I thought long and hard about writing about Anderson Cooper yesterday, and even longer and harder about using his name in the newsletter title. It was a bold choice, even controversial. One reader (in the comments) said my focus on Anderson Cooper was “extreme” and “over the top.” But in the main, people understood that Anderson Cooper was an example of the media’s penchant for accommodation, its “going along to get along” attitude of “not rocking the boat.”
One reader simply said, “I don’t understand your point about Anderson Cooper.” I will accept that tiny opening as an invitation to elaborate and contextualize my comments about Anderson Cooper.
We live in a fraught moment in which we have three choices for responding to Trump’s attempt to end democracy: capitulation, remaining silent, or raising our voices.
In reality, there are only two choices because capitulation and remaining silent are the same. Both advance Trump’s agenda, even though they involve different degrees of cooperation. But, in the end, dictators count on most people shrinking into the shadows. When good people remain silent, it becomes easier for the dictator to target those who raise their voices.
Let’s use Mark Kelly and the five other members of Congress who participated in the video about the duty to refuse illegal orders (Sen. Slotkin and Reps. Crow, Goodlander, Deluzio, and Houlahan). They made a brave choice. Rather than remaining silent as the US military murdered helpless civilians clinging to a shipwreck, they spoke out. Their leadership by example illustrates why they were good soldiers and commanders, and why they are good members of Congress.
As expected, Trump directed his ire at the six legislators, going so far as to seek indictments against everyone in the small group. They might still be indicted; they might still lose their retirement rank and pay. They remain at risk for speaking out.
Let’s imagine an alternate scenario. Suppose the day after Trump accused Kelly and others of sedition and called for the death penalty, the 93 additional members of Congress who are retired military veterans released the same video. And then the next day, 100 retired generals and admirals released the same video. And the next day, another 100 retired generals and admirals made the same video. As the number of those speaking out mounted, Trump and Hegseth would have retreated into sullen silence.
But because good and honorable men and women have chosen to remain silent, they are abandoning their colleagues during the most important fight of their lives. The other retired military members in Congress and retired generals and admirals are leaving Kelly and the others exposed to enemy fire, even though they have the capacity to provide cover merely by ending their silence.
Anderson Cooper quietly left CBS as it was being censored at the hands of Bari Weiss, paid for by Larry and David Ellison, to please Donald Trump. Anderson Cooper remained silent when he could have spoken the truth. That was a choice. Just like it is a choice for retired military members of Congress who send private text messages of encouragement to Kelly and the others but lack the courage to speak the same truth. Their silence is a choice.
This is where you come in. The simple but profound act of bearing witness to the truth by standing on a roadside or an overpass with a protest sign is a choice. It is the right one. It is a choice that inspires others. It tells them there is strength in numbers. It tells them not to lose hope.
Kelly, Slotkin, Crow, Goodlander, Deluzio, and Houlahan made a choice.
Their retired military colleagues in Congress made a choice.
Anderson Cooper made a choice.
We are being called upon to make a choice. Let’s make the right one.
Please see the first photo in today’s Pro-democracy Protest Photos. Jane Hines has made a choice. The right one.
Addressing the fraught relationship between the grassroots resistance and the Democratic establishment.
If you are a member of the resistance and you have had the sinking suspicion that the Democratic Party Establishment and “leading liberal commentators” look down on you, you are 100% correct. For eight years, grassroots activists, volunteers, and people fed up waiting for establishment politicians to “get it” have been saving democracy by their lonesome. As we succeeded in doing so again, and again, and again, the politicians and major media commentators were waiting in the wings to explain why they deserved credit or knew all along that Democrats would prevail.
This situation is maddening and demotivating. Nonetheless, members of the resistance remained undaunted despite being dismissed and patronized, often exploited as nothing more than a source of free labor and generous donations come election time. No one in the resistance is in it for the glory or the mythical “Soros Dollars” that allegedly fund protesters, but it sure would be nice not to be taken for granted for performing the thankless task of saving American democracy.
The existence of this situation confuses members of the resistance and warrants examination. Indeed, leading members of the resistance have written about the tension between the grassroots movement and the political establishment. Susan Wagner of the Grassroots Connector has written extensively about this tension. To be clear, the tension comes entirely from the political establishment. The resistance movement has been begging for support, collaboration, and recognition from the establishment.
Author Toby Buckle has penned an insightful analysis of this conundrum in The New Republic, What’s Behind the Centrists’ Resistance to the ‘Resistance Liberals”?. Buckle's essay is the smartest analysis I have read in a year. If you are a member of the resistance, or a grassroots activist or leader, I urge you to read Toby Buckle’s analysis. It will explain why it has felt so hard to be a member of the resistance; why it has felt that the resistance was viewed with annoyance and contempt, even as we were the only force in America that was mounting serious resistance to Trump.
Buckle’s thesis is that the grassroots resistance identified Trump’s existential threat early and acted quickly through self-help and self-organization, leaving establishment politicians and consultants sputtering, “But that’s not how it’s done!” The resentment lingered until it was undeniable that the resistance was right about Trump and that mass protests were an essential part of the toolkit for defending democracy. See, e.g., the people of Minneapolis vs ICE.
Still, per Buckle, the establishment’s suspicion and resentment of the resistance movement lingers.
Buckle writes,
Centrist columnists want the power of leading the coalition without any responsibility. They assign to liberals and the left responsibility without power. We are blamed for election losses, but we may not set election strategy. We are responsible for liberalism’s image, but we are not given its loudest megaphones. And now, even talking about us seems to send them spiraling into unprocessed feelings of masculine inadequacy.
Resistance liberals have stopped accepting this. Our numbers have grown. We are now the majority of votes on our side, and I suspect the majority of those protesting in No Kings, or heroically resisting ICE. Contrary to stereotypes, we are a cross-class coalition from every corner of America, representing tens of millions of people.
This is what we mean when we say we “got it right.” It’s not patting ourselves on the back or being mean for the sake of it. Resistance liberalism is asserting that it should be listened to. That our strategy is the correct one. And that we are ready to lead the antifascist coalition.
There is much more in Buckle’s essay worthy of consideration, and I commend it to your attention.
The good news is that members of the resistance are literally saving democracy. The bad news is that no one will thank you in this lifetime—in part because we are citizen volunteers who stepped into the breach when other institutions faltered. But somewhere in the future, generations hence, a new voter will pause for a moment, reflecting on the people who ensured that the right to vote would endure after democracy triumphed over Trump’s attempt to destroy the Constitution.
We will be nameless, remembered collectively as a part of a—“What was it called?” “A resistance movement?”--that held the ground for future generations. That fleeting moment of half-forgotten remembrance will be our recognition. But our reward will be the liberty we gift to our children and grandchildren.
CBS censors interview of James Talarico on the Stephen Colbert Show
Texas legislator and Democratic US Senate candidate James Talarico was scheduled to be interviewed by Stephen Colbert on Monday evening. But CBS’s lawyers told Colbert that he could not interview Talarico because doing so would violate the “fairness doctrine” that governs appearances by political candidates. That claim was bogus for the reasons Jay Kuo explained in his Substack, Censoring Colbert and Talarico.
Kuo also notes that censoring Talarico had the opposite of the intended effect:
The Trump White House is censoring programs and politicians it views as threats, but it’s forgetting the Streisand Effect. Whenever you suppress information from the public, it only leads to greater attention.
The “online” version of the censored Talarico interview has garnered millions of views (and counting). Improbably, Talarico’s online interview exceeded the audience for Colbert’s interview of Taylor Swift.
You can watch Colbert’s interview with James Talarico here: Rep. James Talarico On Confronting Christian Nationalism, And Strange Days In The Texas Legislature.
It is worth watching to support Talarico and Colbert, and to push back against Trump and his partisan head of the FCC, Brendan Carr.
You should also watch Jen Psaki’s interview with the other Democrat in the Texas senatorial race, Jasmine Crockett. See MSNow, Rep. Crockett SPEAKS OUT on CBS Colbert controversy with her opponent.
At the center of this controversy is CBS's ongoing capitulation to Trump. The “fairness doctrine” rule does not apply to talk shows, and Brendan Carr cannot unilaterally change the rule to make it so. See Texas Tribune, Stephen Colbert blasts CBS for nixing James Talarico interview.
Brendan Carr, the FCC Commissioner, said only that he was “thinking about” changing the rule, but had not done so. CBS decided to “obey in advance.”
Per the Texas Tribune, Colbert said,
Let’s just call this what it is: Donald Trump’s administration wants to silence anyone who says anything bad about Trump on TV, because all Trump does is watch TV, OK?” Colbert said. He added that Carr merely said in the Jan. 21 guidance that he was considering dropping the exemption for talk shows.
“He hasn’t done away with it yet, but my network is unilaterally enforcing it as if he had,” Colbert said.
So, rather than fighting to defend free speech, CBS is proactively implementing restrictions on free speech that have yet to be promulgated or approved. The moral collapse of CBS is complete. It has not merely capitulated. It is actively collaborating with Trump to enforce his MAGA cultural agenda.
If you are worried about the midterms, read this.
Nicholas Grossman has published an important article in The Bulwark, Trump Can’t Steal the Midterms. If you are worried that Trump will “cancel” or “rig” the midterms, I urge you to read Grossman’s article. He addresses (and disposes of) the various scenarios that are circulating in the blogosphere about Trump’s plan to subvert the midterms.
To be clear, Grossman isn’t saying we shouldn’t be worried. To the contrary, he says we should be vigilant but realistic about Trump’s ability to affect the outcome.
Grossman also addresses the damage done by those who insist that Trump has a hidden superpower to steal the midterms. Those who reject every argument to the contrary are undermining confidence in the system. Per Grossman,
What doesn’t make sense, what’s actively detrimental, is searching for One Weird Trick that’ll kill off the Constitution, and insisting Trump will pull it off, even if it’s not possible to explain step by step how. To indulge in that kind of speculation is to grant the regime power it does not have, raising anxiety, disincentivizing voting, and discouraging societal resistance.
In fairness, Grossman believes that Trump is a bigger threat to the 2028 election. But let’s slay one conspiracy theory at a time.
Opportunities for Reader Engagement.
Elders Action Network on Wednesday, Feb 17
Reminder that I will join Elders Taking Action on Wednesday, February 18, at 10 am Pacific / 1:00 pm Eastern. I will speak for 15 minutes and take questions for 45 minutes. Register here: Democracy Forum Speaker Series Featuring Robert Hubbell — Elders Action Network (There is no fee for this event, though we ask for donations after registration.)
What Does the Constitution Actually Say?
It seems that every day, the Trump regime assaults the Constitution, both in word and deed. As a result, references to the Constitution have been rampant throughout the legacy media, independent news sources and social media platforms, to say nothing of the talking heads who appear on cable news. The language in the Constitution is challenging to understand, to say the least, so it’s no wonder people are confused! We need an expert to clarify its meaning and answer our questions.
That’s why SL SGV has invited one of the best to hold a Constitution workshop for us. BEN SHEEHAN, best-selling author of What Does the Constitution Actually Say?, is also the host, writer and executive producer of Civics Made Easy, a video series on PBS platforms which explores the fundamentals of American democracy. During a one-hour workshop, Ben will break down the meaning of some of the Articles of and Amendments to the Constitution, which have been the focus of so much attention since Trump took office. After his talk, Ben will take questions from the audience.
When: Saturday, March 7, 10:00 am – 11:00 am PST
Where: Zoom
How: Sign up here.
Concluding Thoughts
The Reverend Jesse Jackson died on Tuesday, February 17, 2026. He was a leader in the Civil Rights Movement for half a century. He delivered many great speeches, but one of his most significant was his “Common Ground and Common Sense” speech at the 1988 Democratic National Convention. The speech is here: Jesse Jackson 1988 Democratic National Convention Speech.
Reverend Jackson was a link to some of the most important moments in the Civil Rights era. He was often at the side of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, and was at the Lorraine Motel on the day MLK was assassinated.
There is much to say about Reverend Jackson, but he was notable for the breadth of his commitment to social justice and equality. Per a biography published in connection with a commencement speech at Morgan University,
The Reverend Jesse Louis Jackson, Sr., founder and president of the Rainbow PUSH Coalition, is one of America’s foremost civil rights, religious and political figures. Over the past forty years, he has played a pivotal role in virtually every movement for empowerment, peace, civil rights, gender equality, and economic and social justice. On August 9, 2000, President Bill Clinton awarded Reverend Jackson the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation’s highest civilian honor.
I encourage readers who had personal experiences with Reverend Jackson to publish them in the Comment section or email them to me at rbhubbell@gmail.com, and I will post them.
Talk to you tomorrow!