Main page    Apr. 07

Pres map
Previous | Next | Senate page

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

Tennessee Legislature Expels "Uppity Negro(es)"...

On Wednesday, we noted that three Democrats in the Tennessee state House had the temerity to protest gun violence, and that their angry Republican colleagues were considering expulsion as their punishment. Those votes were held yesterday, and two of the three protesting Democrats were indeed tossed out of the state House.

The Republicans responsible for the expulsions grossly overstepped their bounds. There is simply no argument to the contrary. Since the current Tennessee constitution took effect 157 years ago, there had been a grand total of two expulsions before yesterday, one for accepting bribes and one for sexual harassment. So, the legislature doubled the total in one fell swoop. This was for behavior that certainly does not appear to rise to level of "requiring expulsion." And even if it does, the normal process for that sort of thing was short circuited. By the rules of the Tennessee House, the matter should first have been referred to the state House Ethics Committee. Instead, the Republicans did not pass Go, did not collect $200, and went straight to a vote to expel. And making things look extra bad is the fact that the white female legislator kept her seat and the two Black men were expelled. Justin Jones, one of those two men, observed that he was basically kicked out for being an "uppity Negro." Given the facts on the ground, it's hard to dispute that.

So, what happens next? The state Constitution requires the county governments for the two Representatives' home districts to pick replacements. Then, those governments are entitled to call a special election. The wording of the relevant passages (see Section 15, on page 8) is fairly vague, and so it's not entirely clear whether the two men can be appointed to replace themselves. Or, failing that, if each of them can be appointed to replace the other. It is certainly the case that they can run in the special election, and in the next regular election. So, there's every chance they'll be back on the job eventually, one way or another.

Beyond that, will the Republican Party pay a price for their anti-democratic (and anti-Democratic) actions? On one hand, Tennessee is pretty red and is pretty gerrymandered. So, most or all of the Republican members who voted to expel yesterday are likely safe, no matter what they do. Indeed, sticking it to two outspoken Black men may help them grow their support. That said, we could see this behavior playing a role in elections for statewide office, or even in next year's national elections. The more high-profile, fascist-adjacent things that Republicans do, the easier it is to paint them as a party of undemocratic extremists who cannot be trusted with power.

For what it's worth, the Tennessee legislature was condemned by political leaders across the country, including Joe Biden. There was also a mass demonstration outside the state House yesterday, and the votes to expel were met with thunderous boos (and chants of "Fu** you, fascists!"). It's not easy for a state legislature to trigger that kind of blowback, but Tennessee Republicans pulled it off. Further, one of the leaders of yesterday's maneuvering, state Rep. Jeremy Faison (R), the chair of the state House Republican Caucus, appeared on CNN yesterday, and was peppered with questions asking him to explain why this was necessary and apropos. He couldn't answer them, and eventually stormed off mid-interview. You would think he would expect such questions, and would be have answers ready, but apparently he didn't. Maybe that means there are no good answers.

And that is today's biggest "bad behavior by Republicans" item. But it's not the only one, we're afraid. Keep reading. (Z)

...Will Wisconsin Legislature Follow the Same Roadmap?

The Wall Street Journal, as readers will know, is not exactly a bastion of left-wing thought. It is center-right, particularly in its editorials (much of its news coverage is non-political, while its op-eds are all over the spectrum, but are often far-right).

Yesterday, the editorial board published a piece warning Republicans to pay heed to the election results from earlier this week. The opening paragraph:

Progressives had a banner day in the Midwest Tuesday, with victories for Chicago mayor and a swing seat on Wisconsin's Supreme Court. The results will energize the left within the Democratic Party, and the Badger State results are a five-alarm warning to Republicans about 2024.

In particular, the WSJ board notes that the Republicans have the minority position when it comes to extreme limits on abortion, and that if they don't dial it back, they're going to cost themselves a lot of winnable elections.

It would seem that Republican officeholders do not agree with the WSJ board, and don't care about this week's election results (not to mention last year's election results), because they are moving full-speed ahead on restrictions of various sorts in many states, including Idaho, the Carolinas, the Dakotas, Florida, and even Wisconsin. And the only reason that list isn't longer is because many red states have already gone just about as far as they possibly can in restricting abortion. Or, alternatively, they are still working through puzzles like "How can we ban abortion pills sent via USPS?"

It is not terribly surprising that the folks who speak for the WSJ and the Republicans who hold office in red and purple states (especially highly gerrymandered purple states) are not on the same page. The WSJ folks are basically old-school, northeastern Republicans. That means they're fiscally conservative but socially moderate-to-liberal. On the other hand, the people calling the shots in today's GOP are socially conservative and fiscally populist. These two factions barely belong in the same party anymore. Further, the WSJ editorial board members think about politics strategically and rationally. On the other hand, most new-guard Republican officeholders (i.e., the Trumpers) are guided by emotion and by the general mantra "do what we want today, worry about the consequences later."

There is no doubt that, when it comes to abortion, extremism will be a loser at the ballot box. And if the Republicans aren't willing to make a change in their approach to abortion, then the only real point of attack is... the ballot box. That is to say, if voters are going to punish your party for its extreme politics, then you've got to find a way to nullify those voters' votes. That's what happened in Tennessee yesterday (see above). That's what the voter ID laws and reduced polling hours and "one dropbox in a city of 2 million people" stuff is all about.

And guess what? Wisconsin Republicans, who now enjoy a created-by-gerrymander supermajority in the state House, are pondering an extremely undemocratic way to "correct" for their loss in this week's elections. We wrote that the Democrats would continue to control the state Supreme Court until 2025, barring a death or a resignation. But what we forgot when we wrote that was an impeachment. And so, newly elected judge Janet Protasiewicz might well be impeached and convicted by the state legislature, on the grounds of... um... well... reasons.

What we are seeing in Wisconsin and Tennessee and elsewhere (like, say, Washington D.C. on 1/6) is an entirely predictable consequence of the fact that the Republican Party's base is shrinking. This means that the people who run the Party are getting desperate. And, as everyone knows, desperate times call for desperate measures. Like, for example, behaving as if the results of a lawfully conducted election are a mere curiosity, to be put aside as soon as practicable.

What happens over the next few years is, unfortunately, basically unknowable. The Republicans could collapse completely, the way the Federalists did in 1815. Or, they could do vast damage before the majority says "enough is enough" and sends the GOP into the wilderness for a generation or two, as happened with the Democrats in the 1850s. Or, the Democrats could hold the line right now, starting with next year's presidential elections, leading the Republicans to step back and re-tool, and then to re-emerge as a national force pretty quickly, as they did in the 1960s. Or they could destroy democracy as we know it, which hasn't happened yet, obviously, but will certainly happen one day. Any of these outcomes is within the realm of possibility; all that we can say is that we are inclined to doubt it will be Option 1 (the Republican Party collapses) or Option 4 (democracy collapses). (Z)

Restricting Trans Rights Has Apparently Become Red States' Top Priority

Continuing with the theme of "whatever it takes to stay in power," red states are nigh on obsessed with cracking down on trans people these days. It's really quite remarkable. Here's a list that covers just the past 10 days:

In general, we are not a fan of the argument that takes the form: "The city/state/country still has [problem X], so how come the politicians have time for [thing Y]?" For example, it's silly that Joe Biden going to Delaware for the weekend should be verboten because there's still crime in America, or that Gov. John Sununu (R-NH) shouldn't be giving the commencement address at Dartmouth because global warming hasn't been solved. Nonetheless, we cannot help but notice that the red states have some serious problems that red-state politicians and citizens spend a lot of time carping about. For example, fentanyl addiction, or tainted water supplies, or rural poverty. And when, exactly, was the last time that these things got serious attention from ten different legislatures in the same week?

And this is not just our imagination. The ACLU keeps track of how many anti-LGBTQ bills are introduced in state legislatures each year. When the organization first started tracking, back in 2018, the number was 42. In 2020, it was up to 77, and by last year the total was 180. And do you know how many there have been this year? Four-hundred-and-seventeen! That's an increase of 231%! And it's only April 7. At this pace, the red states will easily push that number past 1,000.

Maybe this is crazy talk, but we are left with the impression that the only things these legislators care about is whipping the base into a frenzy in anticipation of future reelection bids. The only part we're struggling to make sense of, at least in most cases, is why you would want to light a fire under your base in spring 2023 as opposed to, say, summer/fall 2024. (Z)

Today in Extremely Bad Judgment...

It is not a secret that there are, in effect, no rules governing the behavior of Supreme Court justices. They are a law unto themselves, both literally and figuratively, and the only real check upon them is an expectation that they uphold the ethical standards of their high office. That is a situation ripe for abuse, and there have certain been justices in the past who behaved in deeply problematic ways, among them Roger Taney, James Clark McReynolds, William O. Douglas and Abe Fortas. But it is entirely possible that Clarence Thomas has now left them in the dust.

Yesterday, ProPublica issued a bombshell new report on some of the extra benefits that the Associate Justice has been enjoying thanks to the largesse of at least one well-heeled friend, Republican megadonor Harlan Crow. For years and years, apparently, Crow has been lavishing luxury vacations upon Thomas and his wife Ginny. For example, in 2019, the Thomases were flown on a private jet to Indonesia, where they boarded a private yacht staffed by numerous attendants and a private chef. They then spent 9 days island-hopping. The total price tag for something like this? Roughly $500,000. That is just about double Thomas' annual salary of $268,300.

Thomas, of course, doesn't ask questions when a case is before the Court. And he certainly doesn't answer questions when reporters ask why he's accepting six (or seven) figures' worth of perks from a billionaire. So, he had no comment yesterday. Crow, for his part, issued a statement: "We have never sought to influence Justice Thomas on any legal or political issue." This is, of course, absolutely meaningless. First of all, there is zero chance Crow is going to admit to it, and say: "Whoops! Yep, I was totally buying influence, and I got caught. My bad!" Second, even if what Crow says is technically true (and, odds are, it is), Thomas certainly knows what Crow's political agenda is, even if it's never directly raised in conversation.

Meanwhile, although Thomas is performing his "strong, silent type" bit, there is at least one indication that he knows full well he crossed a bright, red line: He failed to mention some sizable portion of these free perks on his annual financial disclosures. It's actually unclear exactly how much has gone undisclosed, because there are many flights and other gifts that would not have appeared on the documentation that ProPublica acquired. In any event, accepting gifts that have a higher value than your annual salary and then hiding that from the government is against the law.

As readers are well aware, this is hardly Thomas' first foray into unethical behavior. Most obviously, the lines between his and his wife's political activism, on one hand, and his career, on the other, are far, far too blurry. In addition, he's also accepted honoraria and other payments that certainly approached the line, and may have crossed it. And who knows what other buddies he has out there who are funding his lifestyle? Maybe Crow is the only one, but it would be rather unusual to accept gifts from just one wealthy "admirer" and to say "no" to the rest.

All of this said, the odds that Thomas pays any price at all for his misdeeds is very small. We cannot imagine what he would have to do in order to be impeached by the Republican-controlled House, and then to get at least 16 GOP votes to convict in the Senate, especially with a Democratic president in line to choose his replacement. However, we are certain that accepting illegal benefits is not enough to get him kicked. The only possibility we can see is if Thomas ends up being charged with a crime and convicted; that might cause him to resign, or might be enough for him to be impeached. There have been members of Congress who were prosecuted and convicted for that basic crime, most recently Jeff Fortenberry, who was booted out of the House last year. But going after a Supreme Court justice is a whole different ball of wax, and even if Thomas was indicted and convicted, we suspect he would keep his seat and Congressional Republicans would support him in that. That is undoubtedly better, in their view, than allowing a Democrat to take over. (Z)

...And in Sorta Bad Judgment

As long as we're on the subject of judges, and potential skeletons in their closets, there has been news about Judge Juan Merchan, who is overseeing the Donald Trump criminal case in New York. In a development that should be a surprise to nobody, and that definitely should not be a surprise to Merchan himself, reporters have already figured out that he donated money to the Democratic Party in 2020, including money to the presidential campaign of Joe Biden.

In the judge's defense, accepting employment as a jurist does not mean you promptly give up your right to participate in the political system. Also in the judge's defense, it was a very small amount of money; $15 to Biden and $20 to other Democrats. With those things said, we must ask: What on Earth was he thinking? If you are a judge and you want to participate in the political process, find a way to do it that does not so easily and obviously tie you one of the major political parties. Donate to an activist group that supports animal rights or voting rights or peace. Volunteer for some phone banking. Drive people to the polling place on Election Day. And if you are going to donate money, and thus give opponents an easy way to question your credibility, why would you accept that consequence in exchange for such a tiny sum? The Biden campaign raised and spent over $1 billion. Did Merchan really think that $15 was going to be the difference maker?

Note that, in contrast to Clarence Thomas (see above), what Merchan did is not illegal, and the only way he will be recused is if he voluntarily chooses to remove himself from the case. However, Donald Trump and his allies in Congress and in the media are going to make million-dollar mountains out of this $15 molehill. And that is not entirely unreasonable. Merchan has a reputation for being fair and impartial, but imagine how Democrats would be reacting right now if it was discovered he donated to the Trump campaign. Trump & Co. are going to make this Exhibit A for their arguments about how the process is corrupt, an inside job and a witch hunt. And that, in turn, could help to encourage a violent response if one or more verdicts goes against Trump. So, Merchan really should give strong consideration to recusing himself. (Z)

This Week in Schadenfreude: Don't Let the Door Hit You in the Rear on the Way Out

Wow. What a downer of a day when it comes to the news. At least we can now report a bit of somewhat happy news, namely a pair of jerks getting booted from their high-profile perches.

Jerk #1 is Sean Spicer. We presumably don't need to explain what he did to earn that sobriquet, but just in case, he spent his entire time as White House Press Secretary gaslighting the American people, starting with the notorious incident in which he tried to force everyone to accept that "more people" means "less people" when the "more people" appear in a picture of Barack Obama's inauguration. After that, he wrote an apologia for the Trump administration, and then went on a "rebuilding my image" tour, during which he appeared on a bunch of shows that the kiddies like, such as Dancing with the Stars. Thereafter, he was hired by NewsMax to do a show, at which point Spicer resumed his gaslighting, hostile-to-democracy ways. This included "stop the steal" propagandizing, much like what we heard from Tucker Carlson. The only reason you didn't hear nearly as much about Spicer's nonsense is that nobody watches Newsmax.

Even by the low viewership standards of that channel, however, Spicer's show did not draw well, and he was eventually knocked out of his prime spot in the lineup by Greta Van Susteren. Still, he is the living embodiment of the old adage "born on third base and thinks he hit a triple." So, when his contract came up for renegotiation, he demanded star-level pay, despite not being much of a star. Newsmax declined to meet his price, and so he's out. Yesterday was his last day working for the network. He doesn't yet know what he'll do next, although he might want to take note that Hot Dog on a Stick is hiring:

Four Hot Dog on a Stick employees, with Sean Spicer's face pasted on top of one of their heads.

Looks like a perfect fit to us.

Jerk #2, meanwhile, is Jeremy Corbyn, who was once the highest-ranking member of the Labour Party, and was theoretically in line to become Prime Minister (which would have put to the test if it's possible for a PM to be even less popular than Liz Truss). In his case, the jerk behavior is antisemitism. There is little dispute that: (1) Corbyn helped sweep antisemitic behavior by members of the Labour Party under the rug, and (2) He and his allies made vicious attacks on John Ware, the U.K. journalist who drew attention to the matter. There is more debate about the extent to which Corbyn himself indulged in antisemitism. The answer is not "zero," but beyond that, it's tricky. He's excused various high-profile incidents he was involved in as either mistakes or with the defense that "criticism of Israel is not the same thing as antisemitism." How much you accept those explanations dictates how much of an antisemite you think he is, personally.

Current Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer, for his part, had heard and seen enough. So at Starmer's instigation, after a long and ugly process, Corbyn was expelled from the Party. He's not giving up his political career without a fight, but now he'll have to get reelected as an independent backbencher. The odds are pretty good that Labour loses the seat, either to Corbyn, or to a Conservative because the lefty vote ends up being split. So, Starmer was willing to risk the loss of a seat in service of larger concerns. Meanwhile, American readers are left to wonder how things would be different if U.S. political parties had the means to expel members. (Z)

This Week in Freudenfreude: Old King Coal Is Not Merry Old Soul Anymore

There was a time when coal was America's most important fuel source. This was excellent when it came to a speedy rise as an industrial power. It was less excellent for the environment. Or for all the miners and factory workers who died of black lung disease and other such conditions.

The day of coal eventually passed, although some states did not get the memo. West Virginia leaps to mind most readily, but so too do Pennsylvania, Kentucky and Montana. Still, sooner or later, the folks in that industry are going to have to leave the 19th century behind and join the rest of us in the 21st century. Even if one doesn't care about the negative impacts of the extraction and use of coal, the fact of the matter is that the underlying economics rarely make sense anymore.

This week, it was announced that in 2022, the U.S. reached a rather notable milestone on this front. To wit, that was the first year that the country generated more energy from renewable sources than it did from coal. To be more precise, 20% of the nation's energy came from coal, while 21% came from renewable sources.

The most important source of renewable energy, at least right now, is solar. And the leader in that area is the pinko commies in California. Right behind solar, however, is wind. And the leader there is... Texas (which is also #2 in solar). If the state that relies most on the petroleum industry can begin to reorient itself, then surely the states that rely on coal can begin to do the same.

This is not to say that the journey forward will be easy, or will advance at a consistent pace. The biggest problem that must be overcome is that American electrical grids are built based on the notion that the supply of energy will be steady and uninterrupted. That's very doable with coal or oil, but it's trickier with an energy source that is only productive when the sun is out or when the wind is blowing. That said, this problem will be overcome (primarily by deployment of batteries or other means of storing power). One method used in some circumstances is to use solar-powered electric pumps to pump water uphill to a reservoir when the sun is shining and let the water flow downhill to turn hydroelectric turbines when it is not. And for those who are concerned about the environment, which really should be everyone, it's good news that between the desire to save the planet and cold, hard economic truth, things are headed in a positive direction.

And finally, we have a mountain of content on deck, including lawyer-reader comments on the Trump case, feedback from French readers on the pension issue, a piece from our British correspondents, the piece that will use penis_on_penis_off.jpg and, of course, the bracket competition. But, as you can see, it was a big, big news day. And, on top of that, (Z) wrote every word you see above with a (mild) concussion. Anyhow, given that we're already at 5,000+ words and we're already way past our preferred publication time, we're going to have to stop here. But we promise that content is coming, and we appreciate your patience. Have a good weekend! (Z)


Previous | Next

Main page for smartphones

Main page for tablets and computers