Trump to Speak to Congress Tonight

Tonight, Donald Trump will give a speech to a joint session of Congress. It is happening at the same time, on the calendar, as a State of the Union speech. It will be a rundown of what's going on with the country, as Trump sees it, just like a State of the Union speech. However, since Ronald Reagan's presidency, the first such speech of each president's term is not called a State of the Union Speech, it's called a Joint Address to Congress.

Before anyone asks, it's not entirely clear why St. Ronnie of Reagan made a point of bestowing a different name on the speech the first time he spoke to a joint session of Congress. However, it was that pinko commie FDR who first used the name "State of the Union," for the address in which he laid out some major New Deal goals in 1934. And, in 1981, that pinko commie Jimmy Carter delivered a (written) SOTU just less than a month before Reagan made his first speech to Congress. So, it's a pretty good guess that The Gipper was trying to distance himself from one Democrat, or the other, or both. In any event, every president since has declined to describe their first speech to Congress as a State of the Union address, even though it clearly is one.

So, what is Trump going to talk about? Undoubtedly, there will be much bragging about DOGE, and the efforts to cut government "waste." Elon Musk will presumably be in the audience, and will likely be asked to stand up and take a bow. Everyone will be watching to see if he's wearing a suit, for once, and if he's wearing one of those black MAGA hats. It would be great theater if he were to whip out his gold-accented chainsaw and wave it around, but tolerating that is probably asking a bit much of Capitol security. If you'd like a wild prediction with no reporting whatsoever to back it up, well, it's not impossible that Trump will do what he did with Rush Limbaugh and surprise Musk with the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Another major topic will be immigration, and Trump will brag about how great a job he and his team are doing of combating the brown-skinned hordes. If you decide to watch, just remember that during this part of the speech, he will be lying through his teeth. Thus far, the administration has been considerably less successful than either the Biden or Obama administrations were at expelling undocumented immigrants from the country. Since Trump lambasted both of those presidents' immigration policies as failures then, by transitive property, Trump's immigration policies are worse than a failure. It is entirely possible that the current administration will have greater success in the future, but Trump never says: "We haven't done great so far, but wait until you see what's coming." No, he always brags about what he's already done, and how amazing it is. Certainly he's not going to break with precedent tonight.

Certainly, the President will also give some attention to Ukraine (and see below). There will be some amount of virtue signalling, in which Trump presents himself as the victim, and Volodymyr Zelenskyy as a big meanie. It is always remarkable how, for someone who is ostensibly so strong and manly, Trump is constantly whining about those who "bullied" him. And here's another wild prediction with no reporting whatsoever to back it up: The Donald loves to make a big splash, and he hates NATO, so he could use this occasion to announce that he's formally withdrawing the U.S. from that alliance. Should Trump make such an announcement, we only hope the feed immediately cuts to the senators sitting in the audience, so we can see the blood drain from the faces of Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and at least a dozen of his GOP colleagues.

Trump will also talk about tariffs (again, see below for more). What he will say about the tariffs, we don't have the faintest idea. It would be in character for him to present them as the biggest and most beautiful tariffs in American history, and to talk about how he's struck a blow for truth, justice and the American Way. Or, he might talk about how if Canada really wants to avoid tariffs, it should immediately agree to become the 51st state. Or... well, who knows?

As to the Democrats, they have largely decided that dramatic acts—like Nancy Pelosi tearing up Trump's SOTU back in 2020—do not serve their current goals. We're not sure they're right about that—Democratic voters seem to be thirsting for something that shows that the Party is resisting the President. Nonetheless, led by House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), the Democrats' approach is going to be pretty passive, and will involve things like inviting fired federal employees to sit in the gallery.

In addition, once Trump is done speaking, there will be three responses from the Democratic side of the aisle. Giving the first, and main, response is newly minted Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), who is about as middle-of-the-road as it gets in the Democratic Party. In case you are wondering what the Party leaders' strategy is going to be in 2026 and 2028, this is a pretty good clue. Ostensibly, delivering the response to the State of the Union Joint Address to Congress is an honor that allows an up-and-coming member of the minority party to burnish their national brand. We can't think of too many folks who actually managed to use it in this way, while we can think of plenty—e.g., Sen. Katie Britt (R-AL)—who managed to make themselves into the butt of jokes with clumsy, poorly delivered responses. Slotkin is a more experienced public speaker than Britt, though, so maybe the Michigander will surprise us.

If you prefer your response en Español, then that duty will fall to Rep. Adriano Espaillat (D-NY). Or, if you like your response with a dash of class warfare, then the Working Families Party response will be proffered by Rep. Lateefah Simon (D-CA). For those who care to watch, Trump will begin speaking at 9:00 p.m. ET. All of the major news networks are set to carry the address, and so is Fox. If you prefer your spin, outright lies, braggadocio and posturing in streaming form, then C-SPAN will have Trump's address, followed by those of the Democrats, here. (Z)

Trumponomic Warfare, Part I: The Tariffs

By the time you read this, blanket 25% tariffs on all goods entering the U.S. from Mexico and Canada, along with 20% tariffs on goods from China, will have taken effect. There are a small number of exceptions, most obviously that energy coming from Canada will only be taxed at 10%.

At this point, in what will seem to be a non sequitur, let us talk about the now-deceased baseball player Pete Rose for a moment. Rose, as most readers will know, was kicked out of baseball because, while managing the Cincinnati Reds, he bet on the team to win. Thanks to the Black Sox scandal, this is a major no-no—so much so that a sign warning everyone not to do it is posted in every Major League clubhouse. Rose was also a sleazeball outside of baseball, and did a stretch in prison for tax evasion.

This weekend, Donald Trump announced that he will give a "full pardon" to Rose, even though Rose is no longer around to enjoy it. And even though he has no direct power over Major League Baseball policy, the President also opined that Rose should be formally reinstated back into baseball, and that he should be admitted into the Baseball Hall of Fame, since Rose only bet on his team to win. Ipso facto, no actual harm done.

We don't want to go too much off the beaten track, but what we will say is that there are certainly a few compelling arguments for bestowing forgiveness upon Rose, at least in terms of his baseball-related punishments. For example, you could point out that his crimes against baseball took place only while he was a manager. So, perhaps Rose the manager should never be admitted into the Hall of Fame, but Rose the legendary player should be. Don't think we are embracing this argument, necessarily. We just point it out as a potentially valid line of reasoning.

Trump's argument for Rose's reinstatement, on the other hand, is simultaneously knee-jerk and stupid. First, "I only bet on my team to win" is no defense, since a manager (like Rose) could very well manage differently in games where he does have a bet versus games where he does not have a bet, which means the integrity of play would still be affected. There is considerable evidence that this is indeed what happened; specifically, that Rose overused star pitcher Jose Rijo in games where he (Rose) had a bet on the outcome. And this is before we talk about the possibility of someone getting deep into hock with bookies, and being forced to do... whatever in order to bail themselves out of trouble.

The point here is that in a low-stakes situation where Trump has no particular reason to misrepresent his position, he has a take that can only be described as ignorant. And that just affirms our sense that he really and truly does have a simplistic view of tariffs as some sort of magic pill that can solve... whatever problem he thinks he is solving.

For the record, the White House has explained exactly why it imposed tariffs today. Here's the key line from the press release issued yesterday:

While President Trump gave both Canada and Mexico ample opportunity to curb the dangerous cartel activity and influx of lethal drugs flowing into our country, they have failed to adequately address the situation.

The flow of contraband drugs like fentanyl into the United States, through illicit distribution networks, has created a national emergency, including a public health crisis.

This is complete and utter bull**it, of course. Trump has been in office for 5 weeks. He's been pressuring Canada and Mexico on the fentanyl for a little over half of that. How could they possibly make any meaningful progress in such a short time? Or, to put it another way, if it's so easy, how come Trump's team hasn't made any meaningful progress on the fentanyl issue—not in the 5 weeks he's been in office this time, not in the 4 years he was in office the last time?

In short, because Trump's understanding of how tariffs work would earn him a D- on an Econ 101 midterm, and because he apparently thinks that the tariffs have something to do with the national debt, and because his official position on the tariffs is just nonsensical scapegoating, we find it very difficult to understand exactly what he's trying to accomplish, much less to figure out what "victory" will look like. Certainly, we can speculate as to what he's trying to accomplish—create a distraction, given the various embarrassments of DOGE, to take one possible example—but it would just be wild guesses.

That said, we do know a couple of things. The first is that he already "imposed" tariffs once before, and then quickly backed down, very possibly in response to the markets getting spooked. Well, the Dow fell about 800 points yesterday, the S&P 500 was down 2.1%, and the Nasdaq Composite dropped 3%. That's the worst day the market has had all year, and the futures market last night did not suggest a rebound is in the offing. So, it's not out of the question that sometime today—maybe in his address to Congress—Trump will back down again, wagging his finger and warning Canada and Mexico that they have ONE MORE CHANCE to do... whatever.

The other thing we know is that Canada, in particular, is set to respond with... enthusiasm, let's say. PM Justin Trudeau has already imposed reciprocal tariffs equal in scope to the ones from Trump. And, as readers of this site surely know, the Canadians are MAD. So, not only does Trudeau have political cover to impose the tariffs, but the Canadian public is going to be thrilled to see them. To take another example, Doug Ford, who was reelected as the premier of Ontario last week, was practically doing a jig yesterday when he announced that there would not only be tariffs on American goods, but that he planned to cut off electricity exports to the U.S. "with a smile on my face." In other words, if Trump thinks he is going to force the leaders of Canada to their knees, he looks to be seriously mistaken.

So, that is where things stand as of 2:00 a.m. PT Tuesday morning. Who knows where they will stand as of 2:00 a.m. PT on Wednesday morning. (Z)

Trumponomic Warfare, Part II: Ukraine

In the past 24 hours, there have been a couple of policy announcements on the Russo-Ukrainian front. First, and more importantly, Donald Trump ordered that all military aid to Ukraine be paused. A White House spokesperson explained:

The President has been clear that he is focused on peace. We need our partners to be committed to that goal as well. We are pausing and reviewing our aid to ensure that it is contributing to a solution.

Trump, of course, is not legally entitled to impound the funds, as Congress has already appropriated them and directed they be sent to Ukraine. But the President knows full well that even if lawsuits are filed, and even if they work their way through the court system, and even if the courts rule against the administration, it will take so long that by the time it's all said and done, Ukraine could well be the 47th oblast of Russia. So, the administration can effectively sit on the money for pretty much as long as it wants to, without much in the way of recrimination.

At the same time that the White House was announcing this new policy, an official was explaining to Fox correspondent Peter Doocy what Trump wants from Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Doocy reported:

I have been told by a senior official here that nothing's going to happen with this minerals deal until Zelenskyy goes in front of cameras and makes an explicit public apology for the way that he behaved himself, behaved in the Oval Office with that meeting.

Such a demand has no real precedent in the annals of American diplomatic history. Every other administration took the view that the needs of the nation are big, and the personal needs of the president and his ego pale in comparison. Even when a foreign leader embarrasses an American leader, the price of "satisfaction" just isn't worth it. Richard Nixon, just to take one obvious example, was not thrilled when Nikita Khrushchev took off his shoe and pounded it on that podium. But he did not run home to Dwight D. Eisenhower and say, "Ike, you MUST demand an apology from Khrushchev."

This said, if an apology will satisfy Trump, we are sure Zelenskyy could find a way to make that happen. We don't think it's a particularly bold statement to say that Zelenskyy has proven to be a bigger man than Trump, and certainly a man who is vastly more willing to put the needs of his country first. Yes, as we have written, Zelenskyy needs to save face before his people and before the nations of the world, and cannot afford to project weakness. But the Ukrainian knows a thing or two about diplomacy, and more than a thing or two about acting, and could undoubtedly deliver an apology that would officially fulfill Trump's demands, but that everyone would know was delivered with Zelenskyy's fingers crossed behind his back.

However, we tend to doubt that an apology will really be sufficient. One thinks of Lucy holding the ball for Charlie Brown, only to yank it away at the last minute. Trump is clearly engaging in some personal score-settling here, and may well be thinking it would be fun to get Zelenskyy to yield, on bended knee, only to say "Sorry! Too late! Begone!" So, Zelenskyy may take a pass on trying to make nice to Trump, at least for now, especially since the Ukrainian knows that: (1) Trump is getting a lot of pressure, behind the scenes, from Republicans who want him to grow up and get the Ukraine minerals deal back on track, and (2) the more obnoxious Trump acts, the more unified the support of the nations of Europe becomes.

Incidentally, we have pointed out a number of times that Trump and J.D. Vance appear to be running plays from the Soviet playbook, which they might have learned from... some friendly person who might have experience in such matters. But, in the end, what do we know about Russian trickery? It's not like we're former CIA operatives, or anything like that. At least, that's our official story. On the other hand, someone who definitely would know something about that is former Polish leader Lech Wałęsa, who is still going strong at 81 years of age. He, along with 38 other former political prisoners of the Soviet regime, wrote a letter to Trump that was delivered yesterday. It says:

We look upon your meeting with the president of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, with horror and distaste. To say you were waiting for him to show respect and gratitude for material help given by the U.S.A. is insulting.

Gratitude is owed the heroic Ukrainian soldiers who spilled their blood in the cause of a free world. For more than eleven years, they fell on the front in the name of freedom's values and for the freedom of their fatherland, which was attacked by Putinite Russia.

We don't understand how a leader of a nation which is the symbol of the free world is unable to see that.

The atmosphere in the Oval Office reminded us of the kind of discussions that the Polish political police convened in Soviet era interrogation rooms and Communist courts. Prosecutors and judges, on the orders of the Communist political police also explained to us, that they held all the cards and we held none.

They demanded that we stop our activities, arguing that thousands of innocent people were suffering due to the activities of the Solidarity opposition in the 1970s and 1980s. They took away our freedom and citizens' rights on the grounds that we didn't agree to work with the authorities and we didn't show them gratitude.

We are shocked that you treated President Zelenskyy the same way...

If you would like to read the original letter, it's here, but you better be fluent in Polish.

And that brings us to the other Russo-Ukrainian policy decision, one that the administration seems to have tried to sneak in under the radar. Secretary of "Defense" Pete Hegseth has ordered his agency to pause all cyber operations against Russia. This decision was actually announced last month, but it only became public yesterday, thanks to leaks in the Pentagon.

Hegseth is not commenting publicly, of course, and his order was extremely vague. So, it's not entirely clear how long the pause will be, the full scope of operations that will be affected, or what his reasoning for the order is. We can certainly think of legitimate reasons for this shift in policy. For example: "The CIA is better at this than the DoD, so the DoD is transferring all relevant resources and personnel." Or: "We've been spending $500 million a year on this project, with very limited results, and think we can do better spending that money elsewhere."

However, in the absence of a clear justification, and given that Team Trump tried to sneak this past everyone, doesn't Occam's razor suggest that the explanation here is that the Trump administration is in cahoots with the Russians? We don't like to be alarmist, or conspiratorial, but we've been pondering this story all day, and do not see a more logical explanation. If any readers see what we do not, and want to set us straight, the e-mail address is comments@electoral-vote.com. For what it's worth, Rep. Carlos Gimenez (R-FL) is pretty Trumpy, and when he learned of this news, he could not come up with an innocent explanation, either. (Z)

Trumponomic Warfare, Part III: DOGE

Relative to last week, things are relatively quiet on the DOGE front right now. Elon Musk is still tilting at the "five bullet points" windmill, having sent a third mass e-mail making that demand. We are also informed by a couple of readers, who wish to remain anonymous, that the "plan," such as it is, is to require each employee to submit a bullet-points e-mail every single week. It really couldn't be more obvious that the point is to degrade federal employees so much, and to make their working conditions so toxic, that huge numbers of them voluntarily quit.

And speaking of quitting—although quitting of the involuntary sort—the White House has painted itself into a wee bit of a corner when it comes to Musk. In order to avoid background checks, and financial disclosures, and divestment of certain investments and other rules to which full-time federal employees are subject, the administration has confirmed that Musk is what is known as a "special government employee."

We'd agree he's "special," though not in the way that the government means it. In fact, "special government employee" is a precise term that has a precise meaning with a precise set of rules. In brief, because such employees don't have to jump through all the hoops, they are supposed to work no more than 130 days a year. Assuming Musk is taking weekends off, perhaps so he can keep his various baby mamas well supplied with his seed, he'll hit the 130-day mark early this summer. Obviously, Trump and Musk don't think that rules apply to them. Further, it's not at all clear to us how something like this is enforceable; who decides which day is a "day of work" and which day is "two pals hanging out in the Oval Office"? That said, we pass it along because it does give Democrats something concrete to point to and complain about, should they wish to seize the opportunity once June rolls around.

Anyhow, the main reason we decided to write this item was a piece that Politico had yesterday, under the headline: "Dems' DOGE problem may be bigger than they thought: Democratic polling shows Musk is underwater. But the idea of cutting government is more popular." On one hand, like most websites that are trying to keep the lights on, Politico is sometimes prone to clickbait-y headlines. On the other hand, if DOGE is more popular than we perceived, we would want to know that, to avoid writing something stupid and unfounded.

So, of course we clicked on and read the article, and our conclusion is... clickbait. The primary basis for the piece is actually the newest poll from CBS/YouGov. And this quote from the Politico piece makes very clear which data point the two authors (Adam Wren and Elena Schneider) zeroed in on: "[O]ver the weekend, came new polling by CBS News/YouGov that found a majority of respondents, 51 percent, generally approve of Trump's efforts to cut staff at government agencies like USAID."

We have no specific knowledge that Wren and Schneider were being deliberately dishonest. And indeed, they might have thought they found the correct "angle" from which to write. But, boy howdy, do we have two major problems with the way in which they interpret and frame the CBS/YouGov poll. The lesser of the two problems is that the Politico reporting, as readers can see for themselves from the direct quote, seems to suggest that respondents were OK with slashing USAID. As we have written many, many, many times, the wording of poll questions matters A LOT. And the actual question that was asked was: "Do you approve or disapprove of the Trump administration's efforts to reduce the number of people working at federal government agencies?" There is, quite obviously, nothing in there about USAID. And we strongly suspect that if USAID (which is a very specific victim, and one likely to generate some sympathy) had been in there, the numbers would have been different.

That brings us to the second problem, which is both related, and a bit more significant, in our view. Poll respondents are ALWAYS fairly enthusiastic when asked about the "ends." If we were to run a poll, we'd undoubtedly get a sizable majority of "yes" answers in response to questions like these:

• Do you want to see Social Security strengthened, so it will remain available to future generations?
• Would you like teachers to be paid more?
• Do you support health insurance for all Americans?
• Should veterans of the U.S. armed forces receive free housing for life?
• Should the U.S. government do everything possible to fight cancer?

The devil, of course, is in the details. Or, to round out the pairing we commenced above, the "means." It's easy to support any and all of these programs. It's much harder when it becomes clear that the trade-off is higher taxes, or reduced benefits, or cuts in other programs, or putting useful people out of work, etc.

We would suggest that the voting public's response to DOGE cannot plausibly be judged until the job cuts have had time to fully manifest. If 500,000 federal employees are terminated, and yet the government still seems to be operating normally, then voters will probably remain supportive of what Elon Musk is doing. On the other hand, if people suddenly can't get the IRS on the phone to answer their tax questions, or their Social Security payments are delayed, or the vacation they planned at a national park has to be canceled because there's no staffing, then some of that 51% is going to flip over to the side of that 49%. The same could be expected to happen if the public develops a sense that DOGE was never about efficiency, and was really about setting up tax breaks for millionaires.

So, we'd say that a wait-and-see approach is called for, here. That said, if you have to make an early guess, we think that 51% is actually a pretty rotten starting point for the administration, given that we're dealing with a generally well-liked idea (cutting government waste) and that no actual consequences have been felt by most people, as yet. (Z)

Marshall the Latest to Have a Bad Town Hall

As long as we're talking about the "early returns" on the efforts of DOGE, we'll pass along that Sen. Roger Marshall (R-KS) had the same experience this weekend that a number of his GOP colleagues have had. He had a town hall, in Oakley (which is in the western part of the state, is kind of in the middle of nowhere, and is in an R+18 district), and it was overrun by people angry about what the Trump administration is doing. They asked about DOGE (and, in particular, its impact on veterans). They asked about Ukraine. They sometimes booed. Eventually, the Senator became fed up and stormed out 20 minutes early.

After the fiasco, an angry Donald Trump posted this to his boutique social media platform:

Paid "troublemakers" are attending Republican Town Hall Meetings. It is all part of the game for the Democrats, but just like our big LANDSLIDE ELECTION, it's not going to work for them!

Marshall reposted the message to eX-Twitter, along with the observation: "Can confirm."

It is not impossible that Trump and Marshall are right. The crowds that attend such events are not exactly a random sampling of the population, and while we seriously doubt anyone was paid to be there, the event certainly could have primarily attracted people who are not Trumpers and who wanted a chance to make some noise.

That said, if we were Marshall or some other Republican officeholder, we would not be too confident in that assessment. As we note, the Kansas event this weekend was held in a very rural, very red area. Several of the people there who spoke to reporters are themselves elected officials, holding some sort of small-town office. It seems improbable that an R+18 district is electing a bunch of Bernie Sanders clones to run their communities.

Since Trump won't be running for office again, he doesn't have to worry all that much about angering voters. Someone like Marshall has to proceed with a bit more caution, though—remember that Kansas, while red, has a Democratic governor. GOP members in states that are more purple have to be more cautious still. It's all good and well to blame Antifa or ACORN or some other group when a town hall goes south, but every member of Congress gets feedback from many different sources (calls, letters, e-mails) and so has some idea if their claims of a conspiracy really hold water.

Put another way, even if you're not a Trumper or a Republican, there is value in communicating with your representative and/or your senators, to share with them your views on the issues of the day. If ever they need to be paying close attention to what their constituents think, now is the time. (Z)

You Can Take the Politician out of the Family...

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is an embarrassment to most of his family. That's not our best guess; his siblings and cousins have said it openly. That said, he's still a Kennedy, which means that being a politician—and, in particular, being rather disingenuous—is embedded deep in his DNA. There were a couple of reminders of that yesterday.

First, we've already written about the measles outbreak in Texas. And our main observations in that item were: (1) this may or may not be the fault of Donald Trump and/or Kennedy, and (2) voters are likely to blame them, regardless of whether or not the blame is deserved.

Kennedy would like to keep his new job. He also knows full well that Trump has little loyalty to him, and would be happy to make the HHS Secretary into a scapegoat, should the situation call for it. And so, although RFK Jr. has been broadly anti-vaccine for many years, and has specifically declared that the MMR vaccine is evil and causes autism, he's magically had a change of heart. Literally 2 days after a Cabinet meeting at which he decreed that the emerging epidemic in Texas was no big deal, Kennedy made this announcement on eX-Twitter:

My heart goes out to the families impacted by the current measles outbreak in TX. I recognize the serious impact of this outbreak on families, children, and healthcare workers.

Here at @HHSGov we have:

• Supported Texas Department of Health through technical assistance and vaccines (2K MMR doses through immunization program).
• Provided lab support to better track the virus causing the outbreak.
• Communicated with public health officials every day in all affected areas to support their response and ensure they have the resources they need.
• Provided communications materials for the affected populations in Low German.
• Updated the CDC website with guidance on measles management to include physician-administered outpatient vitamin A.

We will continue to fund Texas' immunization program. Ending the measles outbreak is a top priority for me and my extraordinary team at HHS.

We provide the full tweet for this reason: If we had not told you the source of this message, and instead had tried to present it as a tweet sent out by Anthony Fauci a couple of years ago, you would have bought it, right? Is there ANYTHING here that is inconsistent with the approach seen under Fauci and other grown-ups of administrations past? It gives us some hope that maybe thousands of innocent kids won't actually have to die in order to indulge Bobby Jr.'s conspiratorial thinking.

On the other hand, the other Kennedy-centric story of the day robs us of some of that hope. In an announcement that was clearly prompted by instructions from the White House, the HHS Secretary advised that the various federal research grants that have been awarded to Columbia University are going to be reviewed, because the administration does not believe the university has done enough to combat antisemitism. Kennedy decreed:

Anti-Semitism—like racism—is a spiritual and moral malady that sickens societies and kills people with lethalities comparable to history's most deadly plagues. In recent years, the censorship and false narratives of woke cancel culture have transformed our great universities into greenhouses for this deadly and virulent pestilence. Making America healthy means building communities of trust and mutual respect, based on speech freedom and open debate.

We would agree that antisemitism is a very bad thing, and should be resisted wherever possible. But does anyone really think that combating antisemitism is the main goal here? Or even one of the goals? Does some biochemist working on phenylacetone precursors, or some physicist trying to build a better laser, or some psychologist working on PTSD treatment strategies, have anything to do with the campus protests, or with the policies governing the protests? This is either: (1) another "cost-cutting" measure, or (2) a shot across the bow, warning that Columbia and other research universities better not say or do anything that runs contradictory to the administration's stated goals, or (3) both.

While we think Bobby Jr. is kooky, we don't think he's stupid. So, he undoubtedly knows that he's being used as a pawn here. But, as we note, he wants to keep his job, so when Trump says "jump," RFK says "Over the chemtrails?" (Z)

---

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

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

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

---

Email a link to a friend.

---The Votemaster and Zenger