Archives for category: Politics

The Atlantic published a fascinating story about Donald Trump’s surprising return from what seemed to be the disastrous end of his political career in 2021 to regain the presidency in 2024.

In 2021, he left the White House in disgrace: twice impeached, leader of a failed and violent effort to overturn the election, so bitter that he skipped Joe Biden’s inauguration. For four years, with the exception of an occasional slip of the tongue, he nourished the fantasy that he was the rightful winner in 2020.

Surely there were Republicans who thought he was finished, as did all Democrats. I remember how thrilled I was to think that I would never again have to see his face or hear his voice.

His redemption began when Congressman Kevin McCarthy flew to Mar-a-Lago to pay homage to Trump. Trump spent most of the last four years plotting and planning for his return.

The article was written by Atlantic staffers Ashley Parker and Michael Scherer.

It begins with the story of how they won an interview with Trump. They filled out forms describing the reason for the interview and thought their request might be approved. But Trump personally rejected them, denouncing the reporters and the magazine as part of the leftist effort to embarrass him. Trump called Ashley Parker a “radical left lunatic.”

The reporters had spent many hours preparing for the interview, and they were determined to land it.

Soon after they were turned away, they decided to try another route. They obtained Trump’s private cell number, and they called him. He answered his phone, and they had a long conversation. During the conversation, he said matter-of-factly, “I run the country and I run the world.”

Humility was never his strong suit.

Trump eventually agreed to sit with them for an interview in the Oval Office with them and the magazine’s editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg, who had been accidentally invited to be part of Defense Secretary’s Signal conversation about bonbing Yemen.

This is a must-read.

Tesla is in trouble for two reasons: first, Elon Musk entered politics and alienated half the nation’s voters. He didn’t just endorse Trump, he created the slash-and-burn DOGE, which is firing government workers en masse without cause. More people are trading in Teslas than any other brand. Protests are taking place at Tesla showrooms. Teslas are being vandalized by people angry at Musk and his destruction of federal agencies.

Second, a Chinese auto manufacturer recently announced that its electric car can be fully recharged in five minutes, as compared to the hours it takes to recharge a Tesla.

Instead of redesigning our government, Musk should have stuck to building better cars.

Liam Denning wrote about Musk’s woes at Bloomberg News:

Sometimes a chart is just a chart. Sometimes, when you’re looking at Tesla Inc. and BYD Co. Ltd. in early 2025, it’s a striking squiggly metaphor.

Tesla, the biggest US electric-vehicle maker, has shocked the world this year with its overt politicization and slumping sales and stock price. BYD, its great Chinese rival, just shocked the world by announcing its newest model can recharge in five minutes. The symbolism, capturing the lead that China has taken in EVs compared with a US still fighting with itself about the relative wokeness of EVs, could hardly be clearer.

At a Supercharger, you’ll typically be able to add 150 to 200 miles of range to a Tesla in less than 30 minutes—sometimes more, sometimes less. With a typical home EV charger, you can completely recharge a Tesla’s battery overnight, adding roughly 25 to 40 miles of range per hour that it’s plugged in.

Which do you prefer: a battery that recharges in five minutes or one that requires 30 minutes or even hours?

John Thompson, historian and retired teacher in Oklahoma, describes the Republican infighting in Oklahoma. Meanwhile School Superintendent Ryan Walters continues his crusade to Christianize the state’s public schools.

He writes:

At the end of January, I wrote in Diane Ravitch’s blog that:

In Oklahoma, where rightwing MAGAs, led by Governor Kevin Stitt, State Superintendent Ryan Walters, and our most extreme state legislators, continue to double down on irrational and, above all, cruel agendas, it remains unclear whether Democrats and adult Republicans will be successful in pushing back. But there are still reasons for hope.

Over the last couple of weeks, we received new hope that the Oklahoma MAGAs are forming a circular firing squad. And that encourages me to believe that the same thing could undermine the Donald Trump/Elon Musk agenda.

I also wrote

Although Walters remains the best known voice for absurdity, I still believe that Gov. Stitt’s agenda would be the most destructive – if he could get it done. 

The best news in February is that Republican Attorney General Gentner Drummond, who is running for governor, hoping the replace the term-limited Kevin Stitt, and to defeat his most dangerous opponent, Ryan Walters, is not the only Republican who is pushing back on both of them.

As the Oklahoman reported, A.G. Drummond, a member of the Board of Equalization, recently “issued a news release saying he doesn’t trust the numbers” presented by Stitt when calling for a tax cut for the rich when “the Oklahoma Tax Commission is reporting that expected revenue will drop by $408 million.” It reported, “Drummond said Stitt has taken what should be a serious, thoughtful and collaborative gathering of constitutional officers and ‘turned it in to a scripted event that is mostly for show.’”

Then, the blockbuster news was the removal of three Board of Education members who Stitt appointed and “who would later be described as a ‘rubber stamp’ for Walters.” Now, Stitt condemns Walters for creating “needless political drama.” Stitt now “says he will not approve Walters’ proposed immigration status rule, accusing Walters and the board of ‘picking on kids.’”

****

As the Oklahoman also reported, Walters replied, “Governor Stitt has joined the swampy political establishment that President Trump is fighting against.” Then he “announced the creation of a ‘Trump Advisory Team’ within the state Department of Education — to be led by two of the now-former board members.”

This is occurring at a time, I’m told, when veteran Republicans may be making progress in teaching a number of new Republican legislators about the complexity of the budget process and the causes of the economic crisis Oklahoma faced in 2017. 

Moreover, both the Senate and the House have new leaders who seem to be listening to the reasons why both Stitt and Walters are undermining the state’s economy. For instance, Senate Pro Tem Lonnie Paxton “aired concerns that the public squabbling would damage Oklahoma and its endeavors to attract new business investment from out of state.” Paxton said, “’If I could say something to all three of them’ (Walters, Drummond and Stitt), ‘I would say it’s not just Oklahomans watching what’s going on. It’s the entire nation.’” Paxton added, “I always say, ‘If you’re going to have an argument in this building, have it behind closed doors and try to work it out without making a big public spectacle about everything.”

And, “Republican Labor Commissioner Leslie Osborn (who has a long history of smart, honest,  pro-union, and humane advocacy) points to Stitt’s failed effort to persuade Panasonic to build a $4 billion battery plant in Oklahoma as an example of the damage culture-war politics used by Walters and others [which] can kill billion-dollar deals.” She explained that it was the rightwing attacks on the LGBT community that likely persuaded the company to reject the Oklahoma offer. 

Osborn explained:

“It was National Pride Week, and Panasonic had on their website, because they are international, that they were celebrating the diversity of their clientele and their employees and that they were appreciative of the LGBT community,” But, “More than a dozen Republican lawmakers chose the week that Stitt had landed Oklahoma as one of three finalists for the plant to release a statement, on state House letterhead, condemning Panasonic.” … “two days later Panasonic picked Kansas.”

Most importantly, politically, is the pushback by business leaders against Walters. The Oklahoman reported that the CEO of Gardner Tanenbaum Holdings, who played a key role in “developing a 30-acre Oklahoma City campus where Boeing has added hundreds of engineering jobs over the past dozen years,” said the problem is, “Education, education, education — we are dead in the water without the workforce.” 

Tanenbaum told the crowd of 250 of the city’s most prominent developers and business executives:

So wherever you can, get involved: The school district and the school boards, colleges, whatever — we’ve got to get rid of this guy. What was his name again?”

The crowd laughed as a member of the audience yelled out “Walters!”

“Walters!” Tanenbaum confirmed. “We’ve got to get rid of him!”

I have a history of being too optimistic, but Walters is facing four legal challenges in the next few months, and Stitt recently praised one of the educators (with a long history as a leader, Rob Miller, of the fight against corporate school reform) who is suing Walters. 

Conversely, during his second term, Stitt has been losing a very large number of legal and political battles. Although Stitt denies it, there is now speculation that he is trying to become president of Oklahoma State University

Reporters are investigating what triggered the “feud” between Stitt and Walters. The Oklahomanreported that Walters showed up at a rally against wind energy. This happened when Stitt was bragging about a corporation from Denmark “which could eventually lead to the development of a green methanol power production facility in the state.”

Walters said:

“I’m here to support Oklahoma and Oklahoma families, … Oklahoma families have spoken loudly and clearly they want their income taxes cut, they want to have support here in the state. We don’t want to give subsidies to woke energy companies. We have been fighting a cultural war here in the state to keep Oklahoma values intact. What we’re seeing is the opening up of a woke value system in the state that undermines all the good people here today, so we’re always going to fight for Oklahoma families and for the state as a whole.”

 A Republican former-legislator, Mark McBride, with a long history of defending schools being attacked by Walters, said that Walters is “speaking and acting like he’s the governor, and he’s not.”

Which leads to the question whether there could be a similar conflict on the federal level prompted by a billionaire acting like a president when he is not.    

At any rate, neither Stitt nor Walters are succeeding in their goals of turning Oklahoma into a successful pilot program for implementing Trump’s and Musk’s agendas. There’s reason to hope that they could be previewing a similar rightwing civil war between the Republicans who are now supporting the Project 2025 agenda. 

Yes, I acknowledge that the best short-term scenario in Oklahoma is to lessen the damage that the right-wingers are doing. And as is the case on a national level, where the Republicans are still supporting Trump/Musk attacks on our democracy, it remains uncertain whether their attacks on government will first unravel their autocratic coalition or America’s public institutions. But recent Oklahoma history could preview a national unravelling of their assault on American democracy.

Facing multiple criminal charges for corrupt activities, Mayor Eric Adams flew to Mar-A-Lago to discuss his problems with Trump. Adams agreed not to impede ICE roundups. Trump ordered the federal prosecutor in the Southern District of New York to drop the charges and not to investigate Adams any more. This office–the SDNY– has a sterling reputation for its independence from politics.

The top prosecutors resigned, rather than follow Trump’s order. Among the resignations was that of Danielle Sassoon, whom Trump had appointed as the acting U.S. Attorney on January 21, the day after his inauguration. Sassoon is a 38-year-old conservative Republican, a member of the Federalist Society. She clerked for Justice Antonin Scalia. Her devotion to the law was stronger than her loyalty to Trump, so she tendered her resignation.

The Wall Street Journal reported:

NEW YORK—The Justice Department’s order to dismiss charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams triggered a series of resignations Thursday and ignited a feud between top Trump appointees and career prosecutors.

The departures started with Danielle Sassoon, a longtime federal prosecutor who refused to comply with the demand to drop the Adams case. President Trump had elevated Sassoon to be the acting Manhattan U.S. attorney after he took office. 

Others followed suit, including Kevin Driscoll, the senior-most career official in the Justice Department’s criminal division, and John Keller, head of the department’s public-integrity section. They left when it became clear they would be ordered to dismiss the case after Sassoon refused, people familiar with the matter said. Three other supervisors in the Justice Department’s public-integrity unit also resigned Thursday, one of the people said.

Sassoon wrote in a letter Wednesday to Emil Bove, the acting No. 2 official at the Justice Department: “Because the law does not support a dismissal, and because I am confident that Adams has committed the crimes with which he is charged, I cannot agree to seek a dismissal driven by improper considerations.”

Bove shot back in a letter Thursday saying he had stripped the Adams case from the New York office and criticizing her for disobeying orders. He said he was putting two main Adams prosecutors on leave and opening an investigation into their conduct—and Sassoon’s.

“Under your leadership, the office has demonstrated itself to be incapable of fairly and impartially reviewing the circumstances of this prosecution,” Bove wrote.

“The Justice Department will not tolerate the insubordination and apparent misconduct reflected in the approach that you and your office have taken in this matter,” he wrote. Both letters were viewed by The Wall Street Journal.

Sassoon is a profile in courage.

John Thompson, historian and retired teacher in Oklahoma, keeps close watch on state politics. He looks for rays of hope in a gerrymandered state.

He writes:

In Oklahoma, where rightwing MAGAs, led by Governor Kevin Stitt, State Superintendent Ryan Walters, and our most extreme state legislators, continue to double down on irrational and, above all, cruel agendas, it remains unclear whether Democrats and adult Republicans will be successful in pushing back. But there are still reasons for hope.

Although Walters remains the best known voice for absurdity, I still believe that Gov. Stitt’s agenda would be the most destructive – if he could get it done. For instance, the Oklahoma Supreme Court was as thoroughly corrupt as any in the nation – before we created an apolitical Judicial Nominating Commission. Stitt’s attempt to dissolve the commission failed. But dark money PACs tied to Stitt fueled a campaign to remove the three justices who were appointed by Democrats.

In the last month, Stitt said that “Oklahomans see that you need one neck to choke, and it’s usually the governor,” [so] “let the governor (…) put these people in place and then hold them accountable.” Clearly, he was implying that he, the outgoing governor, should appoint “most state-wide officials,” including the Oklahoma Corporation Commission, and the Superintendent of Public Instruction. That would be the path back to our state’s corrupt oligarchy of my youth.

And, as the legislative session is about to open, the Oklahoma Voice recalls Gov. Stitt’s signing of “Oklahoma’s legislative darling.” The law has been “dubbed the ‘Women’s Bill of Rights.’” It “claims to champion fairness and safety for women” by setting “legal definitions for ‘male’ and ‘female,’ tying them firmly to biological sex assigned at birth.”  The Voice further explains, “Oklahoma’s law isn’t just tone-deaf to this reality — it pours gasoline on the fire.” Then it reminds Stitt that the law will clearly undermine efforts to attract businesses to Oklahoma.

The 2025 legislative session also creates opportunities for extremists to show how brutal they can be, but it also provides opportunities to push back against the worst of the worst. In 2023, Republican Rep. Jim Olsen successfully opposed a bill that would “ban schools from physically punishing disabled children.” Olsen said, “He that spareth his rod hateth his son.” So the Bible “tells us that if you will not use the rod on a disobedient child, you do not love that child.”

Now, after an interim study, on the “effectiveness of properly administered corporal punishment,” there is reason to hope that Olsen will allow that simple, humane provision to become law.

But, Republican Sen. Lisa Standridge seems to have drawn from the political tactic of shipping immigrants to northern cities in order to deny the basic human rights of homeless persons in small town Oklahoma, as well as our two biggest cities.  Sen. Standridge, “would prevent municipalities in all cities with a population under 300,000 from using city resources to operate homeless shelters or perform homeless outreach.” It would both outlaw smaller communities’ efforts to serve the unhoused, but provide  an incentive for them to move to Oklahoma City and Tulsa, which are both facing homelessness crises. Oklahomans have condemned the proposed law as “cruel,” “heartless,” “horrible.” “disgusting,” “shameless,” and a continued attack on democracy.

And that brings us back to Ryan Walters, who has a long history of calling teachers unions “terrorist organizations.” He has received national headlines by calling classrooms “terrorist training camps.” He then linked teachers unions to the New Year’s terrorist attack in New Orleans. The Oklahoma Voice’s Janelle Stecklein pushed back, asking, “Does our state superintendent have a screw loose?”

Stecklein noted Walters’ use of taxpayer resources to bolster his national reputation. She then contrasted his behavior with the “Oklahoma Standard,” which was illuminated by our response to Timothy McVeigh’s 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 people. She also noted Walters’ campaign to stir up fear and hatred, comes at a time when there were 39 school shootings in 2024, in which 18 people were killed.

And most recently, Walters has filed a $474 million lawsuit claiming “The United States Departments of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and Education, along with United States Border Patrol and Safety must be held accountable for their failure to properly secure the nation’s border.”

Perhaps the most noteworthy, recent evidence that Oklahomans are starting to reject rightwing MAGA-ism can be found in a recent poll in The Oklahoman, which graded Ryan Walters’ performances. After all, as The Oklahoman notes, “Legislative leaders acknowledge that they have few levers at their command to force Walters to change course,” leaving that to the voters.

More than 4,000 readers took part in the online poll conducted Jan. 6-10, which asked the question: What grade would you give School Supt. Ryan Walters for his job performance this year?

An overwhelming 95% of those who responded gave him an “F.”

Comments by the poll-takers were especially illustrative. Here are just a few examples:

“My out-of-state friends LOVE to poke fun at Oklahoma whenever they read news stories about Walter’s’ idiotic antics. Don’t think for a minute that this doesn’t hurt our state’s ability to attract and retain economic development prospects. If my out-of-state friends are aware of what is happening to our public school system, so are professional site locators.” 

“Walters is what happens when people vote a straight party ticket … people’s children and grandchildren are paying the price of Ryan Walters and his lofty political ambition. He will literally do anything to get his name in the paper, online, and live media. 

“Religious zealots should not be in charge of the public schools.” 

“Walters is an unqualified incompetent under whose ‘leadership’ our children’s education has nosedived for the bottom. He’s also misused public funds for his own promotion and travel, for which he should be prosecuted. Not even addressing his unconstitutional mandates, he simply can’t or won’t do his job and needs to be removed from office.” 

“Worst Oklahoma state superintendent of education ever. His rhetoric is damaging to public education.” 

“I have never heard one kind word about public teachers come from this Ryan Walters’ mouth. He has never once given us any kind of encouragement. On the contrary, he insults us and makes false accusations. He accuses us of teaching hate. He has no idea that we not only teach our state standards, but we also teach a host of other things like kindness, citizenship, love of country, and just being good human beings.”

“Wasting our money on Bibles! I am religious, and spiritual, and Bibles can be found online. Also, he is a homophobe who is not interested in the rights of all, just the rights of some.”

And my favorite:

“Your grading scale didn’t go far enough. I would give Walters a ‘Z minus’ with the minus being an infinity’s worth. He is doing nothing but destroying Oklahoma schools.” 

Due to gerrymandering, Republican extremists – and their funders – have obtained unchallengeable political power. But we may be approaching a point where voters will back away from straight party voting, and perhaps empowering Democrats and reasonable Republicans. After all, their new Senate Pro Tem Lonnie Paxton, says in regard to Ryan Walters that Republican leaders will “continue to continue to try to inspire him to do the things that need to be done to educate our kids.” But falling short of the courage we need, Paxton adds, “at the end of the day, it’s his decision on what he does.”

Over the past week, the nation was treated to the return of Trump chaos. Congress needed to pass a “continuing resolution” to fund the federal government or it would shut down at midnight last Friday. Because of the process that Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson used, the CR required a vote of two-thirds of the House. The House is almost evenly divided between the two parties, with a slight Republican majority. Mike Johnson had to get a bipartisan deal that satisfied both parties, and he did. On the day of the vote, Elon Musk unleashed a flurry of tweets ridiculing the deal, warning that he would fund primary challengers for any Republican who supported it and lying about the contents of the bill.

Several hours after Musk attacked the bill, Trump chimed in and warned Republicans to vote against it. He too said that any Republican who voted for it would be challenged by another Republican in the next election. Trump demanded that any CR raise the debt limit, so he could renew a big tax cut for the rich and corporations in the spring. The new round of tax cuts is expected to cost $1-2 trillion. The onus for raising the debt limit would be Biden’s, not his, he hoped.

Musk tweeted that the government should be shut down until Trump was inaugurated. Only 33 days, he tweeted. He didn’t care that government employees and members of the military would go without a paycheck for 33 days. Or that many would not have enough to get by. How would he–the world’s richest man–know?

Under pressure from Musk and Trump, the bipartisan deal failed. Speaker Johnson then cobbled together a new budget to please Trump and Musk. It raised the debt limit and deleted items that Democrats wanted. All but two Democrats and 38 Republicans voted against it, and it too failed.

Then Speaker Johnson tried again, forging a deal that members of both parties supported. It passed 366-34.

Here are the 34 Republicans who voted against the bill.

Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.)

Rep. Dan Bishop (R-N.C.)  

Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.)

Rep. Josh Brecheen (R-Okla.)

Sen.-elect and Rep. Jim Banks (R-Ind.) 

Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.)

Rep. Eric Burlison (R-Mo.)

Rep. Michael Cloud (R-Texas)

Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-Ga.)

Rep. Eli Crane (R-Ariz.)

Rep. John Curtis (R-Utah)

Rep. Scott DesJarlais (R-Tenn.)

Rep. Russ Fulcher (R-Idaho)

Rep. Tony Gonzales (R-Texas)

Rep. Bob Good (R-Va.)

Rep. Lance Gooden (R-Texas)

Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-Wis.)

Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.)

Rep. Diana Harshbarger (R-Tenn.)

Rep. Wesley Hunt (R-Texas)

Rep. Debbie Lesko (R-Ariz.)

Rep. Greg Lopez (R-Colo.)

Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.)

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.)

Rep. Rich McCormick (R-Ga.)

Rep. Cory Mills (R-Fla.)

Rep. Alex Mooney (R-W.Va.)

Rep. Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.)

Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.)

Rep. Matt Rosendale (R-Mont.)

Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas)

Rep. Keith Self (R-Texas)

Rep. Tom Tiffany (R-Wis.)

Rep. Beth Van Duyne (R-Texas)

Jamelle Bouie wrote that we should all take heart. Trump does not control every Republican in the House. We will find out in February and March whether every Senate Tepublican is willing to confirm Trump’s totally unqualified choices for major roles: Tulsi Gabbard, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Kash Patel, and Pete Hegseth.

Bouie wrote:

The recurring theme of my writing the past few weeks is that Donald Trump is not invulnerable. His win did not upend the rules of American politics or render him immune to political misfortune. Like everything we experience, his victory was contingent — a function of specific people in specific circumstances making specific choices. To change any of these variables is to change the ultimate destination.

To put this a little differently, whatever you think of the nature of his win, Donald Trump is still Donald Trump. He is overwhelmingly strong in some areas and ruinously deficient in others. He holds so much sway over his supporters that, as he famously put it nearly 10 years ago, he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and not lose “any voters.” He’s almost incapable of managing himself or the people around him. His White House was notoriously chaotic and he remains as impulsive, dysfunctional and undisciplined as he was during his first term.

There was, in the first weeks after the election, some notion that this had changed, that we were looking at a new Trump, ready to lead a united Republican Party. But as we’ve seen over the past few days, this was premature. First, the Republican Party is far from unified, as their struggle to pass a bill to continue to fund the government showed. It took days. What’s more, Trump is not alone as a figure of influence among congressional Republicans; Elon Musk has imposed himself onto the president-elect as a consigliere of sorts and is trying to build a political empire for himself via X, the social media platform he essentially bought for this purpose.

It was from X, in fact, that Musk urged Republicans to kill the continuing resolution, throwing the House into chaos and prompting Trump to escalate the confrontation to save face, demanding a new resolution that suspended or raised the debt limit. On Thursday evening, Speaker Mike Johnson tried to pass that bill. But a number of Republicans broke ranks, and unified Democratic opposition meant it was dead on arrival.

Together, Trump and Musk have not only walked the Republican Party into an otherwise needless defeat; they also have given Democrats the jump start they apparently needed to behave like a real opposition. According to Axios, House Democrats even broke into chants of “Hell no” when confronted with proposed Republican spending cuts.

That’s more like it.

The absurd battle over the continuing resolution should stand as a vivid reminder that Trump is in a much more precarious position than he may have appeared to be in immediately after the election. With a 41 percent favorability rating, he remains unpopular. He cannot count on a functional majority in the House. He has no plan to deliver the main thing, lower prices, that voters want. And one of his most important allies, Musk, is an agent of chaos he can’t seem to control.

There have been enough presidents that there are a few models for what a well-run administration might look like. This is not one of them.

Other bad news:

There are so many memes on Twitter about “President Musk” that Trump responded, whining that he is the President-elect, not Musk. One meme shows Musk pushing a baby carriage, with Trump in it. Another shows them mouth-kissing.

The one thing Trump can’t tolerate is being laughed at. The term #PresidentMusk was trending on Twitter.

We mostly assume that Trump will not be able to sustain his bromance with Musk because Musk is richer, smarter, and younger than Trump. But Never-Trumper George Conway said in a bulwark podcast that it won’t be easy for Trump to shed Musk. Musk owns the world’s biggest social media platform. Trump can’t afford to alienate him. He also loves Musk’s money. He may be stuck with the one guy who overshadows him and makes him an object of ridicule.

Jamelle Bouie is a regular opinion columnist for The New York Times. He is an original thinker. He doesn’t run with the pundit crowd. I subscribe to his newsletter as part of my New York Times subscription.

I am grateful for his reminder that the party in power usually loses seats in the midterm. If that happens in 2026, Trump’s ability to do crazy things will be limited. But he does have time in the coming year to deliver another tax cut for billionaires.

He writes:

The annals of American political history are littered with the remains of once-great presidential mandates.

Franklin D. Roosevelt’s smashing 1936 re-election did not, to give a famous example, give him the leverage he needed to expand the Supreme Court, handing his White House a painful defeat. Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society generated immense conservative opposition, and his momentum could not survive the 1966 Republican wave. Ronald Reagan was stymied by Democratic gains in the first midterm elections of his presidency. Bill Clinton was famously cut down to size by the Newt Gingrich revolution of 1994. And Barack Obama was shellacked by Tea Party extremists in 2010.

“I earned capital in this campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it,” George W. Bush declared in 2004 after he became the first Republican to win re-election with a majority of the popular vote since Reagan. By the summer of 2005, Bush’s approval had crashed on the shoals of a failed effort to privatize Social Security. In the next year’s elections, Republicans lost control of Congress.

There is no evidence that Donald Trump is immune to this dynamic. Just the opposite: His first term was a case study in the perils of presidential ambition. Not only were his most expansive plans met with swift opposition, but also it is fair to say that he failed, flailed and faltered through the first two years of his administration, culminating in a disastrous midterm defeat.

Trump has even bigger plans for his second term: mass deportations, across-the-board tariffs and a campaign of terror and intimidation directed at his political enemies. To win election, however, he promised something a bit more modest: that he would substantially lower the cost of living. According to Sam Woodward in USA Today:

“Prices will come down,” Trump also told rallygoers during a speech in August. “You just watch. They’ll come down, and they’ll come down fast, not only with insurance, with everything.”

Now Trump says this might not be possible. Asked by Time magazine if he thinks his presidency would be a failure if the price of groceries did not come down, he said: “I don’t think so. Look, they got them up. I’d like to bring them down. It’s hard to bring things down once they’re up. You know, it’s very hard.”

At the same time that Trump won’t commit to a key promise of his campaign, he is gearing up to deliver on mass deportations, a policy position that many voters seem to treat as just blather.

When you take all of this together with policies — such as large tariffs on goods from Canada, Mexico and China — that are more likely to increase than lower the costs of most goods and services, you have a recipe for exactly the kind of backlash that eventually hobbles most occupants of the Oval Office.

The American public is exceptionally fickle and prone to sharp reactions against whoever occupies the White House. It wants change but continuity, for things to go in a new direction but to stay mostly the same. It does not always reward good policy, but it usually punishes broken promises and perceived radicalism from either party.

Ignore for a moment the high likelihood of chaos and dysfunction from a Trump administration staffed with dilettantes, ideologues and former TV personalities. It appears that what Trump intends to do, come January, is break his most popular promises and embrace the most radical parts of his agenda.

I can’t end this without conceding the real possibility that the basic feedback mechanisms of American politics are broken. It is possible that none of this matters and that voters will reward Trump — or at least not punish him — regardless of what he does. It’s a reasonable view, given the reality of the present situation.

And yet the 2024 presidential election was a close contest. The voting public is almost equally divided between the two parties, so Trump has little room for error if he hopes to impose his will on the federal government and make his plans reality.

If Americans are as fickle as they’ve been, then Trump’s second honeymoon might be over even before it really begins.

This is a sickening article that appeared in The Irish Times about a meeting on Capitol Hill between Congressional leaders and Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy.

Why is it sickening? It shows our elected Congressional leaders preening and groveling in the presence of the world’s richest man and a man who is only very rich.

Our Leaders? Who elected Elon and Vivek?

Why an article from The Irish Times? My good friend and executive director of the Network for Public Education Carol Burris is spending the holidays there and sent it to me.

As you read the article, you can feel the obsequiousness that these elected officials are expressing as they wait for the phony Department of Government Efficiency to tell them what to cut.

“Elon and Vivek talked about having a naughty list and a nice list for members of Congress and senators and how we vote,” reported Georgia congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene who offered a beaming smile that suggested she knew which list she’d be making. “And how we’re spending American people’s money. I think that would be fantastic.”

One wonders what Ted Kennedy or Henry Clay or Lyndon Johnson, during their Senate years, would have made of two billionaires with zero political experience or authority, breezing into the Capitol and explaining to them they had a chance to make the nice list.

Speaker Johnson promised that Thursday’s meetings will be the first of many visits by Musk and Ramaswamy. “We believe it’s a historic moment for the country and these two gentlemen are going to help us navigate through this exciting day. Elon and Vivek don’t need much of an introduction here in Congress for certain and I think most of the public know what they are capable of and have achieved.

“They are innovators and forward thinkers and that’s what we need right now. We are laying the new ground rules for the new Congress in the new year, and we are going to see a lot of change here in Washington of the way things are run. That is what this whole Doge effort is about.”

Should they cut Social Security? Medicare? Veterans’ Healthcare? Grants for higher education? Title 1? Headstart?

Everything is on their chopping block.

How many civil servants will they seek to terminate?

Musk cut 80% of the staff at Twitter. Will he aim to lay off a huge percentage of the people who keep government running?

Musk tweeted a few days ago that government “should be rule by democracy, not rule by bureaucracy.”

How is it democratic to allow two unelected oligarchs to decide which programs should be eliminated? Why do Elon and Vivek–who will never need Medicare or Social Security–get to decide whether the rest of us can keep the programs that we rely on? If they get their way, there will be more people dying of health conditions that could been treated, more seniors eating cat food for dinner.

The politicians eagerly await their marching orders.

Sickening.

Politico intends to name the big winner of each day’s political news. Tim Walz was the big winner of political news yesterday. He set his sights on the richest man in the world, who is pumping uncounted millions into the Trump campaign. In this country, rich people aren’t supposed to buy elections but no one told South Africa-born Musk that.

Adam Wren wrote:

Tim Walz is hunting big game.

On Tuesday, the Minnesota governor rediscovered the looseness that once had him casting Republicans as “weird,” skewering Donald Trump, JD Vance — and, more than anyone, Trump campaign surrogate Elon Musk.

“I’m going to talk about his running mate — his running mate Elon Musk,” Walz said in Madison, Wisconsin, on the first day of early voting in the Blue Wall battleground. “Seriously, where is Senator Vance after he got asked the simplest question in the world at the debate: Did Donald Trump win the 2020 election, and after two weeks he finally said, ‘No, he didn’t.’”

Next, Walz uncorked on the wealthiest man in the world and the owner of X.

“Look, Elon’s on that stage, jumping around skipping like a dipshit.”

The clip quickly went viral on Musk’s own site.

On a day when his running mate, Kamala Harris, had no events and an interview with MSNBC’s Hallie Jackson, Walz’s line reverberated and drowned out other news on the trail.

And won Walz the day.

In some ways, that Walz has been scarce on the trail and in interviews, of which he’s doing more now.

His performance Tuesday came at a time when Democrats are increasingly desperate to remind voters about the dangers of a second Trump term — particularly in a battleground like Wisconsin. (John Kelly, Trump’s former chief of staff and the onetime general, offered an assist on that front, kicking off a media tour explaining how Trump had asked “for the kind of generals that Hitler had” and talked of using the military against U.S. citizens, something Harris has been warning about on the trail).

It also comes as Harris continues amid a gender divide to struggle with male voters. She could use some of the same Midwestern bravado that originally landed Walz on her radar this summer.

Harris may have somewhat dampened Walz’s value-add to the ticket when she warned him“to be a little more careful on how you say things,” as he said in a recent interview.

Now, though, Walz is back.

Bill Lueders wrote this article at the Never-Trump site called “The Bulwark.” He asked the question that is the title of this post. Lueders is editor-army-large for The Progressive. He says that Eric Hovde, who is challenging Senator Tammy Baldwin, has “high hopes and low scruples.”

He writes:

ERIC HOVDE’S CAMPAIGN IS “running out of money.” He told me so the other day. He’s worth hundreds of millions of dollars. But apparently he can’t afford to keep up with the cost of his own attack ads.

“Fellow Conservative,” began his recent email, addressed to me. “I need your immediate help to keep this ad running 24/7 online in Wisconsin through Election Day!” He said it was very important that this particular ad continue to run, as it represents “our best opportunity to expose undecided Wisconsin voters who will decide this TOSS-UP election to Tammy Baldwin’s willingness to line her own pockets at the expense of Wisconsin voters.” 

I don’t know if Hovde’s campaign scared up the $50,000 that he said was needed within 48 hours in order for the ad to keep running, but the ad was definitely not pulled. You can watch it here. It pictures Baldwin, the first openly lesbian (or gay) senator in U.S. history, alongside her partner, Maria Brisbane, who is described in a voiceover as “a Wall Street exec who makes millions advising the super-rich how to make money off of industries Tammy regulates.” 

A still from Hovde’s ad.

The ad, part of a tsunami of political spending on the race that has been going on for months, says Baldwin often doesn’t make it home to Wisconsin on weekends because “she’d rather be in New York at Maria’s $7 million condo.” For this reason, the narrator intones, “New Yorkers have given Tammy more than $1.3 million. Tammy Baldwin is not Wisconsin’s senator anymore, she’s the third senator from New York.”

As he heads into what is seen as one of the most competitive and potentially pivotal races for the U.S. Senate on the November 5 ballot, Hovde is doing his darnedest to shake off the image some people have of him as an elite outsider and somewhat of a jerk. He insists this is a false impression. 

Just because he is a California banker with listed assets of between $195 million and $563 million, lives mostly in a $7 million oceanview mansion in Laguna Beach, was for three straight years named one of Orange County’s most influential people by a local business journal, and has frequently not even bothered to vote in Wisconsin elections, doesn’t mean Hovde is not intimately connected to the state’s working stiffs. In February, he even jumped into the icy waters of Lake Mendota in Madison to prove it.

Hovde in a still from his video from Lake Mendota.

“So the Dems and Senator Baldwin keep saying I’m not from Wisconsin,” he says in the video while shirtless in the freezing lake. “Which is a complete joke. All right, Sen. Baldwin, why don’t you get out here in this frozen lake and let’s really see who’s from Wisconsin.” Like most sensible Wisconsinites, the senator stayed out of the frigid water.

Baldwin keeps most of her relatively meager assets, reportedly worth around $1.2 million, in a blind trust. Hovde has not committed to doing so, although he has vowed to “step out of any management role” at the Utah-based bank where he now serves as chairman of board. (The bank, ingeniously named Sunwest Bank, has branchesin five states, not including Wisconsin, and some $3.4 billion in assets.)

And so even though his own financial conflicts are much greater and less well safeguarded, Hovde is going after Baldwin on this score, claiming she’s somehow helping the super-rich “make money off of industries Tammy regulates.” Hovde groused to the Wisconsin State Journalthat Baldwin “doesn’t report what her partner is doing. If she was married, they’d have to report that, right? So she’s, again, trying to confuse people.”

But who is trying to confuse whom? Baldwin and Brisbane are not married, so under the law, neither has to report Brisbane’s assets. Hovde, in contrast, has potential conflicts that are genuinely concerning, including his bank’s decision to accept money from a Mexican bank that has been tied to drug traffickers.….


Hovde, meanwhile, has tried to paint Baldwin as a dangerous radical. In a pair of similar ads that began airing last week, the ominous voiceover accuses Baldwin and Vice President Kamala Harris of being birds of a feather in, as one of these ads puts it, “allowing men to compete in girls’ sports, funding a clinic that offers transgender therapy to minors without parents’ consent, giving stimulus checks to illegals while Wisconsin families struggle.”

A still from one of Hovde’s attack ads.

To finish reading, open the link.