Random #90

Where’s Chuck? No Arab Scientists? Alaska’s Dirty Politics. Fed holds.

Where’s Chuck?

Senate Majority Leader John Thune has been a busy man on the campaign trail, stumping for republican candidates. Thune has been in Georgia, South Carolina, Florida, Minnesota, Nebraska, Iowa, and Ohio. But Chuck Schumer, the Senate Minority Leader, has been pulling a “Where’s Waldo?” and has been largely missing. Several Democrats running for the Senate have actually said that, if elected, they would not support Schumer continuing as leader. El-Sayed in Michigan, Adam Hamilton in Kansas, and Scott Colom in Mississippi clearly do not want him near them. “I don’t like that our party is represented by two people that live in the same borough,” Colom said, referring to Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y. Democratic candidates in Alaska, Maine, North Carolina, Florida, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, Minnesota, and Iowa will also likely not support him. At this point it may be quicker to list the democrats who would.

Much of the opposition is coming from Schumer’s left. Minnesota democrat Senate nominee Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan – known for embracing radical gender activism and opposing tougher immigration enforcement – said democrats need “a progressive champion” to lead the Senate, and Schumer isn’t it. Since I am not attuned to democrat politics, I don’t know the source of the opposition. Is it fundraising? Is it the manipulation of the Senate’s agenda and votes? Or is it simply fatigue? Regardless, Schumer’s future as leader of the democrats in the Senate looks tenuous at best.

No Arab scientists ever?

Campaigning in Michigan for Mike Rogers in his race against Abdul El-Sayed, Robert Kennedy Jr. said that “there’s 500 million Arabs in the world and yet they don’t produce science.” A bold claim from a man whose own relationship with science has been, let’s say, long-distance. Maybe he was taking a backhanded stab at El-Sayed, who is an epidemiologist. Although not a licensed physician, El-Sayed does have decades of experience in public health and has called Kennedy “the most incompetent HHS secretary ever.” Now, I am no fan of El-Sayed and hope he loses, but I think he may be spot-on about Kennedy and HHS.

Here is what Kennedy said: “There’s five hundred million Arabs in the world, and yet they don’t produce science. They don’t win the Nobel Prize. They don’t win the Fields Prize. They don’t win the Wolf Prize. They don’t produce literature.” Boy, was that dumb. (For the record, it’s the Fields Medal— so he managed to get the name of the award wrong while he was at it.) A five-minute search would have demolished the whole thing, and apparently Kennedy didn’t have five minutes.

It was simply a stupid comment. Perhaps Kennedy was caught up in the moment, but this is a clear case of Islamophobia. Since 1978, three Arab scientists have won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry: Ahmed Zewail (1999), Moungi Bawendi (2023), and Omar Yaghi (2025). Bawendi and Yaghi also won the Wolf Prize. Naguib Mahfouz won the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1988.

It was also politically stupid to alienate Michigan’s 240,000 Arabs, not all of whom were going to vote for El-Sayed — at least until Kennedy started talking. Nothing says voter outreach quite like insulting the voters.

Alaska’s dirty politics

Alaska Gets two Dan Sullivans for the price of one. President Trump said that he told his “Justice” Department to sue to block certification of the U.S. Senate race in Alaska if republican Sen. Dan Sullivan loses. In federal court in Alaska, the department demands that the state be blocked from certifying a Peltola win if Daniel J. Sullivan remains on the ballot. “The United States accordingly brings this lawsuit to protect the integrity of the 2026 Senate election in Alaska,” the lawsuit says. Trump also stepped up his attacks on democrat Mary Peltola, saying she should resign and be prosecuted: “I think Dan Sullivan — the fake Dan Sullivan — and Mary Peltola should be, number one, they should be taken off the ballot, and number two, they should be prosecuted.”

Of course, there is little chance that either will occur. What is interesting is that The New York Times– not exactly a Republican house organ – broke the story. The Times reported that democrats wanted to elect Peltola — no secret there. But to improve her odds, they recruited a person with the same name as the incumbent, Sen. Dan S. Sullivan, to run as a republican in an effort to siphon off votes from confused voters. They found a retired teacher from a tiny fishing village in the Alaska Panhandle named Dan J. Sullivan. He will be on the ballot on Election Day along with the “real” Dan Sullivan. So Alaskans will get to choose between Dan Sullivan and… Dan Sullivan. Choose wisely.

Although the Peltola campaign denied any involvement in the scheme, the Times found that not only did Peltola’s team work to recruit the other Sullivan to run for Senate, but the group also worked to get other would-be spoilers into the race to dilute the incumbent’s support. Apparently they were holding a full casting call. I don’t know if this is illegal, but if it isn’t, it should be. But maybe it is since Alaska’s governor Mike Dunleavy, a republican, has ordered for an investigation into Mary Peltola’s U.S. Senate campaign, despite Alaska’s Supreme Court having already ruled that the second Sullivan must remain on the ballot. Dunleavy said: Deliberately tricking voters into casting their ballots for someone else strikes at the integrity of our elections. Anyone or any organization found to have broken the law must be held accountable.”

The ballot clearly identifies the sitting senator as a Republican incumbent. The other Sullivan carries neither designation. Although apparently most Alaskan voters are likely to understand what “incumbent” means, this is still a dirty trick and should not be legal.

Here is the Alaska ballot.

The Fed holds

Finally as expected, the Fed held its Fed funds rate at 3.75%-4% with two dissentions. Cleveland Fed president Beth Hammack, as expected dissented in favor of a rate increase. The second dissenter was a surprise. It was Lisa Cook who unexpectedly changed direction from previous votes. I think this was her was of flipping off President Trump who has persisted in trying to fire her. Cook knows that Trump was interests lower – maybe even to zero. So by voting for an increase, it is perhaps her only way of hitting back at the president. It may be symbolic, but it is a powerful symbol. I say “Go girl!”