TGIF 10/30/20

 

Make this the one picture we ALL remember!

Please vote.

TGIF, everyone.

My Middle-aged White Lady Perspective: 'Seeing' Donald Trump

This letter to the editor, from a Florida newspaper, seeks to clarify the difference in how supporters and detractors see the president. It's popped up on my Facebook page a few times, and I decided to tackle it from my middle-aged white lady perspective. Emphasized comments are from the letter; the rest of them are mine. 

You see Trump's arrogance; I see Trump's confidence. Arrogance is presenting yourself as superior to others, usually in an obnoxious way. Donald Trump is a truly arrogant man. He talks down to everyone, particularly women (even more so to women of color). He is a relentless self-promoter, with world leaders, with the Boy Scouts, and everyone in between. He is a self-proclaimed genius. He knows more than everyone about everything. He alone can fix what's wrong. He is a pompous, overbearing, pretentious, rude, whining man. Honestly, I think the case could be made that he's an arrogant jerk because he lacks confidence, but I'll let the psychological experts make that call.

You see Trump's nationalism; I see Trump's patriotism. This is the first of two references to patriotism in the letter; I'll address them together in a minute. 

You hear Trump's unsophisticated words; I hear Trump's honesty.  No; you hear yourself being manipulated. He very carefully chooses his 'unsophisticated' words; he carefully curates his 4th-grade language level, and you can see how well it works by the way many people - certainly not all (I'm not looking to get into a 'deplorables' argument here) - are so faithful to his message, even when they ought to know better.

There is NO correlation between Trump's language and the truthfulness of what he says. Donald Trump very often is untruthful. In fact, he lies about everything. He lies about some things so often, a Bottomless Pinocchio category was created specifically to document those lies. That he lies with such proficiency, even about totally meaningless things, shows his innate dishonesty.

You see Trump's racism; I see Trump's words being misconstrued and twisted by the media daily to fit their narrative.  If the president's words require a multi-level, photon-torpedo-firing decoder ring to understand, and require an entire network of people to clarify them, he's not getting his message across. Oh wait - silly me. His message is perfectly clear, and his dog whistles hit the mark repeatedly.  It's not the media twisting his words, it's his designated deflectors working at his favorite network, and in the House and Senate, working so hard to twist the media into the bad-guy mold. 

If you think Donald Trump is not racist, explain his incessant attacks on an America judge.  And let me know how you like me being just as racist in that post as Trump. Or what you'd think if your kids, or your coworkers, or your pastor said what he says. 

You see Trump as a Republican; I see Trump as a Patriot. Donald Trump is not a Republican. He's not a conservative. He goes against much of that the Rs stand for. He says he loves our country, and he hugs and slobbers on the flag, and he waves his arms around during the national anthem, while demanding others stand at attention. He tells us how much he gave up to become president, and he says - regularly - that people who think like he is are 'patriots.'  Everyone else? Not so much. If you think the only way to love our country and be a patriot is to think like you, and be like you, you're missing the entire point of our country. 

You see Trump as a dictator; I see Trump as a leader. Trump is not a dictator, but he often talks as if he wants to be one, he admires people who are, and acts as if he is one. He uses the government as if it's at his beck and call, there to do his bidding. That's a gross misunderstanding of both what our government is, and the people for whom it works. It's also not an admired leadership trait.

You see Trump as an authoritarian; I see Trump as the only one willing to fight for our freedoms. Do tell, what freedoms are Trump fighting for? No one I've ever asked can name even one. We do know, that Trump's SCOTUS picks might jeopardize people's rights; we do know that Trump has implemented gun control measures; we do know that Trump regularly threatens the First Amendment... So, again, what are the freedoms he's fighting for on our behalf? 

You see Trump as childish; I see Trump as a fighter, unwilling to cave in to the Democrat lies. He is childish; he stomps out of interviews; he shuts people down; he's a bully domestically and internationally. What "Democrat lies" is he not caving in to when he calls people names? Says they're ugly? Talks about their physical features? Lies about them? Supports conspiracy theorists? Encourages others to be bullies?  He does all of those things, unprompted.

You see Trump as an unpolished politician; I see Trump as a breath of fresh air. Donald Trump pretends to be unpolished, and not a politician. He is not a breath of fresh air, he and his lies and his bullying and his threatening comprise a toxic cloud that hangs over our country, and over our allies. And he is a classic, arm-twisting strongman pol, who threatens members of his own party who might disagree with him. Don't go along with me? No endorsement. A barrage of negative tweets. Attacks against you in your district. Support for your opponent. And you think he's not a politician? That's laughable.

You see Trump as homophobic; I see Trump as the first president who has ever entered office supporting gay marriage. If you cared about LGBTQ rights, including gay marriage, you'd be less than excited about his SCOTUS picks. And, you'd be concerned about his administration fighting for LGBTQ discrimination in the courts; wanting to allow federal contractors to be able to fire LGBTQ employees; our Justice Department defending medical professionals who refuse to treat LGBTQ patients; visas not being issued to same-sex partners of diplomats; that children of gay and lesbian Americans are not allowed citizenship unless they were born of American sperm or an American egg, and so much more. 

You think Trump hates immigrants; I know Trump is married to an immigrant. And serial killers had friends, right?  Marrying an immigrant does not mean you are pro-immigrant. Donald Trump wanted to ban an entire faith from entering our country. He tells Americans to "go back where they came from." He attempted to end DACA, punishing children who were brought here when they were babies. His own companies hired illegal immigrants. He wants to ban the kind of immigration that allowed his in-laws to become citizens.  But yeah, he married an immigrant. 

You see Trump putting an end to immigration in America; I see Trump welcoming immigrants to America legally. Trump has undermined the legal asylum process, reduced opportunities for refugees to come here; suspended the rights of some refugees already here, made the green card process more difficult, rejected many more skilled worker visas, making it harder for American companies to be successful, and more. He's done all of his immigration stuff by Executive Order, a tool he said he would not use.

You see Trump's cages at the border; I see Obama's cages at the border. Look past the cages and look at who was in them - children separated from their parents. That's not the same as detaining families together. And there was no 'zero tolerance policy under the Obama administration. And of course, there are those kids whose parents can't be located. Not a handful of them, over 500 of them. That's on Trump.

You see Trump with a struggling economy; I see Trump with an amazing economy until the China Virus and Democrats shut it down. The markets were doing well. Unemployment rates were continuing their established downward trend. Those things are true. But America is more than the markets, and people seem to forget that it was the Trump Administration that shut down the country. At least, it was Donald Trump who said the biggest decision he would have to make was when to open it back up. So, you can blame China for the virus, if you want, but you should blame Trump for shutting down the country. He said he did it. I believe him.

You see the violence in the streets and call it 'Trump's America;' I see the violence in the streets of Democratic run cities who are refusing Trump's help and call it 'Liberal America.' Woof woof. That's you, responding to the president's unsophisticated dog whistle. 

Congratulations. 

Wondering on Wednesday 10/28/20

Ready... Set... Wonder!

You know, I was kind of bummed today when I saw that Miles Taylor, the former Chief of Staff to Kirstjen Nielsen at the Department of Homeland Security, announced himself the name and face behind 'Anonymous,' the author of the famed 2018 NY Times op-ed that began 

President Trump  is facing a test to his presidency unlike any faced by a modern American leader.

It’s not just that the special counsel looms large. Or that the country is bitterly divided over Mr. Trump’s leadership. Or even that his party might well lose the House to an opposition hellbent on his downfall.

The dilemma — which he does not fully grasp — is that many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.

I would know. I am one of them.

Like many others, I had wondered, not with any focus but sort of randomly, who in the administration might be the author (I had a favorite, I did.) And in 2019, when the book A Warning was published, I wondered again if perhaps it was  my pick, Kellyanne Conway. I thought she was the perfect person to have realized the error of her ways, going from getting him elected to now warning us that we shouldn't allow him back in the Oval after January 20, 2021. But no, it's Miles Taylor.

Now that I don't have to wonder about that any more, I've got time to wonder about a bunch of other stuff.

For example, what kind of person do you need to be to get a major city's District Attorney this mad? Well, you just need to be Donald Trump, that's all. Here's just a piece of what's in DA Larry Krasner's statement:

The Trump Administration’s efforts to suppress votes amid a global pandemic fueled by their disregard for human life will not be tolerated in the birthplace of American democracy. Philadelphians from a diversity of political opinions believe strongly in the rule of law, in fair and free elections, and in a democratic system of government. We will not be cowed or ruled by a lawless, power-hungry despot. Some folks learned that the hard way in the 1700s.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett took another oath today at the Supreme Court; in an unusual celebratory note, she received her first recusal request, too. The election-related case is from Pennsylvania, a key battleground state that, according to the punditry, is a must win for both candidates if they want to get to 270 electoral college votes.  We know, of course, that the new Justice would not commit t recuing herself, and I don't think I have to wonder much what her answer will be - I suspect it's going to be a no, in her best firm mommy voice, but we'll see. 

Finally, I turn my wondering eye to these two articles, which arrived together in an email:

Republicans are on the verge of a spectacular upside-down achievement

Why Trump's re-election still seems likely 

It's hard paying attention to the wildly varying headlines and opinions. These two were similar to others I've seen recently, in which it's pretty clear that the president is going to win, and it's equally clear that the president's not going to win. It's also clear that the pandemic is the most important thing in the election, and equally clear that the economy is the most important thing in the election. It's clearly clear that no one really knows what's clear, and equally clear that everyone knows what's clear.

And all of that had me wondering what the oddsmakers say about the election. According to an article in the Las Vegas Review Journal, 

The U.S. presidential election has officially become the most heavily bet event in the history of the United Kingdom-based Betfair Exchange, the company said in a release. A total of about $259 million in bets have been placed on the matchup between President Donald Trump, the Republican candidate, and former Vice President Joe Biden, the Democratic candidate. The handle breaks the record $258 million bet on the 2016 presidential election between Trump and Hillary Clinton. Betfair predicts that as much as $519 million could be bet on the election by Tuesday.

So, lots of money in play, but what are the odds? Biden is a -200 favorite to win the election at Betfair (Trump +200); that means that Biden is the favorite and Trump the underdog. 

A US oddsmaker (for entertainment purposes only, since it's illegal to bet on elections in the US) has Biden at -240 and Trump +220. And, the same guy has Kamala Harris at +800 to replace Biden before the 2024 election.

If it weren't illegal, I wonder how much Trump would put on that? After all, he's already suggesting Biden's only going to last three weeks if he wins... 

What are you wondering about?

Quick Takes (v54): How to Steal an Election

The eight justices of the US Supreme Court have been plowing through election-related cases at a fast and furious clip, announcing decisions almost exclusively without comment over the past several weeks. 

All that changed yesterday, and it's frightening what will happen now that Justice Amy Coney Barrett has been sworn in at a socially-distanced ceremony at the White House.

In Democratic National Committee vs. Wisconsin State Legislature, decided yesterday on a 5-3 vote (Justices Kagan, Breyer and Sotomayor dissented, with Kagan writing for the three), it seems to people more knowledgeable than me that the Court has started laying the foundation for putting now sixty collective fingers on the side of restricting votes, rather than counting them - and that they've done it blatantly, and shockingly. 

In the lower court, the judges decided that mailed-in ballots could be counted for up to six days after Election Day, provided that they were postmarked before Election Day. The decision, of course, was based on issues caused by the pandemic and by concerns about the US Postal Service's ability to process mail timely. The Supremes disagreed.

Here's an excerpt from Vox, talking about the majority decisions from Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, with a focus on the concept of 'dual sovereignty' - the premise that the SCOTUS should defer to state court decisions on issues of state law, and that the SCOTUS has the final word on issues of federal law. 

If the Supreme Court of the United States had the power to overrule a state supreme court on a question of state law, this entire system of dual sovereignty would break down. It would mean that all state law would ultimately be subservient to the will of nine federal judges... They also sent a loud signal, just eight days before a presidential election, that long-settled rules governing elections may now be unsettled. Republican election lawyers are undoubtedly salivating, and thinking of new attacks on voting rights that they can launch in the next week. (emphasis added)

And from the Washington Post, which began its analysis by pointing out that, according to Wall Street Journal map, it took an average of 10 days for a first-class letter to be delivered in Wisconsin back in September, we learn that Justice Kavanaugh's concurrence included this ridiculous and irrelevant statement.

Voters who, for example, show up to vote at midnight after the polls close on election night do not have a right to demand that the State nonetheless count their votes...Voters who submit their absentee ballots after the State’s deadline similarly do not have a right to demand that the State count their votes.

He further argued

For important reasons most States, including Wisconsin, require absentee ballots to be received by election day, not just mailed by election day. Those States want to avoid the chaos and suspicions of impropriety that can ensue if thousands of absentee ballots flow in after election day and potentially flip the results of an election. And those States also want to be able to definitively announce the results of the election on election night, or as soon as possible thereafter. States that require absentee ballots to be received by election day still have strong interests in avoiding suspicions of impropriety and announcing final results on or close to election night.”

In the dissent, Kagan hit back on that argument.

Justice Kavanaugh alleges that ‘suspicions of impropriety’ will result if ‘absentee ballots flow in after election day and potentially flip the results of an election." But there are no results to ‘flip’ until all valid votes are counted. And nothing could be more ‘suspicio[us]’ or ‘improp[er]’ than refusing to tally votes once the clock strikes 12 on election night. To suggest otherwise, especially in these fractious times, is to disserve the electoral process.

And that, of course, was the majority's intent. It's the president's intent, it's the GOP's intent, it's the Republican National Committee's intent, and it's the intent of Republican-controlled legislatures, perhaps especially where the governor is a Dem.

Back to the Vox article, this time to look quickly at the implications of what Justice Neil Gorsuch had to say in his concurring decision. He focused on the Constitution, which says that

the Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof.”

And in his "hyper-literal" interpretation, the word 'legislature' means exactly - and only - the body referred to as the 'state legislature, because the legislature - "not federal judges, not state judges, not state governors, not other state officials — bear primary responsibility for setting election rules.” 

The problem with that?

State supreme courts may lose their power to enforce state constitutions that protect voting rights. State governors may lose their power to veto election laws, which would be a truly astonishing development when you consider that every state needs to draw new legislative maps in 2021...

This is our future: uncounted votes, emasculated state courts, and more. Gerrymandering to rig state legislatures? Check. Other voter suppression tactics, such as restricting hours in urban areas? Check. Closing polling places that are accessible via public transportation? Check. 

We ain't seen nothing yet, folks. 

We ain't seen nothing yet.

Sunday School 10/25/20: Extra Credit

It's Extra Credit time, students!  Let's take a listen as Face the Nation's Margaret Brennan talks to a couple of her CBS counterparts: first, Mark  Strassman on the coronavirus, and then Anthony Salvanto with some swing state info.

Strassmann was in Atlanta, talking about the surge in new cases, which he reported have spiked 248% since the start of September; that 31 states are in the red zone for new cases, 11 had single-day records, and Wisconsin- a battleground state - is "in crisis" with seven of the top ten metro areas for new cases. Fun stuff, right, especially now that we've "turned the corner," as a certain someone likes to say.

Voting is underway in all 50 states, and Strassmann said that nearly 3,000,000 Georgians had already voted, "more than double the record set four years ago." He talked about one group, Black Voters Matter, that plans on passing out a quarter million flyers with a QR code listing polling places, as well as wait times in real time, which is really cool. He also mentioned folks who have said the pandemic is a key reason they're voting, and he referenced another display, white flags in DC, place to honor the American lost due to COVID.

His final note? Mike 'My staff all has Covid" Pence will be campaigning in Georgia, because it's now a very tight race there - tied, in fact, in the network's latest poll.

And that's the segue to the Salvanto interview. He echoed what Strassman was hearing from voters, that the pandemic is definitely having an impact: the majority of Biden voters are 'very concerned' about it, while Trump voters are less so; personal character is another key factor for Biden voters. On the other side of things, Trump voters are more concerned about the economy and immigration. They also fear the country is becoming "too socialist," he said, while Biden voters think it's becoming "too authoritarian." One heck of a pickle we're in isn't it?

Brennan asked him about key groups he's watching. He mentioned women with college degrees, who've been trending D since the last mid-terms. Dive deeper to white women with college degrees, and they've been trending D for even longer, going back to 2016. Biden is up with this group compared to Hillary Clinton in Florida, North Carolina, and Georgia.

Another key group he mentioned? Seniors. Biden actually is leading with seniors in North Carolina; they're traditionally pretty reliable in the R column - that's where they are in Florida and Georgia.

With 57 million people already having voted, Brennan wondered, "is there a risk here of misreading these early indications?"

Well, it's a tale of two groups. First, you look at the early vote. And we estimate about half the vote in all of these states is already in. Among those voters, Joe Biden has a lead. These are voters who have told us that they voted for Joe Biden. And, also, if you look at the public voting roles, it seems like Democrats are turning out more than Republicans.

But if you look at voters who are still to vote, plan to vote between now and Election Day or on Election Day, that electorate tilts very heavily towards the President. When we get to November 3rd, it's going to be a case of perhaps the Democrats have a lead and then do the President's supporters turn out in large enough numbers to make up the difference. They have done that before. And I would caution anybody: if you read the early vote, or for that matter small polling leads, and think that this race is over, you will be mistaken. Margaret.

She also wondered whether the president needs these three states in order to win. 

If you look at the map and then you put these states, hypothetically, back into the President's column. So I'll put Florida, I'll put Georgia, and I'll put North Carolina, all back to where they were in 2016, which could happen, then he's got to go up and win Ohio again, and I'll put Iowa, again, back in his column. That on the electoral vote count gets him much closer to Joe Biden, and then we are back to the Upper Midwest, and we're going to watch Pennsylvania, maybe Wisconsin, or a couple of those other states, to see if he can flip them from leaning Democratic as well. So, if that feels a little bit like 2016, or that old Yogi Berra line, "It's déjà vu all over again;" maybe it is. Margaret.

"Ain't over until it's over," she said. Ain't that the truth. 

With all of the knot-tying and untying and twists and turns that the punditry is going through already, based on exit polling and based on what they're hearing in prospective polling, in focus groups, from the campaigns, and from their Ouija boards, and with more than a week to go, I fear for what's going to happen next week. 

If we don't have a clear winner, or if we have a thousand million ballot challenges, which we may, the talking heads will be going nuts trying to predict the outcome. In a ratings-driven world, with an impetuous child-president, it's going to be an interesting ride.  And yes, we will have a full Supreme Court to handle the thousand million challenges - Amy Coney Barrett has been sworn in, by Clarence Thomas.

See you around the virtual campus. Mask up, and remember to vote!

Sunday School 10/25/20

A whole bunch of the usual suspects were making the rounds Sunday, including:

•  Kate Bedingfield from the Biden campaign, Corey Lewandowski from the Trump campaign (Meet The Press); 
• Trump's 4th Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (State of the Union); 
• National Security Advisor Robert O'Brien and former FDA Commish Dr. Scott Gottlieb (Face the Nation); and 
• RNC Chair Ronna McDaniel and Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, who's a Biden co-chair (Fox News Sunday). 

I'll plow through all of that and see what might make it into this week's Extra Credit. For now, though, I'm doing something out of character: I'm going to spend time with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. AOC. One of the Squad. She talked with Jake Tapper, and I've got your recap.

In introducing the interview, Tapper said AOC was working to make sure young people turned out to vote, and that she was "taking a novel approach to getting it done." Before they got to that, they talked around some other topics, starting with the stimulus. Tapper asked her if she thought it was time for the Dems to get it passed now. She said it was "incredibly important" but added

...frankly, I think the thing that's important is the Republican side really needs to get their act together. When we hear one thing about an offer from the White House, you also hear Mitch McConnell saying that he doesn't have the votes for it internally. And so, while they're trying to present this united message of kind of having all their ducks in a row, the fact of the matter is, they can't even get their own senators to agree to a pack -- to their own package. And so, really, a lot of this package is going to rely on Democratic votes. It's going to require delivering every Democratic vote in the Senate and peeling off Republican votes to agree to it.

Tapper then asked about fracking, noting AOC had introduced a bill to ban all fracking nationwide within five years. That doesn't jive with Joe Biden's view, which Tapper rightfully called "confusing," and he wondered if she was bothered now, being on the other side of this issue from the party's nominee. She said no, saying Biden

has made very clear that he does not agree with a fracking ban. And I consider that -- you know, it will be a privilege to lobby him should we win the White House. But we need to focus on winning the White House first. And I'm happy to make my case. 

Turning to younger voters, Tapper wondered if the fracking thing would turn them off enough to stay home. AOC said that younger voters have "a very disciplined, activist mind-set" and aren't so much voting for their "favorite person" or someone they think is "perfect."

...right now, young people are so clear on their stances on many political issues, that they believe that they want to vote for a president that is at least going to be receptive to their advocacy, activism and protest... Joe Biden is a much better person in that position to be receptive and actually listen to the voices of advocates than Donald Trump, who is intensely focused on enriching himself and his friends.

She also said that Biden's desire to get rid of subsidies for fossil fuel companies was an "important first step," even if he wouldn't get rid of fossil fuels "for a long time." 

So, when you eliminate government subsidies, they -- it becomes more difficult for fossil fuels to compete in the market. And so, I think, while -- again, while the vice president wants to make sure that he's not doing it by a government mandate or regulation, I do believe that we are moving towards that future.

They talked about her role as a member of Congress under a Biden administration, and whether that included pushing him to the left. AOC said first they had to win, something the Dems have been trying to remind the pundits for the last month or so.

Frankly, I think it would be a privilege and it would be a luxury for us to be talking about what we would lobby... and how we will push the next Democratic administration... my role is consistent, in making sure that we push the Democratic Party to have a larger vision for our future, to listen to the needs of the working class, of people who are living paycheck to paycheck, young people, people of color, because I believe that is the base of the Democratic Party, and that who -- that is who we are, that it is our job to make sure that we are serving all people in the United States, and particularly our base.

Moving on, Tapper mentioned the reported interest by Bernie Sanders in being Labor Secretary in a Biden administration, should there be one. AOC said it was "critically important" that Biden appoints progressive leaders, and that "we're not just going back to how things were and rewinding the tape before the Trump administration." 

The future is now, she thinks,

...and we have the unique, frankly, once-in-a-generation opportunity to have the White House, the Senate and the House majorities Democratically-controlled, then I believe we have an obligation to the American people to show what a Democratic administration can actually accomplish and that we can govern, and that we can truly have leaps in policy that people can feel in their everyday lives that makes voting Democratic worth -- not just worthwhile, but a memorable shift from just a flatline of this idea of bipartisanship, which often just becomes Republican manipulation.

The interview finally turned to AOC playing a video game on Twitch; a half a million people were engaged live, and more than 5M have watched it since. Tapper admitted he had to have his kids explain what the big deal was (maybe I should talk to them?) and he asked AOC whether it was possible to turn playing a video game into voter turnout, and wondered where she got the idea.

She said yes, and she got the idea from the time she spends on social media and seeing folks using Twitch to raise a ton of money for charities. That led to testing it as a voter mobilization strategy.

She said during the game, they were directing people to IWillVote.com, where they could register and develop a plan, something they've been pushing folks to do for some time now. The voting plan matters more than just registering, she said, because "people who make a plan to vote are statistically much more likely to vote" than if they merely register.

And we are seeing early returns in places like Florida, where youth turnout is -- in early voting is astronomically higher than it was than even in 2016. And so, we do know that young people are starting to become an extraordinarily powerful electorate that are issues-focused. 

Tapper told her it was "interesting watching you drag your party into the 21st century," which wasn't the first time they laughed during the interview. 

Last question: Will AOC support Nancy Pelosi, who has indicated she's going to run to continue as Speaker? Saying again that winning was the first priority, and she thinks they will, and growing the majority is also likely, here's her answer.

I believe that we have to see those races as they come, see what candidates are there. I am committed to making sure that we have the most progressive candidate there. But if Speaker Pelosi is that most progressive candidate, then I will be supporting her.

Not a full-throttled endorsement, is it? I have to agree with Tapper's comment - he called her answer "interesting" - and with AOC's apparent hesitancy, even if I disagree with her reasoning. 

See you around the virtual campus. And if I see you outside somewhere, you better be wearing a mask. 

In Case You Missed It (59)

Grab your cuppa whatever, settle down in a comfy chair somewhere, and enjoy this recap of last week's posts.

Sunday School brought us an interview with Lara Trump, the $15,000/month campaign worker, wife of Eric Trump and daughter-in-law of the president. She spoke with Jake Tapper on CNN's State of the Union, at least until he abruptly thanked her off the air.  Before that happened, she offered this explanation for the president's behavior vis a vis the domestic terrorism plot against one of his favorite targets, Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer.

Well, look, this is - he wasn't doing anything, I don't think, to provoke people to threaten this woman at all. He was having fun at a Trump rally... There are issues at hand here that are bigger than just keeping everybody locked down. So, I think people are frustrated. And look, the president was at a rally. It's a fun, light atmosphere. Of course he wasn't encouraging people to threaten this woman. That's ridiculous.

It is ridiculous, she's right about that.  She was equally ridiculous talking about Joe Biden's stutter, which is when Tapper shut her down.

Your Extra Credit task? Taking in interviews with Tom Perez, the chair of the DNC, and Reince Priebus, who was Trump's first (of four) chiefs of staff. The two talked with Margaret Brennan on CBS' Face the Nation.

Perez is hopeless, IMO - and barely quotable, which this close to an election is an offense the party should really deal with - you know, sit him at a desk opposite whatever three famous Dems will be willing to do it, and summarily dismiss him a la the Celebrity Apprentice. Or tweet his fake resignation letter, or something. 

Priebus is still relatively unlikeable, but at least he does a halfway decent interview, defends his candidate at every turn, and attacks the other guy. Here he is talking about what's left of the time on the calendar before Election Day.

I mean, you know, clearly, I think one of the things that you're going to see over the next couple of weeks is that the President's going to be pivoting, talking about the economy. I think this upcoming debate is going to be really important that the President is that, you know, likable, fun, have a good time. 

I don't think Trump had much fun at the debate, given the rules, do you? 

Midweek, I was Wondering on Wednesday about all kinds of stuff, including alleged foreign election interference, but more about the actual domestic election interference being done by the Republicans, or at least by their minions. I gave an earlier example, of the Trump-loving conservative activists were charged for making threatening robocalls, which to me is worse than Iranians making threatening robo-mails. Why? Um, because they're Americans...

I was also talking about the new Ukraine-China stuff that's being dripped out by Rudy Colludy, and the Republicans who are actively complicit in this, or passively so.

And I wonder if I'm the only one wondering if they think releasing this will make more people vote for the ethically-challenged, debt-challenged, Russia-challenged, China-challenged, taxpayer-soaking, lying, bullying, corrupt president, or if they think this will make fewer people vote for the other guy, giving the ethically-challenged, debt-challenged, Russia-challenged, China-challenged, taxpayer-soaking, lying, bullying, corrupt president a better shot at re-election?

I have my ideas on that, how about you? 

Thursday, I did a PPOD  post - that's Pet Peeve of the Day - on the damn Democrats and how horrible they are, once again, at managing PR. This time, the target of my wrath at my former party was the posters-in-chairs boycott of the Senate Judiciary Committee vote to advance the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the full Senate.

I could do a 'Dems are dumb' PPOD at least monthly, I'm sure, without having to stretch my research muscles enough to even wake up my Fitbit. I could have done a dozen just on the impeachment, for Pete's sake.  This time, my own Sen. Chuck Schumer was the focus of my wrath, for a variety of reasons, including these.

I hate to point out that this silliness, during an election where perhaps the highest priority is gaining the majority in the Senate, is not likely to be the kind of thing that's going to push an undecided voter to choose blue. Worse, it might be just the thing to embolden the red guys in the several very close Senate races that the Dems need to win to get the majority. Why feed the beast?

And, with a 17% approval rating for Congress as a whole - the lowest it's been in a year - why don't you at least show up?

And finally, I closed the week with a stranger-than-usual TGIF entry. I had planned on talking seriously about the debate but first I found myself channeling Trump in his post-presidential book, and channeling Melania, as if she was the one who had control of the president's demeanor during the debate. Those two parts were fun to write, for sure.

In summarizing the debate (and I did offer a possible explanation in the post for my take on things), I offered this.

If I were to sum up the night as simplistically as possible, it would be like this: in Donald Trump's world, we'll be kept all warm and fuzzy by surrounding ourselves with piles of really outstanding 401(k) statements and oil company stock certificates and drugs and vaccines while we sit in bars sharing food off the plates of strangers, and if we need them, we have cages for people who don't want to do that, really nice cages Obama built, while in Biden's world, we'll be kept all warm and fuzzy by masks and by surrounding ourselves with allies that trust us, and 'we' includes everyone no matter where they live, even if they were brought here as babies and toddlers from another country by their parents. 

There you have it - the full and veritable pastiche from last week.  See you later for Sunday School.  

TGIF 10/23/20: The Final Debate

TGIF indeed - it's Friday, and that means we don't have any more presidential debates this cycle. And it means that, whether he wins or loses, the president won't be participating in any more of these debates.  

Stepping away for a moment for a standing ovation is fine; I did the same, I surely did. And I remembered reading about the 42-minute-long standing ovation Leontyne Price received at the Met back in '61, and immediately thought that Trump will get a longer one if he loses. 

He'd be proud of that, I'm sure, and he'd tout it in his next book, I'm sure, as one of his great accomplishments: 

When I lost the rigged election, it was rigged and I fought but in the end I lost because everyone was against me, the deep state and the IRS and Pelosi and even the Supreme Court, after I put those three judges there, they all turned on me in the end, you can't trust anyone these days, they turned on me, and all the blue state governors I helped so much during the pandemic when they were nice to me - I helped them, even they admit it, just ask them, at least they did admit it when it was good for them but not any longer, I guess - I got the greatest standing ovation, probably even greater than the late, great Abraham Lincoln - he was almost as great as me, they say, at least some people say, maybe, I don't think he even comes close, really, but that's what they say -  "Sir, Lincoln was almost as great a president as you," that's what they say, I don't know; I got the greatest standing ovation since Lincoln attended that play, or maybe since that black lady sang that song in NYC, horrible what happened to NYC, I used to love it there, but I had to move, like everyone else, bodies piling up everywhere, and taxes, it's horrible what de Blasio and Cuomo did to my city - she was an opera singer, right? I didn't know blacks could sing opera, did you? And she wasn't even fat - how can you sing opera if you're not fat? I mean, that's where the whole 'it ain't over 'til the fat lady sings' come from, right? Fat lady opera singers? It's a good thing they can sing, no one likes a fat lady, right? I remember one time I said I'd go into the crowd at one of my rallies and kiss all the beautiful women, and the good-looking men, and I even said I'd kiss the rest of them, but not, you know, the 'opera singers,' if you know what I mean... Great ovation I got - the people stood and clapped for hours, not just 42 minutes like they did for her. I think some of them are probably still clapping now. Greatest ovation ever, by far, especially if you count the internet and all the networks, even MSDNC and fake news CNN and the papers, the failing New York Times and the Bezos Post and all the rest, add it all up and it was probably the greatest standing ovation since Jesus. I love the evangelicals, and they love me, and I can imagine how hard they clapped for me, all I did for them. I did a lot for them, and they know it, and they hopefully will never forget it. What an ovation, it was really something, wasn't it? Greatest ovation ever.

Anyway, back to the debate. 

Kristen Welker of NBC was the first debate moderator of the modern era - the era in which we use long-available technology to threaten to silence, or actually silence both the loudmouth bully and the folksier interrupter, so that we could actually hear their messages.

At the beginning of the festivities, the president looked for all practical intents and purposes as if he was sedated. He seemed to more resemble the cardboard cutout of him I have in the corner of my office, with an impeached sign hanging around his neck, than the image he typically presents. Whether it was drugs, or some kind of shocking device (maybe Melania had a voice-activated one hidden in her mask?

I told the Donald, he can't keep bullying everyone. He needs to #BeBest and like a great First Lady, I will help my husband when he needs me. I know the signs and when I see them, I will shock his bone spurs and he will straighten up and he will not be a bully to the poor old man or to the woman at the desk. He needs to be nicer to the woman at the desk, he needs the women to vote for him. Or we will have to go home. Except we can't go home because he moved us Florida. I miss New York. There is nothing to do in Florida. Maybe if my voice thing doesn't #BeBest I can go home. I want to go home. Je veux aller a la maison. Quiero ir a casa. Ich will nach Hause gehen. Voglio andare a casa. If it doesn't work, "I don't really care, do u?"

Anyway, they talked about a bunch of stuff, including the pandemic, American families, race in American, climate change, national security and leadership.  The president talked about himself, and about Biden's money and "houses all over the place" which was one of the funniest things he's ever said, and about Obamacages and about maybe one day having a thought about having an idea about having a great health insurance plan and protecting pre-existing conditions, as if the goal is to make sure people have them, not that they have insurance that covers them.  Biden talked about the people, and about being a president for everyone whether they voted for him or not, and about not China, and about who the president was running against.

If I were to sum up the night as simplistically as possible, it would be like this: in Donald Trump's world, we'll be kept all warm and fuzzy by surrounding ourselves with piles of really outstanding 401(k) statements and oil company stock certificates and drugs and vaccines while we sit in bars sharing food off the plates of strangers, and if we need them, we have cages for people who don't want to do that, really nice cages Obama built, while in Biden's world, we'll be kept all warm and fuzzy by masks and by surrounding ourselves with allies that trust us, and 'we' includes everyone no matter where they live, even if they were brought here as babies and toddlers from another country by their parents. 

Of course, all of this could be just the hangover fog from the cider donuts and wine that I consumed during the debate.

#MAGAMA.  Please, vote like your life depends on it. Because it does. 

PPOD 10/22/20: Chuck Schumer's Dems

The Senate Judiciary Committee moved the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett on to the next phase, to the full Senate, with a vote likely coming on Monday. I can't think of anything that will stop that from happening, barring some sudden urge to set her nomination aside and, I don't know, consider some legislation, or start another investigation, or something. 

The vote was unanimous, I guess. All twelve Republicans voted yes. All ten Democrats didn't bother showing up to vote.  

Oh, wait. Sorry Excuse me. All ten Democrats boycotted the vote. Sorry if I misrepresented what happened today. I'll let my very own Senator, Chuck Schumer, explain.

Democrats will not lend a single ounce of legitimacy to this sham vote in the judiciary... The nomination of Amy Coney Barrett is the most illegitimate process I have ever witnessed in the Senate, and her potential confirmation will have dire, dire consequence for the Senate, for the Supreme Court, and our entire country for generations to come. The Senate Republican majority is conducting the most rushed, the most partisan, and the least legitimate nomination to the Supreme Court in our nation's history.

Blah blah blah, wah wah wah, sis boom bah.

As a former Dem, I'm (still) embarrassed by what passes for leadership in the party. Between House Speaker Nancy 'Let me clap you back and tear up your speech and fill my quiver with lots of arrows' Pelosi, and Chuck 'I never met a camera I didn't like' Schumer (there are others, too), it's hard to look at the leadership of the party with any respect. (Pelosi herself has been a PPOD recipient in the past.)

Rather than skipping out on the meeting, the adult thing to do would have been to show up,  explain one more time for the record why it was the wrong thing for the Judiciary Committee to do, respond to whatever statements the Rs made (instead just reading their remarkably similar prepared remarks), and then voting against moving the nomination forward. 

Instead, they put pictures of people who benefited from the Affordable Care Act in their chairs, and hoped that their colleagues on the other side of the aisle would look at those, feel bad, and delay the vote. Not only that, but it seems they also thought that not showing up would mean the vote wouldn't happen. Schumer said "the rules require a quorum" and for the Judiciary Committee, that means at least 9 Rs and two Ds would have to be present to hold a vote. The thought that the rules would apply here, or on any other issue related to Mitch McConnell's relentless march towards as close to a 100% conservative federal judiciary as is humanly possible, is absurd.  (McConnell, too, is a previous PPOD recipient).

I hate to point out that this silliness, during an election where perhaps the highest priority is gaining the majority in the Senate, is not likely to be the kind of thing that's going to push an undecided voter to choose blue. Worse, it might be just the thing to embolden the red guys in the several very close Senate races that the Dems need to win to get the majority. Why feed the beast?

And, with a 17% approval rating for Congress as a whole - the lowest it's been in a year - why don't you at least show up?

For their childishness, for their ill-advised PR stunt, for failing to show up and do their jobs, for thinking the rules would apply, and for pulling this crap now, with so much hanging in the balance, Chuck Schumer and the Judiciary Committee Dems are my Pet Peeve of the Day.

Wondering on Wednesday 10/21/20

Ready... Set... Wonder!

Well, what's to my wondering mind should appear, but an announcement that the FBI is going to make a major announcement about election security tonight. I wonder why people are wondering why that's going to be something about Hunter Biden? 

What else? The president walked out of his 60 Minutes interview, and threatened to release the video himself, taking it out of the hands of the network and interviewer Leslie Stahl. He hasn't said why he walked out but he attacked her, of course, because that's what he does to women who don't agree with him. Sometimes, it's almost like he's so upset about these interviews that he's got blood coming out of his... wherever, or something.

The president is not going to be happy that his own FBI is pointing fingers at Iran and Russia, not Iran and China, right now, live. Apparently these two foreign actors have obtained voter registration info, including perhaps email addresses and are sending fake stuff to people trying to scare them into thinking their votes will not be safe. I don't have to wonder why foreign folks try this stuff, because we've already seen American actors try something similar, including a couple of big fans of the president, who allegedly orchestrated threatening robocalls to Detroit residents, advising among other things that if they voted by mail, their information would be used for mandatory vaccination tracking.

We've got another debate tomorrow night, with mute buttons. Trump people are upset because this means it won't be a cage match, and the president will have to act like, I don't know, a regular person and not scream and shout and bully his way through the questions - no wondering that he's upset about that. And again, it's a woman moderator, Kristen Welker and from NBC, and he hasn't gotten over his 'loss' to Savannah Guthrie on his ill-fated town hall... Biden people are probably less annoyed by the changes, and actually may like them, because that'll cut out Biden's own less-than-presidential comments and interjections when Trump was talking. We'll see if it makes a difference, but I'm not holding out hope that it will.

I wonder if I'm the only one sitting back and watching elected officials who support the ethically-challenged, debt-challenged, Russia-challenged, China-challenged, taxpayer-soaking, lying, bullying, corrupt president summoning all of the available righteous indignation they can muster to try and get Twitter, the media, and Rudy Giuliani, the president's Russia-challenged, Borat-challenged personal attorney to do their work for them? 

And I wonder if I'm the only one wondering why, if this weren't 1000% election interference on the part of said personal attorney and right-wing media, they held back allegedly more damaging information, to be released between now and November 3rd?  

And I wonder if I'm the only one wondering if they think releasing this will make more people vote for the ethically-challenged, debt-challenged, Russia-challenged, China-challenged, taxpayer-soaking, lying, bullying, corrupt president, or if they think this will make fewer people vote for the other guy, giving the ethically-challenged, debt-challenged, Russia-challenged, China-challenged, taxpayer-soaking, lying, bullying, corrupt president a better shot at re-election?

Honestly? I don't wonder about those last three things, at all. For the first, I know I'm not alone. For the second, I know I'm not alone. And for the third, we know it's the latter. 

What are you wondering about?

Sunday School 10/18/20 Extra Credit

For your Extra Credit, I bring you Margaret Brennan's Face the Nation interviews with current DNC head Tom Perez and former RNC head and former Trump Chief of Staff Reince Priebus.

Perez was up first; Brennan wondered about the polls, and more importantly whether the Dems had done enough to drive the kind of voter turnout, whether by mail, or early voting, or voting on Election Day.

Perez said he cautions people to "never get on the 'poller-coaster'," and that they're not taking anything for granted - and he pointed to enthusiasm "all over the country." He said Dems turning ballots in, including a whole lotta Dems who didn't vote in the last two elections.  And they're still focusing on the battleground states.

Brennan mentioned polling from Arizona showing 56% of likely voters blame the Dems more than the Rs for not getting a stimulus bill passed, and wondered if holding out for a big bill might backfire on them. Perez had a bit of an issue trying to answer this one, starting out by pointing to the Amy Coney Barrett SCOTUS nomination, and the bill the Dems passed back in May that the Rs ignored, and what not, eventually landing on how the Dems have been fighting and that this is a "health care election." Brennan pointed out that "fighting, talking and doing are two different things," and that the 'not doing' is why people were pointing fingers at the Dems. 

She moved on to a recent court loss, where the Rs won on a ruling that mail-in ballots must be received by 8PM on Election Day in Michigan, and wondered how that might impact things. Again, Perez meandered around, talking about what happened in Wisconsin back in April, and energy, and early voting and what not. But, when Brennan asked, "so, you don't see this as damaging?" here's what he had to say.

Well, I would rather-- I-- I believe democracy works better when everyone can cast their ballot and every ballot is counted. We're in an unprecedented pandemic here, and courts in other states have allowed votes that were postmarked by Election Day to be counted as long as they're received within a short period of time after Election Day. This court did it differently. I disagree categorically with that ruling. But we are moving ahead in Michigan. We're moving ahead everywhere. And again, the pandemic in Michigan-- the pandemic everywhere. This is a crisis. People understand this President has no plan. His closing argument in Michigan is "lock her up." He's fanning the flames of division. He doesn't have a plan for the coronavirus. He doesn't have a plan--for the economy. He's divisive. Joe Biden is bringing us together...People in Michigan remember that it was Joe Biden and Ba-- Barack Obama who saved the auto industry--when Republicans were letting it die.

 And that was that. Let's see how Priebus did during his turn, starting with the first question: is he concerned about the president's chances, as was reported in the Sunday paper?

No, not at all. In fact, I'm not concerned about that at all. I'm-- I'm-- I'm concerned about early vote. I'm concerned about absentee ballot voting, but I'm always worried about early vote and absentee ballot voting. I haven't reemerged. I have always been helpful to the President, helpful to the RNC. But, look, you know, early vote and where we're-- we're at in a pandemic and having five times more people vote in Florida than ever before, these are unprecedented times. The polling is all over the map. This is something that's going to come down to the wire, and I hope and expect the President to win.

About battleground states, he said poling is tough, and talked about the demographics, "working class white voters, suburban women... rural parts of the country" and how the president is winning, and

pushing thirty points ahead in rural America with enthusiasm off the charts. Yes, it's a little bit down in the suburbs. But the hard thing for these pollsters, Margaret, as you bring up, is that they can't measure this kind of disparity between the rural parts of this country and what's happening in the suburbs.

Brennan asked if he thought Trump was going to win Wisconsin, and Priebus seems to think that's the case. He compared Trump winning in 2016 after being down six-and-a-half points on average in the polls, plus the Libertarian Gary Johnson got over 100,000 votes, so it sounded like he thinks so. 

And when Brennan pointed out that Trump's base, the white, non-college-educated voter that turned out in droves for him shrinking, at current polling anyway, Priebus said 

I mean, you know, clearly, I think one of the things that you're going to see over the next couple of weeks is that the President's going to be pivoting, talking about the economy. I think this upcoming debate is going to be really important that the President is that, you know, likable, fun, have a good time. Let Joe Biden speak, and let Joe Biden defend the Obama economy. Let him defend why ISIS was running wild and burning people in cages...

They agreed it's hard to predict what's going to happen, particularly with the pandemic looming large, and that it's hurting the president with voters. In response, Priebus fell back on the go-to talking points, the China travel ban, the task force, the CARES Act, and added

Well, look, I mean, granted, Margaret. Sure, no one likes what's going on in this country. No one likes that their kids are at home and no one likes that a lot of these states are shut down by Democrat governors. That's all true-- but the question is would this person over here, Joe Biden, have done things better or differently?

He also said he thinks Thursday's debate will make a difference for the president. 

"We'll be watching," Brennan said. I'll try again, but how long I last all depends on which ring of the circus we're facing.

See you around the virtual campus. And if you submit your comments to me after the debate on Thursday, you'll really get some extra credit!

Sunday School 10/18/20

Folks, tonight I have for you an interview with Lara Trump who, along with Kimberly "The Best is Yet to COME!!!" Guilfoyle, is one of the $15,000-per-month hidden campaign payroll women who are close to Trump sons. 

Lara, who is Eric Trump's wife, sat down with Jake Tapper on CNN's State of the Union for a fascinating exercise in classroom futility. It started, as Tapper's recent sessions have, with his lament at the lack of availability of anyone - literally anyone - from the White House to talk about important things, or should I say, things related to the coronavirus. 

Tapper asked her about the president's rally the other day when Mr. Trump suggested that we "lock them all up" as the crowd chanted to lock up Michigan's Gretchen Whitmer. And what did Mrs. Trump think about all of that? Well, she said, "it was the president's Department of Justice that actually thwarted" the plot against Whitmer, and that in Michigan, she thinks people "still feel like they are totally locked down" and "want to get back to some normalcy."

When Tapper pointed out that policy disagreements are one thing, but this kind of rhetoric is unhelpful, and maybe "the president should tone it down when talking about people about home there have literally been threats against their lives," Trump said she can show him her own social media and threats against her and her children, and that "this is not just on one side..." Tapper said threats against her are detestable, but pointed out that Joe Biden isn't encouraging this kind of thing - and if he were, Tapper would be calling on Biden to tone it down as well. 

Seeing that her argument wasn't going anywhere, she turned to a different tactic.

Well, look, this is - he wasn't doing anything, I don't think, to provoke people to threaten this woman at all. He was having fun at a Trump rally... There are issues at hand here that are bigger than just keeping everybody locked down. So I think people are frustrated. And look, the president was at a rally. It's a fun, light atmosphere. Of course he wasn't encouraging people to threaten this woman. That's ridiculous.

That's one word for it, I guess. 

Tapper moved on to Trump's problem with women, like the ones in a video he shared who have concerns about how the president has handled the pandemic, and asked how she would respond to them. She hit all the required talking points, including slamming Biden on his "lucrative" connections to China, and added "we have therapeutics that the president, the president himself, has proven by using them and coming over COVID. He's done with COVID now, and they work." And, she added, "the president has done, actually, an incredible job, Jake, with the coronavirus."

Tapper tried to explain the numbers, including the highest death rate in the world. She said that "we're coming out of it, we're seeing the death rate decrease dramatically." And, 

We also have a huge population. Whenever you want to compare us to Canada, compare us to Europe. We're doing actually much better than Europe is... not only with the virus, but financially. We are. These are numbers. You can go look them up. 

"Look them up! Look them up!! Look them up!" Look up those pesky facts, if you want to. Perhaps she should?

And when she said "Joe Biden, with the socialist policies he's trying to implement, would actually ruin America," Tapper gave up and tried to shift to "some questions where we can get direct answers."

• "I assume the answer is yes," that the president tested negative before the first debate, but she wasn't there and didn't know for sure.
• "Again, I -- I don't work in the White House. You will have to ask the president that directly (whether he'll release a negative test for everyone to see before Thursday's debate). He just had COVID. He has now been cleared of COVID, so that means he's had a negative test. I'm sure he will have another one before he goes to this debate."
• "If we're asked to wear masks, we will absolutely do so" at the debate."
• "We know that people get out of the White House and they get very lucrative book offers. They get speaking engagements, where paid a lot of money, Jake, to go out and say very negative things about this president," regarding comments from General John Kelly.

Tapper moved on to comments she and the president had made about Joe Biden's stutter (here's my Sidebar on that), and asked her how it makes kids with stutters feel when she makes fun of people like them.

LT: First and foremost, I had no idea that Joe Biden ever suffered from stutter. I think what we see on stage with Joe Biden, Jake, is very clearly a cognitive decline. That's what I'm referring to. It makes me uncomfortable to watch someone on stage search for questions and  try and figure out an answer.

JT: You have no - you have - I can't -  it's so amazing - it's amazing to me that... "a cognitive decline." You...

LT: Well, when you're trying to tell me that what I was suggesting was stuttering... 

JT: I think that you were mocking his stutter.

LT:  ...I had no idea Joe Biden...

JT: Yes, I think you were mocking his stuffer.

LT: Of course I wasn't, Jake. Wow. 

JT; And I think you have absolutely no standing to diagnose somebody's cognitive decline, especially...

LT: I'm not diagnosing, I'm saying that we see the Joe Biden of today is not the Joe Biden of five years ago, of ten years ago.

JT: I would think that somebody in the Trump family would be more sensitive to people who do not have medical licenses diagnosing politicians from afar. Plenty of people have diagnosed (the president) from afar. I'm sure it offends you. You don't have any standing to say...

LT: I'm not diagnosing him.  What I'm saying, Jake...

JT: You just talked about a cognitive decline.

LT: ...is that we can clearly see that Joe Biden is struggling...

JT: I have one last question for your, Lara. You campaigned...

LT:  ... at many times on stage. And that's very concerning to a lot of people that this could be the leader of the free world. That's all I'm saying.

JT:  Thank you, Lara Trump.

LT.  I genuinely feel sorry for Joe Biden.

JT. I appreciate it.  I'm sure it was from a place of concern. We all -- we all believe that. Lara Trump, thank you so much.

And that was the end of their chat. 

Let me know your thoughts in the comments. Do you think Lara Trump is concerned about Joe Biden? Or do you think she's being a Trump and making the kind of comments her husband, brother-in-law, and father-in-law are known for? And how would we know for sure? Drop a comment, if you like.

See you around the virtual campus - masks on, of course.

In Case You Missed It (v58)

Last week was a sparse week for posts - I decided to spend time enjoying life rather than aggravating over all of the craziness out there in the world.  

That said, here's your week in review; grab your cuppa, a mimosa, or a Bloody Mary and dive in.

For your Sunday School entry, I checked in with Margaret Hoover, who does some pretty good interviews with folks on Firing Line. A conservative, Hoover's not trying to break news on her show, I don't think; instead, she's trying to give us a good look at a single interviewee over the course of her 30 minute show. I think it's an effective format, and I'm going to pay more attention to her show. 

Last week, she talked with Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) about the stimulus (she prefers a comprehensive bill because it allows for negotiation more than one-off bills do) and about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's 25th Amendment bill (wrong thing, wrong time), and about the coronavirus pandemic. Here's an exchange on what might have been different under a Democratic administration.

It's not even about a Democratic alternative. If the COVID response had actually even just followed any type of scientific recommendations you would see a much better response and fewer death rates and spread of the virus than it had under President Trump.

But, she added, it's more than that.

I've watched Republican administrations respond to pandemics, specifically as President Bush did. So I would think it's not just about Democrats or Republicans, it's about president Trump's failures. 

Not sure anyone can really argue with that.

Your Extra Credit entry included Margaret Brennan's um, question-and-no-answer session, I guess you'd call it, with RNC Chair Ronna McDaniel. I'm not going to quote that one here; you can read it and weep at your leisure. 

Also on the show? Leonard Schleifer, the head of Regeneron, the company that makes the 'cure' that the president got at Walter Reed when he went there to work for a few days, and have his picture taken and stuff. Oh, sorry -- and to get treated for COVID-19, sorry. Among the things we learned? His company has a huge government contract to make the drug, which was worked out 

...before we actually had any data from randomized trials. They went ahead and said, listen, you start manufacturing the product, we will commit to buy it from you. Stop manufacturing the other products that you're working on or move them elsewhere. And let us make sure that if it does work, it'll be available. And what the government said--

That's a $450M contract for Regeneron, and Brennan wondered how much supply that will buy.

Well, they bought from us several hundred thousand, maybe around three hundred thousand doses, which they are going to make it for free. What I think that the administration has been working recently-- I saw an announcement with-- with AstraZeneca. Look, we need-- Regeneron can't do this alone. We need the entire industry. And I'm so proud the industry has risen. We have companies like Lilly, great companies. We're partners with Roche, one of the best companies in this whole field. Amgen is involved. AstraZeneca is involved. Black-Scholes is involved. We all have to step up-- if we're going to provide enough of this.

Brennan pointed out that, last Friday alone, we saw nearly 60,000 new cases, and in Regeneron's FDA application for emergency use authorization, the company said they had 50,000 doses - less than a current one-day supply...

It's important to note that Regeneron is just one of several companies the government has committed a boatload of taxpayer money to - some $2B -  on the hopes that their therapeutics and vaccines will work. 

Mid-week, I was Wondering on Wednesday about the SCOTUS hearings in the Senate, about the 'too bad, so sad' outcome of the DOJ's investigation into the 'unmasking' of Michael Flynn - no charges will be issued -  and about masks and stuff. On that last point, I shared this experience from a visit to a restaurant when My Sweet Baboo and I were on a road trip. 

Two gentlemen and  'face coverings required for entry' signs attracted my attention.  Gentleman A came in with who appeared to be his wife and two kids, fully and appropriately masked. However, his mask was tucked firmly against the underside of his nostrils. Gentleman B, one of two who arrived together on separate motorcycles, apparently didn't have a mask or doesn't wear one, but he tried to rise to the occasion today by holding his t-shirt in his teeth and tucking his nose down so it pointed into his shirt. 

And I wonder, first of all, why they thought what they were doing was appropriate and in keeping with the requirement? And secondly, why did the waitress allow them to come in when clearly the potentially dangerous parts of their faces were uncovered? And finally, specifically regarding Gentleman B, how on earth did I keep from busting out laughing? 

How, indeed. 

By far, my favorite post of the week was Thursday's: my  Town Hall Questions for the Candidates, in which I asked the questions I've always wanted to ask Trump and Biden. For example, since the media only talks to Biden about the coronavirus, and his campaign primarily talks to us about the coronavirus, I thought I'd ask about policy. You know - immigration, Middle East Peace, infrastructure, and so on. And, I asked about education:

Do you believe that public education funds should be given to parents, directly or through tax breaks, to help cover the costs of sending their children to private elementary or secondary schools?  Please explain your position.

For the president, who likes to focus on 'promises made, promises kept' in his campaign materials, I wanted to know a couple things from him that are immigration-related. For example, 

How much money has the United States charged Mexico for the border wall, how much of that has been paid, and what are your plans to collect any outstanding balance from the Mexican government?

And this one, too.

What specific steps has your company taken to ensure that you no longer hire undocumented workers at your properties, and should other companies be required to take the same steps?

Promises, blah blah blah. 

That was all I published. I did have a TGIF post that I threw in the trash, because the words weren't really flowing well. All I managed to get on the page was this picture.

It seemed unfair to post that without any explanation - do you agree?

Have a great day - - I'll be back later with your Sunday School.