Today in Diplomacy: So Much for the Theodore Roosevelt Approach

There aren't too many presidential slogans more famous that Theodore Roosevelt's "Speak softly and carry a big stick." Donald Trump does not seem to have heard about it, though, because he and his team seem invariably to take the polar opposite approach: "Bluster loudly and carry a small... stick."

This certainly applies to the "negotiations" with Iran that have taken place in the last month or so. It's a shame that Google trends does not pay attention to capitalization, because we'd bet that the use of "taco" is steady these days, but the use of "TACO" is way, way up. However, this item isn't actually about the Trump Administration vs. Iran. Nope, it's about the Trump Administration vs. the Catholic Church.

We had an item earlier this week about how the members of the Trump administration are embracing a perverse and extreme form of Christianity, and how that has put the White House in conflict with the Catholic Church and with Pope Leo XIV. Boy, was that timely, as it turns out, thanks to a story first reported by the Free Press.

This administration is very used to evangelical leaders abiding by whatever marching orders that Trump or his underlings might give. It would seem that Team Trump thought the same would work with Catholic leaders. So, in January, they summoned Cardinal Chrisophe Pierre, then the Holy See's ambassador to the U.S., to lay down the law. The administration was displeased with some of things Leo was saying about THAT month's war—the one in Venezuela. According to sources who were present at the meeting, Trump officials told Pierre that "the United States has the military power to do whatever it wants in the world," and warned him that "the Catholic Church had better take [our] side." Reportedly, at least one Trump underling even went so far as to mention the Avignon Papacy, a situation in the 14th century where a succession of popes lived in France, and took their marching orders from the French crown.

The White House has pushed back at this reporting, calling it "exaggerated." There is no doubt, however, that it's largely or entirely true. First, "exaggerated" is not the same thing as "never happened." Second, VP J.D. Vance, who thinks he's running for president, and who will need Catholic votes as part of that effort, tap danced like Fred Astaire when he was asked about the news, so as to avoid taking a position. Third, there are too many weird details here that nobody could plausibly have made up, like the Avignon thing. Fourth, shortly after the meeting, and without explanation at that time, the Vatican canceled a planned papal visit scheduled to coincide with the United States' 250th anniversary celebrations.

The members of the Trump administration are clearly drunk on power. This appears to have caused them to forget that Trumpism is a movement that has lasted a decade or so, and is not likely to last much longer. Compare that to the Catholic Church, which has been a going concern for the better part of 2,000 years. The Pope's power comes from sources that go beyond the ones that power Trump (or any other U.S. president), and he is not going to be cowed by a secular leader's idle threats.

That said, there certainly is a political dimension to the papacy, especially today. So while Leo apparently has no interest in meeting with Donald Trump or any of his minions, he did just have a nice sit-down with Obama Administration insider David Axelrod. This is widely being interpreted as a prelim for a papal meeting with Obama himself, sometime in the near future. Who knows what the long-term result of that meeting might be (joint appearances?), but if it does happen, and if the news becomes public, Trump is going to blow a gasket.

The Bulwark's Jonathan V. Last took a look at this situation in yesterday's column. JVL, who is Catholic, has an awareness of pretty abstruse doctrinal issues that don't exactly come up in everyday conversation, and because he strongly takes the Catholic side of the Catholic vs. Trump-vangelical fight. But the main argument of the piece is the same one we put forward (backed by the lion's share of the readers, as it turned out): The Trump administration is not actually religious, they are political actors who are just using a very corrupted version of their "religion" as a cloak. That is going to be a problem for people who are actually religious, like the pope.

Given the festering wound that has presented itself, Newsweek did a rundown of the relevant polling. There's not a lot of it, but there is some, and two themes come through. The first is that Leo is far more popular with Americans than Trump is. The Primate of Italy has a net approval of +34, while the primate at Mar-a-Lago is hovering around -20. And the gap between them is getting larger, not smaller.

Meanwhile, there aren't too many pollsters specifically asking Catholics how they feel about Trump, but Pew Research Center is doing so. In the 2024 election, 62% of white Catholics voted for Trump, while 40% of Latino Catholics did so. His job approval is dropping rapidly with both groups; in a poll taken right before the Iran war commenced, only half of white Catholics approved of Trump (it was still in the low 60s as late as the end of January) while only 23% of Latino Catholics did (down from the low 30s in late January). It is not probable that the messy Iran war, and the calls for genocide against the Iranian people, are going to improve these figures.

And so, we say again, this bears watching. Republicans very much need Catholic votes. And they are counting on Catholic Latinos, in particular, in Texas and Florida, in particular. If Catholics vote Democratic in much larger numbers than in 2024, or even if they just stay home rather than voting, that could spell disaster for the GOP in November. (Z)

House Divided: For Many in MAGA, It's the Day after Christmas

Thanks to the events of 1/6, Donald Trump managed to alienate a sizable chunk of his base—largely, the folks who weren't really MAGA, but who had to go along to get along. He put the coalition back together by 2024, of course, resulting in the term he's serving right now. But it's clear that many of the people who backed him in that election are now having buyer's remorse, and wish they could make an exchange. The primary cause of this, at least at the moment, is the mess in Iran.

Here are a rundown of some of responses to the Iran War, and particularly the call for genocide against Iran, from (formerly?) MAGA folks:

• Tucker Carlson: Carlson, no liberal Democrat he, delivered a 43-minute direct-to-camera takedown of Trump this week. Among other things, Carlson said: "How dare you speak that way on Easter morning to the country? Who do you think you are? You're tweeting out the f-word on Easter morning."
  
  The whole thing was scathing. Carlson even urged U.S. officials to refuse any orders that could kill civilians. Telling military officers not to kill civilians is not some wild-eyed leftist idea. The UCMJ requires officers to disobey illegal orders. It is not optional. So Carlson is now on the same page as Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ), who Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth is trying to demote? Politics makes strange bedfellows.
  
  
• Alex Jones: The famous conspiracy theorist who is generally untethered from reality called Trump "a dementia risk" who must be removed from office. Watch here. Jones got very emotional.
  
  
• Marjorie Taylor Greene: She was once Trump's all-purpose cheerleader. He could do no wrong. Now she tweeted that his rhetoric is evil and madness. Shades of Mad King George III. She and Jones have also been ripping into Fox "News," calling it "propaganda for Boomers."
  
  
• Candace Owens: She is also no longer on team Trump. She called him a genocidal lunatic. Them's fightin' words. And if there's anyone who knows lunatics, it's surely Owens, since she is one herself.

All if these people were definitely passengers on the Trump train at one time. But even for them, trying to erase a whole civilization is a couple of bridges too far, even if the civilization in question has some pretty evil elements.

All of this caused us to think of a pretty good question, one that we are not sure we know the answer to. Here it is: Who does Trump hate more; (1) People who are more successful than he is, and in his heart he knows it? or (2) People who were once loyal to him, and turned apostate? For example, does Trump hate Barack Obama more, or does he hate Mike Pence more? Whatever the correct answer is, Trump is definitely furious that his former sheep are now trying to shear him. He hopped on his low-EQ social media to unspool yet another unhinged, rambling manifesto, this time targeting the quartet listed above. Here it is, though we don't suggest you actually read it:

Our purpose in sharing it here is just to convey the visual impact. There is no such thing as a social media post that is that long, and has that many capitalized words, and has no paragraph breaks, and is not absolutely nutty.

With this said, it is not only the former true-blue (true-red) devotees who have jumped off the moving train. Even some manosphere influences who weren't entirely with him in the first place have departed:

• Joe Rogan: He is a giant in the manosphere and endorsed Trump in 2024. That might well have been what put Trump over the top. He has called Iran war "insane, based on what he ran on." He also said Trump's supporters feel betrayed.
  
  
• Theo Von: He hosted Trump on his podcast in 2024. He tweeted that the U.S. and Israel—not Iran—are the "fu**ing terrorists."
  
  
• Tim Dillon: Here is another one who backed Trump in 2024. He thinks of himself as an anti-establishment comedian. He has some thoughts on MAGA and tweeted "It's the greatest con in history, truly." Oops.
  
  
• Sneako: He is a "red pill" streamer who is close to antisemitic white nationalist Nick Fuentes. He is sorry that he ever supported Trump and is now calling for impeachment. Sneako misses Joe Biden. That's going pretty far.

Exactly what this all means for November of this year, when Donald Trump will not be on the ballot, is hard to say. Consider two rather forceful statements that right-wing-but-only-sorta-MAGA Megyn Kelly made this week. The first one came on the April 6 edition of her radio show: "Trump could drop a nuke and I'd still vote Republican over Democrat. What [Democrats] want to do is nuke our own country." The second one came the edition of the show that aired the very next day:

I mean, I don't know about you, but I am sick of this sh**. I'm just—I'm sick of it. Can't he just behave like a normal human?

I mean, honestly, like the president—3D chess, just shut up, fu**ing shut up about that sh**. You don't threaten to wipe out an entire civilization, we're talking about civilians, just casually in a social media post. You know?

Like, I am the first to try to understand Trump and his strategy and to not freak out over his weird social media posts and language that is loose and incendiary. Truly, I've lived with it for ten-plus years. I learned it the hard way when I was on the receiving end of for nine months. And truly, I think that was a gift to me in many ways because it helped me really come to understand what he does with his social media.

But, this is completely irresponsible and disgusting. This is wrong. It's wrong. He should not be doing it.

So where is Kelly at, when it comes to her vote(s) in November. Will she stay home on Election Day? Will she hold her nose and vote Republican, because the Democrats are somehow worse? Will she quietly vote Democratic, and forget to tell her audience? There must be many Trump voters who are wrestling with this right now, and the problem will get worse if the Iran War lingers and particularly if the economic after-effects of the war linger.

We will be watching the polls closely, of course, especially in the next few weeks. But our guess is that while some 2024 Trump voters will "forgive" him and his party, and fall in line despite their misgivings about Iran and about the economy, there are going to be a meaningful number of 2024 Trump voters who take a pass or who vote third-party, and there are going to be a meaningful number of independents who voted Trump last time, but who will jump ship to the blue team this time. If our suppositions are correct, that would cover two of the key ingredients in a blue wave. The third, of course, is Democratic enthusiasm, and we already know that is WAY up right now. (V & Z)

What Just Happened?: First Lady Does Her Iron Lady Impression

Margaret Thatcher had a substantially genial public image, but was often a cutthroat operator behind the scenes. She had to be, to gain the kind of power she did, in the era she did. Yesterday, Melania Trump channeled the spirit of the former PM, delivering a speech that was fairly amiable, and yet that threw her husband right under the bus.

The subject of the First Lady's announced-at-the-last-second address was... Jeffrey Epstein. If you had "Melania speaks out on Epstein" on your April 9 bingo card, you win automatically, without even needing the other four items in the line. You can read the text of her remarks here, but this is the crux of the thing:

The lies linking me with the disgraceful Jeffrey Epstein need to end today.

The individuals lying about me are devoid of ethical standards, humility, and respect. I do not object to their ignorance, but rather, I reject their mean-spirited attempts to defame my reputation.

I have never been friends with Epstein. Donald and I were invited to the same parties as Epstein from time to time, since overlapping in social circles is common in New York City and Palm Beach.

To be clear, I never had a relationship with Epstein or his accomplice, Maxwell. My email reply to Maxwell cannot be categorized as anything more than casual correspondence. My polite reply to her email doesn't amount to anything more than a trivial note.

I am not Epstein's victim. Epstein did not introduce me to Donald Trump. I met my husband, by chance, at a New York City party in 1998. This initial encounter with my husband is documented in detail in my book, Melania.

Remember folks, that's Melania, available wherever books are sold.

Exactly what prompted this incident is something of a mystery. It certainly looks like the First Lady is trying to get out ahead of... something, and probably something whose release was imminent. There is an e-mail between Melania Trump and Ghislaine Maxwell that is referenced in the remarks, and that was made public yesterday, after the First Lady spoke. Was that it? The e-mail is fairly benign, as far as these things go:

Dear G!

How are you? Nice story about JE in NY mag. You look great on the picture. I know you are very busy flying all over the world. How was Palm Beach? I cannot wait to go down. Give me a call when you are back in NY. Have a great time!

Love,

Melania

The First Lady is clearly lying about how distant her relationship with Maxwell/Epstein was; this message plus the many photos where they are shown together make that clear. Still, yesterday's presser was guaranteed to bring mountains attention to the message. If that's what the bee in her bonnet was, it would have been better to just let it go. So, it's very possible that something else is about to drop. That said, it's also possible that Melania's skin is so thin, and that her understanding of the Streisand Effect is so poor, that she did pull the trigger based entirely on this relatively paltry "revelation."

Whatever her motivations, they were certainly selfish, which is par for the course for her. Now, in a "lull" period of the Iran War—a war that might well have been launched, in part, to distract from Epsteinpot Dome—the story is right back in the headlines. Not only that, but the First Lady went on the record in her address encouraging Congress to investigate the matter fully.

As you might imagine, Melania's husband was none too happy about this. Initially, the White House claimed it did not know about the First Lady's plans, but then later it turned out that was not true. Meanwhile, the President did not attack the First Lady directly, but he did get on his social media site for sociopaths (sociomedia?) to uncork an absolute bender of a posting spree. Among the lowlights were the wall of text (above), as well as a disturbing video of a woman in Florida being beaten to death with a hammer. We're not linking to that one; you'll have to find it for yourself if you really want to see it. His ostensible reason was that the murderer is a Haitian immigrant, and therefore that Joe Biden and "radical judges" are culpable for the woman's death. That said, there are some who are interpreting the video as a veiled threat against the First Lady herself. If so, that is very dark. Very, very dark.

So, will next week be another Epstein week? Does this incident suggest that Melania has turned against Donald, and will be working to undermine him? Either is possible. (Z)

Legal News: We're Not Quite to the Last Mile of the Marathon

When the Supreme Court issued its presidential immunity decision in Trump v. U.S., it made a distinction between official acts (immune) and unofficial acts (not immune). The Court also approved of the D.C. Court of Appeals opinion in a civil case against Donald Trump in which the court distinguished between the actions of an office-seeker versus an office-holder. As an example, the Court strongly hinted that Trump's speech on the ellipse on January 6, when he urged his supporters to "fight like hell" and march to the Capitol to stop the certification of the 2020 election, was a campaign speech, given as an office-seeker, not an office-holder. Those actions, then, would be unofficial acts and not covered by presidential immunity.

With that backdrop, we have some developments in the civil lawsuits against Trump by some Capitol police officers and members of Congress who are alleging that Trump is liable for the harm that occurred on January 6 and should pay damages. These suits were filed back in 2021, but thanks to Trump's infamous delay tactics, they have been up and down the appellate ladder before landing back in the U.S. District Court in D.C. before Judge Amit Mehta.

The latest in these cases (which have been combined) is that the court denied Trump's motion for a summary judgment. A summary judgment motion is the last big attempt by the defense to get the case decided without a trial. Trump argued that everything he did was an official act—for which he's immune from being sued—by virtue of having been president when all these things occurred. But Mehta ruled that just sitting in the big chair isn't enough, that there are many times when a sitting president is also a candidate, and that those "candidate" actions are not entitled to any greater protection than any other candidate.

Following from this, the judge ruled that Trump is not automatically entitled to immunity for any of the following acts: (1) his speech at the Ellipse; (2) his calls to state legislators and Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to "find" 11,000 more Trump votes; and (3) his involvement in the fake electors scheme. These were all the actions of a candidate for office. Trump can still claim immunity as a defense at trial, but he can't avoid a trial altogether. The judge also ruled that, consistent with the Supreme Court's ruling in the criminal case, any conversations with the attorney general or the Department of Justice are off-limits and can't be the basis for any of the plaintiffs' claims.

In addition to that, Trump also argued that his Ellipse speech was protected by the First Amendment as political speech. But the court found that under Supreme Court precedent, the president's exhortation to the crowd to "fight like hell...[or] you're not going to have a country anymore" and to immediately "walk down Pennsylvania Avenue" could be incitement for the crowd to break the law. And, as we know, those words had their intended effect.

Finally, the Department of Justice asked the court to let it intervene in the case on Trump's behalf and allow it to substitute the U.S. government in place of Trump as the defendant. This would mean that taxpayers would be on the hook for any damages, not Trump, if those claims went forward. The judge said, in so many words, "uh, no." Since he had just found that the plaintiffs' claims likely involve unofficial, personal acts by candidate Trump, there's no basis for the DoJ to step in and let him off the hook.

So, Trump may yet be held accountable for the violence on January 6. There are still lots more steps, including the inevitable appeal from this ruling, but we're inching our way closer to a trial. In fact, it could happen right around the time of the next presidential election, which the 2020 Republican nominee would surely be just thrilled about. (L)

I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: The Red Sox Did Not Retire 3B Wade Boggs' Number until 2016

Even readers who are not sports fans will know that, since the 1930s, one of the honors sometimes accorded to very popular/successful athletes is for their teams to "retire" their uniform numbers, theoretically keeping any other player from that team from wearing that number (sometimes the "retirement" proves to be something less than permanent, though).

What readers might not know is that sometimes the number retirements are, for lack of a better term, politically fraught. Wade Boggs, to take the example from this headline, was clearly one of the greats in Boston Red Sox history, and most certainly cleared the bar for "deserves to have his number retired" with room to spare. However, he did not get to play his entire career with the Sox, and as a result, there was a lot of bad blood between him and the team after he moved on to the Yankees and the Rays. Consequently, it took 17 years after his playing career had ended, and 12 years after he was elected to the Hall of Fame, for the team to finally make good on the inevitable number retirement.

To continue on this theme for just one more moment, there's actually a Los Angeles example that has generated a fair bit of local chatter this year. There is only one team in the NBA that has zero retired numbers (other than Bill Russell's #6, which is retired league-wide), and that one NBA team is the Los Angeles Clippers. Part of the problem is that the team has been pretty crummy for most of its existence (founded 1970). The other part of the problem is that the team has generally traded away AND alienated its few star players.

This year, it seemed that the "curse" was finally about to end. Chris Paul has played for many teams, but he had a long and productive tenure with the Clippers, and he re-signed with them at the start of this year, with the idea that he would have a "farewell tour" season, would retire at the end of the year, and then the team would retire his number shortly thereafter (even, perhaps, on the day of his final game).

The problem is that the Clippers, who are kind of the Trump Administration of basketball teams, could not help but shoot themselves in the foot. The relationship with Paul went south, and they cut him from the team halfway through the season, and in humiliating fashion (they told him he was done in a meeting held at 3:00 a.m. in a hotel room in Houston). So, there will be no number retirement for Paul anytime soon, and the rafters of the Clippers' godawful new arena will remain empty for the foreseeable future, since the team is not going to be retiring any numbers, or hanging any championship banners, anytime soon.

Anyhow, just a sidebar inspired by the headline. When we last did a headline theme, 2 weeks ago, we gave two hints. The first was: "[W]e don't like to do Sports two weeks in a row, but given what yesterday was, our hands were somewhat tied." The second was: "[Y]ou should really pay attention to the 5,000+ word answer" in that day's Q&A. And here is the solution, courtesy of reader A.R. in Los Angeles, CA:

Baseball terms!

• In Congress: Congress Can't Solve the DHS Pickle—runner is trapped between two bases and usually tagged out
  
  
• Legal News, Part I: DoJ Feeling the Squeeze from Federal Judges—play involving a sacrifice bunt to score a runner from third
  
  
• Legal News, Part II: How to Steal from the Government, in Two Easy Steps—as in, a base
  
  
• Money Moves: Trump Gets Even Closer to Being a Monarch—pitcher coming in at the end of the game
  
  
• I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: Sugar Ray Robinson Won 109 Fights by K.O.—notation indicating a pitch was a strike
  
  
• This Week in Schadenfreude: Maybe Utah Republicans Can't Count—pitch count, the number of balls/strikes
  
  
• This Week in Freudenfreude: Save the Planet, Trump Be Damned—the closer finishing off the game successfully

We also accepted "Monarch," as that was the name of Kansas City's very good Negro Leagues team. The day before we ran this theme was opening day, and the 5,000-word answer on Saturday was about the greatest baseball players of all time. Meanwhile, there is much in the headline for this item that is baseball related, but the thing that's actually a baseball term is "3B."

Here are the first 60 readers to get it right:

R.N. in Cleveland, OH B.D. in Hood River, OR K.S. in San Diego, CA T.A. in Apex, NC R.S. in Milan, OH S.K. in Ardmore, PA R.S. in Landing, NJ M.W. in Altea, Spain P.Q. in Metuchen, NJ G.S. in Basingstoke, England, UK T.K. in Manchester, MO M.T. in Wheat Ridge, CO M.S. in Canton, NY J.S. in Huntington Station, NY C.W. in Atlantic Beach, FL K.M. in Ypsilanti, MI J.F. in Fayetteville, NC T.K. in Half Moon Bay, St. Kitts M.J. in Oakdale, MN C.F. in Miami, FL M.K. in Seattle, WA P.H. in Ft. Lauderdale, FL G.W. in Avon, CT J.M. in Eagle Mills, NY R.E. in Birmingham, AL C.B. in Lakeville, MN P.A. in Redwood City, CA M.M. in Charlottesville, VA S.W. in Winter Garden, FL P.R. in Havertown, PA

M.K. in Long Branch, NJ E.S. in Acton, MA D.B. in Pittsboro, NC R.S. in Pittsgrove, NJ J.H. in Flint, MI A.B.W. in New Haven, CT B.E. in Brooklyn, NY M.M. in Dunellen, NJ L.D. in Bedford, MA E.B. in North Liberty, IA B.U. in St. Louis, MO W.M. in Livonia, MI D.D. in Bucks County, PA J.M.R. in Muncie, IN R.S. in Tonawanda, NY K.H. in Matyville, TN K.L. in Sterling, VA T.F. in Craftsbury Common, VT J.W. in Bergisch Gladbach, Germany K.B. in Troy, MI B.J. in Ann Arbor, MI D.C. in South Elgin, IL K.R. in Austin, TX J.M. in Chapel Hill, NC G.M. in Gaithersburg, MD N.S. in Los Angeles, CA J.E. in San Jose, CA M.J.S. in Gig Harbor, WA G.R.R. in Claremont, CA H.S. in Lake Forest, CA

The 60th correct response was received at 7:24 a.m. PT on Friday.

For this week's theme, it relies on multiple words in most headlines, and it's in the category Numbers. That's actually a really good hint by itself, but on top of that, we will add a visual clue:

If you have a guess, send it to comments@electoral-vote.com with subject line April 10 Headlines. (Z)

This Week in Schadenfreude: (Z) Sues Donald Trump

Well, OK, not directly. Still, it is fair to say that (Z) has now joined the oh-so-exclusive club of people who are, or have been, connected to a lawsuit involving Donald Trump.

We noted, earlier this week, that the Trump-subservient DoJ announced that it's looked at the Presidential Records Act—a law passed by Congress—and decided that it's not actually valid. And so, Donald Trump is free to take any and all paperwork he wants to take with him when he leaves office. He can fill 100 bathrooms at Mar-a-Lago with boxes, if that is what he wants to do.

Initially, we observed that while "the Department of Justice said my behavior was lawful" is a pretty good defense in many cases, it's not too likely to work with a judge when that DoJ has shown itself to be utterly subservient to politics, and not at all independent. So, Trump better think long and hard if he decides to flout the law again, because the next AG/special counsel would likely file in D.C. and not south Florida. That means "Judge" Aileen Cannon would not be making the decisions.

What we should also have noted is that this announcement was colossally stupid (a phrase we never thought we'd use as often as we do these days). If the goal is to give Trump some sort of legal cover for doing what he so badly wants to do, the smart play was to wait until the waning days of his administration, and THEN make the announcement. We can only assume that the decision to announce NOW was because some sycophant at the DoJ is auditioning to replace Pam Bondi, and was trying to make nice with the President.

In any case, announcing now means there is time for people to react, whether in Congress (ha!) or in court. And so, the American Historical Association (AHA), which includes (Z) as a member, has filed suit, seeking to keep Trump from taking his paperwork with him when he leaves office. The AHA is joined in the suit by the watchdog group American Oversight.

The AHA is a good choice here, because they clearly have an interest in keeping the documents available, and so should be able to establish standing. On the whole, federal courts do not issue advisory opinions, which could theoretically mean that the AHA would have to wait until Trump actually broke the law. However, the good news for the historians is that he already did break the law once. Further, courts sometimes will issue an opinion if it appears an issue is imminent, even if it hasn't come to pass. Chiles v. Salazar, the conversion therapy case, was preemptive like this, in that the rights that Chiles claims had not yet actually been violated.

So, you will likely see Trump facing off against a bunch of angry historians in court. And if he thinks the ayatollahs are scary, well, he hasn't seen what an angry historian is like. He won't like them when they're angry. Meanwhile, maybe this will teach Trump that sometimes, obeisant sycophants do not actually have his best interests in mind... OK, probably not. (Z)

This Week in Freudenfreude: Ojala Y Te Animes

For those who don't speak the language, that literally means "Hopefully you'll dare to." The English phrase that probably comes closest to the intended meaning, however, is "Dare to dream." Oh, and "Ojalá Y Te Animes" is also the title of a popular song by Tejano-musician-turned-politician Bobby Pulido.

Pulido, as we have written several times, is in the middle of a pitched battle with Rep. Monica De La Cruz (R-TX) for the right to represent the R+7 TX-15 in the next Congress. R+7 is a tall hill for any Democrat to climb, but with Pulido's celebrity, and with the current political climate, it's certainly within the realm of possibility.

Now, let us imagine a scenario. The year is 1964, and you are a young lady who was born in 1948, and are therefore planning your Sweet Sixteen party. Wouldn't it be quite the feat to somehow get Paul McCartney to drop in on the party and perform a few songs? Dare to dream, right? For a young Latina who was born in 2011, a pretty comparable equivalent would bt planning your quinceañera, and getting Pulido to drop in and perform a few of his hits. ¿Ojalá y te animes, verdad?

Well, for a few lucky young Latinas, the dream has become reality. In a sign that she is at least somewhat nervous, De La Cruz has made more than a few snotty remarks at Pulido's expense. And one of those was an observation that the election "isn't about who you want performing at your niece's quinceañera." Pulido decided to take those particular limones and make limonada. So, he's been showing up to quinceañera parties in his would-be district, and performing for the honorees and their friends. Thus far, he's done about a dozen of them.

Pulido makes sure to perform the guest of honor's favorites, and he also arrives armed with swag, like autographed pink hats that read "Make Quinceañeras Great Again." It's obviously a very nice gesture, and makes for a very memorable day for the honoree and her guests. It's also very politically shrewd. If Pulido shows up to YOUR quinceañera, you're likely going to wallpaper your social media with pictures and videos of his appearance. Those videos and pictures are going to reach a lot of voters who are not otherwise paying attention to politics, and will send the message that Pulido's deeply embedded in Latino culture, that he's not your average politician, and that he's a down-to-earth regular guy.

Pulido's got no shortage of opportunities to do as many of these appearances as he wants to do. When his campaign put out the call for invitations, they got 1,000 of them in the first 24 hours, and now the total is approaching 3,000. And it's not just quinceañera invitations, but also regular birthdays, graduations and even Bar Mitzvahs. We did not know there were enough Latino Jews in Texas to form a minyan, but apparently there are. Keep an eye on social media, maybe one day soon you can see videos of "Hava Nagila" performed in Spanish.

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