View this post on the web at [link removed]

A Politico article we summarize today shines a light on a topic that some Democrats might prefer you didn’t know about. As Democratic lawmakers make the public case that Republicans are jeopardizing our democracy in myriad ways, Democratic operatives are helping some of the biggest offenders. Clearly they didn’t learn the lesson of 2016, when Democratic support for Donald Trump in the GOP primaries backfired, and the candidate they thought would be the easiest to beat ended up winning it all. Now, it’s happening again in Arizona [[link removed]], Illinois [[link removed]], and elsewhere. This risky ploy could have serious consequences for the entire country, as candidates who endorse the ‘Big Lie’ and push conspiracies about election fraud could be overseeing our elections next time around—with some unexpected help. Regardless of ideology, our entrenched two-party political system has a way of breeding cynicism and gamesmanship, even when democracy is quite literally on the line. This is a gamble America cannot afford. —Melissa Amour, Managing Editor
17 members of Congress arrested during Supreme Court protest, Capitol police say — [[link removed]]CBS News [[link removed]]
Biden considers issuing climate emergency declaration, sources say — [[link removed]]The Washington Post [[link removed]]
Biden signs executive order on Americans held hostage or wrongfully detained abroad — [[link removed]]ABC News [[link removed]]
U.S. gasoline prices fall to two-month low with pump pain easing — [[link removed]]Bloomberg [[link removed]]
Congress moves to protect marriage equality after Roe decision — [[link removed]]Axios [[link removed]]
The Senate is nearing a deal on immigration that could also lower food prices — [[link removed]]NPR [[link removed]]
Armed bystander killed gunman two minutes into Indiana mall shooting — [[link removed]]The New York Times [[link removed]]
Texas DPS investigating officers’ Uvalde school shooting response in light of ‘systemic failures’ — [[link removed]]The Texas Tribune [[link removed]]
Steve Bannon's contempt trial moving ahead; jury selected — [[link removed]]USA Today [[link removed]]
Pence supports Trump-backed opponent in Arizona's race for governor — [[link removed]]NPR [[link removed]]
Oh Democrats…why?
Everyone knows politics can be a dirty game. But what some Americans may not know is that political parties will intentionally lend quiet support to some of their most extreme potential opponents. Such is the case in Pennsylvania. Democrats boosted the GOP primary candidacy of Doug Mastriano, assuming that defeating the far-right extremist in the November general in the perennially purple state would be a piece of cake for Democratic candidate Josh Shapiro. Now it’s not looking like a slam dunk for Shapiro, as the state’s attorney general may be getting more than his party bargained for.
Who is Mastriano? He's a retired U.S. Army colonel and state senator known for his far-right views on hot-button issues. He chartered buses to the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, where he was part of a crowd that crossed barricades. Most troubling, he has said the state legislature has the power to appoint presidential electors, and as governor, he would have the power to “decertify” election machines. That can impact the entire country.
Blame it on inflation. As the political environment has worsened for Democrats across the country, the gubernatorial race in Pennsylvania has begun to look more competitive than either party expected. Polls show Mastriano behind Shapiro by only three to four percentage points, well within the margin of error. That has made Pennsylvania Republicans—many with their own initial reservations about Mastriano’s candidacy—more optimistic.
Democrats are getting nervous. Though Shapiro is well-regarded and has a track record of success, Democrats can't take anything for granted. “Most people are in a little bubble, where they talk to one another and say, ‘Boy, there’s no way Doug Mastriano can beat Josh Shapiro,’” says public affairs consultant Larry Ceisler. “Well, you know what? Those people don’t get off the turnpike. It wakes some people as to: It’s a real campaign, and yes, there really are people who are for Doug Mastriano, and this is not going to be a walk in the park.” —Politico [[link removed]]
MORE: Democrats spend millions on Republican primaries — [[link removed]]OpenSecrets [[link removed]]
Snyder: Radicalism comes to Pennsylvania 
“I’m one of many people who feel politically homeless when the Republican Party nominates candidates like Doug Mastriano, who’s not a conservative, but some kind of radical. Mastriano wants to throw out every registered voter in Pennsylvania and make us all sign up again, based on literally crazy ideas about the 2020 election having been stolen. That’s not Republican, it’s radical.” —Craig Snyder on Broad + Liberty [[link removed]]
Craig Snyder is a former Republican nominee for Congress (PA-1), former chief of staff to U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter, and the Renew America Movement’s Pennsylvania lead.
MORE: Doug Mastriano Facebook videos deleted as he runs for Pennsylvania governor — [[link removed]]The Philadelphia Inquirer [[link removed]]
Miller-Idriss: It’s the disinfo, stupid
“Holding people accountable for their criminal action and putting on record the events that led to an insurrection is important. But if we don’t ensure that millions of Americans can discern truth from lies, fact from fantasy, and will reject disinformation regardless of which candidate wins, we’ll be right back here after the next election. Or someplace worse.” —Cynthia Miller-Idriss on MSNBC [[link removed]]
Cynthia Miller-Idriss is a professor in the School of Public Affairs and the School of Education at American University, where she directs the Polarization and Extremism Research and Innovation Lab (PERIL). She is the author of "Hate in the Homeland: The New Global Far Right."
MORE: At least 120 Republican nominees deny the results of the 2020 election — [[link removed]]FiveThirtyEight [[link removed]]
What's up with the Secret Service?
Good question. It was revealed last week that the Secret Service had erased text messages exchanged by its agents on Jan. 5-6, 2021. The House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol attack promptly subpoenaed the texts and other records last Friday, with a delivery deadline of today. But the committee may be waiting a while—perhaps forever. Turns out, two sources have revealed that these valuable real-time communications of agents who interacted directly with Donald Trump on those fateful days are unlikely to ever be recovered. Now, the National Archives is getting involved. The U.S. government’s chief record-keeper is seeking more information on “the potential unauthorized deletion” of agency text messages and has asked the Secret Service to report back within 30 days. Stay tuned. —The Washington Post [[link removed]]
MORE: Karen Greenberg: We can’t have democracy without accountability — [[link removed]]The Nation [[link removed]]
Wierson: Secret Service explanation doesn’t pass the smell test
“As nearly every IT professional knows, with the right resources, a good forensic IT team can gather just about any data that has been ‘deleted’—nothing is ever really gone for good. If in fact the Secret Service indicates that the records are really gone, it could mean they were erased with intent, but we'll have to wait for the outcome of the investigation to know.” —Arick Wierson on CNN [[link removed]]
Arick Wierson was a senior media adviser to former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and served as deputy commissioner in the City of New York's Department of Information Technology and Telecommunications.
MORE: Trump's security detail was 'aligned' with him and 'personally cheering for Biden to fail,' says author of book on the Secret Service — [[link removed]]Insider [[link removed]]
Aldridge: Our absolutism is our greatest flaw
“The notion that there is only one right perspective and it belongs to my side…smacks of hubris and will likely one day result in our nation's downfall unless we change course. Each of us must possess the humility and wisdom to understand that what we do know is vastly outstripped by what we don't know. Avoiding assumptions, keeping an open mind, and being willing to listen to and consider other points of view, particularly those that diverge (sometimes wildly) from our own, will be keys to mending our broken nation.” —Kevin Aldridge in Cincinnati Enquirer [[link removed]]
Kevin Aldridge is the opinion and engagement editor at the Cincinnati Enquirer. 
MORE: Poll: Most voters say neither Republican nor Democratic congressional candidates have the right priorities — [[link removed]]CNN [[link removed]]
I am in total agreement with the article concerning revamping of parties and the Electoral College. It’s time for an INDEPENDENT party, but it won’t happen without changes to the way candidates are nominated and voted upon. I am very much in support of rated voting (i.e. first, second, third choices). —Ruth Ann H., Illinois
As the Jan. 6 committee continues to expose the multiple lines of effort that converged to bring about the insurrection, brought into being by numerous players who betrayed their oaths to defend the Constitution against foreign and domestic enemies, those who never joined the Trump camp or who left the Republican Party altogether are confronted with the question of how one can reconcile with the enablers of insurrection and those who have indulged themselves in moral cowardice. This is a dilemma Americans must solve, for the sake of preserving relations with family, friends, neighbors, and fellow citizens with whom one may disagree. It is necessary to resolve the dilemma in order to re-establish acceptable boundaries of political discourse, instead of remaining silent to avoid the elephant in the room that the Jan. 6 insurrection remains among family, friends, and neighbors. —Steve J., Pennsylvania
The views expressed in "What's Your Take?" are submitted by readers and do not necessarily reflect the views of the editorial staff, the Renew America Movement, or the Renew America Foundation.

Unsubscribe [link removed]?