There is much about Trump’s war of choice against Iran that lands in the middle of insane.  I can’t list them all – and besides, pretty much everyone knows what they all are.  I’m sure everyone has their own list of the top most lunatic.  But a few are so utterly inexplicable to me that they deserve standalone attention.
 
We had a nuclear deal with Iran, and Trump tore it up.
 
Trump keeps saying that Iran is “Really Anxious to Negotiate.”  Whenever I hear him say that, it begs the question being asked to him.  “So, are you really anxious to negotiate??”  There are only two answers:  Yes (in which case, don’t make such a big deal that Iran wants to, assuming they do), and No (in which case the follow-up question is – “Why not??!!!  You want the war to go on???)
 
Trump makes a big deal out of us blockading the Strait of Hormuz, and his team around him talks about what a brilliant, genius move this is to force Iran to open it.  Left out of his and their swaggery chest-thumping is the reality the Strait of Hormuz was open, before Trump bombed Iran.  Getting Iran to open it is not the genius move he thinks it is.  And you don’t get points for opening a Strait that only closed because you bombed the country.  Especially when you said you had no idea that Iran would do this, when you were clearly told it would happen by your military team because it's what they have been preparing for as a likelihood over the course of years, and anyone with half a brain could have figured that out.
 
We were negotiating with Iran – and it turns out, according to former National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, that Iran actually made an offer that was somewhat close to the original nuclear deal that we had!  But our crackerjack team of inexperienced negotiators of “JD Vance,” Jared Kushner and Steve Witcoff didn’t grasp what was being offered and passed on it.  And then we bombed Iran that stopped the peaceful negotiations. 
 
Whatever settlement eventually occurs, and however much Trump and his team sashay around claiming the great victory they supposedly achieved to make American safe -- it can’t be forgotten that we had a nuclear deal with Iran that Trump tore up, the Strait of Hormuz was open, Trump said 10 months ago we “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear capability (we didn’t but he insisted it), all experts state that Iran was a decade from developing nuclear weapons and the U.S. was not at risk, we and Iran were negotiating peacefully, Iran offered another nuclear deal before any bombs were dropped, we bombed Iran by choice during negotiations that ended negotiations, 13 U.S. military have been killed, 400 American military have been injured, 150 Iranian schoolgirls were killed, the Strait of Hormuz was closed, the world economy was put in turmoil, we’ve spent $51 billion so far, we created a rift with our strategic security partners, sanctions were removed from Russia which is giving military assistance to Iran, Russia’s oil industry has boomed which gives them more ability to continue their war against Ukraine, and Trump has put Iran on the edge of becoming a world power because, for the first time, they learned the disruption they can cause by even just threatening again to close the Strait of Hormuz.  And on top of all that, Trump and his inner circle of unqualified incompetents have never even been able to settle on what exactly their ever-changing goal was they hoped to achieve for the war they started -- by choice, but instead just kept throwing a bunch of ideas into a bucket and hoped for the best. And in the end, above all, no, Trump does not get points for ending a war that he started.

You do not get points for ending a war that only happened because you began it.

If you start a fire and then call in the fire department, you do not get praise for saying, "Look how I put out the fire!!"

Besides which, everyone now knows that you are an arsonist.

And that's just if we get back to where we were before Trump chose to go to war and bomb Iran.

There is so much else that is insane and inexplicable about all that Trump in his dementia-addled states and his incompetent circle of political advisors did.  But these are just the top few on my list.

In fact, perhaps the only thing about Trump's war of choice against Iran that is not inexplicable is that he started it despite one of his top campaign promises being "I'm not going to start wars" and "No new wars".  Only anyone who wasn't looking -- like his base -- couldn't see that one coming from miles away.

I dearly wish Trump had not started his war of choice against Iran.  Whatever the outcome, whenever it does end, there was absolutely no reason for it, and so much loss and devastation, which will linger, including the undermining of U.S. standing in the world.  But he did, and as a result there is only one positive thing to come as a result -- and it's that Trump's approval has hit 34%, and close to putting a lid on it improving, while crushing his party's chances in the Mid-Terms.

Yesterday, someone on social message posted a message that began --"'JD Vance' said..."
 
I replied that the words "'JD Vance' said..." has become the catchphrase which means -- "Okay, you can stop thinking that anything truthful is coming next."

Because that's what happens when you keep showing you have zero moral center.

I wasn’t being facetious.  Nor was I even being hyperbolic either.  To be clear, I wasn’t saying that “JD Vance” lies about everything – he doesn’t.  Just that when “JD Vance” speaks, your starting point should no longer be to assume you will hear the truth. 
 
It’s not because he lies a lot.  Trump lies much more.  (And I also believe that the starting point with Trump has long stopped being that you should assume you’ll hear the truth.  He might tell the truth every once in a while when it’s convenient for him or because he lucked onto it, but you have to dig deep in his delusional word salad to find it.)  But it’s different with Trump.  He’s a pathological liar who has dementia.  He doesn’t have a concept of telling the truth.  But with Trump, it’s not a question of will he tell the truth, it’s a question of does he even know what the truth is, or even sometimes if he even knows what he’s saying, period.  He almost can’t help himself.  He rambles, goes off on tangents, speaks in word salad and has more “tells” that he’s about to lie, than most people have fingers.  (“They said to me, Sir,” “actually,” “many people say,” “I am the only person who ever,” “To be totally honest,” “Barack Obama,” “Did you know…?,” using a derogatory nickname for someone, “What news service do you work for?,” “This is the first time ever,” “Joe Biden,” shifting his hands back-and-forth-and-back-and-forth repeatedly, and many more.  That’s just for starters.)  It’s who he is.  And most people understand that.
 
But this is about “JD Vance.”  And he’s very different.
 
The difference is that Trump has no morals – he doesn’t seem to have a sense of what morals are, just that if it’s good for Trump, that’s enough.  But “JD Vance” has no moral center.  He knows what morals are.  And he lives according to his morals.  It’s just that they’re always shifting.  And so, he’ll say whatever he has to, in order to fit where they are at that moment.
 
When “JD Vance” talks, it sounds rational as long as you don’t pay attention.  Because there’s a good chance it contradicts something he’s said in the past or that you know beyond all question to be true.  But it fits his need when trying to convince his listeners of something.  No matter how ludicrous it is.   No matter how much you listen to his words and sometimes can’t imagine – not that anyone would believe it, but – that anyone would actually say it and think anyone would believe it.
 
Because he has no moral center.

Just this week, “JD Vance” said that Trump actually hated Jeffrey Epstein.  This despite the video of them partying together, Epstein saying how they were best friends and Trump saying how close they were.

Or the time (sorry, times) that “JD Vance” said that immigrants in Ohio were stealing pet dogs and cats and eating them.  This despite being told by local officials that there was no evidence of it, and that it was completely untrue.

Or when “JD Vance” explained that the reason that the cost of houses had risen so much and were so expensive in America was because illegal immigrants were buying houses above the asking price, driving the market up.  This despite reality, common sense, logic and not having a moral center.

Or, as the quintessential evidence of anyone having no moral center, calling Trump “America's Hitler” (about as vicious a thing one could say about any American – or anyone) and saying that Trump was “cultural heroin” and a “cynical asshole,” and then readily agreeing to become Trump’s running mate and loyal supporter and defender.  The kind of thing one can only do if you have no moral center.

But none of this should come as a surprise.  After all, “JD Vance” isn’t even “JD Vance.”  He was born really James Donald Bowman.  Which he then changed to James David Hamel.  And then changed it to James David Vance.  And changed that to J.D. Vance, before fixing it finally (for now) by changing it to “JD Vance”).  

But then, it’s not just his name that’s a cipher, but his background of who he is, as well.

That’s because he wrote in his book Hillbilly Elegy about his Appalachian upbringing, giving the sense of his youth growing up in the backwoods of Kentucky.  In fact, “JD Vance” was not born or grow up in Appalachia at all -- his grandparents did, and then moved.  “Vance” (born Bowman) was born and grew up in a suburb of Cincinnati!  Now, yes, it was a poor and rough upbringing.  But it wasn’t the hills of Kentucky. And there are many people who grew up in poor, difficult, abusive environments, but that doesn’t make them from Appalachia.  And there are many millions of people whose grandparents were from other states and countries, and that doesn’t make their grandchild from there as their upbringing.

So, it’s no great wonder that “JD Vance” from Cincinnati has no moral center.  His whole life has been about shifting everything about himself around.
 
​There is an understandable concern that if, for any reason, Trump has to leave office early, and “JD Vance” became president.  Because he is a political entity who is a process of quite literal fascists who have been his mentors and financial supporters – most notably Peter Thiel and Curtis Yarvin (of whom the New York Times wrote, “He believes that government bureaucracy should be radically gutted, and perhaps most provocative, he argues that American democracy should be replaced by what he calls a “monarchy” run by what he has called a “C.E.O.” — basically his friendlier term for a dictator.”)

While the fears are very understandable, what’s missing is that “JD Vance” doesn’t come remotely close to having the devout cult-like loyalty of Trump.  It’s not certain that he has the loyalty of a fireplug.  During the 2020 campaign, he ranked at the bottom of likeability among all four candidates on the Democratic and Republican tickets.  He was famously mocked for when his campaign staff tried to make him more human (just think about that), they sent their country boy from “Appalachia” into a doughnut shop that resulted in a video so painfully awkward in his inability to make small talk with the servers or just order an apple fritter that the whole effort only worsened things.  The other day, when trying to explain his position on negotiating peace with Iran, he went into some bizarre analogy about a pact he had with his wife where he wouldn’t let her skydive out of an airplane. 
 
Add to this that if “JD Vance” ever did become the fill-in president, his own party is full of senators and governors who’d love to be the MAGOP nominee in 2028 and would be more than happy to see him fail in office.  While knowing that they could oppose him on issue without concern that his call for a primary challenge to them would have no impact.
 
How much loyalty and support does this empty bucket without a moral center have?  On Tuesday, “Vance” spoke at the Turning Point USA convention, one of the premier events for conservatives.  This was the turnout he got --

​No, that’s not an optical illusion.  For the vice president of the United States at a top conservative convention, that’s about only 25% of the arena who were there in attendance.  Though an optimist might say it’s 100% of a quarter of the arena.
 
​Or a realist would say, that's what results when you have no moral center.

If you didn't see Jon Stewart's Monday hosting of The Daily Show, his Main Story was about Trump's debacle in Iran, his fight with the Pope, his God complex and more.

The whole report is wonderful, biting  and very funny.  But about 3-1/2 minutes in, there is one of the funniest jokes the show has had and worth watching just for that, if you don't want to put any more time in.  (Jimmy Kimmel had a similar joke on the same point last night, and it was very good, but with a totally different observation and punchline, and so Stewart's -- for reasons that will be clear -- was even better, and he builds on it significantly longer.)  For that matter, the first 12 minutes is pretty consistently funny, as well.

There was a huge upheaval in the California governor’s race, and it’s so sad and awful on many levels.  The major sexual misconduct scandal with Eric Swalwell turned the race inside out.  And “misconduct” is the polite term since there were charges of sexual abuse and rape against Eric Swalwell by four women, including one in his office.  He was leading among Democrats, ballots have been printed for the primary, and early voting starts in just three weeks, on May 4.  Election Day is June 2.

Beyond dropping out of the race, the reaction by House MAGOPs calling for him to resign his seat in Congress has been gallingly, though grotesquely humorously hypocritical.  Their stated outrage has been that they believe the accusations, and America deserves better and that there’s no place in Congress for such action.  And while they’re right of course, their outrage would mean so much more if they had ever expressed one single word of fury at Trump who not only has had 12 women made accusations of sexual abuse against him (who apparently MAGOPs don’t believe) – but he was literally adjudicated guilty of rape by a jury in court after being allowed a full defense.  But not a peep ever from MAGOPs about wanting Trump to resign his office, or filing impeachment charges because America deserves better and there’s no place in government for him.
 
For that matter, a woman accused Pete Hegseth of rape, but it seems MAGOPs don’t believe her either.  Maybe one accusation of rape isn’t a high enough standard for their hypocritical souls.
 
Yesterday, Swalwell did resign, after pressure by Democrats to do so.  Pressure that these outraged MAGOPs never once put on their own member Tony Gonzales...until they were essentially forced to by Democrats' action against one of their own, and now Gonzales, finally, has resigned.  (For anyone concerned, just know that Swalwell's resignation won’t affect the makeup of Congress.  He’s in a very Democratic district and won his 2024 election by 36 points -- 68-32%.  So, a Democrat will be elected in his district to replace him.

That brings us to the point of this today, how it all impacts the California governor’s race.
 
California has what’s called a “jungle primary.”  All candidates run in the primary, regardless of party.  And unless someone gets above 50% of the vote, there is a runoff of the top two.  No write-in votes are allowed.
 
The concern among Democrats this year is that there are about eight major candidates splitting the vote, and just two main MAGOP.  All polls have had one of the MAGOPs in first place, while Swalwell and the other MAGOP have flip-flopped between who would get the second position.  And now Swalwell is out.
 
Democrat Tom Steyer is fairly close in fourth place (now third place), with former Congresswoman Katie Porter behind him, though a bit back.  With the other Democrats further behind.  Not out of it, especially now, but hanging on by their fingertips.
 
A “downside” for me is that this would make Tom Steyer the top candidate for Democrats – and while I think he has generally good positions, he has zero experience, and I think is unqualified.  His only “credential” is that’s he’s a billionaire who’s self-funded his campaign, having spent $100 million so far.  That said, whatever his limitations in politics, his positions are pretty good, and he would be 100% better than any of the two MAGOPs.

All this said, let’s take a look at what I think might end up happening.
 
For starters, I actually think that in some ways, odd as it may seem, Swalwell leaving the race helps ensure that a Democrat will get in the top two.  I’ll explain why in a moment.

And know, too, that even if worse comes to worse and the unlikely happens, and a MAGOP wins the California governorship, Democrats have veto-proof supermajorities in the state legislature – and may even expand that in the general election – and so there will be little damage that a MAGOP as governor could do.
 
But losing the governorship would still be dismal.  However, this is why I don’t think that will happen.
 
Though Swalwell’s name will remain on the ballot, his dropping out gives the maximum amount of time for word to get out to all those who were supporting him, and for all the other candidates to adjust their campaigns to go after those votes that now just opened up.
 
And that’s the most important thing – previous to all this, Democratic officials were anxious for the party’s candidates at the bottom (with no chance) to drop out in order to open up their 2-3% support and let the leading candidates pick that up.  But with Swalwell dropping out, that’s no longer working with just 2-3% of the votes, but rather something like 13 points that now can get split up and go to the other candidates – most likely those around the top…which should push one of them into the top two position overall, which is all that is needed to get into the two-person general election.  And as I said, if a Democrat gets in the top two, he or she will win.  And for that matter, Democrats have a real chance now to get both two top spots.

Okay, we’re going to get into numbers now, so bear with me.
 
In an average of the four major polls taken, Swalwell was in second place overall behind a MAGOP, with 13.5% -- to the MAGOP’s 17%.
 
The next closest in third place overall was a MAGOP with 12%.
 
Then came Tom Steyer at around 12% and Katie Porter at 10%.  (I also like former Attorney General Xavier Becerra a lot – maybe even most now – but he’s next at only at 4%.)

So, it’s not unreasonable to think that Steyer and Porter will get most of Swalwell’s votes, with Becerra some.  But let’s be somewhat conservative.  Let’s say, that Steyer and Porter each get 5% of Swalwell’s support, Becerra gets 3% and all others split the minimal rest.  I don’t know if it will split this way, but it’s not an unreasonable guess.

That gives Steyer 17% and Porter 15%, both far ahead of the second MAGOP who only has 12%.  Not enough for both of them to get in the general election, but easily enough for one of them, to run against the top MAGOP who also has 17%. 
 
But (and this is very important) – 24% of voters are undecided!  And since California is strongly Democratic, almost two-to-one, and there are far more (good) Democrats running, it’s fair to think that most of those undecideds will break for Democrats.  And in the end, they’ll likely go for one of the frontrunners, which tends to be the case.  Which means there’s a reasonable chance (or even, perhaps, a very good chance) that two Democrats will pick up enough “undecided” votes to both get into the general election, pushing out the MAGOP.  But one almost certainly will.

And further, then add in the little-mentioned factor that these polls have just been about “Who do you support?”, not “Likely voters.”  And this Mid-Term, all polls across the country show that Democrats are overwhelmingly more motivated to vote than MAGOPs.  Which means that the poll support for the two MAGOP candidates are less likely to translate to voting support, compared to motivated Democratic voters, furious at Trump’s MAGOP party. Which makes it even more possible-to-likely that two Democrats will get into the final two. 
 
But this is the most important thing now:  it doesn’t even matter if two Democrats finish in the top to.  If only one Democrat is on the general election ballot against a MAGOP in California, Democrats outnumber MAGOPs in the state by about 61-39, so the Democrat will easily win.  Especially this year.

And if Eric Swalwell didn’t have a scandal and stayed in the race, while I think he’d have finished in the top two, and maybe even two Democrats would have (as the undecided votes got cast, and more-motivated Democrats voted) – I wouldn’t have sworn to the certainty of that.  Only the likelihood.  So, as a purely political matter – and this scandal is about much more than pure politics – I oddly think Democrats are in even better position in the election.

This is just a total guess, so who knows?  But -- I think the guesses are based on realistic, actual numbers and very fair assumptions.

So, as ghastly as this awful news is about Swalwell – most of all, far most of all for the woman -- as a pure political matter, this is the best political result for Democrats, with him dropping out.