Bipartisan Deal Is Back on Track

The on-again, off-again bipartisan deal on infrastructure appears to be on again today, although its ultimate passage is still far from certain. Getting 10 or 20 senators who want to prove that bipartisanship is still alive and well is a different task from getting 60 votes in the Senate for the final bill, particularly when many Senate conservatives don't want any bill at all while many Senate progressives want a bill, but not this bill.

What the bill includes is this:

• $110 billion for roads, bridges, and transportation
•   $73 billion for power infrastructure and clean energy
•   $66 billion for passenger and freight rail
•   $65 billion for broadband Internet access
•   $55 billion for clean drinking water
•   $39 billion for public transit modernization
•   $25 billion for airports
•   $21 billion for cleaning up environmental messes
•   $17 billion for ports
•   $11 billion for transportation safety
•     $8 billion for building a network of chargers for electric cars
•     $5 billion for low-emission buses
•     $1 billion for demolishing infrastructure that divided communities

Spending is rarely the problem on bills, though. It's paying for it where the trouble comes in. The bill is expected to require $550 billion in new spending and around another $500 billion taken from existing programs. It is still vague where that money is coming from, given the Republicans' insistence on no new taxes. One thing that was mentioned was corporate user fees, whatever that is. Also, unspent COVID-19 funds will be repurposed. The government will also try to get some money from tax enforcement relating to cryptocurrencies. A lot of smoke and mirrors will be needed to get to $1 trillion, though.

But the bill has another enemy besides conservative Republicans and progressive Democrats: Donald Trump. He wants the bill scuttled and is actively working with allies in Congress to kill it. He claims he is worried about it causing inflation. But with unemployment still so high, few economists see inflation as a real threat at the moment. No, his real objection is that Joe Biden will get credit for the bill and not Donald Trump. Adding a few billion here and there for his pet projects isn't going to change that. Of course, he could have tried to pass an infrastructure bill when he was president. However, the self-proclaimed dealmaker had no actual interest in legislation, so he never tried very hard. "Infrastructure Week" became a punch line after a while.

Late yesterday, the Senate voted to start debate on the bill. Starting debate is not the same as passing the bill as there will be many amendments offered, some of which will be hotly debated. How things will be paid for is sure to be contentious. Nevertheless, the motion to proceed is a start in getting the bill through the Senate. (V)

Republicans Are Going after Cheney and Kinzinger

It was to be expected, of course, but Trumpy Republicans—who are attracted to the national spotlight like a moth to a flame—are already attacking Reps. Liz Cheney (R-WY) and Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) for their stellar performances on Tuesday. The head of the House Freedom Caucus, Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ), called for House Republicans to purge them from the Republican conference. Others were a little kinder. Rep. Bob Good (R-VA) said: "I think they should be removed from their committees as Republicans." Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO) has a different approach. She merely wants them banned from private caucus meetings. Rep. Debbie Lesko (R-AZ) was less specific, but more open. She merely called for revenge. That really nails it.

The outcry on the far right and demand for their heads on pikes is causing yet another headache for Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), who is not exactly anyone's idea of a bold, decisive, widely revered leader. Formally punishing them one way or another would highlight the split within the Party between the Trumpists and the non-Trumpists. It would also make it clear that House Republicans are on the side of the Trumpists. That will not play well in the suburbs in 2022, with socially liberal but fiscally conservative college-educated moderate (former?) Republicans.

But Cheney and Kinzinger in the conference would exacerbate internal discord and generate fights on many issues during internal meetings. This would distract the leadership from focusing on Joe Biden.

Faced with this problem, the House Republican leadership—and we use that term because it is the official one, not because the people in charge of it have demonstrated it—kicked the can down the road. McCarthy & Co. didn't take action on any of the specific requests right now. Instead, they will form a committee to think about the problem. This strategy could backfire on McCarthy spectacularly if the Republicans narrowly capture the House in 2022. McCarthy is clearly lusting after the speaker's gavel. The speaker is chosen by the entire House, not by the majority party, so if two dozen members of the Freedom Caucus vote for Biggs as speaker, McCarthy won't get the job.

Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY), a former moderate who has enthusiastically accepted the Faustian bargain of being Trumpier-than-thou right now and worrying about the consequences later, yesterday said: "Nancy Pelosi bears responsibility as Speaker of the House for the tragedy that occurred on Jan. 6." This elicited an immediate response from Cheney: "If I were saying the things Stefanik is saying, I'd be deeply ashamed of myself." Clearly Cheney expected blowback and is not fazed by it. Neither is Kinzinger, who said: "This is a historic moment and this is a democracy-defending moment. No matter the consequences, me [sic], and I know Liz, will stand for democracy." (V)

Too Little, Too Late

House Republicans aren't the only ones going after Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger. So is conservative columnist Mona Charen, though from the other direction. While House Republicans are attacking the pair for not being loyal to Trump, Charen is attacking them for being far too loyal to him. Everything Charen notes is well known, but seems to be forgotten at the moment, especially by Democrats who are suddenly in love with the pair.

Writing for The Bulwark, Charen notes that in July 2020, Cheney appeared on Fox and Friends to say that while she disagreed with Donald Trump's plans to withdraw from Afghanistan, it was really important that he be reelected. Even after the disastrous first debate, in which Trump simply yelled like a stuck pig while Biden tried to answer the questions, she continued to support him. The former president's handling of COVID-19 didn't bother her. Surprisingly, even on foreign policy she was largely with him (except for Afghanistan). She voted with him on most bills. She also voted against Trump's first impeachment (as did Kinzinger). In short, both of them supported and enabled Trump from the beginning up until Jan. 6. They both wanted him as president—only they wanted that via a legitimate election, not via a coup.

Charen says that Trump supporters may claim that they are simply carrying out the voters' wishes, but the voters' wishes aren't formulated in a vacuum. They get their cues from Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity but also from Republican politicians, including Cheney and Kinzinger, who were big fans of Trump until Jan. 6. So it is important to realize their gripe with him is about process, not content: They wanted him to win the election, not steal it.

Charen concludes with: "To speak up now, well, it's better than nothing. But it's a little like saying you'll take away a drunk's driver's license after he crashed into and killed an 8-year-old. What about all of those times when you saw him get behind the wheel after five drinks and did nothing?" (V)

Pelosi Calls McCarthy a Moron

Politics ain't beanball, but usually congressional leaders don't call the leaders of the other party "morons," "idiots," or "imbeciles." Nevertheless, yesterday Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said of Kevin McCarthy: "He's such a moron." The remark came after McCarthy complained about bringing masks back to the House on account of the surging Delta variant of the coronavirus. He said: "Make no mistake—the threat of bringing masks back is not a decision based on science, but a decision conjured up by liberal government officials who want to continue to live in a perpetual pandemic state." Pelosi is not one to make off-the-cuff remarks. She knew exactly what she was saying. It was fully intentional. As more evidence of that, her deputy chief of staff, Drew Hammill, reiterated Pelosi's comment, saying that the Speaker absolutely believes that to say this is "not a decision based on science" is "moronic." Hammill would never have said that without the approval of his boss.

This spat began when the Capitol's attending physician issued a memo saying that mask wearing is now mandatory everywhere in the building. Some Republicans are already defying the order and refusing to wear masks on the floor of the House in order to demonstrate that their freedom not to wear a mask is more important than anyone else's health.

So what will happen next? Lawsuits! It's the American Way. In January, the House voted to impose a fine of $500 for the first offense of going maskless when it is required and $2,500 for the second offense. The fine is to be taken out of the offenders' paychecks, eliminating the problem of what to do when the offender announces: "I'm not going to pay, so there."

Anyhow, Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), Thomas Massie (R-KY), and Ralph Norman (R-SC) have already sued Pelosi for the mask rule, claiming the fines are unconstitutional based on the First and Twenty-Seventh Amendments. In the former case the plaintiffs are claiming that not wearing a mask is a protected form of speech (kind of like saying "f*** you" without using any words). In the latter case the argument is that a change in legislators' pay may not take effect until a new House election has been held.

Will the courts even take up the case? They might not. The Constitution explicitly gives each chamber of Congress the power to make its own rules. Pelosi is surely going to claim that since a majority of the House voted for the fine rule, it is none of the courts' business to examine it. It is doubtful that the courts will even want to get involved, since if they decided against Pelosi and she continued to deduct the fines from the offenders' paychecks on the grounds that the courts have no jurisdiction over House rules, what could the courts do?

Pelosi is probably going to win this one, but outside the House, the mask wars are roaring back to life. On Tuesday, the CDC said that even vaccinated people needed to wear masks in areas where the Delta variant of the coronavirus is raging, and that in schools, everyone should wear a mask. Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) immediately announced that he wasn't going to pay any attention to the CDC and said that in Florida, parents, not the CDC, would determine whether their children should wear masks in school. Of course, the foreseeable consequence of this decision is that there will be many outbreaks of COVID-19 in schools starting in August and schools may be forced to close. If that happens and some parents are forced to take off from work and become babysitters all day (again), they are not going to be happy. It will be interesting to see whom they blame. For our part, we're pretty sure this is all the fault of critical race theory.

While we are on the subject of blame, on Tuesday, the New York Times ran a story about how vaccinated people are getting increasingly angry with unvaccinated people for keeping the pandemic alive. That article didn't use the word "moron," because that term has been deprecated by psychologists who measure intelligence, but reading the piece gives one the feeling that some of the people interviewed for the story may have used it recently.

One peculiar aspect of the mask-and-vaxx wars is that they are playing out differently in blue states and red states. The new variant is doing very nicely, thank you, in states with Republican governors, who are following the advice of their political advisers, rather than that of doctors, scientists, and public health officials. In particular, if Florida becomes a huge hotspot of new COVID-19 cases and deaths in the fall (and blue states do not), that could hurt Republican governors on the ballot in 2022. If COVID-19 takes down DeSantis in 2022, that effectively takes him out of the running in 2024 and completely changes the presidential race. (V)

Biden Is in Pennsylvania--Again

When he was in the Senate, Joe Biden was often called "Pennsylvania's third senator." Yesterday, the Scranton-born former senator was back in the Keystone State for the sixth time during his 6 months in the White House. Is he homesick? Does he have a hankering for cheesesteaks and Primanti's? Is he having bad luck trying to score a meeting with Michael Scott? Maybe. But he is also very keenly aware that winning the open Senate seat being left behind by retiring Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) could be the keystone to getting anything done in the second half of his term. That seat is the easiest potential pickup for the blue team, and Biden will do everything possible to make sure the team gets it. The only states that have gotten more love from Biden are Delaware, where he has visited the Eastern White House (his home in Wilmington, DE) multiple times for some rest, and Virginia, where he has visited the Pentagon and Arlington National Cemetery, and campaigned for Terry McAuliffe.

Pennsylvania is balanced on the knife's edge. Donald Trump won it in 2016 by 0.72%. Biden won it in 2020 by 1.17%, but at the same time, Republicans won statewide elections for treasurer and auditor general. Biden knows the Senate race will be close and the suburbs will be the key. For that reason, five of his six trips to Pennsylvania have been to the Philadelphia suburbs. He also has a secret weapon in the battle for the Philadelphia suburbs: Jill. His wife grew up in Willow Grove, a Philadelphia suburb, and speaks with the local accent. She is also an outspoken fan of all the Philadelphia sports teams, and presumably loves to throw things at Santa Claus. No doubt she will spend a lot of the next year and a half revisiting her old neighborhood. A lot is riding on their visits. (V)

The Republicans Are Testing Out a 2024 Theme: Racism

Democrats made racism (e.g., the murder of George Floyd) a pillar of their 2020 campaign. Republicans may pick up the thread and run with it in 2024, albeit in the other direction. An emerging Republican mantra is: "America is not a racist country." At the Family Leadership Summit in Iowa earlier this month, the Mikes (Pence and Pompeo) and Gov. Kristi Noem (R-SD) all harped on it.

It is clearly not aimed at winning over Black voters. They have enough experience to form their own conclusions. But to a moderate affluent suburban white voter who really thinks of themselves as not at all racist, the implication is "Democrats think you are a racist." It might work. But maybe not; that depends, among other things, on how it is worded down the road. College-educated voters know very well about slavery and Jim Crow and the rest and may not feel directly implicated by such a slogan. On the other hand, the current focus on race may be irritating suburbanites who feel they are being singled out for misdeeds they haven't committed.

The slogan may work much better with the Republican base, much of which is very much racist but doesn't want to hear it. Having the Republicans tell them the good news could bind them even more tightly to the GOP. Or maybe the idea is to motivate marginal Republican voters by telling them they are not racist and get them to vote.

This theme didn't come out of thin air. The talk about critical race theory in recent weeks is part of it. Practically no one knows what it is, but we suspect if you pressed people on it, a lot of them would say something like: "It says America is racist." That is not a great summary, but does have a kernel of truth. So the Republicans want to frame the election around race, as in: "Democrats say America is racist and Republicans say it is not, so vote for us."

The effectiveness of the exact line "America is not a racist country" has been under discussion for a while now in Republican circles. It was discussed at the most recent RNC meeting. It was also discussed at the meeting of the Republican Governors Association in Aspen, CO (presumably held there so the governors could also meet with plenty of "ordinary folks" during the coffee breaks).

If the Republicans decide to go down this road, their main spokesman could be Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC), the only Black Republican in the Senate. He used the line in his response to Joe Biden's first address to Congress. He seems to have struck a chord (and a gold mine), as he pulled in almost $10 million in Q2.

But betting the farm on denying racism could backfire. Many polls have shown that majorities of Americans do believe that there is systematic discrimination against Black people and other minorities. If the Republicans are seen to be denying this, that might not work so well with the suburban white voters the GOP is desperate to win back and hold. (V)

Vaccine Mandate Could Give Biden a Pain in the...Arm

As the federal government is starting to push vaccine mandates for federal and other workers, one of the demographics that supports Joe Biden most strongly is not on board. That would be the unions. Although AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka supports vaccine mandates, the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) and other key unions do not. They believe the issue of vaccine mandates should be dealt with at the local level, depending on the local circumstances. Specifically, the AFT wants more measures taken in high-COVID areas and fewer in low-COVID areas.

Some union leaders have spoken to Biden privately and told him that a mandate would trigger a flood of requests for exemptions and would only harden the opposition of anti-vaxx union members. What they are specifically worried about is a rollout of mandates department by department, starting with the VA, and eventually covering everyone working for the federal government. The American Federation of Government Employees, which represents unionized government workers, is clearly being torn apart. When Politico asked it to respond for the article linked to above, it declined, a clear sign that a battle is raging internally.

The fissure within the union movement is bad news for Biden. Unions are among his strongest allies and he has worked with them and praised them his entire career, including during his campaign and presidency. Doing something that they don't want would be bad politics. But if they are either divided on a mandate—or heaven forbid—against a mandate that Biden sees as essential to stopping another outbreak of COVID-19, it is a big problem for him.

That said, the unions are not against vaccinations. They are against mandates. Many of them are encouraging their members to get vaccinated. Some are even negotiating with employers to provide special perks to workers who get vaccinated. For example, the Association of Flight Attendants got United Airlines to agree to provide three extra vacation days to vaccinated employees. In other words, the unions just want more carrots and fewer sticks. In fact, some union locals assist members with getting shots.

As with everything else in America, this is going to end up in the courts and probably the Supreme Court. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has already said that businesses may require employees to be vaccinated but must make accommodations to workers who refuse for reasons of a disability or their religious beliefs. While there is no religion with a central authority that categorically forbids vaccination, there are a number of religions whose doctrines can potentially be interpreted as anti-vaxx by adherents, for various reasons (generally because the denomination frowns on medical interventions of various sorts, or because the materials used to make the vaccine may be regarded as ritually unclean). Separating those folks whose religious concerns are legitimate from those who are just using religious convictions as an excuse will not be easy, and will require the wisdom of Solomon and then some.

The ADA will be another battleground. Is an emotional fear of vaccinations a covered disability? Until recently, an emotional fear of flying allowed you to take your miniature horse on a flight with you to keep you calm. SCOTUS, get ready. Here we come. (V)

Trump Spins Texas

In the special election in TX-06 to replace the virus-denying congressman Ron Wright, who died of the imaginary virus, Donald Trump bet heavily on one of the "horses." And his horse lost. Note that we are using the traditional definition of "lost," here, meaning his choice got fewer votes than the alternative, and is not going to be seated in the House next week.

Trump must be using the new math or something, however, because he is touting the result as a "win." After all, his candidate, Susan Wright (R), came in first in the primary and came in second in the general election. Not only that, but the guy Trump declined to endorse, Jake Ellzey (R), came in next to last in this week's voting.

At the same time, the former president is also looking for someone to blame for this "win." And the "winner" of this honor (or is it the "loser"?) looks to be David McIntosh, president of the Club for Growth, who apparently talked The Donald into backing Wright, even though that proved a bad choice. Supposedly, McIntosh:

• Pointed out that as a widow, Wright would get the sympathy vote
• Told Trump that Jake Ellzey is not a conservative
• Painted Ellzey as an anti-Trumper
• Mentioned that Ellzey wouldn't join the Freedom Caucus
• Showed Trump polling data that put Wright 15 points ahead
• Appealed to Trump's strong sense of vendetta by saying that Bill Kristol once gave money to Ellzey ($250 in 2018)

Despite Trump's claim about being good about judging people, McIntosh took him for a sucker. Former Texas governor and Trump cabinet secretary Rick Perry told Axios: "He totally was taken to the cleaners by the Club for Growth." In all likelihood, Trump knew nothing about either candidate, and simply endorsed the one who was leading in the one poll he was shown. He probably had no idea that McIntosh was very much in Wright's camp, and willing to do whatever necessary to get the endorsement, including pretending to be a neutral party. And it worked. (V)

Dept. of Justice Declines to Defend Mo Brooks

Relations among House members are not very cordial at the moment, what with them suing each other. See above for one example (or, technically, three examples). On top of that, Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) has sued Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL) for helping to incite the Jan. 6 insurrection. Since this threatened Swalwell's life, he probably has standing to sue. Brooks' initial defense is that inciting riots is one of his official duties as a congressman. The Westfall Act states that lawsuits against government employees for actions taken while performing their official duties are automatically transformed into lawsuits against the government, which the Dept. of Justice must defend. So. Brooks sought to dismiss the case against him personally and turn it into a case against the big bad government.

The Dept. of Justice has now disagreed with Brooks' idea of what congressmen are paid to do. Specifically, campaigning is not part of what a congressman is paid to do and the DoJ ruled that Brooks' speech was campaigning, not legislating. The House counsel also decided not to defend Brooks.

This is a hit for Brooks, who is running for the Senate. Not only will he have to pay his own legal bills, but defenses like sovereign immunity won't be available to him. Nor will the Constitution's Speech or Debate clause. He will have to defend himself on the grounds that his speech did not hurt Swalwell. Swalwell's case will be that Brooks told people to invade the Capitol, they then did that, and they threatened members of Congress, including Swalwell, who were forced to hide from an angry mob. Brooks will try to argue that it was just a political rally, and he had no idea that things might get ugly. Swalwell, or his lawyer more likely, will then ask why, if that is so, Brooks was wearing body armor that day.

If Swalwell wins the case, that may or may not hurt Brooks' Senate run. Alabama is an extremely Trumpy state and the state's voters may see inciting a riot as a perfectly legitimate thing for him to have done to prevent Donald Trump's victory from being stolen. They could be angry that Brooks is being punished for trying to save the country. So it could turn out that a loss for Brooks might cost him some money but might help his career. (V)

Nancy Pelosi Will Be President in 2 Weeks

Yup. After all, His Pillowness, Mike Lindel, said so in an interview with the great political analyst Steve Bannon. Ok, Lindel didn't literally say that Nancy Pelosi will be president. He said that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris will simultaneously resign on the morning of Aug. 13. Since the Speaker of the House is second in line for the presidency, simultaneous resignations of Biden and Harris will automatically elevate Pelosi to the top job. It is possible that Lindel doesn't even know that. Maybe he thinks that when the election winners resign, the losers get the job. Or maybe he hasn't checked the Presidential Succession Act often enough. It was recently changed (2006). Or maybe he was confused because he hasn't been sleeping very well. After all, he probably uses MyPillows, right?

It's not just Lindel, by the way. CNN's Chris Cillizza just wrote a piece pointing out that Trump's former physician, now-Rep. Ronny Jackson (R-TX), is claiming that Biden's health will force him out. That would be the same Ronny Jackson who appeared to cook the books on more than one Trump physical. And the same Ronny Jackson who does not appear to be familiar with AMA policy about pronouncing diagnoses without having examined the patient.

So, why do we even cover this? Is it because anything is possible? After all, it's possible that an asteroid full of dinosaurs will hit the earth next week, kill off all current life, and make the planet great again (for dinosaurs). And it's possible that Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) announces tomorrow that he plans to reregister as a member of the Communist Party, and that henceforth he will lead the charge to kill the filibuster and to increase the outlay on infrastructure to $10 trillion. And it's possible that Steven Seagal wins the Oscar for Best Actor for the next three years in a row before finally being unseated by Pauly Shore.

But no, we're not writing about this because it's technically possible. We are writing about it because, in the real world, it's the same old story: it's about the grift, or the cheap PR, or both. Lindel, in particular, is going to run some kind of cyber symposium out among the buffalo of South Dakota at which a circus' worth of clowns and cranks will explain how Donald Trump won the election. Lindel is also offering $5 million to any attendee who can prove that his "packet captures" from the election are wrong. Unfortunately for people who want to try, the public is not invited, as per Lindel's Website:

But anyone can watch online at frankspeech.com, where you can also buy some towels for $39.99. Yep, it's always about the grift. Did we mention that before? On the last day of the symposium, Lindel will take all the results to the Supreme Court. The fear of immediate removal by the Court is what will prompt Biden and Harris to call it quits, ostensibly, so as to save face.

Does Lindel believe any of this? Or even care? We don't know. But we do know that no pro-Trump claim is so absurd and far out that Trump's supporters will reject it as fantasy. And it is only getting worse. We are already at the point that "news stories" from Trump's most fervent supporters could easily have been plagiarized from The Onion. Can anyone say "Poe's Law?"

One of the most famous hucksters of all time, P.T. Barnum, once said "I don't care what the newspapers say about me as long as they spell my name right." Lindel seems to have gotten the message. So did we. (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 or share:

---The Votemaster and Zenger