MAGAt Moses Mikey's latest fatwa does little to dispel the idea that he's s squirm-inducing little boot licking creep.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

1. MaddowBlog-'Yield, man': Speaker Johnson presses Democratic-run cities to accept troop deployments

If the GOP leader genuinely can’t understand why local Democratic officials would resist the deployment of armed federal troops, I think I can help.

Speaker Mike Johnson says he has no idea why local Democratic officials would resist the deployment of armed troops, acting under Trump’s directions, to address civilian street crime.

I think I can help him understand. www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddo...

— Steve Benen (@stevebenen.com) 2025-09-09T19:17:10.198Z

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/yield-man-speaker-johnson-presses-democratic-run-cities-accept-troop-d-rcna230146

House Speaker Mike Johnson realizes that as Donald Trump threatens to deploy troops to more American cities, local officials are not on board with the president’s agenda.

The Louisiana Republican, however, seems baffled by their perspective.

Mike Johnson: "I cannot for the life of me understand how the Democrats think this is some kind of winning political message. Yield man! Let the troops come into your city and show how crime can be reduced."

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2025-09-09T14:40:46.870Z

......If the GOP congressman is sincere and genuinely cannot understand why local officials would resist the deployment of armed federal troops, acting under Donald Trump’s directions, to address civilian street crime, I think I can help.

First, Johnson made it sound as if there’s a national crime wave sweeping the nation, forcing Americans to cower in fear behind closed doors. That’s ridiculous, as the evidence shows.

Second, the crime rate in Louisiana isn’t exactly worth bragging about, compared to national averages, and I haven’t yet seen Johnson demand the deployment of federal troops to patrol the streets of Shreveport.

Third, the idea that troop deployments necessarily eliminate crime has already been discredited, and although it might offer some temporary improvements, unless the House speaker expects to see permanent troop deployments to American municipalities from coast to coast, this isn’t a serious approach to crime reduction.

Fourth, the president has already militarized Washington, D.C., and most of the residents of the nation’s capital overwhelmingly oppose the deployments. This probably hasn’t gone unnoticed among local officials in other areas.

Fifth, it remains jarring to see far-right Republicans talk about the federal mobilization of troops on domestic soil after years of listening to other far-right Republicans describe exactly this scenario as tyrannical. Now, evidently, Johnson sees it as “common sense” — a position he seems likely to abandon the next time there’s a Democratic president.

Sixth, this isn’t an all-or-nothing situation in which the administration offers Guard troops or nothing: Plenty of Democratic officials in cities nationwide would welcome increased federal support to make local streets safer, even as they resist police state–style deployments.

Finally, even if we put all of this aside, the House speaker suggested the Democratic position is a political loser for the party. Indeed, the GOP leader explicitly said he couldn’t understand “how the Democrats think this is some sort of winning political message.”

.....That is, the Democratic position is the popular one, whether or not the House speaker finds this to be confusing.