Sunday School Extra Credit: 10/20/19

As I noted in yesterday's Sunday School post, which included excerpts from three classrooms discussions with Pete Buttigieg, Chris Wallace had the 'get of the week' - an exclusive conversation on Fox News Sunday with Mick Mulvaney, the acting Chief of Staff for the president. We've also got highlights from Jake Tapper's interview with Senator Amy Klobuchar.

But first, Mulvaney attempts to answer questions on the quid pro quo press conference last week.  He spent a lot of time trying to say he didn't say what he said.

Again, that's not what I said. That's what people said I said. 

Just like I told you then, and then I said the exact same thing I just said now...

Yes, but go back and watch what I said before that. I don't know if you guys can cue it or not.

Well, and a couple different things. You again said just a few seconds ago that I said there was a quid pro quo. I never used that language because there is not a quid pro quo but -- 

Well - and reporters will use their language all the time. So, my language never said quid pro quo.

Can I see how people took it the wrong way? Absolutely.

Chris, you've been in these - in these briefings You know how back and forth (it) is. You know how rapid-fire it is. Look to the facts on the ground, things that you can actually sort of certify.

I recognize that folks - that I didn't speak clearly maybe on Thursday, folks misinterpreted what I said, but the facts are absolutely clear and they are there for everyone to see. 

Get it? Got it?  Yeah, me neither. Wallace wondered if there were any repercussions from the presser - did Mulvaney offer to resign?

No, I'm -- listen, I'm very happy working there.  Did I have the perfect press conference? No. but again, the facts were on our side. 

So, I haven't (had) a chance at the presser to do everything I wanted to, but I still think I'm doing a pretty good job as the chief of staff and I think the president agrees.  

They also talked about possible changing tides with the Republicans in Washington who might be "if not breaking with the president, distancing themselves from him." Wallace pointed out that a "very well-connected Republican in Washington" told him that, if an impeachment trial happens, there's a 20% chance enough Rs would vote to remove Trump.

Oh, that's just absurd. This comment about a 20% chance, the person clearly doesn't know what they're talking about.

Wallace asked more directly whether there's any concern that Trump is losing support of the Republicans in Congress.

No, the president is extraordinarily popular back home, more popular in the swing districts now that impeachment has started.

 Wallace reminded him the question was about losing support in Congress.

Yes, but they - they have to go home eventually as well. So no.

And they talked about the decision, since withdrawn, to hold the G-7 meeting at Trump's Doral property, noting that while Trump blames the "hostile media" and their Democratic partners, he also took a lot of heat from Republicans, and wondered why the president caved.

...I honestly think what he put out in the tweet was real. The president isn't one for holding back his feelings and his emotions about something. He was honestly surprised at the level of pushback.

 At the end of the day, he still considers himself to be in the hospitality business...he wanted to put on the best show he possibly could and he felt very comfortable doing that at Doral. 

I think it's the right decision to change. We'll have to find someplace else. And my guess is we'll find someplace else that the media won't like either, for another reason.

Mulvaney conceded that Trump understands how bad it looked, which I guess is progress. But that he was surprised at the pushback? Yikes.

Turning to CNN's State of the Union and Amy Klobuchar, Tapper started by asking her about the chance the impeachment trial in the Senate could be in December, and whether it was more important for her to be present in the Senate for the trial, or on campaigning in Iowa. Klobuchar said that was an easy question,

because I have a constitutional duty to take part in that trial. That's what you do when you're a US Senator and such an important case comes before you.

She allowed as how it would change things, but that she doesn't really have a choice and I can't imagine her doing anything else. She noted that she's got more endorsements from current and former elected officials in Iowa than any of the other candidates, so she'll be represented on the ground. Tapper suggested it could mean she loses whatever momentum she can achieve by December, and that non-Senators (or those with a different work ethic) could be on the ground in Iowa. And he asked if she'd commit to being in Washington for the impeachment trial, no matter what?

Listen, I have a constitutional duty, but I can do two things at once. There's many ways to reach out to people...

Tapper moved on to candidates pressuring Elizabeth Warren on how she planned to pay for her Medicare for All (M4A) plan; Warren's campaign has said she's "reviewing the revenue options" and Tapper asked if that was good enough.

No, it's not. I have made very clear how I'm going to pay for everything I have put out there. I think that's important because we have got a president that's added trillions of dollars to the debt, on the shoulders of our kids... And I think you have to show how you are going to pay for things. And that was the point.

Klobuchar believes her plan, which has a nonprofit public option, is better and it builds on Obamacare, instead of trashing it. And she suggested that other candidates who have signed on to Medicare for All weren't paying attention if they didn't realize it will "dismantle out current insurance system."

It says that 149 million people will be kicked off their current insurance. That's what it says. And Senator Sanders has been very honest about that. But I think we have to be honest about that. All the people in the Senate that were on that stage and others who have said they have supported it, they signed on to that. 

I got a lot of pressure to sign on to it. I read it, and I decided there was a better way and a different way to do it...

She made the point -  well, I think -  that just signing on to something or going along with everyone is not what we need from the person sitting in the Oval Office. She pointed to Trump, who's known for doing whatever the last person he talked to tells him. Here's what she said about how he makes decisions.

And this president, President Trump, has been folding to all kinds of pressure. He gets a call from Erdogan, and what does he do? He puts the Kurds out to slaughter. He gets a call from Vladimir Putin, and what does he do? He says that he doesn't believe that Russia invaded our election. He gets a call from, like -- someone does -- from the pharmaceutical companies, and he doesn't do anything to take on pharma.

Instead, she said,

I think we need a president that stands up to that kind of pressure, that does what they think is right. It doesn't mean that everyone agrees with you, but that's what I do. That's what I have done throughout my time in Washington. And I think that the American people are looking for that kind of grit. 

Klobuchar did well at the debate, and this is part of the reason why. We're definitely looking for something more measured, less prone to whim, and more thoughtful and consistent, for sure.

See you around campus.