Senate page     Feb. 08

Senate map
Previous | Next

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

Biden Administration Has a Mini-Scandal

Eric Lander is a very distinguished scientist, having served in multiple presidential administrations, won a MacArthur Fellowship and a Rhodes Scholarship (among other accolades), and earned simultaneous appointments to professorships at Harvard and MIT. So, he certainly had the CV to be appointed as Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy and Science Advisor to the President in Joe Biden's administration. But Lander does not hold those positions anymore, because yesterday he was forced to resign.

What was the problem? In short, Lander was a big jerk. He was verbally abusive to his subordinates, enough to prompt complaints and a White House investigation. That investigation made clear that Lander's behavior had indeed been problematic. Initially, the administration planned only to insist on "corrective actions," which presumably meant something like sensitivity training. However, as news of the report got out, "corrective actions" began to morph into "you're outta here." Biden reportedly did not insist that Lander resign, but one imagines that the scientist saw the writing on the wall and decided to fall on his sword.

In his resignation letter, Lander expressed gratitude for the opportunity to serve in the administration, and wrote, "I am devastated that I caused hurt to past and present colleagues by the way in which I have spoken to them." He presumably did enjoy serving, but the latter part is nonsense. Someone who is capable of being "devastated" to learn that they have hurt their colleagues' feelings would not engage in this pattern of behavior in the first place. Academia has a fair number of jerks because it's damn near impossible for someone with tenure to get fired for boorish personal behavior. So, it's easy to acquire bad habits. And that can be doubly true of rock star academics, who are nearly bulletproof. It's not always true—some rock star academics have nothing to prove, and are just as nice and down to earth as could be—but there's zero chance Lander was a sweetheart when he was performing his academic duties, and yet a dragon when he was doing government work. Unfortunately for him, in government work the microscope is much bigger, and almost nobody is bulletproof.

Given the gossipy nature of the media, this story is being treated as a BIG DEAL. But is it, really? A presidential administration requires hiring a very large number of people in a very short period of time. No president is going to bat 1.000; some of the people just aren't going to work out for one reason or another. Lander turned out to be a bad fit (and a bad guy), he's gone, and undoubtedly another very distinguished scientist will take his place.

Truth be told, the main thing this story illustrates for us—though nobody else seems to be talking about it this way—is the difference between the current and the previous presidential administrations. This is Biden's first cabinet-level officer to depart the administration. By this same point in the Trump administration, two cabinet secretaries had departed (HHS Secretary Tom Price and DHS Secretary John Kelly), two cabinet-level staffers had departed (Chief of Staff Reince Priebus and NSA Michael Flynn), and three more cabinet or cabinet-level appointments were on the cusp of departing (Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Secretary of Veterans Affairs David Shulkin, and EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt. The Biden administration, by contrast, is a model of stability. Further, bad behavior here triggered an investigation and a resignation. The Trump administration, by contrast, was a veritable jerk parade, including Trump himself, of course, but also Jared Kushner, Stephen Miller, John Bolton, and a litany of others. There would have been no investigation under #45, and no terminations/resignations—at least, not for jerkiness.

We imagine that this story will fade fairly quickly. For the more mainstream media, there just isn't much more gossipy mileage to be squeezed out of it. And for the right-wing media, well, forgive us for saying so, but their audience is far more likely to be driven into a tizzy if the jerk behavior (or even alleged jerk behavior) comes from a woman, a person of color, or a woman of color (like, say, Kamala Harris). Jerky white guys just don't move the needle much on Fox and Newsmax. (Z)

Democrats Also Have a Scandal

We're not talking about the whole party, necessarily, just certain prominent members of it. You might call it "The Case of the Missing Mask," because a large number of prominent blue teamers have been photographed in public at times when they really should have been wearing a mask, but were not.

The latest perpetrator is Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams, who made two unbelievable unforced errors back-to-back. The first was that she visited a school where the children were masked while she was not. The second, and this is the real kicker, is that she retweeted photos of the visit that were first posted by the school's principal. Ok, Abrams probably doesn't run her own social media accounts, but how did nobody in this chain—including the candidate—say "Wait, this looks really bad"? This is likely to linger for a good, long time, and in a race where Abrams just can't afford to make many errors.

The list of other Democrats who have been caught breaking the rules is long. In California, you'd have a hard time finding a prominent Democrats who hasn't gotten busted for masklessness. That list includes Gov. Gavin Newsom, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, San Francisco London Breed, and San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo. A lot of non-California mayors, too, including Eric Adams (New York City), Lori Lightfoot (Chicago), Muriel Bowser (Washington, D.C.), Michael Hancock (Denver), and Steve Adler (Austin). A few governors, in addition to Newsom, have also run afoul of the rules that they established, including Michigan's Gretchen Whitmer (MI) and former New York governor Andrew Cuomo.

It's understandable that these folks would let their masks drop on occasion; it's tough to wear them for a long time, and it's also difficult to keep them on in certain circumstances (say, exercising). But, the fact is, everyone's watching, and that wasn't a secret when they chose this line of work. It's also ironic that Democrats who wear their masks 95% of the time are getting more blowback than Republicans who wear their masks... considerably less. But, as British PM Boris Johnson is being reminded daily, voters really, really hate hypocrisy. And if Democrats are going to be the pro-mask party, then the party's officeholders have to go above and beyond to model that behavior, as opposed to doing things that say "I'm elite and I don't have to play by the same rules as the hoi polloi."

Barring another surge, mask mandates may soon be dispensed with across most or all of the country where they still exist. So, that might solve this problem for many/most/all Democratic politicians. But until then, getting caught maskless is an inexcusable misstep. (Z)

National Archives and Records Administration Visits Mar-a-Lago

No, the folks at NARA weren't in search of excellent seafood. If they were, then there are roughly 100,000 places in Florida that would be a better choice than Mar-a-Lago, even on "SIX STAR SEAFOOD NIGHT" (every Wednesday evening). Instead, as The Washington Post reported yesterday, it was necessary to recover 15 boxes of documents that Donald Trump took with him when he left the White House; documents that he should have left behind.

In fairness to the former president, it's legal to take personal correspondence, just not official correspondence. And the line between the two can be blurry; among the things that Trump took were letters from Barack Obama and Kim Jong-Un. Nearly every ex-president (or, their staffers, really) makes a few mistakes and so gets a friendly visit from NARA sometime after leaving office. That said, it's usually a handful of documents, and not 15 boxes' worth. One NARA staffer described it as "out of the ordinary ... NARA has never had that kind of volume transfer after the fact like this."

The incident serves, at very least, as a reminder of two features of the Trump administration. First, he consistently showed little regard for the rules about record-keeping, something that might just get him popped, as we wrote yesterday. Second, at least a part of the reason that the documents were not examined more carefully, ideally by someone who cares more about the rules than Trump does, is that the president's personal effects were packed with lightning speed. And the reason that happened is that he did not accept that he was changing addresses until just days before he did so.

This news also raises a more concerning possibility: Were there any documents that Trump took with him that NARA did not recover? Given the former president's willingness to destroy records, and his deep and abiding desire to protect himself, it's entirely possible that some incriminating stuff found its way into the "Oops! I'm not supposed to take that?" stuff, and that the incriminating stuff has since been destroyed. We may never know for sure. (Z)

Alabama District Map Stands--for Now...

We've written a fair bit about redistricting, which kinda makes sense, since our focus is politics. And this is our third item about the new Alabama maps in the last two weeks. As a reminder, the map drawn by the Republicans in the legislature had only one majority-Black district, despite the fact that the state is more than one-quarter Black, and two of its three largest cities are majority-Black (Birmingham, 69.9%; Montgomery, 60.7%). So, a three-judge panel from a federal appeals court unanimously ruled that the legislature had to come up with a new map that has at least two majority-Black districts.

Yesterday, the oligarchy that basically rules the country stepped in and said "not so fast." By a vote of 5-4, which is getting pretty common with the contentious cases these days, the Supreme Court said that the map can be used while the underlying case gets resolved. Since that won't happen anytime soon, that means the Alabamians will get an extra Republican seat for at least one cycle. If the Republicans end up with a 218-217 House majority once the midterms are over, there is going to be a lot of screaming about this.

Presumably you don't need us to tell you which 4 voted to uphold the lower court's ruling, and to demand new maps. All you have to figure out—Chiefly—is which conservative sided with the three liberals. In any event, this just illustrates why there's no legal reason that legislatures should not go for broke with the gerrymandering. Maybe the map gets through the courts and, even if it doesn't, there's every chance that it will take a cycle or two to work things out, during which time the gerrymandering party gets a freebie or two for a cycle or two. (Z)

...But the Ohio District Map Is Headed Back to the Drawing Board

And now it's time to discuss the Ohio district maps for the third time in two weeks. Again, as a reminder, the Republican-controlled legislature drew maps that would likely give 12 of 15 U.S. House seats (80%), 20 of 33 state Senate seats (61%), and 57 of 99 state House seats (58%) to the GOP. This is in a state that is 42% Republican and 40% Democratic, and that went 53% to 46% for Donald Trump in 2020.

The Ohio constitution forbids gerrymanders, and so lawsuits were filed. On Jan. 12, in a 4-3 decision, the state Supreme Court struck the maps down. As with the Supreme Court and Alabama (see above), the 4 included the three liberals on the court and the chief justice. In contrast to the Supreme Court and Alabama, 4 votes was enough to carry the day. In response to this defeat, Ohio Republicans asked to be allowed to leave the gerrymandered maps in place for one election cycle, since the filing deadline for the primaries was so close. It probably also did not escape their notice that the Chief Justice of Ohio, Maureen O'Connor, has reached mandatory retirement age, and will be forced to leave the court in January of next year. Although she is a Republican, she voted with the Democrats on this case and could be replaced next year with a Republican who votes with the Republicans all the time.

Yesterday, the Ohio Court issued its second ruling on the matter, and said that they don't care if the filing deadline has passed; the maps are unacceptable. Apparently irritated by Republican foot-dragging, the Court said it wants new legislative district maps by Feb. 17, and that the maps need to reflect the actual partisan breakdown of the state. The legislature already had a Feb. 14 deadline for new congressional district maps, so they'll be burning the midnight oil for the next week. This is going to be their last chance before the Court takes the matter out of their hands entirely, so the Republicans have to decide exactly how aggressively they want to play this, at risk of aggravating four justices whose patience is already worn thin. (Z)

Looking Backward: How Did The Readers Do?, Part VIII: The Pandemic

This is prediction entry #20. Here are the 19 entries we've already run:

As always, it's up to five points for accuracy, and up to five points for how bold the accurate part of the prediction was, for a possible total of up to 10 points. And now, 2021 predictions about the pandemic:

That's 60.5/150, which is a stellar .403 batting average. Even Ted Williams is impressed, though he also notes that he hit .406 in 1941, so don't be getting too cocky. The readers' running total is now 257.5/920, for a .280 BA. Tomorrow, predictions for what will happen with the pandemic in 2022. (Z)


Previous | Next


Back to the main page