The Yahoo News-YouGov poll, which asked people to indicate whether they viewed these individuals favorably, also included questions about businessmen Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, who were asked to run an external cost-cutting group; and South Dakota Gov. Kristi L. Noem, Trump’s pick to lead the Department of Homeland Security.
Only Rubio, Kennedy and Gabbard were viewed with approval by at least 4 in 10 Americans. None of the eight individuals was viewed favorably by a majority of respondents; three — Hegseth, Gaetz and Noem — were viewed favorably by only 3 in 10 Americans.
Why are their numbers so high? They are all jokes who have no business being anywhere near power. Not that it will matter. I’m going to bet that they will all be confirmed without too much trouble when all is said and done. I guess there’s a chance that Gaetz might be defeated because his own people loathe him but I actually doubt it. We’re going to have to wait for Trump to fire them.
This I learned from 35 years working in the corporate world: Employees who start hearing “shareholder value” had best update their resumes. Layoffs are coming. The same could be said for “efficiency.“
Season 2 of “The Apprentice Goes To Washington” will feature not only the firing of cabinet officers and West Wing advisers from “central casting,” but the wholesale purging of federal employees who have dedicated their lives to serving the American public no matter which president’s photo hangs on the office wall.
Except the Project 2025 team isn’t using euphemisms to signal the coming purge. They submitted a bill under the pretext of dismantling diversity, equity and inclusion programs. The House Oversight Committee held a hearing on the Dismantle DEI Act on Wednesday. Sen. J.D. Vance’s June announcement alleges his bill means to “restore merit” to government hiring practices, and to ensure only “the most qualified candidates” get hired.
“We’ve got now a World Wide Wrestling Executive who’s gonna run education,” said recently reelected Rep. Melanie Stansbury (D) of New Mexico. “We’ve got a Fox News commentator who’s gonna run the military for us!” she said in exasperation:
Call it the Catch-2025.
President-elect Donald Trump’s Republican loyalists were called out Wednesday by a frustrated Democrat over a paradox concealed within their promised purge of federal government professionals.
Rep. Melanie Stansbury (D-NM) told the Oversight Committee she was confused by Vice President-elect J.D. Vance’s bill to dismantle Diversity, Equity and Inclusion protections on the grounds it burdened the federal government with unqualified workers.
Her problem? Trump’s chosen appointees.
“If this is really about making sure that we have qualified individuals inside the federal government,” she asked, “Why is the president-elect choosing absolutely unqualified Cabinet secretaries to be at the head of every single agency?”
Stansbury, a former federal employee with the Office of Management and Budget, issued a damning rebuttal to Vance’s Dismantle DEI Act of 2024 which was brought to a mark-up without a hearing, as is usual.
The New Mexico Democrat noted the bill would amend the Civil Rights Act and the federal code as well as require a list be drawn up of federal workers and contractors no longer eligible for such employment.
She called the requirement “blacklisting” and likened the bill to policies pushed by the notorious Sen. Joe McCarthy, the notorious perpetrator of America’s 1950s “Red Scare.”
“Welcome to the new House Committee on Un-American Affairs and the new McCarthyism,” she said. “We have arrived here today with this bill.”
How many of you actually watch Congressional Hearings? Y’all should be paying attention. Take 5 minutes and listen to @Rep_Stansbury in there fighting the good fight ✊🇺🇸 pic.twitter.com/0N3hvKxrUf
Season 2 of “The Apprentice Goes To Washington” will be filled with characters whose major qualification is television experience. In Season 1, Donald Trump hired only “the best and most serious people” for his administration. And them he fired them one by one. See, it’s not good TV to fire them all at once. You have to build the suspense, keep the audience coming back week after week to see who goes next. That’s how you keep your ratings up.
For Season 2: “Trump Unbound,” the aging actor elected to play a president on TV hopes to bring higher production values to the show by casting more television veterans (The New York Times):
President-elect Donald J. Trump, whose rise was fueled by reality TV stardom, is once again turning to television to recruit the key cast members of his new administration.
The latest was Dr. Mehmet Oz, the former syndicated TV host, who was picked by Mr. Trump on Tuesday to oversee Medicare and Medicaid.
Dr. Oz follows Pete Hegseth, who could move straight from co-hosting the weekend edition of “Fox & Friends” to overseeing 1.3 million active-duty troops as defense secretary, and Sean Duffy, a Fox Business host and former star of MTV’s “The Real World,” who is now poised to run the Transportation Department. (His wife, Rachel Campos-Duffy, is Mr. Hegseth’s erstwhile “Fox & Friends” co-host.)
Mike Huckabee, Mr. Trump’s pick for ambassador to Israel, hosted a live Fox News show for seven years. Tulsi Gabbard, whom Mr. Trump has said he plans to nominate for national intelligence director, was a paid Fox News contributor until August. His choice for border czar, Tom Homan, was a contributor at the network until last week.
At this rate, the second season of the Trump administration may end up with more television stars than the first one.
Stars in quotes. The reality-show president is obsessed with surrounding himself with characters straight out of central casting, with his ratings, and with “crowd sizes,” but he has not cast particularly popular actors to fill roles in Season 2. Perhaps that is by design. We’ll start an online poll to predict who is first to hear “You’re Fired.”
The Associated Press provides this callback to Season 1:
Choosing TV personalities isn’t that unusual for the once-and-future president: A number of his first-term choices — John Bolton, Larry Kudlow, Heather Nauert and Mercedes Schlapp, were all on TV — mostly also on Fox. Omarosa Manigault Newman, a confrontational first-season member of Trump’s NBC show “The Apprentice,” was briefly at the White House before she was fired.
Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, a Republican who ran Trump’s 2016 transition team until he was fired, said that eight years ago, Trump held “Apprentice-like interviews at Bedminster,” summoning potential hires to his club in New Jersey.
On a call on Tuesday organized by the Council on Foreign Relations, Christie said this year’s Cabinet choices are different than 2016’s but it’s still “Donald Trump casting a TV show.”
“He’s casting,” Christie said.
Yale historian Timothy Snyder (“On Tyranny“) explains that Trump’s cheesy reboot of the fictional “The West Wing” represents the only reality Trump knows. It’s all fiction, even his concocted image as a successful businessman.
Timothy Snyder is spot-on about the fictional reality the serial lying psychopath inhabits. 😳👇 pic.twitter.com/PulaxsUyUc
Trump turned daily COVID-19 briefings into more airtime for his vacuous ramblings. Trump needs the spotlight like plants need sunlight, and he withers without it. Sadly, the media — Fox News and beyond — is more than happy to coddle him. And his fans are more than happy to tune in. God help us.
This is what people are saying on Fox News in the wake of Mike Johnson passing a law that bans transgender Rep. Sarah McBride from using the women’s bathroom:
Jeanine: Whether he has his— thing or not, I don't want him in my bathroom. I don't want to think about him. I don't want to wash my hands near him. pic.twitter.com/lHOgAvNbzr
I can’t properly convey how horrified I am by this grotesque bigotry. It is reminiscent of what I heard people say about Black people living in the south in the 1960s. And frankly, I don’t think anyone would have said this out loud on Fox News even a few months ago. Their evil is unleashed.
I fear for the safety of Sarah McBride, right there in the US Capitol. They’ve lost all sense of humanity.
JV Last at the Bulwark discusses the fact that lefty influencer/podcaster Cenk Uyger (with whom I once had a passing acquaintance back in the early blogger days) seems to be cozying up to right, specifically Elon Musk. I won’t attempt to question what his motives might be — it could be any number of things. But Last makes an observation with which I totally agree out of hard won experience:
You know about horseshoe theory, right? It’s the idea that the political spectrum is not a straight line but a U-shape, where the far left and far right end up nearly touching.
Usually when people talk about horseshoe theory, it’s in terms of policy preferences—how the policies of the far left and far right can start to overlap. But I think it’s driven much more by temperament.
If you are the kind of person who tends toward conspiracy theories, you will gravitate toward the far end of the horseshoe. The same is true for people who are driven by grievance.
And also for populists. If you disdain expertise and despise the opinions of “elites” who happen to know a lot more than you do about, say, military logistics or the actuarial side of force planning, then you will tend to make common cause with people like Elon Musk. Or Musk’s boss.
My advice is to keep this in mind when evaluating potential allies. Just because a person seems like they’re on one side at the moment doesn’t mean they’ll stay there. Personalities and character matter.
Once you understand that, it’s not all that hard to predict who will end up where on the horseshoe.
No, it is not. I have learned that the people who have this particular personality and temperament can be very appealing when they’re on your side. They’re often fighters who are brave enough to do and say things that others won’t. But in the end, you can almost always bet that their sense of grievance, attraction to conspiracy theories or hatred for elites will drive them to make common cause with the right. It’s happened over and over again.
Temperament matters more in politics than you think it should.
You know all those new regulations requiring that airlines pay you for cancellations and advertise the full price of fares upfront, including mandatory fees and taxes? They’re very popular and seem to have made the airlines more responsive. Well, the airlines are very happy that Trump is promising to roll all that back:
The chief executive of Delta Air Lines says the incoming Trump administration will be a “breath of fresh air” for airlines after what he called government “overreach” under President Joe Biden.
On Monday, the airline industry trade group praised Trump’s pick for transportation secretary, former Wisconsin Rep. Sean Duffy. Duffy, a former reality TV star who is co-host of “The Bottom Line” on Fox Business, lobbied for U.S. airlines and their unions during a dispute with Persian Gulf carriers.
I’m sure that when they roll back those consumer protections the media will somehow blame the Democrats but I hope that the Democrats fight back hard on things like this. When there’s another travel crisis, as is likely, they need to hammer the Republicans and force the media to cover it properly instead of going along with the Trump lies. These are the sort of things that people feel in their own lives and the Democrats cannot allow the Republicans to escape responsibility for them anymore.
There’s going to be a lot of this and it’s not going to be enough for AOC and Jasmine Crockett to give good speeches during hearings. The Dems need a concerted plan to hammer again and again that the Trump administration is rewarding its corporate buddies at people’s expense. These are the specific kinds of things that bring that home.
I wrote about the things I think are missing from the Dem discourse: 1) scope of the losses (you'd think this was 1984)2) how media struggles to explain a second Trump win; easier to yell at Dems 3) there might not be a grand theory. it might be uninformed voters' vibes.njour.nl/s/726851?unl…
Pretty sure all three are true. But 2 is the biggie. Because it’s application is so wide. People are confused by, upset by, outraged by Trump. And they don’t know what to make of or do with those feelings and the easiest course is vent about Dems. Full stop. 2/3 of contemporary political commetnary.
Absolutely correct. The “bad vibe” election, expertly exploited by Trump, was caused by Trump himself. He persuaded his own followers that the country was in the worst shape it’s ever been including the Great Depression and that the previous election had been stolen from them. Democrats were upset and frustrated that he was out there lying about all this. Bad vibes all around. In the end, the election was decided by the small slice of voters who just felt the vibes and had no idea where they were coming from. They just went with the general vibes they heard and felt in passing and believed it was necessary to throw the bastards out.
Here’s an excerpt of the National Journal piece:
Explaining a Harris win would have been easy: Voters rejected Trump and his ilk, just as they did in 2020. A Trump win seems more difficult to explain. Everyone knows who he is now! Surely the majority would reject him, even if he won the Electoral College. But instead, Trump not only won the Electoral College, he won the popular vote.
And now we get a zillion media think pieces on what Democrats did wrong and what the ideological fights are between the center and the Left.
[…]
The explanations are not cut-and-dried; they never are. But it’s also not difficult to see that swing voters rejected an administration they felt didn’t help them. As for what they knew about Trump—well, I hate to break it to you, but the vast majority of swing voters only pay attention to politics long enough to cast their ballots. They are not watching rallies. They are annoyed by political ads and ignore mailers. This is why searches of “did Joe Biden drop out” surged on Election Day.
Logically, voters who didn’t even know who was on the ballot were probably unlikely to cast a ballot for the candidate they didn’t know (Harris). They did know Trump, and they knew their perception that the economy was better—mostly because prices were lower—during his term.
Those swing voters who did know enough to have the right candidates in mind, but not much more, went with a gut feeling of some sort. In an environment where the current administration is unpopular and people think the country is on the wrong track, that vote wasn’t going to Harris. Plus, isn’t Trump a great businessman or something?
These are the stories you only rarely see in the media. It is uncomfortable to learn how swing voters actually make decisions. It is also uncomfortable to think about how much money was spent trying to sway their decisions, when they came down to a gut feeling or something they only saw in passing. We spend a lot of time and money trying to catch them in passing.
Eventually, more data will help us sort out what happened. In the meantime, all of the media explainers would do well to consider that there might not be some grand theory of what happened. Maybe we just have a low-information swing electorate that is busy living their lives and votes on a whim. It’s just not what we want to see from inside our political bubbles.
The consequences of all this are profound. As with so much else, Trump has exposed the flaws in our democratic system as well. Flood the zone with bullshit and the people who don’t pay attention until the day they vote will probably go your way.
I’m sure the contemptuous, unpitying masters of other continents are dangerous. But right now that sounds more like the contemptuous, unpitying masters of this country…
There are lots of attempts to explain the 2024 election. Many voters said something along the lines of, they were unhappy with the government and wanted to try something new. These voters were concerned about the economy (although even The Wall Street Journal conceded it was the strongest in the world), the price of gasoline, and other similar issues that amounted to little more than a permission structure for voting for Trump. It was all summed up for me a few days after the election, in a conversation with an acquaintance who said they’d voted for Harris, but at least “my portfolio is doing great this week.”
Voters who ignored the facts about the economy and used them as an excuse to vote for Trump weren’t people who wanted a change. They were people who, actually, didn’t want any change at all. They didn’t like new policies advanced by the Biden-Harris administration, a more inclusive vision of America where traditionally marginalized people had equal opportunity. They didn’t want a new generation of leadership. They wanted the “old stability,” the patriarchy that has run the country for generations. In many ways, that’s what’s at the heart of the conservative coalition. It’s not a rejection of the established order; it’s an embrace of it.
[…]
Thinking a vote for Trump was a rejection of “elites” is part of the weak tea biography Trump sold to far too many Americans—the idea that he, the guy who started out on third base, hit and would continue hitting homes runs for them. Trump appeals to people who want to slide into home without having to run all the bases; that’s his ultimate appeal, the cheat who somehow manages to succeed, surrounded by his billionaire friends.
Two things there that ring especially true to me. The votes for Trump on the economy “amounted to little more than a permission structure for voting for Trump.” Yes. It was a rationale that people used to be respectable. It was not the real reason. And that reason was that they admire Trump because he is the cheat who manages to succeed. He slithers out from all accountability and they love him for it. It makes him supernatural, invincible.
How do you fashion a political strategy around that? I don’t know but I do know that coming up with a better set of 10 point plans on the economy isn’t gonna do it.
