Quote of the Day
Joe Biden Leads Democratic Field
Pete Buttigieg Is the Anti-Trump
Trump Begins Rust Belt Defense
Beto O’Rourke Is a Generation X Cliche
Why So Many Democrats Are Running for President
• Trump Kills Sanctions on North Korea
• Kushner Used Private E-mail, WhatsApp for Official Business
• Trump Picks Stephen Moore for the Fed
• Does Trump Encourage Violence?
• Jimmy Carter Enters the Record Books, Again
• Steve King Goes All-in on Old, White Voters
People have been reading and re-reading the tea leaves for months, and predicting that, for half a dozen reasons, the release of the report being written by special counsel Robert Mueller is imminent. Of course, the predictions had to be right eventually, and Friday was that day, as Mueller formally delivered his report to Attorney General William Barr.
On some level, this story is actually in a holding pattern, since the contents of the report are still a secret to all but a few people. Nonetheless, that hasn't stopped every outlet from producing at least a half dozen pieces in a response to the news. In order to try to make sense of it all, we're going to divide this up into three parts. First, here's what is known:
- Barr will soon report to Congress: Reportedly, Barr worked late into the
night on Friday, reviewing Mueller's findings. Before he hunkered down, however, the AG
a letter to Congress, advising them that he hoped to report to them as soon as this weekend.
- The Justice Dept. never told Mueller "No": In the above-mentioned letter
to Congress, Barr also noted that none of the people who oversaw the investigation stopped
Mueller from looking into whatever he wanted to look into.
- Donald Trump is still in the dark: Apparently, the President is
not yet aware
of the contents of the report, and may remain unaware for a while. That said, it is
possible he knew (or had reason to suspect) that this day was very near, which would explain his
outbursts on Twitter over the past 10 days. It's also possible that his Twitter behavior this
weekend or next week will be our first big clue as to what the report actually says.
- No more indictments from Mueller: Mueller's office
it will bring no more indictments, and that it has also filed no sealed indictments. Many
Trump supporters are making a big deal of this, claiming it is tantamount to exoneration, but
not so fast. There are still almost a dozen people left on Team Mueller, and it's possible they
plan to hand things off to other parts of the Dept. of Justice, or to U.S. Attorneys offices like
SDNY, or even to state AGs to handle. Alternatively, it's possible that Mueller has just set up the pins,
for anyone who wants to try to knock them down. If so, that would be similar to
what Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski did during the Watergate investigation. Finally, it's
also possible that Mueller doesn't think that anyone else is indictable. Whatever the case may be,
is a list of the people who avoided ensnarement by the Special Counsel, at least for now.
- Many people are going to be disappointed: Democrats, of course, are
largely hoping and expecting damning evidence of guilt on the part of Trump and others in his
orbit. Many Republicans are hoping and expecting Trump & Co. to be exonerated. Both things
cannot happen, meaning one side or the other will be unhappy. And if the revelations in the report
are somewhere in the mushy middle, which is far and away the likeliest outcome, then both factions
will be unhappy.
- Mueller will go down as a legend: Regardless of what he found, and regardless of what his conclusions are, the Special Counsel clearly did a very thorough job, dotting lots of i's and crossing lots of t's. And all of this with nary a leak, and also without getting himself fired. Even if some folks, maybe many folks, will be unhappy with his work in the short term, it cannot be denied that he pulled off quite a feat.
Moving on, here is what is still unknown:
- Will there be a smoking gun?: If we are going by Watergate standards, there almost
certainly will not be a smoking gun, in the sense of a crystal-clear, easily understood piece of evidence
that proves guilt beyond any doubt. However, there may well be a smoking gun in the form of more complicated,
but equally damning, evidence that would impress a jury or a judge. Quinta Jurecic
some of the possibilities in a piece for the New York Times—for example, solid proof that
the Trump family was closely involved in negotiations for Trump Tower Moscow, particularly
while the presidential campaign was in full swing.
- What will happen to Donald Trump?: Obviously, this is the question that
trumps all others, no pun intended. And an answer could be very slow in coming. The Justice Department is
likely to abide by longstanding guidelines that a sitting president cannot be indicted. And House Democrats
may decide that impeachment is not viable. If so, then the President would not only avoid any immediate
consequences, but evidence of wrongdoing on his part might have to remain secret until he is an ex-president,
so that a prosecution can happen then.
- What will happen to Trump's family?: Jared Kushner and the Trump
children aren't quite as insulated from prosecution as their father/father-in-law, but even if there
is evidence of wrongdoing on their parts, the feds may be loath to move forward while Trump is in
office. There's really no precedent here, as presidential children do not generally get caught up in
the commission of federal crimes.
- What about collusion?: In addition to the President's personal fate,
this is the other mega-question that people are waiting for an answer with baited breath. Did
Mueller find stuff, maybe lots of stuff, that is currently unknown? If he did, or even if he didn't,
will he make any assertions about whether collusion with the Russians did or did not happen?
- And obstruction of justice?: This is also pretty high on the list,
if only because it's the crime Trump is likeliest to get stuck with by the special counsel.
So, will Mueller claim obstruction? And if so, does he have more evidence beyond what is publicly
- How about money laundering?: This is another one where Trump appears
to be pretty badly exposed. The people that Mueller hired, and the questions that he asked, suggested
he was traveling this road. But did he? And if so, what did he find at the end of the road?
- No Trump interview?: For all the negotiating that went on between Team
Mueller and Team Trump, all the Special Counsel ended up with were some written answers that were
surely penned by the President's lawyers (even though Trump claimed he wrote them himself). Anyhow,
why did Mueller decide not to press for an in-person interview?
- What about Roger Stone?: The assumption has been that Mueller would
want whatever pieces of the puzzle Roger Stone has before finishing the report. Did Stone secretly
turn state's evidence? Or did Mueller get everything he needed from Stone's computer, e-mail
accounts, etc., that were seized? Or did he decide Stone has nothing worthwhile to give?
- Was the Steele Dossier on target?: Some parts of the dossier have
already been confirmed, while a few parts (most notably that Michael Cohen was in the Czech Republic)
appear to have been disproven. Will Mueller have more to say on this subject, one way or another?
- What is happening with the mystery company?: One of the more mysterious
aspects of the investigation is a secret company that Mueller was either investigating, or trying
to investigate. That got tied up in court, and as recently as this week, the Supreme Court was
discussing a motion related to the matter in secret. What is the company, and how come they
weren't needed for the final report?
- What are the unknown unknowns?: Again, given how tight a ship Mueller has run, there are many questions that we know to ask, even if we don't know the answers. However, is there anything left that was so secret that we don't even know to ask about it?
And finally, here is what's next:
- Congress will insist upon the release of the report: There is no
question that Barr is going to provide at least a summary of the report to Congress. That, however,
won't be satisfactory, particularly to House Democrats. Barr might also prepare two reports, one
brief one for general consumption, and another classified one for the leadership and key committee
chairs. That probably won't be enough, either. The blue team
has already made clear
they want total transparency, and that they are willing to do what it takes to get it.
- The subpoenas will start flying: If Barr doesn't give up the goods,
and maybe even if he does, Mueller should expect to spend some time testifying before Congress in the
near future. Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI), a member of the House Judiciary Committee, already
he plans to subpoena the Special Counsel, and many of the Congressman's colleagues will undoubtedly be in full agreement with that course of action.
Meanwhile, depending on what's in the report, the Trump family, members of the campaign, employees
of the Trump Organization, and dozens of others could also find themselves hauled before Congress
- The public will insist upon the release of the report, too: In fact, the
first lawsuit demanding the release of the report has already been
by the Electronic Privacy Information Center, and more are surely coming. And regardless of what
happens on the legal front, there will be enormous pressure from voters for the AG to release the
report publicly (or, at least, most of it). And even if the courts say "no," and the AG says "no,"
there's always the possibility (in fact, the likelihood) it will be leaked. Undoubtedly, Ronan
Farrow and Maggie Haberman are working the phones as we speak. So, one way or another, this is going
to go public sooner or later. Probably sooner.
- The White House will strike back: Team Trump has
tried to prepare
for every contingency as best they can, given that they were largely in the dark. However, they are
going to strike with a vengeance, as soon as that is possible, and claim total victory for the
President, regardless of what the report actually says. In fact, the RNC fired off tweet after tweet
on Friday night, spinning things in Trump's direction. Meanwhile, Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC), who
hasn't actually read the report since it is not available to him, already
that we now know there was no collusion with the Russians. Fredo Trump...er, Donald Jr., has been
tweeting the same thing.
- Trump won't actually be able to relax: It is extremely unlikely that the report will contain 100% good news for the President. Heck, it's unlikely to be 30% good news for him. But let's imagine, somehow, that it completely and totally exonerates him, his family, his staff, his business, etc. of any and all wrongdoing. Even then, it removes just one source of trouble from his plate. There's still the SDNY and Michael Cohen, the state of New York and their newly-launched investigations, and all of the House committee investigations, among other issues. Even if his presidency lasts until January 20, 2025, he will never have a day where he doesn't have to worry about being impeached, and where he doesn't have to worry about being indicted as soon as his term is up.
That, then, is where things appear to stand in the hours after Mueller submitted his report. Obviously, this is going to be the big story for quite a few news cycles, particularly if Barr does report to Congress this weekend, and even more particularly if some of the details begin to come out. (Z)
There is an old story, which we've alluded to once or twice, from when Franklin D. Roosevelt was sailing to the Yalta Conference. One of the sailors on the ship asked FDR what would happen if the ship was sunk, and Roosevelt's answer was, "Your name will be in the paper tomorrow, but in very small type."
In other words, when there's very big news, it will crowd out the lesser news. And so, a decision that Donald Trump may have been trying to sneak under the radar anyhow—announced on a Friday morning, while the NCAA men's basketball tournament was in full swing—is likely to slide by even more fully due to the completion of the Mueller Report. That announcement was that the President is going to cancel the newly-imposed sanctions on North Korea:
It was announced today by the U.S. Treasury that additional large scale Sanctions would be added to those already existing Sanctions on North Korea. I have today ordered the withdrawal of those additional Sanctions!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 22, 2019
Maybe Trump knew Mueller's report was coming, or maybe it was just his good fortune that the tweet came about two hours before the special counsel made his special delivery.
That said, there is still some confusion about exactly what Trump did, and why he did it. There have been no new North Korea sanctions this week, at least none that were announced publicly. It is true that two Chinese companies were blacklisted, because of accusations that they were helping the North Koreans evade sanctions. That might be what Trump was talking about, although White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders was unable to confirm that for reporters. Further, when asked why Trump made his decision, she said it is because "President Trump likes Chairman Kim." That is not the strongest basis for a foreign policy, to say the least.
There is no question that the President has, once again, hung his staff out to dry. Assuming that it really is the blacklisted Chinese companies that Trump was talking about, well, that announcement was just made on Thursday by NSA John Bolton, who therefore just received a very public black eye. And it almost certainly goes beyond just him. Slate talked to a former federal government official who worked on issues related to Korea:
Good Lord. His national security team must be apoplectic. Those sanctions would only have been approved after thorough vetting through the NSC, State, DoD, and the Intelligence Community. Bolton, Pompeo and Mnuchin would all have known and approved. I would be stunned if Bolton didn't tell Trump first. Either he told him and Trump didn't understand...or maybe he tried to slip it past him?
In any event, this appears to be another example of Trump giving up something in exchange for nothing, which is thus a win for Kim. Further, the North Korean government also announced on Friday that it was pulling out of the joint liaison office with the South Koreans that was set up in September in the border city of Kaesong. So, the kumbaya vibe that came out of the Olympics appears to have dissipated, while Trump's chances of bringing peace to Korea, and bringing home that badly wanted Nobel, just got much, much slimmer. (Z)
Donald Trump may not be the only one to benefit from the cover provided by Robert Mueller. On Thursday, there was reporting from multiple outlets that First Son-in-Law Jared Kushner has made liberal use of a private e-mail account, and of WhatsApp (an app-based multimedia messaging client), to conduct government business, including his interactions with foreign leaders.
There are three obvious problems here. The first is that the behavior is more than a tad hypocritical, given how very much of Donald Trump's presidential campaign was rooted in complaints about Hillary Clinton's e-mail server. The second is that a fellow who could not qualify for a security clearance on his own, and had to be given special dispensation by the President, probably should not be bending the rules six ways to Sunday. And the third is national security; by using private e-mail, as well as an app that does not exactly have government-level encryption, Kushner could well have exposed classified information to foreign spies.
On Friday, just about every outlet in the land talked to a cybersecurity expert, and there was widespread agreement that Kushner's misdeeds were far more problematic than Hillary Clinton's. For example, MSNBC had a chat with Clint Watts, a former FBI special agent and current cybersecurity consultant. He said:
We heard "e-mails, lock her up, e-mails, lock her up. To me, [Kushner's alleged use of WhatsApp] is far more egregious. This is foreign business interactions and, by the way, it's being blocked from other parts of the U.S. government. This means foreign leaders have a better understanding about what the White House is communicating than our own intelligence community, our own law enforcement, and our own allies. This puts us in a very dangerous position because as an executive branch, or legislative branch, we really don't know what's going on at the top. And we have no oversight of it.
All of this came to light because of the efforts of House Oversight Committee Chair Elijah Cummings (D-MD), who will undoubtedly be looking into the matter further, even if everyone else is distracted by the Mueller report. Meanwhile, in a possible sign that Kushner might just get thrown under the bus, Donald Trump declined to defend him, and instead said "I know nothing" about it. It would be ironic, indeed, if Kushner somehow skates on the Russia stuff, only to get nailed for using a service that costs $1/year. (Z)
As of Friday morning, there were two empty seats on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. By Friday night, that total was theoretically down to one, as Donald Trump nominated Stephen Moore to join the Board.
Moore is not a conventionally qualified candidate for the post, as he holds only a Masters degree in economics, and not a Ph.D., and his experience has almost exclusively been working for conservative think tanks and media outlets, and not doing the work of an actual economist. So, what pushed him over the top? At this point, the answer to that question should be pretty easy to guess. Moore, of course, has been a tireless defender of Trump in general, and of Trump's ideas about the Fed in particular, in newspaper columns and...wait for it...on TV. It was a Wall Street Journal column from March 13, which Director of the National Economic Council Larry Kudlow clipped and shared with Trump, that first put Moore on the presidential radar. Since then, Trump has been reviewing Moore's TV hits, and was thrilled with what he saw. So, that's how to go from op-ed writer to Fed governor in just one easy step, and nine easy days.
Generally speaking, professional economists' response to the nomination was less than enthusiastic. University of Michigan economist Justin Wolfers (whose wife, it should be noted, worked in the Obama White House), declared, "Call your favorite economist. Whether they're left, right, libertarian or socialist, none of them will endorse Stephen Moore for the Fed. He's manifestly unqualified...I think Ivanka would be a better pick." University of Chicago professor Steven Durlauf called the nomination "appalling" and described Moore as "an ideologue, charlatan, and hack." University of Oregon professor Tim Duy, who writes a blog called FedWatch, said that, "Stephen Moore is a particularly poor choice for the Federal Reserve Board. He appears more devoted to pursuing a far-right economic agenda than willing to understand the complexity of economic policy." Several of these folks also noted that Moore has been banished from the pages of several newspapers, because his pieces are so consistently full of misinformation and distortions. And if you care to read more, Slate had a particularly sharp take-down of the nominee.
We will see if Moore makes it through the GOP-controlled Senate. On one hand, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) & Co. tend to like supply-siders (and Moore definitely is that), and they are also hesitant to oppose Trump. On the other hand, they realize that the Fed serves several important purposes, and that if its independence is compromised by the appointment of obviously partisan governors, its functionality could be permanently impaired. The general theme these days has been prioritizing short-term gain over long-term pain, so Moore will probably slide through, although it may take only four votes to derail him, depending on what Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) does. (Z)
By all evidence, it certainly seems that way. The New Zealand shooter expressed his admiration for Trump, of course. There was also Cesar Sayoc, the Florida man who just pleaded guilty to sending more than a dozen pipe bombs through the mail, and admitted that his goal was to hurt or kill critics of Trump.
Now, a new study looks at the question from a different angle, reaching conclusions that are none-too-flattering to Trump. Three scholars from the University of North Texas examined crime statistics from counties where the President held at least one rally, and compared them to comparable counties where there was no rally. And their conclusion was that the incidence of hate crimes in the Trump-rally counties jumped by 226 percent compared to non-Trump-rally counties.
As with any statistic like this, it's possible that correlation does not equal causation. However, it would be pretty hard for the increase to be entirely random, given how many rallies Trump held (and thus, how many data points are available). Further, quite a few of the incidents reference Trump directly (for example, spray painting his name and some swastikas on a Jewish temple, or threatening a person of Mexican descent that Trump is "gonna get them"). Meanwhile, one struggles to think of an alternate cause for the increase in hate crimes. Undoubtedly, this question will be studied much more, but right now things look pretty damning for the President. (Z)
Jimmy Carter, who both entered and exited the White House at a fairly young age, already had more time as an ex-president under his belt than any other chief executive, as his 38 years, 62 days and counting easily leaves Herbert Hoover's 31 years, 230 days in the dust. On Thursday, Carter set another mark; upon turning 94 years, 172 days old, he had officially outlived George H. W. Bush, and thus become the longest-lived president ever.
Now, what does this have to do with current politics? Well, brace yourself for the mother of all non sequiturs. We sometimes get a Q&A question about where Donald Trump will be ranked among the presidents, when all is said and done. (Z) also gets that question on a fairly regular basis from his students. And depending on what the Mueller report says, when its contents become public, today may just be the last day that the question does not answer itself. So, we figured that now is the time to give it a shot, with the obvious caveat that generally 30-50 years have to pass before a true judgment can be made.
To start, Wikipedia has an excellent page that presents all the various presidential ranking polls that have been conducted in the last 70 years, since presidential ranking polls became a thing. And it is clear that some things are particularly helpful for a president's long-term reputation. Foremost among them:
- Winning a war: If one hopes to be remembered as a "great" president,
it is exceedingly helpful to win a war, particularly a major one. It's not a coincidence that
Franklin Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, and Woodrow Wilson are consistently near the top of the
- Effective foreign policy: On a somewhat related note, the judgment of
history tends to be especially kind to presidents that conducted their foreign policy with skill.
This is primarily what keeps Richard Nixon from bottoming out.
- Long-term change for the better: Presidents are also rewarded
handsomely for instigating changes in the country that benefit citizens for generations to come.
Think emancipating the slaves, or creating social security, or building the interstate highway
- Charisma: Good looks, the ability to turn a phrase, and strong public
speaking skills tend to echo pretty strongly through the ages. These things are helping keep JFK's
ranking quite high, for example, not to mention Ronald Reagan's.
- A good ex-presidency: Technically, this shouldn't be a part of the equation, but it is. And this is where the Jimmy Carter connection comes in. He was a pretty mediocre president, but he's been one of the best ex-presidents. In fact, probably the best, between his work with the homeless, and his Nobel Peace Prize, and his wise service as an elder statesman. And so, his reputation has improved a fair bit since he exited the White House. Hoover enjoyed a mini-revival too, incidentally.
Meanwhile, here are some things that may seem like they should matter, but generally don't:
- Prosperity: There are a few exceptions to this (Dwight D. Eisenhower
leaps to mind), but generally, the prosperity of past decades does not impress the denizens of the
present. If it did, then Benjamin Harrison and Calvin Coolidge would be regarded much more highly
than they actually are.
- Public approval: Even if the voters love a president, it doesn't mean
future Americans will feel the same. Abraham Lincoln, Harry S. Truman, and Woodrow Wilson won narrow
victories. Ulysses S. Grant, Warren Harding, Lyndon B. Johnson, and Richard Nixon won in landslides.
- Intelligence: Carter, John Quincy Adams, Herbert Hoover, and Richard
Nixon were among the great minds to occupy the White House. George Washington, Eisenhower, Andrew
Jackson, and Ronald Reagan...less so.
- One black mark: No president is perfect, particularly if judged by modern standards, So, past chief executives tend to be granted a mulligan (or sometimes two). Franklin Roosevelt interned Japanese Americans, Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus, Washington and Jefferson owned slaves, Theodore Roosevelt was an imperialist and something of a warmonger, Truman started the Korean War, Reagan allowed Iran-Contra, etc., but they are all in the Top 10 (or close to it).
And finally, here are the serious demerits:
- Starting an unpopular war: It does not please us today that Truman got
involved in Korea (though that's his mulligan), that LBJ turned Vietnam into a quagmire, or that George W. Bush
instigated the Iraq War.
- Racism: The presidents whose reputations have taken the biggest hit in
the past 15-20 years are Woodrow Wilson and Andrew Jackson, and it's because of their attitudes
about black folks and Native Americans, respectively. LBJ's less-than-enlightened vocabulary is also
getting a long look these days, Civil Rights Act or no.
- Corruption: This is a real killer; Grant is still being blamed for the
Crédit Mobilier, Harding for Teapot Dome, and Nixon for Watergate.
- Economic turmoil: Prosperity, as noted, doesn't help a president's
reputation much. On the other hand, if the economy tanks during a president's term, the judgment of history
will not be kind, particularly if that president seems utterly discombobulated by the situation. Think
Herbert Hoover, Gerald Ford, or George W. Bush.
- A lack of long-term accomplishments: If people hear a president's name, and can't think of one significant thing they did, then that president is going to be relegated to the William Howard Taft/John Tyler/Chester Arthur tier, at best.
Having laid this out in some detail, let us now get back to the question: Trump's long-term prospects. Actually, let's start with his two immediate predecessors. George W. Bush, first of all, is in trouble. He doesn't have a particularly strong claim to the items in the "helpful" column right now. And he's got a number of serious dings against him, including the Iraq War, an administration with quite a few shady characters in it, and an economy that collapsed on his watch, in substantial part due to his policies. If Bush continues to be a charming fellow who gives candy to Michelle Obama, and he does something more substantive as an ex-president than paint stuff, and somehow the Middle East becomes much more stable in the next 10 years, he might have a renaissance. But it's a long shot.
Then there is Barack Obama. By virtue of being the first black president, he is going to get some "changed the country for the better" points, and he'll do even better on that front if Obamacare survives (and particularly if it thrives, or proves the entree to something else that thrives). Meanwhile, he's definitely charismatic, and is situated for a long and productive ex-presidency. He also has relatively few demerits against him; the bombing campaigns in the Middle East will fade from memory since they weren't a full-fledged war, Obama is clearly not a racist, his administration was remarkably incorruptible, and the economy was not in turmoil. He didn't win a big war, or do as much as FDR or Washington, but he's well situated to keep a ranking in the teens.
And then there is Donald Trump. He's got charisma of a sort, but it's rough-hewn like Franklin Pierce's or Grover Cleveland's, and is not likely to translate to future generations. His major accomplishment, such as it is, is the economy, but—as noted—that isn't going to help much, and he doesn't have anything else from the "helpful" category right now. He could bring peace to Korea, but you shouldn't bet on it. Meanwhile, he's got some serious demerits and, in particular, he is going to get slaughtered by future generations for pandering to racists and for the remarkable swampiness of his administration.
Here, then, is the overall conclusion: For nearly any president where the jury is still out (roughly from Nixon through Obama), one can construct a scenario where the judgment of history is fairly kind. That scenario is more realistic in some cases (Obama, Reagan, maybe Clinton), and more of a longshot in others (Bush 43, Ford, Nixon). However, with Trump, it is virtually impossible to put together a sequence of events, even a longshot one, where he avoids the basement. Even if he does work miracles in Korea, there's just too much else dragging him down. And that's before we know what's in the Mueller report, or the outcome of all the other entanglements and investigations Trump has gotten himself into. (Z)
Rep. Steve King (R-IA) is a racist. Maybe not quite David Duke-level racist, but also not all that far removed from the former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan. If a person says one, or even two, patently racist things, it could just be an aberration or a misstep. But King has been saying both subtly and overtly racist stuff for years. Further, the pace has quickened in the Trump Era, particularly since King was stripped of his committee assignments. At a certain point, if it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, and it looks like a duck, it's a duck.
Anyhow, with relatively little to occupy his time in Washington, King headed back home this week to hold some town halls for the folks in Iowa, as they cope with the severe flooding that has hit the Hawkeye State. And, on Thursday night, the Congressman was at it again, as he compared Iowa's response to the floods with New Orleans' response to Hurricane Katrina:
[H]ere's what FEMA tells me: We go to a place like New Orleans, and everybody's looking around saying, "Who's going to help me? Who's going to help me?" We go to a place like Iowa, and we go see, knock on the door at, say, I make up a name, John's place, and say, "John, you got water in your basement, we can write you a check, we can help you." And John will say, "Well, wait a minute, let me get my boots. It's Joe that needs help. Let's go down to his place and help him."
The message, in case you missed it, is that people in Iowa (a state that is 91% white) solve their own problems, while people in New Orleans (a city that is 61% black) look to the government to save them. Not only is this patently offensive, it's also not even true. In fact, Iowa governor Kim Reynolds has already asked for $1.6 billion in aid from FEMA.
At this point, King's electoral strategy is clear. Running a version of the Trump playbook, he knows that most young and minority voters are a lost cause to him, and so he's doing everything he can to gin up his base. If he can somehow survive a presidential electorate and an already-announced primary challenge in 2020, then he can probably survive the 2022 midterms. That would give him 11 terms and take him to the age of 74, and then he can ride off into the sunset. (Z)
If you have a question about politics, civics, history, etc. you would like us to answer, click here for submission instructions and previous Q & A's. If you spot any typos or other errors on the site that we should fix, please let us know at firstname.lastname@example.org.Email a link to a friend or share:
---The Votemaster and Zenger
Mar22 Trump Wants U.S. To Recognize Israeli Ownership of Golan Heights
Mar22 Trump-McCain Feud Continues
Mar22 New Zealand Bans Assault Rifles
Mar22 Times, They May Be A Changin' at Fox News
Mar22 Today's Skeleton-in-the-closet News: Amy Klobuchar's Prosecutorial Record
Mar22 "Fredo" Trump Lectures the British on How Things Are
Mar22 Democratic Presidential Candidate of the Week: Andrew Yang
Mar21 Trump: Let the Public See Mueller's Report
Mar21 Hicks May Sing Like a Canary
Mar21 Trump Escalates Feuds with Conway, Ghost of McCain
Mar21 "Mick the Knife" about to Lose "Acting" Tag
Mar21 Germans Not Enthused about Trump's Ambassador
Mar21 Sanders Criticized for New Hire
Mar21 Thursday Q&A
Mar20 Cohen Picture Gets Bigger, Clearer
Mar20 Trump Heads to Ohio
Mar20 Nadler Gets Some of the Documents He Wants
Mar20 Politicians vs. Tech, Part I: The Democrats
Mar20 Politicians vs. Tech, Part II: The Republicans
Mar20 Republicans Think Whites Are Discriminated Against; Democrats Disagree
Mar20 Eric Giddens Wins
Mar19 Trump Gone Wild
Mar19 Deutsche Bank Loaned Trump $2 Billion
Mar19 Trump Administration Wants to Strike Back at Student Loans
Mar19 Trump 2020's Advantages
Mar19 O'Rourke's Launch Goes Well in Some Ways, Not Others
Mar19 A Not-so-average Joe
Mar19 What Is Going on With Steve King?
Mar18 Biden's First Gaffe of This Cycle: I'm Running
Mar18 Gillibrand is Definitely Running
Mar18 Trump Starts Deep in the Hole for 2020
Mar18 Trump Bashes McCain
Mar18 Sanders Bashes Trump
Mar18 Washington State Senate Passes a Bill Requiring Candidates to Release Tax Returns
Mar18 Monday Q&A
Mar16 Trump Issues First Veto
Mar16 Trump Downplays Significance of Mosque Attacks
Mar16 Castro Likely to Mount Senate Bid
Mar16 NC-09 Primary Will Be a Free-for-All
Mar15 Congress Hits Trump With a One-Two Punch
Mar15 Key Mueller Subordinate Departing
Mar15 Trump Creates Some Turbulence for Himself
Mar15 McConnell Will Bring Green New Deal Up for a Vote After Recess
Mar15 Could Omar Face Primary Challenge?
Mar15 Democratic Presidential Candidate of the Week: Stacey Abrams
Mar15 Friday Q&A
Mar14 Manafort Has a Big Problem
Mar14 Crunch Time for Senate Republicans
Mar14 Majority of Voters Oppose Trump's Emergency Declaration