

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
"Senate Republicans will bring to the floor a proposal that slashes the agency's available budget so they can hand out more tax breaks for billionaires and billionaire corporations," said Sen. Elizabeth Warren.
Senate Republicans on Thursday moved to revive a plan to dramatically reduce the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's budget after the chamber's parliamentarian determined that an earlier proposal ran afoul of reconciliation rules.
The previous proposal, crafted by Republicans on the Senate Banking Committee, would have zeroed out the CFPB's budget, but the Senate parliamentarian deemed it in violation of the Byrd Rule.
The new attack on the CFPB, unveiled by Senate Banking Committee Chair Tim Scott (R-S.C.)—a major recipient of financial industry donations—would cut the agency's budget nearly in half. The proposal still must face scrutiny from the parliamentarian.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), the ranking member of the Senate Banking Committee and an architect of the consumer bureau, said in a statement that Democrats would introduce an amendment to strip the proposal from the reconciliation package, noting that the CFPB has "returned $21 billion to scammed American families" since its inception in the wake of the Great Recession.
" Donald Trump and Republicans tried to shut down the CFPB by gutting its entire operating budget to 0%," said Warren. "We fought back and won. Now, Senate Republicans will bring to the floor a proposal that slashes the agency's available budget so they can hand out more tax breaks for billionaires and billionaire corporations."
The CFPB has been a major target of the Trump administration, which has installed an opponent of the agency—Russell Vought—as its acting director, moved to gut the bureau's staff, and effectively halted its enforcement efforts. Since the start of Trump's second term, the CFPB has dropped at least 18 enforcement actions against predatory financial firms.
"Trump is making his corporate backers even richer by letting them swindle you," former U.S. Labor Secretary Robert Reich wrote Thursday.
Research released earlier this week estimates that the Trump administration's assault on the CFPB has already cost Americans $18 billion worth of fees and lost compensation for harms inflicted by law-breaking corporations.
"The increased consumer costs from the CFPB's rollback of regulations on bank fees, wholesale dismissal of cases against banks and other lenders, and the apparent failure to disburse funds intended for harmed borrowers run counter to Trump's campaign pledges to ease the cost of living," Reuters reported Tuesday, citing an analysis by the Student Borrower Protection Center and the Consumer Federation of America.
"This is just the latest broken promise from Republicans, who have used their short time in power to already cater to special interests over hardworking Americans," said one watchdog leader.
A U.S. watchdog group on Tuesday slammed Republicans in Congress for trying to kill the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's overdraft rule as U.S. President Donald Trump and billionaire Elon Musk target the CFPB as a whole.
The Accountable.US statement came in response to Senate Banking Committee Chair Tim Scott (R-S.C.) and House Financial Services Committee Chair French Hill (R-Ark.) recently introducing a Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution to overturn the rule that capped most overdraft fees at $5, which was finalized in December, near the end of the former President Joe Biden's term.
"Overdraft fees affect a huge portion of American families with 17% of households with checking accounts paying overdraft or [nonsufficient funds] fees in 2023," Accountable.US noted. "This action would open the door for $35 overdraft fees—a decision that would cost American households an average of $225 each year."
The watchdog's executive director, Tony Carrk, declared that "undoing the CFPB's overdraft fee rule is a gift to big banks and a gut punch to the wallets of millions of Americans across the country."
"Deceitful and excessive overdraft fees cost Americans billions of dollars every year, but the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress don't seem to care any longer about lowering costs for Americans now that they're in charge," he continued. "This is just the latest broken promise from Republicans, who have used their short time in power to already cater to special interests over hardworking Americans."
When the Republican chairs introduced their CRA resolution last week, Scott called the Biden-era CFPB rule an example of the "pursuit of political headlines over sound policies," and Hill described it "midnight rulemaking" and "another form of government price controls that hurt consumers who deserve financial protections and greater choice."
Meanwhile, when the CFPB finalized the rule, the agency said that it "took action to close an outdated overdraft loophole that exempted overdraft loans from lending laws." At the time, the bureau was still directed by Biden appointee Rohit Chopra, who highlighted that large banks' exploitation of the loophole had "drained billions of dollars from Americans' deposit accounts."
The rule "was scheduled to become effective in October," but "because of acting Director Russ Vought's unlawful order stalling all CFPB work, the effective date has been suspended," The American Prospect reported Monday. "If Congress passes the CRA resolution, the overdraft rule could not come back in any 'substantially similar' form. So it matters if congressional Republicans decide to support allowing banks to impose additional junk fees worth billions of dollars."
The outlet also pointed out that "because CRA resolutions cannot be stopped by a filibuster, they represent some of the most likely legislative actions of the early Trump term," given Republicans' narrow majorities in Congress."
It's not just the rule that's in jeopardy; the entire agency is at risk. Trump and Musk, the leader of the president's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)—though perhaps not on paper—are working to gut the federal workforce and slash spending, and they have the CFPB in their crosshairs.
An agreement reached Friday in federal court halted mass firings at the CFPB and barred the bureau and its temporary leader, Vought—who also leads the Office of Management and Budget—from purging data or defunding the agency while the case moves forward. However, Trump and Musk are expected to continue their effort.
"The same billionaires trying to kill the CFPB are the ones who profit off predatory loans, sky-high fees, and financial scams that target young people," Corryn G. Freeman, executive director of the youth-focused Future Coalition, said Monday. "The CFPB should be strengthened, not eliminated. If Musk and his allies succeed in gutting this agency, it will be open season on young consumers with no one left to protect them."
The agency "effectively dared the incoming Trump administration and its Republican allies in Congress to undo rules that are broadly popular," wrote one healthcare reporter.
Months after more than half of respondents to an Associated Press poll said it was "extremely or very important" for the federal government to take action to help people with medical debt, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau on Tuesday finalized a rule to keep such debt off credit reports.
With broad public support, the rule appeared to be an uncontroversial slam dunk for the Biden administration in the last days of President Joe Biden's presidency—but Republicans, who now have majorities in Congress and are poised to take over the White House in less than two weeks, have signaled that they would take action to undo the CFPB's regulations, including the medical debt rule.
U.S. Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.), the new chair of the Senate Banking Committee, said last month that the CFPB should halt all rulemaking until President-elect Donald Trump takes office.
"It is paramount that President Trump can begin his administration on January 20 with a fresh slate to implement the economic agenda that the American people resoundingly voted for," Scott said.
The senator's comments suggested that Americans who voted for Trump did so in order to continue paying overdraft fees, having their personal information sold by predatory data brokers, and being penalized for owing medical bills—all of which the CFPB has taken action on since the November elections.
As Noam N. Levey wrote at KFF Health News, the CFPB on Tuesday "effectively dared the incoming Trump administration and its Republican allies in Congress to undo rules that are broadly popular and could help millions of people who are burdened by medical debt."
"People who get sick shouldn't have their financial future upended."
The new rule would remove $49 billion in unpaid medical debt from credit reports by amending Regulation V, which implements the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
Lenders are restricted from obtaining or using medical information to make lending decisions. But federal regulators have created an exception to that restriction, allowing companies to consider medical debt. The new rule ends that exception by banning medical bills on credit reports, which the CFPB said has led to a practice of using the credit reporting system to coerce payments even if bills are inaccurate, as they frequently are, according to the agency.
About 15 million people will be helped by the new regulation, said the CFPB, with credit scores of people with medical debt boosted by an average of 20 points.
An estimated 100 million Americans owe debt for healthcare they've obtained, forcing many to cut spending on groceries, housing, and other essentials.
An informal KFF Health News poll of people facing eviction or foreclosure in the Denver area in 2023 found that nearly half of people surveyed said medical debt played a role in their housing insecurity.
The inclusion of medical debt on credit reports by companies like Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion can harm Americans' ability to obtain jobs, mortgages, and rental apartments, even as CFPB research shows that medical debt is a poor predictor of whether a consumer will repay a loan.
"People who get sick shouldn't have their financial future upended," said CFPB Director Rohit Chopra. "The CFPB's final rule will close a special carveout that has allowed debt collectors to abuse the credit reporting system to coerce people into paying medical bills they may not even owe."
Billionaire Trump megadonor Elon Musk, who has become a top adviser to the president-elect and was picked to co-lead the proposed Department of Government Efficiency, has made clear that the CFPB would be a key target of the advisory body, calling for the agency to be "deleted" in November.
Despite Republicans' repeated claims that Trump will lead the party in securing an agenda that serves working families, lobbying by the credit reporting industry over the medical debt rule has made clear whose side the GOP is on.
Equifax said in August, two months after the CFPB proposed the rule, that the government is "not permitted" to regulate the industry in such a way.
House Financial Services Committee Chairman Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.) also called the proposal "regulatory overreach."
Chopra said last month that despite Republicans' objections, the CFPB would not "be a dead fish" ahead of Trump's term.
"We will continue to defend consumers' rights," he said, "and to hold companies accountable."
"There are no protests on the college campuses in Gaza," said the Vermont senator. "You know why? Because every one of the 12 universities in Gaza has been bombed and destroyed."
U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders on Tuesday denounced the Israeli military's total decimation of Gaza's universities during floor remarks on protests that have broken out on American college campuses over the past several weeks.
"There are no protests on the college campuses in Gaza," said Sanders (I-Vt.), chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. "You know why? Because every one of the 12 universities in Gaza has been bombed and destroyed."
Sanders' remarks came during a floor debate over a Republican resolution ostensibly aimed at condemning antisemitism on college campuses. GOP lawmakers and President Joe Biden have repeatedly smeared campus protests against Israel's assault on Gaza as antisemitic and ignored the prominent role Jewish students have played in the nationwide demonstrations.
After Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) attempted to pass the GOP antisemitism resolution via unanimous consent, Sanders—who is Jewish—rose to block the measure, criticizing it as insufficient and proposing an alternative that condemns antisemitism as well as all other "forms of bigotry in this country, whether on college campuses or elsewhere, including Islamophobia, homophobia, racism, and the growing attacks against the Asian American community."
Sanders' proposed resolution also expresses support for "the right of students and all Americans to peacefully protest," whereas Scott's measure attacks recent campus protests as "hotbed[s] of blatantly antisemitic rhetoric and action."
"The fact of the matter is that 67% of Americans, according to recent polls, support the United States calling for a cease-fire, and 60% oppose sending more weapons to Israel," Sanders said. "And that's what the protesters are talking about: They are asking why it is we are complicit in the humanitarian disaster taking place in Gaza."
Watch Sanders' remarks:
LIVE: Today I offer a simple resolution:
NO to antisemitism.
NO to Islamophobia.
NO to racism and bigotry in all its forms.
YES to free speech and protest under the 1st Amendment, whether on a college campus or across our nation. https://t.co/czTwnQnz6b
— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) May 7, 2024
According to the United Nations, more than 80% of the Gaza Strip's schools have been damaged or reduced to ruins by Israeli forces since October, including all of the enclave's universities.
Last month, a group of U.N. experts said that "it may be reasonable to ask if there is an intentional effort to comprehensively destroy the Palestinian education system, an action known as 'scholasticide.'"
"The persistent, callous attacks on educational infrastructure in Gaza have a devastating long-term impact on the fundamental rights of people to learn and freely express themselves, depriving yet another generation of Palestinians of their future," the experts added. "Students with international scholarships are being prevented from attending university abroad."
American campus protests against Israel's assault on Gaza have offered some measure of hope to Palestinian students whose lives have been thrown into chaos by the U.S.-backed war.
Hala Sharaf, a second-year medical student who moved to Cairo to resume her studies amid Israel's assault, told Al Jazeera that the U.S. student campus demonstrations "have made us feel so hopeful for rejecting what America and Israel are doing to us."
"The student protests in America make me feel like I'm not alone," said Sharaf. "My message to them is to keep the focus on Gaza. Don't forget about Gaza."
They showed little appetite for questioning the party’s democracy-threatening turn—or much of any other right-wing orthodoxy, for that matter.
The latter half of this year brought us the first GOP debates of the 2024 election cycle. From August to December, the Republican candidates—save for frontrunner former President Donald Trump, who has refused to participate—faced off in four debates sponsored by the Republican National Committee.
Trump’s absence from all of the Republican primary debates has marginalized them in terms of their ostensible purpose of helping GOP voters choose a candidate. Far from fading out of the public’s consciousness, ABC News’ election-tracking page, FiveThirtyEight, shows that Trump has gained in the polls since the start of the debates: The day before the first debate, 52% of Republican voters said they would vote for him, a number that climbed to 61% by the fourth debate. In fact, the week after a debate often brought a surge in popularity for the former president.
The candidate who has consistently polled second—Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis—never surpassed 16% during the debate period, making the RNC debates more a ritual than a meaningful forum for picking a Republican standard bearer. Yet they still offered an opportunity to clarify where prominent members of the GOP stand on the most important issues to voters, and to put them on the record about Trump’s attacks on democracy. But the questions the journalist moderators asked revealed that they had little appetite for challenging the GOP’s democracy-threatening turn—or much of any other right-wing orthodoxy, for that matter.
One of the most important questions hanging over the 2024 presidential election is whether the country’s threadbare democracy will hold together in the face of GOP attacks on voting rights and rule of law, led by Trump but widely embraced in the party.
The first debate (8/23/23) was hosted by Fox News and moderated by Fox correspondents Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum. The second debate (9/27/23) was hosted by Fox Business and moderated by Dana Perino and Stuart Varney from Fox News and Ilia Calderón from Univision.
NBC News hosted the third debate (11/8/23), with moderators Lester Holt and Kristen Welker of NBC and Hugh Hewitt of Salem Radio Network.
The fourth and final RNC debate (12/6/23) was hosted by NewsNation and the CW. That debate was moderated by Megyn Kelly, who hosts the Megyn Kelly Show on SiriusXM; Elizabeth Vargas from NewsNation; and Eliana Johnson of The Washington Free Beacon.
FAIR recorded 218 questions across the four debates, assigning them to one or more issue categories. The topic that dominated every single debate was foreign policy, with 73 questions, closely followed by social issues (71), and then economics (38), non-policy (27), governance (19), immigration (16), and environment (1).
The economy is the top concern for voters overall, but especially for Republican voters (Pew, 6/21/23, Redfield & Wilton, 12/8/23), making the relative dearth of economy-related questions surprising.
The first question of the first debate (8/23/23) was about the economy, though Fox moderators Baier and MacCallum approached the topic in an unusual way: They played a montage of clips from President Joe Biden celebrating “Bidenomics,” juxtaposed with Republican voters lamenting inflation and mortgage rates.
The video concluded with a short clip of the song “Rich Men North of Richmond,” which was No. 1 on the Billboard charts at the time. MacCallum described the lyrics as rife with “alienation” and “deep frustration with the state of government and of this country.” (The song also includes an attack on “the obese milking welfare” and an apparent nod to the QAnon conspiracy theory.) She then asked DeSantis, “Why is this song striking such a nerve in this country right now? What do you think it means?”
Across all debates, the moderators asked no questions about economic policy proposals that are popular with both Democrats and Republicans but get next to no traction in the GOP or the media, like raising taxes on billionaires or raising the federal minimum wage.
The other candidates were each given an opportunity to weigh in, some with vague prompts and others with more leading ones, such as MacCallum’s question to South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott: “You have been a senator though for 10 years. So what have you done to rein in the increasing size of government?”
The second debate (9/27/23) saw a much bigger economic focus, opening with a discussion of the United Auto Workers strikes in Milwaukee. There were 15 total questions about the economy during the second debate, with subtopics ranging from surging gas prices to unaffordable childcare and economic competition with China.
NBC’s Welker (11/8/23) asked every single candidate in the third debate whether they would be “open to” cutting Social Security, leading off the questions with the framing: “Americans could see their Social Security benefits drastically cut in the next decade because the program is running out of money.”
Welker’s question repeated the longstanding media myth that Social Security is nearly bankrupt (see FAIR.org, 6/25/19). In fact, since all on-the-books workers pay into Social Security, it will never go bankrupt, though a relatively small shortfall is projected in the coming years. The shortfall could easily be fixed by removing the payroll tax cap that lets high earners exclude much of their income from the Social Security tax (CEPR, 2/28/23). And voters from both parties strongly prefer taxing the rich to cutting benefits (Data for Progress, 8/1/23)—but Welker didn’t press any of the candidates to make the rich pay their fair share.
Moderators of the fourth debate asked only three economy-related questions total. Across all debates, the moderators asked no questions about economic policy proposals that are popular with both Democrats and Republicans but get next to no traction in the GOP or the media, like raising taxes on billionaires or raising the federal minimum wage.
South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley was asked more questions about the economy than any other candidate, despite DeSantis receiving more questions total—52 questions to Haley’s 43.

The foreign policy-related questions in the first two debates were dominated by three topics: how to “deter” China, policy towards Latin America concerning both drugs and migration, and the continuation of aid to Ukraine. During the two debates following Hamas’ October 7 attack, questions about each candidate’s approach to Israel’s assault on Gaza also became prominent.
The most frequent foreign policy topic did not have to do with either of the ongoing military campaigns in Ukraine (14 questions) or Gaza (14), both made possible with billions of dollars in funding from the United States. Rather, the spotlight fell on China, with 23 questions, nearly all of them framing China as a threat, either militarily or economically. Ten had to do with the candidates’ plans to ward off a hypothetical invasion of Taiwan. Others ranged from potential Chinese interference on TikTok, to Chinese economic and political competition, and even Chinese chemicals in fentanyl.
In one example, Baier (8/23/23) contextualized a question to North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum by citing Chinese aggression towards Taiwan, the possibility of 1,500 Chinese nuclear warheads “in the coming years,” and Chinese spies in the U.S. military. “So the question is,” Baier asked, “how would you deter China, as President Burgum?”
Twelve out of the 19 Latin America questions regarded the flow of fentanyl from Latin America into the United States. The issue of drugs coming through the southern border was one of the only topics to be brought up in questions during every single debate.
Eight of those questions mentioned the use of lethal force, either at the border or in Mexico itself, to deter dealers, which some candidates had been promising. During only one exchange—between NewsNation’s Vargas and DeSantis—did a moderator question the legality of that strategy.
According to the Pew Research Center (6/21/23), 64% of Republicans and right-leaning independents indicated drug addiction was a “very big problem” facing the country. But every question in the RNC debates about the drug crisis focused on the importation of drugs; the moderators asked zero questions about drug treatment or mental healthcare related to drug use.
The conflict in Gaza came up in two debates. In the third debate (11/8/23), NBC’s moderators asked mostly vague questions about what the candidates would tell Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to do, though Lester Holt’s question to Haley included the only mention of anything resembling de-escalation: “Would you consider humanitarian pause, for example?” Then Holt passed the baton to Matthew Brooks of the Republican Jewish Coalition, who asked Vivek Ramaswamy what he would “say to university presidents and college presidents who have not met the moral clarity moment to forcefully condemn Hamas terrorism.”
In the fourth debate (12/6/23), the Israel/Gaza questions turned more hawkish. NewsNation’s Vargas asked multiple candidates whether they would “send in American troops” to rescue the American citizens taken hostage in Israel on October 7. The Washington Free Beacon’s Johnson then pressed Ramaswamy: “The Hamas terror attack left dozens of Americans dead and was the deadliest attack on Jews since the Holocaust. Why wouldn’t it be a good thing to finish Hamas?”
Moderators asked about Ukraine in three debates. In the first debate (8/23/23), the Fox hosts asked, “Is there anyone on stage who would not support the increase of more funding to Ukraine?” In the third debate, NBC’s Welker likewise asked about funding, but with a more leading set-up:
The United States has given Ukraine financial and military support since the war began more than 600 days ago. President Zelensky told me on Sunday, if Russia isn’t stopped now, “The price will be higher for the United States,” and Americans would be forced to “send your sons and daughters to defend NATO countries.”
But perhaps the most leading Ukraine question came in the second debate (9/27/23), the only Ukraine question asked in that debate. Fox‘s Perino asked DeSantis:
Today, the Republican Party is at odds over aid to Ukraine. The price tag so far is $76 billion. But is it in our best interest to degrade Russia’s military for less than 5% of what we pay annually on defense, especially when there are no U.S. soldiers in the fight?
This came after an ad by Republicans for Ukraine, and echoed the argument of the ad (Daily Kos, 9/28/23).

FAIR categorized as “social issues” a number of topics, which included criminal justice (20), abortion (14), LGBTQ issues (10), education (10), healthcare (7), social media (7), race (5), and religion (2).
The low number of healthcare questions was striking, given that the Pew poll found the second most important issue among U.S. voters to be the affordability of healthcare, with 64% of respondents indicating it was a “very big problem.” Among Republican and right-leaning independent voters specifically, this percentage drops down to 54%—lower, but still the majority of conservative voters.
DeSantis was the only candidate asked about health insurance on two different occasions; both questions pointed out Florida’s high rate of uninsured people.
The abortion questions were overwhelmingly framed in terms of the issue’s impact on Republicans—as a “losing issue”—and asked how candidates could find a winning “path forward.” Only one question alluded to the impact of abortion policy on pregnant people, and even that was framed electorally, when Fox’s MacCallum (8/23/23) asked Haley:
Abortion has been a losing issue for Republicans since the Dobbs decision. In six state referendums, all have upheld abortion rights in this country. And even in red states, there are more swing state referendums that are coming up as we head into the elections, as well on this. So, Governor Haley, what do you say to your party and to your state, which today confirmed a six-week abortion law as well, especially the impact on women suburban voters across this country?
Moderators occasionally asked questions that challenged GOP talking points on social issues. Univision’s Calderon (9/27/23), for instance, pushed Burgum on gun violence:
For the first time ever, a Univision poll found that mass shootings and gun safety are one of the most important issues for Latino voters. Mental health concerns are not unique to the United States, but gun violence is. What is your specific plan to curb gun violence?
But many questions and their lead-ins were strongly skewed to the right, as when SiriusXM’s Kelly (12/6/23) posed this LGBTQ-related question to former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie:
Governor Christie, you do not favor a ban on trans medical treatments for minors, saying it’s a parental rights issue. The surgeries done on minors involve cutting off body parts, at a time when these kids cannot even legally smoke a cigarette. Kids who go from puberty blockers to cross-sex hormones are at a much greater likelihood of winding up sterile. How is it that you think a parent should be able to OK these surgeries, nevermind the sterilization of a child, and aren’t you way too out of step on this issue to be the Republican nominee?
Similarly, Fox’s Baier and MacCallum larded a question to former Vice President Mike Pence (8/23/23) with misleading right-wing talking points about crime, homelessness, and lockdowns:
Murders in Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, all up 30% between 2019 and 2022. Homelessness is up 11%, the largest jump in recorded history. Vice President Pence, a lot of this began in the Covid era. How much of what we are seeing happening around this country is a result of those Covid lockdowns? And is your administration in part to blame for how we got here?
Studies have found no positive correlation between Covid restrictions and homicide rates (e.g., Criminology and Public Policy, 8/21; Statistics and Public Policy, 6/22).
Meanwhile, homelessness had been on the rise pre-Covid, and actually leveled off during the pandemic—when federal aid and eviction moratoriums helped keep people in their homes, despite rising housing costs. It has only spiked again now that that aid has run out (NPR, 12/15/23).
Rather than use their only reference to homelessness across four debates to attack Covid lockdowns, the moderators might have more usefully asked Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson why he turned away federal Emergency Rental Assistance funding last year when evictions were soaring in his state (Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 5/22/22).
One of the most important questions hanging over the 2024 presidential election is whether the country’s threadbare democracy will hold together in the face of GOP attacks on voting rights and rule of law, led by Trump but widely embraced in the party. Yet the moderators asked only 19 questions about governance, only 10 of which touched on this core issue—and nine of those came in the first debate.
Baier noted that all candidates had signed a pledge (required by the RNC for participation in the debates) to support the eventual party nominee, and asked for a show of hands of those who would still support Trump if he were “convicted in a court of law.” (All of the candidates except for former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Hutchinson indicated they would.) He asked three candidates to explain their position, and, as a follow-up, MacCallum asked five of the candidates whether Pence “did the right thing on January 6″—referring to his certification of the election.
The 10th question about election integrity was not asked until the fourth debate (12/6/23), by guest questioner Tom Fitton of the right-wing activist group Judicial Watch, who offered an unsurprising right-wing spin:
Many Republicans are concerned about the legitimacy of elections. A federal judge just ruled that Pennsylvania must count undated mail-in ballots, and, unlike Alabama, many states still don’t require any identification to vote. What should states do now to increase election integrity and voter confidence for the 2024 election?
One of the most striking things almost entirely ignored in the debates was the climate crisis. Across all four debates, a single question was asked about the issue, and not by a journalist moderator but a guest questioner, Alexander Diaz from Young America’s Foundation, during the first debate (8/23/23):
Polls consistently show that young people’s No. 1 issue is climate change. How would you, as both president of the United States and leader of the Republican Party, calm their fears that the Republican Party doesn’t care about climate change?
But rather than asking candidates to answer Diaz’s question, Fox’s MacCallum reframed it: “So, we want to start on this with a show of hands. Do you believe in human behavior is causing climate change? Raise your hand if you do.”
After DeSantis jumped in to try to thwart the hand-raising exercise and redirect the conversation away from the climate crisis, pharmaceutical executive Ramaswamy interrupted to announce, “I’m the only person on the stage who isn’t bought and paid for, so I can say this—the climate change agenda is a hoax.” He added that “more people are dying of bad climate change policies than they are of actual climate change.”
Fox’s Baier, rather than focusing on Ramaswamy’s outrageous climate claims, proceeded to ask Haley and Scott whether they were “bought and paid for”—and then went to a commercial break, bringing the climate conversation to an abrupt end.
Even in 2015 the Republican primary debates featured more climate questions, with six across four debates (FAIR.org, 12/14/15).
Moderators, especially in the earlier debates, seemed especially interested in hearing from DeSantis. In the first debate, Fox’s Baier and MacCallum singled out DeSantis nearly twice as much as any other single candidate, with 10 direct questions, compared to most other candidates’ six.
Despite this apparent tilt in DeSantis’ favor, recaps of the debate from mainstream media mostly expressed disappointment about his performance. Politico (8/24/23) wrote that DeSantis “faded into the crowd” in their summary of the night, while Vox (8/24/23) noted that he was “hardly ever the center of attention.” The Hill (8/24/23) reported: “DeSantis arrived in Milwaukee needing a big night. He didn’t get it.”
Things evened out considerably during the second debate, though DeSantis still came away with the most direct questions.
Haley, who gained the most in the polls over the course of the four debates, and DeSantis received 14 questions apiece during the third debate. The NBC-hosted debate was, in general, a much more level playing field between all of the candidates, perhaps because fewer candidates meant more time for each one; almost every question was fielded to the whole slate of candidates. Tim Scott followed close behind DeSantis and Haley with 13 direct questions, while Christie and Ramaswamy took 11 questions each.
Though DeSantis’ lead over the others on stage had narrowed substantially by the fourth and final debate, he once again pulled away with the most direct questions from the moderators (13). The other three candidates were all addressed roughly the same amount of times—Nikki Haley got nine questions from the moderators, Chris Christie got eight, and Vivek Ramaswamy came away with seven.
It seems pretty safe to wager that if a Republican wins in 2024, they will be starting up a new conflict with any one of the countries mentioned in the third Republican primary debate Wednesday night.
If there was ever any doubt that Republicans running for president in 2024 will start up another needless war, let that myth be dispelled after the third GOP debate. Whether it’s North Korea, China, Mexico, Iran, Russia, or Venezuela, one major distinction between the candidates seems to be which country they’ll bomb first.
Off the bat, South Carolina Senator Tim Scott shredded “diplomacy only” as a “weak” strategy, saying “appeasement” leads to war. Scott vowed that if elected president, he would “cut the head off the snake” by bombing Iran: “My foreign policy is simple. You cannot negotiate with evil, you have to destroy it.”
Nikki Haley, a former board member at Boeing, echoed Scott’s dream of kicking off another catastrophic war in the Middle East and claimed that without Iran, there would be no Hamas in Gaza, no Hezbollah in Lebanon, no Houthis in Yemen, and no “Iranian militias” in Syria and Iraq to target U.S. troops still occupying both countries.
If mentions are any indicator as to which country is next on America’s long imperial hit list, it would be China.
Vivek Ramaswamy tried to differentiate himself from the hawks by offering a brief monologue about neoconservative wars in Iraq and Syria, yet still neglected to use his platform to call for pulling troops from either country.
Instead, he spent a portion of his time on the debate stage defending Israel’s “right to defend itself”—a phrase which has essentially become a euphemism for Israel’s “right” to bomb and kill with total impunity. According to Ramaswamy, Israel should “smoke terrorists” on their southern border, while in the U.S., he plans to do the same to “terrorists” along the border with Mexico.
Ramaswamy has also made it clear in past comments that he would launch strikes inside Mexico with—or without—the country’s permission, a sentiment shared by his more openly hawkish counterpart, Nikki Haley.
Asked what her colleagues at the United Nations would think if her administration launched U.S. attacks inside Mexico without approval from the country’s government, she scoffed and openly admitted she “doesn’t care.”
Likewise, Florida Governor Ron Desantis was also curling his heel-covered toes with absolute joy at the thought of what would likely become a U.S. war with Mexico, openly stating his intent to send U.S. troops to the border: “I’m going to stop the invasion cold,” he said. “I am going to deport people who came illegally, and I’m even going to build the border wall and have Mexico pay for it like Donald Trump promised.”
Additionally, Desantis said he would “turn the screws” on oil-rich Venezuela and reinstate economic sanctions against the country, all while emphasizing that he believes the “top threat” facing the U.S. comes from China.
The other GOP candidates appeared to share his fear.
On at least two separate occasions, Ramaswamy referred to China as “our enemy” and promised to “get tough” with them once the U.S. declares “economic independence.” Ramaswamy also provided what was an otherwise accurate critique of Ukraine’s failing democratic values, but then proceeded to condemn U.S. involvement in the war because it is “driving Russia into China’s hands.”
Former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie labeled China, along with Iran, Russia, and North Korea, as part of the “Evil Foursome” while warning that if it isn’t stopped, Russia would try to “put the old band back together” and invade Poland.
And Nikki Haley called for arming Taiwan to deter China and bragged about how she once negotiated with both China and Russia to impose the “largest set of sanctions against North Korea in a generation.”
If mentions are any indicator as to which country is next on America’s long imperial hit list, it would be China. According to a debate transcript, China was mentioned by name approximately 61 times. Iran was a close second, coming in at 31. Following these, Russia came in at 21, Mexico at 11, Venezuela at 10, and North Korea at two.
In any case, it seems pretty safe to wager that if a Republican wins in 2024, they will be starting up a new conflict with any one of these countries—assuming, of course, Biden and the blue wing of the two-party war machine doesn’t beat them to it first.
This piece was originally published in The Screeching Kettle.
Republican Sen. Tim Scott called for a direct military attack on Iran, declaring, "You actually have to cut off the head of the snake."
Shortly after the Biden administration bombed a facility in eastern Syria with purported connections to Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Republican presidential candidates on the debate stage in Miami late Wednesday advocated a more aggressive military posture toward Iran, an approach that would heighten the risk of a full-scale regional war.
Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) called for a direct U.S. attack on Iran, arguing that "if you want to stop the 40-plus attacks on military personnel in the Middle East, you have to strike in Iran."
Scott was referring to recent rocket and drone attacks on the thousands of U.S. forces currently stationed in Syria and Iraq. The U.S. has blamed the attacks on Iran, even without direct evidence that the Iranian government ordered them.
The Pentagon characterized Wednesday's airstrike in eastern Syria as a self-defense response to "a series of attacks against U.S. personnel in Iraq and Syria by IRGC-Quds Force affiliates."
The strike, directed by President Joe Biden without congressional authorization, marks the second time in less than two weeks that the U.S. military has bombed a target in eastern Syria that it says is used by the Iranian IRGC and its allies.
But Republican presidential hopefuls made clear during Wednesday's primary debate that they don't believe the Biden administration's response has been sufficiently forceful.
"You cannot just continue to have strikes in Syria on warehouses," said Scott. "You actually have to cut off the head of the snake, and the head of the snake is Iran and not simply their proxies."
Asked specifically about the Biden administration's Wednesday strike in Syria, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis responded, "I would say you harm a hair on the head of an American service member and you are going to have hell to pay."
"We are not just going to sit there and let our service members be sitting ducks," said DeSantis. "And that's true whether it's Iran or whether it's any country in the world. We have to be strong and we have to defend the people who defend us."
Former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, a longtime proponent of military escalation with Iran, argued that the U.S. needs to "take out" the infrastructure that Iran is allegedly using to orchestrate attacks that have reportedly injured dozens of U.S. forces in Syria and Iraq in recent weeks following the October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel.
"Iran responds to strength," said Haley, who served as ambassador to the United Nations under former President Donald Trump, the 2024 Republican presidential frontrunner. "You punch them hard and they will back off."
Trump, who nearly sparked a war with Iran during his presidency by violating the Iran nuclear accord and assassinating the nation's top general in 2020, did not attend Wednesday's debate. The former president has falsely claimed that Iranian oil revenue freed up as part of a hostage deal negotiated by the Biden administration helped fund Hamas' deadly attack on Israel.
The Biden administration said last month that it would block Iran from accessing the $6 billion in funds, none of which have been spent.
The Republican presidential candidates' hawkish comments on Iran come amid growing fears that Israel's ongoing aerial and ground assault on the Gaza Strip and intensified military operations in the occupied West Bank could turn into a devastating region-wide conflict. Amid its catastrophic U.S.-backed bombing campaign in Gaza, Israel has also been exchanging fire with Lebanon's Hezbollah and launching airstrikes in Syria.
"We are just one mistake away from the U.S. getting dragged into another war in the Mideast," Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, warned earlier this week. "Just because Biden refuses a Gaza cease-fire."
UAW president Shawn Fain called the Republican senator's remarks "just another example of how the employer class abuses the working class in America."
The United Auto Workers filed a National Labor Relations Board complaint against Republican Sen. Tim Scott on Thursday for publicly saying striking employees should be fired in response to a question about the UAW's ongoing and popular walkouts.
The complaint, first reported by The Intercept, argues that Scott unlawfully "threatened employees with adverse consequences if they engage in protected, concerted activity" by declaring, "You strike, you're fired."
Scott, a 2024 presidential candidate, made the remark during a campaign event in Iowa, where he invoked former President Ronald Reagan's termination of more than 11,000 striking air traffic controllers—who, unlike the striking autoworkers, were federal employees.
"I think Ronald Reagan gave us a great example when federal employees decided they were going to strike," said Scott, who proceeded to bash the UAW's demands for better pay and benefits and a shorter workweek.
The National Labor Relations Act states that it is illegal for employers to "interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise" of collective bargaining rights.
As The Intercept's Daniel Boguslaw reported, the UAW's complaint "was filed against Scott in his capacity as a representative for Tim Scott for America," the senator's presidential campaign arm.
"In addition to being a senator representing the state of South Carolina, Scott is running for president, making him an employer as well," Boguslaw noted. "The premise of the complaint is that Scott's comments could be construed as a direct threat against his campaign staffers, whose right to strike is enshrined in federal law."
Shawn Fain, the president of the UAW, wrote on social media that Scott's comments were "just another example of how the employer class abuses the working class in America."
"Employers willfully violate labor law with little to no repercussions," Fain added. "Time for more stringent laws to protect workers' rights!!"
"We had a few minutes between bargaining sessions today to advocate for all workers' rights."
The UAW's complaint against Scott came hours before the union's planned strike update. Benjamin Dictor, counsel for the UAW, wrote in response to reports of the complaint that "we had a few minutes between bargaining sessions today to advocate for all workers' rights."
On Friday at noon, Fain is expected to announce that more locals will be walking off the job—joining the roughly 13,000 autoworkers already on strike in Michigan, Missouri, and Ohio—as the management of the Big Three car manufacturers refuses to meet the union's demands.
Citing unnamed sources close to the negotiations, Axios reported Thursday that "there's zero chance that the automakers will reach a labor deal with the UAW before Friday at noon."
"With both sides dug in, a prolonged strike is looking more likely. The question is how much pain UAW president Shawn Fain is prepared to exert on the companies—and how swiftly," Axios continued. "The union could continue the selective strike strategy that began Sept. 15 by ordering targeted walkouts at engine or transmission plants, slowly starving other factories of critical components. Or it could go straight for the jugular by striking factories that build the companies' most profitable vehicles—full-size pickup trucks."
As traditional pensions continue to disappear, Social Security is more vital to American workers’ economic security than ever.
On Labor Day, we celebrate the contributions of workers. The best way to honor those contributions is to increase their economic security. A key component of economic security is retirement security, which we can substantially improve by protecting and expanding Social Security for current and future generations of American workers.
Social Security and Medicare are deferred compensation. Just as we earn our current cash compensation, we earn our Social Security and Medicare with every paycheck. Sadly, too often these earnings are inadequate.
Today’s workers are facing a retirement income crisis, where too many will never be able to retire without drastic reductions in their standards of living. As traditional pensions continue to disappear, replaced (if they are) by riskier, less reliable, inadequate 401(k)s, Social Security is more vital to American workers’ economic security than ever.
While President Joe Biden and Democrats in Congress want to protect and expand Social Security, Donald Trump and other Republican presidential candidates want to slash Social Security benefits—or worse.
Social Security has many strengths. It is extremely efficient, secure, nearly universal, excellent for both long-term and mobile workers, and fair. Its one shortcoming is that its benefits are too low. By expanding those modest Social Security benefits, we are renewing our promise to workers and promoting the security of all American workers for generations to come.
In recognition of Social Security’s increasing importance for workers and their families, several bills have been introduced during this Congress to expand Social Security’s modest benefits.
Representative John Larson’s (D-Conn.) Social Security 2100 Act, which has over 175 cosponsors, would increase benefits across-the-board for all current and future Social Security beneficiaries. It would improve the annual Cost-of-Living Adjustments (COLAs) to better match the true costs that seniors face. The bill would improve benefits for widows and widowers, students, children living with grandparents, public servants, the most elderly Americans, lower-income seniors, those with disabilities, students, and more. And it pays for all of this by making the wealthy finally pay their fair share.
Similarly, Senators Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) have introduced the Social Security Expansion Act. Their proposal would increase Social Security benefits across-the-board by $200 a month and update the way that COLAs are determined to better reflect the costs seniors and other beneficiaries face. Further, it would update and increase the minimum Social Security benefit and restore student benefits. Again, it would pay for all of these increases and restore Social Security to long-range actuarial balance by requiring millionaires and billionaires to pay their fair share.
Additional bills that would make positive changes to Social Security have been introduced as well. All of these bills not only address our nation’s looming retirement income crisis, but other challenges as well, including rising income and wealth inequality. In fact, rising inequality has cost Social Security billions of dollars each year. Those are billions of dollars that should go to expanding Social Security.
While President Joe Biden and Democrats in Congress want to protect and expand Social Security, Donald Trump and other Republican presidential candidates want to slash Social Security benefits—or worse.
As president, Trump released budget proposals that would cut Social Security and Medicare every year he was in office. He even attempted to defund Social Security by threatening to eliminate the system’s primary dedicated revenue source, payroll contributions. And, after leaving office, he stated that Social Security cuts are on the agenda if he is elected to a second term.
The other Republican presidential candidates are even more open about their designs on our earned Social Security. Former Vice President Mike Pence wants to raise the retirement age for younger Americans and privatize Social Security. Former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie also wants to raise the retirement age for Social Security, and he wants to subject our earned Social Security benefits to a means test, transforming them from deferred compensation to welfare.
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and Senator Tim Scott both supported Paul Ryan’s infamous Social Security and Medicare-cutting budget proposals when they were in Congress. Former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley also wants to raise the retirement age and means test Social Security. Vivek Ramaswamy wants to get rid of civil service protections and fire 75% of federal employees. Imagine trying to get help from the Social Security Administration under a President Ramaswamy, with up to three-quarters of the SSA staff missing and out of action.
This is a moment to build upon the legacy of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and the other founders of our visionary Social Security system, not a moment to undo the vast, essential gains to workers’ economic security represented by Social Security. The choice in the upcoming presidential election could not be starker.
Every generation has built on the strong foundation laid down 88 years ago, when Roosevelt—and his Secretary of Labor, Frances Perkins (the first woman ever to serve in a presidential cabinet)—shepherded Social Security into law. Now it is our turn. Expanding Social Security is the best way to honor our nation’s workers in the Labor Days to follow this one.
It was the spiritual equivalent of a World’s Ugliest Dog contest, each contestant was more unappealing than the next—with the exception of the biggest ugly dog of them all, who had bones to pick elsewhere.
The 2024 Republican primary officially kicked off on August 23—my birthday—with its first presidential debate. It’s been comical to see headlines about the debate’s “biggest highlights.” Biggest highlights? Were there that many to choose from? You could make a more appealing “highlight” reel from a dentist’s video of the bacteria in your gums.
Pundits might describe the debate as a circus. That’s unfair to the Big Top. It wasn’t a circus. It was the spiritual equivalent of a World’s Ugliest Dog contest. Each contestant was more unappealing than the next—with the exception of the biggest ugly dog of them all, who had bones to pick elsewhere.
(A friend of my wife’s once had an astonishingly ugly dog, with a body like a moldy potato and a Picasso-esque nightmare head. He had eyes in different quadrants of his face and a single tooth that might have been passed around by the Furies of Greek mythology. But I digress.)
They say unhinged, lying, and hateful things while pursuing policies that hurt and kill.
While the GOP candidates had a certain vulpine quality, they seemed to lack the empathy inherent in canines and some humans. Their mirror neurons have rusted over so badly they must look like old beer cans in sea water.
Their words and demeanor were, by any objective standard, abnormal. Their presentation was utterly detached from real people and real-life problems. And yet, they were taken seriously by pundits and politicians. That reflects a deep social psychosis, a detachment from reality so profound it would call for clinical treatment in a human being.
I didn’t watch the debate on my birthday—what a grim augury for the year that would have been—but now I have. I will live with these memories forever. Seeing these characters arrayed from left to right was like those M.C. Escher drawings of staircases where, no matter which way you go, you’re always headed down.

Former U.S. President Donald Trump in the White House as he accepted the resignation of Nikki Haley as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, on October 9, 2018, in Washington, D.C.
(Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)“I think it’s time for an accountant in the White House,” Nikki Haley told the audience, which means she’s cornered the vision thing. “Our kids are never going to forgive us” for emergency Covid-19 spending, she added, a statement that’s not only implausible but requires our kids to be alive.
I saw Haley address a conservative women’s dinner a while back. Her speech was typical right-wing red meat, the kind she served up when she ran for governor with the backing of Sarah Palin and the Tea Party. Haley hewed to xenophobic tropes, dismissing the United Nations as a “club” and diplomatic norms as “a culture.”
“When I first came to the U.N.,” Haley said, “I told my colleagues that the United States was taking names. Taking names of the countries that didn’t have our back.” That seems like an unnecessary bookkeeping chore. Why not put down the pencil and pad and just look up the countries we’ve bombed and sanctioned?
The media loves to treat Haley with legitimacy because she’s a former U.N. Ambassador. But she was reprimanded in that job by a federal ethics watchdog for improperly endorsing a political candidate as a political appointee. An independent ethics group also called for an investigation of Haley’s flights on wealthy executives’ private jets, a perk whose value she reportedly failed to fully disclose.
And yet, for all her extremism and questionable ethics, Haley can still seen like a class act—at least, compared to the other guys. Like, for example...

Former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie speaks.
(Photo: AP/Rich Schultz)
Him again? We’ve seen his schtick before. Sure, it’s fun to hear him attack former President Donald Trump, although he didn’t do much of that in the debate. And yes, he’s funnier and slightly more watchable than the others, but that’s because he makes fun of people. He’s the political equivalent of Triumph, the Insult Comic Dog. But Triumph is funnier and has better politics.
Back in 2012 I wrote about Christie’s hostility to women, his servility toward lobbyists, and his overall nastiness. Please don’t make me do it again. Christie displayed utter contempt toward working people that year, insulting the jobless and the elderly. As governor, he was a bully and probably corrupt.
Nothing has changed since then, except his newfound tendency to insult other Republicans. He should stick to that.

Vivek Ramaswamy speaking at an event in West Palm Beach, Florida.
(Photo: Gage Skidmore/ via Wikipedia)
Back in 1961 in Utica, New York, there was a little kid—we’ll call him “Brucie”—who went from house to house singing a song called “Artificial Flowers” for all the moms in their kitchens. If that sounds like it might be a bad song, friend, you don’t know the half of it. It was about a poor little orphan girl who survives by selling those flowers—but not for long, what with (spoiler alert!) winter coming on and all. All the moms would “ooh” and “aah” over crooning little Brucie.
All of ‘em except my mom, that is. Her face, God love her, was a grim mask as she endured the maudlin tune. The compliment she finally mustered was transparently insincere. Not that it mattered. Brucie was extremely pleased with his performance; the possibility that anyone else might feel differently never crossed his mind.
Which brings us to Vivek Ramaswamy.
Christie said Ramaswamy “sounds like ChatGPT,” which was probably the truest thing said all night.
Ramaswamy is a salesman, a hustler, a pitchman. What he sells is as artificial as the orphan girl’s flowers. Sure, he hits all the right buttons for a conservative crowd, which means he says things that are clinically insane. But who knows what he really thinks? He’s all nerve ends, and the signals coursing through each one of them spell out “always be closing” in Morse code.
Also, he’s a phony. “My parents came to this country with no money 40 years ago,” he said. “I have gone on to found multibillion-dollar companies.” He leaves out the part about his father and mother being well-to-do professionals during his childhood—his father as an engineer and patent attorney for General Electric and his mother as a psychiatrist—and he omits his fancy education at a private high school, Harvard, and then Yale Law School.
Vivek constantly says things like, “I’m not a politician. I’m an entrepreneur.” That’s like the flu product whose advertising says it was “invented by a teacher, not a doctor.” It sounds good until you think about it for a second.
An entrepreneur is the last thing we should want for a president. That is, unless you think the problem with our politics is that there’s too much substance and too little salesmanship...
Christie said Ramaswamy “sounds like ChatGPT,” which was probably the truest thing said all night. But Vivek doesn’t just talk like an AI output. His entire being seems like something you’d get by typing a few phrases into an AI program—phrases like “insufferability incarnate,” “unwarranted self-love,” “Dr. Sardonicus death-rictus smile,” “the kid everybody hated in junior high,” and, “what’s with the hair?”
Said young Vivek:
“This isn’t that complicated, guys, unlock American energy, drill, frack, burn coal and embrace nuclear, put people back to work by no longer paying them more to stay at home, reform the U.S. Fed, stabilize the U.S. dollar, and go to war.”
With that sentence, Ramaswamy finally outpaced Mike Pence in the category of “Most likely to portray the Antichrist in a direct-to-video movie.”

Former Vice President Mike Pence gives a speech.
(Photo: Gage Skidmore/flickr/cc)
Mike Pence did the right thing on January 6. But then there’s the rest of his life, which shouldn’t be left out of the conversation. Besides, obeying the law doesn’t make somebody qualified for the presidency. It doesn’t even make them a good person, necessarily. Deterrence theory relies heavily on fear of punishment, and if there’s one thing that shines through Pence’s personality it’s fear of punishment—divine and otherwise.
Pence has a long record of right-wing extremism and the forceful insertion of his private religious beliefs into the public sphere.
Poor ol’ Mike was his usual joyless self in the debate. He isn’t just wrong; he’s also, unfortunately, quite dull. (His court testimony, however, should be interesting.)

Senator Tim Scott speaks with then-President Donald Trump in 2017.
(Photo: The White House/ via Wikipedia)
“I regard all life as sacred,” Tim Scott says via his website. Then he says, “I will rebuild a military so lethal and powerful that our adversaries will fear us and our allies will respect us.”
And yet: Scott maligns lifesaving programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security as “the entitlement state” and says things like, “We have to wrestle this beast to the ground.” Apparently, some lives are more sacred than others.
That privileged group includes insurance executives. While calling to tame the costs of “entitlements,” Scott sided with other Republicans to protect the siphoning off of Medicare funds to private wealth under the so-called “Medicare Advantage” scheme.
For all the hype—if you can call Scott’s sporadic coverage “hype”—it turns out he’s just a typical Republican.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis speaks in North Carolina.
(Photo: Win McNamee/Getty Images)Do we have to? Oh, okay. Everybody knows what he’s been up to in Florida, so we’ll stick to his debate performance.
It was sad.
On Wednesday night, DeSantis mentioned yet again that he was “deployed with the Navy SEALS in Iraq.” Naturally, that left everyone with the impression that he was a Navy SEAL. He wasn’t. The elite-educated DeSantis served as an attorney, not a combat soldier.
By choosing his words carefully enough to leave a false impression without actually lying, DeSantis sounded like a fighter but demonstrated what he really is: a lawyer.

Former Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson speaks before a meeting of the Republican Party of Orange County.
(Photo: Leonard Ortiz/MediaNews Group/Orange County Register via Getty Images)Somebody said that Asa Hutchinson seems like a decent man.
You mean the Asa Hutchinson who pandered to Islamophobic bigotry by pledging to close his state to innocent Syrian refugees? The Asa Hutchinson who, after serving in the Department of Homeland Security, made a million dollars with a secretive company that trades with that department? The Hutchinson who carried out a hasty and chaotic spree of death row executions in his state soon after taking office, almost certainly killing at least one innocent man? Who urged businesses not to comply with mandated protections to public health and worker safety and dictatorially forbade local communities from democratically deciding how to protect their own health?
You mean that Asa Hutchinson?
“Decent” is not a synonym for “occasionally takes a break from doing execrable things.”
Nah.

Donald Trump speaks
(Photo: Michael Vadon/flickr/cc)As the debate groaned on, Tucker Carlson released a one-on-one interview with Donald Trump where, like any good wingman, he made his alpha pal look good by making himself even less attractive. Carlson lobbed extremely crazy statements to Trump, whose responses—being merely very crazy—looked sane by comparison. But crazy is as crazy does.
Incidentally, these comments aren’t personal. Nikki Haley and her compatriots were very nice at that dinner. Some of the Republican senators and representatives I’ve met have been nice, too. Hey, I was on Tucker’s program once and I even liked him, just as I’ve liked other Fox hosts. (Not you, though, Hannity.)
But their public personae are—politically, historically, existentially—who they really are. And what they really are is bad. They say unhinged, lying, and hateful things while pursuing policies that hurt and kill. It’s insane to treat them like serious political figures. That our media and political cultures do so reflects a profound societal sickness.
If Trump doesn’t lead his party again next year, one of these yo-yos probably will. The fact that the Democrats could lose to them—which they could—says more about the state of our nation than many of us would ever care to know. That’s understandable. After all, to see insanity is to risk becoming insane yourself.
PS: I apologize to ugly dogs everywhere, including my wife’s friend’s dog. He was a good boy.