“We all have different ideas of staunchness and squishiness. [Mitt] Romney strikes me as admirably staunch—on the rule of law, a free economy, the national interest … He can be counted on to defend basic American values, as many of us conceive them. DeSantis? He’s apt to blow with the Republican wind. I would not call him a ‘total squish,’ as he called Romney. But I would not cite him as an example of spine.” (11/11/26)
Source: Karl Dickey’s Freedom Vanguard
by Karl Dickey
“Yesterday’s parliamentary maneuver is yet another example of how Congress manipulates public perception through these obscure rules. Politicians use procedural votes to avoid taking a public stance on executive overreach. A direct vote forces accountability. A referral motion allows representatives to defeat a measure while claiming they want committee review. So Republicans are crowing that Massie defamed Hegseth, showing how his effort was defeated, but there was never an up-and-down vote on Massie’s articles. They use these tactics to fundraise and create media sound bites without doing the difficult work of governance. We need more up-and-down votes to show accountability of our members of Congress, rather than have them meekly shy away from answering the question.” (11/11/26)
“Today, Americans observe Veterans Day, originally known as Armistice Day, to honor those who have served in uniform. But World War I offers another lesson: how governments used borrowing and money printing to finance war, obscure its costs, and prolong the bloodshed.” (11/11/26)
“Congress has a caucus for every cause — bicycles, snowboarding, baking, composting, aquaculture, soccer, rock-and-roll, and on and on. There are more caucuses, formal and informal, than members of Congress. Come January, many Democrats will compose what should be called the Cognitive Dissonance Caucus. In November, Democrats did well with voters, but beginning on Jan. 3, reality gets a vote. Consider four subjects: climate change, campaign finance, Medicare-for-all and racial gerrymandering.” (11/11/26)
“In August, New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) stated, ’Woke 1 was crazy!’ on ABC’s ’This Week’ news show. She borrowed the phrase from her New York colleague City Councilman Chi Ossé, who had used it in a May post on X (formerly Twitter). Soon after, New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani said this about AOC’s statement: ’What you believe can change, it can develop, it can grow. … I’ve made very clear that I do not believe in defunding the police, that I will not be defunding the police’. Woke 1 was not ‘crazy’. It was an important moment in a longer legacy of struggle. Woke 1 (which, according to the Internets, refers to cultural and social activism in and around 2020) was not crazy. These statements by progressive elected officials sparked criticism. Some labeled AOC an opportunist. Others gave Mamdani a bit more grace, arguing he was being strategically cautious.” (11/10/26)
“Students often come to my office for advice about political extremism. Their internet feeds are awash with political binaries: ‘You’re either for us or against us,’ everyone is saying. There is no middle ground, and refusal to join appears tantamount to helping the enemy. Conservative students especially feel this pressure. ‘Is moderation synonymous with cowardice?’ they ask me. ‘Does refusing to join the fight really undermine America?’ It occurs to me that few of these young people have ever heard a forceful critique of binary thinking. When I tell them that this kind of thinking is a sign of political naiveté and immaturity, they stare at me blankly, as if they have no idea what I’m saying. But in fact binary thinking in politics is demonstrably foolish. The reasons are theological, epistemological, and anthropological.” (11/11/26)
“Donald Trump’s decision last week to name Stephen Miller as his new White House chief of staff gives the impression that instead of learning from and correcting the policy mistakes of the past two years, the president intends to double down on them. Miller has been unapologetically racist, and his prejudices and hatreds have fueled much of the Trump administration’s nativist agenda, especially in the area of immigration enforcement. He will now hold even more power over the administration’s policy direction. Naturally I wanted to ask Republican senators, newly returned to Capitol Hill on their first day back in session, for their thoughts on Miller’s promotion.” (11/11/26)
“Donald Trump was presented with several war options last Friday but rejected them all, at least for the moment. Neither did he accept the negotiated package on the table. Instead, he opted to continue his economic warfare against Iran. Given the expectation that Trump would restart the war after the midterms, optimism has grown that Trump may finally have abandoned the fantasy of a military victory. I suspect that optimism is premature. Instead, I see possible scenarios: War, peace, and a Swiss cheese status quo.” (11/11/26)
“Today, House Republicans managed to block the impeachment of Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, by voting 211-204 to send it to a committee for further “study.” But this fight is likely to be far from over. The Republicans may be able to effectively bottle up the impeachment in committee for the rest of the current Congress (which ends on January 3, 2027). But it will almost certainly come back in the new Democratic-controlled Congress. … And, though it’s a steep hill to climb, it is by no means impossible he might actually get convicted, as he is very unpopular on Capitol Hill (and elsewhere), and the evidence against him is strong. It is notable that House Republicans chose to use this procedural maneuver rather than just vote down the impeachment directly. It suggests they might not have had the votes to do the latter.” (11/10/26)
