Political Theatre category archive

The Republican leader of the Virginia Senate, Tommy Norment (R–A Place that Should Have Known Better), has banned the press for their traditional access to the Senate floor because of transparency.*

The Richmond Times-Dispatch responds.

_______________

*He’s agin’ it.

Clarence Page suggests that the brand may be the Trummp card:

Instead of dismissing his show biz background as a poor substitute for experience in public office, I think we need to appreciate how effectively Trump has blurred the lines in this video age between politics and entertainment — for better or worse.

This occurred to me last summer after I encountered former “The Apprentice” contestant Omarosa Manigault in the lobby of NBC’s Washington studios, shortly after Trump launched his campaign.

Newly hired to help lead Trump’s Ohio campaign, Manigault advised me that in assessing Trump’s appeal, “there’s a different analysis and metrics you have to use.”

“Reality television has now taken over television,” she said in an MSNBC discussion later. “People want to see real moments and see life unfold in front of them. Not scripted, but real moments.”

I fear it does no good to point out that there’s little that is real about “reality television.”

At the Boston Review, Sam Rosen spots a pattern of Trumpery. A nugget (follow the link for much more) (emphasis added):

A pattern soon emerged. Trump would begin speaking, and someone from the crowd would launch a loud, one-person protest. Trump would belittle the protestor, have the person escorted out, and say some version of, “Where was I? Oh yeah, it’s going to be great.” The catch-22 of liberal backlash was in full view, lubricating Trump’s speech as it has any number of televised interviews and debate showdowns. When he leads with a repugnant idea, people instinctually push back. But then Trump gets to respond by defending himself from the attack—terrain on which he clearly excels—rather than being forced to elucidate the proposal under scrutiny. This has allowed Trump to run a kind of electoral Ponzi scheme, whereby his poll success forces his opponents to denounce him, which further legitimizes him for much of this disgruntled electorate, which helps his numbers.

Via The Bob and Chez Show Blog.

Twitter.
Banana-fanna-fo-fwitter.
Twitter.

Via Job’s Anger.

Via Atrios.

The Virginia Republican Party recently persuaded the State Board of Elections to allow it to require voters in the Republican primary to sign an affirmation that they are Republicans. It’s not quite a loyalty oath, as it does not commit the signer to vote a particular way in a future election.

My signature below indicates that I am a Republican.

The ostensible reason is to prevent “crossover voting,” in which voters from one party vote in the other party’s primary so as to skew the results. Crossover voting, though, is a myth, a crock, and a lie.

Most local analysts suspect it’s a ploy to dissuade dupes, symps, and fellow travelers of Donald Trump from voting in the primary.

Several local pastors have now filed suit to void the ruling. They see sinister implications. The three main allegations in their suit, according to my local rag, are

• The state board did not comply with a legal requirement that rules for a party’s primary be established 90 days before an election, because the board certified the loyalty statement 76 days before the election.
• Black voters who must publicly proclaim they’re a Republican could face backlash from their communities.
• The statement amounts to an illegal literacy test for voting because those who don’t speak English, including a disproportionate number of Hispanics, won’t understand the form, “leading many to forego voting at all.”

The last two are highly theoretical, but quite interesting. The second one is, I suspect, a crock. Given that the Republican Party has become, for all practical purposes, the Party of the New Secesh, I would not be surprised if a black voter who voted Republican might face disapproval (assuming the fact got out), but “disapproval” and “backlash” are two different things.

The last point carries more weight with me. I remember literacy tests (though they were gone by the time I first registered to vote); literacy tests nothing more than a tool for disenfranchising black folks under Jim Crow.

The first point, if it holds up, is pretty solid, as it’s quantifiable.

Regardless of whether or not the suit prevails, the underlying reasoning is correct. It’s yet another Republican effort to gut out the vote.