Dem
51
GOP
49
We got a lot of mail about the turncoat senator in Arizona, so we'll start there.
J.M. in Mesa, AZ, writes: I am a Democrat living in Mesa since 2020. I couldn't vote for Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-AZ) in 2018 but I was happy that she won and while I've been annoyed by some of her grandstanding, it hasn't been enough for me to think we'd be better off with someone else. But now, I'm done with her. She's a coward and will never get my vote.
Everyone knows that she would lose a primary in 2024 for her Senate seat. Perhaps she is not planning to run for re-election; maybe she is delusional enough to think the Democrats would not field a candidate to keep the seat from the GOP.
I'd say Gov. Doug Ducey (R-AZ) is the 2024 favorite here if he runs. He would have defeated Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) this year if he had run.
Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) is the only Democrat who can win the seat, and probably only if the GOP nominates another Blake Masters-type, which would siphon some GOP votes to Sinema.
A wild card here is the Navajo Nation. The Democrats worked hard for their votes in 2020 and it paid off (Joe Biden got 90% of their vote—he doesn't win the state without them). They will need to do the same in 2024.
M.D. in San Tan Valley, AZ, writes: I don't believe—from those that I've talked to and the comments I've read from local news sites in the last few days—that anyone really sees this as either a surprise or a big deal as far as looking down the road at the 2024 Arizona Senate election. We all know Ruben Gallego is going to run so no shocker there, but the real intrigue for us Arizonans is who is going to for the Republicans? Rep. Greg Stanton (R-AZ)? Doug Ducey? Alice Cooper? Despite the anticipation, Gallego has a lot of momentum on his side and will appeal to many residents of the state in multiple demographics. I think deep down Sinema will be spending more time reviewing big, corporate job offers for January 2025 than actually campaigning for re-election. Her days are numbered here in the valley of the sun and she knows it.
D.S.R. in Tempe, AZ, writes: While there are many things I could say about my senior senator, what I will say is this is a shining example of why we need ranked choice voting.
J.H. in Flagstaff, AZ, writes: I can't say I'm a fan of my state's senior senator, but her recent change in party affiliation was probably her best move to retain her position in 2025, or to get some goodies for herself if she chooses not to run. It increases her chances of remaining a Senator after 2024 from "close to zero" up to "a little better than close to zero." In reality, if she runs as an independent in the next election, she's just making it more likely for the Republican candidate to win.
I'm sure Ruben Gallego will run for the seat. I received a fundraising text from his team within a couple hours of the news breaking (despite never having donated money to him, never signing up for e-mails or texts from the Gallego campaign, and being a registered independent on the voting rolls). If Gallego and Sinema both run, the two of them will split about 48-53% of the vote and the Republican candidate will be very likely to win with about 45-52%. Let's hope it's not Blake Masters, Kari Lake, or any of the other crazies my beautiful state has to offer.
Of course, if Sinema hadn't made the change, she would surely have lost a primary to Gallego or some other ambitious young Democrat. At this point, I think the Democrats' best hope here is if Sinema's fundraising dries up and her corporate friends and wealthy allies just can't make up the difference so she opts to bow out to become a judge, ambassador, talking head, or lobbyist. By all accounts, she'd like any of those jobs better than her current one.
M.S. in Phoenix, AZ, writes: As a Democrat who worked long hours to get her elected, I absolutely loathe Kyrsten Sinema's recent change from a registered Democrat to PND (the Arizona term for independent—"Party Not Designated"). As an Arizonan, I have grudging respect. We have always had mavericks representing us in the Senate.
As a former political operative, I am in awe of the move. She is daring the Democrats to run someone against her in 2024, knowing that this will likely throw away a Senate seat in a year that will already be hard enough for the Party. I think the Party will do just that. I think we've gotten a bit cocky and assume we can win in a three-way (we can't).
If the Democrats do decide to run somebody for the seat, the primary will be a complete mess. Ruben Gallego is obviously interested, as is former Phoenix mayor and current congressman Greg Stanton. However, both men have skeletons in their personal lives that could end them. Current Phoenix mayor Kate Gallego (Ruben's former wife, talk about a messy primary) could also jump in.
And that's just the A-tier: There is a very deep, very ambitious blue bench in the state. Tucson mayor Regina Romero, recently-defeated State Schools Superintendent Kathy Hoffman, Navajo Nation President Buu Nygren, and newly-elected Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes are all young, charismatic folks who could make convincing runs.
The Republicans will probably run somebody crazy. Kari Lake is an obvious candidate, as is Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ). There's also a solid Republican bench beyond the two of them, including former congressman Matt Salmon and incoming state Senate President Warren Peterson. Outgoing governor Doug Ducey has said he's not interested (he's got barely-disguised ambitions for Observatory Circle), but it's conceivable he'd jump into a three-way race against Sinema and a Democrat.
A three-way general election? The GOP would be favored, but Sinema might just be able to pull it off depending on whom the parties nominate.
S.D. in Scottsdale, AZ, writes: I voted for Sinema in 2018, after watching her total transformation from Green Party member to liberal Democrat to whatever she is now. I hoped that she would use her ability to reach across the aisle to move critical legislation. The choice was an easy one given that she was running against Martha McSally, a staunch right-winger. I expected her to operate as a moderate Democrat.
Instead, she seems to relish in her role as a spoiler. I find her staunch defense of the filibuster to be disingenuous. To say that it is more important than any other possible issue, including protecting voter rights and expanding healthcare coverage, just doesn't seem believable to me. I just don't buy it. It's a political strategy and not a deeply help belief. When she finally came around voting to pass Biden's Inflation Reduction Act, she would only agree to consent with her critical vote if the legislation was amended to protect a tax loophole for hedge funds, which from my perspective can be nothing more than payback to whomever she is beholden to, never having actually articulated her reason for protecting this loophole.
So, now that she knows that she's deservedly lost the Democratic base and that she'll lose in a Democratic primary, she's making her move. I don't see a path to victory for her in this. I suspect that she thinks it will make her more valuable as she segues into the private sector as a consultant, appealing to clients of both political persuasions. Despite my bitter disappointment, somehow, I still hope that something good comes from her term in office and that she is able to use her pragmatic skills to broker a deal for the Dreamers. If she has the will to do this and can deliver, I will give her credit.
B.C. in Phoenix, AZ, writes: Remember: Kyrsten Sinema worked in Ralph Nader's presidential campaign in 2000. By changing her party affiliation to Independent, she has once again put herself in the position of spoiler and ready to receive multimillion-dollar lobbyist offers from Rich Righty Repugnicans (not a typo) or a sweet deal from the Democrats. I don't think she's stupid, and doesn't realize that an "offer" from some rich dirtbag on the Red Team would be rescinded once her Arizona seat is safely in (R) hands (the Repugnicans are masters at breaking promises they've made without suffering any repercussions). A nice federal judgeship offer needs to be made to her, today, so that she is forced to show her hand.
Sinema has shown herself to be primarily interested in Sinema. I think she'd take the judgeship, since a bird in the hand is worth a whole slew of creepy Bushes.
J.C. in Washington, DC, writes: Alas, Arizona is at the center of the American political universe... again.
I write as a fellow "Independent" Arizona voter. We are quite numerous in the state, numbering 1.4 million and trailing the Republicans by only about 30,000 registered voters. We outnumber Democrats by over 130,000 registered voters. It is quite conceivable we will be the largest voting bloc in Arizona by the 2024 cycle.
Plainly, Senator Sinema has done a very good job representing us and our purple state in general. One of the biggest signs of this? She pisses everyone off. I have friends on both sides of the spectrum that love her or hate her.
However, pissing everyone off is not a good electoral strategy. Her switch to "Party Not Designated" (the official term in Arizona) is about as savvy a political move as she could make in the state. She now has put the Democrats in a corner. Assuming they nominate Ruben Gallego, the Democratic vote will split and the seat will handily go to the Republicans, who I suspect may break their fever after the midterms and nominate a moderate like Doug Ducey, who would win in a walk.
I don't see a way out of this for the Democrats. I think the Senator knows she can't win as either a Democrat or independent, so why not burn the house down, burnish her credentials as an "Independent" and then parlay that into another gig (pundit, lobbyist, et al.) served by her bonafides and assisted by her Republican friends that will surely help her over the next two years?
Selfish or savvy? Both.
N.L. in Peoria, AZ, writes: As an Arizona Democrat, I donated my time, money, and effort to helping Sinema get elected in 2018. It's hard to explain how excited we all were when she was elected; she was the first Democrat to win election statewide since Janet Napolitano as governor 12 years prior. For her to leave the Democratic Party is an incredibly deep betrayal to those of us that worked so hard to achieve that goal. It's also obviously a blatant political ploy, as she has done enough in the past 4 years to ensure that she would never win a Democratic primary here again. I was already committed to voting against her in the 2024 primaries, and even though I can't do that now, I will vote against her in the general as long as the Democrats put a serious candidate (see: Gallego, Ruben) forward.
It's important to note that I've almost always been an establishment guy and have voted for every single Democrat in every single general election since moving here about 20 years ago. In primaries, my vote has always gone to whomever was supported by our local party. I'm about as far from a "Bernie or bust" type of Democrat as you can imagine; however, it's not fair for Sinema to hold the entire Democratic party hostage. After all, if we allow her to scare us out of the 2024 race, she could easily do the same thing in 2030 and beyond. I don't know for sure if somebody like Gallego could win a three-way race with Sinema and Doug Ducey/Kari Lake, but I believe it is not outside the realm of possibility and I am honestly so offended by Sinema's crass opportunism that I am willing to do just about anything to get her out of office. If we don't excise the cancer now, it will likely metastasize and cause us even more headaches down the line. I am usually not the type of voter to be driven by emotion, but when it comes to Sinema I'm ready to make an exception to that and so are many of my friends who hold similar beliefs.
R.L. in Alameda, CA, writes: Ruben Gallego is definitely running for Senate in Arizona. Since Kyrsten Sinema announced her departure from the Democratic party, I have received a text message and an e-mail from the Gallego campaign asking for a donation for his Senate run. Frankly, it's a little off-putting, given that the midterm election was just a month ago.
S.C. in Mountain View, CA, writes: You said that the flaw in the premise of the question from J.K. in Las Vegas (that the Democratic Party could put up "their very best candidate as an independent" who could beat Sinema in a primary and keep her off the November ballot) was that would not stop someone else from running in the Democratic primary so it would still be a three-way race in November.
There is a bigger flaw in J.K.'s premise, and that is that there is no "independent" primary. By definition, someone who collects enough signatures to qualify as an independent goes directly on the general election ballot. You cannot "primary" an independent. You would just end up with two (or more) people with the independent label on the November ballot.
Sinema has played a very clever game of chess here. She may not have checkmated Ruben Gallego and the Arizona Democratic Party yet, but she certainly has them in check.
V & Z respond: You're right; we should have been clearer.
M.M. in Charlottesville, VA, writes: I found it interesting that both of your top two stories on Friday were about the taking of hostages by bad actors: Brittney Griner by Russia, and the Arizona U.S. Senate Seat by Kyrsten Sinema. The standard United States policy in such circumstances, of course, is not to negotiate with the bad actors. Doing so may produce a satisfactory outcome in the instant case, but over the long term it only serves to embolden the hostage-taker. Innocents are increasingly seen as bargaining chips or leverage, and hostage-taking becomes more common. By refusing point-blank to negotiate, the bad actors quickly learn that there is little value to be gained from taking the hostage in the first place, and more innocents are protected—even if at the cost of the unfortunate few unlucky enough to become hostages early in the process.
Even though Joe Biden made an exception to this policy for the Griner-Bout trade, the Democratic party should do nothing of the sort with respect to the Arizona U.S. Senate seat. As you noted, Sinema running as an independent threatens to split the liberal/moderate vote between her and the Democratic nominee, which certainly could result in a GOP takeover of the seat. While I'm personally skeptical that Arizonans who voted for blue in 2018 would fall for these shenanigans, I firmly believe it is better, in the long run, for a Republican a** (as the nominee will almost certainly be one) to fill the seat for 6 years than to kowtow to a corrupt and self-interested bad actor like Sinema. The long-term damage to party integrity and cohesion is too steep a price to pay to allow a renegade and troublesome senator to blackmail the Party's majority. Of course, running a three-way race may not result in a loss—Presidential years tend to boost Democrats, Sinema will not be able to avail herself of the DNC's apparatus or funding, and Oregon's 2022 gubernatorial election shows that Democratic voters are not so easily fooled by D-turned-I third-party spoiler candidates. However, it would be absolutely unacceptable for the blue team to negotiate with this hostage-taker by declining to field a candidate and staying out of the way on her path to reelection. Doing so would only embolden other corrupt members of Congress to take the same tack in the future.
Y.A. in Newton, MA, writes: I think too much is being made of Herschel Walker's (R) loss in Georgia and the fact that he lagged so much behind Gov. Brian Kemp (R-GA). It seems to be taken by many as evidence that "candidate quality mattered." But it's just another example of how differently people vote in state versus national elections. Voters are less aligned with their preferred party when it comes to governor and other state races. No one ever said Democrats had a "candidate quality" problem when their candidates lagged 40 points behind Charlie Baker or Larry Hogan. The truth is that Georgia has shifted to the blue zone in recent years, and Walker's loss is not that much different from the 2020 races.
J.S. in Wadenoijen, The Netherlands, writes: You wrote, of Herschel Walker: "You almost couldn't design a worse candidate if you tried (well, except for Roy Moore)." Well, for a particular demographic, Roy Moore is probably the stronger candidate. At least he's a white male.
B.C. in Walpole, ME, writes: Wait, wait, I've got this. I love contests! "Design a Worse Candidate" is the best yet!
Okay, wow, this is maybe tougher than I thought. I mean, during a Senate run-off race, talking about werewolves vs. vampires... No, hold on, I've got another approach:
- He not only collects Nazi memorabilia, but has been proudly showing his prized collection to members of the media.
- He was recently discovered in bed with a dead girl and a live boy.
- There are pictures of him: (1) in a KKK outfit, (2) in blackface, (3) in yellowface, (4) in a "Speedy Gonzalez" Halloween costume. Not from high school or college but from the last three years.
- He's pro-abortion and anti-LGBTQ+; something for everyone.
- He thinks elections only count if he wins.
- He has encouraged overthrow of the U.S. government by force and violence.
- He has endorsed Nazis, Holocaust deniers, and vicious racists.
- He launches personal attacks on veterans of the U.S. military, including people whose status is heroic.
- His attitudes toward women are from the 1950s. He has cheated on all his wives and had a notorious affair with a porn star.
- He denigrates democratic leaders worldwide and actively promotes autocratic leaders.
- He is known for throwing ketchup and other things at the walls of government buildings.
- He claims that he didn't say any of those things that he said.
- He doesn't read anything longer than a few hundred characters.
- Although we are not a psychologist, and there cannot be a remote diagnosis, yes, the candidate is a megalomaniac, paranoid narcissist.
K.S. in Dauphin County, PA, writes: To discuss Paul Whelan's conviction in the same paragraph as Brittney Griner is to be manipulated by the right wing to create false equivalency.
Whenever you refer to Paul Whelan as a "former marine," please add that he was convicted of larceny-related charges in a court martial and given a bad conduct discharge. If you added that there were also discrepancies in his work history and education claims, and that he bragged about contacts in Russia, it would be obvious that this is not the cut-and-dry case that Brittney Griner's was.
The right wing wants to embarrass President Biden so it's in their best interest to portray Whelan as a choir boy. He may not have deserved his current sentence, but "former marine" is not the full story.
K.C. in West Islip, NY, writes: I'm sure I'll get blowback on this one, but I honestly just don't get it.
I understand the whole dynamic of the Russia = "bad guys" at the moment, and the history we have with Russia/the USSR, but at the last check Brittney Griner did, in fact, break a law on the books in Russia. Whether or not it was intentional, ignorance of the law isn't a valid defense and never has been. Suppose that it was me instead of her who had entered Russia with something Russian law says is illegal and I had been given a comparable sentence. I find it hard to believe the government would be bending over backwards to secure my release, no less by swapping someone so revolting that he was nicknamed the "Merchant of Death."
Let me get this straight, then: An American basketball player is equivalent to a guy who conspired to kill Americans, and this is somehow a fair trade? I'd rather call it grossly ill-conceived with no vision towards how Bout can now be free to exact revenge against America. It's a shame for Griner and her wife that she had to go through that ordeal—294 days in detention in an enemy country, specifically an enemy country that she voluntarily played basketball in during the WNBA off-season. The bottom line, though, is that it was her own fault. Whenever travelling abroad it's crucial to apprise oneself of the local laws and even more so that she was quite literally working in Russia, she should have known what was and wasn't legal.
Now we have our entertainer back. and lord knows we as Americans put excessive value on people who provide entertainment in our lives. Meanwhile Russia, and whichever terrorist organizations would also like to get involved, have their arms dealer back. Great job, guys!
J.E. in Whidbey Island, WA, writes: You asked: "What's the point of holding a primary that doesn't actually count for anything?"
Indeed. In Washington state, there has been a presidential primary for many years. But until very recently, the Democratic Party in the state still selected their national convention delegates based solely on the caucus, a longstanding tradition that predates the state's primary. On the Democratic side, the presidential primary was entirely a "beauty contest" with no bearing on the nomination. In fact, in 2016, Bernie Sanders won the caucus in a landslide, while Hillary Clinton won a narrow majority in the meaningless primary that was held two months later.
It was only in 2020 that the Democrats first used the primary to determine how Washington's delegates would be allocated to candidates. The caucus system and state party convention remain the way that the actual people filling those delegate seats are chosen.
D.F. in St. Paul, MN, writes: A bit more information to put the so-called Biden Rule into better context: Then-Senator Biden suggested that if a SCOTUS vacancy occurred late enough in an election year (as he put it "once the political season is underway"), it should not be filled until the election is over. Just as you described, the "Biden Rule" was never anything more than a hypothetical suggestion offered by a single senator. But further, even had it been more than that, it wouldn't have precluded the Merrick Garland nomination from proceeding that year. As you noted, though, then-Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) wasn't comfortable admitting that he was creating a new rule entirely.
Consequently, it is only right and fair that his "rule," if it sticks, be called the "McConnell Rule" instead, particularly as he later modified it by allowing Amy Coney Barrett to move from nomination to confirmation just a little more than a month before another presidential election. In the schadenfreude-loving spirit of this site, while most of me hopes for circumstances where it would never matter again, a smaller part of me awaits the day when that rule is used against McConnell's own party.
R.L.D. in Sundance, WY, writes: Congress isn't regulating interstate commerce with the Respect for Marriage Act so much as it is specifying a new method for implementing the Full Faith and Credit provisions of Article IV. The "Defense" of Marriage Act it replaces had a different method of implementing those provisions and "Respect for" changes those. There may be some tangential effects on interstate commerce, but that's not really the provision that gives Congress authority here.
K.M. in Centennial, CO, writes: The diversity and talent of the Democratic governors is impressive and a great place to look for future national leaders. One governor-elect, Wes Moore of Maryland, is exceptional. I first witnessed his charisma, intelligence and humanity about 7 years ago at a Dallas luncheon attended by about 900 of the city's leading philanthropists, business leaders, religious leaders and elected officials. Wes Moore's words quickly impressed and united that diverse and accomplished crowd. He energized the room. He brought us to tears and laughter. He was able to validate our common goals and our best aspirations. How many young, unknown, out-of-state speakers are capable of doing all that at a mid-week cold-sober somewhat obligatory charity luncheon? Very, very few. His résumé includes being a Rhodes scholar, a decorated military veteran and now a governor. Plus, to the Everyday Person, he is relatable and very likable. Wes Moore is the total package. Without a doubt he is a natural leader and a future president. Forgive me for waxing on... but it is a huge relief to think of Wes Moore being able to unite the Democratic Party and withstand any assault by the Republicans.
J.T. in Marietta, GA, writes: J.M. in Albany wrote to you complaining that Democrats lost races because of "candidate quality." Specifically, J.M. objects to candidates perceived as moderate, because they "utterly fail to energize the Democratic base."
I'm really tired of this bogus argument. I've heard it over and over again from the Berniacs. "If they would just run a candidate who was a true progressive, Democrats would win!" The fact is, these candidates do not energize the base. If they did, they would win in the primary. But they lose. Repeatedly. J.M. uses Florida as evidence. Florida has not really been a purple state since 2012. Let me offer up a counter-argument: Wisconsin, a genuinely purple state. There, the centrist Democrats all bowed out to make room for the most "progressive" candidate, Mandela Barnes. He was young and dynamic; surely he would fire up the base! No. Instead, he lost to a really terrible Republican, Sen. Ron Johnson, while the Democratic governor was reelected.
It's time to shelve this stale argument.
J.T. in Greensboro, NC, writes: I think it's about time the Democrats started playing the "distill the entire party into one person, no matter how disingenuous" game, with Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA). The Republicans have been doing this for the last 20 years with Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), and have made her into such an effective avatar for the Democratic party that Representatives in the deep South would often seem to be running against her rather than her opponents.
While anyone who has taken classical logic knows that attacking the person and not the argument is a logical fallacy and makes for weak reasoning, it seems to be incredibly effective in U.S. politics.
While they've run "against" Trump I don't think it has been as effective for a couple of reasons, including that the average American knows more about who he actually is and what he's actually done.
T.M.M. in Odessa, MO, writes: The ultimate problem that Republicans have with Donald Trump flows from two things.
First, most states require "established" political parties to hold primaries to choose candidates for office. A political party is an established party if it has a guaranteed slot on the general election ballot based on the results in the prior general election.
Second, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that states which require party membership to vote in a primary (closed primaries) are limited in their ability to restrict people from registering to vote in a particular party's primary. My state recently enacted laws to have voters register by party. Even though I have been active in one party for decades, the law permits me to register as a member of the other party (if I wanted to be able to ratf**k their primary).
The combination of these two rules leaves established parties subject to a hostile takeover by people who are RINOs or DINOs. Unfortunately, the Republican Party has been a victim of such a hostile takeover. Trumpists who have no loyalty to the principles of the Republican Party are a significant plurality in a large number of states and districts and even a majority in other areas. While the "establishment" can try to fight back, the establishment is ultimately elected by the party membership. As we may soon see in Michigan for example, the Republican establishment has been taken over by these Trumpist RINOs in many states. While leadership which is willing to lose their positions could attempt to lead a resistance to this hostile takeover, many of the current Republican leadership has no interest in being in a 21st Century sequel to Profiles in Courage, as most of the subjects of that book lost their political positions as a result of their courageous actions.
B.K. in Hell's Kitchen, NY, writes: You mentioned the play MacTrump. In 1967, a very successful production opened in New York of another Scottish Play political takeoff called MacBird. The production starred Stacey Keach as MacBird and Rue McClanahan as Lady MacBird (Cleavon Little was a witch). It also had subsequent productions around the country.
R.W. in Brooklyn, NY, writes: I hope that "the DeSantises, Cruzes, and Pences biting [Trump's] ankles" have good dental plans, as he will undoubtedly be wearing one or more ankle monitors by then.
M.M. in Sheffield, England, UK, writes: You wrote: What it amounts to is that the guy whose political career began with 'Build the Wall' has now moved squarely into 'the walls are closing in' territory."
Pithy... but I prefer: "What it amounts to is that the guy whose political career began with 'Lock her up!' is moving squarely towards being locked up."
Karma's a bi**h, ain't it?
F.S. in Oberschleißheim, Germany, writes: You wrote: "Heinrich XIII... will soon be known as Heinrich 20 to life." However, high treason has a 10-years-to-life sentence in Germany. And a life sentence is usually handled differently than in the U.S. Usually, even when sentenced for life, the convict is released on probation after 15 years in prison. Only when an extraordinary severity of guilt (besondere Schwere der Schuld) is established in the verdict, the release may be postponed to a number of years greater than 15. This also needs to be in the verdict. For comparison, the terrorists of the 70s to 90s RAF (Rote Armee Fraktion—Red Army Fraction) got verdicts in the life, but probation delayed. There was a huge controversy when, in 2009, one of the RAF terrorists had to be released on probation after the 26 years specified in the verdict. And that terrorist was sentenced for participation in 9 murders.
However, there was no coup, as it was discovered before it could take place. Therefore, the verdict will more probably be for preparation of high treason, which only has a 1-to-10-year sentence. And verdicts up to 2 years may be completely on probation. So if the wannabe dictator is lucky, he might skip prison entirely. So indictment is certain, but don't count on the verdict to be more than a slap on the wrist. Although, in the U.S., the coup leaders might even not be indicted.
R.H. in Darmstadt, Germany, writes: It is very compelling to suppose that the German administration and the justice system are really vigilant in observing and stopping far-right extremism due to our Nazi past. Sadly, at least for a long time, this has not been the case and the actual news is also a result of this. It is a longstanding tradition, starting at least in the 1990s, that the police and the judicial system in Germany is much more obsessed with fighting left-wing extremism than looking for the counterpart on the right. It is a saying here that "Justice is blind in her right eye" that sadly turns out to be true much too often.
Things started to change a bit after some more visible attacks by right wing groups, especially the murder of Walter Lübcke, a Christian-Democrat (i.e. moderate right-wing) politician who was murdered by some xenophobe extremist for defending the admission of refugees in a political discussion. This finally shook things up a bit. Sadly enough several earlier murders of citizens from families with a migration background didn't have that effect.
For a long time the extremist groups could grow in this climate and they somehow learned that their actions would rarely have consequences. I hope that will change now, but I fear we will see more frightening news like this in the next few years.
Two final notes concerning your translations into German: "Zustand" is a correct translation of "state" but in a completely different meaning: This is like the use of the word "state" in "state of the union." To translate "deep state" in a literal translation I would say "tiefer Staat," and it would be more idiomatic to translate "Staat im Staate." Furthermore, the correct translation of "fake news" into German is "fake news." We haven't bothered to invent our own expression and just took yours.
C.K. in Jacksonville, FL, writes: Hurray for Peru! Their president decided he never wanted to leave office and tried to become a dictator. But Peru's Congress impeached him and kicked him out same day! If only the U.S. was that smart when faced with a similar situation. We go on and on nearly 2 years and counting with no final justice, and he gets to keep talking and keep trying. We should send a Congressional delegation to Peru to learn a thing or two.
S.S. in Koloa, HI, writes: Regarding the question from R.M.S. in Lebanon about the shortage of coins, I had a pleasant experience recently when I went to a local restaurant to treat myself to a slice of "Hula Pie" for my birthday. I decided to pay cash and was told that the restaurant only accepted paper money not coins. There policy, however, was to round down to the next lower whole dollar, so I got my birthday treat and saved 64 cents.
T.J.R. in Metuchen, NJ, writes: I loved the question from R.M.S in Lebanon and your response.
A couple of thoughts. The retirement of the penny brought to mind the recent passing of Jim Kolbe, retired Republican Congressman from Arizona, who long advocated this position. It gives me hope when a Republican does promote a good idea.
By my calculations, the US lost $60 million in 2021 by minting the penny. Money best spent elsewhere.
An idea I've always had, if one really loves the penny, is to redecimalize. So everything (salaries, prices, et. al.) would now be reduced by a factor of 10. A nice car would now cost $3,000. Gas would be 33 cents a gallon. Of course a good salary would only be $10,000 a year. That's the part everyone would hate. But there would be fewer millionaires and billionaires. Not a bad thing!
I realize this would be a massive effort but less so since a lot of our transactions are now electronic. England decimalized the pound in 1971, so there is precedent.
Last thought, what if pennies were made of plastic? During World War II they did experiments with pennies made from other materials.
V & Z respond: People often make jokes about "wooden nickels," but during the Civil War there were wooden nickels because all the real nickels had been melted down to make cannon balls
A.B. in Wendell, NC, writes: Your answer to the question posed yesterday by R.M.S. in Lebanon intrigued me, as I am a numismatist. I recall the pennies used to be made of copper until 1982, when they started being made of zinc (cheaper metal). Is there not a cheaper metal nickels could be made from? I do not know, for example, the value of nickel versus, say, aluminum.
Anyway, there has long been talk of getting rid of pennies, but this would cause rounding problems, and people would not be happy.
It occurs to me that the best way to solve the whole problem would be to redesign, and re-enumerate, our coinage. Introduce a two-cent coin (we had one around the Civil War era)—this alone would cut the need for pennies by 50-75%, as you'd never need more than one penny in any transaction. As an aside, we also once had a three-cent nickel—that is what it was called, and it was worth three cents.
But if you want to go even further than just introducing a two-cent coin... we could redo our coinage s follows:
- Penny
- Two-cent coin
- Nickel
- Dime
- Twenty-cent coin
- Half-dollar
Under this system, the most coins you'd ever need to make 99 cents would be... six (a half-dollar, two twenty-cent coins, a nickel, and two two-cent coins). Under our current system, you would need three quarters, two dimes, and four pennies, a total of nine coins versus only six.
So I wonder if we could introduce a two-cent coin at the very least (with no other coinage changes, 99 cents would now need just seven coins instead of nine) and also see if nickels could be made with a cheaper metal.
Since dimes and higher are net profit versus nickels and pennies, I think this idea would make good sense. In fact, the making of nickels from cheaper metal, plus the introduction of a two-cent coin would, I think, help enormously, while offering the least conversion problems.
Just some ideas to reduce the cost of coinage, so that coins could be made more plentiful, getting rid of the shortage problem. I am an old-fashioned person who prefers cash over cards, and I know I am not alone. I would resent, on many levels, anything that would favor cashless transactions... not the least of which is the fact of me being a numismatist.
A.S.W. in Melrose, MA, writes: National coin shortage? The solution is obvious:
R.E.M. in Brooklyn, NY, writes: I have some quibbles with your list of presidential elections gone wrong. One, William Howard Taft didn't defeat Theodore Roosevelt in 1908; Roosevelt honored his (foolish) promise from 1904 not to run in 1908. It was 1912 that TR competed with Taft, giving the election to Woodrow Wilson.
Two, while the Mexican-American war was a despicable, unprincipled land-grab, would the U.S. really be better off if California, Colorado, Arizona, etc., were still part of Mexico? (I'll give you the annexation of Texas as a Really Bad Idea, heh.) And I believe the Civil War would have happened one way or another, as the numbers in States and population were going to favor free-soilers no matter what.
Three (and this is the big one), my take on Hayes-Tilden is that nothing of substance would have changed. Hayes was a progressive on the major issue of his day, civil service reform. He threaded the needle between the Gold and Silver factions, opposing free coinage of silver, but supporting repayment of fiat-currency Greenbacks in gold. He vetoed the racist Chinese Exclusion Act (admittedly on treaty grounds, not racial-equality grounds). Hayes and Carl Schurz cleaned up the corrupt Bureau of Indian Affairs, and Hayes was, for his time, fairly progressive on Native American rights. Hayes appointed the first John M. Harlan (he of Plessy dissent fame) to the Supreme Court.
The big mark against Hayes is the compromise that gave him the presidency, the end of Reconstruction. But Tilden would also have ended Reconstruction, as he was beholden to white Southern Democrats, and he likely would have signed the Chinese Exclusion Act, which was a Democratic platform plank in 1876. Tilden was also a "Gold" Democrat and supported civil service reform. In other words, a Tilden presidency would have been very similar to the actual Hayes presidency, and the truly unfortunate thing about that election was the Southern racists' suppression of the Black vote, which would have given Hayes a clear victory and eliminated the need to grab the presidency by ending Reconstruction.
V & Z respond: You're right, we mixed together details of the 1908 and 1912 elections.
C.J. in Redondo Beach, CA, writes: Let me say, I really enjoy reading about Henry Clay and think he would have been a fine president on any of the (many) occasions he ran. However, James K. Polk's presidency, while maybe dooming us to a civil war, also allowed us to ultimately be super power we became. There is no way the United States assumes leadership of the free world without the vast resources contained in the West... states we got because of the Mexican-American War.
I'd argue Polk was one of the most important and significant presidents in our nation's history.
T.R. in Philadelphia, PA, writes: I disagree with the 1928 election. If Al Smith had won, would we have had Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1932?
M.D. in the Poconos, PA, writes: Had Hubert Humphrey beaten Richard Nixon, I believe today's Republican Party would be very different than the power-hungry lying sociopaths they are today. Nixon ran on ending the Vietnam war with his "secret plan" that was a lie and instead he expanded our involvement in destroying Southeast Asia. And far fewer young men would have died or had their lives destroyed had that stupid war been ended sooner. Nixon also seems to have set the tone for the GOP base of today of racism, insane hatred of everyone who isn't white cis male, and conspiratorial paranoia accepted as normal behavior.
Over the decades I've heard many comment on how Nixon was robbed in 1960 by dead voters in Chicago and Texas, so anything the Republicans do since then was justified as payback and perfectly fine. And while Nixon's profound mental illness seemed to be kept well under wraps, the openly profound mental illness of Donald Trump is well known to anyone that isn't in his cult. The United States as well as the entire world would be a better place had Nixon not run in 1968 or 1960. I'll never understand why Dwight D. Eisenhower picked such a truly sick person as his running mate setting the stage for his eventual elevation to the presidency. I suppose there wasn't much serious vetting of candidates back then. Though the Alan Eagleton issue in 1972 showed that vetting running mates was still a problem 2 decades later.
S.M. in Milford, MA, writes: I'm not certain a Gerald Ford victory in 1976 would have been an improvement over Jimmy Carter. Ford did have far more experience in Washington. But he also had a reputation for not being especially bright. Lyndon Johnson once mocked him for playing too many football games without a helmet (Ford had been a talented college football player during his days at the University of Michigan).
On the domestic side, Ford already had a chance to confront stagflation and the best he could come up with is WIN (Whip Inflation Now). It was ultimately Carter's choice to lead the Fed, Paul Volcker, that brought inflation under control.
In foreign policy, Ford might have been worse than Carter. It's true that Carter's inexperience and his choice of Zbigniew Brzezinski as his national security advisor likely delayed SALT II. Yet, the U.S. response to the Iranian Revolution would have likely unfolded in a similar manner. It was prominent Republicans, such as Henry Kissinger and John McCloy, who put pressure on Carter to allow the shah to enter the United States to receive cancer treatment. Ford would have likely listened even more attentively to these voices. Moreover, would Ford have been as successful as Carter in bringing the Camp David Accords to fruition? Anwar Sadat deserves most of the credit for ending strife between Israel and Egypt, but Carter kept the deal from collapsing through personal diplomacy. Would Ford have been able to negotiate the Canal Treaties with Panama?
On the other hand, I could be convinced that U.S. relations with its traditional allies would have been smoother under Ford. Carter's policies and personality alienated NATO allies, especially West Germany and Britain. U.S.-Japanese relations also soured over a number of issues, including trade. But Carter definitely did improve U.S. standing in the developing world. If one wants to make a case that someone other than Carter would have been a better fit during the tumultuous period from 1977 to 1981, one might have to look to his opponents in the Democratic primaries. Certainly George Wallace and Henry Jackson would have been worse. But could Jerry Brown, Morris Udall, or Frank Church have been better presidents than Carter? I'm not sure. Alexander Hamilton said great leaders don't come along in 4-year increments. Maybe 1976 was a year in which there was simply no strong choice for president.
F.C. in Sequim, WA, writes: I don't have an addition. But I think "Reagan defeats Carter" should be moved up one spot. My 401(k) made a grand total of about $1.73 the 8 years Reagan was in office. It tripled in value the 8 years Clinton was in office. Such terrible economic decisions coming from the Reagan Administration. It seems to me, that as long as I have been walking the planet, the newly elected Democratic president has had to spend a lot of his first year cleaning up after the Republican before him!
J.M. in Albany, NY, writes: Quick correction to your Reagan vs Carter entry: Reagan didn't make all Americans feel better about being Americans, he made white Americans feel better about ignoring all the harm that white supremacy had done to nonwhite Americans, harm that had been brought to the world's attention in the uprisings of the 1960s and 70s. Ultimately, Reagan was little more than a less-caustic Trump...
E.W. in Skaneateles, NY, writes: Now you know that neither Steve Bannon nor Stephen Miller read your site. If they had, you'd have received submissions from S.B. or S. . in Washington, DC (or whatever caves these lizards live in) stating that the worst U.S. election outcome of all time was the election of 1860!
J.P. in Horsham, PA, writes: This week's Schadenfreude item (including the Animal House reference) reminded me of an event from the 1988 presidential campaign. Recall that on September 7, 1988, then-Vice President George H. W. Bush gave a speech before the American Legion, in which he commemorated the anniversary of the bombing of Pearl Harbor. He got a fair bit of pushback for this error, leading his son, George, to come to his defense: "Who cares if it was September 9th or December 9th?"
This then led comedian Mark Russell to say, "Let me clarify this for my younger viewers: It was on December 7, 1941, that the Mexicans invaded Pearl Harbor."
J.K. in Short Hills, NJ, writes: "December 7..D-Day?"... "Forget it, he's on a roll."
What makes your reference to Animal House even more perfect is that D-Day was one of the most beloved members of the Delta Tau Chi fraternity.
P.V. in Kailua, HI, writes: In your reply to D.E. in Lancaster, you speculate that Randy Rainbow either has a very large audience or his audience overlaps a lot with that of E-V.com. I believe it's a little of both, with an emphasis on the latter. The things discussed here are often grim, but (V) and (Z) try to leaven things with humor and gallimaufry. Similarly, Randy Rainbow (his real last and first name—not Randall, not Randolph) helps us laugh through the bleakness. I first encountered Mr. Rainbow's videos via a link on this site (thanks, C.Z. in Sacramento, CA!). For this former theater kid and lover of show tunes who has Debbie Downer tendencies, he is better than an SSRI. His Pink Glasses Tour closed with a final show last week in Honolulu. I was fortunate to be in attendance. It was delightful. My expensive seat in the orchestra section came with a complimentary copy of his recent memoir, Playing with Myself. It is also delightful. What I found most interesting was the chapter where he writes about the eerie parallels between Trump and his own late father—born a decade earlier than Trump in the Bronx rather than Queens, they shared not only the same narcissism and victimhood mentality, but also facial expressions, vocal cadences, and penchant for too-dark poorly-blended foundation makeup. This helps explain why Mr. Rainbow, the younger, is so adept at skewering Trump. To quote from the book:
I'm not all surprised people have responded strongly to my digs at him, or my perceptions about his character or lack thereof. If I appear insightful on the subject, it's no coincidence. In some ways I've been talking to my own father the whole time. And if, by any means, I've been an antidote to Donald Trump, perhaps it's because there's always been a little bit of the virus coursing through my veins, helping me fight the infection.My thanks to both E-V.com and Randy Rainbow for helping to keep us sane in these on-going, no-end-in-sight Seasons of Trump. Three million, a hundred fifty-three thousand, six-hundred minutes and counting.
T.B. in Santa Clara, CA, writes: I've always preferred haiku poems, especially for humor. Many thanks to S.S. in Santa Monica for their hilarious werewolf Walker haiku! That one definitely gets my vote!
D.S. in Lakewood, OH, writes: The haiku from S.S. in Santa Monica and limerick from J.K. in Charleston were brilliant! They didn't even need to use Walker's name.
You guys do a great job of cultivating community value and the poetry is something light and funny that no other site has.
V & Z respond: We are glad to know that you and other readers understand why we include the non-standard stuff.
K.H. in Maryville, TN, writes: The picture of the staff mathematician? Pretty sure that's my ex!
Love the puppers' pics; thanks for sharing!
E.V. in Derry, DH, writes: Maybe my daughter will be more willing to read your site now that she has seen the photos of Flash and Otto. Perhaps they belong in the banner. Fortunately she did not notice the photo of the staff mathematician.
D.M. in McLean, VA, writes: Let's see if I have this right...
Flash will proposition anyone. One of my cocker spaniels does the same with a look like, "yeah, baby."
For some odd reason, after looking at Otto, I found myself in the kitchen loading the contents of the refrigerator into a box with a shipping label to California.
Next up is (V), who I've been familiar with for decades (as a software developer), and was floored when he came out from behind the curtain in 2004.
I think I saw (Z) playing Henry VIII at a recent Renaissance Festival.
Finally, the staff mathematician shows impressive flexibility. He must kill it at the annual limbo competition.