Skip to content

Month: September 2023

Clarence Thomas again

ProPublica is back with more

Clarence Thomas speaking to Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue in 2017. Photo by Preston Keres (USDA, public domain).

The deck on ProPublica’s latest expose on Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas:

Thomas has attended at least two Koch donor summits, putting him in the extraordinary position of having helped a political network that has brought multiple cases before the Supreme Court.

Thomas flew into the weekend 2018 Koch summit in Palm Springs aboard a Gulfstream G200 jet. “A Koch network spokesperson said the network did not pay for the private jet.” Since Thomas never disclosed the trip, ProPublica cannot say who did.

“I can’t imagine — it takes my breath away, frankly — that he would go to a Koch network event for donors,” said John E. Jones III, a retired federal judge appointed by President George W. Bush. Jones said that if he had gone to a Koch summit as a district court judge, “I’d have gotten a letter that would’ve commenced a disciplinary proceeding.”

“What you’re seeing is a slow creep toward unethical behavior. Do it if you can get away with it,” Jones said.

It’s not clear how to read that last sentence, but U.S. Supreme Court Justices police their own behavior and do not have to abide by the code of conduct others in the federal judiciary must.

And, yes, the libertarian Koch has a case working its way to Thomas:

The Koch network is among the largest and most influential political organizations of the last half century, and it’s underwritten a far-reaching campaign to influence the course of American law. In a case the Supreme Court will hear this coming term, the justices could give the network a historic victory: limiting federal agencies’ power to issue regulations in areas ranging from the environment to labor rights to consumer protection. After shepherding the case to the court, Koch network staff attorneys are now asking the justices to overturn a decades-old precedent. (Thomas used to support the precedent but flipped his position in recent years.)

Two years ago, one of the network’s groups was the plaintiff in another Supreme Court case, which was about nonprofits’ ability to keep their donors secret. In that case, Thomas sided with the 6-3 conservative majority in the Koch group’s favor.

Charles Koch did not respond to detailed questions for this story. David Koch died in 2019.

Thomas has appeared at at least one dinner for top-tier donors, those who donate “in the millions” each year to the Koch network.

“These donors found it fascinating,” said another former senior employee, recounting a Thomas appearance at one summit where the justice discussed his judicial philosophy. “Donors want to feel special. They want to feel on the inside.”

It’s hard to be more inside than First of Nine. Unless it’s elite members of the Bohemian Grove, “an all-male retreat that attracts some of the nation’s most influential corporate and political figures. Thomas has been a regular at the Grove for 25 years as Harlan Crow’s guest, according to internal documents and interviews with dozens of members, other guests and workers at the retreat.”

Here’s another by-now familiar name associated with the Koch summits:

Thomas’ appearances were arranged with the help of Leonard Leo, the Federalist Society leader, according to the former senior network employee. “Leonard was the conduit who would get him,” the former employee said. During one summit, Thomas gave a talk with Leo in an interview format, the donor recalled.

“Justice Thomas attends events all over the country, as do all the Justices, and I was privileged to join him,” Leo said in a statement in response to questions about the Koch donor events. “All the necessary due diligence was performed to ensure the Justice’s attendance at the events was compliant with all ethics requirements.”

The network’s plans in 2018 were to “buy advertisements to push senators to vote for President Donald Trump’s judicial nominees.”

Thomas will just keep his head down and try to weather yet another round of unwanted scrutiny.

To be or not to be … on the ballot

Biden preps for a rematch with the GOP’s might-be candidate

The New York Times informs readers that Team Biden is already assuming “Scranton Joe” Biden will face a rematch with Don “The Con” Trump. Cue the “Rocky” training music:

The sharpened focus on Mr. Trump isn’t happening only behind the scenes. Facing waves of polls showing soft support for his re-election among Democrats, Mr. Biden and his advisers signaled this week that they were beginning to turn their full attention to his old rival, seeking to re-energize the party’s base and activate donors ahead of what is expected to be a long and grueling sequel.

Team Biden wants to nudge Democrats past their handwringing phase, David Axelrod says, “into a shared sense of mission.” Because “We can’t live like this!” as Adrian told Rocky on the beach.

“Donald Trump and his MAGA Republicans are determined to destroy American democracy,” the president said. “And I will always defend, protect and fight for our democracy. That’s why I’m running.”

Mr. Biden is planning to follow up those off-camera remarks with what he has billed as a “major speech” about democracy. The White House said the speech, in the Phoenix area the day after the next Republican debate, would be about “honoring the legacy of Senator John McCain and the work we must do together to strengthen our democracy.”

Real real America (not the proto-fascist movement backing Trump) gets that democracy is at stake, not anodyne kitchen table issues. Former GOP strategist Rick Wilson gets that democracy and liberty are at stake. “[A]lmost 600 retired Generals, Admirals, Ambassadors, cabinet and service secretaries, appointed leaders, elected officials, and Senior Executive Service leaders” understand that “Donald Trump is an existential threat to democracy.” Voters knew it in 2018, 2020, and 2022. Those are the only polls that matter and will again in 2024.

What’s in question is whether Trump actually will be on the ballot next year. Even his critics are waffling on the 14th Amendment:

A little more than a month ago, a law professor who helped found the Federalist Society, the conservative legal group, enthusiastically endorsed a new law review article arguing that Donald J. Trump was ineligible to be president.

Citing a Wall Street Journal opinion article by Michael B. Mukasey, Steven G. Calabresi has since had a change of heart.

I won’t bother you with Mukasey’s position on the 14th Amendment. Akhil Reed Amar, a law professor at Yale, on his podcast called it “a genuinely stupid argument.”

Adam Liptak of the Times:

Professor Calabresi is, of course, entitled to change his mind. As Justice Felix Frankfurter put it in a 1949 dissent, “Wisdom too often never comes, and so one ought not to reject it merely because it comes late.”

In an interview on Saturday, Professor Calabresi said his revised position was the product of study and reflection.

“I carefully reread the materials on whether Section 3 of the 14th Amendment applies to Trump,” he said, “and concluded that it most likely does not.”

He added that politics had not figured in his thinking. “I will support,” he said, “any Republican or Joe Biden over Trump in the 2024 election.”

Or perhaps Calabresi woke up with a horse head in his bed.

For now, Team Biden is training as if Trump will somehow manage to appear atop the GOP’s ticket in all 50 states. Best not to underestimate that slippery character.

MAGA fascism is a real thing

Let’s not pretend otherwise

Look what’s going on:

A Republican candidate for Missouri governor on Monday vowed to burn books if elected after he was criticized for a video showing him burning cardboard boxes with a flamethrower.

The video, which has gone viral on social media, shows state Sen. Bill Eigel, a Weldon Spring Republican who is running for governor in 2024, and state Sen. Nick Schroer, a St. Charles Republican, using flamethrowers to torch a stack of boxes at a fundraising event in Defiance in St. Charles County on Friday.

“In the video, I am taking a flame thrower to cardboard boxes representing what I am going to do to the leftist policies and RINO corruption of the Jeff City swamp,” Eigel said in a statement to The Star on Monday. “But let’s be clear, you bring those woke pornographic books to Missouri schools to try to brainwash our kids, and I’ll burn those too – on the front lawn of the governor’s mansion.”

Eigel’s remarkable comment promising to burn books comes as he embarks on a campaign for governor attempting to appeal to the staunch right wing of the Missouri Republican Party.

Public book burnings typically illustrate extreme censorship related to political, cultural and religious materials. They often invoke historic atrocities such as burning of Jewish texts in Nazi Germany or racist bonfires by the Ku Klux Klan. Eigel will face a primary that features two of the state’s top Republicans, Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft and Lt. Gov. Mike Kehoe.

Photos and video of Eigel and Schroer using the flamethrowers have been shared hundreds of times on social media over the past two days. House Minority Leader Crystal Quade, a Springfield Democrat who is running for governor, in a statement criticized Eigel saying that he and his “extremist allies’ idea of campaigning for governor is using a flamethrower to burn whatever he doesn’t agree with.” “Watching lawmakers use flamethrowers to intimidate folks they disagree with is a jarring reminder of how they view their jobs as a joke, while real people suffer from their cruelty,” Quade said. “We deserve a government that’s going to work to solve real problems, not make political stunts.”

Schroer, reached by phone on Monday, said the video was taken during an event called Freedom Fest hosted by the St. Charles County Republican Central Committee. He and Eigel were burning empty boxes to help the committee raffle off a flamethrower, he said. The Republican state senator criticized those who said he was burning books, saying that they were spreading false information. Schroer on Friday shared a photo of himself using the flamethrower, saying he was “Burning down the swamp!”

Democrats and liberal activists on the social media site X, formerly known as Twitter, also quickly condemned the video, accusing the Republicans of simulating the burning of books. Some incorrectly said the two lawmakers were actively burning books. “Next time, don’t forget your hoods…inhaling fumes from burning books and crosses is noxious business,” Jess Piper, the executive director of Blue Missouri, a group that fundraises for Democrats, wrote in response to one of the videos, drawing a comparison to burnings by the Ku Klux Klan.

Debbie McFarland, a committee member and organizer of the event, told The Star that the two Republican senators were burning empty boxes, including trash and empty wine boxes. She painted criticism of the video as a “liberal leftist narrative.” While the boxes that Eigel and Schroer burned were empty, criticism of the video comes as some Missouri Republicans have targeted book content. This year, House Republicans agreed to cut from the state budget $4.5 million for libraries in retaliation for a lawsuit on behalf of two library groups challenging a new state law that bans certain materials in school libraries. Those funds were later restored in the Senate this year. Eigel on Monday posted another angle of the video on social media, calling on people to visit his campaign’s website “to fight back against these woke radicals.”

I don’t know if that freak will actually burn books on the lawn of the Governor’s mansion. Lets hope he doesn’t win that election. But the sentiment is common on the right right now and it’s disgusting.

Remembering the bad old days

It’s been years since I raged at Joe Klein, mostly because I blessedly never come across anything by him anymore. Unfortunately, he has a substack and it came to my attention today. Nothing has changed. He’s still the hippie bashing piece of work he always was.

Get a load of this:

A metaphor that applies to my current political dismay: I am annoyed by Joe Biden but I am appalled by Donald Trump.

Why is that a metaphor? Because I am annoyed, chronically, by the Democratic Party but appalled, mortally, by the Republicans.

Which raises a question: I haven’t toted up the word count, but I suspect that I spend a lot more space criticizing Dems than GOPs. Why is that?

Well, because it seems in these DysTrumpian times, the Democrats are the only hope of saving our democracy, despite their idiot array of indulgences. They are misguided, but not fundamentally irrational. They believe in our institutions, even those—like the Supreme Court and the electoral college—that are weighted against them; even those—like the military—that they really don’t believe in. There is always the hope that a compelling argument made by the Sanity Caucus (which includes members of both parties) will have an impact on rational Dems. But rational Republicans I’ve known—I’m looking at you Lamar Alexander and Rob Portman—have been struck dumb, utter cowards in the face of Trump, even though they’ve retired from politics and have nothing to lose.

Why the silence in the face of an authoritarian who threatens our freedom? Their mute buttons are still turned on, impenetrable and irresponsible. They are a lost cause. So, I tend to write about Biden’s age more than Trump’s sociopathy, and about the Dems’ identity and woke obsessions more than the Republicans’ fundamental corruption. Because the Dems have to find a way to 51%, lest we lapse into Hungary or Russia.

That’s awfully helpful, don’t you think? Let’s pound the Democrats and make regular people hate them — so they will beat Donald Trump. How’s that supposed to work?

You know, if you can’t penetrate the right wing bubble then maybe just shut the fuck up.

I swear to God, this drivel is almost as responsible for how we ended up on the precipice of democratic catastrophe as the Republican descent into madness. Centrist jackasses like Klein’s annoyance at liberals is so bothersome to them they just have no choice but to help fascism by pushing “both sides” tropes suggesting that liberals are equally threatening. And then they blame the liberals for failing to stop the fascists.

This was once the dominant strain of thinking among the mainstream media and the Democratic party. Luckily most of them have wised up in the last few years. But Klein carries on, thankfully no longer as a star pundit on every cable news show as he once was, if only for the sake of my blood pressure.

Trump in Iowa

CNN reports on what he’s selling in Iowa this year:

Trump largely focused his Dubuque speech on immigration and the border. While he did at times call out Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, Trump largely focused on attacking President Joe Biden over what he referred to as the “nation-wrecking catastrophe” on the southern border, describing it as “an invasion.”

The former president also lauded his immigration policies while in office, saying he replaced “catch-and-release” with “detain and deport.” He also argued that Mexico paid for the wall because they supplied the US with soldiers at the border for free.

Trump said that if reelected, his administration would follow “the Eisenhower Model” and carry out the largest domestic deportation operation in American history, invoking the Alien Enemies Act to remove all known or suspected gang members, drug dealers, or cartel members from the US.

Trump said his administration would bring back his travel ban, expanding it further, and, without explaining how, he said it would deny “communists and Marxists” from entering the US.

That “Eisenhower model” was called “Operation Wetback.” This is a retread from his 2016 campaign. It won’t be long before he’ll be talking about bullets sipped in pigs blood and cutting off people’s heads. That was the winning message in his first race. He knows he lost the seconds so he’s going back to what works.

Disarray for dummies

It sure looks like they’re going to shutdown the government. What comes next should be very fun:

President Biden has steered clear of the chaos in the lower chamber, but his aides have instead urged McCarthy to stick to the spending deal he struck with Biden back in May. One such aide said, “We agreed to the budget deal…House GOP should abide by it,” and added that their “chaos is making the case that they are responsible if there is a shutdown.” Gaetz was all too ready to lay the blame at McCarthy’s feet should a shutdown occur. On Wednesday afternoon, he said, “We will have a government shutdown and it is absolutely Speaker McCarthy’s fault. We cannot blame Joe Biden for not having moved our individual spending bills. We cannot blame House Democrats. We can’t even blame Chuck Schumer in the Senate.” 

Does Gaetz think he’s going to be the speaker? I’m beginning to think he does. Which is ridiculous.

What does Gaetz want McCarthy to do? He wants him to defund the Jack Smith Special Counsel. He is only following orders:

I think there’s a typo. He meant “use the power of the purse to defund the country”

This is all absurd, of course. You can’t defund the special prosecutor and even if you could the Democratic Senate would not approve it and the president wouldn’t sign it. I assume Trump knows that (although I’m not sure, he learned nothing about how the government works even after four years as president) but he wants the government shut down for so long that the economy will crater and people will blame Biden and vote for him. It’s very stupid but that’s what we’re dealing with.

Let’s talk about weaponization, shall we?

The mystery as to why a top prosecutor working on the Durham investigation abruptly resigned has been solved. It is exactly what we thought it was:

A former federal prosecutor who helped investigate the origins of the Trump-Russia probe said Wednesday she left the team because of concerns with then-Attorney General William Barr’s public comments about the case and because she strongly disagreed with a draft of an interim report he considered releasing before the election.

“I simply couldn’t be part of it. So I resigned,” Nora Dannehy told Connecticut state legislators during her confirmation hearing as a nominee to the state Supreme Court. It marked the first time Dannehy has spoken publicly about her sudden resignation from the probe overseen by former special counsel John Durham.

Durham, a former U.S. attorney for the District of Connecticut, was appointed in the spring of 2019 by Barr to investigate potential wrongdoing by government officials and others in the early days of the FBI probe into ties between the Trump 2016 presidential campaign and Russia. Trump expected the investigation to expose what he and his supporters alleged was a “deep state” conspiracy to undermine his campaign, but the slow pace of the probe – and the lack of blockbuster findings – contributed to a deep wedge between the president and Barr by the time the attorney general resigned in December 2020.

The investigation concluded last May with underwhelming results: A single guilty plea from a little-known FBI lawyer, resulting in probation, and two acquittals at trial by juries.

Dannehy, who was the first woman to serve as U.S. attorney for the District of Connecticut, told Connecticut lawmakers that politics had “never played a role” in how she was expected to carry out her job as a federal prosecutor and “that was the Justice Department I thought I was returning to” when she ultimately joined Durham’s team.

“I had been taught and spent my entire career at Department of Justice conducting any investigation in an objective and apolitical manner,” she said. “In the spring and summer of 2020, I had growing concerns that this Russia investigation was not being conducted in that way. Attorney General Barr began to speak more publicly and specifically about the ongoing criminal investigation. I thought these public comments violated DOJ guidelines.”

Dannehy said Barr’s comments were “certainly taken in a political way by reports. Whether he intended that or not, I don’t know.”

She declined to detail what happened during her time with the investigation because it involved highly classified information.

Bill Barr was the biggest partisan hack since Ed Meese in the Reagan administration — maybe John Mitchell, who spent 19 months in jail for his corruption. He’s now a Never Trumper but he was his top henchman for two years. This was an important resignation because it exposed not only Barr’s corruption but Durham’s as well. He had worked with Dannehy for years and when she refused to go along it was a sign that the investigation had gone terribly off the rails.

Could the Problem Solvers actually solve a problem?

Here’s the latest on maneuverings to out-maneuver the MAGA crazies:

The long-shot idea that Democrats could bail out the beleaguered Speaker Kevin McCarthy is suddenly getting real.

Small groups of centrist Democrats are holding secret talks with several of McCarthy’s close GOP allies about a last-ditch deal to fund the government, according to more than a half-dozen people familiar with the discussions. The McCarthy allies engaging in those conversations are doing so out of serious concern that their party can’t stop an impending shutdown on its own, given the intransigence of a handful of conservatives.

Lawmakers involved in the talks — who mostly belong to the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus, the Republican Governance Group or the centrist New Democrat Coalition — have labored to keep their work quiet. Many Republicans involved are incredibly worried about revealing their backup plan, wanting to wait until every other tool in McCarthy’s arsenal has failed.

That moment may not be until next week, just ahead of the Sept. 30 shutdown deadline.

“It’s got to be bipartisan anyway, at some point,” Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) said of a solution to the shutdown crisis. Referring to the conservative holdouts, he added: “So why negotiate with these five or 10 people who move the goalposts?”

Generally, the bipartisan group is focusing on two major ideas: a procedural maneuver to force a vote on a compromise spending plan — or somehow crafting a bill so popular that McCarthy can pass it and survive any challenge from the right. That bill would likely be a bipartisan short-term patch with some disaster money, Ukraine aid and small-scale border policies, according to multiple people briefed on the talks who spoke on condition of anonymity.

The Problem Solvers began showing their framework to members Wednesday, with plans to formally vote on endorsing it by the evening, according to two people familiar with the plans who were granted anonymity to discuss them. Another group, which included top aides for both the New Democrat Coalition and Republican Governance Group, met earlier Wednesday to discuss their own stopgap funding plan, according to three other aides familiar with the situation.

While the talks were borne out of the spending crisis, they have by necessity had to address another glaring problem for the speaker: Whether Democrats are also willing to protect his gavel from a vote to strip it if he ultimately does seek support across the aisle.

Privately, many Democrats say they’re willing to help the Californian with both problems, though they’ll demand concessions — and they’ll need their leader, Hakeem Jeffries, to be on board.

To be clear, any plan devised by these rank-and-file members would face serious hurdles before it got to any possible vote. But the bipartisan McCarthy-bailout conversations have only gained traction as his antagonists keep derailing his other option — a GOP-only spending patch that’s packed with conservative border policies and funding cuts.

Even if the speaker can resuscitate that proposal, Republicans have long known it wouldn’t pass the Senate. Eventually, they’d need to work with Democrats.

Exactly what Democrats could or would demand for their cooperation is unclear. The ultimate decision, they say, will rest with Jeffries, who’s stayed mum about how he’d handle a possible bipartisan compromise. Any questions Jeffries gets about the possibility of a GOP bid to toss the speaker, he bats aside as hypothetical.

(Asked about the possibility by POLITICO on Tuesday, Jeffries said: “House Democrats are focused on making life better for everyday Americans — solving problems on their behalf. House Republicans are focused on fighting each other.”)

Jeffries did huddle privately midday Wednesday with one of the groups involved in the cross-aisle talks: the roughly 60-member Problem Solvers Caucus.

Inside the room, Jeffries signaled he’d be willing to look at the centrist bloc’s various ideas for a solution — including a procedural gambit to pass a stopgap bill if it came to that, according to four people familiar with the situation. He said any short-term plan would need to reflect the bipartisan budget deal reached this spring.

“You’ll be part of the solution, and I’ve been supportive of your efforts in the past,” Jeffries told the group, according to two people familiar with his remarks.

McCarthy’s broken rules of thumb

One day earlier, the Problem Solvers’ two leaders — Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) and Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.) — were seen entering the office of the House parliamentarian alongside Bacon, a stalwart McCarthy ally.

Those members declined to say what they discussed regarding House rules. But behind the scenes, several options are on the table — including the unlikely choice to pursue a procedural move known as a discharge petition that would force a bill to the floor. (That avenue comes with a strict 30-day timeframe, so it has little chance of preventing a shutdown that’s just 11 days away.)

Bacon later recalled telling a group of roughly 30 Republicans, including members of leadership, during a closed-door meeting this week that he was “done” with GOP-only negotiations, arguing that the handful of holdouts in his party can’t be satisfied.

In a brief interview, McCarthy acknowledged the quiet efforts by centrists in both parties to team up on a spending solution. But he specifically dismissed the idea that any of his Republicans would back a discharge petition that needs a majority of the House to advance.

McCarthy said that his “rule of thumb” while in power has three components: Don’t oppose a rule to debate your party’s bill; support “whoever comes out of the conference for speaker” and do not sign onto a discharge petition.

Several Republicans have broken the first two items on his list, McCarthy added, “and so it has disrupted the entire conference. And people think they can do other things.”

‘If you are a nihilist’

Despite the low likelihood of a discharge petition to fund the government, it is still coming up in closed-door meetings as vulnerable Republicans make it particularly clear that they’re starting to lose patience with the conservative blockade.

Rep. Dan Bishop (R-N.C.), who has been involved in the GOP negotiations, alluded to the New York delegation as being “very candid” during internal talks that if Republicans can’t work out a short-term funding deal, “we’re going to sign a discharge petition.”

Two people familiar with those conversations pointed to New York Rep. Mike Lawler, who sits in one of the GOP’s toughest battleground seats, as especially vocal in private meetings about threats to sign a discharge petition.

Asked if he sees an increasing chance of centrists from both parties teaming up as the stalemate continues, Lawler said that “I would like to see the House Republican majority govern” by passing a short-term patch that can start further talks with the Senate.

“But until that happens,” he added, “we need to keep the government funded and operational. And my only comment to my colleagues is: If we want to govern, we need to do so expeditiously.”

The pushback from McCarthy on a possible discharge petition comes after he repeatedly failed to get his own members behind a GOP-only bill that would pair a stopgap funding patch with spending cuts and a Republican border bill. One Republican lawmaker involved in the talks acknowledged that the bipartisan maneuvering could help pressure conservatives to stop resisting any solution.

On the other hand, this lawmaker added, “If you are a nihilist and you want to burn the place down, you don’t care.”

But there are also risks for the Republicans involved in the bipartisan talks. Some conservative colleagues are already warning of political backlash from base voters, given that the very Democrats they are working with want to defeat them next year.

“I don’t relish the prospect that liberal members of the Republican caucus would decide to govern as Democrats with Democrats,” said Bishop, a McCarthy critic who helped sink a defense spending bill this week.

The biggest risk of all in the current cross-aisle conversations, though, is to McCarthy himself.

Helping advance a bipartisan deal would put him past a red line that his most vocal opponents have said could result in a vote to strip his gavel. Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) is on record vowing to force that vote if McCarthy brings a “clean” funding bill to the floor.

Bacon urged the speaker to stand firm: “We should ignore it. You can’t kowtow to that.”

What a tangled web they weave. It makes sense to try to cut out Gaetz and his cronies because they just want to blow the place up which the majority of the GOP thinks might not be a great way to get re-elected. But if Democrats bail out McCarthy is there any way he could possibly lead the caucus? I keep saying that he’s the only game in town, which is true, but how can he function under these conditions? Of course, he really isn’t functioning now, is he?

Hopefully whatever deal they come up with mirrors the deal that was already hashed out last spring for the debt ceiling or the Democrats are going to have their own challenges. The centrist “problem solvers” may have their own agenda. If it’s that “bipartisan short-term patch with some disaster money, Ukraine aid and small-scale border policies” I doubt there will be a ton of objections.

Stay tuned. None of this may add up to much. There are so many moving parts that it’s hard to see how it might come together. If it does the repercussions are going to be something to behold. Imagine what Trump will say!

Chairman emeritus Murdoch wishes Trump dead

Sic transit gloria mundi

Rupert Murdoch, founder of Fox Corp. and News Corp. (2015). Photo by Hudson Institute via Flickr (CC BY 2.0).

The Guardian on Wednesday:

Rupert Murdoch loathes Donald Trump so much that the billionaire has not just soured on him as a presidential candidate but often wishes for his death, the author Michael Wolff writes in his eagerly awaited new book on the media mogul, The Fall: The End of Fox News and the Murdoch Dynasty.

According to Wolff, Murdoch, 92, has become “a frothing-at-the-mouth” enemy of the 77-year-old former US president, often voicing thoughts including “This would all be solved if … ” and “How could he still be alive, how could he?”

CNBC Thursday (today):

Rupert Murdoch is stepping down as chairman of the board of both Fox Corp. and News Corp., the company said on Thursday.

The move will be official in November. Murdoch, 92, will be appointed chairman emeritus of each company. Lachlan Murdoch, one of his sons, will become sole chairman of News Corp and will continue as Fox Corp.’s executive chair and CEO.

“Our companies are in robust health, as am I,” the elder Murdoch said in a note to employees. “We have every reason to be optimistic about the coming years – I certainly am, and plan to be here to participate in them. But the battle for the freedom of speech and, ultimately, the freedom of thought, has never been more intense.”

Thus passeth the father of the greatest propaganda network the world has ever known, dedicated in retirement, as in life, to freedom of thought.

The only polls that matter

Remember the “red tsunami”?

If you’re like me, you don’t answer the phone if you don’t recognize the number or, lately, the spoofed names. Which begs the question: Who does? People willing to speak with pollsters, I’d wager. Pollsters themselves will explain how they control for this bias, to be sure, but polling itself seems more and more a sucker’s game. Remember predictions last fall of a “red tsunami”?

Chris Hayes made that point on Wednesday that the only polls that really matter are the ones voters participate in when they vote.

What special elections around the country tell us is that the GOP is in a hole. And they’re still digging.

What people tell themselves, telephone polls, or guys with microphones are a crude measure of the kind of country most Americans really want to live in.

Heather Cox Richardson dishes on a new program just launched by that “unpopular” Biden administration:

The fight over how we conceive of our federal government was on full display today.

The Biden administration announced the creation of the American Climate Corps. This will be a group of more than 20,000 young Americans who will learn to work in clean energy, conservation, and climate resilience while also earning good wages and addressing climate change. 

This ACC looks a great deal like the Civilian Conservation Corps established by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the Democrats in 1933, during the New Deal. The CCC was designed to provide jobs for unemployed young men (prompting critics to ask, “Where’s the She, She, She?”) while they worked to build fire towers, bridges, and foot trails, plant trees to stop soil erosion, stock fish, dig ditches, build dams, and so on. 

While the CCC was segregated, the ACC will prioritize hiring within communities traditionally left behind, as well as addressing the needs of those communities that have borne the brunt of climate change. If the administration’s rules for it become finalized, the corps will also create a streamlined pathway into federal service for those who participated in the program. 

In January, a poll showed that a climate corps is popular. Data for Progress found that voters supported such a corps by a margin of 39 points. Voters under 45 supported it by a margin of 51 points. 

While the Biden administration is establishing a modern version of a popular New Deal program, extremists in the Republican Party are shutting down the government to try to stop it from precisely this sort of action. They want to roll the government back to the days before the New Deal, ending government regulation, provision of a basic social safety net, investment in infrastructure, and protection of civil rights.

Republican leaders and their billionaire backers loathe the New Deal. They loathe the middle class America it created. They loathe their supporters for taking it for granted (like Medicare Veteran above) even while decrying it as socialism. Take it away and you’ll pay. Republicans know that too. At least those not fully embracing burning it all down.