Previous | Next | Senate races | Menu
New polls:
Dem pickups: (None)
GOP pickups: (None)
As we noted a couple of weeks ago, we're looking for ideas for a series next month that will commemorate the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. We got some good suggestions, but we thought we would put the call for ideas out there one more time, before we put it to a vote. So, if you have a thought, please let us know at comments@electoral-vote.com. with subject line "250 Candles."
The Art of the Pseudo-Deal
We had an item yesterday about the "deal"—actually a memorandum of understanding (MOU)—that the Trump administration is spinning as an "end" to the Iran War. However, the story continues to dominate the news. So, let's do a list of ten reasons to be very skeptical that this deal is, well, the real deal:
- He Said, They Said: It continues to be the case that Donald Trump is describing the
agreement in one way, and the regime in Iran is describing it in another. Sometimes, neither description appears to be a
reflection of what is actually happening.
- Strait Talk: One main area of disagreement is the Strait of Hormuz. Both sides agree that
it will be reopened. However, Trump says it will be fully re-opened, without tolls, thus returning us to the status quo
ante bellum. The folks leading Iran say that there will not going to be tolls going forward.
However, there will be "fees." This is similar to a mafia boss saying that there will be an ongoing fee
to protect your house.
- Going Nuclear: Another area in which there is much mumbling and hand-waving is the future
of Iran's nuclear program. One side (guess which?) says that the nuclear program will be shut down for a long, long
time. The other side (guess which?) says that's not happening, at least not without substantial additional
concessions.
- Israel: As we have noted many times, Iran sees the fighting between Israel and
Lebanon/Hezbollah as part of the same conflict, and so insists on an end to that part of the fighting. Trump, or at
least the people negotiating on his behalf, said "Done!" It would seem they did not check with, you know, Israel. In the
24 hours after the MOU was announced, Israel
once again attacked Lebanon,
said that it would be permanently occupying parts of southern Lebanon, made clear that it is not bound by whatever terms
the Trump administration negotiates, and said that if Iran objects then the Israeli missile attacks on that nation will
continue.
- Text? What Text?: The careful reader will notice that the governments of the United States
and Iran do not appear to have reached clear agreement on... any of the three major issues that have been preventing an
agreement from being reached. There might be more clarity if the text of the proposed agreement were made public, but
thus far, that has not happened. Some members of the administration said it might happen today or tomorrow. Trump has
said that it will maybe be released on Friday. That would certainly be par for the course for him (e.g., trying to bury
adverse news during the slowest part of the news cycle). On the other hand, we're still waiting for him to release his
tax returns, his plan for an Obamacare replacement, his plan to overhaul America's infrastructure, etc., so we would not
be terribly surprised if some last-minute "emergency" somehow prevents the text from being released on the schedule
Trump promised. Or prevents the text from being released at all. Ever.
- The Right-Wingers Hate It: There are some people in the right-wing media who will, of
course, fall in line no matter what Donald Trump does or says. But sometimes, some of them rebel. And the proposed Iran
deal, though still fuzzy, has already engendered
the largest rebellion
of Trump v2.0. Some right-wing media types are hawks who love power and hate weakness. Some right-wing media types are
Neocons and/or Christian Nationalists who hate Muslim countries in general, Iran in particular, and who don't want to
see the Iranians gain ANY concessions. Some right-wing media types check more than one of the above boxes. And the folks
in these various camps are screaming bloody murder.
- Trump's Underlings Hate It: It is not too common for Trump's underlings in the executive
branch to come out and pooh-pooh his deal-making, but
it's happening here.
CIA Director John Ratcliffe has spoken out publicly, and there is ample reporting that Secretary of State Marco Rubio
and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth are also in his camp. Their basic point, which is ostensibly a critique of Iran,
is that the Iranians can't be trusted to live up to their parts of the deal, particularly as regards nuclear weapons
development. But another way of saying that is, "Mr. President, stop being so go**amn naive." It really is remarkable
that a person whose entire life has been about guile and duplicity is so unable to detect guile and duplicity on the
other side of the negotiating table.
It hardly takes deep national security expertise, or a top-level security clearance, to know that the Iranians are not likely to honor any commitments they make on the nuclear front. The only hope is an extremely complicated, carefully crafted agreement that closes as many loopholes as is possible and establishes as much oversight as possible. It took the Obama administration, and a large and talented group of diplomats, nearly 2 years to hammer out such an agreement. There is zero chance that anything remotely similar is going to be hammered out over a weekend by the Kushner & Witkoff show. - Congressional Republicans Hate It: Congressional Republicans, particularly those in the
Senate, don't like what they are hearing. Again, some of them always fall in line no matter what, but an unusually
high number of them
are carping right now
That includes folks who have been sent into retirement by Trump, like Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), but also some of the
hawks, like Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), James Lankford (R-OK) and John Kennedy (R-LA). They say that they want
to see the text of the agreement, and they won't back the deal unless it is satisfactory.
That said, isn't that something of an empty threat? Congress didn't give permission for the war in the first place. If Trump declares that he is satisfied and the war is over, what are they going to do? Order him to start shooting at Iran again? - $300 Billion: A particular source of future trouble is a claim being bandied about that
the administration has offered to make $300 billion available to the Iranians to clean up the damage that was done by
U.S. attacks against that nation. J.D. Vance sat for an interview with CBS News' Ed O'Keefe yesterday, and
was asked
about this money. The VP said: "Well, Ed, that's the sort of thing they could have access to, funded by the Gulf Coast
Coalition, so long as they honor their end of the obligation."
What that is, is some carefully crafted verbiage meant to make it look like the U.S. isn't giving Iran $300 billion. What that is not, is the Full Sherman. We do not care how things are structured; if $300 billion is lavished on the folks who run Iran, that will be politically disastrous, and will enrage virtually everyone. Keep in mind how furious many people were when the Obama administration transferred $1.7 billion to Iran. And that was money that already belonged to them. Last we checked, $300 billion is more than 176 times $1.7 billion. Do you know how many Trump slush funds you could fund with that kind of cash? Well, actually, about 176 of them. - Signing Ceremony: This is trivial, and yet may be the single best sign that the
agreement is void of substance. Yesterday, Trump said that he would probably forego the formal signing ceremony
on Friday, and let Vance handle it.
We can think of only two ways to interpret this, and they could both be correct. The first is that Trump knows this is not a glorious moment, to the point that there's no positive publicity to be squeezed out of it, not even a photo-op. The second is that Trump knows or suspects this is going to blow up eventually, and he wants to put as much distance between himself and the deal as is possible.
Because things are still so vague, we can only hazard guesses as to where this is headed. We'd say the best-case scenario for Trump (and for the U.S., and the world) is that the haziness of this agreement allows both his administration and the current regime in Iran to do some hand-waving and for each to pretend that the both got what they want. That would allow both sides to save face, and might be the only way that the three seemingly unresolvable issues can be "resolved."
The worst case scenario for Trump is that the details of the deal are released (and they might be even if Trump tries to keep them secret), and it tears the GOP apart while driving his approval rating even lower. Then, keeping in mind that the MOU is only a 60-day ceasefire, the war heats up again, while the Strait of Hormuz is shut down again. That would put us at about August 15, potentially wrecking gas prices as the U.S. heads into the midterms.
We'll see what happens, starting this week, when we learn if the White House will actually make the text of the deal public. (Z)
The Slush Fund Might Be in Trouble...
We look forward to the day when we have a functioning and non-corrupt government and we don't have yet another item about the grift from a guy whose biggest priority is profiting from the presidency and ripping off American taxpayers. That day is not today.
Specifically, we have an update on the $1.8 billion slush fund and all-purpose immunity deal Donald Trump directed the IRS and his lawyer, and possible permanent attorney general, Todd Blanche, to set up.
A couple of former federal prosecutors who were fired by Trump for doing their jobs sued to stop the slush fund on the grounds that it was discriminatory and would only be used to reward Trump's allies. On Friday, U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema issued a preliminary injunction blocking the administration from setting up the fund. She agreed that Trump's recent statements to the press cast doubt on whether the fund was truly canceled. She said that the DoJ needed to submit a declaration signed by both Scott Bessent, the head of the Treasury Department, and Blanche within a week in order to get the injunction lifted.
Interestingly, the judge took the unusual step of reading from a brief criticizing the fund submitted by two Senators, Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Bill Cassidy (R-LA). "A scheme deliberately designed to recast insurrectionists—including those who perpetrated violence against law enforcement officers—as victims and legitimate prosecutions as persecution does not merely rewrite history," the judge read from the bench. "It creates incentives for similar conduct in the future, with the explicit encouragement of the officials responsible for administering justice."
It seems the judge was right to be concerned about whether the fund would resurface in some other form. Reports have surfaced about a "debanking probe" conducted by the DoJ, targeting certain banks they claim improperly closed accounts of Jan. 6 rioters. Apparently, administration officials want to use any fines collected from that probe to compensate the insurrectionists. One gets the distinct impression that this slush fund will become a game of whack-a-mole—there's no telling where and in what form it will pop up next.
The judge's order only affects the slush fund, not Trump's IRS immunity deal. The court noted that U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams in Miami is scrutinizing all aspects of the deal as part of an investigation into whether the lawsuit that was the impetus for the fund, and the broad grant of immunity to Trump, his family and his businesses was "premised on deception" and a fraud on the court. That process is ongoing. (L)
...But the Weaponization of the Federal Government Continues Unchecked
Whack-a-mole is actually a pretty good metaphor for the corruption of the Trump administration. Not only does it apply to the slush fund, in particular, but also to the many and varied ways in which Trump and his underlings have endeavored to use the powers of the federal government to punish perceived enemies. There has been a particularly noticeable run of stories on that front in the last few days.
We will start with the Department of Energy. You would think it would be hard to weaponize that Department against Trump's enemies, unless it involved nuking blue states, since overseeing nukes is the main thing the DoE does. However, Secretary Chris Wright found a way, canceling $82.1 million in clean-energy projects in New York, Oregon, Connecticut, Minnesota and Colorado.
The Trump administration loathes clean energy, of course, in part because Trump has personal animosity toward wind power, and in part because this White House was bought and paid for by Big Oil. If the DoE had mixed in one or two red states on the list or cancellations, then it might have gotten away with it. However, it could not be more obvious that it was blue states that were being targeted, even though Wright insisted, during testimony before the House, that was not the case. Someone might want to tell him that if you lie while testifying before Congress, that's perjury. In any case, this wasn't even the first time that the DoE pulled this particular stunt. The previous cancellations were reversed by a judge, and the cancellations in New York, Oregon, Connecticut, Minnesota, and Colorado were just reversed by Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia Amit Mehta.
Moving along, the DHS is a much more predictable source of weaponization. Kids in Need of Defense, Ayuda, and the Amica Center for Immigrant Rights are all nonprofit groups, located in Washington, DC, that provide legal services and other assistance to unaccompanied migrant children. Late last week, DHS officials showed up at the headquarters of all three groups in order to conduct "investigations." DHS refused to say what they were investigating, and they had no warrant or other legal documentation. So, the leadership of each of the three groups told DHS to get lost, and they did. Nobody knows, as yet, what was going on here. Will DHS eventually be back with warrants (possibly dubious "administrative warrants")? Or was this just general intimidation, perhaps on the orders of one Stephen Miller? Nobody is saying, at least not yet.
Of course, the national headquarters for government weaponization is the Department of "Justice," which has now spent 1½ years under the "leadership" of Trump lackeys Pam Bondi and Todd Blanche. On Thursday, the FBI, backed by warrants, raided one of the offices of the Ohio Organizing Collaborative (OOC), which is a progressive group that works to register voters. The claim made by the FBI is that the OOC is suborning fraud. No proof of this one-size-fits-all claim has been publicly offered, and we're actually a little surprised that the Bureau found a judge to sign off on the warrant. Maybe it was Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Matthew W. McFarland; he's been known to issue forth with partisan rulings on occasion.
It's not too hard to figure out what's going on here. And it's even easier to figure out when you know that the FBI conducted a similar raid in Georgia back in February. FBI Director Kash Patel isn't the sharpest tool in the shed, but even he knows that: (1) the midterms are not looking good for the GOP and (2) the Senate races in Ohio and Georgia could prove key to partisan control of the upper chamber. Put another way, don't be too surprised if you read about FBI raids in Iowa, Maine, Michigan, North Carolina or Texas.
And finally, let's move on to the big "weaponization" news from yesterday. The U.S. Attorney for Sacramento has commenced an investigation of Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) and his wife, Siebel Newsom. The DoJ claims that Mrs. Newsom's tax filings are suspicious, and that she may have committed fraud and/or tax evasion.
We will allow for the slight possibility that the charges against the Newsoms are legitimate, since a grand jury apparently did sign off on the investigation, and since a few corrupt people in Newsom's orbit (e.g., his former chief of staff, Dana Williamson) have been popped for similar offenses. That said, the Newsoms have been under a giant microscope for a decade. They know that, and they also know the microscope is going to get much bigger when he announces his inevitable presidential run. Oh, and everyone who runs for president, except Trump, ends up releasing their tax returns. So, while it's possible the DoJ is on to something, we find it very hard to believe that is the case. Newsom may be a little oily, but he's not stupid. Plus, if it's his wife who cheated on HER taxes... well, that's not him.
We therefore assume, unless given very good evidence to the contrary, that this is just another example of the DoJ going after one of Trump's enemies. The question is whether Newsom is being targeted because: (1) Trump loathes him, (2) He is a leading Democratic presidential candidate for 2028 or (3) all of the above. Whatever the case may be, the administration is doing an excellent job of turning Newsom into a martyr, and affirming his status as the face of the Trump resistance.
And that concludes the latest "weaponization" news. When Dick Nixon so much as talked about this kind of stuff, Americans were scandalized. Trump & Co. are guilty of more abuses in a week than Nixon and his cronies perpetrated in a year, and yet it barely gets noticed. It really speaks to how much the current president has moved the Overton Window when it comes to corrupt behavior. (Z)
Senate Might Assert Itself... Sort Of
We had an item last week about the dilemma surrounding the post of Director of National Intelligence. In short, Donald Trump wants to install Bill Pulte on an acting basis. Pulte is absolutely unqualified for the job, and all he would do as DNI is abuse his position to either provide propaganda in support of Trump's various foreign policy "adventures," or to provide information to weaponize against Trump's enemies (see above for more on this general point).
The members of Congress do not want Pulte on the job for even a single minute, even though he's legally entitled to act as DNI, as he is Senate-confirmed to another position. In an effort to stop this from happening, both chambers of Congress declined to extend FISA last Thursday, meaning that the legal basis for collecting some forms of intelligence on foreigners has temporarily expired. In exchange for renewal, the members demanded that Trump: (1) nominate a permanent DNI, and one who is qualified and (2) not allow Pulte to do the job, for even one day. Congress got one of the two things it demanded, in that Trump did nominate a more appropriate candidate, namely U.S. Attorney for SDNY Jay Clayton.
Taking stock of the situation, and noting that the House is out of town until next Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) has developed a plan. He wants to rush the Clayton nomination, so that confirmation will be complete by the end of the week. Presumably, even someone as corrupt as Pulte can't do too much damage in just 4 days.
In order to make this happen, certain steps in the process will have to be done with unanimous consent, and without debate. Is it worth it to all 100 senators to do virtually no vetting of Clayton, so as to 86 Pulte? It just might be. This is a very unusual way for the Senate to lay down the law, but it's probably the best that Thune, et al. can do, under the circumstances. (Z)
Political Bytes, Local Edition: DC, CA-14, South Carolina, Colorado Senate and NY-21
Most weekends, we have letters about local politics from readers who are on the ground in states/cities/districts that we are not. Keeping readers informed about upcoming elections is our primary task here, and these letters offer insight that we cannot possibly offer. So, we have decided that from now until the election, we will divide those letters into two groups. Those letters that speak to the general nature of state/local politics will remain on the weekends. Those letters that speak to developments in ongoing local and state races will be run during the week, under the headline "Political Bytes, Local Edition." We'll follow the usual "Bytes" format, and after sharing reader reports, will add our own, brief take. And with that said, here we go, starting with two election previews we did not get to in yesterday's item. Please try to make your letters concise and to the point.
R.G. in Washington, DC: Due to the District of Columbia's lack of voting representation in Congress, our primaries understandably did not get a rundown on Electoral-Vote.com. In case any of your readers are interested, we do have some heated primaries that will be settled today, including half of the City Council, a new U.S. House delegate for the first time in 36 years, and the biggest contest of all, namely to be the next Mayor of D.C. RCV is in use for the first time as well, despite it being passed by the voters in 2022 (the City Council dragged their feet on implementation). It is one-party rule in DC, so the Democratic primary is really for all the marbles. The Republicans are only fielding candidates for a couple of council seats and for delegate, and taking a pass on mayor.
Polling indicates that we are about to join NYC in electing a Democratic Socialist to lead our city. Of the seven people running for Mayor, the race is basically down to two. It's not exactly Bernie v. Hillary Part 463, as both are pretty lefty, but it is a Democratic Socialist in Janeese Lewis George and a lefty Democrat in Kenyan McDuffie. Both of them served together on the City Council and seem to have worked amicably, so I believe the current nastiness of the campaign is hyperbolic. They have similar platforms, with minor differences over local matters. Lewis George has the endorsements of all the major unions and McDuffie has the endorsements of a good chunk of the establishment. Where there is a slightly bigger difference is how they plan to deal with federal interference and the Trump administration. Lewis George wants to take a more adversarial approach while McDuffie wants to take a slightly more cooperative approach, although not an overly amenable one by any stretch. I personally would be happy with either of them as our next mayor and ultimately ranked Lewis George first and McDuffie second. I only ranked one other of the seven running and abstained from my fourth and fifth choices, as I was not terribly impressed with the other four candidates.
The big takeaways from this primary is that another major American city has now enacted RCV and that come Tuesday night, we very likely will have nominated a Democratic Socialist as our standard bearer. I, for one, am thrilled for my city.
Our Take: You're right this is a very interesting election. Among those who will be watching closely is Trump, who said that if Lewis George wins, the federal government might take over D.C.
A.T. in Union City, CA: Hello from ex-Swalwell country! We are well pleased to be moving on to our next chapter, with a special election primary today that may immediately determine the identity of our new Representative, or may result in an August runoff.
Alameda County has a page here that should have vote tallies starting sometime after polls close.
In the June 2nd primary, for the regular term, State Senator Aisha Wahab (D) has claimed 38% of votes counted so far; in second place, BART administrator Melissa Hernandez (D) has pulled ahead of Wendy Huang (R) on the strength of late-counted mail and drop-box ballots, so it really looks like the November ballot will be Democrat vs. Democrat. The top five candidates are all on tomorrow's ballot as well. I have no guess how many voters held on to their ballots until late enough for the June 2nd primary results to affect their votes, and thus if the top candidates might coalesce enough votes (50%) for an outright winner.
Our Take: The right-wingers are not going to be happy that California's slow enough that it's going to be counting two sets of ballots for the same seat. Too bad, Spencer!
O.E. in Greenville, SC: Greetings from the Rock Hill* and Mission Precincts in Greenville County, SC! Today went mostly well, and despite my tiredness, I'll let you know the results.
First, you may ask, why two precincts? Well, both of them were combined into one location, though I'm not sure why. (Theories included a lack of poll workers or one of the polling place—a church building—being in use for Vacation Bible School.)
For governor, one precinct was won by AG Alan Wilson (R), with Rep. Ralph Norman (R) second, while the other was won by Norman, with Wilson second. Pamela Evette finished third, despite being from the county. I'm not sure if sexism, or negative campaigning, or the other two having a higher profile left her at third. Her money helped her get a higher profile in the race, and her campaign HQ is here in Greenville. Rep. Nancy Mace (R) finished fifth, though I am unsure if it's due to the transphobic attack ads about her (which are blatant lies, as Mace is herself a Transphobe), or due to her standing against Trump. Statewide, of course, Wilson and Evette advanced to a runoff. Meanwhile, on the Democratic side, Jermaine Johnson won his party's nomination, beating Billy Webster, who was endorsed by Bill Clinton.
For U.S. Senate, Mark Lynch (R) narrowly beat Lindsey Graham in both precincts. Part may be due to Lynch running a more reactionary campaign, and part may be due to Lynch's family business being very locally known. It may not be the worst Lindsey Graham has done, but he has tended to be at the bottom of the list of Republican victors statewide, at least when it comes to percentages. Depending on how poorly he does, and how unpopular Republicans are nationally, physician Annie Andrews (D) may have a chance to beat him.
One important note to all voters, regardless of party, location or position: If you change your registration at your local Department of Motor Vehicles, it may not get to the Local or State Election Commission in time or at all. It happened to several voters here in South Carolina, and I know it has happened in other states.
We had over 800 total voters, and over 300 absentee and early voters. The combined precincts had 5,000 voters, so the turnout could be around 25%, which is good for a primary.
Next Tuesday, it will be time for the Republican gubernatorial runoff between Evette and Wilson, as well as in the Republican primaries for Agriculture Commissioner and Attorney General. This should be quicker and simpler, but I do think there may be more negative campaigning and attack ads. Someone sent out bigoted texts against failed gubernatorial candidate Rom Reddy (R), which were denounced by Evette and Wilson. Meanwhile, an Evette volunteer attacked a Mace volunteer at an event today, which may explain why Mace endorsed Alan Wilson.
Now, I'm eating supper and about to crash into bed. I hope this report helps inform everyone about some of what's happening in South Carolina!
Our Take: We don't know exactly what primary vote totals tell us. But before anyone puts stock in the fact that Graham Platner got just 72% of the Maine Democratic primary vote, keep in mind that Lindsey Graham got just 57%. And nobody is claiming that Graham is fatally wounded, despite the fact that HE wasn't up against a popular sitting governor.
C.L. in Boulder, CO: I wanted to provide information on Colorado's 2026 U.S. Senate election (and lack of election).
The last "poll" taken in the contest was from the 2020 election. It's labeled in your map as Hickenlooper vs unknown. We now know who the Republican is: Mark Baisley.
Note that the sole 2026 U.S. Senate election in Colorado will feature Baisley versus the winner of the Democratic primary: John Hickenlooper or Julie Gonzales. There is also at least one other candidate, Bob Chew, who is putting $2M of his own money into the race. He is running as an independent under the Forward Party label, but he doesn't have a primary. A Democratic friend told me that if Hickenlooper wins the primary, she may very well vote for Bob Chew.
There is also incorrect information on your retirements page about the other U.S. Senate seat. In fact, there will be NO open-seat election in 2026 for the seat currently held by Michael Bennet. If Bennet wins the gubernatorial primary—NOT a foregone conclusion—and resigns his U.S. Senate seat, then Gov. Jared Polis gets to name a U.S. Senator. However, Bennet has said that he will not resign his seat until he wins the general election AND is sworn in as governor; in that case, Bennet gets to choose his own successor in the U.S. Senate. At a recent debate between Bennet and Phil Weiser, Bennet said that he will choose someone who is under the age of 50. A lot of people are disgusted that Bennet didn't vacate his seat to run for governor, and won't announce who he plans to appoint.
Weiser has a tag line: Weiser for Governor, Bennet for Senate.
Our Take: Bennet and Hickenlooper are both putting to the test the philosophy that it's best to be bland and inoffensive than edgy and dangerous. Call them the anti-Platners.
M.S. in Canton, NY: The Republican primary race in NY-21 has gotten very nasty. Robert Smullen (R), the more establishment candidate, is running ads proclaiming his Trumpiness and calling Trump-endorsed candidate Anthony Constantino (R) a police-hating Democrat in disguise. Meanwhile, Constantino is running ads portraying Smullen as a crook and implying that he is a tool of the Chinese communists; he also has called Smullen a liar and a coward, and given him the nickname "SlimeBob." In response to the ads, Smullen's lawyers sent the Constantino campaign a cease-and-desist letter alleging defamation; apparently the most objectionable "defamation" was the claim that Smullen had been insufficiently enthusiastic about endorsing Trump's presidential campaigns. (I cringe to think that in all probability, one of these clowns will be my representative come January.)
View from the ground, literally: Last weekend, both Smullen and Democratic candidate Blake Gendebien (D) marched in Canton's annual Dairy Festival Parade. Gendebien brought along by far the largest piece of farm equipment in the parade (of which there were many); make of that what you will. Early voting in the primary has started.
Our Take: You know what they say that the size of a man's farm equipment tells you...
Thanks to everyone who wrote in this week. If you have a report on a local election—House, Senate, governor, state legislature, etc.—please do let us know at comments@electoral-vote.com, preferably with subject line "All Politics Is Local." (Z)
Never Forget:
Up today is B.B. in Newtown, PA:
I'd like to share what I know about my dad's wartime experiences. He was reluctant to speak about them, but over the years a few things leaked out, and those things help me understand why he sometimes appeared a little different.
I know that in preparation for D-Day, my dad was stationed on the English coast. I believe he was part of the 833rd Engineering Battalion. One evening, he told his sergeant that he wanted to go into town to visit his grandmother. He didn't have a grandmother in England. His grandmother was a Russian immigrant living with his parents back in Philadelphia. I am sure he had a date with a young English lady. Later that night, he returned to find his barracks had been bombed and the men on either side of his bunk killed. His little fib saved his life.
My dad's construction battalion tended to arrive at locations shortly after battles ended. While marching through France soon after D-Day, he bent over to tie his shoe. At that moment, a sniper fired accurately and struck the soldier on the other side of my dad, killing the poor man. Had my father not bent over at that instant, he would have been killed. Twice in a short period of time, through the random quirkiness of fate, he escaped death. That concentrates the mind! He did say his group found the sniper, who most definitely did not survive the encounter.
My father said he entered a concentration camp soon after it was liberated. He didn't know which one, he never knew where his company was moved to, but he witnessed the horrors we all know took place at such locations, and which he could not put in words. I have the sense he tried to purge his eyes of what he saw. Growing up, he told me, his hero-worshiping son, "If I'd known before what I knew then, there'd be a lot fewer Germans alive today!" I suspect that was nothing more than a bit of soldiery bravado, but I really don't know. Honestly, I'm uncomfortable quoting what he told me in the 1960's in the much different world of 2026, but that is what he said.
Starting in his fifties, my dad suffered from an auto-immune diseases that left his lungs asthmatic and him dependent on prednisone. Multiple times he was hospitalized near death and survived. In his late eighties, he admitted he was on borrowed time. We buried him on his 88th birthday in 2010. I wonder today whether he was referring to his deteriorating health or the near misses of his youth.
Two quick, amusing anecdotes: He said it was common knowledge that anytime you saw a line of soldiers, it meant a chow line. When he encountered a queue in a small French village, he and a couple of pals lined up but were disappointed when they discovered it was not a makeshift cafeteria, but a brothel. He did not tell me whether he was so disappointed that he got out of line.
After V-E day, he was part of a group that was guarding a large German house. In marches a heavyset German prisoner accompanied by several American officers. My dad and his squad were not told who the obviously important German was. This estate was a way station and the following day, the prisoner left. After the incident, my father asked his commanding officer who the German was. He was told it was Hermann Goering. "Goering," my father responded, "if I had known it was Goering, I'd have shot him." His commanding officer replied, "And that is why we didn't tell you."
Thanks, B.B. (Z)
Previous | Next
Main page for smartphones