After last night | Power Line

Let us take note of political developments yesterday. New Jersey Senator Corey Booker completed speaking for 25-hours on the Senate floor. The AP story on Booker’s speech presents Booker’s performance as he wants it to be seen — as a heroic endeavor.

The length of Booker’s performance surpassed the late Senator Strom Thurmond’s filibuster against the 1957 Civil Rights Act at a time when Thurmond was a segregationist and Democrat. Thurmond’s filibuster had a legislative object. His filibuster almost killed the bill. Booker’s speech was pure performance art. That’s not the way the AP puts it, but one can draw the inference.

Did Booker tell tales of T-Bone to keep his stemwinder going? They might have come in handy. However, Booker’s speech was monomaniacal. As Ahab sought to the big white whale, Booker pursued President Trump.

Senator Thurmond lived to outgrow his Democrat roots and perhaps his racist views. He ran as a Dixiecrat for president in 1948. Along with 18 other Democrat Senators, Thurmond was an original author and signer of the Southern Manifesto opposing the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education. He opposed the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and switched to the Republican Party later that year (in support of Barry Goldwater).

In that respect Thurmond was a leading indicator of a tidal political transformation. It was a long time coming, but by 1971 Thurmond became the first former Dixiecrat to hire a black staffer (Tom Moss). In 1991 he supported the confirmation of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court. Thurmond certainly abandoned party ties and appears to have cast off noxious racial views in the course of his lengthy political career.

By contrast, Cory Booker will remain a vacuous fabulist spouting the destructive doctrines of his party in every jot and tittle (including its racist passions). At the moment, I take it, Booker seeks to thrill Democrat voters looking for a 2028 presidential candidate. If not that, he appreciates the attention.

In other political news, Republicans held on to congressional seats in Florida’s First and Sixth Districts. In the First District, Jimmy Patronis was elected to replace Matt Gaetz. Patronis defeated Democrat Gay Valimont by 14.5 points. Gaetz had defeated Valimont in last year’s election by 32 points. In the Sixth District, Randy Fine was elected to replace current National Security Adviser Michael Waltz. Fine defeated Democrat Josh Weil by 14 points. In last year’s election Waltz had retained the seat by a margin of 30 points.

Fine appears to be a man after my heart. “A fierce defender of Israel,” according to the AP, “he’s embraced the nickname ‘Hebrew Hammer.’” The AP also traffics in fake news: “Fine has also backed some of the state’s most controversial proposals, cosponsoring a bill restricting how gender and sexuality can be discussed in public schools, a measure that critics [falsely] labeled the ‘Don’t Say Gay’ law.”

In Wisconsin’s Supreme Court election, Democrat Susan Crawford defeated Republican Brad Schimel by 10 points. Democrats hope that they will be able to redraw Wisconsin’s congressional districts with Crawford’s vote keeping Democrats in the court’s 4-3 majority. The outcome is disappointing, to say the least, but I thought that race was a long-shot for Republicans.

Without any citation of data, the New York Times avers that the Wisconsin race “effectively became a referendum on [Elon] Musk[.]” Maybe. I would like to know if Musk’s intervention helped or hurt the Republican candidate. It is possible that Musk’s intervention made the race closer than it might otherwise have been. The Democrat/media axis certainly has a genius for destruction. I will give them that. Turning our most creative businessman into a villain is quite a feat.

In its wrap-up (linked above), the New York Times seeks to endow yesterday’s results with a breathless enthusiasm for Democrats. According to the Times, “The results were striking.” You be the judge.