[Note: Just to warn everyone, we won't be getting to the subject of that title until the talking points section of the program today. But before we get to that, we've got to take a look at a few other things happening in the political world....]

America just broke a record today, but it's not one to be proud of. The average price of diesel fuel nationwide just hit $5.85 per gallon, which is the highest it has ever been. It beat the previous record of $5.82, which was set in 2022, just after Russia invaded Ukraine. Diesel costs have risen over 50 percent since Donald Trump started his war of choice with Iran. But even though he normally likes bragging about setting records, Trump will probably not be boasting about this one.

No wonder Republicans are getting increasingly worried about their chances in the midterms, and increasingly trying to put some distance between them and their party's leader. He obviously doesn't care about them or their political fortunes, since he refuses to spend any of the $400 million in his super PAC on helping them campaign.

Trump's political advisers have been assuring anxious allies that MAGA Inc., the president's super PAC that had more than $400 million on hand as of July 31, will come to the rescue during the peak campaign season after Labor Day. But Republicans are increasingly skeptical and suspicious that Trump -- who must personally approve the spending -- has other ideas.

The president has not revealed his plans, and his political advisers consistently say they will not share them with reporters. Some people around Trump have concluded that he has little interest in spending the bulk of his super PAC funds on this year's midterm races, according to a person with knowledge of internal conversations.

Theories about what Trump wants to do with the money cover a broad range of possibilities, including protecting his political influence in the next presidential race by passing on the money to his chosen successor, and saving up for legal fees, postpresidential travel, events and pet projects, such as his library. Trump's Miami library is projected to cost at least $1 billion, the most expensive presidential library construction to date.

Apparently, Trump is scared that after the midterms he will be seen as a lame duck and the gravy train of donations will dry up. So he's going to just sit on all the money he's raised so far, so he can use it later on for his own purposes.

Trump did spend a tiny amount of this hoard this week, but (of course) he didn't use the money to boost any particular GOP candidate, instead he used it to tout his own wonderfulness:

The nonprofit arm of Trump's political operation, Securing American Greatness, premiered its first midterm ads on Wednesday, spending just under $1 million, according to the tracking firm AdImpact. The ads, set to air nationwide, feature video clips of Trump talking about tax breaks in his domestic spending legislation and lower prices for eggs and prescription drugs. One spot uses Trump's friend Dana White, the chief executive of the Ultimate Fighting Championship.

One unnamed Republican ad maker scoffed at the new ads: "Like, they think he's popular or something. He's not."

Next week, Trump is going to preside over what is shaping up to be a complete fiasco. He got the idea to hold a midterm party convention, but (as usual) the execution of this plan leaves a lot to be desired. The convention will take place on Wednesday and Thursday of next week, and both nights will feature a keynote speech from Trump. Dozens of GOP members of Congress have already indicated that they won't be attending, however, which isn't too surprising since Trump is charging them a whopping $25,000 entrance fee (which is a bargain when compared to the $88,600 Trump will be charging people to have their photo taken with him). This has already led to some scrambling, since the organizers are now worried that they won't even fill the arena:

Another senior Republican Party official, who asked to remain unidentified, said he has heard the party is struggling to attract attendees to the convention and that the White House and Trump's political team have stepped up efforts to encourage Republicans to attend.

Organizers have expressed confidence that the American Airlines Center arena, where the convention is being held, will be filled.

One Republican operative familiar with the event, however, said he had heard the convention will allow more everyday supporters than initially planned because organizers have not been able to find enough Republican officials and donors to attend.

We saved the best part for last, though. Because Trump's inner circle is so small and so clueless, they didn't realize that they had scheduled their big event on two notable days on the television calendar:

The convention's opening night will coincide with a Super Bowl rematch between the New England Patriots and Seattle Seahawks, airing on NBC and its streaming service, Peacock. On Thursday night, Trump and Vance will compete for viewers with a highly anticipated NFL rivalry matchup between the San Francisco 49ers and Los Angeles Rams in Melbourne, Australia, which will stream exclusively on Netflix.

Ooops. Want to bet which will get higher ratings, the opening of football season or Trump blathering to an empty arena for two nights in a row?

Trump isn't just flailing on the political front, however. He quite obviously has no clue what to do about the war of choice he started, which flared back up this week with an exchange of potshots between the U.S. and Iran. As usual, Trump proved his incompetence yet again with his reaction:

The post followed a 24-hour stretch during which Mr. [Donald] Trump's by-now familiar playbook for the conflict was on full display. The president went from boasting that Iran was defeated militarily, a "failed nation" in economic disarray, to threatening an apocalyptic attack that would leave "very little left" of the country after it had defied his declarations and demands.

By Wednesday morning, as Iran and the United States assessed the damage of the most recent attacks, Mr. Trump was back to trolling the country on social media, asking his followers whether the United States should name the Strait of Hormuz the "Trump Strait."

Foreign policy experts say the latest round of hostilities point to a reality that has become increasingly clear of Mr. Trump's handling of the war: He has run out of options.

"The strategy has been rinse and repeat, whether it's rhetorical or kinetic action," said Matthew Bartlett, a Republican strategist and former State Department appointee in the first Trump administration. "It's been absolutely shocking how the United States has been exposed for a lack of a plan of engagement, and a lack of a plan to either win or exit this war."

One Middle East expert summed Trump's incompetence up perfectly: "I don't think there's much of a strategy beyond trying to wish things into existence by sheer force of words."

This has led to an increase in danger signals emanating from the Pentagon, both public and private. The Washington Post reported this week on a confidential assessment of military readiness that raised quite a few red flags:

Several U.S. military leaders have advised Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth that prolonging large-scale operations against Iran is unsustainable and risks weakening their ability to confront threats elsewhere, including the U.S. homeland, according to people familiar with a recent assessment prepared for the Pentagon chief.

The warnings -- detailed for Hegseth by the heads of the Army, Navy and Air Force and the four-star commanders overseeing U.S. operations throughout Europe, Asia and Latin America -- appear in the Aug. 14 edition of the Secretary of Defense Orders Book (SDOB), these people said. They described the assessment to The Washington Post on the condition of anonymity because the document is classified.

. . .

The Aug. 14 orders book directs some troops deployed in the Middle East to remain there through September and some others into 2027, said those familiar with the document. The prospect of extending those forces further compelled military leaders to voice their concern, these people said.

Leaders of the U.S. European Command, the U.S. Pacific Command and the U.S. Southern Command, along with the Navy's top admiral, responded with what is characterized in the SDOB as a "non-concur," those familiar with the assessment said -- meaning they disagree with the secretary's order to extend their forces but will execute it nevertheless.

More and more, people are publicly ripping into Pete Hegseth, who richly deserves such criticism. Frank Kendall, who served as secretary of the Air Force, went public with his concerns this week:

The Trump administration is committing acts that military officers should consider outrageous and unacceptable. The military has conducted extrajudicial executions of alleged drug dealers at sea and of a country's head of state, along with several of his family members. The administration has kidnapped another head of state. And the president started a war without even consulting Congress, much less obtaining congressional authorization. In an indication of what may be still to come, the president has put National Guard troops on the streets of Democratic-governed cities without local leaders' request or consent.

Many lower-level officers I have spoken with are privately appalled but afraid to challenge what they are seeing. The collective hope seems to be that if they can all just go on as if nothing unusual is occurring, this time will pass and nothing bad will happen to them -- no loss of position, no demotion or forced retirement, no loss of reputation, no removal from a promotion list by Pete Hegseth, the secretary of defense.

The secretary of the Army quit this week, as Pete Hegseth continues to purge the Pentagon of high-ranking officers he doesn't personally like. Which is leaving the American military weaker:

It was obvious from the start that appointing Pete Hegseth -- a former Fox News weekend host -- as secretary of defense was a spectacularly bad idea: He was, by far, the least qualified person ever to lead the Pentagon. So, too, was it obvious that Hegseth's decision to fire more than two dozen senior officers and to block the promotions of at least 45 officers -- for reasons he never explained -- was a spectacularly bad idea that would deny the armed forces the veteran, apolitical leadership they need.

What was not so apparent, until now, were the consequences of those decisions. They have created a dangerous leadership vacuum that is jeopardizing national security and military readiness. Critical posts in the armed forces are either not being filled or are being filled with officers seemingly appointed more for political than professional reasons.

Case in point was one of the most boneheaded moves Hegseth has yet made. This defies belief, because it is so shortsighted and counterproductive:

A bipartisan group of U.S. lawmakers is pressing the Army to explain why it told a unit based in Europe to stop specializing in drone warfare, an order that comes as the world's battlefields rapidly evolve and military tactics increasingly rely on uncrewed systems to fight.

The 173rd Airborne Brigade was building its own drones and practicing the kind of warfare that Ukraine has pioneered against Russia and that Iran has fought against the U.S. -- warfare that has killed and wounded American troops. The brigade of 600 soldiers was set up in November to be deployed anywhere that drones were needed.

"We have deep concerns that eliminating this specialized drone unit will limit our ability to learn from allies, particularly the Ukrainian Armed Forces, and hinder our efforts to modernize drone warfare at the speed necessary to compete on the modern battlefield," the lawmakers said in a letter shared with The Associated Press.

. . .

"This specialized unit was a prudent response in a moment when the character of warfare is changing faster than a conventional formation's ability to adapt," the lawmakers say.

One lawmaker in particular sounded off on Hegseth "creating a leadership void at the top of our military ranks," after the news of the resignation of the secretary of the Army broke. Senator Thom Tillis posted on social media:

I served on Senate Armed Services for 8 years and as chair or ranking member of the Personnel and Readiness subcommittee. I have never witnessed more inept management of the brave men and women who serve our country. [Pete Hegseth] is intimidated by competence and retreats to ginning up culture wars instead of soberly attending to the vital work of our national defense and the health and well-being of our fighting force.

I urge the President to find a new leader at the Pentagon who will retain and empower our military talent rather than diminish it.

What Tillis doesn't mention is that he was actually the deciding vote in the Senate, when Hegseth was up for confirmation. If he had listened to the people who were saying similar things about Hegseth during his confirmation hearings, then we wouldn't be in this mess.

If you really want a dose of scathing incompetence from the military, though, the prize this week goes to a report in ProPublica about the $533 million the Pentagon spent on a factory to build artillery shells:

A robot was on fire. Again.

It was the summer of 2024, and the cutting-edge robots inside General Dynamics' sweltering artillery factory near Dallas were catching fire with startling regularity, according to four former workers there. This wasn't ideal, as the plant was supposed to be churning out urgently needed artillery shells for Ukraine. The robots, giant metal arms with clamps for hands, would end up drenched in oil, which would then -- no surprise -- combust as they moved steel blocks heated to 1,800 degrees into and out of a machine that periodically erupted columns of fire. One blaze that summer melted a robot's cables, putting it out of commission for a week.

Only weeks earlier, defense officials and executives had touted the factory's innovative new machinery, imported from Turkey, at a gala opening ceremony. But employees were already used to spectacular mishaps, fiery and otherwise. "After the second, third, fourth time, it just became almost normal," one former worker said. "It got to the point where I was not surprised by anything that happened there."

Instead of producing shells in an efficient and streamlined fashion, the pricey machines kept failing in bizarre ways. The robot arms would swing out of control, smashing into carefully calibrated equipment, and sometimes they would unexpectedly drop hunks of steel 5 feet down to the floor. The factory's signature device, meant to precisely stretch the steel for the artillery shells, instead often cracked it beyond repair. Then there were the giant press machines, which required regular pounding with a sledgehammer to function properly but still botched the shaping of nearly every shell. "We really didn't have any standardized practice," said Quantel White, a former employee. "It was just a bunch of guys taking turns going at the machine with a sledgehammer every night." To workers, even the factory buildings themselves came to feel doomed, with acrid smoke hanging in 100-degree heat over foundations seemingly sinking into the earth.

To date, the factory has blown multiple deadlines and "never produced a single usable shell." The Army has not held General Dynamics responsible for the failure, or asked for any of that half-billion dollars back. Your tax dollars at work!

All of this is amusing on a certain level, but deeply frightening on another. The Pentagon is becoming increasingly dysfunctional, led by an incompetent leader who was named to his position by an even-more-incompetent leader. We are now bogged down in a quagmire in Iran, with no end in sight and no coherent plan for how to get out of it. And we're only a little more than a year and a half into Trump's second term.

 

We have two Honorable Mention awards to hand out before we get to the main event, for two excellent responses to a bit of idiocy from Donald Trump this week. Trump has been championing data centers, which is good news for Democrats since roughly three-fourths of the public is against them now. Trump ripped into the critics (many of whom are his own voters) on social media this week, saying:

The only reason that communities throughout the U.S.A. should not want Data Centers is if they want to end up being backwards and poor. If they want to be successful and rich, with far lower taxes and jobs all over the place, let Data Reign. The good news is that there are plenty of other places that want them. If we kill the Golden Goose, you will only have yourselves to blame.

Bernie Sanders then stepped up to respond to Trump, as only Bernie can:

No, Mr. President, the 75% of Americans who oppose data centers in their communities do not want to be "backwards and poor."

They want a decent future for themselves, their kids and their communities. They understand that data centers are destroying local environments and that these out-of-control technologies will likely eliminate tens of millions of jobs, eviscerate our privacy, negatively impact the mental health of our children, radically alter how we as human beings relate to each other, undermine our democracy and threaten the very future of humanity.

They have every right to be concerned.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez also responded, by saying what plenty of people must be thinking:

I mean, how about we put one in Mar-a-Lago? I love that. Let's put up a data center in Mar-a-Lago, and we'll see how backwards and poor he is in response to that.

Data centers are shaping up to be a key issue in this year's election, and every time Trump doubles down on his support for them it's like he's handing Democrats a big gift. Even many Republicans are moving away from their previous support for data centers, but Trump (being Trump) never admits he was ever wrong about anything -- he just doubles down instead.

Moving right along, we have two winners of the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week this week, one for winning a primary and one for hilariously trolling Donald Trump.

Senator Ed Markey easily fended off a challenge from Representative Seth Moulton this week, decisively beating him by almost 30 points. This was an interesting election because it flipped the script on the generational shift in the party, since Markey (who is 80 years old) was the staunch progressive in the race, while Moulton (47 years old) challenged him from his right -- the opposite of most such intergenerational contests this year. Markey was endorsed by Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. We wrote about the contest earlier this week in more detail, if anyone's interested.

Because Massachusetts is such a deep blue state, Markey is all but guaranteed to win re-election in November.

Our second MIDOTW award goes to Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers, who had the funniest response to Donald Trump's idiotic move to rename Lake Ontario. Evers posted on social media a short video of him doodling on a napkin in a McDonald's, in response to the news about Trump's move. You can't really clearly see what he's drawing, but the caption says it all:

And I just renamed Lake Michigan Lake Wisconsin. See, I can sign napkins that say things, too.

This was the best comment on Trump's idiocy we have yet seen, we have to say.

[Congratulate Senator Ed Markey on his Senate contact page, and Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers on his official contact page, to let them know you appreciate their efforts.]

 

Sadly, we also have multiple Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week awards to hand out as well.

The first goes to Representatives Jared Golden and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, who blindsided Hakeem Jeffries (and all the other House Democrats) this week by voting to advance a Republican piece of political posturing.

They both sit on the Rules Committee, which is where bills have to go before they are allowed on the House floor for a vote. Traditionally, the party in control of the chamber all votes to advance their own bills, while the party not in control all votes against them. However, some Republicans on the Rules Committee have been tanking their own party's bills, as some sort of protest against their own leadership. That's what everyone expected to happen this week on a bill that condemned socialism. The bill was meaningless -- it was solely designed to embarrass Democrats and be used in campaign ads against them. But it didn't have enough GOP votes to make it out of the committee.

So Golden and Gluesenkamp Perez stepped in to save the bill, by voting for it. This was a tradeoff to get a vote on a bill for fishermen that Golden wanted passed, but the way it happened was a smack in the face to Jeffries. They didn't warn him in advance and just blindsided him with their votes. Jeffries expressed his annoyance thusly:

The decision by two of our colleagues to blindside the entire House Democratic Caucus and join with the Republican majority to pass a procedural rule on the brink of failing represents a significant breach of trust. It is an action that necessitates a serious response, and we have asked the Committee on Caucus Rules to take this up in short order.

By week's end, however, no disciplinary measures had been taken against them.

The other Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week goes out to Senator John Fetterman, who was the subject of a scathing report in the Wall Street Journal this week. Here's how this article opens:

One morning in June, three paralyzed military veterans in wheelchairs from rural Pennsylvania arrived at the office of Sen. John Fetterman for a long-awaited meeting to discuss legislation that would improve their care.

Fetterman's staff greeted them with bad news: The Pennsylvania Democrat had to cancel. He'd told his staff he may have eaten something bad and wasn't feeling well, according to people familiar with the matter.

Less than an hour after his staffers met with the veterans in his place, Fetterman walked into his office, showing no signs of illness. He had an appointment he didn't want to miss, he told staff: an interview on Fox News to discuss Israel and the war in Iran.

The rest of the article is just as damning. It chronicles how Fetterman has become nothing short of a primadonna, eagerly appearing on rightwing news channels while blowing off meetings with constituents and never appearing in committee meetings he's supposed to attend. He backed out of attending the funeral of three Pennsylvania police officers, because he thought it was going to be too long.

The whole article paints a disgraceful picture of Fetterman, and critics are denouncing him as a result. We've been saying for a while now that Democrats won't need to flip just four seats in the Senate to regain control of the chamber, in actuality they're going to have to flip five -- because otherwise Fetterman is going to become the new Joe Manchin. He's going to yank the rest of his caucus around on a chain and make them dance to his tune. He swears he's not thinking about switching parties, but at this point it's hard to take that seriously.

Fetterman has become a major disappointment for many Democrats, both within his state and nationwide. The Wall Street Journal report didn't cause this, but it certainly exacerbated it. Democrats had such high hopes for Fetterman, and he's been disappointing them ever since he won his seat. Which is why he's an easy choice for this week's Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award.

[Contact Representative Jared Golden on his House contact page, Representative Marie Gluesenkamp Perez on her House contact page, and Senator John Fetterman on his Senate contact page, to let them know what you think of their actions.]

 

Volume 855 (9/4/26)

Our talking points this week are all on the same subject, and were all inspired by an excellent article in the Washington Post this week. Rather than just beating the issue of "Medicare For All" to death (which is all most political journalism does on the subject), it took a deeper look into all kinds of good ideas being floated by Democrats that most of them could probably get behind. Doing so shows that there is a lot more nuance than just the "gotcha" question about whether a Democrat supports Medicare For All or not, because there are multiple ways the entire health insurance industry could be improved that fall short of it.

In fact, the article was so full of good ideas that we couldn't even include them all here. We picked what we thought were the best of these ideas -- both because they would improve people's lives in a big way and because they could actually gain the support of enough Democrats to pass Congress.

So this week, here are seven health insurance ideas for Democrats to campaign on. These would be dandy talking points to use when any Democrat is faced with the Medicare For All question, because it shows there are a whole bunch of ways to improve things for average Americans even if Medicare For All never passes.

 

   Reverse the trillion-dollar cuts to Medicaid

The first two are obvious ones, necessitated by the cruelty of the Republicans.

"Democrats will reverse the trillion-dollar cuts to Medicaid that Trump's big, ugly bill made. These cuts will hit Americans hard, and will lead to rural hospitals closing across the country. Donald Trump campaigned on a pledge that he wouldn't touch Medicare or Medicaid, but that was nothing more than a cruel lie. Instead, seven and a half million Americans are going to be kicked off of Medicaid. Democrats will reverse the Draconian cuts the Republicans made to Medicaid as our first order of business."

 

   Restore the Obamacare subsidies

Again, an obvious one.

"We will also restore the Obamacare subsidies that Republicans allowed to expire, which has led to four million Americans not being able to afford healthcare any more. Trump doesn't care that you and your family can't afford health insurance, but we do. We will reinstate these subsidies and make them permanent, which will make healthcare affordable for millions of hardworking American families."

 

   Lower the age

This one's not as straightforward, since a new age limit would have to be agreed upon -- but it's still worth talking about.

"Democrats want to lower the age that Americans have to be in order to be covered by Medicare. Currently, this doesn't kick in until you hit 65 years old, but we can expand the program to fit in people who are younger than that without having to change anything else about Medicare. Seniors love the security of Medicare and we think that security should be available to people who haven't quite hit 65 yet."

 

   Cover dental, vision, and hearing aids

This is an easy sell, because who wouldn't be for it?

"Medicare should be expanded so that it covers dental, vision, and hearing aids. There is absolutely no reason why these things should be treated as anything other than health needs that insurance should cover. If seniors need to see a dentist or need glasses, they should be able to do so within the Medicare system, just like all their other health needs. Democrats will expand Medicare to include dental, vision, and hearing aids because it makes sense to do so."

 

   Cap out-of-pocket expenses

This one is a pretty easy sell too, because it would be wildly popular.

"Democrats are going to cap out-of-pocket costs for people covered by Medicare, so that seniors can make financial plans without worrying about skyrocketing medical bills. Once you hit the cap each year, then you will not be charged any more out-of-pocket costs. This will bring relief to millions of Americans."

 

   Cover all children up to 26 years old

Another idea that would be wildly popular.

"We should provide health insurance for all children up to 26 years old, period. No child in America should have to go without health care just because their parents can't afford it. We are the richest country in the world, and we should be providing for the most vulnerable of our citizens. Guaranteeing health insurance for all children will be an enormous relief for young parents and will provide financial stability for tens of millions of families across this country."

 

   Create a public option

This one is still worth fighting for.

"The government should spur competition in the health insurance marketplace by offering a public option -- so that people can choose to be covered just like seniors on Medicare. This was almost included in the Affordable Care Act, but had to be left out due to a few holdout Democrats, but it is still a good idea and it needs to be revived. For people who don't want to hassle with private insurance companies, there should be a public option for them to select for their health insurance needs."

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground