Imminent: about to happen, impending, at hand, close, near, approaching, fast approaching, coming, forthcoming, on the way, about to happen, upon us

Wow. We keep descending into greater depths of absurdity. Mike Turner, on “Face the Nation,” urged listeners to step away from a truth-based reality and join with him in an alternative reality — Trump world — where the truth is whatever the leader declares it to be.

In his February 28 speech initiating this war, President Trump said, “Our objective is to defend the American people by eliminating imminent threats from the Iranian regime.”

The word “imminent” has an accepted meaning and Margaret Brennan’s first question to Congressman Turner was: “Were you informed of a specific and imminent threat to the United States?”

What proceeded in the interview was sad, and alarming. Sad to see an intelligent, mature man, at this point in his life,  demeaning himself so. Alarming, because more and more it is clear that Trump is establishing authoritarian control — demonstrated here by having a mature congressman from Ohio act ridiculous by defending the un-defendable.

The truthful answer to Margaret’s question would have been: No— there was no specific or imminent threat — not if “imminent” means “about to happen.”

Turner’s answer required an alternative definition. He said,

“Imminent, here, really is that the Iranian regime continues to be a sponsor of terrorism and an amassing of missiles and inventory where they have declared themselves, an enemy of the United States and of our allies.”

Turner, in this interview, criticized Obama and the “Democrat side” for having an attitude that “imminent” is “where people have their hand almost on the button with something that has been completely assembled.” He praised Trump: “This administration has declared that they had information, an imminent aspect of that — that um Iran was a threat both to us and to um to Israel, our our ally, and had the opportunity to take an action to eliminate that threat. That’s important. We don’t have wait. We don’t have to wait.”

He is saying that unlike the Democrats, who would wait to attack Iran, until an attack might be justified, Trump doesn’t have to wait. He can do whatever he wants to do and can change the meaning of words as needed

“Imminent,” here, is defined by Turner as anything that is a threat — even if it is a threat only in the long-term. In his State of the Union address, Trump claimed the Iranians were a threat because they were “working on missiles that will soon reach the United States.” What is “soon”? The best guess is the Iranians would need almost ten years — to 2035.

Margaret Brennan: Which threat?

Mike Turner: We don’t have to wait

Margaret. Brennan: The president said the nuclear threat was obliterated and none of the nuclear sites …

Mike Turner: (speaking over) No no he said that at those sites that we had taken action to eliminate, the nuclear enrichment sites, that we had obliterated those sites. But they had continued to amass missile technology and missile inventory. They had continued, as has had been declared, to um pursue um their intention of nuclear uh enrichment. They had continued …

Margaret Brennan: Rubio said they weren’t enriching.

Mike Turner: They had continued their intention to pursue nuclear enrichment. They had had said and declared that they were going to do that. Their programs had not been completely abolished and their intention had not been abolished.

Again, WOW. Turner, by sanctioning Trumps’ unconstitutional attack, is stooping to new levels of absurdity. He admits that the nuclear program was obliterated and that they had stopped enriching, but,  he maintains, regardless, America was justified in attacking Iran because we don’t like Iran’s intentions — “their intention had not been abolished.” This sounds like a comedy routine. Mike Turner must realize that this makes no sense.

Turner has no objection to Trump starting a war without congressional approval.
He vigorously defends, to the point of absurdity, the spending of tons of money to attack a sovereign nation, an attack he knows breaks international law, killing hundreds and probably thousands. What he says makes no sense.

Here are the most significant words in Trump’s February 28 address:

This regime will soon learn that no one should challenge the strength and might of the United States Armed Forces. I built and rebuilt our military in my first administration, and there is no military on earth even close to its power, strength or sophistication

Heaven help us. What have we done? How could we have given such power to this man? How could congress — How could Mike Turner — be so irresponsible and fail so miserably to uphold and defend the constitution?

I’ve got to think that if we could look deep enough and understand with clarity what is actually motivating this attack on Iran, we’d find the true motive driving Trump to make this attack is what always drives Trump — his lust for personal wealth.  $4 billion in the first year is a pretty good start.  It’s a good bet that there is some angle in pushing this war of choice where, somehow, Trump will gain $ Billions. This government is more and more like a mafia family. Lots of pay-offs. Turner seems to be trying awfully hard to please his boss.

Turner prepared for this interview — and this is what he came up with. He followed the rule for a standard Republican opening — start by blaming or trashing the Democrats, however nonsensical. He then demonstrated that, like so many others, he was happy to enter an alternative world, Trump world,  — where the truth is whatever the leader declares it to be, where everyone knows the party line, and where America is so great, we can do what we want. International law does not apply to us.

This interview adds to the already strong evidence that Ohio’s tenth congressional district badly needs new representation in the US House.

 

Face The Nation

Margaret Brennan We’re joined now by Ohio Republican Congressman Mike Turner. Uh,Congressman, you are on the Armed Services Committee. I know you’ve been in contact with the administration to understand what is going on. The ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Mark Warner, was briefed by Secretary Rubio, and he is calling this, Warner is, a war of choice. He said there was no evidence of imminent harm to Americans or an imminent threat to our country. Were you informed of a specific and imminent threat to the United States?

Mike Turner: Well, this issue of of imminent is really this fallacy of the really that comes from the Obama administration’s nuclear weapons, nuclear enrichment negotiations where the Obama administration and the JCPOA set up this fallacy that we were just going to set up um you know cameras and watch Iran do this nuclear enrichment until they got all the way to a nuclear weapon and then they were going to kick to the next administration whether or not there was going to be a military conflict which is what we’ve come down to

Margaret Brennan: It was a detailed international accord with stages there were parts were to sunset um …but…

Mike Turner: (interrupting) But this this concept of imminent I mean as we just saw

Margaret Brennan: But That’s definitely apart from the from meaning of imminent as a threat to justify US military

Mike Turner: No but it’s not because it goes to really this, this inherent policy that we see — that has you know, a thread that’s come through the Democrat side, that we still see from the Democratic Obama administration’s policies of what is imminent. Imminent, here, really is that the um Iranian regime continues to be a a sponsor of uh terrorism and an amassing of um missiles and inventory uh where they have declared themselves, an enemy of the United States and of our allies.

Margaret Brennan: Yes.

Mike Turner: where they’ve committed themselves to nuclear enrichment and refused to declare themselves as not pursuing a nuclear weapon

Margaret Brennan: They said they were not

Mike Turner: Well actually they have they have not

Margaret Brennan: they have.. ( garbled )

Mike Turner: we have seen even just last year we had the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency saying that they were just mere months away from being able to have several nuclear warheads.

Margaret Brennan: But they didn’t have enough material …

Mike Turner: So this — this imminent issue this imminent this imminent issue is one where people want to to have them you know be you know with their hand almost on the button to to something that has been completely assembled. In this instance, the administration has declared that they had information, an imminent aspect of that — that um Iran was a threat both to us and to um to Israel, our our ally, and had the opportunity to take an action to eliminate that threat.That’s important. We don’t have wait. We con’t have to wait …

Margaret Brennan: Which threat?

Mike Turner: We don’t have to wait

Margaret Brennan: The president said the nuclear threat was obliterated and none of the nuclear sites …

Mike Turner: (speaking over) No no he said that at those sites that we had taken action to eliminate, where their nuclear enrichment sites, that we had obliterated those sites. But they had continued to amass missile technology and missile inventory. They had continued, as has had been declared, to um pursue um their intention of nuclear uh enrichment. They had continued …

Margaret Brennan: Rubio said they weren’t enriching.

Mike Turner: They had continued their intention to pursue nuclear enrichment. They had had said and declared that they were going to do that. Their programs had not been completely abolished and their intention had not been abolished.
They remained a threat and the fact that we had the ability um to to intervene that imminence is incredibly important. This this this standard of what is imminent.

Margaret Brennan: Well, people want to know why. Why now?
That’s that’s why I’m asking

Mike Turner: Because the opportunity is there to eliminate an imminent threat that is a imminent threat to the United States and our operations and and in the area and our ally.

….

Margaret Brennan: Um, can I ask you in that targeting of the Supreme Leader uh that secret thatSenator Cotton talked about, did the US carry out that strike?

Mike Turner: Well,I think this is very important. Um, the what’s what’s very clear here and and I think this is important to discuss. You know, the president of the United States indicated that we were targeting uh the military, military infrastructure um and and not the regime and not regime change. And yesterday when I had the opportunity to talk to uh Secretary Rubio, you know, I asked that question and he was very clear in the answer that we did not um target um uh Khamenei and um the and we were not targeting um the uh the leadership uh in Iran. Uh so the the aspect of that the United States was not undertaking regime change is very important. Our aspect of what the president of the United States has undertaken was this imminent threat that he described in his announcement and and that um I think um his response and his statement to the United States is is an important aspect.

Margaret Brennan: But you just to be clear, you’re not saying that Israel carried out that strike without the US permission, green-lighting, buy in.

Mike Turner: you know, the fact that that um Khamenei has been a murderous authoritarian who has killed an unbelievable number of uh Israelis, uh they have an absolutely uh I think a strong basis in which to to do so. I think it certainly shows that if you’re a murderous authoritarian and you are and you um that you you’re at risk and you it’s better to be a friend of the United States than a murderous authoritarian. You know, it’s also interesting that that Putin just said that he lost dictator that he lost a friend in in um in losing Khamenei. And uh we we certainly didn’t see Khamenei as a friend.

Margaret Brennan: We will leave it there. Congressman Turner, we’ll be back in a moment with more Face the Nation.

 

At the MCDP Reorganization Meeting to be held in June, I’m hoping that the delegates will focus on coming up with a plan for electing Democrats in districts now controlled by Republicans.

A successful plan, I believe, must be based on the reality that politics has boiled down to two forces: one force is anti-democracy, one force is for-democracy. The anti-democracy side is winning. My suggestion is that Reorganization should focus on democracy — and should offer a plan to upgrade the system, starting in the party itself.  The representative democracy we have today empowers only a handful of citizens to meaningfully participate in politics. We need an upgrade to the system so that every interested citizen is empowered to participate. The message from Reorganization should be that the Democratic Party is committed to “advancing participatory democracy.” 

I’m advocating that Reorganization ratify a new MCDP Constitution that empowers rank-and-file Democrats to directly electDemocratic Party officers.  Currently, in the representative democracy system, the Central Committee elects MCDP officers. Direct election would be a victory for democracy, even as the direct election of US Senators, via the 17th Amendment, was a victory.

The direct election of officers would make the MCDP the one and only county organization in the state, and probably the nation, that gives rank-and-file Democrats this power. I believe this democratization of the Democratic Party in Montgomery County would be a catalyst to greatly increase the membership of the local party organization and hopefully would help inspire the reformation of  the state and national Democratic Party organizations. 

The way forward for the Democratic Party, I am proposing, is to do everything possible to get voters to see elections as contests about democracy, seeing:

• On one side, a candidate who offers transparency and accountability and a plan to empower rank-and-file citizens to meaningfully participate.
• On the other side, a candidate that defends his or her failure to be transparent and accountable, failure to engage rank-and-file citizens, etc.

In a Democratic candidate’s platform, the big point to make, I believe, is that the proposals for public policies in the platform are not Democratic Party proposals, not the candidate’s proposals, but, reflect what a big majority of Ohio citizens want.

If the public sees elections as contests about democracy, then, I believe that Democratic candidates will start gaining the votes of those citizens who truly are concerned that our system is corrupt, ineffective, and headed for destruction. Of key importance, to influence such citizens, is advocating for a system of participatory democracy where all citizens have a voice, not just Democrats. We need to show that we oppose the “winner takes it all” system practiced by the Republicans, and, instead, that we offer a 21st century system that empowers all interested rank-and-file citizens to meaningfully participate. 

A participatory democracy party should offer a vision of a future democracy that the party is working to actualize. I think a vision of a future system of participatory democracy would appeal to a large majority of voters. My goal is to make a detailed proposal in the little book I aspire to write — currently titled, “The Way Forward For The Democratic Party: Becoming The ‘Participatory Democracy Party’ “ — with the hope that this will be the basis for a plan agreed to at Reorganization — a plan for electing Democrats in districts now controlled by Republicans.

Every four years, Ohio law requires political parties to hold elections and “reorganize.” The 2026 MCDP Reorganization Meeting will be held in June. Leaders will be chosen and a new Montgomery County Democratic Party Constitution ratified. Democrats who care about the future of the Democratic Party are urged to participate. You can help determine the path forward for the party. The deadline to register is February 4.

Today is January 6 — a date that will live in infamy. We are constantly reminded that our republic is in crisis. The hard truth is that the only way to push back against Trump is to take away one of his votes in the US House. Flipping this congressional district, OH-10, of course, will not be easy. Our Republican congressman, Mike Turner, has been consistently re-elected since 2002.

This sounds impossible, but I believe the big goal of Reorganization must be to find a feasible plan to flip OH-10, and to agree to use the resources of the party to make the plan work. The good news is that of the ten Republican controlled districts in Ohio, OH-10 is rated among the three most competitive. There are many more Democratic Party leaning voters in this district than in most districts — Jim Jordan’s, for example.

Turner maintains his hold not because he has been such a wonderful representative. He stays in power because of the polarization of the electorate into R v D hostile groups. On the partisan battle field, the Democratic candidate is disadvantaged — doomed by the “D” next to his or her name. To flip this congressional district the party needs to re-brand itself so that more and more voters are attracted to what the party stand for. As it is now, the party has been branded by those who hate us. 

The brand the party should seek to build, I believe, should respond to the biggest issue of our time —  the wretched state of our democracy. Without intervention, our republic is headed for destruction. We are moving quickly to become an authoritarian state and the coming destruction of our republic concerns not only Democrats, it troubles every citizen who has any sense.

Right now, the unspoken mission of the Democratic Party is simply to win elections — feeding the R v D polarization that dooms Democratic candidates. I’m proposing that coming out of Reorganization there should be agreement and a resolution that the mission of the Democratic Party is to “advance participatory democracy.”

Focusing resources to advance “participatory democracy,” I believe is key to victory. Here is the simple fact: if democracy in OH-10 was strong, citizens would be well-informed and they would not tolerate Turner’s anti-democracy style of representation — no town halls, no dialogue with the rank-and-file, no transparency. They would demand change.

These two facts then — that democracy is the biggest issue and, that a strong democracy would reject Turner — is the foundation for a long-term plan to retire Turner that I am proposing.

“Participatory democracy” is loosely defined as the empowerment of rank-and-file citizens to meaningfully participate. Democratic candidates should run on “participatory democracy” platforms spelling out, when elected, how rank-and-file citizens will be empowered. For example, a candidate for congress might show a plan for weekly on-line town hall meetings inviting input and participation, might show a plan for accountability, etc. 

The goal for the party to be branded, “the participatory democracy party” was established in the Preamble of the MCDP Constitution in the 2018 Reorganization:

“We the Representatives of the Democrats living in Montgomery County — in order to form a strong party organization that empowers representative democracy within our party and throughout the county —do establish the Montgomery County Democratic Party Constitution.”

The Preamble, affirmed in 2022, currently uses the term “representative democracy.” I’m proposing the new Constitution change this to “participatory democracy.” 

One big change that is proposed, a change that would make the MCDP unique in the Democratic Party world, is to empower rank-and-file Democrats to directly participate in the election of the MCDP officers. This would be a big breakthrough and good example for the whole Democratic Party, to change the MCDP Constitution so that at future Reorganizations the MCDP leadership will be directly elected by the MCDP membership. (Currently, MCDP leaders are chosen by the Central Committee.)

The proposal is to schedule the next Reorganization in two years, rather than four, as provided by state law, and spend the next two years building up the MCDP membership to at least 5% of the 42,000 Democrats registered in this county. The long-term vision for victory is that 2100 Democrats will not just be names in a drawer constantly being dunned for more contributions, but that these 2100 will be meaningfully and regularly engaged in advancing participatory democracy in their own jurisdictions.

Wow. I know this sounds like a dream — that somehow hundreds and thousands of rank-and-file Democrats will become engaged, but, I truly believe that the crisis of our times is motivating Democrats. What is needed is a vision and a plan, the opportunity to be part of a movement doing something meaningful. The idea is to implement a “participatory democracy” strategy in 2026 and to use the next two years to build a participatory democracy infrastructure throughout the 32 jurisdictions in OH-10.

To be clear, the motive to make “participatory democracy” the mission of the MCDP is to win elections. The proposed mission for the MCDP can be compared to an automobile company with a mission of making quality cars at low prices. The auto company makes money by having a positive brand that attracts customer and by producing cars that customers like. The Democratic Party can win elections by having a positive brand and by producing candidates that the voters like — candidates “of the people” committed to empowering rank-and-file citizens to meaningfully participate. 

The big thing to realize is that the Democratic Party by itself, however hard it tries, will not be able to flip OH-10. We win this district by rank-and-file Democrats doing the hard work of building a non-partisan infrastructure that at present does not exist. To envision victory in OH-10 is to envision a very different strategy than the failing strategies of the last 24 years. The strategy I’m proposing if for Democrats to lead a “for-democracy” grassroots movement that is non-partisan, educational and community building. The winning Democratic candidate, I believe, is one who will emerge from leadership of a non-partisan participatory democracy movement. 

Wow. There is a lot to think through. The devil is in the details. I am determine to put these ideas together as best I can in a little book whose title I keep changing.

The goal is to develop dialogue among Democrats who might attend and vote at Reorganization. To make the big changes in the MCDP organization necessary to flip OH-10 will require building consensus long before the June meeting. Please contact me if you’d like to discuss the ideas in this article.

Sincerely,   Mike Bock.    mcbock@daytonos.com

——————————————-

I was elected to the Central Committee the first time in 2006 — motivated by a surprise call from my old social studies teacher, David Greismeyer, urging me to become involved with the local party. (I graduated from Northridge High School in 1965.) I was then elected in 2010, 2018, and 2022. In 2007 I started writing on DaytonOS and this web-site has a good search function. Searching “MCDP” or “democracy” or “education” brings up multiple articles that will show what has been on my mind the last twenty years.

I’ve been wonderfully consistent in expressing some views. This is from my very first post in 2007: The Ascending Issue In Our Democracy Is Democracy Itself

“… increasingly the electorate is disgusted with a political process that, time and again, fails to advance the public good. The irony of our effort to build democracy in Iraq is the fact that our own democracy is barely functioning and is in need of a building effort itself. A consensus view is growing that ours is a very weak democracy and that our government is a far cry from one that is “of the people, for the people.” The ascending issue in our democracy, in my judgment, is democracy itself. …

I would like to think that the grassroots, ordinary citizens, will demand more of their political parties, and will reward at the voting booth the political party that most thoroughly empowers citizens to meaningfully participate in their own democracy. The idea of democracy, itself, I believe, will increasingly drive our politics, and increasingly the idea of democracy will be the benchmark used for evaluating the actions and the merit of political parties.”