Once the GOP returns to its more customary role as a minority in the House, it can return to its roots. Its members, with few exceptions, have little interest in making and carrying out policy; their objective is to throw bombs and get on Fox News.
That’s why I expect Jim Jordan to be the new Minority Leader next year. He’s perfect for the job.
As the head of a small, divided, and unruly majority party, Mike Johnson, like Kevin McCarthy before him, had an extremely difficult job. Even so, by any reasonable standard, he has been a failure. Why?
Because Johnson viewed the House of Representatives as an appendage of the Trump administration instead of a co-equal branch of government with interests that will exist long after Trump is gone. As a result, if Trump failed, so did he. And that is exactly what happened.
Susie Wiles has come to the Oval Office to talk about the election.
W: Are you prepared for what happens after Tuesday? We’re going to lose, you know. Bigly.
T: Aren’t you forgetting something?
W: What’s that?
T: I’m a winner. I always win, no matter what. Unless the other side is cheating, of course.
W: All of the polls say we’re going to lose. Including ours.
T: Fake news. The polls always underestimate me. We’ll win. Trust me. Trust me.
W: In North Carolina? We’re not even on the air anymore.
T: Lousy candidate. That’s not my fault.
W: You handpicked him. Who else’s fault is it?
T: It’s his fault. He focused exclusively on crime instead of talking about what a great job I’m doing. What do you expect would happen?
W: South Carolina. We could even lose there.
T: We won’t. I held lots of rallies there. The people love me. They’ll love Lindsey’s sister if they love me.
W: Iowa?
T: Lazy candidate, but we’ll win there. Anywhere I held rallies, we’ll win. Anyway, the heartland hates liberal elitists.
W: Maine?
T: Collins is not my problem. She doesn’t support me. She’s on her own.
W: Alaska?
T: The Democrats are cheating there, as usual. The DOJ will take care of it.
W: Ohio?
T: Ramaswamy should have stuck to his guns with that commercial. Now he’s going to drag the whole ticket down. He should have taken my advice and stayed the course.
W: Texas? We wouldn’t have a problem if we had a better candidate.
T: Paxton will win. He stands tall for MAGA and me even when everyone else runs away. The only problem with him is his looks. He’s too ugly to be a good candidate.
W: What happens if your predictions are wrong? How will that be a win?
T: I’ll have a plausible foil and someone to blame if things go wrong. That’s a win. I win no matter what.
W: We’ll see. I certainly hope you’re right.
There is good reason to believe that Trump will escalate the war shortly after the election. As a result, gas prices will go up again. The current Republican Congress, which still believes its job is to enable Trump to be Trump, will do nothing to stop him. But what about the next Congress? If both houses are controlled by the Democrats, will there be a serious attempt to stop the war?
Yes. There are two avenues of attack–the budget and the War Powers Act. Expect both of them to come into play early next year. Trump will, of course, ignore any mandates from Congress, and we will have a constitutional crisis on our hands.
Ramaswamy was always going to be a hard sell to Ohio voters even with the GOP registration advantage. He made matters worse by running the appalling commercial with Amy Acton’s estranged mother. His initial response to the ensuing furor was to stand by the commercial. According to the Cleveland newspaper, however, he has subsequently decided to stop running it.
If MAGA had a theme song, it would be Tom Petty’s “I Won’t Back Down.” Staying the course in spite of everything is central to the MAGA ethical scheme; if you don’t believe me, just ask Trump and Ken Paxton. Ramaswamy has just violated it after alienating the rest of the electorate by following it. As a result, he will almost certainly lose next Tuesday; in addition, he will probably drag down Husted and Max Miller, as well.
It couldn’t happen to a nicer guy. After Tuesday, his political career should be over.
For a large part of the second half of the nineteenth century, the Irish Home Rule Party held the balance of power in Parliament between the Conservatives and the Liberals. The Liberal Party ultimately embraced their cause, partly out of electoral self-interest, but mostly out of Gladstone’s convictions. It was a long and winding road from there, but the ultimate outcome was the Irish Republic.
On its face, the Arab parties similarly hold the balance of power after this week’s Israeli election. The problem is that the center-right opposition coalition (there is no longer a meaningful left in Israel) appears to be unwilling to bring them into a new government. If that eventually proves to be the case, there is no hope for any significant change in Israeli foreign policy for the foreseeable future; the best-case scenario is that the extreme right-wing nationalist parties are removed from power, the assaults on liberal democracy come to an end, the religious right loses some of its privileges, and the Palestinians on the West Bank receive slightly better treatment. That’s not nothing, but it’s not enough.
As you would expect, the proponents of Florida’s Amendment 3 are focusing their ire on big spenders–liberals, presumably–in local government. The inconvenient truth, however, is that the amendment will make it difficult to fully fund law enforcement at the local level if it is approved. That is why Florida sheriffs oppose it.
Could it be that the GOP has found a way to defund the police that is more effective than anything proposed by the left in 2020? We’ll find out next week.
Vivek Ramaswamy will never be truly MAGA due to his ethnic and religious background. His belief that American workers are lazy and overprivileged doesn’t help. But he is MAGA-adjacent, because he subscribes to MAGA ethics, as demonstrated by the infamous commercial starring Amy Acton’s mother. What does that mean?
MAGA believes that the forces of good (conservative white American Christians) are locked in a perpetual battle with the forces of evil (everyone else). Utter ruthlessness is required at all times to keep the forces of evil in check. Occasional moral lapses are OK as long as you are a completely committed fighter against the forces of evil. The only unforgivable sin is to back down.
It is, in short, a Manichean universe, not a Christian one.
LULA
I met him in a club down in Rio D
Where they drink champagne and it tastes just like Coca-Cola.
C-O-L-A, Cola.
He walked up to me and asked for some cash.
I asked him his name, and in a dark brown voice he said “Lula.”
L-U-L-A, Lula.
Lu-Lu-Lu-Lu-Lula.
Lula.
____________
Well, I’m still the world’s most powerful guy.
But he wasn’t impressed, and I don’t know why.
Oh, my Lula.
Lu-Lu-Lu-Lu-Lula.
He’s not dumb, so I don’t understand
Why giving up power wasn’t part of his plan.
Oh, my Lula.
Lu-Lu-Lu-Lu-Lula.
________________
We drank champagne and danced all night
Under electric candlelight.
Lula told me I’m not his type.
He’s too far left, and I’m too far right.
______________
Well, that’s the way that it’s going to stay
And it’s always going to be that way with Lula.
Lu-Lu-Lu-Lu-Lula.
Tariffs will come and tariffs will go.
It’s a mixed-up world, a shook-up world
Except for Lula.
Lu-Lu-Lu-Lu-Lula.
Lula.
_________________
Parody of “Lola” by The Kinks
I have previously defined antisemitism as an egregious form of discrimination. If you accept my definition, it would not be antisemitic to support the replacement of the Jewish state with a single secular entity that theoretically and practically provided Jews and Arabs with equal rights. You would have the heavy burden of proving that such an entity could actually exist in the real world, but you would not be an antisemite.
Right-wing Israeli nationalists view the issue differently. For them, the world is already divided into Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, and Hindu states. To deny Jews the right to a state of their own is consequently a form of discrimination and, therefore, antisemitism.
Whatever you may think of the notion of Muslim states, the fact of the matter is that the United States is not legally a Christian nation, and discrimination against Jews is unlawful throughout Europe and Latin America. The right-wing Israeli line of reasoning is only valid as applied to America if you embrace the ahistorical position of MAGA Christians that they are entitled by God to rule our nation.
If you ever wondered why the right-wing Israelis are closer to American fundamentalist Christians than to American Jews, that is your answer.
Results of Israeli elections are rarely clear-cut. This one is no exception. What stands out this time, however, is the performance of the Arab parties. On its face, they should be the kingmakers when the process of building coalitions begins.
But will that happen? The major parties appear to view the Arab parties as being illegitimate actors with no right to participate in government, regardless of their electoral popularity.
If it turns out that Arab votes don’t really count, then Israel is a DINO–a democracy in name only.
If the Democrats win control of even part of Congress next week, Trump can expect lots of attempts to build guardrails against further abuses of power. There will be investigations, blocks on nominees, litigation over impoundment, and government shutdowns. How will he respond?
He already has a playbook for this situation. He will stonewall the investigators, force them to litigate, and run the clock out in the judicial system. He will rely on acting and interim subordinates instead of nominees. He will do his best to keep any litigation on impoundment from reaching the Supreme Court. Finally, he will blame the Democrats for any inconvenience created by the shutdowns. History tells us these tactics will probably work.
The only exception will be judicial appointments, particularly to the Supreme Court. There are no acting or interim justices, even for him.
On the one hand, the Venezuelan exiles want quick elections, a Machado victory, and the complete destruction of the Chavez/Maduro/Delcy regime. These are Marco Rubio’s people, and he probably agrees with them. On the other hand, Trump has struck deals with Delcy that give him a vested interest in the continued viability of the regime. The conflict here is obvious.
Machado’s return to Venezuela is going to throw gas on the fire. I expect her to start holding rallies and demanding free elections in early 2027. The regime won’t have the nerve to arrest her, so it will play for time. At some point, Machado will lose patience with the delays, and everything will hit the fan.
Will Trump authorize the regime to stamp out the opposition? Will Rubio remain on board if he does? TBD.
Barring the abolition of the filibuster, any legislation coming out of the new Congress will require bipartisan support in the Senate. Is there any prospect for meaningful cooperation in the next two years?
On paper, yes. Here are some of the most likely candidates:
The problem, of course, is Trump. He might buy off on #1, but not on the rest. Don’t hold your breath on any of these proposals.
This time, the aging leftist beat the thuggish reactionary in the rematch. Trump relates very strongly to the Bolsonaro family, so he will be extremely angry. What can we expect from him?
Two things. First, his complaints on the trail about the left rigging elections will become even more shrill. Second, he will begin a pressure campaign to try to force the Brazilian election officials to identify Bolsonaro as the victor. These will probably include more tariffs and even a threat of military intervention.