Remember, tomorrow is non-political questions day. We have already gotten many good fun questions about history, film, food, music, etc., but we can always use more. If you have 'em, send 'em to questions@electoral-vote.com, preferably with subject line "Fun Question" (or "Fun Questions").

The Epstein Files: Every Day, this Story Just Gets More Wild and Woolly

It's like a broken record, but there were a whole bunch more Epstein-related stories yesterday. Here are the biggest ones:

• Apalachin Meeting: Perhaps some readers will know about the infamous Apalachin meeting, which is almost certainly the best-known mafia summit (and was the clear inspiration for the "meeting of the five families" scene in The Godfather). Anyhow, a whole bunch of crooks got together on November 14, 1957, so they could plot their crooked deeds. The problem is that law enforcement was onto them, and so raided the meeting and nabbed 60 mafiosi.
  
  On a completely unrelated note, Deputy AG Todd Blanche met with Ghislaine Maxwell yesterday, in the prison in Florida where she was incarcerated. Again, this comes just 2 weeks after Blanche said there was no good reason to meet with her. They spoke for 5 hours, and Blanche described the conversation as "very productive." They are going to talk again today.
  
  We don't know exactly how the administration is going to try to use this, but we do know it doesn't pass the smell test. To start, (L) checked in and reminded us that if this was a legitimate interview, it would be conducted by an investigator, like an FBI agent, because of the possibility they might have to testify about what they were told. Further, after they talk for 6 or 7 or 8 or 9 hours, how is Blanche going to present their conversation? "Yeah, there's nothing there. Took 9 hours to figure that out!" Or maybe "Ms. Maxwell told me many interesting things, but Donald Trump didn't come up once!" Is anyone going to believe these things?
  
  Our best guess, such as it is, is that Blanche will say nothing, claiming confidentiality, or national security concerns, or attorney-client privilege, or presidential immunity, or some other such excuse. Meanwhile, (L) notes that 6 or 7 or 8 or 9 hours is just about the right amount of time to agree on a plea bargain and a cover story, and to hammer out all the details.
  
  
• Drip, Drip, Drip: As we have noted this week, anyone and everyone is looking under rocks for hard evidence that connects Donald Trump to Jeffrey Epstein. Yesterday's sweepstakes winner was The New York Times, which published a photo of a copy of Trump: The Art of the Comeback inscribed to Epstein by his good friend:
  
  
  
  The paper also published a photo of Trump and Epstein with singer James Brown (another sex offender, allegedly). And it reported that its staffers have seen a list of contributors to the Epstein 50th birthday book, and that Trump was on the list, thus substantially validating the story in The Wall Street Journal.
  
  Once again, the Times' reporting does not tell us anything we did not already know. But the more of this stuff there is, the more the story remains in the headlines, and the harder it is to sell the "Epstein? Never heard of him." bit.
  
  
• The Conspiracy Deepens: On Wednesday, attorney Roy Black, who represented Epstein in the plea-deal negotiations that resulted in a sweetheart deal, died. Immediately, the QAnon types were all over the Internet, talking about how Black's death was "so sudden" and "so unexpected" and wondering what he knew, and why he had to be silenced, etc.
  
  We actually have a pretty good theory as to why he died, and here it is: He was 80, and had been in poor health. We know, we're going out on a limb there, but we feel pretty good about it. Anyhow, as is the case with conspiracy theories, every event gets incorporated into the conspiracy, no matter how little sense it actually makes. Which raises the obvious question: What did Hulk Hogan know, and when did he know it? (Also see below.)
  
  
• Creating Distractions: While the conspiracists assume that every new development related to Epstein is part of the conspiracy, we assume that every attempt to create some non-Epstein headlines is part of the effort to distract people from the scandal. We might be wrong about that, in some cases, but we suspect we're largely correct.
  
  Here is a list of distractions (or possible distractions) from the last 24 hours or so:
  
  
  • Donald Trump took a tour of the new Federal Reserve building that is under construction, with Fed Chair Jerome Powell in tow. During this tour, Trump ambushed Powell, pulled a document out of his pocket, declared that Powell had lied about $500 million in cost overruns, and said the document proved it. Powell was understandably stunned, and the two men argued in front of reporters, until the Chair determined that the $500 million was actually for a building completed several years ago, and so had nothing to do with the current construction.
    
    
  • House Republicans announced that they have formed yet another select committee that will look into the 1/6 insurrection. It will be led by Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-GA), and will undoubtedly discover all sorts of valuable clues that show that 1/6 was the work of Antifa, or Black Lives Matter, or Acorn, or Planned Parenthood, or the Soros family.
    
    
  • While House Republicans were working on one distraction, Senate Republicans were working on another, with Sens. John Cornyn (R-TX) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) calling on the White House to appoint a special counsel to look into DNI Tulsi Gabbard's (ludicrous) claims about Barack Obama and the 2016 election. Cornyn, obviously, is trying to make nice with MAGA-world, as he worries about losing his primary next year to fire-breathing Trumper Ken Paxton. Graham, meanwhile, reminds us daily that members of the world's second-oldest profession (politics) are often simultaneously members of the world's oldest profession.
    
    
  • Trump signed an executive order demanding that his Cabinet find a way to stop private entities from paying student athletes. This is a ship that has already sailed, several years ago.
  
  Again, we do not know if these things are actually meant to be distractors from Epstein, but we are comfortable assuming, under the circumstances, that most of them are.
  
  
• Passing the Buck: Recall that when Richard Nixon was trying to disappear the Watergate scandal, he appointed a special prosecutor to conduct an investigation, despite knowing full well that his (Nixon's) hands were dirty. It was a risky, and ultimately unwise, gamble, based on Nixon's belief that the American people would think: "Well, if Nixon was actually guilty, he certainly would not appoint a special prosecutor."
  
  Donald Trump has made almost exactly the same error with "Attorney General" Pam Bondi, ordering her and a team of dozens of FBI agents under her leadership to examine hundreds of thousands of pages of files, knowing full well that his name appears within (probably hundreds of times). He presumably plans to announce the "results" of the "investigation" at some point, which will undoubtedly "exonerate" him. That he thinks this will somehow quiet the scandal is arguably even more delusional than what was going on in Nixon's head half a century ago.
  
  We mention this, in particular, because the adjunct to protecting Trump by creating a distraction is protecting Trump by passing the buck. And so, some House Republicans are trying to pin the blame on Bondi for this whole mess. This is nonsensical; first, it was Trump's idea to go through the files, and second, the files are actually just a symptom of the problem, and not actually the problem themselves.
  
  And we think the most interesting thing here is actually this: Trump, through his clumsy maneuvering, has created the same problem for himself that Nixon did—the people he might try to throw under the bus are the ones who now know his secrets (whatever they may be). If Trump tries to hang this on Bondi, or FBI Director Kash Patel, or FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino by lopping their heads off, they could run to Congress, the press, the U.S. Attorney's office, or all of the above and blab whatever it is they know. And that's before we consider that there's apparently a mole in the FBI who is feeding information to Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL). Shades of Deep Throat, anyone?
  
  We actually would guess that Trump is getting pretty close to firing someone prominent, in hopes of somehow changing the narrative. Our guess is Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. First, because he's a giant screw-up who keeps embarrassing the administration. Second, because a lot of the base hates him. Third, because he is less likely to have dirt he can spill, as compared to, say, Bondi. Fourth, because even if he does have some dirt, he's the type who might take the hit to save Trump, kind of like G. Gordon Liddy volunteered to be assassinated so Nixon could pin all of Watergate on him.

It's 72 hours until we do another news-driven posting. One can only imagine what those 72 hours will bring on the Epstein front. (Z)

States to White House: Extra Information on Voters Is Unneeded, Won't be Shared

Donald Trump's executive order requiring that voter registration forms include verification of citizenship may have been put on hold by the courts, but that hasn't stopped his lackey, Pam Bondi, from trying to muck around in state elections with an unprecedented demand for voter information. The Department of Justice sent letters to several states demanding information related to voter registration, voting systems, how noncitizens are identified, and how voter information is updated, and, in some cases, demanding access to voting machines themselves. Other White House officials have contacted county clerks directly to see if they would allow them access to their voting machines. Jeff Small, an official who said he worked for Stephen Miller, contacted ten county clerks in Colorado and told them that he was reaching out to Republican clerks in Democratic states to see if they'd willingly let them "review" their voting machines. Colorado's Secretary of State helpfully reminded Small, former chief of staff for Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO), that tampering with the voting systems is a felony.

The letters were signed by Harmeet Dhillon, who heads up the Civil Rights Division and is a former Trump campaign adviser, and were sent to Colorado, Nevada, Wisconsin, New Hampshire and other states demanding a copy of state voter rolls. State laws vary in how they handle access to voter registration information. In California, for example, the law allows candidates, parties, nonprofits and other agencies doing election work to access the information for a fee, though certain private information is redacted. In Wisconsin, any member of the public can access the information through a website—again, without certain private information, and for a fee. Here is a handy breakdown of how each state handles requests for voter registration information.

While some of this information may be public, the DoJ and the White House have not explained why they want it, given the limited role the federal government plays in election administration. The concern is that federal officials will use the information to kick some people off voter rolls and further disrupt elections by sowing confusion and chaos and undermining public confidence in the outcome. And the letter to Colorado was especially broad, leaving some to speculate that it was sent in retaliation for the prosecution of Tina Peters, the county clerk who was found guilty of helping an unauthorized person get access to voting equipment.

Thankfully, elections officials from both parties are not taking this power grab lying down. This is less about party politics and more about states' rights and federalism. Remember, in 2017, Mississippi's Republican Secretary of State famously told Trump officials who were demanding detailed voter information to "go jump in the Gulf of Mexico." Presumably, these days, he would tell Bondi and company to go jump in the Gulf of America, but the sentiment would no doubt be the same. The Center for Election Innovation and Research, whose executive director worked in the DoJ's voting section of the Civil Rights Division under Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, held a conference call with 350 state and local elections officials from 33 states to provide information about their rights, the dangers of federal intrusion into their systems, and how to respond.

So far, there has been limited cooperation, but Trump continues to flay the dead horse that is the 2020 election, and he has no shortage of underlings willing to keep the Big Lie going, especially if they need another distraction from Epsteinapalooza. So, we'll keep an eye on this. (L)

Candidate News: Who Will Succeed Tony Evers?

When we last checked in with the gubernatorial races, we covered states A-M. Today, it's states N-Z:

• Nevada: Gov. Joe Lombardo (R-NV) has drawn only one primary opponent, and it's an unserious super-MAGA perennial candidate named Irene Hansen, whose main platform is that she wants a government that tells the truth. It is unfortunate for her that she launched just days before the Epstein saga commenced.
  
  Anyhow, Lombardo is of middling popularity, and he'll eventually face a serious Democratic challenge, probably from state AG Aaron Ford. Consequently, the Governor is trying to burnish his résumé, and his current strategy for doing so is to claim as much credit for the BBB as is possible. This is probably a shrewd strategy, since there is no state with more voters who live on tips than Nevada. On the other hand, if their tax break proves underwhelming, or if more negative aspects of the BBB begin to affect the state, Lombardo could come to regret his choice.
  
  
• New Hampshire: Inasmuch as The Granite State leans blue, Democrats think they really ought to be able to pick off Gov. Kelly Ayotte (R), particularly in a blue wave. However, the early returns are not good. First, you can't beat someone with no one, and the blue team doesn't have a candidate yet. The only person who has even suggested they might think about it is former state Sen. Tom Sherman, who lost badly (57%-41%) to Gov. Chris Sununu (R) when trying for the top job back in 2022. Second, Ayotte is raking the money in, at least by New Hampshire standards. She set a state record for the first half of an off year, bringing in just shy of a million dollars. There are some states where that won't even get you a meeting with the state party, but in New Hampshire, that's some serious lucre.
  
  
• New York: Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) is up for reelection in 2026. She is not terribly popular. In fact, she is sufficiently unpopular that her handpicked right-hand man, Lt. Gov. Antonio Delgado (D), is challenging her in a primary. Delgado was chosen by Hochul after the previous lieutenant governor, Brian Benjamin, was arrested in a corruption scandal and resigned his post. Hochul then plucked Delgado out of Congress to be her #2.
  
  But Hochul is far from being dead meat. Many state Democrats don't think challenging a sitting Democratic governor in a state where Republicans have been making gains recently is a grand idea. Rep. Tom Suozzi (D-NY) tweeted: "Antonio, you are a talented guy, with a great future. Based upon my experience this may not be the most well-thought out idea!" He knows. Suozzi challenged Hochul in a primary in 2022 and lost. Other Democrats, including the Democratic Governors' Association, also back Hochul. So did Delgado's congressional successor, Rep. Pat Ryan (D-NY).
  
  Hochul also has several advantages. First, she is known statewide and he is barely known at all. Second, she already has $15 million in the bank. In her 2022 campaign, she raised $60 million and could probably do it again. That kind of money is probably out of Delgado's league. Third, in terms of ideology, they aren't that different. He isn't a male version of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) by any means. They are both moderates. So what is the argument for him?
  
  The Republicans figure to put up a pretty good fight... assuming they can find a strong candidate. For the last couple of months, it looked like there could be a bloodbath on that side of the contest, pitting the less Trumpy Rep. Mike Lawler against the more Trumpy Rep. Elise Stefanik. However, Lawler announced this week that he is not going to run. That is potentially good news for the Republicans, and for Stefanik, as it means there may not be a bruising primary. That said, it's also good news for the Democrats, as Lawler is more electable than Stefanik. There was a time when Stefanik was a moderate and was a rising star in New York State. But she went all-in on Trump, which may be good for the voters of her district (the R+10 NY-21), and may be good in terms of national politics, but is not a good calling card in New York.
  
  Hochul is certainly aware of this, and is already preparing for a campaign in which she will attempt to paint Trump and Stefanik as being joined at the hip. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) knows it, too. He is encouraging Stefanik to jump in. We presume she is clever enough to know that Jeffries is not on Team Elise, and that his goals are to stick the Republicans with a weak gubernatorial candidate, possibly while also leaving a Republican-held House seat vacant for some number of months. New York does not have a resign-to-run law, but gubernatorial candidates customarily resign their federal offices nonetheless, so as to avoid the impression that they are hedging their bets.
  
  
• Rhode Island: The situation in Rhode Island is sort of a mirror image of the one in New Hampshire. In this case, it is a Democratic governor, Dan McKee, who is vulnerable. Not because he is not a match for the underlying demographics of Rhode Island, and not because of a potential red wave, but because he's very unpopular. The latest Ocean State Poll has him with just 19% approval, against 71% disapproval. That's a staggering 52 points underwater.
  
  That said, Rhode Islanders tend to hate their governors, and while the state was once purple, it's now quite blue. The Republicans do have two declared candidates, state Senate Minority Leader Jessica de la Cruz, and business owner Ashley Kalus, who is semi-Trumpy and who lost the 2022 gubernatorial election. Neither of them is considered to be a particularly strong candidate. What the Democrats are really hoping for, even if they can't say it openly, is that someone, like state AG Peter Neronha (D), gets in on the Democratic primary and knocks off McKee. Then the blue team won't be stuck with a standard-bearer who is, you know, 52 points underwater.
  
  
• South Dakota: The Republicans got their preferred candidate when Rep. Dusty Johnson declared a run. That's quite a name; please feel free to make your own jokes. Johnson will face a primary challenge from Speaker of the state House Jon Hansen, and is expected to win easily, thanks to the backing of the Republican machinery. Gov. Larry Rhoden (R-SD) became governor when Kristi Noem lucked out and drew a get-out-of-South-Dakota card. Rhoden hasn't announced if he wants a full term. Not everyone sees 4 years in Pierre, SD, as their dream job. Noem couldn't wait to leave. A possible Democratic candidate is Robert Arnold, a student at Dakota State who will reach the minimum legal age to serve as governor about 2 months before the general election. His professors are presumably about to get a heaping helping of the excuse that we've all heard a million times: "I couldn't finish my paper in time, I was too busy running for governor."
  
  
• Texas: No Republican is interested in trying to take on Boss Gov. Greg Abbott (R), so he is already planning for the general. The Democrats have two candidates; the one who's gotten attention is Bobby Cole, a folksy rancher who wears a cowboy hat and boots, and drives a big truck, and looks like he came right out of central casting. He's already cut an ad that is getting a fair bit of engagement on social media:
  
  
  
  If you don't want to watch it, he takes shots at Abbott, Donald Trump and Elon Musk, and says he wants to keep the government out of people's private lives, protect Medicaid, legalize pot, and fix the Texas electrical grid. That seems like a pretty good platform for a Texas Democrat to us. We don't expect Cole to become the next governor, but Abbott does have some pretty big liabilities, so you never know.
  
  
• Wisconsin: Other than New York, this is where the biggest news has been in the last week or so. Gov. Tony Evers (D) has the approval of 48% of Wisconsin voters, against 46% who disapprove, putting him two points above water. That may seem poor, but it actually makes him the most popular politician in Wisconsin by a fair margin. That said, while Wisconsinites like him better than anyone else, 55% of them do not want him to run for a third term.
  
  Evers is 73, and has spent 50 years in the public sector, with nearly 20 of that in elective office. Maybe he's had enough, or maybe he didn't like what the polls were telling him, or maybe it was something else, but whatever the case may be, he announced yesterday that he's retiring at the end of this term.
  
  That pretty much automatically makes Wisconsin ground zero for the 2026 gubernatorial elections. In the last four presidential elections, the state has gone D, R, D, R. Meanwhile, the last four governors have been R, D, R, D. Four of the five statewide officials elected on a partisan basis are Democrats (the exception is Treasurer John Leiber), but the legislature is controlled by Republicans (thanks, in no small part, to gerrymandering). It's pretty much the textbook example of a purple state, and every one of the major political prognosticators has it as "Toss Up" or "Battleground," depending on which term they prefer to use.
  
  We might be able to say a little bit more if we knew who was running, but all the serious candidates on both sides of the aisle were keeping their powder dry until Evers revealed his plans. There are three declared candidates already (one Democrat, two Republicans), but they are unknowns, and will undoubtedly be swept aside by one of the dozen or so people who are on their respective parties' benches.

Next week, we gotta do federal offices. There have been many developments in the various races for the Senate and the House. (Z & V)

Censorship Watch: Trump Is Made to Look Like a Buffoon

Maybe this should not be the case, given all that we've seen from Donald Trump in the last decade, but we nonetheless continue to be amazed that a man who is as versed in publicity and free media as he is nonetheless seems to evince no concern for/awareness of the Streisand Effect. That, of course, is the general truism that an attempt to shut down the attention being paid to [THING X] will itself often generate a whole bunch more attention, thus actually increasing the attention being paid to [THING X].

We recognize that Trump is one of the most thin-skinned people walking the planet today, and that he's certainly the most thin-skinned person ever to occupy the presidency. And we also understand that he's got the bully pulpit at his disposal, and it's very tempting to make use of that opportunity. Still, every other thin-skinned president of the radio and television age knew enough to grit their teeth and ignore those who would criticize/mock them. Heck, Richard Nixon, who was almost certainly the most thin-skinned president prior to Trump, even went on TV and pretended that he liked being made fun of on Laugh-In.

We write all of this, first of all, because yesterday the FCC approved the merger of Paramount and Skydance. This came after Skydance promised to kill all DEI programs at Paramount, and to install an ombudsman whose job it will be to root out "bias" at CBS News.

It is true that Trump has managed to leverage this merger in order to secure some pretty substantial "wins." Most obviously, he got the $16 million settlement (plus some additional millions of free advertising time) from his lawsuit against 60 Minutes. He also secured the concessions on DEI and the ombudsman, though it's hard to imagine exactly how such an ombudsman might work, or how effective they will be at doing what Trump wants, and turning 60 Minutes into Fox & Friends. Further, Trump might, or might not, have secured the demise of The Late Show with Stephen Colbert. And finally, Paramount is now under the management of the Trump-friendly Ellison family (although that would have happened regardless of Trump's involvement).

The upshot here is that Trump used his leverage, but now it's gone. And the Streisand-Effect downside, not only of his war against 60 Minutes, but also against The Wall Street Journal, and Colbert, and as of yesterday, The View, is that everyone knows how easy it is to infuriate him. They also know that if they can successfully push his buttons, it will delight many viewers, and maybe even give them a burst of free "this is one of the shows that Trump hates" publicity. What we are saying, in so many words, is that Trump's temper tantrums have predictably increased the amount of mockery to which he is subjected.

The poster boy here, of course, is Colbert. As we have already noted, he hates Trump AND he also has nothing to lose. He's going to subject the White House to 10 months of absolutely withering satire. For example, in his Tuesday monologue, Colbert decided to go with something a bit more... poetic than "Go fu** yourself." Instead, the host shared this observation about the ongoing effort by Department of Justice officials to find any Jeffrey Epstein documents that include Trump's name: "All the king's horses, and all the king's men, couldn't hide who Dumpty humped with his friend." Ouch. Be ready for 10 more months of that. And yes, it is certainly possible that the Ellisons will take Colbert off the air, but if they do, they still have to pay out his contract. Also, that would be such an obvious sop to Trump's thin skin that, well... see what we wrote above about the Streisand Effect.

There's also a newcomer to the party, as of yesterday, and it's actually... an oldcomer. One of the oldest of the old, when it comes to active producers of American satire. We refer to South Park, which has been lampooning politicians of both parties for 3 decades. In fact, they have done so much political content that creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker (who are both registered Libertarians) had suggested that they were going to avoid politics going forward, because it was getting repetitive.

That may have been a genuine sentiment, or it may have been tongue-in-cheek, or it may have been a misdirect. In any event, the premiere of Season 27 dropped on Wednesday night and... it's a wee bit political (emphasis definitely on "wee bit"; keep that in mind). The basic plot of the episode is that the residents of South Park don't want Jesus to have a government-mandated presence in their schools, and Trump responds by suing the town for $5 billion. The townspeople want to fight back, but Jesus himself appears and warns them to settle: "You guys saw what happened to CBS? Yeah, well, guess who owns CBS? Paramount. Do you really want to end up like Colbert?"

And that's not even the worst part... at least, if you're Donald Trump. In the scene from the episode that has already gone viral on social media, Trump becomes angry at the artist who is painting his portrait for the Oval Office, because it is a full-body nude, and it is... accurate. In hopes of lifting his spirits, Trump strips down (and confirms the artist is on the mark), and then endeavors to get amorous with... Satan. Satan, previously established in show canon as Saddam Hussein's former boyfriend, declines Trump's advances, in large part because of Trump's small part. You can see the scene here, if you like your humor very blue:

Later in the scene (after the clip cuts off), Satan observes that Trump is "just the same... like, exactly the same" as someone that he (Satan) used to date.

In short, it's not subtle. Oh, and it also doesn't end there. In the episode, South Park ultimately does settle with the Trump administration, and as part of that settlement is required to produce a bunch of PSAs. The final minute of the episode shows the town's first PSA. We cannot embed it, because it is age-restricted, and so you have to click on the link and watch it on YouTube. That should warn you that it is definitely NSFW. We will further warn you, before you consider clicking through, that you need to decide if an AI-generated, photo-realistic, nude Trump is something you can handle without risk of nightmares. The PSA also highlights the, uh, plumbing that is not up to Satan's standards. The tagline—and we've been as circumspect as we can, so far, but you'll want to stop reading if you're already unhappy—is "Trump. His penis is teeny-tiny, but his love for us is large."

While the new owners of Paramount theoretically could make Colbert go away by paying his contract off, that's considerably less plausible with Stone and Parker, because the South Park guys just signed a new, 5-year deal for $1.5 billion. Not only would the new corporate owners, who paid $8 billion for the entire Paramount operation, have to eat a giant chunk of change, but they would also lose one of their tentpole intellectual properties. There's a reason that Stone and Parker were able to command $300 million a year, and it wasn't corporate charity.

There is only one correct response from Trump here, and it is: DO NOT TAKE THE BAIT. But, of course, that is not how the President rolls. So, not only did the White House make clear that Trump is angry, it actually issued an official statement, blasting South Park as a "fourth-rate show." If Trump's staff is smart, they will make sure he does not see the first episode of the newly rebooted Animaniacs:

No small-penis jokes, but it does have Trump as a giant, orange ogre who likes to spend time on an island (presumably owned by Jeffrey Epstein).

We recognize that there is a school of thought that says that there is no such thing as bad publicity, but we don't believe that is true. Trump's base might get a small thrill from him "owning the libs" when he blasts South Park or Colbert or The View, but if the trade-off is months and months of mockery, it just does not add up. That's doubly true when the mockery makes it to social media, where it can reach people who are not dialed in to politics. And if there's any question that constant ridicule can erode support for a politician, well, Gerald Ford would certainly have some useful thoughts on that subject, if he were still alive. Dan Quayle, too, if anyone knows where he is these days.

Incidentally, our thanks to the many dozens of readers who brought this story to our attention. Thanks in particular to readers S.K. in Los Angeles, CA, and D.E. in Lancaster, PA, who were the source of most of the links we used above. (Z)

Never Forget: Many Paths to Service

Today, we have a reminiscence from reader N.J. in San Francisco, CA:

I have four grandfathers that served in World War II and memories from a couple great uncles. My biological father's biological father died testing B-29's in New Mexico, before my father was born (Note: While not directly related to my grandfather's B-29 crash, Barry Siegel's Claim of Privilege: A Mysterious Plane Crash, a Landmark Supreme Court Case, and the Rise of State Secrets is an interesting read.). My grandmother, a middle school science teacher, remembered that he loved to fly. Her second husband, and my second grandfather, had served as a navy cook on a minesweeper in the Pacific and became an English professor. He and I enjoyed Scrabble games on vacations with my father's family.

My mother's father, grandfather #3, was at a military college when the war broke out for the U.S. The class ahead of him enlisted en masse. His class was encouraged to keep studying and he finished his degree in the service, having been transferred to the east coast. He and my grandmother met at a college dance where the chaperones lined up the young ladies and the men by height. My grandfather enjoyed the evening enough to declare to his roommate that he had met the woman he was going to marry. Due to the wartime shortage of housing in the D.C. area, they lived in a converted chicken shack in Arlington, VA, while he served in the signal corps. The chicken shack apartment was still there in the early nineties when I drove by.

My fourth grandfather came by way of my Boomer (a.k.a. "Me" generation) parents heading separate ways 4 years into their shotgun teenage marriage that managed to survive 3½ years of them both graduating from college and me being a newborn/toddler. My mother met a man in early '68 that I've been calling Dad since I was four. Dad's father had graduated with an art degree before the war started. He spent the war years painting airplane insignias on sub-patrol planes based in Puerto Rico, where he met my dad's mother. After a decade-plus working as a commercial artist, he returned to working for the military, illustrating medical textbooks and presentation materials. He also sent me and my cousins wonderfully wild, hand-painted birthday cards.

One of my Dad's uncles had closer brushes with the more infamous horrors of World War II. During my great-uncle's early days in the army, while standing with other conscripts at the train station of his mid-size rural town, a friend called him over from where he had been lining up. Shortly thereafter, the bags of the fellows he had been standing with were stamped "Corregidor." So he missed that version of hell. Instead he went on to drive a tank in Patton's army and fought in the Battle of the Bulge. He recalled sitting on a wall, talking to a friend one moment, and the next moment the friend fell forward dead from a sniper bullet to the head. My great aunt said that for years after the war, my great-uncle would stick close to walls, and avoid open spaces when they went into town.

The last service vignette comes from another uncle of the same family. The brothers had a band before the war, and this uncle was a trumpet player. The trumpet-playing brother was in the infantry and had bugle duty one morning. As I recall him telling it, he got a little too jazzy with his rendition of "Reveille" and was quickly busted out to the supply corps.

Of my three grandmothers, one lost her husband while still pregnant and was a single mother of two for a few years before marrying again. The other two were war brides who married their soldier husbands and transformed their lives. For my Puerto Rican grandmother, it was particularly difficult, since she left Puerto Rico pregnant to stay with her in-laws in rural America and give birth while her husband was still serving in Puerto Rico. My other, closest grandmother looked back on the war-bride experience in her seventies or eighties after attending a reunion. Getting married to someone out of the blue and heading off for places unknown? "It was just what you did."

Thanks, N.J.

Note, incidentally, that we are going to do "Never Forget" stories for one more week. Thereafter, we are thinking about doing something similar, except with immigration stories. So, if you care to share roughly 500-1,000 words on your own story of immigrating to America, or on the story of one or more relatives/friends, please send them to comments@electoral-vote.com, with subject line "Immigration Stories." (Z)

I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: Ranger Rick (a.k.a. Rick Raccoon)

We had two hints last week: (1) "Sarah Palin would certainly be unable to solve the puzzle, especially if Katie Couric is around," and (2) "[W]hile we doubt Sarah Palin could figure it out, we suspect Donald Trump probably could. After all, he's a New Yorker who likes Golf, and who fancies himself to be quite a Playboy and a Hustler."

And now, the solution, courtesy of reader B.B. in Avon, CT:

The theme is magazines:

• The Epstein Files: Story of The Week Just Keeps Chugging Along
• ICE Put on Ice: Judge Stops Government from Indiscriminately Grabbing People
• In Congress: Democrats Get Mad, But Not Even
• Programming Note: Stephen Colbert's Time on CBS Is Coming to an End
• I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star
• This Week in Schadenfreude: Find a Loophole, Save a Fortune?
• This Week in Freudenfreude: The Day Mr. Rogers Made It Real Simple

The hint is a reference to Sarah Palin's 2008 interview with Katie Couric in which she was unable to name any specific magazines (or newspapers) as the sources for her news, and then turned around and claimed she reads "All of them, any of them that have been in front of me over all these years."

Indeed. We very much wanted to fit Ranger Rick in last week, since that is the first magazine (Z) ever had a subscription to (it's about nature and stuff, so even Sarah Palin probably would like it, if she learns how to read). There was no way to make it work as part of a normal headline, though, so we saved it for the headline of this item.

Here are the first 50 readers to get it right:

S.K. in Ardmore, PA T.K. in Manchester, MO T.F. in Craftsbury Common, VT M.M. in Dunellen, NJ T.K. in Half Moon Bay, St. Kitts J.T. in Philadelphia, PA J.E. in San Jose, CA N.H. in London, England, UK J.N. in Zionsville, IN D.D. in Longmont, CO R.S. in Landing, NJ J.W. in Newton, MA R.B. in Amherst, MA D.D. in Highland Park, IL M.W. in Altea, Spain B.K. in Mystic, CT E.S. in Providence, RI D.E. in High Springs, FL P.V.B. in Brooklyn, NY A.G. in Plano, TX M.H. in Ottawa, ON, Canada R.S. in Federal Way, WA M.J. in Oakdale, MN J.B. in Royston, England, UK B.K.J. in San Diego, CA

P.Q. in Metuchen, NJ M.T. in Wheat Ridge, CO K.G.W. in Lafayette, IN M.T. in Simpsonville, SC B.R. in Arlington, MA D.H. in Leesburg, AL B.F. in Nashville, TN S.E. in Okemos, MI P.C. in Cleveland, OH B.U. in St. Louis, MO C.A. in West Palm Beach, FL M.S. in Washington, DC J.S. in Germantown, OH M.K. in Larnaca, Cyprus S.W. in Corvallis, OR M.V. in Oak Park, IL J.H. in Sturbridge, MA D.B. in Pittsboro, NC N.K. in Cleveland Heights, OH D.D. in Carversville, PA W.R.S in Tucson, AZ A.A. in Branchport, NY E.P. in Plainville, CT G.W. in Avon, CT G.M. in Chevy Chase, MD

The 50th correct response was received at 6:47 a.m. PT on Friday. Obviously, this theme was easier than the one that came before it.

For this week's theme, it relies on one word per headline, it's in the Trivial Pursuit category Language, and the "Never Forget" headline is not part of the puzzle. For a hint, we'll note that we were going to use a bookkeeper for this week's headline game, but then decided that would be overkill.

If you have a guess, send it to comments@electoral-vote.com with subject line July 25 Headlines. (Z)

This Week in Schadenfreude: The Appropriations Committee Did the First Lady No Favors

Let us start by conceding that Melania Trump apparently had nothing to do with efforts from the House Appropriations Committee to "honor" her by naming the opera house at the Kennedy Center in her honor. Heck, she doesn't even want to be First Lady. So, one could argue that it's unfair that she is getting a lot of blowback over the announcement.

On the other hand, she's been given a virtually unparalleled opportunity to do good in the world, and has absolutely no interest in taking advantage of it. She has also enabled her husband's bad acts, mostly by staying silent, sometimes with active support. And she's got her own bad acts, too, perhaps most obviously the "I really don't care, do you?" jacket. It was tone deaf, and she should have apologized (she never did). It does not help that she, and her staff, kept changing the story as to whether or not it was a "message" or not. Finally, add in the fact that the First Lady could very well come out and announce "I appreciate the thought, but such honors should really only be bestowed AFTER a presidential term, not during," but she has not done so.

Our conclusion is that, on balance, Melania Trump is very well into "fair game" territory. And so, we have no compunctions about this piece, which we will now commence with the observation that quite a few people on social media had the same idea we did, namely suggestions for what the first show at the "First Lady Melania Trump Opera House" should be. For example:

Under other circumstances, we might do a rundown of some of the other memes. In this case, however, we are just going to share some of the readers' suggestions for what the debut show at the Mel should be:

J.F. in Toronto, ON, Canada: I posed your question to an opera-maven friend and got this wonderful response: "I don't think The Donald or Melania give a sh** or know anything about opera. That 'opera house' at the Kennedy Center is where middle-brow shows like Les Miz are performed, as well as operas. That's the kind of crap DJT likes. I do like the suggestions (V) & (Z) made, especially The Bartered Bride. My first thoughts went to operas (there are many) in which the heroine kills herself at the end. Tosca comes to mind; she kills her attempted rapist, then jumps off a tall building. Or Madame Butterfly, who commits seppuku just as her two-timing husband (with whom she has a kid; let's call him "Barron") runs into the room. I've always wanted to see a production of Carmen in which she survives her fatal stabbing long enough to slice Don Jose's throat.

---

J.S. in The Hague, Netherlands: Mozart's Don Giovanni, about a nobleman so evil, so unrepentant, that he gets dragged to hell in the final scene.

---

V.F. in Bowie, MD: 'Tis Pity She's a Whore

---

M.A.N. in Falls Church, VA: Um, Six? It's about the various wives of Henry VIII, a domineering, overweight, blustery monarch from another time who actually had two of his wives beheaded.

I mean, one blustery, bloviating gas bag is as good as another, right?

---

J.N. in Zionsville, IN: I've got two operas for you. First, Lady Macbeth of Mtsensk by Dmitri Shostakovich. It tells the story of a woman trapped in a loveless marriage, and who eventually kills her husband (first by failed poisoning and then by strangulation).

I'm also partial to Lulu by Alban Berg. Lulu is the ultimate symbol of commodified beauty, all while complicit in her own demise. Oh, and following her turn to prostitution following financial ruin, Jack the Ripper kills her in the final scene. You know, just to really drive the subtlety home.

---

A.L. in Würenlingen, Switzerland: Bluebeard's Castle, in which the female protagonist unlocks the doors in the castle and discovers many dark secrets, is so appropriate for Melania (and Donald).

---

G.M. in Laurence Harbor, NJ: Otello! Unfaithful wife, conspirators protecting the malfeasants, and the end of Otello, at the end!

---

D.S. in Palo Alto, CA: If the First Lady were a little more active in the operations of the government, I'd think Evita would be a nice choice. It's not exactly an opera, but it is sung-through. I have always thought this Tim Rice epic (he did the lyrics) to be the best depiction of what people motivated by power are like, in their professional, personal, and sex lives. "They need to adore me, so Christian Dior me, from my head to my toe." Not to mention "I'd be surprisingly good for you."

---

J.K. in Afton, MN: Melania already foreshadowed "The Handmaid's Tale: the Opera" with her Christmas decor many years ago.

---

H.B. in State College, PA: So many possibilities: (1) The Abduction from the Seraglio, by Mozart, (2) The Cunning Little Vixen, by Janáček and (3) The Silent Woman, by Strauss.

---

S.S. in West Hollywood, CA: Is there really any question that the premiere opera at the Mail Order Bride Opera House should be the Harvey Milk opera? Nothing would be more appropriate than an opera based on the gay activist, politician, and actual American hero. And if not that, Emmett Till, A New American Opera would also be a good option. (That said, Jerry Springer: The Opera would probably be a better fit for the MAGA crowd.)

---

J.S. in Santa Cruz, CA: An obvious choice for me would be Bride of Frankenstein. I wasn't sure if there was actually an opera based on it, but sure enough, the LA Opera symphony did a 2023 presentation that could be used for the music.

---

R.W. in Brooklyn, NY: Donald Trump is the living embodiment of Baron Ochs from Rosenkavalier—loud, vulgar, lecherous, overweight, pathetic, and ridiculous. It would be just delicious to watch him squirm in the presidential box as the opera unfolds. Assuming he stays awake, which is highly doubtful.

Some excellent suggestions!

And note that the renaming is not exactly a done deal. Remember, it was an amendment to a funding bill, and that funding bill—once it gets whipped into shape—has to be passed by the Senate, with at least some Democratic votes. It's possible that the renaming proposal will quietly get dropped by the Republicans, because it's been something of an embarrassment for them and for the First Lady. It's also possible that the Democrats will insist that it be excised, given that the Kennedy Center is, after all, meant to honor a prominent Democrat. It's going to be a couple of months until we know, one way or the other. (Z)

This Week in Freudenfreude: Don't Judge a Man by His Tattoos

For a good solid decade, if not more, Ozzy Osbourne was the walking embodiment of "the one your parents warned you about." He had long hair, and tattoos, and an overall goth aesthetic, and he led a hard rock/heavy metal band. And not just any hard rock/heavy metal band, but THE hard rock/heavy metal band, namely Black Sabbath. Keep in mind that in the 1970s and 1980s, there were all sorts of urban legends/conspiracy theories about that kind of music being a front for satanism. In service of his brand, and making himself "dangerous" and very, very marketable, Osbourne leaned into that, not only with his look, and with his band name, but also with his nickname ("The Prince of Darkness"), and with various shenanigans (drunkenness, drug use, biting the head off a live bat, etc.).

We do not mean to suggest that all of this was just for show, or that the man was a paragon of virtue at all times. The drug use was real and serious and got him (justly) kicked out of Black Sabbath. However, a fair bit of it was for show. In the early 2000s, the musician reached a new generation of fans, not so much with his music, but with his reality show, The Osbournes. And that behind-the-scenes look at his life—during which he was very honest about his failings as a man, a father and a husband—made clear that he was about 10% Prince of Darkness and about 90% suburban dad.

Osbourne died this week, at the age of 76, but we're not trying to make "Freudenfreude" into our obituaries column, and we're not writing about him because he died. At least, not exactly. No, we are writing about him because he found a way to go out on top. Indeed, it would be hard to think of someone who did a better job of going out on top than he did. If you tried to write a movie about a rock star, and you tried to give it this ending, nobody would buy it.

It is not clear if Osbourne knew exactly how close the end was when he died. That may never be known. However, he was certainly in ill health in his final years, suffered from Parkinson's disease and other conditions, and had lost the ability to walk. Thanks to an ATV accident about a decade ago, not to mention legion other abuses of his physical body, he was also taking a vast array of prescriptions, including painkillers. Even if he might have hoped to have a few more years left on earth, Osbourne knew his days of touring were gone, and that his ability to perform would soon desert him as well. One might argue that it had already deserted him, but he said: "I will get back on stage if it fu**ing kills me, because if I can't do it then that's what's gonna happen anyway, I'm gonna fu**ing die. I love to see them audiences."

To that end, he, his family, and a vast network of supporters decided that he would perform one last concert in Birmingham, England, where it all started. And, for that show, he was to be backed with the original members of Black Sabbath—the men with whom it all started. Lots of acts that are normally headliners were honored to appear in support of the Wizard of Ozz, and so the crowd in attendance was treated to live performances from Metallica, Guns N' Roses, Tool and Pantera, and video messages from Elton John, Def Leppard and Dolly Parton, among others. There can't be too many other shows where both Pantera and Dolly Parton were on the bill.

Again, Osbourne had lost the ability to walk. He also lost the ability to stand for anything more than a few seconds. So, for his performance, he was seated in a black, leather-covered throne that rose up from underneath the stage. Also, wanting to be as clear-minded as possible, he took a pass on all the painkillers and other such prescriptions in the week before the show. Given the circumstances, he was only able to handle a brief (roughly one-hour-long) set. But for that brief period, he was able, one last time, to summon a pretty good approximation of prime Ozzy. For an example, see the last song of his solo set (before doing an almost-half-hour set with the original members of Black Sabbath), "Crazy Train":

That's a pretty amazing performance for a man who is in his seventies, in pain and, as it turns out, at death's door. Note that (Z) saw Osbourne in concert over 30 years ago, and so has a pretty good idea of what "prime Ozzy" looked like.

All of this said, this story was not going to be the subject of this week's freudenfreude until a bit of late-breaking news on Thursday. It turns out that part of the plan—and this was basically kept under wraps until after Osbourne died—was to use his final show to raise money for charity, with proceeds split between Cure Parkinson's, Birmingham Children's Hospital and Acorn Children's Hospice. The late-breaking news, which let the cat out the bag, was a social media posting from Tom Morello, who is a member of Rage Against the Machine, and who also served as musical director for Osbourne's final concert. Morello not only revealed the larger plan, he also revealed how much money was raised: $190 million! Can you imagine how much good those charities will do when they each receive a check for more than $60 million?

Now you see what we mean by going out on top. Osbourne managed to produce one last great show, for a huge crowd of delighted fans, while learning about how much he meant to various A-list musicians. He also raised a boatload of money for charity, and then went home and peacefully passed away, his life's work done. Again, you'd never, ever get away with an ending like that in a Hollywood screenplay—it's just too perfect.

So, what does this have to do with a political blog? Well, it goes back to the observation we started with. There are a lot of people in politics right now who put on a "good guy" veneer, but who are clearly evil at their cores. We thought it was useful to highlight someone who spent decades putting on an "evil guy" veneer, but who was clearly good at his core. Rest in peace, Ozzy.

Have a good weekend, all!

(Postscript: On Tuesday, after Malcolm-Jamal Warner and Osbourne died, a friend contacted Z and asked who would be the third celebrity to die, per the "Rule of Threes." The friend guessed Mickey Rourke or maybe Flavor Flav. Z went with Hulk Hogan—not out of any specific knowledge, but just because Hogan has looked poorly for a while, and was a habitual abuser of steroids for decades. As many readers will know, Hogan died yesterday. And the obvious lesson here is that the folks who are evil to their cores might just want to watch their P's and Q's, or risk ending up in the crosshairs of the most dangerous crystal ball in the West.) (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