Main page    Jan. 15

Senate map
Previous | Next | Senate races | Menu

New polls:  
Dem pickups: (None)
GOP pickups: (None)

Get Ready for Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth

A month ago, the nomination of Pete Hegseth to lead the Pentagon was on life support. But in the roughly four lifetimes since, Republicans have closed ranks around him. That much was clear from the candidate's confirmation hearing yesterday.

The dynamic that was on display was identical to what we saw during the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearing. That is to say, Democrats were playing offense, and asking probing questions about Hegseth's background and record. Meanwhile, Republicans were playing defense, and primarily using their questions (and comments) as a means to downplay the more problematic elements of Hegseth's résumé.

What were the Democrats' lines of attack? Well, Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) went after Hegseth over the candidate's alleged sexual assault(s). Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) wondered why Hegseth had made himself available to meet with the Republicans on the Senate Armed Services Committee, but not the Democrats. Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) asked if there were any orders that Donald Trump might issue that would violate the Constitution (she specifically alluded to an order to invade Greenland). Several of the women on the Committee, including Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) and Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) had concerns about Hegseth's past (and ongoing?) opposition to women in combat roles. "You say you want to keep our forces strong by not lowering standards [to admit women for combat roles]," said the decorated combat veteran Duckworth. "Then let's not lower our standards for you."

The extent to which Republicans were willing to twist themselves into pretzels to excuse Hegseth's past bad behavior was, to be blunt, almost comical. The most... notable example is surely Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-OK), who took the position that the candidate's alcohol abuse/alleged alcoholism is a non-issue because nobody is perfect. He thundered:

The senator from Virginia starts bringing up the fact that, what if you showed up drunk to your job? How many senators have showed up drunk to vote at night? Have any of you guys asked them to step down and resign for their job?

Later in the day, Mullin appeared on CNN and reiterated his point, telling host Kaitlin Collins that if she's allowed to drink alcohol and keep her job, then he sees no reason that a Secretary of Defense should be held to a different standard.

We have no idea if Mullin really believes what he's saying. It's very possible, since—how can we put this delicately?—he's in competition with Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) for the honor of being the least sharp knife in the Senate drawer. In any case, the counterpoints to Mullin's argument are obvious. First, it's perfectly fine for a Secretary of Defense, or any other Cabinet officer, to imbibe. Hegseth's issue is that he drinks to excess, to the point of being non-functional. Second, if Kaitlin Collins or Markwayne Mullin or 99.9% of other people show up to work too incapacitated to function, nobody is going to die. By contrast, if the person leading the Pentagon can't answer the bell when, say, Iran lobs a missile at Israel some Tuesday morning at 2:00 a.m., people very well could die.

Hegseth, for his part, adopted the usual tack (for nominees of both parties) of just not answering questions he did not want to answer. For example, he dodged Slotkin's question about illegal orders with the remark that he could not imagine Trump issuing any illegal orders. If he really and truly can't even imagine it, then he's the only one. Hegseth also pandered to his audience by talking a whole lot about God, Jesus, and Donald Trump. That's the father, the son, and the Unholy Spirit. It was not clear if Hegseth regards the three as being one and the same, however.

Once the show was over, Hegseth got the endorsement he needed the most, as Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA) promptly announced that she will vote for confirmation. Nearly every other Republican showed their hand yesterday with their questions and comments, so surely the rest will vote to confirm. And once a candidate has the seal of approval from the relevant committee, it's virtually unheard of for them to be rejected by the Senate as a whole.

We should point out that the Republican senators—well, most of them, at least—know full well Hegseth is not qualified for this job. But they are scared to death of being primaried, and Trump has made getting Hegseth approved a point of focus, so they are going to swallow hard and bestow their votes. It's not impossible that four Republicans over whom Trump has limited power—say, Mitch McConnell (R-KY) because he is likely retiring, Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Susan Collins (R-ME) because they have to answer to purplish electorates, and John Curtis because Utah Republicans aren't too Trumpy—band together to sink Hegseth. But it's not likely.

So, does this suggest that Trump is going to sneak all of his most problematic and controversial nominees—Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Tulsi Gabbard, etc.—through the process? It very well could mean that. However, we will point out that Hegseth's position is a little different from the others, in two ways. The first is that he would assume leadership of a department that already has a lot of careerists who know what they are doing (e.g., the Joint Chiefs of Staff). It would not be too hard for a leery Republican to persuade themselves, we think, that the high-ranking brass will limit the amount of damage Hegseth can actually do.

The second is that Hegseth wants to fight the culture wars fights that Republican politicians want to fight—not in search of national security, but in search of votes. Take a look at this picture of Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-MO) at yesterday's hearing:

It's a poster board railing against DEI in the Miltary (sic)

Clearly, the Senator (or whoever makes his poster boards) cannot spell. But the more important point is that he seized upon this as an opportunity to lambaste DEI, which has become the latest Republican buzzword, and a pretty clear dog whistle for "minorities and women and LGBTQ people." We foresee a lot of appearances by Hegseth on Fox, his former employer, where he'll carp about DEI and trans people and women who don't know their place and the like, and Republican voters (and politicians) will just eat it up.

For Kennedy and Gabbard, there are fewer guardrails keeping them from doing real harm. And their issues are not exactly the Republican talking points du jour. So, we can at least imagine a world where Hegseth makes the cut, but one or both of that duo does not. We're not saying it's likely they will be rejected, merely that it's possible, even if Hegseth sails through the confirmation process, as he appears to be set to do. (Z)

Elon Musk Is Not Having a Great Week

On Monday, we noted that Steve Bannon has declared war on Elon Musk, to the point of promising that "I will get Elon Musk kicked out by the time [Donald Trump] gets inaugurated." That seems a little over-bold, since there's no sign that Musk is going to be cast out of paradise in the next 4 days. However, it's a serious threat to Musk's power within the administration, nonetheless. As we pointed out in the previous piece, Musk's usefulness to Trump has largely come to an end, now that the campaign has been paid for. On top of that, Bannon not only speaks for much of the MAGA base, he also speaks for the billionaire Mercer family, who are key backers of Trump, financially and otherwise. In other words, from the vantage point of the President-elect, it's not "the base" versus "the money." It's more like "the base" and "big money" versus "bigger money." That could make it easier for Trump to ultimately choose in favor of Bannon, especially since Trump is reportedly already annoyed with Musk's pushy and arrogant behavior.

And that is not the end of the adverse news for Musk. Perhaps sensing that his days as a political power broker in the U.S. are coming to a (temporary?) end, the billionaire spent the weekend wading into the thick of U.K. politics. And, as it turns out, his understanding of British civics is even poorer than his understanding of American civics.

Given the South African's newfound penchant for hard-right politics, and his longstanding penchant for bomb-throwing, his extreme-but-unfounded opinions are hardly surprising. He insists that the U.K. is headed for a civil war, despite the fact that the nation is nearly 400 years removed from the last time that happened. Musk wants PM Keir Starmer thrown in prison because Starmer was Director of Public Prosecutions (roughly equivalent to Associate AG in the U.S.) during a time when a bunch of child sex abuse rings were exposed. Musk also closely aligned himself with far-right Brexiteer Nigel Farage through Saturday, but then turned on Farage on Sunday.

Musk barely understands the issues in play in the U.K. right now, and he understands potential "solutions" even less. He has advocated for the U.S. to invade Britain, and to "liberate" its former colonial master. That obviously won't be happening. At times when he was being more "reasonable," Musk has called for Charles III to dissolve parliament and to call for new elections. Needless to say, the king does not have that power, and has not had that power for multiple centuries. It is possible, of course, that all this bloviating is really theater for the benefit of the American public—who knows with Musk these days? In any event, he's become something of a laughingstock across the pond, which he—with his ego the size of Texas—really, really hates.

Meanwhile, back on the American side of the pond, Musk got some unhappy news yesterday, as the SEC filed a lawsuit against him. The billionaire is accused of securities fraud; the claim is that he dragged his feet when reporting his acquisition of a bunch of shares of eX-Twitter, allowing him to acquire even more shares at a reduced price before ultimately purchasing the whole company. The SEC wants him to cough up the $150 million they believe he gained through such chicanery, as well as penalties on top of that.

Needless to say, Musk could write a check for that amount and never miss it. However, he hates, hates, hates to lose and hates, hates, hates to accept blame for anything. So, he is undoubtedly going to fight, fight, fight. If Musk remains on good terms with the Trump administration, then he might be able to pull some strings and get this squashed once the former president is again in office. On the other hand, if Bannon wins the war, and Musk ends up as an outsider and an enemy, the Trump administration might just turn up the SEC heat. That's kinda how Team Trump rolls. (Z)

The Judicial Branch Is Not Lost

U.S. Courts are facing a crisis of confidence; there's a perception that all judges are ideologically driven. Much of that can be attributed to an overtly political and ethically challenged Supreme Court, which seems to take pride in its disdain for the Court's precedents, Congress' legislative authority, and governmental institutions. But there are 861 other federal judges, as well as countless state judges, most of whom revere the rule of law and decide the myriad and difficult cases before them based on the law and the facts, without regard to politics or the president who appointed them.

Unfortunately, rogue judges, such as Matthew Kacsmaryk in Texas and Aileen Cannon in Florida, get all the press. Luckily, there are plenty of examples of decisions that showcase judicial independence and adherence to the law. With memories of New Year's Day still reasonably fresh, we thought it might be a good time to offer a toast to some judges who exemplify that impartiality:

Note that the point here is not to endorse (or condemn) these particular decisions, just to highlight several examples (among many) of courts ruling in a manner different than their "politics" would ostensibly predict. Here's hoping that, in 2025, media attention is focused on the soundness of a court's reasoning, as opposed to the politicians who seated the judge(s). (L)

Today's Inauguration News

We're less than a week until Inauguration Day, and there was a fair bit of news on that front yesterday.

To start, the intelligence agencies are warning that Trump's second swearing-in is a "potential target" for violent extremists. They note that they do not know what kind of extremists, and concede there have been no specific, credible threats. Still, the intelligence pros want everyone to be on their guard.

Although we pass this story along, since it got a lot of attention yesterday, we are taking it with many grains of salt. First, it's not at all clear to us who might commit these acts of violence, or how they might pull them off, given that there will be 25,000 police officers on the scene. It's also worth pointing out that this looks to be a pretty clear example of error management. That is to say, if the intelligence agencies issue no warning, and then there's an attack, then the intelligence agencies end up with omelets full of egg on their faces. On the other hand, if the intelligence agencies issue a warning, and then there's no attack, then nobody complains. So, there is a lot of incentive here to cry wolf, just in case. There was a near-identical warning issued prior to Joe Biden's inauguration in 2020 and, of course, there was no violence on that day (despite there having been a near-insurrection just 2 weeks earlier).

The second big inauguration story of the day involves Michelle Obama. Although her husband will be in Washington for Tuesday's swearing in, she is taking a pass. This is hardly unexpected; the former First Lady doesn't like the spotlight and she really, really hates Trump. This is presumably why she also took a pass on Jimmy Carter's funeral last week. We do not think this story is particularly important, or interesting, but pretty much every outlet treated it as front-page news. So, we figured we might as well give it a paragraph.

And finally, speaking of the rivalry between Democrats and Republicans, many Washington flags will be flying at full staff on Tuesday. In short, Trump believes his inauguration (full-staff flags) is more important that Jimmy Carter's death (half-staff flags). So, the flags that are under Republican control will be raised, on that day, so as to accommodate the President-elect's delicate psyche. That means flags on Capitol Hill (under the control of Speaker Mike Johnson, R-LA) and in states with Republican governors.

Maybe you get the sense that yesterday was a pretty slow news day. We have that sense, too, since these stories aren't really all that significant. That said, they do speak to the motivations of the intel pros, Michelle Obama and Donald Trump, so hopefully they're instructive on that level. (Z)

10 Short Stories about Jimmy Carter, Part III

And finally, we get to another set of stories about Jimmy Carter. As a reminder, the overall tone and tenor here is generally positive, but it's not universally so. In the end, the goal is to give a feel for the man and his times. Broadly speaking, today's set covers the latter part of the Carter presidency (along with some general stuff about the politics of his presidency):

  1. The Clintons: You might assume that Carter and Bill Clinton, as governors of medium-size Southern states, felt an automatic kinship. And, if so, you would be wrong. Carter, for his part, looked askance at Clinton's less-than-Biblical behavior, with particular reference to the commandments about adultery and false witness. Clinton blamed Carter after being defeated in the 1980 Arkansas gubernatorial election and, besides, did not want to be compared to a president widely considered to be a failure. So, during the 1992 campaign, Carter did little campaigning for Clinton, while Clinton repeatedly told reporters: "Jimmy Carter and I are as different as daylight and dark."

    Once Clinton was in office, however, the relationship warmed. Carter was, by that time, a skilled world diplomat, and the Arkansan found it useful to dispatch the Georgian to try to resolve various crises. In 1994, Carter was able to de-escalate tensions after North Korean President Kim Il Sung began to make moves toward nuclear-level plutonium production. Later that same year, a delegation led by Carter persuaded Haiti's Raoul Cédras to yield power peacefully, and to leave that nation. This meant a planned American invasion became unnecessary. In 1999, in thanks for these (and other) services to the nation, Clinton awarded Carter the Presidential Medal of Freedom. And after Clinton left office, the Clintons and Carters enjoyed a warm friendship. This photo was taken on the occasion of the Carters' 75th wedding anniversary:

    The Clintons stand, Rosalynn Carter leans on her walker, Jimmy Carter sits in a wheelchair. All are smiling broadly

    Interestingly, when Carter traveled to the White House to meet with Clinton about serving as a special envoy, that was the first time the peanut farmer had ever met a Democratic president. John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson both died well before Carter began his rise in politics, and Carter couldn't exactly meet himself, so that left Clinton.

  2. The Kennedys: Speaking of the Kennedy family, you might assume that as an aspiring presidential candidate, Carter would have forged an alliance with the "royal family" of the Democratic Party in the 1970s and 1980s. And again, if you made that assumption, you would be wrong. Though observant Catholics, the Kennedys were also known for their less-than-Biblical behavior. On top of that, there was a pretty serious cultural divide between a Southern Democrat from Georgia and a group of New England Democrats from Massachusetts.

    The most important divide, however, was that the Kennedys were considerably more liberal than Carter, and so did not see eye-to-eye on many issues. To be more specific, the preeminent Kennedy of Carter's era was Teddy, the Massachusetts senator. And Teddy's big issue was universal healthcare, which Carter refused to support openly, either as a candidate or as a president. This made the Senator very angry, complaining later in life that "he talked about healthcare; he talked about coverage; and he talked his way around it. You know, he used artful words all the way through this." This is part of the reason Kennedy challenged Carter in the 1980 primaries, doing serious damage to the incumbent. In contrast to what happened with the Clintons, Carter never developed a good relationship with the Kennedys.

  3. Ed Koch: Yet another prominent Democrat with whom Carter had a rocky relationship was Ed Koch, who was first elected mayor of New York in 1977. In October of that year, Carter had a planned trip to New York, and had agreed to a joint appearance with Koch, at which the President would bestow his endorsement. Shortly before the trip, however, Carter came out strongly in favor of a two-state solution in Israel, which outraged the Jewish and strongly pro-Israel Koch. When Carter exited Air Force One on that cold October day, Koch presented him with a letter, already pre-circulated to the media, lambasting the President. Needless to say, there was no endorsement. Not only that, but while Koch was supposed to get a ride with the presidential motorcade back into town, he was left stranded on the tarmac.

    Once he was in office, Koch remained a Carter critic, referring to a group of senior anti-Israel officials in the administration as a "gang of five." During the 1980 presidential election, Koch did not exactly endorse Ronald Reagan, but he did damn Carter with faint praise. At a fundraiser in the summer of that year, Carter took Koch aside and said: "You have done me more damage than any man in America." After the peanut farmer's defeat in November, reporters wrote that Carter was defeated by the three Ks: Khomeini, Kennedy and Koch.

  4. The Federal Bench: While Lyndon B. Johnson saw merit in making a few high-profile judicial appointments in service of diversity (e.g., Thurgood Marshall), Carter was the first president to see broad diversity on the federal bench as an important policy goal. Of his 261 judges, 41 (16%) were women, while 57 (22%) were non-white (that includes 37 Black and 16 Latino judges). These may not seem like big numbers, but they were all records at the time.

    Since Carter's presidency, every Democratic president has topped his total in terms of minority appointees. The only Republican to do it is George W. Bush, and that was in two terms, and even then was just barely (58 to 57). Similarly, every Democratic president has also topped his total in terms of women appointees. So too have two Republicans, Bush again (71) and Donald Trump (55). In particular, appointment-wise, Joe Biden has been Jimmy Carter on steroids. The current president has appointed 140 minority judges (60% of his 235 appointments), among them 56 Black judges and 32 Latinos. He's also appointed 147 women (63%) to the bench.

    As chance would have it, Carter's overall total of 261 judges is a record for a single-term president, with Biden's 235 in second place. However, while Biden got to make a Supreme Court appointment, Carter is the only president to serve a full term without enjoying that particular privilege. The only other presidents to be blanked on that front were William Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor, and Andrew Johnson, all of whom served partial terms. Also, if you are wondering, there are 29 Carter judges still active, though all of them have assumed senior status.

  5. Solar Power: In this series, we're trying mostly to highlight things you might not find in standard obituaries. This story is pretty famous, and so might not meet that standard, but it's instructive, so we are including it anyhow.

    As many readers will know, Carter foresaw a future in which fossil fuels would need to be supplanted. And so, he committed his administration to developing renewable energy sources. He asked for, and got, an 85% increase in the Department of Energy's renewable fuel sources budget. He signed a bill giving subsidies to corporations that invested in wind turbines, and private citizens who installed solar panels on their homes. And, of course, Carter had solar panels added to the White House. In an address on the day they began operation (June 20, 1979), he said: "In the year 2000 this solar water heater behind me, which is being dedicated today, will still be here supplying cheap, efficient energy... A generation from now, this solar heater can either be a curiosity, a museum piece, an example of a road not taken or it can be just a small part of one of the greatest and most exciting adventures ever undertaken by the American people."

    As it turns out, Carter was wrong about the "in the year 2000" part, but right about the museum part. On taking office, Ronald Reagan got rid of the White House solar panels, which eventually ended up... on display in the Smithsonian Institute and the Solar Science and Technology Museum in Dezhou, China. Reagan also got rid of the funding for renewable energy, and the subsidies for turbines and solar panels.

  6. Refugees: These days, for reasons well known to readers, refugees seeking asylum in America are often held in roughly the same regard as toxic waste. Not so in Carter's day, as Americans on both sides of the political aisle were deeply concerned about the fates of folks in Vietnam, Cambodia, and other war-torn nations (with, in many cases, the war having been substantially the handiwork of the United States).

    Consequently, in 1979, Carter proposed what became the Refugee Act of 1980. It tripled the number of refugees allowed into the United States each year, made allowances for increasing that number beyond the cap in times of emergency, and streamlined the process for evaluating claims of refugee status. When the bill came before the House, it passed 328-47. And when the Senate took it up, it passed... unanimously. Can you imagine such a thing happening today? We can't.

    In the year after Carter signed the bill into law, 200,000 refugees were accepted into the United States. The total generally remained above 100,000 people for years thereafter. By the final years of the Trump presidency, however, the total was down to less than 20,000. There's only been a slight uptick during the Biden years.

  7. A Sporting Fellow: Various presidents, off and on, invited successful athletes or teams to visit the White House. However, it was Carter who established it as a tradition that the champions of the various major sports leagues received an automatic invite to visit with the president. In 1980, he welcomed the Pittsburgh Steelers and the Pittsburgh Pirates, both of them reigning champions of their leagues, to the White House. (Don't expect that particular combo to happen again anytime soon.) As you might imagine from this, Carter was himself a devoted sports fan. And his favorite team, hands down, was Major League Baseball's Atlanta entry:

    The Carters on the kiss cam; Carter standing next to Henry Aaron; the Carter family being presented with a jersey with the number 100 on it

    Carter, then the governor of Georgia, was present when Hank Aaron hit his 715th home run, breaking Babe Ruth's career record (center image). Well into their retirement, the Carters were captured on the team's "kiss cam" (left). And a few months back, on the occasion of the former president's 100th birthday, the team presented him with a commemorative jersey (right).

    The former president was not able to travel, so as to be at that jersey ceremony in person, nor was he able to attend the team's 2021 World Series appearance (and victory) in person. However, he WAS present when the team won the World Series back in 1995. In fact, he threw out the first pitch in the sixth (and ultimately decisive) game.

  8. The Stupid Economy: The narrative of the Carter years is that the economy was bad. And, of course, it was, in many ways. That said, as a reminder that there are many different aspects to "the economy" and that sometimes perception overrides reality, real wages were actually considerably better during the Carter years than they were during the presidency of his immediate successor (and of several of the presidents thereafter):

    Real wages, adjusted for inflation, from 1964 to 2019. They reached an average of $23.24/hour, adjusted for inflation, in 1973, then trended downward for several years, then hovered around $20/hour during the Reagan years, then slowly crept upward, finally reaching $23.24/hour again in 2019.

    The real problem for Carter here is that wages were trending in the wrong direction while he was in office. Better to be steady at a lower number (Ronald Reagan) than trending downward at a higher number (Carter).

  9. #MeToo?: Things were certainly different in Carter's time, sometimes in good ways, sometimes in not-so-good ways. Something he did that was barely mentioned at the time (especially since it happened the same day the Iran hostages were released), but became controversial after he left office, and that would be unthinkable today, was pardoning folk singer Peter Yarrow, of Peter, Paul & Mary, for sexual crimes against a minor.

    We are going to try to explain what happened, in as family-friendly a way as we can. In August of 1969, after a concert in Washington D.C., Yarrow received a visit to his hotel room from 14-year-old Barbara Winter and her 17-year-old sister, Kathie Berkel. The singer answered the door sans clothing, and required Winter to service him by hand. He was later convicted of taking "immoral and improper liberties" with Winter, and sentenced to 3 years in prison, though he served only 3 months. In 1980, Yarrow applied for a pardon, and received one in the final week of the Carter administration. Thereafter, neither Yarrow (who died last week) nor Carter was willing to comment on the matter.

    That means we are left to do some detective work and to figure out how such an outcome, which would be inconceivable in our time, came to be. And the short answer is that, in the 1970s, people generally had a very different view of these sorts of crimes. Without excusing Yarrow (or Carter), we will point out that the factors that seemed to justify mercy included the following: (1) a perception that Winter and Berkel were the instigators and were, perhaps, in search of attention or money; (2) that Yarrow was charged under much harsher D.C. laws, and that if he'd been back home in New York, his crime would have been treated as a misdemeanor; (3) that Yarrow admitted he had done wrong, and took steps to atone, including much voluntary community service.

    None of these things would make this pardon remotely acceptable today, but they did back then. Again, sometimes the good old days weren't so good.

  10. Concession: Speaking of the old days, Carter served in a strange and very different era in which presidential candidates, if they lost, graciously conceded defeat. When it became clear that he had fallen to Ronald Reagan on election night, 1980, he told the crowd at his election headquarters: "I promised you four years ago that I would never lie to you, so I can't stand here and say it doesn't hurt. I've wanted to serve as president because I love this country and because I love the people of this nation. Just one more word. Finally, let me say that I am disappointed tonight but I have not lost either love."

One more set, covering the post-presidential years, on Friday. (Z)

Reader Reflections on Jimmy Carter, Part V

Another set of reader thoughts on Jimmy Carter. As with the stories, not all of them are necessarily going to be positive.

Two more sets: One tomorrow, one Friday. (Z)


Previous | Next

Main page for smartphones