A Covid Mystery
Covid Outbreak ‘Extremely Grim’ in Shanghai
Covid Relief Bill Delayed Again
Amazon Workers’ Union Victory Energizes Labor
Noem’s Vision Focuses More on Reagan Than Trump
63 Republicans Vote Against Pro-NATO Resolution
• Republican AGs Sue over Border Policy
• A Tale of Two Representatives
• The Truth about TRUTH Social
• Maryland Has Its Maps
• March... Sadness, Part VII (Executive Branch, Round 3)
Admittedly, this is not the boldest prediction we've ever made. In fact, all we had to do was read the headlines to know, to a virtual certainty, that later this week, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson will become the 116th person appointed to serve on the United States Supreme Court, by a margin of about five votes.
To a large degree, Jackson's confirmation has been a certainty for weeks (or months), and the Senate hearings were nothing more than kabuki theater. In terms of résumé, Jackson is surely in the 90th percentile for Supreme Court nominees. She has an impeccable academic record, extensive service as a public defender, and extensive service as a judge. If she's not qualified, then just about nobody is qualified. Perhaps more importantly, given the way modern politics works, she was subjected to two intensive dirt-digging/skeleton-searching campaigns. The first of these was courtesy of the Democrats, who did not want any Kavanaugh-style surprises. The second of these was courtesy of the Republicans, who desperately wanted to spring a Kavanaugh-style surprise on Jackson. The fact that neither side's oppo researchers came up with anything tells you that she's as clean as a whistle.
What this means is that none of the 50 Democrats in the Senate had any reason to vote against Jackson (and if they had any concerns, the time to share those was many weeks ago). So, you knew—and we pointed out several times—that by the time the Senate Judiciary Committee commenced hearings, the only remaining questions were: (1) Would the Republican members of the Committee be able to score any political points through smears on the nominee?, and (2) Would any Republicans be persuaded to vote for her? Yes, it is technically possible that if Jackson had utterly botched the hearings, she might have derailed her nomination. But she's too smart for that and, besides, is it really possible to botch a confirmation hearing worse than Brett Kavanaugh botched his? And he was approved, of course.
As of Monday, we have pretty good answers to both of those questions. Based on polling, it does not appear that Sens. Ted Cruz (R-TX), Josh Hawley (R-MO), Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Tom Cotton (R-AR) did any damage to Jackson, or did themselves any real good. In fact, with his low blows and his petulant behavior, Cruz may have made himself even more unlikable, assuming that is possible. Meanwhile, we also know that Jackson is going to get three Republican votes. Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) came out in support of the nominee last week. And yesterday, Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Mitt Romney (R-UT) did the same. That means that, compared to her appointment to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, Jackson lost Graham's vote and picked up Romney's.
This weekend, we were taken to task by reader C.C. in Nashville for describing Romney as "spineless" and a "jellyfish." Certainly, in view of the Senator's support for Jackson, that remark appears particularly prescient. However, let us explain our meaning. Dante wrote:
"Master, what is it that I hear? Who are those people so defeated by their pain?"
And he to me: "This miserable way is taken by the sorry souls of those who lived without disgrace and without praise.
"They now commingle with the coward angels, the company of those who were not rebels nor faithful to their God, but stood apart."
This has been distilled, first by Theodore Roosevelt, and later by John F. Kennedy, into: "The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis."
The common problem with Romney—although not this time—is that he often makes clear he believes in X, but he nonetheless votes for Y, with X usually being some version of going against his party, and Y being what Donald Trump wants or what Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) wants. If a politician wants to do what they think is right, then they should do what they think is right, particularly if they are bulletproof (as Romney is). And if they want to be a party man (or woman), or they want to be a Trumper, then that is their right, too. But by saying one thing and yet voting the opposite, the politician is essentially trying to have it both ways. That is the sort of cowardice that Dante was talking about, and it's the sort of cowardice we were talking about.
Anyhow, while Romney is not guilty of this particular offense right now, several of his colleagues certainly are. For example, Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO), who is retiring this year and who no longer needs to "play politics," conceded that Jackson is "qualified," and that her appointment will be "historic" and a "high point" for the court, but said that he won't vote for her. Or there's Graham, who is ten times the jellyfish that Romney is, and who has been twisting himself into pretzels to explain why he voted to confirm Jackson a year ago, but why she's now "too radical" and "an activist judge."
With 50 Democrats (or possibly 49, if Alex Padilla of California can't get back to Washington in time), and the three Republicans, Jackson's confirmation is secure, and she'll be approved 53 or 52 to 47. As to the timeline, the Judiciary Committee voted on the nomination yesterday and deadlocked 11-11 as expected. Under the rules that currently govern the 50 (plus the VP)-to-50 Senate, that meant that the upper chamber had to hold a procedural vote to advance the nomination, which it did yesterday afternoon. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said that he will be able to bring Jackson's nomination up for a final vote on Thursday or Friday, and so by the end of the week she should have her commission. Fin. (Z)
Between 1944 and 1946, Congress passed a group of laws dealing with public health, social welfare, and civil rights that became Title 42 of the United States Code. During the Trump years, someone—and our money is on Stephen Miller—took a gander at the code and noticed that Chapter 6A, Subchapter II, includes this passage:
Whenever the Surgeon General determines that by reason of the existence of any communicable disease in a foreign country there is serious danger of the introduction of such disease into the United States, and that this danger is so increased by the introduction of persons or property from such country that a suspension of the right to introduce such persons and property is required in the interest of the public health, the Surgeon General, in accordance with regulations approved by the President, shall have the power to prohibit, in whole or in part, the introduction of persons and property from such countries or places as he shall designate in order to avert such danger, and for such period of time as he may deem necessary for such purpose.
In March 2020, the Trump White House announced that this policy would be deployed, in view of the COVID-19 pandemic, in order to expel asylum-seekers. Because these were expulsions, legally speaking, rather than deportations, the asylum-seekers were not afforded their day in court, and thus an opportunity to make a case for being allowed to stay in the United States. The policy was vastly more effective at cutting down on immigration than any wall, real or imagined.
For its first year in office, the Biden administration has maintained the Trump-era policy. But, now that the country is pretending that the pandemic is over, the White House has announced that the policy will be repealed. However, ostensibly in order to give people time to get vaccinated, the repeal will not take effect until May 23.
Predictably—and we kinda guess the White House was expecting this—several red-state AGs have filed suit to keep the policy in place. Specifically, the AGs of Arizona, Louisiana, and Missouri, which raises the obvious question: What happened to the AGs of Texas and Florida? In any event, the suit was filed in Louisiana, which means the Fifth Circuit will hear it. The Fifth Circuit is notoriously conservative, which may just have occurred to the plaintiffs. Their argument is the standard one in these cases, namely that immigrants are icky and scary. Oh, wait, no, they didn't say that part out loud. No, their argument is that the Biden administration did not follow the proper procedures in making this particular decision.
It's no surprise that a bunch of Republican AGs took advantage of a high-profile opportunity to perform anti-immigrant sentiment. And we're sure it's just a coincidence that two of those AGs (Eric Schmitt in Missouri and Mark Brnovich in Arizona) are trying for a promotion to U.S. Senator this year, while the other AG (Jeff Landry in Louisiana) is expected to try for the governor's mansion next year. Undoubtedly, the three men were just doing their duty, and if they just so happen to attract more support for their runs for high office, then that's the way the cookie crumbles.
In any event, we can't help but wonder if the White House was not secretly a bit happy at the news of the lawsuit. On one hand, the Democratic base does not generally approve of a strongly anti-immigration policy. That is particularly true of the Mexican-American voters the blue team craves. On the other hand, immigration—documented or undocumented—is one of the Republicans' most potent weapons. And then there's also the issue that every new arrival in the U.S. could possibly be carrying some new variant of COVID.
The point is, the Biden administration kept this policy in place—and even defended it in court—for a reason (or reasons). Maybe it's the reason(s) we listed, maybe it's some other reason(s). However, by trying to rescind the policy, and then getting blocked by some persnickety Republicans, Team Biden might have the best of both worlds, politically. The administration can avoid the anti-immigrant label heading into the midterms, while also avoiding the potential political baggage that might arise from a large number of actual immigrants coming into the country. (Z)
Reps. Madison Cawthorn (R-NC) and Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) have much in common. They are, in effect, professional provocateurs who support their careers with the paycheck they "earn" from serving in Congress. They are both severely truth-challenged, are both prone to bigotry of various sorts, are both obsessed with their own victimhood, and are both more than willing to violate Ronald Reagan's 11th Commandment, and to throw their Republican colleagues under the bus when it serves their needs. And it serves their needs often, apparently.
At this point, you've probably heard about Cawthorn's latest. He was on a right-wing podcast, and declared:
The sexual perversion that goes on in Washington ... being kind of a young guy in Washington, where the average age is probably 60 or 70—[you] look at all these people, a lot of them that I've looked up to through my life, I've always paid attention to politics. Then, all of a sudden you get invited—"We're going to have a sexual get-together at one of our homes, you should come." ... What did you just ask me to come to? And then you realize they're asking you to come to an orgy. ... Some of the people leading on the movement to try and remove addiction in our country, and then you watch them do a key bump of cocaine right in front of you. And it's like, this is wild.
As he was spinning these tales, it apparently did not occur to Cawthorn that: (1) the folks he's talking about don't generally come across as the orgiastic type, and (2) his claim that he saw cocaine being consumed strongly implies that he accepted at least one of these hypothetical orgy invites.
Meanwhile, Greene's latest—at least, as of this writing, although with her there could be some new offense by the time you read this—is her first reelection ad, which you can watch, if you are a glutton for punishment:
Marge Green puts out her first campaign video since filing for re-election, and it’s straight QAnon/New World Order conspiracy stuff. Interestingly, she includes Mike Pompeo and Lindsey Graham along with the usual suspects. pic.twitter.com/uv9DrulgoV— Ron Filipkowski (@RonFilipkowski) March 31, 2022
As you can see, it's not only nutty, it accuses fellow Republicans Mike Pompeo and Lindsey Graham of being part of the Illuminati, or Trilateral Commission, or Deep State, or Village People, or something. Oh, and literally while we were writing this paragraph, she did indeed come up with a new offense against the members of her party, accusing any senator who votes for Ketanji Brown Jackson (in other words, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, and Mitt Romney) of being pro-pedophile. Hope that trio likes pizza.
In short, both Cawthorn and Greene are wildly out of line, and have made the Joseph McCarthy error of turning their paranoia and their lies against members of their own party. But while Greene continues to suffer no real blowback for her bad behavior, the Republicans are out for blood when in comes to Cawthorn. This week, one of the senators endorsed someone in a House race. Happens all the time, right, so what's the big deal? But the senator in question is Thom Tillis (R-NC) and he has endorsed state Sen. Chuck Edwards (R) who is challenging Cawthorn in the Republican primaries. That's right, Cawthorn is so toxic, even to Republicans, that his own senator is trying to get rid of him. That's a big deal. It doesn't happen very often.
On making the endorsement, Tillis explained: "The 11th Congressional District deserves a congressman who is fully dedicated to serving their constituents. Unfortunately, Madison Cawthorn has fallen well short of the most basic standards Western North Carolina expects from their representatives, and voters now have several well-qualified candidates to choose from who would be a significant improvement. I believe Chuck Edwards is the best choice."
In other words, it's not like Edwards is special in some way. It's that Cawthorn has to go and Edwards just happens to be the best one of the challengers. If Edwards were to drop out, Tillis would automatically go for the next best challenger. Either way, Cawthorn has to go.
It is true that the North Carolina representative has been on something of a run, lately. In addition to the offenses already discussed, Cawthorn has called Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy a "thug" and the Ukrainian government corrupt and woke. There's certainly some truth in the "corrupt" part, as former ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch pointed out (and was fired for doing so). But woke? Zelenskyy is woke? You can't make this stuff up. Unless you are Cawthorn, in which case you can and do make this stuff up.
And Tillis isn't the only prominent Tar Heel Republican who has had it with Cawthorn, either. The other North Carolina senator, Richard Burr (R-NC), has called Cawthorn an "embarrassment." Kevin McCarthy said of Cawthorn: "I'm very disappointed. I told him he's lost my trust. He's lost my trust. He's going to have to earn it back." Cawthorn hasn't lost the primary yet, but it is never helpful to have both of your senators and the party leader of the House being against you.
What interests us, beyond the fact that Cawthorn's race could get hairy, is: Why isn't Greene getting the same treatment? She's surely as bad as Cawthorn, right? This question has also interested other commentators, including CNN's Chris Cillizza, who wrote a piece headlined "The *real* reason so many Republicans are mad at Madison Cawthorn " and Politico's Elena Schor, who wrote one headlined "Why Cawthorn got more GOP blowback than MTG." They are basically in agreement, concluding that Cawthorn attacks Republicans more directly than Greene does. For example, Schor writes: "Greene, [Rep Lauren] Boebert [R-CO] and [Rep. Paul] Gosar [R-AZ] don't antagonize their fellow Republicans as broadly and directly. Greene has occasionally slammed her own in the GOP, but she reserves her harshest rhetoric for Democrats, as do Boebert and Gosar."
Maybe that's all there is to it, but we suspect there are a couple of other dynamics in play, too. We would suggest that the current state of Republican politics is such that Greene's lies, her embrace of kooky conspiracy theories, her flirtations with white supremacism, and her antisemitism are not deal-breakers, but Cawthorn's claims are. Conservatives have been obsessed with drug abuse and with policing sexual morality for generations, back to when the Democrats were the conservative party (and thus the morality police). Accusing other Republicans of misdeeds in terms of sexual conduct/drug use crosses a line that is not terribly easy to cross (accusing a fellow Republican of having a secret abortion, or of being a closet Muslim might do it, though—Cawthorn ought to give these a try).
The other dynamic, we would posit, is that politicians are sharks, and they feed on the weak. Greene is basically untouchable, since many in the Republican conference think she's speaking truth to power, and since she comes from a district that's more red than a delicious apple. On the other hand, Cawthorn's district is considerably less red, which means his far-right politics aren't a great match. He's vulnerable to an establishment Republican, like Chuck Edwards. In other words, when it's necessary to thin the herd, you start with the weakest elephant.
In any event, that congressional race (Cawthorn and Edwards are running in NC-11) is going to be a barnburner. The primary is theoretically going to take place on May 17, though dickering over maps could cause that to be postponed. (Z & V)
TRUTH Social, Donald Trump's social media website, has been pretty much as disastrous as everyone expected. After a moderately successful rollout, in which about 800,000 people downloaded the app, it's all been downhill. The site is buggy, has been offline several times, is populated by many users whose goal is to make trouble and to embarrass Trump, and still doesn't have enough capacity to enroll all the users who were put on a waitlist 6 weeks ago. Other issues:
- The iOS app is down to about 60,000 downloads per week. By contrast, the app "Wordle!" is averaging around 500,000
downloads per week. That is despite the fact that "Wordle"—the famous one that was recently acquired by The New
York Times, doesn't even have an app; it's web only. The "Wordle!" app is 6 years old, and just happened to have the
same name as the popular word game (except with an exclamation point added). Maybe if Trump had named his app KARDASHIAN
Social, he'd be doing better.
- Meanwhile, the TRUTH Social Android app is doing even worse; it's averaging zero downloads per week. That is because
it does not yet exist.
- Downloads, of course, do not always translate into sign-ups, especially when the site can't handle new users and
puts them on a waiting list. As a consequence of these various issues, TRUTH is just the
35th most used
social media app. That puts it behind the Facebooks and Instagrams of the world, of course, but also behind platforms
you might not have heard about, like Line, QZone, Triller, and Viber. And no, the Q in QZone isn't that Q.
- The funding that paid for the platform, achieved through a maneuver called a Special Purpose Acquisition Company,
is under investigation
by the SEC.
- On Monday, several key staffers quit their jobs. That includes TRUTH's chief technology officer, Josh Adams, its chief legal officer, Lori Heyer-Bednar, and its head of product development Billy Boozer. That last departure does not bode well for the development of that as-yet-vaporware Android app.
There are many, many problems with TRUTH Social, such that success was always a longshot. Perhaps the most visible one, however, and the one that is seemingly most fixable, is this: Donald Trump doesn't use the platform. He's sent one TRUTH, and that was before the platform went public. He is literally the only selling point that TRUTH has, and if he's not going to use the platform, then there's nothing to see here. It's like the website Garfield Minus Garfield:
Without the orange-hued star, it's just not the same.
So, how come Trump doesn't use his own platform? He's not saying, of course, but we have a couple of ideas. The first possibility is that he doesn't like to be associated with losers, even if the loser is... Donald Trump. If so, he's created something of a Catch-22. He doesn't want to use the platform to avoid embarrassment when it fails. But if he doesn't use it, it's guaranteed to fail.
The other possibility, and the one the SEC is looking into, is that this was all just a scam to fleece the rubes, and Trump has gotten what he wanted out of it. Here's the stock price for Digital World Acquisition Corporation, the SPAC that funded TRUTH Social:
As you can see, those who got in at the beginning, like Trump, made a pretty penny. Since then, there was a brief period of "break even" time if you got in at the peak, but mostly it's been downhill. And in the last month, the price has dropped by one-third. Given the problems outlined above, would you want to bet your money that it's going to do anything other than sink further and further? We wouldn't.
One cannot help but contrast this with the news, which broke Monday, that after threatening to build his own social media platform several times, Elon Musk bought a 9.2% stake in Twitter. Since he made the purchase last month, he's realized gains of several hundred million dollars. This may be a case study in what happens when an actual billionaire with actual business acumen decides to actually get serious about investing in social media.
In any event, barring a near-miraculous turnaround, TRUTH Social is headed toward irrelevance (assuming it hasn't already arrived at that destination). And so, we expect to write just one more item about the platform, the one in which we note that, as expected, it has been shut down. (Z)
Last week, as we noted, a Maryland judge tossed the district map that the Democratic-controlled legislature had passed, and then re-passed over Gov. Larry Hogan's (R-MD) veto. The issue was that the map, which was a clear gerrymander, featured districts that were something less than compact, which is a violation of state law.
As a consequence of this, the legislature went back to the drawing board and came up with a map that is... less gerrymandered. There's only so much to be done, since Maryland is pretty blue, and most of the Republicans live in the eastern portion of the state (the part that borders Delaware). It would appear that Maryland Republicans are satisfied, as most of them said that this map is a significant improvement over the last one. And yesterday, Hogan signed off on it. Presumably, the governor's approval, not to mention the looming deadlines for the state's primaries (April 15 for candidate filing, July 19 for the primary election) will forestall any further lawsuits, and this will be the final map.
Under the map that was struck down, Maryland would have had seven deep blue Democratic districts and one Republican-but-competitive district (MD-01, represented by Republican Andy Harris). Under the new map, the state will have four deep blue Democratic districts, two that are solidly Democratic, one toss-up, and one deep red Republican district. Barring unusual circumstances, then, a map that would have produced a 7D, 1R delegation will now produce either 7D, 1R or 6D, 2R. So, the Republicans basically squeezed half a seat out of their lawsuit. Not bad for a week's work. (Z)
And we move on to the round of 16:
- #1 Former president Donald Trump (90.3%) defeats #9 Former vice president Dick Cheney (9.7%)
Our Take: It takes a special kind of person to outpoll Dick Cheney 9-to-1. Although it is clear that the (slightly less than) 10% who voted for Cheney really dislike him; most of the comments we got on this matchup emphasized how venal he is.
A.R. in Los Angeles, CA: I went back and forth about this myself, but in the end chose Cheney. It's not easy to compare the depravity of these two men, but Cheney was a key architect of the Iraq War and has the blood of so many of our soldiers on his hands, not to mention that of the men, women and children of the country he invaded. The former veep seems so much more calculating and malevolent, and he relished working behind the scenes to destroy anything and everything he could.
D.R. in Puebla, Mexico: I have to confess that I picked Dick Cheney over Donald Trump in this round. I can't stress enough how much damage the Bush-Cheney administration did to the international reputation of the United States due to the illegal invasion of Iraq under false allegations and the torture of prisoners under their authority.
I may be young, but I remember how Hugo Chávez mobilized the Venezuelan people—and the people of Latin America in general—against the U.S. due to its blatant display of imperialism. That's how the ALCA proposal—the free trade treaty that was supposed to unite the whole continent—was defeated in Mar del Plata, Argentina, in 2005. And speaking of Chávez, it is worth nothing that Cheney's war in Iraq caused oil prices to rise to the clouds during the 2000s, allowing Chávez to hold on to power during the 2004 recall. So, the 7 million Venezuelans—including myself—who left our country since 1998 can thank Dick Cheney for his service.
And don't get me started on the humanitarian tragedy of the millions of people from Iraq and Syria who fled due to the general misery and, eventually, ISIS—which fueled terrorism, mass immigration to Europe and... wait for it... the election of Donald Trump.
In short, Dick Cheney is indeed The Devil.
D.E. in Lancaster, PA: Looking at the contests in this round, they are truly a hive of scum and villainy! Which is an apt segue into The Orange Emperor with No Clothes vs Darth Cheney. Of course I voted for Lord Treasonweasel, but I came to my decision through the Star Wars mythos. In The Return of the Jedi, even the evil Darth Vader had a line that he wouldn't or couldn't cross, namely killing his son. Does anyone really think that the Screaming Carrot Demon would hesitate for one second if a chance to sell Don Jr. or Eric into slavery in exchange for a Bucket of KFC presented itself? It is going to be very hard to beat the Short-Fingered Vulgarian!
- #13 Postmaster General Louis DeJoy (95.5%) defeats #12 First Son Hunter Biden (4.5%)
Our Take: DeJoy's Cinderella story continues, though we suspect it's about to come to a grinding halt. In any event, by virtue of this bracket attracting the most votes, and DeJoy's winning in a walk, the Postmaster General actually got the most votes of any person in this round of voting, with 3,219. Even Donald Trump Sr. got "only" 3,042.
D.E. in Lancaster, PA: I still say Hunter Biden is just another in a long line of presidential near-of-kin who have tried to ride their famous relative's coattails for as long as they can. Then there's DeJoy, who is just a hack and nothing more. The fact that he will advance in the brackets makes him the equivalent of this year's Saint Peter's, if you were to remove their pluck, determination and personality and replace it with a scowling bag of year-long unwashed socks soaked in vinegar.
A.P. in Bloomington, IN: I pick Cheney, DeJoy, and Kushner over their opposites on the basis that they appeared to be competently evil while the alternatives were incompetently evil.
R.K. in Chicago, IL: I said it in the first round and I'll say it again: Hunter Biden does not belong here. While I believe that DeJoy was more of a minor terror from the Trump White House—it was more about inconveniencing average Americans and throwing up a big middle finger at an agency long despised by conservatives and those employed by said agency—DeJoy was a terror nonetheless.
- #11 Former first son Donald Trump Jr. (62%) defeats #14 Former White House senior adviser Jared Kushner (38%)
Our Take: The prodigal son defeats the prodigal son-in-law. Guess the a**hole doesn't fall far from the tree.
S.K. in Fort Collins, CO: Both of these should have gone in the first round. Trump Junior is nothing more than a self-proclaimed cheerleader for his father. Although Kushner was assigned several roles by his father-in-law, he was ineffective and relatively useless in all of them.
D.M. in Wimberley, TX: The Donald Jr. vs. Jared Kushner? The coke-addled, raving, incoherent, attack dog has done less actual damage, and it's at least possible to feel some compassion for someone who surely suffered deep psychological childhood trauma, On the other hand, the son-in-law willingly married into the family and then, in the course of monetizing his connection to the Monster of Mar-A-Lago, turned everything he touched to sh*t. So, I'm going to have to go with him. I really hate thinking about either of these guys for more than a second.
R.K. in Chicago, IL: The namesake or the "Secretary of Everything"? Easy. The "Secretary of Everything," incompetent at all the tasks given to him. The younger Trump was a loud, abrasive mouthpiece for his father but his impact during his father's administration was slight, especially compared to his brother-in-law.
- #15 Former attorney general William Barr (60.9%) defeats #7 Former president George W. Bush (39.1%)
Our Take: And so the 43rd presidential administration is eliminated from the bracket. There will be no Bush and no Dick going forward.
E.W. in Skaneateles, NY: The hardest matchup for me during this round was George W. Bush vs. Bill Barr. As noted by previous commenters, Barr is still sort of politically active whereas Dubya is no longer in politics so his potential for future damage is more limited. However, Dubya "wins" for me for three reasons, all of which are relevant today: (1) Florida 2000, (2) the horribly unnecessary Iraq invasion and "enhanced interrogation" led us to squander any goodwill and sympathy we got from the tragedy of 9/11, and (3) the lack of forceful action on climate change during the 2000s, which set us back significantly and will lead to untold misery for us and future generations.
S.Z. in Parma, OH: Evil begets evil. Barr as attorney general covered up Iran-Contra, and probably withheld evidence that would have ended Bush the First. This would have stopped either Bush from occupying the presidency.
D.E. in Lancaster, PA: The Worm vs Wormtongue? I can think of a million reasons why W needs and deserves to advance, but then I just see Barr with his Droopy Dog face, slouched shoulders, subservient downcast eyes trudging faithfully along one and a half steps behind his Lord and Master—the perfectly modern picture of the Lickspittle Lackey. Even after selling out his boss for a few ducats and seeing the chaos and incompetency firsthand, without batting an eye Barr said that he would vote for Trump again. Like the bottom feeder he is, Barr is ever alert, sniffing for tidbits left on the ground. Disgusting.
The Executive Branch bracket now looks like this:
Here is the ballot for this round of voting:
This round of voting runs until Monday, April 11, at noon. As always, comments on the matchups are welcomed. (Z & V).
If you wish to contact us, please use one of these addresses. For the first two, please include your initials and city.
- firstname.lastname@example.org For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
- email@example.com For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
- firstname.lastname@example.org To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
- email@example.com For general suggestions, ideas, etc.
To download a poster about the site to hang up, please click here.
Email a link to a friend or share:
---The Votemaster and Zenger
Apr04 Ukraine War Is Dividing the Republicans
Apr04 Select Committee Is Studying Gapology
Apr04 A New Way for Trump to Steal the 2024 Election
Apr04 Georgia Republicans Are Panicking about Walker
Apr04 Jen Psaki Will Leave Her Job as Press Secretary
Apr04 Sarah Palin is Running for Congress against Santa Claus
Apr04 Fox News Has Its Presidential Candidate Already
Apr04 Orban Wins in Hungary
Apr03 Sunday Mailbag
Apr02 Saturday Q&A
Apr01 Biden Gives Americans Gas
Apr01 About Those Trump vs. Biden Polls...
Apr01 Judges Smack New York Democrats, Florida Republicans
Apr01 FEC Smacks Hillary Clinton, DNC
Apr01 This Week in Schadenfreude
Apr01 March... Sadness, Part VI (Others, Round 2)
Mar31 Brooks May Change Select Committee's Focus
Mar31 Collins Will Vote to Confirm Jackson
Mar31 Trump Continues to Court Putin
Mar31 State of the State Gerrymanders
Mar31 What Is Pompeo Running for?
Mar31 Will California Voters Bet on Gambling in November?
Mar31 New Missouri Senate Candidate Is in Trouble on Day 1
Mar31 March... Sadness, Part V (The Legislative Branch, Round 2)
Mar30 Haven't We Heard This Story Before? The Case of the Missing Phone Calls
Mar30 So Much for That Billionaires' Tax
Mar30 Clarence and Ginni Thomas Are Giving Both Parties Headaches
Mar30 There's No "There" There, Part I: The 2024 GOP Field
Mar30 There's No "There" There, Part II: Debate Dodging
Mar30 DeSantis Vetoes Florida Map
Mar29 Biden's Budget...Better?
Mar29 Biden's in the Poll-drums...
Mar29 ...But Ketanji Brown Jackson Isn't
Mar29 The Walls Close in on Trump Just a Little More, Part I
Mar29 The Walls Close in on Trump Just a Little More, Part II
Mar29 And Cruz May Be in Trouble, Too
Mar29 About This Weekend
Mar28 Biden's Trip: A Success, but the War is Ongoing
Mar28 Biden's Sanctions Are Working
Mar28 What Would Happen If Russia Launched a Cyberwar?
Mar28 Biden Proposes New Tax on Billionaires
Mar28 Biden Defaults on Student Loan Promise
Mar28 Judge Throws Out Maryland Map
Mar28 Trump May Be Sorry He Dumped Brooks...
Mar28 ... And He May Also Be Sorry He Hasn't Dumped David Perdue
Mar28 Fortenberry Quits
Mar25 Will Jackson Get Any Republican Votes?
Mar25 Russian Military Leaders Won't Talk to Milley and Austin
Mar25 Biden Wants to Kick Russia Out of the G-20
Mar25 Biden: U.S. Will Accept 100,000 Ukrainian Refugees
Mar25 Virginia Thomas Pushed Meadows to Overturn the 2020 Election
Mar25 Prosecutor Who Left the Manhattan D.A.'s Office Says Trump Committed Felonies