Previous | Next
Senate Passes $95 Billion Foreign Aid Bill This Morning
Early this morning (in other words, just minutes before this post went live) the Senate passed a bill to provide aid to U.S. allies abroad. The vote was 70-29, with 22 Republicans voting "aye." All members of the Democratic caucus voted for the bill except Sens. Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Peter Welch (D-VT), so it was 48 Democrats and 22 Republicans that put it over the top. That was more than enough to invoke cloture in the event the Republicans tried to filibuster it, which they didn't because they knew the score.
The bill includes $60 billion to support Ukraine, $14 billion in military aid to help Israel, $9 billion in humanitarian aid in the Middle East, and $5 billion for Taiwan. There is no money for beefing up security on the border with Mexico (despite that being the Republicans' top priority) because Senate Republicans tanked a bill with money for border security last week on orders from Donald Trump.
The $64 question (or, slightly more accurately, $64 billion question) is what will happen over in the House? House Republicans want to help Israel but don't especially want to help Ukraine. They see it as a waste of money, ignoring the fact that what these countries will actually get is not cash but a credit for buying military equipment made by American companies employing American workers, so the money actually goes into the American economy. Also, they don't really mind if Russia conquers most of Eastern Europe to restore the old Soviet Union. They somehow think that if a full-scale war breaks out in Europe, the U.S. won't be affected. We think they weren't paying attention in history class when the teacher was talking about 1914 and 1939 and the years immediately following them. Some House Republicans also oppose the bill because of the lack of border money (thanks to Senate Republicans). In short, there is nothing but chaos within the House Republican caucus at the moment.
If the bill were to come up for a vote in the House—a big if—almost all the Democrats and enough Republicans will vote for it to pass. But since Donald Trump does not want Joe Biden to get any victories—and certainly not at the expense of his best friend, Vladimir Putin—Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) will try to avoid bringing it up for a vote. However, the pressure on him will be enormous, especially if Joe Biden makes a formal Oval Office speech explaining to Americans why the bill is important for American security. If the bill fails and Russia takes over Ukraine, "Who lost Ukraine?" could become a campaign issue.
House Democrats do have one potential option to force Johnson's hand. If they band together and can get three or four Republicans (depending on who wins the special election in NY-03 today) to sign a discharge petition, they can force a bill to the floor for a vote. Johnson and Trump will be extremely angry if they try this, but at this point, the Democrats probably don't care. And actually, though he could not say it publicly, Johnson might be happy to be overruled like this. Then, this hot potato would be off his desk, and yet he could say to Trump "Hey, wasn't me!"
If Johnson caves to public pressure and brings the bill up for a vote, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) has promised to introduce a motion to vacate the chair. On the other hand, if he doesn't, someone else, possibly a Democrat, could bring up a motion to vacate the chair. It won't be long before Johnson is thinking: "Why did I even try to get this lousy job?" (V)
Trump Appeals to Supreme Court
He waited until the last possible moment, for obvious reasons, but Donald Trump has now filed a motion asking the Supreme Court to intervene in his presidential immunity case.
Trump's lawyers appear to believe that the Supremes are, for lack of a better word, stupid. Consider this passage from the brief, to take just one example:
President Trump is the leading candidate for President in the 2024 election. Conducting a months-long criminal trial of President Trump at the height of election season will radically disrupt President Trump's ability to campaign against President Biden—which appears to be the whole point of the Special Counsel's persistent demands for expedition. The D.C. Circuit's order thus threatens immediate irreparable injury to the First Amendment interests of President Trump and tens of millions of American voters, who are entitled to hear President Trump's campaign message as they decide how to cast their ballots in November.
He's not "former president" Trump, he's "President Trump." And he's not "a leading candidate" he's "the leading candidate." And Jack Smith isn't doing the job he was hired to do, he's a hatchet man for Joe Biden. Maybe Sam Alito and Clarence Thomas will nod as they read this passage, but can any of the other seven take this the slightest bit seriously? And the motion is just full of stuff like this, such as claiming that the lower court's decision was an "extraordinary departure from ordinary appellate procedures" and that if there is an en banc hearing, there is a "fair prospect" the decision will be reversed.
And that brings us to the main thrust of the filing. What Trump wants is for the Supremes to stay the decision so that he can ask for the aforementioned en banc hearing, and THEN potentially appeal to SCOTUS if he does not like the result. Again, does he think Chief Justice John Roberts & Co. are daft and cannot see through this? Trump's attorneys might just as well write: "Hey guys and gals, we'd love to waste 4-5 months with nothing getting done on this case. Can you help us out?"
It's actually Roberts who is the gatekeeper for appeals from the D.C. Circuit, so he'll be making some decisions very soon, and within the next week or so, we should know what the plan is, and whether Trump's stalling tactics will be at all successful. Note that it takes five justices to agree to a stay, so if Roberts isn't buying what Trump is selling, then all of the other conservatives would have to band together to try to save Trump's bacon. Thus far, several of those five have shown no particular interest in helping Trump thwart the legal system. (Z)
We Are Family, Part I: Nepo Lady
The Republican National Committee is already a wholly owned subsidiary of the Trump Organization. And yet, the former president is taking steps to make it even more so.
To start, he has officially endorsed his candidate in the race to replace soon-to-resign Chair Ronna Romney McDaniel. It is North Carolina Republican Party Chair Michael Whatley, who, as we noted yesterday, had clearly emerged as the favorite. He's an election denier, and so aggressively kowtows to the Donald that he (Whatley) is at risk of breaking his neck if Trump turns a corner too fast. If you thought McDaniel was the gold standard in pandering to Trump, you were wrong.
Even more interesting than Trump's endorsement of yet another lackey, however, is his preferred candidate for co-chair. It's... Lara Trump, who just so happens to be his daughter-in-law. "Lara is an extremely talented communicator and is dedicated to all that MAGA stands for. She has told me she wants to accept this challenge and would be GREAT!" It's really remarkable how many people are brilliant when they are speaking to Trump, and yet come off as nitwits to pretty much everyone else. Wonder why that is...
To us, at least, it seems pretty clear what's going on here. Putting a Trump in charge of the RNC, in one fell swoop (and replacing a Romney, no less), was probably half a bridge too far. Even the members of the RNC might have rebelled at that. But they'll probably go along with making Lara Trump the #2. Then, Whatley will jump around like a trained monkey trying to keep The Donald happy. And if he fails, or if and when Trump grows tired of him, then everything will be in place to elevate Lara to the top job. Our guess is it won't take 7 years to make the next big move, either, the way it did with McDaniel. (Z)
We Are Family, Part II: Dead Kennedys
The Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Super Bowl commercial wasn't the best one to air during the Super Bowl—not by a long shot—but it was certainly the one that got the most attention yesterday. And while the old line claims that there is no such thing as bad publicity, the fact is that pretty much all the talk was bad for Junior.
To start, the other members of the Kennedy family were outraged, on behalf of John F., Robert Sr., and other Kennedys who are no longer with us. To take one example, Bobby Shriver decreed: "My cousin's Super Bowl ad used our uncles' faces—and my Mother's. She would be appalled by his deadly health care views." So, despite the obvious attempt to cash in on the family name, by implying that he would continue his forebears' legacy, the commercial just served to remind everyone that RFK Jr. is a black sheep and something of an outcast.
Seemingly recognizing that a line was crossed that should not have been crossed, RFK Jr. got on Ex-Twitter to "apologize":
I'm so sorry if the Super Bowl advertisement caused anyone in my family pain. The ad was created and aired by the American Values Super PAC without any involvement or approval from my campaign. FEC rules prohibit Super PACs from consulting with me or my staff. I love you all. God bless you.
Does anyone really believe this? First, that RFK had NO IDEA what the PAC was planning? Second, that he genuinely feels bad about it? Before you answer, note that even after his "heartfelt" words, the ad remained pinned at the top of his Twitter account. In other words, the commercial also served to remind everyone that RFK Jr. tends to be disingenuous and phony.
Moving on, anyone who saw the ad could not help but notice that its only point was that RFK Jr.'s last name, in case you haven't heard, is... Kennedy. There wasn't one iota of policy to be found. Pollster and strategist Frank Luntz, for example, said: "This RFK Jr. Super Bowl ad has been criticized for ripping off his uncle's 1960 campaign. It should actually be criticized for saying absolutely nothing." So, in addition, the ad reminded everyone that Junior is something of an empty suit.
And finally, given the enormous cost of the ad, there was much interest in where the $7 million to pay the bills came from. And the answer to that question is already known; the guy who wrote the check is Timothy Mellon, who is well known as a devoted Trumper. In other words, the ad also serves as a reminder that RFK Jr.'s campaign is all about rat**cking. Oh, the candidate may not see it that way (who knows with him), but the donors who keep him viable certainly do.
Maybe the commercial did Junior and/or his donors some good, but what that good might be, we do not know. What we do know is that 95%+ of the talk yesterday was about the various major weaknesses of Kennedy's "campaign." From where we sit, that's not a great investment of $7 million. (Z)
We Are Family, Part III: What Would Ronnie Do?
Patti Davis, daughter of Ronald Reagan, is hawking a new book about her parents right now. So, she's doing the PR rounds, where the question on anyone and everyone's mind is: What would dad think about the current state of the GOP?
Davis has done numerous TV interviews (see here for one writeup), but her op-ed for The New York Times is the clearest and most thorough answer she's given to the question. Under the headline "My Father, Ronald Reagan, Would Weep for America," Davis writes:
I wish so deeply that I could ask him about the edge we are teetering on now, and how America might move out of its quagmire of anger, its explosions of hatred. How do we break the cycle of violence, both actual and verbal? How do we cross the muddy divides that separate us, overcome the partisan rancor that drives elected officials to heckle the president in his State of the Union address? When my father was shot, Tip O'Neill, then speaker of the House and always one of his most devoted political opponents, came into his hospital room and knelt down to pray with him, reciting the 23rd Psalm. Today a gesture like that seems impossible.
So what would my father say about the decline of civility and the ominous future of our democracy? I don't think he would address his party's front-runner at all. I think he would focus on the people who cheer at that candidate's rallies. He would point out to them that dictatorships aren't created by one person; they're created by all the people who fall in line and say yes.
In short, at least in Davis' view, the Gipper would not be a Trumper if he was alive today.
This is a question we've thought about a fair bit, and we're a little less certain than Davis is. The fact of the matter is that Reagan definitely moved with the political currents, and famously became more conservative over time, starting as a liberal Democrat in his youth, then becoming a centrist Democrat, then a fairly centrist Republican as governor of California, and then a much more conservative Republican as president. It is well within the realm of possibility that if he had been born in 1961, as opposed to 1911, that he would have tacked rightward with the GOP, and would be another Elise Stefanik or J.D. Vance.
That said, there are some very strong arguments that Davis is right, and that St. Ronnie of Reagan simply could not have tolerated today's Republican Party. We'll point out five of them:
- Backbiting: Presumably, anyone who reads this site is familiar with Reagan's 11th
Commandment of Politics: "Thou shalt not speak ill of any other Republican." It is nearly inconceivable that he would
have tolerated Donald Trump's constant attacks on any Republican who displeases him, not to mention the machinations of
the Freedom Caucus.
- Negativity: On a related note, Reagan generally embraced positivity, not the negativity
that is pervasive in the modern GOP. This was true in the 40th president's vision for America ("It's morning... in
America") and in his interactions with political opponents ("I will not exploit, for political purposes, my opponent's
youth and inexperience"). That Reagan had a fundamental decency to him is indicated by his sharp wit and excellent sense
of humor. By contrast, Trump couldn't make a joke if you spotted him a chicken and a road.
- Gridlock: It is true that a big part of Reagan's rhetoric was "government is bad." But
that was mostly talk (excepting in the area of deregulation). The truth is that once the cameras were off, Reagan was
very interested in huddling with Tip O'Neill and trying to get things done. Ronnie would have little tolerance for much
of the nonsense that goes on in Congress today, particularly the sorts of shenanigans we've seen in the last month.
- Russia: There is much, when it comes to policy, where Reaganism and Trumpism are deeply at
odds. But the biggest divide surely must be on Russia policy. Ronnie hated, hated, hated those godless pinko commie
Russians, and there can be absolutely no doubt that if he was still alive, he would be all-in on giving Ukraine whatever
it needs to fight Vladimir Putin.
- Institutions: Reagan was also an institutionalist. He certainly disagreed with Democrats on policy in many areas, but he believed profoundly in the Constitution and the American system of government. It is inconceivable, we think, that if he had lived to see 1/6, Reagan would have stood idly by, George W. Bush-style, and said nothing.
On balance, we think Davis is more likely to be right than wrong about her dad.
This isn't particularly important, of course, since Reaganism is clearly long dead and the Reagan family's influence these days is about the same as the Adams family's influence. Or the Addams Family's, for that matter. But it's interesting, and since we had two other "family" items, we thought we might as well include this. (Z)
Poll: Biden Is Too Old to Run Again
The newest poll from ABC/Ipsos contains bad news, good news, and strange news for Joe Biden.
First, the bad news: A staggering 86% of respondents think that Biden is too old to run for another term. Obviously, that number includes the roughly 45% of Americans who would say that even if Biden was 40, and some additional percentage who are being influenced by the Hur report. Still, that's a really, really high number. Oof.
Now, the good news: 59% of respondents also think that Donald Trump is too old to run for another term. That means that as long as it ends up Biden vs. Trump, the age issue is going to be somewhat mooted. And, in fact, since the 27% who think Biden is too old at 81, but Trump isn't too old at 77, are presumably mostly/all Trumpers, then the age issue may be mooted entirely. Of course, if Trump isn't the candidate, and we end up with Biden vs. a Republican who is not eligible for Social Security, then all bets are off.
And finally, the strange news: 3% of respondents think that Trump is too old, but Biden is not. Do they not realize Trump is younger? Or are they interpreting "old" creatively, to mean something like "fit"? Who knows. But when you include this 3%, it means the gap between Biden's too old (86%) and Trump's too old (60%) gets a little smaller.
And that is today's old news. (Z)
Will He Move the Needle? Will She?
Yesterday marked the return of Jon Stewart as host of Comedy Central's The Daily Show, roughly 9 years after he retired from the gig. In his first show back, he took aim at both presumptive presidential candidates, starting with Joe Biden:
This guy couldn't remember stuff during his deposition. Do you understand what that means? He had no ability to recall very basic things under questioning. Biden's lost a step, but Trump regularly says things at rallies that would warrant a wellness check. The question then becomes, what the f**k are we doing here, people? We have two candidates who are chronologically outside the norm of anyone who has run for the presidency in this country, in the history of this country. They are the oldest people ever to run for president—breaking by only four years the record that they set the last time they ran!...
You know what? I think we've got a new name for election coverage. Indecision 2024: Antiques Roadshow. Alright, look, here's what I'm gonna tell you. We're not suggesting neither man is vibrant, productive, or even capable, but they are both stretching the limits of being able to handle the toughest job in the world. What's crazy is thinking that we are the ones, as voters, who must silence concerns and criticisms. It is the candidate's job to assuage concerns, not the voter's job not to mention them.
In short, Stewart pretty much picked up where he left off nearly a decade ago, when he was the source of the sharpest and most impactful political criticism on TV. With his return, and at the start of one of the most momentous election cycles in American history no less, the question is: Will he be as relevant this time around as he was last time?
The answer to that is, of course, unknowable right now. That said, while Stewart will executive produce all episodes of the show through 2025, at very least, he's only hosting on Mondays. This is also a somewhat different context than his original run, in that Stewart left his post just as Trumpism was getting underway. It's also possible that, at 60, Stewart has also lost a step. Not too many people stay on top of the comedy game into their senior years, unless their last name is Black or Carlin. For what it's worth, Stewart downplayed expectations when his return was announced, observing that even in his original run on The Daily Show, he had very little luck when it came to causing events to take his preferred course.
Meanwhile, there's also... Taylor Swift. We've already written something like four items about her this year, which is really four more than we expected or wanted. But we go where the news leads us. In her case, there's every chance that she could move the needle, since her fanbase is large, very loyal, and tends otherwise to not be politically engaged. If she really leans into trying to get her followers registered and voting, she could well have a palpable impact.
We bring this up again because someone who's proven to be pretty savvy about these things has made clear he agrees with us. That would be one Donald J. Trump, who posted this on "Truth" Social yesterday:
I signed and was responsible for the Music Modernization Act for Taylor Swift and all other Musical Artists. Joe Biden didn't do anything for Taylor, and never will. There's no way she could endorse Crooked Joe Biden, the worst and most corrupt President in the History of our Country, and be disloyal to the man who made her so much money. Besides that, I like her boyfriend, Travis, even though he may be a Liberal, and probably can't stand me!
The notion that Swift's Beatles-like success has anything to do with Trump is absurd, of course. He does have a small point though, because that law made it possible for say, Spotify, to make a blanket deal with her or her label to license all of her works in one contract instead of having a separate contract for each song. This makes life somewhat simpler for her manager and accountant. However, it is clear that he's scared witless of her, since lashing out like this is how he copes with fear. In view of this, Trump's allies are, in their own words, planning to wage "holy war" against Swift. That's a response that's very normal and very healthy, right? They might want to think twice, though, because Swift's fans, in addition to being very devoted, are very protective. Attacks UPON her might do even more to drive her supporters to the polls than lobbying BY her. (Z)
Suozzi Has Slight Lead over Pilip in the Special Election to Replace "George Santos"
Today's the day, as a new Siena College poll has Tom Suozzi (D) at 48% and Mazi Pilip (R, although a registered Democrat), at 44%. The other voters haven't made up their minds yet. This is consistent with the other polls of the race, which had Suozzi up 3, 4, 3, and 3 points. Given that the margin of error for these polls is generally around 4 points, it could go either way, although the district has a mild Democratic lean. The candidates were selected by the local parties, in accordance with New York law. There were no primaries. Having the Republicans pick a registered Democrat is, uh, unusual, but she has won local elections as a Republican.
One factor that could play a role is the state's governor, Kathy Hochul (D-NY). Suozzi ran against her in the gubernatorial primary in 2022. She most definitely did not appreciate that. They are not good buddies. Nevertheless, Hochul understands where things are and how important this special election is for the national Democrats, so this is no time for the bearing of grudges. Consequently, she is now supporting and actively campaigning for him. One issue of great concern to her is immigration, what with red state governors shipping busload after busload of undocumented immigrants to New York. She is a strong supporter of the defunct Senate border bill and so is Suozzi. In contrast, Pilip opposes the bill. Given the tiny margins in the House, the winner of the special election could cast the deciding vote on the next border bill to come up (if one does).
The race is important for reasons other than a potential deciding vote in House balloting. NY-03 is on Long Island and is a typical suburban district. The candidates are campaigning on issues that they think will play well in suburbia. The election is a real-life test in a bellwether district. Operatives in both parties are more than a tad interested in which issues were important and which were not and will undoubtedly be conducting exit polls to find out. As expected, abortion is a big deal in the district, but Pilip understands that if she said: "No abortions, ever, anywhere" she would lose by 20 points, so she is trying to hedge her bets by saying she is personally against abortion but doesn't want a national ban. Will anyone believe she would buck her party if Republicans were to bring up such a ban?
Also in play is the "George Santos" factor. He hoodwinked many voters in 2022. They are probably none too happy about that. He was a strange candidate, but a Black Jew from Ethiopia who served in the Israeli army is not exactly your generic suburban Republican, either.
In any case, Democrats really, really want this win. Beyond the extra vote against whatever Mike Johnson cooks up, the fact is that the blue team is running a veteran politician with wide name recognition, in a blue-ish district, against someone who most New Yorkers had never heard of a month ago. Oh, and the Democrats have spent millions more than the Republicans have. It would be quite embarrassing if Pilip pulled this one out.
Oddly enough, the results of the special election won't be of any use for the coming November, at least when it comes to the makeup of New York's House delegation. The Democratically controlled state legislature is champing at the bit to re-gerrymander the state now that liberal Democrats have a majority on the New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest court. As a consequence, the map for November is likely to be quite different than the current one. That said, the results of the special election could affect the gerrymander. If Suozzi barely wins or if he loses, the legislators are going to make the district bluer by adding neighboring Democratic precincts and expelling red precincts. On the other hand, if Suozzi wins big, they might even remove some Democrats if they are needed to shore up some adjacent district. (V)
Incumbents Are at an Advantage... but Probably Not These Two
The rate at which members of the House are reelected is roughly 85%. That means that just about anyone who stands for reelection has odds that are very, very good. But not everyone. In particular, there are two prominent members who look to be in deep trouble.
First up is Rep. Cori Bush (D-MO), who has two significant liabilities. The first is that she's accused of being a crook, and misusing public funds. Maybe she is guilty and maybe she isn't, but this is her second brush with this sort of trouble, and voters tend to have no problem playing judge, jury and executioner. So, her actual guilt or innocence may not be terribly germane to her electoral prospects, particularly if her current issues are not resolved until 2025.
Her other problem is that, as a member of the Squad, she's quite outspoken, and is often on TV. That doesn't comport too well with the political culture of Missouri. And it also contributes to a general impression that Bush is more a showhorse than a workhorse. Given that her Democratic primary opponent, former prosecutor and judge Wesley Bell, has the opposite reputation, this is a problem for her.
The extent of Bush's problems is indicated by the first major poll of the race, which was released yesterday. It's from a not-great, partisan pollster, so one should take it with a grain or two of salt. That said, the pollster, Remington Research Group, has Bell at 50% and Bush at... 28%. That's a difference of 22 points. It would take a really, really awful pollster to miss the mark by that much. Bush looks to be in deep doo-doo.
Meanwhile, on the other side of the aisle, we've already mentioned that Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) is going to be fighting for her political life this cycle. Mace, like Bush, has the problem that she is seen as a showhorse rather than a workhorse. In Bush's case, that might just be a matter of opinion. In Mace's case, it is as close to being a fact as is possible. Her first, second, and third concern each day is getting her face on TV and/or her name in print.
Mace is not a crook, at least as far as we know, but she does also have a second liability. There's little question that Bush is a True Believer, while Mace has developed quite the reputation for shifting positions based on how the political winds blow. In fact, she's acquired a nickname that could be absolutely lethal: The Weathervane. Critics say she goes one direction on Mondays, a different one on Tuesdays, and a third on Wednesdays.
Because the rest of the GOP primary field in SC-01 is up in the air, nobody's polled the race so far. However, The Hill had an item on her prospects yesterday, and it's clear the opposition is substantial and highly motivated. Oh, and the anti-Mace candidate will have the backing of the donor network of former speaker Kevin McCarthy, who thinks Mace is the weakest of the various GOP members who voted to oust him, and who is out for blood.
In short, if you are going to wager on some political futures on PredictIt, you probably don't want to bet on Bush or Mace. That would be about as clever as the guy (Z) knows who just bet $100,000 on the San Francisco 49ers to win the Super Bowl. Oops. (Z)
Back to the main page