Dem
52
Ties
2
GOP
46
A briefer collection of letters than usual, for obvious reasons.
J.G. in Olympia, WA, writes: FYI, on I-5 in south Olympia, diesel is $7.29/gal. That corridor is the only way to get north to south in Greater Cascadia.
J.E. in San Jose, CA, writes: I agree with (Z)'s analysis about the president's "resignation and desperation" regarding the outcome of November's election. Further, is there anything about Trump's tone that implies an organized assault on free and fair elections this fall? All that effort for what?
It results in the best of both worlds for the blue team: energized voters with no interference. As much as the president likes to show concern, it is becoming more clear that he only does so when he thinks it will make a difference.
D.H. in Pueblo West, CO, writes: You are missing a serious possibility with the Trump administration effort to interfere with mail-in voting. Sure, they enjoy screwing up the voting process (especially for states like California and Colorado), and would be happy to rig the elections. But I think the Trump administration knows they will lose big in the midterms and plans to deny the outcome. Right now they are building a story for the MAGA base, making sure they will believe him when he claims the midterm election was stolen. What happens in November to January is the question. He already tried to overturn one election by force, I would be unsurprised to see him try again.
R.W. in Brooklyn, NY, writes: Regarding your item on Joe diGenova resigning from the DoJ: He not only resigned, but he strongly implied that he was resigning because there was no evidence with which to
persecuteprosecute Trump's enemies. According to HuffPo, when New York Post reporter Josh Christenson asked diGenova about his abrupt resignation, diGenova replied: "If you want indictments where there's no evidence, you have an ethical problem."
K.H. in Albuquerque, New America™, writes: Apparently, TCF has decided that renaming New Mexico is a winning message. He has reiterated that message 9 times (as of Thursday evening) on his boutique social media accounts. Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-NM) has sent letters to Google and Apple insisting that they not change maps on the basis of any possible, implied, or actual XO, but wait until any alteration is codified in a state constitutional amendment (not gonna happen) and approved by Congress.
Meanwhile, in a clear case of "your tax dollars at work," the Texas legislature is holding hearings on annexing 3 or more counties from southeast NM. Again, ain't gonna happen without a state constitutional amendment, which went nowhere in the last legislative session.
Performative governance at its best!
P.S.: New Mexico Republicans were mostly mum on Trump's proposal to call the state "New America." Officials from the Republican Party of New Mexico and spokespeople for the state House and Senate GOP caucuses did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the matter.
Republican gubernatorial candidate Gregg Hull was an exception. "New Mexico does not need a new name," Hull said in a statement. "This state carries the history of Native nations and Spanish explorers who named this land nearly five hundred years ago, and generations of families who built New Mexico into what it is today. That identity is not up for negotiation."
K.R. in Austin, TX, writes: You wrote, about Donald Trump's speech, "[W]e would not be surprised to learn that the GOP had also added some fake crowd noise to the proceedings. That's called "sweetening" the audio track, for all you Hollywood fans out there."
That reminded me of when I took a Romanian-American friend to an NBA game. The scoreboard said, "Make some noise!" The volume of the crowd appeared to get louder.
She said to me, "Look around. The cheering is getting louder but nobody is even cheering. This reminds me of when Ceaușescu gave speeches in Romania."
Apparently, "sweetening" the audio track is a favorite tactic of dictators and wannabe dictators.
D.L.M. in Spokane, WA, writes: You wrote that J.D. Vance told a person waving a Mexican flag to "get the hell out of the country." That was almost certainly staged to give Vance a chance to say that for the MAGAs.
J.E. in Whidbey Island, WA, writes: You missed one obvious further implication of Donald Trump's promise of $5,000 handouts if the GOP retains control of Congress.
It sure smacks of government redistribution of wealth, a.k.a.—gasp!—socialism. How off-brand can he get?
B.C. in Manhattan Beach, CA, writes: NPR did an interview with Republican pollster/political advisor Frank Luntz on Thursday morning.
Apparently, Luntz heard something different from what everyone else listening to Donald Trump's speech heard. Luntz said that what Trump really said (or meant—it was not quite clear) was that the populace would be better off by $5,000 per adult if the Republicans were re-elected. The interviewer (Steve Inskeep) pointed out that Trump actually said that every adult would get a check, to which Luntz said that Trump doesn't always say exactly what he means.
Who says it's not possible for two people to listen to the same speech but somehow hear two different speeches?
M.M. in San Diego, CA, writes: To both (Z) and D.E. in Lancaster: Thank you for your service!
And thanks to you watching and writing about the "convention," I instead watched the NFL season opener, which was, for the first three quarters, much like watching the Browns play the Browns. All was redeemed in the final quarter though.
L.E. in Putnam County, NY, writes: With regard to the insignia worn by the artificial-intelligence Trump (a natural-intelligence one may never be documented), I think that the stars on his shoulders may be gold instead of the silver worn by all actual United States Army officers ranked as lieutenant colonels or above (oak leaves for lieutenant colonels, eagles for full colonels, stars for all general officers).
The image-creator, if not Trump, might have wanted to evoke the gold stars uniquely worn by John J. Pershing, who was authorized to prescribe his own insignia as the only person to ever hold the rank of General of the Armies in his lifetime (the rank was originally proposed for George Washington, who received it posthumously as a 1976 Bicentennial publicity stunt, and more recently it was conferred on Ulysses S. Grant as a retroactive redefinition of his promotion to four-star rank in 1866). Pershing decided to wear four gold stars in a row, and his rank was considered senior to that of the men given the five-star rank.
A Trump with a row of five gold stars would thus rank even higher... perhaps this is inspired by his colleague in authoritarianism Kim Jong-Un, whose grandfather created the Grand Marshal rank that is above Marshal of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, which is above Marshal of the Korean People's Army, which is above Vice Marshal, which is above four-star general.
I have thought that Trump might consider making a particularly loyal general a five-star general to outrank all the generals who have displeased him, but the concrete obstacle of securing Senate confirmation for such a promotion may be less inhibiting to him than the issue of wanting an even higher rank for himself.
J.N. in Columbus, OH, writes: You wrote:
So, this is not going to endear Trump to all the war hawks and military fans/veterans out there. We do not know why he's suddenly so desperate to push the narrative that he's a great hero, and we also do not appreciate having to write a second item in as many days about this sort of foolishness. Still, any or all of the theses we put forward yesterday could also explain all the phony hero stuff. To wit: (1) He's losing his marbles, (2) He's doing everything he can to make the midterms about him, and/or (3) He's trying to create a distraction. In any event, tonight he'll be the featured speaker at the Republican "convention." Maybe by the time he speaks, he will be the guy who cured cancer, the guy who saved Little Round Top at Gettysburg, and the guy who died on the cross so that wrong-doers around the world could be forgiven of their sins. Literally anything is possible at this point.Let me add another possibility: He's deliberately committing all the sins possible for a MAGA/Teabagger/military worshiper to finally see him for the Antichrist of theirs that he is. He's trying to push the boundaries. See how deep the worship goes. So while your number three is accurate, I think that's only the actual reaction of his people, not his actual reason for doing these things. I think he's having a big laugh by deliberately doing everything he can to offend them knowing they won't leave. They can't leave. He owns their very souls and they'll stand with him until the very end.
R.L.S. in Portland, ME, writes: You wrote: "We do not know why he's suddenly so desperate to push the narrative that he's a great hero."
Psychologists provide an explanation, namely SPS, a well-described syndrome afflicting men with small hands.
P.S. in New Orleans, LA, writes: So, George S. Patton's shoulder boards are red, much like what the ranking officers of the Wehrmacht wore in World War II. I'd like to think Trump isn't smart enough to make that dog whistle, but someone in his administration might be.
P.J. in Fairbanks, AK, writes: I have searched for verification that the AI image of Trump with his five stars and Medal of Honor was shared or endorsed by Trump in any way. I thought the Medal of Honor might have been a bridge too far, even for him. I suspect it is an over-the-top image for mocking and trolling Trump's childish vanity, not something he sanctioned himself. If I am wrong on this, please let me know.
(V) & (Z) respond: He sometimes deletes things when he gets blowback. However, there is certainly a screen capture out there of him sharing the meme. And there are MAGA folks who have shared it, such that even if it was originally a parody, it's now been embraced by his followers. Could well be a case of Poe's Law in action.
J.C. in Washington, DC, writes: A quick observation, as I watch the 9/11 remembrance ceremonies. POTUS is, full stop, asleep at the Pentagon as our nation attempts to mourn one of the worst days in its history. He has not yet given his address but I'm sure I will be even more infuriated once he makes his remarks. On his schedule later today? Hopping on Qatari Force One to go play golf in Ireland. Priorities.
I bring this up because you have recently highlighted how this administration is seemingly trying to shoot itself in the foot with respect to the military/veteran vote. Within my circles, including many service members still on active duty in the DC area, I can tell you that Trump is absolutely achieving his aims. The politicization of the Department of Defense (its legal name) and the disparagement of service members past and present is extremely troubling to both my former colleagues and myself. We plan to vote accordingly.
As a recently retired two-time combat veteran I always have respected, and always will respect, the office of the President of the United States. However, that does not mean that I have to respect the person holding the office. Respect is earned—not given. Theodore Roosevelt said it best, "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
A.Q. in Ithaca, NY, writes: You wrote, of Sarah Longwell, "[S]he has her finger on the pulse of the voting public more than most other people in the media do."
I would like to call your readers' attention to her new book, How to Eat an Elephant: One Voter at a Time. She has great insights and writes incredibly well. As you pointed out, she is conservative and a former Republican and "hates [Trump] with the heat of 1,000 suns," which gives her an interesting perspective. I highly recommend that book.
J.L. in Albany, NY, writes: Regarding Elon Musk spending $20 million in an election, you wrote: "And the money means nothing to him. For him, blowing $20 million is like the average person blowing $100."
Given that I'm a math geek, I felt compelled to check this out. Musk's net worth is about $858 billion. The median American net worth is $192,900. Doing the math (divide $20 million by $858 billion and multiply by $192,900) gives $4.50. So Musk's spending is the equivalent of the median American dropping $5 on a candidate and asking for 50 cents in change back.
But you did mention "average person," which is different than median, so I checked that too. The average person's net worth is $1.06 million. (The average gets inflated by the billionaires.) Running the numbers, this gives $24.71. So, the average person giving the equivalent of Musk's spending would just need a $20 bill and a $5 bill.
If anything, this shows just how much money billionaires have. They have so much money that, to them, a few million is the equivalent of a lunch out to a normal American.
J.D. in Rohnert Park, CA, writes: I think "the GOP nightmare scenario" is even worse than Charlie Cook predicts. If Democrats' margins in elections rise by 10-15% over 2024—as they already HAVE in several elections this year—the number of Democratic House gains could double the 30's Cook foresees. In the Senate, everyone knows that the GOP could lose in North Carolina, Maine, Ohio, Texas and Alaska. Iowa and Nebraska (Independent) are certainly within the realm of possibility. But now even polls in Arkansas, Louisiana and Mississippi are within the margins of error. If those seats fell, Democrats would be precariously close to a filibuster-proof majority.
S.E. in Haiku, HI, writes: In your response to R.M. in Gresham about people universally admired, like Dolly Parton, I would like to add Jimmy Buffet to the list. I do not consider myself to be a Parrot Head, I just enjoy his music, attended a few concerts and read some of his books. In other words, you don't have to be a Parrot Head to appreciate him. He lived a storied life, created a following and lifestyle that made him wealthy, stayed married to the same person until his death and wrote an immense catalog of original music.
I think there are many people like me who aren't Dolly Parton fans—meaning I don't choose to listen to her music on a regular basis—yet are left in awe when I hear her sing her songs or see her perform. Same can be said of Jimmy.
R.P.E.H. in London, England, UK, writes: I didn't bother sending this on Saturday because I assumed you'd be inundated by fellow Brits, but for us—and I would hope a lot of the rest of the world—there will be almost universal love and respect when David Attenborough dies.
For 75 years, David Attenborough has worked to improve our understanding of the world, leading to some of the best documentaries of all time. For a while he was a director at the BBC, where he commissioned programs like Monty Python's Flying Circus and documentary series such as Civilisation, The Ascent of Man and Alistair Cooke's America: A Personal History of the United States. Since then he has been the voice of almost countless documentaries on the world and its varied inhabitants.
He turned 100 years old on May 8 of this year and may he celebrate many, many happy returns.
A.B. in Wendell, NC, writes: Chalk me up as another vote for Dick Van Dyke!
G.W. in Oxnard, CA, writes: I'm sure many readers will point this out, in the Sunday mailbag, in response to which public figure might be as beloved as Dolly Parton, R.V. in Pittsburgh wrote:
I would add Clint Eastwood to the list. I just think he's been around so long most people are a fan of his work... Also, while I think he is a lifelong Republican, he strikes me as a Republican in the mold of a Nelson Rockefeller, Gerald Ford, etc. He seems to have steered away from any controversies and scandals especially given his long life.I will remind R.V. that at the 2012 RNC (when Eastwood was 82), he gave a speech where he addressed an empty chair with an imaginary Barack Obama and conducted an imaginary interview. The imaginary Obama was foulmouthed and dimwitted. Even though this could be partially excused due to possible diminished mental capacity of old age and being from a generation of less tolerance, I have been on a Clint Eastwood Boycott since that day. When Eastwood does follow Dolly, nearly all the news items will certainly mention this incident.
S.J.W., Grand Rapids, MI, writes: Clint Eastwood is not within a country mile of being as universally revered as Dolly Parton. Have you forgotten his shilling for the GOP at the 2012 Republican Convention? The "performance" (harangue) with an empty chair he identified as Obama? In a subsequent interview, he said: "President Obama is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people..." This guy is NOT revered by anyone except those who can separate his very polarizing political views and insults from some of his art which was sometimes quite good. I should also mention his misogyny, as evidenced by his serial cheating and discussed by ex-paramour Sondra Locke in her memoir. He's no Dolly Parton.
(V) & (Z) respond: We guessed (correctly) that quite a few folks would write in with reminders of the convention appearance. We wondered if anyone would write in about the generally lecherous behavior. Unless we missed an e-mail, you're the only one. That was unexpected, since he has a long rap sheet on that front.
L.G. in Boulder, CO, writes: Your follow-up tribute to Dolly Parton prompted me to send this. It was a surprise to me, but I found a gem when I searched "Dolly Parton protest songs" (the Internet found 12). Radiolab put together a singing tribute to the 27 amendments to the Constitution, and Dolly Parton wrote and performed the Nineteenth Amendment!
She also recorded "Deportee (Plane Wreck at Los Gatos)," the Woody Guthrie song about 28 immigrant workers who died in a plane crash as they were being returned to Mexico. Guthrie was moved and outraged that the news stories reported the four crew members by name, and but only referenced 28 "deportees."
E.R. in Santa Fe, NM, writes: Wow, (Z) felt capable of writing about Dolly Parton's death, but neither (Z) nor (V) felt "particularly qualified" to write about Gloria Steinem? Think about that for a moment, it's revealing.
(V) & (Z) respond: We don't know exactly what you mean by this, and can't imagine why you found it offensive that when a legendary feminist died, we thought it best to have a woman to write about what she meant to the cause.
C.L.C. in San Mateo, CA, writes: You mention separation anxiety. I know from cats that cats get lonely.
Tuco Hashbrown Chorizo "T.H.C." Bates is lonely without you. Tuco Hashbrown Chorizo "T.H.C." Bates needs a friend. This also alleviates boredom when you are gone. When you are gone, Tuco Hashbrown Chorizo "T.H.C." Bates and friend can play together instead of being bored.
If you get a friend, I recommend a cat. Just remember that pets need me-time, too.
Although they will spend most of their time together, they will need to separate and decompress. With cats, each cat having a cat-condo-tree is a good idea. That said, they will spend most of their time together—playing, sleeping, grooming, etc.
(Z) responds: I am somewhat more likely to get a second dog, rather than a cat, but for now am waiting to make sure Tuco is fully integrated before deciding.
J.H. in Studio City, CA, writes: Wanted to give a quick defense of Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, far and away my favorite Quentin Tarantino movie (and he's made more 5 star classics than not). It's an uproariously funny hangout flick—I could watch a career-best Leonardo DiCaprio and Brad Pitt shoot the breeze, get high, do a commentary track on that week's FBI, etc., for hours. "Eight goddamn whiskey sours?!?" The way the film also functions as an exhibit for Tarantino's vast knowledge of forgotten cultural arcana (radio broadcasts, needle drops, TV commercials, Green Lantern guest stars) is unparalleled, as is the fact that he was able to make it with the massive budget and top-of-the-line craftspeople that he was. Every frame feels like the cast and crew went back in time to '69.
But the film's treatment of Sharon Tate is where, for me, it goes from a fun evening at the movies to an all-time classic. Though its ahistorical plot twist is certainly less high-stakes than Inglourious or Django's, it's no less emotionally powerful. Ask anyone on the street before the movie came out who Sharon Tate was... on the off chance they even knew the name, they most likely knew her solely as a victim of a heinous crime and/or the wife of one of Hollywood's most problematic figures. Ask anyone after, there's a good chance the first thing they think of is a beaming Margot Robbie as Sharon, watching herself in The Wrecking Crew as the audience applauds her performance. Tarantino uses cinema to give Sharon Tate a second life. Even now it brings a tear to my eye.
M.A. in Tucson, AZ, writes: I always get excited when I see that D.E. in Lancaster has written something. Everything always sharp, incisive, and funny! The latest Sunday post was as good as it gets. Maybe a once a month "column" for D.E.?
(V) & (Z) respond: Possibly...
P.C. in Toronto, on the shores of Lake Ontario, Canada, writes: From a Canadian reader, I wish to thank D.E. in Lancaster for the spot-on commentary. But I have to say: only D.E.? For Canadians and, I'm sure, much of the world, the question is why you are not on the streets en masse as this regime dismantles your reputation and upends everyone's lives while feeding Donald Trump's corruption. The pity is that he will likely never see his comeuppance.
As a matter of fact, we have our own movement here now: BABA—Buy Anything But American. Sadly, the good folk at Electoral-Vote.com are collateral damage.
R.S. in Piedmont, CA, writes: I wanted to share that I just released an EP called "Love Songs to Love"—see here for links to the streaming services.
The reason I wanted to share (well, I'm an artist, but...) is because I think the only way out of this mess is love, and that's what my songs are about. Guns kinda worked in World War II, but here we are again. Love needs to be amplified at this point, yes with materials, but in any and every way possible. People need to feel good about themselves again, and know they deserve better than any tRUMPed up solution to problems.
D.M. in Santa Rosa, CA, writes: Regarding all the readers who wrote in to promote THEIR team as cursed losers: Only on a site with Democratic-leaning readers could that happen.
B.S. in Houston, TX writes: I've spent some time on Electoral-Vote.com and really enjoyed what y'all are putting out, so I figured I'd just come right out and ask: Would you be open to a paid article? I'd write something original for your readers, tailored to your site. A few ideas to kick around:
- How to mix vintage and new furniture without the room feeling like a thrift store.
- The lighting mistakes that make a beautiful room feel flat.
- What a designer actually changes first in a room that isn't working.
Happy to send writing samples, or if there's a topic you've been meaning to cover, I'm glad to run with that instead. Just let me know your rate and we can go from there.
(V) & (Z) respond: You have definitely taken the temperature of the site, and figured out what we're all about.
K.H. in Maryville, TN, writes: Last Sunday, J.E. in Brooklyn wrote that theirs may be the first Electoral-Vote.com marriage proposal. I just have to chime in...
Multiple times a week, my day is busy to the point that I haven't read the site before bedtime. Spouse heads off to bed with a perfunctory kiss and a "please come to bed soon." My response is "I know, I know, I'm tired too, but I haven't finished reading Electoral-Vote.com yet today!"
I guess I need to do better before mine becomes the first Electoral-Vote.com-inspired divorce!
M.G. in Oakland, CA, writes: "I wished to do more harm than I could." No, not Donald Trump, whose final words are still to be spoken. These are from Ranulf Flambard, Norman Bishop of Durham.
If you have suggestions for this feature, please send them along.