The Iran War Is Going Poorly

"Yeah, yeah," you're saying, "Tell me something I don't know." We've given plenty of attention to the myriad ways in which Donald Trump and his underlings have perpetuated one of the biggest military screw-ups in American history. But there are two new angles to the story that both hit big yesterday, and that we think we should pass along.

First up is the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln, which just so happens to be named after a president who did not screw up HIS war. That ship left its home port (San Diego) last November for what was supposed to be a normal deployment. However, it was redirected to the Middle East when the U.S. attacked Iran, and has been there ever since. That adds up to 250 days since leaving its home port, with the last 200+ of those spent out at sea. This is a modern record for consecutive days spent at sea.

Earlier this month (August 3), one of the sailors assigned to the carrier went overboard, and was rescued about an hour later. That phrase, "went overboard," covers quite a lot of territory. A sailor can go overboard by accident, of course. Or they can do so deliberately, in an attempt to take their own lives.

The Pentagon is taking the position that the incident was accidental, and issued a statement asserting that the seas were unusually rough that day. On the other hand, the sailor's wife insists that it was a suicide attempt. In an interview (for which she was granted anonymity), she shared texts from her husband that spoke to his poor mental health, and that indicate the husband tried to get help on board and was brushed off. She also said that the Navy did not inform her of the incident until more than 4 days after it happened. Further, the Pentagon resisted inquiries from reporters and lawmakers until the wife went public with her story. So, if you're trying to decide which side is telling the truth, well, you don't generally engage in cover-up-like behavior unless you've got something to hide.

What is certain is that the incident has opened a Pandora's Box, if you will, and has put the Abraham Lincoln under a very big microscope. There are now reports that suggest that... well, everything you think might go wrong if a giant ship does not put into any port, home or otherwise, for 200+ days, is going wrong. In other words, lack of food and potable water, lack of other supplies, mail service disruptions (sometimes extending for months), low morale, and several other possible suicide attempts.

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth is now on the defensive, as he is under the same giant microscope as the ship is. Yesterday, he found the friendliest media outlet possible (Newsmax), and did an "interview" with them in which he decreed:

Listen, we make sure that every ship, every crew, every captain has everything we can provide them at every single moment. Some deployments are longer than others, and I have more respect and gratitude for those sailors than anybody. What they do in those high seas and those austere conditions with less port calls, it's incredible.

Given that his job could be on the line, and that he's an inveterate liar, there may be no less reliable narrator here than Hegseth. If he really had nothing to hide, or to apologize for, why would he choose an outlet that is only going to toss him softball questions, and that will not push back against any statement, no matter how outlandish?

The military establishment has understood, since at least the Vietnam War, that you cannot leave military personnel in combat conditions for too many days in a row. The stress is too much, and can (and will) lead to disastrous outcomes like the My Lai Massacre. Being stuck in actual combat conditions for 200+ days, without a break, would be unheard of in the modern military. We don't know if the Trump/Hegseth administration was sloppy here because "in a supporting role" and "out at sea" are not exactly the same thing as "in combat conditions," or because they had no choice due to poor planning. Either way, the Navy needs to take a long look at what's happened here, taking steps to make sure it doesn't happen again.

The U.S.S. George Washington, which is also named after a president who did not screw up HIS war, has been deployed to the Persian Gulf to relieve the Abraham Lincoln. The Pentagon claims this was in the works before the situation became a national scandal. Maybe that is true, although given that the DoD has been less-than-forthright about pretty much every other aspect of this story, maybe it's not. There's also been no clear timeline given as to when the Abraham Lincoln will be able to stand down. Tomorrow? Next week? Arbor Day? Christmas Eve? Your guess is apparently as good as theirs.

Anyhow, this is a reminder/wake-up call that even if soldiers aren't dying every day (in contrast to, say, Vietnam), the military personnel deployed to the Middle East are still paying a steep price. Meanwhile, the limit imposed by the War Powers Act is 60 days (with another 30 days allowed for withdrawal). So, how can a Navy ship have a 200+ day combat deployment without the 60/90-day ceiling being reached? Must be the New Math.

The second big news item yesterday, meanwhile, involves materiel. Everybody knows, at this point, that the U.S. is running low on its high-tech missiles, thanks to the administration blowing through so many munitions while achieving so little. And, in a story first reported by The Washington Post, it turns out the U.S. is running short on high-tech drones, too.

The drones in question are MQ-9 Reaper drones, which have apparently been described by some officials as "the most valuable player" in America's arsenal. They cost between $30 and $50 million each, they are used primarily to deploy ordinance, and the U.S. has 190 of them. Well, actually, it HAD 190 of them. The Iranians have shot 45 of them out of the air, leaving the size of the fleet at 145. That means that not only is the U.S. constrained in terms of munitions, it's also becoming constrained in terms of how those munitions are delivered.

We will close this with a question we really don't know the answer to. There's an old saying that the U.S. has a bad habit of always trying to win the last war, and struggles to adapt to the realities of the current war. Iran is, at best, a second-rate military power with a GDP that is less than 1% of the United States'. And yet, the Iranians have basically brought the U.S. military to its knees. Eventually, the U.S. will cut its losses and run; the only questions left are how long that will take, and how bad those losses will be.

But here's the question we just don't know about. Is this fiasco because the Pentagon was ill-prepared for a war fought by a scrappy opponent, armed with a swarm of cheap drones, and willing to suffer all kinds of punishment if needed? Was the military brass trying to win Persian Gulf War, Part II, as opposed to Iran War, Part I? Or is the problem here that Trump and Hegseth are morons who have no idea what they are doing, and who tried to win a war solely with aerial bombardment, even though that never, ever works?

One hopes that once the military establishment and civilian governments are under the control of people willing to confront hard truths, the question we ask will get a lot of scrutiny, and the U.S.—with its trillion-dollars-or-so annual military budget—won't get caught so flat-footed the next time out. (Z)

TrumpWatch 2026: A Kennedy Center Snow Job?

Back in the Trump v1.0 years, Donald Trump's map and sharpie became a huge story. He made a small and understandable mistake in a tweet about Hurricane Dorian. He could have just admitted he misspoke (well, really, mis-tweeted). Or, failing that, he could have just let the matter go, since there's always a new cloud of B.S. to crowd things out the next day. But instead, he doubled and tripled and quadrupled down, and tried to gaslight everyone that he'd been right all along, using a clumsily doctored map in support of his claim.

That may have been the first major news story of Trump's presidency with the lesson that no matter how small the mistake, or the slight, he just. can. not. let. things. go. We have been reminded of that incident a lot this summer, as there seems to be story after story of Trump embarrassing himself by digging holes deeper and deeper and deeper. We know, at this point, that he will never, ever admit to being wrong. But we still marvel at his unwillingness to let go of obvious lost causes.

One such story, which we've written about many times, including earlier this week, was the mess with Air Force One. Trump should never have accepted the plane from Qatar, a choice that was as grifty as can be. That said, he's so money-obsessed, be probably couldn't help himself. Then, he should never have tried to use the Qatari plane before it was ready, at least not for international travel. That, he certainly could have helped himself. Then, when it turned into a real security problem, once he needed to fly home from Turkey, he told obvious tall tales that did not stand up to scrutiny. After he was called on his lies, he told different tall tales, that were also not believable. Finally, it came out that he actually snuck off the real Air Force One to a secret plane, using a catering truck as his getaway vehicle. This left Qatar Force One on the ground in Turkey and the real Air Force One serving as a decoy (unbeknownst to the people on board). It also gave the story new legs, yet again, and made Trump the butt of jokes.

Another example is the reflecting pool. The administration should have just left the damn thing alone, because there were so many ways it could go wrong, and so few it could go right. However, Trump is obsessed with leaving "monuments" to his leadership, plus it was a grift opportunity. So, as with the Qatari plane, an answer of "Nah, let's not do it" was never really in the cards. Still, from that point forward, Trump and his administration did everything wrong. They hired a contractor who had no idea how to execute this kind of project. Trump, in the Beast, drove onto the un-cured new surface, damaging it. The administration, which engages in all manner of science denial, neglected to consider what would happen if you made the pool blue (hint: warmer water, which means more algae). Then, Trump's underlings tried to pass the buck, charging half a dozen people with sabotaging the pool. U.S. Attorney for D.C. Jeanine Pirro is enough a lackey that she was willing to bring indictments, but even she had to admit the government had no case, and so had to dismiss the matter before it ever got close to an actual trial.

And despite all of this, Trump is once again stamping his feet and pushing hard for the DoJ to refile the charges. Someone in the administration has also posted (pathetic) signs at the reflecting pool that assert that it's really all Joe Biden's fault. Trump has reiterated that point, numerous times, on his social media platform for people whose emotional age is 3.

The point here is that it's not one bad decision, or one unforced error. It is a whole litany of them, piled on top of each other, with predictable results each time. Trump rarely, if ever, gets what he wants when he becomes obsessed with trying to "fix" things. He just heaps on more embarrassment, and more losses. The reason we still have trouble making sense of it is that while he definitely hates to be wrong, he has also been image-obsessed for at least half a century. You would think that protecting his image would cause him to give up on some of these quixotic ventures. But not so much, it would seem.

And that actually brings us to the main driver of this item, which is the Kennedy Center. It is technically true that Trump did not directly try to add his name to that venue. However, he stuffed the board of directors with loyal lackeys, very clearly made his wishes known, and then did nothing to keep changes consistent with those wishes from being implemented. So, he gets to take ownership of the decision to rename the Kennedy Center, even if he was not quite as directly involved in instigating that as he was with other "initiatives."

Of course, as with Qatar Force One, and as with the reflecting pool, it quickly turned disastrous. The moment Trump's name was on there, artists and audience members began fleeing in droves, leaving the Center without enough programming, and without enough people to fill even a fraction of the seats. The administration tried to sue some of the artists who pulled out; thus far, that has not gone well. Just this week, for example, a judge ruled in favor of Chuck Redd, who canceled his Christmas Eve booking, and ordered the government to pay $252,480 to Redd to cover his legal costs.

When it became clear that the Kennedy-Trump center, as long it bore that name, would be a mostly empty venue (and thus an embarrassment), the administration contrived to shut the place down for "renovations," scheduled to last for 2 years. Conveniently, that is most of the rest of Trump's time in office (especially since construction projects pretty much always run long). A whole bunch of people sued over either the name change, the renovations, or both, and multiple judges said that Trump's name could not be on the building, while it is not acceptable to begin 2 years of renovation without jumping through the necessary bureaucratic hoops.

That brings us up this week. As with all these other petty battles, Trump and/or his underlings at the Kennedy Center just cannot let this go. His name was indeed removed, at the business end of a court order (backed by a threat of contempt, and possible jail time). However, tarps were put in place, so that nobody could see and/or photograph the once-again Trump-free exterior. As it turns out, all of this was buying time for the board to find a way to do an end run around the court orders. And they think now that they have cracked the code.

Per an announcement made yesterday, Trump's name is now going back up on the wall, after a new vote by the Kennedy Center board. To comply with the letter of the ruling, but certainly not the spirit, it will not be presented as the Kennedy-Trump center. Instead, it will be "The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts Restored and Renovated By President Donald J. Trump," with the "Trump" portion carved into the marble of the facade. Meanwhile, the board has now conducted a nominal study, and has once again voted to shut down for 2 years of renovations.

In the short term, this is probably going to fly, because it's not directly violating the court order. The venue will not be named after Trump anymore, and his name won't technically be posted ON it, it will be carved IN it. Meanwhile, the nominal study that was conducted was probably enough to satisfy the rules regarding due consideration of major changes. Undoubtedly, the same people who sued before will sue again, but this time they will probably lose.

However, and this is another one of those foreseeable outcomes, this is eventually going to end in embarrassment for Trump. At this point, the venue is so tainted, it's not going to be able to attract performers or audience members until he's out of office. So, the 2-year shutdown is much less momentous than it would have been if it took place during any other president's term. Meanwhile, the next time there is a non-Trump-packed board, that "Restored and Renovated By President Donald J. Trump" is going to be gone. It may be harder to get rid of when it's carved into the marble, but it will be gotten rid of nonetheless. And that will be a news cycle or two worth of stories with headlines like "The Final Insult" and "Donald Who?" There is absolutely no chance whatsoever that he gets the permanent monument that he's hungering so desperately for.

We've been pondering this item all week, and the Kennedy Center stuff finally caused us to move forward. As chance would have it, The Bulwark staff had the same thought we did about this general subject. They had an item yesterday headlined "Trump's Summer of Lost Causes" (and note that we had already written the sentence above, about "his unwillingness to let go of obvious lost causes," before we saw the Bulwark piece). They also wrote about the reflecting pool and Air Force One (and the piece was published before the Kennedy Center news broke). Andrew Egger, who wrote the reflecting pool portion of the piece, concludes thusly:

In ordinary times, under an ordinary administration, this sort of story would be shocking and deeply unnerving, revealing extraordinary sycophancy at the Justice Department and extraordinary contempt for the criminal-justice system at the White House.

But maybe I'm crazy: I've found myself reading such stories lately with an unexpected sense of reassurance, bordering on relief. They're a mark of just how far Trump has fallen off the pace. This man, who views himself as a world-historical figure à la Caesar or Napoleon, who once plotted a glorious return to power that would see him driving his enemies before him like an avenging angel--he now finds himself instead frittering away his last days of trifecta power flogging his incompetent lackeys to figure out some way, any way, to make somebody pay for the violence done to his poor Reflecting Pool. Total stasis never tasted so good.

We find nothing there that we disagree with.

And finally, let's tag on one other bit of news that isn't quite the same thing, but comes from a similar place, because it speaks to Trump's childlike inability to tame his id. We wrote yesterday about White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt's decision to quit at the end of this month, a development that came on rather suddenly. Details have begun to leak out, and it seems that a big reason she decided she was done with the whole thing is that Trump would not leave her alone during her maternity leave, calling constantly to ask questions and to chat. He also pressured her to return early from leave, which she did. It is, if we may say so, very Trump-like that he can't even behave respectfully with something as important as this. (Z)

Legal Bytes: Miller Keeps Trying to MAWA (Make America White Again)

The Trump administration always keeps the courts jumpin'. Here's another roundup of the week's legal news:

Birthright Citizenship XO, Part Deux: One thing you can say about Donald Trump (in fact, we just said it in the previous piece) is that he doesn't give up easily. This is especially with Stephen Miller breathing down his neck to go after those damn fer'ners. Never mind that the Supreme Court was clear that the Fourteenth Amendment means what it says: Anyone born in the U.S. is a U.S. citizen, regardless of the nationality of the child's parents. The only exceptions are children of diplomats and children born in areas temporarily outside U.S. control, such as (a thus-far hypothetical) wartime enemy occupation. Trump's latest XO attempts to expand these exceptions by fiat to apply to children born in the U.S. to embassy employees (not just diplomats) and children of anyone he declares has ties to groups designated as a foreign terrorist organization. He also wants to deny citizenship to children born to parents who committed "fraud" to give birth in the U.S., or who engaged a U.S. surrogate.

Our Take: Miller's obsession with this subject is pathological, and would be pathetic if it weren't so dangerous. This latest version won't stand up to scrutiny any better than the first. U.S. citizenship doesn't depend on the parents. As Georgetown University law professor Steve Vladeck explains, it depends on America's sovereign authority over the child when they're born. Children of embassy employees are subject to U.S. laws and are, therefore, U.S. citizens, if born on U.S. soil. The same goes for children whose parents have ties to terrorist organizations or children whose parents lied to get into the country. Assuming for a moment that any of this is good policy and that it won't be used to target people from "sh**hole" countries, the whole point of the Fourteenth Amendment is to not punish children for their parents' shortcomings or heritage. If they're born here and subject to U.S. laws, they're citizens, full stop.

---

Harvard 1, Trump 0: Another day, another loss in court for Trump. This one is courtesy of U.S. District Judge Richard G. Stearns in Massachusetts, who dismissed Trump's lawsuit against Harvard for allegedly violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act by not cracking down on pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel protests. Trump used the suit to try to deny federal grants to Harvard, but Stearns said the law can't be used to penalize a university. He also found that there was no evidence of "institutionalized noncompliance to support the claim."

Our Take: The Trump administration has filed several lawsuits against Harvard, all of which are going badly for the government. At some point, Trump should be declared a vexatious litigant for all these frivolous suits that are clearly designed to harass and intimidate universities and law firms and any other group that he believes threatens his hold on power. At the same time, much as his DoJ is being embarrassed in court, his losses also make him look foolish and stupid. Samuel Bagenstos, a University of Michigan law professor, remarked "at some point, the folks in the Trump administration will surely realize that they look as ridiculous as Wile E. Coyote trying to catch the Road Runner." While he's right about them looking ridiculous, don't bet on them having the self-awareness to figure that out.

---

Oathkeepers Are in the Clear...: Several far-right Oathkeepers' members, including Stewart Rhodes, were convicted in 2023 of seditious conspiracy and plotting violent acts to overturn the 2020 election results and prevent the peaceful transfer of power. Trump's corrupt DoJ moved to vacate those convictions and the judge overseeing those cases, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta, granted that motion, but not without first expressing his disgust at this perversion of justice. The judge wrote, "Today's epilogue diminishes the gravity of that day, denigrates the work of the prosecutors and law enforcement officers who secured these convictions, and excuses criminal acts that caused a centuries-long pillar of our democracy—the peaceful transfer of presidential power—to buckle. The court cannot write a different ending."

Our Take: This is a really tough time to be a U.S. district judge. Mehta had no authority other than to grant the DoJ's request, and he did his job, but he let us know how wrong this is. He wasn't about to let Trump try to rewrite history without using his pen to set the record straight about the horrific crimes the January 6 defendants committed. The DoJ can vacate the convictions but they can't change what actually occurred on that day.

---

...And So Are the Nevada Fake Electors: Yesterday, Nevada Judge Mary Kay Holthus agreed to dismiss charges against the six Nevadans who tried to cast fake electoral votes for Donald Trump after the 2020 election. Her reasoning was that the six were engaging in a form of political protest, and did not get to the point of actually trying to pass off the fake electoral votes as the genuine article.

Our Take: This means that while there are still some potential appeals and/or re-filings, there are no fake electors cases currently in process, and there has been virtually no punishment. One wonders how much a person has to do to try to fraudulently overturn an election result before they've actually committed a crime.

---

Nothing but Contempt for DHS: While we're on the subject of perverting justice, a federal judge in Los Angeles held DHS in contempt for violating her order to hand over images from agents' personal cellphones used in immigration raids last year. In January, U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong had ordered DHS to turn over digital images of communications from the cellphones of 800 immigration agents. Evidence showed that agents were using their personal phones during raids and using racial slurs to describe people being detained. The judge ordered DHS to pay a daily fine of $500 and to pay the plaintiffs' legal fees until the phones are produced.

Our Take: DHS has already paid $3,500 in fines and will no doubt have to pay more. We'll see if they suddenly find the time to process images from the agents' phones, but the evidence must be pretty damaging and they are clearly very reluctant to release it. This case, as readers will recall, resulted in the infamous "Kavanaugh stops," when the Supreme Court overturned Frimpong's preliminary injunction prohibiting stops based on race, accent and place of employment.

---

Mail-in Voting Remains Safe for Now: The judge overseeing the lawsuit against the Trump XO that limits mail-in voting to those listed on an error-ridden and incomplete federal database has expanded her earlier injunction to apply nationwide. U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani in Boston had enjoined the XO in June, but only applied it to the 23 states that had brought the suit. The order now blocks the USPS from complying with Trump's XO in every state. In her ruling, the judge noted that the administration has not defended the constitutionality of the order, or claimed that the injunction will jeopardize the integrity of mail-in voting.

Our Take: This is an important addendum to the earlier injunction as the Supreme Court weighs Trump's request for an emergency stay of Talwani's order. If Trump is really not arguing that the XO is constitutional, as Talwani contends, and doesn't claim that the injunction will cause irreparable harm, it's hard to see on what grounds the Court could grant his request. That said, if they do, it wouldn't be the first time SCOTUS has drawn blood from a stone.

More next week. There's always more next week. (L & Z)

FoxWatch 2026: How to Make a Mountain out of a Molehill

Earlier this week, we had an item about how right-wing activist Enes Kanter Freedom and failed Senate candidate Royce White have declared for the WNBA draft, insisting that they qualify because they now identify as women. We noted that Freedom was the first to announce, and that "White jumped on board shortly after and said he was declaring for the WNBA draft, too." Reader A.G. in Scranton, PA, quite rightly corrected us, pointing out that it should have said "White jumped on board shortly after and said SHE was declaring for the WNBA draft, too." Our apologies to the readership, and to Ms. White.

Anyhow, we never, ever thought we'd be writing so much about a sports league, particularly that sports league, but we go where the news takes us. And, in truth, we are mere pikers as compared to Fox. MediaMatters, which is primarily a Fox watchdog, published the results of a little study they've been conducting. They found that over the course of this summer (which, mind you, still has a month left in it), Fox has devoted more than 13 solid hours of programming time to the WNBA, spread across a staggering 206 segments. The vast majority of the coverage has been anti-trans stuff, and most of the rest has been about "hard fouls" (which is Fox code for "the Black players are meanies to the white players").

We pass this story along for two reasons. The first is that it's Exhibit #792 demonstrating that Fox is not a news operation (particularly in primetime). That is why we do not use their dishonest branding, writing Fox most of the time, and Fox "News" when we have to distinguish between the cable channel and the broadcast channel. There is at least some irony in the fact that while Fox beats the WNBA dead horse, over and over, in the name of "protecting women," it has all but ignored the domestic violence allegations against Rep. Max Miller (R-OH). Again, not a news organization.

Second, we get e-mails every single week asking why Democrats don't push back against Republican messaging. And the answer is that Democrats DO push back. But when they are up against propaganda onslaughts as relentless as the Fox anti-trans campaign, that is not something that can really be countered. Even if left-leaning media outlets and/or Democratic politicians were willing to repeat the same counterpoints hundreds of times, in response to the hundreds of Fox segments, they would be tuned out by the people they are trying to reach. Fox viewers seem to have an almost unique ability to watch the same stories, over and over again, and to be outraged by them every single time. (Z)

Across the Pond: At Least Binface Gave Everyone Some Food for Thought

There weren't any elections in the U.S. yesterday, but there was a very interesting one in the U.K. And regular correspondent S.T. in Worcestershire, England, UK was kind enough to send us a report:

You wait ages for a consequential by-election (special election) for the U.K. Parliament... and then three come along together. First we had the Gorton and Denton contest in February, which saw the Green Party achieve their first ever by- election victory, gaining a previously safe Labour seat; then Andy Burnham's retention of Makerfield for Labour in June, which propelled him into 10 Downing Street; and last, but by no means least, the titanic battle between Reform's Nigel Farage and the charismatic, sleaze-free, Count Binface. Nigel resigned his Clacton seat to force a by-election, where he could "take on the establishment." His plan came a little unstuck when the other main UK parties decided not to field candidates, resulting in his main opponent becoming the inter-galactic warrior from Sigma 9.

The contest took place yesterday with, as usual in the U.K., an overnight count. Turnout, at 44.3%, was relatively robust for a by-election. Even before the declaration, there was controversy with Farage, at a privately run "Farage Fest" staged by Reform, saying he would not attend the count as police had told him about "an organized campaign to disrupt and degrade the result." The police subsequently stated that not advised any candidate not to attend the count. So we were denied the usual pictures of all the candidates (34 in total!) lined up as the result was declared.

Farage won with 22,293 votes (63.3%), slightly more numerically than he achieved at the general election. This is not entirely a surprise. If the Reform party were able to gerrymander a seat to maximize their support, they would probably have end up with something like Clacton. It is 96% White, has an elderly demographic, exceptionally low levels of education and very high levels of deprivation. Its estimated support for Brexit in the 2016 referendum was, at 73%, one of the highest in the U.K. But the Binface bandwagon saw the Count get 9,455 votes (26.9%):



This is by far his best result in any election he has stood in—and a reminder that, as shown in recent by-election, voters are more than willing to vote tactically for the candidate most likely to challenge Reform. No other candidate got more than 500 votes.

Incidentally, this farce of a by-election will have cost the UK taxpayers around £300,000.

As readers may recall, Nigel's problems do not end here. The main reason he prompted this by-election was to divert attention away from a £5 million so-called "personal gift" which he received from a Thai based crypto-billionaire just before the 2024 General Election. Farage failed to declare this when he was elected and the Standards Commissioner, who deals with such matters, is considering whether he should have. Once he resigned, the inquiry was put on hold, but it will be re-activated as soon as he returns to the House of Commons. It is widely expected, not least because of some of his own comments, that he will be found guilty of misconduct and probably suspended for more than 10 days, which in turn will allow his constituents to launch a recall petition. Should 10% of them sign it, there will be a further by-election.

So, Farage could soon be contesting Clacton for the third time in just a little over 2 years. Should this arise, the other major U.K. parties will probably rejoin the fray, trying to focus their campaigns on Farage's and Reform's very curious funding arrangements. As for Count Binface, it is unclear whether he will return to Sigma 9 or, given his political momentum, be tempted to hang around and run again!

Thanks, S.T.!

Since we are not likely to write about Binface again (at least, not anytime soon), we'll also pass along this piece in which an economist attempted to put a price tag on the candidate's (deliberately) absurd political program. His guess is around £1 billion. Now, that could be cut in half by abandoning plans to nationalize the singer Adele (est. cost: £500 million), but the ice cream subsidies will run almost £100 million, while the referendum on whether Pluto is a planet will cost around £130 million. And if the plan to put solar panels is funded by the government rather than by the energy companies, then the total price tag jumps more into the £15 billion range.

Although Binface's whole campaign was meant to be farcical, it nonetheless highlighted some real issues. One of those is that Nigel Farage is a corrupt jerk. Another, as the economist who crunched these numbers pointed out, is "a surprisingly familiar problem: how to pay for it all." It's easy to promise, but not so easy to deliver, especially once you're the one responsible for balancing the books. (Z)

I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: Teddy Roosevelt Thought Woodrow Wilson Was Cowardly

Nearly every week, Donald Trump tears into Joe Biden, Barack Obama, Kamala Harris or all of the above with nasty personal attacks. We tried to think of any other sitting or former president who did this, and the best we could come up with was Theodore Roosevelt. He said many unflattering things about his successor's successor, Woodrow Wilson, like: "What a dreadful creature Wilson is! I cannot believe our people have grown so yellow as to stand for him." This was not long after the Lusitania sinking, which was an act of war as far as TR was concerned, but not as far as Wilson was concerned. With that said, the Rough Rider confined his badmouthing to private latters, and did not air such grievances publicly. So, once again, the cheeto cheese stands alone.

As is usually the case, we had two hints for last week's theme. The first was, "if the aforementioned Davy Crockett wasn't dead, and was playing along, he would probably be the first person to send in a correct response." The second was, "We thought we'd given away the store with the Davy Crockett hint, particularly if you consider both references to him in yesterday's posting. Today, we'll add the hint that we think Jeremy Allen White would do pretty well with this theme, too."

And here is the solution, courtesy of reader M.H. in Ottawa, ON, Canada:

The theme this week: bears!

• Volunteer State: It Would Seem Trump's Endorsement Is No Longer Golden — The Golden Bear award for the best film at the Berlin International Film Festival
• In Congress, Part I: At Least McConnell Is There in Spirit — Spirit bear
• In Congress, Part II: Who Cares About the Fifth Amendment, and All That Constitution Jazz? — Jazz Bear, mascot for the Utah Jazz
• Legal News: Judge Hits Trump Where the Sun Does Shine — Sun bear
• I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: Obama Library in Chicago Is a Hit... And Run — The Chicago Bears
• This Week in Schadenfreude: Some People Have a Very Black Sense of Humor — Black bear
• This Week in Freudenfreude: This White Powder Isn't Cocaine — The movie Cocaine Bear (2023)

And from the hint, it's like you told us in the first item: "Davy Crockett kilt hisself a b'ar when he was only three".

Yep, and as to the Saturday hint, Jeremy Allen White stars in The Bear. Meanwhile, today's headline adds "Teddy" to the set. Oh, and "Golden Bear" can also refer to Jack Nicklaus and/or the mascot of Cal.

Here are the first 60 readers to get it right:

M.B. in Albany, NY M.A. in Park Ridge, IL G.W. in Avon, CT J.N. in Zionsville, IN T.K. in Manchester, MO M.M. in Dunellen NJ M.T. in Wheat Ridge, CO M.K. in Long Branch, NJ S.K. in Ardmore, PA D.D. in Bucks County, PA J.F. in Fayetteville, NC M.J. in Oakdale, MN M.H. in Ottawa, ON, Canada T.K. in Half Moon Bay, St. Kitts S.T. in Coventry, England, UK R.B. in Richmond, Virginia P.A. in Redwood City, CA J.E. in San Jose, CA W.F. in Baltimore, MD J.B. in Waukee, IA D.S. in Chantilly, VA D.B. in Glendale, CA K.J. in Toronto, ON, Canada M.K. in Seattle, WA K.H. in Albuquerque, NM J.S. in Yreka, CA H.B. in State College, PA R.R. in Westborough, MA P.H. in Ft. Lauderdale, FL S.B. in Palm Harbor, FL

M.S. in Canton, NY C.B. in Oakland CA N.P. in Santa Rosa, CA G.M.K. and K.J. in Hell, MI P.W. in Tulalip, WA A.M. in Boston, MA N.S. in Portland, OR K.F. in Berea, KY M.R. in Washington, DC J.T. in Philadelphia, PA B.H. in Sherman Oaks, CA S.G. in Durham, NC C.W. in Atlantic Beach, FL S.M. in Morganton, GA K.L. in Concord, CA R.E. in Birmingham, AL D.S. in Layton, UT B.A. in Edmond, OK K.R. in Austin, TX H.B. in Santiago, Chile M.S. in New York City, NY F.D. in Dunedin, FL W.V. in Hemet, CA M.W. in Altea, Spain G.K. in Blue Island, IL M.K. in Forest Hills, NY A.D. in Gaithersburg, MD R.H. in West Grove, PA T.C. in Kirkwood, MO D.M. in Oakland, CA

The 60th correct response was received at 8:24 a.m. PT on Sunday.

For this week's theme, it relies on one word per headline, and it's in the category Language (and, secondarily, in the category Movies). For a hint, we'll say that while Davy Crockett and Jeremy Allen White were well-positioned for last week's theme, Richard I of England would be well-positioned for this one. Well, he would be if he hadn't died over 800 years ago.

If you have a guess, send it to comments@electoral-vote.com with subject line August 14 Headlines. (Z)

This Week in Schadenfreude: Trump Media & Technology Group Is Awash in Red Ink

Because Donald Trump's so-called social media company is publicly traded, it is required to file quarterly reports with the SEC. The latest report just dropped, and it is... ghastly.

The company's Q2 revenue was less than $2 million; most of that came from selling ads on Truth Social. Its losses were an almost unbelievable $238 million. They have some debts to service and, apparently, are "investing" in new ventures (such as yet another Trump crypto coin) to try to bring in more cash. The corrupt-as-the-day-is-long "priority" access to Trump's "truths" is already being sold; the company has about a dozen subscribers, each paying between $60,000 and $100,000 per month. That's no small chunk of change, but it's also not much of a dent in $238 million.

In the end, TMTG has one product, namely Truth Social. And Truth Social has only one user that matters, namely Trump. But even he doesn't matter as much as he once did, inasmuch as all he does is re-air the same grievances, over and over and over. Traffic to the site is down 36% over last year, and he's still got more than 2 years as president left to go.

One wonders what Trump's angle is, here. He's the largest shareholder in TMTG; maybe he sold enough stock while the price was high that he doesn't really care what happens next. Alternatively, this might just be a gateway to various grifts. Either way, the company and its social media platform are in a delicate position. They have $1 billion in debt that is theoretically due in 2028, but could be called in as soon as November. Meanwhile, most of the company's assets are in bitcoin, which is not exactly the world's strongest foundation.

At best, TMTG does not seem likely to live on past 2028. Of course, if it does, Trump will likely be more than satisfied. He'll have gotten out of it what he wanted, and surely won't care if it burns to the ground once he's out of office. The interesting thing to see will be if it burns to the ground before he leaves office. Then, he'd probably have to return to his buddy Elon's platform. (Z)

This Week in Freudenfreude: So... Larry David Was to Blame

We already had an item recently about Life, Larry and the Pursuit of Happiness, and we also had one about Barack Obama being a decent fellow. So, why not an item that combines both storylines?

Life, Larry and the Pursuit of Happiness, which stars Larry David, and which is produced by (and features supporting appearances from) Barack Obama, released its season finale this week. The "bit" that is the foundation of the show is that David plays his usual socially awkward, somewhat misanthropic character. However, instead of doing so in modern-day Los Angeles (Curb Your Enthusiasm) or in modern-day New York City (Seinfeld, in the person of George Costanza), he is inserted into various notable moments from history.

In the final segment of the season-concluding episode, David is playing an aide to Obama during the latter's presidency. They address various fashion-related issues, including an extended discussion of whether or not you can eat soup while you're wearing a tie. It's relatively clear where it's headed; the sketch reaches its climax when Obama is choosing a suit for a press conference, and David goes all-in on advocating for one that is tan-colored. You can see the segment here; we've cued it up to the tan suit portion:

The piece ends with Obama leaving for his press conference, and David (correctly) predicting that people are "going to be talking about this one for a very long time."

Most presidents are/were able to laugh at themselves, on occasion. Obama certainly could; he was capable of both dishing it out and of taking it. And most of the remainder who did not have this ability, like Richard Nixon, were at least able to screw on a smile for the camera and fake it. These days, it's sometimes nice to have a reminder this is the norm.

Have a good weekend, all! (Z)

---

Previous report         Next report

---

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.
• Guidelines for questions (Saturdays) and letters (Sundays

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

---

Email a link to a friend.

---The Votemaster and Zenger