Friday Talking Points -- Closing The Gaetz

[ChrisWeigant]

Well, that was quick. As many have amusingly pointed out, the nomination of Matt Gaetz to be Donald Trump's attorney general didn't even last a full Scaramucci. Eight days, from beginning to end, was all it took. It's more than he deserved, really.

There was a whole bunch of tea-leaf-reading after Gaetz announced he was giving up his bid. Was Gaetz really just preparing to run for Florida governor and concocted the whole thing as a convenient way to bury that damning House Ethics Committee report? We have to admit, we do find this one convincing (especially since today Gaetz announced he will not attempt returning to the House). Or was Gaetz a "stalking horse" put out there to be so odiously bad that he distracted from all the other odiously bad cabinet appointees Trump has been announcing? Would senators (of both parties) spend all their energies on Gaetz and then be so exhausted that they let through all the others without much protest? If that were accurate, Gaetz would have stayed in the fracas until the bitter end, though, which he didn't.

More positively, some are lauding the Republican senators for standing up to Trump, saying the Senate "passed its first test" in taking Trump down a notch (by handing him an early loss in the struggle for power between the executive and legislative branches). Well... possibly. We'll have to see how things develop. Again, there are still a whole bunch of other patently unqualified nominees for the Senate to consider.

One thing is for certain, at least. Donald Trump won't do what he threatened to do by making a "recess appointment" of Gaetz, bypassing the Senate's "advice and consent" role entirely. Doing so would have required the collusion of at least the GOP House, and the rumors are that Speaker Mike Johnson had pushed back on the idea, along with a handful of Senate Republicans who still value their own power. This averts an immediate constitutional crisis when Trump takes office, and it might be further sign of congressional Republicans telling Trump not to push them too far.

The media certainly had a whole lot of fun over the eight days of focus on Gaetz, which continued after his withdrawal. Here's the most amusing reaction we saw:

Talk about a quick and humiliating smackdown. Florida Man Matt Gaetz was announced as Donald Trump's pick for attorney general on a Wednesday. Eight days later, his complete unfitness for the job had become so undeniable and insurmountable that he withdrew from consideration. The nomination didn't last even a full Scaramucci.

This could not have happened to a more deserving guy.

For those who care about checks and balances, Gaetzgate was about so much more than the political fate of a proud poster boy for arrested development who has the morals of a coked-up bonobo. Trump's decision to put him forward was an early, gross test for the president-elect's entire Senate team.

Republican lawmakers were being asked to lash themselves to the personification of Trump's morally bankrupt impulses, to choke down their bile and prove just how low they were willing to go. How they handled this challenge was going to be an early signpost of, as well as a building block in, their relationship with the second Trump administration.

Again: we'll see. The list of nominees which are (to put it mildly) problematic actually grew this week, even with Gaetz withdrawing. Trump nominated Mehmet Oz to run Medicare and Medicaid (and Obamacare), on the strength of him winning some daytime Emmys (you can't make this stuff up, folks). He nominated Linda McMahon to run the Department of Education, even though she has zero experience in the field (although what she does have is a past sexual abuse scandal to deal with, but as we all know that is in no way disqualifying for Trump). Add these to the others who should rightfully face strong pushback in the Senate: Pete Hegseth (Defense), R.F.K. Jr. (Health and Human Services), Tulsi Gabbard (Director of National Intelligence), and Pam Bondi, the woman Trump immediately named as a replacement for Gaetz. All of these should face the same sort of scrutiny that Gaetz faced, but it is not certain that they will.

Of that list, it now seems like R.F.K. Jr. and Gabbard might face the most skepticism from Senate Republicans. Hegseth is reportedly winning over senators to his nomination (even though the police report from his own sexual assault accusation was made public this week), but we'll have to see what questions get asked when he sits for a confirmation hearing. Oz, McMahon, and now Bondi haven't faced the same intensity of media scrutiny yet, so it remains to be seen how Republican senators feel about their nominations quite yet. But Democrats will get to ask questions during confirmation too, so about the only thing we can say with any certainty is it will make for some lively Senate hearings early next year.

If the Senate does balk at any of these picks, there still is a chance Trump will try to "recess appoint" them anyway. It remains to be seen whether Republicans in either house of Congress will actually defy Trump with a floor vote on any of this, and it certainly doesn't seem out of the realm of possibility that he will indeed force the issue at some point.

Meanwhile, over in the House, we've already had our first episode of fearmongering, even before the new Congress is seated. Representative Nancy Mace led the charge in scapegoating a historic incoming member of Congress. Next year, Sarah McBride will be Delaware's only member of the House of Representatives, which will be a first since McBride is a transgender woman. Republicans, of course, spent a whole lot of energy demonizing trans people during the campaign, and Mace shoved her way to be the first in line to do so over McBride.

Mace didn't used to be so extreme. Back in 2021, she said in an interview: "I strongly support L.G.B.T.Q. rights and equality. No one should be discriminated against." She went further, stating that she had friends and family who were L.G.B.T.: "Having been around gay, lesbian, and transgender people has informed my opinion over my lifetime." She even proudly posted a link to the article on social media, with her own added comment:

I strongly support LGBTQ rights. No one should be discriminated against. Religious liberty, gay rights, and transgender equality can all coexist. I'm also a constitutionalist. We have to ensure anti-discrimination laws don't violate religious freedom.

Sounds like a pretty reasonable and moderate Republican, right? Respectful, even....

Well, now that's all gone by the wayside as Mace has now officially boarded the MAGA train. Far from "supporting" the "T" in L.G.B.T.Q. rights, she publicly began the push to ban McBride from women's bathrooms at the U.S. Capitol. Here's some more of how her vaunted "support" has morphed into demonization:

"It's offensive that a man in a skirt thinks that he's my equal," [Representative Nancy] Mace said on Newsmax on Wednesday night, intentionally misgendering [Representative-Elect Sarah] McBride. "That his challenges are the same as mine. They're not. And he's forcing his genitals into women's restrooms, into dressing rooms, into locker rooms."

Speaker Mike Johnson appeared to be caught flat-footed by this move. He was asked at a press conference whether he thought McBride was a woman or a man. He dodged the question. So later, he held another press availability just to clarify things:

I want to make a statement and be very clear. I was asked a question and I rejected the premise because the answer is so obvious. For anybody who doesn't know my well-established record on this issue let me be unequivocally clear: A man is a man and a woman is a woman, and a man cannot become a woman.

He then moved to make the rule change without even making the House vote on it. All Capitol complex bathrooms will now be "birth-gender-only." But Mace wasn't satisfied with the victory, and now says she will be introducing a bill to institute the same rule for all bathrooms "on federal property." Because the whole point of it wasn't really to get the rules changed, but to get Mace's face on television. Here is what Mace's own former communications director had to say about the whole thing: "If you think this bill is about protecting women and not simply a ploy to get on Fox News, you've been fooled."

McBride dealt with the matter by refusing to take the bait, stating that she'll follow whatever rules are in place. She stressed that she was entirely focused on serving her constituents rather than getting involved in culture war issues, which was a good political move for her (McBride had not made becoming the first trans woman in Congress a part of her campaign, instead focusing on local issues that voters care a whole lot more about). This caused some disappointment among trans rights activists, who would much rather have had a big public fight about the issue. But as we said, she's a brand-new representative so it is entirely understandable why she did so.

Other news from Washington during the lame-duck period... Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer cut a deal with Senate Republicans to pull four nominees to appellate-level courts in exchange for them allowing 12 other judicial nominees to make it through the Senate before the end of the year. This will mean President Joe Biden will have named almost exactly the same number of judges to the federal bench as Trump did during his first term in office. Some expressed disappointment in Schumer for making the deal, but none of the four appellate candidates had the necessary votes to be confirmed, so it was really just a matter of accepting the reality of the situation more than anything else.

Other than cabinet-appointees, the incoming Trump team is reportedly considering slashing Medicaid and food stamps benefits, in order to provide bigger tax cuts to the ultra-wealthy. Oh, and they're essentially ignoring all the rules governing presidential transitions, including the necessity of getting background checks for security clearances. Trump already bent the rules on security clearances in his first term when he demanded members of his family get them without proper vetting, so this is nothing new for him. If he's nominating seriously tainted people to cabinet appointments, one has to wonder what all those appointments who don't get a lot of media scrutiny are like. At least he hasn't named any family members to his cabinet... yet.





This is going to be a collective award, this time around. Because, as we wrote about earlier this week, one particular result of the 2024 election cycle hasn't really gotten much attention.

Which is why we're giving the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week this week to the entire incoming class of House Democrats, and to everyone who helped get them elected.

As we said, the media is mostly ignoring this, but even while Republicans took back the White House and control of the Senate, they are on track to have made no gains at all in the House. There are still three outstanding races to be called, but the Democrat is leading in one of them. Currently (without these three) the political makeup of the incoming House will be 219 Republicans and 213 Democrats.

This will leave Mike Johnson with just as small a majority as he's been dealing with all along. And it'll be even more acute at the start, since there will be at least one vacancy from the get-go (since Matt Gaetz resigned) and possibly others (Trump has nominated at least two other House GOP members to his administration). They're all in safe Republican districts, but it'll take time to hold special elections to replace them, and until that happens Johnson's majority will be even thinner.

Of course, it sure would have been more impressive if Democrats had gained seats and taken back control of the chamber themselves -- that would have given Democrats some governing relevance to put a brake on Trump's worst impulses. But in a year when the electorate shifted right everywhere else, it was impressive enough just to hold the line to the status quo.

So for outperforming the Democratic Party elsewhere in a very Republican election, we have to hand this week's Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week this week to the incoming House Democrats. Their accomplishment will continue the headaches Johnson has had in herding his own Republican cats for the next two years.

[Congratulate your local Democratic representative via their official contact page, to let them know you appreciate their efforts.]





Mostly Democrats have been being very quiet this week, content to stand back and watch as the Republicans squabble among themselves over Trump's incoming administration. So we didn't notice any particular Democrat who deserved the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week this week, and we'll have to put the award back on the shelf until next week.




Volume 776 (11/22/24)

Our Talking Points this week attempt to move Democrats on from the horribleness of Matt Gaetz to the horribleness of all the other whackadoodles Trump has been nominating. After one unrelated quote from A.O.C., the rest of our offering this week is how Democrats should be absolutely ridiculing these selections. Who knows -- Senate Republicans have already balked at one incredibly unqualified nominee, maybe they can be convinced there are others worth the same pushback? It's certainly worth a try.



How will they police it?

Because all the fray surrounding trans women in bathrooms didn't actually name the target of the Republicans' scapegoating, all trans people will be barred from the bathrooms of their choice on Capitol Hill. Some trans-rights activists have already suggested publicly challenging it by visiting the Capitol and using the bathrooms there. Which, of course, leads to a question -- who is going to police this rule? Which Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez pointed out, in a memorable way:

If a woman doesn't look woman enough to a Republican, they want to be able to inspect their genitals to use a bathroom? It's disgusting. [They're doing it so] Nancy Mace can make a buck and send a text and fundraise off an email.

But he plays one on teevee...

This is a general comment, to start off the talking points dealing with all the other nutjobs being appointed to cabinet-level positions.

"The one criteria Donald Trump seems to be using to select his cabinet -- other than their absolute loyalty to Trump above everything and everyone else in life -- seems to be pretty simple. Trump wants folks who look good on TV. That's it. That's what he wants in a cabinet. Anyone with insufficient cheekbones or who is not sufficiently blow-dried and coiffed need not apply."



He's on Fox News, that's good enough for Trump...

We begin our rundown (appropriately enough) with a man Trump chose because he is a host on Fox News.

"Pete Hegseth had a woman accuse him of sexual assault in a police report, paid the woman hush money to get her to sign a non-disclosure agreement, was considered suspect by the National Guard because he has tattoos which are symbols of White power, doesn't think women belong in combat roles in the military, and pushed Trump during his first time in office to pardon convicted war criminals. Trump has chosen Hegseth to run the Pentagon, despite having zero experience running any large organization whatsoever. So sure... why not?"



Russia's girlfriend?

And then there's Tulsi...

"Tulsi Gabbard has been called -- by Russia's state television no less -- 'our girlfriend.' They did this because Gabbard has been the biggest disseminator of Russian propaganda ever since the very start of their invasion of Ukraine. She believed every lie the Russians told, and repeated them to anyone who would listen. When Syria was committing war crimes against its own people, Gabbard took a secret trip to meet with President Bashar Al-Assad, and refuses to admit that Assad has indeed committed such atrocities. She believed Assad's claim that he hadn't used chemical weapons over the American intelligence community's assessment that they were. She even claimed the United States was funding the Islamic State. So of course she's a dandy pick to take control of America's national intelligence services, right? I mean, what could possibly go wrong with 'Russia's girlfriend'?"



If it ducks like a quack...

And then there's the guy Trump nominated because of his Daytime Emmy awards.

"Mehmet Oz, or 'Dr. Oz' as he is known on television, is a total quack. He used to air segments on his television program that promoted weight-loss nostrums, a pyramid scheme, and various forms of snake-oil products. The British Medical Journal ran the numbers and found that over half the products recommended on The Dr. Oz Show were not backed up by or actually contradicted by scientific research. Oh, he also was a big fan of using hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19, despite it being completely ineffective. So sure, let's let him run Medicare and Medicaid and the Obamacare website. Why not?"



The brain-worm hotel

After Gaetz pulled his name from consideration, R.F.K. Jr. went to the front of the "laughably unqualified" line in this clown parade.

"R.F.K. Jr.? Really? Seriously? The brain-worm hotel? The anti-vaxxer? The guy who chainsaws whale skulls off and dumps dead bears in parks just for fun? The guy whose babysitter said he groped her? The guy who spreads conspiracy theories about chemtrails? That guy? You want him running all the health organizations in the country? Are we going to have to pay his brain-worm a separate salary, or what?"



Dream team? Really?

We considered giving Representative Jim McGovern the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week for this, but had the group award to hand out. So we'll close on it instead this week. Here are some excerpts from a floor speech McGovern gave this week, on the subject of Donald Trump's picks for his cabinet:

Someone who is credibly accused of having sex with an underage girl. Someone who sucks up to foreign dictators and has attracted major concern that they can't be trusted to protect America's secrets from our adversaries. Someone who paid hush money to cover up a sexual assault accusation, you know, to lead our military. He's picked because Donald Trump likes him on Fox News? Someone who says that tap water turns kids gay? I mean, this is the dream team? This is the dream team? Really?

Chris Weigant blogs at: ChrisWeigant.com
Follow Chris on Twitter: ChrisWeigant
Full archives of FTP columns: FridayTalkingPoints.com