brown people and/or Liberals, and blame them for the miserable fuckpit their leaders and their policies have made of their lives and futures.

Like German soldiers after the fall of Berlin, they have stopped running away from the catastrophe they created only long enough to burn their uniforms.

But they fool no one.

Except, apparently, David Fucking Brooks.

And since the intervening years have shown me and my Liberal compatriots to have been right, and the savviest pundits in all the land to have been unequivocally wrong, you can see why we are even more mocked, ignored, and despised by Punditocracy than we were before.  So be it.  

However, you will understand how hilariously predictable it is that, once again, so many Republicans running for office during these midterms are tarting themselves up in "independent" togs to distance themselves from their democracy-killing clusterfuck of a party.  

Like Claudette Colbert hiking up her skirt to hitch a ride by showing a lot of leg in "It Happened One Night"-- 

-- these candidates are hoping to catch a free ride with the legacy media by incanting the legacy media's favorite magic words.  "Tribalism".  "Polarization".  "Divisiveness".  Non-specific reference to "Congress", "politicians", and "Washington, D.C.".  The "Duopoly". And, of course, the biggie -- some variation on "The Extremes on Both Sides".

And while they come in three different flavors -- the ones virtue signaling by using “independent” as a campaign identity while remaining a Republican, the ones who change ballot affiliation to escape the party label, and the ones leaving the Republican Party and running as an independent or third-party candidate -- all of them -- the label-hiders, the party-leavers, and the ballot-switchers -- are making the same pitch in varying degrees of explicitness.  

Let's begin small, with Todd Novak, running for Wisconsin's 51st Assembly district.  Todd is a Republican, but you could sift his campaign website from here 'til Tuesday and never find a mention of it.  Todd's campaign slogan is, "An Independent Voice for Southwest Wisconsin".

From WisPolitics, September 30, 2026:

In case you missed it: Republicans in the Legislature try to hide from their party’s failed economic policies while Democrats compete to flip their seats.

And ol' Todd is definitely one of them.

Next, we move on to New Hampshire, and this pre-primary headline from New Hampshire Public Radio from July 27th:

This year’s Republican primary for U.S. Senate features two candidates — John E. Sununu and Scott Brown — who’ve held the job before. Each brings a distinct political profile and record to the race, but both are pitching themselves to voters as “independent” and solely focused on delivering for New Hampshire.

Yes, it was that Scott Brown: the former Massachusetts senator whose modeling career once earned him Cosmopolitan's “Sexiest Man in America” title, before he became a national Republican political celebrity.

Back here where I live in Illinois we find Collin Corbett decking himself out in full Independent regalia.   This is from NPR Illinois, September 21, 2026 and it almost achieves Independent Bingo by cramming nearly every cliche into one interview.

Republican-turned-independent Collin Corbett hopes to provide voters an alternative for governor

Collin Corbett has spent enough time in politics to know he’s a longshot to pull off a victory as an independent candidate for governor.

“I'm going to push as hard as I can before Nov. 3,” Corbett said in an interview with Capitol News Illinois. “But I'm a political strategist. I can do math. I'm aware of how this will likely turn out at the end of this election.”

But the former Republican strategist said it’s more of a long game.

“I'm 40 years old. I got a long runway ahead, and there's a ton of people who've been coming up to me saying, 'I don't know if I can vote for you in this election, but I'm all in for your larger goal of building an independent majority,’” he said. “’So Nov. 4, I'm in, let's go.’”...

Corbett said his campaign is about proving there is an appetite for independent, centrist candidates in Illinois as voters weigh their options between staunch Democratic Gov. JB Pritzker and Trump-endorsed Republican Darren Bailey.

Corbett last worked for Republicans in the March primary season, including for Don Tracy, the party’s former chair and current nominee for U.S. Senate.

“We've got to start changing things now because the path we're on — with these two parties that only seem to offer extremes, and they just want to snipe at each other and attack each other instead of actually getting things done — it's not working for me,” Corbett said.

Corbett said he’s skipped the presidential question on the ballot in the last three general elections and supported John Kasich and Nikki Haley in the 2016 and 2024 primaries respectively — two Republicans who are more often identified as traditional members of the party, separate from Trump’s wing.

Among Illinois political role models, Corbett views himself as “a blending” of late former Gov. Jim Edgar and former Sen. Mark Kirk, who were among the socially moderate, fiscally conservative Republicans who once dominated the state party.

“There are really good people on both sides,” Corbett said. “It’s just this tribalism where my side is good and your side is evil. That’s the thing that’s ruined our politics.”

Moving on to Illinois' next-door neighbor.  From the Indiana Capital Chronicle, October 8, 2026:

Lincoln Party candidate Ballard starting TV ads in Indiana secretary of state race

Lincoln Party candidate Greg Ballard will soon make it three campaigns with television ads on the air in the Indiana secretary of state’s race.

Ballard’s campaign on Thursday released its first broadcast ad that it said would start airing Monday around the state.

The 30-second ad highlights Ballard’s 23-year career in the Marine Corps, along with his eight years as the Republican mayor of Indianapolis. He touts running as an “independent” in order to “restore professionalism and open a path for more independent-minded Hoosiers to run for office.”

Ballard has left the Republican label behind, but he is still selling the same product: independence from the political establishment and a promise of more professional, less partisan government.

Now on to California.  From Axios, March 6, 2026:

Republican Rep. Kevin Kiley files to run as independent

Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-Calif.) said Friday he is registering as "no party preference," rather than as a Republican, as he seeks reelection to Congress.

Why it matters: 

• The move comes after Kiley's Republican-leaning district was broken apart in mid-decade redistricting, forcing him to run in far more Democratic-leaning territory.
• 
  
• Kiley's announcement sparked considerable confusion among his colleagues, with several lawmakers asking GOP leadership for clarity on whether he will continue to contribute to their slim House majority.
• 
  
• One House Republican, asked if Kiley is staying in the GOP conference, told Axios: "I hope to God he is."
• A Kiley spokesperson told Axios it is "not official yet" whether he will leave the party or the conference now, adding: "For now, he's just filing as an independent for his reelection campaign."

"It's no secret that I've been frustrated, at times disgusted, with the hyper-partisanship in Congress," he added.

Sure, OK, but what about Boston?  

Glad you asked.  From The Boston Globe, September 29, 2026:

John Deaton knows he faces a narrow path to beat Ed Markey. The Republican is trying again, anyway.

He lost two years ago to Elizabeth Warren — and it wasn’t close. The Republican Party faces tremendous headwinds going into the midterms. Polls suggest voters are unhappy with President Trump — especially in Massachusetts.

So why is John Deaton running again?

The 59-year-old attorney, former Marine, and cryptocurrency booster is in the midst of his second Senate bid in as many election cycles, challenging Senator Ed Markey, the Democratic incumbent, two years after losing to Warren by 20 percentage points.

He’s already loaned his campaign $1 million — after putting at least $1 million of his own money into his race against Warren — and is recycling his argument against Warren, casting Markey as too far left for Massachusetts voters.

Deaton argues Massachusetts would be better off with the independent-minded approach he would bring to Washington, rather than reelecting an 80-year-old incumbent Deaton argues has been in office too long.

As he did two years ago, Deaton is pitching himself as unbeholden to Trump, emphasizing that he never voted for the president. In memorable, and coarse, remarks during a June debate, he said bluntly: “‘F’ the Republican Party.”

“‘F’ the Democrat Party,” he added. “They all suck.”

Heading back West, we find this waiting for us on the "Andy Biggs for Governor "website, last updated September 17, 2026:

Andy Biggs Takes Message to Independent Voters on Podcast Interview

Sit down with former Phoenix mayor and Independent voice Paul Johnson covers a number of major issues facing Arizona

GILBERT, AZ -- Republican nominee for Governor Andy Biggs took his campaign message directly to Independent voters in Arizona in a recent podcast interview with one of the leading Independent voices in the state.

Biggs sat down with Paul Johnson, the former mayor of Phoenix and highly-respected advocate for Independent voters, and Henry Thompson to discuss his vision for the state in a wide-ranging episode that covered plans for water, taxes, education, and how Biggs plans to work together with Arizonans of different backgrounds as Governor.

Biggs has frequently highlighted his work across the aisle...

NPR, of course, has a much longer treatment of the phenomenon, and it manages to give nearly every one of these familiar talking points a fresh coat of paint. See how many squares you can fill on your Independent Bingo card.  

The article is from October 13, 2026 and is entitled "Win or lose, independent candidates want to meet voters in the middle".  It begins with the story of Seth Haskins, who can frequently be seen around his town costumed as an 18th man to signal how much the 26-year-old loves the Founding Fathers and limited government.  

The article does not mention if he also favors Typhoid Fever and Dysentery, shitting in an outhouse in the dead of winter, or an average 38-year life expectancy.

From NPR, 

Win or lose, independent candidates want to meet voters in the middle

..."Getting their [people's] attention is the biggest battle that most candidates have," Haskin said. "But especially independent or no party candidates."

Some could dismiss Haskin's attire as a stunt, and they may write off other independent candidates the same way. Sarah Zabel, 61, an independent candidate for Idaho's western district, said that view is outdated.

"Independents used to be a curiosity or a protest or a single issue," said Zabel. "Now, with the parties having gone to such extremes, independents are the necessary relief for the American voter."

At a time when 45 percent of adults identify as political independents — a record high — and just a handful of tight races will decide control of Congress, the 173 independents running for the House this fall will test how big the political middle really is, and whether people who identify as independents will vote for one.

Zabel, who is running in a deep-red district in Idaho, describes herself as a "heritage Republican," or someone who used to be a Republican and adheres to conservative values. But since 2018, during the first Trump administration, she stopped feeling in line with the Republican party and the "MAGA program."

The retired Air Force major general said she didn't feel represented by either party, and she soon learned that many of her neighbors felt the same way.

Seth Haskin from Florida is also running in a district where one party has dominated for years. Trump won at least 60 percent of the vote in the past two presidential elections in Haskin's district, and local media mogul Jim Schwartzel won a tight and crowded Republican primary in August with almost 30 percent of the vote.

A "strict constitutionalist," Haskin, who previously also ran for governor of Wisconsin as a write-in candidate, said he could've seen himself in either party before the Covid-19 pandemic, before he believed that both parties had been "captured by the same industry leaders and PAC money and foreign lobbies and everything else."

"Even if I don't win, if I can get double-digit percentage points as an independent candidate, I will get a lot of phone calls from both parties," he said. "It's going to threaten the duopoly that they have, right?"

Businessman Michael Bridgford is running as an independent against Republican Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks and Christina Bohannan, the Democratic nominee and former state representative.

The Cook Political Report, which long had the race as a toss-up, recently rated the district as lean Democratic.

Bridgford said people are tired of the "dysfunction" from both parties and by watching Miller-Meeks and Bohannan compete, and they believe that independents can provide the stable center that will let the government solve problems...

And just to show that I'm not a completely heartless cynic, let's take a look at an "Independent" who's doing everything right.  

Meet Arch “Pond” Naramore, about whom 99 percent of you have probably never heard. Naramore ran a long-shot campaign against Roger Marshall in the Kansas Republican Senate primary, promising an “independent voice.” Marshall won comfortably, but Naramore earned more than 20 percent of the vote. Then he did something that makes him worth talking about: he unreservedly endorsed the Democratic nominee, Adam Hamilton.

The video is here, but I didn't embed it because it's one of those TikTok vertical shorts that have no embed option when imported into YouTube.  But go watch it anyway.  You'll be glad you did.   And way to go, Mr. Naramore!

Finally, let's go all the way back to the French Revolution. On a recent episode of "The Rest Is History" podcast, the hosts discussed what happened after Robespierre was guillotined: people who had recently counted themselves among his loyalists suddenly began insisting that they'd opposed him all along.  They include this quote from a Captain Watkin Tench, who was taken and held as prisoner of war.  During his imprisonment, Tench listened to people talking, and he said:

"Those who prostrated themselves like reptiles before Robespierre are now blaming him for all the assassinations and misery, to screen themselves from odium.  Or the subordinate tyrants fix upon him and attribute to his orders the innumerable butcheries and acts of oppression which they have perpetuated."

So, during all the weeks and months and years to come, when you see Republican scum trying to wash the blood from their hands by cosplaying as "Independents" or getting their reputations rehabilitated by their friends in the legacy media, you know your assignment:

 

Burn The Lifeboats

A Tale of Two Nazi Rebukes

This is the story of two Democratic senators, two decades apart.  

One is my senator, Dick Durbin, who did not seek re-election this year and will leave office in January of 2027, and who has served 43 years, 13 in the House and nearly 30 in the Senate.

The other is Senator Jon Ossoff of Georgia, who is finishing up his first term in the Senate and is seeking re-election.

This is one of those "How it started/ How it's going" kinda deals

For Senator Durbin, here's how it started.  From The Congressional Record (PDF) June 16, 2005:

MR. DURBIN: I almost hesitate to put them in the RECORD, and yet they have to be added to this debate. Let me read to you what one FBI agent saw. And I quote from his report:

On a couple of occasions, I entered interview rooms to find a detainee chained hand and foot in a fetal position to the floor, with no chair, food or water. Most times they urinated or defecated on themselves, and had been left there for 18–24 hours or more. On one occasion, the air conditioning had been turned down so far and the temperature was so cold in the room, that the barefooted detainee was shaking with cold. . . . On another occasion, the [air conditioner] had been turned off, making the temperature in the unventilated room well over 100 degrees.

The detainee was almost unconscious on the floor, with a pile of hair next to him. He had apparently been literally pulling his hair out throughout the night. On another occasion, not only was the temperature unbearably hot, but extremely loud rap music was being played in the room, and had been since the day before, with the detainee chained hand and foot in the fetal position on the tile floor.

If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime—Pol Pot or others—that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.

After being granted an additional three minutes by the presiding officer, Senator Durbin continued

MR. DURBIN:  It is not too late. I hope we will learn from history. I hope we will change course. The President could declare the United States will apply the Geneva Conventions to the war on terrorism. He could declare, as he should, that the United States will not, under any circumstances, subject any detainee to torture, or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. 

The administration could give all detainees a meaningful opportunity to challenge their detention before a neutral decision maker. Such a change of course would dramatically improve our image and it would make us safer. I hope this administration will choose that course. If they do not, Congress must step in. 

And the immediate reaction from the Bush White House, from Durbin's Republican Senate colleagues and from much of the legacy media was...outrage.  How dare he suggest...blah blah blah.  

And Senator Durbin's initial reaction to that reaction was to stand his ground.  From Al Jazeera, June 16, 2005:

US senator stands by Nazi remark

A US senator has refused to apologise for comparing the actions of US soldiers at Guantanamo Bay to those of Nazis, while others have decried or defended the mandate and method used to hold prisoners there.

US Senator Dick Durbin on Wednesday refused to apologise for comments he made on the Senate floor referring to Nazis, Soviet gulags and a “mad regime” like Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.

Illinois Republican party chairman Andy McKenna had demanded he apologise.

“Senator Durbin’s comments come as a great disservice to our military personnel in Guantanamo,” he said.

“They are also a great disservice to all US soldiers and veterans who have fought, and continue to fight, to overcome evil regimes and spread democracy around the world.”

Durbin did not plan to apologise for the comments, spokesman Joe Shoemaker said.

“This administration should apologise to the American people for abandoning the Geneva Conventions and authorising torture techniques that put our troops at risk and make Americans less secure,” Durbin had said in a statement on Wednesday evening.

But the Democratic senators of yesteryear were not built for fights like these, so when the political and media establishments bore down on Durbin, he folded and apologized.  

From Voice of America, June 22, 2005:

Senator Durbin Apologizes for Controversial Remark

A Senate Democrat has apologized for comparing the treatment of detainees at the U.S. facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the interrogation tactics of the Nazis and the Soviet gulags.

The comparison made by Senator Dick Durbin, the assistant Democratic leader, last week sparked a firestorm of controversy...

The White House immediately denounced the comments as reprehensible.

Speaking to Mr. Durbin on the Senate floor days later, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator John Warner of Virginia, demanded his colleague apologize to those who serve in the U.S. military.

"To say that the allegations of a single FBI agent in an unconfirmed, uncorroborated report, give rise to coming to the floor and raising the allegation that whatever persons of the uniformed military, as referred to in that report-albeit an uncorroborated report-are to be equated with those three chapters in world history, is just a most grievous misjudgment on your part and one that I think that is deserving of apologizing to the men and women in uniform," Mr. Warner says.

Senator Warner expressed concern about the impact such comments could have as the United States wages a war on terrorism.

"We have got to be extraordinarily careful in our remarks on the floor of the Senate as they relate to the safety of our people, because this series of statements that you made here, factual references to chapters of history, can be manipulated by other people throughout the world to their advantage, and that is my deep concern," he added.

Senator Durbin responded that his comments had been misinterpreted.

"It is a comparison in relation to the form of interrogation, that an oppressive regime goes too far, that a democracy never reaches that extreme," Mr. Durbin says. "But to say that I am in any way diminishing the horrors, other horrors brought on by these regimes is just plain wrong."

That was not enough for Republican leaders, who joined Senator Warner in demanding an apology. Senate Majority leader Bill Frist issued a statement saying 'Shameful does not begin to describe this heinous slander against our country'.

The Anti-Defamation League also called for an apology.

On Tuesday, Mr. Durbin was forthcoming, his voice filled with emotion.

"I am sorry if anything that I said caused any offense or pain to those who have such bitter memories of the holocaust, the greatest moral tragedy of our time," Mr. Durbin says. "Nothing, nothing, should ever be said to demean or diminish that moral tragedy. I am also sorry if anything I said in any way cast a negative light on our fine men and women in the military."

Senator John McCain praised Mr. Durbin for doing what he called the courageous thing, and he joined Democrats in expressing hope the issue could be laid to rest.

As you all know by now, by 2025 Senator Durbin could see that the times and the political terrain had changed irrevocably, and his kind of go-along-to-get-along politics was as out of step with the times as powdered wigs or pistols at dawn. 

And so...  From Capitol News Illinois, April 23, 2025:

Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin to retire after more than 4 decades in Congress

Announcement expected to set off flurry of political moves among Illinois Democrats

But as a creature of habit and bygone days, Senator Durbin just couldn't help himself.  From The Hill, September 16, 2025:

Durbin says Democrats ‘absolutely’ have gone too far in rhetoric 

Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) says his fellow Democrats have gone too far in demonizing their political opponents and called on both sides to come together in the wake of the fatal shooting of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.

“Absolutely,” Durbin said on “CNN News Central,” when asked whether he thinks Democrats — and not just Republicans — have “gone too far” in some of their rhetoric and in “demonizing the other side.”

“I mean, this notion that we’re going to characterize MAGA as Nazis, for example,” Durbin continued, offering an illustration of rhetoric from his own party. “On the other side, that the Republicans would characterize the Democrats as a party of murder or evil.”

“The outrage coming from both sides is unacceptable in both instances,” he added. “So, yes, both sides can learn a lesson here. And the loss of Mr. Kirk is a good reason to do it.”

Durbin, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, said it’s important to come together to condemn political violence. He said public officials from both parties casting blame on their political opponents are “flat-out wrong.”

 So much for the tale of our first senator.

Now on to our second senator, not from 20 years ago but just this week.  And of course you know where this is going.

And this wasn't just a one-off (or a [couldn't resist] one-Ossoff...).  Senator Ossoff has driven home this same point over and over and over again.  

But unlike the situation with Senator Durbin 20 years ago, this time, from the Republican White House, there was only...silence.  Trump did not rise to the defense of a candidate he endorsed just months ago, because that candidate has loser-stink all over him. 

From Republicans in the Senate?  Silence.

From Collins' colleagues in the House.  Deafening silence.

From Fox News?   The Wall Street Journal?  The National Review?   Nothing.  Crickets.  Tumbleweed.

In fact, the only criticism of any kind I could find was David Fucking Brooks' peevish reproof, which he delivered on PBS and for which Brooks was immediately spit-roasted by me and legions of others on the internet.  

"Jon Ossoff, my advice to him is, if you start calling your political opponents Nazis, maybe it's time to shut up. That's just not what we do here in this country." -- David Brooks, this evening. Remember, Brooks still gets very handsomely rewarded by the fossilized media for saying shit like this

— driftglass (@driftglass.bsky.social) October 9, 2026 at 10:59 PM

Twenty-one years ago, Dick Durbin compared American interrogation techniques to those of totalitarian regimes, and the bipartisan outrage machine ran him down until he apologized. Today, Jon Ossoff makes a Nazi comparison on national television, and the same machine can't even be bothered to start the engine. 

Did the rules change?  Or were the rules never the point? 

Instead, perhaps the point is who gets punished, who gets protected, and which fossilized pundits keep collecting six-figure paychecks to explain that this just isn't how we do things in America.

In conclusion...

No Half Measures.