McCarthy Scores a Win... But Now What?

Yesterday, we wrote that Joe Biden simply could not accept anything other than a clean debt-limit-increase bill. That's the key for him. If he allows Republicans to hold the economy hostage in order to gain concessions in 2023 then, like Pavlov's dogs and the meat powder, they will immediately start drooling about all the things they can demand in 2024, 2025 and 2026.

What we should also have written is that passing a budget-slashing debt-ceiling bill was the key for Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA). If McCarthy couldn't get something this important and this visible over the finish line, then nobody would take him seriously anymore. No, it was definitely bill or bust.

Yesterday, he pulled a rabbit (an elephant) out of a hat and managed to get a bill through the House. McCarthy was forced to reopen negotiations, something he said he would not do, and to rewrite the bill to be even more satisfactory to the far-right elements in his conference. He was also forced to make some promises to moderates that it will be... interesting to see if he actually delivers upon. For example, he promised Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) a vote on a bill related to women's reproductive freedom. And even with all this horse trading, the bill eked out a narrow win, 217-215, made possible only by the fact that a couple of Democrats were absent yesterday.

Now the bill heads to the Senate, where it's dead on arrival. The only question is exactly how Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) will kill it. Does it head straight to the circular file? Or does Schumer bring it up for a vote that will put many Republicans in an awkward position, but that the Democratic caucus has enough votes to guarantee failure? Only Schumer knows for sure.

The next question is the messaging. The Republicans in the House are already talking about how they are the only ones who have an actual solution to the debt ceiling in place, and how they are determined to rein in wasteful spending on things like the environment. The problem is that Senate Republicans don't love the bill, nor do many Republican officeholders at the state level. Meanwhile, the Democrats have many possible angles here. Among them:

• We are not willing to allow the Republicans to take the economy hostage.
  
  
• Trying to crash the U.S. economy? Is Kevin McCarthy working for Xi Jinping?
  
  
• There's one party working to keep Orlando from turning into beachfront property, and it's not the Republicans.
  
  
• Why do the Republicans want to take food out of the mouths of children?
  
  
• It would seem that the GOP does not think student debt is a problem. They seem to have forgotten that not everyone has a trust fund to cover their tuition.

We stand by our view, expressed yesterday, that the Democrats have the stronger side of this.

The third question, and the big one, is exactly how the debt ceiling situation will be resolved. Now that McCarthy has his bill, there could be several weeks of playing chicken, as everyone waits for the other side to blink. But it now looks like the clock will run out in early June, so a denouement is not far off. If we were advising Joe Biden, we'd tell him to issue a statement much like this one:

Reading over my copy of the Constitution, I notice the Fourteenth Amendment says: "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."

Meanwhile, I know my Republican colleagues are big supporters of trying to figure out the "original intent" of those who wrote and passed important legislation. Well, the purpose of the debt ceiling was actually to make it easier for the executive branch to manage the budget, not harder.

These things being the case, the federal government will continue paying its debts. Congress is free to raise the debt ceiling, lower it, or get rid of it—I really don't care. I'm sure that those Republicans who object will be able to work through their feelings on Fox's airwaves.

This would certainly help burnish the image of "strong, decisive leader Joe" at the expense of "gets-nobody-excited-about-another-term Joe."

Another approach would be for him to say that he took an oath to see that the laws are faithfully executed. Congress has passed many appropriations bills in the past so he is obligated to spend the money as Congress directed, Since there is not enough tax money coming in to do that, the government will have to issue debt in order for me to see that all the appropriations laws are fully executed as Congress intended.

We won't have to wait terribly long to see how this drama plays out. And keep in mind that nobody knows for sure when smoke and mirrors will stop working, while simply approaching the cliff is enough to damage the economy, even if there's no plunge over the cliff. So, the real deadline here is something like May 20. (Z)

Mouse Bites Man

Despite "woke" not being a good campaign issue at all (see next item), Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) is showing his inner pitbull and not letting go. With the expected results, naturally. Yesterday DeSantis' hand-picked board of supervisors for the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District (the new name for the Reedy Creek Improvement District) voted to try to invalidate the agreement the old Reedy Creek board made with the Walt Disney Corporation. Just minutes later, Disney filed a suit in federal court trying to block the new board. It stated that the new board jeopardizes the economic future of the region, threatens Disney's business, and violates the companies First Amendment rights. We're impressed that the Disney lawyers could put together a complex lawsuit in a few minutes. It's almost like they anticipate all eventualities in advance, rather than flying by the seat of their pants. We're also impressed with DeSantis' stupidity in continuing to push this issue, when even Republicans don't care about it and picking a fight with the state's biggest private employer is going to get him labeled as anti-business.

Before voting to try to undo the agreement between Disney and Reedy Creek, there was a public hearing in which several local business owners in the area urged the board to work with Disney, not fight it. Not only did the chairman of the new board, Martin Garcia, reject that idea, but he said that all the legal infighting with Disney would cost a lot of money, so they would have to raise taxes to pay for it.

The core of the argument that the new board has a right to undo the old agreement is that Reedy Creek didn't follow the rules and the law and didn't hold open hearings and get permission from the relevant cities. We're not lawyers, but we know that Reedy Creek has been around since 1967—more than half a century. Disney has some very good lawyers and with well more than 50 years collective experience, we suspect they know the rules and the law exceptionally well and followed them to the letter. If DeSantis and his board refuse to back down, the federal courts will have to settle this, but it could take years. (V)

What's Woke?

Ron Desantis keeps dropping in polls of the Republican primaries. A new Morning Consult poll has Republican primary voters supporting Donald Trump over DeSantis 58% to 21%. Our staff mathematician said: "Wow, a 37% gap is a really big number." So what is DeSantis doing to right the ship? More of the same. Fight the Walt Disney Corporation, despite the company having some of the most aggressive and smartest lawyers in the country (see above item). Keep pointing out the Florida is where woke goes to die. You know, same old stuff. Einstein, among others, pointed out that doing the same old thing over and over and expecting a different result is the very definition of idiocy (Or insanity. Or maybe DeSanity.). Maybe DeSantis thinks that Trump will soon be convicted of something and that will change everything (but see next item). In any event, DeSantis keeps hammering away at how anti-woke he is.

That is probably not a smart move because the voters don't even know what "woke" means. We have pointed that out numerous times already, but new and compelling evidence keeps coming in. The dictionary says it is the past tense of "wake." The political use began in the Black community in the 2010s and meant something like "keenly aware of racial prejudice and discrimination," but now in leftist circles means more like "supports far-out leftist causes on a broad front." But the reality is that most people still don't get it. Now another focus group of Trump-to-Biden voters, this time in swing-state Pennsylvania, was asked about what "woke" means. Executive summary: They don't know.

The most recent focus group consisted of seven Republicans, four Democrats, and three independents. It was conducted on April 11. Most of the participants were "meh" over "woke" and didn't like going after big corporations for political reasons. But worse yet, they didn't even know what "woke" means. Scott (49), said: "It's a scare tactic." Jason (45) said: "I think it means 'awake'." Megan (34) said: "It's a derogatory term for progressive liberal policy." Megan is the closest, but the term was originally not at all derogatory. It was a compliment to people who "got it."

This time, the pollster asked the members of the group whether they agreed or disagreed with these five statements:

1. It's wrong when school books describe sexual violence and underage sex
2. Biological boys who identify as trans girls should not be on girls' sports teams.
3. We should prohibit classroom instruction on sexual orientation and gender identity; that's the parents' job.
4. We much oppose critical race theory being taught because it teaches kids to hate our country.
5. We must oppose woke cities and states that coddle criminals.

Nearly all 14 agreed with 2 and 3, but the other three were duds. Only three of the 14 participants said that a candidate holding all of these positions would be an attractive candidate. One said: "It's very much pandering to a very specific demographic." Another said: "I really feel like the politician should focus on things that actually matter to their constituents." One of the Republicans said: "I just think some of the views are just a little too far to the right for my taste." Yet another participant: "In the economy we're in now? I probably would lean towards the more economic stuff because that's kind of more my concern. I mean, I'm not going to be too worried about girls' sports if I don't have a job and if I can't afford to put gas in my car."

The bottom line here is that DeSantis can keep hammering on how anti-woke he is and how woke goes to Florida to die (along with a lot of New Yorkers) and how he slew the great Disney dragon, and more along those lines, but it is not working and won't work because many voters don't have a clue what he is talking about and those that have a clue are not interested in the topic. Just continuing to do this is not going to make up that 37-point deficit. It appears that he is not only a one-trick pony, but nobody even likes the one trick. (V)

Poll: Most Republicans Would Vote for Trump Even if He is a Convicted Felon

A new Marist College poll shows that 71% of Republicans want to see Donald Trump elected president again. If the question is rephrased as: "Would you vote for Donald Trump even if he has been convicted of a crime?" that drops to... 63%. So by and large, Republicans don't care if Trump is a convicted criminal. On the other hand, in a close election, losing 8% of the voters is a big deal. That would be enough to swing all the swing states to Joe Biden.

Overall, 64% of respondents don't want to see Trump elected again and that rises to 70% when asked how they would vote if Trump is convicted of a crime. In this light, Joe Biden's poll numbers look pretty good. Remember, all Democrats and a large majority of independents will vote against Trump if he is convicted of a crime. The Republican base simply isn't big enough to carry the day, especially if Trump is officially a felon.

We think that when the question is abstract like this, most Republicans say they will stick with him. And that might be true in the New York case being brought by DA Alvin Bragg, because many voters will just write if off as a small bookkeeping mistake and may also believe that Trump paid off Stormy Daniels just to keep Melania from finding out. However, if there is an extensive and widely publicized trial in Georgia, with multiple Republican Republican officials stating under oath that Trump broke the law and was trying to upend democracy and this is in the news for weeks, we think more than 8% will rethink their positions.

Yesterday, we alluded to the E. Jean Carroll defamation lawsuit as a problem for Trump. We think that the political fallout from losing that would be much larger than the New York criminal case and probably larger than the Georgia one. Specifically, suburban women who like the Republicans on tax policy and the Democrats on social policy may be on the fence. But when a jury rules that he actually raped someone, that is almost certainly going to cost him votes with (suburban) women, particularly women who are worried about crime. Also, that trial is happening now, not in a many months, like the Georgia trial.

We strongly suspect that Trump does not realize that women do not like being raped, even when their rapist is a star. He is not taking the threat seriously enough. For one thing, he should have done his absolute best to try to buy Carroll off. She undoubtedly is very angry and wants to make a point, but for everyone there is some amount of money that will make them not angry. If he offered her $1 million, she would probably say: "Buzz off." Maybe even for $5 million. But for $50 million? She's not rich and there is surely some amount of money that would get her to call the show off; even if she has no interest in fancy cars or whatever, she could do a lot of good with $50 million. Possibly the maximum he was willing to pay was lower than the minimum she was willing to accept, so there was no deal (yet). Also, Trump sent in the C team instead of the A team. Joe Tacopina is a big blustery guy who is going to anger all the women on the jury right off the bat. And Alina Habba has little trial experience. If Trump had taken this trial seriously, he would have gotten much better (and more expensive) lawyers. There are no doubt plenty of lawyers in New York who don't like Trump but for $2000/hour, paid in advance, would repress that for a couple of weeks. (V)

Carroll Testifies...

It looks like E. Jean Carroll and Donald Trump are not going to settle out of court, so the actual trial began yesterday with Carroll taking the stand and claiming that Donald Trump raped her in the mid 1990s in a New York department store. Trump has called her a liar so she sued him for defamation. Trump said that a rape was not possible because "she wasn't his type." However, during his deposition, he was shown a photo of her and asked if he knew her. He said sure and identified the woman in the photo as his second wife, Marla Maples. So even though he said Carroll wasn't his type, he did marry someone who looked enough like her that he couldn't distinguish her from someone he married.

Since her appearance is already an issue here, what does she look like? She is now no spring chicken. She will turn 80 later this year. On the left below is the photo the media has been using of her in most stories about the case for the past year or more. On the right is how she appeared yesterday. If Trump's lawyer says or implies that Trump couldn't have raped her because she is so ugly, that may not fly given how she appeared in court. We don't know if she has been working with a jury consultant, but one could imagine such a consultant telling her to look attractive in court to deflect the "not my type" argument.

Carroll said that she met Trump at the revolving door at Bergdorf Goodman's on a Thursday evening in 1996. She was apparently enough of his type that he began talking to her and got her to go with him to the ladies lingerie department to help pick out a gift for a woman. Since she was an advice columnist, she was taken by Trump, then a regular fixture in the New York tabloids, asking her for advice. She knew who he was and thought the interaction would result in a funny story. She was laughing with him as she and he entered a dressing room and he closed the door. Then he kissed her hard and, she says, inserted his penis into her while she struggled to get away. That's pretty much the definition of rape.

Carroll has said that she told two friends about the incident the same day. Carroll wants them to testify in court and the judge has ruled that they may testify under oath in court. He also ruled that her lawyers may play the infamous Access Hollywood recording for the jury."

It will be interesting to see how Trump's lead lawyer, Joe Tacopina, handles the defense. He can try to bully Carroll and the two witnesses, but that might actually backfire with the jury.

This is a civil trial and the standard of proof in civil trials is "preponderance of evidence," not "beyond all reasonable doubt." In other words, Carroll's lawyers merely have to make her story more convincing than Trump's. It need not be bulletproof. If her two witnesses hold up well under cross examination and her lawyer, Roberta Kaplan, who is one of the best around, does a good job discussing the photo in which Trump thought Carroll was his second wife, we don't see what Tacopina can do. Law students are supposedly told: "If the law is on your side, pound the law. If the facts are on your side, pound the facts. If neither is on your side, pound the table." We expect to see some table pounding in the next week or two. (V)

...And Mike Pence Will Soon Follow

Special Counsel Jack Smith wants to have Mike Pence over for tea and conversation. They might talk of many things, of shoes, ships, and sealing wax, perhaps, or of cabbages and kings. However, one topic that is sure to come up is the 1/6 insurrection, and Donald Trump's activities related to that incident.

Pence made a halfhearted effort to avoid Smith's subpoena, but gave up after one round in court. Trump would prefer that his former #2 not dish a bunch of #2 on him. So, the former president took up the banner, and tried to pull off his own court challenge of the subpoena. Yesterday, that failed. A three-judge panel from the DC Circuit Court of Appeals declared unanimously that they weren't buying what Trump and his lawyers are selling.

Trump could still appeal to the Supreme Court, of course, but in similar circumstances in the past, he's given up the fight at the Court of Appeals level. Even if he does appeal, SCOTUS probably wouldn't hear the matter. And even if they agreed to hear the matter, they would almost certainly tell Trump that a subpoena of Pence is none of his business, and that an ex-president can't assert executive privilege. So, Pence might as well book his hotel room for D.C., because he's going to be visiting Smith very soon. (Z)

Peter Thiel May Stay on the Sidelines in 2024

Billionaire Republican megadonor Peter Thiel, a German immigrant who opposes immigration, has told associates that he is not planning to donate to any candidates in the 2024 election. He is unhappy with the Republicans' focus on abortion and opposition to LGBTQ people. He also dumped north of $20 million into the campaign of Blake Masters for the Arizona Senate seat in 2022 and watched Masters get crushed by Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ). However, some of the lower-profile candidates he backed did win

What Thiel would like from the Republicans is to once again become the party of business, not the party opposing business. He wants the GOP to concentrate on encouraging tech companies, not berating them. He also wants the Party to focus more on battling China on economic grounds.

Thiel is gay and is married to businessman Matt Danzeisen, with whom he has two toddlers. He is said to be concerned that his involvement in politics could have implications for his family's safety. (V)

Be Careful What You Wish for--Tucker Carlson Edition

A lot of Democrats are happy as clams now that Fox has decided to rid itself of Tucker Carlson. Maybe they should wait a bit before breaking out the champagne. For 20 years, Fox News' star was Bill O'Reilly, who as just as far-right as Carlson, albeit somewhat more restrained. He was credibly accused of sexual harassment by multiple women. Advertisers began boycotting his show. Eventually Fox saw him as more of a liability than asset and let him go. Liberals everywhere cheered and some of them broke out the really good champagne that they reserved for special occasions.

Fox hunted around for a bit and found a suitable replacement: Tucker Carlson. He was just as far right as O'Reilly and even less tethered to reality. Was that an improvement? Those people now cheering Carlson's departure would be advised to wait to see who replaces him. We would be willing to bet $10 that it will not be Rachel Maddow (we don't do those $10,000 bets like Mitt Romney). There may yet come a day when liberals pine for the graciousness and level-headedness of Tucker after they have experienced what comes next. Suppose his replacement is Laura Loomer? It could be déjà all over again.

On Tuesday, we had an item with 10 guesses at what really happened at Fox to make them get rid of Carlson. Slate's Justin Peters also throws out some interesting possibilities.

• More shoes will fall: One possibility is that there is more bad news in store for Carlson and the network wants to be rid of him before it happens. We also mentioned this possibility, but didn't give an examples. Peters specifically mentions the lawsuit former Fox producer Abby Grossberg filed against Fox for Carlson's antisemitic and sexist comments. Maybe the Murdochs know she's right and want to be able to say at the trial: "As soon as we discovered his behavior, we fired him."
  
  
• Power struggle: Another possibility is that there is an internal power struggle going on at Fox and Carlson was on the wrong team. Some people at Fox are still defending the Jan. 6 rioters and some want to let that story go. Related to that, it is also possible that the Murdochs feel that Carlson has gotten too bit for his britches and takes orders from no one any more. That is unacceptable to them, so out he went. In addition, the Murdochs now fully understand that making stuff up can have consequences, sometimes 787,500,000 of them.
  
  
• It's been building: A more mundane possibility is that tension with Carlson has been building for a while. The Murdochs might have been afraid that had Carlson been called as a witness at the trial, be could have gone scorched earth and ratted out Fox executives big time. This possibility kept them from firing him. Now that it is certain there will be no trial in the Dominion case (although there could still be one in the Smartmatic case if Smartmatic considers $787.5M chicken feed), the Murdochs felt safe in getting rid of their troublemaker.
  

Getting rid of Carlson did not come cheap. It is not known if Carlson had a golden parachute clause in his contract that called for a big severance payment if he were fired. But Fox was hit in a different way, possibly in addition to a direct payment to Carlson. Its stock went down $500 million just after the announcement of Carlson's firing. Maybe it will come back eventually, but that could depend on whether the network can find a replacement who draws as big an audience and whether premium advertisers come back.

We don't know what is next for Carlson. He could probably join OAN or Newsmax if he wants to, but they can't pay the exorbitant salary he was getting at Fox. He could write a book, but probably not many of his fans read books. A podcast? Yeah, but that is a BIG step down. Running for office is a real possibility, but the House is beneath his dignity and knocking off Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) or Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) wouldn't be easy. Ron DeSantis will be term-limited in 2026, but that's a long way away. Maybe move from Florida to some deep red state where there is a vulnerable senator or term-limited governor in 2024? If he asked us for advice on this, we'd suggest moving to Dallas and challenging Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) in 2024. There is a decent chance he could beat Cruz in a primary. (V)

The Twitter Blue Blues

Things are not going well for Elon Musk. His SpaceX rocket just blew up and severely damaged the launchpad on the way out and Twitter is a real mess, starting with its new blue check system. In v1.0 of Twitter, celebrities got a free blue check mark after verifying their identity. Simple enough and worked well. But after spending $44 billion to buy Twitter, Musk is now desperately trying to make it profitable, something it never has been. One brilliant idea of his was to charge anyone who wanted a blue check mark $8 a month without verifying who they were. In addition, Musk began taking away the legacy blue check marks from celebrities who had them for years. Only about 5% of them were willing it buy them back for $8/mo. Some said that since they were providing him with content, he should be paying them, not the other way around. Multiple major news organizations refused point-blank to pony up for the organization or its employees.

Dropping the verification was a bad idea. Many trolls instantly started impersonating famous people and got the check mark as soon as the $8 payment cleared. Trolls got away with impersonating New York Mayor Eric Adams and Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot for a while. One troll got a verified account in the name of J.K. Rowling and apologized to the transgender community for comments made in the past.

As a business proposition, this hasn't worked at all. Not enough people signed up to generate meaningful revenue. After all, if all a blue check mark means now is that you can afford to waste $8/mo, it isn't much of a status symbol. Worse yet, some of the celebrities who have recently gotten their blue check mark back for free, don't want it anymore, since it suggests that the are forking over $8/mo to the evil Musk. Some are thinking of going further and suing Twitter to remove the unwanted check marks claiming that they imply a false endorsement of the product.

This mess is a huge black mark for Musk, who claimed his brilliant business acumen would turn Twitter around. Instead, advertisers have fled and revenue from subscriptions comes nowhere close to replacing it. He could go back to the old way, but the interest on the loans he took out to buy Twitter is about $1 billion/year so he needs money from the users, but they are apparently not interested in paying for Twitter. A lot of things on the Internet are big successes—as long as they are free. Once they start costing money, they become a lot less popular. Is there a way out for Musk? Well, he's the business genius, not us. Though we'll point out that, thanks to the Patreon subscribers, this site actually makes more money per month than Twitter does. That is something that became true the moment the first Patreon subscriber signed up. (V)

Many Election Officials in 2024 Will Be New and Inexperienced

The many Republican attacks on election officials are taking a toll. Large numbers of them are afraid of being attacked and harassed for doing what they see as they civic duty and are retiring. In a recent poll of election officials, 30% said they had been personally threatened. Some Republicans have more-or-less openly said that they want to replace poll workers who are just following the law with new poll workers who are more Trump-friendly and who will root out and stop ineligible voters, even though fraudulent voting is exceedingly rare and what there is, is mostly by absentee ballot.

The campaign to scare poll workers seems to be succeeding. Based on a survey of over 10,000 election workers sponsored by the Brennan Center, here are the main takeaways:

• For more than 20% of the workers, 2024 will be their first election.
• Nearly one in three workers has been threatened, harassed, or abused.
• Many election workers worry about partisan pressure to certify the results in favor of a specific party.
• The workers need more resources for election administration and security.
• The federal government needs to do more to safeguard elections and the people who run them.

Even if they are not trying to prevent from suspicious (read: Black or brown) people from voting, inexperienced election workers are going to hurt some legitimate voters directly when problems arise (e.g., someone who legally changed her name recently is trying to vote) they will affect all voters by making procedures run slower and less smoothly. This translates into longer lines and more waiting. (V)

Bipartisan Bill Is Introduced to Require Supreme Court to Adopt a Code of Conduct

Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Angus King (I-ME) have introduced a bill to require the Supreme Court to adopt and publish a code of conduct within a year of the bill's passage. This approach may make it easier for some members of Congress to vote for it because a congressionally mandated code of conduct could be seen as one branch of government meddling in the internal affairs of another branch. If the bill passes, it would be up to Chief Justice John Roberts to manage the process and determine what should be in it. The code would have to also deal with the tricky matter of enforcement and penalties for noncompliance.

Other senators actually wanted to have a few words with Roberts and invited him to show up and talk to them. He respectfully declined. He wasn't sent a subpoena, so he didn't have to come. His appearance would not violate the separation of powers at all. Congress subpoenas members of the Executive Branch all the time, so why not the Judicial Branch?

Art III, Sec. 1 of the Constitution reads:

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Note that bit about "good Behaviour." The code of conduct could name various offenses and declare them as "Bad Behaviour." For example, taking money or payment in kind from anyone except on a purely at-market commercial rate. As to enforcement, could the Supreme Court expel a member from the Court for "Bad Behaviour"? The Constitution is silent on that. Congress can impeach judges and justices, but can the Court expel a justice failing to exhibit good behavior? It is not really clear since the text talks only about what happens if everyone exhibits good behavior, not what happens if they don't. Of course, allowing a majority of the justices to expel one of the others could quickly get us into a "Tennessee Three" situation. But not allowing the Court to police its own would mean that the code doesn't mean anything. If the only remedy for a justice self-dealing is for Congress to impeach him or her, then nothing changes with the code. Congress can do that now, so what would a code change? (V)

Montana Republicans Did It... Sort Of

Yesterday, as we noted, the Montana state House had a closed-door session and a vote to determine whether to punish state Rep. Zooey Zephyr (D). Zephyr is trans, and her crime was to take to the floor of the state house and declare that lawmakers who voted in favor of a ban on gender-affirming treatments would have "blood on their hands."

It would seem the Montanans have been watching Tennessee closely. That's where the idea of "you said something that hurt our feelings, so we are going to expel you" seems to have come from. At the same time, the Tennesseeans went too far, and it blew up in their faces (more on this tomorrow). So, the penalty that has been imposed on Zephyr is less harsh than the one the two Justins got in Tennessee. She's banned from the House floor for the rest of the session, and will not be allowed to participate in debates and discussions, though she can vote on bills.

Since the session lasts just 6 more days, this sanction, while undemocratic and petty, falls pretty far short of expulsion. So, it's not likely to create the national scandal that the situation in Tennessee did. (Z)

---

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