Senate page     Dec. 10

Senate map
Previous | Next

New polls:  
Dem pickups: (None)
GOP pickups: (None)

Big News Out of New York

Things have been changing so rapidly in the New York gubernatorial race that we've been unable to keep up. And yesterday brought a double bombshell, courtesy of AG Letitia James (D). The first part of that bombshell is that she has decided not to run for governor after all, and instead will seek another term as AG.

Let's take this opportunity to do a rundown of the (remaining) major players in the race:

We promised a rundown of the "major players" in the race, but just to make sure we covered everything, we defined "major" very loosely. In any event, this is currently Hochul's race to lose, and the only person who presents any real threat to her hope of winning a term in her own right is Williams.

So that is where the gubernatorial race stands at the moment. And now, in the spirit of Columbo, there's just one more thing. Remember that we wrote about a double-barreled bombshell in the opening paragraph? Well, the second bombshell is that James wants to stay in her current job because she says she still has more to do. Here are her exact words:

I have come to the conclusion that I must continue my work as attorney general. There are a number of important investigations and cases that are underway, and I intend to finish the job. I am running for re-election to complete the work New Yorkers elected me to do.

What investigations that are underway might she have been referring to? Well, she also noted that she hopes to depose Donald Trump on Jan. 7. So, just maybe, it's that one.

There has been a fair bit of commentary lately that the New York investigation of the Trump organization might be a dud, and that it might have netted a small fish or two but no big fish. However, it would be unusual to keep such a thing going for as long as this one if there was no "there" there. Further, one does not continue one's work, or forgo (postpone?) a gubernatorial run if one's investigation has turned into a dud. Clearly, this is still a going matter, and clearly Trump is still in the crosshairs. Only a few people (if that many) know how exposed he really is, but it's entirely plausible that James decided "She's the person who nailed Donald Trump" sounded like a better platform to run on in 2024/2026 than "She's the person who led a years-long investigation of Trump that doesn't seem to have accomplished much" in 2022. (Z)

Unhappy Legal News for Trump...

The fact that Donald Trump is still on Tish James' radar is pretty unhappy legal news for him, in and of itself. But, wait! There's more! Moving forward with lightning speed, at least by the standards of the federal judiciary, a three-judge panel from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Donald Trump's claim of executive privilege, and said he cannot stop Joe Biden from handing over documents from the Trump administration to the House's 1/6 Committee. As with the previous ruling on this matter (from D.C. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan), Thursday's ruling not only gave the former president the thumbs down but also eviscerated his various arguments, piece by piece.

The three judges did stay their ruling for 2 weeks, so that Trump will have the opportunity to appeal to the Supreme Court. His lawyers have already said they are on it. Will SCOTUS accept the case? Probably, because they seem to accept nearly everything he throws at them. Will they rule in his favor? Anything is possible, of course, but he has very little to stand on, and there are now two rulings that meticulously shred his case. The six conservatives might not be able to find a way to help him, even if they are so inclined. And they may not be inclined; many of them don't much care about him one way or the other, and this would also be a high-profile opportunity for Chief Justice John Roberts and, say, Neil Gorsuch to "show" the world how fair and even-handed the Court is (before they turn around and strike down Roe v. Wade).

If Trump does lose, as seems likely, then maybe he can at least buy himself some time as SCOTUS ponders the matter. But maybe not; only one month passed between ruling #1 and ruling #2. And the Supremes can move faster if they want to; they don't have to wait for judges to be assigned to the case, nor do they need to hold extended hearings. They could pencil-whip this right along in a few days, if they so desired. And, in any case, it seems unlikely that they will take much longer than the month that the D.C. Court of Appeals took.

If and when Trump does lose, what is the plan for him then? And what is the plan for folks like Mark Meadows, who are also relying on a claim of privilege to shield them? Maybe everyone hasn't thought that far ahead. Or maybe they have, and they've realized that privilege is all they've got. We should learn sometime later this month, or early next month. (Z)

...and for Georgia Republicans

This isn't quite as ominous for the Georgia GOP as the news that Donald Trump got on Thursday, but it's not good for them, either. After the Republican-controlled legislature passed restrictive new voting laws for the Peach State, the Georgia NAACP and other groups sued. Lawyers for the state legislature managed to get the case before District Judge Jean-Paul Boulee, a Donald Trump appointee, and asked for dismissal. Boulee wasn't buying it, and on Thursday ruled that the suit will be allowed to move forward.

Boulee's ruling doesn't tell us all that much, as the meaning of his ruling is that the plaintiffs' case could plausibly succeed, not that it will succeed. Still, that's one big roadblock that the NAACP, et al., have now overcome, and that's good news for anyone who wants to make certain that the Georgians' actions are carefully examined by people who are not current Republican officeholders. (Z)

Senators Are Still Playing Nice

It was anticipated that the Senate would vote yesterday on the compromise bill that creates a one-time opportunity for the Democrats to raise the debt ceiling without jumping through a bunch of procedural hoops. And the Senate did vote, as did the House. Both chambers approved the bill, which now awaits a promised signature from Joe Biden.

The vote for cloture in the Senate was 64-36, with all of the Democrats and independents joined by 14 Republicans. The 14 were Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (KY) along with John Barrasso (WY), Roy Blunt (MO), Richard Burr (NC), Shelley Moore Capito (WV), Susan Collins (ME), John Cornyn (TX), Joni Ernst (IA), Lisa Murkowski (AK), Rob Portman (OH), Mitt Romney (UT), Thom Tillis (NC), John Thune (SD) and Roger Wicker (MS). Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) warned his colleagues that voting in support of the deal would make Donald Trump very, very grumpy, but apparently those 14 didn't care, perhaps concluding that "bow to the whims of a mercurial former president who may never hold public office again" isn't a great way to run a party or a legislature.

Could a chasm be developing between the Trumpy senators and the not-so-Trumpy senators? You wouldn't want to reach any firm conclusions quite yet, but it's at least possible. In another development of that sort, Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) has grown weary of certain Republican senators (ahem, Mr. Cruz) slowing down ambassadorial appointments in order to score political points and to create leverage in situations that have nothing to do with ambassadors (e.g., the Nord Stream 2 pipeline). So, Manchin chatted with several of his Republican colleagues and found out that they're weary of it, too. And they are discussing rule changes that would weaken the Texas Republican's capacity to make trouble. The current concept is for the Senate to consider ambassadors in groups of five, all at the same time, which would cut the amount of Cruz time-wasting by 80%.

And while we are at it, we will point out that if these negotiations are successful, Manchin might plausibly take two lessons away. One would be "See! I told you bipartisanship works!" This would be a very thin demonstration of that lesson, since you could just as easily say "See! I told you everyone hates Ted Cruz!" Still, the West Virginia senator is a bipartisanship fetishist, so he may take that lesson nonetheless. Alternatively, he could say "Changing the rules isn't as bad as I thought. Maybe we should change more of them, like the rules about filibusters?" That's improbable, but don't forget that a journey of 1,000 miles begins with a single step. (Z)

German Readers Weigh In

Yesterday, we invited readers to share their thoughts about Germany's new chancellor Olaf Scholz. We got some interesting responses, and thought we'd share some of them today instead of waiting until the Sunday mailbag.

P.B. in Berlin, Germany:
Since you asked for some comments from your readers in Germany, let me start by wishing the Teutonic Affairs Consultant a speedy recovery from his Schweinshaxe-disease, and by pointing out that one of the three parties forming the new government are the Greens, who proposed "veggie days" in public cafeterias in previous campaigns. This item of their platform was perceived as a threat to liberty by the schweinshaxe-loving parts of the electorate and therefore was dropped this time. However, this little episode, along with the fact that Olaf Scholz proved to be undenominational by skipping the optional religious phrase at the end of the oath of office, may serve to hint what holds this diverse coalition together: a sense of modernity that draws a visible contrast to Angela Merkel's Christian Democratic Union (CDU).

The new coalition brings together Scholz's Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD), traditionally a left-of-center party with strong ties to the trade unions; the Green Party with its focus on combating climate change, resembling a German version of the more urban and liberal parts of the Democratic party; and the Free Democratic Party (FDP), which managed to combine an economy-friendly agenda—not too far from the less radical parts of the Republican Party in the U.S.—with a sense of modernism by proposing stronger efforts in high-standard digitalization. Thus, the Greens and the FDP managed to become particularly successful among younger voters, although for different reasons.

The German constitution does not provide term limits for the chancellor's office, so Merkel could have run for a fifth term had she wanted to; this would most likely have prevented the right-of-center CDU from losing as badly as they did. Thus, she gives a rare example of a deliberate departure from office. By U.S. standards, the Christian Democrats are somewhere in between the most centrist Democrats—Joe Manchin and Co.—and the least radical Republicans. AFD, the radical right party that would be closest to the Trumpier parts of the Republicans, lost votes, as well as Die Linke—the most liberal party of the spectrum (Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-VT, and Co. might well fit in). Both were left without a chance of becoming part of a governing coalition.

There will be some continuity in international affairs in the sense that Germany will still promote multilateralism, strengthen ties within the EU and with the U.S. and other NATO allies. However, it will probably position itself in a more distant position vis-à-vis systemic rivals such as China and Russia, in spite of strong economic ties with both countries, as you also pointed out. However, former SPD chancellor Gerhard Schröder (Scholz's superior at that time) and a significant part of the German public seek a more cooperative approach; when SPD governed during the Cold War, their policy of détente towards the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe became their signature issue.

So, all in all, the new coalition aims to modernize society; in times of a possible repeal of Roe vs. Wade, it might be interesting to know that the new coalition plans to reinforce the liberal approach towards abortion by lifting some current restrictions.

However, the transition is not one between two diametrically opposing ideologies and ways of policy-making but rather a transitory shift around the political center. Therefore, there is broad support but little deeply-felt enthusiasm for the new administration as far as I can see.

I am curious to know what your staff Teutonic Affairs Consultant—and the readers of your wonderful site—think about all this.

V & Z respond: He's still recovering; it looks like he might also have had a few too many Pilsners. As to the readers, we will likely run a few more letters on Sunday.
H.D. in Zurich, Switzerland:
Olaf Scholz already achieved a lot as finance minister; the worldwide minimum tax for companies was his proposal, as was the EU's €750 billion COVID-19 fund. Scholz has similar reform ideas as Emmanuel Macron and the two will achieve a lot together, because Macron is more of the type who announces big ideas, while Scholz is driving forward plans from the background. Both have the goal of defining and realizing European interests, sometimes in accordance with the U.S., sometimes not. It really has to be said clearly that the US military adventures have destabilized the Middle East and left the EU with a lot of refugees and problems. That convinced the EU that it would be better not to rely on the U.S.
J.B. in Berlin, Germany:
Olaf Scholz is more of a domestic politician, more on the right wing of the SPD and a cautious politician with populist tendencies (quite similar to Angela Merkel in this respect). He will interfere relatively little in foreign policy and will have to moderate his fragile coalition, as well as his European partners. If he governs for a long time, this may lead to greater influence, as with Merkel.

German foreign policy after World War II is historically characterized by continuity; changes of government do not play a major role there (with a few exceptions). Nevertheless, Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock from the Green Party will now play a more important role than Foreign Minister Heiko Maas of the SPD did. On the one hand, she is relatively inexperienced (and some do not trust her to represent national interests in a tough, "masculine" way). And on the other, she will focus foreign policy strongly on human rights and protection against climate change and less on the interests of the German automotive industry. Initially, one will see few differences from Merkel's Germany. On the positive side, I expect a slightly more liberal, more European, more ecological foreign policy.

On the negative side, Merkel's diplomatic skills and standing are expected to be lacking for a long time. The most exciting issue is likely to be the future China policy. Here, the SPD on the one side and the Greens on the other (and the liberal, business-friendly FDP in between) differ. Scholz would rather appease the Chinese government, while Baerbock will position herself as clearly critical of China. And we are waiting for better interaction with a possible new French president on the international stage.
A.F. in Hamburg, Germany:
People voted for a change, but with the security of established faces, as the new chancellor is the former vice chancellor under the Merkel administration.

Both come from the North (Angela Merkel was born in Hamburg, while Olaf Scholz grew up there). People from Hamburg are pragmatic, modest, low-key, a bit boring and low excitement. It's an old harbor city with century-old traders. There is a hard-working mentality and the culture is very business-focused. Never underestimate people from the North; the less they speak the more to pay attention. So, in the U.S. they wouldn't even be hired as a dog catcher.

So that is that.

The biggest change will relate to issues of ecological transformation of the German industry. It's basically all about green energy. The storyline is: If we won't do it and start with the reshaping of our industry (Germany is still a production/industry heavyweight ) no one else will do it. We can't wait for Russia and China to be on the Paris 1.5 degree path. So where is the benefit for Germany? If Germany succeeds, we can sell that technology to the world and profit from the transformation process.

Culture-wise, the new government is more liberal than the old coalition could get away with because the major ruling party was Merkel's CDU. There are some changes being announced already: pro-LGBT+, pro-immigration, pro-women's equal share in society.

The government will be strongly pro-Europe, pro-NATO and with strong ties to the U.S. So basically no change, as this is common ground in Germany.
F.R. in Berlin, Germany:
The inauguration of an SPD chancellor can be easily seen as a repudiation of Angela Merkel's party and her politics: The CDU got their lowest vote share since 1949, when the first post-war chancellor Konrad Adenauer was elected by a razor-thin majority. It was the Catholic conservative (and firm anti-Nazi) Adenauer who developed the CDU's image of Germany's default government, and every time they were in opposition (1969-1982 and 1998-2005, respectively), the conservatives have been raging about the upcoming rule of unqualified socialists with their bottomless spending and amateurish foreign and economic policies.

This time could be different, though. The conservatives were so busy getting rid of their chairman and discussing new leadership elections that their attempt to convince Free Democrats and Greens to join their "Coalition for the Future" collapsed in the earliest stage of negotiations, and now they are mostly extending congratulations and promising constructive cooperation.

So maybe this election is more continuity-themed than the numbers on the sheets suggest. The campaign itself seemed to be mostly a Merkel-look-alike contest, and the SPD entered the first tier only after lingering in the low double digits for a year or so. Their campaign message was boring, but effective: "We care about social justice and climate change and we have an experienced candidate for chancellor. Period." Note that the CDU and the Greens, who were leading in the "opposition" lane all the time, nominated politicians who had never served in a federal government. Especially for the CDU, whose platform traditionally boils down to "We know what to do," this was damaging.

Merkel herself has been backing off of conservative positions throughout her tenure: When she ran first in 2005, she ran against a minimum wage, marriage equality, and liberal immigration laws, and was in support of an overhaul of public health insurance and new nuclear power plants (Germany's signature environmental issue before climate change was on the front pages). Now, all this is gone and the military draft is, too. The CDU has always been a toned-down version of the Republican Party of Reagan and the Bushes, which was voted for by suburban elites, religious conservatives and frustrated low-income voters with xenophobic tendencies, because they all felt that they got their share of attention.

Now, the xenophobes are gone forever and vote for the right-wing Alternative for Germany (AfD), which is hopping on any new crisis to prove that they are representing the suppressed "people." First, there was an issue with Greece's national debt that no one remembers, then the immigration and, now, they are holding anti-lockdown speeches and pandering to anti-vaxxers. The AfD is winning pluralities, but not majorities, in the rural parts of former East Germany where the promises of capitalism have not been realized. Surging on the national level it is not, fortunately, so we have a situation, that American readers might find similar: Urban and rural votes are growing more and more different, with the exception that there are many parties competing for the youth and urban vote, and that the main parties (SPD, CDU and Greens) are still trying to appeal across the demographics (yes, the Greens have rural credentials, but organic farming is not a barnburner).

We think there's some very interesting stuff here about where Germany's headed, but also about how their political situation compares to that of the United States. (Z)

This Week in Schadenfreude

We debated this one. On one hand, you don't want to make light of it when someone is the victim of a violent crime. On the other hand, this violent crime did not injure any human beings, and was perpetrated by a person who appears to be mentally unbalanced. So, that makes it almost like an act of nature. Further, the response of the "victim" definitely pushed the initial incident well into schadenfreude territory.

So, what happened? Well, Fox—who has appointed itself general in combating the so-called "war on Christmas"—took some incoming fire this week. And we do mean "fire." If you haven't heard already, the fake Christmas tree that Fox set up in front of its New York headquarters—an obvious ripoff of the Christmas tree that's been put up in front of NBC headquarters since the 1930s—was torched and burned to the ground earlier this week.

Again, we might have been reluctant to poke Fox in the eye over this, except that the on-air reaction at the channel was wildly, insanely, absurdly out of proportion. After the smelling salts came out, and the Fox talkers had gotten up off their fainting couches, they behaved as if they had been wronged as badly as any person (or pseudo-news outlet) has been wronged since Joan of Arc (who also had issues with fire). Fox CEO Suzanne Scott described it as a "deliberate and brazen act of cowardice." Tucker Carlson, whose name presents certain opportunities for limerick writers (see below) called it a "hate crime." Fox contributor Jacques DeGraff went even further than that, and compared the burning of the tree to...the attack on Pearl Harbor. Seems very reasonable. Undoubtedly, the 1,102 Marines and sailors still trapped in the wreckage of the U.S.S. Arizona would agree if they hadn't, you know, died that day.

So, Fox surrendered whatever sympathy points it had earned, and veered right back into schadenfreude territory. It would seem that many others agree, because this has been the hottest meme on the Internet this week (no pun intended). In honor of David Letterman, here is a Top 10 list of the most scorching jokes made at Fox's expense (OK, that pun was intended):

  1. "They called the fire department. Socialists!"
  2. "The fire is believed to have started after Fox's pants caught on fire."
  3. "Safety reminder: Never put your tree close to a dumpster fire."
  4. "That's nothing. You should see what happens when you bring a Bible to Fox headquarters."
  5. "When even Christmas is done with your bulls**t."
  6. "A Fox personality must have said something truthful on the air."
  7. "The tree went up in flames because it was time for Satan to invoke the deal."
  8. "It could be an accident. It could be arson. It could be Santifa."
  9. "Homeless and mentally ill? Oh, my God—the fire was set by Bill O'Reilly!"
  10. "Must have put the cross too close to the tree."

The people have thus spoken, and deemed a little schadenfreude at Fox's expense to be OK. (Z)

A December to Rhymember (Parts 11-12)

We weren't sure how well received this limerick business would be, but the feedback has been overwhelmingly positive, and it certainly seems like people are enjoying it. Who knows, maybe we'll keep it up all month.

Here are the previous entries:

And, as you already know (assuming you read the page in order), the Man of the Hour is Tucker Carlson. To begin, here's A.W. in Morrison, CO:

There once was a young man named Tucker
Who gave racists and thugs aid and succor.
He gave them applause,
And promoted their cause
This evil, corrupt motherfu**er.

And then, from A.H. in Columbus, OH:

There's a man on Fox named Tucker
You might say he's a real...on second thought, never mind.

The limericks (and some other verse) will resume again on Monday. We're still working on the movie content, too, but one of us is in the midst of finals week and the other has a book deadline. So, we don't have as much time as we need to get it right. Next week, though! And that means there's still time for readers to send in their lists of important/influential/must-see films. (Z)


Previous | Next


Back to the main page