Select Committee Releases Final Report

The final report from the 1/6 Committee is out. It did not drop until fairly late in the evening on Thursday, and it's 845 pages long, so it's not like anyone who is not involved with the 1/6 Committee could plausibly have read it all the way through yet. Still, there's been enough time to look it over and take note of some of the highlights:

• The Committee thinks the Electoral Count Act should be passed (almost done; see below)
• The Committee thinks Donald Trump should be barred from future officeholding
• The Committee thinks Trump should be charged criminally
• The previously unknown lawyer Kenneth Chesebro was the architect of the "alternate electors" scheme
• Trump was in regular contact with Chesebro, John Eastman, and other conspirators
• Trump and his allies pressured state officials to overturn election results more than 200 times
• Trump decided to declare victory long before Election Day, no matter what happened at the polls
• Trump refused to take action at key moments (well, key hours) during the 1/6 riot
• The rioters were in Washington because Trump told them to be
• Trump's phony claims allowed him to raise more than $250 million in donations (and that doesn't even include NFT sales)

There isn't much else to be said right now. Trump has already responded angrily on his boutique social media platform, but that's hardly news. And because of the lateness of the release, and the holiday weekend, it may be a few days until we see how this plays, or if it plays at all. (Z)

Senate Passes Budget

It's Christmas this weekend, and the members of Congress want to get the hell out of Dodge. Well, D.C. And so, after a marathon bargaining and bickering session, the Senate has passed a $1.7 trillion government spending bill that will fund the government into next year. None of the Senators have actually read the full bill, which runs over 4,000 pages. Oh, well. You can't have everything, right?

Here are some of the more notable things that made it into the final bill:

• $45 billion in aid to Ukraine
• $38 billion in emergency relief for western states
• $2.6 billion to fund investigations and prosecutions related to 1/6
• A 4.6% pay raise for military personnel
• An update to the Electoral Count Act to make it harder to try to overturn a presidential election
• Verbiage that would give pregnant women the same workplace protections as disabled people
• A ban on TikTok on devices owned by the federal government

On the other hand, Sen. Joe Manchin's (D-WV) pet project, an overhaul of permitting rules, didn't make it. Nor did an extension of the enhanced Child Tax Credit, an additional $9 billion in COVID relief, or a provision that would have allowed banks to do business with marijuana dispensaries.

The biggest exclusion, however, is one that was apparently never even on the table: an increase in the United States' debt limit. Maybe Senate Republicans want this fight, since they do have to have some high-profile way to signal to the base that they are "fiscal conservatives." Or maybe Senate Democrats do, since they know that House Republicans are likely to end up the losers in this game of chicken. Whatever the case may be, the debt limit will be reached in late spring or early summer of next year, and then the Treasury will run out of bookkeeping tricks in July or August. So, get ready for some summer... fun.

The vote on the bill was 68-29. In case you are interested, here are the 18 Republicans who joined with the 47 Democrats and 3 independents in voting "yea":

• Roy Blunt (MO)
• John Boozman (AR)
• Shelley Moore Capito (WV)
• Susan Collins (ME)
• John Cornyn (TX)
• Tom Cotton (AR)
• Lindsey Graham (SC)
• Jim Inhofe (OK)
• Mitch McConnell (KY)
• Jerry Moran (KS)
• Lisa Murkowski (AK)
• Rob Portman (OH)
• Mitt Romney (UT)
• Mike Rounds (SD)
• Richard Shelby (AL)
• John Thune (SD)
• Roger Wicker (MS)
• Todd Young (IN)

These folks are now apparently in the doghouse with some of their colleagues in the House (see below).

The bill heads to the House today, where it will surely be passed. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) wants to get out of town as much as anyone, and she certainly doesn't want the last thing she does as speaker to be shutting down the federal government at Christmas. So, this particular crisis would seem to have been averted, but again, the next one is just 5-6 months away. (Z)

House MAGAmaniacs Are Going Scorched Earth

Whatever game the House MAGA militia is playing at, they're clearly serious about it. To start with, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), who is a serious contender for the title of "Biggest Jerk in Congress" found a website (The Daily Caller) willing to publish a blistering anti-Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) op-ed. In it, Gaetz writes:

The McCarthy camp is spinning that Kevin must be accepted because "we have to avoid chaos." Chaos for who exactly? The special interests that are counting on McCarthy as their lapdog? I'm worried about chaos in the lives of my constituents. They live under the chaos of vaccine mandates pushed by Kevin's donors.

How well did Speaker Paul Ryan serve conservatives during then-President Donald Trump's first term? Are we glad that his tenure got off to a smooth start? It would have been better to have debated and chosen the right leader. Ryan, of course, supports McCarthy.

Every single Republican in Congress knows that Kevin does not actually believe anything. He has no ideology.

That last part, about no ideology, is undoubtedly true, but it's not very common for a sitting member of the House to say such things about the leader of their own conference.

And Gaetz wasn't the only one to fire up his word processor and write an angry message directed at his colleagues. Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX), who is also a serious contender for the title of "Biggest Jerk in Congress," wrote an "open letter" to the Republican senators who voted for the omnibus budget bill (see above). It concludes:

On Monday, the Senate Republican leader inexplicably called this bill "a strong outcome for Republicans." We wholly disagree—this bill completely contradicts everything the Republican party claims it stands for. We have a duty to stand up for Americans and put an end to the border crisis. We have a duty to use the power of the purse to stop the Biden administration's radical agenda. And we have a duty to stand athwart the rampant government spending that has caused crushing inflation. Voting in favor of this bill is a dereliction of our duty on all counts.

The released legislative text confirmed this omnibus is an assault on the American people. As such, we reiterate that if any omnibus passes in the remaining days of this Congress, we will oppose and whip opposition to any legislative priority of those senators who vote for its passage—including the Republican leader. We will oppose any rule, any consent request, suspension voice vote, or roll call vote of any such Senate bill, and will otherwise do everything in our power to thwart even the smallest legislative and policy efforts of those senators.

Again, we must stop the assault on Texans and the American people. Kill this terrible bill or there is no point in pretending we are a united party, and we must prepare for a new political reality.

Who knew that Mitch McConnell is a RINO? In any event, 31 Republican members signed onto the letter, including most of the nutters you would expect. The only notable omission we noticed was Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ). Maybe he was out of town. Or maybe he doesn't know how to write his name. Who knows?

Clearly, the MAGA members' threat did not work, so now we'll see if they follow through on their threat. Also, do they really not understand how the government works? Specifically, do they really think that a Democratic-controlled Senate, along with Joe Biden, are going to partner with them to "stop the Biden administration's radical agenda"? Are they really that deluded? Or do they just think their supporters aren't clever enough to know how the government works? With these MAGA folks, it's just never clear exactly what's going through their heads. (Z)

McClellan Wins in VA-04

On Tuesday, the Virginia Democratic Party held a hastily organized firehouse primary to select its nominee to replace the recently deceased Rep. Donald McEachin. State Sen. Jennifer McClellan was the preferred candidate of the establishment, and it is establishment types that tend to show up for an election like this, since it is sorta inside baseball. It is therefore not much of a surprise that McClellan won in a walk, taking 85% of the vote to 15% for state Sen. Joe Morrissey (and the remaining 1% split between two other candidates).

When we previously wrote about this election, we suggested that Morrissey's somewhat checkered past could make him vulnerable to defeat, should he claim the nomination, despite the fact that VA-04 is very blue (D+16). Several readers wrote in to correct us on that. For example, reader I.D. in Richmond:

As a current resident of VA-04 I thought I might provide a little local background. There's no question the state Democratic establishment wants no part of a Joe Morrissey win, but they're much more worried about him winning the primary rather than the actual special election if he manages to make it that far. This is because he would almost certainly become the Republicans' go-to answer whenever anything unsavory came up regarding, say, Matt Gaetz or Marjorie Taylor Greene.

However, while Fightin' Joe is definitely icky, he's also indisputably a very effective politician and genuinely liked for the work he's willing to do for his constituents. Combine that with the fact that he's been involved in Richmond politics for decades and that he's quite well known for pounding the pavement, and there's a near-zero chance of him losing to any Republican in the district. He's certainly capable of being an albatross around the neck of the Democrats at the national level, though, thus their clear preference for Jennifer McClellan (aside from her own merits, of which there are many).

Thanks for the clarification, I.D. (and others who wrote in)!

In any event, McClellan is a shoo-in to win when the election is held on Feb. 21 of next year. When she does, Virginia will have its first-ever Black woman representatives, while the House Democratic caucus will be back to full strength. (Z)

First Poll of Arizona Senate Race Released

It is a little early to be polling the 2024 Arizona U.S. Senate race. After all, there are many known unknowns, including:

• Will Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-AZ) run for reelection?
• Will the Democrats run Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ)? Someone else? Nobody?
• Who will the Republicans run?

Nonetheless, it's at least possible to make some educated guesses, which is what PPP did. Here are their results, which are based on the presumption that the Republican candidate will be Kari Lake:

• In a three-way matchup, it's Lake at 41%, Gallego at 40% and Sinema at 13%.
• In a head-to-head matchup between Gallego and Lake, Gallego leads 48% to 47%.
• In a head-to-head matchup between Sinema and Lake, Lake leads 42% to 39%.

The poll was commissioned and released by Gallego, so take it with a grain or two of salt. That said, PPP is a legitimate pollster, so you don't need too much salt.

In any event, look what happens when you swap Sinema for Gallego: 5% of Lake voters suddenly don't know who to vote for. We assume those are mostly centrist-to-conservative types who would consider either candidate. So, Sinema would potentially win some Lake voters that Gallego would not.

At the same time, when you make the swap, nearly 10% of Gallego voters suddenly don't know who to vote for. It is somewhat unlikely that there are voters who rank Gallego #1A, Lake #1B and Sinema #3. There may be some—conservative-leaning Latinos, perhaps—but probably not many. So, we have to assume that most of that 10% are Democratic voters who really don't want to vote for either candidate. And while some of them would grit their teeth and check the box for Sinema, others would likely skip that line on the ballot or else vote third party.

Our conclusion, then, is that for every vote Sinema might steal from the Republican candidate, she would likely drive away something like two Democratic votes. So, the blue team really, really needs to find a way to convince Sinema to drop out in 2024. Gallego is much more competitive, even now, and as the only candidate who has not run statewide, his support likely has room to grow. The seat will be in considerably less danger if he can just go head-to-head with the Republican nominee.

Note that while Gallego is well known outside Arizona, inside Arizona former Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton now Rep. Greg Stanton (D-AZ) is also well known. He might decide to challenge Gallego in a primary, so it would be nice to see general election polls with Lake, Stanton, and Sinema. Furthermore, Lake is no shoo-on for the Republican nomination if Gov. Greg Ducey (R-AZ) or AG Mark Brnovich (R) decides to run. (Z)

Hochul Nominates Conservative Judge for New York's Highest Court

Speaking of people who claim(ed) to be progressive, but maybe aren't, Gov. Kathy Hochul (D-NY) uncorked a real head-scratcher of a decision yesterday. The New York Court of Appeals is that state's highest court, and its Chief Judge, Janet DiFiore, resigned earlier this year. DiFiore is pretty conservative, and with her on the Court, it had four conservatives, two liberals and one moderate. Naturally, if DiFiore is replaced with a liberal, then the court goes from 4-2-1 to a much more even 3-3-1.

Once the vacancy opened up, Hochul issued a statement outlining the kind of judge she wanted to appoint. That statement includes this paragraph:

The U.S. Supreme Court has spoken—with decisions such as Dobbs vs. Jackson, taking away a woman's right to choose, and New York State Rifle and Pistol Association vs. Bruen, tossing a century-old law protecting New Yorkers from the proliferation of guns. We are now relying on our state courts more than ever to protect our rights. We need our courts to defend against this Supreme Court's rapid retreat from precedent and continue our march toward progress.

That, and the rest of the statement, seemed to make pretty clear that a lefty was coming down the turnpike.

Still, the matter is not entirely up to Hochul. The Commission on Judicial Nomination narrows the field down to seven nominees, leaving the governor to pick one. The list the Commission produced had some lefties, some moderates, and one conservative, former prosecutor and current judge of the New York Supreme Court Hector LaSalle (recall that in the Empire State, the Court of Appeals is above the Supreme Court).

LaSalle has a pretty long track record, and there can be little question as to his generally conservative outlook. The presence of his name on the list worried a group of 40+ law professors enough that they sent a letter to Hochul, urging her not to select LaSalle. After reviewing a number of his rulings, the letter concludes:

These are only some of Justice LaSalle's decisions that trouble us. We focus on them because of what we believe they tell us about Justice LaSalle's judicial philosophy. They show an insensitivity to the importance of reproductive rights, a disregard for labor's rights and its value in our political system, and a callousness about defendants' rights and principles of due process. These decisions remind us of the rulings of Republican appointees to the federal bench. They seem out of step with the values of New Yorkers and the platform on which you have run and won election.

Nearly all of the signatories are affiliated with law schools in New York state, though one or two of them are employed by a small school that is apparently located in New Haven, CT.

Hochul's nominee, as you have certainly figured out by now, is LaSalle. Left-leaning groups are largely apoplectic, and the more lefty they are, the more apoplectic they are. LaSalle is not conservative in the Clarence Thomas sense; more in the Anthony Kennedy sense. Still, someone who votes with the conservative wing of the Court much more often than with the liberal wing is not what Hochul's statement seemed to promise. That's doubly true when it comes to the specific areas of concern that the Governor laid out.

We are hardly experts in particular game of inside baseball in a state that is more than 2,500 miles removed from our places of residence, and we are happy to be enlightened by any readers who know more than we do. However, it appears that Hochul felt she needed to throw a big bone to the state's Latino voters. Appointing the first Latino to serve as New York's chief judge will certainly do that. Of course, given her generally shaky tenure, not to mention her less-than-stellar political skills, Hochul was already going to face a serious primary challenge when and if she runs for reelection. Now, the magnitude of that problem has grown considerably.

LaSalle is not home-free yet; he still needs 32 votes for confirmation from the state Senate. We assume the 20 Republicans in the body will vote for him, since this is the best they are going to do with a Democrat in the governor's mansion. The question is whether the nominee can pick up a dozen or so Democratic votes. That we do not know (see baseball, inside).

If LaSalle is confirmed, it could and probably will have national implications. New York Democrats are itching to redraw the state's district maps before 2024, after having been smacked down by the DiFiore court prior to the 2022 election. If LaSalle takes over for DiFiore, a gerrymander is far more likely to get struck down again than if a liberal ends up in that seat. So, this bears watching. (Z)

George Santos Is the Christmas Gift That Keeps on Giving

As long as were visiting New York, let's check in with Rep.-elect Jay Gatsby... er, George Santos (R), whose biography continues to unravel. We already wrote about his (apparent) lies about his education, his business background and his charity work. Since then, even more of his story has been called into question.

To start, Santos told many tales about his family's past, and how they fled persecution from the Nazis during World War II. The specific details "evolved" a bit over time, but eventually he settled on a narrative that his grandparents were Jews living in Ukraine, that they began to be persecuted by Nazis, and that they relocated to Belgium and then Brazil, thus escaping the Holocaust. In the early stages of the campaign, Santos said his grandparents converted to Catholicism at some point, but he eventually decided they were Jewish, and he emphasized repeatedly how proud he was of his Jewish heritage.

The problem here is that there's no proof for any of this. The Jewish Telegraphic Agency, which has been covering Jewish news for over a century, knows a little something about how to research such things. And they found that while there are no traces of Santos' relatives in Europe in the 1930s or 1940s, there is firm proof that his grandparents were born in Brazil. It is at least theoretically possible they were born in Brazil, moved to Europe, and then moved back to Brazil, but that would be highly unusual, to say the least.

And then there is Santos' sexual orientation. Despite being an opponent of legislation meant to protect LGBTQ+ people from discrimination, he has regularly talked about being an openly gay man, and having lived as such for the past decade. According to his campaign biography, he's married to a pharmacist named Matt. Santos also said that his husband was terminated from his job because they were caught partying at Mar-a-Lago without masks at the height of the pandemic.

One wants to be careful when questioning a person's claims about their sexual identity. After all, there are many reasons that a person might be LGBTQ and choose to represent themselves otherwise. That said, The Daily Beast took a look at this part of Santos' story, and found some... interesting things. First, the Rep.-elect was married to a woman until 12 days before launching his first campaign for the House, something that he's never once mentioned during his runs for office. Second, there is no record of him marrying since then. And third, there is no record of anyone with his (alleged) husband's name working as a pharmacist in New York.

There are enough red flags here that even LGBTQ publications like LGBTQ Nation are writing that they smell a potential rat. Recall that Santos has already been proven a liar in other cases, including his claim that he lost several gay employees in the Pulse shooting. Add in his hostility to LGBTQ rights, his deliberately hidden straight marriage, and a gay marriage that has produced no paper trail whatsoever, and it sure looks like he might be a poseur, trying to neutralize the fact that he was facing a gay opponent in 2022.

Santos said yesterday that he is going to "tell his story" next week. This oughta be good. Meanwhile, the office of New York AG Letitia James is "looking into" the allegations against Santos. That is not likely to go anywhere; it's not illegal to run for Congress as a gay Jewish Latino dog-loving businessman who graduated from Baruch College, even if you're few or none of those things. That said, if the AG finds that Santos committed any sort of financial malfeasance, or that there are questions about his citizenship status, or that he isn't legally a resident of New York, then he would have some trouble on his hands. Note that there's been no suggestion, as yet, that any of these things are the case. This is merely a list of the kinds of things that would allow the AG's office to take action against Santos. If James needs to serve Santos with a summons, he says he lives on Long Island (really). Presumably, his home there is located in West Egg, right? (Z)

This Week in Schadenfreude: Those Aren't Pillows!

One wonders what Mike Lindell's politics were before Donald Trump came along. Was the MyPillow guy a Republican? A Libertarian? Someone who didn't participate in the political process at all? It's an interesting question. In any case, he's now a completely dedicated devotee of the Dear Leader. The only person Lindell wants in the White House is The Donald—absolutely not anyone else, no matter how Trumpy they might be.

If there were any questions on this point, they were resolved this week when Lindell decided to turn his attention to the man who is currently Trump's #1 rival, Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL). Even OAN and Newsmax are loath to have Lindell on anymore, in part because he's 10 pounds of crazy in a 5-pound bag and in part because he's in the habit of saying things that can lead to lawsuits. So, most of his media appearances are now on "Lindell TV," which is an online "channel" that Lindell has pieced together.

Anyhow, Lindell appeared on the main Lindell TV "newscast," anchored by someone that nobody has ever heard of, to share his latest insight: DeSantis did not actually win the gubernatorial election in Florida. It actually took some time for Lindell to spill all the beans, because his lawyer kept stopping him and warning him not to say certain things. However, the basic theory is that the vote in Miami-Dade was tinkered with, and that county did not go red, despite what the election returns might say.

Inasmuch as Lindell is now the nation's foremost "expert" on stolen elections, he's promised to get to the bottom of this and to produce "proof" of his claims. We assume that proof will be forthcoming, right after he presents "proof" of his claims about the 2020 presidential elections, something that's been imminent for, oh, about 2 years.

DeSantis, for his part, has pointedly avoided taking sides when it comes to "stop the steal." He won't say the 2020 presidential election was fraudulent, but he won't say it was legitimate, either. Further, he has spent much time campaigning with election deniers. So, between that and his "no comment" act, he has absolutely enabled election denial, even if he hasn't indulged personally.

And that brings us to the point. At risk of being glib, there's a reason that Benito Mussolini ended up hanging from his heels in a town square in Milan. When leaders take the position that rules don't matter, and that might makes right, they are sending a message to their followers. And eventually, that message tends to rebound on those who first sent it. It's happened to Mitch McConnell and Kevin McCarthy and John Boehner and Newt Gingrich and even to Donald Trump. Now, it's starting to happen to DeSantis. These folks were happy to fan the flames of far-right nuttiness, but then they lost control of the fire that they helped start. There's certainly some schadenfreude in that. (Z)

This Week in Freudenfreude: Things Get Prick-ly in New Zealand

There was a famous incident during the Reagan presidency, which we've mentioned once or twice before. Ronnie was getting a grilling from the White House Press Corps, back in the days when presidents actually held press conferences. And after he was done with the questions and answers, an angry Reagan—not realizing his microphone was still live—muttered "sons of bit**es."

That was a time when even the slightest loss of presidential decorum was potentially a major story. Heck, Harry S. Truman threatened to punch a reporter in the balls once, and we're still talking about it 75 years later. Anyhow, Reagan's off-color remark might have turned into a big deal. But if there was one thing the Gipper knew how to so, it was handle the press. And so he arrived at the next day's press conference with t-shirts for everyone that said "S.O.B." on the front and "Save Our Budget" on the back. Crisis averted! The New York Times called it "t-shirt diplomacy."

We mention this because, as reader T.B. in Nowata, OK, brings to our attention, something rather similar happened in New Zealand recently. New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern is a member of the Labour Party. That means there are many issues where she does not see eye-to-eye with ACT New Zealand Party leader David Seymour. And last week, Seymour was questioning Ardern with particular pique during Parliament's Question Time. After the 7 minutes was up, Ardern—not realizing, like Reagan, that her microphone was still live—turned to Deputy PM Grant Robertson and said: "He's such an arrogant pr**k!" Oops.

If that had taken place in the U.S., it would be fodder for angry coverage from Fox, or MSNBC, or both for at least a week. The Kiwis, however, handled it differently. To start, Ardern sent a text to Seymour offering an apology. He accepted, and wished her a Merry Christmas in return. Further, when asked about the dust-up by reporters, Seymour said that while the PM really did call him a pr**k, it's out of character for her, and that overall he quite admires her political skills.

And the story doesn't end there. In order to make some lemonade out of this particular bushel of lemons, the two leaders agreed to sign a transcript of their exchange and to auction it off for charity. The auction closed yesterday with a winning bid of just over NZ$100,000, or about $63,000 American. The money goes to the Prostate Cancer Foundation. We are not sure if that was chosen because of the particular slur that was used, or if there was some other reason. What we do know is that the leader of the Prostate Cancer Foundation is named Peter Dickens, who was clearly born to do that job.

Anyone who follows American politics, as all readers of this site do, must be thinking that it would be nice if the members of Congress could handle their differences the way that the members of the New Zealand Parliament do. (Z)

A December to Rhymember, Part XIII: Christmast Time Is Here Again

This is the last entry we will run before the Christmas holiday, so it's a bit on the lengthy side. We shall start with a reimagining of a classic holiday song, courtesy of B.C. in Phoenix, AZ:

Deck the House with right-wing folly
Fa-la-la-la-la, la-la-la-la
Liars and cheats all melancholy
Fa-la-la-la-la, la-la-la-la
Don we now anti-gay apparel
Fa-la-la, la-la-la, la-la-la
Troll the Christian's bigoted carol
Fa-la-la-la-la, la-la-la-la

See the flaming Capitol before us
Fa-la-la-la-la, la-la-la-la
Grab a gun and join Trump's chorus
Fa-la-la-la-la, la-la-la-la
Follow in malicious measure
Fa-la-la, la-la-la, la-la-la
While I tell of post-coup treasure
Fa-la-la-la-la, la-la-la-la

Fast away the old guard passes
Fa-la-la-la-la, la-la-la-la
Hail the dumbass lads and lasses
Fa-la-la-la-la, la-la-la-la
Sing we feckless, all together
Fa-la-la, la-la-la, la-la-la
Heedless of a truth-based tether
Fa-la-la-la-la, la-la-la-la

And this, in much the same vein, from D.M. in Asheville, NC:

Donald the snowman
Was a mean old hunk of ice
And every pol in the neighborhood
Knew Donald wasn't nice
He pinches docs
He fleeces rubes
He lies both here and there
If you're bold enough to call him out
He whines that you're unfair
Oh, Donald the snowman
You're rotten every day
And I'll be glad when the DOJ
Takes you all away

A reimagining of the first lines of the best-known Christmas poem, from B.V. in Chicago, IL:

'Twas the night before Christmas and all through his house,
Was the selling of grift from the Mar-a-Lago louse

The stockpile of cash was shrinking in the lair,
With hopes that a reduction of taxes could provide him great care

His children were worried, crazy, and misled
But dear old daddy was indeed out of bread.

A Christmas haiku from C.W. in Littleton, CO:

For Christmas this year
Bring me hope and good cheer and
Make Trump disappear

And this submission from C.K. in Rochester, NY seemed like a good grand finale to us:

The coffee is brewing
The ipads are out
Morning talk's lacking
But then there's a shout!

That dang Crystal Ball
Oh where are "our guys"?
How dare they, such gall!
Don't they hear our cries?

Refresh, refresh, spin
Sip coffee and wait —
E-V let's begin!
(V) and (Z) at our plate!

But lo, we'll remember,
they're dealing with news —
and here it's December
with TFG not defused!

So yes, (V) and (Z) know
that as much as we grumble
when Crystal Ball shows
We're ever so humble

Merry Christmas to you —
with thanks to "our guys"
For all that you do —
may EV com thrive!

We thank you for the kind words, and we thank all the readers for giving us some of their valuable time every day. Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, a blessed Winter Solstice, and a successful Festivus for all, and have a great weekend! Oh, and we'll still be running more verse next week; send your submissions here if you are so inclined. (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 or share:

---The Votemaster and Zenger