Previous | Next | Senate page | Menu
New polls: (None)
Dem pickups: (None)
GOP pickups: AZ GA MI NV PA WI
Biden Unleashes the Hounds in Ukraine
Over the weekend, the heat was turned up in Ukraine. On the Russian side, North Korea has sent thousands of troops to "help out," particularly in Russia's Kursk region. In response, Joe Biden reversed his previous policy, and gave Ukraine authorization to use heavy-duty long-range American missiles against Russia.
Vladimir Putin, as you might guess, is not happy about this turn of events. "It is clear," said a Kremlin spokesman, "that the outgoing administration in Washington intends to take steps, and they have talked about this, to continue to pour oil on the fire and continue to provoke further escalation of tension around this conflict." Obviously, Putin forgot that he doesn't get a veto over U.S. policy in Ukraine until January 20 of next year.
The statecraft going on here, at least on the American side, is actually pretty complicated. The missiles Biden has just approved are formally known as Army Tactical Missile Systems, acronymized as ATACMS, and are pretty much universally referred to as "Attack 'ems." They can deliver a 375-pound payload a distance of just less than 200 miles, and they fly high and fast, so they're very hard to shoot down. Previously, Putin had warned that the use of the Attack 'ems would be considered a red-line-crossing offense, and might even provoke a nuclear response. However, bringing the North Koreans into the conflict means that Putin escalated it first, so he's not exactly in a position to play the victim here. Plus, any action he takes against the U.S. will, in short order, become actions undertaken against his beloved Donald Trump. So, the risks here are considerably less than they would have been, say, 18 months ago.
Meanwhile, Biden is trying to accomplish two things in terms of what happens once he leaves office. First, at the moment, the Ukrainians hold a pretty big chunk of Kursk (which, again, is part of Russia), while the Russians hold a pretty big chunk of Donbas (which is part of Ukraine). If Ukraine can hold on to Kursk, then they have a very nice bargaining chip available if and when everyone decides this is a stalemate, and it's time to talk peace. A Kursk-for-Donbas trade could be just the thing for all involved. But that can't happen unless Ukraine is able to hold its ground, which the Attack 'ems will help it do.
In addition, the U.S. isn't the only country that has sent this particular type of weapon to Ukraine. The U.K. has also sent some, and so has France. Their long-range missiles do much the same thing as the Attack 'ems do, and were developed as a joint effort between the two nations (the British call theirs "Storm Shadow" and the French call theirs "SCALP," but they are the same). Those two allies were leery of being the first to authorize long-range strikes, but now Biden has broken the glass, in case of emergency, as it were. So, now the U.K. and France are clear to grant permission to use the Storm Shadows/SCALPs. And, whaddya know, they apparently have done so (none of the three nations officially admits to having granted permission, and yet... the missiles are flying). What Biden is hoping, obviously, is that now that he's crossed the Rubicon first, France and England will be able to take over the defense of Kursk, should U.S. support be cut for any reason in, say, 63 days or so.
What you are watching here is one of the final chapters (maybe THE final chapter) in the foreign relations career of someone who has been at this a long time, and who really knows what they are doing. Biden's gambits may or may not work out, but he is squeezing as much as he can out of a pretty lousy hand right now. It could be a long time before we see a president, or a presidential candidate, with the foreign policy chops of a Biden, a Hillary Clinton, a George H.W. Bush, or a Richard Nixon. (Z)
Trump's Cabinet Is Going to Be Foxy...
Another day, another Fox personality tapped for the Trump Cabinet. The latest person to be plucked from that pool of "talent" is Sean Duffy, who is nominated for Secretary of Transportation.
Duffy is currently the co-host of The Bottom Line on Fox Business Channel, and also starred on a season of MTV's The Real World. He's also been a prosecutor and was a member of the House of Representatives for 4 terms, from 2011-19. All of this said, Duffy was not chosen because of his political experience, or even because of his loyalty to Trump (since Duffy actually hasn't been unfailingly loyal, having criticized the President-elect on several occasions). Duffy was undoubtedly chosen because the current SoT, Pete Buttigieg, is a high-profile Biden administration surrogate who is very good on TV. Trump wants the same for himself.
Assuming Duffy is confirmed, and there's no reason to believe he won't be, he'll inherit some headaches from Buttigieg, such as, oh, America's crumbling infrastructure. He'll also play a big role in deciding how the billions in funding passed during the Biden years will be doled out. Interestingly, perhaps, he is an outspoken critic of electric vehicles. That may make things a bit awkward with Trump's #1 Toady of the moment, Elon Musk.
Among the real crown-jewel positions in the Cabinet, meanwhile, the crown-jeweliest among those that remain unfilled is Secretary of the Treasury. Reportedly, that's a two-man race, at least at the moment. Howard Lutnick is the head of New York investment bank Cantor Fitzgerald, and is a key member of Trump's transition team. Scott Bessent has been a key economic adviser to Trump through the campaign, heads his own hedge fund called Key Square Group, and has won over certain key Trump insiders, including Steve Bannon.
What it boils down to is that Lutnick is a bit more of a Trump insider and a loyalist, while Bessent is better-connected on Wall Street. However, we suspect the deciding factor will actually be this: Bessent's mentor was... George Soros. Given how hated Soros is on the right, that feels like it will ultimately be a bridge too far. Bessent has a meeting with Trump on Friday, so we could know then. On the other hand, Trump could also go off the board and pick someone like Larry Kudlow, or Trump's former U.S. trade representative, Robert Lighthizer. The only thing you can be reasonably sure of is that it won't be Steven Mnuchin returning for a second go-round. (Z)
...Meanwhile, Matt Gaetz Is Still the Center of Attention...
Readers will probably recall the occasion when Dick Cheney shot his friend while they were hunting together. Because Cheney in particular, and the Bush team in general, preferred to be secretive, they tried to keep the story from seeing the light of day. What happened, instead, was a steady drip, drip, drip of information that kept the story in the news for weeks and weeks, before everything ended up coming out, after all. It would have been better to just tear the band-aid off, and to let everything out all at once.
We bring this up because the Matt Gaetz story is starting to acquire a similar feel. The House Ethics Committee is still debating what to do, if anything, with the report it put together on... whatever bad things he did. Yesterday, the top Democrat on the committee, Rep. Susan Wild (D-PA), came out and said that the report should be released to the public or, at very least, to the senators who would be considering Gaetz for the top law enforcement position in the nation.
Meanwhile, while the members of Congress argue, dirt about Gaetz continues to leak. There's so much of it, in fact, that it's hard to know what is new information, and what is a repeat of past dirt. The latest is that a lawyer named Joel Leppard is talking to any media outlet that will have him, claiming that two of his clients attended between five and ten group sex parties at which Gaetz had sexual relations with both prostitutes and underage women, and also consumed cocaine and other drugs. These parties reportedly took place while Gaetz was serving in Congress. Perhaps former representative Madison Cawthorn was not making it up when he claimed that "unnamed" Freedom Caucus colleagues invited him to partake in cocaine-fueled orgies.
In the end, we don't see how Gaetz' nomination as AG, and possibly any other future political aspirations he has (governor of Florida?), can go forward unless the Ethics Committee's report is made available. If he indulged in cocaine and prostitutes, that's not great for America's top cop, but it might not be career-ending. After all, Marion Barry did the same, and he even got reelected afterward. On the other hand, if Gaetz is a serial pedophile, or something like that, then anyone who votes for him, only to have that come out AFTER he is confirmed, could have their own careers destroyed.
So, the senators are simply going to have to see the report, if Trump is going to go forward with the nomination. The alternative, of course, is for Gaetz to withdraw from consideration. Members of the Senate are trying to write that message on the wall in big, red letters; the latest is that a majority of Senate Republicans are saying, off the record of course, that they don't think Gaetz will be approved. To be more precise, roughly 30 of them are apparently inclined to vote "nay." If even a quarter of those people actually stick with that, then Gaetz is doomed.
At the moment, Donald Trump is in denial of this reality, and is working the phones to try to strongarm Gaetz through. If Trump pulls it off, then it will be pretty clear confirmation that he's got all the power, and the Senate is just a rubber stamp. On the other hand, if the nomination gets withdrawn, or Gaetz suddenly decides he "doesn't want to pursue this position," then we'll know there are limits to Trump's reality-distortion field.
As we have noted, Gaetz could keep his job, minus a little seniority, by showing up to be sworn in on the first day of the 119th Congress. After all, he has been duly elected to his seat for the period 2025-27. That said, if he does so, then the ethics report will surely be released. And if the goal was to keep that hidden, at all costs, well, he can't have his cake and eat it, too. (Z)
...And Pete Hegseth Is a Scary Guy
Although Matt Gaetz is more famously corrupt and immoral, and so is getting more attention right now, Secretary of Defense-designate Pete Hegseth is not too far behind. Note that they are problematic in different ways; Gaetz is a person with no social skills who apparently partakes of drugs and questionable or illegal sex acts, while Hegseth is more of a misogynist and homophobe who is either outright racist or, at very least, racist-curious.
The folks at the Popular Information blog have put together a list of "13 things everyone should know about Pete Hegseth." Here's the list, with brief comments:
- Hegseth says women should not be in combat roles: This is the thing Hegseth is most famous
for, at least among those who don't like the idea of him taking over the Department of Defense. For the record, over
300,000 women have served in combat since the ban was lifted a decade ago, and over 10,000 of them were decorated for
their actions in combat.
- Hegseth paid a woman who accused him of rape to sign an NDA: This is the story that broke
over the weekend.
- Hegseth published a column in college that claimed having sex with an unconscious woman is not
rape: It used to be that ill-considered comments about rape, even if they were in someone's past, were pretty
much automatically disqualifying. They still are... in one of the major political parties.
- Hegseth is a serial philanderer, making him a target for blackmail: This is a very fair
point, and one that is often overlooked with the sleazy picks Trump makes (not ALL are sleazeballs, mind you, but too
many are). This is why security clearances (which are usually waived for high-ranking civilian personnel) delve into
people's financial, sexual and drug histories—to see if they are blackmail targets.
- Hegseth criticized injured veterans who receive government assistance: If this gets
serious attention, this is the one most likely to kill his nomination, we think. He did say it on TV (on Fox,
naturally), so the footage is out there.
- Hegseth praised "waterboarding," blasted the Geneva Conventions: If you've persuaded
yourself that the enemy is not human, then it's not too hard to conclude that torturing or otherwise mistreating them is
OK.
- Hegseth pushed Trump to pardon service members convicted of war crimes: If you've
persuaded yourself that the enemy is not human, then it's not too hard to conclude that soldiers should not be punished
for torturing or otherwise mistreating them.
- Hegseth dismissed moral concerns about the use of nuclear weapons: If you've persuaded
yourself that the enemy is not human, then it's not too hard to conclude that wiping out half a million of them, even if
they are civilians, is OK.
- Hegseth said the United Nations should be shut down: Of course he feels that way. They work to
prevent war, and to help the downtrodden. Hegseth likes war, and dislikes the downtrodden.
- Hegseth has a tattoo associated with white nationalists: The tattoo says "Deus Vult,"
which means "God Wills It." It is associated with both the First Crusade, and with white nationalists. Hegseth claims he
is embracing the First Crusade part of that, and doesn't know anything about the white nationalist part of that. Even if
you buy that, it means he is, at least tacitly, embracing the killing of Muslims, since that is what the First Crusade was
all about.
- Hegseth said rising Muslim birth rates were causing "a slow motion 9/11": Hegseth has all
kinds of anti-Muslim ideas, most of them variants of "white replacement theory," except with Muslims replacing
Christians, as opposed to non-white people replacing white people. This dovetails pretty nicely with his First Crusade
tattoo.
- Hegseth is a member of a Christian supremacist church: He's hostile to women, apparently
comfortable with sexual violence, doesn't object to torture or indiscriminate killing, disdains people who are not like
him, and embraces war as a solution to problems. Sure sounds like Hegseth really understood Jesus' message, right?
- Hegseth promoted an editorial comparing same-sex marriage to bestiality: Looking at the list above, this is pretty much par for the course.
We think that everyone can agree that Matt Gaetz is a godawful pick for AG. However, no matter how bad an AG is, they are not in a position to help start World War III. A Secretary of Defense potentially is in that position. And if any Secretary of Defense candidate really and truly presented that risk (other than Robert McNamara), it's Pete Hegseth. One can only hope the Senate does its job, and does not let him through the gates. (Z)
Mirror, Mirror on the Wall, Who's the Nastiest One of All?
In the House, the #1 Republican has already left, and several others might be on the verge of leaving. We don't mean the leadership, mind you (although U.N. Ambassador-designate Elise Stefanik is the #4 Republican in the House). We mean the list of the most outrageous, showboating, don't-care-about-doing-their-jobs members of the chamber. With Matt Gaetz already gone, not to mention Stefanik, there's a vacuum right now. And, as we all know, nature abhors a vacuum.
It actually should not surprise us who became the first person to make a move. This member is, very possibly, the single-biggest show horse in the entire House. True, there's some pretty stiff competition for that title, but this person is famously obsessed with their total number of both local and national TV hits, and keeps careful track of them. They are also known for being the single-most-abusive boss on Capitol Hill, with a turnover rate among staffers that makes her office look like a branch of Subway. We speak, of course, of Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC).
At this point, we would like to remind readers of a prediction we made a grand total of 6 days ago:
As readers probably know by now, the House will have its first transgender member in Representative-elect Sarah McBride (D-DE). The Republican propaganda mill will do everything possible to make her the face of the Democratic Party, just as it has done with The Squad, and with Nancy Pelosi before that. This has nothing to do with party-wide Democratic wokeness, it's how the modern-day GOP works. And, as a sidebar, we really hope the Capitol Police agree to assign McBride a security detail, because she is likely to become an object of obsession for some people who are not mentally well.
This was not a difficult prediction to get right; we're only kicking ourselves that we did not think to specifically include Mace's name in that paragraph.
Yes, that's right. If you had Mace in your "Which will be the first House GOP member to try to score political points at the expense of Sarah McBride" pool, you are a winner. Yesterday, Mace introduced a bill requiring members of Congress to use the bathroom that matches the gender they were assigned at birth. "Sarah McBride doesn't get a say. I mean, this is a biological man," declared Mace, "[and] does not belong in women's spaces, women's bathrooms, locker rooms, changing rooms, period, full stop."
McBride responded thus, on eX-Twitter:
Every day Americans go to work with people who have life journeys different than their own and engage with them respectfully, I hope members of Congress can muster that same kindness.
This is a blatant attempt from far right-wing extremists to distract from the fact that they have no real solutions to what Americans are facing. We should be focused on bringing down the cost of housing, health care, and child care, not manufacturing culture wars.
She's not wrong.
The problem is that while McBride might take the high road, the Republicans think they have a winner here. Not only is Mace getting some headlines, but House leadership is planning to back her bill. If the Democrats stand up for their new colleague, then they are radical leftist gender-bending pinkos who hate 'murica. If they don't stand up, then a lot of Democrats will be furious at their cowardice. This is an excellent example of what we were talking about in the piece last week, that it's actually the Republicans who are radicals and who are obsessed with gender roles, and that the Democrats' reputation for being overly woke is almost entirely a Republican creation. We stand by that, and still don't care what cranky old man James Carville thinks. (Z)
Scarborough and Brzezinski Kiss the Ring
We don't know how this was supposed to work out; all we know is that it blew up in their faces. As many readers will know by now, Morning Joe hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski, who are husband and wife, and who are ostensibly a Trump-skeptical Democrat (Brzezinski) and former Republican (Scarborough), traveled to Mar-a-Lago on Friday of last week to meet with Donald Trump. This was their first face-to-face with the President-elect in 7 years.
According to the duo, who anchor MSNBC's morning lineup, they were there as "reporters." They also said that they had decided it was time to take a new approach to Trump. Explained Brzezinski: "Joe and I realized it's time to do something different, and that starts with not only talking about Donald Trump, but talking with him." They were pleased to note that Trump "seemed interested in finding common ground with Democrats on some of the most divisive issues."
Let us now stop right there and point out that NONE of this passes the smell test. If they were there as reporters, then how come they gave few details about the meeting, and shared no footage? As to a new approach, has anyone ever achieved anything constructive by talking "with" Trump? Even the most fawning media (e.g., Fox) ends up in his crosshairs the moment he perceives the slightest offense. And, after decades of doing this, do they REALLY think Trump is interested in finding common ground with Democrats? Assuming he even said that—and we don't know that he did—what in his background suggests that is a genuine sentiment?
Occam's Razor suggests a rather different explanation for the meeting: The pair expects Trump to start punishing his enemies list and they, like Jeff Bezos and Patrick Soong-Shiong, want to make nice before he actually gets back into power. What better way to do that than to travel to Trump's palace and bow before the throne?
We are about 3 weeks removed from Scarborough and Brzezinski slamming Trump as a budding fascist and a Hitler clone, so it's rather hard to see their turnaround as genuine and honestly felt. And they are getting absolutely flayed across the political spectrum. Republicans are attacking the pair as opportunists and hypocrites, while Democrats are attacking the pair as... opportunists and hypocrites. Bipartisanship!
Perhaps the most on-point critique came from left-wing personality Keith Olbermann:
BREAKING NEWS: I TOLD YOU SO
@joenbc and @morningmika - Trump collaborators
Not a word Mr. and Mrs. Vichy Quisling say can ever be trusted again - not that those words ever should have been trusted. They are confidence tricksters - and grifters
We tend to think Olbermann is right, in that this is a misstep from which the show probably won't recover. Lefty viewers won't trust them, and if righty viewers want Trump sycophancy, they can just tune into Fox. In the relatively small-audience world of cable "news," even the loss of 10% of viewership can be fatal to a show. (Z)
Project 2028
Right now, a lot of readers are not going to enjoy reading all the unpleasant items, like how awful Matt Gaetz is, or how awful Pete Hegseth is, or how awful Nancy Mace is. At the same time, some readers are already ready to start looking forward to 2028.
To this end, we are going to get a very early start on profiling the Democratic presidential field for 4 years from now. Is this TOO early to move forward? While we acknowledge that sometimes a surprise candidate emerges (e.g., Bill Clinton in 1992, Donald Trump in 2016), we think the answer is "no, it's not too early." The fact is that most of the people who might run for president in 2028 are already thinking and maneuvering. It will be useful for readers, we think, to have some background as we all watch the various Democrats play the chess game.
We expect to do one profile a week, and since we have plenty of time, we plan to cast the net wide. We'll start by listing Kamala Harris, Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA), Gov. Wes Moore (D-MD), Gov. Andy Beshear (D-KY), Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D-MI), Gov. Josh Shapiro (D-PA) and Pete Buttigieg as candidates. We ask readers to suggest other candidates we should consider for inclusion; please send your suggestions, even if they are kind of longshots, to comments@electoral-vote.com, preferably with subject line "2028 Democrats."
One last note: Michelle Obama clearly means it when she says she's not interested. So, we're not going to profile her. (Z)
Previous | Next
Main page for smartphones
Main page for tablets and computers