Several people have wargamed possible outcomes to the Russo-Ukrainian War, but probably few have so literally gamified it.
His argument is pretty simple: Russia has X-industrial capacity, it’s using up Y amounts of war material, broken down into rough categories of how much Z time it takes to replace said war material. As this material is used up faster than it can be replaced, a scale estimates the chances of the Russian lines collapsing due to lack of material to carry on the fight, which runs from 10% in June to 100% on December 26, 2026.
There is a certain rough and ready logic to this analysis, and Russia is using up its stockpiles of Soviet-era equipment at an unsustainable rate, especially when it comes to aircraft. But there are numerous problems with this gamified analysis:
This is an abstraction of an abstraction of an abstraction. The map is not the territory, and the Russo-Ukrainian War is not a game of Strategic Conquest where any city’s productive capacity can be set to any task.
It’s not a question of how much generic productive capacity, it’s how much steel, gas, titanium, precision machinery, semiconductors, etc., Russia can produce.
By assuming Europe will keep Ukraine well supplied with war material, the YouTuber (Mark Biernat, “a Ph.D. student in Poland and teach college economics in the US”) is making assumptions that may not be warranted, especially when it comes to manpower, which may be a serious constraint on Ukraine.
It also assume that Russia won’t change it’s wasteful, grinding assault tactics to conserve men and material. Maybe not a bad bet, given their continued stupidity, but not a sure thing.
The author has not covered the general state of the Russian economy here, but he seems to have gone into that in other videos. The problem is that YouTubers have correctly predicted 10,000 of the last zero Russian economic collapses, so I’m getting a little jaded on this front. Russia’s economy is clearly in trouble, but large economies can stay in trouble for quite a long time before collapsing.
I am broadly sympathetic to the author’s thesis and worldview, but this argument is too abstracted from reality for me to assign any veracity to the estimation dates for possible collapse.
We have the results of yesterdays runoff election, and it’s a mixed bag. Sitting Texas House Speaker Dade Phelan survived Dave Covey’s challenge by less than 400 votes. Evidently a ton of gambling special interest money an encouraging Democrats to vote Republican pulled him over the line. However, almost all Phelan’s political allies pulled into a runoff went down:
Former Trump spokeswoman Katrina Pierson defeated incumbent Justin Holland in the Texas House District 33 runoff.
Challenger Alan Schoolcraft beat incumbent John Kuempel in the Texas House District 44 runoff.
Helen Kerwin whomped incumbent DeWayne Burns in the Texas House District 58 runoff by 15 points.
Challenger Keresa Richardson knocked out Frederick Frazier in the Texas House District 61 runoff with 67.6% of the vote.
Challenger Andy Hopper defeated incumbent Lynn Stuckey in the Texas House District 64 runoff by just shy of 4,500 votes.
Challenger David Lowe went into the Texas House District 91 runoff behind Stephanie Klick, but beat her by over 1,000 votes.
“While we did not win every race we fought in, the overall message from this year’s primaries is clear: Texans want school choice,” Abbott said. “Opponents can no loner ignore the will of the people.”
The governor’s electoral crusade for school choice came to a head this week, as eleven out of the 15 Republican challengers Abbott backed this cycle defeated House incumbents in their primaries. Abbott also worked to boot seven anti-voucher Republicans off the ballot in the state’s March Republican primaries.
Voucher bills have failed in Texas, most notably, last year, when 21 House Republicans voted against expanding school choice as part of an education-funding bill. Abbott’s push to oust school-choice dissidents was backed by major Republican donors and groups, such as Betsy DeVos’s American Federation for Children Victory Fund, which spent $4.5 million on the races altogether, Club for Growth, which poured $4 million into targeting anti-voucher runoff candidates, and Jeff Yass, an investor and mega-donor, who made about $12 million in contributions to both Abbott and the AFC Victory Fund. Abbott spent an unprecedented $8 million of his own campaign funds to support pro-voucher candidates.
Not every incumbent went down. Incumbent Gary VanDeaver beat challenger Chris Spencer by some 1,500 votes. But backing Phelan, opposing school choice and voting to impeach Attorney General Ken Paxton has proven so toxic for incumbents used to romping to easy primary victories that it’s hard to imagine Phelan being able to get reelected as speaker.
Brandon Herrera entered the runoff 21 points behind Tony Gonzalez for U.S. District 23. Ultimately that gap was too large to make up, but he only lost 50.7% to 49.3%. That a sitting congressman with a huge name and money advantage only managed to beat a YouTuber by one and a half points shows that Republican incumbents ignore gun rights at their peril.
Other Republican U.S. congressional race runoff results:
Caroline Kane edged Kenneth Omoruyi by less than 50 votes for the Houston-based U.S. District 7. Democratic incumbent and pro-abortion favorite Lizzie Fletcher got 2/3rds of the vote in 2022, so Kane has quite an uphill slog ahead. Still, a Republican blowout like 1994 or 2010 could theoretically put it within reach.
Craig Goldman pulled in 62.9% against John O’Shea for Fort Worth-based U.S. District 12, which retiring Republican incumbent Kay Granger won by 64.3% in 2022. He’ll face Democratic nominee Trey Hunt in November.
Jay Furman beat Lazaro Garza, Jr. by just shy of 2/3rds of the vote for the right to face indicted Democratic incumbent Henry Cuellar in San Antonio to the border U.S. District 28 in November. Cuellar beat Cassy Garcia 56.7% to 43.3% in 2022, but Cuellar’s indictment and widespread dissatisfaction with Biden’s open borders policies make this a prime Republican pickup target in November.
In a very low turnout runoff, Alan Garza defeated Christian Garcia, 419 to 361 votes in the heavily Democratic Houston-based U.S. District 29. As Democratic incumbent Sylvia Garcia pulled in 71.4% in 2022, it would take a Democratic wipeout of Biblical proportions to make this race competitive, but you can’t win if you don’t play.
In Dallas-Richardson-Garland based U.S. District 32, another heavily Democratic district, Darrell Day beat David Blewett to take on Democrat Julie Johnson. Incumbent Democrat Colin Allred is taking on Ted Cruz in the Senate race.
Finally, in Austin-based U.S. District 35, Steven Wright edged Michael Rodriguez by 11 votes for the right to take on commie twerp Greg Casar, who garnered 72.6% in 2022.
House District (HD) 21 is the largest chip on the table and the warring sides in this raging intra-GOP trench war have gone all-in.
Including third-party groups, more than $12 million is likely to be spent on both sides of the clash between Speaker Dade Phelan (R-Beaumont) and David Covey. The challenger beat the incumbent by 3 points in the primary, but this round is winner-take-all.
Not only is a legislative seat on the line, but so is a speakership, one that comes with lots of influence for the area — a fact that’s been fashioned into an argument by Phelan and team.
The last time a speaker lost re-election was in 1972, though it was a substantially different circumstance.
Legislative hopes for next session are on the line — both in terms of what Phelan himself hopes to accomplish in 2025 and for everything that may end up on the chopping block should he and other incumbents survive, opening the door for a kind of revenge tour against Gov. Greg Abbott and Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick.
Patrick’s legacy as one of the most influential and powerful politicians in Texas history is already cemented. But he never likes losing a fight; he wouldn’t be where he is if he did. To that end, Patrick wants to ensure the speaker with whom he’s feuded so prolifically and publicly meets his political end on Tuesday…and Phelan hopes to deny Patrick what he wants yet again.
The lieutenant governor has likened the speaker to everything under the sun except the first over the wall at the Alamo. And the speaker has returned fire in-kind. Fences can always be mended, but this fence is more like the Great Wall of China or the Trump border wall that was never finished.
Should the speaker escape his political doom tonight, it’s more likely than not that slings and arrows will again be lobbed as the Legislature is eventually brought to a grinding halt.
Whether they’ll admit it publicly or not, more members than one might believe think Phelan will retain the speakership in that scenario; pour one out for all the “the King is dead”-type of columns written right after the primary.
And if Phelan loses tonight, that’ll mark the true beginning of the 2025 House speaker race. Jockeying for position behind the scenes has been going on since November, but at that point it would significantly ramp up.
The bomb-throwing contingent on the right of the House GOP caucus is bigger than it’s ever been and will have a legitimate run at pushing for various reforms. And after their faction won the Texas GOP chairmanship, the political relevance that waxed last year and during the primary waxed further.
Instead of “bomb thrower” I’d call them “the Republican wing of the Republican Party,” the one that actually wants to enact conservative policies and the one that doesn’t want to rule at the head of a Democrat-dominated coalition. Unlike Phelan.
Given widespread Republican dissatisfaction with Phelan’s faction, who is throwing money to keep Phelan’s toadies in office? Gambling interests.
Special interest casino gambling is spending big to protect incumbents who have carried their water in the Texas legislature.
According to campaign finance reports filed on Monday, Sands PAC donated nearly $650,000 in a mixture of races, including returning incumbents, failed candidates, and those taking part in primary runoff elections,
Already defeated incumbent Kronda Thimesch (R-Lewisville) received $54,000 from the PAC following her loss to attorney Mitch Little in the March primary. Drew Darby (R-San Angelo), who notched an unimpressive primary victory in March, received $25,000.
Embattled House Speaker Dade Phelan (R-Beaumont) received $100,000 in direct contributions from the Sands PAC and $512,163 in-kind spending, which the Speaker and other candidates obtained from a newly formed and well-funded vehicle for Sands and its owner.
Earlier this week, Texas Scorecard reported on the political spending of the “Texas Defense” PAC, a newly established committee funded by Miriam Adelson, the owner of Sands Casino.
Along with Phelan, the Texas Defense PAC supports embattled incumbents Frederick Frazier, Justin Holland, John Kuempel, and John McQueeney, a candidate for the open seat vacated by State Rep. Craig Goldman.
Frederick Frazier’s felony-plagued candidacy received $496,000 from the Defense PAC and $50,000 from Sands, as did Holland.
Seguin-based State Rep. John Kuempel also received $50,000 from Sands. Kuempel’s father, the late John Kuempel, was a proponent of expanded gambling and authored measures during his time in the legislature to that end.
Alan Schoolcraft, a former lawmaker, is challenging Kuempel and has the backing of Gov. Greg Abbott after Kuempel voted to strip school choice from an omnibus education bill in 2023.
All incumbent lawmakers forced into runoffs (Frazier, Holland, Kuempel) voted to expand gambling in Texas during the 2023 legislative session, despite the issue not being a priority for Texas voters. The only incumbent who missed out on funding and voted likewise was Gary VanDeaver (R-New Boston).
Democrats Jarvis Johnson and Nathan Johnson (no relation) received $50,000 and $9,000 in funding from Sands, respectively.
China has launched a massive $47 billion fund, the largest in its history, to bolster its semiconductor industry and establish a local supply chain. This fund, equivalent to 344 billion yuan, is the third phase initiated by the China Integrated Circuit Industry Investment Fund [also known as the National Integrated Circuit Industry investment Fund Company (ICF), or just “Big Fund.”-LP]. It’s worth noting that this amount is twice the total funds raised in the previous phases in 2014 and 2019.
Do you remember the last time I covered where the money went to in those previous phases? The money went to companies like Wuhan Hongxin Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. Result? “Hongxin’s unfinished plant in the port city of Wuhan now stands abandoned. Its founders have vanished, despite owing contractors and investors billions of yuan.”
Or maybe Tsinghua Unigroup. Result? The arrested a whole lot of executives, a lot of money disappeared into various pockets, and “Tsinghua Unigroup abandoned its plan to build DRAM memory chip manufacturing plants in Chongqing and Chengdu in southwest China earlier this year.”
At lot of times, loans and investments are siphoned through four or five different entities from the purposes for which they were originally obtained. Everyone’s trying to get rich, and they hope to survive on smoke and mirrors long enough to get profitable. Imagine if Kleiner Perkins invested $25 million in a software startup, only to find that money was spent on a noodle shop, a used car dealership and a golf club manufacturer.
Sometimes it works. You can build a company on margin, get profitable quickly, and be paying off investors and contractors before anyone realizes how shaky the entire enterprise is.
But you can’t do that with semiconductor manufacturing. The startup costs are simply too high, easily in the billions. Very, very few companies can afford to be in a game that expensive. China’s two biggest semiconductor manufacturing success stories, SMIC and Tsinghua Unigroup, all have have CCP direct government investment.
And bunches of Tsinghua Unigroup executive still got pinched for sticking their snouts into the trough.
My assumption is that, yet again, the funds earmarked for semiconductor companies will be siphoned off into a thousands unrelated pockets. (Though the rest of China’s business climate is sucking so badly that maybe some money will actually fund real semiconductor startups, if only through lack of other money-making opportunities to siphon funds off for.) Sanctions will continue to leak. A few years from now, China will announce the arrests of more executives using the Big Fund to play more investment shell games. And five years from now China will announce an even bigger set of subsidies…
You know that war movie cliche of the good guy grabbing a live grenade and throwing it back at the enemy? John Harlan Willis did that on Iwo Jima on February 28, 1945.
For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty as platoon corpsman serving with the 3d Battalion, 27th Marines, 5th Marine Division, during operations against enemy Japanese forces on Iwo Jima, Volcano Islands, 28 February 1945. Constantly imperiled by artillery and mortar fire from strong and mutually supporting pillboxes and caves studding Hill 362 in the enemy cross-island defenses, Willis resolutely administered first aid to the many marines wounded during the furious close-in fighting until he himself was struck by shrapnel and was ordered back to the battle-aid station. Without waiting for official medical release, he quickly returned to his company and, during a savage hand-to-hand enemy counterattack, daringly advanced to the extreme front lines under mortar and sniper fire to aid a marine lying wounded in a shell hole. Completely unmindful of his own danger as the Japanese intensified their attack, Willis calmly continued to administer blood plasma to his patient, promptly returning the first hostile grenade which landed in the shell hole while he was working and hurling back seven more in quick succession before the ninth one exploded in his hand and instantly killed him. By his great personal valor in saving others at the sacrifice of his own life, he inspired his companions, although terrifically outnumbered, to launch a fiercely determined attack and repulse the enemy force. His exceptional fortitude and courage in the performance of duty reflect the highest credit upon Willis and the U.S. Naval Service. He gallantly gave his life for his country.
The Medal of Honor was presented to his widow by Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal December 12, 1945.
For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity in action at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty. Sgt. Yntema, U.S. Army, distinguished himself while assigned to Detachment A-431, Company D. As part of a larger force of civilian irregulars from Camp Cai Cai, he accompanied two platoons to a blocking position east of the village of Thong Binh, where they became heavily engaged in a small-arms firefight with the Viet Cong. Assuming control of the force when the Vietnamese commander was seriously wounded, he advanced his troops to within 50 meters of the enemy bunkers. After a fierce 30-minute firefight, the enemy forced Sgt. Yntema to withdraw his men to a trench in order to afford them protection and still perform their assigned blocking mission. Under cover of machine-gun fire, approximately one company of Viet Cong maneuvered into a position which pinned down the friendly platoons from three sides. A dwindling ammunition supply, coupled with a Viet Cong mortar barrage which inflicted heavy losses on the exposed friendly troops, caused many of the irregulars to withdraw. Seriously wounded and ordered to withdraw himself, Sgt. Yntema refused to leave his fallen comrades. Under withering small-arms and machine-gun fire, he carried the wounded Vietnamese commander and a mortally wounded American Special Forces adviser to a small gully 50 meters away in order to shield them from the enemy fire. Sgt. Yntema then continued to repulse the attacking Viet Cong attempting to overrun his position until, out of ammunition and surrounded, he was offered the opportunity to surrender. Refusing, Sgt. Yntema stood his ground, using his rifle as a club to fight the approximately 15 Viet Cong attempting his capture. His resistance was so fierce that the Viet Cong were forced to shoot in order to overcome him. Sgt. Yntema’s personal bravery in the face of insurmountable odds and supreme self-sacrifice were in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service and reflect the utmost credit upon himself, the 1st Special Forces, and the U.S. Army.
Sgt. Yntema died January 18, 1968. The Medal of Honor was presented to his widow on November 18, 1969.
More worrying signs of inflation, more evidence of Biden family corruption, more creepy child sex offenders, F-35s are stacking up, and an infamous movie may finally have a premiere. It’s the Friday LinkSwarm!
This is Memorial Day weekend, and in Texas there’s a runoff election on May 28, so be sure to vote if you have a runoff in your area. (There are no Republican runoffs in Williamson County.)
House Democrats’ reelection campaigns have accepted $6.5 million from three major political families, which have helped bankroll several student groups participating in the protests. The family members cut most of those checks over the last two years, although some of the donations to longstanding House members came over the last decade.
The names are well-known among Democratic funding circles: Soros, Rockefeller, and Pritzker. Yet before the anti-Jewish protests swept college campuses over the last few months, their financial ties to the student groups were not widely known. Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker, a member of the same wealthy Pritzker family, is not among the donors.
Several investigative media reports over the last month have uncovered the extensive financial ties between these families and student groups involved in organizing anti-Israel protests and activism across the country predating the Oct. 7 Hamas terrorist attacks on Israel and in its aftermath and during Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza.
The donors to student groups include George Soros, a billionaire philanthropist and Democratic campaign contributor who helms the Open Society Foundation and his family members; the Pritzkers, the owners of Hyatt Hotels Corporation; and members of the famed Rockefeller family, including relatives of the wealthy American Banker and philanthropist David Rockefeller. The donations have either gone directly to student groups involved in campus demonstrations or to umbrella foundations and organizations, which have, in turn, channeled the funds to the protestors.
The House Democratic Congressional Committee and the House Majority PAC, which was founded by former Speaker Nancy Pelosi and is directly affiliated with the House Democratic leadership, collected most of those funds, nearly $5.5 million by those two Democratic campaign entities alone, FEC records show.
Meanwhile, 30 House Democrats, including Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries and other members of the leadership, received a combined total of $856,858 from the Soros, Pritzker, and Rockefeller families, while a dozen Democratic candidates in competitive races received a total of $139,000. RCP did not examine Senate recipients.
The House members in competitive races who received funds from at least one of the three families include Reps. Mary Peltola of Alaska, Mike Levin of California, Yadira Caraveo of Colorado, Johana Hayes of Connecticut, Eric Sorensen of Illinois, Frank Mrvan of Indiana, Sharice Davids, Jared Golden, Hillary Scholten, Angie Craig of Minnesota, Don Davis, Chris Pappas of New Hampshire, Gabe Vasquez, of New Mexico, Susie Lee of Nevada, Steven Horsford of Nevada, Paty Ryan of New York, Marcy Kaptur of Ohio, Andrea Salinas of Oregon, Susan Wild of Pennsylvania, and Matt Cartwright of Pennsylvania.
Craig’s campaigns have received the most of any other House member from the three families: $96,490 since 2018. Lee’s campaign received the second most: $75,000 since 2017.
The Democratic candidates who accepted donations from at least one of the three families include Kirsten Engel in Arizona; Adam Gray, Rudy Salas, George Whitesides, and Will Rollins in California; Lanon Baccam in Iowa; Tony Vargas in Nebraska; Lauren Gillen, Mondaire Jones, and Josh Riley in New York; Ashley Ehasz in Pennsylvania; and Michelle Vallejo in Texas.
American households gained net worth under Trump. Under Biden, adjusted for inflation, it’s gone negative.
Inflation isn’t a bug, it’s a feature. “In fact, the progressive political class does have a plan to deal with the national debt. Their plan is to perpetuate inflation and thereby to engineer a slow-motion stealth default on the debt that will enable them to continue to enjoy without disruption the political benefits that flow to them from their irresponsible debt-funded vote buying.”
A trove of new whistleblower documents provided to House GOP investigators reveal, among other things, that the CIA prevented federal investigators from pursuing Hollywood lawyer Kevin Morris as a witness in their investigation of Hunter Biden.
Morris, a Hollywood entertainment lawyer who has ‘long supported’ Hunter (and why?) has loaned the First Son more than $6.5 million, according to a January letter to the House oversight committee.
We’ve known about the CIA connection since March, when the Chairmen of the House Judiciary and Oversight Committees, Jim Jordan (R-OH) and James Comer (R-KY) said that a whistleblower has brought them information that ‘seems to corroborate our concerns’ that the CIA directly interfered with DOJ and IRS investigations of Hunter Biden.
According to a whistleblower, the CIA “intervened in the investigation of Hunter biden to prevent the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) from interviewing a witness,” the letter, addressed to CIA Director William Burns, reads.
Specifically, the Committees were concerned at how “the DOJ deviated from its standard processes to afford preferential treatment to Hunter Biden,” which they learned “after two brave whistleblowers testified to Congress” that the Justice Department had done just that.
According to Hunter Biden’s business associate, Devon Archer, he and Hunter Biden were equal owners of Rosemont Seneca Bohai, and that entity was used by both individuals. According to evidence provided by the IRS whistleblowers, Hunter Biden was the beneficial owner of the entity’s associated bank account, which was used to receive Hunter’s salary from Burisma and to receive foreign wires, such as funds allegedly transferred from a Kazakhstani individual through an entity that were then used to purchase a Porsche for Hunter Biden. Congressional investigators questioned Hunter Biden during his February 28th deposition regarding his connection to Rosemont Seneca Bohai, as well as bank accounts associated with the entity.
New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu dishes the truth on fellow governors. Andrew Cuomo? “Complete jackass. No one like him.” Gavin Newsom? “Just a prick.” (Hat tip: Stephen Green at Instapundit.)
“Bill Maher Scolds Pearl-Clutching Lefties Over Harrison Butker Tradwife Speech.” For feminists, evidently being a traditional wife and mother isn’t an allowable “choice.”
Hmmmm: “Lockheed Running Out Of Parking Space For F-35s Pentagon Refuses To Accept.” “Last summer, the DOD put a complete freeze on accepting the stealth fighters until Lockheed fixed huge hardware and software problems associated with ‘Technology Refresh-3′ (TR-3), a $1.8 billion package intended to expand the planes’ capabilities.”
Media Matters for America, the group that thinks American journalists just aren’t leftwing enough, just had a massive layoff, thanks in part to a defamation lawsuit from Elon Musk. Thanks, Elon! (Hat tip: Dwight.)
Red Lobster filed for bankruptcy and is closing 87 locations, none in Austin. Evidently an “Endless Shrimp” promotion was a big contributing factor, which suggests executive learned nothing from the losses they incurred in a similar endless crab promotion in 2003…
Could the infamous, uncompleted Jerry Lewis movie The Day the Clown Cried finally be screened this year? Maybe. Lewis gave the footage to the Library of Congress in 2014, specifying it couldn’t be seen for ten years, which puts it next month. But evidently there are a lot of editing required before that debacle could be seen in anything close to final form.
Speculation as to Trump’s 2024 is in full swing, and Sean Trende has an entry in the genre that’s half obvious and half “What are you smoking?”
10. Former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley.
No way in hell. There’s a palpable lack of enthusiasm for Haley among the GOP base, and her primary backers are a tiny cadre of bitter NeverTrumpers. Trump will win South Carolina going away, and the only people likely to back Trump who wouldn’t otherwise would be those Haley campaign staffers hired on for the big show.
9. Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders.
Maybe. A safe choice and part of a play to bring middle and upper class white women back into the GOP fold. But not much wow factor, and Arkansas is another state Trump will win running away.
8. Sen. J.D. Vance, Ohio.
Vance won his senate race, but he didn’t knock it out of the park. Trump won Ohio in 2020 so there’s no reason to think he won’t win it this time around. Don’t see it.
2. Former Hawai’i Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard.
A good bit more exciting than Haley, and maybe it would play well with young voters, but a pretty long shot. Would give Democrats a bit of the vapors, but Hawaii is too blue a state for this pick to make it competitive. Plus the last Veep nominee to be successfully elected from the House was John Nance Garner, and he was Speaker of the House (and a very powerful and effective one) and the runner-up to FDR in the 1932 Democratic race, not an obscure back-bencher from the other party with all of one losing Presidential run under her belt.
South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott.
Right now, this would be my odds-on favorite for Trump to select, and is probably the pick that has Democrats most worried. The Democratic Party is already losing black voters to Trump, and another 10% loss thanks to a Scott pick might put Pennsylvania and Michigan beyond the margin of fraud.
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott.
This would be a safe pick in the Pence mode, the base won’t object to him (the way they might over, say, Gabbard or Haley), but Texas is another state Trump wins going away.
4. Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds.
If you’re going to pick a white, female governor, Reynolds is a better pick than Haley, Kay Ivey is too old for a ticket balance pick, and Noem has managed to take herself out of the picture (🐕 🔫), but Reynolds is squishy on a wide range of culture war issues, and isn’t even as well-liked as Sanders. And Iowa is another state Trump won handily.
North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum.
Beloved by election wonks but unknown nationally, and another state Trump will win handily. Don’t see it.
2. Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin.
A credible pick who’s on the right side of the culture wars that would be popular with the base and put Virginia in play. But, by that standard, Lieutenant Governor Winsome Earle-Sears might be an even better pick, with additional appeal to blacks voters. She would be higher on my list than most of Trende’s picks.
1. Florida Sen. Marco Rubio.
The irrational enthusiasm for Rubio among certain segments of the punditry remind me of the similar irrational enthusiasm for Jeb!
This meme still cracks me up.
Rubio is an intellectual lightweight who did poorly in the 2016 Presidential race, would make the ticket constitutionally ineligible to receive Florida’s votes (something Trende unconvincingly tap dances around), and I see no signs that Rubio would draw Hispanics to the ticket in places like Nevada and Arizona, despite Trende’s assertions, which seem more like wishcasting than analysis.
Of Trende’s list, Scott, Youngkin, Sanders, and Abbott strike me as credible choices. I’d also add Earle-Sears, Alabama Senator Katie Britt (age/sex balancing the ticket), Rand Paul (libertarian/youth appeal), and former New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez (play for that state), all of which strike me as more likely picks than Rubio.
But Trump has a long history of doing the unexpected…
You may have heard something about a remake of Time Bandits and thought “that sounds like a bade idea.” An even worse idea? Making it without dwarves*.
“Yet another Hollywood reboot that seems to be kicking actors with dwarfism to the curb. So why does Hollywood hate people with dwarfism?”
“I mean, if you were a ginger person with dwarfism, then you’d really be fucked.”
“Time Bandits is getting a reboot, uh, continuation, reimagining, whatever on Apple TV+ and this is the cast.” Not a dwarf in sight.
“Actors with dwarfism who are like, hey, it’s hard enough to get roles right now, so why you keep replacing us with CGI creatures? Hugh Grant was an Oompa Loompa.”
“In their quest to not be offensive, they’re actually making sure that some people are not getting work.”
The same thing happened with Disney’s live-action Snow White before Disney did a 180.
No one (or at least no one rational) was offended when Terry Gilliam used actual dwarves in the original.
“Paradoxically fantasy films such as Time Bandits have often been the one genre in which filmmakers have liberated actors with dwarfism to be fully human.”
“Every character now has to be a black lesbian, because that’s this year’s flavor.”
The Willow reboot was such a massive failure they purged it from Disney+.
I’m far from a fanatic that actor X must share characteristic Y with the person they’re portraying, but when it comes to dwarves in films about dwarves, come on. Plus it’s cheaper, better and more convincing that CGI. Also, I’m pretty sure that every dwarf/midget/little person in Hollywood save Peter Dinklage needs the work more than Lisa Kudrow…
*I know my spellchecker wants me to spell it “dwarfs.” I’m going with Tolkien and D&D on this one.
After the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) proposed a new rule expanding federal firearm license (FFL) requirements, the Office of the Texas Attorney General and Gun Owners of America filed a joint lawsuit challenging the rule, and on Sunday secured a federal court order blocking the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) from enforcing the rule against certain plaintiffs.
The DOJ claimed the rule was to help implement the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (BSCA) authored by Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), but critics, including Cornyn, say the Biden administration violated the law and the Constitution in proposing the rule.
The rule has prompted Cornyn to file a resolution of disapproval in the U.S. Senate seeking to strike it down legislatively.
Under the rule, gun owners would be forced to obtain an FFL and perform background checks before selling firearms in a wide range of new circumstances, including if they rented a table at a local gun show.
However, the court order by Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk compares the language of the BSCA against the new rule, highlighting how FFL requirements evolved from the original statute contained in the Firearm Owners Protection Act (FOPA) of 1986 to the current statutory language in the BSCA, and finally compared that to the new rule.
The FOPA required those “engaged in the business” of dealing firearms to have an FFL. It defined such persons as one “who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms.”
The BSCA changed the “engaged in the business” definition, broadening it by eliminating the requirement that a person’s “principal objective” of purchasing and reselling firearms must include both “livelihood and profit,” by shortening the requirement to just someone who predominantly earns a profit, Kacsmaryk explained.
He also noted the BSCA did not alter an existing exemption for a person who “makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms.”
Kacsmaryk wrote the new rule likely violated statutory laws in several ways, beginning with the requirement that a person who sells a single firearm or discusses selling a firearm could be subjected to licensure requirements under the rule conflicts.
Another provision he said likely runs afoul of the BSCA is the prohibition of firearms obtained for personal protection from being counted among the guns a firearm owner may sell from their personal collection.
“Nothing in the foregoing text suggests that the term “personal collection” does not include firearms accumulated primarily for personal protection — yet that is exactly what the Final Rule asserts,” Kacsmaryk wrote, adding the DOJ’s defense of that provision is “untenable.”
“I am relieved that we were able to secure a restraining order that will prevent this illegal rule from taking effect,” Paxton said in a statement on the order. “The Biden Administration cannot unilaterally overturn Americans’ constitutional rights and nullify the Second Amendment.”
en. John Cornyn (R-Texas) took up two pieces of Second Amendment-related legislation last week, filing a resolution of disapproval aiming to shoot down a proposed rule by the Biden administration to require federal firearms licenses (FFL) for most private gun sales, and a separate bill seeking to relax taxes imposed on firearms regulated under the National Firearms Act (NFA).
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) proposed a rule that greatly expands the circumstances in which someone is required to hold an FFL in order to sell a firearm, and when someone must conduct a background check on a potential buyer.
In proposing the rule, the Department of Justice (DOJ) said its purpose was to finalize the implementation of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (BSCA), legislation authored by Cornyn that passed in 2022. However, Cornyn says the rule violates congressional intent.
The rule would greatly expand upon the circumstances in which someone is required to obtain an FFL, including if they rent a table at a gun show, make firearm purchases in an amount that exceeds their reportable income for a specific period of time, create records that track profits and losses from firearm sales, or any combination of a litany of details that could result in requiring a license.
According to Cornyn, the BSCA was motivated after the mass shooting at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde that killed 19 children and two teachers. He also provided the mass shooting in Odessa as an example of what the bill was intended to prevent.
Addressing media questions regarding the resolution, Cornyn pointed out that the Odessa gunman was known to suffer from mental illness. He obtained the rifle used in the city-wide shooting spree from a Lubbock man who was purchasing bulk rifle parts from the internet, which he would assemble into functional rifles and sell as part of a regular business.
The man who sold the AR-15-style rifle to the Odessa gunman, Marcus Braziel, was convicted of acting as an unlicensed firearm dealer and failing to conduct a background check that would have prevented the sale of the rifle.
“Those making a living or profit for a business motive was the focus of the law, not those casually buying or selling their personal guns,” Cornyn told reporters.
“This rule is proof that the Biden administration is a dishonest broker, and Congress must hold it accountable for its actions in favor of its gun-grabbing liberal base over the Constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans,” Cornyn added in a statement on the resolution.
The resolution currently has 45 co-sponsors in the Senate.
The NRA has some new officers, and there are a few surprises.
Bob Barr representing the Old Guard did win the Presidency. The vote was 37-30. Then the surprises began. Bill Bachenberg from the reform slate went head to head with Blaine Wade for 1st VP and won 36-31. Following that, reformer Mark Vaughan, president of the Oklahoma Rifle Association, beat Tom King 35-31. King really represented the Old Guard and his defeat was a sea change in attitude on the Board.
Second, and what I consider the biggest surprise, Doug Hamlin, Executive Director of Publications and the reformer’s choice for EVP, beat Ronnie Barrett for EVP/CEO. There is some talk that Hamlin is intended as an interim choice while a nationwide search is conducted.
The excessive power that Wayne LaPierre gathered to the Executive Vice President position is part of the problem with the office, and is what let LaPierre turn the NRA into his own personal fiefdom. A lot of that should be stripped away and returned to the board.
More NRA news: The move to Texas resolution failed. Short term, there’s no question that move to Texas was planned as a Hail Mary to extract LaPierre from the legal troubles his corruption had ensnared the NRA in, and in that it failed. Long term, it probably is in the best interest of the NRA to move to Texas, as the state is a lot more friendly to gun rights, both politically and culturally, than either New York or Virginia.
And speaking of NRA news, I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that Dwight covered his trip to the convention, so if you’re interested in that, head over there and just keep scrolling.
