Main page    Mar. 05


Previous | Next | Senate races | Menu

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

---

Which Countries Are Involved in the War in the Middle East?

The so-called "war in Iran" isn't actually a war in Iran. At least, it's not a war JUST in Iran. It involves an increasing number of countries in the Middle East, and keeps expanding. Here is a list of the countries involved—so far. Some are belligerents and some are simply targets that are absorbing attacks and not shooting back:

• The United States: Donald Trump ignited the war by ordering massive bombings of Iran. The bombings are aimed at Iran's nuclear program, its missile arsenal, and much more. It is (probably) also intended to force regime change.
  
  
• Israel: Strikes from Israeli planes killed Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and dozens of senior Iranian officials. What Israel brings to the mix is a lot of intelligence as well as a battle-hardened military that is the best in the region. Israel, more than any of the countries in the mix, really wants to neutralize Iran and destroy its military capabilities.
  
  
• Saudi Arabia: This is the United States' biggest ally in the region, with a large and powerful air force with modern American equipment. Saudi Arabia and Iran have a deep religious conflict and Saudi Arabia would love to see its rival turned into a giant pile of rubble. The U.S. has several bases in the country and they were attacked by Iran on the second day of the war. Iran also hit one of the biggest oil refineries in the world, at Ras Tanura. The Saudis are not amused and since they have quite a bit of their own firepower, might just decide to join in on the war to teach Iran a lesson.
  
  
• U.A.E.: The Emirates are a close U.S. ally in the region, mostly out of fear that some day Iran would attack them. They hoped the U.S. would protect Dubai, a modern, gleaming city of 4 million people, as well as Abu Dhabi. Those fears were fully justified; the hopes, not so much. The Emirates have been a main target, absorbing 800 missiles already, with surely more to come. They have caused some damage to civilian targets.
  
  
• Qatar: Qatar is about as Finlandized as a country in the Middle East can be. It is tiny—about the size of Connecticut and Rhode Island combined. It is close to Iran and doesn't want to be destroyed by it. Therefore, it maintains "good" relations with Iran, but would be pleased as punch if the U.S. and Israel sent Iran back to the stone age. When Qatar gave Donald Trump a $400 million gilded airplane as a gift, that was probably an incentive for Trump to think about its security if push came to shove. It has a small air force and shot down two elderly Iranian Su-24 fighter jets.
  
  
• Kuwait: This unfortunate country always seems to be attacked by someone—first Saddam Hussein, now Iran. It is naturally very nervous and accidentally shot down three American fighters in the fog of war. The crews ejected and are in the hospital.
  
  
• Bahrain: The U.S. has a major naval base in Bahrain, the headquarters for the Navy's Fifth Fleet. Bahrain has been attacked by Iranian drones.
  
  
• Oman: The U.S. also has a Navy base in Oman. Iran attacked the base early on. Oman was involved in the talks between Iran and the U.S., but is now a target.
  
  
• Jordan: The U.S. has military installations in Jordan, and Iran hit them with missiles. Although Jordan is a U.S. ally and is at peace with Israel, it is unlikely to join in the fighting.
  
  
• Lebanon: Hezbollah, which is funded and controlled by Iran, fired missiles and drones at Israel from Lebanon. Israel responded with heavy air strikes and an incursion into southern Lebanon. Iran's idea here is to open a second front and force Israel to deploy resources to defend itself.
  
  
• Iraq: Iran hit the part of Iraq where many Kurds live. The Kurds are generally seen as pro-U.S. Iran has also hit multiple U.S. bases in Iraq and has had its supporters storm the U.S. embassy in Baghdad.
  
  
• Cyprus: Iranian drones hit the British Royal Air Force base on Cyprus. The strikes may have come from Hezbollah. Strikes on British assets could draw the U.K. and maybe the E.U. into the conflict.
  
  
• The United Kingdom: Yup, after the hit on the U.K. bases, British PM Keir Starmer authorized the U.S. to use its air bases in the region. He also sent a Royal Navy destroyer and anti-drone helicopters to the Middle East. Nevertheless, Trump is not pleased with Starmer because the latter has not applauded the U.S. strikes loudly enough. Trump said: "I'm not happy with the U.K. This is not Winston Churchill that we're dealing with." Starmer was too polite to observe that it's not Franklin Delano Roosevelt that HE's dealing with.
  
  
• The European Union: France and Germany initially called for diplomacy, but after Iranian strikes hit their personnel, they are edging toward joining in the fighting.
  
  
• Turkey: NATO air defenses shot down an Iranian ballistic missile heading toward Turkey. If Iran targets Turkey, that would bring in another large country with a substantial military. It would also bring the U.S. and Turkey closer, despite previous strains. Turkey is a member of NATO.

The U.S. is doing the brunt of the fighting and has hit 2,000 targets in Iran and sunk 20 Iranian warships. The U.S. and Israeli air forces have almost complete control of the skies now and will soon be dropping 500- and 2000-pound bombs on targets deep in Iran. Nevertheless, supplies are finite and military leaders are having to think carefully about which targets are the priority. Secretary of Defense War Pete Hegseth probably wants to target the locations where DEI is most rampant, but the generals probably have other ideas. Getting new supplies requires Congress to pass a bill appropriating the funds (unless Trump can move around DoD money already appropriated for something else), placing an order, and having the suppliers get to work. None of this happens quickly. However, as Iranian defenses are degraded, U.S. planes can get in closer to their targets and use older, smaller, and less accurate bombs. (V)

New Polls: Americans Oppose the War in Iran

Americans love easy wars with clear goals that are achieved quickly with minimal loss of American lives. How easy and quick this one will be remains to be seen. Nevertheless, initial polling is not encouraging for Donald Trump. Here is the poll from The Washington Post asking if people supported or opposed the strikes on Iran.

As you can see, Republicans love the strikes and Democrats don't. But here's the key: Look how independents break. They are 2:1 against the strikes. If they break 2:1 against the Republicans in November, to send Trump a message, there goes the House and maybe the Senate.

Here is the CNN poll without the undecideds:

Basically, the same story: Independents don't like the strikes. CNN also asked another question: Should Trump be required to get congressional approval for more strikes? Independents said yes by a margin of 4:1 (68% to 16%). In all polls on the war, look at the independents, since some of them are up for grabs and if they are heavily anti-Trump, that does not bode well for the Republicans in November.

A Reuters/Ipsos poll, taken just after hostilities started, had independents against the strikes 44% to 19% with 38% undecided. It appears that as time went on, some of the undecideds decided and they don't like what they are seeing. Historically, this has often been the case. Some people wait until they have more information and see how things are going before taking a position. This probably means that as the war goes on (and more American soldiers are killed and wounded), support will drop. Remember that even Vietnam was fairly popular, until it wasn't. And this one isn't even starting in "popular" territory.

For what it is worth, Fox News also ran a poll. Here are the crosstabs. It was conducted by Beacon Research (D) and Shaw (R) so it is probably legitimate. Here independents also oppose the strikes, but only 59% to 40%. The difference with the other polls could be due to question wording, how the respondents were located, and other factors. Whites, older people, conservatives, Catholics and Protestants, rural dwellers and former military are the biggest supporters of the war. Nonwhites (especially nonwhite women), young people, and liberals are the strongest opponents. (V)

What Did We Learn from the Primaries?

As we noted yesterday, the polls of the Texas Democratic primary were all over the map and largely wrong, as the majority said Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-TX) had a substantial lead. She lost to Bible-quoting state Rep. James Talarico (D) by 7 points. What happened?

Well, progressives in general, and Crockett in particular, keep saying that there is a vast reserve of young voters who are progressive and who don't vote because (in the words of George Wallace) "there's not a dime's worth difference between the Democrats and Republicans." If this is true, there should have been a massive outpouring of support for Crockett Tuesday. Indeed, 400,000 people who had never voted in a Democratic primary before voted in one on Tuesday, and Talarico won a solid victory. Maybe those nonvoters aren't progressive at all. In 2024, the marginal voters turned out to strongly favor Donald Trump. Crockett is a strong progressive who ran a good campaign not marred by any scandals. So maybe that theory is simply false. Maybe there are no secret progressives just waiting for the right candidate.

Another observation is that Talarico made a big pitch to win Latino voters, especially in the counties along the Rio Grande. He ran Spanish-language ads during futból matches, during the Premio Lo Nuestro music awards, and on TikTok. In counties with 60% or more Latinos, Talarico outperformed Crockett 62% to 35%. In these ads, Talarico emphasized his deep religious feelings, family values, jobs, and general moderation. He campaigned heavily in person in Latino counties and met the voters where they were and it worked. In contrast, Crockett campaigned on a base-only strategy. She said she was the one who would get great turnout among base voters.

Talarico's emphasis on Latinos and Spanish-language ads might be the key to why the polls were off. It is possible—we don't know—that the polls were only in English and failed to reflect Talarico's enormous support among Spanish speakers, who may have ignored attempts to be polled in English.

One Democratic strategist also noted that Talarico's campaign was modern but also professional. Crockett's campaign was modern but not professional. Talarico listened carefully to the experienced consultants and was very disciplined. He ran carefully designed ads, had many volunteers knocking on doors, sent out flyers, held rallies, was online everywhere, and stayed entirely on message, which was largely about progressive Christianity. In the final 4 days, he held 130 events in 40 cities and had the backing of 30,000 volunteers knocking on doors. He listened to seasoned consultants and ran an extremely traditional campaign.

Crockett didn't pay much attention to consultants and traditional ideas of how to run a campaign, thinking that was all obsolete and being a young progressive was enough. It wasn't. What works in New York City does not necessarily work in Texas. Who knew? There is a lesson there: Tailor your campaign (and your candidate) to your state or district.

Could the Democrats finally, after three decades of fruitlessly trying, finally catch the great white whale—winning a Senate seat in Texas? G. Elliott Morris crunched the numbers and has some thoughts on the subject:

• Paxton: If Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) wins the runoff, it is probably game over for the Democrats. In case you were thinking of organizing a big ratfu**ing campaign, sorry. People who voted in the Democratic primary cannot vote in the Republican runoff. Unless Donald Trump quickly deserts the very MAGAy Ken Paxton and supports the RINO Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), Republicans are going to have to spend another $100 million in an attempt to stop Paxton. Every penny nickel they spend on Texas is a nickel they can't spend in Alaska and Ohio, which have critical Senate races. Talarico, with his faith-based message, could do well against the corrupt adulterer Paxton in rural Republican strongholds. He is the first Democrat in memory who could actually peel off rural Republican voters because Paxton is so bad. The model here is the 2017 Alabama Senate special election in which Doug Jones (D) beat the sex predator Roy Moore (R).
  
  There is one caveat to the ratfu**ing point, however. Anyone who has already cast a ballot is locked in to whatever party they voted for. However, those who have not cast a ballot are still free agents. It is possible that some number of voters who want to see Talarico win, and who did not cast ballots on Tuesday, will sign up as "Republicans" so they can vote for Paxton and try to stick the GOP with the worse candidate.
  
  
• Unfavorability: Recent polls have shown that independents do not like Paxton or Cornyn. Of the five candidates in Tuesday's primaries, Paxton and Cornyn are tied with the highest unfavorable rating at 48%. Talarico is at 23%. He is less well known than Paxton, but he is not offensive and his support has room to grow.
  
  
• Enthusiasm: Democratic enthusiasm is off the charts this year in Texas. In Dallas County, 188,000 Democrats voted early vs. 64,000 Republicans. In El Paso, the number of 18-29 early voters tripled and the number of 30-44 voters doubled. Also, 28% of early Democratic voters had never voted in a primary before. There is a lot of evidence for Democratic enthusiasm. During the runoff election, Paxton and Cornyn will be slinging mud by the barrel, which may cause some Republicans to hate both of them and skip the general election altogether since the reelection of Gov. Greg Abbott (R-TX) is virtually certain and they may not see any reason to bother voting.
  
  
• Demographics: The Democratic coalition is beginning to look a lot like Texas and Talarico strengthens that. An estimate of the Democratic base in Texas is 40% white, 23% Black, 29% Latino, and 7% other. Talarico pulls from all groups. Paxton does not. Also, Talarico pulls urban voters, suburban voters, and even some rural voters. Paxton does poorly in cities, except for Sodom and Gomorrah.
  
  
• Latinos: Latinos are moving away from Republicans nationwide, but especially in Texas. Might this have something to do with ICE snatching brown people off the streets and locking them in detention camps for deportation? On Jan. 31, there was a special election in Texas SD-09 in which Taylor Rehmet (D) crushed Leigh Wambsganss (R) by 14 points in a district Trump won in 2024 by 17 points. Majority-Latino precincts swung Democratic compared to 2022 by 34 points. Rehmet won 79% of the Latino vote in January, and with his faith-based pitch, Talarico is likely to be a stronger candidate than Rehmet.
  
  
• Trump: Trump is actually underwater in Texas now, 45% to 49%. In Texas! So his endorsement might not mean much anymore. He is especially unpopular with independents and Latinos. Paxton has branded himself as Texas Trumpy, which might not be quite the ticket this time around. Trump has gotten the message that he just HAS to step in, though. Late yesterday he said he will endorse in the runoff. Furthermore, he said he will ask the loser to drop out. He didn't say who he will endorse or when.
  
  Our guess is that he will endorse Cornyn because he really doesn't want to lose the Senate, and he really doesn't want to risk hurting his batting average. It would be unpresidented in the extreme for a sitting Republican president to order a sitting Republican senator to drop out in favor of a challenger, even if the president personally preferred the challenger.
  
  An interesting question is whether Paxton will drop out if he doesn't get Trump's blessing. He has his own base and could argue that Trump now supports Epstein and forever wars and this is not what the base wants. Trump could offer Paxton the ambassadorship to Upper Slobovia, but he wouldn't take it. He might make a counteroffer though: "Fire Pam Bondi and make me attorney general and it is a deal." If Trump refuses, Paxton might well continue anyway, which will force the RNC and NRSC to waste another $100 million because even with Trump's endorsement, Cornyn is not a sure thing. Paxton speaks fluent Evangelical and has his own base.

In short, Talarico vs. Paxton would be a real horse race, with a lot riding on the general mood of the country. Morris says that Talarico vs. Paxton would be a genuine tossup, with the Democrats having better odds than they had during Beto O'Rourke's 2018 run against Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX).

Two other small notes about the primaries come from North Carolina. Rep. Valerie Foushee (D-NC) is leading Nida Allam by 1,202 votes (0.96%) with some overseas ballots yet to be counted. If the final result is under 1% difference, there will be a recount.

Way under the radar are Tuesday's primary elections in the North Carolina legislature. There are 71 Republicans (59%) and 49 Democrats (41%) in the state House. On Tuesday, three young progressive Democrats ousted three older conservative Democrats in blue districts. This matters, because the Republican-controlled legislature keeps passing bills that Gov. Josh Stein (D-NC) keeps vetoing. It takes a three-fifths vote of each chamber to override a veto. That works in the Senate, where there are 30 Republicans and 20 Democrats, but not in the House if everyone votes the party line. However, of the 15 vetoes, the legislature has overridden eight of them with the help of the three conservative Democrats who lost their primaries on Tuesday. Once the three new progressives are seated in January, there will be no more veto overrides and Stein's position will be immeasurably stronger vis-à-vis the legislature. (V)

Noem Adopts the Bondi Strategy

In MAGAland, women can play a role, as long as they adopt the correct looks (some of which may involve substantial plastic surgery) and attitude. AG Pam Bondi testified before Congress last week and was exceptionally aggressive, sneering at the members and contemptuous of their daring to ask her questions at all. She didn't answer many of their questions and certainly never admitted doing anything wrong. She also has no trouble lying through her teeth repeatedly.

On Tuesday, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem testified before the Senate and yesterday before the House. Her testimony actually matters because Congress has yet to fund her department. Not having any money to spend until January would probably not be much fun at all. Funding for her flying bedroom might even be at stake, so she had a lot on the line. But she followed the Bondi playbook of never admitting she had ever done anything wrong, even when caught red-handed.

In the Senate, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) asked her why she had labeled nurse Alex Pretti, whom ICE agents shot and killed in cold blood, a domestic terrorist. She refused to back down. Durbin then said: "Is it so hard to say you were wrong?" She didn't answer his question and just deflected it. She also didn't back down from saying that Pretti wanted to massacre law enforcement officers. He did have a legal gun but it was in his waistband the whole time until an officer grabbed it away from him.

And it wasn't just Democrats who lit into Noem. Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) really ripped into her in a 10-minute tirade. He called DHS a failure and said she should resign or be fired. He also kept calling her "Miss Noem," which is odd because despite her traveling around with advisor Corey Lewandowski in her flying bedroom, she is married (to someone else). It would have been more respectful for Tillis to refer to her as "Secretary," but he was clearly incensed by her behavior, both outside the Senate and inside it. He vowed to block all Senate business until she gives satisfactory answers to his questions. Since he decided not to run for reelection, he has been a free man.

Wednesday's hearing in the House didn't go any better. Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee welcomed her with open arms but Democrats certainly did not. Ranking member Jamie Raskin (D-MD) accused her of a "smear campaign" targeting two American citizens, Renee Good and Alex Pretti, whom her goons killed in Minneapolis. Rep. Rebecca Balint (D-VT) accused her of lying to federal judges and said "This conduct alone is impeachable, and I want you to know that Americans will get accountability for the damage that you have done, for the lawlessness of aspects of DHS, for killing innocent Americans, for terrorizing children."

Rep. Joe Neguse (D-CO) wanted her to explain why Noem's $220-million ad campaign, starring Kristi Noem talking about how great DHS is, was given to a Trump ally with no competitive bidding. She told the Senate there was competitive bidding. Neguse said he knew she lied to the Senate, noting "The reason we know [her statement to the Senate] is untrue is because under federal law your agency is required, whenever the agency is required to skip competitive bidding, to file a notice with the public explaining why. And in this case, your agency filed a notice." Lying to the Senate could easily be a future article of impeachment. Neguse also noted:

You want the American people to believe that this is all above board? That $143 million of taxpayer money just happened to go to one company that doesn't have a headquarters, doesn't have a website, has never done work for the federal government before, and is registered, apparently, or attached to a residence from a political operative. And of course, one of the subcontractors of that contract, as you know, is a political firm that's tied to you back when you were governor of South Dakota.

Noem simply said it was "all done correctly, all done legally."

Rep. Lou Correa (D-CA) asked her whether ICE is creating a database of protesters. Noem said "No we are not creating a database." Correa then cited a video in which an agent said they were collecting information about protesters for a database. Also, border czar Tom Homan told Fox News in January that they were creating a database. Noem denied it all again.

Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) said Noem should be fired. She said: "DHS is supposed to be protecting our residents and upholding constitutional protections but you've turned that on the head. You have actually turned the United States government against its own residents and you've had multiple chances to take accountability, to apologize to these folks and others across the country, but you have failed to do it."

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) wanted to know why ICE agents were not wearing body cameras. Noem pleaded poverty. Massie said that DHS received $165 billion in the BBB and that ought to be enough to fund cameras for all agents. It went on and on like this, with non-Massie Republicans praising Noem to the moon and Democrats pointing out her endless stream of lies and lawbreaking. Noem was only 15 when Roy Cohn died, so he probably never tutored her, but she somehow picked up his three principles of life: always attack, deny everything, and never surrender.

If the Democrats capture the House in November, there could well be an impeachathon, especially if they also control the Senate so they can hold actual trials of the impeachees. Noem is a bald-faced liar, a detestable and self-dealing person, and a show horse rather than a workhorse. She could well be the first person impeached next year. (V)

Bondi Will Get Another Shot at Strutting Her Stuff

Yesterday, the House Oversight Committee voted to subpoena Pam Bondi to come answer some questions about Jeffrey Epstein. The vote was 24-19, with five Republicans voting with the Democrats. Two of the Republicans were Reps. Nancy Mace (R-SC) and Lauren Boebert (R-CO). Mace has said she was once raped and Boebert was involved in altercations with her ex where police were called. They see sexual assault as a man-woman issue, not a Democrat-Republican issue. The others may be holding a finger to the wind and are getting a sense of where their voters are.

Mace is very serious about this. It isn't political with her. She makes it clear in her statements that she was deeply wounded by being raped. Politico has an in-depth interview about her life. She comes off as hurt, not crazy. Here is her tweet after the vote:

Besides the tweet, Mace told reporters: "I have a lot more questions, and I don't expect to be talking about the stock market, so she better not bring those notes when she comes to the Oversight Committee." We don't have Mace's list of questions but we imagine one will be: "In February 2025, you said you had Epstein's client list on your desk. Later you said there is no client list. Were you lying the first time or the second time?"

Thomas Massie is not on the Oversight Committee, but Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) is. Mace, Boebert, Khanna and a few others are not going to take answers about the stock market well. Bondi is experienced at deflecting, but some of the members are not going to like it. There are sure to be fireworks. (V)

Vance May Have Principles after All

Many people see J.D. Vance as an opportunist with no principles other than doing what is best for the advancement of J.D. Vance. Thomas Edsall has a column in The New York Times arguing that this view is false. He argues that J.D., despite having a J.D. from the Yale Law School, firmly believes that a form of authoritarian government should replace the Constitution, and has demonstrated this repeatedly, starting in the interregnum, even before he hitched his wagon to Trump.

Vance has evolved since 2016, when he called Trump "America's Hitler" and went on NPR to describe Trump as "noxious." Since then he has come to see the entire left as a cancer that must be excised from the body politic.

Vance has become the leading official openly aligned with the movement questioning the foundations of democracy. Unlike Donald Trump, who governs from the gut, Vance subscribes to the "postliberal right," meaning the rule of law is no longer obligatory or even important. Getting the results he wants is what counts. In a podcast, then-Senate-candidate Vance talked about what Donald Trump should do if he won in 2024, namely "fire every single midlevel bureaucrat, every civil servant in the administrative state, replace them with our people. And when the courts stop you, stand before the country like Andrew Jackson did, and say: 'The chief justice has made his ruling. Now let him enforce it.'" In other words, he was openly calling for Trump to do things Vance knew very well were illegal (he did pay attention at Yale) and then defy the Supreme Court when it called him on it.

Vance also wants to tax the Harvard endowment, saying: "The Harvard University endowment is ammunition that the left uses to penalize conservatives. We need to give them less ammunition. It's like a basic principle of warfare." First, that is a lie. Harvard's endowment is used to fund scholarships and help run the university. It is not used for "warfare." Second, Harvard's money is private property, which Vance seems to have little respect for. At a conference in 2021, Vance quoted Richard Nixon as saying "the professors are the enemy."

At a conference in 2023 at the Claremont Institute, Vance declared: "Maybe we should be appointing people to the Department of Justice who actually take a side in the culture war, the side of the people who elected us, and not just pretend we don't have to take sides at all." In other words, in his view the DoJ should not be there to enforce the Constitution and the law, but to support conservatives, Congress and the law be damned.

Stephanie Slade, a senior fellow at the libertarian magazine Reason, summed up Vance's worldview as follows: "The left is willing to use all the power at its disposal—cultural as well as governmental—to impose its way of life on the American people, whether they like it or not, and so if conservatives are to have any hope of saving the country from left-wing tyranny, they must be willing to respond in kind."

Shikha Dalmia, founder and editor of The UnPopulist magazine, said Vance is an ideologue and "I don't think he's seeking power for power's sake. I think he is seeking power to remake America in some fundamental way."

By 2025, Vance's hatred for the left had become venomous. He blamed "an incredibly destructive movement of left-wing extremism" for contributing to Charlie Kirk's death, even though there was a lone assassin and it is not even clear now what his motives were or who radicalized him.

Vance is an intellectual who has been heavily influenced by three thinkers who are very wary of democracy: the postliberal political theorist Patrick Deneen, billionaire Peter Thiel, and conservative Harvard Law professor Adrian Vermeule. Vance believes Deneen, who wrote: "The managerial elite has come to see itself as opposed to everything the working class embodied. Its representatives denounced 'deplorables' who 'cling to their guns and Bibles. Backward-looking, loyal to declining places and benighted, they died deaths of despair that were their own fault.'" Steve Bannon couldn't have put it better.

In a 2009 guest essay, Peter Thiel, a German immigrant, wrote: "I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible." He also argued against women having the vote because few of them are libertarians. He apparently couldn't find the collected works of Ayn Rand in the original German.

Vermeule said that with liberals, "there can be no lasting peace. Yesterday the frontier was divorce, contraception and abortion; then it became same-sex marriage; today it is transgenderism; tomorrow it may be polygamy, consensual adult incest or who knows what."

With mentors like these, Vance may go far. Or maybe we should say that he may go too far. People who want to impeach Trump might want to think a bit about the potential consequences of that. (V)

Steve Daines will Retire

Democrats got a lucky break yesterday. Sen. Steve Daines (R-MT) announced that he will not run for another term, creating an open Senate seat in Montana. Daines was very sneaky about this, making the announcement just minutes before the filing deadline, making it impossible for new candidates who might suddenly be interested to run. Except for U.S. Attorney for Montana Kurt Alme, who filed at 4:52 p.m., eight minutes before the deadline. Could Alme be clairvoyant? Looks like it. If he gives you stock advice, take it.

This is not the first time a candidate has dropped out minutes before the deadline. It is starting to become the norm. Daines endorsed Alme; gotta say that he moves fast. The whole thing is very underhanded and rotten to the core. The only possible solution we can think of is to change state laws to make the deadline for filing to run a week after the deadline to get off the ballot.

Three unknown Democrats have filed. Alani Bankhead is an Air Force lieutenant colonel. Michael Black Wolf is a tribal historical preservation officer for the Fort Belknap Indian Community. Reilly Neill is a former state representative. However, the former president of the University of Montana, Seth Bodnar, filed as an independent. It is possible that the DSCC sees Bodnar as a serious candidate, since he is technically an independent in a state that is basically libertarian rather than Republican. This is somewhat analogous to the situation in Nebraska right now, where Dan Osborn (I) is the Democrats' de facto candidate. Montana is a cheap state to advertise in, so it won't cost much to help Bodnar. It will be interesting to see what the Democrats do here. (V)

Epstein's Estate Has Agreed to Pay Another $35 Million to His Victims

At the time of his death, Jeffrey Epstein was very wealthy, with assets valued at $577 million. He left it all to a trust he created called the 1953 Trust, presumably because 1953 was his birth year. The beneficiaries of said trust are not known publicly. In any event, his estate has plenty of money and has come to a new agreement to give an additional $35 million to his victims. This is in addition to the existing funds of $121 million and $49 million for the victims. While $205 million will never erase the memory of the horrible things Epstein did to his victims, it does provide some accountability and closure for them. U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian has tentatively approved the deal, subject to a hearing on Sept. 16. The victims are being represented by the high-powered law firm of Boies Schiller Flexner, so they will not want for legal firepower.

One obvious question is: "Who qualifies?" It is conceivable that some people who had nothing to do with Epstein might claim to be victims to share in the bounty. Trying to determine who was actually a victim and who is just making up a story to get a payout might keep the judge busy for quite a while.

This settlement will also end the case against Epstein's co-executors, Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn, who helped create a maze of corporations and bank accounts to hide Epstein's activities and pay his recruiters and victims. Indyke and Kahn were richly rewarded for their creative work. (V)

Thousands of Companies Have Sued for Tariff Refunds

The Supreme Court has ruled that most of the tariffs Donald Trump imposed were illegal. Consequently, 2,000 companies that paid them want their money back and have sued to get it. The Chamber of Commerce has called for a swift return of the $130 billion taken unlawfully by the federal government. The administration has tried to slow-walk the return of the funds but on Monday, an appeals court rejected the administration's attempt to delay proceedings until June.

Some lawyers involved in the cases say that unless there are clear rules about who gets a refund and how to apply for it, there could be hundreds of thousands of cases, totally suffocating the court system. Trump might not actually have a problem with that. One official at a trade group said there will be a slugfest.

Democrats are already hitting Trump on the delays. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, sees a campaign issue here. She said: "This deliberate effort to withhold Americans' hard-earned dollars is unacceptable." She has introduced legislation to force the administration to return the money to companies promptly and for companies to compensate their customers, possibly by lowering prices for some time until the refund is used up.

Under customs law, importers have 314 days to challenge a tariff payment. If the deadline passes without a challenge, their chances of recovery drop precipitously. So, many companies are making sure the paperwork is filed on time, which will gum up the works with paper.

The claimants who have the best chance are large firms that do a lot of importing or act on behalf of big importers, like Walmart and DHL. All of these have in-house lawyers who can at least start the ball rolling. By contrast, many small businesses are coming to the conclusion that hiring a lawyer may cost more than the tariffs they paid so the win is merely on paper and they will not get any money back.

Will this have a political impact? Maybe some. We can imagine that people who were forced to pay the government some money that was later declared illegal and then have the government not return it might not be happy campers. Midterm elections tend to sort the happy campers from the unhappy campers. (V)

The Media Landscape on the Left Is Fragmenting

Liberal media used to be concentrated in a few outlets like The New York Times, The Washington Post, and MSNBC. Some of these outlets are not so liberal anymore and some others are teetering. What is replacing them is a smorgasbord of micro-media outlets, some of which are one-trick ponies. In fact, it is sometimes hard to tell who is on which team now. For example, The Bulwark was founded by Bill Kristol and the neocons from The Weekly Standard, who rooted for and cheered on Dick Cheney and the Iraq war. Now that team hates Donald Trump with the heat of a thousand suns, but is not much interested in other "liberal" issues like abortion. That is not to say they are against them, and as born-again libertarians, are generally with the Democrats on many cultural issues. But the focus is on getting Trump below the Bush line.

Other examples are Pod Save America, The Daily Show, The Breakfast Club, The Ezra Klein Show, The American Prospect, Mother Jones, AlterNet, CounterPunch, Slate, MeidasTouch, and many more. Axios has a quick guide to the modern landscape:

• The Partisans: Shows like the popular MeidasTouch are safe spaces for Democrats to get their message out to Democratic voters with little or no pushback. Many of these are even friendlier than MS NOW.
  
  
• The Resistance: These are stridently anti-Trump rather than being pro-Democrat. If an interviewee seems squishy about his or her hatred and opposition to Trump, the interview will get some negative feedback from the host. Interviews aren't always friendly to all Democrats. The I've Had it podcast and Heather Cox Richardson's substack are in this bag.
  
  
• The Elites: The old-timers are here, among them MS NOW, The Atlantic, The New Yorker and, of course, the Times opinion page. Donors, powerbrokers, and thought leaders pay attention and want to be here.
  
  
• The Center Left: Here are pro-Democratic voices that do not want to be associated with the Jasmine Crocketts of the world. Leftish, but not too far left. Matt Yglesias can be found here.
  
  
• The Left Wing: This has changed since 2020, when voices friendly to Bernie Sanders were here. Now it is dominated by pro-Palestine, anti-Israel names, like Medhi Hasan, Ryan Grim and Hasan Piker.

This fragmentation means that candidates who want to reach as many voters as possible may need to be interviewed on 5, 10 or more podcasts and shows to get in front of a large audience.

A serious problem with this new model is that almost none of the new outlets do serious reporting. A few, like Josh Marshall's Talking Points Memo, have half a dozen actual reporters who go out and try to get news stories, but most of the rest consist of one (or maybe a handful of) hosts who shoot the bull with candidates and others. It's basically all opinion and no news. A news ecosystem with no actual news isn't actually a news ecosystem. It is more like Fox's prime time lineup. (V)

Previous | Next

Main page for smartphones