Few people would have predicted that, at the end of the 2020 campaign season, the balance of power in the Senate would be a 50-50 split. As the new Congress comes together, one of the questions that has yet to be resolved is whether the filibuster will survive the transition.

The Democrats are ostensibly the majority party owing to Vice President Kamala Harris’s role as the president of the Senate. The vice president’s role is largely ceremonial, but there are exceptions. The president of the Senate can cast the deciding vote in the event of a tie and, as we saw earlier this month, presides over the counting of Electoral College votes. For most practical purposes, however, the Senate is tied and Mitch McConnell and Chuck Schumer are negotiating a power-sharing agreement that will allow the two to be co-leaders of the Senate.

The slim, one tie-breaking vote majority is leading many progressives to push Schumer, who will be first among equals, to eliminate the filibuster. Ironically, it was only a little less than three years ago that President Trump and many in the Republican caucus were pressuring McConnell to dump the filibuster.

There are valid arguments both for and against the filibuster. The tool is often used to put the brakes on sweeping radical legislation by ensuring that bills must have broad support in the Senate. Without the filibuster, a majority party could force through massive changes such as national healthcare, a border wall, gun confiscation, or bans on abortion without any opposition support. On the other hand, when control of the government changed hands, the other party could switch it all back with 51 votes, leaving the country lurching back and forth from extreme right to hard left.

The flip side is that in this extremely polarized and partisan environment, it can be almost impossible to assemble the 60 votes required for even basic and desperately needed pieces of legislation. The filibuster often paralyzes the government and has made the Senate a place where good ideas go to die. This has led presidents of both parties to push the boundaries of executive actions.

By way of a brief review, the filibuster has been around since 1837 and allows the minority party to prevent the majority from cutting off debate in order to call for a vote on legislation. The filibuster has been modified several times throughout history. In their current form, which dates back to 1975, Senate filibuster rules allow for a “cloture” vote of 60 senators to cut off debate.

In 2013, Democrats led by Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) invoked the “nuclear option” and eliminated the filibuster for presidential appointments except for the Supreme Court. Four years later, in 2017, Mitch McConnell returned the favor by eliminating the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees. That’s where the situation remained until this month.

Now, on one side are progressives who want to junk what’s left of the filibuster and on the other are moderate and traditional Democrats who see the value in the tool. Axios reported that a coalition of more than 40 progressive groups recently lobbied Schumer to enact a simple majority policy with a billboard ad in his district.

Mitch McConnell has poured fuel on the fire with an ultimatum that Democrats preserve the filibuster or forgo any chance of Republican cooperation, saying, “The people intentionally entrusted both political sides with significant power to shape our nation’s direction.”

Schumer refused to make such a guarantee and noted that McConnell’s proposal was an “extraneous demand” that was not included in the power-sharing agreement from the last evenly divided Senate in 2001. Schumer also pointed out that McConnell changed Senate rules to benefit Republicans twice in his time as majority leader.

“What’s fair is fair,” Schumer said. “Leader McConnell’s proposal is unacceptable, and it won’t be accepted.”

The problem for Schumer is that going nuclear once again would render short-term gain, but might quickly result in long-term pain. Both parties have four seats coming up for election in 2022 and control of the Senate could easily tip in either direction.

Of more immediate concern are the moderate Democratic senators. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona are among the most conservative Democrats in the Senate. Even with a simple majority requirement, the loss of one or both of these senators would be enough to kill a progressive bill even without the filibuster.

Joe Manchin, by the way, voted against Reid’s nuclear option in 2013. For her part, Sinema was denounced as a radical socialist during the 2018 campaign but has proven to be a popular moderate. Red-state Democrats such as Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock might also stay in the middle in an attempt to avoid Doug Jones’s fate.

With at least 10 Republican votes required for cloture, here are some possible Republican filibuster-busters to keep an eye on: Lisa Murkowski, (R-Alaska), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Richard Burr (R-N.C.), Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), Rob Portman (R-Ohio and who just announced that he will not run for re-election), Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), and Mitt Romney (R-Utah). If that sounds like an unlikely list, then you begin to understand the Democrat problem.

My best guess is that Chuck Schumer will avoid making Harry Reid’s mistake and preserve the filibuster. Instead, I expect Senate Democrats to work with President Biden, a man who knows his way around the Senate, to work on building coalitions to break Republican filibusters. I wouldn’t rule out minor changes or exceptions to the Senate rule, but Kirsten Sinema announced this morning that she would oppose killing the filibuster.

What most people think of the filibuster depends on whether their party is in power at the time. If you don’t like it when you’re in the majority, you probably will a few years later when you have become the minority. In my opinion, the fact that the filibuster often paralyzes the radical movements of both parties is a feature rather than a bug.

There are enough people in leadership who see the value of the filibuster that I doubt we will see either side “go nuclear” and totally eliminate the rule anytime soon, regardless of pressure from the fringes. Instead, the filibuster will probably slowly die the death of 1,000 cuts as both sides pick away at it and carve out exemptions over a long period of time.

Follow David Thornton on Twitter (@captainkudzu) and Facebook

The First TV contributor network is a place for vibrant thought and ideas. Opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of The First or The First TV. We want to foster dialogue, create conversation, and debate ideas. See something you like or don’t like? Reach out to the author or to us at ideas@thefirsttv.com.

I along with baseball fans everywhere noted the passing of Henry Aaron, who will, in my mind, always be the Home Run King. (Do not talk to me about the man who holds the record. Although I understand that it is still pretty tough to hit a Major League curveball, it was the steroids that helped them out of the yard for Bonds, the only player to surpass The Hammer.) I will leave the discussion of performance-enhancing drugs in baseball to another time, but you will never convince me that the skinny kid that played center field for Pittsburgh in 1991 is anything but the recordholder in name only.

I will leave it to others to recount Aaron’s gaudy career stats. That being said, even if you take away the 755 home runs, Aaron managed to garner 3016 hits in his career when he did not “touch them all.” Just ridiculous.  I will also leave it to others to describe the experience of being in Atlanta-Fulton County Stadium on April 8, 1974, when Aaron surpassed Babe Ruth’s home run total, a feat many thought was unattainable.  No, I was not among the several million people who claim to have been present on that April evening.  On the other hand, I was privileged to witness dozens of other games in which Aaron played. Hank Aaron was one of the Braves players of my youth, along with Felipe Alou, Clete Boyer, Addie Mathews, Rico Carty and Joe Torre. My memory of those players is centered around the games that I attended with my dad (a season ticket holder the first two years the Braves were in Atlanta) and my grandfather, who was not. More about him in a minute. In fact, the first home run that I remember seeing in Atlanta-Fulton County Stadium was a walk off home run by centerfielder Felipe Alou, and as the ball sailed over the fence, my dad (pictured above with Aaron) grabbed my hand as we rushed up the aisle to get to the parking lot.

The soundtrack which is also etched into my memory of those games with my father and my grandfather was provided by Marshall Mann, the longtime public address announcer at Atlanta-Fulton County Stadium as he announced the starting lineup. “Batting fourth, playing right field, number 44, Hank Aaron… Aaron…Right field.” Thereafter, every time Mann introduced Aaron as he came to bat – “Right Fielder, Hank Aaron,” I would sit up a little straighter in my seat because I and everyone else in attendance knew that Aaron was liable to park one over the fence. Even though I was not present to witness Aaron’s 715^th home run, I was fortunate to witness many others. You don’t get to 755 home runs without hitting number one through 714.  The reason I would sit up straighter and pay closer attention was because my grandfather, who, if the Braves were playing a Sunday home game, would gather up me, my siblings and my two first cousins and cart us off to the baseball game, told me to.  I learned pretty much all I know about the game from my grandfather, who played for Rockmart in the Northwest Georgia Textile League in the 1930s. I know I learned my appreciation for the game from him.  He made it possible for me to see great players like Willie Mays, Ernie Banks, Pete Rose, when their teams were visiting Atlanta, and also Aaron, who was a constant to all the other great players that I was fortunate to see play the game in person. To men like him of a certain age, particularly men who played the game, major league baseball players of their youth included the man whose “unattainable” record Aaron was chasing. And they were like gods.

Baseball is a social game. Although many people do not like the slow pace of the game which is not governed by a clock and which moves at its own pace (measured by the time between the last pitch and the next pitch) until each team has been put out 27 times, it allows for conversation, teachable moments, managing along with the managers, and building relationships.

Fast forward to the early 1990s when the Braves were making what felt like regular appearances in the World Series. I had tickets to a World Series home game for the Braves. I called my grandfather and asked him what he was doing that evening. Predictably he said “watching the World Series.” I told him that I would be by to pick him up about 6 o’clock. That’s right, I took my grandfather to Atlanta-Fulton County Stadium, a ballpark (using the term loosely) that we had been in countless times together spanning 30 plus years. It wasn’t until the third inning or so that he was able to speak other than to marvel at the fact that he was actually attendinga World Series baseball game. It was then that I knew that I was all square with my grandfather.

I don’t think I ever shook the Hammer’s hand. Look him up when he gets there, Papaw. I’m sure he’ll be glad to meet you.

Follow Jerry on Twitter @jaljr.

The First TV contributor network is a place for vibrant thought and ideas. Opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of The First or The First TV. We want to foster dialogue, create conversation, and debate ideas. See something you like or don’t like? Reach out to the author or to us at ideas@thefirsttv.com. 

Check out the growing list of former Obama officials who have been tapped to be part of Biden’s cabinet, courtesy of Mike Slater.

Among the picks are also former Clinton officials, an architect of the Iran nuclear deal, and John Kerry who predicted the approach President Trump took on the Middle East was doomed to fail.

One of the chief architects of the Iran nuclear deal will be overseeing new negotiations with the Iranian regime, explained Amanda Makki.

WATCH:

The Kamala Harris of today does not resemble the same Kamala Harris that served as Attorney General in California, argued Jesse Kelly on Friday.

From pot legalization to supporting lawless rioting, the Vice President seems to have done a one-eighty from the start of her political career to today in a shocking display of opportunism, Jesse explained.

“…I don’t even think she knows who she is at the core of her soul, if she has one,” said special guest Jennifer Kerns.

WATCH:

U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) says he expects “near-unanimous” GOP opposition to the post-presidency impeachment of Donald Trump and will “fight like hell” to end it as soon as possible, Buck Sexton reported on Friday.

He also pontificated on the real reason that congressional Democrats are so hell-bent on dragging the 45th president through the process saying in part, “it’s because they’re worried that Trump could come back and win.”

WATCH:

Some Biden officials and their media allies concocted a narrative to undermine their predecessors’ work on COVID-19 while simultaneously exaggerating their own contribution by saying they are “starting from scratch.”

Dr. Anthony Fauci blew up this line of attack in a press conference in which he said the new administration is “certainly not starting from scratch.” In response, one so-called reporter attempted to malign Fauci as a “Trump holdover,” Dana Loesch reported on Friday.

“This was sloppy, lazy-ass reporting…”

WATCH:

Bill O’Reilly proposed a solution to cancel culture: a free speech movement spearheaded by a new membership-driven organization focused solely on protecting free speech.

Plus, he called out “haters” Jake Tapper and Dana Bash for calling Trump “the disgraced” president and “a small man.”

“You do a surge of public relations and marketing to let everyone in the country know who the villains are, who the totalitarians are.”

WATCH:

With President Biden’s proposed overhaul of the immigration system, the old debates over border security and how to handle the problem of illegal immigrants are back near the top of the list of national discussion topics. The immigration problem is a difficult one because the country is evenly split and reform has many moving parts, many of which are deeply divisive. The Biden Administration will have an uphill battle in turning its proposals into law, but 2021 might turn out to be a good time for conservatives to negotiate a grand bargain to secure the border.

At one point, I was an immigration hardliner who insisted on deportation of all illegals. However, sometime in the second Bush Administration, after studying the issue, I realized that comprehensive immigration reform and a pathway to legalization made a lot more sense in both practical terms as well as from a conservative point of view. Immigration reform is one of those issues where a lot of the conventional wisdom turns out to be wrong.

For instance, the notion that illegal immigration fuels violent crime turns out to be off base. Granted, entering the country illegally is a crime, but it isn’t a violent one. When I was writing for The Resurgent, I investigated the evidence for a violent crime wave by illegals and it turns out that it’s pretty thin. This isn’t to say that no immigrants commit violent crimes, but they seem to do so at a lower rate than native-born Americans. Logically, it makes sense that illegal immigrants would want to steer clear of police to avoid being deported as well as to avoid going to jail.

But just because immigrants, illegal or otherwise, are not a big source of violent crime doesn’t mean that illegal immigration is a good thing. We do need to have security over our borders for a number of reasons such as preventing smugglers and terrorists from coming and going at will as well as protecting the immigrants themselves. Many illegal immigrants die while attempting to cross the Southern border or are brutalized by the coyotes who they trust to guide them into America.

But the problem is much bigger than simply building a wall and then deporting the illegals that are already here. One of my favorite quotes is H.L. Mencken’s axiom, “For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.” That describes the border wall perfectly. In another Resurgent piece from 2018, I went into detail about why the wall would not work, but suffice it to say that a border wall would be almost impossible to build considering the terrain along much of the border, it would be prohibitively expensive to build and maintain, and smugglers have already made the wall obsolete by using tunnels to go under or ramps to drive over existing sections of border fence.

An even bigger problem with the wall is that illegal border crossers are not the biggest source of new illegal immigrants. Most illegals now enter the US legally and overstay their visas. Roll Call noted in 2019 that more than twice as many illegals overstay visas as sneak across the border. A wall would do nothing to resolve this growing issue.

And then there is the issue of finding and deporting illegal immigrants who are already here. Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement are chronically short on manpower and have difficulty recruiting new officers. It would be difficult to increase manpower enough to track down anywhere near all of the estimated nine million illegals who live in the US.

Even if we could deport all of the illegals, it would create upheaval in the US economy. A common argument against increasing the minimum wage is that it would increase the costs of many goods and services. The same would be true of eliminating illegals, which represent about five percent of the US workforce. Before the pandemic, the US was already facing a labor shortage in some industries that rely on immigrant labor, such as Maryland’s crab processing plants. It is true that some jobs, particularly low-paying, labor-intensive occupations, just can’t be filled with American workers.

So, the big picture view of the situation is that we need to secure the border, but we also need immigration. A practical solution would be immigration reform that pairs border security funding, including stiffer penalties for illegal border crossing, everify for employers, and a better system for tracking visa visitors, with a reformed system for legal immigration.

One of the reasons that we have such a large problem with illegal immigration is that our immigration system is badly broken. The Cato Institute reported in 2018 that the average wait time to immigrate was six years. When we consider that the wait time for some immigrant categories from Mexico is more than 20 years, it should be easy to understand why so many are tempted to walk across the border.

If we reform the legal immigration system so that it works for both immigrants and American businesses, more immigrants will use the front door rather than sneaking in through the back. That will be better for the immigrants and for law enforcement, who will be able to concentrate on apprehending smugglers and terrorists rather than refugees.

Reform would also allow the US to better match immigrant slots with the needs of American businesses. Immigrants are needed for high-tech jobs as well as low-skilled ones, but right now, many foreign students come to US colleges and universities to earn science and technology degrees and then are forced to leave the country to work for America’s competitors.

In one example of how hardline immigration can come back to bite America, Quian Xuesen, who studied at MIT and CalTech, was deported back to China in 1955. Xuesen became a prominent space and rocket scientist and helped to develop Chinese missiles that have been fired at American soldiers and sailors.

A more recent example is the movement of American tech companies to Canada. The limited number of US work visas means that companies often can’t get enough workers at American locations so they have to shift operations north of the border. H1-B visas are also tied to specific companies so immigrant entrepreneurs can’t quit to start their own businesses without leaving the country.

So, we need new immigrants and increased border security, but the big question is what to do with the illegals who are already here. There is no good way to handle this decades-old problem, but the best solution is to provide a pathway to legalization. Many people will denounce this as “amnesty,” but that is not accurate. To these people, “amnesty” means “anything other than deportation,” but the actual meaning of the word is “a pardon.”

The question is not whether illegals should be given a pardon but what penalty they should pay. For illegal immigrants who have clean records and are gainfully employed, background checks, fines, and a long waiting period for citizenship would be punishments that fit the crime.

This is especially true in cases where the illegals are family members of American citizens. Deporting the breadwinners of American families would be counterproductive as it could both hurt businesses and force more people to rely on government entitlements.

So, we need border security, a better immigration system, and a pathway to legalization. All this needs to be rolled up into one comprehensive bill for one simple reason: None of the individual parts has the votes to pass on its own. The country and Congress are both evenly divided and the only way to get the immigration problem fixed is for both sides to work together on a compromise.

As I wrote earlier, immigration reform is both practical and conservative, and here’s why: It fixes a broken system, provides for more national security, and punishes lawbreakers as well as being a policy of more limited government as opposed to expansion. The pièce de résistance to the argument is that not compromising on a reform package will mean that none of these problems are fixed and the can is simply kicked down the road.

In 2007, conservatives killed George W. Bush’s immigration reform package even though it was strong on border security because it contained an “amnesty.” President Trump also rejected compromises that would have funded the border wall in part because they were not tough enough on illegals. Many of these deals would have also required that border security triggers be met before the legalization goes into effect.

Republicans need to decide which is more important, border security or punishing illegals. In reality, they’ve already made the decision by scuttling any deal that does not include mass deportations. We could have had border security as far back as 2007 if the hardliners were willing to compromise and if border security was really the top priority.

As Rush says, let me repeat that for those of you from Rio Lindo: Killing immigration reform has kept the border open for more than a decade. And holding out has not guaranteed that illegals will be deported. It just allowed the number of illegals to increase.

Numerous polls show that a majority of Americans favor a pathway to legalization, especially for Dreamers. Even Republicans are more closely split on the issue than you might think from watching tv or surfing social media. Conversely, only a small minority support deporting all illegals. Public opinion is on the side of reform.

If Republicans don’t make a deal on a pathway, it is likely to eventually happen without their support and without getting any enhanced security in exchange. That might well cement the brand of the GOP as a “white” party and poison the party with Hispanics much as Barry Goldwater’s opposition to civil rights legislation poisoned the party to black voters.

This year, Republicans should get the best deal they can on a comprehensive bill. In a 50-50 Senate, the Democrats still need some Republican votes. This is especially true as long as the filibuster is intact. Republican senators should use this leverage to get a better bill, not to kill reform.

The Biden bill is not the first time that we’ve debated immigration reform, and it probably won’t be the last. It would be a pleasant surprise if the parties could come together for the good of the country and solve the immigration problem, but even if they don’t, it will at least be refreshing to talk about substantive policy issues rather than conspiracy theories.

Follow David Thornton on Twitter (@captainkudzu) and Facebook

The First TV contributor network is a place for vibrant thought and ideas. Opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of The First or The First TV. We want to foster dialogue, create conversation, and debate ideas. See something you like or don’t like? Reach out to the author or to us at ideas@thefirsttv.com.

In the flurry of pardons issued by Donald Trump in the hours before he left office, one was notably missing. The former president had considered the possibility of pardoning himself, but, in the end, did not make this constitutionally questionable and controversial move. Now Mr. Trump faces an impeachment trial in the Senate and also may find himself facing criminal charges as a result of his behavior while in office. Now that Joe Biden has the pardon power, he can use it to grant Trump clemency, but should he?

First, you might wonder what kind of criminal trouble Trump could be in. There are at least three areas where he might find himself facing indictment. These include charges relating to the January 6 insurrection, his attempts to coerce Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to “find” enough votes to change the outcome of the election, and possible tax fraud charges. President Biden could pardon Trump for any or all of these charges as well as other crimes that might come to light.

Interestingly, however, there is an important limitation on Biden’s ability to pardon Donald Trump. The new president cannot pardon the former president in his impeachment trial. One of the few limitations that the Constitution places on the presidential pardon power is that it cannot be used for impeachments.

The only other limitation that Biden would face is that he can only pardon “offenses against the United States.” Therefore, even with a pardon in hand, Donald Trump might still face state charges if Georgia prosecutors decide to indict him or if Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr.’s investigation into Trump’s taxes bears fruit. Recall that Vance’s investigation led to the Supreme Court, which delayed action on a subpoena presented to Mazars USA, Trump’s accounting firm. With no presidential immunity, Vance is now likely to have access to Trump’s taxes. A pardon would also not apply to civil suits.

There is precedent for the pardon of a former president. In 1974, President Gerald Ford pardoned former President Richard Nixon for crimes that he may have committed while in office. Nixon had resigned a month earlier due to fallout from the Watergate scandal. Nixon’s infamous tapes had implicated the president in ordering a coverup of White House connections to the burglary of the Democratic National Committee headquarters.

Ford’s pardon was widely unpopular at the time and may have cost him the election in 1976 but today is generally considered to have been the right thing to do. The pardon allowed the county to heal and move forward more quickly by avoiding the divisive trial of a disgraced former president.

(In another bit of historical trivia, Ford was the only vice president never elected to that office. He was appointed by Nixon after Vice President Spiro Agnew was caught up in a corruption scandal and resigned after pleading no contest to felony tax evasion. Ford, who had been the House Minority Leader before being appointed vice president, was never elected to the office of either president or vice president.)

There are compelling arguments on both sides of the pardon question. At the top of the arguments for a pardon is Biden’s professed desire to bring healing and unity to the country. President Trump was a popular figure within the Republican Party, at least until recent weeks, and still has many strong supporters. Many people would see a Trump indictment as partisan retribution, but even many people who are not Trump supporters don’t want to see the country go through a trial or series of trials in which federal prosecutors go after the former chief executive.

On the other hand, I’ve always believed that it was not the Founders’ intention that presidents and other government officials should be above the law or given a pass when they commit crimes. Some contrition or admitting that his claims that the election was stolen were false would help the case for a pardon. Nixon resigned his office, showing that he knew what he did was wrong (or at least that his political position was untenable), but Trump has shown no remorse for any of his actions and has never recanted his unsupported allegations of widespread election fraud that provoked the riot. The closest the former president came to expressing remorse was to condemn the violence at the Capitol a week after it occurred.

In the aftermath of the insurrection, I believed that pardon in return for Trump’s resignation would be good for the country, but since the president completed his term, the argument for a pardon is not as strong now. This is especially true since there are so far no federal indictments against the president and there might never be any.

As with Ford, a pardon now might hurt Biden more than it would help Trump and the country. Biden has expressed support for moving on past the Trump controversies, but a sizable portion of the Democratic base wants Trump’s head mounted on the wall. While moderates and independents would likely appreciate a Trump pardon (and Republicans certainly would), it would anger a progressive base that is already not thrilled with Biden. Any hopes of a second term will also enter Biden’s pardon calculus.

Biden could avoid investigations by issuing a pre-emptive pardon mirroring Ford’s order granting “a full, free, and absolute pardon… for all offenses against the United States which he… has committed or may have committed or taken part in during” his term in office. A downside to this strategy is that it would pre-empt investigations which may discover more wrongdoing and that would lead to more indictments. Any criminal activity could extend beyond President Trump to staffers or his family. For instance, several Republican elected officials had requested pardons from Trump for their roles in the Capitol insurrection but did not receive them.

A pardon would also not end speculation about whether Trump committed crimes in office. The former president might benefit from investigations if they fail to show that he broke the law.

In my opinion, President Biden should hold off on any pardon of Donald Trump for the time being. Biden’s pardon would not affect the impeachment proceedings in the Senate or the possible New York state charges against the former president, which are the two biggest legal threats for Trump at the moment. Therefore, it would be of little value in bringing the country together at the present time.

I also believe that the nation deserves to know the truth about Trump’s activities while he was president. That includes whatever involvement he may have had in the insurrection as well as any other crimes that he might have committed through abuse of his presidential powers. The best way to learn the truth is to let any investigations that arise proceed for the time being. Biden will always have the option to pardon Trump later.

Follow David Thornton on Twitter (@captainkudzu) and Facebook

The First TV contributor network is a place for vibrant thought and ideas. Opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of The First or The First TV. We want to foster dialogue, create conversation, and debate ideas. See something you like or don’t like? Reach out to the author or to us at ideas@thefirsttv.com.

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo is trying to use Trump as a scapegoat for his failed leadership on COVID-19, saying New Yorkers “have been abused by Washington,” Buck Sexton reported this week.

Shockingly, it may be working as “moron” Cuomo’s approval rating has actually gone up despite harsh criticism of his handling of the pandemic, Sexton explained.

“Maybe don’t send people who are COVID-positive back into nursing homes to infect others, jackass!”

WATCH: