White House Explains Itself

The Biden White House holds press conferences on a near-daily basis. You might think that would be a given, but not all presidential administrations do it that way. These days, the White House press corps invariably peppers Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre with endless questions about the classified documents found at Joe Biden's various offices. Not only do the reporters want to know what the documents were and how they ended up where they did, they also want to know why the White House (apparently) kept a lid on the story for a couple of months.

In view of the daily barrage, the administration decided the time had come to explain itself. Unfortunately, for those who want to know everything RIGHT NOW, the White House explained itself by explaining that it can't explain itself, at least not at the moment. The administration's position is that while an investigation is ongoing—one that the White House is cooperating fully with—it is not appropriate to comment publicly.

Needless to say, this is not going to satisfy anyone in the press corps. The coverage of this story has been... extraordinary. And by "extraordinary," we really mean "questionable." Nature abhors a vacuum, and in the absence of new information, there have been some really outlandish pieces from various media outlets. You expect this kind of coverage from Fox, where the headlines have included "Why Biden's documents mess could be one of the biggest political scandals in American history" and "Biden may be at greater risk of criminal jeopardy than Trump in documents scandal." But even the non-right-wing media has been going overboard with its coverage. A few examples:

• Time: "We Elected Biden to Be Better Than This"
  
  
• Bloomberg: "Biden Missteps on Secret Papers Create Self-Inflicted Crisis
  
  
• CNN: "The week everything changed for the Biden White House"
  
  
• CNN: "'Unforced errors': A White House facing a fresh crisis"

We aren't the only ones who noticed that the coverage has been a wee bit overwrought. Democratic operative James Carville appeared on MSNBC and decreed: "[T]he national press can't help but make fools of themselves. It happened in Whitewater, it happened in the e-mail scandal, and it's happening now. I can't stop these people. It's not my anointed job in the world to stop the national press from making a fool of themselves."

In any event, here are the thoughts we have about the situation as it currently stands:

• The Biden documents situation and the Donald Trump documents situation were, and are, apples and oranges. As former prosecutor and current Politico contributor Renato Mariotti points out, Biden's situation is actually much more comparable to Hillary Clinton's e-mails.
  
  
• Consistent with that, it is entirely possible that this could become a lingering scandal. After all, Clinton's e-mails certainly did. And the Republican Party is going to do everything possible to keep Filegate going, both as a "defense" of Donald Trump and because every previous "scandal" failed to stick to Biden.
  
  On the other hand, maybe it won't linger. Remember, for example, how many pundits said that Afghanistan was fatal for Team Joe. Not so much, as it turns out. Whatever happens, there is no possible way to know where this is headed, and thus no basis for think pieces about how "everything has changed" for this administration, or how Biden's reelection hopes are fatally wounded. Let's wait and see.
  
  
• As to the White House's zip-the-lip approach, and its explanation for same, we find that to be credible. If the administration starts spilling details, assuming it even has them, that could create problems in terms of classified information coming out, or it could be seen as trying to influence the course of the investigation. As much as the press corps wants fodder for tomorrow's 1A stories, there is no need to rush here. Even if we make the assumption that voters need to know the full truth as they evaluate Biden's reelection bid, the investigation will be completed well before the 2024 election. If the White House fails to speak frankly at that point, THEN it's time for criticism about not being fully truthful.

Anyhow, this story certainly looks like it's in a holding pattern at this point, and will be for many weeks (or months), regardless of all the eyeball-grabbing headlines. (Z)

Greene, Gosar Get Their Committee Assignments

Over the course of the 117th Congress, Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) and Paul Gosar (R-AZ) were stripped of their committee memberships for having made statements/sent tweets that encouraged violence. Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), desperate for their votes in the speakership election, promised to put the duo back on some committees. And yesterday, he delivered.

Committee assignments are actually doled out by the GOP Steering Committee, and then have to be approved by the entire Republican conference. However, speakers always stack the Steering Committee with loyalists, and the approval of committee assignments by the whole conference is effectively pro forma. So, although the committee assignments were not directly conferred by McCarthy, they came at his behest. And while the assignments haven't been approved yet, they will be.

Both Gosar and Greene have been given seats on the Oversight and Accountability Committee. This committee will take the lead in many investigations of Joe Biden, Joe Biden's classified documents, Hunter Biden, Hunter Biden's laptop, whether or not there were copies of Joe Biden's classified documents on Hunter Biden's laptop, etc. McCarthy and the rest of the conference want members on that committee who have no shame about bloviating and grandstanding, and Gosar and Greene certainly fit the bill.

Gosar will also serve on the Natural Resources Committee, where he was serving previously until getting the boot from the Democratic majority. Greene, meanwhile, will get a seat on... the Homeland Security Committee. This would be the same Marjorie Taylor Greene who, in reference to the events of 1/6, said: "I want to tell you something: If Steve Bannon and I had organized that, we would have won, not to mention, it would have been armed."

McCarthy also told reporters on Tuesday that Rep. "George Santos" (R-NY) would be given committee assignments, but that the exact ones have not been determined yet. Since the apparent standard for these decisions is "What would be most ironic?," might we suggest the House Ethics Committee? (Z)

(Never) Meet the Press?

Last week, The New York Times had an interesting item about Gov. Ron DeSantis' (R-FL) 2024 campaign strategy. Essentially, he wants to run the Donald Trump playbook, doing his campaigning through friendly right-wing media outlets, along with social media platforms. The non-right-wing media will be ignored.

This media strategy is certainly... understandable. It has been a very long time since a politician had as much political skill, and yet as little charisma and telegenicity as DeSantis. He's got something of a thuggish vibe, including beady/squinty eyes. He's also got an unpleasant voice. In other words, Ronald Reagan, he is not. In fact, the politician that DeSantis most brings to mind, when it comes to "presence" (and when it comes to certain other things, as well) is former senator Joseph McCarthy. The two men even look a bit alike:

There may be no politician in history for whom television was less friendly than Joseph McCarthy. And DeSantis is not far behind.

That said, we think there are serious problems with DeSantis' strategy, and his plan to run Trump campaign v2.0. Among them:

• Biff Tannen: By the time he ran for president, Donald Trump was nationally famous, and had been for at least 25-30 years. There was The Apprentice, of course, but also the books and the board game and the various (tacky) products. Trump was frequently mentioned in television and radio programming of the 1980s and 1990s and appeared in the lyrics of literally hundreds of rap songs. He was ubiquitous enough that more than a few people realized that Biff Tannen, the antagonist of the Back to the Future films (1985, 1989, 1990) was a thinly veiled version of Trump (particularly the Biff Tannen of the 2015 alternate timeline).
  
  DeSantis, by contrast, does not have that kind of fame. Oh, he's famous in Florida, and in dialed-in right-wing circles. But there are tens of millions of people whose votes he needs who have little to no idea who DeSantis is.
  
  
• The Trumpettes: Trump has a savant-like ability to attract devoted followers willing to do nearly anything for him. Think Kellyanne Conway, Katrina Pierson, Mike Lindell, Donald Trump Jr., Steve Bannon, Diamond and Silk, etc. These folks often served as avatars for The Donald, including on non-right-wing media, allowing him to get his message out there without directly subjecting himself to the withering questioning of, say, Chuck Todd or George Stephanopoulos.
  
  Maybe DeSantis also has this talent. But if so, we have not seen the evidence of it. Can you name one well-known DeSantis lieutenant? We can't, and we write about politics every day. Also, just yesterday Politico had a lengthy profile about DeSantis, and how he is a limp fish who turns people off in one-on-one interactions. We do not foresee an army of DeSantis fanatics (DeSantics? Ronnoids? Blackshirts?)
  
  
• De-Ciphered: When Trump first ran for president, he was a political cipher. Yes, he had a broad political program, mostly centered on building the wall. But, in general, it was not at all clear what kind of president he would be. Would he try to be hands-on, or would he delegate? Would he really build the wall, or was that just talk? Was he really a fire-breathing right-winger, or would the longtime registered Democrat within him re-emerge from its hibernation? This made it possible for voters unhappy with the devil they knew (Hillary Clinton) to persuade themselves that Trump might just surprise everyone and be a better option.
  
  DeSantis is no cipher; everyone knows what his approach is and what kinds of policies he will pursue. And while some of his stunts played well in Florida (though see below), they are likely to be problematic nationally. He is likely to have a need to explain to the voting public why his anti-Disney actions were OK, or how his COVID policy was acceptable. He won't be able to do that if the only outlet he speaks to is Fox.
  
  
• Twitterpated: The first president to really utilize the radio (Franklin D. Roosevelt) got a lot of mileage out of that. The first president to really utilize television advertising (Dwight D. Eisenhower) got a lot of mileage out of that. The first president to really utilize the world wide web for fundraising (Barack Obama) really got a lot of mileage out of that. But for those presidents who followed in their footsteps, the story was invariably diminishing returns.
  
  When Donald Trump became the first presidential candidate to harness the power of Twitter, he got enormous amounts of coverage, in large part due to his propensity for saying outlandish stuff. Undoubtedly, readers of this site remember that well. However, thanks to one Elon Musk, Twitter is not the platform it once was, and may be headed sharply downhill. And even if it isn't, "presidential candidate says crazy stuff on Twitter" largely isn't news anymore. Been there, done that. Oh, and by all indications, DeSantis is very good at deploying the word "woke" as a noun, verb, adjective, adverb and prepositional phrase, but he's otherwise not great at finding new buttons to push and then pushing them. For all these reasons, Twitter isn't going to be the sort of weapon for DeSantis that it was for Trump.
  
  
• Life in the Fast Lane: It's been written a million times, but it's worth writing again: When Trump ran in 2016, he invented his own lane, which he then had to himself. The roughly two dozen other candidates (remember the kids' debates followed by the grown-ups' debates?) were all running as standard Republicans. Trump was running as a fire-breathing right-wing populist. By the time folks like Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) saw which way the winds were blowing, it was already too late.
  
  In 2024, the Trump lane is not only well established, it's probably going to be THE lane, crowded with wannabe Trumps, not to mention Trump himself. Even if we imagine that the majority of Republican voters are now MAGA maniacs, it will not be easy to dominate that part of the vote with multiple MAGA candidates in the running.

The executive summary is this: We believe Trump was sui generis, and that nobody will ever get elected running that kind of campaign again. This is not to say that DeSantis can't win in 2024, but he's going to have to develop his own playbook, and one that will work beyond Florida. Thus far, he has not shown that kind of creativity, though the election cycle is still young, we suppose. (Z)

Price Tag for DeSantis' Immigrant Stunt Just Keeps Going Up

As long as we are on the subject of Ron DeSantis, lets talk about a situation that is becoming a real anchor around his neck: the flights of immigrants from Texas to Florida (for a brief stopover) to Martha's Vineyard.

Just to review, the whole thing really stinks to high heaven. It is unclear whether a brief stopover between Texas and Martha's Vineyard was enough to satisfy Florida state law. It is also unclear why the migrants were flown, at enormous expense ($1.6 million), by an air charter company with close ties to the Governor. It is unclear why DeSantis' point person, when it came to organizing the whole stunt, took steps to cover his tracks, including using burner phones and an anonymous Gmail account.

In any event, the Governor has brought a peck of legal trouble upon himself and his administration. And so, the state has retained two high-profile, $650/hour law firms. Thus far, the two firms have billed $122,000 in fees, but the retainer agreement says that each will be able to bill up to $500,000.

There were a total of 48 immigrants on the flights, and thus far the state has spent about $1.72 million. That's a bit more than $35,000 per immigrant. If the two law firms reach their cap (and when was the last time a law firm didn't bill the full amount possible?), then the price tag will be $2.6 million (or more), which works out to a bit more than $54,000 per immigrant.

This is an example of what we meant in the above item; that DeSantis has some black marks on his record that are going to require explanation. The Democratic talking points write themselves: "How come you didn't just buy each of them a Tesla, Ron?" or "Why not transport them on a luxury cruise ship—it would have been way cheaper?" or "Florida must not have any hungry or homeless people, or it would not be able to afford to blow $2.6 million like this!"

Ultimately, we just don't think DeSantis has any idea what it's going to be like under the world's biggest and most powerful microscope, should he choose to run in 2024. His experience in Florida, where the local Democratic organ is pretty feeble, is no preparation for what lies ahead. (Z)

DeSantis Wants Old-Fashioned Education at New College

Ron DeSantis' immigrant-flights stunt is now several months old. It's not getting him headlines anymore; at least, not the kind he wants. And so, he's trying to move on to bigger and better things. His latest is his attempt to transform Florida's New College—a small, state-funded, liberal arts school—into a bastion of "traditional" education (e.g., classical texts, no gender studies courses, etc.). To this end, DeSantis has appointed a half-dozen archconservatives to the school's board of trustees, led by outspoken conservative activist Christopher Rufo.

The whole scheme is, if we may be blunt, all kinds of stupid. To start with, DeSantis, Rufo, etc. are reforming a mythical school, not an actual school. That is to say, right-wing pundits and politicians have slammed liberal arts universities in general, and New College in particular, as far-left propaganda mills that teach mostly communism, Critical Race Theory, and wokeism. This is nonsensical; even "progressive" schools have a curriculum heavy on traditional disciplines and subjects. If you want to take coursework in Plato, or early American history, or Shakespeare at New College, you can easily do so.

Beyond that, DeSantis and Rufo seem to have little idea of how college campuses actually operate. The conservative-dominated board of trustees can make as many pronouncements as they want about what the professoriate should teach. And you know what 99.99% of professors actually do with those pronouncements? Ignore them, and do what they've always done. Meanwhile, the student body at New College is not a randomly selected group of millennials. No, they are students who looked at all their options and chose New College because it best fit them and their needs. Changing the culture of New College to better mirror, say, Liberty University is no more viable than changing the culture of Liberty University to better mirror New College.

Of course, DeSantis doesn't really care what happens to New College. He just wants his anti-woke points before he moves on to the next target, whatever it might be. But the question of why he focused on this school, in particular, is potentially interesting. Certainly, because of its approach, New has a reputation for being "liberal." Think of, say, U.C. Berkeley vs., say, Dartmouth. Both of those schools are very prominent, but only one of them is well-known for its hippy-dippyness (though Berkeley also has plenty of courses in Plato, U.S. history, and Shakespeare, of course).

Beyond its reputation, New College is very small (an enrollment of about 700), especially as compared to the other public schools in Florida. It is a considerably weaker opponent than, say, Florida State would be. Put another way, DeSantis has a reputation for punching down, and his choice of New College does nothing to discourage that line of thinking. "DeSantis never goes after anyone who can fight back," observed one Florida educator.

We suspect that there may be a third reason that DeSantis targeted New College, though we haven't seen anyone else connect these particular dots. Like Donald Trump, DeSantis would very much like the votes of white supremacists, but he can't really court them openly. That means it's dog whistle time. Florida is home to a particularly large, vocal and politically active white supremacist community, and its unquestioned leader is Don Black, who is best known for running a hateful website we prefer not to name. Black was grooming his son Derek to take over the movement, and Derek was right on board... until he went to college. While in school, Derek Black was outed as a white supremacist, and though he was ostracized by many, he was befriended by a group of Jewish students who invited him to dinner each week in hopes of opening his eyes. It worked, and young Black ultimately renounced his racist views and became an outspoken lefty. What college did this happen at? Why, New College, of course. We cannot help but wonder if DeSantis isn't throwing a little red meat to Don Black and his ilk by "punishing" the school.

As the old saying, possibly from the pen of Maya Angelou, goes: "When people show you who they are, believe them the first time." With each bit of political theater that DeSantis adds to his ledger, it becomes clearer and clearer exactly who he is, and that first impressions, at least in his case, are not misleading. (Z)

Defeated Republican Candidate Tries to Gun Down His Former Opponents

There was a time when this story would have been at the very top of the page. But in the current milieu, it's approaching dog-bites-man territory. Consider the following sequence of events:

1. Republican runs for office and loses
2. Republican is convinced his "victory" was stolen from him
3. Republican is unable to overturn the results and reclaim his "victory," because he didn't actually win
4. Republican decides to take matters into his own hands

Which part of this is even a little bit implausible in the year 2023?

The specific Republican, in this case, is Solomon Peña, an avowed Trumper, who was running for the seat representing New Mexico state House district 14. He does not seem to have taken notice of the fact that HD-14 is in deep-blue Albuquerque. In any event, Peña was trounced by 48 points, 74%-26%. In the weeks thereafter, he showed up unannounced at the residences of various election officials to rant and rave about how he was cheated. And a few weeks later, Peña and several accomplices fired shots at the homes of four Democrats—two county commissioners and two state legislators. He was arrested yesterday, in possession of ample evidence of his crimes.

Fortunately, nobody was hurt in the attacks, although the one against Bernalillo County Commissioner Adriann Barboa could have done much harm if Barboa had been at home. We really have very little to add to this story, other than to repeat what we've already written before: Eventually, someone is going to get killed by one of these aggrieved Trumpers. And then we shall see what the former president and his enablers do with that. Our guess? Thoughts and prayers. (Z)

Looking Forward: Readers' Predictions for 2023, Part I: Donald Trump

We've given the pundits their chance, and we've taken our chance. Now, it's time to see what the readers think 2023 has in store.

Before we get to the predictions, however, we want to announce a change in how we award boldness points going forward. We've done it ourselves, and we also tried out a ranking system for our 2023 predictions this year. However, we feel foolish that we didn't think of the much more elegant approach suggested by reader C.O. in East Lansing, MI. What we are going to do is ask those readers who are interested in participating to do a straight yes/no vote on whether a prediction will actually come to pass. If 100% of readers think a prediction will be proven correct, then that is a boldness of 0. If 90% think it will be proven correct, then that's a boldness of 0.5, and so forth.

And with that explanation out of the way, here are a dozen Trump predictions for 2023:

• B.L. in Hudson, NY: Donald Trump will finally be indicted on Tuesday, January 31, 2023.
  
  Boldness: ?/5. ???.
  
  
• A.R. in Los Angeles, CA: DA Fani Willis will indict Trump on criminal conspiracy charges by March.
  
  Boldness: ?/5. ???.
  
  
• S.S. in Santa Monica, CA: Trump will be indicted both in Georgia and by the DOJ within two weeks on either side of his 77th birthday (June 14). The first preliminary court date for either case won't be until the first quarter of 2024.
  
  Boldness: ?/5. ???.
  
  
• D.E. in San Diego, CA: 2023 will be the year Trump will be indicted and convicted along with many of his inner circle for multiple felonies regarding the January 6 insurrection.
  
  Boldness: ?/5. ???.
  
  
• J.G. in Waukesha, WI: Indictments of Trump will result in statehouse violence in Oregon, Georgia and Michigan.
  
  Boldness: ?/5. ???.
  
  
• D.W. in Fremont, CA: Trump will not only be indicted but, during his trial, he will behave so badly that he is deemed incompetent to defend himself by mental health professionals.
  
  Boldness: ?/5. ???.
  
  
• D.G.H. in Barnegat, NJ: Medical records that detail the cause of Trump's cognitive decline will be leaked. The records will be leaked by Donald Trump Jr, Eric Trump, or the both of them in the effort to have Donald Trump Sr. declared unfit to stand trial, saving him from jail time.
  
  Boldness: ?/5. ???.
  
  
• L.D. in Unalakleet, AK: Facing indictments in Georgia and New York, as well as federal changes, Trump will flee to Saudi Arabia.
  
  Boldness: ?/5. ???.
  
  
• C.C. in Overland Park, KS: Trump will be out of the country at the time his first indictment is made public. Weeks of drama will then ensue about whether or not he will return to face the music, or whether extradition proceedings and/or diplomatic efforts will be necessary to secure his return. When it becomes clear that the U.S. Government will pursue said proceedings/efforts, Trump will voluntarily return to the U.S.
  
  Boldness: ?/5. ???.
  
  
• L.V.A. in Idaho Falls, ID: Donald Trump will not be indicted, at the state or federal level, during 2023.
  
  Boldness: ?/5. ???.
  
  
• O.B. in Santa Monica, CA: Truth Social will close down, and Trump will return to Twitter.
  
  Boldness: ?/5. ???.
  
  
• R.C. in Des Moines, IA: Trump will have a serious medical episode that either incapacitates him or kills him.
  
  Boldness: ?/5. ???.

If you are willing to help us award boldness points, cast your votes here. We'll fill in the boldness points soon, and make an announcement when we've done so.

Oh, and we're still accepting predictions. Don't forget your initials and city! (Z)

---

If you wish to contact us, please use one of these addresses. For the first two, please include your initials and city.

• questions@electoral-vote.com    For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
• comments@electoral-vote.com   For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
• corrections@electoral-vote.com To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
• items@electoral-vote.com            For general suggestions, ideas, etc.

To download a poster about the site to hang up, please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend or share:

---The Votemaster and Zenger