Trump Postpones Iran Bombing... Again

Last weekend, Donald Trump announced that the bombing of Iran's energy infrastructure would begin on Monday if the Strait of Hormuz was not re-opened. Then, he granted the Iranians another 5 days, which theoretically would have expired today. However, he announced another extension yesterday, this one 10 days in duration, which means another "deadline" does not arrive until April 6.

The official explanation for this, from Trump himself, is that negotiations with Iran are progressing well. The Iranian government denies that, and says there are no substantive negotiations at all. Trump, for his part, has made much noise about a "gift" that was granted by... someone in Iran, probably the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). The President, reality star that he is, teased the gift for about a day before revealing that Iran had allowed 10 fully loaded tankers to pass through the Strait.

If we were the Iranian government, we would take a couple of lessons from all of this. The first is that Trump clearly does not want to bomb the energy infrastructure, presumably because it would likely lead to chaos in the energy market and a massive stock market drop. The second is that he can easily be bought off, as needed, with fairly empty gestures. The largest tankers carry about 3 million barrels of oil, so at most the "gift" was that 30 million barrels are now on their way to destinations they will reach in days, or maybe weeks, or maybe months. On an average day, 20 million barrels pass through the Strait, so we're talking 1½ days' worth of commerce, at most. Also, the IRGC is extracting multi-million dollar tolls from most of the ships it allows to pass, so this "gesture" is also profitable for the regime in Iran.

Meanwhile, the pressure is building on Trump. Gas prices continue to climb, and are now on the cusp of $4.00/gallon, on average. The current average is $3.98/gallon, and so $4.00/gallon will probably be reached over the weekend. And because the Trump administration has tried to massage things by lifting sanctions on Russian oil, and because having capital flow into Russia would be very bad for Ukraine, the Ukrainians have just bombed the daylights out of the Baltic ports of Primorsk and Ust-Luga, which are major oil-export terminals. So, a cure to the gas-price problem does not appear to be coming from the direction of Russia anytime soon.

On top of that, Trump is getting a lot of "feedback" from nations whose leaders, to borrow a phrase from Lyndon B. Johnson, have his pecker in their pockets. Israel wants to encourage the people of Iran to stage a mass uprising, and is trying to twist Trump's arm on that front. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia expects a return on its investments in the Trump family, and is pushing Trump to hit Iran again, and again and again.

Money is, or will soon be, an issue as well. Congress is not responding well to the White House's request for $200 billion in war funding, especially since that could quickly balloon into two or three times that sum. Even many Republicans say that the information they are getting from the White House does not support that sort of outlay. This White House loves to play financial shell games, to get around the need for Congress' approval. But it's already doing that a bunch, and at an estimated expenditure of $1 billion day, there's only so much gaming that can be done before Congress has to give its approval.

Finally, Trump's approval ratings—which weren't stellar even before the bombing started—are clearly showing the effects of the war. For example, in the latest from Fox, he pulled his highest ever disapproval in one of their surveys—59%. He's not at his lowest approval yet, though he's within shouting distance (41% now, lowest was 38% back in October of 2017). However, the way he got to "highest disapproval" is interesting—no respondent said "don't know" or "no opinion." In other words, it appears that the Iran War might be yanking the last remaining fence-sitters off the fence.

To give a few other quick examples, Trump's approval in the latest Reuters/IPSOS poll is the lowest it's been in his second term, at 36%. Or, if you prefer aggregators, his aggregate approval in Nate Silver's tracker is as low as it's been this term, at 40.1%. It's also the lowest it's been in either term, at 38%, in The Economist's aggregator. Note that Nate Silver wasn't aggregating in Trump's first term, and Reuters/IPSOS were not partnering back then, so you should not infer that "lowest approval of his second term," in those cases, means "but there was an even lower figure in his first term." And the bigger point is that it's not one or two outlier polls; clearly, Trump is losing political support because of the Iran War.

Now, let's add up where all this is pointing. Trump wants and needs progress on this front, and fast. He's not the type to back down under these circumstances, as that would be tantamount to giving those dirty Iranians a "win." The bombing campaign has not accomplished anything, and is not likely to accomplish anything, particularly if Trump is leery of hitting the remaining potential targets. Trying to put various forms of pressure on the Iranians to re-open Hormuz has failed, so too have attempts to manipulate and ease the petroleum market.

Considering all of this, it sure looks like the only "game-changer" option that Trump has left is an invasion by ground troops. And whaddya know, the Pentagon is reportedly making preparations to send 10,000 more troops to the Middle East. Meanwhile, The Times of Israel had a scoop yesterday; one of the negotiators from one of the countries who is trying to mediate the conflict told the paper, off the record, that he is convinced that Trump is leaning toward a ground invasion, believing that while the aerial bombardment didn't topple the regime, "boots on the ground" surely will.

And how long would it take to deploy 10,000 more troops? About 10 days. Oh, boy, here we go again... (Z)

In Congress: Congress Can't Solve the DHS Pickle

Yesterday, the House passed a bill to fund DHS, with the vote falling along party lines. This was the third time the House managed to pass such a bill, which is not actually intended to end the (partial) shutdown. It's just a messaging bill, so Republicans can claim that they want to re-open TSA and fix the nation's airports, while the Democrats do not.

The real key, of course, is the Senate. Barring a reconciliation bill or a change to the filibuster, a bill will need at least seven non-Republican votes (and probably more like eight or nine). Obviously, a bill that can't get seven or eight or nine Democrats in the House, not even Jared Golden (D-ME) or Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-WA), isn't going to get the necessary votes in the Senate.

And the problem in the Senate is that negotiations appear to have completely broken down. The folks who are trying to hammer out a bill not only have no compromise measure that 60 members can agree on, they are losing hope that such a measure can be worked out, particularly before Congress adjourns for another of its many recesses (this one for Easter). The fundamental problem is that most Republican voters want strong border enforcement, most Democratic voters want ICE reined in, and neither side feels it can compromise without risking the wrath of its own voters.

With the Senate apparently having failed, House Republicans are trying to ride to the rescue. Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) and his conference have absolutely no interest in actually talking to their Democratic colleagues, so their Plan B is a reconciliation bill, something that the Speaker and numerous key (well, loud) House Republicans spent several hours working on yesterday afternoon. The problem here, as we've pointed out many times already, is that the things the fringe Republicans want, and the things the moderate Republicans want, are very different, and often mutually contradictory. On top of that, the things that House Republicans (especially fringy House Republicans) want are very different from what Senate Republicans want. And, as the icing on the cake, there are things that Republicans want that Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough is never going to allow in a reconciliation bill. So while Johnson & Co. might be right that a reconciliation bill is their most viable option, that doesn't mean it's a good option or an easy one.

The White House is also trying to ride to the rescue. Yesterday, his patience apparently having run out, Donald Trump got on his the-Constitution-is-for-suckers social media platform and announced that he was going to order DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin to start paying TSA staffers, in order "to quickly stop the Democrat Chaos at the Airports." We would suggest Trump's general anxiety here, and his desperate efforts to pin the blame on Democrats, are influenced by the fact that TSA agents will miss their second paycheck of the shutdown this weekend. And that's with spring break around the corner for most schools (and for all members of Congress).

It's not clear if the promised executive order has even been drafted, as yet, though that's probably not a problem because AI can whip one of those things up in a manner of seconds. It definitely hasn't been posted to the White House's website, or otherwise made available to the public. So, it's not entirely clear where this money is going to come from (other than "BBB funds"). Even White House staffers don't seem to know, though they are "confident" they can figure it out.

It is probable that this financial trickery is illegal. After all, if Congress has not funded a department, or part of a department, well, they are the ones with the power of the purse. However, there is zero chance that Congressional Republicans will challenge Trump, of course. It's not likely that Congressional Democrats will, either, since, even if they were successful, they don't want to be the meanies who shut the airports down. Plus, they're in the minority, and it takes a majority vote to file suit on behalf of the legislature.

Politically, Trump's goal here is to be the hero, and to make Democrats the villain. We think that this is probably another "miss" for his political instincts, which seem to be atrophying with age. First, people tend to blame the party that holds the White House when bad stuff happens. Polls suggest that is what is happening with the TSA shutdown. Second, if Trump really had the power to end this with a stroke of his pen, then it raises the question: "Why did he make everyone go through this for a month before he took action?" Third, bad experiences at airports affect a fairly small minority of the population. High gas prices (and overall inflation) affect a much larger number of people. And Trump is absolutely taking ownership of gas/inflation right now, no matter how much he doesn't like it.

Oh, and that minority that is affected by bad experiences at the airport? They are ALSO going to be affected by the gas prices. Already, airlines are cutting flights because the cost of fuel would make them unprofitable. That phenomenon is only going to get worse, and it's going to linger, even if the Strait of Hormuz opens immediately, because airlines buy their fuel months in advance to lock in prices.

Assuming Trump's "just pay them, Markwayne" gambit works, it removes the biggest pressure point in terms of reopening DHS. At that point, it's fair to wonder how long this might actually last. Maybe until the primaries are over, and members are not at risk from a challenger who might try to weaponize the situation. Maybe until the general election is over. Maybe until next year. We haven't the faintest idea, at this point.

This raises another set of questions. ICE is not currently funded; it's being paid out of those same, magical "BBB funds." So, how long will that work? Will that slush fund eventually run out? And what will happen then? We haven't the faintest idea about that, either, though we do know that if ICE actually shuts down, that would be fine and dandy as far as the Democrats are concerned.

One last thing while we're on the subject. There are some airports, most obviously the one in San Francisco, that use private (though TSA-approved) security. Most travelers presumably know that TSA is mostly security theater, and that they are not actually very good at stopping bad stuff from getting through the checkpoints (one study found that 95% of attempts to sneak illegal items past TSA are successful). The private security is much more effective and, as a bonus, it's not subject to temper tantrums from Congress and/or the president. So, it's possible that "end TSA" could emerge as an issue in 2026 or 2028. If that did happen, it would be the unusual circumstance where the lefties are in favor of privatization, while the righties are opposed. Usually (e.g., with prisons) it's the opposite. Of course, TSA was created when private security failed, which led to 9/11. If security is privatized, the next time there is a major security incident in aviation, there will be a demand to get rid of the private security companies, which care only about their profits, and have the government take over. The wheels of the bus airplane go round and round. (Z)

Legal News, Part I: DoJ Feeling the Squeeze from Federal Judges

The problem with trying to turn the Department of Justice into your own personal brute squad is that it can create issues when you install people who don't know how to, you know, prosecute actual crimes (as opposed to things Donald Trump wishes were crimes). Judges, as it turns out, are not pleased when their time is wasted on frivolous score-settling cases. They are even less pleased by the thought of actual bad guys and gals going unprosecuted, or escaping their just punishment, because the government mishandled a case.

In the federal courts in New Jersey, as in many other federal courts, the judges have had their fill of the clown show that used to be the DoJ. As a reminder, the U.S. Attorney's Office for New Jersey had been run by Trump lawyer Alina Habba until U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann ruled that she was serving in the office unlawfully. The courts then appointed someone competent and experienced to run the office, as required by the Vacancies Act, but that person was immediately fired by Trump's other personal attorney, Todd Blanche, who is currently playing the role of Deputy AG. Blanche, who apparently can't read, was incensed that the judges would have the gall to follow the law: "Judges don't pick U.S. Attorneys, POTUS does. See Article II of our Constitution." Actually, that's not what Article II says. Article II, Section 2 (the Appointments Clause) says that the president nominates a U.S. Attorney and that person may be appointed "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate." Without Senate confirmation, which the president hasn't bothered with, the person can only serve in the role temporarily. The courts have to step in if the person continues in the office beyond the time allowed by law.

After firing the court-appointed attorney, Blanche and "AG" Pam Bondi had the genius idea to appoint three people to lead the office. Soon, this "triumvirate," as they were called, found themselves back in front of Brann, who ruled on March 9 that the three were serving unlawfully in violation of the Appointments Clause.

In yet another scathing ruling, Brann held that these illegal moves to circumvent the nominating process and the law are jeopardizing public safety. These maneuvers mean that "scores of dangerous criminals could have their cases dismissed or convictions eventually reversed." But, the Judge concluded, the Trump administration doesn't care about that. Their only concern is who is running the office, not "whether it is running at all." "The president here seeks the power to unilaterally appoint officers of his choosing to staff critical positions exercising vast authority Government-wide. Though the Government dresses its argument in sheep's wool of administrative necessity, 'this wolf comes as a wolf.'" He also ruled that "any further attempts to unlawfully fill the office will result in dismissals of pending cases." Brann paused his order to give the government time to appeal but noted that "if the government chooses to leave the triumvirate in place, it does so at its own risk."

In the meantime, to illustrate the problem Brann described, on March 17, U.S. District Judge Zahid Quraishi was overseeing a sentencing hearing for a defendant who had pled guilty to possession of child pornography. Following Brann's ruling, Quraishi gave the government the opportunity to delay the hearing, but they declined. As a result, the Judge issued an order stating that the prosecutor should be prepared to answer questions about the office's leadership. On the date of the hearing, the prosecutor, Daniel Rosenbaum, was unexpectedly accompanied by Mark Coyne, the office's head of appeals, who tried to address the court. This is a big no-no. Only attorneys who have formally declared their representation, the attorneys "of record," can make court appearances on behalf of the client. Coyne had not done so and had not alerted the court in advance that he wished to make an appearance. So, the court would not allow him to speak on the record—he could pass notes to the prosecutor and be present as a supervisor but that's it. Nonetheless, he persisted. He refused to stay silent as the Judge questioned Rosenbaum, so the Judge threw him out of the courtroom.

Let us pause for a moment, to let that sink in: A member of the U.S. Attorney's office and an officer of the court had to be thrown out of federal court because he wouldn't follow basic court rules. In any other administration, he would be fired immediately. With this administration, he's probably next in line to run the office.

Meanwhile, Quraishi wanted to know why the prosecutor was recommending a lighter sentence and why they executed a plea agreement without having all the evidence, including the results of the FBI's search of the defendant's devices which revealed significantly more egregious material. Rosenbaum acknowledged that "errors" were made. The Judge was incensed that the prosecutor was so willing to let this guy off so lightly and that he seemed indifferent to the additional crimes suggested by the material found on the defendant's device.

Quraishi then moved on to ask who was running the office and whether Alina Habba had any current role. Rosenbaum couldn't definitively answer those questions, though he represented to the court that Habba has no role. Rosenbaum did confirm that the triumvirate were still in place. The Judge then said, "What you've told me today, what your representation is, which I don't believe, by the way. I won't believe it until you testify. That is what has happened to the credibility of your office. Generations of Assistant U.S. Attorneys had built the goodwill of that office for your generation to destroy it within a year." He then ordered all three of the supposed leaders of the office to testify at a hearing on May 1 and directed Rosenbaum to alert his colleagues that any future hearings would not be proceeding as usual. He told Rosenbaum, "You have lost the confidence and the trust of this court. You have lost the confidence and the trust of the New Jersey legal community, and you are losing the trust and confidence of the public." Wowzers.

It looks like that may have gotten someone to sit up and take notice because on March 23, Brann issued an order naming Robert Frazier, a veteran prosecutor, as New Jersey's U.S. Attorney. The DoJ agreed to the appointment, thus marking a surrender in this particular war.

Presumably, that means the "triumvirate" need not appear in Quraishi's courtroom and criminal cases can proceed as usual. Perhaps this type of agreement can also be used to resolve issues with the unlawful appointees in other offices, like Nevada, Los Angeles, and New York. Otherwise, this will undoubtedly keep happening. And the brain drain continues—more seasoned prosecutors are quitting or getting fired for political reasons and the department can't replace them. The DoJ just lowered its requirements for an assistant U.S. attorney position. Before, an attorney needed at least one year's experience as an attorney, but they have now eliminated that minimum requirement. Public safety is being severely compromised for political considerations. Of course, Congress could do something about this, but Republicans are only interested in genuflecting to Trump (see below for more). (L)

Legal News, Part II: How to Steal from the Government, in Two Easy Steps

This Department of Justice might not be able to win in court, but they appear to be hard at work on a strategy where some Trumpers can win by never appearing in court. The trial run (or maybe "no trial" run?) involves one Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn (ret.).

As a reminder, Flynn got busted in 2017, early in his brief term as National Security Advisor, for talking to the Russians and then lying about it. He was caught red-handed enough that he got fired from the first Trump administration, and then agreed to plead guilty to the charges.

Thereafter, however, Flynn did a 180. He withdrew his guilty plea, ostensibly because he didn't realize how much prison time he was going to get. He then managed to drag things out until the corrupt-as-hell AG Bill Barr filed a motion to drop the charges. Then, Flynn was granted a pardon by Donald Trump, less than 2 months before the end of Trump's term. The pardon turns out to have been necessary; District Judge Emmet Sullivan said he likely would not have agreed to drop the charges, but for the fact that the pardon rendered them moot.

That did not mark the end of the saga, however. Flynn, who has a highly developed MAGA victim complex, decided that he had been criminally wronged by the Department of Justice. So, in 2024, he sued for $50 million in damages. The claim was so obviously laughable that it was quickly dismissed by District Judge Mary Stenson Scriven. This setback afforded Flynn a critical insight: "If you're going to file a silly lawsuit, asking for wholly unwarranted damages, wait until Donald Trump is in office again."

And so, once Trump was re-elected and re-inaugurated, Flynn re-filed. Yesterday, a DoJ spokesperson announced that Flynn was indeed a victim of the "Russia hoax," that his case is very, very strong, and that rather than risk an eight-figure judgment, Pam Bondi has decided to settle the case for a mere $1 million. What a bargain!

It is certainly possible that this is, in effect, Trump using the government's money to reward an underling for his silence. After all, a lot of former Trump insiders turned against him and spilled their guts, particularly after 1/6. Flynn did not, and now he's been twice rewarded, with both a pardon and a million bucks. This sends a very distressing message to other would-be miscreants: Not only will Trump kill any federal charges you may face, he might even arrange to fatten your bank account.

That said, and as we write above, we think this is more probably a trial run for Trump's schemes to enrich himself (and some of his acolytes, like Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-SC). Those suits, demanding outrageous damages, have already been filed. If the Flynn settlement stands—and it's hard to see who would have standing to get involved AND would actually do so—then the skids are greased for an eight-or-nine figure "settlement" of Trump's claims (and, probably, an eight-figure settlement of Graham's claims). It's grift that is both blatant and, under current circumstances, likely impossible to prevent. (Z)

Money Moves: Trump Gets Even Closer to Being a Monarch

A fair number of presidents had giant egos—it kind of comes with the territory. You can't survive as many setbacks as a top-tier politician has to deal with unless you have a pretty strong opinion of yourself.

But even by the standards of his office—an office once held, mind you, by noted egomaniacs Andrew Jackson, Theodore Roosevelt, Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard Nixon—Donald Trump is unquestionably king. Take it from someone who has read an awful lot on this subject; nobody else is even in his league. And now, the President's fawning underlings are making sure to give him even more of the trappings of a king, namely placing his visage and/or signature on the nation's currency.

First up is the stomach-turning gold coin that has been approved by the all-Trump-appointed Commission of Fine Arts. It's got the picture of him standing with his fists on his desk on one side, an eagle on the obverse, and is ostensibly meant to celebrate the U.S. semiquincentennial. It is being produced under authority granted by Congress in the waning days of Trump v1.0.

The coin will be collectible, and so will not circulate. A price has not yet been announced, but the rubes supporters of Trump should expect to pay a mint, both literally and figuratively. No release date has been announced, but one has to imagine it will be available by July 4, which means that the process is going to have to be quick. No living president before Trump has been featured on a U.S.-Mint-produced coin, circulating or otherwise.

We are, of course, aware of the potential propaganda value of coinage. There's a reason that kings and queens and emperors and empresses and shahs and the like made sure to put their mugs on coins for thousands of years. In an American context, the most obvious example of coins-as-propaganda is the steel pennies issued by the mint in 1943 and 1944. Officially that was to save copper for the war effort, but the more significant goal was to give civilians a constant reminder of the ongoing war effort, and their role in sustaining it.

It is not entirely clear to us what's driving this coin project, but we have three theories, and we'd bet at least one of them is correct. The first, and most obvious, is that this is just more pandering to Trump's ego, and his apparently desperate desire to feel like he's left "his mark" on history. The second is that Congress also passed another bill in the waning days of Trump v1.0 that would allow a different Trump coin, this one circulating, and with a value of $1. The commemorative coin might be paving the way for that. The third is that living people control their own right of publicity. So, Trump would theoretically be entitled to a royalty for every coin bearing his likeness. He might try to start collecting immediately, or he might wait until a whole bunch of coins are in circulation and THEN demand payment, backed by a lawsuit (see above).

Moving on to paper money, the White House announced yesterday that, also "in honor" of the semiquincentennial, Trump's signature would be added to U.S. bills. The signatures of the sitting treasurer and treasury secretary already appear on all paper currency; Trump's is reportedly going to be added next to that of Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent.

We seriously doubt that many people will even see the Trump commemorative coins. Most also will not see the Trump $1 coins, if they should come to pass, because Americans just don't use $1 coins. If you are American, think of how many times you've handled a Herbert Hoover $1 coin, or a James Monroe $1 coin. They exist, but the answer for virtually all readers must surely be "zero times."

On the other hand, people certainly will see the Trump-signed bills, since most people use paper money, at least sometimes. We suppose that, in addition to the "ego" considerations we describe above, Trump might also think this will help his brand, on some level. If so, we would guess he is wrong. Most people don't look closely at their money, and they certainly don't examine the signatures. So, the way most people would know about this is by seeing stories about the change to the currency. And we would imagine that, on the whole, it's more likely to be a turnoff ("What is with this guy? Does he think he's a king?") than a turn-on ("Another great macho move from Donald Trump!"). Those are just our guesses, though—as with the coins, there is no precedent for a president to force his signature onto American currency.

And as long as we are on the general subject of Republicans stroking Trump's ego, we might as well pass along the news that Trump spoke at the National Republican Congressional Committee annual fundraising dinner on Wednesday night, and Mike Johnson and his colleagues "honored" Trump with yet another made-up trophy, this one called the America First Award. Johnson swore, up and down, that although this honor has never been given before, it's going to be an "annual tradition" from here on out. Uh, huh. We'll believe that once we learn the identity of the SECOND Champion for Freedom Award, or the SECOND FIFA Peace Prize. We're not sure what is more unbelievable—that these people are willing to debase themselves like this, or that Trump does not see through the gambit and (apparently) thinks these are actual honors. (Z)

I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: Sugar Ray Robinson Won 109 Fights by K.O.

We knew we'd only have one hint for last week's headline theme, so we tried to make it a good one. It was: "we'll say that you might think 'O'Neal' should be a potential clue, but that is actually not correct (to the chagrin of many people, including Z, in the relevant time period)." We will take this opportunity to remind folks that the hint is an important part of the puzzle, and an answer that does not work with the hint is, therefore, not the right answer. Specifically, we had a number of guesses that the theme was "Basketball Hall of Famers" or "NBA All-Stars." That's close, but: (1) Shaquille O'Neal is in the Hall of Fame and was also an All-Star many times, and so WOULD be a correct clue for that theme, and (2) That doesn't really match with the note about the theme having to do with a specific year/time period.

And now, here is the correct solution, courtesy of reader J.M. in Eagle Mills, NY:

Olympic gold medalists in basketball at the 1992 Barcelona Olympics—a.k.a. members of the "Dream Team":

• Legal Bytes: Roll, Jordan, Roll (Eggs, That Is)—Michael Jordan
• In Congress: Markwayne Mullin Nomination Advanced to the Senate Floor—Chris Mullin
• I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: Sam Malone Starred in Sinners... Really—Karl Malone
• This Week in Schadenfreude: A Little Bird* Told Me Never to Hire One of Those Pinko MIT Law Grads—Larry Bird
• This Week in Freudenfreude: Afroman Works His Magic—Earvin "Magic" Johnson

* - Honorable mention to Sue Bird, who turned 12 in 1992, but claimed five Olympic golds in 2004, 2008, 2012, 2016 and 2020.

Shaq had to wait until 1996 in Atlanta.

Yep, they decided there would be one "token" college player (something they don't do anymore), and then decided that player would be Christian Laettner, rather than the much-more-skilled Shaq. Meanwhile, from the headline for this item, David Robinson was also on the team.

Here are the first 60 readers to get it right:

P.H. in Ft. Lauderdale, FL J.S. in Huntington Station, NY T.K. in Manchester, MO M.S. in Canton, NY M.K. in Seattle, WA H.B. in Santiago, Chile K.R. in Austin, TX E.S. in Providence, RI S.K. in Ardmore, PA T.K. in Half Moon Bay, St. Kitts D.D. in Highland Park, IL D.B. in Pittsboro, NC M.T. in Simpsonville, SC W.M. in Livonia, MI G.M.K. in Mishawaka, IN N.S. in Los Angeles, CA R.S. in Pittsgrove. NJ A.G. in Plano, TX R.S. in Milan, OH M.J.S. in Gig Harbor, WA J.U. in Chicago, IL G.M. in Chevy Chase, MD S.G. in Durham, NC T.W. in Effingham IL J.M. in Eagle Mills P.R. in Havertown, PA A.B. in Naperville, IL C.G. in Pflugerville, TX S.I. in Minneapolis, MN J.S. in Columbia, MO

M.A. in West Windsor, NJ D.D. in Bucks County, PA M.T. in Wheat Ridge, CO S.S. in Lucerne, Switzerland M.J. im Oakdale, MN M.W. in Frederick, MD N.E. in Anchorage, AK B.D. in Hood River, OR B.E. in Brooklyn, NY B.F. in Baltimore, MD L.H. in Manchester, England, UK T.D. in Chicago, IL J.G. in Linden, NJ B.B. in Avon, CT A.R. in Los Angeles, CA G.W. in Avon, CT B.M. in Chico, CA C.S. in Palm Beach County, FL R.J.L. in Columbus, IN B.A. in Sioux Falls, SD P.W. in Tulalip, WA D.O. in Brookline, MA D.W. in State College, PA G.G. in Lexington, KY J.H. in El Segundo, CA S.M. in Warren, MI J.N. in Zionsville, IN N.H. in London, England, UK W.V. in San Jacinto, CA D.L. in Springfield, IL

The 60th correct response was received at 6:50 a.m. PT on Saturday.

For this week's theme, it relies on one word (or letter, in one case) per headline, it's in the category Sports, and the Iran headline is NOT part of it. For a hint, we'll say we don't like to do Sports two weeks in a row, but given what yesterday was, our hands were somewhat tied.

If you have a guess, send it to comments@electoral-vote.com with subject line "March 27 Headlines." (Z)

This Week in Schadenfreude: Maybe Utah Republicans Can't Count

These days, this strikes us as a Politics 101-level lesson: If you're mounting a petition drive, get considerably more signatures than the minimum required. You never know what could happen, from signatures being duplicated, to signatures being invalidated, to signatures being... withdrawn, apparently.

It would seem that Utahns For Representative Government (UFRG), an extremely ironic name adopted by a bunch of Republican operatives who most certainly do NOT value representative government, did not get the memo. They are cranky that those infernal liberals in and around Salt Lake City might actually have a voice in Congress, due to recent political and legal maneuvers that slayed Utah's 4R, 0D House delegation gerrymander, and turned it into a (likely) 3R, 1D. So, UFRG launched a petition drive for an initiative that would have put the drawing of House districts back in the hands of "the people," by which they mean "the Utah legislature." Since the Utah legislature has 61 Republicans versus 14 Democrats in the state House, and 22 Republicans vs. 6 Democrats in the state Senate, it's pretty clear what would have happened if "the people" regained control of the process.

Anyhow, UFRG thought they had cleared the bar, signature-wise, albeit with a relatively small margin of error. But then an information campaign warned Utah voters what UFRG really stood for, and what the ballot measure was really about. Since people often sign petitions without knowing the contents (outside, say, the grocery store), it is plausible that many people did not know. And Utah law allows people to withdraw their signatures up to the point that the initiative is certified. And just enough people chose to exercise that right that the initiative fell below the minimum threshold. The overall total was actually enough, but there also has to be a certain minimum in at least 26 of 29 state Senate districts, and the efforts of state Sen. Kathleen Riebe (D) caused her district (SD-15) to drop below the minimum, leaving UFRG with the necessary number of signatures in 25 districts, which is close, but no cigar.

It is now too late for UFRG to fix the problem, though the group's leaders say they will try again next cycle. Maybe so, but they spent more than $4 million this time, and they also enlisted the assistance of Donald Trump, J.D. Vance, Gov. Spencer Cox (R-UT) and other heavy hitters, yet came up short. In the future, people asked to sign petitions might just look a bit more closely before bestowing their John Hancock. Also, in a presidential year, it may not be as easy to come up with $4 million to chase just one House seat. So, the good people of Salt Lake City might actually be able to keep the pinko commie lib'rul they're likely to elect in November of this year.

Oh, and thanks to reader B.P. in Salt Lake City for sending this along. He's one of those pinko commie lib'ruls, of course. (Z)

This Week in Freudenfreude: Save the Planet, Trump Be Damned

The Trump administration, by all indications, aspires to turn the U.S. into a petrochemical kingdom, like Saudi Arabia. The disaster in Iran, which has been an object lesson in the fragility of the petrochemical economy, does not appear to have had any effect on the White House's thinking. If it's the last thing he does, Donald Trump is going to keep America addicted to carbon-based energy sources, whether Americans like it or not.

The problem here is that a president cannot halt certain global economic and scientific forces, no matter how competent (or incompetent) that president might be. There may be no greater symbol of his energy policy than the TransAlta Centralia Coal Plant, which is the last remaining coal plant on the grid that serves north-central Washington state. It was supposed to be closed, for conversion to natural gas processing. However, the Trump-led Department of Energy ordered it to remain open, so that Washingtonians could have energy from "clean, beautiful coal." The problem here is that Washingtonians don't want that energy, and don't need that energy, particularly at the higher prices associated with coal generation. And so, for months, TransAlta Centralia has sat idle. It can't profitably process the fuel the White House demands, and it can't legally convert to the fuel that local residents demand.

Actually, now that we think about it, there's probably an even better symbol of Trump's energy policy, namely Vineyard Wind 1. We have written about this before; Trump hates green energy, and he particularly hates wind, because of a personal grudge involving one of his golf courses. So, his administration tried to shut Vineyard Wind 1 down, for... reasons. This despite the fact that it was almost complete, and was, in fact, already generating power. Then the courts got involved, and told the White House to shove it. So, Trump ultimately failed in his efforts to break wind. And now, Vineyard Wind 1 is fully operational, and is generating enough electricity for 400,000 homes.

There is, by the way, proof of concept that an energy policy that blends investment in green technology and careful management of carbon-based resources can work, and that proof of concept is China. Under Xi Jinping's leadership, the Chinese have built up a large reserve of more traditional fuels, while also developing their ability to produce forward-looking technology, from solar panels to wind turbines to electric vehicles.

We don't love to hold up the oppressive Xi regime as a model, but there's no question that he and other Chinese leaders took the long view, as China is wont to do. That means they are in a position to weather the Iran crisis, and they are also in a strong position for whenever the petrochemical energy economy fades away, something that may happen sooner or later. It's a shame that so many American politicians do not take a similarly long view on such matters. If it turns out that we are living in the final days of the American hegemony, and the early days of the Chinese hegemony, it could well turn out that energy was the linchpin on which everything turned.

That is a somewhat dark observation, we know, but the continued survival of the planet and of the human race is more important than the continued dominance of any one nation-state. And so, the inexorable march towards the hopefully more eco-friendly future of energy is a freudenfreude moment, even if it leaves the United States trailing the pack.

Have a good weekend, all! (Z)

---

Previous report         Next report

---

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