Sunday School 12/26/21

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You goddamn old senile (EXPLETIVE DELETED). You're as old and ugly as Biden. You ought to get the (EXPLETIVE DELETED) off the planet, you (EXPLETIVE DELETED) foul (EXPLETIVE DELETED). They ought to (EXPLETIVE DELETED) try you for treason. (EXPLETIVE DELETED) you and every one of your scumbag (EXPLETIVE DELETED) friends. I hope your family dies in front of you. I pray to God, if you got any children, they die in your face. 

In this week's Sunday School, we learned that the diatribe above was left in a message for Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-MI). Dingell and her friend and colleague, Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI), stopped by CNN's State of the Union classroom via pre-taped interview.

Dana Bash hosted the two Michigan representatives, and asked about what she described as a feeling "like a hostile work environment" where things "are reaching a boiling point" on Capitol Hill.

Upton agreed, saying "It's pretty toxic. There's no question about it." He pointed to a recent situation when "one of our members had their words taken down," which only happens when someone refuses to apologize for whatever it was they said. (He could be referring to circumstances surrounding the House censure of Rep. Paul Gosar, not sure.)

Dingell said she's been getting, on average, several threats a week like the one that opened our post, dating back a couple years to when her husband, Rep. John Dingell, passed and she got put in "that Trump hate tunnel." She said the threats don't prevent her from doing her job - and she's not trying to normalize them. It's the opposite, in fact.

I want the American people to think about what's happening in our country, that this kind of hate, this fear is happening in communities across the country. You know, if you even look at that horrific shooting that killed children in our state...he was living with parents that had some of that. We need to really worry about our democracy, and find a way that you can disagree with people and do it in a civil and agreeable way. And it really does have me very worried.

Upton echoed her concerns, pointing out that there have been copycats after the Oxford shooting, so "we have had a number of schools across our state that have been closed all over because of some of the threats, one of them in my district by an 8-year-old."

They both agreed when Bash asked if they're "connecting the toxic environment on a national political level to what you're seeing on a local level."

So, are we screwed? Have we lost who we are? Is it hopeless? Nope. Dingell said she doesn't "want to be all negative here," pointing to positive experiences with constituents, and that

-- we're Fred and Debbie. We don't want to be anything but Fred and Debbie, including from you, Dana. And people talk to us, but there is a lot of fear and hatred and people scared about what's going to happen to themselves. And we need to listen to each other more. And we need to -- if you look at de Tocqueville, who came over in the early 1800s and talked about the strength of democracy, it was community. And we have got to remind ourselves, in community, that coming together really is the pillar of our democracy.

Upton noted that he worked for Sen. Bob Dole (R-KS), and how "it was a whole different climate back then."

And it was a reminder to all of us that, 'how do we get the trains to run on time?' 'How do we work together, be -- maybe disagree on issues, but not be disagreeable?' And that's -- he had the best wit, but he got things done. He had wonderful relationships with either Republicans or Democrats down at the White House or certainly with his colleagues in both the House and the Senate.

How different things are now, at least as far as we know? I say "as far as we know" because there aren't enough interviews like this one, colleagues from across the aisle talking about their shared experiences and shared outlooks, for us to think that this is the norm, and what we see in other classrooms is not the norm: A Dem followed by someone from the GOP (or vice versa), discounting both policy and personality as if there's only enmity, never amity.

Dingell noted that she and her colleagues - even Upton - could have "very strong disagreements" on policy and still be friends. Upton's response? "And I will always make her laugh at the end of it."

The final question from Bash? "What can people look to, beyond the vitriol, to see their government actually working? Is there some bright light -- or maybe dim light that you can show that exists?" Here's Dingell's take on that.

Well, I mean, I think it has to be a bright light... I have a lot of other friends on the other side of the aisle. And what we need to do is to, all of us, get back to just remembering how much we have in common, just respecting each other, treating each other with dignity. And I say to everybody, a little act of kindness towards anybody can make the difference in that person's day, week, or life.

And here's Upton's: 

As we look towards '22 coming, it's going to be a tough year. We see it in Michigan. We're the number one hot spot in terms of COVID. What can we do, working together, to try and help our hospitals, our heroes, our workers, families to make sure they don't get this? I just had a neighbor die of COVID... I mean, if we don't work together, we're not going to get this thing solved.

Bash thanked them "for this image, this discussion to show there is bipartisan discussion and relationships, even in this tumultuous time..."  

Hopefully elected officials - and yes, regular folks like you and me - found some of that 'discussion' thing and that 'relationship' thing under their Christmas trees. And before you yell at me, 'Christmas trees' here refers to the spirit of the multiple holidays people celebrate late in the year, and to the increased light that comes with the solstice, and to the sense of humanity we demonstrate in times of pain or tragedy. 

We just need to figure out how to demonstrate it before we inflict any more pain or tragedy on each other.

See you around campus.

Sunday School 11/21/21

For this week's Sunday School, we'll start with Dana Bash and her State of the Union chat with Gov. Chris Sununu (R-NH), and then check in with Margaret Brennan for her conversations with Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) and Ted Cruz (R-Cancun) on Face the Nation.

Sununu agrees that "everyone likes" the kind of things that are in the Build Back Better bill (BBB) passed by the House - clean energy, climate incentives, universal pre-K, and so on. That's good, but the "immense amount of money" is an issue. He thinks 

fiscal responsibility has left the window out of Washington, DC, and I think that's a frustration for all Americans. 

Inflation "is the worst tax you can put on low- and middle-income families, he added; the answer is finding the middle - and that takes more than cutting the size of the spending.

You do it by looking at what happens at a local level. How do you make sure these programs can get implemented? Remember, the Senate supports a policy. They support funding. And then they go on to the next thing. It's governors and the citizens in local communities that have to implement these programs and that feel the real cost of them. 

He also mentioned, without any detail and without follow up from Bash, that in February, the feds are putting in regulations that will bring "further barriers to getting a CDL license, just getting someone a trucking license." According to the NYS DMV website, the new federal "barriers" include ensuring that new drivers are, you know, trained to be drivers. Oh, the horror.

Sununu turned down a Senate run, saying "as a governor, you can actually play defense and protect the interests of your citizens" from what happens in Washington. And that includes his belief that "politics in its entirety on both sides of the aisle in Washington is screwed up. I mean, it really is," mostly due to them focusing on the wrong priorities.

I agree with a lot of what he said about Washington; how about you?

For her part, Sen. Gillibrand said Sen. Joe Manchin "has come a long way" on paid family leave, and he's "come forward with a lot of really smart questions" in the past few weeks. They both want it to be "an earned benefit" and she's "optimistic" they can come up with something that's bipartisan. The problem is, other Rs who are interested in paid leave aren't interested in what Manchin's looking for. 

Specifically on Manchin's desire to strengthen the "social safety net," Gillibrand says that's what paid family leave will do. 

We know if it's parental leave, parents, mothers are 40% more likely to get back to work if they have paid leave, which goes to Sen. Manchin's concerned that he wants to strengthen our social safety nets. He wants to strengthen Social Security. That's what paid leave does. It gets people back to work. 

They talked about the increase in the SALT deduction cap, which the House bumped up from $10K to $80K, which she hopes will make it through the Senate. Brennan failed to ask Gillibrand what she was doing back home to get NY to reduce taxes, instead of putting this massive benefit to the wealthy in the BBB. While she says the increase will help the middle class, it would give about 40% of the overall benefit to folks making between $366K and $866K, according to the Tax Policy Center. 

Gillibrand also said she thinks Dems are getting the message out now that voters should stick with them in the midterms. And, they'll be doing that even more once the darn thing is signed, when they'll be in their districts talking about how the bill helps families and how that helps the economy.

Brennan wondered if Senator Cruz he agreed with fellow potential 2024 candidates Nikki Haley and Tom Cotton that we should fully boycott the Beijing Olympics. He thinks the Olympics should have been moved to another location, but not with a full boycott.

You know, Jimmy Carter tried that in the 1970s. All it did was punish a generation of athletes. We've got young men and young women, Americans, who spent their whole lives practicing for this moment. I don't want to punish those young athletes.

He agrees with the administration (without agreeing with Brennan that he agrees), on a "so-called diplomatic boycott," in which we "try to minimize the attention" by not sending any high-ranking government officials. But wait - there's more.

Number one, that we actually show the courage the Women's Tennis Association is showing to call out the murder, the genocide, the torture, the lies, the complicity in COVID-19 of the Chinese communist government to speak the truth. And then number two, I really hope our young men and women, that they go over there and kick their commie asses. We need to win in the Olympics.

He'd also like to see corporations "show a tiny bit of courage" and not do any Olympic-related advertising; he thinks that would make sense.

And finally, is Cruz running for president? He said he has "no idea what's going to happen in 2024" and that the Former Guy has a decision to make - is he running, or is he not. Aside from that, 

I can tell you that- that when I ran in 2016, we came incredibly close. I came in second. There's a long history of runner-ups becoming the next nominee, and it was the most fun I've ever had in my life. But there's a lot of time between now and 2024.

See you around campus.

Guess What: You Live in a Bubble, Too

Like many, I've seen lots of articles and news stories and videos and memes and celebratory posts and agonized posts about the verdict in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial. 

Many of them suggest that people like me are idiots. We're a bunch of poor, hated, misguided libtard snowflakes blah ditty blah blah blah because we have an opinion that disagrees with the opinion of the people who are "right" about the trial. 

 

According to the folks I'm referring to, I live in a leftist bubble, and I'm incapable of forming an opinion; all my thoughts are being spoon-fed from the mainstream media. This message is for them.

You may not agree, but you live in a bubble, too. 

The news media that you follow, the pundits and talking heads you pay attention to, the memes you read, the posts you share, say that Kyle Rittenhouse didn't do anything wrong, and that anyone who's outside your bubble simply hasn't been paying attention. 

They say that he was only defending himself, and that he had every right to be there, and that him wandering around with a gun fortunately long enough to keep him from being charged with a gun crime was fine, and no one should have thought twice about that. They say he used his gun with skill and responsibility.

They say that no one should have been concerned about this baby-faced teenager, in his blue gloves for "helping people" and his gun slung over his shoulder, running around during a riot that started as a protest because people were angry because a black man, once again, was shot by police, who were found to have done so righteously, once again.

They say that the fact that he was "appreciated" by the police, for helping, or for whatever it is they thought he was doing, means that whatever it was he was doing is OK. They say that a good guy with a gun is as good as the police, because the police can't be everywhere at the same time. They suggest that you can be Kyle Rittenhouse, if you want, and that there shouldn't be consequences if that's the choice you make.

They say that he brought the gun to the riot not for self-protection, but to protect businesses, and that his carrying the gun signaled no intent to use it, and that he only killed two people and wounded a third because they 'came at him,' a kid - a child - carrying a rifle in a riot. 

They tell you that it's perfectly OK for a judge to say that the men Rittenhouse shot could not be called victims, because that was prejudicial. They tell you that it's OK to be prejudicial to the victims, but it's not OK to be prejudicial to the defendant, the only person on trial for what happened, the man-child of the hour. 

They tell you that his two dead victims had criminal records, and they therefore deserved what they got. The third, the one who lived, also had trouble with law enforcement, and he deserved what he got, too. Those criminal charges have nothing to do with Kyle Rittenhouse, and nothing to do with the riot, but that doesn't matter, because they were bad men and, honestly, who cares about them anyway?

They tell you that anyone who doesn't agree with you is wrong, biased, drunk on the lies fed to them by the mainstream media. They tell you that anyone who disagrees hasn't been paying attention to the trial, because if they had, how could they reach a different decision? 

They tell you we need more Kyle Rittenhouses. Elected officials suggest that Rittenhouse should be in Congress; one very famous resident of your bubble suggested that we need Rittenhouse in the Oval Office; another said we should have a national holiday called Kyle Rittenhouse Day, celebrating his freedom and what he did. 

They tell you that Kyle Rittenhouse was a hero and that everything he did that night in Kenosha was fine. That he did what needed to be done and that if he hadn't had acted, bad things could have happened. 

You know what? They'd tell you the same thing if Kyle Rittenhouse had killed your son, your daughter, your grandchild, your niece or nephew, your neighbor. They would turn on you, your family, your community, in a heartbeat, if it served their purpose.

I don't hear you talking about that, and I don't hear you talking about this stuff, either: 

What about Kyle Rittenhouse? He's not going to prison. He can run for Congress, or be a nurse, a career he might pursue, or be a cop, something he thought he wanted to be when he was growing up. The world is his oyster, as they say. 

He will be in his own personal hell, though, suffering for who knows how long, as he says he does now, from PTSD. At some point, I hope he realizes that it is his decisions, his actions, that caused his personal hell. And I hope that he gets whatever help he needs, when he needs it.

He won't have the luxury of having a private hell, though, because he's been adopted by the right-wing bubble, by the Former Guy's lawyers, the stolen-election crowd, by the lunatics, by the pundits, and they will use him, as they've been doing all along, for as long as it serves their purpose. 

He'll have his memories, the picture of him in his Free as F*** t-shirt, and the posters and the videos and the articles and tapes and the reporting and all the rest of it, to remind him forever of how he was their hero. And I hope he realizes how he was used by a bunch of people who, honestly, don't have half the cojones he has - people who wouldn't even think about making the kind of commitment Rittenhouse made when he went to Kenosha.

I hope all the people who are cheering him today remember him in the future. And I hope people realize that we all lost something with this case. 

Dear Democrats: Can We Talk?

You might not remember me, but I was one of you for decades, up until 2019. If you're interested, here's why I left you. And even if you don't care about me anymore, I still care about you - and I have to say this:

You will officially, completely screw things up 

if you don't get your heads out of the clouds, 

out of the sand, out of the weeds, and out of your caucus,

 and start paying attention. 

Here are some things I think you need to understand, from a person who always votes - but not always for you.

1. Joe Biden won the election, and you hold the majorities in DC, but you've never had a mandate. Biden got more votes not because of his policies, but because so many people who voted for him did so because they despised Donald Trump. I'd guess maybe as much as 30% of his votes came from us - yep, I'm one of them. 

Whether you remember this or not, we remember that Joe Biden was the nominee because the other candidates could not beat Trump. We were sick of Trump, and voted accordingly. But we also remember that the progressives were not hitting it out of the park in the primaries, because most people are not as progressive as you wanted us to be. 

Successfully denying Trump a second term while holding less than 51% of both the House and the Senate do not a legislative mandate make. Any thinking to the contrary is both foolish and foolhardy.

2. You act like a presidential term lasts only from Inauguration Day to Veterans Day. As a result, you prioritize everything equally, which means you prioritize nothing. 

To you, everything is an existential threat. Child Care. Universal pre-k. Climate. Broadband. Voting rights. Billionaires. Health insurance. Student loan debt. Drug prices. Corporate profits. Defunding the Police. Free college. You name it, it's an existential threat - except maybe immigration. You seem to have forgotten about that. 

But are these really threats to our very existence as a country? Are these really threats to the continuation of humanity? Arguably, the only one that meets that level is climate change; the others do not. That doesn't mean they aren't all important - but thinking you must solve all of them at once, coupled with your inability to prioritize them, is ridiculous. 

3.You throw everything you can think of into every bill. We are sick of that, frankly, whether it's you or the other guys doing it. Not to mention, it jeopardizes your chances of getting anything passed. 

Look, I get it. The tent is big, and everyone's got lofty goals and good intentions - but that's a foolish way to legislate.  Need an example? How's this one: what do a code of ethics for Supreme Court justices, requiring candidates for House, Senate, and the Presidency to release ten years of income tax returns, and public financing of campaigns have to do with my right to cast a ballot? Absolutely nothing.

We are not stupid. We know, and you do too, that those provisions were drafted because you wanted to stick it to Trump for not releasing his taxes, because you're mad about how blatantly chummy and political some of the Supremes are, and because you've long wanted to get the other guy's money out of the mix. 

We also know those things will make it nearly impossible to get a voting rights bill passed and signed.

4. You think all elections are a reflection of national politics, and you try and make them so. 

• Look at this ad the Virginia Dems ran against Glenn Youngkin. Why even mention Trump at all?  

• Or, this mailer placed by the New York State Dems against my mayor in Syracuse. No one's ever accused him of any affinity or affiliation with the Proud Boys - no one, until the Dems did. What the actual hell were they thinking?

Where do the state parties get those ideas? Are they getting them from the national parties, or from the various campaign committees? Even if they pull this stuff out of thin air, it's got to stop. 

5. You don't treat voters - particularly your own voters - with respect.

There've long been complaints that you only care about voters when you need them, not when they need you - particularly Black voters. And, you treat us as if we can't possibly understand how important your work is, and that our frustration with your inaction is unfounded. 

You're wrong on both counts. We never asked you for perfection, and we don't have the luxury of waiting for you to craft something perfect. We all need something, and we don't have the luxury of watching you accomplish nothing. You will lose us. You're already losing us. 

6. This cannot be overstated: you are horrible messengers.

• You are comfortable talking about what you're against, but not what you're for.
• You're miserable at marketing. Did you really think Defund the Police could hold a candle to Make America Great Again? Do you think it's helpful to hobnob with the rich while wearing a dress emblazoned with "tax the rich" - when the dress is worth more than a year's salary for someone earning $15/hour?
• You're either uncapable of fighting - or unwilling to fight - the lies told by the other side. Critical Race Theory and immigration are perfect examples. Need another? Election fraud, like the allegations in the VA gubernatorial race. 
• You're great at infighting. Progressives, in particular, are adept at attacking moderates and at making it nearly impossible to accomplish anything. The only people who think that's helpful are your GOP counterparts.
• You still haven't found anyone able and willing to get in front of microphones and in the faces of the talking heads and sell me and everyone else that your really understand what matters to us, what you stand for, how that'll help us, and how you're going to accomplish it. I've said it before, but it bears repeating: you need That Democrat, and you needed them way before yesterday.

In closing, I'd like to let you know that I just sent a thank you note to my Republican congressman; it's the second time I've done that in the past couple of months. I let him know that I'll be voting for him in the midterms next year. 

I didn't want to keep that last part from you, because I know I'm not the only one who's going to do that. I'll continue voting for people who understand what matters, regardless of their party affiliation. 

If you want me to vote for you again, I hope you'll take my advice to heart. 

Thanks. 

Wondering on Wednesday 11/3/21

Ready... Set... Wonder!

I'm wondering untraditionally this week. Instead of entertaining or antagonizing you with my own ramblings, I'm sharing the ramblings of the experts, who are looking in their rear-view mirrors at yesterday's elections.

Biden arrives back in Washington to a political nightmare

Returning to the White House in the dark, Biden declined to answer questions about the race, which he'd incorrectly predicted Democrats would win eight hours earlier. The results had been called a half-hour before Biden touched down at Joint Base Andrews. Aboard Air Force One, people familiar with the matter said the mood was grim as a weary team returned to what has become a swirl of recrimination and second-guessing…

But, Biden said, there's not much that could have been done given historical trends and enthusiasm among Republican voters.

"I think it should have passed before Election Day," Biden said of his legislative agenda, "but I'm not sure that I would have been able to change the number of very conservative folks who turned out in red districts who were (former President Donald) Trump voters. But, maybe. Maybe."

Are the Democrats doomed? 

Even if Democrats regain their footing and recover some lost ground, it is hard to be optimistic. Given the GOP's structural advantage in the U.S. Senate, Democrats would need to win by at least four points nationally just to retain their slim majority next year. And if democracy reforms like national non-partisan redistricting remain stalled in the Senate's legislative mausoleum, Republicans are likely to win the House unless Democrats have the best midterm for either party since George W. Bush's Republicans defied history in 2002. It's hard to see how that happens given what transpired Tuesday. 

Democrats: This is no time to panic 

So if I were a Democratic political strategist, I would recommend three things: One, pass the Biden agenda in the best possible form — hopefully with some of the economic capacity elements included to cut down on inflation — and as soon as possible. This would get some kind of accomplishment on the board and end the humiliating media coverage. (If the party flips out, passes nothing, and spends the next year hiding under the bed, defeat is guaranteed.) 

Two, pass voting rights protections to make Republican cheating harder.  

Finally, pray to every god in the book that the party gets lucky. Campaigns are important, and Democrats should do as much as they can. But the results in Virginia and New Jersey demonstrate no candidate can compensate for wretched conditions on the ground.

Reeling Democrats see threat to House and Senate control as Republicans crack their 2020 coalition

Democratic officials and strategists said that to counteract what unfolded in Virginia — strong anti-Democratic and anti-Biden energy driving the conservative base and suburban independents to vote Republican — the party needs to significantly improve its economic pitch, engage with young voters, voters of color and women under 50 far earlier and more aggressively than they have this year and renew efforts to recruit a more diverse slate of candidates. 

Republicans broke through in Virginia, but not for the usual reasons.

Glenn Youngkin, the Republican candidate for governor, won by making broad gains over Democrats in every part of the state and, apparently, across every demographic group. He gained in the cities, the suburbs and rural areas. He gained in the east and west. He made inroads in precincts with both white and nonwhite voters...

The broad shift to the right could indicate widespread revulsion against Democrats, or it could simply be a sign that longstanding trends have finally run their course. Or perhaps it’s because Mr. Youngkin adopted a message that appealed to the kinds of voters who have gradually been fleeing the Republican Party.

An electoral thumping boosts Democrats' urgency to pass Biden's agenda

"We can never run on just anti-Trump," Jayapal said. "We have to run on the things we do." Democratic pollster Cornell Belcher said the election result should "put a sense of urgency and a fire under" the goal of passing Biden's agenda. "If you look at how upset Americans broadly are about what they see as a dysfunction in Washington, and if you're a rational Democrat, you have to understand we've got to do something, we got to start delivering for the people," he said. 

Democrats misjudge anti-Trump vote in suburban setbacks: The Note 

It means that President Joe Biden is back on American soil Wednesday trying to pick up the pieces of a stalled agenda in addition to a freshly battered party. Biden himself has experience in running against -- and defeating -- Trump. But in Virginia, Biden turned out to be about as unpopular as Trump among voters overall. (There were no exit polls in New Jersey)...

Trump is already claiming full credit, but Youngkin won by keeping some distance between himself and the former president; Democrats were more eager than Republicans to talk about Trump in this year's key races...

For months, Democrats have heard from strategists, analysts and even members of Congress worried that their party has drifted from relevance to people's lives. A similar message has now been delivered from many of the same suburbs that gave them majorities and the presidency. 

What do you think? Are the Dems doomed? Do they have a clue about what voters want? Do they even know why people who voted for them last year did so? Does the rest of the country actually care what happened in Virginia? 

Chime in, if you're so inclined. I'll be sharing my thoughts on this tomorrow.

The Election Eve Post, 2021 Edition

It's that time again - the night before the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. That means it's Election Eve, and time for me to do my absolute best to encourage you to vote.

Odd-year elections aren't usually as exciting as even-year ones, are they? Hardly any ads on local television, and we get a whole lot less political junk mail, right? Turnout is even lower than during the even years, when so many eligible voters don't bother to show up. 

And yet, there's still a lot going on. Some people are choosing governors - most notably Virginia, where it appears that Joe Biden is running against the Former Guy. Or maybe it's Critical Race Theory running against white parents - it's hard to tell, for sure. Most of what we know about that race is brought to us by a media horde desperate for relevance, without a care in the world about how their words influence elections. Or, maybe they've all bet on the race, who knows?

What shouldn't be as hard to figure out are the local races. Picking the people who will be making decisions that directly impact you are the races that are important. County supervisor races and mayoral races and town council races and school board races and the rest - even the race for dogcatcher, if there's such a thing anymore - matter. Those folks, who put their lives on hold, and in some cases these days put their lives in danger - deserve your attention, and your vote. You know what's important to you; find the candidate who also knows what's important to you, or who at least comes close. I hope you have the opportunity to vote for someone, rather than having to vote against someone else. 

If you're an early voter, and have already done your civic duty, thank you. If you're not going to be around and chose to vote by absentee ballot, thank you. And if you're planning on voting  the old-fashioned way - showing up at your polling place on Election Day - thank you. 

But if you didn't vote early, or by mail, and you're not a reliable in-person voter, what's your plan? I hope you're not thinking of doing nothing.

Are you so frustrated with the state of things that you just don't care? I sure hope not! Believe me, I'm frustrated too, with all of the efforts being made to poison the process, make it harder for eligible people to vote, to cast doubt on the process of casting our ballots, and all the rest. 

And here in New York, we've got a handful of ballot initiatives, including some related to how we vote and how our districts are drawn. To me, putting them on the ballot during an off-year is completely wrong - why let the smallest number of voters make the decision? Of course, that's probably why they're on the ballot this year.

Yes - I'm frustrated. I get it if you are too. I'd be surprised if you weren't. But the antidote to that frustration is voting, it's not staying home. 

Use your voice. I don't care if you and I don't agree on a single thing - I still want everyone who is eligible to vote to do just that. The thing that's most frustrating to me is that the people who don't show up are often the ones making the decisions for the rest of us. We can't continue to allow that to happen. 

Tomorrow, Election Day, I'll go do my civic duty. I'll make my Dad, the history teacher, proud. I voted with him as a child, and I've never missed an election. He's been gone since 2007, but I know he knows I'm still doing the right thing. 

As I do every year, I offer the following motivation, in case you're still on the fence. 

After some thought, “I have come to the conclusion that politics are too serious a matter to be left to the politicians." (1) Actually, “The idea of an election is much more interesting to me than the election itself…the act of voting is in itself the defining moment.”(2) And why is it that “When the political columnists say ‘every thinking man’ they mean themselves, and when candidates appeal to ‘every intelligent voter’ they mean everyone who is going to vote for them”?(3) 

We know it’s true that “Bad officials are elected by good citizens who didn’t vote”(4), and that “A citizen of America will cross the ocean to fight for democracy, but won’t cross the street to vote in a national election.”(5) Do we still not realize, after all these years, that “lower voter participation is a silent threat to our democracy… it under-represents young people, the poor, the disabled, those with little education, minorities and you and me”? (6) 

After all, “the vote is the most powerful instrument ever devised for breaking down injustice and destroying the terrible walls which imprison men because they are different from other men” (7) and “to make democracy work, we must be a nation of participants, not just observers. One who does not vote has no right to complain.” (8) 

And complain we do, after every election, when the wrong guy wins. If only people who actually voted complained, it’d likely be a lot less noisy, don't you think? 

Some folks may not vote because they don’t know how to pick the right person. There are a couple different schools of thought on that. On the one hand, some might think that “politics is the art of the possible” (9) while others may subscribe to the thinking that “politics is not the art of the possible, it consists in choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable. And it is true that, the great thing about democracy is that it gives every voter the chance to do something stupid.” (10) 

Said another way, a “Vote (is) the instrument and symbol of a freeman’s power to make a fool of himself and a wreck of his country.” (11) But that’s OK – “personally, I believe that our American system works as long as you participate in it. You must vote and make your voice heard; otherwise you will be left out.” (12) 

It’s generally true that if you “ask a man which way he’s going to vote and he’ll probably tell you. Ask him, however, why – and vagueness is all.” (13) But voting’s really easy; and “all voting is a sort of gaming, like checkers or backgammon, with a slight moral tinge to it, a playing with right and wrong.” (14) And just about everyone likes to play a game every now and then, right? 

The bottom line is, “voting is simply a way of determining which side is the stronger without putting it to the test of fighting;”(15) “voting is a civic sacrament;”(16) and “the future of this republic is in the hands of the American voter.”(17) If all of that seems like too much pressure, you have an out: “Vote for the man who promises least. He’ll be the least disappointing.” (18) 

Please, vote. It really does matter, this year and every year. Honestly, "there is no such thing as a vote that doesn't matter."(19) Besides, "not voting is not a protest. It is a surrender." (20)  

My final pitch?  "Talk is cheap, voting is free; take it to the polls." (21)

If you need information on where to vote, help on 

your ballot, or any other assistance, visit Vote411.org 

or contact your local Board of Elections. 

Lots of people are out there, ready and willing to help. 

(Thanks to these folks for their words of wisdom: 1 - Charles De Gaulle; 2 – Jeff Melvoin; 3 – Franklin P Adams; 4 and 13 – Andrew Lack; 5 - Bill Vaughan; 6 - Nancy Neuman; 7 - Lyndon B Johnson; 8 - Louis L’Amour; 9 – Otto Von Bismarck; 10 – Art Spander; 11 – Ambrose Bierce; 12 - Mari-Luci Jaramillo; 14 – Henry David Thoreau; 15 – H.L. Mencken; 16—Theodore Hesburgh; 17 – Dwight D. Eisenhower; 18 – Bernard Baruch); 19 - Barack Obama; 20 - Keith Ellison; 21 - Nanette L. Avery

Sunday School 10/24/21

Perhaps I'm crazy, but I decided to spend my Sunday School time yesterday with Andrea Mitchell in the Meet the Press classroom. What a frustrating adventure that was. Sen. Roy Blunt (R-etiring at the End of This Term and Never Looking Back) of Missouri. 

Mitchell mentioned comments made by the Former Guy, which I won't repeat, and she asked if Election Day was an insurrection. Blunt's taken a bit of heat for the first sentence of his answer: "You know, I think the election was what it was." Here's the rest of his response.

There's a process you go through that determines whether or not the early reports were the right reports. And we went through that process. And I'm of the view that the best thing that president Trump could do to help us win majorities in 2022 is talk about the future. And he can be an important part of that, this '22 effort. But I think, better off to talk about the future than to focus on the past in every election. Every election should be about the future, and I think that's what this next one's going to be about.

Mitchell gave #TFG more free airtime, mentioning additional comments he made about Arizona and President Biden. And here's how the conversation evolved.

AM:  So he's still talking about the past. And a lot of Republicans, a lot of Republican leaders in the House, other members of the Senate are standing with him on this. Doesn't the party have to disavow the challenge to the election in order to, you know, go forward?

RB: You know, I think President Biden and the Democrats are giving us plenty of things to talk about. We don't need to keep focusing on the past --

AM: But Republicans are. Republicans keep talking about that --

RB: Well, I'm not. And I don't think --

AM: -- and incorrectly.

RB: I don't think many Republicans in the Senate are. I think we're talking about bad tax policies, bad environmental policies, bad national takeover of the election process. There are plenty of things for us to talk about, and I think we're talking about them. I'm there every day, and I hear Republicans concerned, as they should be, about this -- the process that the Democrats are going through right now --

AM: But they're also denying the reality of January 6th. Republicans refusing the commission, not joining the House Select Committee. Steve Bannon, only nine Republican House votes to punish him for violating a House subpoena.

RB: Well, you know, I think a lot of this discussion is obviously driven by the media, just like this is here today. We could be talking about Senate rules. We could be talking about tax policy.

AM: Well, if Republicans were --

RB: We could be talking about --

AM: -- accepting the reality --

RB: -- these new entitlement policies.

AM: It's not the media that's, you know, going against the reality of what happened on January 6th. It was the worst attack on our government, on our democracy since the Civil War.

RB: Oh, I agree with that. In fact, on January the 20th, I was at the podium at the Capitol chairing the inauguration. And that peaceful transition of power that we saw that day is one of the most important things we do. And I was able to chair the inauguration four years earlier. And four years later, it was the same important message we sent to the world. And I think we effectively did that.

AM: Well, to that point, if the former president keeps denying the reality of the election and of Joe Biden being the president, should that disqualify him from being a candidate, as he suggests he wants to be, in 2024?

RB: Well, you know, there are constitutional provisions about being a candidate. And having opinions that other people may not agree with is not one of those provisions. He can be a candidate if he wants to be. But, again, I think what President Trump could do that would be most helpful right now would be focus on the policies that aren't working. You know, his policies at the border were working. His regulatory policies were --

AM: But if he --

RB: -- were working. His tax policies were working. But we see that those policies for Democrats with these narrow majorities they have aren't working. I hope that's where he focuses. But, you know, I don't manage his time --

AM: I know. But if he doesn't --

RB:  -- or his comments.

AM: -- concede the election, would you support him in 2024?

RB: Well, the election for 2020 is over. I'm focused on 2022, and it's a long time between now and 2024.

There was more - focused on #TFG and Liz Cheney and voting rights - finally, a policy question! - and Joe Manchin (who wasn't in the classroom, but he was clearly in Mitchell's head) but really, it was pretty clear she didn't give a hoot about Blunt's answers, or if she did, it was a much smaller hoot than she gave to her own questions and endless interruptions. 

It's seriously time for Meet the Press to have a total reboot - and to boot both Chuck Todd and Mitchell and try something else. This - whatever it's supposed to be - is not working.

See you around campus.

Sunday School 10/17/21

I spent all my Sunday School time in CNN's State of the Union classroom, where Jake Tapper was in the host chair. 

First up? Mayor Pete, er, I mean, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, who was asked, re: the current supply chain issues, if "Americans need to prepare ourselves for it to get worse before it gets better?"  He said that "a lot of" the challenges from this year "will continue into next year," but said that it's not just supply issues, it's demand issues, too.

Demand is off the charts. Retail sales are through the roof. And if you think about those images of ships, for example, waiting at anchor on the West Coast, you know, every one of those ships is full of record amounts of goods that Americans are buying, because demand is up, because income is up, because the president has successfully guided this economy out of the teeth of a terrifying recession.

The ports are handling record volume, he added, but the supply chain - mostly private business interests - can't keep up. He said the administration's role now is "to be an honest broker," and bring everyone together, get commitments and "get solutions that are going to make it easier."

Tapper asked if President Biden would consider lifting the Trump-era tariffs on China, saying it's not a panacea but it would help alleviate some of the supply-side pressures. Secretary Pete said that "every idea is being taken seriously," but the focus now is on the operations side of things, including getting commitments to keep the ports of L.A. and Long Beach open 24/7. 

But, he acknowledged, that's only a part of what's needed. We also have to get the containers out of the port, onto trucks, and off to where we need them. He said the Transportation Department is working with states on getting CDL licenses issued faster, "so we can get more qualified, safe truckers on the road." Passing the infrastructure bill would help, too.

Tapper pointed to the delay on that, and wondered if Buttigieg was "frustrated" by the delay, and if the progressives erred demanding the human infrastructure bill needed to be passed first. He said "the reality is" we need both bills, 

not only to make sure that we have the right kind of infrastructure, but to make sure that life gets better in this country for people trying to raise children and for people trying to participate in the work force. 

And on whether it would make sense for Americans to do their holiday shopping early, or if that would make things worse, Buttigieg was rah-rah about things - including that the holidays will be better this year than last.

... a year ago, millions of Americans were sliding into poverty who now have jobs. And a year ago, a lot of us were gathering with loved ones over a screen. It's going to be different this year because of the president's leadership, because of being able to get more and more Americans vaccinated and make that available free to every American. 

Finally, on the exceedingly rude comments made by Tucker Carlson about Buttigieg taking paternity leave, he said he wasn't apologizing to Carlson (or anyone else), and that all Americans deserve the same opportunity. He also said it was unnecessary to name an acting secretary while he was on leave, in part because he was available to them the whole time.

Rep. Adam Kinzinger was next. As one of the two Rs on the House January 6th committee, he's a guy everyone loves to hate, right?  

The Journal of Unpopular Opinions (Ch. 1)

No one in the leadership of the Democratic Party has what it takes to fight the battles the party is facing, much less win those battles. 

No one else in the Democratic Party is standing up to fight those battles.

No one in the Democratic Party will stand up to fight those battles. They're afraid of something, or of someone, or of the several someones in the part leadership. 

Face it: while Nancy Pelosi is considered by many to be a strong Speaker in terms of how she manages her caucus (although, that seems to be open to question these days), she is a horrible advocate for the Democratic Party and its priorities. 

I've shared my, shall we say, 'lack of enthusiasm' for Pelosi in the past, such as here, when she was re-elected Minority Leader in 2016. She lost 63 votes to Ohio's Rep. Tim Ryan, who expressed then the same frustrations as I have today. I suspect Ryan still has them, too.

...my level of frustration came from the idea that we're going to have, for two more years, the same conversation as we've been having since 2010 (when the Dems lost 63 seats and the House majority in the mid-term election).

And I think the level of frustration in our caucus is as great as I've ever seen it. And it's time to do something about it, not just talk about it. Because now we're not even the national party. We're a coastal party. And we've got to move forward. If we're not going to get voters in Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, go back down south. When I first got in Congress, we had members from Tennessee. We've got to go back there and campaign and get those folks back in the fold.

Ryan also talked about how the Dems don't unify the demographics, but "talk about them and treat them as individual groups" and emphasized that they've

... got to get the message right. We've got to have the right messenger. And we've got to have someone who can not just go on MSNBC, but go on Fox and Fox Business and CNBC, and go into union halls and fish frys and churches all over the country and start a brush fire about what a new Democratic Party looks like.

Ryan is now running for the US Senate; he faces a progressive challenger in the primary. Of course, he does - because one thing Dems are good at is fighting each other.

And don't get me started on Chuck Schumer. I've long not been a fan. Here's a just one illustration of why" having the Judiciary Committee Dems pull a stupid stunt instead of voting against advancing the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett out of committee. Schumer thought that not showing up was the best way to "not lend a single ounce of legitimacy' to the process. My take? 

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.

This is the leader of the Dems in the Senate? Good grief.

The issues facing the country today - and facing the majority Democrats - have not changed over the past many years. The solutions to those problems are still out there, and they're still not being talked about in a way that will bring us to the solutions we desperately need. 

Who is the Democrat who will stand up and say, "before we start taxing the super-rich, why don't we make sure that the tax code doesn't contain 50,000 ways to avoid paying taxes? If they don't have to pay the taxes on the books now, what good is adding more going to do?"

Who is the Democrat who will stand up and say, "with literally hundreds of bills that may limit voting rights under consideration around the country, some already passed into law, why on earth are seven of ten articles in our voting rights bill not related to voting?"

Who is the Democrat who will stand up and say, "Do we really want to require banks to report $600 transactions to the IRS? Is that really the best way to find tax avoidance by the wealthy?"

Who is the Democrat who will stand up and say, "Why aren't we doing everything we possibly can to ensure that existing programs for student loan relief and repayment are accessible and working as intended, instead of pushing to eliminate all student debt?"

Who is the Democrat who will stand up and say, "What the hell are we doing, holding up nearly $2 trillion in infrastructure spending? Why aren't we pushing the bipartisan Senate bill through, getting it signed, and putting that to good use right now?"

Who is the Democrat who will stand up and say, "I don't care how we get it done, but we will have a plan - well before December - on the debt ceiling. Period."

Who is the Democrat who will stand up and say, "Where are the problem solvers? They don't have to be Problem Solvers, but we need to solve some problems, and fast."

I desperately want That Democrat to exist. The one who knows that getting something is better than getting nothing, the one who knows that trying to get Santa to give you everything you've ever wanted since you were three years old, all at once, is insane. I don't know if he or she even exists, but if That Democrat is out there, now is the time to stand up and be heard. Now is the time to read your caucus the riot act. Now is the time to get something done.

What they're doing now is not sustainable, and if they think the shellacking they took in 2010 was bad, wait until they see what happens next year.

Sunday School 10/10/21: Extra Credit

Your Sunday School this week included interviews with Steve Scalise and Janet Yellen. For your Extra Credit, I've got the mess that was Chuck Todd on Meet the Press talking with former White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham, who I hear has written a book.  

Here's Chuck's intro to Grisham.

The White House press secretary is one of the most high-profile jobs in Washington, but you'd be forgiven if you had no idea what Stephanie Grisham looks like. That's because she's the former Trump press secretary who never actually held a press conference.

That's true. Here's a bit of what the WaPo had to say about her tenure.

Unlike her overexposed predecessors, Sean Spicer and Sarah Sanders, Grisham was infamous for being invisible. In her nine months on the job (her tenure lasted from July until her firing on April 7), Grisham never held a White House press briefing. This makes her unique among the roughly 35 people who have held her position. She rarely conducted the smaller informal briefings known as “gaggles” and almost never appeared on TV, unless it was Fox News.

To me, Todd started in the right place: before her book, she had a high-profile job, and for all intents and purposes, didn't do it.  

She has, however, written a book, I'll Take Your Questions Now. - Get it? - What I Saw at the Trump White House. It is a rather chatty account of her time with Team Trump, where she also was chief of staff to Melania Trump, who has responded to Grisham's book this way, quote, "Ms. Grisham is a deceitful and troubled individual who doesn't deserve anyone's trust." So, with that, Stephanie Grisham joins me now. Ms. Grisham, welcome to Meet the Press.

So, maybe we should delve into that first part, the 'not doing her job' part, at least a little? I mean, she's there to answer questions, right? Wouldn't the first question be, "before we get to the book, I've got to ask. Why didn't you ever engage with the press? Wasn't that your primary job, as press secretary?"

Oh, heck no - it's Chuck Todd, after all - so that didn't happen. Here, in order, are the questions he did ask,  and excerpts from her answers.

So, I want to start with you explaining why viewers tonight, today, should trust what you say in response to my questions. Because you lay out in the book, you admit you were, many times in Trump world you're asked to misinform or perhaps lie on behalf of the boss. So, you're doing a tell-all now. Why should we believe you? In short, I don't have anybody to answer for anymore... And I thought to myself, if I'm going to write a book, I want to write something that is just honest and brutal. And, you know, I don't spare myself in there either. 

I would have asked: "You say you don't spare yourself in the book; can you give us an example? And, following up, how does that make us want to trust you now?"

So, I'll just start with some of the things. Do you regret not resigning sooner? You waited until January 6th. After seeing everything you saw for four years, you wait until January 6th, some might argue the day everybody was wanting to run for the hills from Team Trump. Why did you wait so long? ...for about the last six months, I actually tried to resign a couple of times and Mrs. Trump talked me out of it... But absolutely, to answer your question, I do regret it...

I would have asked: "She talked you out of it? Can you give us some insight to those conversations? And, can you share anything you said in your resignation letter?"

When do you believe -- do you believe President Trump thinks he actually lost the election or not? I do think he believes it. That's been part of what has been scaring me as I've been watching from afar... I honestly thought this was a lot of his bluster, which you know, he's good at doing. He was doubling down. He'll never admit to losing, et cetera, et cetera. I thought he was going to just kind of raise some money so he could pay off legal bills, et cetera. But I think now, because his base is reacting to him the way that it is... and very, very few Republicans are refusing to speak up about, you know, his role in January 6th, but also this current attack on democracy with regard to election integrity, I think he is going to run again.

I would have asked: "Is there anyone you think would be able to talk him out of running again? Mrs. Trump, maybe? Is this something that would fall to Jared and Ivanka to do? Or is there no one in his circle who has that kind of influence with him?"

(Referencing his interview with Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse just before he talked with Grisham) ...do you have an idea of who was helping sort of fund and back these crazy claims of the president and his former chief of staff, Mark Meadows? Well, certainly, I know, you know, as does the public, that there was Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell and some of those characters. I do know that there were a lot of private meetings in the residence taking place that were perhaps not taking place in the White House where there would be public documents about that... I don't have a specific name. I don't think it was one person. I think there were probably a few.

I would have asked: "Were you involved in or informed about any of those meetings? Can you give us any hint as to who the attendees were - was Mrs. Trump involved, was it administration officials or outsiders, or both? Did Meadows talk to you about keeping the meetings quiet, or give you information for Fox News or any other outlets?"

So, walk me through election night and the day after. There seems to be some evidence that he was accepting what was happening with the results and then something changed. Can you pinpoint it? I can't. I was with Mrs. Trump most of the night, to be honest with you...So, I think he just refused to give up. I mean, it's Donald Trump, right? And he will never admit to being wrong or to losing anything...I think one thing he's gotten really good at or he did get really good at as president is taking advantage of the base and this group of people who are, you know, so desperate for a voice, which I understand and support. But I think they're being taken advantage of now. And I think he knows they'll do whatever he says.

I would have asked: "You say you "understand and support" the people who are so desperate for a voice, but at the same time, you don't think Trump is the right person to help them. What message would you give his supporters? If Trump's not the right guy, who is? Where do they go instead?" 

Did you get taken advantage of by him? You know, it was interesting to me that you sort of admit that you got into that White House and perhaps you wouldn't have gotten there with another campaign. Did he take advantage of you? I think, I don't want to pin that on him. I definitely got very excited to be around this glamorous world of the Trumps. And certainly, when I got into the White House, you do get heady with power. I don't know that he took advantage of me in that regard. I think that that was my own weakness there.

I would have asked: "I can't help wondering, would there even be a book if you had only worked for Melania Trump? In hindsight, is there anything you would have done differently? Do you regret working for the administration?"

You know, I've heard from several former Trump staffers, some of whom share your concerns about him, but say that every decision you made was always in the best interest of yourself. Whether it was to stick in order to get a good job in the White House or, now, to do a tell-all when you need to make money. What do you say to that criticism? Well, two things. If there are people who are sharing my same concerns, I wish they would speak up, because looking back, I don't think is what's as important in terms of personalities and who did what and why. But I would disagree with that wholeheartedly. When I was in the White House, I lost a lot of friends and a lot of family. And I think I lost a little bit of my own moral compass.... And now, leaving, you know, yes, I got paid to write a book, but you cannot put a price tag on what is happening to me now. The right is mad at me, the left is mad at me. My family is getting threats. I'm being smeared. I'm being sued.

I would have asked: "Your family is being threatened? I know it might be difficult, but can you talk about that a little?" 

You said one of the reasons you're speaking out is you hope he doesn't run in 2024. If he does, do you plan to actively work against him? If I'm asked to. If there is anybody who wants me to speak out or talk, yes, I will. I think that, you know, I had a very unique perspective in that I worked for the former president, I worked for Mrs. Trump, and I worked for both of them at the same time. I know the way they think. I know the way they try to distract. And if there's any way I can be helpful, to help decipher some of those movements and what's really going on, I would do that, yes.

I would have asked: "You say 'if you're asked' you'll do it. Can you tell us if you've heard from anyone yet? And are you actively volunteering your assistance to anyone?" 

Do you think, if he's elected again, he'll destroy the democracy? I think he's on a revenge tour right now, right, with the people who voted to impeachment -- impeach him. I think it will be nothing but revenge, retribution, and how he can benefit himself. There will be pardons happening. I think there will be very draconian policies that go way too far. So, I believe, if he is re-elected again, it will be a really, really scary time.

Kind of like a Chuck Todd interview... See you around campus.