Nominations News, Part I: Gaetz Comes Up Short

There were three big problems with Matt Gaetz' nomination to be Attorney General of the United States: (1) He's unqualified for the job and, really, anti-qualified, in that he has no interest in remaining above politics and/or enforcing the law without favor or prejudice; (2) he's got a long history of allegations involving sexual misconduct, including allegations of statutory rape and (3) he's an a**hole who is hated by pretty much every member of Congress. Yesterday, this list became too much to overcome, as Gaetz withdrew his candidacy.

Reportedly, the proximate cause of Gaetz' withdrawal was yet another new allegation of sex with an underage partner. However, even if that new reporting hadn't come to light, he was dead in the water. Donald Trump did a lot of arm-twisting, as did J.D. Vance and Gaetz himself, and there were too many Republican senators who would not move off their planned "no" votes. The names of four of those senators are known: Lisa Murkowski (AK), Susan Collins (ME), Mitch McConnell (KY) and John Curtis (UT). There is much scuttlebutt that there were at least a few more "nays," but these four were enough, coupled with the 47 Democrats.

Trump loves to be "historic" and to "set records," and he managed to do that here. No nominee has ever failed as rapidly as Gaetz did. The previous "record" was set by George W. Bush with would-be Secretary of Labor Linda Chavez; that nomination failed on January 9, 2001, when it leaked out that Chavez had knowingly employed undocumented workers to clean her house. Today is November 22, so Trump beat Bush's mark by nearly 7 weeks. Winning!

Anyone who fears the worst from a Trump presidency should be heartened by what happened here. First, we're less than 3 weeks from his reelection, and the Republican senators are already standing up to him. They might not defy him openly, and they won't die on every possible hill, but they aren't going to be just a rubber stamp. After all, some of them really care about their jobs and/or the country, and others will have to face voters in 2026, or 2028, or 2030, and answer for the choices they made and the votes they took. In particular, excepting Donald Trump himself, "accused of sexual misdeeds" is a bright, red line for many Republican voters. Any senator who supports someone like that does so at their own risk, either of being primaried, or of being hammered in the general election.

Second, Trump and his team very seriously looked at invoking the portion of the Constitution that theoretically allows the president to forcibly adjourn Congress, and then seating Gaetz and several of the other radioactive nominees through recess appointments. And, in the end, the President-elect and his advisors concluded it just wouldn't work, and would blow up in their faces both politically and legally. There is no question that Trump will push the boundaries of his presidential powers (as all presidents do, truth be told). There is also no question that he'll do some very concerning things. But when it comes to doing something that would actually be dictatorial, there are limits to what he can get away with. Even he and his enablers recognize that.

Trump & Co. clearly saw the writing on the wall with Gaetz, as they had a replacement nominee ready within hours of his withdrawal. The new AG-designate is Pam Bondi. She was the Florida AG for 8 years, from 2011-19, so she's orders of magnitude more qualified than Gaetz. Bondi has worked for Trump in various capacities over the past decade, including representing him as a lawyer (during his first impeachment, and in other matters), and also serving as a staffer on his transition team and other entities.

Bondi is probably best known, however, for the apparent quid pro quo wherein Trump donated to her reelection campaign, and she "independently" decided to drop a case against Trump University. So, she's at least a little corrupt, it would seem. Maybe more than a little. But, as compared to Gaetz, she looks like Sir Galahad (a.k.a. the "Stainless Knight"). And it's at least possible that she'll have limits to her sycophancy, the way that Jeff Sessions and Bill Barr ultimately did. Gaetz, by contrast, would have had no limits. On the other hand, she could prove to be as corrupt as Gaetz, but more competent, and thus more dangerous. Time will tell. In any event, we have no doubt that, barring some serious dirt coming out, Bondi will be confirmed. Based on current information, there are numerous appointees who are worse than she is, and there are only so many fights the senators can fight.

As to Gaetz, what's next for him? It is true that he was duly elected to the 119th Congress, and so he could theoretically return to the House. But it's not quite that simple, for two reasons. First, his rapid resignation was intended to bring an end to the House Ethics Committee's investigation into him, and to keep their report from being released. If he goes back to work, then the investigation comes back to life and the report may well come out. Whatever's in there, Gaetz clearly does not want it to see the light of day.

The other problem is that when Gaetz resigned from the 118th Congress, his letter also included the phrase "I do not intend to take the oath of office for the same office in the 119th Congress." That could very well be interpreted as a resignation from the 119th Congress. It's not clear if it is, or if it's even possible to preemptively resign like that. If Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) pretended he never saw the letter, and did not call a special election, and if the members of the House seated Gaetz in January, then he'd probably be OK. But, remember, he's an a**hole, and there may be folks who are not interested in helping him to play ball. In that case, he'd either have to go to court (where they do not much like getting involved in questions like this) or he'd have to run in and win the special election (he could probably do it, but with his sexual misconduct in the news, maybe not).

In the end, Gaetz' eye is on replacing DeSantis when his gubernatorial term comes to an end in 2026. In service of that goal, Gaetz could lobby to be the replacement for Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL). However, there's no particular reason to think the Governor is open to that, and it's also not clear that "I'm going to use the Senate seat for my own selfish purposes, as a launching pad" would actually help Gaetz with his aspirations. Much more likely is that Trump finds another, non-Senate-confirmed job for Gaetz, or else that Gaetz gets a job as a bomb-thrower on one of the right-wing cable channels/podcasts. (Z)

Nominations News, Part II: Is There Anyone Else Who Won't Make It through The Weeknd?

Let's take a look at what else is going on, on the nominations front:

• Another One Bites the Dust?: In all of U.S. history, a total of nine Cabinet nominations have been rejected by the U.S. Senate, while another 18 have been withdrawn once it became clear that rejection was inevitable. However, as you can probably guess, most of those 27 failures are of recent vintage. Bill Clinton had to withdraw five nominations, George W. Bush two, Barack Obama three, Joe Biden one, and Donald Trump five (four from his first term, plus Matt Gaetz). Given this history, not to mention the number of problematic nominees the President-elect has already put forward, it is likely that some of his other nominees won't make it. And now that Gaetz' nomination is dead, the forces of sanity can focus their attentions on the other godawful choices. So, Trump might just have two or three people break the record set by Bush and Linda Chavez (see above). Let's review the likeliest candidates to get axed.
  
  First, and most likely to come up short we think, is Secretary of Defense-designate Pete Hegseth. To start, he is completely unqualified to lead the Department of Defense, never having overseen more than a few dozen people (as compared to the nearly 3 million who work for DoD). It's one thing to put a rookie in charge at, say, the Department of Energy. It's another thing entirely to do it at Defense. Second, Hegseth has all kinds of ideas—ideas that are kooky, ideas that are sexist and ideas that are kooky AND sexist. Third, he has a sexual assault accusation in his past, one that he paid to settle. To most people, that reads as "guilty." Hegseth tried to downplay the incident and to claim it is fake news and that there is no substance to it, and so... the police department that handled the matter released the rather graphic 22-page police report. As we note above, sexual crimes remain a bridge too far for most voters, including Republicans. We really don't see how Hegseth's nomination survives.
  
  Second, there is HHS-designate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Mirror, mirror on the wall, among Trump's nominees, he's the kookiest of all. Every day, he seems to go all-in on yet another health-related conspiracy (yesterday, it was chemtrails). Like Hegseth, there is nothing in his background that prepares him to manage a massive bureaucracy (83,000 staffers, in this case). Junior is pro-choice, which will not sit well with some Republicans. And yesterday, there was yet another revelation about Kennedy's thoughts on Trump, expressed prior to making a deal for a Cabinet post. It would seem that Junior feels that Trump is "like Hitler" and that his followers are "outright Nazis" and "belligerent idiots." Oh, and since it's kind of a theme here, Kennedy also has some sexual misconduct in his past; he's effectively admitted to groping a woman without her consent.
  
  Third, there is DNI-designate Tulsi Gabbard. She has been flying under the radar a bit, but there are two big, very related problems with her (over and above the fact that she used to be a Democrat who badmouthed Trump, like RFK Jr.). The first problem is that she's probably a Russian asset. And whether or not she actually is a Russian asset is not particularly relevant, as long as people THINK she is. One impact of that is that U.S. intelligence personnel are likely to withhold some information from her. A second impact is that America's allies will definitely withhold information from her, and from the U.S. overall. The second problem is that Gabbard is an isolationist. So, she's likely to take a sledgehammer to the American intelligence apparatus, AND she's likely to withhold information from America's allies. This is not the profile of a successful spy chief, and remember, many Republican senators are hawkish and very much like a robust military and intelligence establishment.
  
  Finally, there is Secretary of Education-designate Linda McMahon. As with the other three people named here, she is unqualified for her post. However, the much bigger problem is that she's been implicated in a lawsuit that alleges she facilitated the sexual abuse of children as young as 13. Again, sexual misconduct is a bridge too far for many, many voters. Sexual misconduct against minors is a bridge even farther.
  
  These are the four nominees most likely to fail, at least as things currently stand. We doubt they will all fail, but we also doubt that none of them will fail. If we were setting odds, we'd put the over-under at 2½. Oh, and note that every single item we've linked here is news from yesterday. So, three of the four folks here have seen their positions grow weaker in just the past 24 hours.
  
  
• OMB: Donald Trump knows absolutely nothing about Project 2025. After all, he said so many times on the campaign trail, and he certainly wouldn't lie about a thing like that, right? In a remarkable coincidence, however, he has reportedly selected Russ Vought, the main architect of Project 2025, to be Director of the Office of Management and Budget. If Trump tries to use Schedule F to replace nonpartisan government employees with loyalists, then that would be a job for... the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. So many coincidences!
  
  
• USSS: The frontrunner to lead the Secret Service is reportedly Dan Bongino, who is currently a podcaster, but who used to be a Secret Service agent, and who has many ideas about how the agency could do better. Given how much Trump values his own hide, you can be fairly certain that he believes Bongino is up to the job. The President-elect doesn't give a damn if, say, the Department of Education collapses, but he really, really does not want to get shot. Again.
  
  
• Ambassador, Eh?: For arguably the most important post, at least from a national security standpoint, Trump has chosen former representative Pete Hoekstra. We speak, of course, of the ambassadorship to Canada, where Hoekstra will be the first line of defense against any invasion from the Great White North. Hoekstra is Trumpy, since that is the main (and really only) requirement for any job in the Trump administration. However, he's also an experienced diplomat, having served as the United States' representative to the Netherlands during Trump's first term. In other words, they're not all crazypants.
  
  
• Least Surprising News of the Week: Pollsters have started polling for how many Americans approve of each of Donald Trump's high-profile appointees. And, surprise, surprise, they are ALL underwater. After all, virtually all politicians are underwater these days. Further, Trump tends to delight in choosing obnoxious people. We'd be kind of surprised if any member of the administration gets above water, for even so much as a week, over the next 4 years.

That's the news. Good night, and have a pleasant tomorrow. (Z)

Election Results: Casey Turns the Page

It's not quite there yet, but the 2024 election is close to being over.

The biggest news yesterday was that Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA) conceded to Sen.-elect Dave McCormick (R-PA). There is a recount underway, and the results are expected today, but it is nearly impossible that a recount will produce a net of 16,000 (or so) votes for Casey. And if it somehow does, well, a concession has no legal significance.

It is remarkable that an experienced, and relatively milquetoast, incumbent senator in a purple state should lose to an inexperienced carpetbagger. This really speaks to the headwinds the Democrats were facing this year, even if they (and we) didn't know it until it was too late. Casey's "gesture" suggests he plans a future run for office, though at 64, he may not have too many practical options. The seat he's vacating won't come up again until he's 70, he presumably doesn't want to try to primary Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA), and the governorship of Pennsylvania probably won't come open until 2030 (or maybe 2028).

Over in the House, meanwhile, another race has been called by most outlets. That would be the race in Alaska, where the uphill battle faced by Rep. Mary Peltola (D-AK) became an untenable battle. Rep.-elect Nick Begich III (R-AK) has been declared the winner, and Peltola has conceded. She's only 51, so she might be back in 2 years to try again.

With the Alaska race called, most outlets have the House 219-213 with three races uncalled. Here's a quick rundown of the still-in-doubt trio:

• IA-01: Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R-IA) has a history of squeakers, having won her first election, in 2020, by just six votes. This time around, she's up about 800 votes over Democrat Christina Bohannan. A recount is underway, but a shift of 800 votes in a House race is about as unlikely as a shift of 16,000 votes in a big-state Senate race. Miller-Meeks is going to keep her seat.
  
  
• CA-13: At the last update (Wednesday afternoon), Rep. John Duarte (R-CA) was leading by 227 votes out of 201,000 cast. However, Democratic opponent Adam Gray has made up a fair bit of ground, which is not unexpected, since the votes still being counted are all mail-in ballots. The question is whether the ballots will run out before Gray can overtake Duarte. This one is a toss-up.
  
  
• CA-45: The story here is similar to the one in CA-13, except in this case, the Democratic challenger, Derek Tran, has already caught and overtaken the sitting representative, Michelle Steel (R-CA). Tran leads by 314 votes out of nearly 310,000 cast. The odds are pretty good that he's going to win this one.

In short, the best case for the Republicans is a 222-213 House, the best case for the Democrats is a 219-216 House, and the likeliest outcome is 220-214 and flip a coin for the last seat. This means the makeup of the 119th House will be effectively identical to the makeup of the 118th House, given the fluctuations that come from deaths, early retirements, etc. (Z)

MSNBC Watch: Is Fox about to Secure a Total Victory?

The ratings for Morning Joe have, predictably, taken a hit since co-hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski revealed they had traveled to Mar-a-Lago to genuflect and kiss the rind. (We know that is supposed to be "kiss the ring," but we accidentally mistyped it, and we decided we like it better that way. Freudian slip?) The day after the revelation, ratings dropped about 12%, and the day after that, another 15%. Perhaps more importantly, half the viewers in the most desirable demographic (25-54) have jumped ship. If those folks stay gone, the show is in trouble.

This said, news that broke this week helps to explain why the duo did what they did. In an era of cord-cutting, Comcast is not making any money off its cable networks, among them MSNBC. The communications giant does not see that changing. So, in order to minimize its exposure, a bunch of Comcast's cable and Internet properties are being spun off as a separate company. That includes CNBC, E!, Syfy, USA, Oxygen, Golf Channel, Fandango, Rotten Tomatoes and... MSNBC.

And now, the problem. MSNBC relies heavily on NBC News for various things, like video footage, reporting and guests. NBC News is staying with Comcast. So, MSNBC (and, indeed, the entire spun-off company) may need to find another partner in order to remain viable. The federal government has no role if a company, like Comcast, decides to break itself up. But the government most certainly DOES have a role if companies decide to merge. So, if MSNBC (and the rest of the channels) strike a deal with, say, Paramount Global, the feds would have to approve it.

Presumably you see where this is headed. Donald Trump loathes MSNBC, and now he might well be in a position to destroy MSNBC. Even if his administration did not kill the merger, it could slow-walk it in such a way as to ruin the deal, or to put MSNBC into an untenable position. This isn't merely conspiratorial thinking; this exact thing happened during the first Trump administration when Trump tried mightily to kill a merger between AT&T and TimeWarner.

This might not excuse what Scarborough and Brzezinski did, as it made them into hypocrites of the worst sort. But it does go a long way to explaining their actions. (Z)

I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: Bad News Brown

For last week's headline theme, we told you, "the theme is actually kind of dark, but we chose it because it's complementary to an element of the Schadenfreude item." On Saturday, we added, "we really wanted to use the song 'Mississippi Queen,' written by Felix Pappalardi, but there was no item it fit with." And on Sunday, we gave a bonus hint: "[We] thought that once people realized that one of the songs is from John Lennon, one is from Biggie Smalls, and one is from Tupac Shakur, the cat would be right out of the bag."

Here, courtesy of reader T.K. in Half Moon Bay, St. Kitts, is the solution:

Today's headlines all feature a song title from an artist who was shot to death. (In cases where the "artist" is a band or group, at least one member of that group was lost in this fashion.):

• Putting the "Tri" in "Trifecta": Hussle in the House (Nipsey Hussle)
• Trump Appointments, Part I: Cemetery Gates (Pantera guitarist Dimebag Darrell)
• Trump Appointments, Part II: Another Saturday Night (Sam Cooke)
• Trump Appointments, Part III: No Me Queda Mas (Selena)
• PutinWatch 2024: Mind Games (John Lennon)
• ManchinWatch 2024: Ain't That Peculiar (Marvin Gaye)
• I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: Ten Crack Commandments (Biggie Smalls)
• This Week in Schadenfreude: So Many Tears (Tupac Shakur)
• This Week in Freudenfreude: She Loves To Rock (Cornell Gunter)

Indeed a dark complement to the Schadenfreude item.

We warned you. Bad News Brown, from the headline for this item, was also shot to death.

Here are the first 50 readers to get it right:

R.D. in Cheshire, CT K.M. in Ypsilanti, MI D.D. in Highland Park, IL T.K. in Half Moon Bay J.N. in Zionsville, IN D.L. in Uslar, Germany M.W. in Altea, Spain J.P.M. in Eagle Mills, NY E.K. in Arlington, MA M.B. in Albany, NY S.B. in Warsaw, Poland M.T. in Simpsonville, SC W.M. in Livonia, MI H.B. in Toronto, ON D.C. in South Elgin, IL R.S. in Milan, OH C.R. in Hunter, UT L.D. in Bedford, MA M.L. in Iowa City, IA M.M. in Leonardtown, MD E.B. in Avon, IN L.A.J. in Bourbonnais, IL G.K. in Blue Island, IL P.S. in Atlanta, GA M.B. in Menlo Park, CA

B.B. in Avon, CT M.D. in Wakefield, MA E.S. in Providence, RI J.C. in Trenton, NJ J.P. in Rowland Heights, CA F.B. in San Diego, CA D.H. in Portland, OR R.R. in Pasadena, CA T.L. in Uppsala, Sweden P.R. in Somerville, MA K.Y. in Morgantown, WV M.S. in Canton, NY H.Z. in Halle, Germany, and E.B. in Hannover, Germany M.T. in Kent, OH R.H. in Lakeville, MN M.L. in West Hartford, CT K.R. in Austin, TX D.S. in Layton, UT D.B. in Farmville, VA S.R. in Robbinsville, NJ M.A. in Union City, CA D.M. in Austin, TX R.I. in London, England, UK F.B. in Santa Monica, CA W.H. in Columbus, OH

Some respondents noted this one was especially easy, others said it was unusually hard.

As to this week's theme, it's in the Trivial Pursuit category "Geography." It relies on just one word per headline, though you could argue that it relies on two words, in one case. As to a hint, we'll remind folks that if a headline word appears to be misspelled on a Friday, it's probably deliberate.

If you have a guess, send it to comments@electoral-vote.com with subject line "November 22 Headlines." (Z)

This Week in Schadenfreude: Lake Is No Cruz

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) has perfected a skill that Kari Lake has not: getting people to vote for you, even if they hate you. OK, maybe it's not him so much as it is the redness of the state in which he happens to reside, but the fact is that he is about to start a third term in the U.S. Senate, while she is... an out-of-work former TV news anchor.

Lake suffered two related indignities this week. The first of those is that she settled a defamation lawsuit brought by Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer. She claimed he cheated her out of victory in the 2022 gubernatorial election, he said that was a lie, and hence the suit. The terms of the settlement were not released, but you can safely bet Richter did not get $0 (which is somewhat remarkable, because it is not easy to defame a public official). More significantly, Lake has to shut her yap about being cheated out of victory.

The other indignity is that she has quietly conceded that she did not win this year's Senate election. She doesn't need any more lawsuits on her hands. On top of that, it's easy enough for her to whine and moan about being cheated when her party's presidential candidate is doing the same. But since Trump won this year's election, he's not singing that song anymore. And so, as a result, the cheese stands alone.

And that's where the schadenfreude really lies. Lake did everything to show her devotion to Trump and to Trumpism. And now that he no longer has a use for her, he's cast her aside. He's not supporting any claims she might make about this year's election, he's not helping her with court cases, and he didn't find a job for her in his administration. She thus becomes the latest foolish corpse to be left bleeding on the side of Trump Road. It boggles the mind that every single one of these people thinks that, with them, it will be different. Uh, huh, ask Roy Cohn about that. (Z)

This Week in Freudenfreude: She May Be Young, But She's Not Going to Be Silent

This one's going to be pretty short, since we have zero understanding of the nuances here. In any case, the youngest member of New Zealand's parliament is Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke, who is 22, a member of several indigenous groups, and, consistent with that, is part of the Te Pāti Māori Party. And note, she's not just the youngest current MP, she's the youngest since 1853.

Last week, the Parliament was debating something called the Indigenous Treaty Bill. This bill would "reinterpret" a 184-year-old treaty between the British government and indigenous Māori. Again, we do not know thing one about New Zealand politics or history. However, we do know a thing or two about U.S. politics and history, and we know what it generally means when a treaty between white people and indigenous people is "reinterpreted."

Maipi-Clarke was none too happy about the discussion, which certainly lends some credence to our suppositions. And so, she decided to protest in the way she best knew how:

You really should watch it. It's less than a minute, and it's pretty awesome.

Although the protest led to the temporary suspension of discussions, the bill did ultimately pass the first phase of consideration. However, it is not expected to make it past the second phase. If our knowledge of American politics is at all relevant, we suspect this young woman has a big future in New Zealand politics; one thinks of state Sen. Mallory McMorrow (D-MI) or Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY).

Have a good weekend, all! (Z)

---

If you wish to contact us, please use one of these addresses. For the first two, please include your initials and city.

• questions@electoral-vote.com    For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
• comments@electoral-vote.com   For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
• corrections@electoral-vote.com To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
• items@electoral-vote.com            For general suggestions, ideas, etc.

To download a poster about the site to hang up, please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend or share:

---The Votemaster and Zenger