Mitt Romney is hanging up his spurs, it seems. Well, that is perhaps not the best metaphor to use since even though he represents a Mountain West state with plenty of horses to ride, it's hard to picture him atop one of them while wearing spurs. OK, sure, riding one, maybe... but perhaps politely riding dressage, since the only famous link between equestrian sports and Romney was the "dancing horse" his wife entered in the 2012 Olympics. But we're galloping a bit too far down the wrong trail, here, pardner.

All kidding aside, the fact that Mitt Romney will not be running for re-election to his Senate seat next year is notable for a number of reasons. His announcement made somewhat of a splash because of the main reason Romney gave for his decision:

At the end of another term, I'd be in my mid-80s. Frankly, it's time for a new generation of leaders. They're the ones that need to make the decisions that will shape the world they will be living in.

Continue Reading »

When I was born, there had only been one U.S. president impeached in all of American history. When I was a child, impeachment proceedings were launched against a second, but he resigned before the House of Representatives could impeach him. But since that time, a president has been impeached three times: Bill Clinton for lying about having sex with a White House intern; and Donald Trump both for trying to strongarm the leader of another country in order to create some dirt on his political opponent, and then for instigating an insurrection attempt rather than facing the reality that he lost his re-election effort. Now we stand at the brink of a possible fourth presidential impeachment in my lifetime.

We are where we are for one reason and one reason only: Speaker Kevin McCarthy's political weakness. McCarthy announced today that an impeachment inquiry would be launched solely because he had to assuage the extremists on his right flank, right at the start of a very contentious budget fight. He is using the impeachment process as a political prize for the crazies in his caucus, in the hopes that they won't depose him as speaker when he has to inevitably cut some sort of budget deal with the Democrats in his chamber, the Democrats and the Republicans in the Senate, and the White House. He is going to have to cut this deal -- that much is not in question -- but he is terrified (for good reason) that right after he does, the extremist wing of his own party will try to oust him as speaker. So he is tossing them this impeachment inquiry as a bone in the hopes that they won't, plain and simple.

Continue Reading »

Due to an unforeseen automotive emergency, there will be no column today. That's a fancy way of saying I spent all day replacing my alternator and doing a few other jobs. But the car's back together, it started right up first try, so columns will resume tomorrow as normal. My apologies for the interruption in service.

-- Chris Weigant

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

We hate to do this (as we suspect we'll be doing it recurringly for the next year or so), but once again the biggest political news of the week came from the legal system. Almost all the news was from the Republican side of the aisle, because of course it was. (And we promise that our subhead this week will be explained in due time, too... but not until the very end of the column.)

While most of the legal proceedings in the political world are going to be drawn-out affairs, this week we saw a truly speedy trial take place. Peter Navarro's trial began at the start of the week (after the holiday, even), took only two days from start to finish (with only three hours of witness testimony), and the jury then took a mere four hours to return with a guilty verdict. Navarro was found guilty of contempt of Congress, which was (quite obviously) an open-and-shut case. Navarro was prevented by the judge (before the trial began) of making his specious argument to the jury that he somehow had some sort of magic "executive privilege" that meant he was free to just blow off a congressional subpoena. In the first place, Donald Trump never backed up Navarro's claim of executive privilege -- which is not something that just anybody can claim (it requires the actual executive to claim it). Secondly, even if Navarro did have a legitimate claim to executive privilege (which he did not), he still would have been required to show up as a witness and claim executive privilege in person (which he did not do). So he really didn't have any defense at all and is pinning all his hopes that the Supreme Court will eventually just let him skate free. He now faces up to two years in jail, although even if he is sentenced to some prison time he will likely remain free until his appeals are all exhausted. Even so, it was good to see some actual legal consequences for a member of Donald Trump's White House.

Continue Reading »

Two Republicans went on trial this week. One of these trials just concluded while the other will stretch on for a while. The two aren't connected in any way, it was just a coincidence of the legal calendar that they both got underway this week. But both are important milestones, in different ways, so it bears taking a look at what is going on.

The first trial -- the short one -- had Peter Navarro facing a federal jury on charges that he defied a subpoena from Congress. And it didn't take long at all for the jury to decide that he was indeed guilty. The trial itself was only two days long. It featured fewer than three hours of witness testimony. The jury only needed four hours of deliberation to return a unanimous verdict.
Continue Reading »

Mike Pence gave a speech today in New Hampshire, and it actually made some news (I know! I'm as astonished as you probably are...). Pence devoted the whole speech to an argument for the Republican Party to return to its conservative roots and move dramatically away from economic populism. Which is rather odd, since by "populism" he basically means "all that stuff Donald Trump said and did while I was serving as his vice president." Consistency has never been conservatism's strong suit, I suppose....

Snark aside, it was interesting to read what Pence had to say. It remains doubtful whether he (or any other Republican) can turn back the tide of populism that Trump unleashed on the GOP, but Pence is certainly making a full-throated attempt. Here are a few excerpts from his speech, from the New York Times review of it:
Continue Reading »

I wrote about post-debate polling last week, but I may have drawn my conclusions too soon, if the latest two polls are any indication of movement. So I thought I'd revisit things today, since Labor Day traditionally kicks off the meat of the primary campaign season. (Plus, it'll get me back in the swing of talking about politics, after the 3-day holiday weekend.)

So let's start with the two polls. The first, in the field from August 24th through the 30th, is from the Wall Street Journal. Here are the results:

• Donald Trump -- 59 percent
• Ron DeSantis -- 13
• Nikki Haley -- 8
• Vivek Ramaswamy -- 5
• Chris Christie -- 3
• Mike Pence -- 2
• Tim Scott -- 2
• (all others got one percent or less)

Continue Reading »

[Program Note: I went looking for an old column to re-run today, and started with last year's. It seemed perfect, so I decided to just go with it. Hope everyone's having a wonderful Labor Day!]

Originally published September 5th, 2022

There will be no column today, as I will be celebrating Labor Day by not doing any. Hope everyone else is having an equally unproductive day!

-- Chris Weigant

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

It is rare in American politics when Democrats manage to win a political "messaging" war with Republicans, but it certainly seems like they've got a doozy of an opportunity to do just that, on the issue of lowering prescription drug prices. This messaging battle really began in earnest this week, and so far Republicans are losing badly.

This week President Biden announced the first 10 prescription drugs had been chosen for price negotiations with the pharmaceutical companies. Medicare will, for the first time, use its vast purchasing power to force the drug companies to lower their obscene prices. Americans pay the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs precisely because the government doesn't use Medicare's bargaining power to rein in the bottomless greed of the drug companies. The Inflation Reduction Act finally gave the government the power to bargain for prices -- but it was limited to only 10 drugs, at first. So Biden announced which drugs would be covered, and then (perfect timing) after a year of negotiations, the final prices agreed to will be publicly announced... right before the 2024 election. So of course Biden and the Democrats are going to use the issue politically. Especially since fighting for insanely-high profit margins for drug companies isn't exactly a very defensible thing, politically. But that's not going to stop Republicans from trying.

Continue Reading »

Could we finally be approaching the official end to the federal "War On Weed"? That possibility now exists thanks to the Department of Health and Human Services, who just made a recommendation to the Drug Enforcement Agency. And while it is not the unconditional surrender that pro-cannabis activists have been hoping for, it certainly would be the first major retreat in this metaphorical battlefield ever. If the H.H.S. advice is adopted by the D.E.A., the federal government would scale back a position that can only be described as "Draconian," and instead adopt a position that is a whole lot closer to reality.

Continue Reading »