Main page    Mar. 22


Previous | Next | Senate page

New polls: (None)
Dem pickups: (None)
GOP pickups: (None)

---

No Arrest, But...

Donald Trump was not arrested yesterday. No big surprise. Though he did raise a bunch of money off the claim that his arrest was imminent. Also, no big surprise. It's always about the grift.

Though there may not have been an arrest, Trump nonetheless did not have a good day yesterday. In terms of the thing he really cares about, which is teeming hordes of people expressing their undying love for him, Tuesday was a disappointment. The MAGA protesters in New York City were outnumbered and outshouted by the anti-Trump protesters, and it wasn't especially close. Overall, online chatter suggests that far fewer Trumpers are willing to stick their necks out for the former president, even when he's arrested (assuming he is).

In terms of things Trump cares far less about than he should, there was very bad news for him in federal court. In short, Judge Beryl Howell, right at the end of her time as chief judge, ruled that special counsel Jack Smith had successfully made the case that the former president committed crimes when he held on to the classified documents at Mar-a-Lago.

This finding does not make Trump guilty, of course. In fact, the bar that will need to be cleared for that finding, by a jury of Trump's peers, is rather higher than the one Smith cleared last week. However, Howell's finding has a rather significant implication for the prosecution: attorney-client privilege can be pierced, and Trump's lawyers (some of them, at least) can be compelled to give information to Smith and to the grand jury.

And it goes beyond that. It would appear that Trump lied to his lawyers, specifically to Evan Corcoran, about what documents he had kept. That effectively made Corcoran an unwitting accessory to a potential crime. So, when he talks to the grand jury, he will have extra motivation to be very forthright with them. At the same time, this effectively hands the prosecution the core elements of an obstruction of justice case.

There is still much that is unknown here, and even the things that are known involve some guesswork and some reading between the lines. However, former Mueller probe assistant Andrew Weissmann was on MSNBC yesterday and opined that if the facts are as they seem to be, Trump's in deep trouble here. Among the many other places where he is also in trouble. (Z)

Out of the Frying Panhandle...

Is there anyone who believes Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) isn't going to run for president in 2024? It may be time for him to stop pretending that he is still deciding, and to make it official. And it's possible that is exactly what he is thinking, too. The Governor just sat for an interview with Piers Morgan, of the sort that, you know, wannabe presidents often sit for.

In the interview, Morgan asked DeSantis about his plans for 2024, and the Governor said:

I'm running against Biden. Like [Trump and I] are competing for the Republican, potentially, I get that, but ultimately you know the guy I'm gonna focus on is Biden because I think he's failed the country. I think the country wants a change. I think they want a fresh start and a new direction, and so we'll be very vocal about that.

Sounds like someone who is running to us. For added measure, he also took a few potshots at Donald Trump, and the former president's "chaotic" leadership style. This confrontation could not be put off forever, and given the drama and the squabbling surrounding a potential Trump extradition, the day may finally have arrived.

If this race is about to get real, and the Governor is about to leave the panhandle and jump into the fire, then we'll begin to see how well he handles being under the world's largest microscope. Thus far, the results are not promising. To take one example that's already become a bit of a meme, on Monday, DeSantis tweeted this: "The Cuban government tried to use the World Baseball Championship for propaganda. They still lost 14-2 to the USA. Freedom wins again."

It's remarkable that someone could squeeze so much buffoonery into 134 characters, but somehow DeSantis did it. What is buffoonish about this tweet? Let us count the ways:

1. Using a sporting contest as a proxy for national character is silly chauvinism.
   
   
2. DeSantis apparently did not notice the hypocrisy of accusing Cuba of using the game for propaganda purposes, and then promptly turning around and using it for propaganda purposes himself.
   
   
3. Cuba has 11 million people. The United States has 330 million. Of course the U.S. is going to win more often than not. In other news, the Little League World Series, for some reason, is rarely won by teams from the Kingdom of Tuvalu or from the Principality of Monaco.
   
   
4. Even allowing for built-in competitive advantages, baseball is a wonky sport. You can't draw meaningful conclusions based on the result of a single game. The worst team in baseball last year, the Nationals, still managed to win 34% of its games.
   
   
5. The tournament is not the World Baseball Championship. It's the World Baseball Classic. Calling it the World Baseball Championship is like saying that Tiger Woods won the English Open three times, or that Michelle Yeoh won the Oscar for Best Acting by a Woman, or that it would be great to win a Piece of Nobel Prize.

The point here is not to mock DeSantis. That's just a bonus. No, the point is to illustrate that he consistently fails the "beer test." You can't fake being a sports fan anymore than you can fake being a pianist. Either you are or you aren't. Sports fandom has a rather vast vocabulary and conceptual basis that makes it easy to identify the fakers. Barack Obama really knows college basketball. George W. Bush really knows baseball. On the other hand, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) doesn't know anything about basketball, and in particular "basketball rings," as he calls them (he was referring to basketball hoops). When you are a politician and you step in it by using embarrassingly wrong terminology, it just underscores that you're not a regular guy or regular gal. And note that there's not a problem with not being a sports fan, per se. The problem is pretending you are when you're not.

Now, one thing DeSantis can do is read polls. And we suspect that this particular skill helps explain why he is suddenly engaging with Trump, and is suddenly pretending to be Joe Sixpack. The other Nate (Cohn, of The New York Times) had a piece last week in which he looked at the presidential polls. They are all over the place, of course, so it's hard to impose order on them. But my comparing sequential polls from the same pollsters, the clear conclusion is that DeSantis is losing ground to Trump. The two men were in a dead heat at the start of this year, but now Trump has opened up something like a 10-point lead over DeSantis in head-to-head matchups.

Cohn thinks the explanation here is pretty simple: (1) DeSantis' post-election bump has evaporated, (2) Trump has gone on the attack, and (3) DeSantis has stayed on the sidelines. This seems like a pretty good assessment to us. Of course, there is nothing the Governor can do about #1 and #2, but #3 is under his control. And whaddya know, all of a sudden he is sitting for interviews with Piers Morgan and is saying snarky things about Trump. Again, it looks like things are about to get real. (Z)

Trouble in Tuckerland

Tuckersota? Tuckertina? Tuckertucky? Tuckerstan? Tucktarus? Whatever name you prefer for Fox, it's very appropriate that they are in the entertainment business, because things there have turned into a real soap opera.

Everyone knows about the lawsuits from Dominion and Smartmatic. And most readers probably remember all the sexual harassment lawsuits from a few years back, largely targeting Roger Ailes and Bill O'Reilly. Well, now we have a lawsuit that effectively combines both of these things. Two lawsuits, actually. Abby Grossberg is a producer at Fox (or, at least, she was), having worked for both Tucker Carlson and Maria Bartiromo. Grossberg just sued the network in both New York and Delaware (and was put on involuntary administrative leave in response).

Among the juicier claims made in the two complaints:

• Carlson is a lech. He has pictures of Nancy Pelosi in a bathing suit in his office, and he moderated a mock debate among staff members centered on which woman would be a better sexual partner: Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D-MI) or Tudor Dixon.
  
  
• Carlson and his staff wondered openly if Bartiromo was sleeping with Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA).
  
  
• Fox management regularly referred to Bartiromo as a "crazy bi**h."
  
  
• Fox tried to pin the blame for the Dominion/Smartmatic mess on Bartiromo and Grossberg.
  
  
• Thanks to these behaviors and others, female employees often felt sexually harassed.
  
  
• As a bonus, beyond the sexual harassment, Carlson's staff regularly indulged in antisemitic remarks and jokes.

Keep in mind that these are as-yet unsubstantiated claims from someone who is trying to win a lawsuit. That said, is there a single thing on the list that's even a little hard to believe? Maybe the Pelosi bit, though even that seems par for the course to us. In any event, recognizing that this sort of dirty laundry is not so good for the network's image, Fox is trying to persuade a judge to impose a gag order on Grossberg while the lawsuits are resolved.

Meanwhile, there were a couple of bad polls for Fox this week. The first, from Quinnipiac, reports that nearly all Democrats, but also 40% of Republicans, want the network to pay the price for its lies about the 2020 election. The second, commissioned by Variety, says that roughly half of Fox voters are unaware of the Dominion lawsuit, but among the half who are familiar with the story, nearly half trust the network less. That means that overall, about 21% of Fox viewers have a less favorable view of the network than they did before the 2020 election.

No wonder, then, that Fox isn't covering the lawsuits, and that it's trying to gag Abby Grossberg. Of course, these stories are only going to grow in prominence, and thus in the amount of oxygen they get. So, keeping them secret isn't going to be so easy going forward. On the whole, it's not a great time to be Fox CEO Lachlan Murdoch. (Z)

Somehow, It Always Comes Back to the Evangelicals

Since it looks to be one of the main wedge issues of the 2024 election, we've written quite a bit about trans issues in the past couple of weeks, and some of the underlying dynamics therein. To recap:

• We have written about how Republicans voters are largely on the same page in seeing trans people as a threat, while Democrats are more divided. That is the textbook profile of a useful wedge issue.
  
  
• We've written up examples of anti-trans legislation, both on the federal level, and in individual states like Arkanas, Kansas and Kentucky. The latter two cases make particular clear the political motivations, as the Kansas bill is "solving" a problem that does not actually exist, while in Kentucky the legislature bent all the rules of normal order to get an anti-trans bill passed before this year's gubernatorial election.
  
  
• We have written about how Neo-Nazis are using anti-trans hatred as a recruitment tool. We argued that, as far as targets for bigotry go, trans people and Jews have much in common.
  
  
• We've noted that those who are anti-trans tend to see "drag queens," "trans people," and "child molesters" as one and the same. This false understanding might be a product of ignorance, or it might be willful.
  
  
• We've talked about the right-wing media landscape that encourages anti-trans sentiment, focusing in particular on the viciously transphobic Daily Wire.

And now, to wrap it up, we note a piece from Mother Jones brought to our attention by reader J.S. in The Hague, Netherlands. The staff of the publication filed a bunch of Freedom of Information requests for e-mails from state-level lawmakers. And what those e-mails make clear is that the folks who are really calling the shots are the evangelical lobbyists.

EVen FOIA requests can't paint a full picture, but it's clear that the same shadowy cabal that's behind the anti-abortion movement is behind the anti-trans stuff. We're talking groups like the Alliance Defending Freedom, the American College of Pediatricians, the Eagle Forum, the Christian Medical & Dental Association, and the Heritage Foundation. Those names are chosen to make the various entities seem impartial and patriotic, but they all exist to push a hard-right agenda informed by hard-right American evangelicalism.

What is motivating these folks is not clear. It could be that they really believe in what they are doing, so much so they're willing to pull whatever strings it takes. It could also be that this is their way of retaining political power in a world where the size of the evangelical population is shrinking. Truth is, it's probably both.

And that's what it really comes down to. For the right-wing media types, and the Neo-Nazis, and the evangelicals, and the politicians there's some blend here of sincere belief and political opportunism. And since they are largely on the same page, and since they largely reinforce one another, this will not only be a major dynamic in 2024; it figures to be a major dynamic for a fairly long time. Or, at very least, until these folks find an even more effective bugaboo. (Z)

Why the Trans Hate?, Part X: Final Words

After ten sets of reader comments, not to mention a number of accompanying items from us (see above), we think we have hit on this subject as much as we can for now. Undoubtedly it will be back over the course of the next 2 years, but for the moment we'll wrap it up. Here's one last set of comments, ending where it all began, with a letter from P.R. in Arvada:

• J.K. in Boston, MA: I like reading these comments but didn't feel much like wading in. We've got an 8-year-old kid who's been playing around with gender since they were 3, and it's honestly the least interesting thing about them. But I want to make two quick points about they/them pronouns:

  1. You already use them to refer to individuals! All of you, all the time! Consider how you'd answer this question: "Did you think commenter J.K. from Boston made a good point in this week's mailbag?" You might say: "I think they made perfect sense" or "They seem a little meta to me." Consider how you'd answer this question: "My neighbor's car window is down and it's going to rain, what should I do?" You might say "Do you have their number?" or "Why are you spying on them?" Just worth noting.
  
  2. If someone you love is asking for they/them pronouns, try what we tried: We think of our loud and energetic kid not as an individual, but as a swarm of bees. As in "Ooh, I guess they're back from the park" or "Boy, they really love ice cream" or "Oh no, I thought YOU were going to pick them up! I better go right now."

  I have lots of thoughts and opinions about many of these comments and have quite enjoyed the exchange, but I'll leave it here for now. Well, except to say that if anyone has a kid who has some feelings about their gender that cause you as a parent some stress, feel free to reach out. We've gone through lots of feelings about all this, but most were unnecessary and drummed up by the obnoxious fever pitch of the news. I'd be happy to be put in contact with anyone who asks. [Ed note: We'll be happy to facilitate that].
  
  
• J.L. in Glastonbury, CT: I'm disappointed that so many have written in to take L.E. in Putnam County to task for their comments. The exercise in better understanding trans hate is only hampered by taking offense. We don't learn in an echo chamber. In my experience, L.E.'s perspective is not uncommon, and thus their contribution to this exercise is appreciated by me.
  
  I take these comparisons of trans people to alcoholics to simply reveal that deep down, that while never losing control of their drinking, and never experimenting with gender and sexuality, there's a small voice in the back of the mind suggesting those very things. So for folks like L.E., rejection of LGBTQ impulses and heavy drinking is analogous. They didn't succumb to those urges; why can't everyone master their impulses? Life certainly seems easier, for L.E., after making the "wise decision" to be a straight cis non-alcoholic.
  
  Those of us who know LGBTQ folks understand they aren't weakly indulging a fleeting urge; even in 2023 the emotional toll of bigotry means only the truly brave come Out. But L.E. and their ilk don't appreciate that the power of these urges varies greatly. For many, these urges are existential.
  
  Drunk driving kills people and destroys families and futures. Trans folks living their truth doesn't hurt anyone; Trans hate is about punishing folks for harmlessly living their truth.
  
  
• R.L. in Alameda, CA: I heard an excellent interview on trans issues this week. It's on Crooked Media's Hysteria show. Parker Molloy, a trans activist and writer, expertly discusses anti-trans legislation, media coverage and finding hope for trans kids. She really helped this cis male better understand the trans experience and what's really behind all of this awful legislation. The interview starts at 9:15 and runs for a well-spent 20 minutes.
  
  
• E.J. in Woodstock, GA: I do not identify as trans although I am queer and gender non-conforming (not unlike I.F. in Toronto) but I have a committed partner who is non-binary and many trans friends. I have closely followed the ongoing conversation on the site regarding trans issues. I find it interesting to see people either complaining about or downplaying the idea that trans people want attention, as though a desire for attention invalidates one's right to own one's identity. If desiring attention is so wrong, where is the criticism for pro athletes, film and television stars, pundits, or politicians whose entire career is all about "look at me!"? (Nevermind the "influencer" phenomenon.) Is writing to a website like this one in hopes of having one's letter published an attention-seeking behavior? The truth is that suggesting somebody is doing something solely "for attention" says far more about the accuser than the accused. It's indicative that there's no salient argument to be made.
  
  Furthermore, I have struggled to properly put into words my dismay at allegations of "bad marketing" on the part of trans activists. Civil Rights activists have been asking the conservative white community for decades, "what is the proper way to register our grievances?" Because no matter what people of color do to bring attention to their plight, they are tone-policed. Non-violent sit-ins, lawfully armed community defense organizations, marches, speeches, it's all "not the right way to ask." Because the "right"' way to ask is not to ask at all, to sit quietly and accept your fate. And if this is the case, as it also plainly is for trans activism, there is absolutely no reason to moderate one's tone when demanding action on issues faced by marginalized communities. Indeed, I agree with T.F. in Tulsa that by placing themselves in the vanguard the most visible and aggressive trans activists are doing "an amazing job." After all, Martin Luther King Jr., Rosa Parks, and the NAACP did not carry out their activism in a vacuum; the existence of organizations like the Black Panther Party and The Nation of Islam are arguably the only reason King was ever invited to the table in the first place.
  
  So at a time when trans people are more than 4 times more likely to be victims of violent crime than the general public... At a time when a majority of US States have pending anti-trans legislation... At a time when many critical thinkers can plainly to see that trans is the new Jewish with respect to the rising tide of American fascism. And when hostility toward trans people as a wedge issue is in fact part of a broader plan to replace American democracy with a Christian white nationalist theocracy... I cannot help but be reminded of Dr. King's ruminations as he sat in a Birmingham jail.
  
  Finally, just as E.L. in Missoula MT, who among us has never fallen short of the Platonic ideals of our assigned gender? Where does this end? Well, Martin Niemöller has some thoughts.
  
  
• R.C. in Denver, CO: Up until recently, every time I heard about someone being trans, it was always someone who said from an early age that they were in the wrong body, or were "really a girl" or something like that. Now, there seem to be many people, in particular girls, coming out as non-binary in their teens, with no indication of previous discomfort with their gender. I live in a liberal area, and I really do worry that some of this is just kids fitting in with their friend group. That would sound crazy if I lived in rural Texas, but where I live, kids will get nothing but praise from most adults, and many of their peers as well, if they come out as any sort of gender non-conforming. I am fine with kids choosing whatever gender expression fits them, so why does this matter? Because, as a parent, I worry that some trans kids are making decisions they will regret, either getting top surgery (children assigned female at birth) or going on opposite-sex hormones (of either sex). Neither of these processes is fully reversible, and we don't know enough about the consequences. Some European countries are hitting the brakes on medically treating underage trans people because of this, and I think rightly so. None of us are the same person at 25 as we were at 16, and 16 is much too young for someone to make that kind of decision.
  
  
• P.R. in Arvada, CO: I really appreciate you taking the time to publish my letter asking why the hatred of trans people. I also appreciate how many people took the time to respond.
  
  The only regret is that there were so few people willing to answer the question of why they hate trans people so much. We all have an opinion on why people hate anything but I genuinely wanted to hear from the people who are supportive of the laws restricting what trans people can do, when they can get help, when anyone can talk about them or even who people in drag can entertain.
  
  There are three main comments I would like to address. First, L.E. in Putnam County. There was so much wrong with your argument that has been addressed by others. The main thing that stood out though was "Among the most obvious mistake anyone can make is to insist that they are of the sex opposite to that dictated by their genes." So what? Why do you think you are the person to tell someone they are making a mistake and stop them from doing it? Where is the line you have drawn that dictates the mistakes we have the right to make and the mistakes we don't have the right to make? How many trans people are thanking you for your efforts and wishing you had been there to stop them from making a mistake? All of the responses seem to suggest they would like you to keep your opinion to yourself and let them make their own decisions.
  
  Second, R.C. in Madison, WI. I wasn't telling you how to interpret your religious text. I was asking you how you do interpret it. I am genuinely interested. Why is breaking a promise to god ok but making your own decisions about who you are is wrong? If the bible tells you a man should not wear a woman's clothes and you think that is something you need to speak up for, then why not stand up for stoning a child who speaks back to their parents? Why one and not the other? That is all I am asking.
  
  Thirdly, A.B. in Wendell. I will always be there for you and others. Partly because no-one deserves to be treated the way you are and I will stand up for anyone who wants to live their life the way they want to. Partly because I am pretty sure that if the day comes and you are being rounded up it will be led by the religious right and I will not be far behind you or a lot of other marginalized groups.
  
  Finally, I just want to point out that people came to this country seeking a better life and to be free from persecution. The right to be free to do as you want is pretty fundamental to what this nation is. Everyone is so proud of the American dream to be able to live a better life than is possible elsewhere. It isn't clear, but I am pretty sure that is about more than just money. Any true patriot should be defending people's right to live how they desire and not be persecuted by someone else. Someone also suggested that it is about poor messaging. Next time you hear someone speaking badly of LGBTQ+ people or Jews or Catholics or African Americans or Asian Americans or the Irish or whoever, ask them "Why do you hate America so much?"

Thanks to everyone who wrote in! We will have one more set of responses to comments in this weekend's mailbag. (Z)

The Word Cup: Championship Round

And so we come to the final matchup. It's taken a while, but that's sometimes how it goes. Anyhow, without further ado, we can reveal that carrying the banner for the presidential slogans will be "A New Deal for America" (74.5%), which defeats "Hope" (25.5%). And for the non-presidential slogans, it will be "We Shall Overcome" (52.4%), in a victory over "Give Me Liberty of Give Me Death" (47.6%) that was much narrower than we expected. That leaves you with an absolutely brutal choice between "A New Deal for America" and "We Shall Overcome."

Here are some reader comments on this round:

• S.D.R. in Raleigh, NC: "A New Deal for America" defeats "Hope": It's been almost a century, and everyone still knows what the New Deal is. Furthermore, it's had numerous imitators: the New Convenant, the New Frontier, the Green New Deal. The impact of Barack Obama's slogan is much more limited.
  
  "Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death!" defeats "We Shall Overcome": This is a difficult one. Without "Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death", there might not be a United States. But "We Shall Overcome" galvanized the movement to create one of the greatest steps forward in American society. I ultimately chose the former because I feel it has more persuasive power as a slogan, but I'm honestly not convinced I made the right call.
  
  
• M.L. in West Hartford, CT: I think you missed the boat on the Obama slogan. When I think of that campaign, the slogan I think of is not "Hope" but "Yes, we can!" This slogan encompasses the theme of hope, but says something about who we are as Americans and how we tend to see the world. It is hopeful and optimistic, but also suggests that we will actively shape the future of our lives and our world and not just sit around waiting for it to happen.
  
  This slogan not only helped carry President Obama to victory, buoyed by a campaign song written by will.i.am, but reverberates today in the chants of many activists, especially in labor unions (where it is heard in both English and Spanish).
  
  I don't know whether "Yes, we can!" would've prevailed over the other contenders in this tournament, but I do consider it a more impactful slogan than "Hope," which is mainly famous due to Shepherd Fairey's indelible use of it in his famous Obama portrait.
  
  
• S.B. in Los Angeles, CA: "Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death!" is a universal and very powerful slogan applicable to all peoples throughout the ages all the way down to the present and even beyond. The other slogans are memorable but kind of stuck in their eras.
  
  
• S.S. in West Hollywood, CA: "Hope" and "We Shall Overcome" because they both still ignite that little fire of optimism that I need right now.
  
  
• R.E.M. in Brooklyn, NY: The best presidential campaign slogans are aspirational. The difference is that "A New Deal for America" became a reality, while "Hope" sadly remains only aspirational in 2023.
  
  Patrick Henry was an enslaver and trafficker in human beings. "We Shall Overcome" overcomes the hypocrisy behind Henry's "Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death!"
  
  
• K.H. in Albuquerque, NM: I went with "Hope" even though "A New Deal for America" has almost a hundred years of an impactful track record (see: Security, Social). "Hope" brought us 8 years of Obama, an unfortunate reactionary 4 years of Trump, and hopefully 8 years of Biden/Harris. Its impact has been profound, yet is still unfolding.
  
  Similarly, "Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death!" has an impactful track record of over two centuries (see: America, United States of). It just forgot that liberty for black slaves was not included. "We Shall Overcome" has brought that teeny oversight into focus in a process that continues to this day. Hopefully, its impact will continue to be felt.

Here is the final ballot, and don't forget to send in your comments on the clash of the titans. Final results on Friday. (Z)

The Word Cup Quiz

We wanted to wrap up the Word Cup with a bit of icing for the cake. So, how about a quiz? First, as a reminder, here are the slogans that were part of the competition:

Non-presidential, Group I: Martial Slogans
     •  Give Me Liberty, or Give Me Death!
     •  Remember the Alamo!
     •  Remember the Maine!
     •  Remember Pearl Harbor!

Non-presidential, Group II: Reactionary SLogans
     •  The Chinese Must Go
     •  Kill the Indian, Save the Man
     •  Better Dead than Red
     •  Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever

Non-presidential, Group III: Reform Slogans
     •  Votes for Women
     •  Make Love, Not War
     •  There Is No Planet B
     •  #MeToo

Non-presidential, Group IV: The Fight for Equality
     •  Si, Se Puede
     •  We Shall Overcome
     •  We're Here. We're Queer. Get Used to It
     •  Black Lives Matter

Presidential, Group I: Before the Civil War
     •  Tippecanoe and Tyler Too
     •  54-40 or fight
     •  Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Speech, Free Men, Fremont
     •  Lincoln and Liberty, Too!

Presidential, Group II: From the Civil War to World War II
     •  Let Us Have Peace
     •  Ma, Ma, where's my Pa?
     •  Keep Cool and Keep Coolidge
     •  A New Deal for America

Presidential, Group III: After World War II
     •  Give Em Hell, Harry!
     •  I like Ike
     •  In Your Guts You Know He's Nuts
     •  It's Morning Again in America

Presidential, Group IV: 21st Century
     •  Hope
     •  Feel the Bern!
     •  Jeb!
     •  Make America Great Again

And now we will describe 10 of the slogans above; all you have to do is figure out which one it is in each case (there are no repeats). So, can you identify:

1. The slogan drawn from a campaign song that mentions Kentucky and Indiana, but not the candidate's state of residence? (presumably because of rhyming issues)
   
   
2. The slogan that would have the highest value in Scrabble (57 points), assuming no limits on the amount of tiles you can use?
   
   
3. The slogan that was created and used by liberals, but then coopted by conservatives, who merely flipped the order of the second and the final words?
   
   
4. The slogan that helped power its candidate to the largest electoral vote total in U.S. history?
   
   
5. The slogan that was coined nearly 80 years before it caught fire, and was also deployed (with limited success) roughly 60 years and 40 years before catching on?
   
   
6. The slogan that is also the title of a song performed by Johnny Cash, Willie Nelson, The Kingston Trio, Donovan, and many others?
   
   
7. The slogan used by the first president to be sworn in by a former president, and also the only president (thus far) to be sworn in by a family member?
   
   
8. The slogan that was not actually written down until more than 40 years after it was (allegedly) first uttered?
   
   
9. The slogan that can be anagrammed into the name of a broadcast TV network, a comic book publisher, and a popular candy (singular) OR into a Canadian province, a species of fish, and the last name a notorious former NFL quarterback?
   
   
10. And finally, on a similar note, the slogan that can be anagrammed into the last name of a British head of state who was neither a monarch nor a prime minister, a portion of a roof, and a word that Santa says repeatedly OR a Best Picture-winning film of the 21st century, a Sesame Street character, a species of fish, and a word that means "solemn promise"?

Answers on Friday! (Z)

Previous | Next

Main page for smartphones

Main page for tablets and computers