"Because I don't know enough about it."  Y'know, when most people don't know enough about something…they usually don't say anything!  (Quick disclaimer:  unless they're on a sports talk show.)

And it's one thing to not know enough about something and keep yammering, as if you want to be seen as an expert - about something you know you don't know enough about.  But it's taking your stupidity to another level to actually admit it out loud, as if admitting is a defense of you having said something so idiotic in the first place.

And…and going even further, and making this incredibly bizarre response by Trump even worse -- and, yes, as I said, amazingly with Trump that is always possible -- is that in trying to defend his explanation (of something that he says he doesn't know enough about), Trump attempted to show his expertise by remembering something he likely heard somewhere in some other context and says, "Tomahawks are used by others, as you know." Adding, "They buy them from us."  The problem with this is -- Iran does not have Tomahawk missiles!!!

Yes, Tomahawks are used by others, as we know.  But what commander-in-chief Trump doesn't seem to know (as he tries to sound smart) is that Iran is not one of those others.  And yes, also, other countries do buy Tomahawk missiles from us.  But no, Iran is not one of those countries.

Or to put it another way: No, we did not sell Tomahawk missiles to Iran!

As you know.

Iran is our enemy.  It's part of the Axis of Evil.  Iran is the country Trump tore up our nuclear treaty with.  Iran is the country Trump literally bombed just eight months ago.  They're who Trump said we supposedly "obliterated" their nuclear arsenal. (Though now says, no, not so much.)  We did not sell Tomahawk missiles to Iran.  Nor did any other country.

Especially Israel.  Since Iran is an even bigger enemy to Israel than to us.  For that matter, even if Trump ever wanted to throw Israel under the bus and blame them for an errant  Tomahawk from Israel being who accidentally bombed the school, here's the thing -- Israel doesn't have Tomahawks either!  In fact, the only country using Tomahawk missiles in Iran is...the United States.

Well…at least Trump was right about one thing.  He just doesn't know enough about it.

And that's the main thing.  As worse as Trump made it with his Tomahawk gumfummery, that was only an addendum.  That was "only" worse because it was screwing up his defense of the U.S. military accidentally, tragically blowing up a school with 150 children.  (Something really awful to be "only" worse about.)

The core problem, the statement that should have lead every news show, that should have gotten every MAGOP in Congress running for the door to disclaim any loyalty to him, that Democrats should have leaped on - that everyone should leap on, out of national concern of the U.S. president, the commander-in-chief, overseeing an actual war, making a point-blank, blunt statement of supposed fact - and then defending that he's the only one saying it by responding, "I just don't know enough about it." 

But it not only wasn't the lead story (and honestly, I get that, even if I don't agree), it wasn't even covered on the news at all. It was just a shrug and, well, that's just normal, that's just Trump being Trump.  Whatever.  But -- no, that's not normal.  Imagine if President Biden had said that, as Commander-in-Chief during a war!  Making a blunt, unequivocal statement about something that was demonstrably wrong and then defending being so completely wrong by responding, "I don't know enough about it."

On the positive side, it's perhaps the first honest thing Trump has said since he first took office.

​Your reminder that Trump has dementia, which is degenerative.

I wanted to write about this after last Tuesday’s primary election in Tuesday, but other news about Trump’s war in Iran got in the way.  However, the story holds.  In fact, the more I read and hear about the election, the more I think the biggest story may be something that the news has reported, but only as part of the “who won” story, rather than what I think is its great significance.
 
After the primary, the top headline was that James Talarico won the Democratic primary, and MAGOPs will be having a run-off.  Because Talarico appears to be someone who can draw some moderate Republican and Independent support – especially having won four races for the Texas statehouse in a Red district – the question has arisen if a Democrat can actually win the general election, and become the first Democrat elected to the U.S. Senate since 1988.
 
Democrats, needless-to-say, are enthusiastic and hopeful.  But the larger question has been if this is false hope.  If this is a case of Lucy telling Charlie Brown to kick the football, promising that she won’t pull the ball away at the last moment – before she, once again, pulls the ball away at the last moment.  Only to leave him crashing to the ground, laying on his back and shouting out, “Oh, good grief!!!”
 
And it could be.  This is Texas, after all.  Not electing a Democrat to the U.S. Senate in 36 years is a real thing.  Democrats have been enthusiastic in recent elections that This Could Be the Year!  They’ve come close – very close with Beto O’Rourke – only the have Lucy pull the ball away at the last moment.
 
That’s why this other story, not “who won” the primaries, is much more significant than is being discussed.  Regardless who won --
 
 – more than 200,000 people voted in the Democratic primary than the MAGOP primary.
 
That’s a massive margin. And even more than the margin, something of massive importance, I think.  And when it is mentioned in the news, it’s generally only brought up as it being a large and very surprising margin.  And it is a large number. And very surprising.  But man, does that margin seem a far bigger deal to me.  Not just for Texas (and this is the equally important point), but across the country, as well. 
 
Consider:
 
This was a primary.  Fewer people vote in primaries than in the general election.  Those who do vote are the one who are highly motivated.  But if that favored any party, it should have been the MAGOP.  After all, in the two races, one of them – the MAGOP -- had two of the biggest names in Texas politics running against each other, the sitting senator of Texas and the sitting Attorney General of Texas.  And the other race had a member of Congress from just one district and a state representative representing one local district.  If any race should attract the most interest across Texas, it’s the two powerhouse statewide officials battling one another.  Not two people who many, if not most voters in the state didn’t really know.
 
But further, the MAGOPs spent $90 million drawing attention to themselves.  “Themselves” being, again, the incumbent U.S. senator and the state’s incumbent Attorney General.

Moreover, all this was in Red Texas -- that voted for Trump just over a year ago by 14 points.  That hasn’t elected a Democrat to the U.S. Senate in 36 years.  Motivated MAGOP voters, in an off-year primary, decided between two statewide dynamos should have flocked to that race.  Democratic voters choosing between two, local (by comparison) “I think I know about thems” should have been a distant second.
 
But no, despite all that going against them, Democrats outvoted MAGOPs by 200,000!
 
That’s not only immense news for Texas, but all the more so given that only a month earlier, in a Special Election, Democrats flipped a safe-Red seat in the Texas statehouse.  A seat that Trump had carried the district by 17 points…Democrat Taylor Rehmet (a union president, no less) not only beat the Trump-endorsed Leigh Wambsganss by 14 points -- a pick-up of 31 points.  But it’s immense news nationally, as well, indicative of how Democrats have gained an average of 16 points in every Special Election since Trump took office. 
 
(And it is a national matter.  Just a few weeks, a Democrat won a local Special Election in Pennsylvania – which was expected, since it was a very safe Democratic district.  However, he picked up an additional 34 points and won his state race by 67 points.)
 
So, I think this turnout of 200,000 more Democratic voters in Red Texas is massive news, from whatever angle you look at it.
 
In an article in the Texas Tribune after the primaries, they wrote that “There are nearly 3 million independent voters in the state” and “this is the most consequential voting bloc.” But it’s what they wrote moments later that explained why Independents are so consequential, to put all this in perspective.  To be clear, what they said was “only” about James Talarico in his race against Jasmine Crockett, but keep in mind that a) there are almost 3 million independent voters in Texas, and b) 200,000 more Independents voted for Democrats than MAGOPs in the primary.  The paper wrote --

“The last public survey on the Democratic contest showed he had a clear advantage with independents over Crockett, 62% to 35%.”
 
Now, yes, that last statistic only impacts the Democratic primary.  But given all other statistics we’ve seen (including that other national polls not only confirm this number overall, but actually show Independents breaking for Democrats by an even greater percentage), it seems reasonable to think the recent statistics about Independents overlapped with the results in Texas. 
 
And that’s the critical perspective with the 200,000 people in Texas voting for in the Democratic primary than MAGOP.  Those 200,000 had to come from somewhere.  Some were, of course, more Democrats coming to the polls.  And a few may have been moderates on the MAGOP side who switched.  But mostly, a candidate picks up that big a gain by them coming from Independents. That’s why James Talarico’s massive advantage with Independents, who he strongly targeted in his campaign, most definitely confirms what the Texas Tribune says in the article – that Independents are “the most consequential voting bloc.” 
 
And that’s true across the country. 
 
Because all polls show Independents nationally are breaking heavily for Democrats.  And Texas voters showed that 200,000 more people registered to vote for Democrats than MAGOPs.

Is this a different era for Texas -- or just Lucy pulling her football from Charlie Brown?  Who knows?  We'll find out.  But it appears, far beyond even Texas, whatever happens there, to be a different era over the entire country.

On this week’s ‘Not My Job’ segment of the NPR quiz show Wait, Wait…Don’t Tell Me!, the guest contestant is John M. Chu, who has directed such movies as Crazy Rich Asians and the two Wicked movies.  He tells host Peter Sagal amusing stories about his early life growing up in northern California, with a father who ran a restaurant (and still does), and tap dancing and more, including having seen the original stage production of Wicked in its pre-Broadway tryout in San Francisco.
 
This is the full Wait, Wait… broadcast, but you can jump directly to the “Not My Job” segment, it starts a bit after the 21:15 mark.  

This is a “The Weekly Show” podcast with Jon Stewart from last June that I never got around to posting.  But it seems extremely well-timed for the news today, so I dug back into my files to track it down again. 

The show writes that “On the 80th anniversary of D-Day, we reflect on how the US military saved democracy from fascism. This week, as the Senate marks up next year’s defense spending bill, Jon Stewart sits down with Bill Hartung of the Quincy Institute and Roxana Tiron of Bloomberg to investigate whether our arsenal is still bolstering democracy, both abroad and at home. From the active conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza to our rivalry with China, we explore the efficacy of U.S. strategy. Plus, we dive deep into the ballooning defense budget and discuss Jon’s attempts to shine a light on it all.”