Main page    Sep. 24


Previous | Next | Senate races | Menu

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

---

Grijalva Wins

In a result that should surprise absolutely nobody, Adelita Grijalva (D), daughter of the late Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ), won the right to replace her father in the House yesterday. Even by the standards of a D+13 district, the result was a laugher, with Grijalva beating her Republican opponent by nearly 39 points, 68.5% to 29.8%.

With such a closely divided House, the most important implication of this election would usually be its impact on the very thin Republican majority. Certainly that IS important; Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) is now down to a 219-214 majority, which means he can afford just two defections (assuming every member votes, and every Democrat votes along party lines). Three Republicans plus the Democrats means a 217-216 loss for whatever bill is under consideration. Things will not improve for the Speaker anytime soon; when an election is held on Nov. 4 to replace the deceased Sylvester Turner in the D+21 TX-18, it will be 219-215, which will push Johnson's margin to one defection. On Dec. 2, if the Democrats don't pull an upset in the R+10 TN-07, which Mark Green vacated in order to pursue some wacky financial scheme, the partisan balance will be 220-215, and the margin will be back up to two. So, Johnson's going to be working without much of a net for a long time, and very likely the rest of this Congress.

Still, the most important storyline here isn't the change in partisan balance in the House. It's the Jeffrey Epstein discharge petition that has been jointly filed by Reps. Thomas Massie (R-KY) and Ro Khanna (D-CA). Grijalva, who has already said she will sign, will be the magic 218th signature, clearing the way for the measure to be brought to the floor of the House.

Needless to say, House Republicans do not want to cast votes on whether or not to demand the Epstein files from the Department of Justice. If they vote in favor of the measure, they aggravate a president who bears grudges and likes to punish his "enemies" with primary challenges. If they vote against the measure, they will aggravate many voters (including many Republicans) who want the files released. They will also give ammunition to their 2026 opponents, who will say: Why do you want to protect a disgusting pedophile like Jeffrey Epstein? Are you part of the Epstein conspiracy?

There are ways that Trump and/or Johnson could try to head this off at the pass. First, if they can persuade at least one of the 218 people to withdraw their signatures, or to vote against the measure when it comes to the floor, then that would be the easiest option. However, the 214 Democrats are firm, and so is Massie. That leaves Reps. Lauren Boebert (R-CO), Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) and Nancy Mace (R-SC). Of those three, Mace is probably the only potential defector; she's running for governor in South Carolina right now, and if Trump threatened to endorse one of her primary opponents, Mace might fold. That said, Massie has insisted that all of the Republican signatories are not backing down. Also, if Mace (or one of the others) does defect, he might be able to find another signer, particularly among members who are leaving the House anyhow (Chip Roy?).

If the 218 votes remain solid, and Johnson/Trump cannot make a dent, then Johnson has a couple of procedural tricks he could try to pull out of his sleeve. The House Committee on Rules could vote to table the matter, which would stop it from coming to the floor. However, that Committee has been bucking Johnson's wishes on a regular basis, and Chair Virginia Foxx (R-NC) already said she's not going to bail Johnson out here.

The other procedural trick would be to attach a rider linking the discharge petition to some other piece of must-pass Republican legislation. Johnson used the maneuver a couple of months ago to try to kill the discharge petition brought by Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL), regarding proxy voting. The Speaker was partly successful, as his maneuvering bought him some time to negotiate a compromise. However, this trickery angered many Republicans, who did not like being effectively blackmailed into supporting Johnson's position.

If Trump and Johnson are not able to pull a rabbit out of their hair, then privileged-motion votes usually happen on the second and fourth Monday evenings of the month. It will take a few days for Grijalva's certification of election to be completed, and for her to be formally sworn in and seated. However, she will certainly be in place by early October. What it boils down to is: You might want to tune in to C-SPAN around 6:00 p.m. ET on Monday, October 13.

Truth be told, if we were Johnson, we would think seriously about trying to arrange for a vote by acclamation. If the measure is going to pass anyhow, that would allow the Republicans to avoid casting individual votes. It would aggravate Trump, but he's much better at going after a handful of targets, as opposed to 219 of them.

Assuming the measure passes the House, then it will head to the Senate, where the 53 Republican senators will face the same dilemma as their House colleagues. Most of them are not up for reelection next year, so that might make them more willing to buck Trump, but it might also make them more willing to tell their voters "tough luck." Nobody's really been asking the senators how they might vote, so we just don't know. The filibuster is also in play, of course, though it's very possible there are 13 Republican votes to go with the 47 Democrats and independents to defeat such a measure.

Should the measure pass the Senate, that's the ballgame—no need for a presidential signature for this kind of measure. At that point, we would guess the Department of Justice would stonewall, and then it would be up to Congress to decide whether or not to do something about that. Either way, this drama is far from over, and the EpsteinYZ Affair is not going away.

On that point, someone put up a statue on the National Mall yesterday:

It shows Trump and Epstein, and the title (as indicated by the plaque) is "Friends Forever." This sort of thing enrages Trump and also damages him politically, so it's going to continue for the foreseeable future, no matter what Congress does, or does not do. (Z)

Kimmel Returns

More than a few commenters wrote that Jimmy Kimmel's monologue, for his first show back after being suspended, would be the most hotly anticipated monologue in late-night history. Though it's not too easy to knock Johnny Carson's final monologue off that throne, those commenters might have been correct.

If you did not see it—say, you live in an area where the local affiliates are owned by Sinclair or Nexstar—and you would like to, it is here:

Not unexpectedly, it was a longer monologue than usual. And it's fair to say that Kimmel lived up to the very high expectations that were placed upon him. At times, he was very emotional, particularly when he said he lamented the death of a young man who had his life in front of him. Several minutes later, Kimmel again teared up when he said how moved he was, as a practicing Christian, that Erika Kirk forgave her husband's killer.

There was also, as one would expect, an extended soapbox-y commentary on the First Amendment, and how it's important to protect free speech, even of those we disagree with. Kimmel thanked those who disagree with him but still stood up for him, in particular singling out Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX). That is presumably the first, and last, time that Cruz will be thanked on that particular program.

The monologue also had a fair number of zingers at the expense of Donald Trump and his administration. The biggest laugh of the evening came when the show played a clip of Trump badmouthing Kimmel and, characteristically, sniffing that Kimmel doesn't get ratings. The shot then cut back to Kimmel, who said: "I will tonight." It brought down the house. Clearly, the host is not going to be cowed by Don Trump and his capo Brendan Carr.

The somewhat interesting question is: Did Kimmel apologize? If an apology must include the word "sorry," or some variant/synonym thereof, then the answer is "no." However, the host did make very clear that he never intended to make light of anyone's death, and that, again, he is heartbroken by what happened. Truth be told, it was considerably more compelling than many "I'm sorry" apologies, the ones that are obviously compulsory, and that are clearly not coming from the heart. One comment we saw is that Trump's eulogy for Kirk in Arizona could be compared to how a four-year-old mourns his dead goldfish.

As we note above, Sinclair and Nexstar affiliates did not air the show, as they are still boycotting Kimmel. That means that a lot of people in red states are cut off from the program, but so too are people in Washington, DC; Portland, OR; Seattle, WA and a host of other decidedly not-red places. If the leadership of those two companies wants to keep posturing, they could certainly say "We didn't hear 'I'm sorry'" and use that to justify a continuance of their current policy.

That said, the bigwigs at those two corporations might want to think carefully about making this their exit ramp, and determining that Kimmel has done enough to make amends. Certainly, there are some downsides for them if they keep holding out. The first of those is that they have some unhappy customers, not to mention late-night programming that is less profitable (and more expensive, since they have to license it themselves) than Kimmel's show. The second is that Sinclair, in particular, prefers to fly under the radar. The more they draw attention to the amount of control that a few rich, white guys in suits have over what people can and cannot see, the more uncomfortable things could become.

Third, and probably most important, affiliate contracts place a limit on how many times the affiliate can preempt network programming (for the obvious reason that the networks sell commercial time based on how many viewers they get nationwide). If Nexstar/Sinclair reach their limits (and they could do so very soon), then they could be at the mercy of ABC/Disney. Maybe ABC/Disney decides this is not a hill worth dying on, but... probably not, since cutting off 10-15% of potential viewers is not too good for the bottom line. Should ABC/Disney decide to lay down the law, the corporation would be within its rights to cancel the affiliate contracts, leaving Sinclair/Nexstar without programming for much of the day. And while those companies would not be sad to lose Kimmel's show, obviously, they would really hate to lose live sports, particularly Monday Night Football.

Moving along, Trump himself was apoplectic that Kimmel is back on the air (and so quickly). This is a clear loss for the President, and a reminder that even if he's willing to abuse his powers, he's really not that strong a strongman. After the episode aired in the eastern time zone, Trump got on his First-Amendment-for-me-but-not-for-thee social media platform, and sent out this delightful message:

I can't believe ABC Fake News gave Jimmy Kimmel his job back. The White House was told by ABC that his Show was cancelled! Something happened between then and now because his audience is GONE, and his "talent" was never there. Why would they want someone back who does so poorly, who's not funny, and who puts the Network in jeopardy by playing 99% positive Democrat GARBAGE. He is yet another arm of the DNC and, to the best of my knowledge, that would be a major Illegal Campaign Contribution. I think we're going to test ABC out on this. Let's see how we do. Last time I went after them, they gave me $16 Million Dollars. This one sounds even more lucrative. A true bunch of losers! Let Jimmy Kimmel rot in his bad Ratings.

Surely there's a point where "Trump threatens/files yet another ridiculous lawsuit" fails to even move the needle, right? And maybe we're already at that point? Trump either does not think through the implications of his words, or he doesn't care, or both, but if presenting somewhat lefty 5-minute monologues four times a week constitutes an illegal campaign contribution, then we have some very, very bad news for the entertainers at Fox. In any event, Disney certainly knew that Trump would be angry, and that he'd think about another shakedown, and yet they put Kimmel back on the air. That suggests to us they are ready to tell the President to shove it, so he should think twice about whether he wants to try to bully them, at risk of getting a black eye.

Certainly, the Kimmel fiasco has done Trump no favors so far. Again, that Disney reversed itself so rapidly makes Trump look weak. There have already been polls, and they show that a large majority of voters (65%-70%) oppose what Trump tried to do. Podcaster Joe Rogan, who is something of a MAGA whisperer, also blasted Trump, saying that his attempt at censorship was "fu**ing crazy."

In short, all indications are that Trump should drop this, and move on. Of course, that is not what he's going to do. (Z)

Trump Goes Nuts

The last few days have been wild, even by the standards of Donald Trump. With another president, each of these stories would at least get its own item. With Trump, just to keep up, we can only do capsules:

• The U.N. Speech: Yesterday, Trump delivered the first U.N. address of his second term. You can watch the whole 57-minute performance here, if you're a real glutton for punishment.
  
  We're gonna have to be blunt here: The speech was an embarrassment. If you are an American, whether you are pro-Trump or not, you should feel shame that this man just spoke to the world on your behalf, and behaved as he did. The first portion of the address was yet another rundown of Trump's "accomplishments," as he patted himself on the back for everything from the Abraham Accords to his having ushered in "the greatest economy in the history of the world." The verbiage was not only over-the-top but, as many observers noticed, it bore a striking resemblance to the stuff that used to come out of communist Russia. Indeed, some folks (e.g., Kamala Harris) have taken to calling Trump a communist dictator, which surely must drive him nuts.
  
  The second part of the speech was pure American chauvinism. Trump alternated between telling the delegates about how the U.S. is the greatest nation in the world, and they should learn from America's example, and telling them how their own countries are sh**holes. Ok, he didn't use that exact word, but he did warn the nations of the world that their countries are "going to hell," primarily because of their immigration and green-energy policies (the latter of which he described as "the greatest con job ever perpetrated"). He also got petty, carped about the fact that the escalator he used to ride up to the assembly hall broke down while he was on it, and pointed out that his company once offered to renovate the U.N. building, and was rebuffed. Presumably, the delegates were supposed to regret turning down his generous offer all those years ago. We suspect that what they were really thinking is that the escalator broke down because Trump pushed it above the weight limit when he stepped on it.
  
  There is simply no excuse for this kind of behavior from any representative of the United States, much less the person who is Head of State. None of this is particularly appropriate material for any sort of public utterance. It's completely inappropriate for that forum. If Joe Biden had pulled that stunt, House Republicans would be drawing up articles of impeachment right now, and they might well be right to do so.
  
  
• Russia: The U.N. performance was not the only "diplomacy" for Trump yesterday. Apparently he has abandoned his plans to win a Nobel Peace Prize, as he got on his formerly-RT-affiliated social media platform, and fired off a long, rambling message in which he slammed Russia as a "paper tiger" and said he hopes Ukraine wins back all the territory it has lost. Later in the day, he appeared on MSNBC, and said that he'd like to see NATO shoot down any Russian jets that venture into NATO airspace. All of this would be a much bigger story if Trump's views on the Russia-Ukraine War were not constantly taking 180-degree turns. That said, such inflammatory rhetoric is not especially likely to advance the cause of peace.
  
  
• The Kirk Memorial: We know this was a couple of days ago, but we wanted to mention it here because the things that Donald Trump said on that day were very impolitic. He declared that, in effect, half of the people he was elected to represent are his enemy. Americans do not like it when politicians say such things.
  
  We also regret that we did not give at least a little attention to the absolutely bonkers remarks that Stephen Miller delivered on that day. He also talked about the enemies within, and although he did not say the word "Democrat" explicitly, his intended target was clear:

  They cannot imagine what they have awakened. They cannot conceive of the army that they have arisen in all of us because we stand for what is good, what is virtuous, what is noble. And to those trying to incite violence against us, those trying to foment hatred against us, what do you have? You have nothing. You are nothing. You are wickedness. You are jealousy. You are envy. You are hatred. You are nothing. You can build nothing. You can produce nothing. You can create nothing.

  Very, very dark. And very reminiscent of a fellow who... well, let's just say someone who would not have cared too much for Stephen Miller.
  
  Either because of grief, or because Kirk's death was an excuse to do so, Trump and Miller pretty clearly crossed some lines that should not be crossed. It's a misstep we think, and the libertarian-leaning folks at Reason agree with us. In a piece headlined "Why the Charlie Kirk Memorial Might Spell the End of Trump and MAGA," that site's Nick Gillespie opines that the memorial may have been the high-water mark for MAGA, as Kirk is no longer around to rally the troops, Trump's approval numbers are slipping, and this us-vs.-them, bunker-mentality stuff is a real turn-off to everyone who is not hardcore MAGA.
  
  
• The Tylenol Thing: We wrote about the "Tylenol causes autism" story yesterday, of course. But maybe we were a little shellshocked by all the B.S. that was flying around, because we missed a few things we want to add.
  
  First, we noted that putting the blame for autism on taking Tylenol serves to shift the responsibility for the condition away from mom's and dad's genes, so they can feel less guilty. Several readers wrote in to point out that it's actually more nefarious than that. If you say that the thing that causes autism is Tylenol, then you shift the burden away from dad's and mom's genes, and you place the burden squarely on... mom. That is to say, if you have autism, it is apparently because mom did irresponsible things, because she was too selfish or too stupid to suck it up and skip the medication. Dad, meanwhile, is completely off the hook.
  
  Second, as reader J.G. in San Diego, CA, points out, Team Trump chose a really stupid alternative scapegoat to vaccines for their big announcement. Inasmuch as J.G. is a pediatrician, we are just going to share the message they sent in, because we don't want to introduce errors in summarizing it:

  A few things:
  
  

  1. You noted by moving the focus from genetics to Tylenol, it takes responsibility away from the parents. Kinda. It takes responsibility away from the DAD. "Aw look, the kid's autistic, I told you that you shouldn't have taken that Tylenol when you were pregnant, you fu**ed up."
     
     What they REALLY should have "found" was something that was absolutely NOT mom or dad's fault, like Wifi or cellular electromagnetism, or bioengineered viruses. That is what makes vaccines so attractive. It wasn't your fault, they MADE you vaccinate these kids, the kid would be 100% normal but for the vaccines.
     
     Tylenol simply doesn't work for that. That just puts the onus on women. "If you had just sucked it up and dealt with it he'd be 100% normal." That is NOT what women want to hear. They want to hear, "It wasn't MY FAULT." This is saying it WAS their fault. Directly. Because they took Tylenol.
     
     
  2. What do they do when the Tylenol avoiders are like, "Okay but my kid is still autistic, now what?" They needed to hit the "Tylenol isn't the ONLY cause, but it is one" idea harder than they did. They will already get plenty of pushback from the "Hey, my kid is autistic, and I've never taken Tylenol" crowd.
     
     
  3. It's the same with leucovorin. Is it possible your kid is autistic because of cerebral folate deficiency? Sure. 1/2 a percent of autism, maybe? But now you are going to have all these families who get leucovorin and are like, "It did nothing."
     
     This is what was so brilliant about ivermectin for COVID. Most people were going to get over COVID anyway, so giving them a placebo makes it seem like, "Well, I got over it, and I took ivermectin, those two things must be related." But the 99.5% of kids with autism who DON'T get better with leucovorin... WTF are you going to tell them?
     
     Further, some kids with autism get worse over time, more seizures, etc. When you give those kids leucovorin and they get WORSE... what are you going to say?

  Thanks, J.G. Clearly, neither the medical "professionals" in the Trump administration, nor the political operatives, thought this one through very well. That may explain why at least some of the medical "professionals," such as "Doctor" Oz, spent yesterday walking back the "Don't take Tylenol" advice. Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA), who could have prevented this by voting against Robert Kennedy Jr. for HHS Secretary, also tried to do medical damage control yesterday.
  
  One more thing, and we wish we'd thought to mention this. This whole situation, in which the nation's leaders flail about, trying to find the "bad guy" responsible for the "curse" of autism, serves to stigmatize the many people who have been diagnosed with the condition. That really sucks; they don't deserve that.
  
  
• The Walk of Fame: This is nowhere near as harmful as the other stuff on this list, but it does serve as something of a surreal dessert after this parade of madness. It would seem Trump has decided to turn the famous White House colonnade, where a great many historic photos have been taken, into a "Presidential Walk of Fame." See for yourself:
  
  
  
  Sigh... so tacky. Trump refuses to say which presidents are going to make the cut, but he did suggest there would be no Joe Biden portrait. That's actually good news; it will make it easier for the next president to say that the display is not a serious attempt to capture the history of the presidency, and to send the whole thing to the garbage dumpster.

Trump is very, very obviously leaning very, very hard into what his instincts tell him to do, into theatrics, and into red meat for the base. It can't be a coincidence that all of these things keep coming, one after another after another. Is it because of his approval ratings, which are getting close to his first-term lows? Is he trying to distract from Jeffrey Epstein? Is he losing emotional/mental control? Is it the after-effects of a stroke? Is it something else? Your guess is as good as ours, but it's got to be something. (Z)

About those Blue-Collar White Men...

On Monday, we had an item about how the Democrats need to do something to win back blue-collar white men, since there are a lot of them, and they've been gettable for the Party in the past. The tough part is figuring out exactly how to do that.

It occurred to us, however, that we have a large base of very well-informed readers, who can effectively serve as a particularly insightful focus group. Why wouldn't we make use of that? So, we've put together a brief survey, along with an opportunity to make comments, here.

Our hope is to run a series of items with the statistical results and some reader comments in the next week or two. (Z)

Previous | Next

Main page for smartphones