Dem
51
GOP
49
We are hard at work on the news out of Israel. It's complicated enough that we preferred to hold off until tomorrow, as opposed to making it one of our "big-time weekend news" items. We do have one letter today; we suspect there will be more next Sunday.
J.B. in Hutto, TX, writes: I stand with Israel.
D.L. in Uslar, Germany, writes: I was one of those who called the end of Rep. Kevin McCarthy's (R-CA) speakership right on the money. I can't claim any great prognosticatory skill at picking 270 days. I assumed it would be the budget that would bring him down; I just eyeballed the end of September as 9 months away and multiplied by 30. Sometimes blind luck works.
J.H. in Boston, MA, writes: Donald Trump becomes speaker and then assassinates Joe Biden and Kamala Harris to install himself? The only reason you think this can't happen is because the Secret Service is so good?
This scenario is nuking the democracy. Congress would not go along with it, and if they did allow it, the union would dissolve. There would be civil war. Trump's own life would be endangered.
Trump would never try this. No one in Trump's orbit would allow him to try it. It's so ultimately beyond the pale.
Remember when Trump wanted to install a loyalist AG during the 2020 election shenanigans, and the DoJ told him that they would resign en masse, and he backed down? Trump is pretty venal but he's not suicidal.
This is another House of Cards level of political fanfic. Maybe even beyond.
F.S. in Cologne, Germany, writes: After this week, it's clear that the second worst McCarthy era in American history is over.
B.C. in Walpole, ME, writes: You wrote: "All the speaker wannabes (speakers wannabe?) know that..."
I serve as the official spokesperson for the National Federation of Associations of Attorneys General. We prefer Speakers Wannabe. Signed, Miles Fartlek, NFAAsG (formerly President, Grammarians United).
M.P. in Chicago, IL, writes: You wrote: "[W]e can't find a single example of a member of a major party crossing the aisle to vote for the speaker of the other major party."
In 2001, Rep. James Traficant (D-OH) cast his vote for Republican speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) over his own party's speaker candidate, Minority Leader Dick Gephardt (D-MO). In retribution, the House Democratic Caucus promptly stripped Traficant of all committee assignments.
(V) & (Z) respond: We would describe that as the exception that proves the rule.
T.R. in North Vancouver, BC, Canada, writes: I have a minor quibble with this passage:
In short, this is a deeply dysfunctional political faction, and has been for decades. Fully 80% of the Republican speakers of the last 50 years have ended up in some version of a state of war with their own conference. Compare that with the Democrats, where there is occasional dissension, but where every speaker since at least the 1970s has left on their own terms, enjoying broad support among their colleagues.The point you are making—that the Democrats have managed to avoid the kind of intra-party squabbling and dysfunction we see from today's House GOP—is absolutely correct. However, I wouldn't say that Jim Wright, Speaker 1987-1989, left on his own terms. He was forced out by an ethics investigation.
(V) & (Z) respond: You're absolutely right.
L.L. in San Diego, CA, writes: I was rather surprised that in your discussion of McCarthy's ouster, the sole note about Dennis Hastert was "(8 years): Served without too much dissension, and for longer than any other GOP speaker."
I understand that the point of this piece was length of leadership stints, but Hastert is implicitly credited as a great success. This is the same Dennis Hastert that: (1) was convicted of sexually abusing multiple minors, (2) spent 13 months in federal prison for that, (3) was credibly accused of other sexual assaults for which the statute of limitations passed, (4) was investigated by the FBI and IRS for hush-money payments over these crimes, (5) was convicted of lying under oath to federal agents during these investigations, (6) was found by the FBI to have received unreported payments from the Turkish government during and after his speakership for "political favors and information," (7) committed real estate fraud with his secret ownership of the land for the $200 million earmarked Prairie Parkway, and (8) made $10-$15 million on other land deals during his tenure—many involving congressional appropriations. And this is not an exhaustive list.
It is a sad truth that this man is a paragon of leadership in the modern GOP.
B.B. in Dothan, AL, writes: I think you've written this before, but the primary system is part of a confluence of factors that, in conjunction, have resulted in the current state of the Republican Party:
- The Republican demonization of Democrats, beginning with Newt Gingrich
- Increasing propaganda and demonization by conservative media, particularly right-wing talk radio and Fox
- Republicans' early and effective use of gerrymandering
The result is a plurality of safe Republican seats. Republicans only have to win the primary in order to get elected, but in order to do that, they have to become more and more extreme. This influences the Republican primary voters to become more extreme, a vicious cycle of extremism.
J.H. from Tulalip Bay, WA, writes: In your reply to J.H. in Boston, you postulate:
Imagine if the situation was reversed, and Nancy Pelosi needed some Republican votes 2 years ago to save her job. Do you think she would have gotten them? And her only crime is to be a hardcore Democrat. McCarthy is not only a hardcore Republican, he worked to normalize the worst of Donald Trump's behavior, he participated in efforts to overturn the 2020 election, he launched a despicable "impeachment inquiry" into Joe Biden, he backtracked on promises that he made during the debt ceiling showdown, and he's done nothing to be collegial with his Democratic colleagues or to ask for their support.From what I've seen over the last few years, all the things you ascribe to McCarthy are indeed not just the views of hardcore Republicans, but also of the so-called moderate Republicans. Any truly moderate Republicans have left the party and are wandering directionless in the desert. There is no Grand Old Party anymore, there are just Trump fascists.
R.L. in Alameda, CA, writes: Regarding the chaos in the House, the Republicans brought this on themselves as a result of the extreme gerrymandering that they have been practicing. This has allowed extremists to be elected in very safe seats. They can operate with impunity and no fear of losing their general elections. They won't be primaried from the right because they are so far right they are at risk of falling off the flat Earth. And being primaried from the center (which is a dream of mine) doesn't seem to be a thing. The GOP owns 100% of this mess and we are all suffering for it.
By the way, I find it pretty rich for McCarthy to stand before the press right after his ouster and blame it on the Democrats. They owed him nothing. Time and time again he has lied to them. Why stick their necks out to save him? And if the shoe were on the other foot (on Earth 2, I suppose), would any Republican lift a finger to save Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) or Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY)? Of course not! After all, the job of the opposition is to oppose. (I looked this up. The actual quote was, "It is the duty of the Opposition to oppose." And it wasn't Winston Churchill, to whom it is attributed, who actually said it, but rather his father, Randolph).
Finally, the sheer pettiness of McCarthy's retaliation at not being saved by the Democrats, to boot Pelosi and Steny Hoyer (D-MD) from their Capitol building offices within an hour of his ouster, speaks volumes about his (lack of) humanity, particularly when you consider that Pelosi was in San Francisco to attend the funeral of her friend and colleague, Dianne Feinstein. What a bunch of pricks!
L.V.A. in Idaho Falls, ID, writes: Each of my two youngest daughters joined the local youth soccer league at age 5 years.
For several years it was what we called "amoeba ball," where both teams followed the ball in an amorphous and tight group as it wandered about the field in a seemingly random fashion. It occurred to me that this is a perfect metaphor for what's going on in the Republican Party these days, with Der Leader as the ball and the Speaker the referee.
A.M. in Fort Worth, TX, writes: Thanks for the discussion of covering Donald Trump. Personally, I have noticed how often reporters say Trump "savaged" or "destroyed" his opponents. I hate this! Why is the press buying into Trump's whole machismo narrative? Looking at Trump's actual behavior, it would be so much more accurate to say Trump "whined" or "complained petulantly." Or if those words seem too biased, there are a million ways to imply the same thing more subtly.
S.A. in Downey, CA, writes: In further response to E.W. in Skaneateles, one should remember that much of America's news media is based in New York City, and the New York news media is incapable of not promoting a self-aggrandizing blowhard (e.g., Ed Koch, John Gotti, etc.). Even within this paradigm, Trump stands apart. For years in the 80s and 90s, stories that had nothing whatsoever to do with him contained quotes of his opinions on the subject, just to give him more of the spotlight. It has been a decades-ling addiction.
Recall when people fact-checked Trump's claim that he was at Ground Zero. A news report emerged where he was, in fact, present, describing the scene in a phone call while being ignored by everyone else. Think of it: all that destruction and loss, and the thing that made the biggest impression on a NYC journalist was that the devastation miraculously rendered people capable of not paying attention to Donald Trump.
M.G. in Chicago, IL, writes: I will not let my ego get the better of me and think I was the only or the first to suggest the mugshot change at the top of the page... but I will bask none the less: Thank you! (Could you post how many request you received for this change?)
(V) & (Z) respond: We had several dozen readers suggest it, but you were, in fact, the first.
K.S. in Harrisburg, PA, writes: I think your new picture of the former guy is much more appropriate to his current state of mind. Previous elections have been a game for him and he basked in the attention (good and bad) he received from his outlandish statements and actions. The fact that those statements and actions are now threatening his personal freedom along with his financial dirty laundry being on the nightly news are making the game not so fun anymore.
D.P. in Somerville, MA, writes: The first step in A.A. is, "We admitted that we were powerless over alcohol—that our lives had become unmanageable." This is a keen psychological insight. Talk to any habitual, problematic drinker who denies their problem, and they will say something like, "everything is under control, I just need to rein it in a little." You will hear this from street alcoholics on park benches, you will especially hear it from people of Rudy Giuliani's stature who do not have the benefits of humility.
Read John Berryman, the great poet, in his memoir Recovery, which is shot through with recognitions of his powerlessness but inability to do much to stop his drinking, or Jack London, in his John Barleycorn; or, Alcoholic Memoirs, wherein, despite subtitle, he flatly refuses to admit his "full-blown alcoholism" (his insistent term, as opposed to the carefree toper). Both of those brilliant men were ensnared by the insidious, awful lure of alcoholic logic. Bill W., the founder of Alcoholics Anonymous, really understood his subject when he called the disease "cunning, baffling, and powerful."
Until and unless Rudy enters a program, he will continue to decline. This will perhaps be interspersed with periods of abstinence and brief resurfacings of the "old" Rudy, followed by increasingly harsher recurrences—we've all seen this sad cycle at work in people.
It will be a sad, shameful, painful end for America's Mayor. One must wonder how much of Rudy's bad decision-making over time regarding Trump was influenced by John Barleycorn and his hoppy friends.
R.W. in Dallas, TX, writes: I think you missed a very significant reason that Moms for Liberty go after school boards. They want to be able to control the school board. By controlling the school board, the have a significant say in what the curriculum is. Thus, they can create a whole new generation of Moms for Liberty. Otherwise, they would only produce their own children as a new generation of Moms for Liberty. This is important to them because it furthers their agenda of creating a theocracy.
C.R. in Vancouver, BC, Canada, writes: You wrote that the motivation behind the Moms for Liberty campaign was as follows:
There is no doubt that, at the local level, Moms for Liberty and their allies think they are fighting the good fight against... Satan or whatever. However, the people who are pulling the strings are thinking about... abortion, and its potential negative impact on Republicans in 2024.What is happening here in Canada is that the hard-right is following the U.S.'s hard-right agenda in lockstep fashion, including attacks on public libraries and public schools on the basis that they are grooming their children, etc. Abortion is not a live political issue here. The hard-right-wingers would like it to be, but they know it just won't fly. So the motivation of those pulling the strings must lie elsewhere. I have contemplated the possibility that the Canadian hard-right simply lacks imagination and can't come up with their own ideas. But it's more likely that the real motivation for attacking these public institutions is to first discredit them and eventually defund them in the same way that they try to discredit our public health care system with the aim to privatize that system as well.
A.B. in Wendell, NC, writes: Haven't you guys heard the official name for Moms for Liberty is "A**holes With Casseroles"?
K.R. in Austin, TX, writes: Thanks for the update from J.K. in Silverdale.
Although Moms for Liberty wasn't involved, our elementary school also had to have police protection after Libs of TikTok posted about the school's plans for Pride Week 2 years ago. The principal, teachers, and parents received death threats. The Libs posted pictures of them with "groomer" written over the front of the pictures. We had police at our school all week.
I was surprised to learn, when I dug deeper, that Libs of TikTok is run by an Orthodox Jewish woman. I would have guessed a Christian Fundamentalist man. That will teach me to stereotype.
D.C. in Teaneck, NJ, writes: Shortly before reading the item "John Kelly: It's All True," I read Dr. Heather Cox Richardson's daily "Letters From an American." In it, she reports John Kelly's affirmation of his previous remarks. She continues:
The confirmation of Trump's attacks on wounded or killed military personnel will not help his political support. After reading Kelly's remarks, retired Army Major General Paul Eaton, a key advocate for veteran voting, released a video he recorded more than two years ago when he first heard the stories about Trump's attack on the military. "Who could vote for this traitor Trump?" he asked on social media. In the video, Eaton urges veterans to "vote Democratic," because "our country's honor depends on it.Having grown up, I believe, a few years before you, I did not think I would see the day when life military officers of the highest ranks extolled the virtues and patriotism of Democrats over Republicans. I suspect it's a bit of a surprise to some of them, also. But I appreciate them.
D.M. in Boston, MA, writes: In "Cornel West to the Greens: F**k You (An Ode to No One)," you wrote: "He's also more than clever enough to realize that 'a pox on both your houses' rhetoric is all good and well, but that on the issues West cares about, Donald Trump would be a giant step backward as compared to any Democrat."
Joe Biden and like-minded Democrats are likely to support a continued increase in military funding. Likewise, Democrats will continue to support the expansion of overseas military projects, and endless military conflicts that can't be won. That isn't true of Donald Trump. And it isn't true of Cornel West. Dr. West is rightfully concerned that the Democratic Party has habit of trying to establish or maintain democracies using military force. The results in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya have been awful. There are good reasons to be concerned that Ukraine is becoming a hopeless, endless, savage military conflict. We can't keep electing people like Joe Biden if we want this to end. It's extremely disappointing that the only voices arguing for an end to endless military engagements are coming from the GOP and independents like West. It's hard to believe the Baby Boomers learned so little from the lessons of Vietnam.
R.C. in Des Moines, IA, writes: M.A. in Knoxville observed: "Those of us who read your site are dialed-in to politics and understand just how chaotic and historically dysfunctional the House GOP caucus currently is, but I'm afraid it may be a bit too inside baseball for the average voter."
Here is an anecdote illustrating M.A.'s point: My neighbor told me she was going to see a performance of Beetlejuice and I joked I hope Lauren Boebert doesn't ruin the show. She looked at me with one of those "What are you talking about?" expressions. I asked her if she heard about Boebert's "performance" at a Beetlejuice show in Denver. My neighbor asked, "Who's that?" I was a little taken aback because I figured most people would have heard of the congresswoman by now. But then I realized that I must be in a fairly small minority, as are the other readers of this site, of people who pay close attention to politics. I have a feeling that the vast majority of Americans know little more about the current state of our shambolic politics than what they see in the headlines.
D.R., currently Eastbound and Down, but from Des Moines, IA, writes: I am taking a long car trip across the country starting in the Southwest, with a goal of taking as many small rural highways as possible, visiting small towns and parks.
Like other readers in the past, I am taking the political pulse of regions by counting flags/signs. So far, in the last 2½ weeks I have only seen only four Trump flags! Most rather worn. No other political flags.
I don't think the average rural person is paying a lot of attention to politics or Donald Trump.
E.G.G.-C. in Syracuse, NY, writes: Last Tuesday, my wife and I went to see Bill Burr perform here in Syracuse. Once he finally came on stage, his act was exactly what one would expect: hilarious, edgy and with barbs against the left and the right. Every time he made fun of liberals, the audience (in the thousands) laughed and cheered, but when he did the same with conservative/MAGA people the cheering was more subdued. So much so that Bill made a comment about the sort of crowd he was in front of.
I bring this up to point out something this crowd made me think about. Our congressional district is represented by Brandon Williams (R), and before that by John Katko (R). This district is considered to be a swing district and Joe Biden carried it, as did Hillary Clinton before. And it's supposed to be one of the high-priority districts for Democrats to flip. But I really don't see it happening! Whenever I am about in Syracuse and the surrounding towns, or when I drive to and from work, I see more conservative/MAGA signs and support than anything else. Democrats may win the majority of votes in presidential elections, but there's clearly ticket-splitting here. The only way I see this district flipping is via new congressional maps that includes Ithaca in this district. Then, Democrats will win this seat. Otherwise, and based on what I see, I don't think it is going to occur!
S.C.-M. in Scottsdale, AZ, writes: Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-AZ) is not a dumb person and I think she badly misread the Arizona electorate, which is trending blue. Her mistake is in thinking a large percentage of Republicans will vote for her to prevent a Kari Lake from becoming the next senator. Republicans will vote for a Kari Lake in large numbers. Look how close the last governor's race was. The MAGA base in the Republican Party is still quite strong here in Arizona.
I supported Sinema financially in her last election, but I will never send her another dime. As you have pointed out, her voting record is not much different than Sen. Mark Kelly's (D-AZ), but her performative antics have angered a lot of Democrats here. Her estimate of getting 10-20% of the Democratic vote is likely optimistic.
I think her play here is to keep her donors onboard until she drops out of the race. She has also been sending out a lot of fundraising e-mails to her supporters. I have gotten at least half a dozen in the last month. She has also funded full-page ads in the Arizona Republic. She is clearly in fundraising mode these days.
B.C. in Glen Allen, VA, writes: As a reminder, I'm in the district that Susanna Gibson, of Chaturbate fame, is running to represent. I'm mostly curious if in such a small race, in an off-off year election (we don't even have a governor to vote for this year) if so few people vote that the sex tape story just won't' matter?
I dusted off my old Facebook and Instagram profiles and "liked" or "followed" both candidates. If you scroll back to when the Chaturbate news broke, there were comments about it, but in the posts since there hasn't been much chatter. I haven't seen anything on Nextdoor either, even though there are a handful of right-leaning commenters that frequently bring up that a local prosecutor is "soft on crime" every few days.
If Gibson's opponent decides to weaponize the scandal, I would expect a lot of social media attention in the days leading up to Election Day. Early voting started a few days ago, however, and I haven't seen anything yet.
J.I. in Regina, SK, Canada, writes: In a couple of posts recently, you've commented that the U.S. party system is moving in the direction of a parliamentary system, but without the advantages of that system. For example, you've mentioned that in a parliament with multiple parties, new coalitions can be formed. That's correct, but I think it bears mentioning that there is another aspect of parliamentary systems which is one of its main strengths: new elections. If the government is defeated in the House on a confidence matter, that often can mean that the entire House is dissolved and there are fresh elections for the people to sort things out. As far as I know, Norway is the only parliamentary system that does not have this option.
In parliaments modeled on the Westminster system, defeats on budget bills are always treated as confidence matters. If the government cannot even meet the basic function of keeping the government operating, new elections are needed. For example, Kevin McCarthy's defeat on those procedural motions to have some of the budget bills considered would be an implicit vote of non-confidence in a Westminster style parliament, leading to fresh elections. The monarch (or the monarch's representative, the Governor General) would dissolve the House and issue writs of elections for all the House districts. It wouldn't just be the speaker losing their position. Every member would have to account to the people right away for their failure to pass a budget. But you don't have that option in the U.S. Or a monarch, whose sole job is to keep the constitutional machinery running. Pity.
A.D.S. in Calgary, AB, Canada, writes: Slam Canada all you want, but a vote of no-confidence, and an immediate election, would solve your speaker problem like a dream.
M.F. in Burlington, ON, Canada, writes: You compared Dianne Feinstein's last vote 16 hours before her death to "Queen Elizabeth II rising from her de facto deathbed to perform her duties one last time and appoint Liz Truss as Prime Minister."
In fact, the late Queen's last official act was as Queen of Canada, when she sent a message of sympathy and condolence to the people of the James Smith Cree Nation and the nearby community of Weldon, Saskatchewan, following a mass stabbing event in which 11 people were killed and 18 injured in a series of stabbing at 13 locations.
She had once told President Ronald Reagan that the next stop on her itinerary was to go "home to Canada." She took her role as Queen of all the Commonwealth Realms very seriously.
G.T.M. in Vancouver, BC, Canada, writes: The recent kerfuffle over Senate dress codes reminded me of something similar that happened in the U.K. House of Commons.
There was (and still is) a rule prohibiting members from bringing animals into the chamber. Well, one of the MPs was blind and used a seeing-eye dog. Naturally they brought it into the chamber with them and everything went along fine until some pettifogger in a different political party rose on a "point of order" and told the Speaker that there was an animal in the chamber and identified which MP had the animal with them. The Speaker very carefully looked straight at the MP who had the seeing-eye dog, then turned to the MP who had complained and said "I don't see any dog." There the matter rests: Animals are still prohibited on the floor of the House of Commons and the Speakers still cannot see any "assistance animals" should anyone make a claim that there are any in the chamber.
Similarly, since all members of the House of Commons are expected to "dress appropriately," the obvious conclusion is that anyone who is NOT "dressed appropriately" simply is NOT a member of the House of Commons and that means that they are NOT entitled to speak in the House of Commons and that means that the Speaker simply does NOT "see" them. Now, what does "dressed appropriately" mean? Well, that's something that is worked out between the speaker and the member concerned and the party "whips" over sherry and in private.
J.M. in Arvada, CO, writes: In response to the question from M.R. in Atlanta about lawyers choosing clients based on how the client's reputation may reflect on them, the most famous case of this is probably John Adams. He represented the eight soldiers and their captain who were accused of murder after firing on protesters in Boston, in what became known as a Boston Massacre. Adams was certainly no supporter of the British actions in the colonies, but he knew it was important to the citizens of the colony that the British were tried fairly. In the end, six of the soldiers were found not guilty.
Something I didn't know until looking some details up for this e-mail was that Paul Revere was also involved, having drawn pictures of the bodies for the trial. I'm sure there's somebody in Hollywood working on a CSI: Colonial Boston spec right now.
R.W. in Brooklyn, NY, writes: I would respectfully disagree with your response to M.R. in Atlanta concerning the ethical responsibilities of doctors and lawyers. As to doctors, other than in emergency situations, they do not "have a duty to treat the unhealthy." They are free to reject patients for any reason so long as they do not discriminate against a protected class. As to lawyers, while I am in fact an officer of the court, that does not mean that I must take on all comers. While everyone is indeed entitled to vigorous representation, they are not entitled to it by any particular attorney.
M.C. in Koorda, WA, Australia, writes: I am curious as to which "experts" (Z) consulted regarding Christianity being monotheistic and why he "could never get a decent answer." The comment "Christian saints and archangels seem to have a very similar role as lesser gods and other supernatural beings in, say, Buddhism or the religion of the ancient Greeks" misses the mark as far as Biblical Christianity is concerned. The concept of archangels and saints playing "a very similar role as lesser gods and other supernatural beings" comes from Greek pagan beliefs and was brought nto Christianity by the Roman church during the 3rd and 4th centuries.
In the Bible there is only one archangel, not many. "Archangel" means "the leader of the angels." Jude 9 identifies this being as "Michael THE archangel." Daniel 12:1 identifies Michael as the one who redeems the followers of God (i.e., Jesus).
In the Bible, the "saints" are identified as anyone who is a true follower of God. They are not some special group. Nor do they play "a very similar role as lesser gods and other supernatural beings." Also, apart from Enoch, Elijah, Moses, and a few who were resurrected at the resurrection of Jesus, none are alive and in heaven at this time. According to the Bible, they are sleeping in their graves awaiting the general resurrection at the end of the world.
A.L. in Highland Park, NJ, writes: (Z)'s question about "why there is a bright red line between religions considered to be polytheistic and Christianity, which is invariably described as monotheistic" made me remember my uncle, who was a professor of history at the University of Rajasthan in Jaipur. When I was a teenager I accompanied him and my cousins on a motor-home jaunt through Belgium, Austria, France and the southern tip of Italy. He would chuckle at the paintings and frescoes and stained-glass depictions of angels and cherubim and seraphim and whatnot and mock whisper "but of course it's a monotheistic religion, not like those heathens from the East." We got looks.
Sadly he passed away a few years ago, but I have no doubt he would have enjoyed discussing the importance of this "monotheistic" branding with (Z).
A.B. in Lichfield, England, UK, writes: In claiming (accurately) that the Beatles didn't write that many political songs, you still managed to miss George Harrison's "Taxman" off Revolver, which surely remains one of the very few rock songs to critique the mid-1960s tax policies of then-Prime Minister Harold Wilson (LAB) and then-Leader of the Opposition Ted Heath (CON), both of whom are mentioned by name. Poor George; his songwriting overlooked again.
That said, Harrison's subsequent support for the Natural Law Party prior to the 1992 U.K. general election does tend to suggest that his critique of the top level of taxation ("Let me tell you how it will be / There's one for you, nineteen for me ... Should five percent appear too small / Be thankful I don't take it all") wouldn't have made him an automatic supporter of the current policies of either the U.K. Conservative Party or U.S. Republican Party towards taxing the wealthy.
C.G. in McLean, VA, writes: You wrote: "Inasmuch as Alabama (and other Deep South states) are still fighting the battles of the 1960s, 'Blackbird' seemed a good choice for this item."
This seems a bit off as they are really fighting battles of the 1860s, and we can but hope at this point it is indeed a lost cause.
S.A. in Downey, CA, writes: Granted, the song "Wooden Heart" (based on the German tune "Muss I Denn") has very few German lyrics, and so could fairly be left off your list. It's also true that Elvis Presley's 1960 version was not released as a single in the U.S., and so did not chart.
However, it should be noted that Joe Dowell's version of "Wooden Heart," released a year later, went all the way to No. 1.
M.M. in Atlanta, GA, writes: The confusion about "Der Kommisar" is probably because the After the Fire version of Der Kommisar did chart #5 in the US and although mostly translated to English it still contains a good bit of German lyrics. Many people probably heard both versions.
Of course, not a valid answer to your question because it is not predominantly in German, only partially.
B.C. in Phoenix, AZ, writes: "RAMMSTEIN." Jeez, this like me being asked to name the greatest tunes by Black Sabbath, and me leaving out... "Black Sabbath."
D.B. in Mountain View, CA, writes: Not last words yet, but they're nothing if not topical. From pollster Ann Selzer, in The New York Times last October:
[My approach] is—for now—working. Do I feel like there is a doomsday clock ticking? Yeah, I kind of do. But there isn't an alternative that I find convincing. I get people calling me all the time: "How are you going to change your methods this year?" Well, I'm not. At some point those will be famous last words. I just hope it won't be this election.
If you have suggestions for this feature, please send them along.