I think the most viral animal videos this year came from Mo Mountain Mutts which is a dog sitting and training outfit in Alaska that picks up the “students” in its puppy bus every day. It’s just the cutest series ever:
You’ve just gotta love it.
Here’s the former Great Whitebread Hope still flailing around trying to prove that he’s just as much of an authoritarian monster as Donald Trump:
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) said in a Thursday interview that, if elected president, he would fire special counsel Jack Smith, who brought two indictments against former President Trump, on “day one” of his hypothetical term in office.
DeSantis made the case for why he was the best candidate to win the GOP nomination in 2024 in a Fox News interview with Jason Chaffetz. After referencing Trump’s legal battles in the upcoming year, DeSantis said he would be able to keep focused on holding people accountable, including Smith.
“I think that a guy like me as the nominee will be able to keep the focus on Biden, keep the focus on the Democrats’ failures,” DeSantis said, “but then, more importantly, after you win the election, start holding these people accountable, who have weaponized the legal system to go after their political enemies.”
“And that starts with day one, firing somebody like Jack Smith. That goes to dealing with people who are violating constitutional rights at the state and local government area,” he added.
I’m not sure what he thinks he’s doing these days but I don’t think this is going to convince anyone. The best guess is that he’s waiting to see if Trump falls face first into the omelette bar at Mar-a-lago before the convention and the party will be desperate for someone who is a much of a vengeful monster as he is.
Meanwhile, here’s the supposedly moderate choice (who happens to think the civil war was about freedom from big government) said yesterday:
Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley says she would pardon former President Trump, if he were found guilty, saying that it wouldn’t be “in the best interest of the country” for him to be imprisoned.
So basically, Republicans all refuse to hold Trump or his henchmen accountable for what they’ve done but they promise to go after all of his political enemies on his behalf.
Who needs Trump?
Catherine Rampell has done a good service by laying out for her colleagues what they need to do to fulfill their responsibilities in 2024. Here are the two I think are most important:
Spend less time reporting on who’s likely to win an election and more on what they’d do if elected.
The point of winning elections is, ostensibly, to govern. Yet a voter could spend hours watching or reading presidential election coverage and come away with only a vague understanding of what any of the contenders would do as president. Too often journalists ask candidates questions like “Why are you so far down in the polls in Iowa?” rather than “What would your position on [food stamps/tariffs/banking] mean for Iowans?”
Jay Rosen, a New York University journalism professor, has pithily boiled down our mission as “Not the odds, but the stakes.” These days, Rosen’s refrain is usually quoted in the context of the stakes for democracy (specifically, under another Trump administration), but it’s a good principle for any substantive matter that affects the lives of everyday Americans.
We must produce more coverage of what, say, the health-care system would look like under different candidates’ platforms. Also climate, working conditions, immigration, civil rights, taxes, nutritional programs and so on. This is harder to do than just covering the horse race, but it adds more value.
People need to understand the stakes.There’s so much cynicism and disinformation out there that a whole lot of people just buy into the fatuous notion that “there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between them.” And then there are the “lesser of two evils” and the “heighten the contradictions” excuses and this is what we end up with:
I can’t imagine how anyone can come to that absurd conclusion but it’s sadly not uncommon. Making the Democrats “learn their lesson” isn’t going to keep immigrants from being deported or Netanyahu and Putin from pursuing their violent goals.
Report the important positive news and not just the important bad news.
Journalists are often accused of having a “bad-news bias.” That’s partly because alarming or infuriating stories sell in a way that positive ones often don’t — particularly in an era in which the public seems addicted to outrage. This addiction manifests in many ways, including in how politicians talk, how regular people converse with one another, and what newspeople decide to report.
There’s also a cover-your-rear impulse that disproportionately discourages positive news coverage. If we write about a policy/company/person/study/whatever in a way that emphasizes the good things, and it turns out we missed some significant problem, we look like fools. If we write something broadly critical and miss something good, audiences rarely care.
But our job is to give the public a truthful portrait of the world around them. Positive developments are part of that too.
I don’t think I need to tell my readers how important I think this is. I feel as if you are well aware of all the bad news out there. We’re inundated with it. I try to highlight the more positive news that doesn’t get as much exposure. But it’s really important that the mainstream media shifts their attitude and starts reporting the facts without all the editorializing about how none of it matters.
She also has a resolution for us and it’s important:
But my key resolution for news consumers is this: Help news organizations stick to the pledges above. You can do this by actually consuming the nuanced, balanced, thoughtful news coverage you say you want.
One reason journalists disproportionately cover polls is that doing so is relatively easy; another is that audiences appear to prefer simple, digestible “who’s ahead?” summaries to nitty-gritty policy issues. They don’t seem to care much about local elections (as evidenced not just by audience ratings but by voter participation). And they love to rage-click. Those who hate on media claim to want more balanced, meaty coverage and fewer inflammatory headlines. But virtually any journalist can tell you that these stated preferences are not borne out by our traffic numbers.
And those numbers matter. They especially matter in an era of ultra thin budgets and media layoffs, in which complex investigative work that almost no one reads or watches becomes an unaffordable luxury.
So if substantive coverage matters to you, reward it with your attention. Vote with your eyeballs, your ears, your clicks, your shares, your paid subscriptions. That can mean here at The Post or at any other organization whose work you like, and, through your news-consumption habits, resolve to make better in 2024.
I resolve to try to circulate the good journalism that I come across all year long and help my readers find the good journalism that’s being done in the big media and also the blogs, substacks and other newsletters that deserve our attention. It’s never been more important to be informed.
You’ll note that Trump’s lower number was in November 2019, before the pandemic hit and the numbers surged. Biden’s low number, on the other hand, is from hard work digging out of the carnage that was left behind. Those high numbers for Reagan and Obama improved dramatically in the last year and there is every reason to believe that Biden’s numbers are going to go lower still.
After this segment, Dana bash said to the reporter something to the effect of, “that’s nice but nobody’s feeling it so that’s bad news for Biden.” The reporter explained that since prices are higher than they were five years ago you can’t expect people to feel good about anything.
Americans need to get some perspective. It always takes some time for this stuff to catch up but there’s no reason for the mainstream media to be so relentlessly negative.
Anyway, here’s your hit of hopium for the day to counterbalance that kind of coverage if you’ve happened to be exposed to it:
Update —
Detroit is on track to record the fewest murders since the 1960s. In Philadelphia, where there were more murders in 2021 than in any year on record, the number of homicides this year has fallen more than 20 percent from last year. And in Los Angeles, the number of shooting victims this year is down more than 200 from two years ago.
The decrease in gun violence in 2023 has been a welcome trend for communities around the country, though even as the number of homicides and the number of shootings have fallen nationwide, they remain higher than on the eve of the pandemic.
In 2020, as the pandemic took hold and protests convulsed the nation after the murder of George Floyd by a police officer in Minneapolis, the United States saw the largest increase in murders ever recorded. Now, as 2023 comes to a close, the country is likely to see one of the largest — if not the largest — yearly declines in homicides, according to recent F.B.I. data and statistics collected by independent criminologists and researchers.
The rapid decline in homicides isn’t the only story. Among nine violent and property crime categories tracked by the F.B.I., the only figure that is up over the first three quarters of this year is motor vehicle theft. The data, which covers about 80 percent of the U.S. population, is the first quarterly report in three years from the F.B.I., which typically takes many months to release crime data.
The decline in crime contrasts with perceptions, driven in part by social media videos of flash-mob-style shoplifting incidents, that urban downtowns are out of control. While figures in some categories of crime are still higher than they were before the pandemic, crime overall is falling nationwide, including in cities often singled out by politicians as plagued by danger and violence. Homicides are down by 13 percent in Chicago and by 11 percent in New York, where shootings are down by 25 percent — two cities that former President Donald J. Trump called “crime dens” in a campaign speech this year.
That should be good news, right? Right????
Has there ever been a bigger narcissist in the history of the world? Ever?
And this lunacy is feeding it.Imagine how much that cost?
Donald Trump has denied claims made by the director Chris Columbus that he “bullied his way into” appearing in Home Alone 2: Lost in New York.
The former US president said on his social media platform Truth Social, that the film’s production team were “begging me to make a cameo appearance”.
Trump said of the 1992 film: “They rented the Plaza hotel in New York, which I owned at the time. I was very busy, and didn’t want to do it. They were very nice, but above all, persistent.
“I agreed, and the rest is history! That little cameo took off like a rocket and the movie was a big success, and still is, especially around Christmas time. People call me whenever it is aired.”
The sequel to the 1990 comedy Home Alone, Home Alone 2 made $359m (£280m) and was the third-highest grossing film of 1992.
In 2020, Columbus, who directed both movies, told Business Insider that Trump’s cameo was a condition of being able to film inside the Plaza hotel, on top of the usual fee.
“He did bully his way into the movie,” said Columbus, who reported Trump as saying: “The only way you can use the Plaza is if I’m in the movie.”
But Trump said on Truth Social this week: “Nothing could be further from the truth.” He added that his appearance had given the film a considerable boost. “That cameo helped make the movie a success, but if they felt bullied, or didn’t want me, why did they put me in, and keep me there, for over 30 years? Because I was, and still am, great for the movie, that’s why! Just another Hollywood guy from the past looking for a quick fix of Trump publicity for himself!”
Guess who’s lying?
I know it’s cheap to post this stuff. We all know he’s an infantile egomaniac. But sometimes I just have to vent. How can any adult admire this freak? I’ll never understand it.
Happy New Year everyone! Please, oh please, let it be a good one.
Once again, thanks so much to everyone who has supported Hullabaloo this year. It’s such a blessing to have such generous readers and I sincerely appreciate it. It means everything and I honestly couldn’t be more grateful. You are the best!
cheers,
digby
If there’s a worse time to drop a nuclear powered campaign gaffe than the week between Christmas and New Years less than a month before the primaries begin, I don’t know what it is. Many people are off work, sitting around watching TV, talking about world events with relatives and otherwise tuning into the news with a focus and attention they usually don’t have time for. Meanwhile, the news is usually pretty slow that time of year so any gaffe is going to get outsized attention on a loop because the media is desperate for campaign stories that aren’t dull as dishwater. Something that might be one little item in a crowded new cycle becomes The Major Story and a campaign is pushed back on its heels.
If you’re one of those who tuned in over the past 36 hours you’ve heard about former S. Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley’s massive gaffe in New Hampshire on Wednesday when she was asked a very simple question at a town hall meeting: “What was the cause of the United States Civil War?” That’s not a trick question or a gotcha. The answer is very simple: “slavery.” But what Haley said was absolute gobblydygook:
A: Well, don’t come with an easy question, right? I mean, I think the cause of the Civil War was basically how government was gonna run. The freedoms and what people could and couldn’t do. What do you think the cause of the Civil War was?
Q: [Inaudible]
A: I’m sorry?
Q: I’m not running for president. I wanted to see [what your view was] on the cause of the Civil War.
A: I mean, I think it always comes down to the role of government. And what the rights of the people are. And we, I, will always stand by the fact that I think government was intended to secure the rights and freedoms of the people. It was never meant to be all things to all people. Government doesn’t need to tell you how to live your life. They don’t need to tell you what you can and can’t do. They don’t need to be a part of your life. They need to make sure that you have freedom. We need to have capitalism, we need to have economic freedom, we need to make sure that we do all things so that individuals have the liberties, so that they can have freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to do or be anything they want to be without government getting in the way.
Q: Thank you. And in the year 2023, it’s astonishing to me that you answered that question without mentioning the word, “slavery.”
A: What do you want me to say about slavery?
Q: No, you’ve answered my question, thank you.
She did answer the question, in a way, and it wasn’t good. All of her babbling about freedom seemed to be aimed at the freedom of the enslavers, not the freedom of the enslaved. It’s absolutely the case that those rich plantation owners “wanted the freedom to do and be anything they wanted to be without the government getting in the way.” That’s why they seceded from the union.
It took many hours before she amended her statement which was an act of political malpractice in a situation like this. And what she finally said made it even worse:
Of course the Civil War was about slavery. We know that. That’s the easy part of it. What I was saying was, what does it mean to us today. What it means to us today is about freedom. That’s what that was all about. It was about individual freedom, it was about economic freedom, it was about individual rights. Our goal is to make sure, no, we never go back to slavery, but what’s the lesson in all that?
If it was so easy, you’d think she might have mentioned it. And again she doesn’t seem to be talking about the enslaved with all that freedom talk. People held in bondage didn’t have any capital or individual rights and the federal government was the least of their problems — they were held against their will by private individuals.
No, Haley was trying to incorporate standard libertarian dogma up there in the Live Free Or Die state and ran smack into an internal contradiction of that philosophy. “Keep the government out of our lives … so that we can continue to expand slavery” was the fundamental demand of the confederacy.
Remember, that statement of hers was supposed to be the clean up and it’s almost as incomprehensible as her first answer. And that leads to the real question about all this. Why was it so hard for her to answer this question like virtually any normal American in 2023 would answer it?
Sadly, the answer to that is in the numbers of Republicans who don’t believe that slavery was the cause of the civil war. YouGov did a poll a few months back about this very subject and it’s disheartening. First of all there are large numbers of Americans who apparently know next to nothing about the civil war one way or another. But among those who do have opinions about it, only 50% of Trump voters believe that slavery was the cause of the civil war. Only 40% of Republicans said they believe the North was more justified, with a large plurality of Trump voters saying that both sides were equally justified.
Nikki Haley has been trying to finesse this question going all the way back to 2010 when she first ran for Governor and defended the confederate flag. She later recanted and had the flag removed but only after the mass killing of innocent Black church goers in Charleston by a racist, confederate flag waving monster. In New Hampshire she tried to frame the question in libertarian language in an attempt to appeal to the Independents she needs to have a good showing and did a shockingly poor job of it. But she’s looking at going back to her home state in a few weeks, where Donald Trump is way ahead of her and she knows that any discussion of slavery will be a death knell in that primary.
Haley knows all about this— she’s from South Carolina — and as she’s done with the issue of abortion, she was trying to have it both ways. Her spectacular clumsiness with this question at a very bad time in the campaign news cycle is likely to hurt her but not because of the slavery question which, as we’ve seen, isn’t any kind of deal breaker among Republicans. It’s because it exacerbates her existing image as someone who doesn’t have any real center and isn’t her own person. This is a person who publicly promised not to run against Trump and is now doing it anyway while holding back on criticizing him and refusing to rule out becoming his vice president. (For what it’s worth, Don Jr. says he would do everything in his power to stop that and he’s not the only one.)
Haley’s bump in the past few weeks has been based on the idea that she’s a better general election candidate than Trump. This controversy cuts into that argument and frankly she doesn’t have a better one. A gaffe only matters if it reinforces an existing belief about a person and this one illustrates her central problem perfectly.
They are relentless. Give them that. The investor class backed by useful idiots among Christian nationalists are determined to tear public education down to the foundations. Just as the fringe right finally ended women’s right to bodily autonomy with Dobbs, education remains in the crosshairs. They’re teeing up another Supreme Court test case (Politico):
Groups aligned with the conservative legal movement and its financial architect, Leonard Leo, are working to promote a publicly funded Christian school in Oklahoma, hoping to create a test case to change the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the First Amendment’s separation of church and state.
At issue is the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Oklahoma’s push to create the St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, which would be the nation’s first religious school entirely funded by taxpayers. The school received preliminary approval from the state’s charter school board in June. If it survives legal challenges, it would open the door for state legislatures across the country to direct taxpayer funding to the creation of Christian or other sectarian schools.
They want that separation of church and state gone and some of that sweet, sweet public tax money going to teach flat earth theory and creation “science.” And they have Leo and a “billion-dollar network of nonprofits” backing them.
“The Christian conservative legal movement, which has its fingerprints all over what’s going on in Oklahoma, is a pretty small, tight knit group of individuals,” said Paul Collins, a legal studies and politics professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. “They recognize the opportunity to get a state to fund a religious institution is a watershed moment,” said Collins, author of Friends of the Supreme Court: Interest Groups and Judicial Decision Making, adding that“They have a very, very sympathetic audience at the Supreme Court. When you have that on the Supreme Court you’re going to put a lot of resources into bringing these cases quickly.”
In Oklahoma, the legal team representing the state’s virtual charter school board, the Alliance Defending Freedom [ADF], helped develop arguments that led to the end of Roe v. Wade. It is significantly funded by donor-advised funds that allow their patrons to keep their identities secret but which receive large amounts of money from Leo-aligned groups.
Who are they?
They include Donors Trust, often called the “dark money ATM” of the conservative movement. In recent years, Donors Trust has been the largest single beneficiary of Leo’s primary dark money group, the Judicial Education Project. Donors Trust, in turn, gave $4 million to Leo’s Federalist Society in 2022, according to the IRS filings.
Since 2020, when Leo received a $1.6 billion windfall from Chicago electronics magnate Barre Seid, among the largest contributions to a political advocacy group in history, other groups funded by Leo’s network have become substantial contributors to ADF. For instance, Schwab Charitable Fund, which has given at least $4 million to ADF, received $153 million in 2021 from a new Leo-aligned nonprofit that received the Seid funding.
ADF Senior Counsel Phil Sechler said in an emailed statement that his group is defending the board “in order to ensure people of faith are not treated like second-class citizens.” Sechler, who said he “cannot predict” whether the case will land at the Supreme Court, did not comment on the group’s funding.
If you believe donors like Schwab are in it for constitutional principle, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.
Let me repeat, investors see the hundreds of billions the states spend each year on public education as “The Big Enchilada“:
Here’s what we are doing. The collective We are abetting the investor class in raiding the public purse for its own gain. Investors have coopted religious conservatives to help divert funds from public schools the country has supported since the Articles of Confederation to private school vouchers and to charter schools.
Why? They want the billion$. Public education is required by 48 state constitutions. It’s the largest annual budget item in all 50 states. Here’s a recent one from Noth Carolina. Your state budget looks similar.
If you think the conservative furor over critical race theory and grooming and book bans is about culture war issues, you probably think George W. Bush’s push to privatize Social Security was about getting you, Average Taxpayer, a better long-term return on your paycheck witholdings.
It’s about the money. What stands between the investor class and the hundreds of billions states spend, not-for-profit, on public education annually are teachers and school custodians and school administers and state boards of education. They’ve got to go.
Just as Republicans spent decades undermining public confidence in free and fair elections to pave the way for a one-party state, the investor class has worked quietly at diverting more and more public tax dollars away from public schools to charters and voucher programs. Religious conservatives are useful idiots in the project.
“Venture capitalists and for-profit firms are salivating over the exploding $788.7 billion market in K-12 education,” read the subhead on Lee Fang’s warning in 2014. Like I said, they are relentless.
There are few services more American than public education:
Public education required by stateship acts (of 37 states) = 14
Land reserved for public schools (of 37 states) = 24
Public education required by state constitutions = 48
Public education free per state constitutions = 35
One more time (from a decade ago):
John Adams (a tea party favorite) wrote in 1785, “The whole people must take upon themselves the education of the whole people and be willing to bear the expenses of it. There should not be a district of one mile square, without a school in it, not founded by a charitable individual, but maintained at the public expense of the people themselves.”
To that purpose, the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 (passed under the Articles of Confederation prior to ratification of the U.S. Constitution) called for new states formed from what is now the American Midwest to encourage “schools and the means of education,” and the Enabling Act of 1802 signed by President Thomas Jefferson (for admitting the same Ohio that Santorum visited on Saturday) required — as a condition of statehood — the establishment of schools and public roads, funded in part by the sale of public lands. Enabling acts for later states followed the 1802 template, establishing permanent funds for public schools, federal lands for state buildings, state universities and public works projects (canals, irrigation, etc.), and are reflected in state constitutions from the Atlantic to the Pacific. The practice continued up to and including the enabling act for the admission of Hawaii in 1959 as America’s 50th state, for example (emphasis added):
(f) The lands granted to the State of Hawaii by subsection (b) of this section and public lands retained by the United States under subsections (c) and (d) and later conveyed to the State under subsection (e), together with the proceeds from the sale or other disposition of any such lands and the income therefrom, shall be held by said State as a public trust for the support of the public schools and other public educational institutions, for the betterment of the conditions of native Hawaiians, as defined in the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920, as amended, for the development of farm and home ownership on as widespread a basis as possible for the making of public improvements, and for the provision of lands for public use. Such lands, proceeds, and income shall be managed and disposed of for one or more of the foregoing purposes in such manner as the constitution and laws of said State may provide, and their use for any other object shall constitute a breach of trust for which suit may be brought by the United States. The schools and other educational institutions supported, in whole or in part out of such public trust shall forever remain under the exclusive control of said State; and no part of the proceeds or income from the lands granted under this Act shall be used for the support of any sectarian or denominational school, college, or university.
The workaround Leo, investors, and ADF pursue now is to eliminate the separation of church and state so the public expense of educating America’s children extends to their religious and private, for-profit education (without state supervision or standards, I might add).
They’ll claim their court case is about freedom and principle. No, it’s about the money. It’s always about the money.
First Colorado. Now Maine.
Maine on Thursday became the second state to bar Donald Trump from the 2024 primary ballot over his actions related to the Jan. 6 insurrection. Several Maine citizens challenged Trump’s eligibility for the presidency under the Constitution’s 14th Amendment. Secretary of State Shenna Bellows (D) reviewed the Jan. 6 record and found the reasoning of the Colorado Supreme Court to strike Trump from the primary ballot there “compelling.”
“The U.S. Constitution does not tolerate an assault on the foundations of our government, and Section 336 [Maine statutes] requires me to act in response,” Bellows writes. “I am mindful that no secretary of state has ever deprived a presidential candidate of ballot access based on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. I am also mindful, however, that no presidential candidate has ever before engaged in insurrection.”
Trump will appeal both the Maine and Colorado decisions.
California gets in on the action, says nope (New York Times):
Hours later, her counterpart in California announced that Mr. Trump would remain on the ballot in the nation’s most populous state, where election officials have limited power to remove candidates.
The Michigan Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that Michigan’s secretary of state lacks the authority to remove Trump from the primary ballot, writing, “At the moment, the only event about to occur is the presidential primary election. But as explained, whether Trump is disqualified is irrelevant to his placement on that particular ballot.”
Ron Fein, the legal director of Free Speech For People, which filed the lawsuit seeking to disqualify Mr. Trump, said the Michigan Supreme Court ruled narrowly, sidestepping the core questions at the heart of the case.
But, he noted in a statement, “The Michigan Supreme Court did not rule out that the question of Donald Trump’s disqualification for engaging in insurrection against the U.S. Constitution may be resolved at a later stage.”
“Oregon Secretary of State LaVonne Griffin-Valade announced on Nov. 30 that she does not have the legal authority to remove Trump from the primary ballot,” reported the Central Oregon Daily News on Thursday.
“I understand that people want to skip to the end of this story. But right now, we don’t even know who the nominee will be,” said Secretary Griffin-Valade in the statement. “When the general election comes, we’ll follow the law and be completely transparent with our reasoning.”
With felony charges to fend off in four jurisdictions and efforts countrywide to bar insurrectionists from state general election ballots, Donald Trump may have trouble finding time to actually campaign for president. Or one can hope.
He’ll fundraise the hell out of them all, naturally.
After months of Lieberman saying that there was no way that No Labels would do anything to help Donald Trump get a load of this:
Tensions flared around No Labels, the quixotic third-party operation attempting to place Joe Manchin (or another centrist-ish candidate) on 2024 ballots. On Wednesday, the group’s founding chairman, Joe Lieberman, hit back at Democratic anguish over the group’s spoilsport campaign, tellingThe Wall Street Journal that “Right now, looking at the polling, it’s not No Labels that’s going to re-elect Donald Trump… Right now, it looks like it’s Joe Biden who’s going to re-elect Donald Trump.”
Lieberman’s out-of-right-field attack isn’t shocking; after losing the 2006 Connecticut Senate primary, he left the party and successfully ran as an independent, while still caucusing with Dems. Two years later, he crossed party lines to campaign for John McCain, cementing his apostasy with a speech at the Republican National Convention.
But the comment is nonetheless extraordinary. For one, Lieberman served for 20 years with Biden, in a chamber and at a time when insults were watered down, indirect, and aimed toward colleagues described as “my friend.” And for all of Lieberman’s beef with Democrats, it’s hard to find much public friction with Biden. Moreover, it’s worth asking how Lieberman squares his current advocacy for a third-party ticket with his own painful experience in 2000, when Ralph Nader vaporized his vice presidential aspirations.
I don’t have the energy to dredge up the mountains of posts I’ve written over the years about this egomaniac. His hatred for the left is so overwhelming that it rivals Donald Trump’s at this point. I honestly believe that he would be happy to see Biden fail at his hands just to teach the Democratic Party a lesson.
I don’t know what can stop these craven No Labels grifters and saboteurs but I certainly hope something does. This is not time for Joe Lieberman’s outsized ego to get another 15 minutes.