Thursday September 15, 1921. Roman Fyodorovich von Ungern-Sternberg executed.

Baron Roman Fyodorovich von Ungern-Sternberg was executed by the Red Army on this day in 1921.

Von Ungern-Sternberg was a frightening Baltic German of noble background who entered the Imperial Russian Army prior to World War One.  Violent and erractic since his boyhood, he fought for a restoration of the Imperial crown in the Russian Civil War before crossing into Mongolia, where his forces fought for Mongolian independence.  He was captured by the Red Army after it intervened in Mongolia, and executed on this day in 1921.

The National Women's Party was meeting this day a century ago.

Sunday September 14, 1941. War games in Louisiana.

Omar Bradley and Leslie McNair.

Depending upon how you calculate it (you can actually start the dates in August), this was the start date for the massive Louisiana Maneuvers, a giant war game fought out by the U.S. Army in Louisiana.

Today in World War II History—September 14, 1941

Earlier events in the maneuvers might be regarded as staging.  On this day, Phase I of the maneuvers began, with the Red Army under Gen. Lear crossing the Red River near Shreveport and the Blue Army under Gen. Kreuger advancing to meet and repel it.

The massive maneuvers remain a subject of legend and show up in any history of the U.S. Army in World War Two. Their scale was unprecedented for something occurring within the United States, ranging over a large portion of western Louisiana and crossing into Eastern Texas, something rarely noted when they're mentioned.

The maneuvers were designed to test new concepts regarding large formation mobility, with the Army looking a way to fight in a highly mobile war with large formations.  The lessons learned caused the formation of 16 armored divisions in World War Two, the concept of large scale mobile warfare having been deemed sound.  It also put the spotlight on various officers, some to their advantage and some not.  George S. Patton emerged from the maneuvers very much in the limelight.  31, however, of the 42 divisional commanders who participated int he maneuvers would be pushed aside shortly by George S. Marshall to make way for younger officers.

The maneuvers not only tested concepts, but equipment, some faring well and others not.  Artillery officers tested the concept of tank destroyers with the result that they seemed to have been proven, even though later war experiences would show the concept lacking.  Cavalry fared surprisingly well in the maneuvers, contrary to some expectation.  C-Rations were issued to troops in scale for the first time.

Monday, September 13, 1971. Violent ends.

The Attica Prison Riot was put down on this day, on day four of the siege.

It's an event I can recall from my childhood.

About half, somewhat over 1,000, of the prisoners rioted over conditions at the prison.  They held it for four days, before the grounds were retaken by force. The scene looked like a civil war battleground.

32 inmates, and 11 guards, died in the event.

It was one more thing that made the 1970s, well, crappy.

On the same day, a possible coup in Communist China fell apart and one of the proponents, Marshal Lin Biao, died in an airplane crash seeking to flee as a result.

Lin had been in the Chinese Communist Party dating back to the 1930s, and he was second in line for Chinese leadership at the time.  Due to the era in which he died, and the circumstances, a great deal of mystery remains on what occurred.  According to the PRC he was at the top of a plot to replace Mao, which acted to assassinate him but failed.  Lin then fled. Sources outside of China have doubted the story however, and all that remains clear is that he died in the airplane's crash.

Draft of Project 571

The plot itself may have in fact existed, although It's hard to tell, but rather than being a product of Lin Biao, it might have been the product of his son Lin Liguo, a member of the Chinese Air Force.  Indeed, the noted attempts to effect a coup were conducted principally by members of the Chinese Air Force, not the Army, which would have been an odd choice for a high ranking army official. And the plans were below the quality of that which would have been expected by Lin Biao, who was a highly respected and experienced ground commander.  Lin Liguo died in the same airplane crash, which would support that overall the Lin family was connected with a plot and when it failed sought to flee to the Soviet Union.

The event resulted in the predictable purge of the Chinese military.

Tuesday September 13, 1921. White Castle's founded.

Arapahoe Glacier, Colorado. September 13, 1921.

 

White Castle, the hamburger chain, opened its first restaurant in Wichita Kansas.  It was the very first fast food restaurant.

Chicago White Castle in the 1980s.

I've never eaten at a White Castle, which I believe is famous for sliders.  For that matter, over the years I've gotten to where I'm not a big fan of fast food burgers for some reason, preferring the slow food ones from the grill.  But it is quite a difference in the food landscape that White Castle brought about.

Gen. Billy Mitchell submitted a report to his commanding officer containing his strong dissent from a report that battleships remained superior to aerial bombardment.  He further recommended that the Department of War and the Department of the Navy be consolidated into a single department, with the service branches all being sub departments.

While he's justifiable recalled as a visionary today, in truth ships were much less vulnerable to aerial attack at the time than often imagined, and the recent tests conducted on captured German ships had in fact tended to prove that. This would soon change, but not in the way really imagined at the time, as heavy bombers never did develop as a strong anti shipping weapon.

Misconstruing the arguments: Was Monday At The Bar. Misconstruing the law

On September 6, we posted this item noting how the arguments about the new Texas law on abortion are misconstruing what really happened in regard to that aw.:

Lex Anteinternet: Monday At The Bar. Misconstruing the law: If you listened to the weekend news shows you are now fully up to speed on all the left of center angst, or feigned angst, over the new anti...

But almost as misconstrued are the "progressive" arguments that are inserted as "policy" arguments, if they can be called that. The degree to which these fit a certain pattern, is not only notable, but frankly shocking.

Regarding the argument over abortion, it all boils down to two basic arguments, of which there are subsets.  Basically, you either 1) feel that people shouldn't kill other people; or 2) you feel that killing people for convenience is okay.

Now, that sounds extreme, and we will get into that,  but this is somewhat simplistic.  We'd note that most people who don't believe people should kill other people do hold there are exceptions, such as in self-defense, or the extension of self-defense when it's done in the course and scope of a public officer's duties (military and police).  And we'd also note that almost nobody actually states that they're for killing people based on convenience, and probably a lot of pro choice people have never really stopped to think about the nature of their argument in this regard.

But beyond that, that's pretty much it.  And that takes us, although it's out of order, to the first principal of this. There aren't really any exceptions.  

We'll get to that in a minute. But first, the big question.

Is a fetus a human being?

Is a fetus a human being?

Maybe in 1973 when Roe v. Wade was simply made up by the Supreme Court, this could be fairly debated.  It seems to be the case that the mushy Roe opinion basically determined that for the first "trimester" a fetus wasn't a human being because. . .well, it depended on its mother.

That was always a way stupid way of looking at things and not supported by facts or science. A baby depends on some maternal support at least for a few years after it's born, for one thing.  And viability isn't a good argument for preservation of life.  There are thousands of impaired human beings who aren't "viable" in the full sense.  If Roe made sense when in 1973, Hitler's campaign to murder the impaired in Germany made just as much sense.

What the court was trying to do, if you want to give it perhaps considerably more credit than it deserves, was to create some sort of strange argument that prior to that time the forming human wasn't quite human, and not endowed with humanness.  

People made that argument for a long time, but hardly anyone does now  Science has come to far, and we know that a fetus is a human from the instant of conception.  We can't escape that, and nobody tries to.

So what we're really arguing about is killing for convenience.  When can we kill people because we find them inconvenient?

Most people, we'll note, will not openly resort to that argument as it sounds too brutal, because in fact it is.  Indeed, many of the same people who are "pro-choice" are very much against killing people, and indeed sometimes anything, under any other situation.  They've separated the reality of human life in this are from their argument of convenience.  And that's been made easy by fifty years of mushy thinking on the topic, inspired in no small part by the mushy thinking of the Roe era, and the court decision itself.

But mushy thinking rarely leads to a correct decision.  Honest thinking on the topic, particularly one that involves life and death, is mandated by the argument itself.

You can't really hold to exceptions if you believe killing people is wrong, and you really can't limit it that much if you are okay with killing for convenience.

The anti-abortion must be "never" in answer to that question.  The pro-choice person's argument ought to be "lots of times", although they'll rarely make that argument.

Again, this is out of order, but let's make it plain.  If you believe killing people is wrong, not only is abortion wrong, but the death penalty is wrong.  That's just the way it is.

The exceptions most would hold to would be in self-defense of yourself, and in self-defense of the public, such as in the role of policing or legitimate war.  But those exceptions, we'd note, are really limited.  Indeed, a person sincere in this view really can't take the position that every time there's a war soldiers may kill in it.  Only in a just war, which are limited in number.

You really have to take the view that killing for convenience is okay if you are for abortion.

On the flip side, all arguments about abortion made by its proponents tend to desperately camouflage the real issue, as the real answer is extremely disturbing if you are okay with abortion.

As a fetus is a human being and abortion kills it, if you are for abortion, you are taking the position that killing people is okay for convenience.  The only question is where does the convenience stop.

Pretty clearly, that line is difficult to draw and is by social construct only.  Euthanasia is a close second to abortion and some abortion proponents are okay with it.  The death penalty ought to be okay with anyone who is for abortion, as convicted prisoners are inconvenient.  Indeed, the old common law application of it, which was for any felony, would make a lot of sense in this context.

So do such things as nuclear war or even genocide, really.  

Now, hardly any "pro-choice" person is going to argue that, as they haven't thought it out in this fashion. But that's where it really leads.

The false flag arguments

• "The 13 year old victim of rape or incest"

What you tend to hear about instead is the "13-year-old victim of rape or incest".  

That's because it's a horrific moral situation which presents a moral response.  Ironically, that appeal to emotion is made by the pro killing folks, who otherwise seem pretty immune to emotion in this area.  That suggest this argument is a false flag.

It's interesting strikes back to the "old law", which sanctioned death as a penalty for a lot of crimes, although it skews it a bit, and it also hearkens back to our distant ancestry as an argument.  Therefore, in making this appeal, an appeal to some really ancient, pre-Christian, principals are urged, showing how deeply ingrained they are.

Part of that appeal is the old law sanction of death to the transgressor, although the mark is missed in this case and hits the fetus.  Rape was punishable by death at common law, and going back even further, it was certainly punishable by death in primitive societies.  Rape and incest are crimes that authorities will still allow for a lethal act of retribution in some circumstances even now.  Indeed, while its certainly not a current example, one of my high school colleagues killed her father after years of enduring rape and the authorities made no effort to prosecute her whatsoever.

The second part of that is a darker part of our past, which is both the historical motivator to rape and the ancient reaction to it.  It gets into people's instinct for self-preservation as well as our loyalty to our family and tribe.

Rape is a horrible crime, maybe the worst of crimes, but its also something that was historically common when one tribe raided another. Indeed, it still is.  It's been a major feature of modern warfare in northern Africa in recent years.  Bizarrely, it's a genetic way for the victor to not only claim his spoils, but spread his DNA as the conqueror.  Inside the tribe, however, such things are a horror.  Simply killing the offspring of such unions was not uncommon, as well known.

About 5% of rapes, as defined in our society, result in pregnancies.  But those tend to be concentrated in interfamily and known perpetrator situations.  I don't know the reason for that, but it probably is due to the frequency of the assaults.  I.e, most human sexual acts don't result in pregnancy and therefore most rapes wouldn't .   A normal young couple that is simply having sex has a 1 in 20 chance of getting pregnant.  I.e., a couple acting with complete disregard to the results has a 5% chance of getting pregnant from one act.  Therefore, the percentage in rapes is just about the same.  Added into that, couples seeking to get pregnant will get the advice to have sex frequently, which is also why of course victims of incest and rape from close contacts is more likely to result in pregnancy than other rapes.

A grim topic to be sure.

As part of that grim topic, a normal person doesn't even want to think about this, for obvious reasons, and therefore the resort to the ancient law is easy to make.  It's just programmed into our DNA.

The thing is, of course, is that it also runs counter to our Christian morality, and even though thousands of people who aren't Christians, and even many who are, will bristle at the thought, Western society is basically Christian.  Indeed, wherever Western societies have been, and had a major influence, large elements of Christian thought have come into those societies.

And even in pre-Christian societies the leeway on killing the offspring of such horrors was limited.  Rome gives us the bizarre example of the "rape of the Sabine women" which is one such example, albeit a very strange one.  But others would suggest that it's probably the case that every living human being today has at least one or more ancestor who came into existence this way, which means that we all have ancestors who perpetrated the horrible act. That doesn't excuse it in any fashion, it's just the truth.  Indeed, one of my close friends is aware that his grandmother or great-grandmother, I've forgotten which, had her first child, his ancestor, as a product of such an act when she was employed as a domestic servant.  She had the baby, and a male friend of her married her prior to the baby being born, raising the child as his own.

Not good argument can be made for compelling a woman who becomes pregnant in this fashion to raise the child. That would be absurd. But in the calculations of life and death, its' hard to make out a rational argument that those who innocently come into being in this horrible fashion should be killed.  It's too close to the old old law that held that the infants themselves could be slaughtered, or even the women for having "dishonored" the tribe.  Wants death starts being meted out, it's hard to draw that line where you stop it, as in the end, you are back to the fact that there's really not much of a license for people to kill other people.

• No man should be able to tell a woman what to do

A common feminist argument is "it's my body" and "no man should tell a woman what to do with a woman's body".

The problem with that is that the entire topic comes about due to two bodies producing a third.

Yes, one of those bodies is the nine-month host for the third, but it still doesn't change the fact that an argument about "my body" shows a profound level of individualistic thought.  I.e., it takes the position that "you can't tell me what to do with my body, even if doing that kills somebody else".

This is actually the only area where this argument is actually widely made. There are others, but where they arise, it's a minority view for sure.  We do tell people what they can do with their bodies in numerous other areas, including health and safety.  No welder could go to the rig site and refuse to wear FRs for example, as it's only his body at risk.

This gets back to the sense of community, which may be why this might be a uniquely American argument.  Americans have a strong sense of individualism, even to the point that it's grossly exaggerated in American culture. There really aren't very many "lone wolves" who achieve something, but we like to think there are.

There are no women whatsoever who become pregnant on their own, of course, and that's in part why this argument makes no sense.  It almost assumes that pregnancy comes about due to autogeneration.

Of course, we've gotten used to the post contraceptive concept that a man's responsibility is over once he gets up from the bed and puts his clothes on, but that's a deeply barbaric view of the world.  Indeed, the acceptance of that view, which has come on since the early 1960s, is very strongly akin to the ancient view of rape in a way which gives rise to the primitive argument about killing the offspring.  It's not identical, but its not too far away.

And that's why the occasional effort of men to claim they have a right to voice what happens to their own offspring gets shouted down. But they do.

Now, it's true that the woman will carry that offspring for nine months, and if the mother chooses to keep her child, she'll bear far more of the burden of raising the child to adulthood, at least in the early years, than the father. But what this really cries out for is restoring male responsibility.  Traditionally men carried far more of the financial obligation, with men not infrequently working themselves to death in the process.  In stable couples, men still tend to bear far more of the financial burden.  Allowing men to have escaped this was a terrible societal mistake, and what this argument really argues for is a restoration of more of the old set of responsibilities.

Frankly, to add to it, this argument leads to a real "cop out" opportunity for men, and they frequently take it.

• If pro lifers really cared, then they'd support . . . 

You hear this one all the time, but it's blatantly false.

The argument tends to be that if pro lifers really cared about the mothers, then they'd support all sorts of social programs that are dear to the left.

The problems, they actually tend to.

If you know anyone in this camp who is really active, they tend to actually pretty liberal on social programs. They're for assisting unwed mothers in any way they can, and often support organizations that do so. They tend to be for "socialized" medicine, as it helps the poor and those in this situation. They tend to oppose the death penalty.

Indeed, some of these folks would nearly be regarded as flower children in any other discussion.  The entire argument is just baloney.

The reason I think it tends to get made is that politicians who are pro-life often are on the political right, indeed nearly always so, and they don't appear to be the most sympathetic people in the world  That can be deceptive too, however, if you know anything about them personally.  Lindsey Graham, for example, isn't somebody I generally am a fan of, but his record in supporting his sister when she was young is a model of Christian charity.  One former South Carolinian who was commonly sited as a right wing figure had adopted children that crossed racial lines.  Amy Coney Barrett, who was blasted for being a conservative Catholic when she was nominated for the Supreme Court, also has an adoptive family.

Indeed, the counter might be to ask to what degree do "pro-choice" people really directly support the situation of women in this situation.  In their minds, they no doubt do, but in reality, their help often seems to be limited to the suggestion to kill.

• Keep your Rosaries off my Ovaries

Finally, there's the common suggestion that this is a Catholic issue only and that Catholics should but out.  Expanded out, there's the suggestion that maybe this is a Christian issue only, and Christians should but out.

The argument that people shouldn't bring their religions views to an argument is a false one to start with.  On the contrary, people who are sincere believers in any religion really have an obligation to be informed by their faiths and act accordingly.

Having said that, while those who are informed by their faiths in this area and act accordingly should be admired, rather than condemned, it isn't the case that all that many citations to religion are actually made in the public argument.  Those positions may have informed many of the opponents and brought them to the debate, but they don't tend to cite them in the public debate.  And, moreover, some notable opponents of abortion have had low, weak, or no connection with religion and have come about to their position by other means.

The counter to the phrase, moreover, would argue for a complete abandonment of any moral standard.  It's the ultimate cry for convenience.  It really means "let's keep a moral compass out of this".  The problem is, when you do that, the killing really starts.

Thursday September 11, 1941. The Buskø Affair.

The USCG Northland stopped the Norwegian sealer SS Buskø off of the coast of Greenland, impounded the ship, and arrested the crew.

Northland under sail, which was not the way it typically sailed.

Stopping a Norwegian ship?

Well, yes. . . 

Ownership of Greenland had been contested between the Scandinavian countries of Denmark and Norway prior to World War Two, with its status as a Danish possession finally resolved by way of a decision of the International Court of Justice in 1933.  After German occupation, the Quisling administration in Norway saw an opportunity to reverse this situation and sought to take advantage of German sponsorship and the fact that the Royal Navy was precluding Norwegian ships from resupplying small Norwegian hunting, meteorological, and radio stations that remained on Greenland. The Quisling government was urged in this direction by Adolf Hoel, a geologist with nationalist leanings, and Gustav Smedal, a lawyer with the same.

 In 1941, with German permission, the Norwegian government outfitted a party to essentially reclaim Norwegian control of Greenland, led by a Norwegian arctic explorer who had led a prior Norwegian expedition in 1931 for the same purpose.  Complicating it further, the Royal Navy's actions were putting Norwegian parties on Greenland in desperate straights, as they were not getting resupplied.

Just before the expedition set out, the Germans insisted that a radio operator, by the unlikely name of Jacob (Iacob) Bradley, but made part of the expedition with the purpose of setting up a German radio station.  The ship's captain protested the action as this crossed over a line in their view. While the mission of the ship was somewhat ambiguous, it was still Norwegian, up until that point.

Bradley, moreover, was a Norwegian Nazi, with ties to the Nazi organization in Norway that predated the war, although he'd ironically separated from it formally prior to the German invasion.

German insistence meant that Bradley was incorporated into the party against the ship's wishes.  He was dropped off at one of the Norwegian camps on September 2, but oddly didn't begin to broadcast anything.  He may never have set up the radio equipment.  The Norwegian trappers he was placed with refused to help him assemble his equipment, for that matter, apparently voting on his mission with inaction.

Several months prior Danish government had signed a treaty with the US seeking to have the US protect Greenland during the war.   This was well within the US's traditional Monroe Doctrine set of prerogatives.  

Upon reaching Greenland's water, Danish communities immediately noticed the ship and reported it to American authorities.  On this date in 1941 the USCG Northland raided it.  Bradley's camp was also raided, and his equipment destroyed. The ship was towed to Boston Harbor.

Bradley was arrested in the United States and held until 1947.  After the war he did not return to Norway until 1979, at which point the statute of limitations had expired on potential treason charges.  He was buried in a Jewish cemetery at the time of his death, as ironically his wife was Jewish.

Hallvard Devold, the Norwegian leader of the 1931 and 1941 expeditions, was turned over to the British who held him until the end of the war, upon which he returned to Norway.  Norwegian authorities did not prosecute him.  Hoel denied all knowledge of the Germans having co-opted the expedition, but he paid for his sympathy with Quisling by losing his academic and institutional positions after the war.

The SS Buskø was released by the United States in 1942 and leased by the Norwegian government in exile to the United States. After the war she was refitted, and already in 1941, upon her being seized by the Coast Guard, her condition had been noted as very dilapidated.  She sank in a terrible storm in 1950 which took several ships in sealing grounds, claiming their crews as well.

More on these events can be read here:

“A cursed affair”—how a Norwegian expedition to Greenland became the USA’s first maritime capture in World War II

Today in World War II History—September 12, 1941

Also involving the Quisling government, on this day that body banned the Boy Scouts and compelled its members to join the Nasjonal Samling's youth leagues, the equivalent of the Hitler Youth in Norway.

A German spokesman, on this day, declared that President Roosevelt "wanted war" while an Italian one declared that American actions required Axis ships to attack American naval vessels on sight.

The White House noted that there was a lot of similarity between Charles Lindbergh's recent comments in Des Moines, Iowa, and Nazi propaganda.  Lindbergh's recent remarks had been very poorly received by the American public.

And the Horsa glider, the large British gilder for airborne operations, flew for the first time.

British newspapers ran an interesting cartoon depicting Hitler's advance in Russia against Napoleon's, which had started within two days of each other in 1812 and 1941 respectively.

It noted that by this time in 1812, Napoleon had advanced further towards Moscow than Hitler, but it did also note that the French Empire (whose troops at that time included large numbers of conscripted Germans) had advanced with a single thrust rather than along a 1200-mile front, as Hitler's troops were doing.

Sunday Morning Scene: Churches of the West: St. Mary's Catholic Church. Park City, Utah.

Churches of the West: St. Mary's Catholic Church. Park City, Utah.: 

St. Mary's Catholic Church. Park City, Utah.

This is the beautiful St. Mary's Catholic Church in Park City, Utah.   The Church is obviously of relatively recent construction, although I don't know the vintage.

Best Posts of the Week of September 3, 2021

The best posts of the week of September 3, 2021.

Labor Day, September 5, 1921. The Wages Of Sin

Cliffsnotes of the Zeitgeist, Part XIX. Making Michael Coreone look good

Monday At The Bar. Misconstruing the law

On Labor Day, 2021

Japanese Computer Commercial (brand name: Mouse)

Wars and Rumors of War. 2021, Part Two.

Cliffsnotes of the Zeitgeist, Part XX. The just can't be nice edition.

"Get a job".

The 2022 Election Part IV. The Film Noir Edition

The 2022 Election Part IV. The Ring

Pandemic Part 6. The Delta Surge

September 11, 2001. Where we were then, and where we are today.

September 11, 2001. Where we were then, and where we are today.

 I was getting ready for work.  My wife was getting ready to take our son to preschool.

She was watching the Today Show, and called me up because a jet had hit one of the Twin Towers.  I came up and watched the footage.

Then the second one hit.  I was watching from the stairs.  Right away, I told her it was terrorism.

We all seemingly know the story.  Another jet hit the Pentagon.  Heroic passengers stormed the cockpit of a fourth and in the resulting struggle it went down, taking all of them, and the Islamic jihadist who justified murder in the name of God, to their deaths.

President Bush promised revenge and retribution.

The nation united.

The Administration soon went off course, mistaking necessarily retribution against Al Queda, to whom the jihadist belonged, with the Baathist of Saddam Hussein's Iraq, with whom the same didn't get along.  The nation soon set ground in Afghanistan, but the commitment was small.  A larger one went to war in Iraq, leading to the end of the Baathist regime there, but a guerilla war against ISIL thereafter which was eventually won.  In Afghanistan, the larger commitment, and one to rebuilding the nation with a democratic model after the Taliban regime that gave safe harbor to Al Queda was removed.   The slow commitment lead to a messy and protracted war.

That war was more or less won, but a guerilla war against the armed Islamic students of the Taliban, a force that exists only because of Pakistan's support, continued on for 20 years.  President Obama tried to extract the US and then reversed course.  At the end of his administration President Trump negotiated with the very entity which had given safe harbor to those who attacked us on this day 20 years ago and then committed to withdrawal.  President Biden, whom never approved of the nation building mission in Afghanistan, completed what Trump had started with an inept and messy withdrawal that amounted to a surrender to the Taliban and an abandonment of our allies in Afghanistan.

The nation will look back on this day with sadness, as it should.  But what it should be considering as well is what its recent acts mean in terms of its immediate future.  We've left our enemies in power and rejuvenated in a region which gave rise to this attack 20 years ago and their dedication to an isolated and extreme interpretation to a religion that started as a Christian heresy and spread first by excusing primitive and male vices, and then spread by the sword remains unabated and will not abate.

Killing Osama Bin Laden and devastating Al Queda has made us safer, to be sure.  But the ineffective and misdirected nature of our following efforts, followed by the abandonment of that which we created, has not made the world safe.

Thursday, September 11, 1941. Starts and Finishes.

 Ground was broken for the Pentagon on this day in 1941.

1942 Construction.

President Roosevelt gave a fireside speech on the Greer incident, you can listen to it HERE.

In it, he announced:

In the waters which we deem necessary for our defense, American naval vessels and American planes will no longer wait until Axis submarines lurking under the water, or Axis raiders on the surface of the sea, strike their deadly blow -- first.
Upon our naval and air patrol -- now operating in large number over a vast expanse of the Atlantic Ocean -- falls the duty of maintaining the American policy of freedom of the seas -- now. That means, very simply, (and) very clearly, that our patrolling vessels and planes will protect all merchant ships -- not only American ships but ships of any flag -- engaged in commerce in our defensive waters. They will protect them from submarines; they will protect them from surface raiders.
This situation is not new. The second President of the United States, John Adams, ordered the United States Navy to clean out European privateers and European ships of war which were infesting the Caribbean and South American waters, destroying American commerce.
The third President of the United States, Thomas Jefferson, ordered the United States Navy to end the attacks being made upon American and other ships by the corsairs of the nations of North Africa.

Stalin fired Semyon Budyonny as Commander in Chief of the Soviet Southwest Direction.

Budyonny in 1943.

Budyonny was a former Imperial Russian cavalryman of peasant background.  He was one of Stalin's favorites and amazingly lived out his life until his final days, long outliving his patron.  In the course of his life he managed to survive World War One, the Russian Civil War, and more amazingly Stalin's bloody decimation of the Red Army in the late 1930s.  Married three times, his first wife died under odd circumstances by a gunshot wound, his second wife, half his age, was arrested in Stalin's mass arrests and charged with espionage, after which he divorced her and married her cousin, 33 years his junior.

He was a survivor, and also an expert on horses.

Saturday September 10, 1921 “Any man who can look at the short- skirted, bare-kneed, frizzle-headed, gum-chewing, fudge-eating modern flapper without having a mortal blow out, should get a government pension"

 

On this day in 1921, a flash flood on the Brazos River in Texas killed 215 people, a bridge collapse in Chester Pennsylvania killed 34 people, and 38 people were killed in a train derailment in Paris.

The north face of the Eiger was climbed for the first time.

Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle was arrested and charged, and his films pulled from the theaters.

Quebec's Chronicle Telegraph blamed parents for "flapper styles", in an interview quoting evangelist Billy Sunday.  In the article, Sunday declared:

Any man who can look at the short- skirted, bare-kneed, frizzle-headed, gum-chewing, fudge-eating modern flapper without having a mortal blow out, should get a government pension

 

Nuuk Airport North

Just because.

The 2022 Election Part IV. The Film Noir Edition

 A story broke by the New York Times, and rapidly circulated in Wyoming's media, recalls the old line that "truth is stranger than fiction", in this case recalling that type of fiction so memorably depicted as film noir.

It seems far right wing operatives, according to the press backed by Susan Gore's money, tried to infiltrate the Wyoming Democratic Party and even elements of the Wyoming GOP.

What the crap?

Some background.

This has been vaguely touched on here before, but now that its fully being reported on we can perhaps go a little more into depth as it doesn't sound as much like political paranoia.  We'll start with the relocation of money, specifically Gore money.

That is, the money from Gore-tex, via Susan Gore.

Eh?

We'll bare with us.

Gore-tex was the product of Robert W. Gore, a brilliant chemical engineer.  It's been hugely successful as a synthetic product and if you purchase outdoor products, it's hard to avoid.  The Gore family itself is notable for its brilliance.  Robert W. Gore was working for W. L. Gore, a chemical company, at the time he discovered or invented Gore-tex. That is, he was working for the company founded by his parents.

Robert Gore lived until 2020 and amassed a huge personal fortune.  One of his children, and one of his heirs, is Susan Gore.  It's hard to learn anything about Susan Gore, although its mentioned that at one time she was into transidential meditation.  Wyo file alleges that she lived in a community devoted to it in Fairfield Iowa, whatever that means.  She also was involved in litigation at one time regarding an attempt to adopt her ex husband in a move that the press claimed would somehow have increased her claim her share on the family fortune.

At any rate, at some point she moved to Wyoming and was a principal backer of the Wyoming Liberty Group.

The Wyoming Liberty Group is a libertarian organization that has an undoubted, and in many people's view negative, impact on Wyoming politics and the Republican Party.  One former significant member of the legislature told me with personal disgust that it saddened him to see how the state's legislature had been "bought", by which he meant bent to the wishes of the group due to its large financial resources.  That was early in its days but now the movement it got rolling has transformed the GOP which is divided between the old party hold outs and those who came up in the WLG days.  The current crop of House candidates, other than incumbent Elizabeth Cheney, reflect this with some strongly holding the sort of views espoused by the WLG.   

There are those who feel that the WLG's views have gone a long ways towards wrecking what was a uniquely Wyoming GOP (the Democratic Party wrecked itself) and frankly, the evidence is good that they've gone a long ways in that direction.  Almost all of the current House GOP candidates would have not gone far prior to the WLG. And frankly, in calmer times, a lot of the wharf and woof circulated in it would be regarded as absurd.  Indeed, as noted by Wyofile, at least one of its original supporters, Cale Case, abandoned it.

Now the New York Times is reporting that Gore money backed an effort to infiltrate the Democratic Party and even, if we want to call it that, the regular GOP.  It's bizarre.

They Seemed Like Democratic Activists.  They Were Secretly Conservative Spies.

Weird.

Wyofile has gone the NYT one better, and interviewed some of the principals impacted by this oddness, including Republicans.

Stun and dismay follow political espionage revelations

Now, in the interest of full disclosure, let us acknowledge that Wyo File is "liberal".  Moderately liberal, in the Wyoming context, but still liberal. None the less, it's article contains some great quotes.   Among them is this one from Cale Case, a conservative member of the legislature who was once one of the early members of the Wyoming Liberty Group who noted the following:

“I don’t really understand why you would try and infiltrate the Democrats,” said Sen. Cale Case (R-Lander), a longtime acquaintance of Gore and a former board member for her advocacy organization, the Wyoming Liberty Group. “They’re not driving the bus in this state, you know.”

Truly.

This reminds me, in some ways, of the Watergate scandal in that the Republicans had the election completely sewn up and still broke into the Watergate Hotel. Why?  

Indeed, this also calls to mind that the Republican Party in the state needs a solid Democratic Party to function. Without one, they split into two or more parties, and are now even spying on themselves.  If the Democrats don't take advantage of this, they'd be completely incompetent.

This has, however, been the year for political dementia, so who knows. The GOP is ripping itself apart with a good percentage of it still following lies that former President Donald Trump put out. So who knows what to expect.

What about the current crop of candidates, to they have any connection with the Wyoming Liberty Group?

Well, Chuck Gray has in the past, but perhaps because he's tacked his entire political career to the hard right.  He isn't from Wyoming and when he arrived this may all well have been under way. A failure in his first race, he was appointed to office when the holder died in office, and has held his seat since then.  As he's a member of the press, although he likely wouldn't see himself that way, he's interviewed members of the Wyoming Liberty Group in the past, which isn't surprising as they were basically fellow travelers in their views, at least at one time.  Indeed, he interviewed Maureen Bader, who was at one time one of their most active spokesmen, although she no longer seems to have any connection with them. Bader is a Canadian and had been active with a taxpayers association there, but she's also once been employed by the port authority in Vancouver, BC, which always struck me as odd for a libertarian.  But perhaps it isn't.

Indeed, before we look at the present candidates, this entire race has the atmosphere of the film genre we noted at the top of the thread, in more ways than one.  We have all sorts of sordid elements.  Spies and secret agents, politics, teenage lust, money, untimely deaths, outrageous accusations.  This isn't a recipe for sane politics, or even a sane election.  It's more like an episode of Pat Novak For Hire.

Well, who the heck is running right now?

Liz Cheney.  She's the incumbent and probable nominee, in spite of the heavy rightward leaning slate of candidates against her.

Robin Belinsky:  Belinsky is a business woman from Sheridan who is billing herself as Wyoming's Marjorie Taylor Greene and therefore predictably endorses the Trump's narrative that the 2020 Presidential election was stolen.

Greene is among the most disturbing of the Congressional Trump backers, so not only does Belinsky make a strong contrast to Cheney, it's one that isn't likely to get very far.

Anthony Bouchard:  Bouchard is a member of the legislature from Goshen County who has been in a lot of local political spats and who is a far right firebrand in the legislature.  Most recently, however, he's been in the news for the revelation that when he was 18, he got a 14 year old girl pregnant, and the drama that ultimately followed that.  This also revealed that he's originally from Florida, something that was pretty vague before.

Bouchard originally came into the public eye through a firearms organization he's central to.  He was also the first well known candidate to announce against Cheney.  He's firmly in the Trump camp and appeared, with Chuck Gray, at the Matt Gaetz rally against Cheney before all the drama hit.  

Bouchard is well known due to his prior political activities and therefore was likely to make it to at least the primary, which many in this crowded field will not.  Now, however, he's pretty damaged goods so that's a real open question.

Chuck Gray:  Gray is a hard right member of the legislature whose first appearance in the Wyoming political scene was an unsuccessful run at the seat he now occupies in the House.  He was appointed to that seat upon his predecessor's death and is a Natrona County radio personality.  

Gray and Bouchard were competing for essentially the same demographic and in some ways have had analogous political careers after having obtained office.  Gray's chances have been boosted by the revelations about Bouchard whereas before that he seemed to be in second position for that demographic.  

Gray has recently started advertising on Facebook quite a bit and is actually taking a fair amount of flak as a result.  His promises to "drain the swamp" have pointed out that a freshman Congressman's power is nearly nonexistent.

Bryan Eugene Keller:  He's a resident of Laramie County who has registered but I don't know anything else about him.  A Google search didn't turn up much either.  It's likely safe to say that Keller, absent something really surprising, will draw very few votes in the race.  My guess is that he won't last in the race until the end.

Denton Knapp:  Knapp is a retired U.S. Army Colonel and a current Brig. Gen. in the California National Guard.  He's from Gillette originally and claims to be generally fond of the Cheney and to respect her past role in Congress.  He had to move back to the state in order to establish residence in order to run.

Knapp received a lot of press when he announced he was running, but almost all of it boils down to "Retired Army Colonel. . . " which won't get him far.  In the last Senate Race one candidate was prominently noted to be a retired Air Force officer and that didn't take him anywhere.  Truth be known, while the country remains in a post war hagiographic era regarding veterans, a lot of that has become shallow acknowledgement and his long career in the service isn't likely to get him very far and may even hurt him in nativist Wyoming. Gone for thirty years?  Brig Gen of the California National Guard?  He'll have to come up with a lot more than that.

Knapp was until recently living in Orange County, and will have to reestablish residency in Wyoming in order to run.  This will also hurt him. After a thirty year absence and then a relocation to Wyoming, coming back just to run for Congress won't be well received.  In fact, it wasn't well received when Liz Cheney did that, which is why in her first race she took fewer votes than her two combined opponents in the primary. 

Bryan Miller:  Miller is the retired USAF lieutenant colonel who has twice run for Senate and lost.  Now he's trying the House against a candidate who is presumed to be embattled.

Miller is a strong Trump supporter and supports Trump's false claims that the election was stolen.

Miller's association with Trump's false claims makes him somewhat distinct from the other retired military officer running this election, Knapp.  There's something disturbing, beyond what is otherwise disturbing, about a military man supporting Trump's attempts to subvert the election.  My prediction is that Miller's campaign won't go far although he'll stay in until the end of the primary as he seems to have a very strong desire to be elected to office and there has become a perennial candidate.

Marissa Selvig: Mayor of Pavilion.  Selvig announced early and has a website, but has received very little attention thereafter.  She's disadvantaged to a degree as Bouchard and Gray have a bigger audience by default.

Selvig interestingly focuses on her dedication to the constitution, which she holds is the "second" most important document in the American system, the first being the Declaration of Independence.  The Declaration of Independence is a single purpose document with no post declaration legal import, so that's an unusual position.  Otherwise, her stated positions are conventional typical local Republican.

Selvig's campaign is unlikely to gain steam anywhere.  Her stated positions don't really serve to distinguish her from Cheney, and if she was to distinguish herself by going in the now trendy rightward direction, she'd be indistinguishable from Bouchard and Gray.

Darin Smith:  Smith is a businessman and lawyer in Cheyenne, according to the information he's put out.  He was the campaign manager for the failed Foster Freiss Gubernatorial run and his views reflect that.  Freiss was a backer of his but has recently passed away, which may have an impact on the funding of this race. He stands out in that he's less fanatic in his endorsement of the Trump election stolen myth while still endorsing it in a lukewarm fashion.

Smith's stated positions on his campaign site by and large are typical for the Wyoming GOP including the insistence that "we" need to get coal back on the market.  The problem with some of those positions is that they fail to acknowledge trends that have now passed a certain jump the shark level. Coal was declining, for example, under Trump.  Regarding Trump, Smith's campaign site has the "Take America Back" phrase on the first page, which is really slang for "I believe the election was stolen" to some ears, whether Smith means that or not.

Smith joins Cheney in being a lawyer, which none of the other candidates are, which means that he knows that a lot of the pro Trump rhetoric that's grounded in the Constitution and what not is legally baseless and he should know its factually baseless as well.  It'll be interesting to see if he, like Knapp, attempts to nuance his position on the 2020 election.

The thing that uniformly distinguishes all of these candidates from Cheney, except perhaps for Selvig and Keller, the latter of whom is a mystery, is that they're all backing Trump to some degree, with Knapp the least enthusiastic about it.  Indeed the irony of this race is that Cheney's stance has brought her a fair amount of support from rank and file Wyomingites while also bringing her the ire of the county parties.  Her original weakness was that she wasn't from here, which was a strike against her the first time she ran.  In that race, the two main opponents split the vote and she took office.  Since then she's risen in Congress and as a result of her stance, has risen in admiration in the eyes of a lot of people who were lukewarm about her before.  She's almost certain to win this race.

Other races? Well, there is one that has a competition, sort of, right now, and that's the Governor's Race.

Mark Gordon:  Gordon is the incumbent, he'll run again.  He hasn't registered yet.

Gordon defeated a slate of hard right candidates in the 2018 election. Some of those candidates were pretty unhappy about the results with Foster Freiss being the most unhappy.  Given this we can expect some hard right Republicans to surface and challenge him, although he'll win reelection.

In fact, one such candidate has announced he'll run, but hasn't registered.

Harold Bjork.  Who Bjork is isn't really clear, but he's started a Facebook and internet campaign for Governor.  From what little y ou can tell about him, he's a self declared "conservative" who is running pretty far to the right of Gordon and who is strongly opposed to the now expired mask mandate.

Rex Rammell:  Rammell is a perennial and unelectable candidate who ran last time and will again.  His views can be characterized as being on the fringe right/libertarian side.

June 30, 2021

The Trib reports that Chuck Gray is receiving support from a PAC entitled "Protect Wyoming Values.   The Tribune reports the PAC is only backing Gray so far, and cites is supporter of MAGA, etc. and also disses Cheney.  The theme is that Gray represented Wyoming values and Cheney does not.

The Trib called the PAC "secretive", but it just hasn't reached its donor support disclosure date.

July 1, 2021

An already surreal political season became all the more surreal as arch right populist Anthony Bouchard went on the attack against arch right populist Chuck Gray.

Up until Bouchard announced his campaign against Liz Cheney, Bouchard and Gray had been fellow travelers including appearing jointly at such things as Gaetz's Cheyenne rally in opposition to Liz Cheney.  Both were on the Trump denial train and when both announced, they did so in the name of defeating Cheney for having voted to recognize, in essence, that the insurrection was just that and that Donald Trump bore some responsibility for it.

Bouchard announced first and Gray shortly thereafter.  I wondered how long they'd get along, and now we know.

Bouchard fell from grace, of course, when revelations about his sexual past were revealed which also more fully revealed him as a Floridian by origin.  Gray began to rise thereafter, competing for the same demographic. As he's done so, he's gained some support in extreme quarters, and Bouchard has drawn opposition from those same quarters.

Now Gray has drawn the support of Lin Wood, one of the Trump's supporters and a backer of  conspiracy theories regarding the 2020 election and Bouchard is demanding that Gray renounce him.  Gray hasn't actually commented at all, at any point, on Wood's support of Gray.  I don't know who Wood is, but Bouchard, in making this demand, is sounding like a politician who is much more conventional than he's been in the past.

Wood is backing the idea of a nationwide forensic analysis of the vote, which is completely pointless and which is based on the erroneous hope against hope that if this was done, it would be discovered that Donald Trump actually won the election.  Some go further and hope he'd be restored back to the Presidency. Former President Trump seems to have bought off on the thesis that is possible, which it is not.  That's completely incorrect on two fronts. There's absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the vote would come out any differently, although Gray has bought off on that thesis a bit by supporting the pointless Arizona recount, and secondly even if there had been an error, once the vote is certified by Congress, it's over.

On the latter point, some people seem to have a rather unsophisticated view of how elections, any election, actually works. They don't remain open for constant recounting  Once they're accepted, they're accepted, any existing errors or not. The 2020 election, therefore, is completely over.  Completely.

Wood apparently has a requirement that in order to receive his endorsement, for whatever that's worth, you have to buy off on this nationwide forensic waste of time and money. Bouchard says he won't do that, and he's now amazingly defending the integrity of the 2020 election.  More specifically, he's defending the integrity of Wyoming's election and come around to the "some problems" thesis with some other states, but he's not sounding like a populist firebrand on it.  Indeed, he now sounds extremely middle of the road.  Gray hasn't responded to his demands so far.

It'll be interesting to see what Gray does.  If he continues to ignore Bouchard on this, it makes him at least somewhat of a fellow traveler with real extremists, something he won't be able to escape later.  If he joins Bouchard, it elevates a struggling Bouchard back up a tad, although probably not much.  For that matter, now that this has occurred, it's a bit of a clean Bouchard break from being pretty extreme himself  My feeling is that it will be impossible for him to overcome the scandal, but Wyoming's formerly most well known fairly extreme candidate is suddenly sounding much less extreme. 

July 2, 2021

In a move that is sure to make her opponents howl, Liz Cheney has agreed to serve on the House insurrection select committee.

Long serving Natrona County law enforcement officer Gus Holbrook is retiring this month from his position as Natrona County Sheriff.  He's been in the Sheriff's Office since 1984.  An interim appointment will fill his shoes until the new Sheriff is chosen in November 2022.

July 10, 2021

The Green River Star ran an editorial specifically calling for candidates to disassociate themselves with Susan Gore and naming a few Wyoming politicians who have received funds from her in the past. That list included Chuck Gray and Anthony Bouchard.

July 13, 2021

Susan Gore released a statement terming the recent news story involving her "disinformatin" and an example of "character assasination".

July 16, 2021

Gray rose slightly more money than Bouchard in their efforts to unseat Cheney, while Cheney remains overall far ahead in fund raising.  Much of Gray's came from a single donor.

Figures for the other candidates have not yet been released.

July 17, 2021

Following up yesterday's item, it turns out that Gray's campaign is largely self funded.

This would mean that Bouchard's campaign continues to draw in donors at a rate above Gray's in spite of the earlier revelations regarding his early years in Flordia.  Gray also finds behind Darin Smith in this category.

Everyone falls far behind Cheney in the same category.

July 21, 2021

I saw the first television advertisment for the 2022 election, amazingly, last night.  Chuck Gray has a television ad he released.

The advertisement specifically aims at Cheney for her impeachment vote and attempts to associated Gray with the extractive industries, while also citing his conservative legislative record.

A Trump spokesman announced he's meeting with Wyoming campaigns in anticipation of endorsing a Cheney opponent.  The Gray and Smith campiagns indicate they've been invited to such a meeting. Bouchard and Knapp indicated that they have not been.  Knapp's campaign was only lukewarm in its endorsement of the former President's claims the election had been stolen and of course Bouchard has been hampered by the Floridda revelaation.

July 22, 2021

The Club For Growth has issued an anti Cheney ad attempting to lable her as a "Clinton Republican".

The claim, frankly, that Cheney isn't conservative, is bizarre.

July 26, 2021

Both Gray and Smith have ads running on the Olympics.

Both are very similiar, taking the position that Trump was good for Wyoming and Cheney did a bad thing by voting to impeach Trump.  The interesting thing about the logic is that they don't even address the January 6 insurrection, perhaps because they really can't.  Irrespective of that, that's their basic point.  At some point these campaigns will therefore have to directly addresss the insurrection, and either adopt the counterfactual version of events, or simply take the position that it doesn't matter, or perhaps that Trump had no role in directly getting it rolling and is not to be blamed for failing to take steps to address it once it commenced.

Of course, they're betting that for Wyoming's voters it doesn't really matter, which is an interesting aspect of this race in and of itself.

Of course all of this means that the state is in for a brutally long campaign seaso which will seem like it will never end.  Cheney hasn't even really begun to spend her huge war chest, and her opponents are starting to advertise in television.  For the numerous people who really don't like politics, this race may simply prove to be just too much.

July 29, 2021

Gray and Smith have reported met with Donald Trump in a bid for his endorsement. The meeting was invited by Trump.

Just by observation, on the item on the commercials noted above, a lot of people's reaction to them is that its too early for televsion ads and they wish the candidates would knock it off. The Olympics commercials are probably the first exposure to the campaign that a lot of people who don't regularly follow politics have received.

August 1, 2021

A huge rally in Texas, featuring, amoung others, Willie Nelson, propsoes to "vote them out", those being the Republican legislators who have been backing a bill in Texas that imposes voting restrictions.

Something that hasn't been hugely noticed by a lot of people, although it is commented on in the political blogosphere, Texas is about to flip back to Democratic.  It'll be "purple", in the unfortunate American political coloration scheme, with heavily Republican areas, but the shift seems certain.  It'll technically be a shift back to Democratic but not really, in right left terms, as when it was Democratic it was part of the Southern Democratic system, with that party being very conservative, and of course also being very white.  Texas was one of the Southern states which shifted to the GOP following the elections of Carter and Reagan.

Since then its marched on to massive urbanization and accordingly has very heavily Democratic pockets.  The loss to the GOP, when it comes, will be extremely significant.

Former President Trump has amassed a $102,000,000 war chest so far in advance of the 2024 elections even though its very uncertain whether or not he'll be running.  We can presume that if the inevitable toll of advancing years hasn't caught up with him by then, he likely will be.

Trump's ongoing legacy is now beginning to seriously concern Republicans in Congress behind the scenes as they're beginning to worry about something we've predicted here, his ongoing legacy will mean they'll lose ground in the House.

August 4, 2021

The Protect Wyoming Values PAC which has been backing Chuch Gray turns out to have one contributor, according to its recenty filings, and that is Gray's father.  This according to an article published in the Tribune.

There's not prohibition on a single donor, or family donor, PAC of course.

Gray has been seen in the past as the primary contender against Bouchard in the right wng race to unseat Cheney.  It's been noted that Gray has had a larger warchest but its aslo been noted that donations to his campaign have been primarily from himself.  Bouchard, for his part, has been silent since the news of his early Florida years broke.  Right now, Darin Smith seems to be rising in this category.  Smith and Gray are waiting to see which of them Trump will endorse.

August 8, 2021

The upcoming 2022 election spilled into the current legislature when the two best known populist far right candidates had a spat in a legislative committee.

Gray, more or less freshly back from Arizona were a completely pointless audit of the 2020 election results has been going on spoke in a committee meeting about his desire to take away the review of ballot results from county clerks, long the practice in Wyoming, and to hand it over statutorily to the State Department of Audits, a state agency that has had no prior role in this area.  He wanted the Legislative Service Office to draft up a bill to that effect.

The suggestion largley met with a cold reception but it met with a particularly blistering one from Anthony Bouchard, who defended Wyoming's election machines and who declared that there's no problem with election integrity in Wyoming.  The embattled Bouchard, who has very much moved towards the center since the news of his early Flordia years surfaced, further stated; “I’m sick and tired of hearing about it. Why don’t we go to your clerk and audit your election and see if you were duly elected?  Because the problem we are having by talking about this here is you are making everybody think that we have a problem here in Wyoming. That is wrong to our clerks. That is wrong to our state on elections.”

He added; “Quite frankly, I’m disgusted that you’re pulling this election issue because you are running for office here"

Gray, who obviously wasn't prepared for the attack from Bouchard, got off the weak reply that Bouchard was "talking about himself", at which point the committee chairman shut the exchange down.  Gray asked if he could reply and was effectively told no and that he could take his debate with Bouchard outside the chamber.

Other committee members, it might be noted, were also hostile to the bill, with one highly critical of Gray's suggestion this wouldn't add costs to the state's budget.

Setting Gray and Bouchard aside, sort of, Bouchard and the other critics of the proposal, which failed 7 to 2, with Gray's vote presumably one of the two in favor of it, were absolutely correct that Wyoming has had no election problems.  Bouchard is also basically correct that Gray has made the false claims of massive voter fraud in 2020 an issue, although I suspect that Bouchard would have maintained something like that in regard to the election elsewhere at least early on as he launched his campaign over Liz Cheney's vote to impeach President Trump.

What we're partially seeing, however, is that Gray has attempted to elevate himself in the competition for the same demographic that Bouchard represents, and seemingly had strongly backing him before the news of his Florida teenage years surfaced.  Gray is one of now three candidates that the Trump organization has been looking into, with interestingly one of them being an undeclared candidate.  My guess is that Darin Smith will receive that endorsement and Gray's sun will begin to set.  His campaign finance sources so far have proven to be largely family money, which suggests that he's not drawing much support from around the state.  Additionally, the core of Bouchard's support has stuck with him in spite of the scandal.

August 10, 2021

The Park and Carbon County Republican Parties have voted to rescind recognizaing Liz Cheney as a Republican and urge that she be removed from committee assignments, even while acknolwedging that they can't expel her from the party.

The move varies from ineffective to self defeating, as if she actually is removed from assignments, the wide ranging implications vary from hurting the state to potentially really hurting the GOP in the House.  There's a high likelihood that the ongoing hearings on January 6 are going to reveal facts which will hurt the GOP at the national level.

Enrolling in a party is a subject of state law, so the resolution, which is the form of a letter to Cheney, really has no legal effect.  It quotes the "you're fired" line from President Trump's television show The Apprentice, which probably serves to show how Trump-centric the entire matter is, even as one Carbon County Republican claimed that the move had little to do with Trump himself, a fairly absurd claim under the circumstances.  Backers of the move claimed it would likely spread to other counties, which is probably correct, but it won't spread to all of them, so it may also serve to increase the growing devide in the party.

Free membership in political parties, it might be noted, is a typical feature of western democracies, so as a rule there is almost never the ability to expell a person from any party. For that reason, the parties themselves, while self defining, also are fluid as to what they stand for.  The ability to expel members from parties tends to be a feature of minor parties or parties in single party systems.

August 11, 2021

And now Fremont County's GOP has joined Park and Carbon Counties' in the "not my rep" letter.

August 20, 2021

Patagonia is withdrawing its murchandise from sales at the Jackson Hole Ski Resort due its hosting a Trump fund raiser featuring Marjorie Taylor Greene.

Corporate action in politics has been increasing in recent years, often meeting with public criticism, but it isn't new to Patagonia which has long had a politiclally liberal stance and a pro environmental stance.  Chances are that this will be met with verbal hostility in Wyoming, but it can be predicted that this will make little difference to Patagonia. The action may make a difference to the Jackson Hole Ski Resort to some degree, however, given that it caters to tourist, many of whom are much less likely to look favorably upon Greene or Trump that the average Wyomingite.

August 30, 2021

An editorial on Sunday condemned Wyoming legislators promoting voting fraud story lines as hurting the State of Wyoming, specifically naming Chuck Gray amongst those doing so.

September 8, 2021

At least according to rumor central, Harriet Hageman, a far fight Wyoming politician who unsuccessfly ran for Governor in the primary in which Gordon prevailed, is going to announce against Cheney and will receive the Trump endorsement.  She resigned her local position as head of the RNC just today.

Prior Threads:

The 2022 Election, Part III. Everyone throws their hat in the ring.

The GOP. What in the world is going on?

The 2022 Election, Part II. Liz Cheney, the future of the Republican Party, and the GOP candidate for the Oval Office in 2024.

The 2022 Election, Part I