Wannabe White Knight Dons Armor

We saw this coming a mile away, though we're nonetheless surprised how little time lapsed before he made his move. Yesterday, friendly media members asked former speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) if he'd be open to retaking the gavel. And he said:

That's a decision by the conference. I'll allow the conference to make whatever decision; whether I'm speaker or not, I'm a member of this body. I know what history has had, and I can lead in any position it is.

We have read over that last sentence ten times, and even listened to him as he delivered that portion of his remarks, and we still haven't the faintest idea what it means.

The argument for a McCarthy return, which he hinted at and which his supporters have made more assertively, is that when he was canned last week, there was no war in Israel. Now there is, so he needs to return and lead. If you don't think about it too much, it seems to make sense—you know, times of crisis demand a firm hand on the wheel. But if you actually consider the notion more carefully, it makes zero sense. What, exactly, does McCarthy—a guy who was only on the job for 9 months—bring to the table that some other speaker couldn't? It does not take special talent or insight to bring a resolution condemning Hamas, or sending money to Israel, to the floor of the House.

That McCarthy is holding himself out as a white knight would seem to indicate that the House Republican Conference is not rallying around an alternative, and is not going to meet its self-imposed deadline for choosing a new speaker. Consider also these bits of information:

• Rep. Ralph Norman (R-SC) says Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA) isn't healthy enough to be speaker.
• Rep. Carlos Gimenez (R-FL) says he's backing McCarthy until McCarthy explicitly drops out.
• Rep. John Duarte (R-CA) wants McCarthy to return as speaker.
• Rep. Max Miller (R-OH) left a Republican meeting, and noted how "broken" things are right now.
• Rep. Don Bacon (R-NE) says he will not accommodate the faction that just "kicked us in the shins."
• Rep. Kat Cammack (R-FL) predicted that "this is going to be a very long road."
• Rep. Derrick Van Orden (R-WI) said he won't back anyone until the motion-to-vacate rules are changed.
• Rep. Steve Womack (R-AR) said this is not the time to be changing the motion-to-vacate rules.
• Womack, along with Reps. Tim Burchett, Nancy Mace (R-SC) and Matt Gaetz (R-FL) said they will not support McCarthy.
• Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY) said Gaetz is a "vile" person and should be kicked out of the Conference.

These are just a few selected examples. Does this sound like a group where 98% of the members (217 of 221) are ready to unite behind one candidate? Nope, not to us, either.

The last time House Republicans faced this situation, in 2015, it took from September 25 (John Boehner announces his intention to resign) to October 29 (Paul Ryan elected) to reach a resolution. These days, the House Republican Conference appears to be even more divided than it was back then, so maybe it will take even longer. On the other hand, Boehner stayed in place until Ryan was elevated, so the House could continue to function while the process played out.

At present, there are pressing matters before the House, including Israel and the budget, and nobody is really steering the ship, as Speaker Pro Tempore Patrick McHenry (R-NC) is taking a narrow view of his powers, and has said his only job is to get a new speaker in place. So, maybe this will light a fire under House Republicans and get them to figure out who the next speaker is. Although we actually think it more likely that McHenry will quickly discover that he has most/all of the powers of the speaker when it comes to moving legislation. Sure, some member of the House could object, but would 217 members vote to kill money for Israel or to torpedo the budget based on a dispute about parliamentary niceties? We are inclined to doubt it. (Z)

Israel, Ukraine Joined at the Hip

Israel and Ukraine are about a thousand miles apart, are located in different geopolitical spheres, have different historical rivals, and generally don't have all that much to do with each other. And yet now, somewhat by design, but substantially by circumstance, they are closely linked. Let's run down five ways that is true:

• Putin Ambitions: It will be a while before the behind-the-scenes machinations become public, if they ever do. Maybe Russian president Vladimir Putin called his good friends in Iran, and asked them to work with their good friends in Hamas to launch a war against Israel. Or maybe it was just a happy accident from the Russian's perspective (doubtful). In any case, Putin is hoping and predicting that the West will have to shift its focus to helping the Israelis, and that will fatally undercut support for Ukraine. Indeed, Putin has said that if the West goes all-in on Israel, Ukraine could collapse within a week.
  
  However, it is also entirely possible that the situation in Israel could strengthen the resolve of Western nations, and could serve to make the pro-Ukraine coalition stronger. Certainly, that has been the story so far.
  
  
• Propaganda: The obvious lens through which the two wars might be viewed is the one where Ukraine and Israel were both attacked without provocation, and deserve to be supported in their self-defense efforts. Put another way, if you support Israel, you should support Ukraine, and if you support Ukraine you should support Israel. Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who's a shrewd operator, has already been making this case, remarking that "terror will have no allies" if the world stands up to acts of aggression.
  
  There is an alternate view, however, where the comparison is between Ukraine and Hamas. The argument here is that Ukraine was occupied and fought back with all its powers, and Gaza was occupied and fought back with all its powers. This perspective is mostly being expressed by lefties, particularly certain lefty members of Congress. That said, there are surely government officials in the Middle East who find much merit in this way of thinking, which could complicate diplomatic efforts long-term.
  
  
• Rationing: Vladimir Putin, as noted, hopes that the West will go all-in on Israel and will cut Ukraine off. That is not likely, but this does not mean that certain choices won't be made, since money and materiel are not infinite. To take a specific example, consider the 155 mm caliber artillery shell. At 2 feet long and 6 inches in diameter, these shells strike a good balance between range and power, with the result that they are used widely in NATO artillery (and, of course, NATO-made artillery).
  
  Ukraine uses them for 2S22 Bohdana howitzers, and is going through the shells at the rate of about 7,000 per day. Israel uses the shells in both the ATMOS 2000 and the Soltam M-71, and will undoubtedly be asking its allies to pony up. If we assume, just for ballpark purposes, that Israel would like to be able to expend half as many shells as Ukraine does, then we're looking at demand for roughly 10,000 shells a day, or 300,000 a month. At the moment, the U.S. manufactures about 28,000 per month. You see the problem: Production of the shells (even when including the contributions of other Western nations) does not match the demand, and eventually existing stockpiles will be exhausted. So, the day will likely come when the U.S. and its allies have to decide how to divide up the available 155 mm's between Ukraine and Israel.
  
  
• Pressure on Republicans: Some Republicans, mostly in the House, prefer to stop funding Ukraine. Roughly 100% of Republicans want to fund Israel, since the Republicans' evangelical Christian base would be furious if that did not happen. It has occurred to the White House to connect the two, to the chagrin of many in the House Republican Conference.
  
  Meanwhile, the pressure on a specific Republican is also increasing. That Republican, of course, would be Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL). His blockade of promotions has had only a nominal impact on Ukraine, since U.S. involvement there is indirect. However, Tuberville's blockade is having a much clearer and more substantive impact on operations related to Israel than the nominal impact it has had on the situation in Ukraine. Most obviously, the carrier group headed to the Middle East is missing fully half of its command-level officers. The Senator insisted yesterday that he won't back down. We'll see if he sticks with that once he starts hearing from staunchly pro-Israel Republican voters.
  
  
• The 2024 Presidential Race: Most of the Republican presidential "candidates" are making the argument that Joe Biden is somehow responsible for what happened in Israel because Iran-money-Hamas-hand waving-Let's Go Brandon. In other words, it's not a particularly compelling argument, or one supported by the evidence. Donald Trump, for his part, is taking it further, and decreed yesterday that if he were still in the White House, there would be no war in Ukraine and there would have been no Hamas attack on Israel. It's really quite remarkable how many problems he's able to solve as not the president, given how few he was able to solve as president.
  
  The Republican talking points are mostly nonsense and are likely to be forgotten long before people cast ballots next year. That said, if Ukraine and Israel both triumph in their respective fights in the next year, that will be politically beneficial for the fellow in the White House. On the other hand, if things go badly, he'll take a hit.

And there you have it. Two nations, not especially alike, but bound together by circumstance. (Z)

Biden Legal News: Give My Regards to Broadway

You thought you had to visit the Great White Way for a little theater? Well, how about the Great White House? Because this weekend saw a premium example of the sort of performative crap that we find exceedingly annoying.

The dramatis personae for this little show were Joe Biden and special counsel Robert Hur. Hur was there to interview the President about the classified documents that were discovered in Biden's residence and private offices, and that were returned upon their discovery. Reportedly, the interview ran into a second day before it was complete.

At this point, allow us to remind readers that to be a crime, mishandling of classified information has to be willful (or so careless as to be effectively willful). Otherwise, multiple federal employees would end up in the clink every day. By all appearances, Biden's retention of classified materials was as accidental as that of Mike Pence, who was let off the hook many months ago. Significantly, both men self-reported when the issue was discovered. If they were up to no good, they wouldn't have done that. Compare that to Donald Trump, who not only took documents and tried to keep it on the down-low, but who compounded that by failing to return the documents once he was caught red-handed.

In short, what the hell was the point of this interview? And what did Hur ask that required two days' worth of interrogation? This bears all the hallmarks of a show put on for the benefit of the general public, to demonstrate that "everyone is being treated equally," "justice is blind," etc. Oh, and Hur wasn't the only guilty one here. The interview was optional, and Biden surely agreed to it to prove to the world that he's being cooperative and has nothing to hide.

Normally, when a special counsel gets to the center of the onion (not that this onion has all that many layers), it indicates that the end is nigh. Ideally that means that sometime soon, Hur will produce a report that says there's no smoke and no fire here. Then he can stop wasting time and the taxpayers' money. (Z)

RFK Jr. Is In... Dependent

The campaign of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. signaled that this was coming last week, and now the candidate has made it official: Instead of running for president as a Democrat, he will wage an independent campaign. In an op-ed generously imbued with that frothing-at-the-mouth quality that the son of Bobby does so well, he decrees:

When John Adams put his pen down after adding his signature to the Declaration, he turned to those present and said, "Sink or swim, live or die, survive or perish, from this day on, I'm with my country." I make that same pledge today, so that I may stand before you as every leader should, free of partisan allegiance and backroom wheeling and dealing, a servant only to my conscience, to my Creator, and to you.

That's right, Junior has no shame in presenting himself as a latter-day Founding Father. This is the leitmotif that runs through the entire op-ed; a ham-fisted exercise in connecting "independent candidate" with the Declaration of Independence. Though our favorite part is actually this:

The two major parties are fielding candidates that most Americans do not want even to run. A shocking three-fourths of Americans believe President Biden is too old to govern effectively.

If Junior wins the election, as he promises to do in the op-ed, then on Inauguration Day, he would be 71 years old, making him the second-oldest president in history. Yes, we've seen the footage of him showing off his six-pack, but we are left to wonder when a person crosses the line from "perfectly capable" to "too old to govern properly." We are not aware that Junior has committed to a one-term presidency, which means he is presumably intending to run again and win in 2028 after he runs and wins in 2024. That would make him, on the final day of his presidency, 79 years, 4 days old. Biden is currently 80 years, 324 days old.

Kennedy's PAC has enough financial backing, mostly from right-wingers, that he should be able to hang around for a good, long time if that's what he really wants to do. You're not likely to see too many RFK Jr. commercials, because he really doesn't have that kind of money, but it doesn't cost too much to travel around the country for speeches and media appearances and county fair meet-and-greets (meets-and-greet? meats-and-greets?).

The first big question is, in a year where both major party frontrunners are unpopular, can Junior get some sort of traction? Preliminary indications are that he could be Ross Perot v2.0, as the handful of pollsters who guessed what might happen, and so already ran Biden vs. Trump vs. Kennedy polls, have the latter in the very low double digits (10-15%). That would theoretically be enough (or close to enough) to qualify for presidential debates... if there are any.

With that said, a candidate who is at 10% or so over a year out might reasonably hope and expect their support to grow as they campaign and as voters get to know them better. In Kennedy's case, we are inclined to predict that the opposite is actually the case. We are in prime "use my polling response to express my dissatisfaction with the field" time, and so the numbers may not be especially instructive as to what people will do when it comes time to cast their ballots. Further, Kennedy is surely being powered in no small way by his name recognition. Yesterday, several of his siblings issued a statement on his candidacy:

The decision of our brother Bobby to run as a third-party candidate against [President] Joe Biden is dangerous to our country. Bobby might share the same name as our father, but he does not share the same values, vision, or judgment. Today's announcement is deeply saddening for us. We denounce his candidacy and believe it to be perilous for our country.

As casual politics-watchers learn how the other members of the dynasty feel, or as they hear some of the crazy stuff that comes out of RFK Jr.'s mouth, the bloom may come off the rose a fair bit.

The second big question, meanwhile, is exactly whose hide any Kennedy votes will come out of. Here is a rough rundown of his views:

• Abortion: Said he'd sign a national 15-week ban, then said he's 100% pro-choice
• Healthcare: Wants a Bernie-style single-payer system
• Economy: Basically an anti-corporate populist, but also favors student loan forgiveness
• Foreign Affairs: Leans pretty isolationist, calls Joe Biden a warmonger
• China: Thinks China is evil
• Russia and Ukraine: Both sides are bad guys
• Israel: Says he is strongly pro-Israel, but also indulges in antisemitic conspiracy theories related to COVID
• LGBTQ: Pro-LGBTQ tolerance, but also spreads homophobic conspiracy theories about AIDS
• Gun Control: Opposes gun control
• Vaccines: Hates 'em
• Conspiracy Theories: In case you can't tell, he loves, loves, loves 'em

It's quite the melange of positions. Overall, it seems that a Trump voter would find more to like in that list than a Biden voter, but who really knows? Naturally, if Junior takes votes from both candidates in equal measure, then he's a non-factor whether he gets 5% of the vote or 20%.

That the question of "Whose votes will Kennedy attract?" is something of an enigma is indicated by the fact that both parties are saying they wish he'd stay the heck out of the race. So even they, with their internal polls and advanced metrics, don't really know what his impact might be. We will point out, however, that Junior now has to hustle to get on the ballot in 50 states (or however many he wants to try to get ballot access in). In general the bar is not very high, but it is within the power of state legislatures to make it harder to clear. So, we'll have to see if a bunch of blue-trifecta states or a bunch of red-trifecta states all of a sudden decide that a candidate really needs ten times as many signatures as previously required in order to get on the ballot. (Z)

Hurd Is Out

Remember back in 2012, when there was a new Republican frontrunner every few weeks? It was Newt Gingrich for a while, and then Michele Bachmann had some momentum, and then maybe Rick Perry, and then Herman Cain? We have to assume that this is what these longshot candidates are thinking about when they throw their hat into the ring. Maybe, just maybe, they'll rise to the top just before the game of musical chairs stops, and thus seize the nomination.

The previous paragraph is our attempt at giving Will Hurd credit for being not totally nutty, and for maybe having some theory of how a 2024 presidential bid might just have worked out OK for him. Although even the "repeat of 2012 + some luck" theory has the problem that the 2012 Republican primary did not feature a runaway frontrunner, while the 2024 Republican primary does. Really, for Hurd to declare his candidacy this year was more akin to running for the Democratic nomination in 2012. Anyone who did that was sure to be squashed like a bug by Barack Obama, which is why no serious candidate even bothered.

In any event, and entirely predictably, Hurd never caught on, since he's a lousy fit for the modern Republican Party. He never made it to a debate stage, never registered in the polls, never gained any traction whatsoever. Even if his real goal was to audition for a talking head gig on CNN, he didn't make any meaningful progress. And now, presumably having burned through both dollars he collected in donations, he's out.

On his way out the door (down the chute?), Hurd endorsed Nikki Haley as his favored candidate. Makes sense, since she's running (mostly) in the traditional Republican lane. Assuming Hurd commands the absolute loyalty of his supporters, then that's a nice, tidy 0.25% of the GOP vote Haley can add to her total, leaving her a mere 39.75% behind Donald Trump. Progress! And now, we wait to see which Republican presidential "candidate" will be the third to see the light, now that Mayor Francis Suarez (R-Miami) and Hurd have done so. We're looking at you, Larry Elder and Perry Johnson. (Z)

A Proud Day for Abbott?

We assume Gov. Greg Abbott (R-TX) is patting himself on the back in commemoration of the fact that his administration just shipped its 50,000th immigrant to a state other than Texas. Since the Governor began this project, 1,180 buses have taken immigrants to half a dozen cities, including Los Angeles, Chicago and New York.

The redistribution of people is not at all proportionate, however. At one end, Los Angeles has received only a few dozen buses and a total of 940 immigrants. At the other end, New York has received hundreds of buses and 18,500 immigrants. This may be related to the fact that nearly every time more immigrants arrive in the Big Apple, Mayor Eric Adams calls a press conference where he whines and moans and clutches his pearls, whereas Mayor Karen Bass does not do that when a new busload arrives in Los Angeles.

Abbott says that the caravans will continue until Joe Biden "solves" the immigration problem. Inasmuch as no other president, including Donald Trump, has been able to "solve" that problem, and inasmuch as Abbott himself has not offered any ideas of his own on how to "solve" the problem, we are going to conclude that the Governor is acting in bad faith, and does not actually believe the problem can be solved, or expect that it will be. The only question is what he's trying to achieve with these stunts. Is he thinking about a 2026 reelection bid? Maybe, but this seems awfully early for that. Is he going to try to sneak in the back door of the 2024 presidential race? Could be, though time is running short. Is he just trying to improve his party's chances in 2024? Possible, though all the caravans thus far have gone to deep blue destinations (the three listed above, plus D.C., Denver and Philadelphia). Probably worth watching to see if the caravans suddenly start to be directed to cities in more swingy states—Atlanta, Phoenix, Milwaukee, etc. (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