Michigan Supreme Court Allows Trump to Remain on Primary Ballot

Yesterday, in a result that was widely expected, the Michigan Supreme Court ordered that Donald Trump remain on Michigan's primary ballot.

This is generally being described as a "win" for the former president, and it is, but it's a very limited one, for the following reasons (and thanks to reader R.E.M. in Brooklyn, NY, for assisting with this section):

• The Supreme Court did not actually rule in the case; it merely declined to review a lower court's ruling.
  
  
• The lower court's ruling was based entirely on state law, and did not engage with questions of whether Trump engaged in insurrection, or whether presidents are bound by Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.
  
  
• The ruling applies only to the primary ballot. It is entirely possible for the plaintiffs to bring suit again, for the general election ballot, when a different set of Michigan laws would be in play.

And really, the most important issue—whether Trump "wins" in a state (as in Michigan) or he "loses" (as in Colorado)—is that the U.S. Supreme Court is going to have to step in and settle these questions. So, all that state-level rulings, regardless of their outcome, really do is turn up the heat on the Supremes. In other words, stay tuned. (Z)

House News, Part I: Republicans Working to Create a Theory for Biden Impeachment

House Republicans desperately want to impeach Joe Biden. They think, almost certainly wrongly, that it will work to their benefit during the 2024 election cycle. They also think, almost certainly rightly, that it will please The Dear Leader. They are only missing one small thing: a high crime and/or misdemeanor committed by Biden.

Yesterday, Reps. James Comer (R-KY) and Jim Jordan (R-OH) sent a letter to White House Counsel Edward Siskel in which they revealed their current line of attack. Their theory goes like this:

1. Hunter Biden did not abide by a subpoena to give closed-door testimony to the impeachment committee led by Comer and Jordan.
   
   
2. Joe Biden knew that his son wasn't going to show.
   
   
3. Therefore, per the letter, Comer and Jordan claim it is possible that "the President engaged in a conspiracy to obstruct a proceeding of Congress."

The Representatives have demanded documents from the White House related to the alleged conspiracy. We haven't the faintest idea what those documents might possibly be, and we suspect the White House doesn't, either. Assuming there is a failure by the administration to produce (likely nonexistent) "evidence," that will undoubtedly be spun as further evidence of obstruction and a conspiracy.

In any event, this seems to us like grasping at straws. Most obviously, if simply knowing that Hunter wasn't going to show up is some sort of crime or misdemeanor, then boy are there a lot of guilty people out there. Heck, we knew he wasn't going to show up, since closed-door testimony is so obviously a trap. So, are we going to be impeached, too? For the President to be guilty of something, then simply knowing vaguely about Hunter's plans cannot be enough. Biden père surely would have to take some specific action intended to block the testimony.

We would also be remiss if we did not point out something else. If knowing that someone is going to ignore a House subpoena is an offense, then surely a person who actually does ignore a subpoena is even more guilty of an offense, right? And we know at least one current officeholder who ignored a House subpoena. Actually, we know four of them, though one is a short-timer: Reps. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), Andy Biggs (R-AZ), Scott Perry (R-PA) and... Jim Jordan. All of them, of course, blew off subpoenas from the 1/6 Committee.

Members of the House cannot be impeached, of course. But the fundamental goal of Comer and Jordan, besides just generally trying to create an aura of corruption around Joe Biden, is to convince roughly 215 of their colleagues to vote in favor of an impeachment resolution. We suspect that the hypocrisy implicit in this current line of attack means that this is not the path to 215. Every Republican member, but especially the Biden 17, would be asked daily: "How come Joe Biden is wrong for allegedly knowing about his son's plans, but Jordan/McCarthy/Biggs/Perry are not wrong for actually defying a House subpoena?" If there's a good answer to that question, we don't know what it is. (Z)

House News, Part II: Boebert Flees CO-03

Rep. Lauren Boebert's (R-CO) political future was in serious jeopardy. She won reelection in 2022 by less than 1,000 votes—the closest race in the nation. In 2024, her 2022 opponent (Democrat Adam Frisch) will take another shot at the seat, and this time he's got big-time name recognition and even bigger-time money. Boebert herself has struggled to raise funds, while also adding additional liabilities to her résumé, liabilities like the vaping and groping incident at the performance of Beetlejuice. Oh, and 2024 is also a presidential year, which tends to favor Democrats.

Luckily for the Representative, she was handed a potential lifeline by the unexpected retirement of Rep. Ken Buck (R-CO). Yesterday—and we thank reader P.R. in Arvada, CO, for first bringing the news to our attention—Boebert grabbed that lifeline, and announced that she will run for reelection in CO-04, the district that Buck is vacating.

This was probably Boebert's best, and only, hope to keep her job. That said, although CO-04 is far redder than CO-03 (R+13 for the former, R+7 for the latter), Boebert has two big problems to worry about. The first is that she's just traded a very competitive general election for... a very competitive primary. Given the redness of CO-04, and the fact that it's an open seat, Republicans are coming out of the woodwork to take their shot at it. Here's a rundown of the non-Boebert Republicans:

• Deborah Flora: She's a far-right radio host and staunch Trumper who has run for office before and come up short. She's not likely to be a serious contender, but you never know. See, for example, Kari Lake. Or, for that matter, Boebert, who was a gun-toting restaurant owner when she first threw her cowboy hat into the ring.
  
  
• Ted Harvey: He's a former state representative and outspoken Trumper who spends as much time railing against RINOs as he does Democrats.
  
  
• State Rep. Richard Holtorf: Yet another Trumper, he's an Army veteran who gets much mileage out of his public image as a salt-of-the-earth lifelong Colorado cowboy. He also has a bad (?) habit of getting caught on tape using racial slurs.
  
  
• Weld County Councilor Trent Leisy: A Navy veteran, he's a Trumper, too, and likes to wear a "MAGA King" trucker's hat. He was the first to jump in the race, back before Buck announced his retirement. Leisy's plan was to primary Buck from the right, so that tells you where Leisy is on the political spectrum (Hint: to the right of Jefferson Davis). It surely won't surprise you to learn that he's called for the justices of the Colorado Supreme Court to be arrested, tried for treason, and hanged.
  
  
• Justin Schreiber: An Army veteran, he's a real estate investor and software developer. His platform is: "I don't tolerate tyrants! I'm running to restore the constitution [sic] fully, dismantle the IRS, ATF, and FBI [sic] they are domestic terrorists." He's not likely a serious contender, either; he's raised no money and has no campaign website.
  
  
• Logan County Commissioner Jerry Sonnenberg: Sonnenberg has also served in the state legislature, rising so far as to become Senate President Pro Tem. Another Trumper (of course), he has also railed angrily against the Colorado Supreme Court for kicking the former president off the state's primary ballot. Like Holtorf, he's built his image around the fantasy that he's a cowboy.

Boebert has more name recognition than these folks, but less money than some of them. And she's clearly not going to be able to out-crazy them all, or even to stand out on that particular dimension.

And that brings us to Boebert's second problem, namely that she's got plenty of liabilities that could cost her votes in CO-04. A rundown of the most significant, in our view:

• Show Horse: At this point, Boebert has a near-unshakable reputation as someone who is more interested in getting headlines than she is in getting legislation passed. In her time in the House thus far, just one of her bills (the Pueblo Jobs Act) has become law, as an add-on to the National Defense Authorization Act. Meanwhile, the list of high-profile "look at me" incidents is long: the jeering of Joe Biden from the floor of the House, the nasty fight with Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), the circus surrounding the election of Kevin McCarthy as speaker, the embrace of QAnon, the efforts to find someone—anyone—to impeach, etc. Many voters don't appreciate a representative whose priority is performative nonsense.
  
  
• Morality: It's a free country, and Boebert is free to vape what she wants and to grope whomever she wants, as long as the gropee is happy with the groper's actions. However, culturally conservative voters in ruby-red CO-04 might not agree, particularly when they also take note of Boebert's divorce, and the fact that she's a grandmother at 37. Meanwhile, an even larger number of voters might be concerned about a Representative whose standards for public decorum are so low. Not only did she behave badly in public, to the point of being ejected from the Beetlejuice performance, but she also acted like a drunken Greek (fraternity/sorority member, not resident of Greece) while she was escorted out—stumbling around, threatening staffers, gesturing wildly, shouting at passersby.
  
  
• Carpetbagger: This is a pretty big one, we think. Here's a map of Colorado's house districts:
  
  
  
  The red star is where Boebert's residence is located, near the town of Silt. The blue star is the single-closest point to her residence in her would-be new district (the big ivory-colored district that covers the eastern third of the state). That's almost a 200-mile drive, and even then, we're not sure exactly how many constituents reside in Chatfield Dog Park. Probably just the most important ones.
  
  In other words, this isn't a situation where the member would be living just a hop, skip and a jump away from their district. Boebert would be living FAR from her constituents. Either she'd have to rent a hotel room on days where she's in her district office, or she'd have a 6-hour drive, round trip.
  
  And the problem is not just that voters tend to dislike carpetbaggers in an abstract sense. Western and Eastern Colorado are pretty different places, with different issues. We're hardly experts in the ins-and-outs of Colorado state politics, but even we know that the western portion has much less manufacturing than the eastern portion. The western portion has an abundance of water (80% of the state's total), while the eastern portion has to hustle to keep its citizens and animals and crops hydrated. The west has problems with forest fires, while the eastern portion has much more extreme weather. The eastern portion is farmland, basically a continuation of Nebraska and Kansas; the western portion is mountainous and nothing like Kansas. All of these differences imply different policy priorities, and thus demand different expertise from someone who would represent CO-03 vs. CO-04.

In short, we think Boebert's odds of staying in Washington got better yesterday. But we don't think they got THAT much better.

The Colorado Democratic Party, as you might imagine, is having a field day with this news. Colorado Democratic Party Chair Shad Murib promptly sent out this statement (which was brought to our attention by reader C.L. in Boulder, CO):

Lauren Boebert can run, but she can't hide. The good people of Western and Southern Colorado didn't wait for an election to beat Lauren Boebert—we scared her straight and chased her out of her own district. With this carpetbagging move, Lauren Boebert has shown herself to be everything she claims she isn't: a typical swampy politician looking for a reason to call Washington D.C. home. She's a loser in CD3, and she'll be a loser in CD4—Coloradans won't buy her bullsh** in 2024.

Colorado Democrats launched The 546 Project, our unprecedented year-round campaign in Western and Southern Colorado, to make sure that rural Colorado is represented by someone committed to protecting our outdoor spaces, expanding health care, and treating people right—not hurting our farmers and ranchers with bad policies and foolish trade wars, or selling our public lands off to the highest bidders. We look forward to this fight.

So, is this just puffery, or does Frisch still stand a chance in CO-03? Clearly, a lot of the Frisch votes in 2022 were Never Boebert votes. With someone else as the opponent, those could go away. And without those, it's not going to be easy for a Democrat to win an R+9 district.

That said, there is still hope for the would-be Representative. He's got big-time name recognition and piles of cash. Also, because Boebert was in the running until yesterday, there are only three declared Republicans in the race, and they are all unknowns. It's possible a more serious candidate could jump in, but they only have a few days to do so before Colorado's filing deadline hits (Jan. 2). Up against a much-less-well-funded, much-less-well-known, much-less-organized Republican, Frisch certainly stands a puncher's chance. And his odds go up if a bloody Republican primary results in the nomination of a looney tunes candidate in the mold of Boebert. (Z)

House News, Part III: Democrats All-in on NY-03

The Democratic Party would really, really, really like to snatch "George Santos'" old seat from the Republicans. And to that end, the House Majority PAC, which is the House Democrats' super PAC, just announced a massive outlay on behalf of Democratic candidate Tom Suozzi: $5.2 million.

It is true that NY-03 is in the nation's most expensive media market, but even with that caveat, $5 million-plus is a big spend for a single House district. To put that in context, just the money from the House Majority PAC makes this race more expensive than 17 of the 26 New York House races in 2022. If we assume that the candidates' individual fundraising, coupled with whatever the Republicans' Congressional Leadership Fund spends, adds up to $3 million, then this race will be more expensive than all but three of the 2022 races. And if that figure is greater than $3 million, then the third most expensive race ($9,309,254 in NY-11, won by Republican Nicole Malliotakis) is in spitting distance. Possibly even the second most expensive race ($11,969,437 in NY-21, won by Republican Elise Stefanik) and the most expensive race ($14,028,916 in NY-14, won by Democrat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez) are within reach.

It's not too hard to discern why Democrats are pushing all their chips in to the center of the table. If the blue team can win the seat, then thanks to the soon-to-be-vacant seats in OH-06 and CA-20, much of the first 6 months of 2024 will be spent with the Republicans having a meager 219-214 majority. That would mean that Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) could only afford three defections, or two defections and one absence or "present" vote. Not much room for error with big votes coming up on the budget, and possibly also on the impeachment of Joe Biden.

In addition, a high-profile win heading into the 2024 election cycle would be excellent PR for the Democrats. There would be a wave of stories about how the blue team has "momentum," and keeps winning special elections, and is successfully using abortion as a wedge issue. Eventually the "everything is bad news for Joe Biden" coverage would resume, but for a while, the Democrats would get some excellent earned media.

It is also possible that a win in NY-03 would affect the Democrats' calculations as they work on gerrymander v2.0. If that seat is occupied by an incumbent Democrat, particularly one who held the seat before (as Suozzi did), then it might give the Democratic-controlled state legislature a little bit of wiggle room, so they can have a smaller margin of error in NY-03, and thus a larger margin of error in another district. Note that NY-01 and NY-02, both of which border NY-03, are each R+3 right now.

For what it is worth, there's been one poll of the race so far. It's from a Republican polling firm, so you have to take it with a grain of salt, but it has Suozzi up on Mazi Melesa Pilip by 3 points, 43% to 40%, with 17% of voters undecided. We suspect that the Democrats' internal polling is painting a similar picture, because that is the exact statistical profile that would cause us to back up the money truck, if we were making the spending decisions.

In any event, any readers who live in New York City, and in particular on Long Island, you have our sympathies, because you are about to spend 6+ weeks being bombarded with political ads. Meanwhile, readers who live in Iowa and New Hampshire will say to them: "See, this is what it feels like every four years." (Z)

House News, Part IV: Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick Is in Hot Water

It appears that "George Santos" is not the only member of the 118th Congress whose books don't seem to quite add up. Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (D-FL) is now the subject of an investigation by the House Ethics Committee; the claims are that during both her special election and regular election campaigns in 2022, the Representative violated campaign finance laws, didn't properly submit disclosure forms, and engaged in improper hiring practices.

Exactly what all of that means is a semi-mystery. The Ethics Committee operates behind closed doors, and so to the extent that details are known, they are scanty and involve things that reporters happen to have uncovered. It's known that Cherfilus-McCormick used some of her office budget to pay for campaign ads, which isn't illegal, but isn't particularly ethical, either. She also had at least one employee who was handling office business without having gone through the proper hiring process for House staffers. Beyond that, specifics are not known, and may never be known.

Given the hyperpartisanship of modern politics, not to mention the score-settling Joe Biden impeachment (see above), one might be tempted to guess that this is a case of House Republicans finding a Democratic member to target so as to pay the blue team back for "Santos." That is not the case, however; the Committee vote in favor of the investigation was unanimous. That's five Republicans and five Democrats. It's also worth noting that, as that 5R/5D breakdown makes clear, the Ethics Committee is always evenly split, so as to eliminate the possibility of partisan witch hunts.

The fact that the committee unanimously agreed that there was enough smoke here to warrant looking into the possibility of fire is not a great sign for Cherfilus-McCormick. If the Committee's report does go against her, it will be exceedingly difficult for her to keep her seat, given the "Santos" precedent. Democrats do not like to look like hypocrites, so those members who voted to expel "Santos" would almost certainly have to vote to expel Cherfilus-McCormick. Heck, even if two-thirds of the "expel Santos" Democrats found some explanation for why the two cases are different, the remainder, combined with the Republicans, would be more than enough to boot her from Congress.

If Cherfilus-McCormick does find herself out of a job, there is zero chance that her district, FL-20, flips to the Republicans. At D+31, it is one of the bluest districts in the nation, and is far and away THE bluest in Florida. That said, the special election to replace her would have to be called by Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL), and he would keep the seat open as long as possible, probably until next year's general election, just like Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) is preparing to do with Kevin McCarthy's seat. So, House Democrats are undoubtedly hoping that the charges against Cherfilus-McCormick, whatever they might be, are overblown. (Z)

Gas Prices Predicted to Drop in 2024

Yesterday, we had an item on an Economic Policy Institute report that claims almost 10 million low-income workers are set to get small-to-medium pay bumps in 2024, thanks to new minimum wage laws, with the benefits flowing disproportionately to Democratic interest groups. Consider this item to be a companion to that one.

Today's report is courtesy of GasBuddy, the website/app that tracks gas prices nationwide. The report hasn't actually been released yet, but the findings were shared with CNN. And the topline finding is that gas, on the whole, is going to be cheaper in 2024 than it was in 2023.

To be a bit more specific, the folks at GasBuddy project that the average price of a gallon of gas in 2024 will be $3.38/gallon, as compared to $3.51/gallon in 2023 and $3.95/gallon in 2022. If those numbers hold, it will mean that Americans will save $32 billion, collectively, as compared to 2023 and $79 billion as compared to 2022. On top of that, the projections suggest that the high price will be $3.67/gallon in May, and that thereafter there will be a steady decline to $2.99/gallon by December.

There are two primary reasons for the anticipated decline in prices: (1) global supply chains have been unsnarled from what happened during the pandemic, and (2) U.S. oil production is way, way up. Of course, there is always the possibility of one or more events that throw a wrench into the works, like expanded hostilities in the Middle East, or a disastrous hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico, or OPEC+ turning the screws to try to drive prices up. But, at least based on current information, things are looking pretty good on the gasoline front (unless you are an environmentalist or an Arab sheikh, that is).

As with yesterday's item, we are not going to predict how this might impact the election. However, we will point out three things. First, lower gas prices give the Fed more maneuvering room as it tries to manage a "soft landing" with no recession. Second, as we've noted many times, gas prices are a very visible expense, and something that Joe Biden has been getting beaten up on. If they are headed to pre-2022 levels, you're probably not going to see too many of those "I did that" Biden gas-pump stickers. Third, as we've also noted many times, the most important thing at election time is not absolute price, but the direction in which prices are headed. If gas prices drop in May, and then in June, and then in July and so forth through November, well, that would certainly make the White House very happy. (Z)

Tom Smothers Dead at 86

Tom Smothers, who with his brother Dick formed the legendary Smothers Brothers comedy team, died yesterday at the age of 86. The Smothers Brothers were transformative figures in the development of American political satire, particularly on TV, linchpins in the evolution from relatively tame stuff like Hee Haw and The Jack Benny Show to much more edgy stuff like Saturday Night Live, In Living Color, South Park and Chappelle's Show.

With someone as significant as Smothers, we are simply not in a position to equal the obits written by major media outlets. So, if you want a standard obit, then take a look at The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Hollywood Reporter, Rolling Stone or Variety. Instead, we will present 10 anecdotes from the life of Tommy Smothers, in hopes of giving a different sort of insight:

1. The Die Is Cast: The brothers were born in 1937 (Tom) and 1939 (Dick). Their father, who was Tom Sr., was a West Point grad and career military man. At the outbreak of World War II, he was sent to the Pacific theater, and eventually taken prisoner by the Japanese army. The elder Smothers was part of the Bataan Death March, and died a POW in 1945, meaning his sons never knew him in any meaningful way. This surely contributed substantially to their lifelong antiwar stance.
   
   
2. Multi-talented: Those readers who have seen episodes of any of the various Smothers Brothers shows (the original, or the revivals) know that Tom was pretty athletic, since he regularly made use of his yo-yo skills on camera. In addition, he was a California state champion gymnast in high school, and also won trophies as a competitive unicyclist.
   
   
3. Serendipity: Initially, the brothers were a folk singing duo, and that is what they were hired to do for their first paying gig, at a club in San Francisco called the Purple Onion. However, the flamenco dancer scheduled to appear as the headliner that night sprained her ankle, meaning the brothers had to fill 40 minutes more than expected. They didn't have enough songs for that, so they filled out the act with comic patter, which gave them the act that made them famous. That was 1959; after the Purple Onion extended their booking by 36 weeks, they became popular as a touring act. That led to The Smothers Brothers Show in 1965, and then the much better known Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour in 1967. Although the latter program is invariably described as groundbreaking (or with some synonymous word), the brothers didn't see things that way. "We would have been ineffective if we were ahead of our time," Dick once observed. "We were ON time."
   
   
4. Edgy Stuff: To give a sense of the humor the brothers displayed on their show, here are a few of the best-known one-liners and exchanges from the program:
   
   
   • Dick: "Being a comedy team is a lot like a marriage. A lot of fighting and no sex."
     
     
   • Pat Paulsen, who was perpetually running for president: "I've upped my standards. Now, up yours."
     
     
   • Tom: "When I die, I want to die like my grandfather did, in his sleep. Not in stark terror, like the rest of the people in the car that he was driving."
     
     
   • Tom: "You can tell who's running the country by how much clothes people wear, see?"
     Dick: "Do you mean that some people can afford more clothes on, and some people have... less on? Is that what you mean?"
     Tom: "That's right."
     Dick: "I don't understand."
     Tom: "See, the ordinary people, you'd say that the ordinary people are the less-ons."
     Dick: "So who's running the country?"
     Tom: "The morons."
     
     
   • Pat Paulsen: "What are the arguments against the draft? We hear it is unfair, immoral, discourages young men from studying, ruins their careers and their lives... Picky, picky, picky."
     
     
   • Tom: "Easter is when Jesus comes out of his tomb, and if he sees his shadow he goes back in, and we get six more weeks of winter."
     
     
   • Tom: "Mom always liked you best."
     Dick: "Lower your voice!"
     Tom: (in a basso profundo) "Mom always liked you best."
     
     
   The latter bit was built around the show's best-known catchphrase; "Mom always liked you best" showed up in nearly every episode.
   
   
5. The Cool Kids: Given the anti-authoritarian, counterculture feel of The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour, the show had a pretty easy time attracting top-end young talent. The writing staff, for example, included Steve Martin, Albert Brooks, Lorne Michaels, Rob Reiner and Elaine May. They also hosted a who's who of music guests, including Jefferson Airplane; George Harrison and Ringo Starr; Buffalo Springfield; Ray Charles; The Doors; Simon and Garfunkel; Peter, Paul and Mary; and yes, The Who.
   
   Two musical performances are particularly notorious, albeit for different reasons. The Brothers were able to get the blacklisted Pete Seeger on the air; his performance of "Waist Deep in the Big Muddy" was interpreted (correctly) as a scathing indictment of the Vietnam War, and infuriated both the Johnson administration and the network brass. The Who, meanwhile, had a regular bit of stagecraft wherein they would put an explosive charge in Keith Moon's bass drum and light it off at the end of their performances. Due to some miscommunication and a desire to really bring down the house, unbeknownst to everyone, the drum kit ended up with a triple charge on the night the band appeared on the Smothers brothers' show. You can see the footage here; cymbal shrapnel hit Moon in the arm (see him grab his shoulder), and the explosion singed Pete Townshend's hair while also giving him permanent hearing loss.
   
   
6. All Is Forgiven: LBJ may have disliked The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour while he was in office, but he eventually came around. Maybe the events of 1968 gave him some perspective. Maybe he appreciated the barbs directed at his successor, Richard Nixon. Maybe both. In any event, in 1970 he sent the brothers a letter that read, in part: "It is part of the price of leadership of this great and free nation to be the target of clever satirists. You have given the gift of laughter to our people. May we never grow so somber or self-important that we fail to appreciate the humor in our lives."
   
   Of course, presidents always mellow out and become more gracious once they are out of office. (Note to staff researcher: Double-check this statement.)
   
   
7. Give Peace a Chance: Speaking of music, Smothers is one of the credited performers on John Lennon's song "Give Peace a Chance," along with Yoko Ono, Timothy Leary, Petula Clark and André Perry. Quite a lineup. If you watch the official video for the song, you can see Smothers doubling Lennon on acoustic guitar; he is sitting in a chair just to Lennon's right (advance to 3:35 for a particularly clear view). He's also mentioned in the lyrics: "Ev'rybody's talking about John and Yoko, Timmy Leary, Rose Marie, Tommy Smothers."
   
   
8. It Takes All Kinds: One might assume that the Smothers Brothers, given their well-known stances against war and in favor of civil/women's/LGBTQ rights, were both ultra-liberal. And one would be wrong. They regarded themselves as moderates, and besides, were registered with different political parties. The somewhat more lefty Tom was a Democrat, while the somewhat more righty Dick is a Republican. They felt their different viewpoints helped keep their act well-rounded.
   
   
9. Maybe He Knew Something: As the Civil Rights Movement heated up, and as Black Power emerged, Smothers became outspoken about Black celebrities who tried to maintain neutrality, seeing them as sellouts. In particular, he feuded with Bill Cosby, culminating in a fistfight at the Playboy Mansion.
   
   
10. D'oh!: Tom Smothers' final credit was a 2009 episode of The Simpsons entitled "O Brother, Where Bart Thou?" Needing two sets of celebrity brothers for purposes of the episode, the producers begged Tom and Dick to appear, just to have the chance to work with them. The other set of brothers? Football players Cooper, Eli and Peyton Manning. Again, quite a lineup.

We will let Tommy's longtime friend and colleague Rob Reiner have the last word here, via Ex-Twitter yesterday: "In 1968, Tommy Smothers plucked me out of the improv group, The Committee, and gave me my first writing job for his show. Tommy was funny, smart, and a fighter. He created a ground breaking show that celebrated all that was good about American Democracy. We loved you best, Tommy." (Z)

A December to Rhymember, Part XVIII: Swiss Christmas

In view of the above item, we're going to use this space today to share an example of the Smothers Brothers in action. This is probably their most famous Christmas bit, released in 1963, when they were at the height of the touring phase of their career:

Back to normal order tomorrow. (Z)

---

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

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

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

---

Email a link to a friend or share:

---The Votemaster and Zenger