March 31, 2019

Sunday School 3/31/19

Jonathan Karl was sitting in the host's chair on ABC's This Week withe George Stephanopoulos and he was joined by the insufferable Mick Mulvaney, acting Chief of Staff and OMB Director, and by Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), a candidate in the 2020 presidential race.

You can read the interview with Mulvaney in the transcript, but I'll share one of his answers before we turn to Senator Klobuchar. Karl asked about Trump's 'revengeful' comments on investigation evil and treasonous people for their role in causing the Russia investigation. Here's part of the response.
...the reason the Mueller report even exists now, there was a small group of people within...specifically the FBI and the DOJ who really did want to overturn the election...The president would only be doing his job if he tries to make sure whether or not that happened and if it did, to make sure the people who committed those particular acts are brought to justice.
So, moving on to the senator, I was hopeing that an interview with a presidential candidate might include some questions about, you know, the race, or about the candidate's policy positions and stuff. So let's take a look.

On the Mueller report:
I think the major reason that we need to see the report right now, in addition to getting all of the details, is to know what we should do to protect our elections and to protect our democracy going into 2020... I want to pass my bill with Senator Lankford, a bipartisan bill to get backup paper ballots... I want to make sure we have audits of our elections. I want to hold those social media companies responsible so that they tell us what these ads are and tell us who is paying for them. 
Silly Amy -- giving a real answer. That wasn't what Karl wanted to know. Nope -- he was only interested in whether (evidence and what not, yeah, whatever) she accepted the conclusion from the AG about the conclusions of the Special Counsel.
Jonathan, I am a former prosecutor and I believe in looking at evidence. I don't have the report....   And while I do get random questions here and there about the Mueller report...honestly what I really hear about is economics and people concerned about their livelihood for their family, how they're going to pay for college,  and most significantly, are they going to lose their health care. 
The door's wide open, Jonathan -- go ahead, ask her about her health care plan!

Oh wait - that's clearly a dumb idea. Let's ask her this question instead:
Nancy Pelosi came out with the House Democrats' plan to preserve and shore up the Affordable Care Act. I know you have a similar plan in the Senate, but Bernie Sanders had an interesting take on this idea of protecting and shoring up Obamacare. 
When asked if he supported Pelosi's legislation, here's Bernie's unsurprising response: "No, I support the Medicare for All single payer plan." So Karl asked Klobuchar 
So, what do you make of that, Senator Sanders saying he doesn't want to protect Obamacare?
Clearly, my answer would have been something along the lines of
"Are you freaking kidding me? For Pete's sake, Jonathan - Sanders isn't even a Democrat!  Why do you idiots insist on using him to frame the debate? I'll start talking about Senator Sanders when he shows me his voter registration card saying he's actually a member of our party. Until then, I will not entertain a single question that has anything to do with him. And I suggest you and the rest of your ilk sit down and talk to someone about your incessant fascination with Sanders. Dear Lord!"
Klobuchar, for all her reputation of being a hot head and a meany, did much better than I would have.
I'm open to looking at Senator Sanders' proposal, but I am someone that wants to see immediate change and help people afford their health care. So what I would suggest is first of all, all-out opposition to the administration's plan to kick people off their health care. 
And then you see the Affordable Care Act as a beginning and not an end. So what can you do? Well, first of all, you can put in cost sharing reinsurance immediately, which is shown in many states, including red states, to bring down premiums for people.
Well, maybe we're on to something here... details about healthcare!

Darn - foiled again! Here's the next question:
You came out with a big plan on infrastructure, you said it is your top priority. Why infrastructure over healthcare or immigration or any of the other - other issues? Why - infrastructure? 
Here's an excerpt from her answer.
It is not infrastructure over healthcare, we can do two things at once, and to me infrastructure is an economic need... I have the funding, I've shown how I can get this plan done, and as president I will get it done. 
Here's the next question:
You want to raise the corporate tax rate, which the Republicans just cut. That might be a bit - a heavy lift but let me ask you -- 
Grr.... Clearly he wasn't interested in her response, since as part of his question he was trying to move on to something else. She gave a detailed answer anyway, (raising $400 billion for schools, levies, roads, bridges, and taking care of everyone not just the rich...). So what was more important than talking about infrastructure? 

Joe Biden, of course.   
So, what do you make of these allegations, is this the kind of thing that could be disqualifying for Biden?  
UGH! And not just one question about Biden, even though she gave a pretty cut and dried answer that it was his issue to address if he enters the race. Nope.
But he's also one who has said in situations like this that the default is to believe the woman, to believe the accuser. Do you believe Lucy Flores?  
She just told him she hadn't read the accuser's statement and she's mentioned a couple of times in the interview that as a former prosecutor she needs to see evidence, but what the hey, just totally ignore her and marginalize her qualifications so you can continue talking about your other favorite candidate.

Maybe the next question will be about her candidacy? NOPE!
I want to ask you before you go about the Jussie Smollett case... Former prosecutor, what do you make of it? 

She got part way through her answer, talking about the actual prosecutors involved in the case (who were not on the show and who are aren't representing a state in the Senate and who aren't running for president, as far as we know).

And he tried to cut her off.  Nevertheless, she persisted, making a case for her candidacy, since he had no interest in talking to her about that. 
Gets to one of the reasons I'm running for president. I think we need people to understand what you're going to do, stop the chaos and just be clear with people and get things done, whether it's about when you're bringing a criminal charge or whether it's about getting an infrastructure plan or making sure people have their health care. Let's be honest with people, look them in the eye, tell them what you're going to do. That's what I've done my whole life.  
Shame on you, Jonathan Karl. Shame on you.  And kudos to you, Senator Klobuchar, for putting up with this crap.

See you around campus.

1 comment:

  1. Journalism is dead. Long live hyperbole and fomentation