YOU SAY "TEA PARTY MOMENT" AS IF THAT'S A BAD THING

In The New York Times, Lisa Lerer and Katie Glueck have a dark warning for Democrats:

Is the Democratic Party Facing Its Own Tea Party Moment?

A movement of young, progressive outsiders has stormed Democratic politics this year, sparking a wave of contentious primary contests across the country and fueling a fraught debate over whether these new, left-wing candidates are remaking the party in their image.

But as primary season winds to a close, the results reveal not only the strength but also the potential limitations of this insurgent movement.

In Minnesota last week, Peggy Flanagan, the lieutenant governor, won a Senate primary by a double-digit margin, pressing a fiercely progressive message to defeat a more moderate opponent. Just a week earlier, Dr. Abdul El-Sayed, a left-leaning Democrat, won a Senate primary in Michigan despite being vastly outspent. And Francesca Hong, a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, came close to winning a primary for governor in Wisconsin, falling short by less than one percentage point.

As I told you on Wednesday, the mainstream political world expected Hong to win her primary, which would have confirmed the preferred narrative of mainstream journalists: that radical barbarian outsiders are taking over the Democratic Party, and hurting the party as a result. When Hong lost, Flanagan -- who's not an outsider (she's been the state's lieutenant governor for nearly eight years and was in the state legislature for four years before that) -- was simply swapped in. A few paragraphs later, Lerer and Glueck write:

The next major tests for the left will come this fall in a smattering of battleground House districts, and as Dr. El-Sayed and Troy Jackson, a progressive former state senator in Maine, fight to win seats that Democrats need to capture control of the Senate.

Jackson is also not an outsider -- he served in the Maine House of Representatives for six years and in the Senate for fourteen years; he was the Senate president for six of those years. A party committee chose him to replace Graham Platner (an actual outsider) on the ballot. But the narrative is more important than the facts.

According to the narrative, progressive Democrats want to build a Tea Party of the left, but this will probably cause the party to lose winnable races, which means the movement is doomed. Lerer and Glueck write:

As left-wing candidates have notched victories in primary after primary, many progressives hope they will be able to move the Democratic Party further to the left — mirroring, in some ways, how the rise of the Tea Party movement nearly two decades ago pushed the Republican Party much further to the right. But the results raise questions about whether these candidates can piece together a broad enough coalition of Democrats, independents and moderates to win general elections in swing states that could determine whether Democrats are able to regain power in Congress and, eventually, the White House.

But Tea Party Republicans lost their share of winnable races, too. Here's a Politico story from October 2010:

Tea-party-backed outsider candidates became the superstars of the midterm elections, drawing national attention after big Republican Senate primary wins — and leading tea partiers to pour millions into those campaigns, seeking credibility. But on Nov. 2, the tea party itself could get a mixed return on those investments.

With about a week to go until Election Day, several candidates stamped with the tea party seal of approval are either locked in statistical ties with their Democratic opponents or sinking in the polls....

Examples included several Senate candidates -- Sharron Angle in Nevada, Ken Buck in Colorado, Rand Paul in Kentucky, Joe Miller in Alaska, Christine O'Donnell in Delaware.

Angle, Buck, and O'Donnell lost to Democrats. Miller lost to incumbent Lisa Murkowski, who won as a write-in canddiate after losing her party's primary. (This was before the days of ranked-choice elections in Alaska.) Rand Paul won, of course. Democrats held the Senate and maintained their hold in 2012.

But you can't call the Tea Party a failure because some of its candidates lost races the party could have won. On balance, the Tea Party made the GOP a lot stronger than it was after the 2008 Democratic blowout. Here were the numbers at the end of Barack Obama's final term in office:

... the Democratic Party has lost a net total of 13 Governorships and 816 state legislative seats since President Obama entered office, the most of any president since Dwight Eisenhower....

President Obama entered the White House with his party touting a 60 seat majority in the Senate and 257 seat majority in the House. Democrats now hold a 48 seat minority in the Senate and 194 seat minority in the House — a net loss of 12 and 64 seats respectively....

The midterm elections delivered significant blows to Congressional Democrats. In 2010, Democrats lost 6 seats in the Senate and 63 seats in the House, costing them the chamber. In 2014, Democrats lost another 13 seats in the House and a staggering 9 seats in the Senate; this time losing them the Senate and completing a Republican takeover of Congress.

So it's okay -- or at least it can be okay -- if an insurgent movement produces a few candidates who prove to be unelectable, as long as the infusion of energy makes the party more competitive overall.

(It helps not to attack your own candidates. Mainstream Republicans did a lot less of that establishment Democrats are doing now.)

Elsewhere in the Times, data guy Nate Cohn asks:

Could El-Sayed Cost Democrats Michigan?

Cohn begins his analysis with a factual error:

When the midterm election campaign began, Michigan seemed like a state that Democrats could take for granted in their pursuit of the Senate. Yes, it’s a presidential battleground state, but that makes it the kind of state that Democrats would ordinarily win easily in what seems like a strongly Democratic midterm cycle.

No, Michigan never "seemed like a state that Democrats could take for granted." It's a state Donald Trump had won twice. In 2020, the only year Trump lost the state, the incumbent Democratic senator, Gary Peters, won reelection by less than two points. The state's other Democratic senator, Elissa Slotkin, won the state by less than half a point in 2024.

And as of the end of January, two of the three top Democratic candidates for the Senate seat -- El-Sayed and Mallory McMorrow -- were trailing Republican Mike Rogers in the Real Clear Polling averages. Only Haley Stevens was leading Rogers, and that was by a margin of just 1.3 points.

Cohn continues:

It’s not a state Democrats can take for granted anymore. There are clear signs that the newly minted Democratic nominee, Dr. Abdul El-Sayed, could underperform a typical Democratic candidate’s vote share by enough to endanger the party’s chances.

According to Cohn, "ordinary" progressive Democrats like Senators Tammy Baldwin and Cory Booker "do only about a point worse than other Democrats," but candidates "of the activist progressive left" do noticeably worse. How does he define the latter group?

They might ally themselves with the democratic socialists, define themselves in terms of their support for activist causes like Gaza or the climate, run against the Democratic Party, engage in righteous fights with Republicans, post clap-backs on social media, or champion activist slogans like “Abolish ICE” and “Defund the Police.”

This is how far we've fallen: In a year of massive heat waves and wildfires, "climate" is deemed one of the "activist causes" that can get a candidate branded as a radical. Also radical: being a candidate who "engage[s] in righteous fights with Republicans." Fighting your opponent makes you an extremist outlier in the Democratic Party -- as does posting "clap-backs on social media." (Apparently, it's extremist to be better at online messaging than Chuck Schumer.)

I suspect that past support for defunding the police can be a drag on a candidate's popular support. Criticism of Israel? Maybe that too, if only because it worries some Jewish Democrats and leads other voters to believe you're one of those crazy radicals.

But I also have to wonder how Abdul El-Sayed would be doing in the polls if he were running the identical campaign under the name Al E. Sanders. Michigan might be no more ready for a Muslim senator than America was for a Catholic president when Al Smith got trounced in 1928. The national Republican Party is certainly running against Islam nationwide. But neither of these Times pieces mentions El-Sayed's religion as a reason why he might be underperforming other Democrats trying to win Senate races in purple states. The narrative -- radicalism bad! -- can't be challenged.

GIULIANI: YOU WHINY KIDS NEED TO BE SMACKED AROUND BY SOMEONE WITH STRONG VALUES, LIKE MY THUG FATHER

Yesterday, Media Matters posted this clip from the Wednesday edition of Rudy Giuliani's podcast:

Rudy Giuliani: Young people struggling economically are “privileged little shits” who need “somebody like my father to kick the shit out of them”



TED GOODMAN (PRODUCER): Look, some folks in this country of the younger generations are feeling the squeeze a little bit economically.

RUDY GIULIANI (HOST): Well who cares if they’re squeezing? Their grandparents felt the Depression and were pro-American.

GOODMAN: Yep, right.

GIULIANI: They don’t have anything like the Depression. They’re a bunch of privileged little shits.

GOODMAN: You’re right.

GIULIANI: What they really need is somebody like my father to kick the shit out of them.

Recalling the Great Depression, one Bluesky poster responded:

I think I heard something about some sort of deal that put people to work on, like, public works or something. I don't know. Maybe I dreamed it.

In the clip, Giuliani goes on to speculate about the parents of disgruntled young people: "A lot of the parents of these kids, they’re a bunch of ex-hippies, they were smoking their marijuana and these assholes are smoking even stronger marijuana."

He doesn't go into detail about his own father. I think I know why.

ABC News reported this in 2000:

... a new book now claims that Giuliani’s father served time for armed robbery and had ties to organized crime.

The book, Rudy: An Investigative Biography of Rudolph Giuliani, by Village Voice reporter Wayne Barrett, contains a string of claims about Gotham’s controversial mayor and his family.

According to Barrett, Harold Giuliani served a one-and-a-half year term in Sing Sing prison after robbing a milkman at gunpoint in 1934, a decade before his son, the mayor-to-be, was born.

Rudy also alleges that Harold Giuliani served as the “muscle” for a loan-sharking outfit....

More, from The Washington Post:

It seems that the mayor's dad, Harold Giuliani, was a 5-foot-11, big-knuckled man who wore Coke-bottle glasses and made a living as "muscle." Which, in Brooklyn at that time, meant working as a debt collector for a loan-sharking operation. He swung a mean baseball bat and was a most skilled craftsman.

According to the book, Harold Giuliani "shoved people against walls, broke legs, smashed kneecaps, crunched noses. He gave nearby Kings County Hospital a lot of business. 'People in the neighborhood were terrified of him,' said a frequent customer at Vincents," the Giuliani bar.

Giuliani's father enjoyed signing his love letters to his future wife "Your Savage."

The New Yorker added:

During his mayoralty, Giuliani often invoked his father. He liked to say that he had adapted his principles for running the city from the formula his father used for running the family: it is better to be respected than loved. When, in April, the Mayor was diagnosed with prostate cancer, the same disease that killed Harold Giuliani, in 1981, he said, “I miss my father every day of my life. And he’s a very, very important reason for why I am standing here as the mayor of New York City”

It is unclear whether the Mayor himself was aware of his father’s robbery conviction. He was not born until ten years after the crime, but he grew up among many people who must have known about it, including his mother, née Helen D’Avanzo, who had been dating Harold for several years at the time of the robbery....

Harold Giuliani tried to go legit.

He took a job as a groundskeeper at a Long Island high school but lost it because of absenteeism and drifted back to his post at the bar. His travails included ulcers, heart trouble, and some sort of nervous breakdown. All in all, he comes across in Barrett’s account as an irascible and pathetic figure, who, one presumes, would have been at least as hard for a son to respect as to love.

For instance:

Rather than risk having to serve in the Second World War, Harold Giuliani appears to have tipped off the local draft board to his own arrest record.

This is Rudy Giuliani's main role model. This is the kind of father he thinks today's young people needed.

IS TRUMP NOSTALGIC FOR EVERYTHING ABOUT HIS YOUTH, EVEN THE CRIME?

The federal government will spends billions of tax dollars on President Trump's orders so the U.S. Navy can live in the past:

President Trump has directed the Navy to tear out a complex system for launching jet fighters from its aircraft carriers and instead go back to using steam catapults, a move Navy officials have fought for years and will likely cost billions of dollars.

U.S. officials say Trump signed a national security memorandum Thursday directing the change, which would involve removing the electromagnetic catapult system used by the ships in the Gerald R. Ford class of carriers.

One of fascism's most effective tactics is making the populace nostalgic for a lost nation that never really existed, or at least wasn't the utopia it's portrayed as. Trump is good at invoking this kind of nostalgia, but in moments like this it becomes clear that he doesn't just express yearnings for real or imagined aspects of the past that matter to (some) Americans -- bygone race and gender relations, economics, and so on. Trump seems to express nostalgia for everything from the past, even things most Americans don't care about (or would actually prefer to be modern).

The story of the catapults goes like this:

Nearly a decade ago, he claims he spoke to a sailor who had positive things to say about steam catapults, and soon after, he told Time magazine that he directed the Navy to re-embrace “goddamn steam.”

From the transcript of that 2017 interview:

You know the catapult is quite important. So I said what is this? Sir, this is our digital catapult system. He said well, we’re going to this because we wanted to keep up with modern [technology]. I said you don’t use steam anymore for catapult? No sir. I said, “Ah, how is it working?” “Sir, not good. Not good. Doesn’t have the power. You know the steam is just brutal. You see that sucker going and steam’s going all over the place, there’s planes thrown in the air.”

It sounded bad to me. Digital. They have digital. What is digital? And it’s very complicated, you have to be Albert Einstein to figure it out. And I said–and now they want to buy more aircraft carriers. I said what system are you going to be–”Sir, we’re staying with digital.” I said no you’re not. You going to goddamned steam, the digital costs hundreds of millions of dollars more money and it’s no good.

Trump is very stupid, so he liked the idea that the current catapults are needlessly complex: I'm not a moron. I'm smart! This technology is too damn complex! But the newer technology is actually better, in many ways:

Replacing the electromagnetic catapults with steam will be a complex endeavor that will likely cost billions of dollars, according to Bryan Clark, a naval expert with the Hudson Institute, a Washington think tank....

“Electric is more reliable,” Clark said. “If I can turn these components to be electric instead of steam, it eliminates all the steam related mechanical parts.”

The maintenance on the electrical systems is cheaper, he added. There are 500 fewer sailors on the Ford, in part because fewer technicians are needed to work on the ship’s existing steam equipment.

Do even the Trump followers who take the phrase "Make America great again" very literally want our military to go backwards technologically? I doubt it. But Trump is compulsively nostalgic.

All his favorite songs are decades old. He keeps trying to memify the notion that America is now "the hottest country," a phrase that sounds like sloganeering from the Mad Men era.

And I believe he's even nolstalgic for some problematic things about the past, or at least for the self-righteous backlash to those problems. I think when Trump talks about cities today, he's not talking about any currently existing cities -- he's talking about the cities of his youth, and he's describing them the way critics described them then.

You may have seen this clip earlier this month:

Trump: "Look at the blue cities. What do they have in common? They're all dirty. They're filthy dirty. Their streets are dirty. Their streets smell. Their storefronts are broken. Their trees are all gross. Everything about the place is dirty. It's really all of them."

[image or embed]

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) August 3, 2026 at 2:28 PM

Trump had been asked about the war in Iran. He wandered off the subject and said:

I said it the other day that maybe doesn't sound that important, but when a country goes bad, like, look at the blue cities. What do they have in common, aside from massive crime? Much more crime. The Republicans have very little crime. But what do the blue cities have in mind? And also, you can say this with nations, when they go bad. The blue cities have something in common -- crime, high crime, vicious, violent crime -- but what do they have in common? They're all dirty. They're filthy dirty. Their streets are dirty. Their streets smell. Their storefronts are broken. Their trees are all gross. Everything about the place is dirty. And I don't want to mention any specific city. It's really all of them. But you go into these cities that are blue, they're crime-ridden and they're filthy, dirty. They're like Washington, D.C., was a year and a half ago, with graffiti all over the place, with crime all over the place, with people afraid to be here.

(I added the end of that final sentence from this transcript.)

How would Trump know this? As far as I know, Trump hasn't walked a block in any American city this century. He's a guy who goes from the building lobby to the limo to the building lobby. His windows are always tinted. He's not describing anything he's seen with his own eyes. He's describing cities the way they were portrayed on the news in 1973 and 1982, and the way they were portrayed in twentieth-century movies like Dirty Harry and Death Wish.

And look at the way he described the city of Washington a year ago, when he announced the deployment of National Guard troops there:

In declaring a “crime emergency” in Washington, Trump wrongly claimed at an Aug. 11 press conference, “Murders in 2023 reached the highest rate probably ever. They say 25 years, but they don’t know what that means because it just goes back 25 years.”

... The city’s murder rate did increase in 2023 to the highest rate in 20 years, but it wasn’t the highest ever.

Nope:

And murders have decreased since.

Statistics released by the Metropolitan Police Department on the same day as Trump’s remarks showed the number of homicides had decreased by 32% from 2023 to 2024 and by 12% so far from 2024 to 2025. In addition, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia reported in January that violent crime overall for 2024 was down 35% from the previous year and was “the lowest it has been in over 30 years.”

As the one-year anniversary of Trump's deployment approached earlier this month, Trump said of D.C., “This was the crime capital, frankly, of the world.”

That was D.C.'s reputation decades ago. Crime has dropped since then. But Trump doesn't know that. He's tapping into memories of the D.C. he saw on TV back in the late twentieth century.

A year ago, he said, "We're getting rid of the slums, too" -- evoking a bygone era when one of the goals of "urban renewal" was "slum clearance."

Trump has a first-hand familiarity with the places he's lived in and the places he's played golf -- the White House, Mar-a-Lago, Bedminster, Trump Tower. Everything else he knows mostly from television -- old television. He lives in the past.

THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE FUCK-YOU MONEY NEVER TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT

U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro recently dropped the felony case against David Hearn, the ex-Olympian falsely accused of vandalizing the Reflecting Pool in Washington. President Trump threw a fit in response to Pirro's decision, and now Pirro is trying to save her job. Maybe this will work:

U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro has convened a special grand jury in Washington, D.C., amid a clash with President Donald Trump....

A special grand jury is a rare legal body that can release a potentially critical report about the subject of an investigation if there is a “preponderance of evidence” of wrongdoing, regardless of whether there is enough evidence to bring the person to trial....

It is not yet known what the special grand jury will be investigating....

The legal body generally runs for 18 months but can finish its work sooner or be extended in six-month increments by a judge, as long as it does not exceed 36 months.

My question is: Why bother? Why not just leave with some dignity? Pirro isn't super-rich, but she's comfortable. She has a net worth of $11.6 million, according to her federal financial disclosure forms. And while she probably won't get her old Fox job back if she's on the outs with Trump, there might be a place for her in the world of podcasting. Ask Megyn Kelly.

Or why not retire? Pirro is 75 years old.

But the world is run by people who aren't merely ambitious -- they can't seem to turn off their ambition. They succeed at a level 99% of us will never attain and they still can't stop. And because you have to please people more powerful than yourself even when you're near the top, and because most of those people are colossal assholes, that means the people near the top still need to abase themselves, out of their compulsive desire to remain near the top.

Which leads to what I call the Fuck-You Money Paradox. Ordinary people, when they imagine being rich, think wealth would give them the clout to say "Fuck you" to anyone who wanted them to do something they didn't want to do. But, paradoxically, the people who are ambitious enough to attain elite status manage to do it because they're addicted to pursuing and attaining elite status -- and because they're addicted, they'll never do anything to put that status at risk. So people at or near the top are precisely the ones who'll never say "Fuck you" to anyone who might put even a tiny amount of their money or status at risk. In other words, the people who obtain "Fuck you" money or status would never use it as "Fuck you" money or status.

Which is why the people who've put up the most resistance to Trump are ordinary citizens like the people of Minneapolis, while elites -- the people who run the top law firms, universities, and corporations -- continue to prostrate themselves before Trump.

You know, like Jeff Bezos, who continues to lick Trump's boots:

Amazon Prime can’t get enough of Melania Trump.

Months after Amazon MGM Studios released the documentary film Melania, her senior adviser Marc Beckman announced Tuesday that the first lady will be the subject of a new Amazon Prime docuseries slated to be released on the platform later this year.

The original movie

earned just over $16 million globally, making it a financial loss for the studio after its hefty cost — $40 million for the documentary, with the marketing alone costing an estimated $35 million — sparked speculation that Amazon had made the investment to get close to Donald Trump.

I understand that Amazon has a lot of government contracts on the line, and this is clearly keeping Bezos in Trump's favor. But is there no point at which you say to yourself, I'm the third-richest man in the world, I'm worth a quarter of a trillion dollars, and I'd like to retain a bit of my dignity?

Ordinary people with ICE firearms pointed at their faces are displying backbone:

This is absolutely WILD. Here's the dashboard video posted by @fritschner.bsky.social. Fast forward to about 1 minute. An ICE officer jumps out of a van and pulls a gun on this woman immediately before lying and claiming she "almost ran us over." *profanity warning if watching in public.

[image or embed]

— Aaron Reichlin-Melnick (@reichlinmelnick.bsky.social) August 11, 2026 at 5:29 PM

Bezos? Pirro? No backbone. They're too addicted to their money and status. They'll never have enough, even when they have all they'll ever need. It's people who are at genuine risk who have the courage to say "Fuck you."

THE TIMES WON'T ABANDON ITS PREFERRED NARRATIVE ABOUT DEMOCRATS JUST BECAUSE THE FACTS CONTRADICT IT

Francesca Hong was expected to win the Democratic primary for governor of Wisconsin yesterday. That anticipated victory, along with last week's win by Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan's Democratic Senate primary and other recent triumphs by left-leaning Democrats, was giving mainstream journalists a story they liked: The Democratic Party is being taken over by radicals who are very, very scary.

You'd imagine that Hong's loss to David Crowley, a moderate, would force the media to write a different story. But The New York Times simply swapped in a different Democrat for Hong and kept peddling the agreed-upon narrative:

David Crowley, the moderate Milwaukee County executive, won an upset victory for the Democratic nomination for governor in Wisconsin early Wednesday, prevailing over Francesca Hong, a democratic socialist who had led in opinion polls but faced questions about whether she could win the swing state in the general election....

But another Midwest progressive, Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan of neighboring Minnesota, won the high-profile Democratic Senate primary there....

In Wisconsin, Mr. Crowley, who had the endorsement of Gov. Tony Evers, scored a surprising win over Ms. Hong, a chef and state lawmaker who energized left-wing voters. But her candidacy worried moderate Democrats: Ms. Hong had come under fire for writing on social media in 2020 that Thanksgiving should be canceled, though she recently walked back the statement. She also supported abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement and increasing taxes on people who make more than $750,000 per year.

Ms. Flanagan’s nomination in Minnesota, however, was a victory for the party’s left wing heading into the midterms.

See what the Times did there? It conflated Hong's attack on Thanksgiving -- which I'm sure would have been offputting to at least some swing voters in the general election, even though it's not a real issue voters are concerned about -- with ICE abolition and taxing the rich, which are mainstream ideas.

Hong's $750,000 floor for tax increases isn't extreme -- as a Pew survey noted last year,

About six-in-ten (58%) say tax rates on household income over $400,000 should be raised, including 23% who say these tax rates should be raised a lot. Much smaller shares say taxes on higher-income households should be lowered (19%) or kept the same (21%).

As for ICE, here's a YouGov survey from March:

Support for abolishing ICE has hit a new high in this week's Economist / YouGov poll. Half (50%) of Americans now somewhat or strongly support abolishing ICE. Only 39% oppose abolishing the agency.

Flanagan also supports abolishing ICE -- understandably, given what ICE has done in her state. I don't think this is perceived as a radical, beyond-the-pale idea by most Minnesota voters.

Hong previously supported police abolition:

“I support defunding the police as a first step towards abolishing the police,” Hong said in a 2020 social media post after the police shooting of Jacob Blake, a Black man in Kenosha, Wisconsin. A year later, while serving in the State Assembly, Hong again posted about Blake, writing: “Police exist to uphold white supremacy. Defund then abolish. Reform can’t be an option.”

Flanagan never did, even when the city of Minneapolis put it to a referendum vote in 2021. (The measure failed.) And even though Flanagan is Native American, she doesn't want Thanksgiving canceled:



Swing Democrats in Wisconsin seemed to be focusing on electability: Hong has been trailing Republican Tom Tiffany in general-election polls, though not by much, while Crowley has a slight lead over Tiffany. (I should note that it's hard to take the polls seriously when they predicted a double-digit primary win for Hong.) In Minnesota, by contrast, Flanagan seems quite electable: a recent survey by her moderate opponent, Angie Craig, showed either of them winning a general-election matchup by 7.

Flanagan is both progressive and mainstream. She's the lieutenant governor. She's not like Hong (or Zohran Mamdani) -- a DSA-affiliated state legislator who entered the race with little name recognition outside her district. But you can expect the Times and the rest of the mainstream media to add her name to the list of outsiders trying to overthrow the party mainstream, simply because she ran against a Schumer- and AIPAC-backed moderate. It's too tempting a narrative to give up.

PAY NO ATTENTION TO ALL THE FREAKS IN THE GOP, THE PARTY OF NORMAL PEOPLE!

Today's Michelle Goldberg column is about a proud Republican asshole named Brandon Herrera, who's running for a House seat with the support of prayerful invertebrate Mike Johnson:

Because this is a family newspaper, I cannot quote the piquant term that Brandon Herrera, a Republican House candidate in Texas, used to refer to children in a 2023 video. I can only report that he called them “trophies” for getting a man to ejaculate. Nor, alas, am I allowed to repeat the obscenities that Herrera, a gun influencer, used to explain why the opinions of mothers are without value. I can only say that he argued, essentially, that getting pregnant requires no special skill.

This is not a family blog, so I'll provide that Herrera quote, though you may want to take a shower afterward:

GOP candidate Brandon Herrera on moms advocating politically:

“Just because you let somebody creampie you doesn’t mean I have to give a shit about your political opinions.

The fact that you kept your cum trophy doesn’t make you any less wrong about the dumb shit they you say.” pic.twitter.com/NmnnXT5jnp

— PatriotTakes 🇺🇸 (@patriottakes) July 17, 2026

Jesus, apparently, doesn't have a problem with this.

Joint House Republican leadership endorsement statement with @SteveScaliseGOP, @tomemmer, and @LisaForCongress:

Brandon Herrera has our joint ENDORSEMENT because he is an America First grassroots leader who will help us to continue securing the border, lowering costs, defending… pic.twitter.com/tcawmC1A4c

— Mike Johnson (@MikeJohnson) March 19, 2026

Goldberg continues:

I can, however, tell you about the Nazi and eugenics stuff. In a 2022 video, Herrera and a buddy in sunglasses and a balaclava tested a Nazi-era submachine gun, then goose-stepped to a Nazi marching song. Herrera called the weapon “the original ghetto blaster.” In a 2024 podcast, after calling for abolishing Social Security, he joked that we should also “abolish old people,” laughing along as his co-hosts riffed about killing them off as in the cult horror film “Midsommar.”

Herrera was the less offensive of the two major candidates in his primary.

Herrera became the Republican nominee in his South Texas district in March after the sitting congressman, Tony Gonzales, withdrew due to a sexual harassment scandal.

Gonzales reportedly had an affair with a married staffer who then committed suicide by setting herself on fire. But remember, the Republican Party is the party of traditional moral values.

I give Michelle Goldberg a lot of credit. She regularly writes about sick freaks in the Republican Party. Two years ago, she wrote about Royce White, the Alex Jones-loving misogynist (“Women have become too mouthy”) who ran unsuccessfully for Amy Klobuchar's Senate seat. (Goldberg was on to him long before his current campaign, which has been accompanied by a cheap stunt -- White is claiming he's a woman so he can participate in the WNBA draft -- and a judge has issued a fifty-year no-contact order preventing him from interacting with his ex-wife and one of his children, whom he's said to have abused). Goldberg has written about Micah Beckwith, the Christian nationalist book-banner who's now Indiana's lietenant governor, and Victor Marx, the self-styled exorcist who, if we're to believe him, killed someone when he was seven years years old.

But even the most engaged resistlib Trump haters have probably never heard of these people, or, as Goldberg says in the current column, this guy:

I regularly speak to people who follow politics closely but haven’t heard of Cory Mills, a Republican representative running for re-election in Florida. One ex-girlfriend of Mills won a restraining order against him after saying he threatened her with revenge porn. Another, whom he was seeing at the same time, told the police he’d assaulted her, though she later recanted. (He denies both charges.) Mills is under investigation by the House Ethics Committee over allegations of both sexual misconduct and campaign finance violations. Yet it barely made a stir when Trump endorsed him in the Republican primary, which takes place next week; polls show him ahead in the four-way contest.

She notes that the alleged abuse by Ohio congressman Max Miller "finally breached what we might call the bad-even-for-Republicans line," but he's the exception, not the rule.

I'm glad Goldberg regularly draws attention to these GOP lowlifes. But I don't fully agree with her on the reason they generally get so little attention:

That Herrera has flown somewhat under the radar is a testament to a fundamental asymmetry between the parties, as well as in our discourse about them. Thanks to Trump, misogyny and extremism among Republicans has become what journalists sometimes call a dog-bites-man story, something so ordinary and predictable that it breaks through only when it reaches an absurdly high threshold.

Is it really just Trump? He lowered the bar, but outside of leftist/liberal spaces, the master narrative surrounding the GOP defines it as the party of Real Americans, regular folks with traditional values and ideas, while the Democratic Party is said to be full of weirdos with bizarre ideas and lifestyles. The latter characterization has persisted even though the party's most prominent figures, at least until recently, have been moderate dullards -- Chuck Schumer, Hakeem Jeffries.

Republicans can generate a national panic about "communist" Democrats because for years they've been characterizing even the most moderate Democrats as socialists and commies. Right now, they're just taking advantage of a well-established narrative. Outside of left/liberal spaces, there hasn't been a master "Republicans are extreme, nasty weirdos" narrative -- Tim Walz tried to get one going in the 2024 presidential campaign, but he was asked to stop calling Republicans "weird" and, sadly, he complied.

I blame the mainstream media for not writing a thousand trend pieces about Republican pathology. And Democrats are still unwilling to condemn the Republican Party categorically, even when there's so much to work with (and even when it's obvious that categorically condemning the Democrats has been a highly effective strategy in much of Middle America, sustaining the GOP's political dominance even though the party has nothing to offer ordinary Americans on real issues).

Democrats' message should be: This is who Republicans are. They abuse with impunity. Their ideas are extreme. They're the party that's out of touch with normal American values. But I'm not holding my breath waiting for that narrative to take hold.

TUCKER CARLSON'S NEW PARTY LOOKS LIKE A COLLECTION OF ANTI-SEMITIC D-LISTERS

People are taking Tucker Carlson's talk about a new political party very, very seriously. MS NOW's Zeeshan Aleem writes:

Right-wing pundit Tucker Carlson announced in June that he was leaving the Republican Party because he was incensed at President Donald Trump for launching a war against Iran. Surprisingly, what began as a theatrical (and possibly temporary) exit from the GOP has led to a more adversarial and organized opposition. The former Fox News personality appears to be trying to help launch — or encourage the launch of — a right-wing third party. If it comes to fruition, that could be a terrible thorn in the side of Republicans.

This is published under the headline

How Tucker Carlson is creating a lane for a third party to take on the GOP

Signs that the right-wing pundit and his allies want to launch an antiwar third party are mounting.

In addition to portraying the possible new party as "antiwar," the story tells us this:

In an interview with the Columbia Journalism Review published in July, Carlson said he was “going to help build a third party” as part of his “good-faith effort to figure out what benefits the country.” In his explanation he leaned into the same isolationism he cited when he said he was leaving the GOP.

“Your life expectancy has gone down, and the promise of your children’s lives is likely gone. No one seems to care,” he said to CJR. “It’s not even a factor. ‘What about Hamas?’ I officially don’t care about Hamas. The US government should have, as its first priority, the welfare of its own people.”

The Hamas line hints at what's really going on here. This isn't about isolationism in the abstract, or an "America First" focus on domestic needs. It's about Israel. The principals appear to be not only Israel skeptics but anti-Semites.

Here's a list of the people Carlson has assembled in pursuit of a new party:

Carlson recently hosted some allies on his Maine compound: former Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene; former National Counterterrorism Center Director Joe Kent; and Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., who made an issue of the Trump administration’s mishandling of the Jeffrey Epstein files and, in May, lost his primary to a Trump-backed challenger.

Greene you know about, or you certainly know about her past speculations on a California wildfire:

... Greene is a proponent of the Camp Fire laser beam conspiracy theory. She wrote a November 17, 2018, Facebook post -- which is no longer available online -- in which she said that ... “oddly there are all these people who have said they saw what looked like lasers or blue beams of light causing the fires.” She also speculated that a vice chairman at “Rothschild Inc, international investment banking firm” was somehow involved, and suggested the fire was caused by a beam from “space solar generators.”

Greene also "shared a video in 2018 repeating the antisemitic claim that 'Zionist supremacists' are conspiring to flood Europe with migrants in order to replace the white populations there."

When Kent resigned as head of the National Counterterrorism Center in protest of Donald Trump's Iran war, he blamed not just this war but George W. Bush's Iraq War on Israel -- as if dumbass Republican presidents and their subordinates didn't make these catastrophic foreign policy miscalculations all on their own. Kent wrote, "it is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby," telling Trump,

This echo chamber was used to deceive you into believing that Iran posed an imminent threat to the United States, and that you should strike now, there was a clear path to victory. That was a lie and the same tactic that the Israelis used to draw us into the disastrous Iraq war that cost our nation the lives of thousands of men and women.

(I know that Benjamin Netanyahu lobbied Trump in order to get him to start the war, but he's lobbied previous presidents, and Trump was the only one stupid enough to take the idea seriously. Bibi was pushing on an open door.)

Massie is a longtime opponent of U.S. military aid to Israel, which would seem like a principled stand if other actions of his didn't suggest a strain of anti-Semitism. His was the only no vote on a 2022 House resolution condemning anti-Semitism -- a resolution on which Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib voted yes. He's said that he's the only Republican in Congress who doesn't have an "AIPAC babysitter."

"When they come to DC, you have to go to lunch with them, and they've got your cell number and you have conversations with them," he said....

When he lost his primary earlier this year, he told the crowd at his concession speech that he'd had trouble contacting his AIPAC-backed opponent to congratulate him: "I would have come out sooner, but I had to call my opponent and concede and it took a while to find Ed Gallrein in Tel Aviv."

And Carlson, of course, has interviewed not only Nick Fuentes but Darryl Cooper, who used Carlson's podcast to argue that "the United States was on the ‘wrong side’ in the Second World War, and falsely [claim] that millions of Jews in concentration camps 'ended up dead' only because the Nazis did not have the resources to care for them," as Congressman Jamie Raskin noted.

I don't know what Carlson's plan is, but I wonder if there's really a place for a paleoconservative third party, especially one spearheaded by four losers -- three Republicans who've been driven out of D.C. politics and a podcast host who lost his major-media gig a few years ago. It's obvious that a right-leaning third party could dilute the right-wing vote and help Democrats, just as left-leaning third parties helped Republicans in the 2000 and 2016 presidential races. I assume Carlson knows that, and I wonder if he's hoping to shake down the GOP by threatening a divisive presidential campaign (though he says he won't personally run) and agreeing to back off in return for money.

Or maybe he sincerely thinks the GOP will coalesce around a pro-Israel candidate (Marco Rubio?) in 2028, and he wants to provide an alternative. (I think the party will coalesce around J.D. Vance, who's anti-Semitism-curious, and who used to employ Carlson's son Buckley as a deputy press secretary before Buckley resigned to join the private sector. Last year, Vance defended Buckley Carlson against accusations of anti-Semitism, calling the accusers "scumbags.")

My guess: Carlson's party will be vaporware -- it won't run candidates, and it may never exist in any form. But he got people's attention for a news cycle or two.