What Kevin McCarthy can learn from Liz Truss
A substantial number of GOP members and the Republican base expect an impeachment of Mr. Biden; if McCarthy doesn’t perform, he could go the way of Liz Truss.
Month: October 2022
Ukraine update: Fiona Hill declares Ukraine invasion is ‘the end of the existing world order’
Former National Security Counsel director Fiona Hill became a household name during her deposition for Donald Trump’s first impeachment. Her fearless, straightforward, no-nonsense testimony on both Trump’s actions and diplomatic issues has made Hill one of the nation’s most respected experts on international relations, especially when it comes to all things Russia. Now, in a new interview with Politico, Hill is bringing equally blunt about what’s happening in Eastern Europe.
“This is a great power conflict, “ said Hill. “The third great power conflict in the European space in a little over a century. It’s the end of the existing world order. Our world is not going to be the same as it was before.”
The article itself is hidden behind a clickbait headline about Elon Musk, but while Hill does have something to say about the appeal of Putin to guys like Musk or Trump (“Putin plays the egos of big men, gives them a sense that they can play a role. But in reality, they’re just direct transmitters of messages from Vladimir Putin.”), the more important message is that the battle going on in Ukraine isn’t a fight about who will control Crimea. It’s about who will own the future.
It was during that deposition for Trump’s first impeachment that Hill called Trump’s blackmail call to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, “really kind of my worst fears and nightmares” in terms of an “effort not just to subvert the national security process but to try to subvert what really should be a diplomatic effort.”
Hill’s insightful, informed discussion of the issues, and her explanation of how Russia and Ukraine both saw Trump’s efforts to manipulate the situation for his own benefit, made her a standout witness. In later interviews, Hill explained how she warned Trump that Vladimir Putin actually wants to use nuclear weapons and that Russia’s threats to Ukraine couldn’t be ignored, but needed to be met with a “major international response.”
This time, what Hill has to say isn’t all about Putin’s ability to manipulate men who are easily bullied, but about how Putin himself has defined the illegal, unprovoked invasion of Ukraine in a way that means the U.S., NATO, and the world can’t afford to step back.
As she points out, a hallmark of Putin is that when something he does turns out to be a failure, he doesn’t step away. He doubles down. “[Putin] always takes the more extreme step in his range of options,” said Hill, “the one that actually cuts off other alternatives. Putin has often related an experience he had as a kid, when he trapped a rat in a corner in the apartment building he lived in, in Leningrad, and the rat shocked him by jumping out and fighting back.” It says something that Putin identifies with that rat.
The Russian dictator insists on fighting even when, as in this case, “he’s also the person who puts himself in the corner.” In spite of extraordinarily high casualties (Hill notes that some estimates now show Russian losses at over 90,000), Putin isn’t taking steps to reduce future casualties. Instead he’s throwing more bodies at the situation. Russia ran through many of it’s best trained, best equipped forces in the opening weeks of the war. Now it is mobilizing untrained men, most of them out of shape, many of them elderly or ill, and forcing them to the front with only the slightest nod toward training. The families of some of those who were “recruited” following Putin’s big mobilization speech have already received death notices.
For Hill, Putin has launched himself into a no-win situation, but he’s unwilling, or even incapable, of stepping away. His only end game is one in which he leaves on his own terms. Putin doesn’t just want to win the war, he wants to crush Ukraine. To “cow” people into submission, erase their culture, obliterate their boundaries into “Novorossiya,” and “remove Ukraine from the map and from global affairs.” And just because what’s happening in Ukraine doesn’t fit the image people have for a World War III—one dominated by an exchange of strategic nuclear weapons—that doesn’t mean what’s happening is any more dismissible than the events that generated past world wars.
“We’re having a hard time coming to terms with what we’re dealing with here,” said Hill. “This is a great power conflict, the third great power conflict in the European space in a little over a century. It’s the end of the existing world order. Our world is not going to be the same as it was before.”
Putin doesn’t accept the boundaries of the world as they are now drawn. He’s willing to drag the world into food shortage and an economic crisis, and he’s willing to at least threaten nuclear war to see that the boundaries are redrawn in his favor. These actions and desires are indistinguishable from those that drove World War I and World War II. Just like the men who kicked off those wars, Putin expected things to go easily and in his favor.
“I’m sure Putin thought he would have been unassailable with a quick, victorious war,” said Hill. “Ukraine would be back in the fold, and then probably after that, Belarus. Moldova as well, perhaps. There would have been a reframing of the next phase of Putin as the great czar of a reconstituted ‘Russkiy mir’ or ‘Russian world.’”
Only that didn’t happen. But it still could, if the U.S. and other allies falter in their support of Ukraine.
Hill: This goes back to the point I tried to make when I testified at the first impeachment trial against President Trump. There’s a direct line between that episode and now. Putin has managed to seed hostile sentiment toward Ukraine. Even if people think they are criticizing Ukraine for their own domestic political purposes, because they want to claim that the Biden administration is giving too much support for Ukraine instead of giving more support to Americans, etc. — they’re replaying the targeted messaging that Vladimir Putin has very carefully fed into our political arena. People may think that they’re acting independently, but they are echoing the Kremlin’s propaganda.
Ukrainian forces are still busy in Kherson.
Update
Unclear how this relates to everything else going on, but if collaborators and Russian officials are loading onto those boats, the control of the occupation government may already be breaking down—particularly if the panic level is high.
Update: 11:15PM ET
This pro-impeachment California Republican is facing a tough battle
Rep. David Valadao (Calif.) is fighting for his political life in an election that will determine whether one of the last remaining House Republicans who voted to impeach former President Trump sees another term.
Valadao is one of 10 House Republicans who voted to impeach Trump following the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot, and one of two who sought reelection and prevailed in their primary.
He’s now facing Democrat Rudy Salas, a state lawmaker who placed first in California’s open primary in June by close to 20 percentage points. The race is rated as a toss-up by the Cook Political Report.
Valadao, who was first elected to the House in 2012 before losing the seat in 2018 and winning it back in 2020, narrowly beat two GOP challengers in a primary this summer.
While he didn’t face a Trump-backed challenger, his impeachment vote complicated his primary.
“I think it definitely made his primary race require more effort maybe than normal,” said Lisa Bryant, chairwoman of the department of political science at California State University, Fresno.
In a highly controversial move that brought criticism from some Democratic lawmakers, Democratic groups ran ads during Valadao’s primary that sought to elevate Trump-aligned GOP candidate Chris Mathys.
The House Majority PAC, which is aligned with Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), released an ad saying that “David Valadao claims he’s Republican, yet David Valadao voted to impeach President Trump.” It called Mathys a “true conservative” and “100 percent pro-Trump.”
Democrats have utilized similar tactics in other GOP primaries, banking on the idea that propping up more hard-line conservatives in primaries will give them easier opponents to beat in general elections, despite complaints from some members.
“Many of us are facing death threats over our efforts to tell the truth about Jan. 6,” Rep. Stephanie Murphy (D-Fla.) told Politico in a summer interview. “To have people boosting candidates telling the very kinds of lies that caused Jan. 6 and continues to put our democracy in danger, is just mind-blowing.”
The House Majority PAC and other groups have been unapologetic about the strategy.
“David Valadao is an out-of-touch extremist who voted against a law to prevent gas price gouging and would eagerly help Kevin McCarthy implement a national abortion ban. That’s why House Majority PAC is doing whatever it takes to elect Rudy Salas and flip this seat blue in November,” House Majority PAC Communications Director C.J. Warnke told The Hill in a statement on Monday.
Asked about the Democratic effort, Salas campaign manager Abby Olmstead told The Hill in an email that “Rudy is focused on his own campaign and not on what outside groups are doing.”
It’s possible the Democratic effort could backfire in helping Valadao, which has sought to use his impeachment vote to his benefit.
“It means different things to different voters certainly,” Valadao campaign senior adviser Robert Jones told The Hill. “Most importantly, and I think above all else, regardless of how you view it on a partisan basis, it’s a demonstration of his independence.”
“David has not been afraid to stand up to his party through his time in Congress, and this is sort of the ultimate demonstration of that. And so I think most voters see it as that he’s going to do what he thinks is right, not what any party thinks is right. That’s what people in the district I think want,” Jones added.
Democrats complimentary of Valadao’s vote to impeach Trump say voters should consider the rest of his record.
“I think that just because he voted for Trump’s impeachment does not take away the fact that the policies and agenda that he’d subscribed to is much reflective of the Trump agenda. And every member of Congress — Democrat and Republican — should be [wanting] to hold the executive branch accountable. That’s part of their job,” said Antjuan Seawright, senior adviser for the House Democrats’ campaign arm.
Still, in a sign that being seen as independent of party could resonate with voters in the district, Salas is also touting a willingness to buck his party.
One ad touts how he was the only Democrat in the state Assembly to vote in 2017 against a transportation plan that would have raised gas taxes. He later lost a committee chairmanship following the vote.
Los Angeles-based Democratic strategist Mike Trujillo said the Central Valley’s leanings are toward candidates who are more toward the center.
“Democrats and Republicans in the Central Valley have a very moderate — they both have a very moderate DNA, right? Valadao voted for impeachment. Salas voted against his party against a gas tax. That’s consistent across the Central Valley because it’s a very centrist-oriented part of the state,” he added.
The race is also seen as competitive, given that the newly drawn 22nd Congressional District leans more favorably toward Democrats.
The California news outlet CalMatters notes that 43.4 percent of residents in the district are registered Democrats, compared to 26 percent who are registered as Republicans and 22.6 percent who have no party preference.
The data website FiveThirtyEight gives the district a partisan lean of plus 10 points Democrat, but Salas is anticipating a tight campaign.
“We know this is gonna be a tough race, and we’ve seen that play out. But we also have such a fantastic candidate,” Olmstead said.
Republicans who backed Trump’s impeachment are an endangered species in the House.
Eight pro-impeachment Republicans — including Rep. Liz Cheney (Wyo.), once the third-ranking House Republican — either lost their primaries to Trump-backed challengers or opted against running for reelection this cycle. Aside from Valadao, the only other pro-impeachment GOP lawmaker who may sit in the next Congress is Rep. Dan Newhouse (Wash.).
In a nod to the competitiveness of the House seat and the dwindling number of pro-impeachment Republicans left, former Vice President Mike Pence, who rebuffed efforts to overturn the 2020 election, campaigned earlier this week for Valadao in Fresno, Calif.
Republican strategist Doug Heye, who previously served as communications director of the Republican National Committee, said the impeachment vote allows Valadao “to talk to independent voters in a way, and even some soft Democrats, in a way that most Republicans wouldn’t be able to.”
Jim Jordan plots ‘big moments’ for GOP influence in the majority
Jim Jordan made his name on Capitol Hill by nudging his own party from the right while pushing Democrats even harder. He may well return to that dynamic next year in a GOP-controlled House.
The eight-term Ohio Republican is on the brink of leadership-blessed power in a Republican majority, set to wield the Judiciary Committee’s powerful mallet should the GOP flip the House in November, as is likely. Jordan’s ascension will mark a new pinnacle not only for himself but for the pro-Trump Freedom Caucus — empowering its last original co-founder still in Congress to handle impeachments, immigration and more.
That perch will give him new chances to wage bare-knuckle political combat against Democrats, with the Biden White House already preparing aggressive pushback to nascent House Republican investigations. But it will also give Jordan an opening to embrace his old-school Freedom Caucus self by choosing issues where his cachet with conservative and younger members paired with an off-the-Hill influence can help him move the party in his more Trumpian direction.
And that influence is real: Interviews with nearly a dozen lawmakers underscore that while other House GOP leaders may run afoul of the party’s base, Jordan continues to wield unparalleled sway within it. His cred within the Trump world and conservative media give him tools to — when and if he wants — undercut the leadership colleagues who’ve elevated him as he backed them from the minority.
In an interview with POLITICO, Jordan suggested that he's not afraid to use his influence to push his own fellow Republicans, sketching out where he wants to see change in a GOP-controlled House.
Jordan mapped out “four big moments” in 2023 where he sees opportunities for Republicans to legislatively fight the political riptide (namely, a Democratic White House and possibly Senate) that's likely to wash away much of their recently rolled-out Commitment to America agenda: the debt ceiling, surveillance reform, funding the government and the farm bill.
“The old line is, the guy who takes you to the Super Bowl gets to coach the game," Jordan said."So I think if we win, I think [Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy] is going to be the speaker. Then it's important we do what we said we were gonna do, and do what the American people elected us to do."
Each of the four areas Jordan outlined for Republicans to dig in on could also spotlight divisions among them. The House GOP has balked at this Congress' Mitch McConnell-negotiated deals on the debt ceiling and government funding; a partially Trump-fueled schism helped sink surveillance proposals in 2020; and under then-Speaker Paul Ryan, conservatives helped take down a farm bill in 2018.
So if Jordan's invocation of those four topics gives leadership any heartburn, it's not without precedent. Rep. Dan Bishop (R-N.C.), an ally of the Ohioan, pointed to the dichotomy he embodies by describing Jordan as an “enthusiastic supporter” of McCarthy and someone who will “be helpful in holding the conference’s feet to the fire.”
“I think he is the change agent,” Bishop said, summing up Jordan’s mantra as de-emphasizing "antagonism with leadership” while helping “facilitate positive change.” Then Bishop attached a leadership-sized warning shot: “Half measures or business as usual are not going to be acceptable.”
Jordan, first elected in 2006, is no stranger to antagonizing leaders of both parties. He co-founded the House Freedom Caucus in 2015, got labeled a “legislative terrorist” by John Boehner, one of the two GOP speakers he helped run off, and later unsuccessfully challenged McCarthy for minority leader. Since then, he's become more of an inside-the-tent player as the conference shifts his way, helping lead the GOP defense against Trump’s two impeachments and the Jan. 6 select committee.
“I do think that’s where Jim has been making his presence known and impacting the overall direction of the conference,” said Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas).
That approach has left Democrats all but ready to throw salt over their shoulder when Jordan draws near, viewing him as the quintessential Donald Trump acolyte. Speaker Nancy Pelosi blocked him from the Jan. 6 committee, and Democrats have contrasted his treatment of Trump probes with his actions during the Benghazi probe to allege that he spreads misinformation.
Democrats see Jordan’s remarks at CPAC earlier this year — where he said that GOP investigations would help “frame up the 2024 race” and that Republicans “need to make sure that [Trump] wins” another term — as indicative of how he would run the committee.
“Jim sort of had several roles: You know, point man for spreading right wing poison. You know, cheap underminer of prominent Democrats, character assassin," said Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), who is running to lead Democrats on the Oversight Committee next year.
"Those are his skill sets that he would bring to whatever the status of the Republicans is in the new Congress," Connolly added. "But legislating, working across the aisle, are not among those skills."
They’ll have plenty of chances to clash again. Jordan is poised to lead Republicans into some of the next Congress' most politically divisive investigations — particularly a broad look at the Justice Department and FBI that will sweep in the search of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence, possibly getting paired with a bid to curtail DOJ and the FBI through government funding bills.
Bishop predicted that Jordan would want to make “serious reforms” to both agencies, including looking at “structural change” to the FBI.
And GOP leaders are giving Jordan a leading role in potential impeachments next Congress, a lane that's laden with potholes. Democrats are gearing up to decry any of Jordan's moves as overreach and revenge politics after two Trump impeachments, and not all of his GOP colleagues are on board yet.
Jordan, and many on his committee, already have one possible impeachment target in Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. Judiciary Republicans are already in talks over what to do about Mayorkas' handling of the southern border, Jordan said. Meanwhile, Democrats are preemptively bristling over the idea, arguing that it is unprecedented and shows the GOP isn’t serious about addressing immigration.
Importantly, with the midterms still three weeks away, Jordan and McCarthy are still gliding along in a relationship that Republicans credit with bringing the conference’s often-fractious right flank deeper into the fold. The two are actively engaged on future strategy, and coordinating with Oversight chair-in-waiting Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.) on GOP investigations.
"They’ll be a good influence for the whole conference," said Rep. Mike Johnson (R-La.), a member of House leadership who sits on the Judiciary panel. "I think Kevin really respects Jim's voice and the respect that he has from his colleagues. And so I think he'll put a lot of weight into what he says and thinks.”
Jordan praised McCarthy for having “given opportunities” to Freedom Caucus members and engaged “more of the spectrum of the conference," predicting that “you'll see more of that” next year.
That isn’t to say everyone is sold. Using a football analogy, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) compared the likelihood that McCarthy will formally outrank Jordan next year to “watching Tom Brady sit on the bench, while Drew Bledsoe mismanages the offense.”
And Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), a former Freedom Caucus chair, noted that the dynamics that influence Jordan's bond with his leaders will look different in the majority, where McCarthy will need to wrangle a conference that tries divided government with the Biden administration.
"I'm always a big believer that when you're in the minority, it's easier to be conservative than when you're in the majority," Biggs said. "We'll have to see how it is going forward.”
Olivia Beavers and Caitlin Emma contributed to this report.
‘RussiaGate’ Figure Fiona Hill Accuses Elon Musk of Speaking On Behalf of Putin
Elon Musk continued pressing for peaceful negotiations to end the Ukraine-Russia conflict and avert global nuclear war, while RussiaGate figure and star witness in the first impeachment trial of Donald Trump, Fiona Hill, accused him of transmitting messages for Vladimir Putin.
The Tesla CEO took to Twitter Monday to share a Newsweek op-ed that argued “neocons and the woke left” are leading us into “Woke War III.”
The column, written by David Sacks, pointed out that Musk had found himself in hot water for daring to propose a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine that included concessions on both sides – in an effort to avoid nuclear war and hundreds of millions, if not billions, of humans perishing as a result.
For his troubles, Musk was immediately branded a Putin sympathizer, as has become common in recent years.
Ukraine-Russia Peace:
– Redo elections of annexed regions under UN supervision. Russia leaves if that is will of the people.
– Crimea formally part of Russia, as it has been since 1783 (until Khrushchev’s mistake).
– Water supply to Crimea assured.
– Ukraine remains neutral.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 3, 2022
RELATED: Experts Split on Threat of Russian Nuclear Escalation as Biden Vacillates
Transmitting Messages For Putin?
Fiona Hill, who featured heavily in RussiaGate and the first impeachment of Trump, accused Musk of “transmitting a message” on behalf of Russian President Vladimir Putin.
In particular, she noted the mention of water supplies.
“It’s unlikely Elon Musk knows about this himself,” she said in an interview with Politico. “The reference to water is so specific that this clearly is a message from Putin.”
Or, you know, he simply googled Crimea and read various reports on the key role the water supply has in the Russia-Ukraine conflict dating back to 2021. It’s not as if the water crisis in the area was super-secret.
But of course, facts don’t matter when it comes to accusing people of being secret Russian agents.
“Putin plays the egos of big men, gives them a sense that they can play a role. But in reality, they’re just direct transmitters of messages from Vladimir Putin”
Fiona Hill on Putin’s latest useful idiot @elonmusk https://t.co/e8z5lPkUuo
— Grant Wyeth (@grantwyeth) October 17, 2022
Hill continued to expand on her theory that Putin was speaking through Musk.
“Putin does this frequently,” she said. “He uses prominent people as intermediaries to feel out the general political environment, to basically test how people are going to react to ideas.”
And she simply wouldn’t let up.
“It’s ironic that Elon Musk, the man who has been talking about getting us to Mars should be Putin’s messenger for the war in Ukraine, when we’re having a really hard time getting our act together on this planet,” she alleged.
Exceptionally well-said https://t.co/UT8fXG0MeF
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 17, 2022
Related: Tucker Carlson SHREDS Ukraine’s Zelensky For ‘Shaking Down’ Congress For More Money
Elon Musk Continues to Lobby Against Nuclear War
Elon Musk continued to warn of the threat of nuclear war Monday, once again referencing Russia’s insistence that Ukraine acknowledges Crimea as Russian territory.
“If Russia is faced with the choice of losing Crimea or using battlefield nukes, they will choose the latter,” he wrote in response to his prediction of a possible nuclear war. “We’ve already sanctioned/cutoff Russia in every possible way, so what more do they have left to lose?”
“If we nuke Russia back, they will nuke us and then we have WW3,” he cautioned.
If Russia is faced with the choice of losing Crimea or using battlefield nukes, they will choose the latter.
We’ve already sanctioned/cutoff Russia in every possible way, so what more do they have left to lose?
If we nuke Russia back, they will nuke us and then we have WW3.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 17, 2022
Critics noted that Musk’s messages were focused mostly on Russia’s needs and Ukraine’s concessions.
“If Russia faces destruction of their army and utter defeat by NATO, they will use nukes, then NATO will respond with nukes and civilization is over,” the billionaire fired back.
“But, hey, look on the bright side! At least Russia doesn’t get Crimea in that scenario, so you can be comforted by that thought, while watching the mushroom clouds rise.”
And unlike Hill, Musk has actually put his money where his mouth is – with his company Starlink supplying and even paying for satellite internet that the Ukraine military depends on. Essentially, and whether deliberate or not, that makes Musk the enemy in the eyes of Russia.
If Russia faces destruction of their army and utter defeat by NATO, they will use nukes, then NATO will respond with nukes and civilization is over
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 17, 2022
Former President Donald Trump has also argued, like Elon Musk, that nuclear war must be averted.
“Be strategic, be smart (brilliant!), get a negotiated deal done NOW,” Trump said. “Both sides need and want it. The entire World is at stake.”
Musk and Trump’s calls for peace actually led Pavel Podvig, a so-called expert on Russia’s nuclear doctrine and capabilities at the UN Institute for Disarmament Research, to accuse the men of being “dangerous.”
Let me repeat – calling to avoid nuclear war, not actual nuclear war, is dangerous.
“If you yield to this nuclear threat once, then what would prevent Russia in the future — or others — to do the same thing again?” Podvig said.
“Just giving in at this point would actually be dangerous,” he added.
Now is the time to support and share the sources you trust.
The Political Insider ranks #3 on Feedspot’s “100 Best Political Blogs and Websites.”
The post ‘RussiaGate’ Figure Fiona Hill Accuses Elon Musk of Speaking On Behalf of Putin appeared first on The Political Insider.
Greene: If McCarthy wants to make base happy, he’ll ‘give me a lot of power’
Firebrand Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) warned that the Republican base would be “very unhappy” if House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) does not give her more power if Republicans take control of the chamber next year.
In a New York Times Magazine profile on Monday examining Greene’s rise in influence and future, the Georgia congresswoman indicated that McCarthy would have to adopt her “a lot more aggressive” approach toward President Biden, whom she has introduced multiple articles of impeachment against.
“I think that to be the best Speaker of the House and to please the base, he’s going to give me a lot of power and a lot of leeway,” Greene said. “And if he doesn’t, they’re going to be very unhappy about it. I think that’s the best way to read that. And that’s not in any way a threat at all. I just think that’s reality.”
McCarthy, who is aiming to become Speaker in a House majority, has given the confrontational right flank of the House GOP a seat at the table as he aims to shore up support. Greene was in attendance at a House GOP “Commitment to America” midterm policy and platform rollout event in Pennsylvania last month.
Greene was stripped of her committee assignments soon after being sworn into office as punishment for her posts about conspiracy theories and liking a Facebook comment that called for the assassination of Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).
McCarthy has pledged to restore Greene’s committee assignments, suggesting at one point that she could have even “better committees” than the ones she was assigned to before – the Education and Labor and Budget committees.
“I would like to be on Oversight,” Greene told the New York Times Magazine. “I would also like to be on Judiciary. I think both of those I’d be good on.”
Republicans on both the House Oversight and Reform and House Judiciary committees have been preparing to bring a spotlight to the business activities of Biden’s son Hunter Biden’s business activities and social media suppression of an election-season 2020 New York Post story revealing the contents of his laptop.
The committees have helped to skyrocket Republican members to stardom in the past.
“I completely deserve it. I’ve been treated like [expletive]. I have been treated like garbage,” Greene said.
Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.), ranking member on the House Oversight and Reform Committee who is in line for the chairmanship in a GOP majority, indicated that he would welcome Greene to his committee.
“If Americans entrust Republicans with the majority next Congress, we look forward to the Steering Committee adding new GOP members to the committee like Rep. Greene with energy and a strong interest in partnering with us in our efforts to rein in the unaccountable Swamp and to hold the Biden Administration accountable for its many self-inflicted crises that it has unleashed on the American people,” Comer told New York Times Magazine.
Utah emerges as wild card in battle for the Senate
The Utah Senate race between conservative Republican Sen. Mike Lee and Independent Evan McMullin has emerged as a potential wild card in the battle for the Senate.
Recent polls show the race is close, with McMullin trailing Lee by only a few points in a state where Republican victories are usually all but guaranteed.
Lee, a conservative who supported then-President Trump’s effort to challenge the 2020 election results on Jan. 6, is a star among many members of Utah’s Republican base, but his unpopularity among moderates and Democrats has driven his approval rating down to the low 40s.
“This is within the margin of error,” said Richard Davis, an emeritus professor of political science at Brigham Young University, citing recent polls by Deseret News and the Hinckley Institute of Politics. “It could go either way. It’s basically neck and neck.”
If McMullin manages to pull off an upset, his pledge to not caucus with either Democrats or Republicans could throw the battle for control of the Senate into turmoil.
If Republicans wind up keeping retiring Sen. Pat Toomey’s (R) Pennsylvania seat in GOP hands and defeating the Democratic incumbent in Nevada or Georgia, McMullin could still keep the Senate under Democratic control by voting for Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) as majority leader.
Conversely, he could swing it to Republicans by affiliating with Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) or simply not affiliating with either party, which would give Republicans a 50-to-49 seat majority with one unaffiliated senator in the chamber.
“He’s in the catbird seat because as an Independent both sides are going to want to give him something” to get his vote for determining the Senate majority in an evenly split chamber, Davis said.
“I can’t imagine that he’s going to caucus with the Republicans, but he had to say that he wasn’t going to caucus with the Democrats to win over the very people he’s trying to win over right now,” Davis said of the moderate Republicans who aren’t thrilled about voting for Lee but wouldn’t consider voting for a Democrat, either.
“He could be in an extremely powerful situation if he gets to determine which way the Senate is organized, which party gets the majority,” he added. “I think what he’s going to do is negotiate on Utah’s behalf, get things for Utah out of this.”
The latest Deseret-Hinckley poll shows Lee leading McMullin by four points, 41 percent to 37 percent, with 12 percent of Utah voters undecided.
The poll found that 40 percent of respondents had a favorable view of Lee, while 47 percent had an unfavorable view.
Lee’s allies, however, argue that the Deseret poll put too much weight on registered instead of likely voters, skewing the results in favor of McMullin.
Lee’s allies think it’s more likely that the incumbent wins by a healthy margin of 10 or more points.
The poll, however, found the numbers stay largely the same among likely voters and the race tightens among those who say they will definitely vote, with Lee leading McMullin 42-40 percent.
“Mike Lee is leading this race. Every reliable poll shows Sen. Lee with a significant lead and our internal polling gives us even greater confidence in the strong support he has across the state,” said Matt Lusty, an adviser to the Lee campaign.
Utah Democrats helped McMullin significantly by declining to endorse one of their own members and instead backing McMullin at their state convention in April. The Deseret poll found 68 percent of Democrats backing McMullin, and he leads with unaffiliated voters as well.
Davis said if McMullin can win over more Republican moderates who see themselves more in the same camp as Utah’s centrist Republican Sen. Mitt Romney, who voted twice to convict Trump on impeachment charges, he could wind up winning.
McMullin ran as an Independent for president in 2016 and turned in his best performance in Utah, where he won 21 percent of the vote in the general election — trailing the Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton by only 6 points. Trump carried the state with 45 percent of the vote.
Boyd Matheson, a prominent Utah radio host who formerly served as Lee’s chief of staff, said McMullin would find himself under tremendous pressure to pick a side if he manages to defy the odds and win election to an evenly divided Senate.
The Senate’s two current Independents — Bernie Sanders (Vt.) and Angus King (Maine) — both caucus with Democrats. Neither, however, had to defeat a sitting senator to win their seats.
“He would be under immense pressure from both Democrats and Republicans and picking a side at this point matters because if you look at someone like a [Sen.] Joe Manchin [D-W.Va.], the reason Manchin has power because he’s in the room,” Matheson said.
He said if McMullin refuses to caucus with either party, he won’t have any way to sit on a committee without getting a special deal from one of the party leaders.
“That’s going to be the challenge for McMullin. If he wins, can he have any influence without any committee assignment without being in the Republican lunch or the Democratic caucus lunch?” he said.
The race was largely overlooked until Lee went on Fox News host Tucker Carlson’s show Tuesday to plead for Romney’s endorsement, a surprising move since Romney made clear early in the race that he would stay neutral.
“As soon as Mitt Romney is ready to, I will eagerly accept his endorsement,” Lee pleaded on Carlson’s show. “Evan McMullin is raising millions of dollars off Act Blue, the Democratic donor database based on this idea that he’s going to defeat me and help perpetuate the Democratic majority.”
“I’ve asked him, I’m asking him right here again tonight right now,” Lee said. “Please get on board. Help me win reelection.”
Senate aides say Lee’s pleas for help from Romney were especially surprising given that they have clashed repeatedly this Congress, starting with Lee’s strong support for Trump’s effort to challenge the 2020 election results through the courts.
Romney, by contrast, was the only Senate Republican to vote to convict Trump after both of his impeachment trials.
The two Utah senators have also clashed over major policy differences. Lee voted against the three major bipartisan initiatives that Romney supported during President Biden’s term: a $1 trillion infrastructure bill; legislation addressing gun violence after the school shooting in Uvalde, Texas; and a $280 billion bill to support the domestic semiconductor industry.
But Lee and Romney have also worked together on bills to help constituents in Utah, such as the bill they introduced in April to address housing supply and affordability by allowing parcels of federal land to be purchased at a reduced price.
And they pool their staff to work jointly on constituents’ special cases.
Even so, Romney and Lee are hardly considered friends.
Davis, the emeritus political scientist, said Romney is “unlikely” to change his mind and endorse Lee “because I don’t think these two get along well.”
“He can’t endorse McMullin because that would probably be a step too far to do that but by not endorsing [Lee] he’s certainly sending a message,” he added of Romney.
Adding to the surreal moment on Carlson’s show, Trump waded into the race by releasing a statement praising Lee as an “outstanding senator” and criticizing Romney harshly for not endorsing his home-state colleague — bringing fresh attention to the possibility that Lee, who won reelection in a landslide six years ago, might be in trouble.
Trump declared that Romney’s decision to stay neutral in the race “has abused” Lee “in an unprecedented way.”
Lusty, Lee’s campaign adviser, said: “Sen. Lee sees it as important for all members of the party to stand together and he welcomes the public endorsement of all of his Senate GOP colleagues, including Sen. Romney.”
But Romney’s defenders are quick to note that Lee refused to endorse late Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch (R) when he ran for reelection in 2012 and Lee’s chief of staff at the time, Spencer Stokes, predicted that Hatch would lose because he had already spent far too much time in Washington.
Fundraising data collected by the Federal Election Commission as of Oct. 14 showed that Lee had raised $7.9 million for his reelection while McMullin had raised $3.2 million.
Outside interest groups are also pouring money into the race.
The conservative Club for Growth, a group long allied with Lee, has already spent $2.2 million on the Utah Senate race and has vowed to pour more money into the race, according to The Salt Lake Tribune.
On the other side, the Put Utah First PAC has spent more than $2.5 million to help McMullin.
New Video: Roger Stone Says Trump Will Get His ‘Brains Beat In’ If He Runs Again
In documentary footage, the staunch Trump ally said he was "done with" the former president and threatened to support his impeachment.
New Book Reveals Jim Jordan’s Dirty Tricks With Impeachment
Transcript: Rachael Bade and Karoun Demirjian on “Face the Nation,” Oct. 16, 2022
The following is a transcript of an interview with Rachael Bade and Karoun Demirjian, authors of "Unchecked: The Untold Story Behind Congress's Botched Impeachments of Donald Trump," that aired Sunday, Oct. 16, 2022, on "Face the Nation."