Labor True Believers, Political Analysis and Satire

Labor True Believers, Political Analysis and Satire A Page for Labor supporters who believe in the Labor Party and are dedicated to supporting its Leader Anthony Albanese.

07/08/2026

đđšđ­đąđšđ§đšđ„ đ‡đžđ«đšđ„đ đ‘đžđ§đžđ°đšđ›đ„đž đ”đ©đđšđ­đž
By Joshua S Hill for Renew Economy

The second stage of the Supernode battery energy storage system (BESS), has commenced operations this week, bringing the total nameplate capacity to 520 megawatts (MW) and 1,858 megawatt-hours (MWh), making it the biggest in the main grid at the moment.

The Supernode project is being developed by global investment giant Quinbrook and actually refers to two separate projects – the Supernode BESS which will eventually boast 760 MW/3096 MWh of storage, as well as the adjacent Supernode Data Centre (Supernode DC).

Read more:- https://reneweconomy.com.au/second-stage-of-supernode-battery-begins-operations-making-it-the-biggest-in-australias-main-grid/

07/08/2026

Abdul El-Sayed’s Michigan win is a blow to AIPAC

(Ali Harb)

Abdul El-Sayed’s victory in Michigan’s Democratic Senate primary marks a major defeat for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and pro-Israel spending, and could signal a wider shift in Democratic politics over Gaza.

Abdul El-Sayed, a progressive public health advocate, has won the Democratic nomination for the United States Senate, overcoming more than $60m in campaign spending, mostly from pro-Israel groups.

The Associated Press News Agency and other major outlets called the narrow race for El-Sayed on Wednesday, more than 12 hours after the polls closed. With nearly all the votes counted, El-Sayed had a one per cent lead.

The result of the vote, which took place on Tuesday, represents an enormous blow to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which led the way in the effort to defeat El-Sayed, backing his opponent, US Congresswoman Haley Stevens, with more than $30m.

El-Sayed will face former Republican Congressman Mike Rogers in November. The race is considered one of a handful of competitive Senate contests in the November midterms and could determine which party controls the chamber for the rest of President Donald Trump’s term.

If El-Sayed – who is of Egyptian descent – wins in November, he would become the first Muslim senator in US history.

Tuesday’s result in Michigan – a swing state that voted for Trump in 2024 – will have major implications for the Democrats’ policies on conflicts in the Middle East.

El-Sayed recognises Israel’s atrocities in Gaza as a genocide and argues that money spent on conflicts that benefit Israel should be invested in local communities in the US to address healthcare, housing and infrastructure problems.

Maya Berry, executive director of the Arab American Institute, a non-partisan advocacy group that does not endorse candidates, called El-Sayed’s victory a “big deal”.

She said voters “did not buy” the avalanche of ads that did not talk about policies and only launched negative attacks “about an Arab American Muslim man named Abdul”.

“I am thrilled for the rest of the country to learn that Michigan is not going to take it,” Berry told Al Jazeera.

Stevens endorses El-Sayed

Stevens and her allies tried to paint El-Sayed as sexist – a push that Arab American advocates say tried to play up tropes about Arab men.

The congresswoman is a staunch supporter of Israel, and AIPAC backed her heavily in 2022 to defeat Andy Levin, a progressive Jewish legislator.

The Michigan election result on Tuesday is the latest election defeat to pro-Israel Democrats as the party’s base – and US public opinion generally – turns against the Middle East ally.

Polls had suggested that El-Sayed was set for a comfortable win, but Stevens outperformed expectations across the state and had a strong showing in Detroit, Michigan’s largest city.

As the night went on, Stevens kept closing in on a lead that El-Sayed had built in from early returns. The race remained too close to call for hours after the polls closed.

“Michigan
 We won,” El-Sayed wrote in a social media post on Wednesday after hours of uncertainty about the fate of the race. “I am so proud to be your Democratic nominee for US Senate. Let’s win in November.”

Stevens endorsed El-Sayed almost immediately after the race was called by AP. “I want to congratulate Abdul El-Sayed on winning the Democratic nomination for US Senate,” she said in a statement. “He is a doctor, a community health official, a Rhodes Scholar, and a dedicated Michigander. I am proud to offer my support as he takes on Mike Rogers in the general election.”

On Tuesday night, NBC News was the first major network to project El-Sayed as the winner.

As soon as that announcement was made, Mallory McMorrow – a state legislator who was in the US Senate race but dropped out weeks before the elections – endorsed El-Sayed.

Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer and Senator Gary Peters, who had backed Stevens in the primary, also voiced support for El-Sayed against Rogers on Wednesday.

‘Mike 
 we are coming for you’

El-Sayed will now look to unite the Democratic base after a bitter primary where Israel and AIPAC’s spending took centre stage.

Even before his victory was assured, El-Sayed called on his supporters to “begin to mend fences” within the Democratic Party.

“I’m going to ask all of us as we think about where we go from here, always magnanimity in victory,” he said.

“So if your instinct is to be like ‘I told you,’ no. Let’s come together to build a movement that’s even bigger, that’s even stronger, that’s even more powerful, that reaches into the very depths of this state, that reminds us the best of who we are and who we can be.”

The Democratic candidate went on to warn that the primary contest “pales in comparison to the cynicism” that Rogers and Trump will unleash in the general elections.

El-Sayed vowed to go on the attack against Roger, painting the Republican candidate as beholden to Trump and corporate interests.

“Mike – and I know you’re listening, Mike – we are coming for you,” he said.

Trump said El-Sayed’s victory was “great news” for Republicans.

“El-Sayed, a Communist loser who hates Jews and Israel, is the projected winner in his race with the Socialist,” the US president wrote in a social media post.

“As usual, the Polls were way off on this one. She was not expected to do nearly as well as she did. Now, the Dumocrats crazy policies will only get worse!”



Republished from Al Jazeera

The views expressed in this article may or may not reflect those of Pearls and Irritations.

Note - Ali Harb is based in Washington, DC, and writes news, features and analysis with a particular focus on US foreign policy, US politics and Middle Eastern politics.

07/08/2026

Fuel Security Comes First – The Opposition Should Stop Talking Australia Down

Australia's June quarter trade surplus may have fallen to its lowest level in almost a decade, but context matters. Looking at a single number without understanding what drove it tells only half the story.

The decline was not the result of an economy in collapse or a failure of trade policy. It was largely driven by one unavoidable reality: Australia had to secure fuel supplies during a period of extreme instability in the Middle East caused by the US’s attack on Iran.

When global oil markets were disrupted by this conflict, the Albanese Government moved quickly to secure fuel cargoes from Australia's trading partners. That inevitably increased imports, narrowing the quarterly trade surplus. But what was the alternative?

Should Australia have risked fuel shortages and the flow-on affects Australians would have to endure simply to preserve a healthier-looking trade statistic?

The answer is obvious.

Australia is no longer the oil-producing nation it once was. Domestic crude oil production has been declining for decades as mature offshore fields become depleted. At the same time, Australia has seen the closure of most of its domestic oil refineries, leaving only a handful operating. As a result, Australia now relies heavily on imported crude oil and refined petroleum products to keep the nation moving.

Fuel is not a luxury. It powers freight transport, agriculture, mining, aviation, emergency services and defence. It enables Australians to go towork. Every supermarket shelf, hospital and construction site depends on reliable fuel supplies. In times of international uncertainty, ensuring those supplies remain available is not optional—it is a fundamental responsibility of government.

Criticism from the Liberal Party that the decline in the quarterly trade surplus could eventually affect Australia's overall trade balance misses this broader reality. Running a temporary reduction in the surplus to guarantee national fuel security is a rational economic and strategic decision. The cost of failing to secure adequate fuel supplies would have been far greater than any statistical deterioration in one quarter's trade figures.

Ironically, there was encouraging news elsewhere in the trade data. Electric vehicle imports surged during the quarter as higher petrol prices encouraged Australians to consider alternatives. Battery electric vehicle sales more than doubled, reflecting changing consumer behaviour and growing demand for lower running costs.

While Australia will remain dependent on liquid fuels for many years, increased EV adoption gradually reduces vulnerability to future oil price shocks.

June also demonstrated that Australia's export sector remains resilient. A sharp rebound in non-monetary gold exports helped lift the monthly trade balance well above expectations, illustrating that Australia's export industries continue to perform strongly despite global uncertainty.

Trade balances fluctuate from month to month and quarter to quarter. Governments should not manage the economy to produce attractive headlines if doing so undermines national resilience. Strategic imports during an international crisis are not a sign of weakness—they are evidence that Australia is protecting its economy and its people.

Oppositions have an important role in holding governments to account. But they also have a responsibility to acknowledge when difficult decisions are made in the national interest. During periods of international instability, Australians expect political leaders to focus on safeguarding essential supplies rather than using every economic statistic as an opportunity to score political points.

Australia faces genuine long-term challenges in energy security. Those challenges will require bipartisan thinking: maintaining strategic fuel reserves, encouraging domestic refining capability where practical, diversifying supply chains, and continuing the transition to new transport technologies. These are issues that deserve serious policy discussion, not partisan point-scoring.

The temporary narrowing of the trade surplus should therefore be viewed for what it is: the cost of ensuring Australia remained fuelled during an international crisis. That is a price worth paying.

07/08/2026

National Herald Opinion

Caveat Elector – Let the Voter Beware

There is an old legal principle, caveat emptor – let the buyer beware. As Victoria approaches another state election, perhaps voters should adopt a similar principle: caveat elector – let the voter beware.

Every election presents Australians with competing visions for the future. Political parties campaign vigorously, governments defend their records, and oppositions seek to convince voters that they deserve the opportunity to govern. That contest of ideas is the very essence of democracy. However, democracy is healthiest when elections are fought on detailed policies and realistic plans rather than on slogans, outrage and grievance.

Pauline Hanson's One Nation has formally launched its Victorian election campaign, introducing Warren Pickering as the party's Victorian leader and presenting a team of Upper House candidates who hope to secure representation in the Legislative Council. Their message is direct and designed to appeal to many frustrated Victorians. They argue that crime is out of control, families are being crushed by the cost of living, energy prices continue to soar, housing is becoming unattainable, the health system is under immense pressure, and taxpayers are paying more while receiving less in return.

These concerns are not imaginary. Many Victorians genuinely worry about public safety, affordability, housing and access to health services. They deserve serious discussion and practical solutions. The difficulty lies not in identifying the problems but in demonstrating exactly how they will be solved.

One Nation promises to restore law and order, reduce the cost of living, provide affordable and reliable energy, put Australians first in housing, strengthen the health system, reform education and stand up for everyday Victorians. These objectives are attractive and, in many respects, uncontroversial. Yet objectives are not policies, campaign slogans are not implementation plans, and political frustration is not a substitute for a coherent governing agenda.

At present, One Nation's Victorian website lists a broad range of policy headings, including cost of living, crime, energy, housing, health, education, regional development, small business, the economy, the environment and fi****ms. However, many of those pages are currently inaccessible while the party says its policies are being updated. The party has also suggested that what it discovers about Victoria's finances after taking office could determine whether some policies can be implemented. Does One Nation already a list of core and non-core promises? That may be a practical reality of government, but it also raises an obvious question. How can voters properly assess policies that have yet to be released or whose implementation remains uncertain?

This is particularly important because One Nation has made it clear that its immediate objective is to gain influence in the Victorian Upper House. The Legislative Council is designed to act as a house of review, scrutinising legislation introduced by whichever party forms government. There is nothing improper about that ambition. Indeed, an effective Upper House should examine legislation carefully rather than simply endorse every proposal put before it.

However, with that influence comes responsibility. A party seeking the power to approve, amend or reject legislation should itself present detailed, transparent and credible policies before asking the electorate for its support. Victorians deserve to know not only what One Nation intends to oppose, but also what it proposes to implement, how much those proposals will cost, how they will be funded and what evidence supports them. Might One Nation members of the Upper House demand the Victorian government bring in laws restricting access to abortions in return for their support? It’s a genuine question because situations like this have occurred in the Australian Senate in the past when one senator held the balance of power.

One Nation has already indicated that it would seek to halt major Labor infrastructure projects and reverse policies such as expanded work-from-home arrangements across the public sector. Those are significant commitments that will undoubtedly appeal to some voters while concerning others. Yet every cancelled infrastructure project carries economic consequences, every policy reversal creates costs as well as benefits, and every election promise ultimately requires funding. These are matters that should be fully explained before polling day rather than after the votes have been counted.

To be fair, this observation is not directed solely at One Nation. Australian politics has increasingly become dominated by marketing, social media and carefully crafted slogans at the expense of detailed policy debate. Across the political spectrum, parties often find it easier to tell voters what is wrong than to explain precisely how they intend to make things right. That trend weakens democratic accountability because elections become contests of emotion rather than contests of ideas.

Victorians should therefore judge every political party by the same standard. It is entirely reasonable to ask for detailed policies, realistic costings, legislative proposals and measurable outcomes before entrusting any party with political power. Identifying problems is the easy part of politics; governing successfully requires practical solutions, difficult choices and a willingness to explain both the benefits and the costs of those choices.

The Victorian Liberal Party's preference arrangements may well assist One Nation in securing representation in the Legislative Council. That is a strategic decision for the Liberals and one that voters will judge for themselves. However, preference deals should never relieve any political party of the obligation to present a comprehensive governing platform to the electorate.

Victoria undoubtedly faces serious challenges. Crime, housing affordability, government debt, energy security and pressure on public services are genuine concerns that deserve thoughtful solutions. Yet frustration alone cannot become a substitute for policy, and anger alone cannot become a blueprint for government. Before casting their votes, Victorians should insist on seeing detailed proposals rather than relying on promises that remain to be fully explained.

As polling day approaches, every political party should remember that voters are entitled to more than campaign slogans and political outrage. They deserve clear policies, transparent costings and realistic plans for governing. Until those are placed squarely before the electorate, one principle remains as relevant as ever:
Caveat Elector – Let the voter beware.

07/08/2026

One Nation defends use of party funds for luxury Euro trip

A minor party has assured donors they get “bang for their buck” following reports Pauline Hanson spent over $800 a night at a luxury hotel with party funds.

A One Nation senator has defended Pauline Hanson’s use of party funds to stay in a luxury hotel during her trip to Europe in July. I am the One Nation President and I can decide how the money is spent.

Reports emerged on Friday One Nation’s leader paid more than $800 a night to stay at the five-star Conrad London St James hotel.

The room was left empty for five nights while Senator Hanson flew to Italy, according to reports in the Sydney Morning Herald.

One Nation senator Sean Bell said he has no knowledge of the allegations, dismissing criticism of the trip.

“I can assure people 
 when we go overseas, we do so making sure people get bang for their buck,” he told NewsCorp's News24.

The allegations come after One Nation’s Fire the Liar campaign accrued $5 million from thousands of small donations in a only few months.

The funds raised will pay for billboards and broadcast advertising to “reach Australians that Albanese ignores”, according to the One Nation website.

Senator Bell sought to assure donors the money raised through the grass roots fundraiser had been “cordoned off” and cannot be used for other causes, including international travel.

“All the money that was sent to that is being used on that issue,” he said.

Hanson has previously defended the overseas trip, which included a five-night stay at an Italian resort with mining magnate Gina Rinehart, insisting taxpayers did not have to pay a cent.

Increased scrutiny has been levelled at One Nation as the minor party has repeatedly out-polled the major parties.

Immigration Minister Tony Burke’s last-minute decision to pull out of a National Press Club address has been claimed as a win for the minor party.

Burke was expected to outline a new approach to immigration standards to meet the government’s net migration target of 225,000 people.

Bell said he welcomes the major parties coming to the debate.

“I’m glad we can all agree that One Nation was right about the need to end mass migration. Everyone agrees,” he said.

“Now we’re just arguing about the best way to do it.”

-with AAP

07/08/2026

The Corruption of the DOJ

(MARY L TRUMP AND JOYCE VANCE)

Joyce Vance: One of the reasons I wanted to have you on is because you have not let go of this entire $1.776 billion slush fund. I think part of the problem with the era we’re living through is that there is simply so much happening. There’s so much corruption, so much incompetence, so much cruelty, and on and on it goes. It feels overwhelming, and I know it’s difficult for people to stay engaged.

Every once in a while, though, an issue comes along that crystallizes what’s really happening, what is being done to us, and why it matters. I think, in a slightly different way, the reflecting pool is one of those issues. So too is this horrific slush fund because it encompasses self dealing, grift, the final nail in the coffin of Justice Department independence, the Acting Attorney General of the United States functioning as the president’s personal defense lawyer, and, of course, the president’s willingness to use his office and federal agencies to enrich himself and his family while enjoying complete impunity for financial crimes.

There is a tremendous amount wrapped up in this one issue. That’s exactly why I think it’s such an effective lens through which to understand what’s going wrong. Today, Todd Blanche’s nomination, unbelievably, or perhaps believably, made it out of the Judiciary Committee and will now go before the full Senate.

I’d love for you to walk us through where we are, how we got here, and what this entire situation says about the capitulation and, frankly, the treasonous behavior of Senate Republicans.

Joyce Vance: By the end of this conversation, we’ll probably all be lying on the floor in tears because that’s really where this leads.

You know what I try to do at Civil Discourse. I always try to follow the through lines because I share exactly the concern you’ve described. There is so much happening simultaneously that it’s easy to become overwhelmed. I actually believe that’s intentional. I think the constant flood of chaos is designed to make people unplug.

How many people have said to you, “I just can’t take it anymore”?

That’s exactly why I try to identify the common threads running through all of these events so that people can better understand what’s really happening instead of feeling consumed by every individual outrage.

This particular issue is the mother of all through lines, especially for someone like me who spent a career as a federal prosecutor.

What we’re witnessing is the corruption of the Department of Justice itself.

I still remember when Eric Holder got into trouble simply for joking that he was President Obama’s wingman. He didn’t mean it literally. If anything, he probably meant he had the president’s back on the basketball court. Even so, there were calls for his resignation.

Now we have someone who isn’t merely the president’s wingman.

He’s functioning as the president’s criminal defense attorney.

He’s literally giving away taxpayer money to Donald Trump and getting away with it.

Mary Trump: I think what’s equally disturbing is the number of people lining up to help make all of this possible.

That’s something we have to remember throughout this entire regime.

There are so many people who know better, who are either looking the other way or actively enabling what is happening.

Even people who owe Donald Trump absolutely no personal allegiance, people like Tom Tillis and John Cornyn, continue covering for him despite the fact that Donald himself has done enormous damage to their political careers.

It’s the shamelessness of it all. The openness.

Could you also talk a little about the judge’s ruling and just how obvious it is that we’re dealing with a situation in which the same individual effectively controls both sides of the dispute while simultaneously claiming to have been harmed?

You wrote about this recently, echoing something you’d written back in May. You said there’s ordinary corruption, and then there’s the second Trump administration.

Joyce Vance: That really was my immediate reaction because this situation struck me as being extraordinarily corrupt from the very beginning, specifically when we saw that settlement agreement bearing Todd Blanche’s signature.

Let’s rewind the legal history for a moment.

Donald Trump filed a lawsuit against the IRS in the Southern District of Florida.

After a considerable amount of procedural maneuvering, the judge recognized something fundamental. Donald Trump was effectively on both sides of the lawsuit. He was both the plaintiff and, through his public statements asserting control over the IRS, essentially directing the defendant as well.

The judge recognized that this raised serious concerns about manipulating the judicial process.

But here’s why all of this matters.

The lawsuit itself should never have succeeded because Donald filed it after the statute of limitations had already expired. Under ordinary circumstances, it should have been dismissed almost immediately.

Instead, before the IRS even filed an answer, Donald voluntarily dismissed the case himself, something he was entitled to do procedurally.

Then came the truly extraordinary developments.

We suddenly saw the creation of the so called 1776 Fund, what many people continue referring to as the $1.8 billion slush fund, although I think it’s important to call it by its actual name because that name itself carries enormous significance.

The very next day, Todd Blanche signed an extraordinary document providing that Donald Trump, his family, and his businesses could not be investigated, prosecuted, or compelled to pay certain tax liabilities. While people often describe it narrowly as applying only to IRS matters, the language is considerably broader than that.

This entire chain of events began with a lawsuit that should never have survived in the first place.

That’s why Todd Blanche has become such a central figure in all of this. Donald Trump has nominated him to become Attorney General of the United States. The problem is that Todd Blanche is behaving as Donald Trump’s personal lawyer.

That is not the job of the Attorney General.

The Attorney General represents the American people, not the president. Todd Blanche was once regarded very highly by many of the lawyers who worked with him in the Southern District of New York. They considered him a good lawyer and a good person.

Somewhere along the way, though, he lost his way.

As people often say, everything Donald Trump touches dies.

Mary Trump: I always say that every person who chooses to be in Donald’s orbit destroys themselves. It isn’t involuntary. People sign up for this. To me, Todd Blanche is the Heinrich Himmler of the Trump regime. He presents himself as this seemingly mild mannered guy who simply got a taste of power, became addicted to it, and is now willing to do the most despicable things despite knowing exactly what his role is supposed to be and what he has chosen to do instead.

Just to remind people, this slush fund, as Joyce correctly points out, is the $1.776 billion slush fund. The entire thing began with Todd Blanche insisting that the amount was simply the number they happened to arrive at when assessing damages. He claimed it was merely a coincidence that it totaled $1.776 billion.

From the very beginning, the corruption has been obvious. And again, it’s important to remind people what this money is actually intended to do. This is compensation for people who betrayed this country. It is compensation for people who, on January 6, 2021, at Donald Trump’s direction, attacked our Capitol, endangered the lives of everyone inside that building, and, in some cases, committed sedition.

As though that weren’t bad enough, we’re also witnessing extraordinary financial self dealing. Had this agreement not been reached, Donald already owed the IRS roughly $100 million. That obligation simply disappears. Don’t we all wish our tax debts could be wiped away so easily?

There is so much wrapped up in this story, which is exactly why I think it’s one of the clearest examples of everything that’s wrong with this administration. It also brings us directly to Republican complicity.

A quick note. The easiest way to support what we do is to like this video, share it with someone who needs to see it, and make sure you subscribe to the channel so you don’t miss anything.

Thanks for watching.

We now find ourselves in a situation where Republicans know exactly how wrong all of this is. Yet we have people like John Cornyn saying, “There’s nothing we can do to rein in this president.” Nothing we can do. Coming from a United States senator, that’s an extraordinary statement.

More importantly, they’re pretending Todd Blanche’s confirmation rises or falls on this one issue alone, when time and again he has demonstrated such breathtaking corruption that, even without the slush fund, he should never be confirmed as Attorney General.

Joyce Vance: Todd Blanche has been at the center of virtually every major abuse we’ve seen inside the Justice Department.

He was in the room when the department ignored a federal judge’s order to turn the deportation flights around in the early immigration cases. His fingerprints are on the release of victims’ photographs and identifying information during the handling of the Epstein files, while, at the very same time, continuing to shield some of the perpetrators from accountability. His fingerprints are all over what happened in Minneapolis as well.

The Attorney General possesses enormous authority. He has the ability to hold ICE agents accountable when they unlawfully kill American citizens on American streets. Todd Blanche has done nothing. He has not lifted a finger.

If anyone still believes Todd Blanche might possess redeeming qualities, it’s worth remembering that he also stood by while career prosecutors, many of whom he knew personally and had worked beside for years, were fired simply for doing their jobs and following the rule of law.

We watched respected attorneys in the Southern District of New York lose their careers because they refused to compromise their professional ethics. Todd Blanche remained fully complicit throughout all of it.

That’s because Todd Blanche doesn’t believe in the rule of law. He believes in the rule of Donald Trump. He believes in the unitary executive, in an all powerful presidency.

I honestly don’t know that there are enough adjectives available to describe how dangerous this is.

So let me say it plainly.

This is the end of the Department of Justice as we’ve known it.

There will continue to be outstanding career prosecutors throughout the country doing everything they can to uphold the law. I have complete confidence in their professionalism.

But Todd Blanche, as the head of the Department, will so severely undermine public confidence in the institution that rebuilding it will take years.

I remain optimistic that it can be rebuilt. We need to be prepared to begin that work immediately when the opportunity comes.

But there is no question that the damage being done right now strikes at one of the most fundamental institutions supporting American democracy.

Mary Trump: I can’t imagine how painful this must be for you after serving as a United States Attorney. As you know, my wife, Ronda, worked in the Disability Rights Section of the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice, a division Harmeet Dhillon is now doing her utmost to dismantle.

Like you, I remain optimistic that the Department of Justice can ultimately recover. But I think that recovery depends, in large part, on making sure the American people understand exactly what’s happening and who is responsible.

Americans, unfortunately, have notoriously short memories. My sense is that unwinding this damage, rebuilding the institution, and restoring public confidence will take an extraordinarily long time.

That brings me back to Republicans.

I want your thoughts on what they’re thinking because it’s difficult to understand. People like Tom Tillis and John Cornyn are already on their way out. They could have chosen to stand up for the institution they swore to protect.

Instead, it feels as though they’re doing what we’ve seen so many Republicans do. Susan Collins, who may face a difficult reelection campaign in Maine, votes no, providing herself with political cover. To me, that’s a tell. It demonstrates that they understand exactly how corrupt and indefensible Todd Blanche’s confirmation truly is.

Joyce Vance: I have a very cynical view of what’s happening in the Senate because I think many of these senators are putting their own personal futures ahead of the country.

Susan Collins was only given permission to vote against Todd Blanche because Republican leadership was already confident they had enough votes to confirm him. With Mitch McConnell gone, Republicans can afford to lose two votes, but not three, unless someone like John Fetterman crosses over and votes in favor of Blanche. That’s how close this confirmation is likely to be.

As for what I sometimes call the “weeble wobbles” on the Judiciary Committee, John Cornyn and Thom Tillis both had an opportunity to demonstrate genuine courage. Neither of them is returning to the Senate. This could have been the moment when they stood up for the institution they claim to respect.

Instead, I believe they’re negotiating for their futures.

They may want to become lobbyists. Former senators enjoy access that very few lobbyists ever have, simply because of the relationships they’ve built over years of service. We don’t know exactly what conversations took place behind closed doors or whether any promises were made. There’s no way for us to know the precise nature of any agreement.

But what we do know is that John Cornyn publicly insisted he needed a written retraction regarding both the slush fund and the immunity agreement. Then Todd Blanche posted a statement on social media at 11:09 p.m. on a Sunday night, and suddenly Senator Cornyn declared, “That’s good enough for me.”

John Cornyn is a lawyer. He’s extremely well educated. He understands precisely what’s at stake here.

From where I sit, it appears he has chosen to place his own interests ahead of the country’s interests.

Mary Trump: That increasingly seems to be the defining principle of today’s Republican Party.

It’s an indictment of the party itself and of the extraordinary betrayal of the people these senators were elected to represent. Their constitutional responsibility is to uphold the Constitution, to serve as a coequal branch of government, and to provide checks and balances on executive power.

John Cornyn actually said, in effect, “I don’t understand what my job is. I don’t understand what my constitutional authority is because what could we possibly do?”

The answer is obvious.

You’re a United States senator.

You are part of a coequal branch of government.

Your job is to provide oversight and accountability.

The frustrating part is that these people aren’t ignorant. They aren’t unfamiliar with the Constitution. They’ve read it, unlike the person to whom they continue deferring.

I also wanted to ask about the broader calculation here because Todd Blanche has repeatedly demonstrated that he cannot be trusted. This is someone willing to negotiate with Ghislaine Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein’s co conspirator in the trafficking and abuse of young women. Time after time, he has shown exactly who he is.

Yet the senators responsible for deciding whether he becomes Attorney General continue overlooking all of it.

At some point we have to stop asking why and instead recognize what this tells us.

Republicans simply don’t care.

I agree with your assessment that much of this is driven by personal ambition. Some want to become lobbyists. Others want lucrative corporate board positions or television contracts after leaving office.

What this administration has done, perhaps more than any previous administration, is expose the weaknesses in our system. It has shown us exactly where the guardrails failed and, in doing so, has handed us a roadmap for rebuilding those institutions.

One thing I do know is that we should stop borrowing Republican framing. Let’s not talk about “Project 2028.” Let’s use our own language.

But we do need meaningful reforms.

Serving in the Senate should be understood as an extraordinary privilege. It gives people enormous influence over the future of the country and tremendous power to improve people’s lives, assuming that’s why they sought office in the first place.

For that reason, I think we need stronger ethical safeguards.

If someone serves as a United States senator, perhaps they should have to wait five years after leaving office before they can become a lobbyist or immediately begin cashing in on the public trust they were elected to uphold.

Joyce Vance: I couldn’t agree more.

I’ve long believed that kind of cooling off period should apply not only to senators but also to United States Attorneys and other senior public officials.

If you’re going to devote yourself to public service, then your motivation should actually be public service.

Obviously, everyone has to earn a living. Everyone needs to support themselves and their families.

But when you’ve had the privilege of serving as a United States senator, you already possess countless opportunities. Becoming a lobbyist isn’t the only path available to you.

We’ve seen many senators arrive in Washington with relatively modest financial means and leave office extraordinarily wealthy. I remember looking at the financial disclosures for Jeff Sessions after he left the Senate to become Donald Trump’s first Attorney General, and the numbers were astonishing.

Public office inevitably provides financial opportunities.

But with that privilege comes an obligation to conduct yourself ethically, honestly, and transparently.

Perhaps we should be encouraging people to seek public office because they genuinely want to serve the country rather than because they see it as a stepping stone to increasing their personal wealth.

Address

Albury, NSW

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Labor True Believers, Political Analysis and Satire posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Shortcuts

Share