Three-handed Libs. A Tariff Exception and why Blanche as AG Is a Losing Bet

Believe Only Liberal Women

A photo of Maine’s Graham Platner showed him surrounded entirely by women. Around the same time, a news article reported that Maine women were deeply conflicted about the Senate race—torn between voting for Platner, who faces allegations of abusing women, sending explicit texts, and subscribing to a website associated with pedophilia, or voting for incumbent Susan Collins. They say the conundrum is Collins’ vote for Bret Kavanaugh. If this is the case, then I have seen no better argument than taking away the vote from these women. 

One woman put it plainly: “This is a very painful choice for a lot of women. One choice is to vote for somebody who I simply don’t think has the experience, the character, or even the political orientation that I find valuable”—referring to Platner. She added that Collins’s Kavanaugh vote “was disappointing, and it has been devastating for women.” Another woman tried to excuse Platner‘s behavior: “Given his background, his time in the Marines, his PTSD, I can see him as a flawed candidate. I’m not saying he’s perfect, but I generally vote on policy.”

The underlying excuse of Collins’ vote for Kavanaugh and Kavanaugh’s vote on Roe v. Wade—is an obvious canard. Approximately 70% of Maine women support abortion access in all cases. Collins, notably, also supports abortion rights and has voted to confirm every liberal woman currently serving on the Supreme Court. Collins also sponsored a bill to codify abortion rights. But apparently that is not good enough for the women of Maine who should be honest and admit that Collins’ vote was immaterial. They would vote against Collins even had she voted against Kavanaugh because she has an “R” attached to her name.

Remember Christine Plasey Ford who suddenly materialized to accuse Kavanaugh of sexual assault when they were in high school? There was zero corroboration for her allegation. No high school classmate materialized to vouch for Ford. On this basis, Collins voted for Kavanaugh and showed her political courage because even if she had voted against him, he still would have been approved by the senate. I wonder what excuse would the Maine women use had she voted against Kavanaugh? Because it is Trump they are after and Collins is standing in their way. It reminds me of what Trump once said “In the end, they’re not coming after me. They’re coming after you — and I’m just standing in their way.”

What struck me at the time was that the Democrats, for all their effort, could not produce a single classmate willing to corroborate Blasey Ford. Nevertheless, the party was firmly in its “believe all women” mode. Elizabeth Warren was outraged that Republicans pressed forward with their support despite the accusations. Now, with far more corroboration against Platner than ever existed against Kavanaugh, Warren is out on the trail for him, declaring, “He’s my man.” Good grief.

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) was among the most vocal during the Kavanaugh hearings: “Today I stand with women who are brave enough to come forward with their stories of abuse and mistreatment. They deserve to be heard and credible allegations must be investigated. We must believe survivors, not bully them.”

That was then. What about now? Whitehouse supports Platner and describes the multiple women’s allegations as “a lot of nothing.” “I mean, the only one who had anything to say that seemed unsettling’ was a woman who works for

right-wing political operations.” It matters little that at one Platner accuser provided corroboration. Translation: “believe only those women that the democrats can dredge up.”

To be fair, not all of Maine’s women have abandoned their principles. One voter put it: “I’m a Democrat, so I want Democrats to win. But I also care how we win. And our argument can’t be that character only matters when it’s candidates from the other party.” It’s a shame that many of Maine’s other women and the entire democrat establishment (except for John Fetterman) have no principles. I called the libs “three handed”. Why? Recall the Lucky Peterson song “Three handed woman.” Left handed, right handed and underhanded too.

Did I Just Say Something Nice About Tariffs?

Say it ain’t so! In a recent post titled “Costco Emulates China!” I wrote that “I support tariffs on subsidized imports equal to the value of the subsidy—not as protectionism, but as a corrective measure to level the playing field.” The reaction was swift. One reader texted: “WHAT???!!! Harold Black for a tariff? I see your reasoning though.” Another asked, “What would Adam Smith say?”

My friend Don Boudreaux has the answer. In one of his letters addressing a critic of free trade, Don notes that Smith himself identified four, and only four, exceptions to free trade: national security; using tariffs to pressure other governments to reduce their own duties; ensuring that imports face the same tax burden as domestically produced substitutes; and, in some cases, phasing out tariffs gradually to ease workers’ adjustment to open trade. So there you go. Adam Smith would, in fact, endorse the Harold Black tariff.

Speaking of Costco, I bemoaned the fact that they were discontinuing Kirkland’s organic salsa and were out in Knoxville. There is a Costco 50 miles from the farm. While at the farm, I called and they had 330 jars left. Well now they have 258 because I bought 72 of them. That should last me a couple of years. 

Todd Blanche’s Nomination for Attorney General Is a Loser

President Trump has nominated Todd Blanche—one of his myriad of personal attorneys who currently serving as acting AG—to be the next Attorney General. I bet you a dollar that Blanche will not get confirmed and may well pull his nomination when he realizes that there are enough republican senators who do not favor him as AG. No democrat will vote for him so the republicans need to be united if he is to be confirmed.

Fat chance.

The office has been in disarray. Trump first nominated the deeply problematic Matt Gaetz, who withdrew after finding little support. Pam Bondi followed, only to be fired for not pursuing the president’s political enemies aggressively enough. Blanche then stepped into the acting role and, knowing what was expected of him, pursued those enemies with considerable zeal.

The National Review’s piece “No to Todd Blanche as Attorney General” notes that Trump’s DOJ has waged “an unabashedly vindictive agenda of leveraging the government’s awesome prosecutorial powers—its public trust—against the president’s political enemies.” Central to that effort is Blanche’s creation of the Orwellian “Weaponization Working Group,” which serves two purposes: generating cases against Trump’s political opponents and discrediting the Biden-era DOJ by branding its special counsel indictments of Trump as fraudulent—thereby rationalizing the pardons of Capitol rioters and financial fraudsters.

In short, under Trump the Attorney General’s office has become little more than a mechanism for deploying the president’s lawyers against his political enemies—without the president having to pay their fees. When Blanche was confirmed as deputy AG, it passed along party lines—at a moment when Trump’s political standing was near its peak. That standing has since eroded. A bloc of Republican senators who have each faced Trump’s ire—Collins, Murkowski, Paul, McConnell, Cassidy, Tillis, and Cornyn—would likely vote against Blanche. Alaska’s Dan Sullivan is another possible no. I would be stunned if any of them supported the nomination.

The nomination is a loser. Trump likely floated it believing he could bully reluctant Republicans into compliance. That may have worked before. It won’t work now. The more probable outcome: Trump keeps Blanche in the acting role as long as legally possible, eventually nominates someone else, and lets Blanche continue doing his dirty work as deputy AG.