"I am calling on the Smithsonian Institution to honor the Life and Legacy of George Washington, America’s Greatest Hero, with a five-year exhibition..."

"... at the National Museum of American History, beginning now, and continuing through, February 22, 2032, the 300th anniversary of Washington’s birth. I am also calling on the Smithsonian to erect a 30-foot 'Colossus statue' of the Father of Our Country outside the Museum, to replace the so-called 'Infinity' sculpture that stands there today. That strange modernist sculpture tells visitors nothing about America, inspires no one, and honors none of our Great American Heroes...."

Writes President Trump, at Truth Social.

Choose one:

Vote:

"For prospects rising through the Milwaukee Brewers’ farm system, and even established veterans on a rehab assignment, wearing lederhosen is a rite of passage."

"No, this isn’t some elaborate rookie hazing prank... it’s the result of Friday’s theme night at High-A Wisconsin, one in which the team normally known as the Timber Rattlers becomes the Brats as part of Bratoberfest, a play on Germany’s iconic Oktoberfest, while also paying homage to the state that’s home to one of the highest concentrations of residents with German ancestry. It just so happened that Abner Uribe, the Brewers’ flame-throwing reliever who is working his way back from a flexor strain, was in town on his rehab assignment...."

The NYT picks up the best Milwaukee Brewers story of the day: "Brewers’ Abner Uribe delights fans in ‘Brats’ lederhosen uniform during minor-league rehab."

Humiliating? Or is it wonderful... bratoberfestive!

I could watch the Green Bay Packers exhibition game, women’s college volleyball, the team with the best record in baseball the Milwaukee Brewers, the Winn-Dixie 250, high school football, WWE SmackDown, or…Abner Uribe in lederhosen. You tell me… pic.twitter.com/lZWfgdxMLi

— Steve Palec (@stevepalec) August 29, 2026

ADDED: I have a bit of a tags quandary for this post. I don't like tag proliferation, but this isn't the first appearance of lederhosen on this blog. It's the fourth. See them all here. But all the other times, I was able to use my well-loved tag "men in shorts." But this baseball take on lederhosen avoids the baseball travesty of shorts — White Sox, 1976 — and sticks with traditional knickers. As I've said before, I like the knickers and wish all the players would wear them and not those pajama-looking long pants, but I'm still not making a tag for knickers. But if I did, I'd have 12 "knickers" posts now. 

Let me highlight the best of those old "knickers" posts. I remembered that the Young Rascals wore knickers. I found this 1926 song with the lyric: "Knickers and trousers, baggy and wide/Nobody knows who's walking inside!" I said that David Brooks: "expatiated about the good old days when men like George Washington displayed their thighs in tight silk knickers."

And, in 2008, before I got together with Meade and started watching baseball again, there were TVs outside State Street Brats just as The Backstreet Boys were singing the national anthem to open the World Series. I blogged: "The players look like hell! When did they stop wearing stockings and knickers? Those long pants look like pajamas."

And there was Meade, the first commenter: "I must be smoking too much blog. I hallucinated." Because the video looked like this:



Key word linking the end of this post to the beginning: brats.

"They put this man on a lot of money."

Notes a TikTokker who calls herself coinbucket, and who might look like George Washington:

"In just four years, anti-gay bias rose by around 10 percent.... Just as bias against gay people fell especially steeply before 2020..."

"... it has surged particularly sharply since. Perhaps most surprising is that these trends were distinctly robust among the youngest American adults — those under 25. This group increased its animus against marginalized groups in general and gay people in particular at a faster rate than older Americans did. Also surprising is that although anti-gay bias has risen faster among conservatives, it has also risen among liberals. What explains this decline in tolerance?"

From "Americans Are Turning Against Gay People" (NYT).

Tolerance?! I would think it's considered homophobic just to use the word "tolerance," which connotes minimal acceptance and little more than a willingness to refrain from discriminating or saying actively mean things. In fact, I'd suggest it is the demand to do so much more — to celebrate pride in sexual matters and to endure indoctrination sessions that force feed questionable fine points — that has made people resistant and more likely to check a less gay-friendly box on the survey.

The authors of the NYT article reject the speculation that it's a reaction to the push for transgender rights or worry about sexually grooming children. They prefer to speculate that the decline in "tolerance" for gay people is tied to 1. "social instability" — "the Covid pandemic, economic strain and intensifying political conflict” — and 2. "a loss of confidence" in the establishment combined with a perception that gay rights is "an establishment position."

***

My rankling at the word "tolerance" was influenced by George Washington. In his famous 1790 Letter to the Hebrew Congregation in Newport, Rhode Island, he wrote: "It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights."

"I presented the President of the United States the medal of the Nobel Peace Prize as a recognition for his unique commitment with our freedom."

That's María Corina Machado, who had the power to make a gift of the object, the medal, but cannot cause Trump to become the prize-winner.

Presumably, she did not give him any of the money — about $1 million — that came with the award. That money means much more to her than to our billionaire President, but more important, visitors to the President can't be handing over piles of money. And she wants something from him. She wants a lot.

He wanted something too, the Nobel Prize, and now he's in the ambiguous position of sort of having it. You just have the medal. It's like Putin's Super Bowl ring.

What do you have when you have the token of winning and you did not win? It's not the token of winning with respect to you, so what is it? 

"The rebel commander and pioneering first President George Washington famously vowed never to set foot on British soil."

"And my five-times-great-grandfather King George III, for his part, did not spare his words when he spoke of the revolutionary leaders. Today, however, we celebrate a relationship between our two countries that surely neither Washington nor King George III could possibly have imagined. The ocean may still divide us, but in so many other ways, we are now the closest of kin.... The successes of the British Redcoats and of George Washington's Continental Army today stand shoulder-to-shoulder, brothers and sisters in arms, protecting the freedoms we both cherish...."

Said King Charles, at the extravagant dinner at Windsor Castle.

Gaze upon the ultra-posh scene and marvel. Watch the whole thing, with Trump speaking after Charles:

ADDED: Don't miss the elegant rendition of "The Star-Spangled Banner," beginning at 9:00. 

At 13:41, I believe the King is crying. Trump is reading a quote from the King himself, written in 1993, saying that he was "entirely motivated by a desperate desire to put the 'Great' back into Great Britain, in the finest tradition of British sovereigns."

At the DNC: Bill Clinton stamps his presidential approval on Joe Biden: "And he kept the faith, and he's infected a lot of the rest of us."

"He healed our sick and put the rest of us back to work. And he strengthened our alliances, for peace and security. He stood up for Ukraine. He's trying desperately to get a ceasefire in the Middle East. And then he did something that's really hard for a politician to do. He voluntarily gave up political power. And George Washington knew that. And he did it. And he set the standard for us serving 2 terms before it was mandatory. It helped his legacy. And it will enhance Joe Biden's legacy. And it's a stark contrast to what goes on in the other party. So I want to thank him — for his courage, compassion, his class, his service, his sacrifice. Joe Biden, thank you. And he kept the faith, and he's infected a lot of the rest of us. Now let's cut to the chase. I am too old to gild the lily. Two days ago I turned 78. The oldest man in my family of 4 generations. And the only personal vanity I want to assert is I'm still younger than Donald Trump...."

On the topic of things George Washington knew... or things we think George Washington knew... George Washington knew that he was still wanted. He wasn't abandoned and bullied into leaving. But I presume part of the pressure that Joe Biden experienced was the argument that only if he left quietly could he receive this comparison to George Washington. It's hard to imagine George Washington influenced by the prospect of a laudatory speech comparing him to some other leader. That sounds like an insult to George Washington.

"Any pretense of seriousness evaporated last week with the New York Times's expose of the Alitos' breach of flag etiquette...."

"While Justice Alito has stated that he had nothing to do with this flag hoisting, the incident, we are told, somehow amounts to evidence that the Alitos supported Donald Trump's 'stop the steal' campaign. Where does that connection come from? A search of the Factiva news database turns up no articles containing the phrases 'stop the steal' and 'upside down flag' before the Times report on May 16. Rather than retreat in humiliation, the Times doubled down this week with a follow-up report of yet another flag... spotted at the Alitos' vacation home in New Jersey. The left tells us that the 1775 Pine Tree flag was spotted among Jan. 6 protesters! And moreover, that its catch phrase, 'an appeal to heaven,' derives from a radical character —John Locke. The Times somehow fails to let readers know that the flag is a longtime symbol of independence; that it was designed by George Washington's secretary; was flown on ships commissioned by Washington; has been honored, commemorated and flown over state capitols; and is the official maritime flag of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts...."

Writes Kimberley A. Strassel, in "A Flagging Campaign Against Justice Alito/The ‘ethics’ attack having failed, the left turns to flag etiquette" (Wall Street Journal).

"He stuck his finger in the mouth to see if he might wiggle the piece loose. 'And my finger came back wet,' he said."

"'I thought about it for a half-second longer and said, "Oh my God, my finger is wet,"' he recalled. 'I got my flashlight out and shined it in there, and the thing is completely full of liquid,' he said. He summoned colleagues. They were stunned. Here was 'an out-of-the-box, next level, spectacular find,' said Jason Boroughs, Mount Vernon’s principal archaeologist.... 'There are whole, recognizable cherries,' said Boroughs. 'It actually smelled like cherry blossoms when we got to the bottom.'"

From "Centuries-old bottles of cherries unearthed at George Washington’s home/The two, rare intact bottles, about 250 years old, were discovered by archaeologists working in the Mount Vernon basement" (WaPo).

I would have thought they'd have cleaned out the basement by now. This is a feel-good story on so many levels.

"Women and people of color are not considered the readers of presidential history. And I think that’s related to this emphasis on masculinity."

Said Alexis Coe, author of the George Washington biography, “You Never Forget Your First,” quoted in "Why are historians obsessed with George Washington’s thighs?" (WaPo).

Ron Chernow (“Washington: A Life”) fixated on his “virile form,” particularly his “wide, flaring hips with muscular thighs.” Richard Brookhiser (“Founding Father: Rediscovering George Washington”) remarked on his “well developed” thighs and quoted a bodybuilder who examined a Washington portrait and said, “Nice quads.” Joseph J. Ellis (“His Excellency: George Washington”) wrote that his “very strong thighs and legs ... allowed him to grip a horse’s flanks tightly and hold his seat in the saddle with uncommon ease.”... 

Why does Coe think women aren't interested in male body parts?! It seems to me that the focus on the physical body is especially interesting to women. I think biographies should tell us a lot about how people looked and what sort of physical powers and problems they had. I'd think male authors may tend to want to tell us about the physical attributes of the female characters, so it's good for them to make an effort to depict the masculinity of the men. 

By the way, since when are "wide, flaring hips" considered highly masculine?

Must we commemorate January 6th? Is it going to be an annual occasion for reflection and disingenuity?

I'll just check the front page of The Washington Post and The New York Times.

The Washington Post is  not making an occasion of the 3rd anniversary of the insurrection/"insurrection." Here's the top of the page. There's one story, buried down there between something about Alaska Airlines and the recent doings of Elvis Costello:

If you scroll a little farther, though, you'll see that there's a piece by the Editorial Board, "Three years later, beware dangerous revisionism of Jan. 6."

I'll talk about that in a minute. First, let's compare the NYT front page:

Elon Musk's 3:48 a.m. tweet.

My bedside table pic.twitter.com/sIdRYJcLTK

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 28, 2022

 

My thoughts, in order:

1. What's that thing in the lower left corner?

2. What's that book in a box in the back?

3. If we were still in old Twitter, and some disfavored person posted that, he'd have been permanently banned for inciting violence.

4. What's the source of that photo, really?

5. Elon Musk is trying to excite right-wingers positively and left-wingers negatively. It's all about churning the environment, cranking everybody up, and not about the creating a space where people who disagree can talk to each other, despite what he tweeted yesterday afternoon: "Just a note to encourage people of different political or other views to engage in civil debate on Twitter. Worst case, the other side has a slightly better understanding of your views." That was then. This is now. He tested civility. Now he's testing guns and caffeine.

6. Some kind of pun about "trigger warning"? He did do a conspicuous visual pun the other day: "Let that sink in." But he didn't use words to drive home the pun this time.

7. It seems more as though he's genuinely warning people that he will defend himself — figuratively and literally. 

8. Some statement about new and old — innovation and tradition. There's a modern gun and some sort of expensive historical artifact that may or may not have crossed the Delaware in George Washington's boat.

9. Testing to see who has a problem with American history in its upbeat, glorified form. 

10. Elon sees himself as a top-level historical figure. He's like Washington. He wants you to do a photoshop with his face pasted in for Washington's.

11. Do I have to go look and see what other people have said? He wants them to say it — to tweet it — over at Twitter. But, no, I'm here, securely in the old tradition. Blogging, not microblogging.

"A majority of Americans support the Black Lives Matter movement... But the public generally opposes calls to shift some police funding to social services or remove statues of Confederate generals or presidents who enslaved people..."

"... a Washington Post-ABC News poll finds.... Americans’ confidence in police appears shaken after a wave of national protests following Floyd’s killing. Compared with 2014, fewer Americans say they are confident that police are adequately trained to avoid using excessive force. Meanwhile, more people say recent police killings of black people are 'a sign of broader problems' in police conduct. The share of Americans saying that black people and other minorities do not receive equal treatment in the criminal justice system has risen by 15 percentage points from 2014 — and this year marks the first time a majority of whites has held this view.... Almost 6 in 10 white people, along with just over half of Hispanic people, oppose removing statues of Confederate soldiers, while over three-quarters of black people support their removal. Opposition is even greater to the removal of public statues honoring former U.S. presidents who enslaved people, with 68 percent of Americans opposed and 25 percent in support of their removal. But while at least 7 in 10 white and Hispanic people are opposed, 6 in 10 black Americans support removing these statues. Half of Americans oppose renaming military bases currently named after Confederate generals, while 42 percent support the changes. Once again there is a significant partisan split, with 81 percent of Republicans and 50 percent of independents opposed and 66 percent of Democrats in favor. A majority of Americans ages 50 and older are opposed to any renaming, while a plurality of those under 50 support the change."

WaPo reports.

So 25% of Americans support taking down statues of George Washington?

The top-rated comment over there is: "If a crowd of citizens decides to pull down a racist statue, I'm all for it. After all, it was probably a handful of racist white guys who decided to put it up in the first place. So don't act like democracy is in tatters because a hateful symbol has fallen."

Trump's Mount Rushmore speech came on too late for me, but...

... I've got the transcript, and I'm going to live-blog my reading of it. I'm fixing punctuation as I go and adding boldface:

There could be no better place to celebrate America’s independence than beneath this magnificent, incredible, majestic mountain and monument to the greatest Americans who have ever lived.

Somebody went heavy on the alliteration, but "incredible" sneaked in there. He's on the side of the monuments, not the destroyers of monuments.

The superlative — "the greatest Americans who have ever lived" — is a provocation. Not only is he defending these 4 men against the recent attacks, he's saying they are greater than every other American in history — greater than Frederick Douglass, greater than Harriet Tubman, greater than all of them. He didn't have to say the greatest. He could have said "among the greatest."

It would mean something just to call them "great" at all and not to qualify it with something like, though they did not escape the moral failings characteristic of their time. But he went big. He put the 4 above everyone else, which is the message of the mountain.

Today we pay tribute to the exceptional lives and extraordinary legacies of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, and Teddy Roosevelt.

He's got the great men on his side, not like those people who want to tear down statues of all of them.

I am here as your president to proclaim before the country and before the world, this monument will never be desecrated, these heroes will never be defamed, their legacy will never ever be destroyed, their achievements will never be forgotten, and Mount Rushmore will stand forever as an eternal tribute to our forefathers and to our freedom.

That's big! Very grand. Very much a stand against the protesters and rioters... without mentioning them.  This is hyperbole, because Trump cannot protect the monument forever, and indeed, an understanding of geology would tell you that it's impossible for the monument to stand forever as an eternal tribute.

But he's not promising. He's proclaiming. I think of the proclamation on the plinth of Ozymandias. You can proclaim it is eternal, but that doesn't make it eternal. I'm going to live forever! I'm going to learn how to fly! Sing it joyously, but you're still going to die some day.

"The iconoclasm is good for us. It’s a great political issue for the president."

Said an anonymous "senior [Trump] campaign official," quoted in "Trump’s Twitter feed reads like a local crime blotter as he stokes a culture war" by Josh Dawsey (WaPo). The "crime blotter" material in question is the vandalism aimed at public statues and monuments. And, yes, it makes sense for the Trump campaign to see this as a good issue for them, but they didn't start the unrest and destruction. It strikes me as unfair to say that he's "stoking" any kind of "war," when the protests and attendant violence arose out of police actions in particular cities (cities run by Democrats).

What did Trump have to do with that? Is he supposed to stand back and say nothing? His antagonists take whatever they can get, every single day, and spin it against him. Are they "stoking" a "war"? No, they're just doing their normal thing, plying their trade, writing columns like "Trump’s Twitter feed reads like a local crime blotter as he stokes a culture war" by Josh Dawsey in The Washington Post. Josh Dawsey is writing that and Trump is doing his tweets, taking the material of the day, and spinning it into an argument for his side.

Of course, he's going to improve his political standing by crying out against "the two Anarchists who threw paint on the magnificent George Washington Statue in Manhattan" and the rest of the violence toward inanimate objects. He sees and takes the advantage of embracing and extolling the icons in this time of iconoclasm.

Dawsey quotes the presidential historian Douglas Brinkley:

"His argument is Main Street values against a crazy wave of anarchy. A lot will depend on how inflamed the monument issue gets. Trump has a vested issue in this. He’s actually cheering the anarchists on, daring them to take more down."

He’s actually cheering the anarchists on... You see how that works (in the mind of the eminent historian)? Because Trump speaks out against the destruction and some people hate Trump, they're inspired to do more destruction. It's a way to get Trump. And you see the rank perversity of the implicit argument: Don't speak out against the destructiveness you oppose, because it will only inflame the destroyers, and they will do more destruction.

But look more closely: This dynamic of Trump taking advantage of the iconoclasm and the iconoclasts ramping up their destruction might hurt the moderate Democrats who are trying to win the 2020 elections. It's not a good issue for them, and hanging back and waiting for it to die down and go away on its own isn't working.

ADDED: I'm reading the Wikipedia page for Douglas Brinkley:

[D]uring the 2013 inauguration coverage, CNN referred to him as "a man who knows more about the presidency than just about any human being alive." In contrast, in 2006, historian Wilfred McClay in the New York Sun appraised Brinkley's scholarship as one that has failed to "put forward a single memorable idea, a single original analysis, or a single lapidary phrase." Similarly, author Bill Bryson characterized Brinkley as "a minor American academic and sometime critic whose powers of observation and generosity of spirit would fit comfortably into a proton and still leave room for an echo."

Washington Square Park... it's like it's Slaveowner Square Park....

Washington Square Park, NYC. pic.twitter.com/PEidU4Njw8

— BILL HEMMER (@BillHemmer) June 29, 2020

"Of course they despise Washington. Notice the graffiti '1619' on the toppled statue...."

Of course they despise Washington. Notice the graffiti “1619” on the toppled statue. And the burnt flags. The NYT must be proud. They taught these people well. https://t.co/4JTPEv2KMd

— Andrew Sullivan (@sullydish) June 19, 2020

"It has always been ugly and a little nuts in our huge, complicated country. We last had a relatively stable consensus during George Washington’s first term..."

"Since then, right and left in the United States regularly vie for and lose power, frequently giving us deeply flawed leaders. And the world doesn’t end, even though it sometimes feels that way. As I grew up, I started to see the narrative pattern: Democrats were going 'extinct' in 1972 with Richard M. Nixon’s landslide. Republicans were 'finished' after Watergate and the 1976 election. In 1984, Democrats were really 'doomed' this time, wiped out by the 'Reagan Revolution.' Of course, the way Republicans are acting today means they will inevitably lose power, and for a very long time — an exile they will richly deserve. But neither party will disappear because the American center — that great lump of us clustered around the middle — always holds.... That lump is our national ballast. To survive, our two political parties compete for that center, forcing them to change as we do. They regularly miss the mark, which is why the parties, not the United States, suffer repeated near-death experiences, always followed by miraculous revival."

Writes James Comey (of all people) in "Trump won’t be removed. But we’ll be fine" (WaPo).

I agree with some of that, but certainly not the part about the Republicans inevitably losing power. That's a talking point today, I think, that the Democrats are losing in the impeachment trial, but they'll win in the coming elections.

It's one thing to blithely opine "Why America Needs a Royal Family/Yes, this is the conclusion I have drawn from Megxit."

I've seen that proposal a thousand times, and here we are again, this time with Jennifer Weiner in the NYT. But it's quite another matter to figure out who would be the royal family.

I'm not interested in reviewing the pro-royalty argument. You know what it is. I'm only interested in the question of how — if we were to restructure America with a royal family akin to Britain's — we would pick the actual hereditary family.

I can't find the old post, but I believe I once blogged about who would be king/queen of the U.S.A. now if George Washington had become king. Wherever that post is, I'm sure it included this video:



My archive search did turn up this video about George Washington (which I just watched twice)(warning: some questionable factual assertions):



Anyway, here's how Jennifer Weiner addresses the question who'd be king/queen of America:

We could keep it simple and give the gig to Miss America, who’s already been chosen and already has a tiara. Or we could have a televised reality contest (a roy-ality contest — see what I did there?) to elect our king and queen. We could recruit the glittering couples we think would be best suited for the job of representing America on the world stage (Beyoncé and Jay-Z! Jennifer Lopez and A-Rod! George and Amal Clooney! Danny DeVito and Rhea Perlman! Ina Garten and Jeffrey!)...

Oh! She's utterly giving up the hereditary angle. No, you have to commit. You have to believe in royal blood. No elections. That would debase. You've got to have magic.

But isn't it funny that Weiner pictures an election, homes in on entertainment couples — all heterosexual, by the way (tsk tsk) — and doesn't think to offer up the most obvious entertainment couple: Donald and Melania Trump? Well, Donald is already President, and the point is to separate the head-of-state functions, but he'll have served his term(s) by the time the election for king/queen happens. And once you recognize that, you ought to see that the final nominees for the position could be Donald and Melania — or should it be Ivanka and Jared? — against Barack and Michelle. I'd watch those debates.

Barack and Michelle would win, of course, if for no other reason that that they're far more successful at getting top-level entertainers to perform in the White House (yes, under, Weiner's plan, the king and queen live in the White House, and the boring President of the United States is relocated "to more modest digs").

Is this general humor deafness or a special symptom-of-Trump-derangement deafness?

On a tour of Mount Vernon, President Trump said: "If he was smart, he would’ve put his name on it. You’ve got to put your name on stuff or no one remembers you."

At Politico, the headline is: "Trump’s ‘truly bizarre’ visit to Mt. Vernon/The 45th president — no student of history — marveled at the first president’s failure to name his historic compound after himself." So many things are "bizarre" if you don't get that other people are using humor. Trump's remark is one of the funniest things he's ever said. It's self-effacing too, which ought to make it funnier, but perhaps — if you're sure Trump will always be self-aggrandizing — it might be an especially hard form of humor to hear.

The article is by Eliana Johnson and Daniel Lippman, who write:

The VIPs’ tour guide for the evening, Mount Vernon president and CEO Doug Bradburn, told the president that Washington did, after all, succeed in getting the nation’s capital named after him. Good point, Trump said with a laugh....

Trump was nice enough to laugh at Bradburn's response. He didn't yield to the temptation to say, "Duh, that's my point."

The president’s disinterest in Washington made it tough for tour guide Bradburn to sustain Trump’s interest during a deluxe 45-minute tour of the property which he later described to associates as "truly bizarre."

And which "associate" delivered this story to the press? There's a shortage of dignity and confidentiality and sense of humor.

Trump asked whether Washington was "really rich," according to a second person familiar with the visit. In fact, Washington was either the wealthiest or among the wealthiest Americans of his time, thanks largely to his mini real estate empire....

Yeah, but was he really rich?

The rooms, Trump said, were too small, the staircases too narrow, and he even spotted some unevenness in the floorboards, according to four sources briefed on his comments. He could have built the place better, he said, and for less money....

Trump knows about building, and he brought his point of view to the tour.

Many Americans don't fare much better than the president when it comes to a knowledge of the basic facts of American history....

Assumes a fact not in evidence.

While quickly bored by Washington’s home, Trump has been eager to show off his own residence to guests...

Assumes a fact not in evidence. And if Trump was bored, was he bored by the house or bored by Bradburn's effort to give a "deluxe 45-minute" lecture on the house?

And despite his criticisms, Trump found something to like at Mount Vernon, too. Among the artifacts preserved there is the bed where Washington passed away from a throat infection in 1799. Trump, who is infamously picky about where he sleeps and resists spending nights away from home, felt out the bedpost and told the Macrons and Bradburn that he approved, according to three people briefed on the event.

"A good bed to die in,” Trump said.

Another joke not got!