Senate page     May 23

Senate map
Previous | Next

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

Four More States Take Their Turn, Part I

This week, we have primaries in Georgia, Alabama and Arkansas, as well as a runoff in Texas. There are quite a few interesting storylines, so we'll just preview Georgia and Alabama today.

Georgia

Alabama

Arkansas and Texas will be under the microscope tomorrow. (Z)

Republicans Hungary for Extremism?

Let's review some of the items on the "résumé" of newly-reelected Hungarian PM Viktor Orbán:

This does not seem like the type of person you'd want to associate with, right?

Wrong! This weekend, the annual Conservative Political Action Conference was held... in Hungary, and nearly all of the speakers were effusive in their praise of the Hungarian leader. Here are some of the folks who spoke this weekend:

Why would American conservatives make a point of going such a long distance to hold an event like this? Why would they praise Orbán? Why would people like Trump and Carlson have no problem sharing a podium with someone like Bayer, whose views are no secret? Readers can presumably answer those questions just as well as we can. All we've really got to add here is the old quote from Maya Angelou: "When someone shows you who they are, believe them." (Z)

A**hole Watch 2022: Tucker Carlson

Please forgive the less-than-evenhanded headline. For the last few days, we've been sitting on stories about really offensive behavior from three different Republicans, trying to figure out what to do with them. On the one hand, we don't want to normalize or approve of such behavior by overlooking it. On the other hand, we don't want to get into the business of railing against right-wingers. We're not the Huffington Post.

However, the time has come to finish off the bracket competition. We actually have a huge backlog of stuff we'd like to write about right now, but it's not as huge now as a week or two ago, so we aren't quite as constrained as we were. And while we did what we could to avoid this result, the fact is that Republicans utterly dominated the competition, particularly the final rounds. Yes, that is partly a reflection of the readership of this site. But it's also a reflection of the fact that many Republicans engage in a lot of the kind of behavior that might earn someone the title of "worst political figure in the country." Even if one objects to Democrats' policies, the Democrats do not generally act like a**holes.

So, we figure we can run down (and we mean that on several levels) one ill-behaving Republican per day for three days, as entree to the last three days of brackets, and as something of a reminder as to why the competition turned into a sea of red. Up today, as you can see from the headline, is Tucker Carlson.

It is hardly news that Carlson is an a**hole. We're honestly not sure if anyone really thinks otherwise. Whenever we see him, we're reminded of a line from an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation: "You don't like me. No problem. I have many friends that don't like me." Our guess is that even fans of Carlson's program say to themselves: "Yes, he's an a**hole. But he's our a**hole."

Carlson, of course, is the media's #1 proponent of replacement theory. And replacement theory pretty clearly influenced the Buffalo shooter to do what he did. These facts alone would be enough, by themselves, to qualify Carlson for the A**hole Hall of Fame. The Fox host knows he's got a problem on his hands (and on his eternal soul?) and has expended much oxygen making the world's most predictable argument, namely that the shooter was mentally ill, and that his actions had nothing to do with "hateful right-wing rhetoric." We have not examined the shooter, nor do we have the training to reach conclusions even if we had, but here's a question: Why can't it be both? Even if he had mental issues, that doesn't mean he wasn't triggered by the rhetoric, right?

That said, it's not Carlson's attempt to excuse himself that inspired this item, nor his address as the Orbán lovefest this weekend (see above). It's something much less consequential, and yet gallingly hypocritical. Readers may remember that (now-former) Saturday Night Live castmember Pete Davidson made a joke about the eyepatch Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) wears due to a combat injury, and was forced to apologize the next week:



At that time, Carlson was among the folks who were screaming the loudest; he devoted a whole segment to Davidson, framing it as proof that liberals have no respect for veterans. "Yeah, so that's their position and they are not hiding it anymore," explained the Fox host. While he said this, the chyron below read: "SNL Sinks To New Low By Insulting Wounded Veteran."

Well, if you haven't heard about it already, you probably still know where this is headed. Crenshaw, these days, is anti-Russia and pro-Ukraine. Carlson is anti-Ukraine and pro-Russia, and Crenshaw's position makes him angry. And so, on his show this week, the Fox host slurred the Representative as "Eyepatch McCain":



The first minute of that video gives the context for the remark; if you want to jump right to the remark itself it's at 1:05. For those keeping score at home, that's two veterans slurred—Crenshaw and former senator John McCain—for the price of one. Apparently, conservatives who did not themselves serve have a very low regard for those who did serve. That's their position and they are not hiding it anymore.

While Davidson apologized as rapidly as he possibly could (after all, SNL is only on once a week), Carlson—despite being on TV five times a week—has yet to back off his words or to apologize. And you presumably don't tell us not to hold your breath waiting for him to do so. This weekend marked Davidson's final appearance on SNL, and in his final bit before bidding the show adieu, he talked about how much has changed in his 8 years on the show:



It's cued up to the line that brought down the house, but in case you don't want to watch/listen, the line was: "In three years, Fox News went from calling me a 'monster' for making fun of congressman Dan Crenshaw's eyepatch... to also making fun of Dan Crenshaw's eyepatch." Davidson certainly knows what it looks like when hypocrisy reaches laughable levels. (Z)

PM Tossed Overboard by Voters Down Under

Aussies headed to the polls this weekend, and presumably consumed many pounds of democracy sausage. And apparently, they are tired of the Liberal Party (which, in Australia, is the center-right party). Or maybe they are just tired of guys with British names. Whatever it was, Liberal Prime Minister Scott Morrison lost his job this weekend, to be replaced by Labor leader Anthony Albanese.

Albanese really did make a point of noting his "non-Anglo Celtic name" during the campaign, and of telling his story of having grown up as the son of a poor single mother. The election wasn't especially close; Labor picked up at least 8 seats, giving them 75; the Liberals currently stand to lose 19 seats, putting them at 56; and the third-largest party will be the Greens, who are up to at least three members after having just one in the last parliament.

It actually takes 76 seats to form a government in Australia, which means Labor is currently one short. In addition to the 75 seats that have been called for them, the 56 that have been called for the Liberals (actually the Liberal/National Coalition), and the 3 for the Greens, there are 10 independents along with one member of Katter's Australian Party (surprise: his name is Katter) and one member of the Centre Alliance (his name is NOT Centre). That leaves four seats in doubt; if Labor does not claim at least one of them then Albanese will have to put together a coalition government. If it comes to that, he shouldn't have too much trouble getting the Greens on board, since they would be able to exert influence far beyond what three seats would normally afford.

Although the results aren't official, Morrison promptly conceded defeat and resigned because someone needs to represent Australia at the Quad Summit this week with Joe Biden, Narendra Modi, and Fumio Kishida. Our staff psychologist suggests that someone might learn a lesson from Morrison about acting like an adult when dealt a setback, as opposed to throwing a tantrum like a small child. We are not clear to whom she might be referring, but maybe readers will be able to figure it out.

Keep reading for a bit more on the election. (Z)

Three Comments: Foreign Affairs

The summer has arrived, which means that we are now in a position to make some changes to the site in hopes of improving it. You're going to see a lot of stuff on the front in the next few weeks and months.

Last week, we ran guest columns from five different readers. We were seeing what the response would be and, we're happy to report, it was overwhelmingly positive. We'll be soliciting some feedback about how best to implement that possibility moving forward.

Another thing we'd like to work on is the Sunday mailbag feature, which we believe has a lot of value, but which tends to load a LOT of content into a single day. Nobody else runs letters only once a week, and maybe we shouldn't, either. So, what we are going to experiment with this week is a different approach where we run a few comments a day, and see how that works. Note that the Sunday mailbag wouldn't go away, even if this does work, though it would evolve into something a little different. Anyhow, today we're going to have one comment on last week's guest column on the Philippine election, and two on the election in Australia this weekend:

S.O.F. in Jersey City, NJ, writes: In response to the columns from your contributors in the Philippines regarding the election there, I think there is a side to this which needs to be acknowledged. While I am likely not as exposed to the situation on the ground as your contributors, my wife grew up under Ferdinand Marcos Sr., and I was exposed to a lot of the discourse associated with this election. Despite the focus being on BongBong Marcos and what he represents for the country, his dubious strategies for getting elected, etc., there are a lot of parallels with politics in the United States regarding the opposition.

As a lifelong Democrat, I was amazed at the classic "Democrat" moves that were on display by the Leni Robredo Campaign. It was kind of like holding the last 8 years or so of the United States up to a mirror. My in-laws who were fierce supporters of Leni would often focus on her crowd sizes as an indication that she would win (a homage to Bernie Sanders supporters). They were quick to point out online polls to cast doubt on the more mainstream polling showing Marcos with a commanding lead. The crux of their argument for electing Leni was her accomplished résumé, as well as the importance of electing the first female president. The campaign was heavy on identity politics; everyone wore pink (à la the Women's March) to the rallies. Most of the campaign's surrogates were celebrities, pop stars, etc. There was a fair amount of elitism from some of my relatives, basically "support for Marcos equals stupid." Leni also often took the high road despite the political ramifications, most notably proclaiming her support for LGBTQ+ rights. In a staunchly conservative Catholic country, that is political suicide, like it or not.

Despite all of this, I get the impression that this election did not come down to support for Marcos or dislike of Robredo, nor were dirty tricks and misinformation a major factor. The biggest issue for my relatives who voted for Marcos was continuing the Duterte policies—infrastructure, crime, economic development. But there are some important, and difficult, takeaways from analyzing the opposition. If defending Liberal Democracy against Autocratic Nationalism is the main issue of our time, the above outlined strategy has failed. It most notably failed in the United States in 2016 and we are still watching in real time the consequences of that loss play out in the Supreme Court. It has now failed in the Philippines, and there is a real possibility that the country takes an unhealthy step back to autocracy because of it. Losing elections has consequences. If the political Left, as it is defined in the Western (and West leaning) world, is to be the last Bulwark in defense of Democracy, they need to learn that being seen as standing for the right thing is far less important than winning elections and then doing the right thing.


J.S. in Iowa City, IA, writes: I care way more about Australian politics than any red-blooded American should, but I was happy to see Labor pull off a more decisive-than-expected victory over the weekend.

As much as I want to think this reflects a growing consciousness of environmental issues and a rejection of the creeping Trumpism among Australia's political right, I hypothesize that backlash to this ad did the Liberal/National coalition in:



I heard the jingle one time and it hasn't left my head since. I can't imagine that a marginal voter, being forced to listen to this for weeks, would be sympathetic to the ad's source.


G.B. in Canberra, ACT, Australia, writes: There is an old saying in Australia that oppositions don't win government, it's governments that lose. That is very true of Saturday's result. The Liberal-National Coalition lost government. They lost my vote too, primarily because of their immorality. I had thought it would be difficult for a Conservative government to be immoral. But the Morrison government showed how. Maybe my view of morality is too broad. But, to me, lying, cheating, insider favoritism, self-dealing and infidelity are immoral and that government had them all. But worst of all to me was the lack of regard for other people. They were actually, intentionally cruel to some people.

There are many examples of that government's cruelty but one which really struck me, and was mostly ignored in the election campaign, is colloquially called "Robo Debt." In summary, the government used automatic (i.e. "Robo") calculations to claim people were overpaid unemployment and other benefits. On the basis of those calculations they raised debts which could only be expunged by being repaid or by providing proof there was no debt. That is, they reversed the burden of proof on the debt. Some calculations went back 10 years. They sent notices to old addresses then engaged debt collection agencies to find and harass "debtors" who had not responded. Many vulnerable people committed suicide. Some brave people took the government to court. After nearly 3 years, a court held that the basis of the debt calculations was unlawful. It was not a weird loophole. The entitlement calculations were just wrong and not based on what is in the law—so basic that anyone could read the law and find out. After getting legal advice, the government accepted the court ruling and agreed to pay back the money and write off unpaid debts. The cost of that exercise could be upwards of A$1 billion. No one knows how many people died because of the harassment and threats. The Robo Debt saga was but one of many examples of egregious, mean, immoral actions by that government.

I have just finished reading an excellent commentary on the last government and its failings. Some might think it very odd that it was written by a senior minister in the New South Wales State Liberal-National government—i.e. the same party as the last federal government. But I think it was just honest.

Three more comments tomorrow. Expect abortion to make an appearance. (Z)


Previous | Next


Back to the main page