Previous | Next | Senate page
New polls: (None)
Dem pickups: (None)
GOP pickups: (None)
Today's Corruption News, Part I: Bob Menendez
Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ) continues to make plenty of the wrong kind of headlines. And he continues to rage against the machine, and to claim that there must be some misunderstanding, there must be some kind of mistake.
To start, the Senator insists that he will not resign. He also offered up a defense of himself that, well, plays the race card. Or, maybe more accurately, one culture card and one race card. The culture card is his explanation for why he had nearly half a million dollars in gold and cash in his house. He said that because his family once lived in Cuba, he has a fear of wealth being seized by the government, and the only insurance policy is not to trust banks with all your assets. If that is true, well, it certainly didn't work out, now did it? Since, you know, the government... seized all that money and gold. Of course, we find this explanation to be highly dubious.
As to the race card, Menendez explained that the reason that he's been indicted twice is that he's being targeted by a shadowy cabal, and "Those behind this campaign simply cannot accept that a first-generation Latino-American from humble beginnings could rise to be a U.S. Senator and serve with honor and distinction." Curious, since nobody seems to have indicted first-generation Latino-American senators Ted Cruz (R-TX), Marco Rubio (R-FL) or Alex Padilla (D-CA). In other words, we are once again skeptical. And, in fact, this explanation doesn't even pass the smell test with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), who said that while there are certainly barriers for Latinos and Latinas who wish to enter politics, phony indictments from anti-Latino racists are not among them.
The bottom line is that the Senator has had several days to come up with plausible explanations for the publicly known facts of his case, and this is the best he's come up with. That does not bode well for an acquittal. However, he's probably telling the truth that he has no plans to quit. He's famous for being stubborn, and even if he has to spend all his time working on his defense, why not collect that U.S. senator's salary while doing so? After all, his petty cash (and his petty gold bars) is no longer available.
The only way Menendez resigns is if he thinks he's going to be expelled anyhow. Thus far, there is only very slight movement in that direction, as the only people who matter for this purpose are his 99 colleagues. Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) was the first to call for Menendez to hit the road. Yesterday, he was joined by Sens. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and Peter Welch (D-VT). Three is a long way from 50, though Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) also said Menendez probably needs to go. That opinion might open a few eyes, we suppose.
That said, now that we've had time to consider the matter carefully, we'll point out a few things we think are worth considering:
- Yesterday, we
pointed out
that many senators jumped all over Al Franken when he was accused of sexual misconduct, but many of those same senators
have been reticent to call for Menendez' resignation. Without getting into a comparison of whether sexual misconduct or
gross corruption is the worse offense, maybe there isn't as much an incongruity as it seems. This isn't our original
idea (see
here
for one source that is saying it), but with personal misconduct like Franken's, the Senate is the only entity with the
power to hold a member accountable. Either the senators do something, or nothing gets done. By contrast, with an indictment,
there is another entity that might hold a senator accountable, namely the courts. It is perhaps understandable that the
senators might view themselves as the first and only line of defense in the former case, but only the second line of
defense in the latter.
- On a related point, one can understand why Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) is not eager to establish a
precedent that indictment triggers an automatic expulsion. Imagine what a DoJ led by Ken Paxton or Jim Jordan, coupled
with a Senate majority led by Mitch McConnell (R-KY) or John Cornyn (R-TX), might potentially do with that. "You are
hereby charged with the crime of being a Democratic senator in a state where a Republican governor chooses the
replacement, Sens. Brown, Kaine, Warner, and Shaheen." If you think this is paranoia, you might want to go back and reread
"Trump v2.0"
from yesterday.
- Although Democrats don't want this millstone around their necks, Menendez has been abandoned by the entire New Jersey Democratic establishment, and is not going to be renominated. That means the blue team will be rid of him by June of next year, well before the general election, and then can spend the next 5 months talking about how one party gets rid of their crooks, while the other nominates them for president.
So, we don't think that, barring new revelations, the critical mass of Democrats needed to eject Menendez will be reached. But, having had time to consider the matter, we also don't think it's the political disaster for the blue team that it initially seemed, or that it's likely to put the seat in jeopardy. (Z)
Today's Corruption News, Part II: Clarence Thomas
Clarence Thomas also continues to make plenty of the wrong kind of headlines. This is courtesy, primarily, of ProPublica, which is surely going to be a serious contender for the Pulitzer for investigative reporting this year (which, if it comes to pass, would be the organization's seventh).
The latest report starts with this photo, which led the staff historian to become disoriented for a moment, and then to say: "Wait. Is that Clarence Thomas and David Koch with... documentarian Ken Burns?":
It is indeed Burns, whose films have been financed in part by donations from Koch. We have no idea what Burns' politics are (we would have guessed left-leaning), but it's not terribly surprising that a libertarian/conservative would find plenty to like in Burns' work. It's all war, sports, biographies and music for the last three decades, after all. Though we're guessing that Koch took a pass on the two-thirds of The Roosevelts that covered Eleanor and Franklin. Maybe the one-third that covered Theodore, too, since the Rough Rider may have been a Republican, but he was also known for kicking fat-cat corporate types right in the teeth.
In any event, the point of the photo is that Thomas attended at least two of the Koch brothers' donor summits. The purpose of the summits is to get members of the Koch network excited about what the organization is doing, and to raise millions and millions of dollars in donations. The purpose of inviting Thomas, at very least, is to goose the fundraising take by making attendees feel like they're part of the in-crowd, and are rubbing elbows with powerful and important people.
There is another probable reason for the Kochs to get up close and personal with Thomas. As you might imagine, they sometimes have direct business before the Supreme Court, or else cases that they are not involved in but where they desire a particular result. In particular, the Kochs have long lobbied against Chevron v. NRDC (1984), a rather major decision that said that the courts should avoid interfering with the regulations laid down by executive agencies, unless those rules are outright unconstitutional. In 2005, before he was hobnobbing with the Kochs, Thomas actually wrote a majority decision in a case that upheld and expanded Chevron. In 2020, after appearing at the Koch summits (not to mention multiple dozen men-only, ultra-insider soirees hosted by billionaire Harlan Crow), Thomas decided that Chevron is wrong, that it needs to go, and that SCOTUS should take a case that will allow that to happen.
Certainly, reasonable people can change their views on things. And maybe that is what happened here. But it does not look good when a justice is more than willing to embrace the perks offered to him by billionaires. It looks even worse when he "forgets" to include the trips on his disclosure forms (as he did with both of the known Koch trips, and all of the known Crow trips). It gets worse still when the justice, or his spokespeople, say they are shocked that anyone could think that any of this was problematic. If the response was: "We can understand the concerns, particularly when viewed from the outside, but be assured that this was just a social occasion," that might be taken as an honest statement. But when it's "How could you possibly think something shady went on here?" it sounds like someone who is selling something.
In any case, Thomas has clearly learned how to approach the line without crossing it enough to get into trouble. Or actually, what he's probably learned is that there really is no line. No matter what ProPublica comes up with, we just don't see how it is going to lead either Congress (with its Senate filibuster) or Chief Justice John Roberts & Co. to either sanction Thomas for his acceptance of handouts, or to change the rules such that future handouts are off the table. (Z)
Newsom-DeSantis Tilt Looks to Be Locked and Loaded
For a while, it looked like the planned debate between Govs. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) and Gavin Newsom (D-CA) was a go, and that all that remained was to hammer out a few small details. Then, as recently as last week, it looked like it was dead in the water, because the two sides couldn't agree on things like what kind of audience to have, if any. Yesterday, it was announced that it's back on... apparently.
Assuming it happens, it will take place on Thursday, November 30, at a venue in Georgia that is TBA. Sean Hannity will moderate, and the 90-minute event will air on Fox during Hannity's timeslot (as well as 30 minutes of some other Fox entertainer's timeslot, since Hannity is only an hour long). These things often end up at universities, of which there are several excellent candidates in Georgia. Sometimes they end up at presidential libraries, as will be the case with this week's Republican candidates' debate. However, we are inclined to doubt that either DeSantis or Hannity would be willing to set foot on the grounds of Jimmy Carter's library, and that's the only one in Georgia. So, presumably that option is off the table.
It's not terribly surprising that, in the end, this (probably) came together. It's something of a no-lose situation for Newsom. If he does well, he elevates his national profile. If he does poorly, there's plenty of time for people to forget that prior to his potential 2028 presidential run. As to DeSantis, he is running out of opportunities to make a dent in Donald Trump's polling lead, especially given that he won't actually attack The Donald at the Republican debate. Maybe by laying into a hated pinko socialist abortion-loving trans-enabling Soros lackey, DeSantis can score some points with the base? December is holiday season, of course, and the Iowa caucuses are on January 15, so this could well be the Floridian's last big chance to move the needle.
Now you have probably noticed, throughout this item, we've hinted that it's not quite a done deal yet. That is because while everyone is saying it's a done deal, Newsom was careful to note: "We've agreed to the debate—provided there is no cheering section, no hype videos or any of the other crutches DeSantis requested. We want a real debate—not a circus." Meanwhile, when Fox was asked to confirm there would be no audience, the network declined to do so. And so, this may well fall apart after all. We'll see. (Z)
Today's Bad Poll: Trump Up 10 on Biden?
When we wrote about that shoddy poll on Friday, the one about how 90+% think that Joe Biden, Barack Obama and George W. Bush profited off the presidency, we presumed it would be at least a couple of weeks until we stumbled across another poll that bad. Not so much, as it turns out.
By now, many readers will have heard about the latest from The Washington Post/ABC, which gives Donald Trump a staggering 10-point lead over Joe Biden among registered voters, 52% to 42%. This is, to be blunt, crazy. Over the course of the past 5 years, there have been over 1,000 Trump-Biden polls, and Trump has enjoyed this kind of lead in.... one of those prior to the new poll. Further, there is ample evidence that Trump's ceiling is roughly 46%, since that's where he checked in for both of his elections.
The cross-tabs are even more nutty, if that is possible. The pollster, Langer Research Associates, would have you believe that if the election were held today, Biden would only win the non-white vote by 9 points—a swing of 36 points from 2020. The results also say that Trump would win voters 18-25 by 16 points. That would be a swing of 31 from 2020, when Biden won that demo by 15. There are also large swings toward Trump among rural voters (+26), independents (+26), moderates (+22), and urban dwellers (+14).
Because the costs of the poll were split by two news-gathering organizations, each of them wrote up the results. Reading them both presents an interesting dichotomy. The Langer in Langer Research Associates is Gary Langer, who was ABC's polling guy before he formed his own firm. And so, ABC let him write up the story. His analysis, such as it is, treats the numbers as very serious results with very serious implications for Joe Biden. Not surprising that he would begin with the presumption that of course his firm's findings are legit.
The Washington Post's writeup strikes a rather different tone. Indeed, it's almost apologetic. The three staffers who worked together on the piece note:
The Post-ABC poll shows Biden trailing Trump by 10 percentage points at this early stage in the election cycle, although the sizable margin of Trump's lead in this survey is significantly at odds with other public polls that show the general election contest a virtual dead heat. The difference between this poll and others, as well as the unusual makeup of Trump's and Biden's coalitions in this survey, suggest it is probably an outlier.
You think?
The thing is, the previous WaPo/ABC poll was also an outlier. Not as bad as this one, but it did have Trump up 6. It would be rather unusual to get two outliers in a row, especially with one so extreme. That suggests that there might just be something wrong with Langer's secret sauce—the firm's model of the electorate. And yes, it's true that maybe Langer is right and everyone else is wrong—that's happened before (albeit not with presidential campaigns). But again, Langer's numbers are not only at odds with every other pollster (outside, maybe, Rasmussen), but also with actual, real-world experience. There's absolutely nothing in the past two sets of election results that supports the notion that Trump could get 52% of the vote.
The poll has such a stench emanating from it that politics-watchers are having a field day tearing it apart. For example, Larry Sabato, of Sabato's Crystal Ball, tweeted:
Ignore the Washington Post - ABC poll. It's a ridiculous outlier (Trump up 10 over Biden—laughable). My question: How could you even publish a poll so absurd on its face? Will be a lingering embarrassment for you.
Nate Cohn, of The New York Times, also had some thoughts:
It's really really hard to release outlying poll results, so you've got to give credit to ABC/Post here, but I do have a fairly major quibble with ABC/Post here: if you release consecutive 'outlying' poll results -- R+7 in May, R+10 today -- you don't get to dismiss your results
If it happens twice in a row in the same race, it's clear that this is the result of some element of your approach, and either you either [sic] need to decide you're good with it and defend it or you need to go home
Cohn erred slightly; the earlier poll had it R+7 among all respondents and R+6 among registered voters, while for the newer poll it's R+9 and R+10. So, the tweet should have paired R+7 and R+9, or R+6 and R+10, since those are the equivalent pairs.
So, it's a silly poll, and we have to assume that Gary Langer is going to be having some long discussions with his two clients. Meanwhile, for at least the next few WaPo/ABC polls, everyone—including us—is going to be looking very closely at the crosstabs. (Z)
Today's Strange Conspiracy Theory: Obama for President?
No, not that Obama. He's not eligible to run for president anymore. It's his wife, former First Lady Michelle Obama. Ted Cruz appeared on Fox so that he could spend some time insulting the "Democrat Party" (very classy; can you imagine what the response would be if, say, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-MA, appeared on MSNBC and insisted on using the phrase "Repugnican Party"?). Cruz also offered up this prediction:
I think the odds are very significant that next summer at the Democrat national convention that the Democrat party will jettison Joe Biden and will throw him off the ticket, and they will parachute in instead, Michelle Obama to be their candidate. I think they're gonna look to Michelle Obama as the savior to come in. And I think if that happens, that would be very, very dangerous. And every time I see a Democrat or one of their puppets in the press beginning to point out the problems with Joe Biden—every time that happens, the chances of that go up and up and up.
It's really quite rich that Cruz can go on Fox and complain about media outlets who are in the bag for a political party.
Cruz isn't the only one to be talking this way. Or tweeting this way, at least. Sarah Palin's 15 minutes of fame would appear to be up, such that she can't even get booked for an appearance on the Wasilla Junior High daily student announcements. But she's still got her X account, so she joined in on the conspiracizing, and wrote: "I still say it'll be Michelle O'. Biden's out." Because apparently Michelle Obama is... Irish?
Palin was actually responding to a different conspiracy theory, one that says that: (1) Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) will resign; (2) Kamala Harris will be appointed as her replacement; (3) Gavin Newsom will be appointed as HER replacement; (4) Joe Biden will find some excuse to resign; and (5) the Democrats will thus run Newsom as their candidate, and as an incumbent in 2024. As an added alleged bonus, Newsom would be eligible for election to two full terms in addition to serving the balance of Biden's term.
We've been pondering it all day, and we can't really grasp what's going on here. Republicans are pretty good at coordinating their talking points, which might well explain how Cruz and Palin could end up with the same basic idea. But whether this is centrally orchestrated, or it's just Republicans freestyling, we struggle to understand what this kind of talk accomplishes. Is it a way of trying to hint to voters that even Democrats have given up on Biden? Is it a form of wishcasting, where Republicans construct elaborate fantasies that begin with the understanding that Democrats really and truly hate Biden and are looking for ways to be rid of him? We don't know.
What we do know is that Michelle Obama has said, over and over, that she has zero interest in running for president. That is not likely to change. Meanwhile, each item in the sequence of events that produces incumbent President Newsom is a longshot. All of them happening is simply not plausible, since Feinstein is not interested in giving up her post, Harris is not interested in giving up hers, and Biden is not interested in giving up his. The only person in the whole equation who might be game for the scheme is Newsom.
Anyhow, it was a relatively slow news day, and this talk is an interesting puzzle, so we thought we'd pass it along. (Z)
What Is Wrong With These People?, Part I: Corey Lewandowski
Speaking of things we don't really understand, we give you the career of Corey Lewandowski. Let us start by noting that his "career" in politics has been marked by nothing but failure. In 1994, he ran for the Massachusetts State House and lost. Thereafter, he got a job working for then-representative Bob Ney, who was indicted and imprisoned for corruption, although he did not get in trouble quickly enough to save Lewandowski from getting arrested for bringing a gun into the Capitol building. Once Ney had relocated to the graybar hotel, in 2002, Lewandowski went to work on the campaign of incumbent U.S. Senator Robert C. Smith, who lost (to John Sununu).
Thereafter, Lewandowski hawked seafood as the executive director of the New England Seafood Producers Association, and then worked for one of the Koch brothers' PACs, where everyone reportedly hated him. During this time, while still on the Kochs' payroll, Lewandowski ran for treasurer of Windham, NH... and lost, claiming just a quarter of the vote. It was with this auspicious résumé that Lewandowski was named Donald Trump's campaign manager. He held that job for roughly 6 months before being fired on June 20, 2016. He went to work for CNN, and got pushed out after six months. He was hired by OAN, and then fired on July 31, 2017. He did a de facto audition for Fox, and showed up obviously drunk (and so did not get the gig). He founded a consulting firm, and lasted 4 months before being forced to exit. In 2020, Lewandowski announced plans to run for the U.S. Senate from New Hampshire, then abandoned them when polls made clear he'd be crushed like a bug. He then took a job working for a Trump-supporting super PAC, and was fired 6 months later, in September 2021.
Meanwhile, on top of his train wreck of a career, Lewandowski is apparently an incorrigible lech. Among the incidents that are known: (1) he grabbed a female reporter from Breitbart news; (2) he sexually propositioned Trashelle Odom, the wife of major GOP donor John Odom (leading to a court case and an order to take 8 hours of "impulse control counseling"); (3) he was accused of slapping the buttocks of Trump supporter/activist Joy Villa; (4) he was fired from the Trumpy super PAC after being accused of sexual harassment and (5) he is reportedly carrying on an affair with Gov. Kristi Noem (R-SD) despite both he and the Governor being married (not to each other).
Why do we bring this up? Because Lewandowski keeps failing upward, and keeps getting work. And, at the moment, he is at the center of a mini-scandal. See, Lewandowski was hired to work for Louisiana gubernatorial candidate Jeff Landry (R). One of Landry's biggest financial backers is John Odom. That would be the same John Odom whose wife Lewandowski propositioned. And so, Odom has jumped off the Landry train, and is demanding his $100,000 in donations back. That's a tough pill for a campaign to swallow. On the other hand, if Odom keeps making a stink, and if he goes to court (something rich people are known to do when they're angry), it could be worth $100,000 to make him go away.
Surely, there must be other political operatives in the world, ones who don't have a .050 batting average and a rap sheet of sexual misconduct a mile long, right? Lewandowski moves in and out of the orbit of Trump, sometimes he's in favor, sometimes he's in disfavor (very much like Steve Bannon). We assume that what someone like Landry is buying, or trying to buy, is Trump's favor. "See, I hired your guy. How about an endorsement? Or even a rally?" We also assume that Lewandowski, who's clearly a smooth operator, is giving a false impression of how much influence he actually has over Trump. If so, it's another reminder that the former president sucks grifters into his orbit like a giant, grifty black hole. (Z)
What Is Wrong With These People?, Part II: Paul Gosar
And finally, as long as we are talking about characters of dubious... well, character, let's take a look at Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ). It would seem the Representative regularly produces a newsletter, which he posts to his official House website. We were not aware of this fact previously, but we took a look at the latest edition, and it's a doozy.
Here is the most unhinged portion of this week's (month's?) newsletter:
After the riot was in full swing, the Chief's request for National Guard was finally approved. But even after approval was given, General Milley, the homosexual-promoting-BLM-activist Chairman of the military joint chiefs, delayed. Of course, we now know that the deviant Milley was coordinating with Nancy Pelosi to hurt President Trump, and treasonously working behind Trump's back. In a better society, quislings like the strange sodomy-promoting General Milley would be hung. He had one boss: President Trump, and instead he was secretly meeting with Pelosi and coordinating with her to hurt Trump. That is, when he wasn't also secretly coordinating and sharing intelligence with the Chinese military. How this traitor remains in office is a question we need answered.
First of all, it's "hanged," you idiot. If you say that in a better society, the sodomites would be hung, you're asking for something very different than you presumably intend to ask for. In any event, Gosar is the walking embodiment of Poe's Law: that, absent a clear indicator of authorial intent, it's difficult to tell a parody of an extremist from an actual extremist. If you hadn't read today's post in order, would you have been able to guess which was real and which was a joke between "pinko socialist abortion-loving trans-enabling Soros lackey" and "homosexual-promoting-BLM-activist"?
Of course, readers know that we are not extremists and that Gosar most certainly is. But at this point, we wonder if it goes beyond that. If you click on the link to the newsletter, it reads very much like a manifesto, including the extreme assertions, of course, but also weird and arbitrary use of graphics and color, and rapid shifts from one rant to another. It's really quite unsettling.
The staff psychiatrist is busy at work on her book Chicken Soup for the Schizophrenic's Soul, and so is not available for consultation. However we note that Gosar's family says they do not recognize the man he has become. Meanwhile, his ranting and raving (and this is hardly the first incident) sure seems to go well beyond politics, and to be into the realm of dysfunction. This is not a promising fact pattern. Let's put it this way. If there's a headline "[MEMBER OF CONGRESS] snaps, does [VERY BAD ACT]," you'd kind of have to take Gosar over the field, wouldn't you? (Z)
Previous | Next
Main page for smartphones
Main page for tablets and computers