Dem 50
image description
GOP 50
image description
New polls:  
Dem pickups vs. 2020: (None)
GOP pickups vs. 2020 : (None)
Political Wire logo Holdouts ‘Rush to Get Shots’ as Delta Variant Spreads
The Virus Consumes U.S. Politics
Backlash Against Democrats In Midterms Isn’t a Given
Extra Bonus Quote of the Day
Radio Host Skeptical of Vaccines Now on Ventilator
Republicans Raise Concerns About Hershel Walker

TODAY'S HEADLINES (click to jump there; use your browser's "Back" button to return here)
      •  Half-Measures are Better than No Measures
      •  Schumer Says He "Has the Votes" for $3.5 Trillion Infrastructure Bill...
      •  ...Meanwhile, Trump Hates the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill
      •  Abbott, Garland Headed for a Showdown
      •  What Is Kinzinger Up To?
      •  Californians Want Recall Rules Changed
      •  This Week's Schadenfreude Report
      •  Carl Levin, 1934-2021

Half-Measures are Better than No Measures

For a couple of days, there was talk that on Thursday, Joe Biden would issue an executive order on the subject of vaccination. And guess what? That is exactly what he did.

The headline for the Politico piece linked above describes the EO as "aggressive" but, as you might infer from our headline, we think that's going a bit far. Biden doesn't want to aggravate federal employees, or the members of labor unions, too much. He also doesn't want to push people even further into the anti-vaxx camp. So, the executive order employs the same sort of carrot-and-stick approach that we've seen from, among others, professional sports leagues. Henceforth, employees of the federal government, and contractors who work on-site in government buildings, will be asked to attest that they have been vaccinated. If they do not do so, they will be required to wear a mask at work and to remain socially distanced from co-workers at all times, and to be tested regularly for COVID-19. Unvaccinated folks will also be forbidden to travel for work.

There is also one additional new policy in the new EO. Using some of the remaining COVID-19 relief funds that have already been appropriated, the government will now reimburse small- and medium-sized businesses that give their employees time off to get vaccinated, or to get family members vaccinated.

Beyond that, much of the new order encourages or hints at future carrots and future sticks. In the former category are a suggestion that all states should begin paying $100 to anyone who gets vaccinated, and potentially incentivizing pharmacies to hold "pop up" vaccination clinics at schools (which would, quite obviously, allow students to do an end-run around anti-vaxx parents). In the latter category is the suggestion that the new masking/distancing/testing/traveling rules may soon be extended to all federal contractors, and an instruction to the Pentagon to look into the possibility of ordering all military personnel to be vaccinated.

It is not surprising that Biden is inching forward here, as opposed to moving by leaps and bounds. He's been in politics for 50 years, and that has taught him to be cautious. Whether "be cautious" is a good lesson or not is a matter of opinion, but it's definitely a lesson that makes possible a five-decade political career. That said, the President knows full well that the CDC just issued a grim report on the Delta variant of COVID-19 saying that preliminary analysis indicates it is (1) particularly contagious, (2) particularly severe, and (3) equally likely to be passed along by an infected vaccinated person as an infected unvaccinated one.

In other words, things look likely to get much worse in places where people are not vaccinated. Biden is presumably waiting for that, and for final FDA approval of the vaccines, to tighten the screws even more. He's presumably also counting on private businesses to do some of the heavy lifting by requiring employees to be vaccinated. A number of major business concerns have already instituted such a requirement, including Google, Netflix, Morgan Stanley, Lyft, and Uber, and more will surely follow. It is also expected that many restaurants, entertainment venues, and other such concerns are going to begin making proof of vaccination a condition for receiving service.

Meanwhile, the alternative to the cautious Biden approach is to do nothing. Well, actually, it's to actively resist any and all efforts to control the pandemic. And most members of the Republican party appear to still be committed to that approach. Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX), for example, appeared on Fox to decree: "I think the Democrats love to instill fear in the hearts of Americans. And I think Americans are really sick of this. They're over it. They're not gonna comply, and you shouldn't comply with any more lockdowns, with any more mandates, none of it." Crenshaw and many of his colleagues also marched through the Capitol building yesterday to protest mask mandates. Gov. Greg Abbott (R-TX) announced that any of his underlings who plays a role in creating or enforcing mask mandates is at risk of being terminated. Gov. Chris Sununu (R-NH) signed into law a bill that prohibits vaccine mandates. Time to change the state motto to "Live Free and Die." Republicans in many other states are trying to get similar laws through their state legislatures.

We shall see which approach ultimately wins the day. In early returns, a new poll from The Hill-HarrisX shows that 67% of Americans approve of Biden's efforts to combat the pandemic. By contrast, in Florida at least, Gov. Ron DeSantis' (R-FL) denialist measures are so problematic that many local leaders are simply ignoring them. It's also the case that in some red states, notably Tennessee and Alabama, Republicans are now openly fighting among themselves about the wisdom of the "resist vaccination" approach. We suspect that there will be more outbreaks—both of COVID, and of infighting—in red states in the near future. (Z)

Schumer Says He "Has the Votes" for $3.5 Trillion Infrastructure Bill...

If you support the mega-infrastructure bill that the Democrats plan to pass using budget reconciliation, then there is some good news for you: Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) says he has the 50 votes needed to start the debate and amendment process. In other words, the first major procedural hurdle apparently won't be an issue.

Of course, there are many things that start but don't reach the finish line. See, for example, the presidential campaigns of New York mayors. And that is where the bad news (again, for those who support the bill) comes in: 50 Democrats are willing to get the ball rolling, but several of those are not happy with the bill in its current form (particularly the price tag). Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) continues to be a fly in the ointment, of course. She made clear on Wednesday, prior to Schumer's announcement, that $3.5 trillion is too rich for her blood. Maybe Schumer should tell her it's actually $3.5 billion and then, once the bill is passed, say, "Surprise! It's European billions."

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) has yet to say much, which is out of character for him, but he's always a wildcard, of course. And one potential deal-busting dark horse is Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT). On one hand, he's a Democrat and he comes from a state that can always use a few billion federal dollars. On the other hand, he's a centrist and Montana is pretty red. Anyhow, his current position is that he absolutely supports getting the process started, but that he reserves the right to do "whatever the hell I want" when it comes to the final vote. That sounds, to us, like senator-speak for: "I better get plenty of pork, Chuck." Or maybe, since it's Montana, plenty of bison. In any case, Tester's vote isn't locked up yet. One should not be too terribly surprised if Mark Kelly (D-AZ), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Bob Casey (D-PA), Angus King (I-ME), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), or Maggie Hassan (D-NH) also speaks up; they all come from red/reddish states, too. On the other hand, even though Schumer is Jewish, he understands how to make pork sausage.

In short, while the end zone is still pretty far away, Schumer is a shrewd operator, and has invested a lot of political capital in this bill. Further, the Democratic (and independent) senators' willingness to move forward is a pretty clear signal that their vote is ultimately available, with the right concessions. And $3.5 trillion can buy an awful lot of pork. And bison. (Z)

...Meanwhile, Trump Hates the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill

We've already mentioned this a couple of times, but Donald Trump is really unhappy about the (roughly) $1 trillion, bipartisan infrastructure bill that is moving through the Senate. On Thursday, he issued a statement declaring that the "RINOs" in the Senate are surrendering to the Democrats, and that:

Under the weak leadership of Mitch McConnell, Senate Republicans continue to lose. He lost Arizona, he lost Georgia, he ignored Election Fraud and he doesn't fight. Now he's giving Democrats everything they want and getting nothing in return. No deal is better than a bad deal. Fight for America, not for special interests and Radical Democrats. RINOs are ruining America, right alongside Communist Democrats.

You know Trump wrote the statement himself because of the Arbitrary Capitalization.

Anyhow, we—like most of the readers of this site, and most of the American people—are very weary of Trump's petulance and his whining, and so don't generally feel a need to discuss it at length. However, he has clearly decided that this is a hill he's willing to die on. And the waxing, or the waning, of his influence over the Republican Party is an important dynamic that requires continued attention.

It is doubtful that The Donald is angry about the actual content of the bill. Heck, he probably doesn't even know what's in the bill. We gave a summary of some of the major items yesterday and if Trump wants to know all the details, he can ask one of the Republican senators with whom he is still on speaking terms. If he does know what is in it, he's certainly never targeted a specific provision for his ire. No, the issue here is that for Trump, Joe Biden is Barack Obama v2.0. Just as #45 spent four years trying to undo as much of #44's legacy as possible, he also sees any win for #46 as a personal defeat. And he expects Republican officeholders to share in his grudges, and to prioritize his image and his ego.

The problem is that Trump is—to borrow a term he understands well—over-leveraging himself. He clearly still has influence over the GOP. And he could maximize that influence by choosing his battles wisely, and somewhat sparingly. But in TX-06 earlier this week, Trump waded into an election he apparently knew nothing about, backed the wrong candidate, and was left to spend the rest of the week pointing fingers. Similarly, what he asks of congressional Republicans is not practical; they cannot "own the libs" in every negotiation, especially when the libs control both chambers of Congress and the White House. Nor can they dig their heels in and do absolutely nothing (as much as Mitch McConnell would like that). The Republicans would like to have something to run on in 2022 and, when it comes to infrastructure, overt sabotage of the bipartisan bill would just be an invitation to expand the scope of the reconciliation bill.

In short, Trump is squandering whatever political capital he has left, and is doing more than any Democrat to weaken his control over the Republican Party. Also, as a sidebar, we could have sworn the Republicans actually won the presidential/Senate elections in Georgia and Arizona, but were the victims of massive voter fraud. If so, then how could the loss of those states be McConnell's fault? It's almost like Trump is having trouble remembering to stick to the damn story. Or, alternatively, remembering exactly what the damn story is. (Z)

Abbott, Garland Headed for a Showdown

Greg Abbott is a rabble-rouser who loves to throw (political) Molotov cocktails. AG Merrick Garland is a cautious institutionalist who prefers to make as few waves as is possible. The former has been trying desperately to pick a fight with the latter, however, over the issue of border enforcement. And on Thursday, the AG calmly advised the Governor that if a fight is what he wants, then that is what he is going to get.

What Abbott has been doing, broadly speaking, is to implement steps to "enhance" the federal government's efforts to control the border with Mexico. He's committed Texas law enforcement to various border-related tasks, he's promised to resume building Donald Trump's wall, and he's asked other states to send troops/police to help keep immigrants from entering the United States. The latest move, and apparently the last straw for Garland, was an executive order Abbott issued that would allow Texas law enforcement to "reroute" back to Mexico any vehicles containing immigrants suspected of having a COVID-19 infection. It's hard to imagine his concern for public health is genuine, given his resistance to all other pandemic containment measures. Meanwhile, the order says nothing about testing people before rerouting them, which means the standard for ejection is not likely to be "Are you sick, or do you appear to be so?" and instead will be "Are you immigrants, or do you appear to be so?"

In any event, it doesn't actually matter if Abbott is right or not, or if his motivations are pure or not. Border enforcement is the exclusive province of the federal government. Abbott knows that full well, and so does Garland. And so, the AG sent the Governor a letter that describes Wednesday's executive order as "dangerous and unlawful" and that reminds Abbott of a few things, like that "Texas has no authority to interfere with the United States' 'broad, undoubted power over the subject of immigration.'"

At this point, we have no idea how Abbott will respond. He's running for reelection next year, and may be thinking about a presidential run in 2024, and he wants to run on "I took steps to deal with immigration, in the spirit of St. Donald, because the Democrats don't care about enforcing the border and keeping (white) Americans safe." Is that messaging best served by poking the bear a bunch of times, then backing down and complaining endlessly about it when the bear gets angry? Or is that message best served by fighting this to the bitter end, earning a whole bunch of headlines, but then ultimately losing big-time in court? That is what Abbott will be pondering as he decides on his response to Garland. (Z)

What Is Kinzinger Up To?

Everybody knows that, at this point, Reps. Liz Cheney (R-WY) and Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) are the leaders of the anti-Trump faction of congressional Republicans. They might also be the only members of the anti-Trump faction of congressional Republicans. Or, at least, the only ones to admit it openly.

Several times, we've proposed that Cheney, who aspires to much higher office than the one she currently occupies, is betting that the post-Trump Republican Party will coalesce very quickly, and that she wants to be in a position to assume a major leadership role when that happens. Think, for example, Richard Nixon foreseeing that the Republican Party of the late 1960s would be very different from the one of the early 1960s.

We've given a little less attention to Kinzinger's game plan, but now we're going to rectify that. There's no doubt that he's all-in on his current trajectory. In the last 48 hours alone, he slammed his fellow Republicans for their lack of interest in getting to the bottom of 1/6, and also, speaking of his GOP colleagues, declared that "Save one or two maybe out here, nobody—and I think it's very important to repeat—nobody actually believes the election was stolen from Donald Trump, but a lot of them are happy to go out and say it was."

So, what is going on with the Representative? Whatever it is, it's not a situation where he's on the knife's edge, and may need to get out ahead of the political winds. His district, as currently constituted, is ultra-Trumpy. The Donald won it by 16 points in 2020, while Kinzinger won reelection by 30 points. If he was making decisions based on the voting habits of his current constituents, he would stay quiet.

So, it has to be something else. And here are the possibilities that we can see:

  • Profiles in Courage: One does not wish to be too cynical, and to assume that there is no such thing as a politician motivated by their conscience and their sense of what's right. Certainly, Kinzinger's teary-eyed opening statement at the 1/6 Committee hearings suggested he's really upset about what happened. That said, as Mona Charen pointed out recently, it's a bit incongruous that Kinzinger was ok with, and even supportive of, nearly everything Donald Trump did prior to 1/6, but that he did a near-180-degree turn after the insurrection. It's certainly possible—everyone has a breaking point—it's just a little hard to be entirely satisfied with that explanation.

  • Gov. Kinzinger?: Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D-IL) is up for reelection next year, and thus far the Republicans don't have a great challenger. To the extent that we've talked about Kinzinger's motivations, we've guessed that maybe he is thinking about making a run at the Illinois governor's mansion. That said, this is not a stellar explanation, either. Pritzker is popular, and politicians don't usually give up House seats to launch longshot gubernatorial bids. Plus, it's not easy to run in a big, expensive state like Illinois without help from the national party, and that help is most certainly not coming for the apostate Kinzinger.

  • VP Kinzinger?: The Representative has been less obviously ambitious than his fellow apostate Cheney. But maybe his thinking is similar to hers (or, at least, what we are guessing her thinking is). Perhaps he's staking a claim to leadership of the post-Trump GOP. Cheney-Kinzinger 2024, anyone?

  • The Gerrymander, Part I: The Democrats' House majority is in danger, and it is at least possible that their salvation will be effective gerrymandering in the states of New York and Illinois. Both are going to lose one seat, which will justify making very different maps, and in both the Democrats have control of the process. In other words, some Republican representatives in those states are about to be put in much less friendly districts (or to have their district disappear entirely). Kinzinger may believe that if he's the "good Republican," the gerrymanderers will take care to be kind to him during the process.

  • The Gerrymander, Part II: Alternatively, Kinzinger may expect no special favors from gerrymandering, and may think he's going to get stuck in a light-red, or even a light-blue district. If so, then he would indeed be on the knife's edge, and it might indeed be useful to be the one who said "enough is enough" to Trump.

  • The Next Chapter: Finally, it is generally the case that a retired member of the House can expect to find a job that is a lot less difficult, and that pays a lot more money, than being a member of the House. That's particularly true in the current, polarized climate, and is even more true for members of the House minority, who are so impotent they have to freebase Viagra before they show up for work. Maybe Kinzinger sees a future as a highly-paid lobbyist, perhaps for a defense firm. Alternatively, the "reasonable Republican" seat on CNN was just vacated, after Rick Santorum decided to run his mouth about Native Americans.

Eventually, all will be revealed, and we'll see if we were on the mark with one or more of these. (Z)

Californians Want Recall Rules Changed

On Wednesday, we wrote that only Jerry Brown and Arnold Schwarzenegger, among recent California governors, have not seen a recall attempt initiated against them. It turns out, as reader C.P. in Los Angeles brought to our attention, that the source we relied on was wrong, and that the last eight governors of California have all been the target of at least one recall attempt (and usually more than one). Here's the complete accounting:

Governor Years Served Attempts at Recall
Edmund G. "Pat" Brown 1959-67 3
Ronald Reagan 1967-75 3
Edmund G. "Jerry" Brown 1975-83; 2011-19 5; 2
George Deukmejian 1983-91 11
Pete Wilson 1991-99 7
Gray Davis 1999-03 3
Arnold Schwarzenegger 2003-11 7
Gavin Newsom 2019- 6

We were correct in writing that only two of these made it to the balloting stage (Davis 2003, Newsom 2021), and also that those made the cut because they had the financial backing of well-heeled Republicans. If you examine the link above, you'll see even more evidence that the process is being abused, as it's often the same people filing paperwork over and over. For example, a man named Cecil Gibson tried three times to get the younger Brown recalled, including twice in one year. To take another example, a woman named Erin Cruz, a perennial Republican candidate for office who will be running again next year, has tried twice to recall Newsom, and in 2019 tried to recall every single person elected to statewide office in California.

A new poll, released on Thursday by the Public Policy Institute of California, reveals that residents of the Golden State are beginning to smell something here, and it ain't a rose. More specifically, 60% would like to see the rules amended to require that only illegal or unethical behavior can trigger a recall (though "unethical" is pretty ambiguous), 55% would like to see the number of signatures required for a recall to be doubled (though that would just mean that the backing of the moneyed folks would be even more essential), and 68% percent would support a runoff election between the top two candidates if an officeholder is recalled and none of the alternates gets a majority. This would stop someone from being elected governor with some relatively small fraction of the overall vote.

We pass this along in part because it's always useful to think about the unexpected consequences of well-intended reforms and/or policy decisions. However, we also pass it along because the more that voters think the entire process is not legitimate, the less likely they are going to be willing to push the eject button on Newsom, even if they would otherwise prefer to see him go. (Z)

This Week's Schadenfreude Report

If we are able to make this feature work on an ongoing basis, we kind of suspect that certain folks are going to make quite a few appearances. Heck, we could probably do two reports per week, one for representatives named Greene or Gaetz, and one for everyone else. Anyhow, this week we're going to focus on another person likely to show up a few times, namely Tucker Carlson.

Last weekend, Carlson decided to get away from it all with a little fly fishing. And while he was stocking up on gear at a shop called Dan Bailey's Outdoor Company, a man named Dan Bailey decided to give the Fox host a piece of his mind. Interestingly, the Dan Bailey who is the namesake of the store, and the Dan Bailey who chewed out Carlson are not the same person, as the store's Dan Bailey died 10 years ago. Anyhow, the living Bailey accused Carlson of propagating vaccine misinformation, supporting "extreme racism," and being the "worst human being known to man." The Fox personality, who was with his kids, was clearly startled, eventually said "I appreciate that," and walked away with an odd chuckle.

That was the in-person response, at least. Once the weekend was over, Fox spokespeople went to war on Carlson's behalf, issuing a statement that "No public figure should be accosted regardless of their political persuasion or beliefs simply due to the intolerance of another point of view." Of course, Carlson didn't need their help, as once he was safely in the Fox cocoon, and armed with his flamethrower of a microphone, he suddenly had plenty to say. He appeared on "The Five," to declare that:

Leaving me totally out of it, the bigger problem is the Mountain states are completely invaded by the people who destroyed California. What's so interesting is they're the exact same people who lecture you day and night about diversity, and it's so important, and that you're a racist and etc. And then they run to Montana—they literally run to the hills away from diversity. The hills greatly suffer when they do that. I will leave it there.

On his own show, meanwhile, Carlson rediscovered his inner tough guy, and said "Hassling me in front of my kids? I mean, I had some dark thoughts which I'm not going to articulate here."

As most readers know, (Z) lives in Los Angeles, where there are a fair number of prominent people out and about, particularly in certain parts of town, and particularly at certain venues (like, for example, The Grove). And it is the case that the expectation is that they be left alone, since they are clearly not "at work." Indeed, if you approach a celeb at a restaurant or a store, you're pretty much telling the world that you're a tacky tourist or, even worse, that you're a paparazzo.

There are those who would argue that Carlson should receive the same consideration. And it's not just Carlson's colleagues (and enablers) at Fox. For example, CNN's Don Lemon also came to Carlson's defense. However, as you might have figured out by now, we are going to call BS on this. Carlson spends much of his time saying nasty, divisive, harmful, and often hateful things. And 99.9% of the time, he does so when he holds all the cards. It's his show, his staff, his studio, and his agenda. If, perchance a guest happens to make things uncomfortable, then Carlson or his producers will cut that person off.

Anyhow, if you're going to pull the evil Wizard of Oz bit, and make millions treating half your fellow Americans with disdain and disrespect while you hide behind a metaphorical curtain, then you simply can't expect to be treated courteously on those rare occasions where you do venture out, kids in tow or not. Carlson's a classic bully—attacking mercilessly when there's no risk, stunned into silence when actually challenged, and then right back on the attack as soon as he's back in the studio (including insulting the entire state of California). If you're going to make a living as a heel, to borrow the wrestling term, then you have to be able to suck it up and accept the consequences. That's doubly true if you're someone who has spent endless hours complaining about "cancel culture," and how conservatives aren't allowed to have opinions. And on those occasions when you do get a little taste of your own medicine, an awful lot of folks are going to be pleased. That's schadenfreude for you. (Z)

Carl Levin, 1934-2021

For the second time in a week, a giant of the U.S. Senate has crossed the river, and we don't mean the Potomac. A few days ago it was Republican Mike Enzi of Wyoming, and yesterday it was Democrat Carl Levin of Michigan. Though no cause of death has been released, Levin was undergoing treatment for cancer. He was 87.

Levin concluded his political career in 2015, ultimately yielding his seat to Sen. Gary Peters (D-MI). His career spanned 44 years, the last 36 of those coming from his six terms in the U.S. Senate. He still holds a number of distinctions thanks to the length of his term of service:

  • He is the longest-serving U.S. senator in Michigan history.
  • He is the longest-serving Jew in U.S. Senate history.
  • With his brother, former representative Sander Levin (D), he set the record for siblings serving concurrently in Congress (32 years).

A pretty decent case could also be made that Levin was the most important Jewish member that the Senate has seen, although Joe Lieberman, Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Chuck Schumer might have something to say about that. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) too; not because he's Jewish, but because he loves to claim glory for himself.

Like Enzi, Levin was known for his hard work, his unassuming manner, and his effective committee leadership. Most notably, he served for multiple decades on the Senate Armed Services Committee, including almost 10 years (2001-03, 2007-15) as its chair. Levin worked particularly well with fellow committee members John McCain (R) and Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA), and considered both to be among his closest friends in the Senate. All three were very pro-military, but while that duo (especially McCain) was/is hawkish, Levin was generally dovish. He did push hard to give the armed forces the things needed to do their job, and to keep politicians from meddling needlessly in military affairs. However, as someone who had never served himself, Levin was uncomfortable putting military personnel in harm's way unless he felt it was absolutely necessary. And so, while he did back the Bush-era invasion of Afghanistan, he was one of the 21 senators to vote against the use of force in Iraq. When it became clear that Iraq would be invaded, regardless of his personal feelings, Levin tried to add an amendment to the authorization that would have allowed U.S. forces to destroy any weapons of mass destruction they encountered. However, the amendment was defeated, 75-24.

Beyond that, Levin was an interesting mix of "pretty lefty" and "pragmatic centrist." When he had his lefty pants on, he pushed for increased spending on education, preservation of natural resources, strict limits on lobbying, stem-cell research, a patients' bill of rights, a consumers' bill of rights, gun control, and stronger enforcement of tax laws; he was also the primary author and sponsor of the Whistleblower Protection Act. When he switched over to the centrist pants, Levin was a supporter of the filibuster, pro-military spending (as noted), and leery of going too far, too fast in fighting global warming. The latter position may have had something to do with his representing a state that is home to the United States' largest automobile manufacturers.

It is less common now, than it was in Levin's heyday, for a member of Congress to so clearly defy categorization as a "progressive" or a "centrist." That is not to say that such folks don't exist, however. Warner, Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH), and Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) are cut from similar cloth, as is would-be senator Lt. Gov. John Fetterman (D-PA). Levin's career is also an argument against term limits: His very effective service as Armed Services Committee chair only came after he'd spent two terms learning the ropes; he freely admitted that when he was first seated on the Committee, he didn't know the first thing about the military. Of course, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) just crossed the 36-year mark, so there are also arguments out there in favor of term limits. (Z)

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

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
Jul29 Bipartisan Deal Is Back on Track
Jul29 Republicans Are Going after Cheney and Kinzinger
Jul29 Too Little, Too Late
Jul29 Pelosi Calls McCarthy a Moron
Jul29 Biden Is in Pennsylvania--Again
Jul29 The Republicans Are Testing Out a 2024 Theme: Racism
Jul29 Vaccine Mandate Could Give Biden a Pain in the...Arm
Jul29 Trump Spins Texas
Jul29 Dept. of Justice Declines to Defend Mo Brooks
Jul29 Nancy Pelosi Will Be President in 2 Weeks
Jul28 Let's Get This Show on the Road
Jul28 Biden to Mandate Vaccines for Federal Employees
Jul28 TX-06 Pokes Trump in the Eye
Jul28 Newsom's Margin for Error is Shrinking
Jul28 The 2022 Election Cycle Looks to Be Officially Underway
Jul28 Mike Enzi, 1944-2021
Jul27 Arizona Audit Is a Train Wreck
Jul27 Trump Will Mess with Texas
Jul27 Yes, But Can DeSantis Govern?
Jul27 Of Course, DeSantis Is Not the only Republican Eyeing 2024
Jul27 Crime Might Not Pay
Jul27 Fox Gets Socked
Jul27 Broom and Rug, Meet 4,500 Tips about Brett Kavanaugh
Jul26 Biden Tests His 2022 Strategy
Jul26 Kinzinger Will Join the 1/6 Select Committee
Jul26 Trump Is Hard at Work Trying to Unseat Liz Cheney
Jul26 Mark Warner: Infrastructure Bill Will Be Ready Today
Jul26 Eighteen States Have Already Passed New Voting Restrictions
Jul26 A Possible New Front in the Culture Wars: the Draft
Jul26 Herschel Walker's Turbulent Past Emerges
Jul26 Republicans Are Flocking to the OH-15 Special Election
Jul25 Sunday Mailbag
Jul24 Saturday Q&A
Jul23 Prominent Right-Wingers Are All Over the Place on Vaccination
Jul23 NFL Warns that COVID-19 Cancellations Could Become Forfeits
Jul23 You Have to Get Up Pretty Early to Outmaneuver Nancy Pelosi
Jul23 Mississippi Sticks to the Script
Jul23 Finkenauer Will Challenge...Grassley?
Jul23 Who is Kyrsten Sinema Really Representing?
Jul23 Grifters Gotta Grift, Part I: The King of Grift...
Jul23 Grifters Gotta Grift, Part II: ...and His Loyal Subjects
Jul23 This Week's Schadenfreude Report
Jul22 Pelosi Rejects Jordan and Banks; McCarthy Rejects Pelosi
Jul22 Republicans Filibuster the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill
Jul22 Republicans Also Threaten to Shut Down the Government
Jul22 Can Biden Be Effective and Avoid Divisiveness?
Jul22 Report: Infrastructure Bills Will Create Two Million Jobs
Jul22 Democrats and Republicans Are Roughly Equally Enthusiastic about the Midterms
Jul22 Who Is Running the Trump Organization?
Jul22 Youngkin Is Running for Governor of Virginia on a Tightrope