Sidebar: The "Post-truth" Society

In the latest Sunday School Extra Credit post, I shared some of the discussion on Meet the Press about our 'post-truth' society, which is how Chuck Todd described our current state of affairs. 

The show devoted a segment to Todd's conversation with the executive editors of the Washington Post and NY times - Martin Baron and Dean Baquet, respectively; a segment to how lies become 'truths' using Crowdstrike as an example; and a segment to the Russian art of spreading propaganda and misinformation. 

The panel discussion was all about social media, its lack of regulation, and how personal responsibility is important in helping stop the spread of misinformation and the suspension of truth. And I'd be remiss if I didn't mention that Chuck Todd managed to bring both Alexander Hamilton and LBJ into the conversation, ensuring his place in whataboutism history. 

One of the most interesting comments in the panel discussion came from Todd, who said

I mean, we are now aware that there are some politicians who want to come on this show, because they're hoping to get a viral moment to use for fundraising. And the minute we caught wind of that, we won't put those folks on. 

To which I offer these two words: Ted Cruz.  But I digress. Here are some things that I didn't see covered, that I wish had been.

• Where is the separation between the journalists and the politicians, and what level of separation should there be? Think about the White House Correspondents Dinner (as it used to be pre-Trump), or the various versions of that same model that play out in the states (here in NY, it's the Legislative Correspondents Association). The dinner, the skits, the roasts - what journalistic purpose is advanced by having these engagements, and how do readers benefit from them? 

• The role of the 'media star' - the Sunday Show and cable show hosts, the nightly news anchors are just some examples. This is more of a TV thing than a print thing, but there are media stars in print, too. The oversized personae of these folks actually gets in the way of the news they're reporting, or the conversation we're supposed to be learning from. Case in point? Chuck Todd, again, and his conversation with Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) in which Todd fought harder than ever before - on a question about Johnson 'wincing' at something. What was the point of that battle, and all the kudos he received? Another example: ANY political debate, in which the questioners (the media stars) end up being the center of attention, not the candidates. How would they address that?

• The conversation tended to focus on issues with conservatives, with Republicans, with Fox News, to the exclusion of any ill will or bad acts on the part of Democrats, CNN, MSNBC, etc.  Are they pretending that misinformation, disinformation and incorrect reporting is a problem only on one side of the spectrum? Or are they ignoring it? I fact-check posts from Dems just as much as I do posts from Republicans. The Rs are better at the disinformation - they have the president, after all. But that poses another question: should the Dems fully engage in the battle? And what would the media folks do if that happened? 

• The issue of trust, which was brought up not only by the print folks but also by Joshua Johnson, the former radio guy who's moving full time to MSNBC. Nothing was said about bad reports that get into print in a rush to be first; nothing was said about false reporting that is never corrected by the media outlet that issued it; and nothing was said about reporters and talking heads who have lied, quite publicly, but still have their face time and are still given an audience, because they said they were sorry. 

• They talked about misinformation or disinformation posts being shared tens of millions of times. I've shared patently ridiculous memes on social media -  sometimes for fact-checking but more because they're funny - but I'm surely included in the sharing data, as are the folks in this post about a great WaPo article on a satirical social media page. We don't get much nuance, particularly on TV, but it's an issue in the print media, too. How can journalists address that, in the context of our 30-second attention span? And as consumers, would the experts recommend we ignore the bad memes and articles, or that we share to educate? 

• And finally, to Todd's comment about not booking these folks? I don't know who they're not booking, but if they're booking members of the Trump Administration, the GOP and Dem leadership of the House and Senate, or any of the usual suspects - and we know who they are - they're not following that policy. And, I wonder what value the 'balanced' Sunday Shows provide us? The practice of booking a Dem and a Republican with opposing views on the same subject, without any fact-checking, accomplishes what? Does it build trust in the journalistic process? Does it help educate us? Or does it merely promote the show and bring in ad revenue? 

I guess my overarching question is, what would any of these folks - print, television, or radio - change in their media to help break through the mess they talked about? It seemed they're saying we need to do better, but what are they going to do better?

Sunday School Extra Credit 12/29/19

In our final Sunday School Extra Credit of the year, I sat in on what could be the one of the most un-self-aware moments of 2019, Meet the Press and "National Menace" Chuck Todd (hear that reference at around 23:30 of this video) looking at "the assault on truth" and "our post-truth society, and how a changing media landscape has created chaos out of order."

The opening of the show include Kellyanne Conway ("alternative facts"), Rudy Giuliani ("truth isn't truth"), Donald Trump ("what you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening") -- and Bill Clinton ("it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is").

That's right: he brings in a two-decades old example, suggesting equivalency between what's happening today, every single day, and Bill Clinton answering a question on whether he is or is not still not having "sexual relations with that woman" while fighting for his presidency. I'm not pretending Clinton wasn't a liar - of course he was - but if the point of the show is to delve into our "post-truth society," is Todd really trying to sell us on this being a two-decades-old problem? And if yes, where the hell has he been for the past 20 years? 

Anyway. The first segment begins with fake news being pumped out by Russia, not, he said, to influence the Trump/Clinton race, but to make money on Facebook. And, he continued, the idea of "fake news" has become a growth industry, morphing into "a political weapon in our nationalized politics." 

After giving some pretty well known examples, including the lies about the inaugural crowd, the 15,413 false or misleading Trump statements; the administration's campaign against the press, and social media disinformation. Todd also quoted UK author/tech expert Ben Nimmo on the "four things that disinformation actors" do: Dismiss, Distort, Distract (this includes whataboutism, which is Todd's interview stock-in-trade) and Dismay.

So, let's hear from the print media experts - Martin Baron (exec editor of the WaPo) and Dean Baquet (exec editor of the NYT) on this. Baron noted our current environment is one where conspiracy theories and lies are spread regularly, and how people tend to pay attention to 'news' sources that "confirms their pre-existing points of view..." but that

...(journalists) still have the responsibility for determining what's true and what's false and, in particular, holding our government officials accountable for what they say and telling people they're telling the truth, or they're not telling the truth. That's fundamental to the responsibilities that we have as a journalistic institution.

Todd shared data from a CBS poll showing that 91% of Trump supporters said he, Trump, is where they go for accurate information, and wondered how that challenges the papers. Baron said that's how Trump likes it, saying

(Trump) wants to disqualify the mainstream media as an arbiter of facts and of truth... And he wants to disqualify the courts. He wants to disqualify historians. He wants to disqualify scientists, any independent source of information.

Todd wondered if they need to "market the truth" and "start campaigning, around the country" to explain how facts work. Here's Baquet on that.

What I think we're going to have to get very aggressive at is to be really transparent, to assume nothing, and to make sure people know where we are, how we do our work, to show our work more aggressively. That's a different muscle for us.... To my mind, that's a form of marketing our journalism... as well as what we're doing now...for Marty and I and others to be out in the world, talking about what we do and very aggressively defending our institutions, defending the truth and defending our important role in democracy. 

They also talked about whether voters want to be lied to, something that the MTP executive producer apparently says often, according to Todd, and there was some disagreement on that. Baquet noted

I'm not convinced that people want to be lied to. I think people want to be comforted. And I think politicians sometimes say comforting things to them, and our job is to jump into the breach and jump into those conversations, to do the deep reporting, to say "look, I'm sorry. What I have to say may be uncomfortable. But that think you just heard that made you feel good is a lie." And I think that's our job. 

Todd brought up an example, saying  "Coal jobs is what comes into my head. "Oh, we're going to bring coal jobs back." And you're like, "That's not going to happen," right, Marty?" Baron was more circumspect than Todd ever is.

I think we have to be careful. I don't want to be dismissive of people who support the president. I think they're owed our respect, and they certainly have mine. But you know, they've, they feel the so-called elites in Washington have not paid attention to them, that they don't understand their lives... their concerns... and that they're not being heard. And they feel that the president is actually listening to them and addressing their concerns and so they tend to believe him. And they're deeply suspicious of so-called elites, like us, at least people who are described as elites. 

Baquet said he struggles with being considered one of the elite, having grown up poor in New Orleans, but that "we have to do a much better job."

I agree with what Marty said, understanding some of the forces that drive people in parts of American that maybe are not as powerful in New York or Los Angeles. We have to do a better job covering religion. We have to do a better job understanding why some people support Donald Trump... we cannot dismiss everybody who supported Donald Trump... First off, that's not journalistically moral. It's journalistically moral to reach out, understand the world, and be read. That's our job.

They moved on to a discussion of how to describe journalism at mainstream news organizations, with "fair" or "objective" or "balanced" as possibly appropriate. Baron mentioned fairness, open-mindedness, being listeners more than talkers, and being fair to the public.

We can’t -- you know, we need to be direct and straightforward and tell people what we've actually learned. And so I believe in being fair in the sense of being open-minded, going into a story, but being fair with the public at the end, once we've done our jobs, telling them what we've found.

Todd offered his own thoughts, first saying

The phrase I like to use these days is simply -- Go ahead.

Baquet added a couple more descriptors.

I was going to add my two. I agree with all those, of course. But empathetic, I think great journalists are empathetic, which means they listen, and they try to understand. That's not pandering. And then, I think the most powerful word, for me, is independent -  independent, which means independent of everybody, by the way, except, except our principles and our readers.

And here's where they left this segment, with a second thought from Todd ('Go ahead' not being simply enough, apparently).

All, all good words, there. I use a phrase these days, around here -- “Don't round the edges. Simply, say what you see.” 

There were other segments in the show, as well as the roundtable discussion. I'll pull together a highlight reel of anything noteworthy, and I'll also share some thoughts on this, because while I think it's good to talk about this kind of thing, there were many things left unsaid.

See you around campus. 

Sunday School 12/29/19

Today, Andrew Yang was the only one of the 2020 Dems making the rounds in the classrooms, so his conversation with Jonathan Karl on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos gets my undivided attention today.

Our Sunday School Extra Credit will cover the discussion on Meet the Press about "our post-truth society" and the spread of information, misinformation, alternative facts, and the like. That's going to be fun, I'm sure!

But today, it's all about Andrew. Here's the clip Jonathan Karl played to open the segment, of Yang talking about money and diversity at the last debate.

Why am I the lone candidate of color on this stage? Fewer than 5% of Americans donate to political campaigns. Do you know what you need to donate to political campaigns? Disposable income. I guarantee if we had a Freedom Dividend of $1000 a month, I would not be the only candidate of color on this stage tonight. 

I remembered that from the debate, and how it made me stop and think. I've donated small amounts to three of the candidates - but I've never really thought about my ability to do that, or more importantly, about someone else's inability to do that. And, honestly, I'm curious about where the conversation's going to go.

Karl presented the clip as Yang "making his pitch for his universal basic income plan" and noted that  "a dozen governors, mayors and members of Congress have already dropped out."  His first question to Yang was on the meaning of his campaign slogan, "Not left, not right, but forward."

Well, Jon, to me it's clear the reason why Donald Trump is our president today is that we automated away four million manufacturing jobs that were primarily based in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Missouri and Iowa, the swing states he needed to win. And what we did to those jobs is what we are now going to do to the retail jobs, the call center jobs, the fast food jobs,  and eventually the truck driving jobs. 

He's right -- who among us hasn't started a call with pretty much any customer service department by going through a bunch of automated prompts before we ever get a chance to talk to a person? And, with the increasing minimum wages we're seeing at the state level, can you remember the last time you walked into a fast food place or Panera and didn't see "order here" kiosks? Or signs outside Dunkin' suggesting you order from your phone and have it ready when you get there?

Here's the last bit of his answer.

We have to have a way forward that works for all Americans independent of (their) political affiliation, so that's what we mean by not left, not right, forward. These problems are technological and apply to us all. 

Karl asked if what he means is that the major parties are too tied to ideology, too far left or right.  Yang pointed out that he was an 'ambassador' (little A, not big A) in the last administration, and added

...to me Democrats still have not asked themselves the hard questions as to how Donald Trump won in 2016 where if you look around the country, you see 30 percent of stores and malls closing. You see record high levels of stress, financial insecurity, student loan debt, even suicides and drug overdoses. These are the problems that voters talk to me about when I'm out there every single day.

And he hit on another of his key points, which I think Elizabeth Warren has added to her repertoire:

And the Democratic Party, unfortunately, is acting like Donald Trump is the cause of all of our problems. He's a symptom and we need to cure the underlying disease.

Karl moved to the details of the Freedom Dividend, which will give everyone over 18 who opts in $1000 a month, free to use however they want. And he wondered about the 'Math' of allowing a Jeff Bezos or a Donald Trump to get the Universal Basic Income (UBI).Yang thanked him for noticing the MATH tagline, which stands for 'Make America Think Harder.' And he explained that his UBI plan is modeled after what they've been doing in Alaska for nearly 40 years - the petroleum dividend that gives everyone in the state the same amount of money, no questions asked. That's what takes away the stigma and makes it truly universal, Yang explained. 

And back to Bezos?

And my way to pay for this is by taking a toll from every Amazon sale, every Google search, every Facebook ad. So we'd be getting hundreds of millions, even billions, from Jeff Bezos. So if we try and send him $1,000 a month to remind him he's an American, it's essentially immaterial. 

Turning to his newly released health care plan, Karl confessed to having some confusion about where Yang stands and played a couple of clips, one of the candidate and one of an unidentified woman, presumably a supporter. Both clips mentioned Medicare for All. His plan, Karl said, "does not call for Medicare for all. In fact, it doesn't even have a public option. So why the dissonance here?"

We need to move towards universal health care that's high quality and nearly cost free for Americans around the country. But reality is, we have millions of Americans who are on private insurance right now and taking those plans away from them very quickly would be untenable for many, many Americans. 

And he suggested the goal should not be to shut down private insurance, but instead

To me, the goal of the government has to be to demonstrate that we can out-compete private plans and then push them out of the market over time. And that's -- that's what we're proposing.

Karl pushed back, saying "...but-- again, I'm confused. Your ad is explicit. Your ad says, Medicare for all. Your plan is not Medicare for all. It's not even 'Medicare for some' because in your plan there -- there's not even a public option."

Our plan is to expand a universal health care system to all Americans. Medicare for All is not the name of a bill. Medicare for All -- is universal health care for all Americans. And that is our vision.

I give Jon Karl credit for pressing on this question, because it does seem confusing. He asked again, "But Medicare for All is Medicare for all, right? I mean --" 

Well, our -- our health care plan would be -- would be based on Medicare and expanding it over time to more and more Americans. You'd lower the eligibility age and then you make it widely accessible.

Karl gave up, saying he "didn't see that" in Yang's plan, but moved on to talk about Yang's campaign.

Reiterating that he's "been the surprise break-through candidate" and that no one expected him to still be in the race or on the stage for the last of the 2019 debates. But, he noted, Yang's yet to break 5% in the early-state polls, and wondered what he has to do "to actually break through to the next level?"

Yang was upbeat in his typically self-deprecating way, saying he loves being described as a "surprise break-through." He also noted it's been a while since there's been an early-state poll - over a month, he said, and so he

can't wait for some new polls to come out that show how much we're growing, how much the energy and enthusiasm and the crowds are getting bigger every time I go to any of the early states. I'm on my way to New Hampshire a little bit later today to celebrate New Year's Eve. And you're going to see, when the polls come out, we'll be at 5 percent or higher. I think significantly higher.

Moving to impeachment, Karl noted that Yang says no one ever asks him about that, and he's also said that Dems spend too much time talking about it. So, he asked Yang to confirm whether he supported impeaching Trump.

Yes, I do support the impeachment process, but voters don't ask me about impeachment, they ask me about health care and child care and education and climate change. And the fact is, we need 20 Republican senators to have a change of heart or a change of mind in order for impeachment to be successful.

So this strikes many Americans like a ballgame where you know what the score is going to be. And until that changes, to me, we need to be focused much more on presenting a new and positive vision that Americans will get excited about. That's how we win in 2020.

Karl tried to turn that into specifics, asking if Yang would advise Dems to "just forgo the Senate trial," noting that Trump's already been impeached and if, as Yang says, we already know the score in the Senate, why spend "the better part of a month, maybe longer" on a trial that Yang says voters don't care about.

Well, we -- we've impeached him. And if you're going to have the trial, you should make it happen as quickly and expediently as possible. I've already said that I think that the other candidates who are in the Senate, Senators Warren and Sanders and Booker and Bennett should feel free to continue their campaigns during the trial because the fact is, we have an election to win later this year and a case to make to the American people.

Karl noted that Yang has suggested he'd "be open to pardoning Donald Trump if (he) were elected" which is something I had not heard before. Karl asked if that was something Yang would do, and if any Democrat won in November, should a pardon be issued?

My focus is on solving the problems that got Donald Trump elected and moving the country forward. And if you look around the world, unfortunately, it's developing countries that have fallen into a pattern of the new president or the new leader prosecuting and sometimes imprisoning the former leader. That's not a precedent that’s been set here in the U.S., and to me, that's something that I would be interested in maintaining. It's not in the country's interest necessarily to look backwards. We need to look forwards.

Hitting this one more time, Karl wondered if Yang would "not want to proceed with prosecuting Donald Trump after he left office" and if he'd be open to a pardon, or if he thought Trump should be pardoned.

Well, we would have to see what the facts were. We’d have to see what the charges were and what the attorney general advises. But my interest is moving the country forward.

That's where they left it, but I did some digging to see what Yang had said about impeachment. Most information points back to the November debate; here's a little more on that from NBC News.

Andrew Yang said he does not think Trump should be facing criminal charges and would consider pardoning Trump if he were in fact prosecuted.

"We do not want to be a country that gets in the pattern of jailing past leaders," Yang said, adding that "there's a reason why Ford pardoned Nixon." 

"I'd actually go a step further and say not just, hey, it's up to my [Attorney General]. I would say that the country needs to start solving the problems on the ground and move forward."

"Would you consider a pardon then?" NBC News asked.

"I would," Yang said.

So - we opened with a clip about diversity and never talked about it again, and we closed with a conversation about pardoning Trump. Interesting way to bookend the interview.

See you around campus.

In Case You Missed It (v16)

Given the holiday, family time, and of course the sitting around basking in the nothing-doing, this was a light week for posts. Let me bring you up to date.

I got to a few of the Sunday School classrooms, chasing Cory Booker and Amy Klobuchar as they made the rounds. The post  started with Booker's visit to Meet the Press.

They talked about Speaker Nancy Pelosi holding the articles, not sending them to the Senate. Booker said he feels she's really trying to do what she can to ensure there is a fair trial in the Senate. And, in response to Todd's question about whether calling the Bidens to appear was just a plan to "sort of make the witness requests a mutual assured political destruction?"

Booker's answer was perfect:  I'm exhausted, frankly, of the Biden aspect of this.

I agree with him on that.

Because, he noted, the Bidens don't speak "in any way that's germane to the president's behavior," and he's 1000% right. This should be about the president, not about the Bidens.  

Klobuchar appeared in two classrooms; here's an excerpt from her conversation on Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan, 

who opened with a clip from SNL's cold open featuring, among others, Rachel Dratch as Klobuchar. The Senator thought Dratch did a good job. And, when Brennan asked about her "aggressive" performance, Klobuchar denied that she's changed her tactics since her middle-of-a-blizzard candidacy announcement. She also noted

I have passed over a hundred bills in the United States Senate during a really difficult time. And I have won in the reddest of red districts and won with suburban and rural voters and Republicans and independents and a fired up Democratic base. I think that's a good case to be made.  

I also had thoughts on how Congressman John Katko, who represents my NY district, communicates with constituents like me, which I shared in Asked, But Not Answered. That'll give you an idea of my frustration with Katko.

In a nutshell, I wanted him to respond to my specific questions about the statement his office released on why he was going to vote against impeachment. I knew he was a no vote, and indicated that in my comments to him - so I was quite surprised when he explained to me in detail how impeachment works, including the responsibilities of the House and Senate. Geez, Louise: first, I already know that, and second, that's not what I asked!

It didn't get any better after that, I can assure you. Which left me thinking.

This response could have written to you, the person sitting next to you, or the person sitting on the other side of them. It's remarkably similar to the response a friend of mine received, after she reached out with very different questions touching on the impeachment inquiry.

It's funny - she's now a former registered Republican, and I'm a former registered Democrat. We've both voted for Katko in the past.

We won't be doing that again.

No, we won't. 

And finally, I tackled the heavy lifting that is determining the Democratic presidential candidate Email of the Week.  And I wimped out - sorry!

Because we're in the midst of holiday season - Hanukkah, Festivus, Christmas, Kwanzaa and the upcoming New Year, etc. - I decided to see how the candidates referenced the holidays. Instead of singling any one of them out for the coveted honor, I'll share all of their emails in full.

That's right - I decided to be kinder for the holidays, and share the whole shebang.

I received messages from all of the candidates I'm still following - well, all of them except Bernie Sanders. He was also the only one from whom I didn't receive Thanksgiving greetings, so at least he's consistent. 

Two candidates sent Christmas Cards; two sent Christmas messages, and one was sort of a combo. Here are excerpts from the 'message' emails. Can you figure out who's who? Here's a hint for you: two are senators, one is not. Two are men, one is not.

It’s a time of joy and a time you get to spend with loved ones. This year, I’ll be with my wonderful family, my friends, and girlfriend. We’ll enjoy a few nice meals, relaxed days, and best of all, vegan eggnog (for anyone who’s not down with dairy, it’s a game-changer, check it out). 

Happy Holidays! The holiday season is upon us, and whether you celebrate these holidays or something else, or nothing at all, I hope you take these next few days as an opportunity to rest and reflect, to spend time with loved ones, to practice kindness, and, most importantly, to make room for joy.

The holidays are a wonderful opportunity to spend time with those we love. And for me, this season feels even brighter than usual: I’m so uplifted and encouraged by people all over America who share my optimism for the future of this country. 

That's it for the week, but have no fear - we'll be back to full form next week, and I'll have a recap of the 2019 posts.  I'm looking forward to that stroll down memory lane; I hope you are too.

Email of the Week (v3)

Thursday is 'Email of the Week' day, when I plow through a hundred or so emails from Democratic presidential candidates I'm following to see what's going on.

Because we're in the midst of holiday season - Hanukkah, Festivus, Christmas, Kwanzaa and the upcoming New Year, etc. - I decided to see how the candidates referenced the holidays. Instead of singling any one of them out for the coveted honor, I'll share all of their emails in full.

I received messages from all of the candidates I'm still following - well, all of them except Bernie Sanders. He was also the only one from whom I didn't receive Thanksgiving greetings, so at least he's consistent. I also receive a rather long message from Julian Castro, but since I've stopped tracking his emails, I didn't include that here.

Here we go - in alphabetical order, holiday greetings to one and all.

I love the holidays, Sue. 

It’s a time of joy and a time you get to spend with loved ones. This year, I’ll be with my wonderful family, my friends, and girlfriend. We’ll enjoy a few nice meals, relaxed days, and best of all, vegan eggnog (for anyone who’s not down with dairy, it’s a game-changer, check it out). 

Nogs aside, this time of year always makes me reflect on what I’m grateful for -- and this year, that’s people like you. I don’t know where I’d be right now without you. 

Whether it’s making a donation, signing up to volunteer in early states, or even just sharing one of my posts on social media, I’m blown away by how many people have stepped up to be a part of this effort.

So thank you for everything. From my family to yours, Merry Christmas, happy holidays, and here’s to a phenomenal 2020. 

Off to open the vegan eggnog to share with Ro,

Cory

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  

Happy Holidays! The holiday season is upon us, and whether you celebrate these holidays or something else, or nothing at all, I hope you take these next few days as an opportunity to rest and reflect, to spend time with loved ones, to practice kindness, and, most importantly, to make room for joy.

Joy is important to me, and to this movement -- in fact, it’s one of our Rules of the Road, the ten guiding principles that govern our campaign. Part of the Pete for America mission statement reads, “Amid the great challenge we have accepted, let us be joyful.” I want to echo that sentiment now, to all of you, in light of the holidays: Amid the challenges we face, let us be joyful.

For many Americans, I know this is a particularly divisive, and in many ways dispiriting, moment. The House has impeached the president. The contest to replace Donald Trump is heating up. Many Americans are struggling not even to get ahead, but just to hold onto what they’ve got. What I hope we remember in this moment is that we cannot give in to exhaustion and cynicism.

When the clock strikes midnight on December 31st, we’ll say goodbye to the second decade of this century and ring in 2020. Remember that this 2020 election is our chance to refuse to be taken in by helplessness or cynicism; to choose to define America not by exclusion but by belonging. The trajectory of our nation is still up to us -- and that is something to be joyful about. Because the way we keep going, the way we meet those challenges with strength and conviction, is by making room for joy.

Importantly, with joy, comes hope and resilience. Going into this critical year in the life of our nation, I can’t think of qualities we’ll need to draw upon more to fuel the work ahead.

So this holiday season, however you celebrate, I hope we all have a chance to spend some quality time with family, friends, and loved ones. I hope we take this chance to take a breath, remember the values we share, and recharge for the weeks and months ahead. And I hope we all make room for joy, however and wherever we can.

Pete

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Happy holidays to you and yours!

As my family gathers to celebrate today, we want to extend warm wishes for a season that is full of joy and peace.

The holidays are a wonderful opportunity to spend time with those we love. And for me, this season feels even brighter than usual: I’m so uplifted and encouraged by people all over America who share my optimism for the future of this country.

The year ahead will be an exciting one. Together we’ll meet every challenge, overcome every obstacle and go on to win the nomination and the White House. But for now, let’s enjoy the warmth and cheer of this special season.

Yours,

Amy

Donate now

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

All the best to you and yours this holiday season.

Asked, but Not Answered

Earlier this month, I sent an email to Congressman John Katko, who represents my district.

Katko, a Republican, is well known as one of the most bipartisan House members, as I've noted in the past. When I have corresponded with him, I tend to get only generic answers, no matter how specific my questions. It's frustrating, and I sometimes wonder (even on a Tuesday!) if he and his staff think that being bipartisan means being non-controversial or something. Let me give you an example.

I emailed the Congressman with some questions that were tied directly to his statement on his plan to vote 'no' on impeachment. His statement said, in part, (emphasis added)

After thoroughly studying the arguments for and against impeachment, I have come to the inescapable conclusion that, while I believe some of the President’s actions were wrong and inappropriate, they do not rise to the level of an impeachable offense.

There’s no question that this process has sharply divided our country.  Now, more than ever, Congress must put down the swords and work across party lines to find common ground on the issues that matter to our nation: growing our economy, keeping our country safe, and addressing the heroin and synthetic drug epidemic, to start.

While I forgot to keep a copy of what I sent him (through his website, not my person email), here's the gist of it. I asked him to tell me specifically which of the president's actions were wrong and inappropriate; I even gave some examples, specific to Ukraine:

• Withholding the military aid while waiting for an investigation announcement?
• Using his personal attorney as an emissary of the US government? 
• The larger issue of asking a foreign country to investigate his political rival?

I recall asking something along the lines of should a president involve his administration in investigating United States citizens, absent any indication of a crime, whether they're a political rival or not?

I also wanted to know how he's worked with Republicans in the Senate about the hundreds of bills that have been passed in the House, many in a bipartisan manner, that are gathering dust on Mitch McConnell's desk. There might have been something else, can't remember for sure. I was polite, respectful, and thanked him in advance for his detailed response. I even sincerely wished him and his family a Merry Christmas and a happy, healthy New Year. 

Below is the Congressman's response, minus my full name and address.

December 20, 2019

Thank you for contacting me regarding (p)resident Trump. It is good to hear from you.

I believe it is imperative that government officials are held to the highest ethical and professional standards and that they are held accountable for their actions and for fulfilling the duties and obeying the regulations associated with their jobs. 

That was a good start, since the bulk of my letter related to the president's "wrong and inappropriate" actions. But then, it continued

The House of Representatives holds the authority to impeach and the Senate holds the authority to try impeachments. The House must first pass, by a simple majority, the articles of impeachment, which would specify the impeachable offenses committed. The Constitution states treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors as impeachable offenses. If passed, the official would then be impeached. However, to be removed from office, the official must be tried by the Senate and convicted by a two-thirds majority. 

I know how impeachment works, including that it does not require a legally-defined crime to have been committed. And, I didn't ask a single question about that.

For the past several months, impeachment has divided our nation and sidetracked this Congress from accomplishing meaningful work. With this process behind us, we must address the issues that have been neglected: growing our economy, bolstering cybersecurity giving attention to the opioid and mental health crises in our community, and addressing high water levels. It is far past time to get to work. I am committed to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to address the important issues facing Central New York.

I get that there are important issues to address here in Central New York - I just reached out to him a few days earlier on a specific piece of legislation - but how does any of that answer my question about what he's done or is doing to get his Senate colleagues to pressure Mitch McConnell to even read the stuff that's been sent over?

And not only that, but how can he complain that "meaningful work" has been sidetracked? What have the rest of the 435 House members been doing while the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees were focusing on impeachment?

Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts with me on this important issue. I hope that you will continue to keep me informed of the issues important to you and your family, as your input helps me to better serve you as your Representative in Congress. If you would like to stay informed of the latest issues coming out of Washington, you can visit www.katko.house.gov to sign up for my e-newsletter. 

Sincerely, 

John Katko

Yes - I'll continue keeping you informed, and you'll continue ignoring my specific questions and you'll continue telling me the kind of stuff you hope will make me go away.

And, I'd suggest that, for people who do subscribe to his newsletter, a simple "Thank you for subscribing to my e-newsletter. I trust you find the information helpful." would be a nice way to close the conversation. 

And not even so much as a hint of holiday good will? Sheesh!

This response could have written to you, the person sitting next to you, or the person sitting on the other side of them. It's remarkably similar to the response a friend of mine received, after she reached out with very different questions touching on the impeachment inquiry.

It's funny - she's now a former registered Republican, and I'm a former registered Democrat. We've both voted for Katko in the past.

We won't be doing that again.

Sunday School 12/22/19

Amy Klobuchar and Cory Booker made long-distance classroom appearances from Iowa, with Klobuchar on both Face the Nation (CBS) and State of the Union (CNN), while Booker did the Meet The Press (NBC) thing. Let's start there.

The Senator and Chuck Todd (recently referred to as "National Menace" Chuck Todd by a local college professor) talked about impeachment right off the bat, with Booker being asked what he thought a Senate trial should look like, with so many Senators having openly stated - or least signalled - how they're planning on voting. Among other things, Booker noted that

As a guy who's a big competitor, I want to beat Donald Trump mano a mano. I want to face him down on a debate floor. So this is not something that I want to do. And yes, I'm going to evaluate the facts objectively and honor the oath that I swore, even though I think Donald Trump has violated his oath of office.

They talked about Speaker Nancy Pelosi holding the articles, not sending them to the Senate. Booker said he feels she's really trying to do what she can to ensure there is a fair trial in the Senate. And, in response to Todd's question about whether calling the Bidens to appear was just a plan to "sort of make the witness requests a mutual assured political destruction?" Booker's answer was perfect:

I'm exhausted, frankly, of the Biden aspect of this.

Because, he noted, the Bidens don't speak "in any way that's germane to the president's behavior," and he's 1000% right. This should be about the president, not about the Bidens.  

Noting that Booker was not on the stage last week and my not be in January, as the DNC has raised the bar again, Todd wondered what "was missing" from the debate that Booker would have added. The senator didn't really answer the question, instead pointing to the strength of his campaign in Iowa and instead asking how it makes sense that he wasn't on the stage. 

Next up: Klobuchar and Margaret Brennan, who opened with a clip from SNL's cold open featuring, among others, Rachel Dratch as Klobuchar. The Senator thought Dratch did a good job. And, when Brennan asked about her "aggressive" performance, Klobuchar denied that she's changed her tactics since her middle-of-a-blizzard candidacy announcement. She also noted

I have passed over a hundred bills in the United States Senate during a really difficult time. And I have won in the reddest of red districts and won with suburban and rural voters and Republicans and independents and a fired up Democratic base. I think that's a good case to be made.  

She also said the tried to make the case that she should be the one debating Trump in the general election, saying 

And I think it is more than just the nitty-gritty of policy. It's also a value statement because so many people want a values check on this President. They want someone who gives them a decency check, a patriotism check.

Brennan wondered how the impeachment trial would impact her campaign. She pointed to how aggressive and active her campaign has been, said she doesn't need a lot of sleep and works very hard. She also mentioned her endorsements, and that she's got a lot of folks who can - and are already - standing in for her on the campaign and she's got Skype for town halls. 

Brennan wondered if Klobuchar's campaign was going to ask for a rescheduling of the January debate, noting that it could fall in the middle of the impeachment trial. Klobuchar noted that there has to be a January debate, even if it has to be moved closer to the caucuses - but "we have to have an Iowa debate." And is that currently being discussed, any kind of scheduling change?

I don't know - I have made it very clear that there should be no excuses. I am ready to debate at midnight if that's what we have to do. We have to have a debate before the Iowa caucuses. That would be to my advantage if it was at midnight. I'd be happy.

They also talked about how the Dems can get witnesses to testify. Klobuchar noted you need the key witnesses, and specifically mentioned Mick Mulvaney associate Michael Duffy, the guy who sent the email around saying the Ukraine aid needed to be held shortly after the call between president Trump and President Zelensky. 

He sent this email... And this is what he says: he says, "Given the sensitive nature of the request, I appreciate your keeping the information closely held to those who need to know." ...That's a question I want to have answered.

Brennan said the aid was on hold before that, but Klobuchar pressed on Duffy and his email, asking why was it sent, and noting that

If the President is so innocent and shouldn't be impeached, why is he afraid to have these people come forward? That's what people are asking me when I am at these town hall meetings.

And that's where they ended it.  So let's move on to Klobuchar's discussion with Dana Bash, who announced the state of the union being "at a stalemate." This conversation started with the stalemate surrounding the impeachment and the clash over witnesses (the Dems want some, the Rs do not). Bash wondered if Klobuchar would vote to start the impeachment trial if there was no agreement.

I think that there will be an agreement and this trial will go forward.I think what is shocking to me is, right now, despite the president claiming his innocence, claiming that he wants to present witnesses, he's the one blocking the witnesses...

She again referenced the Michael Duffy email, and also noted that even Richard Nixon had "all the president's men testify. He had major people testify from his administration." Klobuchar doesn't know if there will be separate votes on witnesses or how it will all go down, but knows they have "a constitutional duty to take on this very important case." And, 

I'm in the leadership team. And I'm being very clear. We should do whatever it takes. And I can still run for president. I'm a mom. I can do two things at once.

They moved on to the debate, particularly the point at which Klobuchar criticized Mayor Pete Buttigieg about his "lack of experience" and Bash played a clip of Buttigieg talking with CNN after the debate, in which he said he understands the ways of Washington, he just doesn't accept them, and that maybe it's time for "change to come from outside the Beltway.

Klobuchar reiterated her comment from the debate, that experience matters, because it has gotten results, pointing to work by Senators Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker and Kamala Harris.

I just think the fact that someone has experience can be a really good thing right now, when we have a president who went in there with no experience, and has done nothing when it comes to helping regular people.

Bash asked her about her votes on Trump judges, noting that one she voted for had "further dismantled Obamacare this week" and that Klobuchar has voted to approve around 50% of Trump's nominees, and wondered if that was a mistake. Klobuchar noted the the judge in question had been supported by President Obama, Ted Kennedy, Bernie Sanders and many others, too. 

So, my point here is, what's really going on is that the Trump administration brought this case. They're trying to dismantle the Affordable Care Act. And some of my colleagues on that debate stage want to actually start over with Medicare for all.

Bash pressed her, asking specifically if she regrets her votes. Klobuchar said she'd have to look at each of the judge votes, but noted she makes her best judgment, as the other candidates who are Senators do.

I don't carte blanche make a decision about each judge based on whether or not Trump nominated them... My track record of recommending judges to Barack Obama -- and he took every recommendation I made -- have been some excellent, excellent judges. 

Moving on to the January debate, and noting that "So far, only five white candidates have qualified," Bash wondered why Klobuchar thought that happened. 

Klobuchar said you'd have to look at each of the campaigns to understand that, while mentioning both Cory Booker and Andrew Yang and hopes they'd be there in January. And she pointed to the "huge momentum" around her campaign. As Klobuchar ticked off items pointing to that momentum, not just in Iowa but in New Hampshire and the Carolinas, Bash turned it to the SNL skit. Klobuchar laughed, noting the impression was good and looked back at last week's debate. 

Yes, well, that was a pretty fun part of that debate, actually, when I pointed out there -- that discussion that gone so long, so I suggested that maybe we should go to the Wind Cave in South Dakota, which is a national park. And what you would like to know, Dana, is, now I have a number of spelunkers, right, that are now really excited about my candidacy. So, you know, in a close primary like this... you just have to keep reaching out to these groups...

Bash joined in, saying "One constituency at a time," allowing Klobuchar the last word.

That is exactly how I'm going to win this. 

See you around campus.

In Case You Missed it (v15)

It was an interesting week, for sure - so much so that by the time we got to Friday, I was so thankful I didn't even do a TGIF post, setting that aside so that I could comfortably take time to enjoy the holiday season with friends.

But we did hit the ground running, with my visit to the Sunday School classrooms focusing on both sides of the impeachment question.  Not surprisingly, the Democrats spoke from their side of the aisle, and the Republicans did the same, I did manage to find someone talking about both parties - and it was Illinois Senator Dick Durbin.

For the longest time, many of us said which Republican is going to defy the wishes of their political base and come forward and do the right thing for the country? Same thing applies to Democrats. Will we ignore our political base and look at our Constitution? That's what should guide us.

There was the Extra Credit-worthy, and truly cringeworthy interview Chris Wallace did with former FBI Director James Comey. Seriously, it was almost as if Comey was floating around an alternate universe rather than the one that Wallace and the rest of us live in. Here's just one example:

The FBI is an honest, apolitical organization. Remember the treason; remember the spying; remember all of us going to jail. That was false information that your viewers and millions of others were given. My own mother-in-law was worried I was going to jail. I kept telling her, “Look, it’s all made up, it’s all made up. Don’t worry about it.” But I couldn’t say that publicly for two years. Well, now I’m saying it on behalf of the FBI. It was all made up, and I hope people will stare at that and learn about what the FBI is like, human and flawed, but deeply committed to trying to do the right thing.

He may still go to jail, given there's still a criminal investigation going on here - he may want to give his mother-in-law a heads up.

In a week that include many bizarre moments, there was perhaps nothing more bizarre than the six page letter the president sent to the Speaker of the House, full of bluster and falsehoods and braggadocio and other things Trump, including his continued lie on how many Electoral College votes he got. Here's a snippet of the love letter.

Everyone, you included, knows what is really happening. Your chosen candidate lost the election in 2016, in an Electoral College landslide (306-227), and you and your party have never recovered from this defeat. You have developed a full-fledged case of what many in the media call Trump Derangement Syndrome and sadly, you will never get over it! You are unwilling and unable to accept the verdict issued at the ballot box during the great Election of 2016. So you have spent three straight years attempting to overturn the will of the American people and nullify their votes. You view democracy as your enemy!

While the president was attacking the Speaker, I was on Poll Watch, checking to see where public sentiment stood on the impeachment inquiry, including one from Fox News and a second, from The Washington Post and ABC News.  Both polls show that Americans are not happy with the president as far as this issue goes, with Fox respondents showing, among other things,

• 53% believe he has abused the powers of his office; 50% believe he has obstructed justice;  48% believe he has obstructed Congress, and 45% believe he has committed bribery;

The WaPo-ABC poll had similar results, including that

• regardless of how respondents feel about impeachment, 51% say that Congress should censure him, while 42% say no. 

On the day that saw only the third impeachment of an American president, I was doing some Wondering on Wednesday about this whole mess, from a variety of angles, including one that I don't hear a lot of people talk about.

For example, wouldn't it be sad if we were to forget how we got here, and that it would have been impossible for president Trump to be in a position to demand an investigation into Joe and Hunter Biden had Hunter Biden not been given a job, for which he was completely unqualified, by a foreign company located in a country in his father's vice-presidential portfolio?

On Thursday, I found, among the 100 or so messages from the 2020 Dems, a note from Elizabeth Warren, which earned the coveted Email of the Week award. Here's a portion of it.

I took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, and so did my colleagues in the Senate and in the House. And we owe it to the American people to do our jobs and get to the bottom of this.

Come the new year, I will be a juror in Donald Trump's Senate trial, and I'll uphold my oath. Because nobody is above the law — not even the president of the United States.

But it's important to remember that Trump is just the worst symptom — not the cause — of a rigged, corrupt system. A system that rewards the rich and powerful and leaves working people behind.

So, there you have it - this week in review. Check back next week to see what's going on, as we get ready to close out the year.

Email of the Week (v2)

It's Thursday, and time for our Email of the Week.

Most of the 2020 Dems I'm following were focused on tonight's debate, if they were fortunate enough to have qualified, or on the next one, if they were not so fortunate. They're also focused on polling, and on Iowa, and on fundraising.

On the fundraising thing, there's some noticeable grumpiness from the Sanders camp - shocker, I know - that while he's got a boatload of donors, he doesn't have as much money as the others who either are the billionaire class, or sucking up to them.

With email subjects such as We risk falling behind, We're facing a dilemma, We don't have as many contributions as we'd hoped..., Not great, and 2800/16=175, he's sounding a bit desperate. That email with math in it? That's trying to show that for every $2800 check another candidate receives, he'll need 175 donors if they give only the average $16 that he's received per contribution so far.

And you thought Andrew Yang was the math guy...

I was actually surprised to not get a whole lot of emails about the impeachment. Only Elizabeth Warren made it in by the deadline with anything related to Wednesday's all-day session in the House, which one article I read said at times made it seem that the Democrats and the Republicans represented different countries.

Here's our email of the week, from the Massachusetts senator.

Today was an important day for our country and our democracy. The United States House of Representatives voted to impeach Donald Trump. I took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, and so did my colleagues in the Senate and in the House. And we owe it to the American people to do our jobs and get to the bottom of this. Come the new year, I will be a juror in Donald Trump's Senate trial, and I'll uphold my oath. Because nobody is above the law — not even the president of the United States. But it's important to remember that Trump is just the worst symptom — not the cause — of a rigged, corrupt system. A system that rewards the rich and powerful and leaves working people behind. 2020 is our chance to change that. Our chance to take back the reins of our democracy and put political and economic power in the hands of working people. We're up against big problems, and we need big ideas to solve them. That's what we're fighting for. And together, we'll win. — Elizabeth

Wondering on Wednesday (v192)

Ready... set... wonder! 

I spent the day listening to the arguments for and against impeaching Donald Trump and honestly my head is spinning. There's SO much to wonder about...

For example, I wonder why I can find no evidence that Ukraine President Zelensky met with president Trump at the White House? That was the meeting Zelensky requested, and that was the meeting that was held up pending the announcement of the investigation into the Bidens, and that is the meeting that has never happened.

Oh sure - they met at the UN for a while, but does that, in anyone's mind, have the same benefit for the former TV-star turned President as a face-to-face meeting in the Oval Office of the White House with the original Apprentice president? 

Not only that, but since the United Republican Party (as the president called it) despises the United Nations and what it stands for, I find it hard to believe that they can even pretend with a straight face that meeting between the two presidents in that venue came close to satisfying Zelensky's request for a White House meeting, or for a trip by the president to Ukraine.  

For example, I wonder why all the lawyers, former prosecutors and former judges on the Republican side of the aisle are so focused on finding legal crimes as defined in the criminal code? Nothing in the impeachment section of the Constitution requires actual legal crimes - two crimes are mentioned - bribery and treason - but 'high crimes and misdemeanors' is not a term meant to describe violations of law, those words define political crimes against the people of the United States of America. 

The Republicans have accused the Democrats of newly discovering the Constitution, for the purposes of impeachment and that they never pay any attention to the founding documents otherwise. One could reasonably wonder why the Republicans, who thump their chests about being the party of constitutionally-limited government and their most-favored amendments, have never read the lengthy material on impeachment. Perhaps it's the same lack of interest that has prevented so many of them from reading the Mueller Report. 

For example, I'm having a hard time getting my arms around why supporting impeachment is merely an act of obedience to the party's leadership and is therefore an act of blatant partisanship, but standing in lockstep in opposition to impeachment is not also merely an act of obedience and party fealty?

The assumption that without exception, Democrats are simply playing a game of follow the leader, and that none of them are acting in accordance with their oath of office, their conscience, or even the will of their constituents, is absurd. 

For example, I wonder why it took so long for anyone to mention that all of the military aid still hasn't been released to Ukraine? The Republicans have repeated countless times today that the aid was released and therefore there's nothing wrong with anything the president did, but the Pentagon is still sitting on some $20 million of it, ostensibly for updated cost estimates or some tomfoolery.

Similarly, I heard little mention of any concern with corruption in the first two years of the Trump presidency, when aid was sent without delay to Ukraine - before the corruption-fighting Zelensky was elected. And I wonder, does that make sense? 

And does withholding the aid months after your own administration had approved releasing it, certifying that Ukraine was making progress on corruption, make any sense at all, I wonder? 

For example, I wonder how the Republicans can ignore all of the evidence that the president himself has provided that supports his abuse of office? The best part, which I didn't hear anyone mention (and that saddens me) was when he was asked if he had ever asked any foreign leader to investigate corruption involving anyone who was not a political rival. Trump couldn't answer the question, saying (in effect) that they'd have to look into that. I don't believe he's ever identified a single instance of that occurring. Is there more that needs to be understood about what's happening here?

For example, to each person who has said that the people - not elected officials - have the right to get rid of a president, I wonder how they do not realize that they were sent there by the people to fulfill their oversight responsibilities? We, the people, do not have the power to impeach the president - we elect the people who do have that power, and we expect them to use it when necessary.  

I also wonder how late into a presidency would it be acceptable to have an impeachment vote? If we're too close to the election now, 10 months away, what would the Republicans find acceptable? During the first year? During the second year? Earlier in the third year? Never at all, as long as the president is a member of their party? I'm a cynic, and assume the latter timeframe would be the most acceptable. 

And I would ask, how do these folks not recognize that the makeup of the Congress is very different now than it was when the president lost the popular vote and won the Electoral College vote (by a count that he still cannot get right?) In 2018, the Democrats won the majority, gaining 41 seats - so the assumption that the will of the people is still that Trump should be president is not a foregone conclusion, and shouldn't be taken as such.

For example, I wonder if the Democrats are taking to heart the number of times they collectively have been accused of favoring impeachment from the date of the election, a goal they have arrived at today. 

All of the times they stood in front of microphones over the past nearly three years are out there, as readily available fodder, to diminish the arguments made for actually putting forth the articles of impeachment that will be voted on at the end of all of this debate. The multiple recitations of all of those instances from members new and old, leaders and non-leaders, are not falling on deaf ears, I can assure you.  

For example, how long will we have to wait to see the actual transcript of the July 25th call, I wonder? 

We heard repeatedly today about the "this is not a transcript" memorandum of the call but we have yet to see the real transcript, and we also have no idea what else has been placed on the secret server where, apparently, the president's most inflammatory and potentially dangerous words are tucked away, out of sight.

For example, wouldn't it be sad if we were to forget how we got here, and that it would have been impossible for president Trump to be in a position to demand an investigation into Joe and Hunter Biden had Hunter Biden not been given a job, for which he was completely unqualified, by a foreign company located in a country in his father's vice-presidential portfolio?

I am not blaming the Bidens for Trump's abuse of power - not in the least. I'm as sure as the day is long that there would have been, and will be, another example of that before we are done with him and his antics. 

But I'm not blind to the optics of the younger Biden's job offer, which we all know only happened because the elder Biden was the Vice President. And no one else should be blind to that, either. 

I wonder, indeed I do, about all of this, and more.