Wondering on Wednesday 12/28/22

 

Ready... Set... Wonder!

I'm feeling wonderful-ish today... you know, not really wonderful, just kinda wonder-ish, or full-ish, or something like that. 

Like George Santos, the first openly gay non-incumbent Republican to be elected to Congress, or something like that. He's also the first most openly lyingly lying non-incumbent Republican t0 be elected. He made so many lie-ish statements during his campaign I don't know if even he knows what's true, vs. what's true-ish, vs. what's just 'ish.' He went to college-ish; he worked in finance-ish, for Goldman Sachs-ish. He was poor-ish, and then he was an entrepreneur and started a company-ish, but had no income-ish, but managed to loan his campaign $700,000-ish. He had a company in Florida and four of his employees-ish died in the Pulse nightclub shooting, sorta-ish. 

And the best one, of course, is that he was raised Catholic but is Jew-ish, whatever the hell-ish that means. He promised us he had a story to tell, and he told it, and it only made things worse-ish. In a wonder-ish fashion, I await the official response from the GOP in NY, and in DC. I can only think that it'll be about as '-ishy' as anything Santos has said so far. 

Last week, after the Democratic-controlled NYS legislature voted, in a special session, to give themselves an obscene $32,000 raise effective January 1, 2023, and limit their outside income but not until January 1, 2025, I reached out to Gov. Kathy Hochul urging her to veto the bill, even though there are enough Dem votes in both chambers to over-ride the veto. 

At the same time, I reached out to Sen. Rachel May and Assemblymember Pamela Hunter, my representatives, asking for their thoughts or comments on the vote. I haven't heard from any of them, and honestly, I don't expect to. There's nothing really wonder-ish about their lack of response - the gov's been dealing with a once-in-a-lifetime weather event, and it is a holiday-ish week, after all, but since they all know where I stand on the issue, I doubt there'll be a race to try and appease me or change mind. I'll keep you posted on any responses I get. 

Another person I don't expect to hear from? Whoever charged some snooty-ish mountain bike parts using my credit card. Graciously, one of the five or six vendors who got hit with fraudulent charges (nearly $3500 worth all told) texted me to see if I had made the bike parts order with a request to ship it to a different address, which he shared. That's a big no, I told him. 

All of the charges were reversed; fraud investigations ensued. And so did a Christmas card to the address the vendor gave me. I do wonder, a little-ish, if it made whoever read the card feel bad-ish even for a moment. I hope it did.  

I'm seeing lots of stuff on social media citing the January 6th Committee report and transcripts about documents being torn, flushed, eaten, copied and removed, and even set on fire during the waning days of the last administration. 

I'm not surprised, really, by any of that - I mean, given what we've learned about the Trump White House, there's not a lot that will surprise me anymore. One thing I'm wondering, just a little-ish, is whether there was ketchup involved in all of those, or if another condiment was used?

What's on your wondering-ish mind tonight?

Meanwhile, Back in Albany (v46)

Many New Yorkers are struggling right now, trying to come up with money to pay their rent, their utilities, to buy groceries, and to scrape together money to put even a fair-to-middling holiday celebration together for their families. 

Rural families, suburban families, urban families - it's not just one subset of New Yorkers; all of us are feeling a pinch in one way or another. Which is why it's so insulting to learn that our legislators just gave themselves a $32,000 raise. 

Let me say that again: 

Rural families, suburban families, urban families - it's not just one subset of New Yorkers; all of us are feeling a pinch in one way or another. Which is why it's so insulting to learn that our legislators just gave themselves a $32,000 raise. 

I can assure you, if I could get to my rooftop, I'd be shouting about this from up there, even in this weather. Fortunately for me, my neighbors, and for you, I'm not able to get up there now, so you're safe.

Why did they decide to give themselves a $32,000, 29% pay raise, after getting a 38% pay raise in 2019, you ask?  I'll let them explain it to you.

From The National Herald:

Senate Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins, a Democrat, said legislators work hard, year-round, and deserved a raise to cover the increased cost of living.  "It’s a full-time job,” she said. “Sooner or later in order to be able to afford to do the job, we have to raise pay.”  

What she means is, she wanted a raise. In the same article, 

Assemblywoman Patricia Fahy, a Democrat, said the raise would help the Legislature retain quality members who could make more in the private sector. “We have had an unhealthy churning and turnover particularly from downstate members,” she said. 

What she means is, she wanted a raise. And, she doesn't want anyone other than an incumbent Democrat to win election, particularly downstate where the Ds have all the power.

From Politico:

Democrats defended the 29 percent pay increase that will serve as a nice holiday present, saying their salaries were stuck at $79,500 for 20 years before jumping to $110,000 in 2019 after a recommendation from a special compensation committee. The deal also includes limiting lawmakers’ outside income to no more than $35,000 a year. 

“It’s a full-time job. People are working throughout the year, and to wait until 20 or 30 years (for a raise) isn’t reasonable either for lawmakers,” Senate Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins told reporters. 

What she means is, she wanted a raise. And her argument of having to wait 20 0r 30 years is ridiculous, since we all know they just got that raise back in 2019. The article graciously reminds us, or informs us, of the challenging legislative calendar our legislators set for themselves.

The Legislature has a roughly 60-day session in Albany that runs three to four days a week from January through June, and then occasionally reconvenes if a pressing issue arises — like in July when lawmakers came back for a day to vote to toughen gun laws after the Supreme Court tossed the state’s century-old concealed carry law. 

The rest of the year is spent dealing with constituent work in their districts, lawmakers said. 

Would it surprise you to learn that Ms. Stewart-Cousins hasn't recorded any items in her website's newsroom since August 26th? No communications to her district, or to the rest of us New Yorkers? No press releases? No nothing, since celebrating Women of Distinction? (By comparison, I've done over 40 posts since then, and I'm kicking myself that it's only that many...)

Would it surprise you that her website calendar shows only eight events in all of 2022? Or that it shows zero events since May?  I don't know about you, but that doesn't sound very much like a full-time anything to me...

From the same article, 

“This is the right thing to do,” said Senate Finance Chair Liz Krueger (D-Manhattan). She said people shouldn’t be discouraged from running for office “because I won’t be able to meet my bills.” 

What she means is, she wanted a raise. I'd suggest, though, that "people shouldn't be discouraged from living in New York because they won't be able to meet their bills" is perhaps a better description of what life is like for many. And that's one contributor to why more people have left NY than any other state, according to this report; I don't know if "legislators aren't paid enough here" is on the list of reasons people leave, but I highly doubt it.

And, this, too, from the same article. 

“Legislators work hard, and we’re about to come into session in January to continue trying to do the best we can for families in the state of New York,” Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie (D-Bronx) told reporters. “This is more of a timing issue.” 

What he means is, he wanted a raise. Honestly, you've gotta love a guy who stands in front of a microphone and suggests that, now that they've given themselves a raise, they're going to try and do their best for the rest of us. I swear, you can't make this stuff up. 

And from Spectrum News:

Senate Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins to reporters on Thursday morning acknowledged the public perception of the pay raise increases, noting lawmakers will address "affordability" issues facing New Yorkers next year when the new legislative session begins.   

"This is a full-time job, I think people understand," she said. "We work hard and it was finally time to resolve the issue of pay." 

What she means is, she wanted a raise. It wasn't "finally time to resolve the issue of pay" - for her and the rest of them, it was finally time to create the issue of pay.

From the same article,

Pay raises have long been a thorny issue in the state Legislature. And if the pay bill is approved, state lawmakers will still be paid less than what New York City Council members earn at $148,000.  

"Legislators work very hard -- even some of the Republicans," Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie said. "There's no compensation you can give to be away from your families." 

What he means is, he wanted a raise. Cracking a joke on an issue of this magnitude? Yeah, that's leadership, Carl. And one more thing: if there is no amount of compensation that makes up for you being away from your family, why the hell did you run for office to begin with, and for re-election so many times?  

I'll close with this piece from mychamplainvalley.com, quoting Stewart-Cousins on the issue of outside income:

There is currently no cap on outside income for lawmakers, but this bill would cap it at $35,000. Could we see some turnover with lawmakers who do have outside jobs?

“Well possibly, and that’s why we made that part of it effective two years from now, because people could have run with the old understanding that they would be able to make unlimited outside income and now with this legislation you will not be able to do it,” said the Leader.

What she means is, she wanted a raise. And she didn't want to wait two years to get it, even though "people could have run with the old understanding that they would" make a mere $110,000 annually for serving in the Legislature. 

I've emailed Sen. Rachel May and Assemblymember Pamela Hunter, my representatives, for their thoughts and comments on their votes. It's clear from my comments that I don't support this move, so I'll be interested if I get a "thanks, Constituent" letter or if they'll try and convince me this is a good idea.

I've also reached out to Gov. Kathy Hochul, urging her to veto the legislation and force the two chambers to override her veto, which they can do if they want, and I encourage you to do the same if you don't like being taken advantage of by our legislators. 

More to come on this issue, I promise.

Wondering on Wednesday 12/21/22

Ready... Set... Wonder!

Where to begin tonight's wonder-full meandering? Let's start in DC, where there's been lots of news. 

• The January 6th Committee made a criminal referral to the DOJ for former president Donald Trump, for obstruction of an official proceeding; conspiracy to defraud the USA; conspiracy to make a false statement, and conspiracy to defraud the US by assisting or comforting those involved in an insurrection. Everyone's wondering if anything will come of the referrals, or if Jack Smith, the special counsel, will continue on his merry way without the Committee's help.

• John Eastman, a law professor and attorney, was also named in a criminal referral to the DOJ, for obstruction of an official proceeding and conspiracy to defraud the US. Eastman was the guy who pitched Trump on the hare-brained scheme of having former VP Mike Pence refuse to count the electoral votes and, in effect, throw out the election. Will Eastman be disbarred, I wonder? Will he be charged based on the referral? That seems perhaps more likely than Trump being charged, but again, there's Smith, so...

• It also referred four House members - Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), Jim Jordan (R-OH), Scott Perry (R-PA) and Andy Biggs (R-AZ) - to the House Ethics Committee for failing to speak to the Committee, and for subsequently refusing to comply with its subpoenas. Does anyone wonder why there weren't more of them? And does anyone think, for a minute, that anything will come of it, now that the Rs are taking over the House?

• Ukrainian President Vlodomyr Zelenskyy is speaking to the Congress, and to the country, from the floor of the House, the first wartime leader since Churchill to do so. The applause has been long, and loud, and I wonder if the doubters, like McCarthy, will be moved by his words? Will they continue the support, or pull back? 

• Marjory Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert are catfighting on social media. I don't wonder anything about that, other than Bobo's saying that she doesn't believe in Jewish Space Lasers. Is that supposed to make us think more of her?

• Members of the House still don't appear to be aligned behind McCarthy's bid to be House Speaker and in fact some are trying to ensure they can remove him, before they'll vote for him. I do wonder if anyone's going to put forward the "let's have Trump be Speaker!" rubbish that was floated in the past? 

• The Senate, in a bipartisan move, passed a nearly $1.7 trillion bill that would fund the government through September 30th, the end of the current fiscal year. The bill would also reform the 1887 Electoral Count Act, making it harder for another fiasco like the one which ended with criminal referrals from the January 6th Committee. I'm fine with them doing both of these things, but specifically on the ECA, I used to wonder if we needed to do legislation to prevent "another Trump," but sadly I'm convinced that the cat's out of the bag, and we have no assurances that there won't be another one.

• The House Ways and Means Committee voted to release several years of Donald Trump's taxes, including one year showing he paid less in federal tax than I spend for a month of groceries; given he's a billionaire and I'm a thousandaire, I can't help wondering what I'm doing wrong.

• Also, we learned that the IRS didn't audit Trump's taxes during his first two years as president, even though their guidelines require audits of all presidents and vice presidents during their tenure. Wonder how that happened - was it the Deep State leftists who controlled the government that kept the IRS from doing their jobs, or was it... Mnuchin??? 

Elsewhere?

• Elon Musk polled Twitter users to see if he should stay CEO of the company; over 57% said no. I wonder how many of his followers are Tesla stock owners? Pretty sure they would all have been in the 'hell no' bucket, given how the value of their stock has tanked since Musk's whole Twitter distraction started.

• Neil Schon of the band Journey has filed a cease-and-desist order against Jonathan Cain for playing Don't Stop Believin' when Cain appears at Trump events. Cain's married to televangelist and Trump 'spiritual advisor' Paula White, so he's been in MAGA-land for a while now. If anyone was wondering, the odds of there being a Journey reunion tour are about as good as the odds of Trump being reinstated as winner of the 2020 election.

• Saturday is Christmas Eve; I'll get out our special 'cookies for Santa' plate, pile on a few treats for him and the reindeer, and leave the plate on the mantel, like we always do. And, as sure as I'm sitting here, most of the goodies will be gone when we get up in the morning. I never wonder about that.

What's on your wondering mind tonight?

Wondering on Wednesday 12/14/22

 

Ready... Set... Wonder!

In no particular order, I'm wondering tonight about holiday parties. You know, the kind we host or attend, with family, or coworkers, or friends and neighbors. Or, you know, the kind attended by Associate SCOTUS Justice Brett Kavanaugh. The party in question was hosted by "far-right operative" Matt Schlapp, who runs the Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC), the group that's hosted both Donald Trump flag-kissing events and Hungarian right-wing strongman Viktor Orban. 

In a planned leak of party attendees, Kavanaugh's name is at the top of the list; other names below his include some with business before the Court. The linked article provides some details on that, and also notes

If Kavanaugh was a judge in any other federal court, his attendance at Schlapp's party might have violated Cannon 2 of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges. Specifically, Kavanaugh is permitting Schlapp and others to, at a minimum, "convey the impression" that they have special access.  

A judge should neither lend the prestige of the judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others nor convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge.

We know Kavanaugh's not the only one, nor are the conservative justices alone on stuff like this. But with all the focus on Justice Clarence Thomas, his wife Ginni, Justice Samuel Alito and his parties, and the leaks, I can't help wondering why Kavanaugh didn't just find a quiet bar somewhere to share some holiday cheer. 

Speaking of "all the focus on" people, I'd be remiss if I didn't mention Brittney Griner, the WNBA star and world's most famous vaper. Griner, you know, was released from her Russian prison camp in an exchange for convicted international arms dealer Viktor Bout who had served more than half his 25-year sentence. Not released along with Griner? Former Marine Paul Whelan, who's been held in Russia on espionage charges. 

I don't know enough to talk intelligently about whether any trade for Bout would have been a good idea, and I certainly don't know diddly about the negotiations that led to the exchange. All I do know is lots of people were arguing about whether we should have brought home the vaping 'woke' black lesbian National Anthem protestor, or if we should have brought home the white former presumably straight presumably non-vaping Marine.

Noticeably missing from any of the arguments? The fact that Whelan was a staff sergeant in the Marines, until he was busted down to private, and was given a bad conduct discharge. I have to wonder this: if people were as aware of his military history as they are of her National Anthem history, would they think he was really all that much better a trade? 

And speaking of history, there's Texas, which has a long history of interjecting into things that the government doesn't really need to get involved in: keeping pregnant women on life support against their wishes, or providing bounties to folks who report women seeking health care, or wanting to investigate parents of trans children for child abuse, for example.  

And, we learned, the Lone Star State is still interested in interjecting where it doesn't need to be. As the WaPo reported, Texas AG Ken Paxton went looking for info on transgender Texans. 

“Need total number of changes from male to female and female to male for the last 24 months, broken down by month,” the chief of the DPS’s driver license division emailed colleagues in the department on June 30, according to a copy of a message obtained by The Washington Post through a public records request. “We won’t need DL/ID numbers at first but may need to have them later if we are required to manually look up documents.”

That's what Department of Public Safety staff were asked to provide, based on a verbal request from Paxton. And they found "more than 16,000 such instances," which led them to tell the AG they couldn't provide the data he asked for.

So, what's the wondering, you're wondering? Simply, this: what the actual hell is going on down there? What compelling government interest is there in having this data? Is it because their plan to charge parents got shot down, so they're going to attack adults instead? Or is it because Paxton's a Texas-sized jerk? 

What's got you wondering these days?

Sunday School 12/4/22

I spent time with George in ABC's This Week classroom for Sunday School lesson. 

First up? Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), who'll be the new House Minority Leader come January. He outlined the D's mission: "to find ways to work with Republicans whenever possible to get things done for the American people."

And I hope that Republicans will look for common ground with us, but we will also oppose them when we must, particularly as it relates to any effort to go down this rabbit hole of unnecessary, unconscionable, unacceptable investigations of the administration.

Asked for some specifics where the Ds and Rs could cooperate, he spoke generically about the "American middle class and those who aspire to be a part of it" having "been under assault for decades" by things like globalization, outsourcing American jobs, and increased automation, which have "made it difficult for folks to pursue the American dream..." You solve for that by building upon what's already been accomplished - the Inflation Reduction Act, infrastructure bills, the CHIPS and Science Act - and "to find common ground to look for other ways to build upon that great work." He hasn't had any conversations with his Republican counterparts yet, but he looks forward to doing that "soon."

They also talked about who'll replace Nancy Pelosi, who will remain in the House but not in the Speaker role. Jeffries said it's up to the Rs to figure out if Kevin McCarty will be their guy. George wondered if it might come down to an agreement between moderate Rs and Ds on someone who could get enough bipartisan votes. Jeffries dodged the question the first time, then closed the door. The Dems, he said

are preparing... as we transition temporarily from the majority into the minority, continuing to work with the Biden administration, with Democrats in the Senate, building upon the great work led by Speaker Pelosi and Steny Hoyer and Jim Clyburn that has been done over the last few Congresses when we've been in majority. And then let’s see what happens on the other side of the aisle.

George pressed again on bipartisanship and compromise, and said if they could get a GOP speaker who's willing to do that, "wouldn't that be good for Democrats? Wouldn't that advance your mission?" 

Jeffries said he's "actually worked together" with his Republican counterparts, as if that were a miracle or something. Heck, he said, "I've even worked with the Trump administration in the past..." But working together to get a moderate elected House Speaker? That seems a bridge too far. 

The question on the other side of the aisle is, what will Republicans do? Are they going to double and triple down on the extremism that we've seen from people like Marjorie Taylor Greene? That would be unfortunate. And if that happens, then there’s not going to be real meaningful opportunities --.

What do you think - is he missing an opportunity here?

Next up, a Republican with whom Jeffries has worked, Rep. Dave Joyce (R-OH); he's chair of the Republican Governance Group, which, Joyce describes as "dealmakers hell-bent on breaking through Washington's dysfunction." I'm thinking it might have to kick Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-Trump) out, but I digress. 

George wondered how much leverage the group has, and how it'll use it. Joyce said they're "basically focused on making government work." They know what the problems are, because they hear them from constituents. 

And we're not the people who you see on TV every week talking about issues that aren’t germane to what the people are feeling at home... you see all this fighting and you see all this kabuki theater taking place in DC, but what is that doing to lower the price of gas? What is that doing to lower the groceries? How do we start fixing the problems that we have with our educational system?

He said if they can deal with those problems, and "show that we can govern, then perhaps we'll be respected and given the majority back." 

George asked about opportunities to work with Jeffries and the Dems. Joyce mentioned setting a budget, reducing spending across all twelve appropriations bills, and getting 218 votes in the House to pass them - none of which seem interesting to many Dems.

And what about the GOP's idea of not extending the debt ceiling unless there are major program spending cuts, with Medicare and Social Security potentially included? Joyce's response was interesting, more for what he didn't say than what he did.

...obviously, the debt limit is an issue, and it’s going to be times where I hope that we don't get in a position like we did with that failed experiment in October 2013 where we shut down the government for a long period of time, because in the words of a great philosopher, Lebowski, that didn't end too well for us.

The October 2013 shutdown, during Barack Obama's second term, lasted 16 days. The longest one ever? That would be Donald Trump's shutdown, lasting 35 days in 2019. Maybe that one's all a blur, compared to the one under Obama?

Joyce thinks there's enough good guys in his group, and enough Dems who want government to work, to keep the government open. He knows they won't agree on everything, but they have to focus on what they can agree on.

...when you focus on those things, like keeping the government open, keeping the budget that’s specifically low so that people understand what the cost and expenses of running their government is. And if you look at what we've done over a ten-year span with discretionary spending, we’ve actually kept the cost of running the government down. It’s the mandatory spending that’s driving us into the $31 trillion -- as well as the excess spending in the last year.

And if the Dems passed a lame-duck extension of the debt limit, something Joyce says makes perfect sense politically for them, would he vote for it? He's a numbers guy, he said, but he also said "I don't deal in hypotheticals, George." He'd look at the numbers, if it comes to that, and vote accordingly.

Also, speaking of numbers, what about Kevin McCarthy as Speaker? He said folks are talking about not voting for him, but

Well, then who then? I mean, Kevin deserves the opportunity. And he has done the hard work that was necessary to bring together the majority... And we were given this opportunity to do that and he deserves the chance to lead us. And he deserves the chance to lead for two years.

He also said he's "not a fan of a motion to vacate," which has been suggested by some in the Freedom Caucus. If that happened, whoever was Speaker would have to step down.

And what these people got to get used to is that if a majority of our conference agree to something, then that's how you move the ball forward. And just because five or six people don’t like it doesn’t mean that we should hold up the whole thing.

Finally, George mentioned the former president's statement about suspending the Constitution so he could be reinstated as president; he asked Joyce, who voted for Trump twice, if he could support a candidate in 2024 that's in favor of suspending the Constitution.

Well, again, it’s early. I think there’s going to be a lot of people in the primary. I think, at the end of the day, you will -- whoever the Republicans end up pick, I'll fall in behind because that’s –

Even if it's Trump? George asked. Joyce he'd support whoever the Rs nominate - but it won't likely be Trump. Besides, he has more to worry about than what Trump says.

I have to worry about making sure this Republican Governance Group and the Republican majority, that we make things work for the American people... We're moving forward and we're going to continue to move forward as a Republican majority and as a Republican conference.

Whether they were really out of time or not, that was the end of the interview.

See you around campus.

TGIF 12/2/22

It's time for some good week/bad week accounting again. 

Let's start in Arizona, where the Board of Supervisors of Cochise County has finally certified November's election results. It wasn't out of the goodness of their hearts - it was because a court ordered them to.

Two of the three members - one Democrat, one Republican, voted to do the right thing. The third member - another R - didn't bother showing up.  The judge, Casey McGinley, noted

it is "clear" that the board was "duty bound" to certify the results and submit them to the secretary of state by Monday given that no results were missing from the county's totals.

McGinley said the board "exceeded its lawful authority in delaying the canvass for a reason that was not permitted by the statute."

The Dem supervisor who asked the court to issue a quick decision, had a good week; so did the judge, for requiring the board to do their job. And the supervisor who couldn't be bothered? Yeah, you know what list he's on. 

Let's shift to Texas, and the heartbroken city of Uvalde, where another lawsuit related to the school shooting there in May was filed this week. 

Survivors of the fatal mass shooting at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, have filed a $27 billion class action lawsuit against multiple law enforcement agencies in Texas, according to court documents.

The lawsuit, filed Tuesday in federal court in Austin, names the city, the Uvalde Consolidated Independent School District, the school district’s police department, the Uvalde Police Department, the Texas Department of Public Safety and a number of persons who are members or former members of the agencies listed as defendants. 

The lawsuit says

Instead of swiftly implementing an organized and concerted response to an active school shooter who had breached the otherwise ‘secured’ school buildings at Robb Elementary school, the conduct of the three hundred and seventy-six (376) law enforcement officials who were on hand for the exhaustively torturous seventy-seven minutes of law enforcement indecision, dysfunction, and harm, fell exceedingly short of their duty-bound standards.

This suit just the most recent one to be filed. 

One federal lawsuit filed earlier this week alleges nearly two dozen people and entities, including the gun manufacturer and store that provided the rifle used in the attack, were negligent and failed to protect a student who was killed. Other families filed a similar lawsuit in September.

No amount of money can ever make up for what happened in May, but there needs to be accountability somewhere in all of this. I'd say the folks had a good week for at least bringing the suits and trying to keep the accountability ball rolling.

And, to Florida, where a former president Donald Trump lost another court case. 

A unanimous federal appeals court on Thursday ended an independent review of documents seized from former President Donald Trump’s Florida estate, removing a hurdle the Justice Department said had delayed its criminal investigation into the retention of top-secret government information.

The three-judge panel, which included two Trump-selected Republicans, said

It is indeed extraordinary for a warrant to be executed at the home of a former president — but not in a way that affects our legal analysis or otherwise gives the judiciary license to interfere in an ongoing investigation...

The law is clear. We cannot write a rule that allows any subject of a search warrant to block government investigations after the execution of the warrant. Nor can we write a rule that allows only former presidents to do so. 

The judges from the 11th Circuit who looked beyond who picked them, and did the right thing had a good week. And, of course, put another bad week in the books for the Florida Man.

Continuing our swing through the states, let's look at the Democrats and their plans to realign the early primaries. 

The Democratic National Committee voted on Friday to radically alter its presidential nominating calendar, following President Joe Biden’s recommendations to elevate South Carolina as the first primary state and to eliminate Iowa, breaking with a half-century of historical precedent. But there are still several logistical hurdles for the party to clear to make the new vision a reality.

Under the plan, South Carolina will go first on February 3rd, with New Hampshire and Nevada following three days later. Georgia would vote on February 13th, and Michigan on February 27th. Iowa's completely out of the early states. 

The full DNC still has to approve the plan, and the states that are moving up have until early January to certify they'll be able to meet the schedule. And, New Hampshire's required to go a week before any other state primary, so there's that.

Some people will suggest this was solely a move by the Biden camp to help ensure the octogenarian's chances in '24, but there are legitimate reasons to make some changes to crazy rules that give precedence to Iowa (31st in population, 90% white) and New Hampshire (41st/92% white).

Biden and the Ds had a good week on this; we'll see if it turns into a good week for voters if everything works out.

TGIF, everyone.

Sunday School 11/27/22: Extra Credit

This week's Sunday School was all about the classroom panel discussions. For your Extra Credit, I'll nose around a few of the 'usual suspect' interviews, starting with Dana Bash and Gov. Asa Hutchinson (R-AR) on CNN's SOTU.

"A former president, an antisemite, and a white supremacist walk into Mar-a-Lago. There is no punchline." That was Bash's intro to her discussion with Hutchinson - and I love it. Now - on to the recap.

• Hutchinson said he hopes "someday, we won't have to be responding" to stuff Trump has said or done. About the dinner, it "empowers people when you meet with them... you want to diminish their strength, not empower them." He also said "You have got to be absolutely clear in your communication that this is not acceptable dogma, it's not acceptable conversation, it's not acceptable history, and you have to disavow it. it's as simple as that."

• In his upcoming speech at the Reagan Institute, he's going to talk about things that Republicans "historically" don't do: "attack America's democracy...denigrate our political system...undermine confidence in America...attack those institutions that are fundamental to the rule of law." He said the party "is in a good position coming out of the midterms," but his remarks are for "the individual candidates that strayed from" Republican principles.

• He signed a bill banning biological males from competing in women's sports, so he's "comfortable" with Herschel Walker's attack ad about trans athletes just days after the shooting at a LGBTQ+ bar in Colorado Spring. He also passed anti-hate legislation and said "we shouldn't be targeting anyone because of their race or their gender." He closed with, "What happened at that nightclub is a human tragedy... These are challenging issues. And what happened is just simply wrong."

On MTP, What's-his-name (WHN) talked with Gov. Jared Polis (D-CO). Colorado's been the site of several mass shootings over the years. 

• Polis said everyone's voices need to be heard to fix this. "I think what you really need to do if you're serious about reducing these kinds of gun violence events and mass violence events is try to take the best ideas from all sides that work." That means mental health, and gun policy, and dealing with anti-LGBTQ stuff. "We need to, as a society, as political leaders, walk and chew gum at the same time. We need to look at all the evidence and the facts and try to make decisions that lead to a safer country."

• He said it looks like "this would have been a good instance" for the use of Colorado's 'red flag' law. It's been used "several hundred times, but could have been used even more" to prevent mass shootings, self-harm, or suicide." He also said "it's never comfortable" to get involved in someone else's business, particularly when it's a mental health issue, but "it's certainly better than the alternative," which is doing nothing.

• We need a national solution on guns. One example? Colorado has universal background checks, but neighboring states don't. He also was "generally supportive of national efforts towards closing the gun show loophole, towards having a conversation about. having a "process where you need an additional license or background check for some of the most high-powered weapons, I did support that as a member of Congress."

Finally, Jon Karl talked with Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) in ABC's This Week classroom. 

• Unbanning Trump from Twitter is "a terrible mistake" and that Elon Musk did it via a user poll "further contradicts Musk and his claimed concern about bots on his own platform."

• Appointing a special counsel for Trump investigations is the right move, and "if the same prosecutors that have been investigating the former president and others can be moved on to the special prosecutor's team, then there is every reason to do it, no reason not to do it..." 

• Yes, we could have a trial of a candidate during a presidential campaign. He thinks the position that you can't indict a sitting president "is flawed as a constitutional matter," and he said DOJ can't now say "you also can't indict a former president who wants to run again."

• He doesn't want to "get ahead of" the decision the January 6th Committee issuing any criminal referrals. "I think the evidence is there to make a referral and we just have to decide whether that's the course we are going to take."

• Similarly, the potential for holding Trump in contempt for ignoring the Committee's subpoenas "is being discussed." He expressed frustration with the DOJ, saying "...even where we have held people in contempt, we're only batting 50 percent with the Justice Department in their willingness to enforce it."

• Kevin McCarthy probably will strip Schiff of his Intelligence Committee seat. "I suspect he will do whatever Marjorie Taylor Greene wants him to do. He is a very weak leader of his conference, meaning that he will adhere to the wishes of the lowest common denominator."

• He said the Ds "continually face a variation of the same question, which is should the Democrats do the right -- do the appropriate thing when Republicans have consistently refused to. I think we maintain the high ground. We follow the law. We follow our responsibilities under the separation of powers," and so yes, they should comply with "appropriate oversight."

• And finally, should now 80-year-old Joe Biden run for re-election? "I think he should. I think he's extremely capable. What he's been able to do in the last two years is an unprecedented level of accomplishment. If he wants to continue, I'm for him."

See you around campus. Chime in if you want - my office door's always open.

Sunday School 11/27/22

Back at it after a longer-than anticipated writing break. I hope all who celebrated the American Thanksgiving holiday did so with an appropriate balance of moderation and exuberance. 

For this week's Sunday School, I meander through the panel discussions, starting off in CNN's SOTU classroom, where Dana Bash hosted Hillary Rosen, Ashley Allison, and Kristen Soltis Anderson, all tied to the network in some capacity, and former Pence chief of staff Marc Short. Here are some highlights:

• Soltis Anderson, on turnout in the Georgia runoff: she thinks the drop-off here will be greater than the 10% turnout drop-off from the '20 general election to '22, and that "it's going to be a harder lift to get them back out to the polls." 

• Rosen, on the midterm election: losing the House is "nothing to celebrate. We're still going to have really horrible committee chairmen taking on issues that the American public do not care about. We're going to have divided, ugly government for the next two years." She thinks the Rs "depended too much on kind of the culture wars." Ultimately, she thinks all of them failed all of us "a little bit on the economic discussion."

• Short, on Trump and that dinner with Ye and Nick Fuentes: "it's incredibly poor judgment... ever since the election in 2020, I think the (former) president's descended deeper into heart of darkness here." He thinks that's why the Rs "are looking in a different direction" for '24. 

• Allison, on 2024: "Donald Trump is homophobic. He is an anti-Semite. He does racist things. And if he's the candidate for 2024, I think it will just not be bad for Republicans. I think it will be bad for our country" because of the polarization and "this heightened tension of hate and violence in our country that we - people are sick of."

Next up, we've got the gang at MTP. What's-his-name had Susan Page (USA Today), Reid Wilson (Pluribus News), Matt Gorman (GOP consultant) and María Teresa Kumar (Voto Latino), and they talked about Rep. Kevin McCarthy, the man who will most likely be the next Speaker of the House. Here's how the panelists looked at things, building off an interview with Rep. Jim Comer (R-KY).

• Page, on McCarthy's chances: Comer made it clear McCarthy doesn't have the votes now, and she said "that doesn't mean he won't get them, but if he gets them, he'll get them by making concessions that he will have to live with for the next two years."

• Wilson, on the Freedom Caucus: they're looking to the future, he said. McCarthy "has within reach the goal he has chased for his entire career, and yet it could be so short-lived. If he's not in service to the Freedom Caucus or in an election if the House Republicans become Joe Biden's bad buy, then you know, this could be an extremely short-lived majority." (Here's how the Freedom Caucus handled the Speaker election in 2015.)

• Gorman, on the new Republicans from Biden-supporting districts: he thinks they're going to provide a check on the far-right members. On things like Congressional oversight, he said they're taking a position of "Wait a minute. We are going to DC to do other things, not just investigate full time." He also suggested that looking into the origins of COVID might rally both the newbies and the right-wingers, if they take a "Look how do we prevent another global pandemic" and, when it comes to China, "what are they covering up?"

• Kumar, on the bigger picture: this is all about being a 'politician,' "trying to figure out, who is, what are the concessions that we can get in trading whatever you want for speakership?" And, she said, with the Rs in charge, there'll be lots of investigations, "but it's all machinations behind the curtain... How do we control the ways and means? How do we actually control the mechanics of legislation?" These are things most Americans don't understand, she said, but there'll be long-term effects "we will feel later."

And finally, a quick stop with Jon Karl and his panel on This Week: Ramesh Ponnuru (National Review and Bloomberg), ABC contributor former Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-SD), Mary Bruce (ABC News), and Rachel Bade (Politico). Much of the conversation was about the Rs and the orange elephant outside the room, desperately trying to get back in. 

• Ponnuru on Trump's announcement: he thinks Trump still has strong support with the base, but maybe not a majority of support, and the launch of his '24 campaign was "lackluster." He noted Trump attacked his magazine, the National Review, and in response, people started sending donating to it, not the kind of reaction Trump expected.

• Heitkamp on the lack of GOP support: she figures Trump is pretty unhappy with the lack of support, and the pointed comments from Rs in Vegas. "Can you imagine how angry he is right now, with all these people on the stage... basically saying, move over?" As the self-described deal maker, he's getting nothing, and he's calling everyone to stand with him, to no avail - or worse. 

• Bade, on scaredy-cat critics: that they won't even say his name when criticizing him "is really telling... still clearly afraid of Trump." And, she thinks, that could lead to a repeat of '16, when everyone thought he was weak and they all joined the fray. If that happens in '24? "Trump still has his core base and he could very easily, you know, run away with this nomination... So yes, it's tough."

• Heitkamp on whether Dems should be rooting for Trump: similar to how the Ds went "all in on more conservative, more Trump candidates," there's some of that now. "Trump is the candidate that keeps losing. If you are going to pick someone to run against, why wouldn't you pick Donald Trump? He's the gift that keeps on giving to Democrats."

See you around campus. And feel free to chime in on McCarthy, Trump, Georgia, or anything else; the comment box is always open.

Sunday School 11/13/22: Extra Credit

In this week's Sunday School lesson, we heard perspective on the 2022 midterms from five people - two senators, the House Speaker, a re-elected governor, and a newly elected governor.  

For today's Extra Credit, I go back into the classrooms for more perspective, starting again today with Dana Bash on CNN's SOTU; she spoke with outgoing Gov. Larry Hogan (R-MD). I've referred to him as 'my favorite Republican,' for his steadfast refusal to cave in to the whole extremist, cultist GOP and opposition to the Big Lie.

What did think of the election outcome?

the way I would interpret it, look, this was -- this should have been a huge red wave. It should have been one of the biggest red waves we have ever had, because President Biden's approval rating was so low, one of the lowest historically. More than 70% of people thought the country was going in the wrong direction. And yet we still didn't perform.

"Commonsense conservatives" who focused on the issues won; those who "tried to relitigate the 2020 election and focused on conspiracy theories and talked about things the voters didn't care about, they were almost universally rejected," he said.

And I think it's basically the third election in a row that Donald Trump has cost us the race. And it's like three strikes, you're out... Donald Trump kept saying, we're going to be winning so much, we will get tired of winning. I'm tired of losing. I mean, that's all he's done.

He suggested the Rs need to figure out how to "appeal to a broader group of voters" because they "turned off wide swaths of swing voters. And that's why we didn't perform."

And, on the threatened announcement from Trump about 2024? 

...I would just say that we're two years out from the next election, and we're just trying to -- the dust is settling from this one. I think it'd be a mistake. As I mentioned, Trump's cost us the last three elections. And I don't want to see it happen a fourth time.

Does he have presidential ambitions of his own?

 I have been saying since 2020 that we have to get back to a party that appeals to more people, that can win in tough places, like I have done in Maryland. And I think that lane is much wider now than it was a week ago.

Next up? George, on This Week, talking with Gov. Chris Sununu (R-NH), one of the people What's-his-name on MTP said was a "normal Republican." Sununu won re-election by 15 points, while the R running for Senate lost by nearly 10. What did he have to say about that?

Candidate quality matters. You know, there's a chance of extremism that I think a lot of Republicans were painted with, rightfully or not. You know, when you have a product, you can't let the other side define you, right? And that's what -- what campaigns are. It's a product of good ideas and what you want to bring to the table. And, ultimately, I think the Democrats did a very good job of defining a lot of these candidates before they even had a chance to introduce themselves...

He also mentioned the extremism that's out there, saying it "scared a lot of folks."

This was just a rejection of that extremism. I don't think anyone likes the policies out of D.C. No one likes paying, you know, six bucks for a gallon of heating oil, especially with winter coming. But what I think people said was, "Look, we can work on these policies later, but as Americans we've got to fix extremism right now." And I think that's exactly what you saw.

And it's not just Trump - "there's a whole stream of things out there that can be deemed extreme," and there are extremists in both parties, but that's not what the people want.

Let's go back to the 2020 election. Joe Biden was the most moderate of all the candidates running on the Democrat side. He was deemed the most moderate of both he and Donald Trump. So, America has been asking for more moderation for quite some time. There's just, you know, certain parts of the Republican Party that haven't listened so well. We've just got to get back to basics. It's not unfixable. We've just got to get back to basics.

Sununu also hammered the Dems for supporting MAGA extremists, including the Senate candidate in NH, saying "I think that's a complete manipulation of the process, to be sure... And they were successful." 

He has no regrets about not running for Senate, saying (as he has before) that being governor's better than being senator. He also said there's no circumstance that'd have him supporting Trump in 2024, and that he thinks "there's going to be a lot of great candidates out there," but Joe Biden won't be one of them. And Sununu might not be one of them either.

Well, maybe, I suppose. I don't know. You know, a lot of folks are talking about that, but, look, I've got a state to run, unlike Congress I don't get vacation. It’s a 24/7 job, 365. Unlike Congress, I have to balance a budget in the next couple of months. Unlike Congress, I just have a lot of demands on me and I love that. It’s a hard job but, man, it is so fulfilling when you get stuff done. 

And finally, we hear from author and Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR); he talked with Margaret Brennan on CBS' Face the Nation. What did he think of what Brennan called "this complete disappointment?" On the one hand, he saw strong GOP candidates win big - DeSantis, Kemp, Abbott, DeWine in gubernatorial races; Rubio and Scott and Johnson in Senate races. But then, there's the other hand.

I think the lessons in our victories can be applied to some places where we came up a little bit short. We need to focus on serious substantive accomplishments and issues like crime, like our wide-open border, like addressing runaway inflation. Even in places where we came up a little bit short, like Lee Zeldin's race for governor in New York, he performed very well compared to Republicans in recent elections, and he probably helped save the House of Representatives by bringing four new Republican Congressman-elect across the finish line...

On whether Trump should "remain the leader of the Republican Party," Cotton said the party out of power doesn't have a single leader.

The former president is obviously very popular with many of our voters. But we also have important other leaders as well, like some of those victors I just mentioned earlier... Last year, you had Glen Younkin have a great victory in a bluish democratic state like Virginia. I hope to remain a leader in the United States Senate as well, in addition to people like some of those I just mentioned who were reelected... So, when you're in opposition, you don't have a single leader. That won't be the case until we're through the '24- '24 nominating season, and we have a new nominee.

And tonight, of course, the former president shined the spotlight on himself, and announced his candidacy for '24. So here we go, again.

See you around campus. 

Sunday School 11/13/22

Here's your Sunday School classroom review for this week, starting with excerpts from interviews Dana Bash had with Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D-MI) and Gov-Elect Josh Shapiro (D-PA) on CNN's State of the Union.

Bash asked Whitmer if there were any national takeaways from her convincing, more-than-10-point victory. Focusing on the fundamentals was key, she said, "whether it's fixing the damn roads, or making sure our kids are getting back on track after an incredible disruption in their learning, or just simply solving problems and being honest with the people."

A governor can't fix global inflation, but what we can do is take actions to keep more money in people's pockets, protect our right to make our own decisions about our bodies. And all of this was squarely front and center for a lot of Michigan voters. And I suspect that's probably true for voters across the country.

On whether "this election was in any way a repudiation of political violence," Whitmer said she'd like to think so. 

Whether it is aimed at me or... a Republican congressman like Fred Upton or Peter Meijer here in Michigan, it's unacceptable. And my heart goes out to the Pelosi family. I think that this is a moment where good people need to call this out and say we will not tolerate this in this country. And perhaps part of that message was sent this election.

Finally, on how to keep Michigan 'blue' going forward, Whitmer said it was the agenda the Ds have been putting forward. Even with a "very challenging legislature," she said, it's all about the fundamentals. She's proud to be a Dem, and added 

I will work with anybody who actually wants to roll up their sleeves and solve problems... There's a seat at the table for anyone who's serious about solving problems and building the Michigan that ensures generations can thrive.

Shifting to Shapiro and how he did so much better than President Biden did two years ago, he said they went everywhere and talked to everyone, "no matter their party label." They

reached out to constituencies that, quite frankly, had been ignored for some time, from Latino voters to Gen Z. And we built a coalition around getting stuff done for people, focusing on the things that mattered most.

His message to other Dems, who, Bash said, "are increasingly a coastal party and have had trouble with particularly the rural voters and working-class voters, who used to be the core of the Democratic Party," on how to be more competitive?

I think it's just a matter of showing up, treating people with respect, and showing them how you're going to make their lives better, helping them understand how you can actually build a bridge between the parties to kind of take down the temperature and get real things done.

In the MTP classroom, What's-his-name talked with Sens. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA). 

Asked what he learned from the election, Cassidy said it was that

the American people want a way forward that actually focuses on ideas, ideas that will make their lives better, not just their lives but that for future generations. Those who are most closely aligned with the former president under-performed. Those who are talking about the future or who had managed their states well, they over-performed. The American people want ideas. They want a future.

He said he wasn't blaming Donald Trump for the Rs losing the Senate, he said he was "looking at it empirically." And, the Rs

need to have a debate about ideas. In that debate, we need to explain to the American people exactly where we think our country should go. And by the way, since I think using market forces to make the individuals' lives more free, more prosperous, is the way to go, I think we win that debate.

Warren said she learned "when Democrats deliver, Democrats win."

We fought for working people. That's the heart and soul of the Democratic party. And the voters said, "Yeah, that's what we want." The Republicans, by contrast, they were there for the billionaires and the billionaire corporations. They were extremists. They wanted to fight about conspiracy theories and the 2020 election. And voters said, "No, we need somebody on our side." So, Democrats fought, Democrats delivered, Democrats won. And that should inform what we do during the lame duck and what we do in 2023 and 2024.

And, asked whether she has "a concern that Democrats can't win if they're running against, say, normal Republicans, kind of like Chris Sununu or Mike DeWine" (governors of NH and OH, respectively), she said she doesn't have that concern. The Dems won, and President Biden won, she said, because they did the work, and because they "went big" on vaccines and testing, helping the unemployed, caps insulin and drug costs, getting corporations to pay taxes, and more. 

Every one of those things is popular. The Republicans, every single one of them voted against every provision I just described. The president's leadership put us in a position, every candidate, up and down the ballot, to talk about what Democrats fight for and what we deliver on. And by doing that, we were able to address the values and the economic security of people across this country. And it sure paid off. It paid off at historic levels.

Finally, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi talked with George Stephanopoulos in ABC's This Week classroom. 

Responding to his question on how the Dems did so well in the midterms, she said they didn't accept the pundits saying they couldn't win "because history, history, history." 

I’m very proud of our candidates, both our incumbents as well as our red to blue candidates... they had courage, they had purpose, and they understood their district. They also rejected calls from Washington about, oh, your message should change. No, our message was clear -- people over politics, lower cost, bigger paychecks, safer communities. And they knew the value of a woman's right to choose, they knew how important it was to protect our democracy, they knew the contrast between themselves and their opponents and that is what made them win... I hope that's a lesson, because really it depresses the vote sometimes when people say “it's all over” 18 months before the election. We never accepted that.

Asked about the steps Dems need to take to bring Congress - and the country - together, which she's talked about since the election, she said they've

always been taking that step because we honor our oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and that should be a unifying principle for us. The -- when many of our bills, we worked very hard to make it bipartisan, bipartisan, bipartisan. And while the bills were bipartisan, the votes were not. So again, I go back to Abraham Lincoln. Public sentiment is everything. With it, you can accomplish almost anything. Without it, practically nothing. And the point I want to make is, when the public knows what is at stake and what's happening there, I think we'll see more cooperation, again, working together to produce a bill, but not having people vote no, take the dough, and make it look like we don't have bipartisanship, when, in fact, in the bills we do, but in the votes, not necessarily. Let the public know.

Chew on that last answer, and I'll see you around campus.

The Election Eve Post, 2022 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.

If you’re not motivated this year, I’m not sure there’s anything I can do to convince you how important it is, but I’ll try. 

We have people running for office - over 600 of them across the country – who are ‘election deniers’ in some way, shape or form. They’re running for local, state, and national office, including critical positions responsible for overseeing elections. Imagine that – people who deny the outcome of the last presidential election, in charge of the next one? 

It's possible we could have a Congressional majority that would have us back away from our leadership on the world stage, who would have us walk away from our support of Ukraine in its fight against Russian aggression. 

It's possible there could be changes not just in the House, but in the Senate as well, which means it is possible, no matter what they say, that women will not be able to receive vital medical care. It’s possible, that we’ll see more states move to subjecting women to bounties, or parents to bounties, depending on the level of risk they’re willing to take for their trans children. Is this what 'small government' means?

No matter what they say, it’s possible that contraception could be made illegal, and that marriage equality could fall by the wayside. It's possible we could see significant cuts in a variety of benefits including Medicare and Social Security, a variety of safety net programs, including health insurance, in our educational funding, and more. Change isn't inherently bad, but change without compassion and without thoughtful consideration isn't inherently good, either. 

If you're not of childbearing age, or you're not gay, or you're not trans, or you don't rely on government programs for your insurance or your income, or you don't have kids in school, does this stuff matter?

You might say no, but I'd ask this: when they’re done going after other people’s rights, do you think they won’t come for yours?

I understand inflation stinks; I also understand it’s a global problem. I understand we have significant issues with illegal immigration problems; I also understand that the problem is much bigger than border crossing, and that immigration, too, is a global problem.

I understand that crime is rising in some areas, in red states just as in blue states; I also understand simplistic solutions and soundbites are not the answer.

It’s going to take more than that to solve our problems, and it’s going to take more than voting, too. Voting is just the first step; after that, we have the power to hold elected officials accountable, and the responsibility to do just that. 

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

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 so. 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. 

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

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,  

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