Congress and the Budget: Dog Eat Dog

The can has been kicked again. For the third time in FY 2023-24, Congress has passed a last-minute bill that will provide short-term funding for the government, and thus avoid a shutdown.

In the Senate, which passed the bill first, the vote was 77-18. All the "nay" votes came from Republicans, so too did all of the non-votes. In the House, the vote was 314-108. All but two of the "nay" votes came from Republicans. The only Democrats to break with their party were Jake Auchincloss (MA) and Mike Quigley (IL); both of them did so in protest of the lack of funding for Ukraine. Once the bill has Joe Biden's signature, half the government will be funded until March 1, while the other half will be funded until March 8. Surely that will be plenty of time for Congress to work something out, right?

Ok, maybe not. While the Democrats are pretty much on the same page, budget-wise, the Republicans continue to cannibalize each other. Obviously, some sizable percentage of GOP members (a.k.a., the "grown ups") backed Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) as he worked to keep the government from shutting down (and to keep the Republican Party from being stuck holding the bag). However, there is also a sizable percentage of the Republican conference that is hopping mad.

Taking the lead in the pitching of fits—and you will surely be stunned to hear this—is the Freedom Caucus. They take the view that Johnson should have added the draconian border bill that was passed by House Republicans earlier this month to the stopgap bill as an amendment. Of course, that ignores the fact that doing that would have made the stopgap bill a non-starter with both the Senate and the White House. In any event, the FCers are warning that they will be throwing many temper tantrums (i.e., tanking routine procedural votes) once Congress returns to work next week.

The right-wing media is also furious. Steve Bannon, who is somehow not yet in prison, called for the FCers to make a motion to vacate the chair right now. Other right-wing commenters and publications are thinking along the same lines.

Ultimately, members of the House Republican Conference face the same two decisions they've faced for weeks. First, will the Freedom Caucus actually move forward with a motion to vacate the chair? They are so unhinged, they might just do it (again). If they do, however, it will potentially create chaos (particularly if the lack of a Speaker throws a wrench into the budget process). That chaos would probably play well with the FCers' constituents, but would otherwise boomerang on the Republican Party. More of a problem for the FCers is that once the chaos was tamed, and once the dust settled, it is nearly impossible that they would end up with a speaker as friendly to their views as Johnson is.

The second decision, of course, belongs to Johnson. If the Freedom Caucus does move to vacate, then he can either go down in flames after 3 (or so) months, or he can work with the Democrats to save his bacon while neutering the FCers. This decision would seem to be a no-brainer to us, and yet Johnson's predecessor chose to fall on his sword because he just couldn't stomach reaching across the aisle. In any event, we're about 3 weeks away from yet another round of "imminent shutdown" talk. (Z)

A Civil War in Texas?

This isn't getting nearly as much attention as it should be, but Gov. Greg Abbott (R-TX) is engaging in some truly despicable political theater right now, with an assist from the ultra-conservative and often lawless Fifth Judicial Circuit.

What Abbott has done is take the money and authority recently bestowed upon him by the Texas legislature, and used the Texas State Guard (which is different from the Texas National Guard) to "secure" a high-traffic, 2.5-mile portion of the border between Texas and Mexico. Not only has the state put up miles of razor wire, it's also blocking federal agents from accessing the "secured" area.

This has done absolutely nothing to reduce the number of border crossings that are taking place. What it HAS done is allow the Texans to act on their cruelest impulses. They have allowed asylum seekers to suffer from severe dehydration and from heat exhaustion. They have also refused to intervene, and have stopped anyone else from intervening, when asylum seekers ended up in life-threatening danger. As a consequence of this inhumane policy—actually, let's just say evil policy—a woman and her two children drowned last week. We do not presume to know whether there is, or is not, a hell, but if there is we know a certain governor who deserves a one-way ticket.

Needless to say, all of this is all kinds of illegal. When people seek asylum, the United States is bound by international law to handle that in a particular way (and that way does not involve razor wire or drownings). Beyond that, the state of Texas has no legal authority to patrol or "secure" the border, or to interfere with the federal officials who DO have the legal authority to patrol the border. The Biden Administration sued, but a pair of Donald Trump-appointed judges decided that they see no problem here (the third judge on the panel, a G.W. Bush appointee, declined to join the opinion). The decision has been appealed to the Supreme Court, but the Supremes are dragging their feet.

We're not at all clear what Abbott is playing at here. He can be governor for as long as he wants, and he's not going to be a 2024 presidential candidate. So, who is he trying to impress? Maybe he's just a true believer who really, really hates immigrants and wants to do whatever he can to hurt them. Whatever is going on, he certainly knows that the Biden administration is weak on this issue, and that it would be politically impossible to take strong action (like, say, nationalizing the Texas State Guard), as that would turn into "Biden favors illegals over citizens of Texas!" So, all the White House can really do is wait for SCOTUS to do its job. (Z)

Ron DeSantis: The Biggest Loser

Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) is not having a great week. He turned in an anemic performance in Iowa despite having campaigned heavily there ("I visited all 99 counties!") and despite the fact that the voters in that state are theoretically his target demo. Thereafter, and at around the same time: (1) Nikki Haley announced she would no longer deign to "debate" DeSantis, and (2) DeSantis effectively surrendered in New Hampshire.

As it turns out, there was also another pretty big kick in the teeth for the Governor, brought to our attention by reader M.C. in Chicago. Florida's HD-35 is pretty swingy, having gone for Joe Biden by 5 points (52%-47%) in 2020, but for DeSantis by 13 points (56%-43%) in 2022. Until late last year, the seat was occupied by Republican Fred Hawkins, who won by 10 points (55%-45%) in 2022. Hawkins resigned so he could accept appointment from DeSantis as president of South Florida State College.

The Governor likes loyal and pliable state representatives, so he helped recruit the Republican candidate for the special election to fill the vacant seat. She is Erika Booth, and in addition to being a DeSantis ally, she also ran on a DeSantis-like platform. By that, we mean her main (and really only) talking point was fighting "Joe Biden's Woke Agenda." Booth had a cash advantage in the race, having raised $323,000 to $121,000 for her opponent (though note that the state Democratic committee intervened with its own funds to basically even things out).

The Democrat in the race was Tom Keen. His platform had three major elements: (1) reduce insurance prices, (2) protect abortion access, and (3) Ron DeSantis is a lousy governor. Keen in particular, and Democrats in general, criticized DeSantis for scheduling the special election the day after the Iowa caucuses, which left the residents of HD-35 without representation in the state House for 2 weeks. The ostensible reason that the Governor did that was to avoid a potentially embarrassing loss BEFORE Iowans cast their ballots.

DeSantis might be a terrible campaigner, but his political instincts are pretty good, because his clone... er, candidate did indeed lose, 51% to 49%. It would appear Floridians, at least the ones in HD-35, prefer keeping abortion to getting rid of wokeness.

Heather Williams, president of the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, which is the state-level version of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, decreed: "This victory in Florida is an earthquake and shows the strength of legislative Democrats as we head into this critical election year." That may be a bit overly broad for a special election since, as readers of this site know, special elections are wonky. That said, we're at least open to the idea that Florida might not be so red as it's seemed recently, and that if the Democrats run a bunch of pro-choice candidates against a bunch of DeSantis clones this year, the blue team could have a better-than-expected year. In particular, there may be merit in spending on the U.S. Senate race, even if Florida is very big and very expensive, since Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) is terribly unpopular. (Z)

Nikki Haley: Balderdash

By now, pretty much everyone has heard that Nikki Haley followed up on her "insight" into the causes of the Civil War this week, answering a question about racism from Fox host Brian Kilmeade thusly: "We're not a racist country, Brian. We've never been a racist country."

Let us now pause for a moment to share the first 10 thoughts that come to mind on reading that:

1. The establishment of Black, chattel slavery in the 1610s and 1620s
2. The three-fifths compromise
3. Slave patrols
4. Lynching
5. The Chinese Exclusion Act
6. Sundown towns
7. Jim Crow
8. Japanese Internment
9. Operation Wetback
10. "Build the Wall"

We don't really know what goes through Haley's head when she says such things. Does she acknowledge to herself that she's peddling a ridiculous falsehood? Does she split hairs, along the lines of "Sometimes the PEOPLE are racist, but the COUNTRY never is?" Does she not think about it at all? In any event, it's kind of a shame that she feels (and knows) that, as a brown woman, her only hope to become the Republican presidential nominee is to grossly oversell the notion that the U.S. is a post-racial society.

We don't know if the two events are related, but not too long after Haley shared her newest historical thesis, one of the fattest of her fat cat donors announced that he was pushing the "pause" button. Ken Langone, the co-founder of Home Depot, said that he wanted to see how things go in New Hampshire before writing any more checks. "If she doesn't get traction in New Hampshire, you don't throw money down a rat hole," he remarked.

And on that point the polls of New Hampshire are coming fairly fast and furious. Here are the four from the past week:

Pollster	Trump	Haley	Net
Suffolk	50%	36%	Trump +14%
St. Anselm	52%	38%	Trump +14%
American Research Group	40%	40%	EVEN
Emerson	44%	28%	Trump +16%

The fact that independents can cross over introduces an X factor, but it sure looks like Trump is going to win the state easily. If so, then between her verbal gaffes and her performance at the polls, the money spigot will be turned off, and the wheels will soon fall off. In short, we kinda think that this week is the high water mark for Haley '24. (Z)

I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: Split Second

We've had a number of e-mails in the past couple of weeks about the exact rules that govern our weekly headline theme game. It's really quite simple; whatever the theme is, it's found only in the words that appear to the right of the colon. So, for example, "Split," "Second" and "Split Second" are fair game as potential clues to this week's theme, but "I Read the News Today, Oh Boy" is not. Also, we do not make a game out of any item where people died. In those cases (such as the item on Texas above), there will be no colon, and thus no words to the right of the colon.

Here are the answers for last week, courtesy of J.N. in Zionsville, IA:

The theme this week is how I learned to stop worrying and love Trump, er... the bomb.

1. The Day After: A TV movie about the aftermath of a nuclear war.
2. Last Best Chance: A documentary-style film focused on preventing nuclear terrorism.
3. Confessions of a Dangerous Mind: While less overtly about nuclear threats, it's a film about a game show host who claims to be a CIA assassin taking out America's enemies.
4. The Man Who Saved the World: Documentary about a Soviet officer whose actions are credited with helping prevent a nuclear war.
5. Edge of Darkness: A television mini-series only vaguely about nuclear threats but drenched in the sweat of Cold War political thrillers.
6. Duck and Cover: A civil defense film about nuclear preparedness during the Cold War.
7. The World Is Not Enough: James Bond saves the world for the 19th time in a plot to control the world's oil supply, but also, you know, preventing a nuclear bomb.

Thanks, J.N.! To round it out, Split Second is a 1953 film about convicts who take up residence in a ghost town that is scheduled to be used for nuclear tests.

Here are the first 25 readers to get it right (note that we accepted either "nuclear weapons" or "Cold War" as answers):

1. A.S. In Fairfax, VA
2. D.L. in Uslar, Germany
3. B.W. in Phoenix, AZ
4. B.M. in Chico, CA
5. K.G.W. in Lafayette, IN
6. L.D. in Bedford MA
7. D.W.B. in Waynesville, NC
8. R.H. in West Grove, PA
9. S.G. in Durham, NC
10. I.G. in New York City, NY
11. J.S. in Germantown, OH
12. K.H. in Golden, CO
13. S.K. in Drexel Hill, PA
14. M.A. in Park Ridge, IL
15. J.L. in Walnut Creek, CA
16. M.W. in Boston, MA
17. K.Y. in Morgantown, WV
18. G.M.K. in Mishawaka, IN
19. N.H. in London, England, UK
20. J.N. in Zionsville
21. M.S. in Canton, NY
22. M.Z. in Sharon, MA
23. C.W. in Hamilton, NY
24. F.W. in Franklin, WV
25. M.B. in Albany, NY

We had a number of people who wondered about Confessions of a Dangerous Mind. In the movie, Chuck Barris implies that he spied on the Russians. He also jokes that Merv Griffin has his own nuclear stockpile.

This week's theme is also in the category of entertainment. As to a hint, we'll say that there's one basic cable channel that would be particularly helpful in sussing the theme out. If you have a guess, send it to comments@electoral-vote.com with the subject line "January 19 Headlines." (Z)

This Week in Schadenfreude: It Pays to Be Ignorant

We've slightly jumbled the details of the E. Jean Carroll case(s), so let's lay everything out right now, just to make sure everything is correct. There is, first of all, the case that has already been adjudicated in her favor. That one was based on the original act of sexual assault, followed by the defamatory remarks made by Donald Trump in 2022. It was also the second case filed by Carroll.

The FIRST case filed by Carroll is the one that is being adjudicated right now. It too is based on the original act of sexual assault, and on defamatory remarks made by Trump in 2019. Because he was president in that year, the current case was substantially delayed by arguments over... wait for it... presidential immunity, and whether it was the job of the Department of Justice to defend Trump. In the end, the delay backfired on Trump, in that it allowed the case to linger long enough for Carroll to amend it to include defamatory remarks made in 2023, following the resolution of the first to be adjudicated/second to be filed case.

The executive summary: Trump has already been popped for the things he said in 2022. He's about to get popped for things he said in 2019, and then in 2023. Everyone clear? Good.

Moving on to the schadenfreude, we will now be having a laugh or two at the expense of Trump's counsel. Recently, many of his lawyers have been fleeing for the hills. We wrote earlier this week about Joe Tacopina jumping ship; on that same day, Tacopina's partners—Chad Seigel and Matthew DeOreo—did the same. That's three lawyers gone in one day, which is quite a lot, even for an obnoxious client. It also means that Trump is left, at least in some cases, with substandard counsel. And by that, we mean people like Alina Habba.

Habba's deportment in court this week has been so unbelievably, face-palmingly bad that it reads like a sequel to Legally Blonde or My Cousin Vinny (except that in those movies, in the end, the bumbling lawyer ultimately proved to be competent). To start with, various court watchers say Judge Lewis Kaplan has ordered her to sit down at least fourteen times. He also ordered her to stand up at least once: "Ms. Habba, when you speak in this courtroom or any other courtroom you'll stand up."

Beyond that, Habba has made all sorts of amateurish mistakes (admittedly, some of the mistakes may be "mistakes"). She attempted to use evidence that had not been admitted as evidence, and did not seem to understand why that was a problem. She was warned in a sidebar not to raise questions about the believability of Carroll's account of being assaulted, and then promptly raised questions about the believability of Carroll's account of being assaulted, leading to a rebuke from the judge and an order to strike the question from the record. She attempted to use herself as an expert on White House operations, leading Kaplan to admonish her: "We're not going to have any representations. If you want to make representations, you can be called as a witness."

Kaplan is so fed up with Habba that he's turned the snark up to 10. When she tried to raise, for the umpteenth time, the request to adjourn for Trump's mother-in-law's funeral, he said: "The application is denied. I will hear no further argument on it." When she kept going anyhow, Kaplan cut her off and said: "None. Do you understand that word? Sit down." Later in the day, Habba tried to object to evidence being introduced by Carroll's counsel. This was the exchange:

Habba: Objection!
Judge Kaplan: Ground?
Habba: It's prejudicial.
Judge Kaplan: All evidence is prejudicial against the party it is offered against.

On another occasion, Habba believed she had caught Carroll in a "lie":

Habba: She said two different things about Montana.
Judge Kaplan: She said it's great and before she said, it's not boring. That's your difference?
Habba: I can ask another question.
Judge Kaplan: That would be a good idea.

Habba also pursued a line of questioning about Carroll's alleged high-flying lifestyle in the 1980s and 1990s:

Habba: You were a regular at Elaine's, right?
Carroll: Yes.
Habba: It's hard to get into, isn't it?
Judge Kaplan: It doesn't exist anymore. That's why it's hard to get into.

Habba's lawyering has been slammed by a great many legal experts, including at least one former Trump attorney.

One possible explanation for this is that Habba is incompetent. Another possible explanation is that she's just doing what her client wants her to do, namely turn the trial into a circus. For our part, we tend to favor a blend of these two explanations. That is to say, she's trying to do what Trump wants, but that sort of behavior is so unusual for an attorney, she's got no experience and is not very good at walking the line without crossing over it. Surely, Trump is lamenting the fact that his relationship with Michael Cohen collapsed, because Cohen was pretty good at this sort of stunt lawyering.

Time will tell if Trump pays the piper in his criminal trials. But it's certainly the case that, after decades of legal shenanigans, the rooster is coming home to roost in his civil trials. (Z)

This Week in Freudenfreude: Ladies Be Seated

Here is the city council of St. Paul, MN, roughly 150 years ago:

Here is the city council of St. Paul roughly 100 years ago:

Here is the city council of St. Paul roughly 50 years ago:

Here is the current city council of St. Paul, which was seated this week:

Perhaps you notice a slight difference between the first three councils as compared to the current one.

This is, as you might guess, the first time that St. Paul's city council has been all-female. As an added bonus, for those who value diversity and/or politicians who are not geriatrics, six of the seven are women of color and all seven are younger than 40. It's not like there's a database of American city councils to search, but the consensus is that St. Paul is either the largest city, or one of the largest, to have an all-female council.

St. Paul is apparently pretty pinko, so the new council is pretty pinko. All seven women are Democrats, as you might guess, and they largely come from backgrounds not traditionally associated with politics. A couple were teachers, for example, another pair were community organizers, one was a nonprofit executive and another is a civil engineer. The only "traditional" background is that one of them used to be a congressional aide.

The shift in council membership has unfolded pretty quickly; it was only 20 years ago that the council welcomed its first woman of color as a member, and it was only 6 years ago that the council became majority-female. In any event, the times they are a-changin'. Have a good weekend, all! (Z)

---

If you have a question about politics, civics, history, etc. you would like us to answer on the site, please send it to questions@electoral-vote.com, and include your initials and city of residence. If you have a comment about the site or one of the items therein, please send it to comments@electoral-vote.com and include your initials and city of residence in case we decide to publish it. If you spot any typos or other errors on the site that we should fix, please let us know at corrections@electoral-vote.com.

---

Email a link to a friend or share some other way.

---The Votemaster and Zenger