U.S., U.K. Fire on Houthis

Until yesterday, the U.S. had managed to avoid perpetrating any acts of violence as it tried to stabilize the increasingly unstable situation in the Middle East. Not anymore, though, as the American and British navies, with support from Canada, Australia, the Netherlands and Bahrain, launched a sizable missile strike on Houthi positions in Yemen.

The Houthis, for those unfamiliar, are the most prominent radical Islamist group in Yemen (so, sort of the Yemeni answer to Hezbollah or Hamas). They are a Shiite movement, which means they really dislike the Sunni government of Yemen. Where do the Houthis get their weapons? Well, everyone except Iran says: "Iran." Readers can decide for themselves which side of that question they come down on.

As a radical Islamist group, the Houthis also really dislike Israel. And so, the Houthis have been attacking commercial ships in the Red Sea, claiming they are carrying supplies to Israel. Thus far, at least 26 different ships have been attacked, some of them with Americans, Britons, Australians, Canadians, etc. on board. This is what led to yesterday's retaliatory strike, against 16 Houthi positions in Yemen.

Some House Democrats (mostly progressives) and one Senate Republican (Sen. Mike Lee, R-UT) are angry about the attacks, because they were launched without Congressional approval. Perhaps they should review the War Powers Resolution of 1973, because Biden clearly had the legal authority to do what he did.

That said, it is understandable if Americans—whether members of Congress or not—are skittish about this attack. After all, the slippery slope to a Vietnam War starts with the occasional sortie here and the occasional bombing there. However, the White House clearly had to do something, a conclusion supported by the fact that key international partners lined up to assist (in contrast to, say, Vietnam). And the administration says—and we have no reason to doubt this—that it tried diplomacy first, and only turned to an armed response when that failed.

On the whole, as a fellow who came of age during the Vietnam War, Biden seems to be far less comfortable with military strikes, and far more leery of quagmires, than most presidents (something that is also true of Donald Trump, making this one of the rare things he and Biden have in common). So, our guess is that this is a one-off, or something close to it. That said, we pass it along just in case it's the prelude to something much bigger. (Z)

Republican Candidates' Debate #5: The Day After

We usually do a rundown of debate takeaways from various sources, but we don't think that's useful this time, since they all say the same thing: Nikki Haley and Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) spent 2 hours attacking each other and being nasty. So, we're just going to move into our usual rundown of 10 debate-related storylines from across various media outlets:

1. Ratings: The ratings for the Haley-DeSantis debate were abysmal. They drew an average of 2.5 million viewers. That's bad, as compared to debates #1 (12 million viewers), #2 (9.5 million), #3 (7.5 million) and #4 (4.1 million). But what's even worse, we would say, is that the Trump town hall that Fox counterprogrammed drew 4.3 million viewers. Hard for the second-tier candidates to make up ground if most of the people they are after are tuning in to see the frontrunner.
   
   
2. Breaking Up Is Hard to Do: On that point, The Bulwark's Tim Miller points out that the rapprochement between Trump and Fox is complete. Fox tried to quit Trump, but nobody else stepped into the void, and now they need him. And Trump wants and needs the free PR, since he's spending most of his money on lawyers. And while the Fox program was called a "town hall," the two "journalists" who moderated it (Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum) were so Trump-friendly, it was basically a campaign commercial.
   
   
3. Even with Softballs, Sometimes You Miss: Although the Fox event was set up to be a Trump showcase, so much so that DeSantis whined that it was a case of "massive gaslighting," Trump still managed to step in it a couple of times. He conceded that his businesses were taking in millions from foreign entities while he was president, but insisted that he "earned" the money. At least one Republican member of Congress, Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN), described Trump's admission as "disturbing." Meanwhile, Baier and MacCallum gave Trump an opportunity to practice his answer on abortion. And while he did OK for a while, walking a line between being anti-choice and pro-winning elections, he couldn't help but start freestyling, veering strongly into harsh anti-choice rhetoric. It's not going to play well with independents, moderate Republicans, suburban women, etc., if he keeps doing that.
   
   
4. Shrewd Strategy: Even with a couple of flubs, it's clear that Trump's choice to skip the candidates debates was strategically correct, since the other candidates were unwilling to tear into him in his absence. Yesterday, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and Fox all had pieces making this same point. (Note: Sorry, the first two links are behind paywalls, and the third is from Fox.)
   
   
5. It's the Little Things, Part I: After each debate, CNN has longtime debate coach Todd Graham award grades to the participants, based not on their political points, but on the basic precepts of proper debating. In his assessment of Haley-DeSantis, Graham gave Haley a B. He thinks she struggled to set the right tone early on, but that she eventually found a good blend of facts, policy, and criticisms of DeSantis. As to the Governor, Graham gave him a D- for speeding through his various points without giving them time to settle in, and for abandoning substance in favor of soundbites in the second hour of the debate.
   
   
6. It's the Little Things, Part II: Meanwhile, Politico hired former FBI agent Joe Navarro to write an assessment of the two candidates' body language. Navarro was largely unimpressed with DeSantis, observing that his habit of grinding his jaw left-to-right conveys insecurity and anxiety, while his unwillingness to look Haley in the eye conveys weakness and submissiveness. Navarro's review of Haley was more mixed; he asserts that her broad, sweeping hand gestures convey strength and confidence, but her habit of holding up her pen in hopes of getting called on by the moderators makes her look weak.
   
   
7. It's the Little Things, Part III: And finally, Slate wrote an entire piece about DeSantis' smile, which most people tend to find off-putting. According to experts in facial expressions, there are reasons for that. His smile is obviously fake; he does not produce the wrinkles at the temple characteristic of a genuine smile (also known as a Duchenne smile). He also tends to smile at the wrong times (a few seconds later than he should) and to hold his (fake) smile for too long. If that were not enough, his smile is asymmetrical, and he has the habit (presumably not conscious) of sometimes sticking out his tongue when he smiles. On a visceral level, the tongue bit, for viewers, reads as "I'm about to vomit."
   
   
8. We Said That, Too, Part I: In our writeup of the debate, we observed that one of the things that made it so unpleasant is that it was 2 solid hours of negativity. Nothing hopeful, nothing uplifting, nothing that a person could connect with. Quite a few writers agreed with us. For example, Matt Lewis, writing for The Daily Beast, had a piece headlined: "The DeSantis vs. Haley Debate Didn't Give Us a Single Human Moment: Neither candidate showed even a sliver of humor, authenticity, or likability." We even both used the word "sliver" to describe what was missing, in even the smallest amount.
   
   
9. We Said That, Too, Part II: We also suspected that the audience in Iowa was stacked with partisans of the two candidates. It would seem we were on to something; yesterday, the DeSantis campaign announced that it would be handing out debate tickets (and, if needed, airline tickets) to supporters who would like to attend the next debate, in New Hampshire.
   
   
10. This Is the End?: That said, people planning to attend the debate in New Hampshire might not want to make any firm plans. The National Review points out that Debate #6 might well be canceled, either because DeSantis will have dropped out by then (see below), or because Haley might decide it's strategically sounder NOT to give DeSantis another shot at taking her down. Given that both Donald Trump and Joe Biden are leery of debating, the Review suggests that the Haley-DeSantis affair might well have been the final debate of this cycle.
    
    Meanwhile, The Hill's Jeffrey McCall and Reason's Liz Wolfe both had pieces yesterday arguing that these presidential "debates" have veered so far away from actual debates, and there are so many of them these days, that maybe it's time to rethink the whole concept. McCall wants the remaining Republican candidates' debates to be canceled, while Wolfe thinks maybe the whole thing should be scrapped forever.

Those were the most interesting storylines we saw. Meanwhile, although it's a little silly with a two-person debate, here's how various outlets had the winners and losers. Well, really, the winner and the loser; we're not going to include faux winners and faux losers thrown in so as to pad out the articles:

Source	Haley	DeSantis
The Washington Post		L
Vox	W	L
The New York Times	W	L
Newser	L	L
Left-leaning Total	2-1	0-4
The Hill		W
The Daily Mail (UK)	L	W
USA Today
Newsweek
International/Centrist Total	0-1	2-0
The New York Post	W	L
National Review
The Washington Times	L	L
RealClearPolitics
Right-Leaning Total	1-1	0-2
Overall Total	3-3	2-6

In short, the candidates didn't help themselves very much on Wednesday night, if they helped themselves at all. (Z)

Haley Polling: Last Best Chance

Nikki Haley's presidential campaign remains the longest of longshots, but it must be noted that when it comes to polling, she's surging at just the right time.

To start with, a new Suffolk University poll is the first poll of the cycle to put her in second place in Iowa. Obviously, it could be an outlier, but the gap between Haley (20%) and Ron DeSantis (13%) is outside the margin of error, so maybe not. Of course, they both still trail Donald Trump (54%) by a country mile.

Meanwhile, the newest from Emerson has Haley on the rise, with some of her new support coming out of the hide of Trump. In the previous iteration of this poll, in November, Trump was at 49% and Haley was at 18%. Now, he's at 44% and she's at 28%. That's a pretty big shift for her, though she's obviously still trailing by a fair bit.

Naturally, neither poll reflects the most recent debate (not likely to have much impact) nor the withdrawal of Chris Christie from the race (could have an impact, particularly in New Hampshire). There should be a raft of polls over the weekend, so as to get them in before Iowans head to their caucuses on Monday. So, we'll see if this week's events continue to give Haley momentum, or if she eventually bumps up against a ceiling.

Meanwhile, Asa Hutchinson—who is still pretending he is a presidential candidate—was interviewed yesterday and said he would "evaluate" his campaign after the Iowa caucuses. Most pollsters, including Suffolk, aren't even asking about him by name anymore. Consequently, he is in the group of candidates favored by the 1% of Iowans who support "someone else" other than Trump, Haley, DeSantis, Vivek Ramaswamy or Chris Christie. There is no circumstance in which a fraction of 1% is not terrible, and in a caucus situation, you can just round that down to zero right now. So, presumably he will be bidding farewell on Tuesday.

Further, if Suffolk has the right of it, and if Ron DeSantis really does finish third in Iowa, where does he go from there? What's the theory of his candidacy if he can't even outpace Haley with his target demo? Yes, he's got a giant ego, which makes it hard for him to admit defeat. But that same giant ego isn't going to want to go on to be humiliated in New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina, etc. So, it's not impossible we could be down two GOP candidates as of Tuesday. (Z)

Trump Legal News: Confessions of a Dangerous Mind

Donald Trump was in court yesterday, yet again, as closing statements were made in his civil fraud case. As we noted yesterday, the former president wanted to speak, and Judge Arthur Engoron was only open to that with strict, in-writing limits agreed to in advance by Trump and by his lead counsel, Chris Kise. Kise refused on Trump's behalf, and so it looked like The Donald would only be a witness to the closing statements.

Not so much, as it turns out. When it came time for the defendant's closing, Trump piped right up, in defiance of Engoron. And the former president proved that the Judge was right to be leery, because everything Trump said was an attack on the Judge and his Court, or was political blather about witch hunts. Engoron allowed Trump to go on for about 5 minutes, then cut him off and recessed for lunch.

This raises an obvious question, namely: How colossally fu**ing stupid do you have to be to piss off the guy who is about to decide exactly how many hundreds of millions of dollars he is going to fine you? And yes, we are aware that Trump thinks he's creating the basis for an appeal. However, Engoron is an actual expert in the law, is far smarter than Trump, and has been doing this a long time. This is undoubtedly why the Judge let Trump prattle for 5 minutes, so as to show (once again) that the defendant's rights have been scrupulously observed.

Once Engoron decrees exactly what the massive financial penalty will be, Trump will appeal, of course. But, between his conduct as a businessman and a defendant, he's screwed himself six ways to Sunday. He's not going to win on appeal, which means that, one of these days, it will sink in that he's ruined himself and he's destroyed the thing that gave him his identity and his sense of self-worth. Oh, to be a fly on the wall the day that the realization finally, and completely, dawns. Of course, if one was a fly on the wall that day, one would have to be on the lookout for flying bottles of ketchup. (Z)

Nick Saban Retires: The Man Who Saved the World

Well, not the whole world, maybe, but one small corner of it.

Anyone who is a sports fan, and many people who are not, will have heard by now that football coach Nick Saban retired yesterday. Having won six national championships at the University of Alabama (his final posting) and a seventh at LSU, he's got a strong case for being considered the greatest college football coach of all time, up there with Knute Rockne, Bear Bryant, Amos Alonzo Stagg and Eddie Robinson.

What does this have to do with politics? Well, if you put together "Alabama" and "football coach," perhaps you can guess where this is headed. Within hours of Saban making his retirement official, Alabama Democrats made it clear that they would love, love, love to see Saban run for the U.S. Senate when the seat of football coach Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) is up again in 2026.

Saban actually keeps his politics pretty close to the vest, so it's not actually known if he is, you know, a Democrat. However, he did endorse his longtime friend Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) several times, so maybe. Truth be told, he seems like one of those guys who could go either way, depending on what makes the most tactical sense—not unlike Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1952, who was courted by both political parties and who turned out to be a centrist.

Saban, at 71, is also a bit aged to be starting a political career. On the other hand, 71 is pretty much middle-aged by U.S. Senate standards, and Tuberville is only 2 years younger than Saban, so age might not be such a problem after all.

We have to imagine it's a longshot that Saban actually agrees to run; he's earned the right to relax, and if he wants to work, he can make way more money with way less hassle commenting on college games once a week for 14 weeks each year. That said, if he does run against Tuberville, it will be very interesting to see what Alabamians value more: football success (Saban) or the (R) after the name (Tuberville). (Z)

I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: Edge of Darkness

Last week's headline theme was tricky; we warned you in advance. We got some pretty good answer keys, but the one that really knocked it out of the park came from Canada (uh, oh); specifically M.H. in Ottawa, ON, Canada:

This week's theme: each entry contains a word which is an contronym, or "Janus word," meaning it has possible meanings that are opposite each other. (FYI, it was "cleave" that got it for me, so thanks for the extra hint!)

• Stressed Out: "Out" can mean both "visible" ("the stars are out") and "invisible" ("the lights are out").
  
  
• Don't Overlook the Emoluments Clause: "Overlook" can mean both "watch closely" and "ignore."
  
  
• Will Lightning Strike in New Hampshire?: "Strike" can mean both "to hit" and "to miss in an attempt to hit, as in baseball."
  
  
• Political Venue Shopping: "Shopping" can mean both "attempting to purchase something" and "attempting to sell something" ("shopping around an idea").
  
  
• Are We Finally Finished with this Story?: "Finished" can mean both "completed successfully" and "destroyed."
  
  
• Time to Go: "Go" can mean both "succeed well" ("the car could really go") and "fail" ("my hearing is starting to go").
  
  
• Buckle Up!: "Buckle" can mean both "put together" ("I buckle my seat belt") and "fall apart" ("I buckle under the weight").
  
  
• Oxman Offers Apology for Being a Plagiarist: "Apology" can mean both "a statement of contrition for one's actions" and "a reasoned defense of one's actions."
  
  
• A Fine Career Comes to a Close: "Fine" can mean both "excellent" and "barely acceptable."

Very impressive, M.H., especially given that you come from a country where everyone seems to misspell "color," "center," "defense," "practice" and a whole bunch of other words.

The theme was hard enough that only 20 readers nailed it:

1. N.S. in Los Angeles, CA
2. J.N. in Zionsville, IN
3. J.K. in New Orleans, LA
4. B.C. in Phoenix, AZ
5. S.F. in Pemberton, NJ
6. M.B. in Albany, NY
7. G.M. in Chevy Chase, MD
8. D.L. in Springfield, IL
9. N.H. in London, England, UK
10. M.S. in New York City, NY
11. D.E. in Ann Arbor, MI
12. M.P. in Chapel Hill, NC
13. K.G.W. in Lafayette, IN
14. D.E. in High Springs, FL
15. O.B. in Santa Monica, CA
16. M.H. in Ottawa
17. M.S. in Canton, NY
18. J.L. in Walnut Creek, CA
19. D.B. in Farmville, VA
20. B.M. in Chico, CA

Congrats to all of you; we know some of you went down multiple paths before discovering the correct one. Incidentally, the word "edge" (in the headline of this item) can mean "comprising the outside boundary" or "to remove the outside boundary."

This week's theme should be easier. It fits in the category "Arts and Entertainment," and the hint we will give you is that we hope this theme doesn't explode in our faces. Also, please note that we do not turn the deaths of people into a game, and so the first item's headline ("U.S., U.K. Fire on Houthis") is not a part of the theme.

Anyhow if you have a guess, send it to comments@electoral-vote.com with the subject line "January 12 Headlines." (Z)

This Week in Schadenfreude: Duck and Cover

American Values 2024 is a PAC, one previously known as the People's Pharma Movement. From that you should probably be able to infer which Big Pharma-skeptical presidential candidate they are backing. Yep, it's Robert F. Kennedy Jr. And in honor of their hero, the PAC organized a big birthday bash/campaign event for his 70th birthday. The PAC invited thousands of supporters to attend, and to meet and greet numerous pro-RFK Jr. celebrities that would be in attendance, including Dionne Warwick, Martin Sheen, Mike Tyson, and Andrea Bocelli.

There was only one small problem with these plans. Nobody bothered to check with the celebrities, or even to confirm that they are Kennedy supporters. In fact, they are not pro-RFK Jr., and given how radioactive he is, several of them scurried for cover as soon as they found out about their "RSVPs." Warwick, for example, posted to Ex-Twitter: "I don't know anything about this event. I did not agree to it and I certainly won't be there." And Sheen did the same, tweeting: "I wholeheartedly support President Joe Biden and the Democratic ticket in 2024."

This has now led to a second small problem: Kennedy, who does not want to be embarrassed, has canceled his plans to attend the event. So, for those who booked their tickets in hopes of meeting Kennedy, Warwick, Sheen, Tyson and Bocelli, well, be prepared to go 0-for-5.

One wonders how a colossal screw-up like this even happens. How do you send out invites with what are, in effect, random celebrities' names on them? We guess if you operate in a world where evidence and facts are often invented out of thin air, you forget that sometimes that doesn't work, and that sometimes the rubber actually meets the road. In any case, Kennedy Jr. is an obnoxious jerk who has done untold damage to public health in the name of... whatever his agenda is. So, it's good to see him with some egg on his face. (Z)

This Week in Freudenfreude: The World Is Not Enough

Inheritance taxes are an issue of some interest in American politics; Republicans hate them, and Democrats think they are an important tool for making certain that particular families don't control disproportionate wealth for generations or centuries.

Not surprisingly, this particular political football is also tossed around in many other countries, particularly the nations of Europe (although there, it is probably an association football football, as opposed to a gridiron football football). For example, (mostly) right-wing elements in Austria managed to abolish that nation's inheritance tax entirely in 2008. That is an unusual situation on a continent known widely for its socialism and friendliness to taxation.

It also does not sit right with one particular Austrian, namely Marlene Engelhorn. She is heir to a fortune of some very large size, and finds it problematic that the government doesn't want any of it in tax. So, she is going to, in effect, tax herself. Engelhorn has set aside 25 million Euros, and has created what she calls the Good Council for Redistribution. She will select 50 Austrians at random (and 15 alternates), and it will be up to them to decide how to redistribute the money. "If politicians don't do their job and redistribute, then I have to redistribute my wealth myself," she said in a statement.

Of course, there is also another approach to this problem. To illustrate, we give you Lois Kirschenbaum, who was brought to our attention by reader L.R.H. in Oakland, CA. Kirschenbaum was a well-known fan of the New York arts scene, particularly the operatic portion of that, and more particularly the Metropolitan Opera. She was not a person of great means—she worked as a switchboard operator, and lived in a rent-controlled apartment—and so she took advantage of cheap or free last-minute tickets for the Met's standing-room-only section.

Kirschenbaum died a couple of years ago, at the age of 88, and was appropriately commemorated by the Met and various other organizations where she'd been a fixture for decades. Thereafter, her will was probated and... it turns out her means were not so meager as it seemed. By living frugally and investing wisely, she'd built up a nest egg of $1.7 million. She had no family to pass it to, and so she left generous bequests to several arts organizations and to several Jewish groups.

So, a tip of the hat to these two ladies for their generosity of spirit. And have a good weekend, all! (Z)

---

If you have a question about politics, civics, history, etc. you would like us to answer on the site, please send it to questions@electoral-vote.com, and include your initials and city of residence. If you have a comment about the site or one of the items therein, please send it to comments@electoral-vote.com and include your initials and city of residence in case we decide to publish it. If you spot any typos or other errors on the site that we should fix, please let us know at corrections@electoral-vote.com.

---

Email a link to a friend or share:

---The Votemaster and Zenger