Skip to content

Digby's Hullabaloo Posts

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.

Breathe

All is not lost:

The Republican Party’s increasing Trump-era tendency toward more extreme nominees and its struggles to account for the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade have already cost it plenty. It’s quite possible that these things cost it control of the Senate in both the 2020 and 2022 elections.

If unpopular GOP nominees in key states had merely matched the political fundamentals, Republicans might have held the Senate for the duration of Joe Biden’s presidency and had a much more significant House majority with which to work today.

Now, these same things may have cost Republicans control of a state.

New Hampshire on Tuesday became the latest state in which Democrats over-performed in a special election — a trend that has held very steady ever since Roe was overturned last summer.

Democrat Hal Rafter won by 12 points in a state House district that went narrowly for Donald Trump in 2020. The 12-point improvement on the 2020 margin is in line with Democrats’ encouraging continued over-performances in special elections this year; Daily Kos Elections and FiveThirtyEight data on more than two dozen special elections show the party running an average of 7.6 points better than their 2020 margins — margins from a 2020 election that, it bears noting, were already good for Democrats — and double digits better than the normal partisan fundamentals.

Even moderate Republicans are losing because they can’t afford to alienate the cultists in their districts. If you think that people are going to vote for Trump himself or not show up just because Biden is old I think there’s ample evidence of that not being true. Democrats are showing up in big numbers in these off year elections. They will show up for the presidential as well. People may not be happy with their choices but they seem to understand the stakes.

Update: Chris Hayes had a great segment on this subject:

Both sides, both sides

MSNBC framing of today’s hearing:

Attorney General Merrick Garland appeared before the House judiciary Committee for the first time since Donald Trump and Hunter Biden’s separate indictments and it went about how you would expect it to go. House Republicans accused AG Garland of politicizing the Department of Justice to protect President Biden. Democrats accused Republicans of politicizing Judicial Oversight to benefit Donald Trump and AG Garland, well, he just tried to defend himself.

Oh those crazy Republicans and Democrats. They’re all full of shit, amirite? Just playing politics. Waddaya gonna do?

This is the problem, folks. It’s not “both sides.” It’s Republicans. It’s not hard to make a judgment about this. It’s called reality.

Gun chicks

Lauren Boebert with friends in front of her now-closed restaurant

Claire Potter talks about the Lauren Boebert “situation” in her newsletter today making the point that while it’s not nice to slut-shame women, it’s something that Boebert and her erstwhile buddy Marjorie Taylor Greene actually embrace as a big part of their MAGA image:

… I do not feel inclined to lecture other people who slut-shame Lauren Boebert. I think it is misguided, and it isn’t because of the unproven allegations that she actually worked as an escort on a sugar-daddy website. It’s because she has spent a lot of time and energy polishing her reputation as a Gun Chick, a popular erotic figure on the right who we might tentatively define as “the slutty girl next door—with a gun.”

It’s not an accident that Boebert looks and acts slutty; it’s calculated. It is something you are supposed to notice, and it is supposed to cause Republican dicks to lead the male voters they are attached to into the voting booth on election day. I seriously doubt that Lauren Boebert would be in the House of Representatives at all if many voters in Colorado’s Third didn’t love it that she looks and acts like such a slut with a gun.

Boebert voters, and to a lesser extent, admirers of another congressional Gun Chick, Marjorie Taylor Greene (R, GA-14), do not care that they are not serious people. They do not care that these women are paid to legislate and have never actually done it. Instead, Boebert and Greene’s brand of out-there, raunchy female sexuality is central to their appeal in a right-wing party that spends much of its time not taking women seriously as human beings and trying to suppress everyone else’s sexuality and gender expression. Being dignified is “establishment,” but being slutty “makes the libs melt down.” Perhaps most importantly, it means that these women may be in authority, but they don’t have to be taken seriously because it’s all just a joke. Really, they don’t want to be in government; they just want to fuck, have fun, and shoot guns with men.

Once seen as a matched pair, Boebert and Greene shot into the spotlight in 2020 as full-fledged Christian nationalist MAGA partisans even as Trump, the guy who made them electable, was being shown the door. While Boebert periodically flew in the QAnon slipstream, Greene was a wholly convinced follower, something she renounced on the floor of the House in February 2021 after she had been kicked off all her committees for spouting weird, antisemitic conspiracies at the drop of a hat. And although they touted their “family values,” both women’s marriages quickly died after they came to Congress. Perry Greene filed for divorce in 2022, a decade after Greene reportedly had several affairs and briefly tried to ditch him. The 36-year-old Boebert dumped her husband Jayson, whom she married at sixteen. Perhaps he still loves her:  he took responsibility for her disgrace at the Beetlejuice performance by admitting that he has treated her badly.

Despite their similarities, Greene and Boebert have since broken up with each other. On opposite sides of the Kevin McCarthy speaker fight, they had a final falling out in June when Boebert plagiarized MTG’s impeachment bill, and Greene called her a “little bitch” on the House floor. And yet, as Gun Chicks, the two women still call our attention to the centrality of slutty, trashy behavior to MAGA world.

Boebert owes both her business and political careers to exploiting the nexus of guns and sex that the Gun Chick represents. She and Jayson owned a restaurant in Rifle, Colorado, called Shooter’s Grill (note: the name rips off the “Hooters” brand), where waitresses dressed in revealing clothing also wore pistols on their hips. Boebert first came to public attention when she confronted then-presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke in Aurora over his plan to institute federal gun control, mostly through a buy-back program. Before running for office, Boebert became a local pro-gun organizer and also publicly associated with several militia group chapters (which are full of Gun Chicks) in Colorado.Subscribe

Greene, too, campaigned as a Gun Chick in 2020: among other things, she posted a video of herself brandishing a semi-automatic long gun and warning “Antifa” to “stay out of northwest Georgia.” Although Facebook pulled it down, it got over 2 million views there and another 1 million on Twitter. She also shared a second controversial image of herself with a weapon on Facebook; in the background were progressive women of color in Congress, and in the foreground, the phrase: “The Squad’s Worst Nightmare.”

The Gun Chick is always white. She meets right-wing men where they are, politically and sexually, and is, by definition, an erotic figure who captures both the allure of female beauty and the thrill of barely contained violence. She is one of many contradictory figures (for example, the large number of closeted gay men) in an extremist movement shot through with Christian Nationalism.

In Congress, Boebert and Greene represent this much larger phenomenon, draw strength from it, and style themselves in ways that other Gun Chicks and their admirers recognize. Gun Chicks wear clothes that emphasize their cleavage and large breasts, bare their arms, sport visible tattoos, are verbally aggressive (particularly with other women), and carry a weapon whenever and wherever they can. 

Christian nationalism and unrestrained sexuality merge in the Gun Chick. Being a Gun Chick can be part of, or your entire, professional and social identity. For example, former porn star and stripper Alaina Hicks (a.k.a. Bonnie Rotten), who has gotten out of the business, has re-branded herself as a Second Amendment advocate and someone who has a lot of remorse for her life in porn. Now, as a Gun Chick, she’s a kind of firearms influencer who gets to wear more clothes than she formerly did when she does photo shoots. But those images never fail to draw attention to her impressive physical assets, which are accented by draping weapons over and around them. 

Gun Chicks are barely restrained by clothes that are intentionally slutty: they are skin tight, falling off, and otherwise revealing of boobs, butts, and pubes. You can see this in the popular Girls With Guns calendar: here are shots from the 2020 edition, which not only feature breasts popping out of bikini tops and tac vests but incorporate porn tropes. Take a look at February’s lesbian twin scene, Miss March in full leather, or Miss April in black lingerie, fuck me shoes, and an ammunition clip directed towards the space between her legs. Then, there is Miss October, who is bruised, has a split lip, and looks to be waiting for her abuser to come home so she can take him out with what looks to be a small shotgun. And this is a site with high production values. You can visit a cheaper, sadder version of Gun Chick World on the subreddit r/hotchickswithguns.

In other words, Gun Chicks are, by definition, slutty. You can slut-shame them if you like, but it only makes them stronger—which is why it is stupid to get involved with defending someone like Lauren Boebert from slut-shaming. It would be like trying to humiliate Jim Jordan for acting like a rabid animal all the time or criticizing Ted Cruz for acting like a stupid person. It’s part of the package and part of the brand.

So, my fellow feminists, if you wish to go high in this case, be my guest. But you aren’t fighting a battle that Lauren Boebert is interested in. Boebert’s sluttiness is intentional, and it’s something she works hard at. And she knows that what she did in that Denver theater will only make the people who voted for her love her more

Potter is absolutely right. This is who Boebert is. Sure, she and Greene call themselves “Christians” and have a bunch of kids proving how devoted they are to traditional family values. But they are something else and “gun chick” is the best description I’ve seen.

“Fallacious”

The questioning of Merrick Garland before the House Judiciary Committee is enough to make you give up on democracy if this is what we have as leaders