President Joe Biden got some good economic news this week, as the official inflation rate fell to only 4.0 percent. This is down from last year's high of 9.1 percent, and is a significant achievement. Most economists will tell you that's still a bit too high and that 2.0 percent is the goal they're shooting for, but 4.0 percent is getting pretty close to that goal, you have to admit.

Even the Wall Street Journal had some good economic news as well, as they noted "Stocks Close At Highest Levels Since 2022."

Biden also touted some progress on a more microeconomic level for many Americans, as he hosted the leaders of some prominent companies who have not exactly gotten rid of their "junk fees" for consumers, but at least have voluntarily agreed not to hide the junk fees. They will now feature "up-front pricing," which is a fancy way of saying: "admitting what something actually costs instead of some fantasy of a lower price that nobody actually pays." The companies volunteering not to blatantly rip people off anymore included Ticketmaster, SeatGeek, and Airbnb. Biden called for getting rid of junk fees in his State Of The Union address, so it is good to see progress being made on the issue without Congress even acting.

What else was in the news? Biden endured a root canal, but it didn't involve general anesthesia, so we didn't have an "Acting President Kamala Harris" while he was under (for those who keep track of such historical footnotes). What wasn't in the news -- and hasn't been -- is a massive border crisis, since the gigantic surge the doomsayers were predicting after Title 42 was lifted never actually happened.

All in all, a good week for Joe Biden.

But who are we kidding? The real political spotlight was once again trained on the center ring of the ongoing Donald Trump Circus. Trump was arraigned on the 37 felony counts, and his appearance in Miami was similar to his earlier arraignment in New York City -- but in a more subdued way.

There were no photos of Trump getting out of or stepping into a car at the courthouse, since it has an underground garage. There was no "perp walk" in the hallways of the building itself, because no cameras were allowed. And the crowds outside protesting (both for and against Trump) seemed smaller than even the tiny crowds which showed up for the New York event. The Miami Herald summed the scene up: "Reporters and TV crews outnumbered supporters of former President Donald trump outside the courthouse." Ouch.

Maybe we're all just getting used to an ex-president being criminally charged in a court of law? It's probably premature to say something like that, but one can always hope, right? As we wrote earlier this week, perhaps in the near future it'll soon become so unnewsworthy that all it will merit is a brief mention on the evening news: "In other news, Donald Trump sat through his twelfth arraignment today, on another 52 felony counts, bringing the total number of crimes he has been charged with up to 479. Meanwhile, in the world of sports...."

There was one bit of excitement, facilitated by the unfathomable security decision not to lock down the first few blocks of the route Trump had to travel to get out of the courthouse. The cops were supposedly prepared for a much larger crowd than the few hundred who showed up (reportedly they were going to be ready for 5,000 to 50,000 people), but somehow they left the sidewalks open for those first few blocks of the Trump motorcade's route? One protestor, dressed in an outfit with classic prison stripes, stepped in front of the car Trump was actually riding in while holding up a sign that said: "Lock Him Up!" He was quickly hustled away by Secret Service agents (who had to run along next to the car to fend off others who were approaching Trump's vehicle, some of whom were supporters and some of whom weren't) and then taken into custody by other cops (amusingly, right in front of the graffiti-ed message: "Fuck Trump," which the news networks had to air unpixelated, since it was happening live).

Trump, master manipulator of media that he is, then turned the event into some free campaign airtime. On the way to the airport, Trump stopped at a Cuban restaurant where a short (and pre-planned) campaign event took place, with people fawning (and literally praying over) Trump and singing him a rather off-key version of "Happy Birthday To You," since Trump would turn 77 years old the next day.

Trump basked in all the attention, promised loudly: "Food for everyone!" and then left without buying food for anyone, including himself (he never even got near the counter). But he did achieve one thing -- all the television networks who had been carrying the whole circus live from start to finish dutifully showed live footage of all the fawning, and Trump got to show the world images of him smiling among his adorers as a sign of (political) strength.

Later, after flying to his golf club in New Jersey, Trump gave a speech that wasn't as widely covered by the networks. In it, he essentially laid out his defense: "I am totally guilty, and I do not understand the law at all." No, that wasn't what he actually said (we couldn't resist, sorry), instead what he did say was: "Whatever documents a president decides to take with him, he has the right to do so. It's an absolute right. This is the law." Um... no. It is not. The Presidential Records Act -- which for some strange reason Trump has latched onto as his new "Get out of jail free" card -- does not say anything remotely like that. This law, please understand, was passed precisely because a former disgraced president (Richard Nixon) tried to pull the same act: "All of this stuff is mine -- my private records -- and therefore I am not going to give them or show them to anyone I don't want to." As Daffy Duck might have put it: "Mine! Mine! Mine! All mine!" As Gollum might have put it: "My precious!" But no matter how you put it, it just ain't so.

For the record, here is the relevant section of the Presidential Records Act, which plainly spells out how limited the concept of "personal records" actually is:

(2) The term "Presidential records" means documentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion thereof, created or received by the President, the President's immediate staff, or a unit or individual of the Executive Office of the President whose function is to advise or assist the President, in the course of conducting activities which relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President. Such term--

   (A) includes any documentary materials relating to the political activities of the President or members of the President's staff, but only if such activities relate to or have a direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President; but

   (B) does not include any documentary materials that are (i) official records of an agency (as defined in section 552(e) of title 5, United States Code); (ii) personal records; (iii) stocks of publications and stationery; or (iv) extra copies of documents produced only for convenience of reference, when such copies are clearly so identified.

(3) The term "personal records" means all documentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion thereof, of a purely private or nonpublic character which do not relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President. Such term includes --

   (A) diaries, journals, or other personal notes serving as the functional equivalent of a diary or journal which are not prepared or utilized for, or circulated or communicated in the course of, transacting Government business;

   (B) materials relating to private political associations, and having no relation to or direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President; and

   (C) materials relating exclusively to the President's own election to the office of the Presidency; and materials directly relating to the election of a particular individual or individuals to Federal, State, or local office, which have no relation to or direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President.

The Act goes on to state that all records which are not personal records but rather "Presidential records" become the property of the people of the United States, in the person of the National Archivist, on the day the president leaves office. Period.

You'll note that this is pretty much the exact opposite of what Trump and his sycophants are now attempting to claim. Trump does not have some sort of plenipotentiary power to decide for himself what he wants to keep as a souvenir. He just doesn't. This was just one of the lies Trump uttered that day, which the fact-checkers helpfully catalogued.

Trump, being Trump, also whined about the unfairness of everything on his pet social media platform. He held his own pity party, in other words, as he is oft wont to do.

The most interesting reaction among Trump's fellow Republicans came from Bill Barr, Trump's own attorney general, and a man who is no stranger to bending over backwards to defend Trump even when the evidence is strongly against him (as he did with the Mueller Report, just to cite the most prominent example). Here's what Barr had to say, on Fox News (note: these quotes were taken from multiple sources, and may not be in the correct order):

I was shocked by the degree of sensitivity of these documents and how many there were, frankly. So the government's agenda was to get those, protect those documents and get them out, and I think it was perfectly appropriate to do that, it was the right thing to do. And I think the counts under the Espionage Act, that [Donald Trump] willfully retained those documents, are solid counts. I do think we have to wait and see what the defense says, and what proves to be true. But I do think that... if even half of it is true, then he's toast. It's a very detailed indictment, and it's very, very damning.

Battle plans for an attack on another country or Defense Department documents about our capabilities are in no universe Donald J. Trump's personal documents. They are the government's documents.

. . .

This particular episode of trying to retrieve those documents, the government acted responsibly. And it was Donald J. Trump who acted irresponsibly.

. . .

This idea of presenting Trump as a victim here, a victim of a witch hunt, is ridiculous.

Yes, he's been a victim in the past. Yes, his adversaries have obsessively pursued him with phony claims. I have been at his side defending against them when he is a victim. But this is much different. He is not a victim here. He was totally wrong that he had the right to have those documents. Those documents are among the most sensitive secrets the country has.

But then, Bill Barr is not running for president against Trump, so he is free to tell the unvarnished truth. The same cannot be said for most of the GOP presidential field, with the notable exceptions of Asa Hutchinson and Chris Christie. The others spent all week twisting themselves into logical pretzels to explain why the charges were both serious and came from a "weaponized" Justice Department, at the same time. The media had some fun trying to pin them all down on the question of whether -- should they beat Trump for the nomination and actually become president -- each candidate would issue a pardon for Trump. Nikki Haley, as usual, outdid herself in simultaneously coming down on every possible side of the issue, all at once.

Other Republicans (also not running for president against Trump) showed a similar degree of spinelessness. From a New York Times article:

From the moment Donald Trump was indicted last week, top Republican lawmakers and media figures have found themselves in the humiliating position of trying to defend the indefensible. Many of them are lawyers; having seen the overwhelming strength of the evidence in the indictment, they could simply have accepted that Mr. Trump is in big trouble.

Instead, they have burst forth with an embarrassing slurry of misdirection, illogic and non sequiturs explaining why Mr. Trump should not be treated like everyone else in the eyes of the law. They offer legal arguments with no basis in the law or explanations that are nonsensical on their face.

But of course, in the Trump era, "nonsensical on their face" is pretty meaningless, in terms of what Trump can claim which his MAGA cult members will then fully believe about their Dear Leader. Convincing a jury of twelve citizens may be a much tougher job, though.

The real explanation for Trump's behavior is the simplest one, most likely. The best explanation of this we read this week came from a Politico article with the headline: "Why Trump Did It: He's A Juvenile Delinquent At Heart," which concludes by pointing out that no, Trump's case is not on a parallel with Hillary Clinton, or Joe Biden, or Mike Pence, but rather of another juvenile delinquent in the news who got caught doing the exact same thing and who also faces increasingly-severe penalties for doing so:

Trump's conduct resembles that of another immature figure accused of wantonly dispersing national secrets: Jack Teixeira, the Air National Guard cyber transport systems journeyman just out of his teens, who purportedly scattered classified documents about the war in Ukraine and more to his score of confederates on a private Discord channel ("Thug Shaker Central") like so many dandelion seeds. Like Trump, Teixeira appears to have had no policy ends in mind when he loosed the documents into the public sphere. Unlike traitors like Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen, who sold secrets to the Russians, Teixeira didn't do it for the money. Like the teen who smashes mailboxes or pours sugar into random gas tanks or steals toilet paper from public restrooms, Teixeira's motivation seems simple. He achieved some sort of boost by doing a forbidden thing, and sometimes showing off to friends.

In both Trump and Teixeira's cases, a perverted form of respect might have been in order had they sold the documents to a hostile nation or otherwise leveraged their privileged knowledge to a material or professional end. Such transactional motivations give crime a rational patina, even if they're pathetic. Any kid can commit mayhem, and many do as they're growing. But it takes seasoning and adulthood to commit yourself to such a reckless venture as spilling secrets to our adversaries for money. But the two of them are so scattered, they appear to have compromised national security for kicks and kicks alone, like some Mountain Dew chugging doofus.

Deep down, we all may sympathize a little with both Trump and Teixeira. Secrets are hard to keep. And the bigger the secret, the more tempting it is to share. But understanding the unauthorized secret-sharing is a much different thing than excusing it. The alleged crimes of Trump and Teixeira are monumental, but the drives are petty. If the two are convicted, we need to build a maximum security prison for overgrown juvenile delinquents and assign them the first two bunks.

Sounds about right to us.

Of course, Trump being Trump, this wasn't actually the only bad legal news for him this week, just the worst. A judge in New York ruled that not only can E. Jean Carroll proceed with her second defamation case against Trump, but also that she can tack on all the things Trump said on national television about her, right after he lost the first such case. She's now suing for an additional $10 million, and the case is scheduled for next January. Meanwhile, Trump lawyers keep quitting left and right, and for some reason he's finding it harder and harder to find new lawyers to replace them.

In presidential campaign news, the mayor of Miami (we're not even going to bother to look up his name) announced his very own vanity run for the White House. Because: why not? Add his name (whatever it is) to the list of all the others -- many of whom will not even make it to the debate stages.

Speaking of the Republican Party's primary rules (how's that for a segue?), what was initially supposed to be a little trap for Donald Trump is turning out to be a double-edged blade that cuts both ways (sorry for the mixed metaphor, there). The R.N.C. is demanding all candidates who want to appear in their debates sign a "loyalty pledge," where everyone has to swear that they will support the eventual Republican nominee even if it turns out not to be them.

As mentioned, this was supposed to somehow lock in Trump's fealty should he be defeated in the primaries, which is rather laughable. But it cuts the other way too -- all the other candidates will be forced to pledge support for Trump if he's the nominee. Two candidates in the race are actually running against Trump instead of being mealymouthed and essentially running to be considered for Trump's vice president, and they both reacted in different ways. Asa Hutchinson tried to get the R.N.C. to change this rule, explaining:

I'm not going to vote for [Donald Trump] if he's a convicted felon. I'm not going to vote for him if he's convicted of espionage, and I'm not going to vote for him if he's (convicted of) other serious crimes. And I'm not going to support him. They [The Republican National Committee] need to put a little rationality to what is said in that oath or that pledge.

Chris Christie took a more cavalier approach, which also served to point out how meaningless the entire "trap" has been from the very start:

A spokesperson for Chris Christie's campaign, meanwhile, said the former New Jersey governor has been "pretty clear on his thoughts around the pledge and any future support for Trump -- conviction or not."

Repeatedly this year, Christie has said he will not support Trump if he is the nominee. Last week Christie said he would sign the R.N.C.'s pledge in order to debate, but would only take it "as seriously as Donald Trump did eight years ago." Trump in the 2016 election signed a similar pledge, but later said he would not necessarily commit to supporting someone else as the nominee. Asked about such a pledge this spring, Trump would not promise to back the eventual nominee for 2024.

In other words, the entire scheme of the loyalty pledge is as completely meaningless as it was back in 2016. Trump could "sign" such a pledge, but he'll never keep his word if he loses the nomination. Which has led to others willing to "sign" such a pledge who will also never keep their word (if Trump is nominated). It's devolved into an exercise in proving that all the Republican presidential candidates can lie not just with a straight face, but in actual writing. Which was not exactly what the R.N.C. had in mind, obviously.

And to finish on, a rather shocking story, but one that has an actual happy ending. During the "Arraignment Day (Episode 2)" circus, Fox News showed images of both President Joe Biden and Donald Trump on screen, and ran at the bottom the following text: "Wannabe dictator speaks at the White House after having his political rival arrested." This was a bit much even for Fox, and it led White House Press Secretary to quip, when asked about it the next day, "There are probably about 787 million things that I can say about this," a clear reference to the $787 million Fox News has to pay Dominion Voting Systems for airing lies about them.

Within 24 hours, the news broke that the producer -- who had been the producer of Tucker Carlson's show until Carlson was fired -- was also out. He was told, according to Carlson, to "clear out his desk and leave immediately."

Jean-Pierre was right. There are indeed a whopping 787 million reasons why Fox News is a wee bit more sensitive to what it airs, these days.

It's been more of a judicial week than a political one, so the pickings were fairly slim for both of our awards this week.

Our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week won for not doing something impressive on his own, but rather for the weakness his political opposition displayed.

This week, the House of Representatives, led by the MAGA extremists, tried to both censure Democratic Representative Adam Schiff and fine him a whopping $16 million. His supposed crime was apparently saying bad things about the GOP's Dear Leader. This could be just the first in a series of punitive votes, as some Republicans are champing at the bit to impeach every Democrat in sight.

But in the end, 20 Republicans voted against censuring Schiff (they technically voted to "table the motion," which effectively killed it).

So, as we said, Schiff didn't exactly do anything impressive this week on his own, but it was impressive indeed to see there are still 20 sane House GOP members who realize when their own side tries for a bridge too far.

(As we said, it's been a rather distracted week.)

[Congratulate Representative Adam Schiff on his House contact page, to let him know you appreciate his efforts.]

Both of our nominees for the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week are pretty mild as well.

In fact, we can't even see giving the first one a (Dis-)Honorable Mention. White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre was technically found (by a watchdog agency) to have technically violated the Hatch Act. Previous to the midterm elections, she used the phrase "mega-MAGA Republicans" during news briefings. That's the entirety of her violation.

Jean-Pierre hadn't been told not to use this phrase, and the White House Counsel's Office didn't believe it did violate the Hatch Act. No reprimand was even suggested in the finding. But since she is a serious-minded public servant, we would bet she'll avoid the phrase in the future.

The article ends with a pertinent point. While Team Biden has been scrupulous about following the law, the previous administration was not:

A 2021 federal investigation found that at least 13 senior [President Donald] Trump administration officials violated the Hatch Act intentionally by mixing governing with campaigning before the 2020 election.

A scathing 60-page report from the Office of the Special Counsel said that a "willful disregard for the law" was "especially pernicious" during the Trump administration, saying many officials abused their government roles days before the November election. Trump -- whose job it was to discipline his political appointees -- allowed them to illegally promote his reelection on the job despite warnings to some from ethics officials, the report said.

"This failure to impose discipline created the conditions for what appeared to be a taxpayer-funded campaign apparatus within the upper echelons of the executive branch," investigators wrote in the report.

Which is why this doesn't even merit a (Dis-)Honorable Mention.

What does merit one, however, was Senator Joe Manchin voting against yet another Biden appointee, this time for the position of White House chief economist. But in the end, Jared Bernstein was confirmed on a vote of 50-49, so even this didn't really rise (sink, actually) to the level of a Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award.

So we'll just put it back on the shelf for this week, unless someone has a nominee we somehow missed to suggest.

Volume 711 (6/16/23)

This week's talking points are heavy on the Trump indictment charges, but even so we have one generic one left over, so we'll just toss it out there to begin with. Republicans, as usual, have engaged in a ton of "whataboutism" in response to Trump being held accountable for putting national security at risk. Democrats need to brush this off with all the disdain it deserves:

"No, this isn't like Hillary's emails/Joe Biden/Mike Pence/Bill Clinton. It's just not. None of them stole national security secrets and then refused to return them. None of them got subpoenaed and then ignored the subpoena. None of them had a search warrant served on them -- because such a thing was not necessary since they voluntarily handed back all the classified documents upon request. Nice try, but Trump's case is in a whole different ballpark and you know it. That's why he was charged and they weren't."

We do apologize for the first talking point, as it is quite long, but we felt it was worth including here in full. It is a rant from Keith Olbermann this week, and it challenges Democrats to get out there and make the strongest case possible against what Trump did. Joe Biden really can't do so -- he's already getting accused of playing politics with the whole thing -- but it really shouldn't stop any other Democrat from framing this issue just as bluntly as possible. If the shoe were on the other foot, this is exactly what Republicans would be saying, so for once it would be nice to see Democrats fight as hard as they do on the messaging front.

   Where is the outrage?

As we said, this one is from Keith Olbermann (emphasis in original).

Donald Trump has put the lives of tens of thousands of American service men and women at risk -- all around the world -- by stealing the documents. Donald Trump doesn't give a damn if American troops live or die. Donald Trump HATES THE TROOPS. And why aren't we hearing that? Bill Barr, The National Review, Governor Sununu, and The National Review [sic?] blistered Trump. Scott Jennings, the rabid CNN conservative? Jennings hit a point that in normal times would have been enough for the Republicans to have already thrown Trump overboard, for all time? "If you had a son or a daughter who was serving... in a hostile place and you thought maybe their information was in a document that could have been picked off the friggin' floor, do you know how this could impact a military family? The thing is when you're commander in chief, you have this responsibility to the military and the people who serve. It's sort of offensive to me actually that we would be so cavalier with the information that could possibly put our people in jeopardy."

And if there is anything more shocking than the number of anti-Trump statements ESPECIALLY from lawyers and from HIS lawyers -- it is the fact that in normal times the Democrats would have taken the essence of Scott Jennings' point: TRUMP PUT THE LIVES OF THOUSANDS OF AMERICAN SERVICE MEN AT RISK, and they would have hung that fact around the necks of not just Trump and everybody close to him, but around the necks of EVERY Republican who didn't condemn him and the Democrats would be screaming: "Why does Donald Trump hate the troops?" and: "Why does Ron DeSantis hate the troops?" and: "Why does Lindsey Graham hate the troops?" and if the POINT ITSELF wasn't decisive enough, the Democrats could follow it up with the new CBS News poll that asks is there a national security risk if Trump kept nuclear and military documents and the answer was YES, Trump put the National Security at Risk, YES... from 38 percent OF REPUBLICANS.

Why in the chorus of sheep bleating about Trump's rights and Hillary Clinton this and weaponization that, are virtually ALL the dissenting voices... Republicans? Where are the Democrats? Where are the Democrats talking about the grave risk Trump was and is to National Security? Where are the Democrats demanding that he will be president again only over their dead bodies? Where are the Democrats saying no matter how this trial turns out, Trump definitely put American troops at risk for the sake of his ego, and he may have gotten American troops KILLED, and he may STILL get American troops KILLED? Where is the outrage?

   Only the two they can prove

Here's a good point that we haven't heard anyone yet make.

"Trump has been indicted for, among other things, showing documents with national security secrets to at least two people who did not have the proper security clearance to view them. Maybe this doesn't sound so bad -- just two times, right? But please keep in mind that these are only the ones the prosecutor thinks he can prove in court with iron-clad evidence -- including, astonishingly, an audio recording of Trump admitting in real time that he was showing someone a secret document. But it doesn't mention the obvious inference that these two instances were almost certainly not the only times Trump showed off to people by compromising national security. In fact, it probably has happened hundreds of times. And who knows what these people got to see? Who knows who they all are, for that matter? When judging the severity of Trump's actions, keep this in mind -- this is just the tiny, tiny tip of what is quite likely an enormous iceberg."

   Does the GOP even care anymore?

Supporting Trump needs to come with an increasing political price, and it is up to Democrats to make this case.

"Does the Republican Party even care about national security anymore? Do they care that nuclear secrets of our nation and others have been compromised? Do they care that military attack plans against other countries were casually revealed? Do they care that intelligence such as this is gathered at great risk to those involved and the disclosure of such information puts people's lives at risk? Do they care that this might make it harder to gather such intelligence in the future, as people who might have cooperated decide not to? Does the Republican Party care at all about any of this? Because it sure doesn't seem like it to me."

   Bidenomics working

We had to include at least one positive talking point, and one we feel more Democrats should really be making more often.

"President Biden's political opponents occasionally like to deride him for what they call 'Bidenomics.' But you know what? Bidenomics is working. We survived the brutal economic impact of the pandemic. We are building America's infrastructure back up again, and tackling climate change in a big way. Jobs are plentiful. Pay has gone up, even at the lowest end of the economic scale. Unemployment is at 50-year lows. The post-pandemic inflation spike has mostly abated. We are not in a recession. All around, things are looking pretty good. You'd never know it to hear Republicans talk, but Bidenomics is working out pretty well for most Americans. That's something to celebrate."

   Deficit? What deficit?

Speaking of economics...

"Well, it didn't take them long. Remember just a few weeks ago when Republicans held the entire world's economy hostage because they were supposedly very concerned about the federal deficit? Remember that? I mean, it wasn't that long ago, right? Well, all that empty posturing is now even more laughable, since the next thing on the Republican agenda is to pass a massive tax cut. No, really, you just can't make this stuff up! The GOP got concessions in their debt-ceiling deal to save over $186 billion over the next three years, and now they've teed up a tax cut which will cost a whopping $325 billion over the same period. Others believe this figure is way too low and that it would actually cost $1.1 trillion. So within the space of a few weeks, Republicans went from clutching their pearls at the concept of high deficits to now wanting to explode those deficits to ever-higher levels. This is the absolute height of hypocrisy, I hasten to point out."

   McCarthy's House being wagged by the MAGA tail

Well, at least we got one amusing media quip out of it all....

"House Republicans had a plan to pass a bill last week. The bill would have fought hard in an imaginary war against a non-existent threat. The fake crisis came about when Republicans began spreading the false talking point that the Biden administration 'wanted to ban gas stoves.' This wasn't even remotely true, but they simply didn't care. It was a handy political scapegoat for them, and that was good enough. So they threw together a bill to ban the non-existent ban and were going to pass it in a show of strength and then send it over to die in the Democratic Senate. But then the extremists in the GOP decided to flex their political muscles and halted the ridiculously fake bill's move to the House floor. In open revolt against Speaker Kevin McCarthy, they ground the chamber to a halt. Eventually McCarthy crumbled and gave in to their demands, but not before Politico had wryly commented: 'House Republicans couldn't pass gas.' Which pretty much sums up the importance of their bill -- no more than a legislative fart in a windstorm."

   Pat Benatar? Really, Ted?

Hoo boy. Open mouth, insert foot.

"Senator Ted Cruz said something rather hilarious this week. When asked by an interviewer what the chances of a Democratic Senate convicting President Biden of unspecified crimes which would lead to a fantasy impeachment, Cruz responded: 'I don't think Senate Democrats, if you had video of Joe Biden murdering children dressed as the devil under a full moon while singing Pat Benatar, they still wouldn't vote to convict.' Seriously, Ted? Pat Benatar? That's the most satanic musician you can name? That's the most devilish singer that pops to mind when creating one of your typical gaffes? I mean... Pat Benatar? Really, Ted? That's all you got? Wow.

-- Chris Weigant

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground