Voter Suppression Is Not The Solution To Problems With Voter Registration

Throughout out his campaign, Donald Trump has been sounding the same voter fraud alarm that Republican leaders have been sounding for years.

Trump had this to say on the subject during Wednesday's final presidential debate:

If you look -- excuse me, Chris -- if you look at your voter rolls, you will see millions of people that are registered to vote -- millions, this isn't coming from me -- this is coming from Pew Report and other places -- millions of people that are registered to vote that shouldn't be registered to vote.

What he appears to be referring to is a 2012 research report commissioned by the Pew Center on the States, which says:

  • Approximately 24 million—one of every eight—voter registrations in the United States are no longer valid or are significantly inaccurate.
  • More than 1.8 million deceased individuals are listed as voters.
  • Approximately 2.75 million people have registrations in more than one state.

Nowhere does Pew assert that there are 24 million cases of voter fraud. The only use of the word "fraud" in the entire report is this:

The inability of this paper-based process to keep up with voters as they move or die can lead to problems with the rolls, including the perception that they lack integrity or could be susceptible to fraud.

In fact, the rate of voter impersonation fraud is staggeringly low – 31 credible instances out of more than 1 billion ballots cast, according to another study.

A comprehensive 2014 study published in The Washington Post found 31 credible instances of impersonation fraud from 2000 to 2014, out of more than 1 billion ballots cast. Even this tiny number is likely inflated, as the study’s author counted not just prosecutions or convictions, but any and all credible claims.

In case you're wondering, that's 0.0000031 percent.

What we have is a system desperately in need of modernization. Some states have taken positive steps forward on voting rights, while others have failed or been unable to act, or even worse, have taken steps backward with new, potentially suppressive restrictions. Members of Congress have introduced federal legislation, which has yet to receive any meaningful attention from the Republican leadership – the failure to restore the Voting Rights Act being one of the worst cases.

So, Mr. Trump, we do have a voter registration problem in this country. But fraud isn't the problem. And voter suppression isn't the solution.


Trump Wants Another Scalia on the Supreme Court, Which Would Eviscerate LGBT Equality

Donald Trump has used the prospect of Supreme Court nominees as a way to get the support of the far right conservatives who run and fund the Republican Party.  He has promised to outsource the selection to ideological groups like the Federalist Society, and he pleased Republicans with his promise last March to appoint “someone as close to [the late Justice Antonin] Scalia as I could find.”  He repeated this promise in August during an interview with Sean Hannity on Fox News, promising that in his selection, “I want to get as close to Scalia as I can.”  And at the second presidential debate with Hillary Clinton on October 9, he said he was “looking to appoint judges very much in the mold of Justice Scalia.

This is chilling for all Americans across a broad range of communities and issues, and especially for the LGBT community.  It is perhaps appropriate that Donald Trump would model his next justice on Scalia.  The late justice’s unusually venomous, paranoid, divisive, and contemptuous dissents about LGBT equality were at times the judicial equivalent of a Trump campaign rally.

In 1996’s Romer v. Evans, the Court struck down Colorado’s notorious state constitutional amendment that prohibited state and local governments from protecting people from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.  “Amendment 2” also eliminated anti-discrimination laws already on the books.  But only one group of people was barred from seeking the rights and protections available to others, and the Court could find no reason for it but animus toward that group.

Justice Scalia’s dissent described Amendment 2 as just “a modest attempt by seemingly tolerant Coloradans to preserve traditional sexual mores against the efforts of a politically powerful minority to revise those mores through use of the laws.”  But his dissent in this first major civil rights victory for the LGBT community at the high court wasn’t just a legal analysis disagreeing with the majority.  His own animosity, paranoia, and rabble-rousing shone through his words like a beacon … or like Donald Trump’s inflammatory accusations toward populations he and his supporters clearly disdain.  He criticized the majority for concluding that animosity towards “homosexuality” (the term used in the opinion) is wrong, and he defended the right of a majority to pass laws against an unpopular minority based on their moral disapproval of that group.

Even worse was how he saw the struggle of LGB people in Colorado to live their lives openly and free from discrimination.  He characterized this as a “special right.”  And he saw Amendment 2 as a legitimate response by Coloradoans against a small yet wealthy population concentrated in cities and who had “disproportionate political power,” who opposed the traditional morality of the majority, and who had brought their quest for “social endorsement” from New York, San Francisco, LA, and Key West to communities in Colorado.

Scalia's dissent in 2003’s Lawrence v. Texas (striking down “sodomy laws”) was also revealing—and disturbing.  The majority opinion was remarkable in its treatment of gays and lesbians as people, stating what should have been obvious: sexual intimacy for gays and lesbians is just as central to personal autonomy and dignity as it is for heterosexuals.  As a result, it implicates the same fundamental constitutional liberties, and moral condemnation is not a sufficient justification for criminalizing it for same-sex couples.

Scalia would have none of it.  His dissent described the case not as one about the human act of sexual intimacy (and the consequences for individual liberty that flow from that), but as one about “homosexual sodomy.”  He apparently could not conceive that two people of the same sex have sex for the same reasons that two people of the opposite sex do.  And he leapt to the defense of voting majorities who consider sex between two men or two women as immoral to punish those men and women through the criminal code.

A decade later, when the Court struck down the misnamed Defense of Marriage Act in Windsor v. United States, Justice Scalia wrote a separate dissent in which he concluded that the Court lacked jurisdiction to consider the case in the first place.  But then he proceeded to consider the merits anyway.  In what might be considered unnecessarily hyperbolic language, he accused the majority of judging opponents of marriage equality to be “enemies of the human race,” “enem[ies] of decency,” “monsters,”  and “unhinged members of a wild-eyed lynch mob.”  His fury at the majority was palpable.

Similarly, in the Obergefell case, when the Court at last recognized that denying same-sex couples the right to marry violates their constitutional rights, Scalia chose to write a separate dissent.  He wrote that he agreed with the main dissent (written by the Chief Justice), but that he wanted to write separately “to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy” by deciding the case as it did.  Calling it a “judicial Putsch,” Scalia slammed the elitism of the Court and wrote that:

to allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation.

Essentially, Scalia was saying the Court cannot legitimately address whether same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry because they don’t have a constitutional right to marry.  (And yet he and his fellow dissenters did address the question; they just came to a different answer than the majority.)  It seems that any opinion on this issue that didn’t agree with Scalia’s was (in his eyes) illegitimate, just as any election result where Trump loses is (in his eyes) illegitimate.

Scalia’s reasoning was circular, but the result would have been the same if his other dissents had been majority opinions: the preservation of as many methods as possible to use the force of government to marginalize, stigmatize, and harm gays and lesbians.

There will surely be cases in the coming years (and perhaps months) at the Supreme Court that will have a profound influence on the rights not only of LGB people but also of transgender people.  Donald Trump wants justices “as close to Scalia” as possible.  That is a profound threat to every LGBT person in America.


Ayotte & Trump: All the Straws that Didn't Break the Camel's Back

Most Americans realized more than a year ago that a Donald Trump presidency would pose a grave threat to our nation.  But it took Trump’s “hot mic” recording about sexually assaulting women to push New Hampshire Sen. Kelly Ayotte into finally renouncing her party’s nominee.

But her explanation for why this was the last straw only highlighted all the straws she was willing to accept in a president, as long as it was someone of her party.  Ayotte explained her decision on Saturday:

I’m a mom and an American first, and I cannot and will not support a candidate for president who brags about degrading and assaulting women.

But she’s been willing to support Trump until now.  In essence, she’s been saying:

  • I can and will support a candidate for president who would round up 11 million mostly Latino immigrants, forcibly separate them from their families, and ship them out of the country … because the candidate is a fellow Republican.
  • I can and will support a candidate for president who encourages his supporters to beat up peaceful anti-Trump protesters … because the candidate is a fellow Republican.
  • I can and will support a candidate for president who encourages gun violence to effect political change … because the candidate is a fellow Republican.
  • I can and will support a candidate for president who proposes to impose an unconstitutional religious test for visitors and immigrants, blocking Muslims from entering the United States … because the candidate is a fellow Republican.
  • I can and will support a candidate for president who will use the force of government to go after media outlets that criticize his administration, severely undermining if not destroying the First Amendment’s freedom of the press … because the candidate is a fellow Republican.
  • I can and will support a candidate for president who defends and admires the leadership of Vladimir Putin, the man who has his critics murdered and who turned Russia’s democracy into a dictatorship … because the candidate is a fellow Republican.
  • I can and will support a candidate for president who declares that a federal judge cannot be unbiased (a judge’s most important quality) because he is a Latino … because the candidate is a fellow Republican.
  • I can and will support a candidate for president who basks in the frenzied shouts of his supporters to put his campaign opponent in jail … because the candidate is a fellow Republican.
  • I can and will support a candidate for president who retweets posts from notoriously anti-Semitic hate groups … because the candidate is a fellow Republican.
  • I can and will support a candidate for president who routinely and publicly calls women he deems unattractive fat pigs, dogs, slobs, and disgusting animals … because the candidate is a fellow Republican.
  • I can and will support a candidate for president whose campaign is based on demonizing millions of Americans as a threatening “other” … because the candidate is a fellow Republican.

Ayotte’s criticizing individual Trump statements while still supporting his efforts to gain the massive power of the presidency is hardly an exercise in leadership.

People in New Hampshire should be relieved that there is, at long last, something that Kelly Ayotte puts ahead of her loyalty the Republican Party.

But they should be terrified at all the monstrous and dangerous things she is willing to accept, since, for Ayotte, political calculations clearly outweigh things like democracy and equality.


Demonstrators Send McCain Message That He Was "Too Little, Too Late" In Denouncing Trump

When Arizona Senator John McCain and Representative Ann Kirkpatrick took the stage on Monday night for their one and only debate, theirs weren't the only voices heard at PBS studios in Phoenix.

People For the American Way joined Planned Parenthood, ProgressNow, and other Arizona activists to send a clear message to Senator McCain: he jumped the Trump ship too little, too late.

In her remarks outside of the debate, Stacey Champion, PFAW's Arizona Campaign Organizer, pointed out just how dedicated to the Trump cause Senator McCain has been:

For over a year, Donald Trump has pushed racist, sexist, and bigoted attacks against far too many Americans -- and through it all, Sen. McCain continued to pledge to vote for him. He's made clear he stands with Trump and the extreme Republican Party, not Arizonans.

Senator McCain has been just as dedicated to blocking Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland, and for the same disingenuous political reasons. As we noted on Tuesday, McCain’s "straight talk" on the Supreme Court exposes that his obstruction has never been about “the integrity of the Court” as he claimed, but rather about his desire to play politics with judicial nominations.

Shame on Senator McCain for not doing his job, and for waiting far too long to dump Trump.


PFAW Members Speak Out Against Ayotte’s Plan to Write In Mike Pence

Members of People For the American Way protested Monday outside of U.S. Senator Kelly Ayotte’s Manchester district office following her announcement that she plans to write in vice presidential nominee Mike Pence instead of voting for Donald Trump, in light of his comments about sexually assaulting women. While it’s high time that Sen. Ayotte acknowledged just how unacceptable a Trump presidency would be, a vote for Pence would be a vote for far-right policies devastating for women and the LGBT community.

“Ayotte’s withdrawal of support for Trump has much more to do with politics than principle,” said Linds Jakows, New Hampshire Campaign Organizer with People For the American Way. “Support for Mike Pence’s agenda is little better—a man who has spent his career attempting to redefine rape, eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood, and pass laws to legalize discrimination against LGBT people is also incredibly dangerous. A far better way for Ayotte to display the political independence she so often claims on the campaign trail would be to push obstructionists in her party to move forward on the nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court.”


Putin’s American Fans Cheer His Persecution Of Gays, Ignore His Persecution Of Christians

This piece originally appeared on the Huffington Post.

Pastors thrown in jail. Religious texts criminalized. Evangelism outlawed.

These are all events that Religious Right activists—inaccurately—predicted would happen during President Obama’s time in office. But sadly, these are acts that are all too common around the world.

Most recently, Russian President Vladimir Putin has stepped up his attacks on Christians who belong to denominations other than the Russian Orthodox Church, particularly Protestants, Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Last month, Putin signed a law curtailing evangelism under the guise of combating “extremism,” a decision that is part of a broader trend of Putin’s government clamping down on dissidents, journalists, human rights activists and the LGBT community.

Even before this new law came into effect, religious minorities in Russia and Russian-controlled parts of Ukraine faced not only legal persecution but also violent attacks, including abductions and killings, from government-backed militias. Since the law was signed, state-sponsored attacks on religious minorities have only increased.

But none of this has stopped Putin’s American fans from singing his praises, even while they claim that President Obama has made the U.S. dangerous for Christians.

Donald Trump and Mike Pence have enthusiastically praised Putin as a brilliant and mighty trailblazer while at the same time accusing President Obama of hounding Christians at home. In fact, Trump has claimed that the U.S. government is specifically targeting him with a tax audit because he’s “a strong Christian.”

U.S.-based Religious Right leaders, many of whom are now supporting Trump, have similarly spent years praising the Russian president for supposedly championing Christianity and for leading an infamous crackdown on LGBT Russians.

Conservative religious leaders like Franklin GrahamBrian Brown and Bryan Fischerhave praised Putin for his attacks on LGBT rights. American LGBT rights opponents have descended on Russia in recent years to cheer on the government’s growing repression of sexual minorities, including laws curbing gay adoption and curtailing free speech that supports LGBT rights. Religious Right leaders have called Putin a “lion of Christianity,” “the moral leader of the world“ and the protector of “traditional Christianity.”

Televangelist Rick Joyner recently said that “there is much more freedom of religion in Russia than there is in America,” where “we no longer have freedom of speech,” and radio host Rick Wiles called Putin an instrument of God sent to punish “the United Gay States of America.”

In reality, Putin’s government has done the very thing that right-wing activists falsely accuse President Obama of doing: arresting Christians, threatening churches andpermitting Sharia law in majority-Muslim areas.

But it is Obama they falsely charge with being an enemy of religious liberty, and Putin they shower with praise in spite of his well-documented attacks on freedom.

The admiration for Putin from this segment of the Religious Right reveals an ugly reality behind their claims of religious oppression at the hands of the LGBT rights movement. For these activists, it seems, the persecution of LGBT people is actually more important than preserving true religious freedom, even when the welfare and freedoms of other Christians are at stake.


New Trump Supreme Court List Makes Even Clearer the Dangers of a Trump Supreme Court

This piece originally appeared on the Huffington Post.

Much has already been written about the dangers that a Supreme Court with even one or two Donald Trump-appointed justices would pose to all our rights and liberties. Trump’s latest list of 10 more possible nominees makes that even clearer. In making his announcement last Friday, Trump proclaimed he was using the late Justice Antonin Scalia as a model for his picks, delighting the far Right. A quick look at these potential nominees’ records shows that they would in fact swing the court far to the right, maybe even further than Justice Scalia, on issues like the environment, voting rights, money in politics, consumer rights, gun violence, LGBT and reproductive rights and more. For the sake of all our rights and liberties, Trump cannot be given the opportunity to nominate Supreme Court justices.

Most of the attention so far has focused on Trump’s naming of Sen. Mike Lee as a potential Supreme Court nominee. Among his many other radical positions, Lee has denounced Supreme Court decisions upholding marriage equality and a woman’s right to choose, and has claimed that Social Security, Medicare, the Affordable Care Act, minimum wage and child labor laws, and many more are unconstitutional. Although Lee has indicated he is satisfied with his current job, at least for now, the prospect of Lee on the court has excited the far Right.

The lesser-known candidates on Trump’s list are similarly alarming. Florida Supreme Court Justice Charles Canady, who as a member of the House helped lead the fight to impeach President Clinton in the Senate, has been dubbed one of the Florida Court’s “Scalia-Thomas duo” because of far-right dissents he and one other conservative have written. These included one dissent that would have invalidated state restrictions on soliciting campaign contributions by state judges, and another that would have reversed a decision protecting vulnerable seniors from mandatory arbitration rules by nursing homes.

Another new Trump candidate, Neil Gorsuch of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, recently argued that the Supreme Court’s Chevron decision, under which courts defer to environmental and other agency interpretations of ambiguous laws and which even Justice Scalia had supported, is unconstitutional and should be overruled. Tim Tymkovich, another 10th Circuit judge on Trump’s new list, argued in a dissent that a federal regulation banning the carrying and storing of guns on U.S. Postal Service property should be partially struck down as unconstitutional.

The records of other state supreme court judges on Trump’s list are also disturbing. Georgia’s Keith Blackwell wrote in one case that homeowners injured by a plant’s release of hydrogen sulfide gas could not bring a class action against the plant, even though several lower courts said that they could. Iowa’s Edward Mansfield argued in one dissent that a fired employee should not be able to claim retaliatory discharge when she was fired by an assisted living facility for complaining about a supervisor forging state-mandated training documents. And Michigan’s Robert Young campaigned for re-election as a Tea Party candidate, appearing before Tea Party groups and securing their endorsements. His judicial record has been criticized as “partisan, wildly activist, rabidly pro-insurance, and anti-consumer.” For example, in one case he dissented from a decision that restored the basic rule, which he himself had helped strike down in an earlier case, that allows auto accident victims to sue for pain and suffering. And Young wrote one opinion upholding a requirement mandating photo ID at the polls, despite another judge’s contention that “history will judge us harshly” for the decision.

Perhaps the best summary of Trump’s new list was offered by Carrie Severino of the right-wing Judicial Crisis Network. Trump “continues to take unprecedented steps,” she proclaimed, to show that he would nominate people “like Scalia, Thomas, and Alito” to the Supreme Court. Severino and Trump are clearly hoping that this will shore up Trump’s support on the far Right. In fact, it has already helped secure Trump’s endorsement by former rival and right-wing Sen. Ted Cruz. But for all other Americans, the prospect of Trump nominees to the Supreme Court is truly frightening. This November, voters need to ensure that Donald Trump does not become President Trump.

This piece originally appeared in The Huffington Post.


Down The Racist Rabbit Hole With Donald Trump

This piece originally appeared on the Huffington Post.

Today, Donald Trump pretended to end a lie and, in the process, told more lies.

After years of being a leading proponent of the racist “birther” movement, ignoring all actual evidence in order to raise questions about the first African-American president’s legitimacy, Trump today declared that he no longer believes that President Obama was born overseas.

First, Trump promised the press that he would address the birther issue in a press conference at his new hotel in Washington this morning. Then he made them sit through a parade of fawning endorsers before finally spending 30 seconds addressing his birtherism. Trump at last told the truth that Obama “was born in the United States, period.” But he couldn’t help packaging this rare truth with more lies, ludicrously, unbelievably claiming: “Hillary Clinton and her campaign of 2008 started the birther controversy. I finished it.”

Trump claims he “finished” the birther myth by causing President Obama to publicly release his long-form birth certificate in 2011, but he himself continued to enthusiastically promote the myth for years afterward, saying as recently as this January that he would write a very successful (of course) book on his “own theory” about the president’s birth.

And even if Trump had stopped being a birther in 2011, that doesn’t mean he could take credit for “finishing” a myth that he himself had helped create. Obama would never have had to go as far as to make his long-form birth certificate public if Trump hadn’t helped create an alternative universe dominated by the lie that the president’s citizenship was in doubt.

In fact, this is a pattern that Trump has followed many times.

Take Hillary Clinton’s recent bout of pneumonia. A reasonable reading of Clinton’s situation would be this: Clinton, a woman who is used to working long hours in demanding jobs, got sick and decided to power through that illness in order to get her work done.

But Trump and his allies had spent months building an alternative universe in which Clinton was hiding some sort of mysterious infirmity. In Trump World, that meant that Clinton was hiding some deep dark secret illness for nefarious reasons. When Clinton fell ill, the press held her to the standards of Trump World rather than the real world, portraying her as secretive and shady for failing to announce to the world that she had caught a common illness.

Trump has done the same thing with his lies about having opposed the Iraq War and his lies about his constantly changing position on the issue of abortion. He tells whatever version of events he thinks will be convenient at the time and everyone, including his fellow candidates, are suddenly supposed to live in whatever new reality he’s created.

Trump pretended that a racist conspiracy theory was true when it would help him get attention and win the support of the GOP’s fringe. Now he’s pretending that his hands are clean and that it was his opponent who was dredging up racist myths for the past five years. Trump wants us to accept whatever convenient new reality he’s concocted at any given time. The media has to stop being played by his rules.


Trump and the So-Called ‘Values Voters’

This piece originally appeared in the Huffington Post.

Countless articles have been written on Donald Trump’s relationship with the Religious Right, often by those who argue that his rise reveals the movement’s increasing irrelevance. After all, how could social conservatives ever get behind a thrice-married failed casino mogul who is more comfortable at the Playboy Mansion than at church? He has bragged that he has never asked God for forgiveness, insisted that Jesus Christ had a massive ego (in an interview with Playboy) and, in an episode that carries obvious symbolism, threw cash on the communion plate in an Iowa church. 

It’s almost as if the Religious Right cares more about gaining political power than defending Christian teachings. 

Trump is slated to make an appearance today at the Values Voter Summit, the annual Washington, D.C., convention organized by the Family Research Council that’s the marquis event on the Religious Right’s calendar. Trump’s appearance at the summit isn’t discordant; as his campaign has progressed, it has become clear why the movement has rallied behind him and why he has relied on its support.

Trump once told a crowd at a Christian university not to forgive their enemies but to “get even.” The leaders of today’s Religious Right have been preaching that message for years, treating politics as a no-holds-barred battle against opponents who they regard not just as people with different points of view, but as spiritual enemies.

For instance, Tony Perkins, the president of Family Research Council (FRC), has described supporters of LGBT rights as pawns of Satan

Just as Trump championed the birther movement, arguing that President Obama is neither an American nor a Christian, Perkins has suggested that Obama is not a true Christian (and is most likely a Muslim) and raised questions about his birthplace. Obama supporters, according to Perkins, must repent for voting for him. One past Values Voter Summit speaker even told the crowd that Obama would shut down all of the country’s churches before leaving office.

Trump’s demagogic, hateful rhetoric has nothing on the Religious Right, whose leaders have been belittling and denigrating LGBT people, religious minorities and Christians who don’t agree with their right-wing political ideology for years. 

It wasn’t surprising that most Religious Right leaders who talk a big game on religious liberty either stayed silent or were openly supportive when Trump called for a ban on Muslims entering the country. A spokesman for the American Family Association, a cosponsor of the Values Voter Summit, had called for a Muslim ban long before Trump ever did.

While many evangelicals, along with Roman Catholics and mainline Protestants, have worked tirelessly to reform the country’s immigration system, conservative Religious Right groups like the FRC and the AFA have denounced immigration reform. 

Trump and Religious Right groups have also joined together in portraying American Christians as a marginalized group under constant persecution thanks to the Johnson Amendment, which prohibits houses of worship and other nonprofits from explicitly endorsing candidates if they want to maintain their tax exempt status, and injustices like the “War on Christmas,” with Trump even claiming that he was personally a victim of anti-Christian persecution because he was subject to a routine IRS audit. 

And above all, the movement’s leaders are thrilled that Trump has promised to give them the Supreme Court of their dreams, even letting conservative activists hand-pick his nominees. 

The Religious Right, with its constant talk of the country’s imminent undoing by evil anti-American actors, promotion of conspiracy theories and patently hateful rhetoric, paved the way for Trump’s success in the GOP primaries. Now, Trump needs the movement to help put him over the top in November, and will be more than happy to further its agenda if he makes it into the White House. 

At the Values Voter Summit, Trump will surely pander to the Religious Right. But he should also thank them.


A New Species of Politicians: “Trumpublicans”

This piece originally appeared on the Huffington Post.

The number of Republican elected officials criticizing Donald Trump and condemning his policies while pledging to vote for him has many people understandably scratching their heads, and it’s not hard to see why: politicians calling out the GOP nominee in one breath and then working to bring him and his agenda into power in the next utterly defies logic.

I’d like to propose a name for this odd species of politicians: Trumpublicans.

Trumpublicans: /trəmˈpəbləkən/ — n., pl. 1. Republicans who’ve endorsed or pledged to vote for Trump to win support from far-right voters. 2. Republicans who claim to oppose Trump’s hateful campaign, yet work to advance his candidacy and agenda (e.g. holding a Supreme Court seat open for him to fill.)

Examples of Trumpublicans abound. Senator Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire has tried to separate herself from Trump, refusing to endorse him and saying that she would “stand up” to him. But she also says that she’s “glad to get his endorsement” and still plans to vote for him. Huh? Senator John McCain of Arizona is trying to toe the same line, at times criticizing Trump while repeatedly stating his commitment to vote for him. Pennsylvania Senator Pat Toomey says that Trump’s actions “give me great pause” but has still refused to disavow him.

There’s no more egregious example than the fight over the Supreme Court vacancy to show how each of these senators are already actively working to support Trump’s extremist agenda. They may express misgivings about Trump with their words, but with their actions, they are holding open the vacant Supreme Court seat so that it can be filled by him. They are going to extraordinary lengths—ignoring their constitutionally-defined responsibilities—to let the next Supreme Court justices be picked by Donald Trump, a man who says a judge can’t do his job because of his Mexican heritage.

Senators’ comments against Trump mean nothing when their actions and votes are still with him in all the ways that count. These senators are trying to have it both ways in a straddle to appeal to both voters with common sense and decency and those who are turned on by Trump’s hate. 
Too many people have written off the Trumpublican phenomenon as being only about Trump as if he’s a one-time thing. “He’s coming out of left field,” the story goes. “He’s so out-there that he’s putting ‘moderate’ Republicans in a tough place.” But when it comes to his anti-Latino, anti-women, anti-just-about-everyone agenda, Trump’s not coming out of left field; he’s coming straight from home plate. He’s riding the sorry momentum that the Republican party has built for years.

After all, way before Trump, this is the party that has threatened to shut down the government over immigration reform and the funding of Planned Parenthood. The party of “self-deportation.” The party that wants to ban abortion. The party that now denies science and doesn’t believe in the president’s birthplace or religion. There is no question that Trump’s rhetoric is horrific, but don’t believe the myth that he is a wild aberration; in many ways, he is tapping into the very core of the Republican party that tragically for the country has become more and more extreme every year.

There’s a reason why the strong recommendations of the infamous 2012 GOP post-loss post-mortem couldn’t be heeded, and this was long before the idea of a Trump candidacy was a glimmer in any Republican eye.

This is no longer your granddaddy’s GOP. And it’s not going to be the “the party of Lincoln”—a description they love to throw around, no matter how increasingly inaccurate—again until people start to stand up to the likes of Donald Trump and to the base that so decisively elected him. It’s as simple as that. You can’t tell your children and grandchildren that you stood against a man who proposed banning all members of a religious group from the country, who smeared an entire community as rapists and criminals, who claimed a judge couldn’t do his job because of his heritage. No, Trumpublicans will have to tell them that even though they said Trump was in the wrong, they stood by him all the way.