“Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion." — Edmund Burke On this Good Friday 2022, let’s contemplate the sinking of Russia’s powerful warship, Donald Trump’s possible endorsement of J.D. Vance in Ohio, and the awkwardness of our geriatric politics. ** Yesterday’s news out of Ukraine: ![]() And, as our colleague, Cathy Young, pointed out, the screenwriters have outdone themselves: ![]() ** Unfortunately, the day’s political news has a warmed-over feel to it: Trump once again is reportedly thinking about throwing a massive orange turd into the GOP’s senate punchbowl by endorsing J.D. Vance, who has been trailing in the polls. This morning, there are reports that Ohio GOPers are desperately trying to block the endorsement. A letter signed by dozens of party leaders, “including a slew of county chairs, tells the former president that ‘an endorsement that cuts against your support and legacy in Ohio will only serve to confuse or upset voters’ and may even suppress Republican turnout in the fall.” Once again, though, Trump is displaying his delight in humiliating the unctuous toadies who have vied for his favor. It’s hard to imagine what more shape-shifting, Big Lying, or deplorable groveling Josh Mandel could have done to win favor with Mar-a-Lago, but he today he is being introduced to the World Beneath the Bus, where he will find a good deal of company among his fellow disappointed lickspittles. And then there is Vance himself, whose transformation from best-selling author to MAGA troll was financed by billionaire Peter Thiel. Last March the Bulwark’s Mona Charen wrote “Whatever the future of the Republican party will be, the shape-shifting J.D. Vance sheds light on the dynamics of how we got here and where the Republican party is headed.”
Vance won the coveted endorsement of Marjorie Taylor Greene, and perhaps, now Trump. Our own Sarah Longwell called that shot: ![]() So why is Trump thinking of making this endorsement now, hard on the heels of his embrace of the problematic Dr. Oz? Here’s Josh Kraushaar’s take: We have an old political problemThis story is sad and unnerving at the same time: “Colleagues worry Dianne Feinstein is now mentally unfit to serve, citing recent interactions.”
The very fact that the article is appearing in the San Francisco Chronicle this week feels like a cry for help.
Clearly, Feinstein, who has been a political icon in California politics for decades, deserves to be treated with compassion and respect. But there are political implications to this story, especially as we ask ourselves why government so often seems out of touch. Let’s put this in some context. Feinstein was born in June 1933. That was three months after FDR was sworn in, and less than five months after Adolph Hitler was named German chancellor by President Paul Von Hindenburg. This is what was happening that month:
** Feinstein is not the only octogenarian in the Senate. Alabama’s Richard Shelby is 87. Oklahoma’s James Inhofe is 86; Vermont’s Pat Leahy is 81; and all three are retiring. But Iowa’s Charles Grassley, who is 88 years old — just three months younger than Feinstein — is running for another 6-year term. And Feinstein’s term runs until January 2025. They are not alone. This is, in fact, the oldest senate in U.S. history. The Wapo reports:
Some additional context: the median age of Americans is around 38 years old. But the average age of members of the House of Representatives is more than 57. It’s even worse for leadership, especially among the Democrats. Speaker Nancy Pelosi is 82, as is the number two Democrat in the House, Steny Hoyer. ** The problem extends to the Supreme Court as well, where many of the most consequential decisions of recent years have been decided by elderly justices. Justice Anthony Kennedy was 82 when he retired; RBG died on the bench at the age of 87. Justice Stephen Breyer, who will step down this summer, is 83. And then there is the presidency itself… Six decades after the election of JFK passed the torch to a younger generation, we find ourselves facing the prospect of an ongoing geriatric presidency. Joe Biden will be 82 on Inauguration Day 2025; if he is re-elected and serves out a second term, he will be 86 when he leaves office. Donald Trump will be 78 on January 20, 2025, an age that Republicans routinely suggest is too old to be a Democratic president. (I hope you see what I did there.) He would be 82 by the end of his second term. Can we acknowledge that this is a problem? Obviously, the answer is not necessarily more youth, inexperience and idiocy (see Madison Cawthorn), but is it too much to suggest that perhaps we need to have a government that is more in touch with the current century? Quick Hits1. Bloody Borders or a Bloody Cross?Alan Cross on Christianity, Ukraine, and the Russian Orthodox Church.
2. The Pregnant Beauty Blogger and the Kremlin PropagandistsCathy Young sorts through the lies.
3. The Lessons of Ukraine for Taiwan—and the U.S.Eric S. Edelman and Franklin C. Miller write in today’s Bulwark:
Cheap ShotsYou’re a free subscriber to Morning Shots. For the full experience, become a paid subscriber. |









