Sunday School 1/30/22

I wandered into ABC's This Week classroom yesterday. Here are some highlights. The segment that got the most press, from what I could see, was the George Stephanopoulos interview with Sen. Susan Collins (R-Very Concerned) and what she didn't say. But let's start with what she did say. 

Collins appreciates adding diversity to the Supreme Court, but says the "clumsy at best" process around Biden's promised nomination of a Black woman "adds to the further perception that the court is a political institution like Congress when it is not supposed to be." And, she disagreed with George that this was the same thing President Reagan did during the 1980 campaign.

Actually, this isn't exactly the same. I've looked at what was done in both cases. And what President Biden did was as a candidate, make this pledge. And that helped politicize the entire nomination process. What President Reagan said is, as one of his Supreme Court justices, he would like to appoint a woman.

I'm very concerned with the senator's research skills - because Reagan did not say he "would like to appoint a woman." He went much further than that.

I am announcing today that one of the first Supreme Court vacancies in my administration will be filled by the most qualified woman I can possibly find, one who meets the high standards I will demand for all court vacancies. 

Not only that, but thanks to some great research and documentation, we now know Reagan did it for exactly the same reason Biden did: to secure votes from a specific demographic in order to garner his party's nomination. 

Now, to the attention-grabbing part. George asked Collins about president Trump's hint that he'd pardon January 6th insurrectionists if he gets elected in '24, and whether she could  "imagine any circumstances where (she) could support his election." Collins said Trump shouldn't have said that; she thinks we "should let the judicial process proceed." And when George pushed her on not ruling out supporting Trump, here's what she said.

Well, certainly it's not likely given the many other qualified candidates that we have that have expressed interest in running. So, it's very unlikely.

It's also very unlikely she'll commit to anything, if she can't even commit to this. 

The panel this week included political animals Donna Brazile, Donna Shalala, and Chris Christie, and Reihan Salam, president of the conservative Manhattan Institute.

Here's Brazile on SCOTUS, after noting that 108 of the 115 Supremes have been white males, some of whom "were extraordinary..."

But the fact is, 55 years after Thurgood Marshall was put on the court, 31 years after Clarence Thomas, 13 years after Sonia Sotomayor, this is a moment when the country can finally say equal justice under the law applies to everybody. It's an extraordinary move by the president. I welcome this appointment. And I'm going to fight with everything I have, to make sure that this extraordinary woman gets confirmed.

Here's Christie after noting that "elections have consequences."

...it wouldn't have been the way I would have approached it, by pre-announcing something like that, but Joe Biden won the election. He gets to make the choice. And every one of the 100 senators has a right then to scrutinize this person's background, experience, and decide whether or not they deserve lifetime tenure.

And Shalala, on both the prospect of a Black woman joining the Court and on polling showing most American just want the most qualified person. (I don't believe that for a NY minute, I've gotta tell you, but I digress). 

Well, it brings someone with a different experience, a black woman's experience. It makes the court look like America. It makes it look fairer. And I'm not surprised the majority of Americans think he ought to just pick the -- the qualified candidate. That's, in fact, an advancement, that we ought to pick the qualified candidate. But a black woman on the court, it will make a difference.

And, here's Salam, after noting he thought Biden's promise "was a mistake," because it limited his options 

... I think that one thing to keep in mind is that the Democratic coalition is awfully diverse along many different dimensions. Donna Shalala mentioned that there's such a thing as a black women's experience. When you look at the four leading contenders, as far as news reports go, these are people with dramatically different experiences and actually some subtle differences in ideological sensibilities as well... So I think that recognizing the distinctions among black women and recognizing that there are many other kinds of diversity one could bring to the bench is a good and valuable thing. And Democrats ought to keep it in mind.

Perhaps the most remarkable comment of this discussion was about the politics of the whole thing, and it came not from a panelist, but from the host. Christie set it up.

...But on the politics of this, George, for the midterms, when you have inflation where it is, when you have crime where it is, the things that affect people's everyday lives, they don't see the Supreme Court affecting their everyday lives in the same way that inflation, crime, and foreign policy crises do. So, I think it may have some small effect, but nowhere near a determinative one.

Here's the comment from Stephanopoulos.

It has rarely been a big - a big voting issue in either presidential or midterm elections...

Um, really, George? I'm Susan Collins-level very concerned with your failed memory of the 2016 and 2020 elections. The Supreme Court was one of the keys to Trump's victory in the former, and he also used it in the latter. Sheesh - everyone knows that.

I was going to end the post there, but instead I'll close with thoughts about Rs not wanting to stick a fork in a Trump 2024 run. Here's Salam's take on it.

Well, I think that it makes sense for people to want to preserve freedom of action. You do not know how the environment might change. There are a lot of Republicans, a lot of conservatives who said at the very beginning of the 2015-2016 campaign cycle that they wouldn't support Donald Trump. But then things changed. And we could condemn them. We could praise them for that. But the reality is that, you know, politics, the environment moves very, very quickly.

And, here's Brazile.

I can't imagine President Trump saying he will pardon the very same people who injured 140 policemen. I can't imagine President Trump saying at a rally that he would pardon people who said, kill Mike Pence, assassinate Nancy Pelosi. There's -- there's -- there's no place in our politics for that type of rhetoric and that type of action and leadership. So I hope the Republicans reject Donald Trump so that they can move past this movement and we can try to figure out how to bring the country together. 

From where I sit, 'bringing the country together' remains a Herculean, or even Sisyphean task, but one can always hope. I encourage you to join me in not holding your breath on this one.

See you around campus.

Wondering on Wednesday 1/5/22

Ready... Set.. Wonder!

Welcome to the first Wondering Wednesday of the New Year! Let's dive right in.

Does former Trump assistant Peter Navarro believe what he's saying, I wonder? All his talk about the Green Bay Sweep and the 100 Congressmen and Sen. Rafael Cruz (R-Cancun) and Rep. Paul Gosar (R- Even My Family Thinks I'm a Traitor) and the rest of the activities on 1/6/2021? And does he have any idea how damaging this stuff is to his former boss?

Speaking of the former president, it seems he's cancelled a planned press conference at Mar-a-Lago tomorrow, the anniversary of the insurrection at the Capitol. Apparently, he's going to wait and let the news of Sean Hannity's texts die down a bit, and instead speak at a rally in Arizona in ten days. I can't help wondering if that rally will happen as planned.

After all, the Supreme Court is gathering documents in advance of their fast-tracked review of Trump's claim of executive privilege over information requested by the House January 6th committee. Lower courts have held that the privilege no longer applies to him; here are some thoughts on what the Supremes, three of whom are Trump appointees, might do. If they refuse to get involved, or if they decide that privilege is no longer Trump's, might that Arizona rally  go poof like the one in Tulsa?

Also going poof? A candlelight program which Cobb County, GA Republicans in Name Only (RINOs) had planned for tomorrow, which was to include streaming of Trump's remarks and "a prayer vigil for the jailed rioters still awaiting trial."  Yee hah, or something. I wonder what pushed them to cancel - complaints from real Republicans (the people Trumpers refer to as RINOs), or the fact that their fearless leader really isn't fearless? 

Others in the 'not fearless' bucket? The corporations and trade groups that have donated over $18M to members of the 'Sedition Caucus,' senators and representatives who supported the Big Lie, and to the national Republican re-election committees. I wonder if they remember the statements issued in the days after the insurrection, and how they justify the donations they've made in the year since?

What else is on the wondering docket? Well, there's a judge who just decided that members of the military can ignore a direct order, at least if they claim the order violates their religious freedom or free speech rights. I can only wonder what the hell the judge was thinking; does he really want Navy SEALs to do whatever they heck they feel like whenever they feel like it? And does he really think the Supremes are going to allow this ruling to stand? Never mind that last question; the judge clearly doesn't give a hoot about that.

There's more, of course - there's always more. But I'll leave you wondering with me about this: Melania Trump is selling a hat, a watercolor, and a "digital artwork NFT with motion" in her latest online auction. 

The starting bid? $250,000. Or, some 1415 rays of SOL digital currency.

What are you wondering about these days?

Sunday School 1/2/22: Extra Credit

The pandemic was one hot topic in the Sunday School classrooms this week; last year's insurrection was the other.

Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MI) and Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY), the chair and vice-chair of the House January 6th Committee, were in the classrooms, as was Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), who is on the committee and is chair of the House Intelligence Committee. 

We'll start with Thompson and his chat with Chuck Todd, which aired on Meet the Press. Asked if what happened was a protest that got out of hand, or an insurrection, Thompson said it was a bit of both.

... you had citizens who have the right to protest, who thought that was the end of what would happen, and you had others who obviously came with bear spray, camouflage, Kevlar, hockey sticks, everything, prepared to do something else. 

They've heard from many who volunteered details on their experiences on January 6th, Thompson said; the goal now is to get to people the Committee "basically identified that they’ve participated," including Reps. Scott Perry (R-PA) and Jim Jordan (R-OH), to cooperate. And if they have the authority to issue subpoenas (that's being looked at), "there'll be no reluctance on our part" to do so.

There's no timeline yet for issuing a report, but they're "in a good place" to start drafting one. Thompson said the Committee "won't be deterred by the attempts to slow things down by (people) suing the committee." He suggested it would be substantive, adding

there is some legislation that we hope to recommend with this report that Congress needs to adopt so that what occurred on January 6th will never happen again... we came critically close to losing this democracy as we've come to know it. And so, it's our duty as patriots, as Americans, as members of Congress, to make sure that we get it right.

Last thoughts? 

... I think if Democrats and Republicans who are ideologically apart like Liz (Cheney) and Bennie Thompson can come together for the good of this country, we'd be in a better place if others could do the same thing.

Speaking of Cheney, here are highlights of her visit with George Stephanopoulos on This Week. She said they have "firsthand testimony" that Trump watched the attack on TV in the dining room next to the Oval Office, and that it's hard to imagine a more significant and more serious dereliction of duty than" Trump's lack of action on January 6th. 

The president could have at any moment, walked those very few steps into the briefing room, gone on live television, and told his supporters who were assaulting the Capitol to stop. He could have told them to stand down. He could have told them to go home -- and he failed to do so. 

Whether it was criminally negligent has yet to be determined, but she did say one possible legislative change to be considered is whether "enhanced penalties for that kind of dereliction of duty" are needed. And she said, as he sat there, "members of his staff were pleading with him to go on television...Leader McCarthy was pleading with him to do that... Ivanka went in at least twice" to get him to stop the violence.

Any man who would not do so, any man who would provoke a violent assault on the Capitol to stop the counting of electoral votes, any man who would watch television as police officers were being beaten, as his supporters were invading the Capitol of the United States, is clearly unfit for future office...

She agreed with Hillary Clinton who said if Trump ran for president and won, "that could be the end of our democracy;" Trump "crossed lines no American president has ever crossed before," he "cannot be trusted," and he "went to war with the rule of law..."

Cheney didn't really have an answer to why a majority of Rs would elect Trump again. Rather, she said the GOP had to choose loyalty to Constitution, or to Trump - they cannot be both. And, she said,

the nation needs a Republican Party that is based on substance and values and principles, and we've got to get back to that if we want to get this nation back on track... at the end of the day, we can't be a party that's based on lies. We've got to be based on a foundation of truth and fidelity to the rule of law. And, in my view, the most conservative of conservative principles is fidelity to the Constitution.

Final thoughts on what gives her hope? The committee does; she believes it's truly non-partisan, made up of folks with "very different policy views" who come together when it comes to defending the Constitution. She suggested that's the kind of "serious leadership" Americans need.

They're looking for people certainly on both sides of the aisle who are going to dedicate themselves to policy and substance and engage in the debates that we need for the health of the nation and get away from the kind of vitriol that we are seeing too frequently, too often, frankly on both sides...

Republicans, she said, "have a particular duty to reject insurrection, to reject what happened on January 6th, and to make sure that Donald Trump is not our nominee and that he's never anywhere close to the reins of power ever again."

And, from Schiff's conversation with Margaret Brennan on Face the Nation, we learn he hopes they'll have hearings soon, and that

...we hope to be able to tell the story to the country so that they understand it isn't just about that one day, January 6th, but all that led up to it, what happened on that day, and the continuing danger going forward.

Schiff said that Trump and his aides "were indicatively involved" in various efforts. He said many things related to the actual attack are still "under deep investigation," but the issue of the White House's role "is at the core of our investigation."

Switching to his Intelligence Committee role, and whether "there was just a failure of imagination in terms of too much focus on militias and organized groups versus sort of a defused threat of political violence," Schiff agreed in part, mentioning. 

the failure to see all the evidence that was out there to be seen for the propensity of violence that day. A lot of it on social media. Now, there are answers for why the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security failed to see it as (clearly) as they should have, and we're looking into that.

As is always the case, Schiff kept talking when he should have stopped. 

But we shouldn't be distracted from the fact that, yes, while there were things that could and should have been done to protect the Capitol that day, the primary lever, instrument, the cause of that violence was the promulgation of a big lie by the former president... it's important that we don't lose sight of the real motivating cause here and -- and not just focus on the security of the building. It's also vital we understand that this was an attack inspired by the commander- in-chief.

He said he doesn't think Trump and "his acolytes" will be successful in delaying documents and "denying justice," adding that the "the courts have been moving with great alacrity" in deciding that the documents should be turned over. 

But when it does go before the Supreme Court, we well get a sense of whether that court is a conservative court or whether it has become just a partisan court. If it's a conservative court, it will not disturb the decisions below, which I think have clearly held that Congress has a right to this information....

We may find out soon just what kind of Court this is. Trump's application for a hold on the Circuit Court's decision that the records should be turned over was filed back on December 23rd. Not long after, the committee asked for a fast-tracked decision by Supremes on Trump's request, and the former president agreed.

See you around campus.

Sunday School 1/2/22

Yesterday's classroom discussions focused mostly on the pandemic and the insurrection; I'll focus on the former here, and save the latter for your Extra Credit.

Dr. Anthony Fauci and Education Secretary Miguel Cardona made multiple appearances, while former FDA head Scott Gottlieb and Republican governors Larry Hogan (MD) and Asa Hutchinson (AR) were also roaming the halls. Here are some highlights.

Fauci, speaking with George Stephanopoulos on ABC's This Week, gave this as his "key message on where things stand right now." 

Well, we are definitely in the middle of a very severe surge and uptick in cases...it is actually almost a vertical increase. We're now at an average of about 400,000 cases per day. Hospitalizations are up. One of the things that we hope for, George, is that this thing will peak after a period of a few weeks and turn around. 

And, in the State of the Union classroom, here's Fauci's response to a question from Dana Bash about the driver of the CDC's new relaxed guidelines on quarantining - science or social and business pressures.

There is no doubt that you do want to get people out into the workplace if they are without symptoms. And in the second half of a 10-day period, which would normally be a 10-day isolation period, the likelihood of transmissibility is considerably lower... the CDC made the judgment that it would be relatively low-risk to get people out. You're right. People are getting concerned about, why not test people at that time? I myself feel that that's a reasonable thing to do. I believe that the CDC soon will be coming out with more clarification of that, since it obviously has generated a number of questions...

Gottlieb appears regularly on Face the Nation, and touched on a few key issues in his discussion with Margaret Brennan. For example, he said that over 600 children have died from COVID since the beginning of the pandemic, compared to three pediatric deaths from the flu in the same time period. That said, 

In terms of going back to school, I think the prerogative clearly is to try to get schools reopened. We shouldn't be doing preemptive school closures, in my opinion, but there will be situations where we have reactive school closures, when there are large outbreaks.

Antigen tests work fairly well at detecting the omicron variant, but that "serial testing over a period of time" is the best way to protect a high-risk setting like a school. 

While any individual test could miss the infection, if you're doing serial testing, you're likely to pick it up. And we need to get tests into schools. We still don't have tests widely available to the schools, so that they can use these tests for tests-to- stay policies to prevent large quarantines when are cases diagnosed in the classroom.

He said we should be focused on getting schools open, and keeping them open, pointing out "with the tools we have, with prudence, with the knowledge we have," we can do "a pretty good job" of controlling large outbreaks in schools. However, he's not a fan of mandating boosters for school-age kids. He pointed to studies showing that there was "100% protection" in the 12-16 age group, and said in that group, the vaccinated "are getting a more robust response" from vaccines than others.

For his part, Secretary Cardona did his best to explain that the Biden administration wants kids in schools, they want everyone learning the best possible way they can, they want tests to be available, they want ventilation to be effective, and so on - but that's not enough, according to both Brennan and Gallagher. 

The hosts were skeptical of the efforts that have been undertaken, and how they are being perceived, particularly by teachers. Brennan wondered about teachers in Chicago, Massachusetts and Connecticut saying "they don't feel safe" in schools. Cardona said that the administration's messaging hasn't changed since he's been in position.

We need to make sure we're following mitigation strategies, that we're supporting our educators by providing a safe learning environment, we're providing vaccination for our students as young as 5, so that the whole school community is safe, and we're providing surveillance testing to make sure that, if someone is sick, that they stay home. 

Similarly, Gallagher referenced comments from Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, expressing concern that school districts "don't have the infrastructure for testing and tests to stay. It's going to be really, really bumpy and there's going to need a lot of grace," something she said was "in short supply." 

Cardona noted "there's a level of urgency that we shouldn't lose around making sure that our children learn in person", saying "the impact of hybrid learning, the impact of remote learning, is very real" for parents as well as for the kids. He said the American Rescue Plan funding, coupled with efforts from other groups, is all geared towards keeping kids in school.

And when Gallagher asked if the road wasn't going to be as bumpy as Weingarten predicted, Cardona said

...it's really important that we continue to work together. I do think there will be bumps on the road, especially tomorrow. I mean, superintendents today are receiving calls of staff members that they were expecting to be in the classroom tomorrow who have come down with COVID. So, we're going to roll up our sleeves, all hands on deck. Let's keep our children in the classroom. That should be our default thinking, and as problems come up, we need to work together to solve them.

In both classrooms, I think his arguments fell short.

I'll close with an interesting discussion down the hall in the Fox News Sunday classroom, where Trace Gallagher talked with Gov. Hutchinson. To me, it felt like Gallagher was trying to get Hutchinson to downplay the efforts of the Biden administration on the pandemic, but the gov was surprisingly complimentary. 

For example, Hutchinson thought it "was an important step" that the CDC revised the guidelines, saying it was "a recognition that we have to be able to manage our way through" the pandemic. He applauded that "they used science, they overlaid it with practicality" but admitted there could be more consistency and simplicity for people.

While he agreed that 'pandemic politics' has played a role, and caused frustration and division, he also said "it really is refreshing that, I believe, there's a uniformity of opinion by our leaders that vaccinations are critical to get us through this. And so that unified message is absolutely essential, and we've got to -- so I complemented the president on that." 

Vaccinations have been a sore point in Arkansas; the state ranks 45th in percentage of people vaccinated, but he's not moving towards a mandate any time soon. If they ever did get to that point,

there always has to be the right exceptions for religious convictions if -- you know, if vaccines are not acceptable, and that is the current law in Arkansas, and that should continue to be the case.

Feeling better after all of that? 

See you around campus.