Month: September 2023

Morning Digest: After a Democrat won in Alaska, Republicans want to kill ranked-choice voting

Posted on by Daily Kos Elections

The Morning Digest is compiled by David Nir, Jeff Singer, and Stephen Wolf, with additional contributions from the Daily Kos Elections team.

Subscribe to The Downballot, our weekly podcast

Embedded Content

Leading Off

● AK Ballot: Alaska voters made history in 2020 when they made their state the first in the nation to adopt a top-four primary with a ranked-choice general election, but conservatives tell the Alaska Beacon's James Brooks that they're close to qualifying a measure to repeal the system that would go before voters next year.

The campaign has until the start of the January legislative session to turn in about 27,000 valid signatures, a figure that represents 10% of the total number of votes that were cast in the most recent general election, and it must also hit certain targets in three-quarters of Alaska's 40 state House districts. One leader says that organizers have already gathered 30,000 petitions so far but will analyze them later to see if more are needed.

Under the current top-four system, all the candidates run on one primary ballot, and the four contenders with the most votes—regardless of party—advance to an instant-runoff general election. This method was first used last year in the special election to succeed the late GOP Rep. Don Young as Alaska's lone House member, a contest that ultimately saw Democrat Mary Peltola defeat former Republican Gov. Sarah Palin 51-49.

Conservatives both in Alaska and across the country were furious because Palin and another Republican, Nick Begich, outpaced Peltola by a combined 59-40 in the first round of tabulations. They blamed their surprise loss on instant-runoff voting rather than Palin's many failings or the Democrat's strengths.

"60% of Alaska voters voted for a Republican," griped Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton, "but thanks to a convoluted process and ballot exhaustion—which disenfranchises voters—a Democrat 'won.'" But even without ranked-choice voting, Peltola still would have come in first, as she beat Palin 40-31. And since Begich took third with 28%, he may well still have lost a traditional primary to Palin had one been used.

Furthermore, a poll conducted right after the special by supporters of ranked-choice voting showed that Alaskans saw their new voting system as anything but "convoluted." Instead, 85% of respondents found it to be "simple," while 62% said they supported the new method.

Hard-right groups, though, soon had even more reasons to hate the new status quo. Thanks to the top-four system, Sen. Lisa Murkowski, a rare Republican who's crossed party lines on high-profile votes, would no longer face what would almost certainly have been a tough GOP primary against Donald Trump's preferred candidate, former state cabinet official Kelly Tshibaka. (Murkowski famously lost her 2010 primary to a far-right foe but won the general through a write-in effort.)

Instead, Murkowski and Tshibaka easily advanced to the general election with Democrat Pat Chesbro and a little-known third Republican. Murkowski led Tshibaka 43.4-42.6 in the first round of general election tabulations, but the 10% of voters who supported Chesbro overwhelmingly broke for the incumbent and helped lift her to a 54-46 victory. Peltola also won her rematch with Palin 55-45 after initially leading her 49-26; unsurprisingly, both Palin and Tshibaka ardently back the effort to end the top-four system.

Redistricting

● OH Redistricting: Ohio's congressional districts will remain unchanged in 2024 after the state Supreme Court granted a request by plaintiffs to dismiss two legal challenges to the map, which the court ruled violated the state constitution as an impermissible partisan gerrymander last year.

Despite that ruling, however, challengers faced steep odds of a favorable outcome after hard-right Republicans won a majority on the court in November. But by abandoning their cases, voting rights advocates will ensure that Republicans cannot draw an even more aggressive gerrymander for 2024, since Ohio's constitution requires that the current map remain in place through next year's elections.

Republicans would still get a chance to draw a new map after 2024 under the current law, though, which is why reformers are instead focusing their efforts on qualifying an amendment for next year's ballot that would establish an independent redistricting commission to draw new maps.

This week, organizers submitted new ballot summary language after Republican Attorney General Dave Yost rejected their first attempt, mostly making technical changes in response to his complaints. Once they get the green light, activists will be able to start collecting the 413,000 signatures they need to put their measure before voters in 2024.

Senate

● CA-Sen: UC Berkeley has released two versions of its survey of the March top-two primary: One that includes a scenario where former Major League Baseball player Steve Garvey campaigns as a Republican, and one where he doesn't run. First is the Garvey version:

  • Rep. Adam Schiff (D): 20
  • Rep. Katie Porter (D): 17
  • Rep. Barbara Lee (D): 7
  • former Major League Baseball player Steve Garvey (R): 7
  • perennial candidate James Bradley (R): 7
  • 2022 attorney general candidate Eric Early (R): 5
  • tech executive Lexi Reese (D): 1
  • Others: 4
  • Undecided: 32

Next up is the one without Garvey, though the two leading candidates don't see their numbers budge at all:

  • Schiff (D): 20
  • Porter (D): 17
  • Bradley (R): 10
  • Lee (D): 7
  • Early (R): 7
  • Reese (D): 1
  • Others: 4
  • Undecided: 34

This is the first poll we've seen that includes Reese, who announced in late June, though UC Berkeley's release misspells her first name as "Lexie." A strategist for Garvey, meanwhile, told Politico in early June that "[w]e should have a decision made here in the next few weeks," but we're still waiting on him three months later.

● FL-Sen: EMILY's List has endorsed former Rep. Debbie Mucarsel-Powell, who is the Democratic frontrunner in the primary to face GOP incumbent Rick Scott.

Governors

● IN-Gov: Former state Commerce Secretary Brad Chambers has made it clear he'll be doing a substantial amount of self-funding in his quest for the GOP nod by throwing down $5 million of his own money. Chambers also began airing TV ads this week far ahead of the May primary: His opening spot, which Politico says has seven figures behind it, goes biographical by touting the candidate's local roots and his supposed status as a political "outsider." Eric Doden, another wealthy former state cabinet official, began running his own spots a month ago.

Former state education superintendent Jennifer McCormick, meanwhile, has publicized a mid-August internal Public Policy Polling that tests the Democrat against the other three notable Republican contenders:

  • 36-36 vs. former Attorney General Curtis Hill
  • 35-39 vs. Lt. Gov. Suzanne Crouch
  • 35-46 vs. Sen. Mike Braun

The release argues that, while McCormick trails two of her would-be GOP foes, opposition to Indiana's near-total abortion ban and unhappiness with the direction of the state could give her an opening.

● WA-Gov: The Seattle Times' Jim Brunner says that Attorney General Bob Ferguson will announce Saturday that he's running for governor, a move that comes four months after he said he was forming an exploratory committee to succeed his fellow Democrat, retiring incumbent Jay Inslee. As Brunner has noted before, Evergreen State law doesn't actually distinguish between exploratory committees and full-fledged campaigns.

House

● CA-49: Margarita Wilkinson, who works as an executive at the TV broadcaster Entravision, on Thursday became the latest Republican to join the top-two primary to go up against Democratic Rep. Mike Levin. The GOP field already consisted of businesswoman Sheryl Adams, 2022 state Senate candidate Matt Gunderson, and Marine veteran Kate Monroe. Joe Biden carried this seat, which includes coastal communities north of San Diego, 55-43.

● IN-03: Construction project manager Grant Bucher, who the Indiana Capitol Chronicle says is running the $26 million project to build a new Steuben County judicial center, said this week that he was joining the GOP primary for this safely red seat. Reporter Casey Smith adds that the new candidate grew up in this northeast Indiana seat, which Republican Jim Banks is giving up to run for the Senate, but that Bucher only recently returned from Michigan.

● MI-03: Republican Paul Hudson, an attorney who took fourth place last year for the state Supreme Court (where the top-two finishers were elected), declared Thursday that he'd challenge freshman Democratic Rep. Hillary Scholten. Joe Biden carried this constituency 53-45 two years before Scholten beat far-right Republican John Gibbs 55-42, a win that made her the first Democrat to represent a Grand Rapids-based seat in the House since the mid-1970s.

Hudson, however, did not have such a great 2022 even though the state GOP picked him and incumbent Brian Zahra to be its candidates in the officially nonpartisan statewide contest for two seats on Michigan's highest court. Democratic Justice Richard Bernstein and Zahra won those two seats respectively with 34% and 24%, while Democrat Kyra Harris Bolden was just behind with 22%. (Gov. Gretchen Whitmer weeks later appointed Bolden to the body after fellow Democrat Bridget Mary McCormack stepped down.) Hudson, for his part, languished in fourth place with just 13%.

● MI-10: Former Macomb County Judge Carl Marlinga announced Thursday that he would seek the Democratic nomination for a rematch against freshman Republican Rep. John James, who beat him by a surprisingly narrow 49-48 last year. Marlinga launched his campaign by publicizing a primary internal from Public Policy Polling that showed him leading Tiffany Tilley, a state Board of Education member whom we hadn't previously heard mentioned as a possible candidate, 31-5.

Two people who are running, gun safety activist Emily Busch and financial advisor Diane Young, take 3% each, as does physician Anil Kumar. The Detroit News says that Kumar, who unsuccessfully ran for the House twice before winning his 2018 statewide race for the Wayne State University Board of Governors, has formed an exploratory committee, and his team says he'll decide by early next month. The paper also identifies former Macomb County Health Department head Rhonda Powell, who lost last year's primary to Marlinga 48-17 and secures 2% in his poll, as a possible contender.

Marlinga has had a long career in Macomb County politics going back to 1984, when he was elected to the first of what would be five terms as county prosecutor, but he's experienced some major setbacks over the decades. Marlinga competed in the 1994 primary for Michigan's open U.S. Senate seat and took last place in the six-way primary with just 8% of the vote, though he convincingly won re-election two years later. He was still serving as prosecutor in 2002 when he challenged Republican Rep. Candice Miller in an earlier and more conservative version of the 10th District, a campaign the Democrat lost 63-36.

Marlinga was indicted two years later for allegedly helping a convicted rapist earn a new trial in exchange for contributions for that congressional campaign, and he stepped down as county prosecutor afterward. A jury, though, acquitted him in 2006, and Marlinga sought to return to public office soon after. After narrowly losing a 2010 primary for the state Senate, Marlinga was decisively elected to a local judgeship in 2012; it was during that campaign that he filled out a questionnaire saying the two U.S. Supreme Court justices he most identified with were anti-abortion hardliners Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, a response that surfaced again a decade later.

Marlinga decided to run for the House again last year after Michigan's independent redistricting commission last cycle created a suburban Detroit seat that would have favored Donald Trump just 50-49, and Democratic Rep. Andy Levin's ill-fated decision to run against colleague Haley Stevens in the 11th District meant that there would be no incumbent here. Marlinga, who argued he'd selected the two conservative justices because he's "always been a strict constitutionalist" but backed abortion rights, decisively won the primary but was in for a difficult general election.

James, who had waged competitive Senate races during the previous two cycles, massively outspent Marlinga $6.1 million to $1 million, and conservative outside groups deployed another $2.4 million as the other side directed their resources elsewhere. Michigan Democrats, though, enjoyed a strong year, and Marlinga came close to pulling off what would have been a truly shocking upset. The former judge, who went on to lead Attorney General Dana Nessel's Elder Abuse Task Force, emphasized James' opposition to abortion rights in his kickoff and argued that this time he'd have the resources to win.

● NJ-07: Greg Vartan, who serves as city council president for the community of Summit (pop. 22,000), tells the New Jersey Globe he's considering joining the Democratic primary to take on GOP Rep. Tom Kean Jr. It may be a few months before he decides, though, as Vartan said he was currently focused on "electing great leaders" in the Nov. 7 local elections.

● TX-18: Isaiah Martin, who is a consultant in the aerospace industry, announced Wednesday that he was seeking the safely blue seat currently held by Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, a fellow Democrat who is competing in this year's race for mayor of Houston. The incumbent has not said if she'd seek reelection should she lose her current race.

Martin, a 25-year-old who says he wants to be Congress' "next Gen-Z member," is a former Jackson Lee intern, and the Houston Chronicle says he's been aiding her current campaign. The field to succeed the incumbent already includes former Houston City Councilwoman Amanda Edwards, who has said she'll run no matter what Jackson Lee does; Martin, for his part, does not appear to have directly addressed what he'd do should the congresswoman seek reelection.

Mayors and County Leaders

● Baltimore, MD Mayor: Former Mayor Sheila Dixon announced Thursday that she would seek a Democratic primary rematch next May against incumbent Brandon Scott, who beat her 30-27 in the 2020 nomination contest to lead this dark blue city. Dixon, as we recently wrote, resigned in 2010 after she was convicted of stealing gift cards that were supposed to help needy families, but she's still enjoyed a loyal base of support from voters who remember her tenure as a time when the city's high murder rate dropped.

Dixon, who also came close to winning in 2016, kicked off her third comeback effort with an op-ed in the Baltimore Sun touting her accomplishments more than a decade ago and addressing the scandal that ended her career. "I let matters of the heart lead me astray once before," she wrote, "and for that, and the pain that it caused to my beloved Baltimore, I am truly sorry. I hope the people realize that my love for the future of Baltimore outweighs the mistakes of my past."

● Miami-Dade County, FL Mayor: Democratic incumbent Daniella Levine Cava has publicized an internal from MDW arguing that she's favored in next year's nonpartisan race even if her Republican predecessor, Rep. Carlos Giménez, tries to retake his old job. The firm finds Levine Cava leading Giménez 55-19 in the nonpartisan primary, with another 8% going to conservative YouTuber Alex Otaola. (Candidates can avoid a second round by winning a majority in the summer primary.) The sample favored Joe Biden 51-39 over Donald Trump; Biden carried the county 53-46 in 2020.

Abbreviated Pundit Roundup: It’s not Joe Biden’s age. It’s the age we live in

Posted on by Greg Dworkin

Ryan Burge/Graphs About Religion:

How Do Religious Groups View Joe Biden Right Now?

And, does this tell us anything about his chances in 2024?

Biden did well in these [2020 primary] polls. Which makes sense because he did manage to win the nomination. In fact, he won a majority of the votes in most religious groups. That includes basically all Christians. Fifty-seven percent of white Catholics backed him in the primary and he got the same share of the Jewish vote.

There are some groups where he struggled a bit, though. That’s the most glaring when looking at the nones. He only got 42% of the ballots cast by nothing in particulars. He did even worse among agnostics (32%) and atheists (30%). In fact, there were only two instances where Biden wasn’t the plurality vote choice.

Thirty-eight percent of atheists were Sanders's voters. It was thirty-five percent of agnostics. Biden’s real weakness in the 2020 primary was secular folks. In the data about thirteen percent of all Democratic primary voters in 2020 were in the atheist or agnostic category.

Recall earlier that agnostics and atheists believed Sanders to be very liberal. This is clearly a case of “Sanders is really liberal and that’s why we are voting for him.” Not a situation where it’s, “Sanders is very liberal and that’s too liberal for me.”

Benjy Sarlin/Semafor:

You need to calm down, Democratic pollsters argue

But there are reasons campaign professionals tend to wave off early surveys, which have notoriously overstated threats to incumbents. Here’s why pollsters and strategists we spoke to say they’re not panicking yet.

There is no campaign. Every time you see a poll showing Biden’s approval in the 30s, mentally add an asterisk that says “before Democrats spend $1 billion.”

This isn’t so much about a prohibitive spending advantage (Republicans will have money too), but about what that money goes towards. In this case, it’s a message that so far has worked for Democrats in real-life conditions.

In the midterms, postmortems found that Democrats performed poorly in noncompetitive contests, but they won big in highly contested, swing state races where they could devote millions to ads on issues like abortion, drug prices, and entitlements while painting their opponents as “MAGA extremists.” The same formula has held up well in off-year elections since then, including a blowout judicial race in Wisconsin centered on abortion rights and gerrymandering.

The thing about Biden is that —for better/worse — he’s a singular figure BECAUSE of his age. He’s the only Dem with a brand that includes both Obama era and Clinton/Reagan era moderates. There’s an argument he’s the only one who would have won in 20. No one else w/ that profile.

— Benjy Sarlin (@BenjySarlin) September 6, 2023

Jill Lawrence/The Bulwark:

Joe Biden’s Problem Isn’t His Age, It’s Our Age

Trump’s cruelty theater is distorting politics and people’s views of the president.

As usual, Donald Trump is at the root of the mess. From the minute he entered the 2016 presidential race on a golden escalator in a building blaring his name, U.S. politics has been a twisted reality show that elevates outrage, insults, and cruelty in a spirit of sadistic fun. That’s entertainment, at least for Trump’s many millions of devoted fans.

Theatrics are not unheard of in the political arena, yet scenes from the relatively recent past seem so innocent now. 

Haley zigged when everybody else zagged and benefited from being different. There's probably not a plurality audience for her general election pitch, but it's at least interesting, and sends pundit/donor hearts aflutter. Vivek stood out on stage, but was high-stepping on DJT turf

— Liam Donovan (@LPDonovan) September 7, 2023

Jennifer Rubin/The Washington Post:

Wisconsin GOP entertains a constitutional crisis. Again.

Republicans are openly talking of impeaching Protasiewicz before she has heard a single case. Led by right-wing radical Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, Republicans accuse Protasiewicz of “prejudging” redistricting cases pending before the Supreme Court because of comments she made during her campaign. However, as the Associated Press reported, “She never promised to rule one way or another,” although she observed the lines were “unfair” and “rigged.” Republicans also claim she must recuse herself because she accepted money from the Democratic Party. She has promised to do so in any case in which the party is a litigant. (In the redistricting case, the Democratic Party is not a litigant.)

Republicans have threatened to move forward unless she recuses herself from the case challenging the redistricting lines. Because Wisconsin limits impeachment to cases of corruption or commission of a crime, neither of which apply here, this would be a blatant misuse of the constitution, a usurpation of judicial powers and a violation of the separation of powers.

Philip Bump/The Washington Post:

Wisconsin’s gerrymandering rides to the rescue of its gerrymandering

Allowing Protasiewicz to vote on the maps would probably mean that the boundaries will be redrawn, weakening the disproportionate power Republicans have wielded in the state legislature for years. So they’re using that disproportionate power in consideration of impeachment and removal.

We're hearing from the Capitol that constituents reaching out to legislators is making a difference. Keep calling, texting, knocking, and talking in person with your legislators. GOP legislators are nervous about ignoring the constitutional requirements for impeachment. 1/ https://t.co/KtFy0GcmBP

— Ben Wikler (@benwikler) September 7, 2023

Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel:

Wisconsin Democrats pledge a $4 million-plus blitz to counter GOP on impeaching Protasiewicz

In the month since Protasiewicz was sworn in after winning her April 2022 election with an 11-point margin — an unusually lopsided election in a state known for hotly contested statewide races — behind-the-scenes battles among justices and court employees have escalated with the court's conservative chief justice accusing its new liberal majority of pulling off "an unprecedented coup."

Additionally, Republican lawmakers have raised the prospect of impeaching Protasiewicz if she does not step away from challenges to the state's electoral maps that are currently under the court's consideration. Such proceedings would begin in the state Assembly, where a simple majority must vote to impeach before the state Senate can take it up. From there, the Senate can conduct a trial based on the evidence. If two-thirds of the senators present vote to convict, the official is removed from office.

In the case of a judicial officer, once the Assembly votes to impeach, the official cannot perform the duties of their office without being acquitted by the Senate. That leaves open the possibility the Senate could sit on the Assembly action without scheduling a trial, effectively sidelining Protasiewicz and leaving the court evenly divided at 3-3 on ideological lines.

Assembly Speaker Robin Vos said it's "common sense" that Protasiewicz should not rule on a case she has "prejudged," referring to the redistricting lawsuits.

This tendency to be obsessed w/ individual actors has also muddied progressive discourse, in addition to the "too old" convo. "We need a progressive challenger to Biden!" Why? Assuming this progressive challenger won the primary, what would they be achieving that Biden is not?

— Magdi Jacobs (@magi_jay) September 6, 2023

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

Fulton judge ‘very skeptical’ of trying all 19 Trump defendants together

“It seems a bit unrealistic that we could handle all 19 in 40-something days,” [State Judge] McAfee said. “That’s my initial reaction.”

McAfee gave prosecutors until Tuesday to respond in a court brief.

The judge’s comments came during a 90-minute hearing in which attorneys for two of the case’s co-defendants, lawyers Kenneth Chesebro and Sidney Powell, argued that they should be tried separately from one another and the larger group.

At the end of the hearing, McAfee granted Powell’s demand for a speedy trial, setting her trial date for Oct. 23, the same day as Chesebro’s. He denied a push from Chesebro to sever his case from Powell and a motion from Powell to sever her case from Chesebro’s.

The cheese won’t stand alone.

this is a BFD Biden Administration to Bar Drilling on Millions of Acres in Alaska The administration will cancel oil and gas leases in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and set aside more than half of the National Petroleum Reserve.https://t.co/hNc0GBTIrT

— Greg Dworkin (@DemFromCT) September 7, 2023

Chris Geidner/Law Dork:

Alabama continues fighting to ignore SCOTUS voting rights decision

Alabama Secretary of State Wes Allen plans to go back to the Supreme Court on Thursday to ask the justices to ignore the fact that Alabama ignored the court’s own June voting rights ruling, as well as lower court rulings ordering Alabama to give Black voters in the state the opportunity to elect two congressional representatives of their choosing.

Allen, supported by Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall, wants the justices to allow the state to implement its latest illegal map that only contains one such “opportunity district” — with the intention of using it in the 2024 elections.

The real question is whether the Supreme Court will allow this brazen effort to ignore the law, the federal courts, and its own ruling.

Guilty pleasures — Cliff Schecter on Peter Navarro (who was convicted yesterday of Contempt of Congress):

YouTube Video

Pence says he supports an impeachment inquiry by House Republicans

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

Former Vice President Pence said there is an "ethical cloud" hanging over the Biden family and President Biden’s administration, telling Fox News Digital he would support an impeachment inquiry led by House Republicans.

During a sit-down interview with Fox News Digital, the former vice president said he feels it is "such a benefit to the nation" that House Republicans are "following the facts" in their investigations into the Biden family business dealings and alleged politicization in the Justice Department’s years-long federal probe into Hunter Biden.

MCCARTHY 'DANGLING' BIDEN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY TO DELAY RECKONING OVER SPENDING, SOME CONSERVATIVES SAY

"There are so many questions about Joe Biden’s involvement and connection to his son’s businesses when he was vice president of the United States," Pence said.

"I must say, you know, I can’t relate," he continued. "When I was vice president, my son wasn’t sitting on the board of foreign corporations," he said in reference to Biden's son, Hunter. "He was sitting in the cockpit of the F-35 and flying for the Marine Corps."

Biden had another son, Beau, who deployed to Iraq with Delaware’s Army National Guard. He died of a brain tumor in 2015.

Pence said the "very idea that these things were happening is something the American people deserve to get to the bottom of." 

The House Oversight Committee led by Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., has been investigating the Biden family’s business dealings, Hunter Biden’s business dealings, and whether Joe Biden benefited while serving as vice president.

The White House has previously said the president never spoke to his son about his business dealings and had no knowledge of them. The president himself has also denied ever having spoken to his son about his business dealings or being involved in them.

This summer, the White House said Biden "was not in business with his son."

Separately, but related, Comer, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan and House Ways & Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith are leading a joint-congressional investigation into whistleblower allegations that prosecutorial decisions made in the DOJ’s Hunter Biden investigation were influenced by politics.

Hunter Biden was expected to plead guilty in July to two misdemeanor tax counts of willful failure to pay federal income tax as part of a plea deal to avoid jail time on a felony gun charge. That plea agreement, which Republicans have blasted as a "sweetheart plea deal," collapsed in court.

MCCARTHY SAYS BIDEN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY WOULD NEED HOUSE VOTE, IN DEPARTURE FROM PELOSI AND DEMOCRATS

Hunter Biden was forced to plead not guilty to two misdemeanor tax charges and one felony gun charge.

Since then, Attorney General Merrick Garland tapped U.S. Attorney for Delaware David Weiss, who has been leading the probe since 2018, to serve as special counsel with jurisdiction over the Hunter Biden investigation and any other issues that have come up, or may come up, related to that probe.

"I welcomed the appointment of a special counsel in the Hunter Biden case," Pence said.

On Wednesday, Weiss’ team signaled that it would indict Hunter Biden on the federal gun charge by the end of the month.

"I'm heartened that it appears charges are going to be now brought at least on one aspect of the charges," Pence said.

As for the potential for an impeachment inquiry in the House of Representatives, Pence said he supports House Speaker Kevin McCarthy and his "posture to let the House work its will." 

"That’s different than Nancy Pelosi who unilaterally brought in impeachment process over a phone call by the President of the United States," Pence said, referring to the first impeachment of former President Donald Trump in 2019.

Trump, in July 2019, had a phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. During that call, Trump pressed Zelenskyy to launch investigations into the Biden family’s actions and business dealings in Ukraine—specifically Hunter Biden’s ventures with Ukrainian natural gas firm Burisma Holdings. Hunter Biden, at the time, was, and still is, under federal criminal investigation for his tax affairs, prompted by suspicious foreign transactions.

The House voted to impeach Trump in December 2019 on two counts— abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. The Senate voted for acquittal in February 2020.

Trump was impeached again in January 2021 after the Jan. 6 Capitol riot. He was acquitted in the Senate. 

"I think, particularly at a time when so many Americans have lost confidence in equal treatment under the law, so many Americans, understandably, are concerned about a dual standard of justice in this country," Pence continued. "Now, more than ever, we need House Republicans to follow the facts, bring the facts to the American people, and if an impeachment inquiry facilitates that I would hardly support it."

At this point, it is unclear if House Republicans will move forward to officially launch an impeachment inquiry. The House returns from recess on Tuesday, September 12. 

Why the coming weeks will test the McConnell-McCarthy relationship

Posted on by By Rachael Bade

As the House returns next week, the relationship between Speaker Kevin McCarthy and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell could face its greatest test yet.

For the first few years of President Joe Biden's administration, the seniormost Republicans in the House and Senate were in lock step on most issues.

They tag-teamed the left’s multitrillion-dollar social spending plan. They worked together to crush plans for a bipartisan commission on the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol siege. And they railed against the president’s bungled pullout of Afghanistan. More recently, McConnell even deferred to the younger McCarthy during negotiations over the debt ceiling, backing up the new speaker every step of the way as he demanded spending cuts in return for increasing the nation’s borrowing cap.

But now, with McCarthy under pressure from conservatives, he and his Kentucky Republican counterpart could quickly find themselves at loggerheads on a government shutdown, a possible Biden impeachment and a massive debate over Ukraine funding.

The issues are already bubbling to the surface.

Upon their return next week, House Republicans under McCarthy plan to continue advancing appropriations bills well below the spending levels the speaker agreed to during bipartisan debt talks with the White House. McConnell, meanwhile, made it clear that he expects House Republicans to stand by their word and swallow larger spending numbers than they’d prefer.

This week, McConnell encouraged his members to back the White House’s request for a $40 billion supplemental spending package funding disaster relief and Ukraine aid — legislation Democrats want to attach to a temporary spending patch averting a Oct. 1 government shutdown. McCarthy, meanwhile, is looking at splitting the two apart and demanding more border funding in return for the Ukraine plus-up, which totals $24 billion.

And while McCarthy continues to flirt with the idea of impeaching Biden, McConnell — who served with Biden in the Senate for many years and has closely negotiated with him in the past — tut-tutted the idea last month.

“I said two years ago, when we had not one but two impeachments, that once we go down this path it incentivizes the other side to do the same thing,” McConnell told the New York Times reporter Carl Hulse. “Impeachment ought to be rare. This is not good for the country.”

McConnell and McCarthy have been at odds before. While McCarthy remains a top ally of former President Donald Trump and speaks to him — and, let’s be honest, fawns over him — McConnell despises the former president, privately views him as dangerous to democracy and has long had concerns about Trump dragging down Republicans lower on the ballot.

McConnell and McCarthy are also split over the recent bipartisan infrastructure and CHIPS bills. While the Kentuckian and a core group of Senate Republicans joined with Democrats to pass those big-ticket bills — and hand Biden big victories — McCarthy whipped his members against both bills, railing against their price tag and claiming (accurately, it turned out) that they would pave the way for an even pricier Democratic domestic policy bill.

The men are extremely different people — and that’s an understatement. Yes, they’re both political animals at heart, viewing each vote through the lens of whether it helps or hurts GOP prospects in the next election. But they have wildly different ways of doing that.

Where McCarthy is chatty, gabs with reporters and cheerily schmoozes with his members about their families, kids and even dogs, McConnell is reserved and at times taciturn — saying little and keeping his thoughts to himself. Even his deputies joke that being on his leadership team is like flying first class in a plane: You get to sit up front, sure, but McConnell is sealed off in the cockpit and you have no idea what he’s doing.

Their political situations are night and day. McCarthy is constantly under threat from the right, which constantly rumbles about ousting him from the speakership. McConnell’s members — most of them, anyway — are so loyal that even amid scrutiny from his recent health situation, they’re sticking behind him, full stop. Consequently, McConnell often focuses on what he likes to call the “long game,” thinking months and years ahead. McCarthy, meanwhile, tends to spend each day putting out a different fire.

The two men aren’t particularly close, but maintain a cordial relationship and meet regularly when Congress is in session. They started working closely together after Paul Ryan retired as speaker and McCarthy became GOP leader.

When Democrats impeached Trump in 2019, the two offices shared information about what was happening behind closed doors, strategized about how to poke holes in the Democrats’ case and privately bemoaned the unpredictable president making their lives miserable. When McCarthy was amid his epic battle for the speakership, McConnell lent public support, and the two have met regularly ever since to plot strategy.

Their differences might be more obvious than usual this month, but don’t expect any big public blowups between the two leaders.

For one, they still share some common ground. The two might split on Ukraine funding, for instance, but they’re both in favor of the additional fortifications at the U.S.-Mexico border that McCarthy is pushing for. And, as political tacticians, each knows how to use the dynamics in the other chamber to their own advantage.

Most importantly: Both men have made it a point not to tell the other what to do or how to run their respective chambers.

But with tensions building — and sparring already underway between the two chambers’ GOP rank-and-file — those niceties are going to be put to the test like never before.

Like this content? Consider signing up for POLITICO's Playbook newsletter.

Posted in Uncategorized

House Homeland Security GOP report accuses Mayorkas of ceding border control to cartels

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

EXCLUSIVE: The House Homeland Security Committee accused DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas of having ceded control of the southern border to Mexican cartels in the GOP-led committee's latest report into the administration’s handling of the migrant crisis.

Chairman Mark Green launched an investigation into Mayorkas’ conduct and handling of the southern border crisis earlier this year as the DHS chief faced a barrage of criticism from Republicans over the border crisis that has seen record encounters at the border, where encounters currently remain high.

The report on phase two of its investigation is called "DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas has emboldened cartels, criminals and America's enemies." In the report, the majority concluded that "Mayorkas and [President] Biden’s policies have emboldened and enriched the cartels, ceded control of America’s sovereign Southwest border to these organizations, and jeopardized the safety and security of individuals and communities across this country in the process."

HOUSE HOMELAND GOP REPORT ACCUSES MAYORKAS OF ‘INTENTIONAL’ DERELICTION OF DUTY OVER BORDER CRISIS 

The report outlined how the cartels, "the most vicious evil organizations in the Western Hemisphere," maintain substantial control in Mexico and are the leading source of drugs such as fentanyl coming into the U.S. That drug, which is tied to tens of thousands of deaths each year, is primarily made in Mexico using Chinese precursors and shipped across the U.S. land border.

The cartels have also become the key players in transporting migrants across the border, with smuggling and trafficking now becoming a key pillar of their business model. The report argued that the administration has reversed Trump-era policies and implemented new ones that have "encouraged millions of individuals to make the journey to the Southwest border in hopes of being released into the United States."

"The massive increase in the number of people now traveling up through Mexico on their way to the Southwest border represents a historic business opportunity for the cartels, as each person is someone off whom they can profit," the report said, also finding that the surge of individuals has taken Border Patrol agents off the beat to process migrants instead, leaving broad stretches of the border open to cartel exploitation. 

"Americans must understand the sheer control these organizations exert over the flow of illegal aliens and illicit drugs across the Southwest border, and how they profit from it all. The cartels control smuggling routes throughout Mexico and exert near-complete control on the movement of individuals through that country, particularly at and near the Southwest border," the report continued.

GOP REPS TENNEY, ROY LEAD PUSH TO REDUCE MAYORKAS' SALARY TO $1 OVER BORDER CRISIS 

The report also outlined how cartels have an increasing presence in the U.S., and highlighted media reporting detailing how unaccompanied children are often smuggled in and put into the labor force in order to pay back money. It also detailed how stash houses where migrants are forced to stay are a "public health nightmare" along with statistics showing the use of stash houses has increased in recent years.

The report warned how the cartels are associated with gang crime within the U.S. as well, particularly groups like MS-13 -- the violent street gang that has many illegal immigrants among its members. They also noted the increase in apprehensions of those whose names appear on the terror watch list.

"It is unknown how many additional national security threats have been among the approximately 1.5 million known gotaways that have evaded Border Patrol altogether," the report said.

In a statement accompanying the report, Green said that the report "documents in clear and unflinching detail how the cartels are taking advantage of our open Southwest border to rake in billions of dollars through increased human smuggling and drug trafficking, while spreading death and destruction throughout our communities."

"And the reason they’re able to do so is because Secretary Mayorkas has implemented a host of policies that have incentivized illegal immigration at a scale we’ve never before seen, and the cartels have jumped to take advantage. The more the American people learn about this crisis, the more they understand that Secretary Mayorkas has been derelict in his duty, and that he has failed to uphold his oath to defend the homeland," he said. "This Committee will continue to conduct oversight of this secretary’s actions and policies, and provide the answers and accountability the American people deserve—and demand." 

The administration has touted its own efforts to crack down on smugglers and cartels, including joint anti-smuggling operations with Mexico – where officials have said the cartels have control -- and investments in detection technology at ports of entry and additional agents and other law enforcement to combat smuggling. It said those investments in staff, including 1,000 Border Patrol Processing Coordinators, are designed to help agents return to their patrol duties. The administration has pushed for more funding, including $4 billion in the recent supplemental request and a budget requesting more funding to combat smuggling and trafficking.

Mayorkas has himself rejected the claim his department has ceded control of the border to the cartels. In July, he told lawmakers his agency is "taking it to the transnational criminal organizations, the cartels that peddle in death and destruction, to an unprecedented degree." He also highlighted stats from operations targeting fentanyl smuggling.

"We seized nearly 2 million pounds of narcotics last fiscal year. Operations Blue, Lotus and Four Horsemen alone stopped nearly 10,000 pounds of fentanyl from the U.S., led to 284 arrests, and yielded invaluable insights into the transnational criminal organizations wreaking this death and destruction on our communities."

He also said that U.S. arrested "more criminals involved in cartel activity than in the prior several years."

DHS has also pushed back against broader criticism from Republicans, accusing them of failing to work with the administration on legislation to fix a "broken" system and calling for more funding for its border operations. It has also repeatedly said that its efforts to expand migrant pathways, work with international partners and reinitiate Title 8 penalties for illegal entry are working, and that FY 2022 saw a record number of removals under both Title 42 and Title 8 authorities.

However, Republican criticism is showing no signs of letting up. Some Republicans have proposed a potential impeachment of the DHS chief, while this week there was an effort in the House to reduce his salary to just $1.

‘Radical’ gambit to kick Trump off ballot sets ‘dangerous precedent,’ Sen Cotton says

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

Some Democrats who are suggesting invoking the 14th Amendment to oust former President Trump from the 2024 general election ballot are setting "a dangerous precedent," Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., told Fox News Digital.

"They've seen the polling, and they've seen that [Trump’s] indictments haven't done anything to improve Joe Biden’s standing," Cotton said in a Wednesday interview. "So, then, they're taking an even more radical step to try to remove the leading candidate from the opposition party from the ballot."

The 14th Amendment, enacted in 1868 primarily to grant citizenship to former slaves, includes a "Disqualification Clause" that stipulates candidates vying for congressional or presidential office must not have participated in "insurrection or rebellion" against the U.S., or provided "aid and comfort to the enemies thereof."

Cotton said if Democrats believe Trump is "so bad for the country, they need to try to beat him at the ballot box next year, not take the unprecedented and undemocratic step of trying to remove their opponent from the ballot."

SENATE JUDICIARY DEMOCRATS ARE 'A PHALANX OF BODYGUARDS' PROTECTING BIDEN: TOM COTTON

"I've spoken to Republicans who are very strongly in favor of Donald Trump, and others who are very strongly in favor of other candidates — they all agree that the Democrats' step to try to remove the leading candidate of the president's opposition party from the ballot is an unprecedented assault on basic democratic customs," Cotton said.

Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., said in an interview Sunday with ABC News that he had floated the prospect of using the 14th Amendment at the time of Trump’s second impeachment inquiry, arguing "it might have been a more productive way to go." 

TOM COTTON SAYS BIDEN'S 'INDECISION' HURTING UKRAINE: 'PUSSYFOOTING AROUND FOR A YEAR AND A HALF'

Meanwhile, Democrat California Rep. Adam Schiff told MSNBC on Sunday the "insurrection" clause "fits Donald Trump to a ‘T’" because of the Jan. 6 Capitol riots.

GOP presidential candidate Asa Hutchinson also said last month the amendment disqualifies Trump from taking office again. 

DEMOCRATS' 14TH AMENDMENT-TRUMP TALK 'ONE OF THE MOST DANGEROUS LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS,' LAW PROFESSOR SAYS

Trump’s campaign previously told Fox News Digital "there is no legal basis" except "in the minds of those who are pushing it" and said such a precedent would "use lawfare to deprive voters of choosing their next president."

Trump is the first former president to face criminal indictment in the U.S. and has pleaded not guilty to dozens of charges, including conspiracy to defraud the United States; conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding; obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding; and conspiracy against rights.

Fox News' Brooke Singman and Charles Creitz contributed to this report. 

Ken Paxton’s top deputy, the first impeachment witness, describes an attorney general out of control

Posted on by Texas Tribune

By Zach Despart 

The Texas Tribune

Sign up for The Brief, The Texas Tribune’s daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.

"Ken Paxton’s top deputy, the first impeachment witness, describes an attorney general out of control" was first published by The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan media organization that informs Texans — and engages with them — about public policy, politics, government and statewide issues.

The Texas Tribune is your source for in-depth reporting on the Ken Paxton impeachment trial. Readers make that possible. Support authoritative Texas journalism with a donation now.

At the end of September 2020, it finally made sense to Jeff Mateer why his boss, Attorney General Ken Paxton, was devoting so much of the agency’s attention to Paxton’s friend, Austin real estate investor Nate Paul.

In Wednesday testimony that took up most of the second day of Paxton’s impeachment trial, Mateer said that for months he could not figure out why Paxton had brushed off repeated warnings that assisting Paul in his business disputes was an improper use of state resources.

And then, as the office was erupting in crisis when senior deputies learned that Paxton had quietly hired an outside lawyer to conduct an investigation on Paul’s behalf, Mateer said he learned something else. Paul had hired the woman with whom Paxton was having an extramarital affair, allowing her to move to Austin, where the attorney general could more easily visit her.

“It answered the question, why is he engaging in all these activities … on behalf of Mr. Paul?” Mateer testified. “It seemed to be he was under undue influence. At times, I wondered: Is he being blackmailed?”

In more than six hours of testimony, Mateer — the first witness called by the House impeachment managers — detailed his growing concerns through the summer and fall of 2020 about Paxton’s relationship with Paul, culminating in Mateer’s decision to join other senior advisers in reporting the attorney general’s behavior to the FBI on Sept. 30.

“I concluded that Mr. Paxton was engaged in conduct that was immoral, unethical, and I had the good faith belief that it was illegal,” Mateer testified.

Paxton’s lawyer attempted to cast Mateer as a rogue employee and disloyal friend of Paxton, arguing that the former first assistant jumped to conclusions about impropriety based on incomplete and inaccurate information. Attorney Tony Buzbee also accused Mateer of leading an attempted coup against Paxton.

But as Paxton has cast the impeachment as a persecution led by Democrats and liberal Republicans, Mateer presented a problem. He is an evangelical Christian and champion of religious liberty whose hiring by Paxton was praised by conservatives. And unlike four other senior deputies who filed a whistleblower lawsuit and later negotiated a proposed $3.3 million settlement — prompting Paxton’s camp to suggest they had a financial motivation for their allegations — Mateer simply quit within days of meeting with FBI agents in 2020.

Paxton on Tuesday pleaded not guilty to 16 articles of impeachment. The bulk of the House’s case centers on allegations that Paxton misused the power of the attorney general’s office to harass Paul’s perceived enemies, including business rivals, judges and law enforcement officials.

As expected, the attorney general’s affair with Laura Olson, the former Senate aide Buzbee identified by name during the trial, took center stage in the trial.

Mateer exhibited a pained expression when asked about the relationship, as Paxton’s wife, Sen. Angela Paxton, sat about 30 feet away — present for the trial but barred from deliberating or voting by Senate rules. Prodded by impeachment lawyer Rusty Hardin, Mateer said the affair was the missing piece that explained the bizarre behavior Paxton had exhibited in asking his senior deputies to help Paul.

Mateer added that he was present for a 2018 meeting in which Paxton, joined by his wife, admitted to the extramarital affair but said it was over and that he had recommitted to his marriage.

“Mr. Paxton apologized and, using Christian terminology, I would say he repented,” Mateer said. “I assumed it was over because that’s what he said.”

Sen. Paxton, at her desk, took notes as Mateer spoke. She has maintained a bright disposition during the trial, chatting with colleagues during breaks and waving to supporters in the gallery.

Mateer’s appearance was widely anticipated due to his position as Paxton’s most senior deputy and because he has said little publicly in the nearly three years since he resigned his post in October 2020.

Yet it was initially unclear if Mateer’s testimony would live up to its top billing when it began late Tuesday afternoon. Hardin, a genteel lawyer for the House managers, meandered while asking Mateer about his background, leaving senators to wonder when, if ever, he would get to the point.

Wednesday offered a reset. Hardin, normally loquacious, buckled down. He led Mateer through the summer of 2020, asking him to explain his growing discomfort with Paxton’s actions.

Mateer said he first knew little about Paul but was concerned when Paxton wished to personally argue a court motion in a case involving a charity that had sued two of Paul’s businesses. He said his consternation grew when Paxton directed the office to issue a legal opinion limiting foreclosure sales during the COVID-19 pandemic.

“We were at the forefront of having Texas reopen and to stop COVID restrictions. … We were the ones pushing to have Texas open up,” Mateer said. “The opinion took the complete opposite view.”

Impeachment managers allege that Paul used the opinion to delay the foreclosure sale of several properties.

Mateer also said Paxton repeatedly pressured him to approve the hiring of an outside lawyer to investigate claims made by Paul. The former top deputy recalled that Paxton called him late on Sept. 28 and was “very upset” with Mateer’s refusal to support the hiring, adding that Paxton’s demeanor led him to believe he had been drinking.

Mateer said the next day, he and other senior officials realized that the outside lawyer, Brandon Cammack, had in fact started working for the office weeks earlier, without their knowledge. They also discovered Cammack had issued subpoenas to banks that had lent money to Paul’s businesses.

“We considered it sort of a crisis moment,” Mateer said. “Everything regarding Mr. Paul was coming to a head.”

Another senior official then rushed to court and persuaded the judge to throw out the subpoenas, arguing Cammack had no power to issue them.

Buzbee attempts to discredit Mateer

For the cross-examination, Buzbee’s rapid-fire, quick-pivot questioning of Mateer was in stark contrast to Hardin’s chronological questioning that bordered on tedious. Instead of offering a counter-narrative to the House’s version of events, Buzbee sought to discredit Mateer and land punches where he could.

He homed in on a theme of Mateer as a misguided employee and friend who should have taken his concerns directly to Paxton instead of going behind his back to report him to law enforcement. He challenged Mateer’s contention that he and other senior deputies were attempting to protect the attorney general from himself.

“In order to protect Ken Paxton, what you did was you then called the FBI?” Buzbee asked. “That’s how you protected your friend?”

“That’s not correct, sir,” Mateer replied.

Buzbee suggested that if Mateer had asked Paxton about Cammack, he would have learned that the attorney general had properly hired him and that the subpoenas were a legitimate inquiry into a second Paul complaint that Mateer did not know about.

“So you went to the FBI thinking that this kid, as you called [Cammack], should not be subpoenaing banks?” Buzbee asked. “But you now know that if he was charged … to investigate bid rigging, then that might be something that he might subpoena?”

“I actually don’t know that,” Mateer replied.

What Buzbee did not mention, however, was that Paul’s second complaint alleged that he was the victim of a wide-ranging conspiracy by business rivals, a court-appointed lawyer and a federal judge to steal his properties. No evidence has emerged, in the impeachment trial or any other forum, supporting the claim, which Paul code named “Operation Tarrytown.”

And House exhibits reveal that Paul and his lawyer had directed Cammack on how to conduct the probe, including by identifying investigative targets and writing the subpoenas.

As the cross-examination entered its third hour, Buzbee tried to elicit damaging admissions from Mateer, but the seasoned lawyer was unfazed. At one point, Buzbee asked at what hourly rate would an outside counsel be too expensive for the attorney general’s office.

“What’s your rate?” Mateer quipped.

At another, Buzbee returned to the argument that Mateer was insubordinate in joining other senior advisers in reporting Paxton to law enforcement.

“You were involved in a coup, weren’t you?” Buzbee asked.

“Absolutely not,” Mateer said.

Paxton a no-show, again, for trial

Paxton was again absent for Wednesday’s impeachment proceedings.

The suspended attorney general was present Tuesday morning while Buzbee entered not guilty pleas on his behalf, but he did not return after the lunch break as lawyers for the House impeachment managers called their first witness.

Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who is the presiding officer over the impeachment trial, agreed with Paxton’s attorneys Tuesday after they argued that trial rules did not require Paxton’s presence beyond entering a plea.

This article originally appeared in The Texas Tribune.

The Texas Tribune is a member-supported, nonpartisan newsroom informing and engaging Texans on state politics and policy. Learn more at texastribune.org.

The Senate appears to be uniting against right-wing House extremists

Posted on by Joan McCarter

The Senate appears to be uniting against right-wing House extremists, subjecting Speaker Kevin McCarthy to possibly the biggest test to his leadership to date: averting a government shutdown while responding to this year’s catastrophic natural disasters and maintaining assistance to Ukraine. The two top Senate appropriators have an agreement on a spending bill that will come to the floor next week, and Republican leader Mitch McConnell has been using his bully pulpit to keep aid flowing to Ukraine.

Democratic Sen. Patty Murray of Washington Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, who together lead the Appropriations Committee, announced Wednesday that they have reached a deal on a spending package that will include funding for Military Construction and Veterans Affairs; Transportation; Housing and Urban Development; Agriculture, Rural Development, and the Food and Drug Administration, as well as agencies under those larger umbrellas.

That could be the first of a handful of “minibus” bills the Senate pushes in the next few weeks, Sen. Jon Tester told Politico on Tuesday. If the Senate shows a united front on passing these funding bills, it would significantly increase pressure on McCarthy to pass a stopgap funding bill and avoid a government shutdown. That’s not a sure thing: The Senate is famously slow when it comes to legislating. To get these bills considered quickly, they’ll have to be advanced by unanimous consent. That avoids the lengthy process of cloture votes and hours of debate time. Any single senator—like the infamously obstructionist Republican Tommy Tuberville of Alabama, for example—could derail that with a simple objection.

So far, however, there hasn’t been much in the way of government-shutdown cheerleading from the usual subjects in the Republican Senate conference. In fact, as Murray and Collins noted in their announcement that “we worked with our colleagues in a bipartisan way to draft and pass out of Committee all twelve appropriations bills for the first time in years—and did so with overwhelming bipartisan votes.” There appears to be little appetite among Senate Republicans for picking this particular fight.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is intent on keeping the conference united on this one. Last week, he reiterated that the Republicans in the Senate were not going to emulate the House and renege on the budget deal that McCarthy struck with President Joe Biden earlier this year to resolve the debt-ceiling standoff. “The House then turned around and passed spending levels that were below that level,” McConnell said. “Without stating an opinion about that, that’s not going to be replicated in the Senate.”

McConnell has also set down a marker on continuing funding for Ukraine, another factor in a potential deal to avert a shutdown. The administration’s request for supplemental funding to Ukraine will likely be attached to a short-term funding bill, as would its request for emergency disaster relief. Funding for disaster relief should be a no-brainer for Republicans politically, as well as a top priority. Tying it to Ukraine assistance and keeping the government open should keep a healthy majority on board.

McConnell is doing his bit to keep up the drum beat. He has spent the last two days hammering on the need to keep funding flowing to Ukraine. “It is certainly not the time to go wobbly,” he said in a floor speech Wednesday. “It is not the time to ease up."

McConnell from Senate floor on more Ukraine aid:“Helping Ukraine retake its territory means weakening 1 of America’s biggest strategic adversaries w/o firing a shot & deterring another one in the process. It means investing directly in American strength,both military & economic." pic.twitter.com/7Z19j3HORs

— Craig Caplan (@CraigCaplan) September 6, 2023

The stakes are high for McConnell. He wants Republicans to regain the majority in 2024, and avoiding a government shutdown is vital to that goal. He’s walking the usual tightrope between keeping the increasingly MAGA-like base happy, while not giving Democrats any additional fodder to hammer Republican opponents.

That’s nothing compared with what McCarthy faces, however. For him, the outcome is more politically existential: whether he keeps his speakership. He’s getting pressure from his supposed ally Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, who won’t vote for any government funding, or support for Ukraine, or really anything until she gets an impeachment inquiry, as she recently detailed in a long, unhinged tweet thread.

McCarthy’s more vocal adversaries are taking direct aim at his speakership. Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz threatened a challenge in a tweet Tuesday, writing, “We’ve got to seize the initiative. That means forcing votes on impeachment. And if @SpeakerMcCarthy stands in our way, he may not have the job long. Let’s hope he works with us, not against us.”

Texas Rep. Chip Roy, a Freedom Caucus leader, has piled on with a series of tweets, retweets, and replies firing up the MAGA base for a shutdown. That includes retweeting a post exclaiming, “Chip for Speaker!!!”

That’s a direct message to McCarthy that either of them—or anyone else in the extremist bunch—would be willing to use the tool they extorted from him in his leadership bid in January: the motion to vacate the chair. That allows any single one of them to bring the equivalent of a no-confidence vote to the floor at any time. It’s not the first time Roy has made this veiled threat.

This is the biggest test for McCarthy’s ability to lead, one that everyone paying attention knew would happen if he didn’t stand up to the extremists at some point. He scraped by in the first test on the debt ceiling by striking a deal with Biden—the deal which the extremists forced him to renege on. He’s facing a choice again: Will he stick with the Trump MAGA minority, or try to protect his slim majority—particularly the “Biden 18,” the freshmen Republicans holding districts Biden won in 2020?

It’s also, of course, a test for those supposed moderates, one they’ve failed before. They have the power to block the minority of extremists, if they’re willing to use it.

Sign and send the petition: Pass a clean funding bill. No GOP hostage taking.

RELATED STORIES:

Nancy Mace and the myth of the moderate Republican

McCarthy's speaker deals come back to haunt him

McCarthy caves to rebels for temporary truce

McCarthy is screwing over swing-district Republicans

It’s the Ukraine Update episode! Kerry interviews Markos to talk about what is happening in Ukraine, what needs to be done, and why the fate of Ukraine is tied to democracy’s fate in 2024.

Embedded Content