The conventional political wisdom all year has been that the Republicans were going to have a big "red wave" midterm election, which would mean Democrats would lose lots of seats pretty much everywhere -- the House, the Senate, and governors' offices. This idea was formulated back when the voters were worried about different things than they are now, however, because life (and politics) is not static -- constant change is the only thing that stays the same. We are just under 100 days until this year's election, which means there is still time for the public's focal point to change even further, as unforeseen events pop up. But it's worth taking a look at how things have shifted over the past few months, because things are looking decidedly better for the Democrats.

Continue Reading »

That title, of course, is intended as a spoof of what some consider the most overused go-to headline in the Washington punditocracy's toolbox: "Democrats In Disarray!" For once, the absolute opposite seems to be true, and it is so glaringly obvious that even the political press's pooh-bahs have had to admit it (full credit where it is due: we got the title from a Politico article). Because Senator Joe Manchin (of all people!) just turned a very rainy day into some beautiful sunshine.

We were as astonished as everyone else, truth be told. We tend to believe Manchin a lot more when he says: "I'm not going to support this" and then walks away than when he hints that some sort of deal might actually be possible. And for good reason -- because that has been his track record for the past year or more. And it took exactly one year for him to get over all his mind games and teasing and petulance and other assorted nonsense, to emerge with a grand bargain he struck with Chuck Schumer. Manchin signed his initial letter with Schumer -- outlining what he'd accept in a reconciliation bill and what he wouldn't -- on July 28, 2021. On July 27th of this year -- two days ago -- he surprised everyone else in the Senate (and everyone else in Washington and beyond as well) by agreeing to not just a deal, but a much bigger deal than he had been talking about over the past two weeks.

Democrats had reconciled themselves (and, yes, "budget reconciliation" pun definitely intended, there...) to getting absolutely nothing on Biden's agenda done, except for a few improvements on the healthcare issue: a scaled-back effort to allow Medicare to negotiate for prescription drug prices with the big drug corporations, a 2-year extension of the COVID boost to the Obamacare policy subsidies, and a cap on seniors' out-of-pocket costs for drug prices. That was all Democrats figured they could get from Manchin, after he rained all over the idea of doing much of anything else a few weeks earlier.

Even this would have been a historic achievement, mind you. Democrats have been fighting for Medicare to be able to lower the price of prescription drugs for 20 years now. And the end of the Obamacare subsidies would have been a political disaster, as letters to policyholders containing big monthly fee hikes for next year would have gone out right before the midterm elections. Granted, all of this was just a small part of what Biden's original Build Back Better bill would have accomplished, but it was still an important step nonetheless.

But what Manchin and Schumer unveiled this week went much further. It included all the healthcare improvements and even expanded one of them -- the increased Obamacare subsidies will now be extended for three years, not just two. This will become important, because if they had only managed two years then it would have moved the problem of them disappearing to the end of 2024 -- and those same letters would have gone out right before the presidential election. Three years pushes the problem to the end of 2025, which is much more politically astute.

In addition, the bill will make the biggest investment ever made in fighting climate change. There is $369 billion in energy and climate spending within the new bill. Apparently at Manchin's insistence, the bill is now going to be called the "Inflation Reduction Act," and will be more than paid for (with the extra going to fight the national debt and deficit) by a whopping $739 billion in: new corporate taxes, tax hikes for some very wealthy people, the savings from negotiating lower prescription drug prices, and more I.R.S. enforcement (so they can audit a lot more ultra-wealthy people).

Which is all fantastic news, really. Most Democrats were stunned by the surprise development. Most amazed of all, perhaps was Senator Tina Smith from Minnesota, who tweeted: "Holy shit. Stunned, but in a good way. $370B for climate and energy and 40% emissions reduction by 2030."

Republicans, on the other hand, were in a serious snit over the idea that corporations should pay a minimum tax of 15 percent, and that Americans would be paying far less for prescription drugs. Or, to be fair, what they were really annoyed with was the fact that Mitch McConnell -- for once -- got soundly beaten at his own petty game. McConnell had been attempting to hold up an unrelated bill (to boost computer chip production here in America) as leverage, to convince Democrats to give up on the idea of passing any budget reconciliation bill at all. He thought he had achieved this goal, what with Manchin being so negative about it all so recently. So Senate Republicans joined in with Democrats in passing the Chips and Science Act (more on that in a moment). Mere hours later, the Schumer-Manchin deal was sprung on Washington. Republicans tried a rear-guard action by blocking a bill for military veterans (more on this in a moment too), but that isn't exactly a politically viable stance to take.

Democrats passed the chips bill through the House and sent it to President Joe Biden's desk, and are now amping up the pressure on Republicans to vote to support veterans. And they still look like they're going to get the Manchin bill through too. In other words, Democrats are definitely in array, while Mitch McConnell and the rest of the Republicans are left to sputter with rage.

Think that's overstating it? Here is Senator John Kennedy summing up how he sees the situation: "We got our ass kicked. It's just that simple.... Looks to me like we got rinky-doo'd. That's a Louisiana word for 'screwed'."

All in all, a good week for President Joe Biden and the Democratic team. Well... maybe not the whole team... the booby prize for the GOP this week was winning the Congressional Baseball Game by a whopping 10-to-nothing. Oh well, you can't win them all!

Biden already has one bill on his desk, ready to sign, after this week. The chips bill was originally going to be a pointedly anti-China bill, then it was named the "Creating Helpful Incentives to Produce Semiconductors for America Act," or the "CHIPS for America Act." Chuck Schumer, for some inexplicable reason, decided to edit this at the last minute to just the "Chips and Science Act." One Republican House member had an excellent suggestion (although he waggishly made it tongue-in-cheek): call it the "Creating Helpful Incentives to Produce Semiconductors and Sustaining American Leadership in Scientific Affairs Act," because then it would be the "CHIPS and SALSA Act." Republicans usually aren't this amusing, but we have to admit we laughed at that one.

Whatever you call it, it's now on Biden's desk, after getting 17 Republican votes in the Senate (64-33) and 24 more in the House (243-187). So Biden can already chalk up a big legislative victory, right before the August congressional break.

The biggest good news from the week for Biden and the rest of the Democrats, however, was that the average price of gasoline has now fallen over 75 cents from its high at the start of the summer season. This is defusing the issue politically, and it could largely be off voters' radars by November if the price slide continues. Currently, the price-per-gallon is $4.25. If it falls another 75 cents to $3.50, it likely will completely disappear as the number one issue for many voters.

On a personal note, the Bidens have announced that their granddaughter Naomi Biden will be getting married on the South Lawn of the White House. That was a happy bit of icing on this week's cake, as it were.

Of course, all the news wasn't good, but then when is it ever? The gross domestic product shrank 0.9 percent last quarter, the second one in a row with a negative number. But Biden (and most economists) insist that we are not in a recession, because the employment numbers are just as robust as ever. Recessions are always accompanied by joblessness, but we're about as far from that as you can get, so Biden's got a valid point.

Also, Biden continues to drag his feet on the idea of forgiving at least $10,000 in student loans. However, he has promised that he will make a decision "by the end of August," so maybe this would be a good thing to do after Congress leaves town (and leaves the political media desperate for storylines). He's really got to do it before the school year starts, for it to benefit him politically (and, hopefully, motivate young voters to actually vote in the midterms).

Let's see... what else has been happening this week in politics? The "missing text messages" story took a darker turn this week, as it was revealed that the acting head of the Department of Homeland Security and his chief deputy both also had their phones mysteriously erased just after January 6th, which conveniently deleted all their texts from that period. It's almost like... I don't know... they and the Secret Service were actively trying to cover up something? Congressional Democrats are now calling for the D.H.S. inspector general to be replaced, since he obviously cannot be trusted to inform Congress in any sort of timely manner what everyone over there has been doing to cover their tracks.

Donald Trump, meanwhile, is actively being investigated by the Justice Department in a criminal inquiry that already has a sitting grand jury. They've interviewed two top aides to Mike Pence and are interviewing more people every day. So one has to assume Trump is sweating heavily right about now.

Trump this week proved he simply doesn't care one whit about the families of the victims of 9/11, as he brushed aside their concerns over hosting a Saudi-backed golf event at one of his golf clubs. Trump wouldn't even meet with them, and was quoted questioning whether anyone had "gotten to the bottom" of what took place on 9/11 (since he's never met a conspiracy theory he didn't like, one assumes).

Joe Biden, on the other hand, addressed a gathering of Black police officers and lit into his predecessor:

And for three hours, the defeated former president of the United States watched it all happen as he sat in the comfort of the private dining room next to the Oval Office. While he was doing that, brave law enforcement officers were subject to the medieval Hell for three hours -- dripping in blood, surrounded by carnage, face to face with a crazed mob that believed in the lies of the defeated president.

The police were heroes that day. Donald Trump lacked the courage to act. The brave women and men in blue all across this nation should never forget that. You can't be pro-insurrection and pro-cop. You can't be pro-insurrection and pro-democracy. You can't be pro-insurrection and pro-America.

Sounds about right, to us.

One interesting development is that Rupert Murdoch's media empire of right-wing echo chambers seems to be moving away from Trump in a big way. The New York Post and the Wall Street Journal both ran editorials on the same day, right after the last House Select Committee hearing, baldly stating (in the words of the Post): "Trump has proven himself unworthy to be this country's chief executive again."

Fox News, another big part of Murdoch's empire, refused to air Trump's latest harangue to a crowd of fawning supporters. However, it did carry Mike Pence's speech to the same group live. (Ouch. That's gotta hurt!)

Democrats got incensed at online streaming channel Hulu this week, for arbitrarily refusing political ads on abortion and guns, but after they raised a hue and cry, parent company Disney thankfully stepped in and changed Hulu's ad policy to match the policy on all their other various channels.

And finally, two amusing notes and one happy one to end on.

Republican Representative Glenn Thompson recently voted (as three-fourths of House Republicans also did) against a bill codifying both same-sex marriage and interracial marriage rights into federal law. Then he headed for home where, three days later, he attended the gay marriage of his own son. Hypocrisy, much?

John Fetterman continues his brilliant tweaking of his opponent in the Pennsylvania Senate race, Mehmet "Dr." Oz, hitting him once again on his lack of any real tie to the state whatsoever. This time it featured Bruce Springsteen "E Street Band" member Stevie Van Zandt. This hilarious video starts with Van Zandt calling out: "Yo! Dr. Oz!" and moves right along to some heavy-duty ridicule, delivered in the New Jersey-est accent possible: "Whaddaya doing in Pennsylvania? Everybody knows you live in New Jersey!" If you've got 29 seconds, there simply isn't a more amusing way to spend it than watching this ad, trust us.

And finally, we have to highlight one of the most interesting developments of all this week. We're going to hold off on handing out any awards for this, at least until the primary actually happens next week, but as of now Wisconsin Democrat Mandela Barnes has an absolutely clear path to the party's nomination to take on Senator Ron Johnson, one of the most vulnerable Republicans up for re-election. This was due to all of the other Democratic candidates in the race selflessly dropping out before primary day, even though some of them had a decent shot at winning.

This is an almost-unheard of display of party unity -- before the primary even happened. Which is why we saved it for last in this week's roundup of stories. Because there simply isn't a better example of Democrats being "in array" in such a big way this week.

We have two Honorable Mention awards to get to this week before we get to the main one.

First, we had to hesitate before awarding Jon Stewart an award this week, but only because he was truly acting in what was really a non-partisan way. After being an incredibly effective champion for the 9/11 responders, Stewart has moved on to championing American military veterans who have been adversely affected by being in close proximity to "burn pits" in Afghanistan and Iraq. Burn pits are exactly what they sound like -- big pits where the military burned stuff. All their stuff they didn't want to leave behind. Without the slightest regard to whether or not the smoke from these pyres was heavily toxic and deadly.

The Senate considered a bill to help fund the health care for these brave men and women this week. Previously, it had not been contentious, since what politician really wants to be on the side of being stingy to veterans? But even though it had advanced with plenty of Republican support up to this point, all of a sudden Republicans had their hissy fit about the Manchin-Schumer deal, and they decided to wreak their legislative revenge -- so 41 of them voted against it (including 25 GOP senators who had already previously voted for it). Since the Chips and Science bill was now out of reach (a last-minute push to kill it in the House failed), they decided they'd throw a giant monkey wrench into this bill instead.

A bill which helped military veterans. That's what they used to show their spite. A White House spokesman was downright scathing afterwards: "Congressional Republicans... are so frantically upset at the Inflation Reduction Act that they have turned their backs on veterans exposed to toxic chemicals in the service of their country... taking out pointless rage at the loss of welfare for big pharma on veterans, American business, and American workers is both pathetic and the epitome of extreme MAGA values." Adam Schiff chimed in with: "Senate Republicans blocked a bill to give toxin-exposed veterans health care. Against everything. For nothing. That's the GOP agenda."

Stewart -- not one to mince words at all -- let the Republicans have it with both barrels. We'll just quote one line from his 10-minute heartfelt rant about the Republicans who killed the bill (for now): "If this is American First, then America is fucked." Some are now even proposing keeping the Senate in session until the bill does pass, which would eat into that precious month of vacation time they're planning on. Hey, whatever it takes, right?

Moving on, we also have an Honorable Mention award for Mallory McMorrow, a Michigan state senator who went viral with a scathing floor speech earlier this year after a Republican attacked her for supposedly supporting "grooming" kids for sex. McMorrow didn't take it lying down, and lit into how offensive the slur was (we ran the full transcript of her speech right after it happened, for those who would like to see it or read it).

But the Honorable Mention isn't for her speech, it is instead for what happened afterwards. The odious Republican who used the disgusting slur did so in a fundraising appeal. She raised a total of $235 off this repulsive attempt.

Poetic justice struck, however, as McMorrow's video was seen millions of times and the donations absolutely poured in. To the tune of over a million bucks. That is an impressive bit of political irony!

But our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week this week is an activist who managed to accomplish a very similar feat this week, absolutely owning Matt Gaetz in the process. Here is the whole story:

Olivia Julianna, the 19-year-old reproductive rights activist who this week turned an insult from Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) into a fundraiser, has raised more than $1.3 million for women seeking abortions -- after taking just 72 hours to hit the $1 million mark.

The donations inspired by Olivia Julianna, a political strategist for the nonprofit Gen Z for Change, happily surprised abortion rights advocates. The $1.3 million raised by the group by early Friday is more than 10 percent of what the National Network of Abortion Funds -- which includes about 90 abortion funds in the United States and Mexico -- distributed in an entire year. It is also enough to fund thousands of abortions, which cost on average $550 per service.

This means "that a bunch of people who would simply have not gotten their abortions now will," said Liza Fuentes, a senior research scientist at the Guttmacher Institute in New York who has studied reproductive health care for 16 years.

Olivia Julianna, who uses only her first and middle names due to privacy concerns, launched the fundraiser after an online exchange with Gaetz. When she criticized Gaetz for calling abortion rights activists "disgusting" and overweight at a political rally last week, the congressman shot back, posting her photo on Twitter next to a link to a news story that mentioned his insults.

Gaetz's tweet has been shared hundreds of times and has triggered online attacks against Olivia Julianna. When reached for comment about his tweet and the ensuing fundraiser, a spokesman for Gaetz said only that no amount of solicitation would change the United States' new status as a "pro-life nation" after Roe v. Wade was overturned last month.

Meanwhile, the donations are continuing to roll in, and the hashtag "#ThanksMattGaetz" was trending on Twitter.

"When I originally put out this fundraiser, I was hoping we would raise a few thousand dollars," Olivia Julianna said in a statement. "This movement... has truly left me in awe."

So in the subcategory of "harnessing Republican repulsiveness to make good things happen" (as well as "showing the world what a truly odious schmuck Matt Gaetz is," to boot), Olivia Julianna is clearly the champion this week. Which is why it was an easy choice to award her the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award. Hopefully, she'll top two million before she's through!

[Because activist Olivia Julianna is not a candidate for office, we don't have a problem with directing people to her group's ActBlue fundraising page, where we notice that they've now successfully raised a total of $1.68 million, as of this writing.]

It was such a week of spectacular "array" for Democrats that we couldn't really think of any that deserved the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award.

Oh, sure, there was Andrew Yang, who apparently is going to tilt at the windmill of forming a third American political party with Christine Todd Whitman, but their idea is so milquetoast and ill-defined (they don't really stand for much of anything other than "not being extremist") that it seems preordained to fail. So the less said about it the better, really.

And there was also Senator Kyrsten Sinema, who was mildly miffed at not being the center of attention while Joe Manchin strode onto center stage with his Schumer deal this week. Sinema refuses to say whether she'll vote for the bill, because she wants to play her own game of being coy for as long as she can get away with. Whatever -- play your little political game, Kyrsten, for now. As long as she doesn't actually come out against the bill, the most we can manage for her is a (Dis-)Honorable Mention.

Of course, as always, if we've missed someone obvious, let us know about it down in the comments, but for now we're setting the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award back on the shelf for next week.

Volume 670 (7/29/22)

We're going to try something different today. Rather than our seven discrete talking points, we're just going to quote extensively from one amazing recent article in the Washington Post.

Because not only are Democrats in total array in Congress, they actually seem to be in array out on the campaign trail as well. For once, Democrats all seem to be singing from the same songbook. Democrats aren't usually this good at "messaging" -- individual politicians can be, but rarely is it a concerted partywide effort.

This year seems different, as the article points out. This year, building on "the Freedom Riders during the 1960s civil rights movement and the 'freedom to marry' slogan for same-sex marriage campaigns in the past decade," Democrats have latched onto this one potent and powerful political term in a big way.

It's a fairly obvious move to make, as a few political pundits pointed out in the article. First, from Dan Pfeiffer, who was White House communications director for Barack Obama. He suggested Democrats rally around an "American Freedom Agenda," because internal polls (unsurprisingly) showed it is an effective message to counter the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade and all the rest of it. In an interview, Pfeiffer explained his idea:

I don't think you can just run around and say "freedom" as much as possible.... We need a story to tell about the radical extremism of MAGA Republicans, and freedom is a great way to tell that story. Republicans view freedom as almost entirely about your ability to buy an assault rifle. Democrats think it means you should have the ability to make decisions about your own body, who you marry and what books you read, and I think we have the high ground in that debate.

Anat Shenker-Osorio, a "liberal communications consultant" agreed, after finding that "freedom" is the number one value that cuts across race, gender, and geographic lines:

The overarching message is to say... Trump Republicans want to take away freedoms from all who do not work and live and look like them. They're coming for our freedoms from the most basic notion that we decide who represents us to what happens in our bodies and our relationships to our ability to send kids to school and know they will come back home to us safe.

These are professional wordsmiths -- people whose job it is to come up with Democratic talking points. Which is why we felt we couldn't do any better here today. So we're just going to present all the quotes from the article in the order they appear, from Democratic politicians who are already eagerly embracing the concept. Because, for once, we simply cannot improve upon what Democrats are already saying out on the campaign trail.

Really, when you think about it, it's the perfect end to an article with the title "Democrats In Array!" So here are the talking points Democrats have already been using:

We are the party of freedom. Freedom to make your own health-care choices. Freedom from your fear of gun violence. Freedom to have your vote counted. Our message is our values. Freedom for all.

-- Representative Eric Swalwell
(tweeting two weeks after the Supreme Court tossed out Roe)

[Editor's note: only the first line of this was quoted in the Post story, but we had to go dig the rest of it out for completeness' sake.]

Freedom. It's under attack in your state.

Republican leaders -- they're banning books, making it harder to vote, restricting speech in classrooms, even criminalizing women and doctors. I urge all of you to join the fight, or join us in California, where we still believe in freedom -- freedom of speech, freedom to choose, freedom from hate and the freedom to love.

-- California Governor Gavin Newsom
(from a television ad he used to troll Ron DeSantis with, by running it in Florida)

Democrats FIGHT FOR your freedom!

-- Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi
(tweeting hours before the House voted on a bill to codify same-sex marriage rights)

Finally. For too long, Democrats have ceded the ideas of freedom, family, community.... The idea of freedom is under attack right now. There's no denying that the Republican playbook is to tell you what to read, who to love, what you can or can't do with your body.... I think we absolutely should, we should define what freedom is and take it back.

-- Michigan state Senator Mallory McMorrow
(in an interview when the subject of Democrats using the term "freedom" came up)

[Promises to protect] our personal freedoms.

-- Senator Maggie Hassan
(from an ad released after the Supreme Court decision for her re-election campaign in New Hampshire)

In recent days, there's been reason to think that this country is moving backward, that freedom is being reduced, that rights we assumed were protected are no longer.

-- President Joe Biden
(from remarks at a July Fourth barbeque)

[Freedom is] on the ballot this coming November. We want our freedoms and liberties. We all want the freedom to control our own bodies. We want our veterans to have freedom, when they've given so much for our country. We're going to go across this state with a megaphone, making sure that people know exactly what the governor has done, the freedoms he's prevented and freedoms he's taking away.

-- Joe Cunningham, Democratic nominee for governor in South Carolina
(from an interview, contrasting his position with the current Republican governor's)

He's coming for our freedoms, and your vote is how we stop him.

-- Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro, Democratic nominee for governor
(recent tweet contrasting himself with Republican nominee Doug Mastriano)

[Ted Budd] will stop at nothing to strip North Carolinians of our freedoms.

-- Cheri Beasley, Democratic nominee for Senate in North Carolina
(speaking about her GOP opponent, Representative Ted Budd)

This stuff really ain't rocket science, folks. It's pretty easy to do. Plus, it has the benefit of being true -- the Republican Party truly is now the party that wants to roll back freedoms across the board. Which could become the animating issue for Democratic and independent voters across the country, come November.

The article is an astonishing collection of Democratic candidates for office all essentially using the same talking points, with variations on the theme. This is really nothing new (historically-speaking) for Democrats, although you have to go back pretty far to find the best example of it.

In his 1941 State Of The Union speech, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt laid out what became known as the Four Freedoms, that he though people "everywhere in the world" should enjoy:

• The freedom of speech.
• The freedom of worship.
• The freedom from want.
• The freedom from fear.

You'll quickly notice that while the first two are pretty specific, the last two are rather broad catchall political slogans that could mean a lot of very different things to different people. That's the beauty of talking about freedom, politically. People all have their own opinion about what precisely it means, but pretty much everyone agrees it is a good thing.

Democrats have the chance to hammer this theme home, and by doing so paint a stark contrast to the stated and proven goals of the current Republican Party.

And for once, they seem to actually be doing so.

Which is why we found we couldn't improve upon their words at all. For once, the Democrats are stunningly and effectively in array.

-- Chris Weigant

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground

For the second day running, I am leaning on a pop culture reference to express how I feel about politics. Today's title comes from The X-Files, as it was the slogan prominently displayed on a poster of a flying saucer which hung on Agent Fox Mulder's office wall. So here's what I want to now believe, after last night's bombshell news:

I want to believe Joe Manchin. I do. I want to believe that this time he will actually follow through on his promises and not back out or blow everything up at the last minute.

This will require a large leap of faith, since he has done just that on numerous occasions in the past year. Yes, it's been a year -- Politico helpfully pointed out today that the letter Manchin and Schumer signed which laid out what Manchin was prepared to support and what he wasn't was dated July 28, 2021. This whole dance began in earnest one year ago today, in other words.

In the intervening time, Manchin has seemed very close to a deal multiple times. Then he'd get into a snit and announce he was pulling all support for all aspects of the deal. He'd gain another round of television interviews, and he'd get courted by the White House and Schumer all over again, and the game of tease would just go on and on.

So now this time we have to believe that he's actually being truthful and will follow through. Like I said, it requires a rather large leap of faith.

I want to believe that the surprise nature of the announcement was actually Chuck Schumer outmaneuvering Mitch McConnell (for once).

McConnell had threatened to pull Republican support for what is now called the "Chips and Science Act" if Democrats didn't give up their efforts to pass something (anything!) through budget reconciliation rules. This hostage-taking didn't work, though. The Chips and Science Act passed the Senate yesterday with plenty of Republicans voting for it. Mere hours later, the Manchin/Schumer deal was announced.

That seems more than just coincidence. It actually seems tactically planned. McConnell was not happy about this turn of events, and tried to get House Republicans to kill the bill -- to no avail. Plenty of House Republicans also voted for the bill today, and it is now on its way to President Joe Biden's desk for his signature -- a clear political win for him. The hostage escaped unharmed, in other words.

I want to believe this was planned, just for the joy of watching Mitch McConnell get beaten at his own game, for once.

I want to believe that Kyrsten Sinema won't torpedo the bill because she feels left out of all the attention being lavished on Manchin. I want to believe that one of her fatcat donors won't call her up and say: "You want the gravy train to continue, right? So you've got to kill this bill."

Sinema has been bought and paid for by corporate America, plain and simple. She has used her power to kill previous suggestions of a deal. After campaigning on raising taxes on the wealthy and huge corporations, one day she suddenly announced she would kill any deal that raised taxes above the Trump tax cut level -- even on the richest of the rich. Because they were now her big donors and she had to keep them happy.

There are indeed two tax hikes in the deal Manchin and Schumer announced. The first would put a minimum tax of 15 percent on corporations, no matter how many write-offs they amassed. The second would curtail the enormous tax break for "the carried interest loophole," which is a fancy way of saying "people who make zillions buying and selling stocks get to pay half the tax rate that average workers do."

Sinema has never agreed to either of those things, and she has been awfully quiet today. So it's still a mystery whether she'll get on board or not. But I want to believe she will.

I want to believe that all 50 Democratic senators will be healthy enough to vote at the same time.

Dick Durbin tested positive for COVID-19 today. Joe Manchin tested positive a few days earlier. Pat Leahy is still recovering from two operations on his hip. The Senate, unlike the House, never adopted COVID rules for remote sessions or remote voting. The old rules still apply -- senators have to be physically present on the chamber's floor in order to cast a vote.

With only 50 senators, this obviously means that everyone has to be healthy at exactly the same time. The bill is reportedly scheduled to hit the floor next week, and then the Senate has their big August vacation planned just afterwards. That's a pretty tight window.

I want to believe all 50 Democrats can all manage to be healthy enough to vote at some point during the next week, but all it would take (really) is one more COVID-positive announcement from a Democratic senator to derail that.

I want to believe that groups of Democrats in the House won't refuse to vote for the Senate version because it doesn't have their pet project in it.

The one most often mentioned is a group of moderate Democrats pushing to remove the Trump tax cut $10,000 ceiling on state and local taxes (called "SALT" for brevity's sake). This limits the deductions taxpayers can claim on their income taxes in places with high property values and high state and local taxes -- which are mostly blue states (this was a targeted tax hike Republicans passed, mostly out of spite). Earlier, in the discussions on the Build Back Better bill, a group of House Democrats swore they'd never vote for a bill that didn't get rid of the SALT cap. Will they still stick to their position? Or will they bend to political reality and go ahead and vote for it anyway?

I want to believe they won't torpedo a big win for Joe Biden right before a midterm campaign season. They surely wouldn't be that intransigent, would they?

All in all, hoping for this bill to actually make it to Joe Biden's desk to be signed is (at the present) an act of faith. The only saving grace to all of this is it looks like it will happen quickly, at least. So by the end of next week (with delays, the vote might get pushed to the weekend), we will all know whether this faith was misplaced or rewarded.

I want to believe that this deal is going to pass.

I want to believe Joe Manchin. I really do.

-- Chris Weigant

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

For those who don't instantly recognize the pop culture reference inherent in that title, I would direct you to a poorly-videotaped homemade copy (starts at 1:15 in) of Rob Lowe appearing on Saturday Night Live and doing the best "Shaggy" impression ever seen, standing (of course) next to Scooby Doo. Those darn kids are always meddling....

However, what the title actually refers to is no laughing matter. Because powerful groups within the Democratic Party have indeed been meddling in Republican primaries. They have been spending money -- money ostensibly and supposedly for supporting Democrats trying to get elected to Congress or statewide offices -- on ads which are designed to boost a particular Republican's chances of winning his or her GOP primary race.

Continue Reading »

President Joe Biden is hoping for a few legislative wins before the midterms. Three bills in particular seem to have a better-than-average chance of success. They're a far cry from the agenda Biden attempted to achieve last year, but having to deal with two corporatist Democratic senators derailed almost all of these lofty ambitions. So Americans will not be getting tuition-free community college, subsidized child care, free preschool, student loan forgiveness, action on climate change, and a whole host of other ideas that would have dramatically improved the lives of hundreds of millions of American citizens. Thanks, Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, for nothing.

But while the failure of the broader agenda contained within Biden's proposed "Build Back Better Act" has been a massive disappointment to many, Biden did manage to chalk up a few legislative achievements -- although you wouldn't know it, because Democrats haven't bothered to toot their own horn very effectively. Only about one-quarter of the public is even aware that Biden got a massive infrastructure bill through Congress last year. This is a failure of communication, from Biden on down to each congressional Democrat. Democrats need to inform voters not just what they want to do in the future, but what they've already done.

Perhaps that's all water under the bridge at this point, but it doesn't mean the Democrats can't pass a few big bills right before the midterm election season, and perhaps when threatened with losing control of Congress they will actually go out and brag about such things in public. As things stand, there are now three big bills which might soon manage to arrive on Joe Biden's desk for his signature.

Continue Reading »

Today Representative Elaine Luria tweeted out what could be called a deleted scene from the video testimony presented at the most-recent House Select Committee hearing. This new video shows more of Donald Trump's edits to the speech that his aides prepared for him to give on January 7th, the day after the failed insurrection attempt. From the Washington Post report today:

Rep. Elaine Luria (D-Va.) posted a video Monday on Twitter showing previously unpublicized testimony from several people close to Trump, centered on a speech he was supposed to give Jan. 7, 2021.

"It took more than 24 hours for President Trump to address the nation again after his Rose Garden video on January 6th in which he affectionately told his followers to go home in peace," Luria tweeted. "There were more things he was unwilling to say."

This adds to our understanding of what Trump found objectionable in the speech (in addition to the outtakes of his attempts to record this speech, which were presented at the last hearing). It includes a portion of a draft document titled: "Remarks on National Healing" that was personally edited by Trump (and his Sharpie). This was attested to by his own daughter Ivanka, in the video clip Luria posted.

Continue Reading »

Initially, tonight's hearing by the House Select Committee to Investigate January 6th was supposed to be the final hearing. That was before all the rest of the hearings caused so many other witnesses and tangential stories to come out of the woodwork. Nevertheless, it was indeed (as I wrote yesterday) the "season finale" of the summer miniseries of televised hearings. The committee is now promising to reconvene and hold more public hearings in September, to cover all the new information. The committee will stay busy during the August congressional break, digging into all the new evidence and witnesses who have come forward, and then they'll report back afterwards to the public. So there's all that to look forward to....

Tonight was billed as the "187-minute hearing," but (cue rimshot) it only lasted about 165 minutes. The "187" figure, of course, was the time between Donald Trump leaving the stage at his rally at the Ellipse and when he (finally) put out his "go home" tweet, over three hours later.

Continue Reading »

I write this just before the start of the season finale of "House Select Committee Investigates January 6th" -- which I should mention is not actually the title of a television miniseries, as these hearings are not being presented for entertainment purposes. They are being presented for informational purposes, because every American deserves to know what happened before, during, and after that dark day in American history. They are hours-long extended public service announcements, in other words. Very sober proceedings exposing very serious crimes and misdemeanors -- including, tonight, dereliction of duty by the country's commander-in-chief.

All of that is doubtlessly true, and yet... they still are television shows. I've been aware of this from the beginning, when I began referring to the hearings as "episodes." Tonight will be "Episode 8," although in truth it will actually be the ninth public hearing from the select committee (the "pilot show" aired last summer, featuring four police officers who fought for their country and the U.S. Constitution that day).

And I have to say, here at the end of the summer season, the committee has handled the "television show" aspect of the hearings almost flawlessly. Each episode was riveting and informative, without getting too much into the weeds of minutiae. All of the witnesses were chosen brilliantly, since they all have had very compelling stories to tell, and their stories have all added vital pieces to the puzzle of understanding just what took place... and how, and why. The hearings haven't dragged on too long (two to three hours each), and the chair usually calls a "bathroom break" halfway through. All the serious broadcast networks (all except Fox, in other words) have carried all these hearings live. Tonight will be the second primetime hearing, a bookend to the first hearing.

Continue Reading »

A bipartisan group of senators has unveiled two bills today which would improve and protect the process of presidential elections. One of these bills would update the 1887 Electoral Count Act (a law which was very vaguely written and legally confusing in parts), while the other bill addresses more peripheral subjects such as doubling the penalties for violence against poll workers. Both bills have the support of nine Republicans, so both have a very good chance of eventually being enacted.

The 1887 Electoral Count Act was the last time Congress came in to clean up the mess from a highly contested presidential election, but the law had some major loopholes and was nowhere near specific enough to address all the possible problems with the process. The rewrite will go a long way towards fixing the flaws that were highlighted in the January 6th insurrection attempt, but it may not address all the problems we may face in 2024 and beyond. January 6th is being seen more and more as merely a trial run for what some Republicans (who have sworn more fealty to Donald Trump than to the U.S. Constitution) are planning next. The House Select Committee hearings have exposed how weak the current system is, and how many places it can be attacked for partisan gain. The two bills announced today are at least a big step in the right direction towards fixing this situation.

Continue Reading »

There is no right to privacy specifically enumerated in the United States Constitution or any of its amendments. According to the current Supreme Court, this means that it does not legitimately exist as a foundational right of American citizens. Democrats, for over half a century, have been complacent in relying on previous Supreme Court rulings which did spell out what the implied right to privacy encompassed: the right to marry someone of a different race, the right to purchase and use contraceptives, the right to an abortion, and the right of gay couples to marry (among others). All of those spring from the same right to privacy, but one of them obviously does not exist anymore at the national level.

For all that time -- all those decades -- Congress has never passed any law which enshrined those rights, or the basic right of privacy itself. They all figured the court had ruled, therefore passing a law was unnecessary. They were wrong, obviously.

Continue Reading »