The Invisible Indivisible Town Hall Meetings - Guest blog by Tony Corrado

Since Trump’s election, the Indivisible movement has created a weapon in seeking town hall meetings between district constituents and their elected members of congress. The ideological divide between Democrats and Republicans has never been more stark, than in the response to these town hall requests. 

In Colorado, the most vociferous and intense requests for meetings has been directed at Cory Gardner, our Republican Senator. Touting himself as a family values person, he has been busy hiding from constituents, who believe that health care, SCOTUS judges elected for life and the destruction of the American democracy are family values. Gardner, who flies to Washington DC every Monday and returns home on Friday, has continuously made himself unavailable to constituents. Protesters march outside his Denver office every Tuesday, and one protest meeting had over 2,000 persons in attendance at a meeting in which speakers delivered their concerns to a cardboard cutout of Gardner’s persona. Gardner has chosen to have telephone conferences in which he can hide from face to face meetings, spin his answers with impunity and generally not answer those questions that he considers “too hard”. 

Michael Bennet, our Democratic senator, has made face time available and his staff has given meetings to the Indivisible movement protesters. Some will argue that is easier for Bennet since he is a Democrat and not the target of such intense pressure. I would argue that this is a falsehood since Bennett is under extreme pressure from Indivisible to support the Gorsuch filibuster even though he considers Anshutz and Gorsuch, “personal friends”. It is this very fact, the position that friendship should prevail over the will of the people, that has brought Bennet into the controversy. His constituents do not want Gorsuch and they also want spineless Democrats to stand up for Progressive values in the same manner that the Tea Party has done in the past. 

Both Bennet and Gardner are the recipients of large sums of dark money. Koch bother’s money is a major factor in Gorsuch’s nomination. Anshutz money is equally corrupting to the process. Both Senators have breached their oath of office to defend the constitution, Bennet by not rejecting Gorsuch after the Republicans stole Obama’s nominee seat, and Gardner, by voting straight party on every issue Trump has put forth. Both are in real danger of losing their upcoming elections, especially to primary opponents. 

Bennet is up for re-election in 2022 and Gardner in 2020. It is convenient for these two “establishment” politicians to view the Indivisible movement as a flash in the pan that will eventually moderate as the members once again align themselves with Party nominees. However, this calculation is extremely dangerous for both Republican and Democrat candidates. 

First, the Indivisible movement has the ability to support primary candidates of it’s choice, not just those candidates having party support. They will support the primary candidate of their choice based on ideological reasons.

Second, the Indivisible movement will not align itself automatically with either party. Many of the Indivisible movement members see themselves as Bernie Sanders supporters and Sander’s supporters are creating a separate political entity. It is important to realize the Sander’s following as well as the Indivisible movement may move to support a major party candidate, but it will occur because that candidate represents their values; not because the establishment wants to continue to pick winners and losers.

People finally sense the danger of dark oligarchs and staunch ideologues controlling American politics. They also see the power of grass roots organizing and displays of protest power. This sense of empowerment is not going to be given away easily.  American democracy is on trial, and both of these Senators need to face their constituents at respective town halls.

Trump Keeps Losing So Why Do I Feel So Bad?

Imagine that the American Health Care Act was a gigantic rocket on a launch pad.  It was advertised to be the most superb rocket ever designed.  Once fired it was going to shoot up into space and deploy countless anti-Obamacare Republican Tie? fighters.  They would destroy the imperial edicts of the evil former president and anything that  was left of the collapsing  health care boondoggle would be blown to smithereens! It would be a beautiful display and everyone on the ground would be crying tears of joy as they chanted, "We Love Trump Bigly!" Unfortunately, when the countdown got to the end and the launch button was pushed, a huge flag popped out of the nosecone that read, “Just kidding!"

For millions and millions of Americans (some counts as high as 24,000,000) people let out a huge sigh of relief.  People were slapping each other on the backs and giving each other high-fives.  And that celebration went on for at least several minutes before everyone began to start feeling like crap once again.  Sadly it only took that long for people to realize that in the Age of Trump, it will take hundreds of these types of failures to bring his reign to its much anticipated end.

This realization should come as no surprise to anyone that has attempted to do something that is very large in scope and fraught with difficult tasks along the way.  I liken it to overcoming poverty and becoming the first person in a family going on to graduate from college.  Or maybe for you it is more akin to fighting a chronic illness.  For every step you make forward there is the realization that the fight is not over and that there are greater hurdles to face in the near future.  Some of these challenges may appear out of nowhere and they may have never been anticipated.  It is hard damned work.  Despite the criticism from the right that progressives need trophies for every success they may encounter, we are acutely aware that the only reward is in the future and possibly the seemingly far off future will only come when Trump is gone and the bleak shadow of corporate control of our once great democracy has been thwarted.

We feel badly because we care deeply.  We want to have a second chance at leading our country back to its rightful place as the world’s strongest democracy.  We know we became complacent and that the mistakes we made in our past are now exacting a price from the present.  We fear for the children who must face the challenges of the future.  We are beside ourselves with angst about the health of our planet and its environment.  In short, we have become painfully aware of the seriousness of now.  It is only logical that we will be on an emotional roller coaster until such time as we take our country away from plutocrats and ideologues who have hijacked the system.

This is the time where we must channel our remorse into resolve.  This is the difficult task of converting fear into courage.  This is the moment when we must rise above selfishness and replace it with altruism.

We need to do our best to celebrate our victories, never losing sight of the larger prize.  This is the time when we must take care of ourselves so that we remain strong in the greater campaign.  We must reach out and help those who have become discouraged and are feeling defeated.  We owe this to what Lyndon Johnson referred to as our Great American Society.  This is what we must do in order to make America what it was designed to be, not dismantle it into President Trump's perverted vision of greatness.

So the answer to the initial question of this blog posting, "Trump keeps losing so why do I feel so bad?" is painfully clear.  The reason we feel so bad is that we are coming to grips with the knowledge on just how far we have fallen and just how far we have to go.  Stay strong, brothers and sisters.  Together we will prevail.

The Truth about Governing through Fiat with Executive Orders

Fifty-five days into his term, President Donald Trump has issued fifteen executive orders.  He has issued eleven presidential memorandums.  He has issued a total of four presidential proclamations.   In contrast and focusing on executive orders alone, In 2009 Barack Obama issued 39 of those in the first year of his presidency. While it is unlikely that Trump will keep up this fevered pace to exert his leadership style on the the office of the presidency, if he were to keep it up, he would be on pace to sign 150 of these orders in his first year alone.  During his eight years in office, President Obama signed a total of 277 executive orders. 

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/01/23/obama-executive-orders/

Quick math reveals that Obama signed 34.5 executive orders per year. I cite as my source: The Federal Register from the National Archives,

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/2009-obama.html.  In fairness to the current president, he has signed two less than our 44th President, but two of his executive orders have already been challenged by the Federal Court system.  He just cannot seem to clear the bar when it comes to the constitutional mandate that you cannot ban entrance into the United States based on a religious test.

So why do I bring this up?  The answer to that, of course, springs from the "Fractured Fairy Tale Vault" of the right wing conservative media which has demonstrated a real difficulty with the facts over the past decade.  If you have not read these following articles, I suggest you do.  The first is from February 12, 2014 by the folks over at the respected conservative think tank, The Heritage Foundation (also the originators of Obamacare, by the way). http://www.heritage.org/the-constitution/report/executive-unbound-the-obama-administrations-unilateral-actions.  

The title is a classic:

"An Executive Unbound: The Obama Administration’s Unilateral Actions."

Cue the spooky organ music and have a tape of Vincent Price laughing insanely in the background.

Or this gem, using the same operative language from  June 21, 2012 in the Washington Post:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-obamas-amnesty-by-fiat--naked-lawlessness/2012/06/21/gJQAa5PltV_story.html?utm_term=.232d72ee64be.

Charles Krauthammer: Obama’s amnesty-by-fiat — naked lawlessness. 

Or this peach from Breitbart News:  

'More Flexibility': Obama to Govern by 'Executive Fiat' in Second Term, 

This one was designed  to scare the pants off of all good conservatives everywhere.  I mean, who needs a legislature when you have a pen and a good imagination?  Am I right?

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2013/01/21/government-by-executive-fiat-to-explode-in-obama-s-second-term/

So why did they all warn us of the destruction of America by an imperialist liberal African-American POTUS?  Because they found a debate term on the right they thought they could parlay into an advantage for the conservative movement.  All they had to do was tell their minions who followed fake right wing news sites that President Obama had signed over 900 executive orders.  Had he done that, of course, he would have been an actual imperialist.  But of course he was not, and he signed fewer executive orders than many of his predecessors.  

According to Dictionary.com Fiat has a very short yet precise definition. "Fiat is an arbitrary decree or pronouncement, especially by a person or group of persons having absolute authority to enforce it." Let that be the framework on which we proceed

Obama is no longer POTUS.  President Trump has vowed to undo all of the unholy things President Obama unleashed with his magic pens of executive orders.  But as I mentioned above, Trump will eclipse Obama with his executive orders if he continues on his current pace.  Of course, the major difference between the two men is that Obama is a constitutional lawyer, the product of arguably the greatest law school in the country.  His executive orders did not stray from the U.S. Constitution and so were not knocked down by the Judicial Branch of the United States government for breaking the law. Donald Trump is a reality television star and a dubious businessman with no knowledge or understanding of the United States Constitution. Trump is not doing quite as well on that front and quite honestly is just getting started, if you could even call it that.

This is a chart from Nate Silver's site, www.538.com:

An alternate definition of Executive Fiat in the age of Trump requires a bit of explanation.  Before being elected as POTUS, Trump was certain that Executive Fiat was an Italian sports car that Barack Obama drove around the White House lawn. Since then Trump has convinced himself that "Executive Fiat" is a "fantasy decree" that has no basis in constitutional oversight.  He has come to believe also that Executive Orders are  best derived  during sleepless nights as he is roaming the White House with the Presidential Advisor, Steve Bannon dressed as the ghost of President Andrew Jackson. The duo simply "Tweet" a plan into being.  The only thing that can throw a monkey wrench into this is when Reince Priebus has successfully hidden Trump's phone.  

The G.O.P. has a problem on its hands.  The very arguments that they have used to both tarnish and diminish the accomplishments of former President Obama are coming home to roost.  The new definition of Executive Fiat is now, "Rule by Twitter." Also known as, "Rule by Seeing What Floats."

Colorado’s Democratic Future - Guest Blog by Tony Corrado

By Tony Corrado

Congratulations to Morgen Carroll for her election as Chairwoman of the Colorado Democratic Party (CDP). She most certainly will be an improvement over Rick Palacio as she brings legislative experience and a new, progressive energy to the party. However, she also brings baggage to the position and only time will tell if she can move above her professional, establishment mindset as well as her ability to move from paid lobbyist positions to true progressive leadership which the CDP desperately needs.

Many will immediately take exception to this posit by virtue of Carroll’s recent support to the progressive and Indivisible movement positions. By analyzing her oil and gas positions as a Colorado State Senator, the warning signs are present. Carroll has supported a bill that gave preferences to oil and gas companies that agreed to provide methane burning at the onset of their drilling. In essence, the bill provided incentives for better performance. While this is commendable, it is far from sufficient. She failed to support a reduction in fracking nor does such a position address the immense waste of our most precious resource, water. A progressive leader would have required oil and gas companies to recycle all fracking waste water and therefore reject the high pressure, deep injection currently used to dispose of this hazardous and deadly waste product. At $50.00/barrel, the oil companies have almost $25.00/barrel of profit from which to fund all conservation efforts.

In addition, a bill was initiated in the legislature to ban oil and gas wells that were located within 300 feet of residences and public buildings. Such a bill would have acted to preserve real estate values, reduce unhealthful emissions and meet the needs of many front range communities. The bill was killed due to a lack of legislative support. This lack of true leadership does not bode well for the CDP, as we have a governorship as well as state wide legislative elections coming in 2018 and we need a leader, in the manner of Bernie Sanders, not an establishment politician leading the CDP.

There is another litmus test for progressives, such as myself, and that is the elimination of Super Delegates from the National Democratic Party. As the thwarted Bernie Sanders campaign has demonstrated, we, the citizens, do not need “elites” to decide who they will support. It is likely that Carroll will support a move to have all of Colorado’s Super Delegates pledge to vote for the candidate that garnered the most popular votes statewide. Again, this is an improved and more enlightened position, however, it remains insufficient. We need a leader that will work at the national level to eliminate the concept of Super Delegates. This must be accomplished before the 2020 election cycle. Will Carroll prove she is a leader by championing this issue or will she bow to establishment pressures to “get along” and advance her long term political career goals?

There is one final point to be made. The Indivisible movement has been effective, and with continued leadership, will continue to be effective. We are seeing previously apolitical persons voluntarily run for office from school boards to Congress. We have seen the Indivisible movement crowd fund candidates that would not have received nearly as much political attention of funding support such as Ossoff in Georgia and Zinke’s congressional replacement in Montana. It is vital to the future health of our democracy that the Indivisible movement not allow itself to be co-opted by the Democratic parties, either local, state or national. Will Colorado lead or follow?