MS NOW⁠95%

After Trump became a problem for Cassidy, Cassidy is becoming a problem for Trump ⁠44%

By Steve Benen⁠95%

5/20/2026, 11:36:31 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 25 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Hasty Generalization, and Post Hoc (False Cause), with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 44.7% saturation with 255 hits. Analysis detected 1,593 faulty-reasoning hits from 571 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 46.9% and a BS Rank of ⁠44% (12,416 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 56.70% of the article peer group.

After Sen. 
Bill Cassidy fell far short in his Louisiana primary, the longtime Republican lawmaker delivered a concession speech that took some unsubtle shots at the president who orchestrated his defeat. 
“When you participate in democracy, sometimes it doesn’t turn out the way you want it to,” the senator said. 
“But you don’t pout, you don’t whine, you don’t claim the election was stolen.” 
In the same concession speech, the Louisianian said, “Let me just set the record straight: Our country is not about one individual. 
It is about the welfare of all Americans, and it is about our Constitution. 
And if someone doesn’t understand that and attempts to control others by using the levers of power, they’re about serving themselves. 
They’re not about serving us. 
And that person is not qualified to be a leader.” 
Cassidy didn’t mention Donald Trump by name, but he didn’t have to. 
His point wasn’t exactly subtle. 
The next question was whether the senator was prepared to follow through on his Saturday night remarks and become a thorn in the side of the president responsible for ending his career. 
As the week got underway, the Republican lawmaker, who still has 228 days remaining in his term, downplayed the idea that he would use his office to retaliate against the White House. 
Since then, Cassidy has: 
Publicly condemned the Trump administration’s so-called anti-weaponization fund, calling it a “slush fund” that needs congressional scrutiny. 
Announced his opposition to a pending proposal to direct millions in taxpayer money to Trump’s vanity ballroom project. 
Switched his position and voted with Democrats on a war powers resolution related to Trump’s war in Iran. 
Voiced his disapproval of the president’s endorsement of Ken Paxton in Texas’ Senate race, calling the state attorney general a “felon.” 
Or put another way, Cassidy has shown more independence in two days than in the previous 16 months. 
I’m going to go out on a limb and argue that’s probably not a coincidence: Members tend to show their true colors after they announce their retirement and they no longer have to worry about traditional electoral pressures. 
But this also applies, to an even greater extent, to members who have lost primaries and who suddenly have the opportunity to do as they please. 
For the past year and a half, Cassidy, desperate to keep his job and avoid becoming the first elected senator to lose a primary in more than a decade, has kept his head down, sticking to a partisan script and avoiding confrontations with the White House. 
Now that he is freed from those pressures, he has clearly shifted his posture. 
I’m mindful of Cassidy’s critics, who have argued persuasively that his sudden evolution comes far too late to warrant plaudits. 
He had a responsibility to protect the public from Robert F. 
Kennedy Jr., for example, and the Louisianian nevertheless voted to confirm the unqualified conspiracy theorist to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, likely in the hopes that it would help him keep his seat. 
(It did not.) 
But while those criticisms have merit, I’m nevertheless interested to see whether and to what extent Cassidy can use his role to make a practical difference in the coming months, potentially helping derail proposals and nominees who would otherwise advance. 
Watch this space. 
This post updates our related earlier coverage. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 13.5%Steve Benen: 10.5%MS NOW: 7.5%Confirmation Bias13.5%This article: 5.6%Steve Benen: 1.6%MS NOW: 1.2%Anchoring Bias5.6%This article: 0.5%Steve Benen: 3.7%MS NOW: 3.7%Availability Heuristic0.5%This article: 11.2%Steve Benen: 0.9%MS NOW: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic11.2%This article: 3.0%Steve Benen: 1.9%MS NOW: 1.3%Hindsight Bias3.0%This article: 6.7%Steve Benen: 3.1%MS NOW: 2.6%Overconfidence Bias6.7%This article: 28.7%Steve Benen: 23.0%MS NOW: 15.4%Framing Effect28.7%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.4%MS NOW: 0.7%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.8%MS NOW: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 7.0%Steve Benen: 1.3%MS NOW: 2.4%Optimism Bias7.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 3.1%MS NOW: 3.2%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 44.7%Steve Benen: 29.0%MS NOW: 19.2%Negativity Bias44.7%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 2.1%MS NOW: 2.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 19.4%Steve Benen: 4.7%MS NOW: 3.1%Fundamental Attribution Error19.4%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.3%MS NOW: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 3.4%MS NOW: 3.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 3.2%MS NOW: 2.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 1.9%Steve Benen: 0.9%MS NOW: 2.2%Halo Effect1.9%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 4.4%MS NOW: 1.8%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 6.3%Steve Benen: 2.9%MS NOW: 1.8%Recency Bias6.3%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.8%MS NOW: 0.6%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.2%MS NOW: 0.2%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 11.7%Steve Benen: 7.8%MS NOW: 4.7%Ad Hominem11.7%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 1.6%MS NOW: 1.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 3.0%Steve Benen: 6.3%MS NOW: 5.4%Appeal to Authority3.0%This article: 3.2%Steve Benen: 1.6%MS NOW: 2.2%False Dilemma3.2%This article: 7.0%Steve Benen: 1.7%MS NOW: 2.2%Slippery Slope7.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.2%MS NOW: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 27.7%Steve Benen: 8.9%MS NOW: 8.1%Hasty Generalization27.7%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.7%MS NOW: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 1.2%MS NOW: 0.9%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 2.5%Steve Benen: 11.3%MS NOW: 9.8%Appeal to Emotion2.5%This article: 3.5%Steve Benen: 3.5%MS NOW: 2.4%Begging the Question3.5%This article: 22.8%Steve Benen: 3.3%MS NOW: 3.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)22.8%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.8%MS NOW: 0.6%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 1.4%MS NOW: 0.9%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.2%MS NOW: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 2.0%MS NOW: 2.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 6.7%Steve Benen: 1.9%MS NOW: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)6.7%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.5%MS NOW: 0.3%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.2%MS NOW: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 2.2%MS NOW: 1.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 18.4%Steve Benen: 3.8%MS NOW: 2.5%Unattributed Quote18.4%This article: 3.3%Steve Benen: 2.6%MS NOW: 1.5%Quote-first Misdirection3.3%This article: 14.5%Steve Benen: 22.9%MS NOW: 14.2%Biased Writer Voice14.5%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 1.4%MS NOW: 2.1%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 6.3%Steve Benen: 8.6%MS NOW: 5.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias6.3%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.6%MS NOW: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.2%MS NOW: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

571 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.