"Meghan and Harry ‘Blew It,’ Which ‘Animates Their Rage,’ Tina Brown Tells the Sun"
This is from a website called The New York Sun. I found it as I was googling around to see what Tina Brown is up to; as you read, keep in mind that it was published on June 17, 2023.
The duchess of Sussex, Meghan Markle, aspires to be “Angelina Jolie crossed with Amal Clooney squared with Princess Diana.” That observation was shared with members of The New York Sun by no less a figure than Tina Brown, the legendary editor.
“The realization that the Sussexes blew it is animating a lot of their rage,” Ms. Brown said in an on-stage interview with the publisher of the Sun, Dovid Efune, and your correspondent. “They’ve trashed the family,” she adds. Ms. Markle is “searching for her brand,” Ms. Brown said, and the Sussexes have made “every mistake” with respect to their royal exit.
These remarks, and the one that Ms. Markle is “nothing like” the former princess of Wales, came at a Sun Founder member event at Lincoln Center. It was a lively conversation with a reporter who has raised up the monarchy’s story at a time of royal rupture. Ms. Brown, author of two deeply reported books on the monarchy — “The Diana Chronicles” and “The Palace Papers” — reflected for more than an hour on the state of the House of Windsor.
Ms. Brown sees “no resemblance at all” between Ms. Markle and Princess Diana, who was a “blue-blooded aristocrat” and who grew up in Althorp House and “got the whole royal thing” and “never would have left the royal family if Charles would have been in love with her.”
Ms. Brown allows that both Diana and Ms. Markle possessed “greater charisma than the palace was willing to let them show,” and adds that it is “difficult to contain a star inside a hierarchy” as ancient as the royal family, which claims a lineage going back a thousand years.
The new sovereign, Charles III, was not, Ms. Brown observes, always “cut out for this job.” From the time he was in swaddling clothes he was “embalmed in duty,” both “lugubrious” and an “Eeyore.” Over time, though, Ms. Brown believes that his “passions and idiosyncrasies” have ripened, delivering a man ready to rule. Diana, she believes, “would have come around” to him as king.
The king’s subjects, Ms. Brown observes, are “bored” by Charles but “think he’s decent,” an emblem of stability after the hapless interlude of the “flyby prime minister,” Elizabeth Truss. He was “ahead of his time in his passionate belief that the climate is in danger,” an environmentalism now “in sync with the culture.”
Ms. Brown observes that the king “can’t be a campaigner, but he can be a convener” who is the “most senior statesman for his country.” The Foreign Office, she observes, considers him an “excellent diplomatic missile” in these uncertain post-Brexit days of Tory drift and discontent.
Of the Sussexes, Ms. Brown notes that “they have made every mistake in terms of how they played their desire to exit the royal family.” She reports that one of their entourage told her that “Harry and Meghan are addicted to drama.” The duke of Sussex saw Ms. Markle, she reckons, as an “exit strategy” because of her “worldly grasp of things like Netflix.”
Ms. Brown admits that “it is not pleasant to marry into the Windsor family,” but that of all the candidates to do so, Ms. Markle was “the worst.” The duchess of Sussex “thought she was going to be living in Windsor Castle being Angelina Jolie” but instead goes to “cheesy charity events with red carpets. That has left them furious.”
Ms. Brown judges the Sussexes to be caught in the throes of “victimology” and ensnared in an “us against the world” mindset and afflicted with “FOMO,” or the fear of missing out. It would “not be hard for Harry to win back the British public,” Ms. Brown reckons, but “they are hoping he one day will come back without Meghan.”
Even though Ms. Brown believes that the Sussexes have thrown “so many bombs it’s going to be five years before somebody believes them again,” she calls Meghan and Harry “more sexy, more modern, and more interesting” than the Waleses, William and Catherine. The Sussexes, though, have “trashed the family,” leaving them on the outside looking in.
Ms. Brown, who edited the Tatler, Vanity Fair, and the New Yorker, and founded and edited the late Talk magazine and the Daily Beast, calls Harry’s memoir, “Spare,” a “rip-snortin’ good read” that more than earned him the nickname “Harry the hand grenade.” Finances, she predicts, will drive a book from Ms. Markle in the near future, “out of necessity.”
Calling the monarchy a “slightly moldering studio system in which everyone jostles for the most attention,” Ms. Brown insisted that Queen Elizabeth II saw early on that Ms. Markle would be the “same kind of irritant that Princess Diana was,” though the late princess “spent 17 years being exemplary” and would have been pained by her son absconding from his royal duties and his destiny.
There is, Ms. Brown asserts with sympathy for the Sussexes, a “deep state of the palace filled with claustrophobic and prancing courtiers that any virile or robust person would find deeply irritating.” Not helping matters is a retinue of “dripping debutantes.”
Turning to the future of the monarchy, Ms. Brown notes that “the most powerful woman in the royal family right now” is the princess of Wales. “It all hangs on Kate,” she ventures, as the effects of any discord between her and the heir to the throne would be cataclysmic to the standing of the royals. She warns that the “monarchy is way more fragile than it has ever been.”
In article dated today, June 24, the Wall Street Journal ponders Harry and Meghan's place in the world:
LOS ANGELES—Prince Harry and Meghan Markle had been out of the U.K. for nearly two years when they began work on a project they believed could transform them from former royals to Hollywood power players.
The subject of endless rumors and gossip, the couple felt qualified to tackle the thorny topic of misinformation. A documentary would cement Harry and Meghan as serious creative types and help shed their reputation as exiles from the House of Windsor trading family dirt for eyeballs.
A team assigned to the job at the pair’s Los Angeles-based production company, Archewell, had questions for “H” and “M,” as the Sussexes are known to their employees. Would the misinformation project be a feature film or a series? Who would host it? Would it be historical or contemporary? Would Harry or Meghan appear in it? Would Meghan discuss herbitter history with British tabloids—and if not, who would want to watch?
The couple had few answers, according to people familiar with the inner-workings of Archewell and Harry and Meghan’s deals with streamers. The misinformation documentary soon met the fate of other Archewell projects, and faded away.
Prince Harry and Meghan’s Hollywood foray is looking like a flop. They arrived in Southern California three years ago with Duke and Duchess titles and plans to capitalize on a cash-rich streaming business desperate for star power to lure subscribers. The big-ticket deals that followed—$100 million at NetflixNFLX 0.36%increase; green up pointing triangle, more than $20 million at Spotify—have led to more cancellations and rejections than produced shows.
The couple showed they could mine their personal stories. Prince Harry’s memoir “Spare” became a bestseller and the six-part documentary they produced for Netflix about their break with the royal family proved popular. That aside, they have struggled to make content that stretched beyond their own experiences.
The graveyard of video projects they hoped to make includes an animated children’s show called “Pearl” that was canceled by Netflix, as well as at least two TV ideas that the streaming service rejected within the past year, people familiar with Harry and Meghan’s projects said. Netflix is unlikely to renew the couple’s deal, which runs through 2025, the people said.
The Spotify pact produced a podcast, “Archetypes,” about the stereotypes that hold women back. A second season was discussed but eventually nixed. Spotify and the couple recently announced they have agreed to part ways.
People who have worked with the pair say their Sussex-upon-Sunset outpost was undermined by their inexperience as producers and trouble finding material consistent with their brand, as well as problems beyond their control, including a retrenchment in the entertainment and podcasting businesses.
An Archewell spokeswoman said, “New companies often make changes in their start up phase, both with people and strategy, and we are no exception. We’re more equipped, focused and energized than ever before.” She said the company recently hired a new head of scripted content, actress and producer Tracy Ryerson.
A Netflix spokeswoman said the company valued its Archewell partnership, and noted that “Harry & Meghan” was its biggest documentary debut. “We’ll continue to work together on a number of projects,” she said.
When Archewell and Spotify announced their split, the companies said in a joint written statement that they “mutually agreed to part ways and are proud of the series we made together.”
When they struck deals with Netflix and Spotify in 2020, streaming services were booming and executives were rushing to secure content and feed consumer demand, at any cost. The Sussexes joined Barack Obama, Nobel Peace Prize laureate Malala Yousafzai and others who fielded offers in Hollywood with few guidelines on what would come next.
The Covid-19 pandemic bolstered the streaming audience, with subscribers stuck at home, but also interrupted production for projects in their early stages of development, including some of the Sussexes’ work.
Today, streaming boom times have given way to an era of slower growth and unpredictability. Both Netflix and Spotify have cut shows and movies to trim costs. Both have been underwhelmed by the lack of productivity by the Sussexes, people familiar with their perspectives say.
'“Once you’ve launched your bombshell, what’s next?” said Andrew Morton, the longtime chronicler of the royal family.
Archewell employees and associates say the company often lacks direction, and that its founders at times seem surprised by the work required to finish entertainment projects. Most potential initiatives, they said, follow a similar route: Big idea, subpar execution.
In May 2022, the head of communications at Archewell and the head of communications at the couple’s nonprofit foundation stepped down. In the following months, several others followed, including the company’s head of audio and Mandana Dayani, president of the entire operation.
In March, Ben Browning, the film producer hired to oversee Archewell’s content slate on the strength of such credits as the Oscar-winning “Promising Young Woman,” left the company to return to his prior job. Archewell’s head of marketing parted ways with the company, as did its head of scripted content.
Hot start
Harry and Meghan arrived in Hollywood the subject of transcontinental fascination. They were the first senior royals since King Edward VIII to walk away from their official duties. They had famous friends in stars like Serena Williams andOprah Winfrey, both of whom attended their 2018 nuptials.
After forging the lucrative deal with Netflix, the couple’s relationship with the company was bolstered by a friendship with its co-CEO and their neighbor in Montecito, Calif., Ted Sarandos.
“Harry & Meghan,” the fly-on-the-wall documentary about the couple’s love story, was the first major project produced under the deal. It featured intimate moments between the pair—Harry on the tears of his mother, Princess Diana; Meghan on her miscarriage—and delved into British colonialism as well as the racism the couple experienced.
The documentary opened the Sussexes up to criticism, including the moment when Meghan said she didn’t expect to curtsy before the queen.
Archewell employees felt the future of their Netflix deal hinged on the documentary’s success, and the project created tension inside the company. Harry and Meghan weighed in on edits, though at times were overruled, people involved in the project said.
Following up has proven difficult. Their second Netflix video project, a docuseries called “Live to Lead” about global leaders and activists, failed to reach the streamer’s list of Top 10 shows.
Other proposed projects seemed designed to replicate successful shows already on Netflix, such as a sitcom described as “Emily in Paris,” but about a man, and a family-friendly TV show about gay characters that felt similar to the fan favorite “Heartstopper.” Netflix said no to both, people familiar with the matter said.
After booming during the early part of the pandemic, Netflix’s subscriber growth began to stagnate as streaming competition ramped up and consumers resumed more regular lives. Netflix is still recovering from a sharp drop in its stock in 2022 after it announced its first quarter of subscriber losses in a decade.
The downturn rattled Hollywood, leading to what is now called the “Netflix Correction,” a period in which studios began to prune their catalogs and become choosier about which projects to back. A Hollywood writers’ strike has put more pressure on entertainment companies to justify big payouts, and has closed writing rooms industrywide.
Executives at Netflix have groused about Archewell’s output, according to people familiar with the matter, and feel that the success of the “Harry & Meghan” documentary is all the company has to show for the deal.
Today, one Archewell project is nearing completion at Netflix: a documentary series on the Invictus Games, a tournament Harry founded for wounded veterans after serving two tours with the British Army in Afghanistan.
Harry and Meghan are also developing a TV show for Netflix called “Bad Manners” based on Miss Havisham, a Charles Dickens character from “Great Expectations.” The prequel would recast the lonely spinster as a strong woman living in a patriarchal society, though it is unclear whether the show will get a green light from Netflix.
Archewell associates say Barack and Michelle Obama’s post-White House Hollywood venture, which also included deals at Netflix and Spotify, was the template followed by Harry and Meghan. The two couples worked with the same attorney on the deals.
The Obamas have been more productive. Work by their Higher Ground production company for Netflix has included movies such as “Leave the World Behind,” starring Julia Roberts, and Kevin Hart’s “Fatherhood,” as well as a child-oriented show “Waffles+Mochi” and documentaries including “American Factory.”
New struggles
Meghan’s media productivity has largely been concentrated at Spotify, and the road to getting “Archetypes” on the air was rocky. When the Duchess first began working with the audio service, Archewell didn’t have an employee focused on audio projects, and instead, a public-relations representative initially led Archewell’s work with Spotify, people familiar with the company said.
The audio company’s executives grew frustrated with the amount of time it took Archewell to conceptualize an idea for Meghan’s podcast and assemble a production team.
Ultimately, Archewell hired a head of audio, who worked in concert with members of Spotify’s Gimlet unit on podcasting ideas. The Gimlet team helped Meghan compile a list of potential guests, and Spotify helped build a podcast studio in the couple’s mansion, said people familiar with the situation. (News Corp’s Dow Jones & Co., publisher of The Wall Street Journal, has a content partnership with Spotify’s Gimlet Media unit.)
Choosing the right kind of guest was often fraught. Meghan wrote Taylor Swift a personal letter asking her to come on the podcast. The pop star declined, through a representative.
Meghan would often ask for changes late in the editing process, at times recruiting senior Spotify executives, including then-Chief Content Officer Dawn Ostroff, to call producers and push them to make changes.
The “Archetypes” podcast launched in August of 2022 and went to the top of Spotify’s podcast charts in its premiere week. It halted the release of new episodes in September during the mourning period for Queen Elizabeth II, Harry’s grandmother.
Given the show’s success, the audio company and Archewell executives began discussing a second season. Those talks stalled for months before Spotify told Archewell that the show wouldn’t be renewed.
Archewell didn’t make good on all of the terms of the Spotify deal, which included each of the Sussexes voicing and being directly involved in a podcast. Harry, in particular, struggled to land on an idea.
He explored a podcast on veterans but couldn’t find a compelling way to tackle the subject in podcast form. He tossed around subjects such as misinformation and his point of view as someone new to living in America, and at one point considered co-hosting a show with comedian Hasan Minhaj.
Ed Owens, author of the book, “After Elizabeth: Can the Monarchy Save Itself?” said Harry tried to return to subjects he previously focused on, but without the foundation of being a working royal. “They haven’t found the one area that they can really call their own,” Owens said.
Podcasts had their own industry correction. Facing difficulty turning a profit even on popular shows, Spotify has laid off about 800 workers so far this year and has canceled several shows, in addition to “Archetypes.” Spotify continues to make original podcasts, but with a bent toward conversational shows that don’t require heavy editing and high-touch production.
This month, Spotify and the Sussexes’s audio company announced they were ending their partnership. WME, the talent agency that recently signed Meghan, said at the time that the Archewell team was proud of “Archetypes” and that the Duchess continues to develop content for that show’s audience on another platform. Archewell executives hope working with WME will bring about new opportunities, from brand partnerships to podcasts.
Next episode
For Harry and Meghan, the broader streaming slowdown couldn’t come at a more uncertain time. They have indicated they want to move on from talking about the Royal Family following a tell-all interview with Oprah Winfrey, the Netflix documentary and Prince Harry’s book.
Revelations from these projects appear to have cemented the rift between the Duke and his father, King Charles III. The couple was asked to move out of their Frogmore Cottage home, and while the King invited the Sussexes to his coronation, Harry attended by himself, sat in the third row behind his older brother and was in the country only briefly.
Given their distance from the crown, the sheen Harry and Meghan once lent show-business projects is dimming. It helped cost them what was intended to be their first project with Netflix, an animated show about powerful women of history called “Pearl.”
The children’s show was developed when Meghan was still a working royal. It was created with help from David Furnish, who knew the royal family through his husband, Elton John. When the couple left the Palace and signed their Netflix deal, “Pearl” was the first show announced.
Netflix canceled it in May 2022. Executives decided that few children would care if the show they were watching had been produced by a duchess. (This is the article in its entirety.)
Former Arkansas governor Asa Hutchinson is running for president. From Politico:
“I am going to be running. And the reason, as I’ve traveled the country for six months, I hear people talk about the leadership of our country, and I’m convinced that people want leaders that appeal to the best of America, and not simply appeal to our worst instincts,” Hutchinson said during an interview with Jonathan Karl on ABC’s “This Week.” “I believe I can be that kind of leader for the people of America.”
Hutchinson will make a formal announcement later this month in Bentonville, Arkansas, he said.
Mr. Hutchinson has an interesting take on Donald:
On Sunday, Hutchinson, a former federal prosecutor, reiterated the call he first made Friday for Trump to withdraw from the race.
“Well he should,” Hutchinson said, when asked whether Trump should pull out of the race. “But at the same time, we know he’s not [going to]. And there’s not any constitutional requirement.” The indictment will become too big of a “sideshow,” Hutchinson said, adding that the former president should focus on his defense instead of another bid for the White House.
“I mean, first of all, the office is more important than any individual person. And so for the sake of the office of the presidency, I do think that’s too much of a sideshow and distraction, and he needs to be able to concentrate on his due process[.] Read the entire article here.
I've moved Mr. Hutchinson to the "I'm Running" list:
I'm Running (and the date they declared their candidacy)
Donald Trump (November 15, 2022)
Nikki Haley (February 14, 2023)
Vivek Ramaswamy (February 21, 2023) By the way, who is this guy? Politico describes him as a "multi-millionaire biotech entrepreneur and self-described intellectual godfather of the anti-woke movement." Okay.
Asa Hutchinson (April 2, 2023)
... and deleted his name from the "I'm Thinking About Running" list:
I'm Thinking About Running
Governor Greg Abbott, Texas
John Bolton, former White House National Security Adviser
Liz Cheney, former congresswoman from Wyoming
Chris Christie, former governor of New Jersey, was a candidate in 2016
Rep. Dan Crenshaw, Texas
Senator Ted Cruz, Texas
Governor Ron DeSantis, Florida
Governor Doug Ducey, Arizona
Richard Grenell, former ambassador to Germany and former acting director of national intelligence
Will Hurd, former congressman from Texas
Mark Meadows, White House chief of staff and former North Carolina representative
Governor Kristi L. Noem, South Dakota
Robert C. O’Brien, national security advisor
Vice President Mike Pence
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo
Senator Mitt Romney, Utah, 2012 Republican nominee for president
Senator Marco Rubio, Florida
Senator Ben Sasse, Nebraska
Senator Rick Scott, Florida
Senator Patrick J. Toomey, Pennsylvania
Days until Election Day: 583
And one more thing: Since my last post, Donald has been indicted (or "indicated", as he put it in a Truth Social post) by the Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, after a vote to indict by the Grand Jury. I have lots of thoughts about this, no surprise, but for now I'll just say that my dream in life is to live in a country where no one is stupid enough to send money to Donald Trump. Apparently a fund-raising blitz, which started seven seconds after the indictment was announced, has raised as much as 5 million dollars. How can people still be sending this man money? Wouldn't it be more entertaining to sit around setting $100 bills on fire?
Update: Back on January 6, The Daily Mail ran a story saying that John Bolton would run in 2024, based on an interview Bolton gave to Good Morning, Britain. I saw the tweet the Mail sent out at the time but the story didn't get much traction, and as of yet Mr. Bolton hasn't officially announced, so I'm keeping him on the I'm Thinking About Running list. (Am I obsessed with lists? Yes.) You can read the Daily Mail story here.
Update #2 on April 12: Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina has formed a presidential exploratory committee. This is from the Washington Post:
Scott, the only Black Republican in the Senate, has spent recent months laying the groundwork for a national campaign via early state travel and donor events. The exploratory committee will allow Scott's team to ramp up fundraising and fund travel before he officially declares a bid.
Based on this, I'm moving him to the "I'm Running" list.
I'm Running (and the date they declared their candidacy)
Donald Trump (November 15, 2022)
Nikki Haley (February 14, 2023)
Vivek Ramaswamy (February 21, 2023) By the way, who is this guy? Politico describes him as a "multi-millionaire biotech entrepreneur and self-described intellectual godfather of the anti-woke movement." Okay.
Asa Hutchinson (April 2, 2023)
Senator Tim Scott (April 12, 2023)
There's one more piece of political news. Yesterday it was announced that Chicago will host the 2024 Democratic National Convention, which will take place on August 19-22 next year.
In my last post, on November 14 of last year, I included a list from the Washington Post of the "top 10 individuals most likely to be the Republican nominee" for president in 2024. At the time, Ron DeSantis was in the top spot:
Ron DeSantis
Donald Trump
Mike Pence
Glenn Youngkin (Governor of Virginia)
Tim Scott
Kari Lake (former news anchor running for Governor of Arizona)
Ted Cruz
Nikki Haley
Mike Pompeo
Rick Scott
The Post updates their list periodically; here's how the race looks to them now, in a list published yesterday:
Donald Trump
Ron DeSantis
Tim Scott
Mike Pence
Nikki Haley
Glenn Youngkin
Mike Pompeo
Chris Sununu
Kristi Noem
Vivek Ramaswamy
The list is in "order of likeliness to be nominated, which takes into account both how likely they are to run - or that they're already running - and their formidability if they do." Others considered to be worth mentioning are Asa Hutchinson (former governor of Arkansas,) John Bolton (former White House national security adviser,) Liz Cheney (former congresswoman from Wyoming,) Greg Abbott (governor of Texas) and Will Hurd (former congressman from Texas.) Numbers 1, 5, and 10 from the list above are now declared candidates:
I'm Running (and the date they declared their candidacy)
Donald Trump (November 15, 2022)
Nikki Haley (February 14, 2023)
Vivek Ramaswamy (February 21, 2023) By the way, who is this guy? Politico describes him as a "multi-millionaire biotech entrepreneur and self-described intellectual godfather of the anti-woke movement." Okay.
I'm Not Running (potential candidates who have definitively ruled themselves out, at least for 2024)
Senator Tom Cotton
Senator Josh Hawley
Former Governor Larry Hogan
Things can only heat up from here, stay tuned for more.
Days until Election Day: 590
Note: The Republican National Convention will take place July 15-18, 2024, in Milwaukee. The three finalist cities for the Democratic convention are Atlanta, Chicago and New York City; the dates have not yet been announced.
And one more thing: In that November 18 post, I also included an "I'm Thinking About Running" list, which looked like this:
I'm Thinking About Running:
Governor Greg Abbott, Texas
Rep. Dan Crenshaw, Texas
Senator Ted Cruz, Texas
Governor Ron DeSantis, Florida
Governor Doug Ducey, Arizona
Richard Grenell, former ambassador to Germany and former acting director of national intelligence
Nikki Haley, former ambassador to the United Nations and former South Carolina governor
Senator Josh Hawley, Missouri
Governor Larry Hogan, Maryland
Mark Meadows, White House chief of staff and former North Carolina representative
Governor Kristi L. Noem, South Dakota
Robert C. O’Brien, national security advisor
Vice President Mike Pence
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo
Senator Mitt Romney, Utah, 2012 Republican nominee for president
Senator Marco Rubio, Florida
Senator Ben Sasse, Nebraska
Senator Rick Scott, Florida
Senator Tim Scott. South Carolina
Senator Patrick J. Toomey, Pennsylvania
Donald Trump
If we tweak this list a bit, i.e., Donald and Nikki Haley are on the I'm Running list, Senator Hawley and Governor Hogan are on the I'm Not Running list, and adding Wapo's "worth mentioning" names (Asa Hutchinson, John Bolton, Liz Cheney and Will Hurd) the I'm Thinking About Running list looks like this:
Governor Greg Abbott, Texas
John Bolton, former White House National Security Adviser
Liz Cheney, former congresswoman from Wyoming
Rep. Dan Crenshaw, Texas
Senator Ted Cruz, Texas
Governor Ron DeSantis, Florida
Governor Doug Ducey, Arizona
Richard Grenell, former ambassador to Germany and former acting director of national intelligence
Will Hurdm former congressman from Texas
Asa Hutchinson, former governor of Arkansas
Mark Meadows, White House chief of staff and former North Carolina representative
Governor Kristi L. Noem, South Dakota
Robert C. O’Brien, national security advisor
Vice President Mike Pence
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo
Senator Mitt Romney, Utah, 2012 Republican nominee for president
Senator Marco Rubio, Florida
Senator Ben Sasse, Nebraska
Senator Rick Scott, Florida
Senator Tim Scott. South Carolina
Senator Patrick J. Toomey, Pennsylvania
As people declare themselves to be running or not running I'll update the lists.
Update on March 27: I never had Georgia Governor Brian Kemp on my "Thinking About Running" list, but apparently he was considering it. A couple of days ago, however, he announced that he won't be running this time around. I've updated the "I'm Not Running" list:
I'm Not Running (potential candidates who have definitively ruled themselves out, at least for 2024)
Senator Tom Cotton
Senator Josh Hawley
Former Governor Larry Hogan
Georgia Governor Brian Kemp
Days until Election Day: 589
Update #2 on March 29: I haven't seen Chris Christie's name mentioned as a potential candidate in 2024, but according to the Washington Post he's considering it:
Former New Jersey governor Chris Christie sharply criticized Donald Trump on Monday during his first trip this year to New Hampshire, as he kept the door open to entering the GOP presidential primary against his former ally and signaled he would decide by June.
In a nearly two-hour town hall at St. Anselm College's New Hampshire Institute of Politics, Christie said Trump's name more than 20 times, attacking the former president over his efforts to overturn the 2020 election that he lost, mocking his policy acumen and blaming him for Republican losses in the 2022 midterms. Christie also portrayed himself as uniquely well positioned to take on Trump.
"You know, Donald Trump said a couple of weeks ago, 'I am your retribution.' Guess what, everybody? No thanks. No thanks," Christie said to applause from his audience in an early-nominating state. "If I was going to pay somebody to be my retribution, I guarantee this, it wouldn't be him."
Christie, who has been publicly critical of Trump as he weighs a White House bid, continued, "Here's why it wouldn't be him, because he doesn't want to be my retribution. That's baloney. The only person he cares about is him. And if we haven't learned that since Election Day of 2020 to today, then we are not paying attention."
I've updated the "I'm Thinking About Running" list:
Governor Greg Abbott, Texas
John Bolton, former White House National Security Adviser
Liz Cheney, former congresswoman from Wyoming
Chris Christie, former governor of New Jersey, was a candidate in 2016
Rep. Dan Crenshaw, Texas
Senator Ted Cruz, Texas
Governor Ron DeSantis, Florida
Governor Doug Ducey, Arizona
Richard Grenell, former ambassador to Germany and former acting director of national intelligence
Will Hurd, former congressman from Texas
Asa Hutchinson, former governor of Arkansas
Mark Meadows, White House chief of staff and former North Carolina representative
Governor Kristi L. Noem, South Dakota
Robert C. O’Brien, national security advisor
Vice President Mike Pence
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo
Senator Mitt Romney, Utah, 2012 Republican nominee for president
The mid-term election is over, which means the 2024 campaign for president is now underway, and you know what that means: Lists. I like lists, in particular lists of who might or might not run, who is or is not running for president. On October 18, 2020, I posted a list of 24 Republicans who appeared to be at least considering a run for president four years in the future. (This was 2 1/2 weeks before the 2020 election took place; at that point there were two possible outcomes for 2024: Donald would be completing his second term or Joe Biden would be gearing up to run for reelection.) Here's that list:
Governor Greg Abbott, Texas
Rep. Liz Cheney, Wyoming
Senator Tom Cotton, Arkansas
Rep. Dan Crenshaw, Texas
Senator Ted Cruz, Texas
Governor Ron DeSantis, Florida
Governor Doug Ducey, Arizona
Richard Grenell, former ambassador to Germany and former acting director of national intelligence
Nikki Haley, former ambassador to the United Nations and former South Carolina governor
Senator Josh Hawley, Missouri
Governor Larry Hogan, Maryland
Mark Meadows, White House chief of staff and former North Carolina representative
Governor Kristi L. Noem, South Dakota
Robert C. O’Brien, national security advisor
Vice President Mike Pence
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo
Senator Mitt Romney, Utah, 2012 Republican nominee for president
Senator Marco Rubio, Florida
Senator Ben Sasse, Nebraska
Senator Rick Scott, Florida
Senator Tim Scott. South Carolina
Senator Patrick J. Toomey, Pennsylvania
Donald Trump Jr.
Ivanka Trump
Two years later things look a little different. At that time there wasn't much talk about Donald running in 2024 if he lost in 2020, which is why he's not on this list. Don Jr. and Ivanka are, however, but with Donald almost certain to run, the kids are out of contention. Representative Liz Cheney sacrificed her career to pursue the truth as part of the January 6 commitee and Senator Tom Cotton is the first to officially announce that he's not running. He gets to be the first name on the "I'm Not Running" list:
I'm Not Running
1. Senator Tom Cotton
With those tweaks to the list above, here is my current "I'm Thinking About Running" list:
I'm Thinking About Running:
Governor Greg Abbott, Texas
Rep. Dan Crenshaw, Texas
Senator Ted Cruz, Texas
Governor Ron DeSantis, Florida
Governor Doug Ducey, Arizona
Richard Grenell, former ambassador to Germany and former acting director of national intelligence
Nikki Haley, former ambassador to the United Nations and former South Carolina governor
Senator Josh Hawley, Missouri
Governor Larry Hogan, Maryland
Mark Meadows, White House chief of staff and former North Carolina representative
Governor Kristi L. Noem, South Dakota
Robert C. O’Brien, national security advisor
Vice President Mike Pence
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo
Senator Mitt Romney, Utah, 2012 Republican nominee for president
Senator Marco Rubio, Florida
Senator Ben Sasse, Nebraska
Senator Rick Scott, Florida
Senator Tim Scott. South Carolina
Senator Patrick J. Toomey, Pennsylvania
Donald Trump
As soon as candidates start to officially declare they're running, I'll put up the I'm Running list.
Update on November 16: I hadn't seen it when I initially wrote this post, but on Saturday, the Washington Post posted their list of the top 10 individuals most likely to be the Republican nominee in 2024 and note that their list is ranked, my list above is simply alphabetical. This is how the Washington Post sees the GOP race right now, (or at least as of Saturday):
Ron DeSantis
Donald Trump
Mike Pence
Gleen Youngkin (Governor of Virginia)
Tim Scott
Kari Lake (former news anchor running for Governor of Arizona)
Ted Cruz
Nikki Haley
Mike Pompeo
Rick Scott
Since the list was published, Kari Lake lost her race for Governor of Arizona, Rick Scott is challenging Mitch McConnell for Senate Minority Leader, and, oh yeah, last night Donald Trump officially announced that he's running for president. Again. That means he gets to be the first name on the "I'm Running" list:
Is there something strange about years that end in the number *1* that causes my blogger juices to go awry? In 2011, I posted exactly one post, on December 31, and I did only slightly better this year, with 9 posts in January. I've missed my blog, however and there will more posts to come.
To start with, here's an editorial from the Chicago Tribune, in which the Editorial Board ponders the meaning of the Jussie Smollett case:
Titled "The Tawdry Case of Jussie Smollett Had Comic Relief, But Was Not a Victimless Affair," the editorial was published on December 12, three days after Smollett was found guilty of five felonies. This is the editorial in its entirety:
The recent trials we've been following have contained enough human pain to make us shudder: The Kyle Rittenhouse case involved two dead Americans; the matter in Georgia was about who caused the death of the 25-year-old Ahmaud Arbery; the yet-unresolved Ghislaine Maxwell affair has a backdrop of the cynical abuse of scores, if not hundreds, of impressionable young girls and women over many years.
By those standards, the case of Jussie Smollett has been comic relief.
Smollett, a B-list TV actor, was not accused of either killing or hurting anyone. His trumped-up saga of a deliberately staged, "racially motivated" attack usable for the purposes of personal promotion fits squarely into the Cook County tradition of darkly comic flim-flammery and low-bore corruption.
It matches up well with some of the cases famously recounted on the pages of this newspaper a hundred years ago by the crime reporter Maurine Dallas Watkins, whose trial-room notebook would form the basis for the musical "Chicago." Watkins would have loved writing about Smollett.
Once it became clear something fishy was in play, a conclusion reached Thursday evening by a jury of Smollett's peers, this was a trial that was fun for everyone to discuss.
How was the scheme concocted? Were the two bodybuilding brothers, apparently Smollett's accomplices, the Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to Smollett's Hamlet? Or were they closer to reincarnations of the classic "Saturday Night Live!" duo of Hans und Franz, here to pump anybody up? This case had a tabloid-friendly unspooling, with new twists and turns arriving almost every day.
But despite all the gossipy Tweets and chatter and opinions, there were real victims here. That would be everyone in the future who actually becomes the victim of a violent hate crime, being as Smollett's phony version only seeds needless doubt for the real incidents that surely will follow.
His idea of exploiting such an attack for publicity certainly worked with politicians on Twitter, especially since Smollett had plenty of connections and the immediate backing of a huge PR firm, thanks to his network, Fox Entertainment.
"This was an attempted modern day lynching," tweeted Kamala Harris at the time, praising Smollett's kindness. "This attack was not 'possibly' homophobic," wrote Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, going after anyone holding back judgment, "it was a racist and homophobic attack." "What happened today to Jussie Smollett must never be tolerated in this country," wrote Joe Biden.
Biden was right about that. Just not for the reasons he thought.
Even as these rushed statements appeared on social media, Chicago police had to get down to the nitty gritty of what exactly happened. By all courtroom accounts, the cops took this crime seriously, expending huge amounts of resources on trying to find who had attacked Smollett. Even Smollett said he had been treated with dignity and respect during the initial stages of the investigation. Chicago police get a lot of criticism, including plenty leveled by this page. In this matter, they behaved admirably.
With the aid of cameras and other clues, police quickly figured out all was not as it seemed, and the evidence for this all being faked was passed to Cook County State's Attorney Kim Foxx. That's where things went off the rails, but not necessarily for the reasons most of the media is saying.
It's tempting to see the Smollett case, whose cause was backed by the attorney and influence peddler Tina Tchen, as another egregious example of Foxx's go-soft approach and reluctance to prosecute criminals, especially since Smollett had made Chicago look like a haven for violent racists and homophobes.
But cooler, nonpartisan heads can understand that with all Chicago has to worry about in the sphere of crime, a first-time offense likely to result in probation probably was not worth allowing to suck up resources that could be spent on finding the actual killers on our streets. Foxx's office was right to offer Smollett a quick deal, and correct to see that there were more important criminals for them to worry about.
But Foxx made one crucial mistake. She didn't require Smollett to admit his guilt and apologize as part of his deal. He should have offered to do that: Had he done so, he would have avoided four felony convictions on his record and, over time, he likely could have resumed his career. But he did not do anything of the kind.
And that's where Chicagoans both pragmatic and invested in fairness grew incensed, how a special prosecutor became involved and, frankly, how we ended where we ended up on Thursday evening when the jury delivered its verdict.
We know that people who are not on a TV show and friendly with politicians like Harris don't get both a sweetheart deal from the prosecutor and the chance to walk around town protesting their innocence. At that point, the Smollett case became about special favors in a city with an egregious history of them. And thanks to the jury, he ended up the loser, pending any appeals.
Smollett wasted a lot of time of some very busy people who have far more important issues to worry about than him. He embarrassed the politicians who supported him and he didn't respect his own fans. Sure, he probably didn't think it would ever come to all this, but he still didn't have the guts to turn off the machine when only he could. Shame on him.
Still, we haven't changed our mind about the limited severity of this crime, the hoopla notwithstanding, and we've no wish to see Smollett languish behind bars. We'd rather he admitted responsibility, got some help and performed meaningful public service.
Ideally right here in Chicago, a city whose reputation he slandered.
Tribune reporter William Lee, in a column written after the
verdict, says the Smollett story reeked from the very beginning:
The Jussie Smollett story reeked from the moment this crime reporter laid eyes on it. To paraphrase “The Daily Show” host Trevor Noah, there was a certain part of Smollett’s story that was always a little weird. Maybe you felt the same way. I know a lot of street reporters did in those early days. In all my years on the job, I’d never seen a threat letter written from newspaper clippings like some 1980s TV crime drama.
I won’t go into a full recap as most of us have already heard the details a million times, but the basic contradictions of Smollett’s infamous 2 a.m. Subway sandwich run have been masterfully laid out by Noah and Dave Chappelle. But you don’t have to be a comedian to see the absurdity of two well-prepared white racists successfully carrying out an attack during a chance encounter with their target on an empty downtown street in the middle of the night during the coldest week of 2019.
The former “Empire” actor’s nearly three-year journey from beloved victim to pariah took a step toward its conclusion Thursday when a Cook County jury found the actor guilty of five of six counts related to making a false report to police. Listening to the verdict, I was instantly transported back to that cold, prepandemic January morning when I awakened to a television news report of the attack. In hindsight, I’m proud of the fact that while other publications’ headlines blared that Smollett had been the victim of a hate crime, the Tribune’s first story on the incident, by reporter Tracy Swartz and me, was more subdued: “Cops look into report of assault on actor.”
As a longtime crime reporter, I’m loath to speak on active crime stories, but holes began appearing in the Smollett story within the first two hours of working on it. It seemed very clear from the jump that Smollett’s camp gave his version to friendly outlets to get his narrative out, despite assertions that he didn’t want any public attention. The first report was posted to ThatGrapeJuice.net, a celebrity website that somehow had exclusive details of the alleged Chicago attack — the attackers’ ski masks and the noose placed around Smollett’s neck. TMZ followed with new details that the attackers were two white men, along with the racist and homophobic slurs and the now-famous “This is MAGA country” comment. The story also claimed that Smollett suffered a fractured rib, which police later refuted.
I read each story three times during my ride to the newsroom that day and by the time I stepped off the bus, I knew the whole thing sounded off and warned two of my editors about the coming avalanche and that we needed to be careful writing about it. Smollett wasn’t only a handsome young rising star with a hit TV show filmed in Chicago, he was an activist who used his celebrity to champion gay and Black causes. It didn’t take long for A-list celebrities and politicians to share messages of support for Smollett.
The story got kicked into high gear when then-President Donald Trump publicly acknowledged the attack, prompting me to shout the F-word before I could stop myself. A shout-out from a sitting president meant that Smollett’s saga — with its numerous early red flags and strange turns — would remain in the spotlight until its bitter end. The incident thrust Chicago back into the national spotlight for all the worst reasons. We’d gone from a city that launched one American president to being a city constantly attacked by his successor to score cheap brownie points with red state followers.
There were other local ramifications. The case exposed a growing rift between Chicago police and State’s Attorney Kim Foxx, who earned their eternal enmity for dropping charges against Smollett that March, despite what authorities considered a solid criminal case.
I’ll always recall how Mayor Rahm Emanuel, Supt. Eddie Johnson and Cmdr. Ed Wodnicki were barely able to contain their rage to reporters after news broke over the dropped charges. Police had been suspicious of Smollett’s story early on, critical of the fact that he continued wearing the noose — a feared universal symbol of racial hatred — so that responding officers would see it. And of course there was Smollett’s initial hesitancy to turn over phone evidence that theoretically could have led to his attacker.
Within days, investigators learned the identity of brothers Abimbola and Olabinjo Osundairo, who caught a ride-hailing service near the scene. Until the brothers returned from Nigeria in February, sources said, police had one directive: Treat Smollett as a victim until the facts suggest otherwise. For weeks, police kept up the charade as they continued their investigation. The rest is history. Despite the comedy of errors in this tale, it was never a happy one to cover. Even with the prospect of it being a hoax, I was sympathetic to the actor, unsure whether the incident was a display of avarice and ego, or a cry for help by someone suffering a breakdown.
Despite the hot-button nature of the incident, this was a low-stakes Class 4 felony case, and the fact that no one had actually been injured, aside from a bruise under Smollett’s right eye, this story seemed destined to be forgotten. But Smollett broke a cardinal rule: He went into a city that wasn’t his own and loudly proclaimed “Your town wronged me.” Cops in any city would have been put under tremendous pressure to solve the case of an assaulted star. And despite the effort and attention, he wouldn’t admit his falsehood, with the evidence against him mounting. In the end, Smollett was responsible for derailing his own career, reducing his own reputation to ashes and playing for a fool all of those who came to his aid. And now he has been found guilty of what many of us suspected all along.
He should be offered forgiveness and be able to move on with his life and career, after his contrition. Here in Chicago, we have our own problems. None of them are helped by a celebrity coming to town and crying wolf.
Click here to read previous posts about Jussie Smollett.
I always smile when a serious writer uses the word "nincompoop." (Click here to read previous posts about this cool word.) Now conservative Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Kathleen Parker, writing at the Washington Post, has this to say about Republicans in 2021:
With the electoral eviction of Donald Trump from the Oval Office, Republicans had a shot at redemption and resurrection.
They missed and failed — and deserve to spend the next several years in political purgatory. The chaos now enveloping what’s left of the Grand Old Party after four years of catering to an unstable president is theirs to own. Where conservatism once served as a moderating force — gently braking liberalism’s boundless enthusiasm — the former home of ordered liberty has become a halfway house for ruffians, insurrectionists and renegadewarriors.
What does Trump have on these people, one wonders? The continuing loyalty of so many to a man so demonstrably dangerous can’t be explained by “the base,” a word never more aptly applied. What secrets were shared by Trump and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), who, after blaming Trump for the Jan. 6 mob attack, visited Trump at Mar-a-Lago this week to make amends? It seems that The Don, yet another appropriate nickname, need only purse his button lips and whistle to summon his lap dogs to Palm Beach, there to conspire for the next Big Lie.
The party’s end was inevitable, foreshadowed in 2008 when little-boy Republican males, dazzled by the pretty, born-again, pro-life Alaska governor, thought Sarah Palin should be a heartbeat away from the presidency. The dumbing down of conservatism, in other words, began its terminal-velocity plunge, with a wink and a pair of shiny red shoes. Palin cast a spell as potent as the poppy fields of Oz, but turned the United States into her own moose-poppin,’ gum-smackin’ reality show.
Forget Kansas. We’re not in America anymore.
Eight years of Barack Obama added insult to injury and paved the way for Trump — a gaudier, cinematic version of the “thrillah from Wasilla.” Seizing upon our every worst instinct, he turned Palin’s lipsticked pig into a herd of seething, primitive barbarians. Now, the Department of Homeland Security is warning of yet more violence by domestic extremists, presumably from the ranks of the mob and QAnon conspiracists who stormed the Capitol with blood on their minds.
For Donald Trump, you went down this road? Either Trump has a stockpile of incriminating videos — his people have people, you know — or today’s Republicans are the weakest, wimpiest, most pathetic crop of needy nincompoops in U.S. history.
Suddenly, the “good ones” are worried about their newest member, Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), a QAnon-promoting female version of Trump — only without the charm. You begin to see how this monster mutates like a certain virus into ever-more-dangerous versions of itself. Among other things, Greene embraces the conspiracy theory that the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre and the slaughter at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., were staged. One struggles for words, but I’ll settle for “creep.”
Recently unearthed video shows Greene chasing David Hogg, the Parkland student who rose to public prominence as a gun-control activist after the February 2018 shooting, goading him to respond to her insinuation that his ability to get appointments with U.S. senators when she couldn’t obviously meant he was a public relations spawn and not a survivor of a terrorist attack.
I confess to early uncertainty about Hogg, who was preternaturally adept at media management and public speaking, suddenly materializing from the fog of horror. But the notion that he was somehow complicit in a manufactured act of mass murder is beyond the pale even for the farthest right.
Good work, GOP. You got yourself a live one. Naturally, Greene has been assigned to the Education and Labor Committee.
Going forward, not only will House Republicans be associated with a colleague who “liked” a Twitter post calling for Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s murder. They’ll be attached to QAnon, which promotes the extraordinary fiction that Trump was leading a war against Satan-worshiping pedophiles and cannibals, whose leadership includes Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Oprah Winfrey, Tom Hanks and, oh, by the way, yours truly, as well as U2’s Bono.
To those Republicans who can read: You own all of this. The party isn’t doomed; it’s dead. The chance to move away from Trumpism, toward a more respectful, civilized approach to governance that acknowledges the realities of a diverse nation and that doesn’t surrender to the clenched fist, has slipped away. What comes next is anybody’s guess. But anyone who doesn’t speak out against the myths and lies of fringe groups, domestic terrorists and demagogues such as Trump deserves only defeat — and a lengthy exile in infamy. Good riddance. (This is the column in its entirety.)
