Beware the Oligarchs

In his farewell address, George Washington warned against factionalism (what we now call political parties), while in his farewell address, Dwight Eisenhower warned against the military-industrial complex. Yesterday Joe Biden gave his farewell address and he warned the American people about the tech-industrial complex running the country. Literally, he said:

An oligarchy is taking shape in America of extreme wealth, power and influence that literally threatens our entire democracy, our basic rights, freedom and a fair shot for everyone to get ahead. We must not be bullied into sacrificing the future, the future of our children and grandchildren.

He didn't name any names, but somebody has to do it, so it might as well be us. How about Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, Charles Koch and Jeff Bezos, to start with? Then there are the megadonors, like these:

Rank	Contributor	Total Contributions	Total Hard Money	Total Outside Money	To Dems.	To GOP	Orientation
1	Elon Musk	$280,237,379	$1,049,700	$279,187,679	$0	$280,237,379	GOP/Conservative
2	Timothy Mellon	$197,047,200	$43,900	$197,003,300	($2,900)	$172,042,500	GOP/Conservative
3	Miriam Adelson	$144,185,700	$4,530,700	$139,655,000	$0	$144,175,700	GOP/Conservative
4	Richard Uihlein	$143,497,236	$4,029,235	$139,468,001	$0	$143,462,206	GOP/Conservative
5	Kenneth Griffin	$106,408,884	$1,408,884	$105,000,000	$0	$106,405,484	GOP/Conservative
6	Jeffrey Yass	$101,128,680	$960,399	$100,168,281	$1,500	$100,322,180	GOP/Conservative
7	Paul Singer	$64,804,100	$2,654,100	$62,150,000	$0	$62,799,100	GOP/Conservative
8	Dustin Moskovitz	$50,661,800	$661,800	$50,000,000	$50,661,800	$0	Dem./Liberal
9	Mike Bloomberg	$49,889,734	$752,950	$49,136,784	$46,389,734	$1,000,000	Dem./Liberal
10	Marc Andreessen	$42,316,563	$1,691,563	$40,625,000	$1,778,306	$6,978,257	Leans GOP/Conservative
11	Ben Horowitz	$41,939,202	$814,202	$41,125,000	$4,154,948	$4,232,154	On the fence
12	Stephen Schwarzman	$40,195,546	$3,020,546	$37,175,000	$0	$40,167,746	GOP/Conservative
13	Timothy Dunn	$35,586,700	$1,886,700	$33,700,000	$0	$35,578,400	GOP/Conservative
14	Rob Bigelow	$34,991,500	$815,600	$34,175,900	$0	$34,991,500	GOP/Conservative
15	Reid Hoffman	$34,880,900	$3,605,300	$31,275,600	$27,971,200	$400,000	Dem./Liberal
16	John Ricketts	$32,638,050	$5,708,050	$26,930,000	$0	$32,629,750	GOP/Conservative
17	James Simons	$32,135,619	$1,735,619	$30,400,000	$31,955,369	$0	Dem./Liberal
18	Fred Eychaner	$31,061,000	$2,616,000	$28,445,000	$31,061,000	$0	Dem./Liberal
19	Diane Hendricks	$30,868,415	$2,286,811	$28,581,604	$0	$30,858,415	GOP/Conservative
20	Stephen Mandel	$27,001,200	$4,241,200	$22,760,000	$23,393,200	$63,200	Dem./Liberal
21	Shirley Ryan	$25,551,084	$2,899,684	$22,651,400	$0	$25,484,484	GOP/Conservative
22	Laura Perlmutter	$25,344,890	$243,350	$25,101,540	$0	$25,344,890	GOP/Conservative
23	Warren Stephens	$24,908,850	$2,503,850	$22,405,000	($2,900)	$24,896,750	GOP/Conservative
24	Vince McMahon	$23,934,000	$2,159,000	$21,775,000	$0	$23,934,035	GOP/Conservative
25	Jan Koum	$20,851,793	$736,710	$20,115,083	$3,300	$20,848,483	GOP/Conservative
	Total	$1,642,066,025	$53,055,853	$1,589,010,172	$217,364,557	$1,316,852,613

These vast amounts of money from—and let's get our terminology right here—oligarchs, allow ultra wealthy people to try to buy political power for their benefit. In most cases, the oligarchs (who are overwhelmingly Republicans) just want lower taxes and fewer government regulations on their businesses, but in a few cases (e.g., Musk), they want direct political power over multiple facets of government. This is what Biden was warning about.

Biden also warned about the Supreme Court running rampant (especially giving the president unchecked power). He urged the country to amend the Constitution to state plainly that no person in the country, specifically including the president, is above the law. If an amendment is going to be circulated, we would argue for wording more like: "No person or organization, specifically including the president, vice president, members of Congress, and all other federal, state, and local elected and appointed officials, is above the law and all can be duly prosecuted for crimes committed in or out of office as prescribed by law." Could that ever happen? Next time a Democrat is president, Republicans might be willing to go for it. Who knows?

Biden's final words were: "Now it's your turn to stand guard. May you all be the keeper of the flame. May you keep the faith. I love America. You love it, too. God bless you all. May God protect our troops. Thank you for this great honor."

How will history judge Biden? That's really hard to say so early. We can safely say that the price of eggs, that so figured in Kamala Harris' defeat, will not get a full page in history books written in 2124. In 100 years, people will still remember Lyndon Johnson signing the Civil Rights Act, but we doubt that anything Biden signed will be long remembered. If we had to guess, we think history will remember him something like Jimmy Carter: a decent human being who was the wrong president for the era in which he served. Biden was not a military hero (like Ulysses S. Grant or Eisenhower) or a president who was handed an existential crisis and dealt with it (like Abraham Lincoln or Franklin Delano Roosevelt). Biden was a good person who was president at a turbulent time and was not a forceful leader when the country needed one. For 2 years, the Democrats had a narrow trifecta. Yes, Sens. Krysten Sinema and Joe Manchin were difficult, but that wouldn't have stopped Lyndon Johnson at all. He would have found a way, but that was not Biden's style.

On the other hand, there were no scandals at all during Biden's 4 years, the country had peace and prosperity despite much grumbling and partisanship. Could he have done more? Sure, he could have fired Merrick Garland and hired Jack Smith to replace him and told him to move fast. He could even have told him to take a look to see if any Supreme Court justices had violated any ethics laws and, if so, indict them. Biden could have given more speeches from the Oval Office and appeared as a leader more.

But in the end, his biggest mistake was not making an announcement in February 2023 saying: "My task was to make a transition from a difficult period. I have achieved that. Therefore, I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my party for another term as your president." He wouldn't be the first one to say that, but what the country needed was a vigorous Democratic primary in 2024 and Biden precluded that. Depending on what happens with respect to democracy and oligarchy in the next 4 years, that may end up being his real legacy. (V)

The Senate Hearings Are Continuing

Tuesday, Pete Hegseth was grilled by the Senate—not giving an inch and denying everything. Yesterday, AG nominee Pam Bondi and secretary of state nominee Marco Rubio took their turns. As with all confirmation hearings, they are meaningless. The nominees have been carefully coached by a team of lawyers in advance, telling them what they should say to get confirmed. Once the senators have heard the answers they want and the nominees are confirmed, the nominees can do whatever they want without regard to what they said at the hearing. The whole exercise is kind of pointless. What would be needed to fix it is a change in the law so that a confirmation was valid for, say, only 1 year, after which time the confirmation would expire and the Senate could haul the candidate back for more questions before giving a permanent confirmation. That is not going to happen, so the hearings are just kabuki theater.

Bondi gave the right answer to most questions. She said she will apply the law as Congress wrote it and politics will play no role. She could hardly have said: "If the president orders me to prosecute his enemies, of course I will obey. After all, he is the president." She is much too smart to say anything like that. What will actually happen when Trump indeed tells her to prosecute Joe Biden or Liz Cheney or Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA) remains to be seen. She may not even know right now. One approach might be to stall for a year gathering "facts" and then tell him: "If you want me to indict them, I will, but the chance of getting a conviction is basically zero because there is no evidence and when the jury declares them innocent, you will look like a fool. I want to spare you that embarrassment."

When pressed by Schiff and the other California Democrat, Alex Padilla, on whether she will investigate the Jan. 6 House committee, she refused to answer, calling the question "hypothetical." When Padilla asked for yes or no answers to questions about the 2020 elections, she launched into long tirades and didn't answer the questions. When Padilla cut her off, she accused him of bullying her. She will surely be confirmed, probably with at least some Democratic votes, because she is about the best the Democrats can hope for. Everyone Trump nominates for anything mouths what he wants them to mouth, but at least she has a track record of being reasonably competent, something that cannot be said of many of the other nominees. She is definitely a cut above Jeff Sessions, the first AG in Trump v1.0. And she is many cuts above Matt Gaetz, the first AG nominee for Trump v2.0.

At the end of the hearing, Schiff gave her a quiet warning: "Our concern comes when that loyalty to the president conflicts with your duty. It came to everyone, it will come to you, and what you do in that moment will define your attorney generalship." She probably knows that already. Again, her strategy, when asked to do something unethical or illegal, will probably be to delay and hope Trump, with his generally short attention span, moves on to something else. Of course, if he insists that she go forward, that's when we will find out what she is really made of.

Rubio's job interview yesterday was with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. It went much smoother than Bondi's hearing. First of all, Rubio is a senator and knows everyone on the committee very well. Second, at Bondi's hearing, the senators wanted to know what Bondi would do when Trump orders her to break the law. No one expects Trump to order Rubio to break the law, so he won't be on the spot nearly as much. Consequently, the hearing was much more polite than Bondi's. There were questions on China, but they were easy. Rubio sees China as the U.S.' biggest enemy and thinks they should be treated as such. No senator challenged him on this. He also supports NATO, which Trump doesn't, but a decision to withdraw from NATO won't be Rubio's to make.

One question specific to Rubio was from Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), whose father fled from Cuba. He asked Rubio if Cuba was a sponsor of terrorism. Rubio responded instantly: Without a question. He has long supported sanctions on Cuba, so that was easy. This was really a "messaging" question, since Joe Biden ordered Cuba to be removed from the list of state sponsors of terrorism late last week.

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) wanted to know how Rubio would deal with the conflict of interest likely to arise from him negotiating with countries in the Middle East at the same time the Trump Organization was negotiating business deals with companies in those same countries. Rubio said he would always put the interests of the United States first. Of course, that is easier said than done, especially when dealing with the bad actors Eric Trump wants as business partners. In any case, Rubio is certain to be confirmed with a large bipartisan majority. His problem is how long he will last (see below).

Finally, former DNI John Ratcliffe appeared before the Senate Intelligence Committee as nominee to run the CIA, a lower job than he had as DNI. He said he would stay out of politics and probably will—mostly. He is more than qualified for the job and might even get 80 or 90 votes in the Senate. (V)

Will Rubio Last?

Nahal Toosi, the senior foreign affairs correspondent for Politico, who has decades of experience reporting on foreign affairs, thinks that Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) will be confirmed as secretary of state by a wide margin with many Democratic votes. All the senators know him well. He is an easygoing, friendly, likable guy (albeit somewhat lazy, which is not a great characteristic for someone taking a job that requires you to be a million miler—every year). However, Toosi writes that while confirmation is no problem, she doesn't think Rubio will last very long in the job.

One thing she notes is that Rex Tillerson, Donald Trump's first secretary of state, didn't last very long, even though he was sorta, kinda, qualified for the job (more so than Rubio, arguably). Tillerson was CEO of Exxon and in that capacity knew many foreign leaders because he had personally negotiated oil deals with them. Lots of experience negotiating with foreign leaders is actually pretty good prep for SoS. Rubio has none of that.

Toosi talked to a dozen foreign policy officials and although most want Rubio to succeed, they give him 2 years, max. Some think 1 year, at most. The problem is three-fold. First, there is already pushback from Trump's MAGA base. Rubio is reasonably knowledgeable as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the Senate Intelligence Committee, not insane, and well behaved. These are not characteristics the base admires. When Trump orders Rubio to go buy Greenland, he knows that is a fool's errand and is not going to do it.

Second, the duties of a number of other officials also touch on foreign affairs, including the secretary of defense, the national security adviser, the director of national intelligence, and others. If there are crazy people in those jobs, they are going to try to thwart him at every turn. Even if Rubio takes a lot of abuse and tries to do his best, in the end, Trump will side with the crazy people. When the abuse starts, Rubio can push back, but the MAGA crew will humiliate him. If he sucks it up and grits his teeth, Trump might be fooled until someone who wants Rubio's job whispers sweet nothings (and we really mean "nothings" here), in Trump's ear, and then Rubio will be thrown away like a used tissue.

Third, Rubio is a defense hawk. He doesn't like dictators and doesn't want to cozy up to them. He wants to confront them. He is not an isolationist. He broadly supports Ukraine (although he wants the war there to end). He definitely supports NATO. Nevertheless, he also doesn't want to provoke the bear so much that it results in World War III. Rubio also supports human rights around the world. Trump likes dictators, doesn't support Ukraine or NATO, and doesn't give a rat's rear end about human rights. Rubio is also passionate about Latin America. Trump's only interest in that region is seizing the Panama Canal. They disagree on many other policy issues as well.

In addition to having to outmaneuver the officials with foreign affairs in their portfolios, like the SecDef, NSA, and DNI, Rubio will have to watch out for a herd of special envoys Trump is appointing. For one, there is Richard Grenell, much loved by the MAGA militia, who wanted to be SoS and instead got the ill-defined job of "presidential envoy for special missions." He will see his mission as trying to undermine Rubio so he can take his job. The new State Dept. spokesperson is Tammy Bruce, who has trashed "Little Marco" repeatedly in the past. You think she will help him? Rubio is not a consummate infighter and backstabber, and without those skills, it could be a rough (and short) ride. (V)

Two Florida Representatives Are Openly Pitching Themselves for Rubio's Seat

Since everyone knows that Marco Rubio will be confirmed easily and by a large margin, the maneuvering for his Senate seat is now in full swing, both openly, as well as behind the scenes. Two Florida representatives, Cory Mills and Kat Cammack, are letting Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) and the rest of the world know that being a senator is a tough job but somebody has to do it, and they are willing to shoulder the burden.

Both of them have spoken to DeSantis about their willingness to work for all of Florida, but he was noncommittal. Both of them were optimistic after their visits. Mills tweeted: "We will have to see what the Governor decides. Either way, it's an honor to be considered." It is not clear he is actually being considered, though. Cammack tweeted: "I'm eagerly looking forward to President-elect Trump's inauguration on January 20th, and the opportunity to roll up my sleeves and continue to work for Florida in either capacity." Note the mention of "Florida" here, not FL-03, which she now represents.

DeSantis has not been consulting with members of Congress about his decision. Even Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) isn't in the loop, though he would be a logical person to talk to. DeSantis has said he would make a decision "soon."

One factor strongly working against Mills and Cammack is the tiny Republican House majority, which will be 217-215 until the special elections in April fill three seats. If either Mills or Cammack is appointed, then the House will become 216-215. That is worse than 217-215 because with 217, if a Republican is sick and doesn't show up to vote, the bill still passes 216-215. With a 216-215 majority, one sick member or a member who can't get back from home due to a canceled flight spells doom. While Trump probably can't count correctly to 216, DeSantis can and Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) most definitely can.

Besides, it is rumored that DeSantis is leaning toward appointing his AG, Ashley Moody, because: (1) His chief of staff wants her job and (2) She has already won statewide election and would be a strong candidate to win the 2026 special election for the rest of Rubio's term.

Mills presumably knows all this, but really wants to be a senator. So much so that he has announced that he will be a candidate in the special election, no matter which chamber he is in. Take that, Ron! If you pick someone else, I will primary him or her, so you better pick me! Will DeSantis be cowed into picking Mills? Stop laughing and keep reading. We have more news today. (V)

Sen. John Curtis is Probably a "No" for Tulsi Gabbard

The fact that many senators are scared witless to oppose the grossly unqualified Pete Hegseth does not mean that all of Donald Trump's truly unqualified nominees will sail through. In particular, one potential obstacle is newly sworn-in Sen. John Curtis (R-UT), who replaced Mitt Romney and appears to have more backbone than his predecessor. In particular, Curtis doesn't seem so keen on Tulsi Gabbard for DNI.

Curtis compared Gabbard to a blank sheet of music. He said she hasn't visited him in his office. That's kind of a hint to her. But just visiting may not be enough. He said that questioning nominees actually helps the president by making sure they are surrounded by good people. He also said: "And I think it's not only consent, it's advice. Well, I can't give the president advice if I've not thoroughly investigated and understood every moving part to this nominee."

In addition, Curtis said that "personal character" is a huge part of his evaluation, not just the candidate's C.V. He added: "We're all flawed and the question is: At what point do you cross that line?"

He has even told the media that she hasn't done enough to win his vote. Even though Curtis has been in the Senate less than 2 weeks, he is an experienced pol. He was mayor of Provo, UT, for 8 years and then served in the U.S. House after winning a special election in 2017. Politicians with that background don't make statements like that if they intend to be rubber stamps for the president. Curtis may have been laying down a marker here that Trump is going to have to win his vote every time.

The thing that gives Curtis some backbone is probably not liquid courage (devout LDS Church members don't use alcohol) but the fact that he has been in the Senate for less than 2 weeks. In other words, he is a Class I senator and is not up for reelection until Nov. 2030. Threats of the sort: "I will endorse a primary opponent and Co-President Musk will fund my choice with $50 million" tend to fall flat when the primary is more than 5 years from now. Trump will be out of office and possibly not even alive then. Threats of a primary are most powerful against the Class II senators up next year.

Pressure will soon be exerted. Maybe Curtis will collapse, but so far, this does not sound like: "Yes, Mr. President. Of course, Mr. President. Whatever you want, sir." (V)

Israel and Hamas Reach a Deal

Negotiators in Qatar have said that Israel and Hamas have reached a deal in which the fighting will stop for 42 days. During that time, Hamas will release some hostages and Israel will release some Palestinian prisoners. More aid will be allowed into Gaza. All of this is good news for the people of Gaza. What we don't know yet is the effect of the cease fire on U.S. politics. Both Joe Biden and Donald Trump have already claimed credit for the breakthrough. Both of them are justified in doing so; Biden because his team conducted the negotiations, and Trump because his chest-thumping and mercurial nature undoubtedly had both sides thinking "Hmmm, maybe we better go with the devil we know, while there's still a little time."

The hard part may come next and that will be on Trump's plate: What is the future of the region? Will there be a Palestinian state? What will it consist of? Who will run it? Trump is terrible at actual diplomacy, but Marco Rubio is generally regarded as an honest broker. If he can put together a lasting peace, Trump will get a lot of credit. That said, countries have been trying to put together something that is acceptable to all parties in the region since at least the Balfour Declaration of Nov. 2, 1917. That's over 100 years ago. It turns out not to be easy.

One factor that might be different this time is that the three strongest players in the area—Israel, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia—can probably all agree on some future, at least on paper. Meanwhile, the one country sure to oppose anything they do, Iran, is weaker than it has ever been. Further, Iran's main sponsor, Russia, is tied down in an endless war in Ukraine and may not be in much of a position to stop a U.S.-Israeli-Egyptian-Saudi-Palestinian plan, if one can be cobbled together. We believe that Rubio will genuinely do his best to pull it off, but again, folks have been working on this for over 100 years with little to show for it. It won't be easy. (V)

Is West Virginia a Bellwether?

West Virginia is not known for leading the country in many things (although it ranks second in coal production, far behind Wyoming), but newly inaugurated Gov. Patrick Morrissey (R-WV) issued a slew of XOs on day 1 (Tuesday), possibly foreshadowing what Donald Trump will do on Jan. 20.

For starters, he signed an XO enabling people who have a religious conviction that if God wants their kids to die, that is His call. Vaccines interfere with that. So the XO allows them to opt out of vaccinations so God can kill their kids with measles if that is His Plan. Oddly enough, until Tuesday, West Virginia had some of the strictest vaccine policies in the country, so this is a real change. Current state law requires children to receive vaccines for chickenpox, hepatitis-B, measles, meningitis, mumps, diphtheria, polio, rubella, tetanus and whooping cough before starting school. Take that, California! Donald Trump has already said that if states have mandatory vaccination policies for their schools, he might just not send them the federal funds to which they are by law entitled.

Another area where Morrissey beat Trump to the punch is DEI. The governor ordered all DEI programs to be canceled forthwith. He says his order will protect West Virginians from discrimination that gives some groups preferential treatment over others. Trump is certain to mimic that, although he may not even have to, as many universities and companies are pre-complying by abolishing their DEI offices even before being ordered to.

Yet another XO was about making school choice a top priority. In other words, Morrissey wants the state to fund private and religious schools to the detriment of the public schools. Incoming Secretary of Education Linda McMahon is sure to take notice and possibly ask Morrissey for tips on how to do this.

Of course, Morrissey is going to go after "waste." Government programs he doesn't like will be deemed wasteful. Does that sound DOGEy? Of course, Morrissey's predecessor, now-Sen. Jim Justice (R-WV), already eliminated all "waste," so there will be none left for Morrissey to eliminate. But the voters like to hear this, so why not talk about it?

Still another biggie is going over previous XOs Morrissey doesn't like and getting rid of them. Again, these will be from governors prior to Justice, like Earl Ray Tomblin (D), whose term ended on Jan. 16, 2017. Trump is certain to follow in Morrissey's footsteps here.

West Virginia actually has a Democratic Party (who knew?). Its chairman, Mike Pushkin, accused Morrissey of using "divisive rhetoric aimed at dividing people by race." For a state that is 93% non-Hispanic white and 2% Hispanic, that is not a lot of dividing, but still. (V)

Two Republican Senators Oppose Attaching Strings to Aid to California

Some members of Congress, including Mike Johnson and Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY), have said that aid to California on account of the wildfires should be conditioned on "better behavior" on the part of the state. This could cover anything from brush clearance to banning the teaching of CRT. Johnson and Barrasso see it as leverage to force the state to beg for mercy and humiliate itself, something that will make them heroes in the red states. After all, the main policy goal for many Republican voters is not really tax cuts for billionaires, but owning the libs. The idea here is when they are down, stomp on them. What's not to like?

A couple of Republican senators, though, have somewhat better memories and knowledge of meteorology. Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC), who is running for reelection in 2026 in a swing state that just suffered from visits by power couple Helene and Milton, said: "You got to be consistent on disaster supplement, period. I'm unequivocal—you fix the problems of those folks out there; we can talk about the problems we've created here." What he means is that Congress just provided $100 billion in aid to Western North Carolina, where entire towns were wiped off the map, and Democrats did not demand any changes to abortion laws, election laws, or anything else as a quid pro quo. He appreciates that.

Even Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL), one of the most conservative members of the Senate, agreed. He knows that Prof. Henry Higgins was wrong when he said: "Hurricanes Hardly Happen." Scott knows that hurricanes happen all the time in Florida. And they cause massive damage. And he wants federal aid after each one. What he does not want is a future Democratic president who says: "What's good for the goose is good for the gander. I think this would be an excellent time to discuss your abortion laws."

Other Republican senators have kept quiet, but many states are potentially subject to hurricanes, wildfires, flooding, tornadoes, and other natural disasters, and they know that if they set a precedent attaching strings to the money (other than items related to fires, like brush clearance and having the Space Force shoot down the Jewish space lasers), the shoe might be on the other foot some day. (V)

Smartmatic's Lawsuit against Fox News May Proceed

Just after the 2020 election, Fox News hosts claimed that voting machines from Dominion Voting Systems were rigged. Dominion sued and eventually Fox settled the suit for $788 million. Problem solved? Not exactly, because Fox also defamed another voting machine company, Smartmatic, in the same way and they are asking for $2.7 billion in their lawsuit. Last week, a New York State appellate court ruled that Smartmatic's lawsuit can go forward.

No date has been set for the trial, but Fox is clearly in a terrible position now. By settling with Dominion, they de facto admitted that they had intentionally harmed Dominion, knew it, and didn't care. They said essentially the same thing about Smartmatic. That fact is not actually admissible in court in New York, but the story was in all the papers. It would be a big gamble on Fox's part to hope that they get a jury with zero members who are aware of the outcome. And that's on top of the fact that Fox is pretty clearly guilty.

As a consequence, now that the suit can go to trial, Fox is probably going to cough up north of a billion dollars to make this problem go away. What it doesn't want is a jury formally saying that Fox lies on the air over and over, saying things that the hosts and producers very well know are false. We suspect negotiations over an amount are probably going to start in earnest soon, as both sides begin preparing for a trial. (V)

Which One of These Is Not Like All the Others?

There are 20 standing committees in the House of Representatives. Here are the photos of the chairs of all of them. Which one is not like all the others?

If you guessed the one on the left of the bottom row, congratulations, you nailed it. Nineteen of the 20 committees are run by a white, Christian man. One of them is run by a white, Christian woman. No minorities and only one woman. The collection looks just like America, right? Probably Speaker Mike Johnson had qualms about Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC), but she has been in Congress so long (20 years), that he made a special exception for her, so she gets to be the one female committee chair. Here is a list of the committees, in the same order as the photos of their chairs (e.g., Glenn Thompson is top left).

• Agriculture: Glenn Thompson of Pennsylvania
• Appropriations: Tom Cole of Oklahoma
• Armed Services: Mike Rogers of Alabama
• Budget: Jodey Arrington of Texas
• Education: Tim Wahlberg of Michigan
• Energy: Brett Guthrie of Kentucky
• Ethics: Michael Guest of Mississippi
• Financial Services: French Hill of Arkansas
• Foreign Affairs: Brian Mast of Florida
• Homeland Security: Mark Green of Tennessee
• House Administration: Bryan Steil of Wisconsin
• Judiciary: Jim Jordan of Ohio
• Natural Resources: Bruce Westerman of Arkansas
• Oversight and Accountability: James Comer of Kentucky
• Rules: Foxx
• Science, Space, and Technology: Brian Babin of Texas
• Small Business: Roger Williams of Texas
• Transportation and Infrastructure: Sam Graves of Missouri
• Veterans' Affairs: Mike Bost of Illinois
• Ways and Means: Jason Smith of Missouri

The Rules Committee is a relatively powerful one in that it can set the rules for bills that are coming to the floor (or not), like whether amendments are allowed. Still, Rules doesn't do much in the way of policy, so it doesn't have the clout of say, Ways and Means (which writes the tax laws) or Appropriations (which determines how the government will spend $6 trillion), but it does have some power.

Even some Republicans noticed it when the first 17 members (sans Foxx) were named in December. Former Virginia Rep. Barbara Comstock (R) then said: "Very fitting in the MAGA Era—No Women Need Apply." Johnson apparently noticed this and as an afterthought, threw in one woman to lead a committee with a modest amount of power. (V)

Which Senators Ran the Best Races?

One way to compare the winning Senate candidates is to see who won by the biggest margin. The trouble with that is that Democrats in very blue states and Republicans in very red states can rack up huge margins, but only due to the tilt of the state. Another way is to compare the performance of the Senate candidate with the presidential candidate in the same state. That provides a good baseline. Here is the list for the Democratic winners (asterisks denote incumbents):

State	Democrat	Republican	Pres	Senate	Diff
MN	Amy Klobuchar*	Royce White	D+4.2	D+15.7	D+11.5
HI	Mazie Hirono*	Bob McDermott	D+23.1	D+32.7	D+9.6
AZ	Ruben Gallego	Kari Lake	R+5.5	D+2.4	D+7.9
RI	Sheldon Whitehouse*	Patricia Morgan	D+13.8	D+20.0	D+6.3
NY	Kristen Gillibrand*	Mike Sapraicone	D+12.6	D+18.3	D+5.7
NV	Jacky Rosen*	Sam Brown	R+3.1	D+1.6	D+4.7
CT	Chris Murphy*	Matthew Corey	D+14.5	D+18.9	D+4.4
NM	Martin Heinrich*	Nella Domenici	D+6.0	D+10.1	D+4.1
NJ	Andy Kim	Curtis Bashaw	D+5.9	D+9.6	D+3.7
VA	Tim Kaine*	Hung Cao	D+5.8	D+8.9	D+3.2
DE	Lisa Rochester	Eric Hansen	D+14.7	D+17.1	D+2.4
MI	Elissa Slotkin	Mike Rogers	R+1.4	D+0.3	D+1.8
WI	Tammy Baldwin*	Eric Hovde	R+0.9	D+0.8	D+1.7
WA	Maria Cantwell*	Raul Garcia	D+18.2	D+18.5	D+0.2
VT	Bernie Sanders*	Gerald Malloy	D+31.5	D+31.1	R+0.4
CA	Adam Schiff	Steve Garvey	D+20.1	D+17.7	R+2.4
MA	Elizabeth Warren*	John Deaton	D+25.2	D+19.8	R+5.4
MD	Angela Alsobrooks	Larry Hogan	D+28.5	D+11.8	R+16.7

The Maine race is not included because Sen. Angus King (I-ME) is technically an independent and he ran against an actual Democrat as well as an actual Republican, making the comparison more like apples to pineapples than apples to apples. The winner from the table above is Sen. Amy Klobuchar (DFL-MN). Kamala Harris carried her state by 4.2 points while Klobuchar carried it by 15.7 points, so Klobuchar didn't win simply because Minnesota is blue, but because she is a popular senator who ran a good campaign. Sens. Mazie Hirono (D-HI) and Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) also greatly outpaced Harris, although both of them had weak or deeply flawed opponents, which helped.

Surprisingly, Sens. Adam Schiff (D-CA) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) are near the bottom. Both had very weak opponents. Schiff had more money than you could shake a stick at and Warren is the darling of the progressives. Still they couldn't match Harris. Sen. Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD) ranks last, but she ran against a very well known and popular former governor and she was a total unknown when the race started, so she is excused.

Now on to the Republican winners:

State	Democrat	Republican	Pres	Senate	Diff
UT	Caroline Gleich	John Curtis	R+21.6	R+30.6	R+9.0
WY	Scott Morrow	John Barrasso*	R+45.8	R+51.0	R+5.2
NE	Preston Love	Pete Ricketts*	R+20.5	R+25.2	R+4.7
MS	Ty Pinkins	Roger Wicker*	R+22.9	R+25.6	R+2.7
IN	Valerie McCray	Jim Banks	R+19.0	R+19.9	R+0.9
TN	Gloria Johnson	Marsha Blackburn*	R+29.7	R+29.6	D+0.1
FL	Debbie Mucarsel-Powell	Rick Scott*	R+13.1	R+12.8	D+0.3
WV	Glenn Elliott	Jim Justice	R+41.9	R+41.0	D+0.9
PA	Bob Casey*	Dave McCormick	R+1.7	R+0.2	D+1.5
ND	Katrina Christiansen	Kevin Cramer*	R+36.4	R+32.9	D+3.5
MO	Lucas Kunce	Josh Hawley*	R+18.4	R+13.7	D+4.7
TX	Colin Allred	Ted Cruz*	R+13.7	R+8.5	D+5.2
OH	Sherrod Brown*	Bernie Moreno	R+11.2	R+3.6	D+7.6
MT	Jon Tester*	Tim Sheehy	R+19.9	R+7.1	D+12.8

The regular Nebraska race has been excluded, because the Democrats didn't field a candidate but tacitly supported the independent, Dan Osborn. Sen. John Curtis (R-UT) led the pack, but his Democratic opponent, Caroline Gleich, is a mountaineer, not a serious politician, and she just wanted to bring some attention to preserving Utah's natural beauty. The real winner here is Jon Tester, even if he lost. He managed to do 12.8 points better than Harris in Montana. The message here seems to be that Montana is now so red and so partisan that no Democrat, even a three-term Senator, can withstand that, even against a carpetbagger from Minnesota. Sherrod Brown also did far better than Harris in Ohio, so much so that he might run in the special election in 2026, depending on who Gov. Mike DeWine (R-OH) appoints to J.D. Vance's seat. (V)

The Koch Brother Wants to Keep His Tax Cut

The fight about renewing the 2017 Billionaires Tax Cut Act is in full swing, even before Donald Trump has been inaugurated. In particular, the remaining Koch brother—who sat out the 2024 presidential election, much to the annoyance of Donald Trump—is working to make sure that Trump and the Republican members of Congress keep the poor, poor billionaires in mind when Congress works on writing a new tax law shortly. Specifically, Charles Koch's Americans for Prosperity PAC is running the ad on the left below on Politico and probably other news sites:

Politico is obviously a good place for an ad, since no doubt many members of Congress, lobbyists, and political activists read it daily. If a reader clicks on the ad, it links to www.protectprosperity.com with a special URL, so the Koch brother can see which publications give the biggest bang for the buck. The website talks about middle-class families and mom-and-pop businesses and blah blah blah. It doesn't talk much about the fact that the 2017 law gave most of the money to millionaires and billionaires. The website designer must have forgotten about that. Happens sometimes.

We admit, we were curious and clicked on the ad. What caught our attention, though, was not the content of the ad, which was about as expected, but a little disclaimer at the bottom of the page (above on the right). As you can see, if you give them your phone number, you are agreeing to be bombarded with (robo) calls and spam (probably daily if not hourly) until the bill is passed. Furthermore Terms & Conditions apply. We didn't dare check them out, but we are not optimistic about what might be there. At least anyone who signs up was forewarned (assuming they scrolled to the bottom and read the disclaimer). (V)

---

If you wish to contact us, please use one of these addresses. For the first two, please include your initials and city.

• questions@electoral-vote.com    For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
• comments@electoral-vote.com   For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
• corrections@electoral-vote.com To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
• items@electoral-vote.com            For general suggestions, ideas, etc.

To download a poster about the site to hang up, please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend.

---The Votemaster and Zenger