Biden Sanctions Four Israelis

This story is not getting as much attention as it should, in our view. Yesterday, Joe Biden announced an executive order that will impose sanctions on Israelis accused of making violent attacks against Palestinians in the West Bank.

At the moment, the order will only apply to four people, though it's expected the list will be expanded shortly. Those four will be prohibited from traveling to the United States, conducting business with Americans, or accessing any resources they have in American banks. The four are David Chai Chasdai, whom the State Department says instigated a riot in the West Bank; Yinon Levi, accused of leading paramilitary attacks against Palestinians; Einan Tanjil, who has allegedly assaulted both Palestinians and Israeli activists; and Shalom Zicherman, who reportedly has attacked numerous left-wing Israeli anti-war activists.

This is a pretty big deal. Inasmuch as both Republican and Democratic presidents tend to handle Israel with kid gloves, this is a big change of course for a U.S. president. As one commentator described it: "The unprecedented executive order is the most significant step any U.S. administration has ever taken in response to violence by Israeli settlers against Palestinian civilians in the West Bank." Naturally, the Israeli government was not happy, and Benjamin Netanyahu issued a statement that read, in part:

The absolute majority of the settlers in Judea and Samaria are law-abiding citizens, many of whom are currently fighting regularly and in the reserves for the defense of Israel. Israel acts against all lawbreakers everywhere, so there is no room for exceptional measures in this regard.

Readers can decide for themselves how credible they find that characterization to be.

In any event, it is very clear that Biden is slowly changing his posture toward the Israeli government and its war against Hamas. This is almost certainly a diplomatic necessity, given the sort of leader that Netanyahu is, as well as the fact that most of the United States' key allies have substantially soured on the Israeli PM. It is also politically necessary, given how upset Biden's approach to Israel has made Arab Americans and young leftists. Do you think it is a coincidence that Biden issued the order 4 hours before a major campaign event in Michigan, where there are many Arab-American voters? We don't.

It is not probable that Biden will ever turn against Israel entirely, or even that he'll turn against them substantially. But he can't play the game other presidents have, and be 100% pro-Israel 100% of the time. Which means that, in turn, Benjamin Netanyahu was placed on notice yesterday. How he will respond is an excellent question. (Z)

Behind Closed Doors: Biden's Sharp Words about Trump

In the past, we have probably mentioned the story of the time that Washington Post music critic Paul Hume gave a very negative review of a concert by First Daughter Margaret Truman, and received a sharply worded letter from Margaret's dad:

Dec. 6, 1950

Mr. Hume:

I've just read your lousy review of Margaret's concert. I've come to the conclusion that you are an "eight ulcer man on four ulcer pay."

It seems to me that you are a frustrated old man who wishes he could have been successful. When you write such poppy-cock as was in the back section of the paper you work for it shows conclusively that you're off the beam and at least four of your ulcers are at work.

Some day I hope to meet you. When that happens you'll need a new nose, a lot of beefsteak for black eyes, and perhaps a supporter below!

Pegler, a gutter snipe, is a gentleman alongside you. I hope you'll accept that statement as a worse insult than a reflection on your ancestry.

H.S.T.

For those not fluent in 1950s-speak, the third paragraph, which is the juiciest one, is saying: "I would really like to punch you in the face and kick you in the balls."

Nearly every president is known to have had a bit of a potty mouth, but other than Truman, Ronald Reagan once or twice, and Donald Trump, they've been very good about keeping it under wraps. That includes Joe Biden, at least until yesterday.

As Biden has ramped up his campaigning, he's been quite willing to light into Trump. And once the President is rolling, he sometimes gets very close to letting something slip. For example, about a month ago, Biden was at a campaign event and said of Trump: "At his rally, he jokes about an intruder, whipped up by the Big Trump Lie, taking a hammer to Paul Pelosi's skull. And he thinks that's funny. He laughed about it. What a sick..."

Biden did not actually finish the sentence, nor has he let anything actually slip in public... at least not yet. In private, however, several sources who talked to Politico say that all bets are off. It would seem that the rest of that unfinished sentence is "sick fu**." Biden has also said: "What a fu**ing a**hole the guy is."

We kinda suspect that these "leaks" were authorized. Biden can't exactly utter such vulgarities in public, but if they come through an intermediary's mouth, then supporters know exactly where the President stands, and might well be invigorated. Indeed, it's entirely possible that Biden is aware that the Truman letter was generally well-received by the voting public, who found Harry S.'s honesty refreshing.

Meanwhile, even if he's not willing to swear publicly, Biden is nonetheless taking the wood to Trump in various ways. Once again, the Biden campaign has posted an anti-Trump video to Trump's very own social media platform. This one uses footage of Trump tripping over his tongue in order to suggest to viewers that the former president is no longer playing with a full set of marbles.

Sometimes, it is written (or said) that Biden has to choose between highlighting his record and his platform, or going after Trump. It would seem that the President has decided that's a false choice, and that he can do both. It is particularly clear that Team Biden has decided that the best way to defuse the "too old/loss of mental sharpness" line of attack is to turn it around on Trump. How well that works could very possibly determine who takes the oath of office on Jan. 20, 2025. (Z)

Trump Legal News: Fight Fire with Fire?

Everyone knows that Donald Trump's favorite legal strategy is "delay, delay, delay." He's used it, or tried to use it, in every one of his trials this year, including the New York fraud trial.

Turnabout is fair play, it would seem. As Trump waits, presumably on pins and needles, to see how many hundreds of millions of dollars he's going to get dinged for, Judge Arthur Engoron is taking his sweet time when it comes to making a ruling. Originally, a decision was supposed to be entered by Jan. 31 (i.e., Wednesday). But yesterday, the Court announced that it would actually be "early to mid-February."

We think it is unlikely that Engoron is dragging his feet just to poke Trump in the eye, but we also would guess that the Judge isn't too unhappy about it, either. We are not lawyers, of course, much less judges. But more time presumably means more writing. And more writing suggests that the judge has more to explain and justify in anticipation of an appeal. So, the tea leaves suggest to us that Trump is about to get nailed on numerous counts, and that the penalty is going to be on the high end of the scale. Sometime in the next 2 weeks, we'll see how good this prediction is. (Z)

Mayorkas Impeachment: The Buck Stops Here?

Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) hasn't even brought the articles of impeachment against Alejandro Mayorkas to the floor, and yet his margin of error has already grown (even more) paper-thin. Throughout the process, the unpredictable Rep. Ken Buck (R-CO) suggested he was probably on board with the plan. Yesterday, however, he changed course and announced that he's a "solid no" on impeachment. "I've talked to constitutional experts on the outside. I've talked to former members about the impact that this would have in the future," Buck explained. "The people I'm talking to... agree that this just isn't an impeachable offense."

Normally, one rebellious member—especially when it's the inscrutable Buck—is not newsworthy. But it is when Johnson has almost no margin for error. At the moment, assuming the Democrats are all present and vote the party line (both are safe assumptions), then with Buck they will have 214 votes. Johnson will have 218 votes (again, assuming all his members are present). In other words, the Speaker can afford one more defection. If there are two more, then it's 216-216.

And life could get a little harder should the Speaker wait more than a week to pull the trigger. If Tom Suozzi wins the special election to replace "George Santos" on Feb. 13, then it will be 218R, 215D. It would remain the case that Johnson could survive one defection, and that two would sink him. However, if the margin is only three members, as opposed to four, it means there is less room to give some Republican members (e.g., some of the Biden 17) permission to vote "present."

In the end, a sizable number of Republican members don't want to vote on this at all. They don't want to vote for impeachment and open themselves up to attacks in the general election that they participated in undemocratic shenanigans. On the other hand, they don't want to vote against impeachment and open themselves up to attacks in the primaries that they don't take border security seriously. Perhaps Johnson will bow to this reality. On the other hand, the Freedom Caucusers really want to impeach someone... anyone. And they are the group that is more than willing to bring a motion to vacate the chair. Times like these are when a speaker earns that extra $4,000/month that is over and above the salary of a regular member. (Z)

Q4 Fundraising: Who's the King?

The fundraising numbers for the fourth quarter of 2023—actually, technically, they cover October 1, 2023, to January 24, 2024—are in. Here's a rundown of the most interesting storylines:

• Joe Biden: As we have noted previously, the sitting president is not wanting for cash right now: He's got $117 million in the bank. Part of that is because he's got a robust fundraising operation. Part of it is because while he spent more in Q4 than in the rest of 2023 combined, he's still not spending all that much.
  
  
• Donald Trump: The former president, by contrast, is not sitting quite so pretty, primarily because he is spending so much on legal bills. His actual campaign brought in $19.1 million and spent $23.5 million, leaving $33 million in the bank. The Save America PAC, which is his main PAC, raised $6.6 million, and clawed back $30 million it had transferred to another PAC, but spent $35.2 million, of which $25 million was on legal fees. The PAC is down to $5 million in the bank. Meanwhile, Trump's other PAC, MAGA PAC, got a $5.9 million transfer from the Save America PAC and burned through it all, including $4 million in legal fees. MAGA PAC is down to about $500,000 in the bank. Needless to say, this is not sustainable. Either income has to increase, or outlays have to decrease, or both. It is possible that the Team Trump cash flow will increase dramatically in campaign season, but it's not guaranteed, since the former president already hits up supporters many times per day.
  
  
• Nikki Haley: The secret of Nikki Haley's "success," such as it is, is financial discipline. Her campaign raised $17.3 million and spent $14.3 million. And, of course, there are PACs out there (like the Koch-run Americans for Prosperity Action) that are covering some costs. This said, Haley's fundraising is telling the same story that her vote totals are: There's little rank-and-file enthusiasm for her campaign. Only $10 million of her haul came from small donors (people who gave $200 or less). That is not good for someone who presumes to be a candidate for office in 50 states and D.C.
  
  
• Montana Senate: Tim Sheehy, who is the anointed candidate of the Republican establishment, raised $2.1 million. That is a fortune in Montana, and may give Rep. Matt Rosendale (R-MT) pause as he considers jumping in. Meanwhile, the PAC organized to oppose Sheehy, Last Best Place PAC, brought in $2.1 million. Every cent of that came from Senate Majority PAC, which is run by the Democratic Party.
  
  
• California Senate: Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) is lapping the field. He brought in $6.3 million, as compared to $3.4 million for Rep. Katie Porter (D-CA) and about $1 million for Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA). Meanwhile, the leading Republican in the race, former baseball player Steve Garvey, raised $600,000. In some states, that would be a pretty good haul, especially for a rookie. In California, it's dismal.
  
  In fact, the candidate who is spending the most on pro-Garvey commercials is actually... Schiff. The ads are not overtly pro-Garvey, in that they argue that Schiff is the better candidate because, unlike Garvey, he's not a true conservative who voted for Donald Trump twice. But the clear purpose of the ads is to communicate to Republican voters that Garvey is a true conservative who voted for Donald Trump twice. This subtle ratfu**ing makes very clear something we've written before: Schiff would much prefer to face Garvey in the general, since that would make the Democrat a shoo-in to win the election, even if he does not campaign.
  
  
• New Jersey Senate: First Lady Tammy Murphy (D) raised $3.2 million, as compared to $1.7 million for Rep. Andy Kim (D-NJ). We are not experts in New Jersey politics, but we doubt that differential is especially meaningful, since Murphy undoubtedly tapped her husband's fundraising network. The polls continue to say that Kim is the runaway favorite. Meanwhile, Sen. Bob Menendez raised just $16,000, nearly all of which he had to refund. Sorry, Mr. Senator, but the writing is on the wall. Perhaps you would be able to read it better if it was in hieroglyphics?
  
  
• NY-03: In his effort to replace "George Santos," Tom Suozzi (D) raised $4.5 million, a figure that left the $1.3 million raised by Mazi Pilip (R?) in the dust. And he's not being shy about spending that loot; he burned through $2.4 million to $714,000 for Pilip. And yet, if you do the math you see that despite tripling her outlay, Suozzi has triple the money in the bank, $2.2 million, to $629,000. We see no way to interpret this other than as a sign that he's the solid favorite heading into the special election on Feb. 13.

And that's the fundraising news for now. Items like this one will become more frequent, as many candidates will be subject to monthly, rather than quarterly, reporting now that it's an election year. (Z)

I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: Hemingway, Eichmann, "Stranger in a Strange Land"

It has come to our attention that some readers still aren't clear on the nature of the Friday puzzle that is built into the headlines. It's really pretty simple. There is some theme hidden in the words to the right of the colon in each headline. Sometimes it's all the words, sometimes it's some of them. And we don't make a game out of human suffering, so some headlines (i.e., those without a colon) are not a part of the puzzle. For example, the very first headline today has no colon and therefore is not part of the puzzle.

To spell it out a little differently, the commonality this week is contained somewhere within these phrases:

• Biden's Sharp Words about Trump
• Fight Fire with Fire?
• The Buck Stops Here?
• Who's the King?
• Hemingway, Eichmann, "Stranger in a Strange Land"
• Way to Go, Einstein(s)
• A Hell of a Surprise

This week, as it happens, the theme only relies on some of the words in each headline (last week's by contrast, relied on all of them). Also, if this was a Trivial Pursuit question, it would have to be placed in History. And if you want an additional hint, we'll say that, in a manner of speaking, the key to the puzzle is... explosive.

As to last week's theme, we thought it was pretty tough. We were wrong, as we got more right answers than we've ever gotten before. That is undoubtedly a reflection of the demographic skew of the readership of this site. The solution, courtesy of J.B. in Hershey, PA: "I knew this one from the beginning: All the headlines are from Billy Joel's 1989 hit, 'We Didn't Start the Fire,' where he surveys significant (to him) world events from his birth in 1949 up until current times." Quite a few readers pointed out that the odd wording of the very first headline, "Richard Nixon Back Again," was a dead giveaway, while quite a few others pointed out that they hate that song and cursed us for putting it in their minds.

Here are the first 25 readers to get it right:

1. S.H. in Bedford, MA
2. R.D. in Cheshire, CT
3. J.G. in West Hartford, CT
4. B.M. in Chico, CA
5. B.S. in Lexington, SC
6. T.K. in Half Moon Bay, St. Kitts
7. J.J. in Inglewood, CA
8. C.B. in Lakeville, MN
9. J.L.G. in Boston, MA
10. S.C. in Deerfield, N.H.
11. J.D. in Boston, MA
12. I.G. in New York City, NY
13. E.K. in Arlington, MA
14. B.W. in Tyngsborough, MA
15. R.P. in Brooklyn, NY
16. S.G. in Durham, NC
17. M.J.S. in Cheshire, CT
18. D.B. in Lee, NH
19. B.W. in Baileys Harbor, WI
20. C.R. in Glyndon, MD
21. R.F. in Washington, DC
22. D.S. in Lakewood, OH
23. M.K. in Nolensville, TN
24. K.E. in Peoria, IL
25. N.S. in Los Angeles, CA

If you have a guess as to this week's theme, send it to comments@electoral-vote.com with the subject line "February 2 Headlines." (Z)

This Week in Schadenfreude: Way to Go, Einstein(s)

Many readers of this site, and many Americans in general, are frustrated by the amount of power afforded to the minority party by means of parliamentary trickery. We refer here, in particular, to the Senate filibuster. Nobody doubts that the minority party should have a voice of some sort, but it's also undemocratic that just one member of the minority party can bring the upper chamber to a halt, and that just 10 members can wreck any legislation they see fit to wreck.

Do not expect satisfaction on this point very soon, at least not at the federal level. On the state level, on the other hand? Maybe so. Like in Oregon, for example. The Oregon state Senate does not have a filibuster, but it does have a quorum requirement. You can probably guess, then, how the Republican senators in the minority (10 of them, out of 30 members overall) have been torpedoing legislation. They staged a long walkout in 2019, and another in 2021, and in both cases managed to force the state's Democrats to yield and water down various bills.

The people of Oregon were none too happy with this trickery, and so they overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment that says that if a member of the legislature has more than 10 unexcused absences, they cannot run "for the term following the election after the member's current term is completed." In other words, if you break the rules (by, say, engaging in weeks-long quorum-jumping), your political career isn't over, but you have to take a term off before you can serve again.

Last year, after the passage of the amendment, state Senate Republicans staged yet another walkout, this one lasting six weeks, and blocking over a hundred bills from coming up for consideration, including several bills related to abortion access. "Can't these Republicans read?," you might be asking? Yes, they can. They believed they had identified a loophole; arguing that since terms end in January, then "the term following the election after the member's current term is completed" is actually two terms away. In other words, a senator might break the rules in summer 2024, during a term that expires in January 2025, and then wait for the next election after the expiry of their term, in November 2026, and then be disqualified as of January 2027.

Oregon's Secretary of State, LaVonne Griffin-Valade (D), declared this argument to be nonsense, and ruled that the 10 quorum-jumping senators are ineligible for reelection. The 10 senators promptly sued, and yesterday the Oregon Supreme Court found that Griffin-Valade is in the right, and that the senators are in the wrong, and that all 10 of them are ineligible to run for reelection. In other words, they gambled their political careers on a technicality and lost. Now, if only there was some way to disqualify Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) from running for reelection... (Z)

This Week in Freudenfreude: A Hell of a Surprise

We have written many, many items about the harm being done by social media in general, and by Ex-Twitter in particular. We're fair-minded people, however, and so are willing to acknowledge the good, when it happens. Such is the case with a story brought to our attention by reader J.P. in Seguin, TX.

At the center of this particular story is Sesame Street, which is in the running with Mister Rogers' Neighborhood and maybe 60 Minutes for the television program that has done the most positive good for the world. Back when (Z) was a regular watcher of Sesame Street, way back in the 1970s and early 1980s, the star of the show was Big Bird, with Oscar the Grouch a pretty close second. Today, Elmo—who did not become a fixture of the show until 1985—is the star.

By virtue of his celebrity, and the show's desire to keep up with the times, Elmo has an Ex-Twitter account and over half a million followers. And on Monday of this week, he tweeted a relatively innocuous message: "Elmo is just checking in! How is everybody doing?" His tweets are often along these lines; for example, three days earlier, on Jan. 26., he tweeted "Elmo hopes this post finds you well!"

Elmo's tweets, including the Jan. 26 tweet, tend to generate a hundred or so responses, 500 or so retweets, and a few thousand likes. However, the Jan. 29 tweet blew up, with 18,000 replies, 57,000 retweets, and 184,000 likes. An enormous percentage of the responses were from people who said they are not, in fact, doing well, but that they appreciate that someone took the time to ask. The respondents' troubles included being tired, out of work, depressed, involved in various interpersonal conflicts, and a host of other things.

There is no way that anyone expected this kind of response, and no way that every respondent can be addressed personally. But Sesame Street has a platform, and a knack for things like this. And so, Elmo got back on the platform and tweeted: "Wow! Elmo is glad he asked! Elmo learned that it is important to ask a friend how they are doing. Elmo will check in again soon, friends! Elmo loves you." He also included the hashtag #EmotionalWellBeing. In turn, the other main cast members also sent out tweets with that hashtag. Among them:

• Bert: I'm here if you ever need a shoulder to lean on. I'll make us both a warm cup of tea.
  
  
• Ernie: If you need some cheering up, let me know! I love making others smile.
  
  
• Cookie Monster: Me here to talk it out whenever you want. Me will also supply cookies.
  
  
• Grover: I, Grover, am here to be a good listener whenever you need it.
  
  
• Oscar the Grouch: I'm not great at listening to others share their big feelings, but my worm Slimey is. You should talk with him if you ever need to chat.

If you are wondering where Big Bird is, Elmo's initial tweet was tied to a plotline from the show wherein Big Bird has been shrunk and needs help to get back to full size. Once that plotline was resolved, Big Bird tweeted:

I'm big again! What an adventure the last 7 days have been. I learned so much by seeing the world from a different perspective. @Elmo and so many other friends checked in on me. Thank you to all that checked in to #HelpBigBird. Today and everyday, let's #HelpEachOther!

The Sesame Street staff also compiled and tweeted a webpage full of mental and emotional health resources.

Now, this is already pretty good, but it actually gets better. The Sesame Street tweets spread widely, and the #EmotionalWellBeing tag was picked up on by some rather prominent folks. For example:

• NASA: Thanks for checking in @Elmo. Reminding you all that you are made of star stuff.
  
  
• The United Nations: Elmo, thanks for checking in. The world needs more kindness.
  
  
• Joe Biden: I know how hard it is some days to sweep the clouds away and get to sunnier days.
  
  Our friend Elmo is right: We have to be there for each other, offer our help to a neighbor in need, and above all else, ask for help when we need it.
  
  Even though it's hard, you're never alone.

In addition, countless news outlets, in their reports on the story, took the opportunity to share links to local mental and emotional health resources.

Anyhow, if that is not a freudenfreude story, we don't know what is. Have a good weekend, all! (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 in school, at work, etc., please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend or share some other way.

---The Votemaster and Zenger