Three years ago, during his first campaign for elected office, the then-Senate candidate appeared on Fox News and diagnosed what he saw as a crisis plaguing the United States. The country, Vance told a national television audience, was being run “by a bunch of childless cat ladies who are miserable at their own lives and the choices that they’ve made, and so they want to make the rest of the country miserable, too. It’s just a basic fact.”

The future senator specifically included Vice President Kamala Harris — who has step-children, but no biological children of her own — in his societal condemnation.
https://x.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1815503440983867598

......As part of an apparent attempt to put things right, the Ohioan sat down with Megyn Kelly today and addressed the controversy, arguing:

“Obviously, it was a sarcastic comment. I’ve got nothing against cats. ... But look, this is not — people are focusing so much on the sarcasm and not on the substance of what I actually said, and the substance of what I said, Megyn, I’m sorry, it’s true. It is true that we’ve become anti-family. It is true that the left has become anti-child.”

I have a hunch this won’t make matters better. For one thing, for Vance to say he has “nothing against cats” suggests he’s under the impression that the controversy is feline-related. It’s not. The underlying question is about whether he has something against women, not something against cats.

For another, his 2021 comments were many things, but they weren’t “sarcastic.” On the contrary, he appears to have doubled down on the comments that sparked the controversy in the first place.

Finally, if Vance has credible evidence of liberals being “anti-child,” he’s kept it well hidden.

I can appreciate why the vice presidential hopeful is trying to clean up his mess, but Vance has had plenty of time to work out a defense, and if “nothing against cats” is the best he can come up with, the Republican’s problem is likely to linger for a while.

FBI Director Chris Wray probably didn’t intend to spark a controversy during his appearance before the House Judiciary Committee this week, but the Trump-appointed official managed to make some unintended news anyway.

The trouble began when Wray testified that there’s some uncertainty surrounding the precise nature of Donald Trump’s injury from the recent assassination attempt in Pennsylvania. “I think with respect to former President Trump, there’s some question about whether or not it’s a bullet or shrapnel that hit his ear,” the FBI director told lawmakers......

An Associated Press report noted last week that the public was “still in the dark over the extent of his injuries, what treatment the Republican presidential nominee received in the hospital, and whether there may be any long-term effects on his health. Trump’s campaign has refused to discuss his condition, release a medical report or records, or make the doctors who treated him available, leaving information to dribble out from Trump, his friends and family.”

Eventually, Team Trump issued a statement from Jackson — a scandal-plagued former White House physician with serious credibility problems — instead of from one of the physicians who actually treated the former president after the incident.

Now, they’re promoting another statement from Jackson, as part of an apparent effort to push back against Trump's handpicked FBI director.

Again, something hit Trump’s ear. Based on everything we now know, I’m very much inclined to believe that it was a bullet. But what’s baffling is why the Republican and his operation are so resistant to transparency.

Jackson’s latest statement said he’s reviewed the relevant medical records from Butler Memorial Hospital. Terrific. Why not show those same records to the public and put an end to the speculation? What’s more, why not make doctors who treated Trump available to journalists, instead of relying on a controversial member of Congress?

President Joe Biden’s address on Wednesday will go down in history. Not just as a great Biden speech, but as a great moment in the American presidency.

It was a timeless speech about a very specific moment. Biden talked about the situation he inherited from former President Donald Trump: the worst pandemic in a century, the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression and the worst attack on our democracy since the Civil War — all simultaneously, that’s what he walked into.

But he also talked about where things stand now, his personal ambition and his belief that his record does warrant a second term. He wants a second term — you hear that when he talks about what he plans to do these next six months. But Biden also acknowledges that ambition can’t be bigger than the needs of the nation and the needs of the nation to stay with this form of government — what he called one of the greatest ideas in the history of the world.

Biden’s speech was a tentpole in terms of what patriotism and selfless service look like. He posits a view of the presidency that is directly opposite to the idea of authoritarianism and autocracy. He talked about being in the Oval Office, about the portraits of presidents past who surround him, and he said: “I revere this office. But I love this country more.”......

Biden’s voice may be faltering, his delivery may not be as strong as we remember it — even at the beginning of this term — but his vision is clear. He understands that the moment we’re in is about whether or not we continue as a republic, and that’s not a hyperbolic thing to say. He’s saying it’s not about me; it’s about whether or not we’re going to stay the United States of America.

The day after President Joe Biden ended his re-election bid, The Atlantic’s Tim Alberta wrote via social media, “[The] most striking thing I heard from Trump allies yesterday was the second-guessing of JD Vance — a selection, they acknowledged, that was borne of cockiness, meant to run up margins with the base in a blowout.”

This was not the only such report. Axios reported yesterday that some Republicans are “second-guessing the former president’s selection,” with one House GOP member explaining that Vance “was the only pick that wasn’t the safe pick. And I think everyone has now realized that.”

The same report quoted another House Republican saying the feeling withing the conference is that Vance “doesn’t add much” to the party’s ticket.

The Hill, meanwhile, published a related report of its own overnight.

A number of House Republicans are privately bashing former President Trump’s selection of Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio) as his running mate, warning that the pick will not help — and could hurt — the party’s chances of winning in November.

The article quoted one GOP lawmaker who called the Ohioan “the worst choice of all the options.” Another told The Hill, “I think if you were to ask many people around this building, nine out of 10 on our side would say he’s the wrong pick. [Vance is] the only person who can do serious damage.”.....

But Trump picked him anyway at least in part because Trump assumed he was poised to win anyway. As the former president saw it, with an inevitable 2024 victory in hand, there was no harm in running up the ideological score, satisfying the MAGA base, and establishing greater control over the Republican Party’s vision for the foreseeable future.

That, of course, was when the GOP nominee thought a relatively easy victory over Biden was at hand. As of five days ago, things are suddenly ... different.

All of this obviously matters in an electoral context, but the developments also say a great deal about Trump’s judgment, and none of it’s good.