It is not every day that you go from being Obi-Wan Kenobi to Sheev Palpatine in twenty-four hours. However, Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos now has the distinction of having Luke (Mark Hamill) lead a boycott of his ‘democracy dies in darkness’ newspaper as the daily of the darkside.

Figures like former Wyoming Republican Rep. Liz Cheney shared this week that she had canceled her subscription to the paper. NPR reported on Tuesday that 250,000 subscribers had cut ties with the news outlet. As of this writing, the Washington Post has not confirmed the number of canceled subscriptions. Some, like anti-Trump lawyer and activist George Conway, even appeared to wink at his followers and quietly target Bezos’ Amazon. 

It is a familiar pattern for many of us (on a smaller scale) who used to be associated with the left and faced canceled campaigns for questioning the orthodoxy in the media or academia.

Then something fascinating happened. Bezos stood his ground.

The left has made an art form of flash-mob politics, crushing opposition with the threat of economic or professional ruin. Most cave to the pressure, including business leaders like Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg. 

That record came to a screeching halt when the unstoppable force of the left met the immovable object of Elon Musk. The left continues to oppose his government contracts and pressure his advertisers over his refusal to restore the prior censorship system at X, formerly Twitter.

Now, the left may be creating another defiant billionaire. This week, Bezos penned an op-ed in the Washington Post that doubled down on his decision not to endorse a presidential candidate now or in the future. Some of us have argued for newpapers to stop all political endorsements for decades.

The encouraging aspect of Bezos’s column was that he not only recognized the corrosive effect of endorsements on maintaining neutrality as a media organization, but he also recognized that the Post is facing plummeting revenues and readership due to its perceived bias and activism.

I used to write regularly for the Post, and I wrote in my new book about the decline of the newspaper as part of the ‘advocacy journalism’ movement: ‘Our profession is now the least trusted of all. Something we are doing is clearly not working.’

Bezos previously brought in a publisher to save the Post from itself.

Washington Post publisher and CEO William Lewis promptly delivered a truth bomb in the middle of the newsroom by telling the staff, ‘Let’s not sugarcoat it…We are losing large amounts of money. Your audience has halved in recent years. People are not reading your stuff. Right? I can’t sugarcoat it anymore.’

The response was that the entire staff seemed to go into vapors, and many called for Lewis to be canned. Bezos stood with Lewis.

Now, resignations and recriminations are coming from reporters and columnists alike. In a public statement, Post columnists blasted the decision and said that while maybe endorsements should be ended, not now because everyone has to oppose Trump to save democracy and journalism. The statement produced some chuckles, given the signatories, including columnists Phillip Bump and Jennifer Rubin, who have been repeatedly accused of reckless rhetoric. (Rubin later denounced Bezos for his ‘Bulls**t explanation’ and said that he was merely ‘bending a knee’ to Trump.).

Bezos could do for the media what Musk did for free speech. He could create a bulwark against advocacy journalism in one of the premier newspapers in the world. Students in ‘J Schools’ today are being told to abandon neutrality and objectivity since, as former New York Times writer (and now Howard University journalism professor) Nikole Hannah-Jones has explained, ‘all journalism is activism.’

After a series of interviews with over 75 media leaders, Leonard Downie Jr., former Washington Post executive editor, and Andrew Heyward, former CBS News president, reaffirmed this shift in early 2023 in a report published by the Cronkite News Lab, called ‘Beyond Objectivity’ As Emilio Garcia-Ruiz, editor-in-chief at the San Francisco Chronicle, has stated: ‘Objectivity has got to go.’

Few can stand up to this movement other than a Bezos or a Musk. However, the left has long created their own monsters by demanding absolute fealty or unleashing absolute cancel campaigns. Simply because Bezos wants his newspaper to restore neutrality, the left is calling for a boycott of not just the Post but all of his companies. That is precisely what they did with Musk.

A Bezos/Musk alliance would be truly a thing to behold. They could give the push for the restoration of free speech and the free press a real chance to create a beachhead to regain the ground that we have lost in the last two decades.

The left will accept nothing short of total capitulation and Bezos does not appear willing to pay that price. Instead, he could not just save the Post but American journalism from itself.

For the rest of us, all I can say is welcome to the fight, Jeff.

First lady Jill Biden’s former press secretary is torching the White House’s attempt to cover up President Biden’s ‘garbage’ comment, calling it a ‘bonehead move’ that they have attempted before.

The president unleashed a storm of controversy by calling supporters of former President Donald Trump ‘garbage’ on a Tuesday call with Hispanic activist group Voto Latino.

During the call, Biden criticized Trump’s Madison Square Garden rally for a comedian’s joke calling Puerto Rico a ‘floating island of garbage,’ saying that ‘the only garbage I see floating out there is his supporters.’

After the call, the White House released an official transcript of the call in which Biden’s comment was written as ‘the only garbage I see floating out there is his supporter’s,’ insinuating that the president was referring to the comedian instead of all Trump supporters.

‘The only garbage I see floating out there is his supporter’s — his — his demonization of Latinos is unconscionable, and it’s un-American. It’s totally contrary to everything we’ve done, everything we’ve been,’ read the transcript.

Posting a screenshot of the transcript to social media, Andrew Bates, the White House senior deputy press secretary and deputy assistant to the president, claimed that Biden ‘referred to the hateful rhetoric at the Madison Square Garden rally as ‘garbage.’’

Michael LaRosa, Jill Biden’s former press secretary, meanwhile, wrote on X that the White House’s attempt to transcribe ‘supporters’ as ‘supporter’s,’ was ‘a bonehead move and one they’ve been caught making before.’

LaRosa also reposted another post that pointed out that Biden had previously expressed shock in an NBC News interview over Trump supporters’ vitriol toward him. 

‘I’ve never seen a circumstance where you ride through certain rural areas of the country and people have signs there stand — big Trump signs with — m — middle — signs saying ‘F Biden’ and the little kid standing there putting up his middle finger,’ Biden said in a July 15 interview, according to an NBC transcript. 

Trump responded to Biden’s remark by calling it ‘terrible’ and worse than Hillary Clinton calling his supporters ‘deplorables’ in 2016.

‘Garbage, I think, is worse,’ he said. ‘But he doesn’t know. You have to please forgive him.’

‘Please forgive him for not knowing what he said,’ Trump said. ‘These people are terrible, terrible, terrible to say a thing like that. But he really doesn’t know. He really, honestly, he doesn’t. And I’m convinced that he likes me more than he likes Kamala. But that’s a terrible thing.’

In a second response, Trump wrote, ‘While I am running a campaign of positive solutions to save America, Kamala Harris is running a campaign of hate.’ 

‘Now, on top of everything, Joe Biden calls our supporters ‘garbage.’ You can’t lead America if you don’t love the American People. Kamala Harris and Joe Biden have shown they are both unfit to be President of the United States,’ Trump wrote. 

Vice President Kamala Harris was asked about Biden’s remark on Wednesday morning. Harris said that she had spoken to Biden since the call but that his ‘garbage’ remark did not come up in their conversation.

‘First of all, he clarified his comments, but let me be clear, I strongly disagree with any criticism of people based on who they vote for,’ she said. ‘I believe that the work that I do is about representing all the people, whether they support me or not. And as president of the United States, I will be a president for all Americans, whether you vote for me or not.’

I’ve lost track of how many times people have asked if I will be glad when the election is over. 

Truth be told, just after the election is when the hard stuff begins.

Election Day is Tuesday, but in reality, that’s just the beginning of the process. It may take days to sort out who voters have chosen as president. Control of the House is razor tight. It may boil down to a handful of races decided by a grand total of several thousand votes. So don’t for a moment think we automatically know which party will be in the majority as election officials sort all of that out. There’s a scenario where a thin margin of contested seats in the House could spring several weeks of challenges. 

Moreover, Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution dictates that the House and Senate ‘shall be the Judge of the elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members.’ And it’s the new House in the new Congress next year that will decide whether to seat people if there’s a dispute.

Of course, that’s provided the House can elect a speaker when the new Congress is constitutionally mandated to begin on Jan. 3. Don’t forget that House Republicans incinerated a total of 27 days on two separate occasions to elect former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., and current Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La.

We’ll come back to that in a moment. 

In the meantime, let’s run through some of the hazards that could unfold after the final ballot is cast.

Let’s start with when we might learn which party controls either the House or Senate.

Election Day fell on Nov. 8 for the 2022 midterms, but it wasn’t clear that Democrats held their Senate majority until late on the evening of Nov. 12, when Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, D-Nev., retained her seat. 

Determining House control took even longer in 2022. Remember that McCarthy touted the possibility that Republicans might marshal as many as 50 seats. Republicans won the House by a thread, but the GOP majority was not clear until Nov. 16. 

In 2020, most news organizations projected on election night that Democrats would hold the House, but it wasn’t until December that a picture emerged showing how close Democrats came to losing their majority. It took weeks to sort out multiple House contests, decided by very few votes.

Control of the Senate from the 2020 midterms wasn’t even established until 2021. It took until January and a pair of runoffs in Georgia for it to be clear that Democrats tied the Senate and thus seized the majority thanks to Vice President Kamala Harris in her capacity as president of the Senate.

These protracted election determinations are not a byproduct of recent polarization and controversy.

Democrats captured the Senate in the 2006 midterms, but it wasn’t clear until two days after the election, once Democratic challenger Jim Webb defeated incumbent Republican Sen. George Allen in Virginia.

It’s likely we’ll have clarity on the Senate sooner rather than later this year. If Republicans enjoy a big night, who won the Senate could be known on election night. That’s especially if the GOP is en route to a 53- or 54-seat majority. But if competitive Senate contests in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Montana, Michigan, Nevada, Texas and elsewhere are all tight, it may take a few days to determine which party has the majority.

Regardless, the biggest order of business facing the Senate is who emerges as the new Republican leader.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., is stepping down from his leadership post in early January but remaining in the Senate. Senate Minority Whip John Thune, R-S.D., former Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn, R-Texas, and Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., are vying to succeed McConnell as the body’s top Republican. But there’s chatter that Sen. Steve Daines, R-Mont., or other candidates could emerge.

The selection of Senate Republican leader could hinge on whether Harris or former President Trump wins – or, if the GOP claims the Senate or fails to capture the majority. A secret vote for GOP leader is slated for Nov. 13, and if it’s clear that Trump is headed to the White House, his influence could sway who Republican senators select as their next leader.

Then there’s the House.

Republicans hold a narrow, single-digit advantage in the House right now. There are more than 30 seats in battleground districts that could swing the control in one direction or the other.

But when will we know?

The House Republican Conference convenes its leadership election on Nov. 13, and the House Democratic Caucus also meets around that time. Regardless of if they are in the majority or minority, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., will lead his party in the new Congress. Jeffries is poised to ascend to the speakership next year if Democrats flip the House.

But for the GOP, things could get messy.

Which party controls the House might not be settled by the time House Republicans hold their leadership election. Republican Conference rules allow certain GOP candidates whose races have not been called to come to Washington in November and December for the freshmen orientation and vote in those leadership elections. In other words, people who might not ultimately become House members could decide who the GOP picks for leadership posts and formally nominates as the Republican candidate for speaker on the floor Jan. 3.

One senior House Republican source told Fox there could be a push to delay those leadership elections if control of the House isn’t settled. This could be an issue if there’s a contingent of GOP candidates in uncalled races who could wield too much influence in the private balloting.

So here’s the issue facing Johnson: If Republicans hold the House, and especially if they pick up a sizable chunk of seats, the Louisiana Republican probably returns to the speakership. A ‘President-elect Trump’ would certainly bolster that scenario. But if it’s a tiny majority, Johnson could win the nomination for speaker in the GOP conference but struggle to prevail on the floor early next year.

Here’s why: There’s a group of three to perhaps as many as 10 current House Republicans who have a problem with Johnson. Johnson only needs a simple majority of the House Republican Conference to get the nomination for speaker and stand before the entire House in January.

It’s about the math.

Let’s say Republicans have a small majority: 223 seats. In the November conference vote, Johnson only needs 112 votes to become the nominee for speaker. But when the entire House convenes on Jan. 3, Johnson – or any other nominee – will need an outright majority of all members casting ballots for a candidate by name. So if the House is at 435 and all members vote for someone by name, the magic number is 218.

You see the problem.

This is the same issue that vexed McCarthy and the other GOP nominees who failed to become speaker last October. 

Ironically, it’s easier for Johnson to become minority leader if Republicans lost their majority. That’s because the minority leader just needs the majority of his or her conference or caucus. So let’s say the GOP is relegated to the minority with 217 seats. Johnson just needs 109 votes to win the conference.

If there’s a problem electing a speaker on the floor in January, one should pray it’s wrapped up fast. That’s because Congress must start certifying the Electoral College on Jan. 6. After starting its vote for speaker on Jan. 3, 2023, the House didn’t elect McCarthy until the wee hours of Jan. 7. Any delay in electing a speaker would foment major issues for certifying the electoral vote – especially if the presidential race is contested. 

The House of Representatives cannot do anything, including swearing in members, until it elects a speaker. Period. A fight over the speakership could paralyze the House and risk delaying the electoral vote count. This is a nightmare scenario that has the potential to eclipse the chaos of the Electoral College certification in 2021. 

And if things weren’t fraught enough, here’s another wild card: the government runs out of money on Dec. 20.

Johnson meandered through a host of interim spending bills from last fall until spring, flirting with multiple government shutdowns. The speaker ran the exact same playbook that partially cost McCarthy the speakership. Johnson enraged scores of conservatives by green-lighting a bill to fund Ukraine and advancing an omnibus spending bill in the spring.

Lots of conservatives have grievances with Johnson, but Johnson could face trouble if he attempts to move any bill to avert a December shutdown that lacks the blessing of key conservatives. Granted, the sign-off on any spending plan by a ‘President-elect Trump’ could shield Johnson, and if Trump is elected, he likely makes the call on what he wants Johnson to do. The former president’s heat shield likely blunts any rebuke of Johnson.

That said, a misstep by Johnson on the spending bill could potentially cost him the speakership if the GOP holds the majority. And if Republicans win the House, Senate and White House, don’t expect any help from Democrats. While in the minority, House Democrats have carried gallons of water for Republicans. They’ve lugged numerous must-pass bills to avoid government shutdowns across the finish line for nearly two years. If the GOP attains unified government this fall, Democrats could push back from the table in the lame-duck session and tell House Republicans to figure it out themselves.

Heretofore, House Republicans have not shown they can advance a spending bill on their own that would become law. That’s why there’s a risk of the new Congress beginning with a government shutdown in January.

That’s exactly what happened in late 2018, drifting into early 2019. The government was shuttered as a new Congress began that January. 

So here is the utter worst-case scenario: a government shutdown, coupled with a complex speaker’s election, thus sparking a delay in certification of the Electoral College in the shadow of a disputed presidential election.

I’ll let you read that all again to digest it. 

So the campaigning and voting concludes next week, but the hardest stuff is about to begin. 

U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) on Wednesday said its forces in the Middle East conducted a ‘series of strikes’ on several ISIS locations in Syria earlier this week in an operation that killed up to 35 terrorists. 

The operation, which targeted multiple camps across Syria on Monday evening, also successfully took out ‘multiple’ senior ISIS leaders, confirmed CENTCOM.

The release also confirmed that no civilian casualties have been ‘indicated’ in the sweeping strikes. 

‘The airstrikes will disrupt the ability of ISIS to plan, organize, and conduct attacks against civilians, as well as U.S., allies, and partners throughout the region and beyond,’ the command said in a release. ‘CENTCOM, alongside allies and partners in the region, will continue to aggressively degrade ISIS operational capabilities to ensure its enduring defeat.’

The announcement comes one week after two U.S. service members were injured in Iraq during an operation that targeted and killed at least seven ISIS operatives.

The American service members were reported to be in stable condition. 

While ISIS remains a major security concern in Iraq and Syria, it does not pose the same level of threat that it did 10 years ago. Though concern mounted earlier this year following reports that the U.S. may be looking to pull its troops out of the country as soon as 2025.

U.S. soldiers have been fighting ISIS alongside coalition forces in Iraq and Syria since the terrorist group first emerged in 2014. 

Less than 1,000 U.S. troops remain in Syria while roughly 2,500 remain in Iraq.

Last month, the Pentagon said that it plans to change its ‘footprint’ in Iraq in 2025, but it refused to detail what that means in regard to the number of troops that will remain.

U.S. and Iraqi coalition forces will also continue to support anti-ISIS efforts in Syria as Washington works with Baghdad to determine future steps for U.S. troops fighting the terrorist network in the region.