Skip to main content

Search

Search people, articles, bills, and more

reverse pyromania logo

reverse pyromania

heymistermix.com

Local NewsProvenance not yet reviewed

3 stories credited to reverse pyromania

Latest story Apr 19, 2026 · on ChamberLight since Apr 2026

A story can appear as several articles (copies of the same piece), so counts of stories and of articles differ.

Scores for reverse pyromania

Credibility

Not enough stories yet: 3 of 10.

How this is measured

Political lean

Not enough stories yet: 3 of 10.

How this is measured

Originality

Not enough stories yet: 3 of 10.

How this is measured

Writing quality not enough rated stories yet: 2 of 10. How it is measured

Scores last checked Sep 25, 2026.

Stories ChamberLight collected, by month

Stories credited to reverse pyromania, by publication date. ChamberLight collects articles that mention the officials it tracks, so this shows its own coverage of this source, not how much the source publishes.

  • Stories from reverse pyromania
  • Shaded: ChamberLight collected no stories, or almost none, from any outlet (a gap in its collection, not in the outlet’s publishing)
Show as a table
MonthStoriesAll outlets
April 202634,011
May 20260none collected
June 20260none collected
July 20260none collected
August 202601 (collection gap)
September 202601,320

Top topics

Share of this source’s stories tagged with each topic. A story can carry several topics, so the shares do not add up to 100%.

  • Ethics/Corruption2

    67% of 3 stories · 58% across all outlets

  • Criminal Justice1

    33% of 3 stories · 19% across all outlets

  • Defense/Military1

    33% of 3 stories · 25% across all outlets

  • Economy1

    33% of 3 stories · 26% across all outlets

  • Foreign Policy1

    33% of 3 stories · 29% across all outlets

  • Healthcare1

    33% of 3 stories · 8% across all outlets

  • Immigration1

    33% of 3 stories · 13% across all outlets

  • Voting Rights1

    33% of 3 stories · 19% across all outlets

The thin mark on each bar is the topic’s share across all outlets.

Who they cover

Party of the officials these stories are mainly about, across all 6 officials named. A story counts once for each official it is mainly about, so the split is over 6 story–official pairs, from 3 stories.

  • Democrat33% · 2 pairs
  • Republican33% · 2 pairs
  • Independent17% · 1 pair
  • Party not recorded17% · 1 pair

Article tone

ChamberLight’s article analysis assigns each story a tone toward the official it covers. It describes the coverage of that official, not reverse pyromania’s stance, and reader votes do not change it. 3 stories.

Good Look
0 (0%)
Mixed
2 (67%)
Informational
0 (0%)
Bad Look
1 (33%)

Challenges to these scores

No one has challenged a score on this page yet. Anyone can; editors publish every outcome here.

Articles served from heymistermix.com

6

Progress

More than three dozen Democrats supported an effort by Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders on Wednesday to block arms sales to Israel, signaling a growing discontent in the party with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the wars in Gaza and Iran. The two resolutions to block U.S. sales of bulldozers and bombs to Israel were opposed by all Republicans and rejected 40-59 and 36-63. Similar resolutions forced by Sanders in 2024 and 2025 were also rejected, but the number of Democrats voting with the Vermont Independent has more than doubled in less than two years… I was looking at the 2025 vote compared to the 2026 vote. These are the Democratic Senators who voted for a blank check to Israel in 2025. 2025 1. Michael Bennett (CO) 2. Richard Blumenthal (CT) 3. Cory Booker (NJ) 4. Maria Cantwell (WA) 5. Chris Coons (DE) 6. Catherine Cortez Masto (NV) 7. John Fetterman (PA) 8. Kirsten Gillibrand (NY) 9. Maggie Hassan (NH) 10. John Hicklenlooper (CO) 11. Jon Ossoff (GA) 12. Alex Padilla (CA) 13. Gary Peters (MI) 14. Jack Reed (RI) 15. Jackie Rosen (NV) 16. Adam Schiff (CA) 17. Chuck Schumer (NY) 18. Mark Warner (VA) 19. Ron Wyden (OR) And these are the Democratic Senators who voted for a blank check for Israel in 2026 2026 1. Richard Blumenthal (CT) 2. Chris Coons (DE) 3. Catherine Cortez Masto (NV) 4. John Fetterman (PA) 5. Kirsten Gillibrand (NY) 6. Gary Peters (MI) 7. Jack Reed (RI) 8. Jackie Rosen (NV) 9. Chuck Schumer (NY) 10. Mark Warner (VA) 11. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI) Comparing the 2025 vote with the 2026 vote, we end up with some defectors from the blank check caucus: Bennett (CO), Booker (NJ), Cantwell (WA) Hassen (NH), Hickenlooper (CO), Ossoff (GA), Padilla (CA), Wyden (OR), Schiff (CA). it could just be they are fed up with Israel’s far Right government taking them completely for granted and campaigning against Democrats and for Trump. It also could be they are responding to the 75% of Democrats polled who want conditions on weapons funding to Israel. I have also read that Trump and Netanyahu’s invasion of Iran has opened a 2015 wound for Democrats, because the far Right in Israel vehemently opposed Obama’s Iran deal and, well, you know how that turned out. Trump and Netanyahu somehow managed to give Iran the Strait of Hormuz, along with …20 billion dollars? I expect Trump to offer them Greenland soon.  Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned the United States on Tuesday that it was negotiating a bad deal with Iran that could spark a “nuclear nightmare,” drawing a rebuke from President Barack Obama and exposing a deepening U.S.-Israeli rift. They delivered duelling messages within hours of each other. The pro Palestinian movement always had a longer view than one cycle. They knew that given that US foreign policy conventional wisdom, as expressed by both Hillary Clinton (sadly!) and Condaleeza Rice, insists that Israel must receive a blank check forever no matter what Israel does, this would take a while. I voted for Clinton in 2016 but boy she has a real penchant for being on the wrong side of US military policy. I recognize Clinton thinks US college students are morons, but maybe she should start listening to someone outside the Hoover Institution– students were on the right side of two disastrous (and unlawful) US military adventures Clinton supported. In fact, the much-maligned (and viciously censored) students now better represent the views of the Democratic electorate than the 25% who cling to the status quo on Israel. That’s progress. Powered by beehiiv

Apr 19, 202615 votes

Progress

More than three dozen Democrats supported an effort by Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders on Wednesday to block arms sales to Israel, signaling a growing discontent in the party with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the wars in Gaza and Iran. The two resolutions to block U.S. sales of bulldozers and bombs to Israel were opposed by all Republicans and rejected 40-59 and 36-63. Similar resolutions forced by Sanders in 2024 and 2025 were also rejected, but the number of Democrats voting with the Vermont Independent has more than doubled in less than two years… I was looking at the 2025 vote compared to the 2026 vote. These are the Democratic Senators who voted for a blank check to Israel in 2025. 2025 1. Michael Bennett (CO) 2. Richard Blumenthal (CT) 3. Cory Booker (NJ) 4. Maria Cantwell (WA) 5. Chris Coons (DE) 6. Catherine Cortez Masto (NV) 7. John Fetterman (PA) 8. Kirsten Gillibrand (NY) 9. Maggie Hassan (NH) 10. John Hicklenlooper (CO) 11. Jon Ossoff (GA) 12. Alex Padilla (CA) 13. Gary Peters (MI) 14. Jack Reed (RI) 15. Jackie Rosen (NV) 16. Adam Schiff (CA) 17. Chuck Schumer (NY) 18. Mark Warner (VA) 19. Ron Wyden (OR) And these are the Democratic Senators who voted for a blank check for Israel in 2026 2026 1. Richard Blumenthal (CT) 2. Chris Coons (DE) 3. Catherine Cortez Masto (NV) 4. John Fetterman (PA) 5. Kirsten Gillibrand (NY) 6. Gary Peters (MI) 7. Jack Reed (RI) 8. Jackie Rosen (NV) 9. Chuck Schumer (NY) 10. Mark Warner (VA) 11. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI) Comparing the 2025 vote with the 2026 vote, we end up with some defectors from the blank check caucus: Bennett (CO), Booker (NJ), Cantwell (WA) Hassen (NH), Hickenlooper (CO), Ossoff (GA), Padilla (CA), Wyden (OR), Schiff (CA). it could just be they are fed up with Israel’s far Right government taking them completely for granted and campaigning against Democrats and for Trump. It also could be they are responding to the 75% of Democrats polled who want conditions on weapons funding to Israel. I have also read that Trump and Netanyahu’s invasion of Iran has opened a 2015 wound for Democrats, because the far Right in Israel vehemently opposed Obama’s Iran deal and, well, you know how that turned out. Trump and Netanyahu somehow managed to give Iran the Strait of Hormuz, along with …20 billion dollars? I expect Trump to offer them Greenland soon.  Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned the United States on Tuesday that it was negotiating a bad deal with Iran that could spark a “nuclear nightmare,” drawing a rebuke from President Barack Obama and exposing a deepening U.S.-Israeli rift. They delivered duelling messages within hours of each other. The pro Palestinian movement always had a longer view than one cycle. They knew that given that US foreign policy conventional wisdom, as expressed by both Hillary Clinton (sadly!) and Condaleeza Rice, insists that Israel must receive a blank check forever no matter what Israel does, this would take a while. I voted for Clinton in 2016 but boy she has a real penchant for being on the wrong side of US military policy. I recognize Clinton thinks US college students are morons, but maybe she should start listening to someone outside the Hoover Institution– students were on the right side of two disastrous (and unlawful) US military adventures Clinton supported. In fact, the much-maligned (and viciously censored) students now better represent the views of the Democratic electorate than the 25% who cling to the status quo on Israel. That’s progress. Powered by beehiiv

Apr 19, 202616 votes

The Middle Lane

Getting ready for a bit of a family reunion in Copenhagen - my daughter and her family are coming along with my middle son. My youngest has plans he can’t reschedule so he will not be along. He just took the LSAT which didn’t surprise me - I think he’s way too much of an extrovert for comp sci (his degree). I once asked his 7th grade teacher what my son seemed to be interested in and he laughed and said “other people - he’s interested in other people”. That’s half of lawyering right there. I’ve been looking at the Michigan Senate race because I will be voting for the eventual winner of the primary. Too, I think it’s a good proxy for the ideological debates in the national Dem party. We looked at the D candidate on the Right last time, Rep Stevens, so today we’ll do the center, Mallory McMorrow. I’ll be looking at which of the three candidates labor supports - should be interesting because each candidate has policy areas with real appeal to labor. It may be a tough choice for unions. State Senator Mallory McMorrow (D-Royal Oak) turned in nominating petition signatures Monday in her campaign for Michigan’s open U.S. Senate seat. Polling has consistently shown the Democratic Senate primary race to be close between McMorrow, Congresswoman Haley Stevens (MI-11), and former Wayne County Health Director Dr. Abdul El-Sayed. Both of McMorrow's main opponents have each carved their own political lanes through supporting moderate and progressive policies, respectively. Stevens is a member of the House Problem Solvers Caucus, a bipartisan group “committed to advancing common-sense solutions to key issues facing our nation.” Meanwhile, El-Sayed supports policies like Medicare for All and has been endorsed by Independent Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, a foundational leader in American progressive politics. McMorrow’s proposed agenda has reflected a mix of both political styles, calling for universal healthcare and pledging to support small and medium-sized businesses. When asked if she considered herself a progressive Monday, McMorrow said she considers herself “pragmatic.” She argued most people don’t identify with labels. “This is the campaign for everybody. If you’re pissed off, if you’re scared, if you’re angry that government hasn’t worked for you, I don’t care about lanes. I care about meeting you,” McMorrow told reporters. On the Republican side of the race, former Congressman Mike Rogers is the clear frontrunner in his primary. Last week, the conservative Senate Leadership Fund promised $45 million to helping his campaign through ads starting this fall. McMorrow has a new maternal health plan out that I like a lot. I’m pleased she’s paying attention to women. Her plan focuses on African American women (and it should) because maternal outcomes for ALL women in the US are terrible, but they’re especially bad for Black women, even when one controls for economic status: State Sen. Mallory McMorrow (D-Royal Oak) unveiled a new maternal health policy platform in her bid for U.S. Senate, with a focus on inequities facing mothers of color and bringing enacted statewide policies to the federal level.  “Having safe, accessible, and compassionate care when you’re having a baby should be a given in our country, but it’s not,” McMorrow said in a press release on Monday, at the start of Black Maternal Health Week. “Black women in Michigan are more than 75% more likely to die from pregnancy-related causes than white women, and, through the leadership of activists and advocates here in our state, we have enacted real solutions to keep women healthy and safe throughout pregnancy and childbirth.” McMorrow emphasized that Black women are significantly more likely to die from pregnancy-related causes than white women, and even when making considerations for socioeconomic status and access to care, those disparities in Michigan are some of the highest.  I know people are disappointed that white women voted for Trump at 47% compared to 45% for Harris, but that’s a counterproductive grudge to hold. If it were 47% Harris v 45% Trump would we then NOT be disappointed in white women? There’s nothing magical about a majority. The reason we have to keep our 45% white women share (and hopefully grow it) is very simple- they’re the largest group pf voters in the country and they favor Democrats by 10 over white men. This isn’t the policy part of politics, it’s the arithmetic part of politics. We talk a lot here about how Democrats can break thru and get to people on mainstream me, and social media, and McMorrow has done quite well there. She has had some “viral” moments on social media so that’s a strength. Democrats are at a real disadvantage because all the billionaires are now MAGA, so whether we like it or not we’re going to have to get more creative on media. The billionaires all going far Right may end up being a plus - we won’t owe them anything. Powered by beehiiv

Apr 15, 20267 votes

The Middle Lane

Getting ready for a bit of a family reunion in Copenhagen - my daughter and her family are coming along with my middle son. My youngest has plans he can’t reschedule so he will not be along. He just took the LSAT which didn’t surprise me - I think he’s way too much of an extrovert for comp sci (his degree). I once asked his 7th grade teacher what my son seemed to be interested in and he laughed and said “other people - he’s interested in other people”. That’s half of lawyering right there. I’ve been looking at the Michigan Senate race because I will be voting for the eventual winner of the primary. Too, I think it’s a good proxy for the ideological debates in the national Dem party. We looked at the D candidate on the Right last time, Rep Stevens, so today we’ll do the center, Mallory McMorrow. I’ll be looking at which of the three candidates labor supports - should be interesting because each candidate has policy areas with real appeal to labor. It may be a tough choice for unions. State Senator Mallory McMorrow (D-Royal Oak) turned in nominating petition signatures Monday in her campaign for Michigan’s open U.S. Senate seat. Polling has consistently shown the Democratic Senate primary race to be close between McMorrow, Congresswoman Haley Stevens (MI-11), and former Wayne County Health Director Dr. Abdul El-Sayed. Both of McMorrow's main opponents have each carved their own political lanes through supporting moderate and progressive policies, respectively. Stevens is a member of the House Problem Solvers Caucus, a bipartisan group “committed to advancing common-sense solutions to key issues facing our nation.” Meanwhile, El-Sayed supports policies like Medicare for All and has been endorsed by Independent Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, a foundational leader in American progressive politics. McMorrow’s proposed agenda has reflected a mix of both political styles, calling for universal healthcare and pledging to support small and medium-sized businesses. When asked if she considered herself a progressive Monday, McMorrow said she considers herself “pragmatic.” She argued most people don’t identify with labels. “This is the campaign for everybody. If you’re pissed off, if you’re scared, if you’re angry that government hasn’t worked for you, I don’t care about lanes. I care about meeting you,” McMorrow told reporters. On the Republican side of the race, former Congressman Mike Rogers is the clear frontrunner in his primary. Last week, the conservative Senate Leadership Fund promised $45 million to helping his campaign through ads starting this fall. McMorrow has a new maternal health plan out that I like a lot. I’m pleased she’s paying attention to women. Her plan focuses on African American women (and it should) because maternal outcomes for ALL women in the US are terrible, but they’re especially bad for Black women, even when one controls for economic status: State Sen. Mallory McMorrow (D-Royal Oak) unveiled a new maternal health policy platform in her bid for U.S. Senate, with a focus on inequities facing mothers of color and bringing enacted statewide policies to the federal level.  “Having safe, accessible, and compassionate care when you’re having a baby should be a given in our country, but it’s not,” McMorrow said in a press release on Monday, at the start of Black Maternal Health Week. “Black women in Michigan are more than 75% more likely to die from pregnancy-related causes than white women, and, through the leadership of activists and advocates here in our state, we have enacted real solutions to keep women healthy and safe throughout pregnancy and childbirth.” McMorrow emphasized that Black women are significantly more likely to die from pregnancy-related causes than white women, and even when making considerations for socioeconomic status and access to care, those disparities in Michigan are some of the highest.  I know people are disappointed that white women voted for Trump at 47% compared to 45% for Harris, but that’s a counterproductive grudge to hold. If it were 47% Harris v 45% Trump would we then NOT be disappointed in white women? There’s nothing magical about a majority. The reason we have to keep our 45% white women share (and hopefully grow it) is very simple- they’re the largest group pf voters in the country and they favor Democrats by 10 over white men. This isn’t the policy part of politics, it’s the arithmetic part of politics. We talk a lot here about how Democrats can break thru and get to people on mainstream me, and social media, and McMorrow has done quite well there. She has had some “viral” moments on social media so that’s a strength. Democrats are at a real disadvantage because all the billionaires are now MAGA, so whether we like it or not we’re going to have to get more creative on media. The billionaires all going far Right may end up being a plus - we won’t owe them anything. Powered by beehiiv

Apr 15, 20266 votes

Act II...

Pam Bondi is out at DOJ and Kristin Noem is out at DHS. Good riddance. May the suffer the consequences of their illegal and reckless behavior. Things can’t be worse with their respective replacements, right? Not. So. Fast. Noem’s replacement is former Oklahoma Senator Markwayne Mullin. His qualifications for the job of running the Department of Homeland Security include distinguished service in the armed forces, training as an undercover intelligence officer, and graduating first in his class at West Point inheriting his parent’s plumbing business and being an MMA fighter. Sounds about right for the Trump Administration. Right out of the gate, he came up with a genius idea that will make the United States much safer: pulling customs officials and services from “sanctuary cities”. We’re talking about the busiest airports in most of the largest cities in the country: LA, NYC, BOS, SF, CHI, SEA, MIAM, DEN, PHI, SD…. He’s clearly thinking of undocumented workers somehow evading customs in those cities and then not being pursued once they have made it through customs. I wonder if he considered: This is clearly Customs is not run by the cities; its run by DHS, the federal department he is now in charge of; Customs is not just about individuals entering the country from international flights. It also includes commercial cargo and importation of goods for our economy (about 27% of imported goods by value come through U.S. airports); Per Todd Schulte, President of FWD.us, in a post on X (I refuse to link and typos are his), he wrote: “I did some research. by admin’s own definitions, this would end int. Air travel at US airports where ~58% of int traffic happens”. This would essentially wreck our economy. Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin said customs officials could stop processing international travelers at US airports in ‘sanctuary cities’ that have declined to cooperate with ‌Trump's hardline immigration crackdown, a move that could severely impact US trade and tourism reut.rs/4dENDGh — Reuters Legal (@legal.reuters.com) 8:30 PM • Apr 7, 2026 The city doesn’t process customs, you do. Literally, you’re the boss of the tens of thousands of people hired to do this. It’s you. An entire administration of dipshits. — Whey Standard (@wheystandard.bsky.social) 12:35 AM • Apr 7, 2026 Mullin is not known for being the brightest bulb in the room. Also, he’s so secure in himself that he has to use a booster stand when in debates so people don’t realize he’s… short (see picture at top of post; gratuitous mention, I know, but not immaterial). ____________________ Let’s move on to Bondi’s temporary replacement, Todd Blanche, who had been serving as the Deputy Attorney General - #2 at DOJ. Blanche is Trump’s former personal lawyer, so no conflict there and I’m sure he’s qualified to run the Department that, in theory, serves the American people and not the President (who has his own lawyer called the White House Counsel). Blanche gets it, right? Here is a quote from his first press conference as interim Attorney General: “I just operate every day on doing everything that I need to do to execute the president's agenda and priorities.” Ummm… Blanche also has no problem with aiding Trump in pursuing personal political vendettas against Trump’s perceived enemies: Amazing -- the first question Todd Blanche takes as acting AG is about how he will handle President Trump pressuring him to prosecute his political foes, and Blanche doesn't deny the premise of the question! — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 6:23 PM • Apr 7, 2026 Finally, he’s all in on obeying the law passed nearly unanimously by Congress and signed by Trump himself by releasing the remainder of the Epstein files and unredacting everything that should ot be redacted, right? The cover-up continues. But we're getting to the truth about the Epstein files, even if Trump has to fire every AG who tries to hide it. — George Takei (@georgetakei.bsky.social) 7:30 PM • Apr 3, 2026 Oh well… The defining characteristics of the people who serve in Trump 2.0 are pretty clear and simple: 1) lack of qualifications and 2) unmitigated sycophancy. This should be a bigger story than how it has been covered. Powered by beehiiv

Apr 8, 202617 votes

Act II...

Pam Bondi is out at DOJ and Kristin Noem is out at DHS. Good riddance. May the suffer the consequences of their illegal and reckless behavior. Things can’t be worse with their respective replacements, right? Not. So. Fast. Noem’s replacement is former Oklahoma Senator Markwayne Mullin. His qualifications for the job of running the Department of Homeland Security include distinguished service in the armed forces, training as an undercover intelligence officer, and graduating first in his class at West Point inheriting his parent’s plumbing business and being an MMA fighter. Sounds about right for the Trump Administration. Right out of the gate, he came up with a genius idea that will make the United States much safer: pulling customs officials and services from “sanctuary cities”. We’re talking about the busiest airports in most of the largest cities in the country: LA, NYC, BOS, SF, CHI, SEA, MIAM, DEN, PHI, SD…. He’s clearly thinking of undocumented workers somehow evading customs in those cities and then not being pursued once they have made it through customs. I wonder if he considered: This is clearly Customs is not run by the cities; its run by DHS, the federal department he is now in charge of; Customs is not just about individuals entering the country from international flights. It also includes commercial cargo and importation of goods for our economy (about 27% of imported goods by value come through U.S. airports); Per Todd Schulte, President of FWD.us, in a post on X (I refuse to link and typos are his), he wrote: “I did some research. by admin’s own definitions, this would end int. Air travel at US airports where ~58% of int traffic happens”. This would essentially wreck our economy. Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin said customs officials could stop processing international travelers at US airports in ‘sanctuary cities’ that have declined to cooperate with ‌Trump's hardline immigration crackdown, a move that could severely impact US trade and tourism reut.rs/4dENDGh — Reuters Legal (@legal.reuters.com) 8:30 PM • Apr 7, 2026 The city doesn’t process customs, you do. Literally, you’re the boss of the tens of thousands of people hired to do this. It’s you. An entire administration of dipshits. — Whey Standard (@wheystandard.bsky.social) 12:35 AM • Apr 7, 2026 Mullin is not known for being the brightest bulb in the room. Also, he’s so secure in himself that he has to use a booster stand when in debates so people don’t realize he’s… short (see picture at top of post; gratuitous mention, I know, but not immaterial). ____________________ Let’s move on to Bondi’s temporary replacement, Todd Blanche, who had been serving as the Deputy Attorney General - #2 at DOJ. Blanche is Trump’s former personal lawyer, so no conflict there and I’m sure he’s qualified to run the Department that, in theory, serves the American people and not the President (who has his own lawyer called the White House Counsel). Blanche gets it, right? Here is a quote from his first press conference as interim Attorney General: “I just operate every day on doing everything that I need to do to execute the president's agenda and priorities.” Ummm… Blanche also has no problem with aiding Trump in pursuing personal political vendettas against Trump’s perceived enemies: Amazing -- the first question Todd Blanche takes as acting AG is about how he will handle President Trump pressuring him to prosecute his political foes, and Blanche doesn't deny the premise of the question! — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 6:23 PM • Apr 7, 2026 Finally, he’s all in on obeying the law passed nearly unanimously by Congress and signed by Trump himself by releasing the remainder of the Epstein files and unredacting everything that should ot be redacted, right? The cover-up continues. But we're getting to the truth about the Epstein files, even if Trump has to fire every AG who tries to hide it. — George Takei (@georgetakei.bsky.social) 7:30 PM • Apr 3, 2026 Oh well… The defining characteristics of the people who serve in Trump 2.0 are pretty clear and simple: 1) lack of qualifications and 2) unmitigated sycophancy. This should be a bigger story than how it has been covered. Powered by beehiiv

Apr 8, 202615 votes