Previous | Next | Senate page
New polls: (None)
Dem pickups: (None)
GOP pickups: GA ME NV PA
Sunday Mailbag
As with last week, this mailbag has a fair bit of breadth. And it also has a fair bit of commentary on the biggest news story of the week.
Politics: The Trump Trial, General Observations
A.R. in Los Angeles, CA, writes: Donald Trump's conviction by a jury of 12 ordinary men and women is a remarkable vindication of our legal system and the rule of law. As Manhattan D.A. Alvin Bragg said, the public integrity unit brings these types of cases all the time and this one proceeded in the same manner as the others. The only difference was the notoriety of the defendant, who used his extraordinary power and position to derail the process, intimidate everyone involved and strong-arm and threaten the judge. And yet, the process prevailed.
I'm still in awe of the dedication and expertise demonstrated by the prosecution team, the attentiveness of the jury, and the professionalism of Justice Juan Merchan. Merchan, especially, represents the finest of our jurists—unflappable, experienced, smart, decisive, careful, and impartial. The jury clearly liked and respected him. It sickens me that Republicans, especially elected officials, attacked him and the system as corrupt without any basis for doing so. They have no respect for the hard work of the jury and their courage in holding someone as powerful and dangerous as Trump accountable.
The task before the jury was not an easy one. In order to find Trump guilty, they had to find that he was: (1) part of a conspiracy; (2) the conspiracy was to falsify business records; and (3) with the intent to commit another crime.
The other crime was a violation of New York election law, which prohibits promoting someone for elected office through unlawful means. Those "unlawful means" could be one of three (and NOT "anything they could think of," as the Trump minions would have you believe): (1) violation of campaign contribution laws; (2) falsification of other business records, like Michael Cohen's 1099; or (3) violations of tax laws. The jurors didn't have to agree on which of those other crimes applied in order to find Trump guilty.
From the testimony they asked to have read back, it appears the jurors wanted some clarification on the conspiracy element, perhaps to confirm that Cohen and David Pecker testified consistently about the Trump Tower meeting. Once they had that, the rest moved very quickly. So, it doesn't look like they had any trouble believing Trump was in on it and covered up the payments to Stormy Daniels to get himself elected.
Trump will, of course, appeal but justice was served this week.
V.L. in Grand Rapids, MI, writes: First of all, I am a dyed in the wool, pink-triangle progressive that voted against Donald Trump in 2016 and 2020. I wanted Hillary Clinton to win so bad (and was so worried sick about what Trump would do to our country), had I the opportunity to vote for Clinton twice, I would have happily sacrificed my integrity and chucked democracy into the toilet without a second thought.
With that said (and save me, Jesus), I understand and might even agree (gasp!) with Trump that the "hush money" trial was a politically motivated character assassination.
As I loathe the amount of typing it would take to make a case as to fact, I will stick to Trump's perspective and recall the front row seat Trump had for the fall of Former New York Governor Elliot "Client 9" Spitzer. I believe this was an instructive lesson in politics for Trump—Spitzer was doing what almost everyone of that level of money/power does and hired high priced escorts—considering the outrageous number of wealthy individuals in NYC, hired escorts has to be as common place as a bagel with shmear of cream cheese. It happens all the time, but Spitzer was the one that got "caught" (via skullduggery which all but directly announced Spitzer's identity as "Client 9") so he was crucified by many pundits and politicians that Trump absolutely believes are also escort aficionados. I can't believe Trump doesn't see Stormy Daniels as his own Ashley Alexandra Dupré.
I will close this note with a bit of sociology—everyone breaks the law if the circumstances "justify" the illegal activity. Many of us speed. Many of us would hesitate (if not refuse) to convict a parent that killed a predator that abused their child. The only people I know who don't cheat on their taxes are the ones that aren't smart enough to know how. Many of these "exceptions" are universal, but there are also specific ones depending on class or even by occupation... as it is for the rich businessman, it is for the common businessman as well... "it" being claiming random bull**it as a business expense. You can't tell me your average owner of "Pizza By Vito" or "Paul's Vacuum Repair" hasn't falsified business records—it is as American as Apple Pie. We all have our "justifications." I agree with Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL), "If the defendant were not Donald Trump, this case would never have been brought"... just like if "Client 9" hadn't been Spitzer, it would have been regarded as usual behavior and no one would have given a crap.
Of course, we see a current example of the other side of the coin, which is the ridiculous "almost never prosecuted" gun charge brought against Hunter Biden. Under normal circumstances, no fed is wasting time prosecuting a crackhead with a handgun.
R.W. in Santa Barbara, CA, writes: Mainstream media have worn the word "unprecedented" threadbare. But Donald Trump's conviction is, in fact, quite typical of NYC politics. Just a few examples:
- New York Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver (D), convicted in 2018. Died in federal prison in 2022.
- Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos (R), convicted in 2015 on corruption charges.
- Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith (D), convicted in 2015 for political bribes.
A federal prostitution ring investigation ended Gov. Eliot Spitzer's (D) career, and current NYC mayor Eric Adams (D) and his buildings department commissioner, Eric Ulrich (R), are under federal investigation.
If Trump hadn't been president, there would have been nothing "unprecedented" about Thursday's conviction and the civil judgments.
B.W. in Easton, PA, writes: As I watch the political and legal events unfolding, I can't help but think that we are witnessing the end of Donald Trump's political career. A bitter, long and painful end that involves the Republican Party and the entire country. Not too many politicians have survived a felony prosecution and go on to retain their office (Bob Menendez) or get elected to higher office. Granted, we are living in interesting times, but the logical, rational conclusion is that Donald Trump will not be able to mount a cohesive, effective campaign without sliding further into a muck of rambling excuses for his behavior and business ethics.
It strikes me that as we go through the next few weeks that we will witness the "Stages of Grief" that so many people experience with the end of a relationship, the death of a loved one and even the loss of a job or a political career. Trump and, more importantly, his followers will and are experiencing the five stages of grief: Shock, Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Testing and Acceptance. Reaching Acceptance is the goal of a healthy mind, but we all know people who cannot get beyond one or more stages. As I watched Trump give his post-conviction presser, it was clear that he is shocked that he was convicted on all counts, he is denying that the trial should have happened, and is clearly angry about the outcome and the people involved. He spent a good bit of time bargaining with himself that this person (the judge), or that person (Michael Cohen) was wrong or conflicted. He will be entering a phase of political testing to see which political avenue might work. Unfortunately for him, 34 counts of felony conviction, which have little chance of being overturned, are an inevitability. He will not win an appeal in New York. He will not have the Supreme Court bail him out for a State conviction. The reality of his unfitness will become more and more apparent as the days and weeks go by. I also believe that Trump will go through serious and painful depression in the coming weeks. How this depression manifests itself and what the public sees of that depression could be sad for Big D. He will never be happy until he accepts what he has done and accepts the consequences, willingly or unwillingly.
As we move forward, the next test will be the gag order and whether he can avoid more violations of it. Indeed, he probably violated with his post-conviction speech. His inability to focus on debate prep will cost him dearly when (if?) the debate actually happens. After that will be the pre-sentencing hearing with the parole officer and the sentencing hearing itself. These are real events that will make his legitimacy less and less solid. The emotional pressures on Trump will be enormous. He does not handle emotional conflict well. It will inevitably affect him physically and mentally. He is quite likely to lash out at the parole officer (especially if they are not a white man). He is likely to lash out during sentencing and Merchan will likely punish him for that and his gag order violations. By the time the Republican convention happens, polling will show where this thing is headed. Trump and his campaign will not be able to avoid negative stories that are bound to surface. Hopefully for him, there will be a serious intervention some of his closest friends and relatives to shake him out of the emotional train wreck that is about to happen. More likely, I think he is headed for a mental or physical breakdown.
D.A.Y. in Troy, MI, writes: I have noticed many people on the internet griping that it took so little time to find Donald Trump guilty on all 34 counts, taking about 20 minutes per count. I suspect an early decision in the jury room was that it was going to be all or nothing. While each document was a separate count, they were all borne from a single transaction. If voucher one includes falsifications, then why would vouchers two through twelve not include them? If the vouchers had falsifications, then the invoices generated from those vouchers must have falsifications. If the invoices had falsifications, then the checks cut to pay those invoices have falsifications. Thus, all they had to consider is whether or not Donald Trump knowingly caused the root transaction to be falsified, and the jury believed he did.
"Trump's gotta Trump" has been a common refrain, but I think this is the epitome of it and when it finally came back to bite him. If Trump had written a personal check to Stormy Daniels, there would have been no crime. People buy others' silence all the time. However, because Trump's gotta Trump, he wanted to try to stiff her and that is easier if going through a middleman. However, because this was to help his election campaign, it became a campaign contribution in kind that went over the campaign contribution by almost an order and a half of magnitude. Had the campaign paid Cohen and reported the expense as it was, that could have gone unchallenged. However, because Trump's gotta Trump, he wanted to hide it as well as write it off on his taxes, so he tried to pass it off as business expense.
As for what happens now, I really do think Democrats should use this as a line of attack. I would not "crow" about it. This is not something to celebrate. It is an embarrassment that a major political party has nominated a person who was initially under indictment and now convicted. On the other hand, the United States has joined the list of Western democracies that has held a president accountable for their criminal actions. This can be a common refrain from Democrats that presidents are not above the law, and system did its job.
J.T.M. in Phoenix, AZ, writes: One of the major ironies in the Donald Trump phenomenon and the New York trial, in particular, is the whole victim angle. For years, the Republicans have been the "pull yourselves up by your bootstraps" and/or Ayn Rand-inspired party. But now, they've completely embraced Trump's brand of victimhood. They're the ultimate snowflakes now. Trump in particular, in his constant quest to be the big strong man, is actually quite weak and displays almost none of the virtues of a what really being a man (or, an adult, if you prefer) is about. The strong move in the Stormy Daniels situation would have been to own up to it and deal with the consequences. Instead, he took the weak way out: pay someone to keep quiet, thus admitting, whether he realizes it or not, that he is too afraid to deal with the results of his actions. Then to compound his stupid move, he of course had to try to hide it with financial shenanigans. It's really remarkable to me that anyone looks at Trump and doesn't see right through his obvious con job. Image is everything, I guess, and as attributed to Joseph Goebbels: If you repeat a lie often enough people will believe it.
D.E. in Lancaster, PA, writes: I had a small epiphany about what is important about this case against Donald Trump while watching Alvin Bragg's press conference. Throughout the trial, Trump, in his dimwitted and delusional way, has made the accusation that while Bragg is pursuing the case against Trump, he is somehow letting murderers and rapists go scott free. Of course, I, like any other sane person, know that the D.A.'s office, especially for New York, is prosecuting all manner of crimes and what Trump is doing is painting a false equivalency.
When Alvin Bragg spoke, I was reminded about being in college when a FBI agent came to talk with my class. The first question the agent asked of us was "What is the most prevalent type of crime in America?" We of course answered with murder, rape, violence, arson and other mayhem. The agent told us that if you combine all the instances of those types of crime, it doesn't come near the number one most-common type of crime, which is white-collar crime. He went on to list all the ways that the average American citizen ends up being harmed by white-collar crime. Alvin Bragg touched on that very issue when he stated that a great deal of what they do at the Manhattan District Attorney's Office is to focus on cases of, as he labeled it, public integrity. It's the story of Machiavelli all over again, because for Trump it's winning that is all that matters. He sees himself as a success in how many regulations he can ignore, how many corners he can cut, how many rules he can flout. It's why he's such a perfect fit for the modern-day Republican Party, which believes that winning is not about who has the highest standards or the most compelling ideas and proposals. Instead, for them, winning is more about cheap tricks, sleight of hand, and fooling the masses. They believe that American exceptionalism lies in who can pull a fast one the quickest and slickest.
What they don't realize as they claw their grip on power is that American exceptionalism is our integrity. The thing that makes investors from around the world put their money in our markets is not some jumped-up salesman with a slick pitter-patter of a con but rather that our investment markets are regulated and that there is public integrity in our words and actions. America without public integrity is the sh** hole country that Trump often envisions. Forget about the porn star or the ex-fixer, what the Trump verdict means is that he sees the United States as a carnival barker with a straw hat and bad bowtie trying to convince you to give up your last quarter to see the Fiji Mermaid. In his view, and by extension the Republicans by their embrace of him, we've exchanged being the city on the hill for being pushers of snake oil.
Politics: The Trump Trial, Nuts and Bolts
D.C. in Portland, OR, writes: Z, I was aware that your moniker had historical roots but never appreciated the significance.
Teri Kanefield outlines the story here in the context of Trump's jury trial.
I'd never considered a jury to be a backstop against the government so find that thought rather enlightening. It makes Trump's false charges of Justice Department weaponization seem rather ironic.
The whole concept of trial by jury was, in a sense, on trial thanks to Trump.
B.P. in Pensacola, FL, writes: I thought it might be helpful for readers to know a bit more about jury instructions. I am not a criminal lawyer, but I do regularly try complex civil trials that require extensive instructions to the jury before they begin deliberating.
Many states, including Florida (and, after a quick check, New York too) have "standard" jury instructions for both civil and criminal cases. These are typically prepared by a state Bar committee and then eventually approved by the state Supreme Court (or in New York, the Court of Appeals). This approval means, basically, "if you (the judge) give these instructions in this type of case, you won't be reversed." These instructions typically have several parts. There are introductory instructions, explanations of the burden of proof (or burdens), what the jury is to consider and what it may not consider, and then the substantive instructions on the particular claim or crime, followed by a set of closing instructions.
But the standard instructions, particularly on the substantive instructions, are very often tweaked or heavily modified. And it is also not uncommon that sometimes a standard instruction doesn't exist. From what I understand, the "concealed other crime" instructions that were given in the Donald Trump trial likely fall into that category, particularly since the other crime is election related, and those cases are rarely tried.
Because the decision is being handed over to a group of people that the parties and attorneys haven't been able to talk with directly after jury selection, and because of the importance of defining the issues that the jury must decide and the rules they have to follow in making those decisions, jury instructions inevitably get a great deal of attention. Indeed, the best wisdom and advice is typically to create a draft set of instructions at or near the very beginning of the case, and then those can then structure how one approaches the rest of the case. Draft instructions look nothing like the ones that are ultimately given because they also include extensive citations supporting the particular party's position, with room for notes about the judge's rulings about the instruction. All of that is removed before the instructions are given to the jury. In any event, knowing the instructions before trial begins is essential because you structure your trial presentation around it. And so the "charge conference," when the final instructions are determined, is not only crucial, but it requires as much or more preparation as any other element of the trial. Charge conferences are often many hours long, and often there are more than one of them over the course of the trial as the evidence develops.
Finally, there is the actual delivery of the instructions. The lawyers all have copies, and the judge reads them exactly as written to the jury. The lawyers read along, and if the judge doesn't read them as written, the parties have to object or the objection may be waived. Then the judge reads the verdict form, which can also be another battle.
And if the appeals court determines the instructions are materially wrong, the verdict is reversed and the case as to be retried.
So the fight about jury instructions is not just an exercise in pedantry, but a crucial final stage in our system of justice and the resolution of disputes by juries. They are getting more attention by the media than they ever have before, but for those of us in the trenches, they've always been profoundly important.
R.G. in Dallas, TX, writes: M.M. in Sheffield asks: "How does presumption of innocence work if there is an appeal? I would guess that TFG is now acknowledged as proven guilty by a jury of his peers, even though he is appealing. And that he remains a felon until and unless the conviction is overturned on appeal."
(V) & (Z) answer: "Indeed, he is no longer presumed to be innocent, his guilt having been proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.
"Note that it's also something of a moot point. In appeals, the courts will not be reviewing the entire case to assess Trump's innocence or guilt. They'll be addressing specific questions of judicial error, or other procedural issues."
I can say from my stint as a lawyer in the Appellate Bureau at the New York District Attorney's Office (1999-2004, during the Morgenthau era) that Trump will be entitled to have the Appellate Division conduct a "weight of the evidence" review, which has been described as putting the appellate court in the shoes of a "13th juror," albeit one that can veto conviction. This type of review is routine. It extends to all of the evidence at trial. When Alvin Bragg's team briefs their response to any appeal, their first argument section will be something like "The verdict was legally sufficient and supported by the weight of the evidence" and will marshal the evidence for conviction. Reversal on weight of the evidence grounds is rare.
T.M.M. in Odessa, MO, writes: In response to the question from M.M. in Sheffield, the presumption of innocence is a trial-related right and applies to the instructions given the jury.
While every state has slightly different rules for appeals, on an appeal, usually, the opposite assumption applies. The trial is assumed to be error free and the appellant must prove—by reference to the record and the law (either prior cases or a statute or rule) that there was an error which impacted the result of the trial. This presumption is one reason why so few appeals succeed, as some evidentiary rulings are ultimately a "coin toss" (e.g. how much do you let Stormy Daniels tell about her relationship to President Trump to permit the jury to evaluate whether Trump really perceived a need to keep that story secret?).
Politics: A Little Humor
B.T. in Bogalusa, LA, writes: This truly made me laugh:
K.H. in Maryville, TN, writes: I think it would be a fun idea for folks to donate $34 to President Biden!
K.W. in Madison, WI, writes: The Democrats could tell Trump's working class supporters that they're going to get the Stormy Daniels treatment. He's going to make promises, screw them over, and then pretend he doesn't know them.
P.N. in Austin, TX, writes: Did you know the average former president has about .75 felony convictions?
H.R. in Pittsburgh, PA, writes: The attached image sent to me by my brother (B.R. in Philadelphia) is another like the ones you published on Friday that had me rolling with laughter!
You guys are the best at raising the spirits of your readership. And (now that the nexus between Star Wars and Star Trek has finally melded in my 73 year old brain), let me just say: "May the Force ALWAYS be with you so both of you Live Long and Prosper."
P.S. in Gloucester, MA, writes: One can indeed count to 34 on the fingers of two hands (in fact, up to 1023—using each finger as a binary digit), and it would indeed require one digit on a second hand (one hand alone being able to count to only 31), but I am pretty sure that Eric Trump wouldn't be able to figure that out, even if he registered for a basic computer science course and paid someone to do the homework and take the tests for him.
W.V. in Andover, MN, writes: Number 8 on your list of memes was about finding the "local angle" for newspaper headlines reporting the Trump Verdict. My favorite comes from Donald Trump's hometown newspaper, the Queens Daily Eagle:
S.W. in Corvallis, OR, writes: Not so fast on the Trump conviction. I heard there is an alternate panel of jurors that has reached a different verdict.
(V) & (Z) respond: Are you sure this isn't R.G. in New York City, NY?
S.W. in New York City, NY, writes: Saw this on Facebook and wanted to share: "Live your life in such a way that the entire world doesn't celebrate your guilty verdict."
Politics: The 2024 Presidential Race
H.G. in Charlottesville, VA, writes: I do not want Donald Trump to win, but I think you all are being far too skeptical of polls. I did not go back and look, so I could be wrong, but I bet 4 years ago you all believed all the same polls showing Biden with a comfortable lead.
In a previous e-mail, I mentioned that it spells doom when the dreaded "the only poll that matters is the one on Election Day" line comes out. Well, we already have a version of that from the Biden campaign via one of its spokesmen: "Asked about polling, Munoz said: 'The only metric that will define the success of this campaign is Election Day.'"
S.N. in Charlotte, NC, writes: I'll say it again, Biden voters aren't responding to the polls (ask me how I know...). Regarding young folks, we have two of them here in this house (19-year-old first-timers), and one of them is very progressive (pretty annoyingly so) but is going to vote for Uncle Joe in the election.
J.G. in Chantilly, VA, writes: You have suggested several times that Black and Latino men may be attracted to Trump's "tough guy" image. That's probably true of men of every background, and some women, too. But that can't explain Biden's dip in popularity with those groups. They did vote for Biden in 2020, and I don't think Trump has gotten any more macho. Certainly falling asleep and farting at his trial is not Rambo-esque.
No, the explanation most likely lies in economics. Black and Latino men (and women) acutely feel the price of gas, housing and food. This is a class, not racial, reaction. The best way to address it is not for Biden to appear shirtless, but to first, acknowledge the problem (a Clintonesque "I feel your pain" which Biden knows how to do), then show how he will increase wages, and how he is actually doing it now (bringing manufacturing jobs home, supporting unions, pushing for an increase in the minimum wage, etc.). He needs to keep saying: "I'm fighting for you... Trump's fighting for himself and his rich friends!"
D.R. in Tetovo, North Macedonia, writes: I agree with your repeated assessments of why Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC) could be problematic as Donald Trump's running mate, but I still think Trump is very likely to pick Scott.
As you put it: "Scott is Black and, sadly, there are Republicans who don't like Black people. Scott could cost the ticket more votes than he gains it."
But you overlooked the Republican Party's remarkable self-delusion on this point. For example, in 2006, Republicans decided to run Black candidates for governor in Pennsylvania, Ohio and New York; all three lost. We can ignore New York, since it's a heavily Democratic state. But in the swing states of Pennsylvania and Ohio, Black Republican candidates for governor couldn't even clear 40% of the vote. And the nominee in Ohio, Ken Blackwell, was an experienced politician.
The only examples of Black Republicans winning elections for governor or U.S. Senate that I can think of are ones in overwhelmingly Republican states like South Carolina. And yet Republicans seem to keep deluding themselves into thinking that nominating a Black candidate in a competitive state will cause Black citizens to vote Republican. The latest example is the current race for U.S. Senate in Minnesota, where a Black man named Royce White is the Republican Party-endorsed candidate.
I agree that Scott would likely be a net negative for Trump's election chances. But as long as Trump doesn't recognize that, there's a good chance Trump will still pick Scott.
D.W. in Evans City, PA, writes: I read your site daily and have seen more than a few items about what a second Trump term would look like. In regards to that topic, I feel like you are missing an important point. As you and readers of the site know, Trump loves money. In the Trump administration v2.0, literally everything would be for sale. Sure, he would replace 50,000 federal employees with loyalists, but at least some of those loyalists would pay for their appointments. Recall that there is substantive evidence to suggest he was selling pardons for cash at the end of his first term, and consider the recent visit of oil company executives to Mar-A-Largo where Trump dangled all sorts of favorable policies in front of them in exchange for a billion-dollar payment to his campaign. In short, in a second Trump term U.S. government positions and policies would be for sale. What "savvy businessman" would pass up such an opportunity?
Politics: Signs of the Times
P.R. in Saco, ME, writes: On what turned out to be an 800-mile round trip to very northern Maine, we saw only two Trump signs. We also saw 6 moose and 3 black bears. The parts of Maine that house those critters are generally pretty strongly supportive of TFG.
For the eclipse a month previous in Jackman—a town of 1,000 having swollen to 12,000 at the event; a town located 15 miles from the border with those rascally Canadians, and a town that is the favored stomping grounds of Susan Collins—we saw only one FJB t-shirt. (It was a bad snow season in Jackman for the snow sleds. Jackman knows tourists butter its bread, but still... they are die-hard Republicans up they-ah.) We get the sense folks are tired of the show. A few more months will tell.
Oh, and one other addition: We believe Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is unelectable on account of his voice, full stop.
R.L.P. in Santa Cruz, CA, writes: L.H. in Claremont wrote about seeing no Trump signs on a cross-country road trip. K.F.K in CleElum responded that Trump signs are common in eastern Oregon and wondered about their distribution in other areas. In June I drove from Santa Cruz, CA, across southern Arizona and New Mexico, then from El Paso to a town about an hour northwest of Austin, and returned across northern New Mexico and Arizona—4,500 miles in all. The only Trump signs I saw on the entire trip were in the California Central Valley, where they are ubiquitous. None in Arizona, New Mexico or Texas. I don't know what it means, but it surprised me (except for the Central Valley part, where the 30% of the population that isn't Latino have exhibited unbounded Trumpian fervor from the outset, 8 years ago).
Politics: What's a Centrist Republican to Do?
T.S. in Memphis, TN, writes: In response to P.M. in Edenton, who "long[s] for the days of reasonable Republicans—folks like Peter Meijer, who was also ousted by a Trumpist. Will those days ever return? And, if they do, where do people like me go in the interim?"
Sometimes we are faced with difficult decisions and for a short time have to take drastic measures. May I suggest listening to the former Republicans comprising The Bulwark. Started by Charlie Sykes, who recently handed the hosting reins to Tim Miller, it also includes insights from Sarah Longwell (Bulwark publisher and focus group guru), A.B. Stoddard, Jonathan V. Last, and George Conway. Available in Podcast form, or on YouTube. I think Sarah is also leading the charge for Republican Voters Against Trump.
K.P. in Cumming, GA, writes: In response to P.M. in Edenton: I understand that you consider yourself a reasonable Republican. I have good friends who feel the same. They tell me that they will not vote for Donald Trump but can't yet bring themselves to say that they will vote for a Democrat.
My answer is simple: Vote for Joe Biden.
This election is to save democracy from the destruction that will be upon us with another four years of Trump and his cult members. If you don't believe me, read the outrageous Heritage Foundation 2025 Plan. Voting third-party or not voting will only help Trump and hurt sane Republicans. Protecting the Constitution and the rule of law is of utmost importance.
Please vote for the Democrat in this election and hope the Republicans nominate a candidate you can be proud of next time.
As the Romans said in their last desperate hour, "The barbarians are at the gate."
S.E. in New York City, NY, writes: In a recent article in The Washington Post, John Danforth, William Cohen and Alan Simpson, former Republican senators, set out what they call the principles of the Republican Party:
- The Constitution: We are pledged to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. Our allegiance to the Constitution includes acceptance of the vote of the people, obedience to the decisions of our courts and support for the peaceful transfer of power. We think Jan. 6, 2021, the date of the mob assault on the Capitol, was one of the darkest days in U.S. history, and the events leading to that assault were direct attacks on our constitutional order.
- Union: Since the time of Abraham Lincoln, ours has been the party of the Union, of holding a fractured country together as one indivisible nation. That remains our purpose today. Americans come from many different backgrounds and interests, yet we are one people. We stand against the divisive tactics of both right and left that divide "us against them" by exploiting emotions of grievance and rage.
- Fiscal responsibility: In recent years, Republicans have joined Democrats in abandoning that responsibility. The profligate explosion of our national debt is a legacy of weakness that future Americans must inherit. We renew our historical commitment to a sound economy.
- Free enterprise: We support the private sector as the source of prosperity against big government interventions such as high protective tariffs and price controls.
- Peace through strength: We believe that a peaceful world depends on a strong United States that is steadfast in opposing the aggression of Russia and other hostile regimes and is unwavering in our support for our allies.
As a Democrat, I can easily embrace those principles. I believe most Democrats can. But I haven't seen Republicans adhering to those principles for a very long time. If P.M. agrees with these principles, they should take a good look at the Democratic Party. Maybe that's where they belong.
P.B. in Chicago, IL, writes: P.M. in Edenton wants to know who they can vote for while Trump rules the Republican Party. P.M. must vote for Joe Biden. Sounds like they don't want to and are probably an anti-Democratic-Party person, but the only way to get a sane Republican Party back is for the Trumpists to lose by a large margin, over and over again.
Politics: Evangelicals and Trump
D.S. in Winnetka, CA, writes: You wrote: "...not in the way that evangelicals who support Trump seem to be rather insincere about, you know, Christianity."
You, and most people for that matter, are misunderstanding the actual agenda of the "True Believers" of evangelical Christianity. They believe, deep down, that nothing done in this world is of any consequence.
It's only the life in "heaven" after their "end of the world" that matters and the think that Trump has been sent by their god to facilitate that process.
So, they are not being insincere. They don't care about his sins. As a matter of fact, the only reason they care about abortions in that in their worldview, their god needs soldiers for his army in the end times and abortions are like taking away some of his ammunition.
M.G. in Piscataway, MJ, writes: I remember when conservative Christians forcefully said "Bill Clinton doesn't have the moral character to be president" but when the Access Hollywood tape came out and then when Trump was convicted of committing sexual assault, conservative Christians said "Who cares?"
I couldn't make sense of this until I read two books by never-Trump evangelicals. One book is Losing Our Religion: An Altar Call for Evangelical America by Russell Moore and the other is The Kingdom, the Power, and the Glory: American Evangelicals in an Age of Extremism by Tim Alberta.
Moore cites a 2017 study where people were asked which group in the U.S. faces more discrimination: Christians or Muslims? Overwhelmingly, Catholics said Muslims face more discrimination in the U.S. than Christians. Mainline Protestants gave the same answer. So did Jewish people. So did non-religious people. On the other hand, Evangelicals overwhelmingly said Christians face more discrimination in the U.S. than Muslims do.
Conservative Christians began to veer from reality during the Carter administration. Jimmy Carter was the most Godly president of my lifetime but his administration told owners of conservative Christian universities that they had to start letting Black people enroll in their schools or they would lose their tax-exempt status. This enraged Jerry Falwell and he started a smear campaign against Carter. Even though Carter is Evangelical and born-again and was a Sunday school teacher, Falwell convinced a huge number of Evangelicals that the Carter administration was Godless and was destroying traditional American values.
About 25% of Evangelicals that voted for Carter in 1976 flipped to Reagan in 1980. Republican operative Paul Weyrich was so pleased and impressed that he co-created the Moral Majority to influence elected Republicans and voters. Weyrich wanted to move them in a more conservative direction. Jerry Falwell became the leader of the Moral Majority.
Around this time, conservative Christian leaders started claiming that Democrats are socialists. Democrats are demons. Democrats are communists. Democrats hate America. Democrats are destroying traditional American values, etc.
These messages get amplified and reinforced by Republican politicians, Fox, and other sources of propaganda. Over the course of decades, the message that Democrats are influenced by literal demons and that Democrats hate and want to destroy America has become tacit knowledge for tens of millions of people on the right. That's why no amount of evidence presented by a Democrat can change the opinion of hardcore conservatives.
Many people on the extreme right hated when the United States elected a Black man as president. They were furious when the U.S. legalized gay marriage and they were filled with rage when Democratic governors in blue states shut down their churches during the COVID pandemic. The extreme right views these events as personal attacks on God and the United States. Many people on the far right see these as demon-inspired plots to destroy America. That's why many on the extreme right won't vote for a Democrat even if they strongly disagree with Republicans on policy, and the reason they love and adore Donald Trump is because they believe Trump is the one man that can restore them to their rightful place at the top. They know Trump doesn't care about rules and laws. They know Trump can't be shamed. They know Trump doesn't care about consequences. Many on the extreme right see Trump as the only one that can save them and the U.S., and they are willing to overlook all the negatives Trump has in order to be saved.
Politics: Libertarians and Trump
F.C. in DeLand, FL, writes: And now for Part II of my quick notes from the Libertarian Convention. First, there's been a lot of press about Trump's speech to the party and outsiders. I'm not going to give a play-by-play; the press has been relatively accurate. But, a few comments...
The security for the talk kicked in early. Some delegates were kept off the convention floor during the business meeting while security was setting up. The line to the speech was divided into LP delegates and the great unwashed. They also had a priority line for the state and national officers. I was in the delegate line and ended up standing on the far right side of the room.
After a few other speakers and large gaps between them, it was time for the main event. Trump actually surprised me in a couple of ways during his speech. First, he generally stayed on point. And (other than a mention of border security) he attempted to stay on point with things he thought Libertarians would be on board with. Specifically, he talked about pardoning Julian Assange, Ross Ulbricht and Edward Snowden. He also talked about pardoning the January 6 protesters, which resulted in boos from most party delegates. Interestingly, he didn't mention Ross Ulbricht until there were several chants about it and a lot of sign waving.
In fitting with your discussions of Trump's transactional politics, he promised to appoint a Libertarian to the Cabinet and others to high level positions IF Libertarians voted for him.
He referred to himself in the third person several times during his speech, which is a bit jarring to me. Last I checked, he isn't royalty.
I don't know if the Libertarians or the MAGA audience members chanted louder; microphone position matters a lot. But to me, it seemed as if the Libertarian anti-Trump chants were louder. I wonder if we were the first unfriendly audience he's had to deal with since he was first elected back in 2016.
Finally, I was surprised with the brevity of his comments. I was expecting one of his long-winded rants, but it was only 35 minutes long. I don't know if he went in there with a plan to try to convince Libertarians or if he decided to run away based on audience reaction.
There were speeches by other Libertarian candidates for President after his speech. I'd talk about them except it was after 9 and some of us old people need to eat. And I doubt your readers really care.
S.J.Z. in Darien, IL, writes: R.M.S. in Lebanon wrote: "[Trump] is a man who has proposed terminating the Constitution, and who has argued in court that he is immune from prosecution for any acts he commits in office, including shooting people. Both claims ought to horrify libertarians, centrists, and progressives alike."
It should horrify conservatives, too. There just doesn't seem to be many American conservatives around any longer.
Politics: Israel
D.G. in Tel Aviv, Israel, writes: A few comments on "Predictable Things Happen In Gaza."
I want to emphasize that I am no supporter of Benjamin Netanyahu and didn't vote for him. I'm a fan of Benny Gantz and was very happy with the Naftali Bennet/Yair Lapid government. I sincerely hope a more centrist government takes over when the dust settles from this war, if not earlier.
While you are correct that Netanyahu's right wing partners would bolt without the operation in Rafah, there is also internal pressure from other centrist parties not in the coalition (including Lapid) to finish the job. Finishing Rafah is absolutely critical to this entire war effort for numerous reasons. I would argue the primary reason Rafah hasn't been dealt with until now is because Netanyahu wanted to prolong the war unnecessarily to remain in power.
Many of my centrist and left-wing friends who were fighting on the front lines (now back home with their families and their jobs) are furious with Netanyahu for not finishing all of Gaza when they were at full force months ago. Joe Biden, under his own pressure from his progressive flank, likely aided Netanyahu in prolonging this war with his "warnings" and unrealized threats to hold arms (I've spoken to no one here that believes that Biden has really stopped any arms shipments). Biden gave Bibi the perfect excuse he needed to hold off and extend things even more.
As for the IDF "accidentally" (as you put it) killing dozens of civilians in the bombing in Rafah the other day, I can tell you with certainty from first-hand knowledge from those in intelligence there is a huge effort to reduce collateral damage. To the point where IDF soldiers, and even Israeli civilians, have died because of the caution. I know vets that fought in Afghanistan and Iraq and they are shocked by how much more the IDF does vs. the U.S. to reduce collateral damage. Hamas is deliberately placing themselves behind civilians and unfortunately many (I dare say the majority) of the Gazan civilians welcome it. If Israel wanted to commit genocide (the new, 21st century "blood libel" and I don't pull that card lightly), they could do it in a heartbeat and easily.
One of my acquaintances plans operations and goes into areas cleared by the IDF looking for intelligence and it's clear the vast majority of Gaza supports what Hamas did and hides weapons and hostages voluntarily on their behalf. Almost every house has Hamas military materials in them. It's a population completely brainwashed by radical fundamentalists and I hope one day they will realize they could be the next Dubai. It's a tragedy. Western countries who rightly are outraged at the situation just cannot internalize the level of radicalism in the population. These are people who happily handed out candy after 9/11 and execute gay people in public squares.
Finally, clearing out Hamas or terrorists completely in Gaza will never happen. However, Israel has no choice but to dismantle as much of their command structure and leadership as possible, even at the risk of creating another generation of Hamas supporters (which they are). If they don't finish, not only will 10/7 happen again but Israel will be seen as weak and a failure in the eyes of the Gulf Arabs and other allies. That cannot happen in this neighborhood. It will also provide a blueprint for terrorists around the world (even those that have nothing to do with Israel) to implement Hamas' strategy of ignoring rules of war and hiding behind civilians as a tactic. Israel is literally fighting on behalf of all freedom-loving and liberal democratic countries, whether they see it or not. It's a shame Israel is not getting the support from the Western world the same way Ukraine is.
Just like Biden, Israel is stuck between a rock and a hard place and that's exactly what Hamas and their supporters want. It's similar to the impossible moral dilemmas the Joker puts Batman in. End the war early and we pay a dear price and the world will pay a price. On the other hand, if Israel somehow manages to neutralize Hamas enough, the chances for joint cooperation with Gulf Arabs and the U.S. to oversee the "day after" in Gaza increase significantly. Gulf Arabs are eager for Israel to wrap up ASAP and to work with Israel on a path forward. The more support Israel gets now, the closer we could be to some sort of two-state solution with a large allied force to help maintain it for generations to come.
A.S. in Hanover, NH, writes: I agree with your conclusion that what happened to civilians in Rafah was predictable. But since you have a responsibility as a widely read blog, I feel I need to correct a few things.
First, attacking Rafah is not just a far-right position in Israel. The basic thinking: The remaining Hamas battalions and leadership (also military supplies and infrastructure) need to be eliminated so Hamas can't come back to attack Israel later. They aren't surrendering voluntarily, so we have to keep going after them. Any other country would do the same. There is some disagreement about whether Israel can get back the hostages first and then keep fighting Hamas second, but I don't think it is particularly controversial that Hamas can't survive this war to attack Israel again just because they hide behind civilians. And yes I know the argument that Hamas is an idea which you can't kill, but it also has a military that can be weakened.
Second, current thinking is that the fire that killed the civilians started when a fuel tank 100 meters from the strike exploded, possibly from shrapnel from the strike (but that is still under investigation). Again, I agree that civilian deaths in Rafah during an Israeli offensive there are entirely predictable and tragic, but don't falsely report missiles in a safe zone because I don't think anyone is arguing that happened.
I bring up these two points partially because whenever Joe Biden doesn't come down as hard on Israel as people expect, I think it's partly because people are reading skewed reporting whereas Biden gets actual intelligence. This is my longstanding frustration with coverage of this war.
One last thing to add: This war is breaking my heart every day (I debated deleting this last sentence because it sounds cheesy and self serving, but I'm keeping it in because it is true and likely is true for many of your readers, so worth keeping in mind).
S.S. in Durham, NC, writes: A.G. in Los Angeles wrote: "Not voting at all or voting for Trump is a vote sharply against Palestine."
My nephew just sent me some videos floating around social media from the Rafah massacre. One of the videos included a man carrying around a small baby without a head. Images like these have been haunting us for months now.
The moderates in the Democratic party still expect us to "hold our nose" and vote Biden? The man who funded the recent Rafah massacre and the countless others? A vote for Biden is ALSO a vote sharply against Palestine. I have now become a single-issue voter and many others feel this way. I do not care if Trump wins in 2024, the Democratic party deserves it. There is no morality left on either side anyway.
Politics: Candidate Quality
L.C. in Boston, MA, writes: You wrote: "The GOP's memory span is clearly less than 2 years, since it appears to be determined to make the same mistakes that it made in 2022 all over again."
It's a bit more complicated than that. You can make an excellent case that the GOP voter base does have problems with memory (and sanity). But for those in power, the relevant concept is not so much problems with memory (or sanity), but a matter of swinging the hammer: They usually can't get the nail in with one stroke of the hammer, and sometimes they even have to pull out a failed nail and replace it with a new one, but with every hammer stroke, they jolt their Overton Window (which is the one that matters to them) to the right, and they get one step closer to driving the last nail into the coffin of democracy.
J.D. in Cold Spring, MN, writes: I'd like to add one more name to Thursday's item about GOP candidate quality: Royce White. The Minnesota GOP has endorsed White to run against Sen. Amy Klobuchar (DFL-MN). White, a Black former pro basketball player with a long list of shortcomings, still needs to win the GOP primary in August (assuming the unendorsed candidate chooses to run), but the already small odds of defeating Klobuchar have all but disappeared. White, whose personal story includes a history of unpaid debts, evictions, unpaid alimony and antisemitic and vulgar statements, was nominated by Steve Bannon. If that doesn't tell you enough, more recently, he has been accused of spending campaign funds at strip clubs, travel to resorts and high-end hotels, and such "campaign" retailers as Best Buy.
I recently suggested that Klobuchar's coattails should end any speculation that Minnesota's electoral votes might be in play this November. The effect of this GOP candidate downballot should not only guarantee that Biden wins the state, but also that the DFL maintains its trifecta in state government.
D.P. in Los Altos, CA, writes: I propose a new word for the self-inflicted losses caused by the Republicans' candidate quality problem: candicide.
Politics: Donations
J.Z. in Santa Rosa, CA, writes: This is not a GOP counterpart to Blue Tent. Instead, it's a Democratic alternative with a well-developed strategy.
Walk The Walk is an entirely volunteer-run organization based in Berkeley. They identify effective grassroots groups working with voters of color in areas where extra money can have the most political effect. For example, a competitive state legislative race that can flip a chamber blue or prevent/reverse a GOP supermajority. They work with the groups to develop goals, decide how much money is need to meet them, and then raise the money.
Currently Walk the Walk is supporting about 10 groups. All funds raised go directly to those groups.
Recently they've been hosting monthly Zoom calls where leaders of one or more groups describe their work.
G.M. in San Francisco, CA, writes: I've been using Oath.vote for recommendations. They seem to be steering me in the right directions.
(V) & (Z) respond: We have not yet heard from any reader with a right-leaning equivalent to these sites. Again, if we get a suggestion we'll write it up. Note that WinRed is like ActBlue, not like Blue Tent. ActBlue and WinRed can process your donations, but they don't give advice about which candidate or group to donate to. Blue Tent does.
All Politics Is Local
S.Z. in Parma, OH, writes: Ohio has become a one party state. Years ago, I said: "Ohio has become a Southern state," or maybe "East Indiana." The Ohio House Gang is corrupt, almost comical to a degree. They do not get national exposure because they are dull. The last Speaker of the state House is imprisoned, one before that left because of FBI investigations. Ok, those two were caught, but there are many not caught.
Not only is Ohio gerrymandered to absurdity, the Repukes have such impudence that they are mini-despots. Twice statewide ballot issues were passed to alleviate gerrymandering. They were ignored. Ballot issues are favored by the party in power (Repukes) and are written by moneyed interests. Former speaker Larry Householder got caught (and not the first time, but the first time paying the penalty), and that was for enriching an electrical utility by ballot.
Other citizen initiatives have been stymied by the mendacious Attorney General Dave Yost (R), and the mendacious Secretary of State (and recently failed US Senate candidate) Frank LaRose (R). Primaries and special elections are called to benefit Republicans and their desires, One was done to preempt passage of the abortion issue. Before November, LaRose called a special election so as to change the threshold of passage from 50% to 60%. It failed.
Now there is this circus to not allow a Democratic candidate (President Biden) to be on the ballot.
L.B. in Savannah, GA, writes: Like you, I wouldn't make much of Judge Andrew Pinson's victory over John Barrow. I follow politics closely and wasn't aware that Pinson is pro-life and Barrow is pro-choice, or that the race was a referendum on abortion, and I suspect many other voters weren't aware of that, either. I voted for Barrow because he was the last Democrat to represent my House District (District 1 in Georgia) and figured I might as well give him a chance to serve as a judge. I remember him more as a gun rights supporter than a pro-choicer. I didn't know about the abortion issue until after the election. Given how difficult it is to get information on down-ballot races here in Georgia, I would say that Pinson won solely due to incumbent advantage, and any votes for Barrow were from people like me who remembered him in his previous role.
So no, this race shouldn't be taken as indicative of falling support for abortion rights.
International Politics
F.F. in London, England, UK, writes: Thanks to G.S. in Basingstoke and A.B. In Lichfield for the clear rundown on the U.K. elections.
N.D. in Berlin, Germany, writes: A quick comment on the U.K. elections that neither of your correspondents raised on Wednesday: vote efficiency.
In 2019, the Brexit vote and Jeremy Corbyn's leadership led to Labour gaining support among young people and some ethnic minorities, while losing support against older, white voters. This was bad news in a first-past-the-post parliamentary system where the number of elected MPs matter and not the total number of votes. So Labour either held steady or made gains in larger cities (even taking one seat from the Tories in London) while facing massive losses in medium-sized towns in the North of England.
Now Labour's making large gains among the voters it lost at the last election, while having a small number of votes nibbled away by the Greens in urban areas. This more efficiently distributed vote will be one of the prime reasons for any gains Labour makes.
Strangely, while Labour are making gains by spreading their vote out in England, Labour's more concentrated vote will be to their advantage in Scotland. The SNP have done well in recent U.K. parliamentary elections by getting the vast majority of the 45% of voters who want independence to vote for them. They have little competition from the other nationalist party, the Greens, who don't bother much with Westminster elections. The Unionist vote (roughly 55% of the population), by contrast, has been split between Labour, the Conservatives and, to an extent, the Lib Dems. The SNP's vote has been spread pretty evenly across the country while Labour is concentrated in urban central Scotland and the Conservatives in rural areas in the South and Northeast. Needless to say, getting 40-50% in an election with 4-5 parties competing means you win virtually everything. By contrast, when the SNP's vote falls to the mid-30s, as it has now, you suddenly go from them winning almost all seats to less than half. Labour's concentrated vote could lead to disproportionate gains, the opposite of the factor it is benefiting from in England.
G.W. in London, England, UK, writes: I wondered if, on reading the (excellent) report on the British elections, and especially the reference to the foremost U.K. election commentator, Sir John Curtis, (V) and (Z) felt a pang of regret at an over-hasty decision by the American colonies to go their own way?
To misquote Voltaire, in England every now and then we knight a psephologist, pour encourager les autres!
(V) & (Z) respond: Unless ennoblement as the Duke of Earl is available, we are not interested.
R.S. in Bedford, England, UK, writes: G.L. in Kelowna is at least partly right in asserting that the U.K. is working very hard to become a failed state. That is true of the current administration which, if the polls are to be believed, has only a few weeks before it is swept out of power and little capacity to pursue that aim.
However. this is only true because the House of Lords cannot veto legislation, merely propose amendments. If the Commons does not accept the amendments, then a game of parliamentary ping-pong starts with each House repeatedly declaring what it thinks the law should say, though the Lords will eventually cede the contest to the Commons so the government gets what it wants—the most recent case being to overrule our Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights to declare that Rwanda is a safe country for asylum seekers. The government can do this having won 43.6% of the vote at the last General Election.
C.S. in Philadelphia, PA (where the resolution to sever ties with the Kingdom of Great Britain was on July 2, 1776 and the document signed on August 2, 1776), writes: I'm disappointed the staff historian missed the death of Ecgberht I, King of Kent on July 4, 673, as a more momentous occasion in British political history.
(V) & (Z) respond: Ecgberht I? The Millard Fillmore of English kings?
History Matters
M.G. in Chicago, IL, writes: I do not think I saw many comments from you in evaluating the Presidents in regards to the size (population/power) of the U.S. at the time of their Presidency. Washington, 2.4 million, Monroe, 9.5 million and Lincoln, 30 million. Also how these numbers compare to England and France at that time and how economic power grew. Comparing any President before 1860 with one after is apples and watermelons. Comparing any president prior to 1940 with one after is grapefruit and bananas. Note that neither Washington, nor Lincoln, nor or FDR could get elected in 2024 and yet you (and most history folks) feel they were the best. On the other hand, I suspect Ben Franklin would have prospered in any era (perhaps the same could be said of Alexander Hamilton).
T.B. in Santa Clara, CA, writes: H.M. in San Dimas mentioned their fascination with James K. Polk and asked for a book recommendation. I'd like to recommended one of my favorite songs by one of my favorite bands: "James K. Polk" by They Might Be Giants. So many facts packed into one song.
Your comments about Andrew Jackson reminded me of my high school U.S. history teacher, who occasionally mentioned in lectures that "Andrew Jackson was a bastard." On my final, I wrote "P.S. Andrew Jackson is a bastard!" If I remember correctly, she wrote "Yes, he was." I think I got an A in the class. Surely a coincidence!
P.F. in Alameda, CA, writes: Here's one more, quite lovely and succinct, summary of President Polk's tenure:
J.D.Z. in St. Paul, MN, writes: You wrote: "How many Americans even know there WAS a president named Millard Fillmore? We bet it's less than 20%."
I know "people who play online trivia games" is not a representative sampling of Americans, but Sporcle has a U.S. Presidents Quiz, where players are prompted with the year(s) of the terms and must enter the presidents' surnames to get points. According to the results page, Millard Fillmore was correctly identified by 59.9% of quiz-takers. In fact, Fillmore isn't even last—he was answered more often than Franklin Pierce, Warren Harding, Chester Arthur and Rutherford B. Hayes. Hayes, at 56.2%, is the least-guessed. So, Fillmore is no Washington (who, at 97.9%, is the most-guessed), but he's definitely above 20%.
L.O.-R. in San Francisco, CA, writes: You rhetorically ask "How many Americans even know there WAS a president named Millard Fillmore? We bet it's less than 20%."
Nearly everyone in San Francisco knows there was a Fillmore since one of our principal streets was named for him. Although, to your point, it's highly likely people don't know he was a president.
L.E. in Putnam County, NY, writes: Surely the most salient evidence on Robert E. Lee and slavery relates to the slaves (189 of them by some accounts) on his wife's family property that he was directed to free within 5 years by his father-in-law's will, whereupon he went to court to void that provision while breaking up his captives' families and renting them out as he chose.
L.B. in Savannah, GA, writes: Robert E. Lee became the executor of his deceased father-in-law George Washington Parke Custis' slaves, and proceeded to hire them out as he was in dire need of money, and according to the provisions of Custis' will, they would be freed in 5 years. However, Custis had promised them that they would be freed upon his death, and after 17 months under Lee's control, Wesley Norris, his sister Mary, and George Parks attempted to flee to Pennsylvania. They were captured and returned, and according to Norris, were subjected to the following treatment:
When we were sent back to Arlington; we were immediately taken before Gen. Lee, who demanded the reason why we ran away; we frankly told him that we considered ourselves free; he then told us he would teach us a lesson we never would forget; he then ordered us to the barn, where, in his presence, we were tied firmly to posts by a Mr. Gwin, our overseer, who was ordered by Gen. Lee to strip us to the waist and give us fifty lashes each, excepting my sister, who received but twenty; we were accordingly stripped to the skin by the overseer, who, however, had sufficient humanity to decline whipping us; accordingly Dick Williams, a county constable, was called in, who gave us the number of lashes ordered; Gen. Lee, in the meantime, stood by, and frequently enjoined Williams to lay it on well, an injunction which he did not fail to heed; not satisfied with simply lacerating our naked flesh, Gen. Lee then ordered the overseer to thoroughly wash our backs with brine, which was done.While Lee claimed in private correspondence that Norris' account was fabricated, he never disavowed it publicly, and most historians today believe it is accurate.
Memorial Day
J.D. in St. Paul, MN, writes: A.G. in Scranton, I'm with you! We can't easily come up with Memorial Day greetings because present-day Americans and our language aren't good at solemnity. This is the reason those of us who aren't Jewish have no way of acknowledging Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, in passing with our Jewish neighbors, short of using stilted English phrasings or sounding like we snuck briefly into Hebrew school so that we could later make an impression.
Americans are excellent at honoring former soldiers who did not die, however. The professional sports leagues have led the way. We honor our brave men and women in uniform on Veterans Day, of course, but apparently Independence Day also is about that now, as is Labor Day for heaven's sake (yes, I've heard the "brave men and women in uniform" thing at sporting events on Labor Day), so why not Memorial Day too, and maybe Halloween and New Year's while we're at it? We're forgetting the old functions of those days anyway. Greetings need to be simple and they don't need to make literal sense. "Happy brave uniform!" might serve. Easy to remember. Eight or ten times a year!
S.Z. in Charlottesville, VA, writes: Your readers rightly point out that Memorial Day, unlike most other American holidays, should be more of a somber celebration than a festive one, and you note also the struggle that landed you at "Have a good Memorial Day."
My Jewish heritage has a solution, of sorts, when dealing with holidays like Yom Kippur (day of atonement, one of the high holidays and an especially somber one) and Yom Hashoah (day of remembrance, specifically of the Holocaust): gut yontif. It means "good holiday" (deriving from the Hebrew "yom tov" or "good day") and contrasts with chag sameach (happy holiday) used at more festive occasions. I think where you landed was about as good as English can provide, though.
G.K. in Blue Island, IL, writes: Borrowing from my long-ago experience as a gentile wishing my jewish friends "Happy Yom Kippur!"—have a happy day of atonement?—I now generally default to wishing that people have a "memorable" or "meaningful" holiday. Exceptions for the usual "happies" of course—birthday, new year, etc.—but when in doubt, go with "memorable," "meaningful," "special"—something that acknowledges they will bring to their observance what they think is appropriate.
K.Z. in San Antonio, TX, writes: I come from a religiously mixed family and have seen the occasional "Happy Good Friday" and "Happy Yom Kippur" exchanged via text. I think folks should calm down and accept greetings in the spirit that they are offered. even if they expose ignorance of the holiday in question.
Though, in the proper vein of those two holidays, perhaps a greeting along the lines of "Fond remembrances" might make sense.
L.C. in Boston, MA, writes: In response to your answer to your answer to A.G. in Scranton: What's wrong with "Have a reflective Memorial Day?"
Complaints Department
M.S. in Van Nuys, CA, writes: I have been a faithful follower of Electoral-Cote.com for many years. But I must abandon you now. I am sick and tired of seeing Republican "states gained", whether 6 or 4, so many months before the election, at the top, so fake, so discouraging, and your insistence on focusing so much on polls, polls, polls. I do not believe them. I am disgusted by them. And I hate that you rely upon them, report upon them, to the detriment of real news.
Do you, two such smart guys, not realize that by covering the big fat liar, liar, pants on fire so obsessively in the run-up to the 2020 election, you and the rest of the so-called media gave him about 3 billion dollars in free advertising? That may have cost Hillary that election? Could you be that stupid? that you would do it again, now, when Trump is not just running for election as president but to become dictator? You amaze me. You disappoint me. I give up on you. Grow up. Think of Walter Cronkite, think of Edward R. Murrow. They were real journalists. Or are you both too young and puerile even to know their history?
I beg your pardon. I did not set out to insult you. But you have lost me as a formerly faithful reader. What you seem to miss entirely about publishing faulty polls, many months in advance of an election, is that your polling reporting may become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Sorry to say, but shame on you. Just for the record, I just turned 80 years old, was a university professor then a practicing lawyer for 35 years. I have followed politics since I was 10 years old and wrote a letter to then President Eisenhower to disapprove of a bill he vetoed (a raise for postal workers, of which my father was one) to question his judgment. You both are much younger than I am, haven't followed as many elections, or lived through as much U.S. history.
STOP with the polls and predictions! You do a disservice rather than a service to your readers.
(V) & (Z) respond: For the record, the Votemaster is actually older than you are.
J.N. in Stockholm, Sweden, writes: You may think gay jokes are "cute," but they are OLD and outdated. Honestly, it is starting to piss me off. You two are smarter than that. Knock it off.
For example: (V) & (Z) respond: That's why the prostitutes, and especially the alternate prostitutes, are so important. Especially the male ones, and especially if Larry Craig is attending.
(V) & (Z) respond: Actually, the only part of that we intended as a joke was the "alternate prostitutes" part. The rest was intended as a salient comment on the hypocrisy of certain politicians and political parties.
Gallimaufry
R.L.D. in Sundance, WY, writes: The experience of J.B. in Hutto (Go Hippos!) with the political science essay assignment where they had to advocate for the opposite of their personal beliefs on a controversial topic reminded me of my own experience in high school and college debate competitions.
For those not aware, there is a governing body that specifies a resolution to be used nationwide and each team is required to be argue both for and against the resolution (generally alternating from round to round). Since the standard resolution is typically not a particularly personal hot-button issue and everybody is dealing with the same issue, this addresses most if not all of the concerns (Z) mentioned with regard to J.B.'s assignment and yet, forces a team to consider both sides of the argument and defend against attacks against both sides of the argument.
To this day, I find myself well prepared to go up against partisans who only know their side's talking points and haven't given any thought to why they support a given proposition. It's especially satisfying when I point out obvious holes in their argument. For example, opponents of birthright citizenship like to argue that the "under the jurisdiction thereof" language in the Fourteenth Amendment means the children of illegal immigrants ought not be granted automatic citizenship because their parents are not under the jurisdiction of the United States or any of them. I get a great deal of satisfaction pointing out that they most certainly want illegal immigrants who commit crimes to be under the jurisdiction of the state and therefore granting them all what is essentially diplomatic immunity is probably not the kind of policy they would prefer.
D.M. in Alameda, CA, writes: Bill Walton died last week, and the tributes and obits have been fulsome indeed, whether calling him one of the greatest basketball players of all time, or seeing him as the world's biggest Deadhead. However, very little has been written about his politics, in particular his outspoken opposition to the Vietnam War and capitalism in general during the mid-1970's, and no one that I have read has mentioned his good friend Jack Scott. Jack was a fighter for social justice in athletics for his whole life, and he and his wife, Mickie, should be remembered.
In June of 2023, ESPN released a four part series on Bill called "The Luckiest Man in the World," directed by Steve James, who made the award-winning film Hoop Dreams in 1994. The second and third parts of series looks at Bill's most political period and the things that his outspoken views cost him... it is also one hell of a good basketball film. Take a look at it: Bill was a great man, and Steve James does a great job of telling his story.
L.S. in Greensboro, NC, writes: Looking at the photo of the Mike Syzmanski gravesite with the bronze dachshunds, I noticed that there is no date of death. A little searching came up with this article. Sounds like a really cool guy!
(V) & (Z) respond: There was nowhere to note this last week, but (Z) actually use to work with Mike, and yes, he is.
Final Words
(V) & (Z) write: We mentioned Thomas Jefferson's headstone yesterday, specifically to point out that he did not mention his time as president on it. This seemed like a good opportunity to provide an illustration:
If you have suggestions for this feature, please send them along.
Previous | Next
Main page for smartphones
Main page for tablets and computers