Previous | Next
New polls:
Dem pickups: PA
GOP pickups: (None)
House Committees Continue to Shake Out
Usually, the staffing of the various House committees is a subject of limited interest because it's very much inside baseball. However, with Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) and his band of irregulars running the show, it's become very interesting, indeed.
To start, as is well known at this point, McCarthy agreed to seat three hardliners on the House Rules Committee. Together with the Democrats, those three could theoretically scuttle any bill before it reaches the House floor. Yesterday, we learned who the trio will be. It's Reps. Chip Roy (R-TX) and Ralph Norman (R-SC), who were both among the MAGA 20, and Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), who was not, but who is definitely a hard core right-winger (and, like his fellow Kentuckian Sen. Rand Paul, more of a Libertarian than a Republican). That should make the debt-ceiling fight extra fun (more below).
McCarthy also announced his picks for the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. The most prominent new member is Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX). Meanwhile, he chose none of the MAGA 20 and, in fact, none of the members of the Freedom Caucus for the committee. He must figure that their names and "intelligence" don't belong in the same sentence.
And speaking of the Intelligence Committee, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) sent a letter to McCarthy yesterday advising that he (Jeffries) was renominating Reps. Eric Swalwell and Adam Schiff (both D-CA) for reappointment to that Committee. Knowing full well that McCarthy plans to boot the duo as revenge for the sanctions taken against Reps. Paul Gosar (R-AZ) and Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) in the last Congress, Jeffries wrote:
In the 117th Congress, two Members were removed from their committee assignments after a bipartisan vote of the House found them unfit to serve on standing committees for directly inciting violence against their colleagues. This action was taken by both Democrats and Republicans given the seriousness of the conduct involved, particularly in the aftermath of a violent insurrection and attack on the Capitol. It does not serve as precedent or justification for the removal of Representatives Schiff and Swalwell, given that they have never exhibited violent thoughts or behavior.
Emphasis is Jeffries', not ours.
In the end, Jeffries' letter will matter not one whit. The MAGA world in general, and Donald Trump in particular, want Swalwell's and Schiff's heads on a platter and McCarthy wants to give that to them. And he's going to get his way. With a normal standing committee, a majority of the whole House has to vote to exclude members (as in the cases of Gosar and Greene). But Intelligence is a select committee, and by the rules of the House, the Speaker can veto anyone he or she wants to veto. So, Swalwell and Schiff are out of luck, and we'll wait to see if House Democrats play tit-for-tat the next time they are in the majority. (Z)
GOP Senators to McCarthy: You're on Your Own
The Senate is not populated with as many right-wing extremists as the House is. However, the upper chamber does have some fire-breathing right-wingers. Further, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) used up a lot of political capital to get the omnibus spending bill through the Senate, while many other members took a lot of blowback from their constituents on the matter. Add it up, and the result is that as Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) wrestles with his colleagues over the debt ceiling, he's not going to get much help from the other end of the building. At the moment, the situation is something like this: "Kevin, it's up to you to come up with something that can get past your chamber, and then we'll take that bill up in our chamber."
To put a slightly finer point on it, several moderate Republican senators guess that, at the moment, there aren't 10 GOP votes in the Senate for a clean bill that would just raise the debt limit and do nothing else. So, even if the Democrats joined with a handful of non-whackadoodle House Republicans to pass something, that theoretically wouldn't get through the Senate. That would mean that only something tolerable to the MAGA crowd would give Senate Republicans enough political cover to confer their votes.
At least, that is the theory. Assuming an actual bill, even one from a Democratic-sane Republican fusion, actually got to the Senate, then it would be considerably harder for the Republican senators to let it die, since everyone in the country would know exactly who was to blame. Further, it's all good and well to do a bunch of posturing right now, and to turn the screws on McCarthy. The calculus changes a whole lot as the country gets closer and closer to the edge of the cliff.
Still, the Speaker looks like he'll get to spend several months twisting in the wind, while he tries (and probably fails) to herd cats. That said, in the end, it's nearly inconceivable that the U.S. will actually default on the debt limit. McConnell may be turtling up right now, but he's already said that a default is totally unacceptable. Once there's a bit more time for anger about the omnibus bill to dissipate, he'll be in a better position to twist some Republican arms. And if he can't or won't do it, there is really just no chance that Joe Biden decides that driving off the cliff and wrecking the economy is a better choice than one of the maneuvers at his disposal, like the trillion-dollar coin or invoking the Fourteenth Amendment.
And on that point, reader G.M. in Newton, MA, brings to our attention a potential scheme proposed by Matthew Yglesias. The idea is to increase the return on bonds to higher rates than market conditions currently dictate. That trick would theoretically make it possible to sell a bond with, say, a $100 face value for more than $100. So, the government would be able to bring in more money with the debt it issues.
We are not economists, as we have noted many times, so we don't feel particularly capable of evaluating this scheme. The U.S. has already reached the debt limit, of course, but presumably they are redeeming some securities, and so are able to issue others as that happens. Would that be enough to significantly alter the federal balance sheet? And would it be legal to sell bonds with these terms? And do future yields on bonds not count toward the debt tally (only the face value of the instruments)? We know enough to ask these questions, but we don't know enough to answer them. There are readers who know economics and markets better than we do, so if any of them would care to weigh in, we'll report back as to whether this scheme should be added to the list of potential options the Biden administration might pursue. (Z)
DeSantis Defends Rejection of African-American Studies Course
As we wrote yesterday, educators tried to introduce a new, Advanced Placement African-American studies course in Florida, and were stopped cold by Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL), who is using the state's school system as his personal battleground to fight the anti-woke wars.
We also noted that there had been a lot of backlash to the Governor's decision, enough that it caused him to defend himself at length in a press conference yesterday. He actually unleashed a lengthy diatribe about some of the elements of the course—intersectionality, queer theory, Black feminist authors, reparations, and Black Lives Matter—declaring that those things are irrelevant to the subject, and that they therefore represent indoctrination rather than education.
DeSantis is a smart guy, no doubt, and so it's never clear with this kind of saber-rattling if he's just bloviating in service of his political agenda, or if he really doesn't understand the subject. As a general rule, if you're looking for information on the current state of African-American studies, a middle-aged white guy is not the place to go. And if he really thinks that, say, queer theory is not a part of the discussion, well, James Baldwin, Bayard Rustin, Lori Lightfoot, Angela Davis, Moms Mabley, Laverne Cox, Little Richard (Penniman) and Billy Preston, among others, might beg to differ. We might also point out that teaching a subject is not the same thing as endorsing it. For example, (Z) has taught the Civil War many times, and has never once had a student rush out and join the Confederate Army.
In any case, we run this item to make this point: It's beginning. And by "it," we mean the intense scrutiny that comes from being a would-be presidential candidate. Outside of Florida and politically centered outlets like this one, a lot of his anti-woke stunts have flown under the radar. But now, they are generally national news, and it's going to be a lot harder for DeSantis to pander to the base without alienating independents and sane Republicans that he would need in the 2024 general election. (Z)
Carlson, et al. Score MMajor TriuMMph in the Culture Wars
July 4, 1776. April 9, 1865. June 6, 1944. Some of the most triumphant days of American history. And now they can be joined by January 23, 2023. Because that is the day that Major Assh... er Major General Tucker Carlson and the forces of righteousness defeated the evil that is... woke M&M's.
For those who do not know, commercials for M&M's candies have featured, for many years, six animated "spokescandies." Here's what they used to look like:
Several weeks ago, the Mars/M&M company unveiled a redesign:
If you are struggling to see the differences—and we certainly wouldn't blame you—the biggest one is that green is now wearing tennis shoes instead of high heels, and is ostensibly more feminist. The company made some other changes, which were expressed much more clearly in the press releases than they are in the art; the "female" candies were set to become more prominent in commercials, a purple M&M was added in honor of "inclusivity," and the "personalities" of the candies were altered a bit. For example, orange was made more anxious, in an effort to capture the neurodiversity of modern society.
You might think nobody could possibly care about something so minor. And if so, you would be wrong. Fox entertainer Tucker Carlson blew a gasket on his program:
Bet you didn't think M&Ms were pushing intolerance, but they were, they've been changed. You're seeing those changes on the screen. The green M&M, you will notice, is no longer wearing sexy boots. Now she's wearing sensible sneakers. Why the change? Well according to M&Ms, "We all win when we see more women in leading roles."
The other big change is that the brown M&M has "transitioned from high stilettos to lower block heels," also less sexy. That's progress. M&Ms will not be satisfied until every last cartoon character is deeply unappealing and totally androgynous. Until the moment you wouldn't want to have a drink with any one of them. That's the goal. When you are totally turned off, we've achieved equity. They've won.
Forgive us for asking, but does Tucker Carlson—um, how should we put this?—gratify himself to bags of cheap candy? It certainly seems that way. And he was far from the only right-winger to flip his lid. To take another example, entertainer Ben Shapiro went on a rant on his podcast that included, for example, this observation: "So women, do you feel represented now because of the green, purple and brown M&Ms on the M&M package that you are guzzling down lonely in your apartment with your wine and your cat?" Ol' Benny certainly helps illustrate that the problem of sexism has totally been solved, and therefore there's no need to try to move things forward with some representation.
In any event, the blowback grew loud enough the Mars/M&M company announced yesterday that they would be temporarily suspending the use of their spokescandies, and that for the foreseeable future, commercials for the brand would feature comedian and actor Maya Rudolph. It may just have occurred to the corporate bigwigs that the Super Bowl is a few weeks away, and that the manufactured controversy will add a little extra buzz to any ads they might run.
We rarely take the bait when it comes to these right-wing commentators and their ongoing efforts to be outrageous. For example, we entirely ignored all the nonsense about gas stoves last week. But this was just so absurd, to the point of being surreal, that we just had to take note of it. And we must give a begrudging tip of the cap to Tucker Carlson; he clearly has a genius for this sort of thing. We never, ever, ever would have guessed that anyone could be brought to a frothing-at-the-mouth state by the question of whether the green M&M is wearing heels or tennis shoes. Yet, many of his viewers were. And hoo boy, who knows what Tucker, Benny, et al., will do if ever Snap, Crackle and/or Pop come out as trans. That could be a whole month's worth of programs right there. For now, we look forward to the songs and the epic poems that will undoubtedly be composed in honor of the Great M&M War. (Z)
Mississippi Governor's Race May Get All Shook Up
As we have noted, Gov. Tate Reeves (R-MS) is not very popular. He's presided over a rough period in Mississippi history (of which there are admittedly many), between the pandemic and the economic downturn there and the inability of the state government to deliver potable water to its citizens. Consequently, he hesitated a bit on the decision of whether or not to run for reelection this year. However, he did eventually file for another run.
A new poll, released late last week, suggests that he may regret that decision. According to Mississippi Today/Siena College, just 33% of Mississippians support Reeves for another term. On the other hand, 57% would prefer to vote for someone besides him.
The very important question here is how much of that 57% would vote for anyone who is not Reeves, and how much of that 57% would only vote for a Republican who is not Reeves. Needless to say, the Democrats are going to find out. And the Party believes it has a candidate who might actually be able to knock off Reeves. It's Mississippi Public Service Commissioner Brandon Presley, who released his announcement video yesterday.
Presley has earned raves for his skill at retail politics, and has, in past elections won considerably more votes in the red portions of Mississippi than Democrats normally do. He's also got the enthusiastic backing of the Democratic establishment, including far and away the most important Democrat in Mississippi, Rep. Bennie Thompson. And, as you may have guessed from the headline, he is indeed related to Elvis Presley. Based on the announcement video, it would seem the would-be governor is going to make sure everyone in Mississippi is aware of that fact.
Presley is going to run an outsider, populist campaign in which he portrays Reeves as out-of-touch, incompetent, and a tool of wealthy corporate interests. Could it work? It's not impossible. Remember that Southern states are considerably more open to electing Democratic governors than they are Democratic senators/presidents. Currently, Lousiana, Kentucky, and North Carolina all have Democratic governors. Mississippi has had a Democrat in the governor's mansion as recently as 2004 (Ronnie Musgrove). Of course, we'll want to see some polling before we decide if Presley really is viable, or if he ain't nothin' but a hound dog. (Z)
Big House to Become Bigo House
Richard Barnett is a remarkable combination of jackass and dumbass. Also known as "Bigo," he's the fellow who was photographed with his feet up on a desk in then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-CA) office. He earned himself the "jack" portion of the above sentence by breaching the Capitol in the first place, and by leaving a note on the desk that said "Nancy, Bigo was here bi-otch!" And he earned the "dumb" portion of the sentence by choosing the wrong desk (the desk actually belonged to Pelosi aide Emily Berret), and also by being so foolish that he thought the FBI couldn't possibly find him aided by a crystal clear image of exactly what he looks like.
And actually, Barnett has an enormous supply of "dumb," because the dumb did not cease when he finally left the Capitol. No, once he knew the FBI was on to him, he destroyed evidence. Then, he decided to fight the charges against him instead of taking a plea bargain. And then, during the trial, he lied on the stand, grew petulant in front of the jury, offered ridiculous explanations for his illegal acts (e.g., that he took an envelope from Pelosi's office not as a trophy, but because it had given him a papercut and had his blood on it, and so was a biohazard he needed to dispose of). Oh, he also demonstrated not-so-believable contrition in the courtroom, and then would go home and night and tweet messages about how right he was to invade the Capitol. It would seem he does not know that judges and DAs have access to Twitter, too.
Now, Barnett will have to put his career as a rocket scientist on hold, because he was convicted on all eight counts he faced. He will be sentenced in May, and faces up to 47 years in prison. Even if he gets just a quarter of that, well, at the age of 62 that would be getting in the vicinity of a life sentence.
We don't normally note convictions of the 1/6 insurrectionists, because it's sort of the same old story, over and over. But Barnett is almost certainly one of the three most famous Capitol breachers, along with the QAnon Shaman and Kevin Seefried (the guy with the Confederate Flag). Further, this gives us a chance to answer a question that would otherwise have been addressed in the Saturday Q&A this week. Courtesy of reader D.E. in Lancaster, PA:
Today was not a good day for the 1/6 Insurrectionists, what with multiple guilty verdicts rendered. That leads to my two part question.
1. One of the insurrectionists found guilty today was Richard "Bigo" Barnett, who is infamous for having his picture taken while seated at a desk in Nancy Pelosi's office with his boots propped up on the desk. He is also infamous for leaving a note behind that read "Nancy, Bigo was here bi-otch!" Charming guy. After he was quickly found guilty today on 8 counts, his lawyers held an after verdict press conference in which Bigo's lawyer said that his client was unable to get a fair trail because he was not judged by his peers. He added that one, D.C. is not a state (where the crimes and trial took place) and two, his peers consists of residents of Arkansas, which Bigo calls home, and three, D.C. residents voted at a very high rate for Biden in 2020 (It was 92%; not quite the 96% he quoted). I know this is a standard talking point lawyers use after losing a case; and, two, I generally don't listen to lawyers who wear pork pie hats (as a rule I avoid anyone wearing a pork pie hat). My question is: How successful is this strategy for setting up an appeal? Is there some sort of definition of what a peer is for a jury? Obviously, no one has a jury of exact peers, but on the other hand there has been reasonable talk about making juries more representative of society. I know the latter issue came up with the Rodney King and O.J. Simpson trials.
2. I tried to find the answer to this on the Internet but all the charts I found were somewhat out of date. The majority of the over 900 individuals charged in the 1/6 insurrection so far have pleaded guilty, but there is a sizeable chunk that have claimed innocence and are opting to fight in court. What is the conviction rate so far? My perception is that these folks continue to choose poorly and are facing a losing battle. But we all know, perception is not often in tune with reality.
As to the arguments made by defense counsel, they are largely mumbo jumbo. There are thousands of trials in D.C. each year, and clearly they are not all invalidated by the fact that the district is not a state (let's not forget, the Supreme Court meets in D.C., too). As to "jury of your peers," that just means "jury made up of fellow citizens." Per SCOTUS, a person is not supposed to be removed from a jury on the basis of race, religion, gender, etc. (though they sometimes are, albeit without it being stated openly). But the courts have no duty to empanel a jury that somehow matches the defendant's demographics.
The only slightly meritorious argument there is that the D.C. jury pool might be systematically biased against a right-wing Trumper. And defense counsel did bring that up at the beginning, and asked for a change of venue, which was denied. It's not a very good argument because, taken to its extreme, it would mean you can't try Republicans in, say, D.C. or Hawaii, and you can't try Democrats in, say, Wyoming or Alabama. But if they somehow got before just the right appeals judge (ahem, Neomi Rao), she might stand on her head and grant a new trial.
As to the numbers, there have been at least 978 people arrested and charged in connection with the events of 1/6. Thus far, 474 have entered guilty pleas. Of the remainder, it appears, according to the Department of Justice's own list, that the government has triumphed in 40 of 41 cases, which is a 97.5% conviction rate. The DoJ only updates that site about once a week, so we might have missed one or two convictions from the last few days, but that's pretty close to accurate. The only person to secure an acquittal was Matthew Martin, whose lawyers wisely chose a bench trial, and even more wisely got the case in front of Trevor McFadden, who is up there with the aforementioned Rao on the list of the four or five Trumpiest federal judges.
Anyhow, those defendants who have not taken a plea deal might want to look at that 97.5% conviction rate (typical for federal prosecutors) and think twice about going to trial. Then again, if they were capable of thinking twice, they wouldn't have attacked the U.S. Capitol. (Z)
Previous | Next
Back to the main page