TGIF 9/30/22

Another week is winding down, and it's time for the good week/bad week accounting. Here are just a few of the folks who earned a mention.

The state of Florida had a mixes week. On the latter, the cat-4 Hurricane Ian made a mess of things, tossing boats and houses and piers around, causing massive flooding, and cutting power to millions of customers as it crossed the state. On the other hand, many people evacuated on time, and many of those who didn't rode out the storm and lived to talk about it. We'll learn more in the coming days on how deadly it was, but the initial reports were not as bad we expected. On a personal note, I'm grateful that all my friends and family in Florida are safe.

Staying in the Sunshine State, Gov. Ron DeSantis is doing his darnedest to act statesmanly, given his presidential aspirations, but his past - and votes against disaster funding for another hurricane in a far-off place (the blue states of New Jersey and New York) - are cropping up on social media. His staff said the Gov has no time for pettiness, which is a first, I think; he's a master of the petty, in fact. But when push comes to shove, or when storm surge comes to the Gulf Coast, he's willing to set that aside and work with President Biden, at least until there's talk about making fiscally responsible disaster aid demands. 

Speaking of the gaffe master, he might have exceeded our wildest imaginations at a White House hunger conference this week, when he called out for the late Rep. Jackie Walorski, who was killed in a car accident in August. Walorski was a co-chair of the Hunger Caucus, and was one of the folks who introduced the bill that led to the conference. And, of course, the pack of reporters, hungry as always for a sound-bite and air time, undertook "a series of tense exchanges" trying to get an answer as to why Biden, well, pulled a Biden. Is an answer necessary?

Supreme Court Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was formally sworn in this week, and will take her seat on the bench on Monday, at a time when 60% of us believe the Court is "out of touch" and 66% believe there should be term limits for Justices.  Those sentiments aren't indicative of KBJ, of course, but she's coming on the Court at a difficult time, with some tough cases on affirmative action and college admissions, LGBTQ rights, and election issues, among others.

Beto O'Rourke, who's running for governor of Texas, received support from family members of Uvalde school shooting victims. They traveled nearly five hours by bus to hold a press conference an hour before the only debate between O'Rourke and Gov. Greg Abbott who, in these folks minds, "had not taken enough action on gun control measures" since the shooting four months ago.

I hope you had a good week.

TGIF, everyone.

Sunday School 9/25/22: Extra Credit

Part of what Sen. Joe Manchin was trying to get across to Fox News Sunday host Shannon Bream in yesterday's Sunday School was that people - and the country - are more important than the politics of the day.  It's a message sure to fall on deaf ears, on both sides of the aisle and across the airways and the interwebs, but he's right.

Down the hall in the CNN State of the Union classroom, Jake Tapper had a conversation with two former governors of Tennessee: Phil Bredesen, a Democrat, and Bill Haslam, a Republican. They host a new podcast, You Might Be Right.

Tapper asked Haslam what he'd say to folks who say it's not possible to find common ground "with people who are literally trying to undermine democracy?"  Tapper was referring to the many Rs, including the top leaders in the House, who push the Big Lie and, "in the view of many critics, don't seem to have a real commitment to democracy."

Haslam dodged the meat of the question, the part about the lack of commitment to democracy, by saying that 

most Americans aren't out there watching -- wondering about this or engaging in an argument this way or another. They're living their lives. But they do want to understand it better. What we're trying to do is take difficult issues, show both sides of the problem, so that people can understand, the other side might have a point.

So, Tapper tried again, suggesting "it's difficult to have an argument" about important topics like taxes, foreign policy, abortion and so on "if the other side won't even accept the results of a free and fair election." 

Bredesen took the question this time, pointing out that "if we get stuck on that" there won't be a lot of progress made.

What Bill and I are trying to do is to say, look, there are some issues there that are -- they're very difficult and people are in hard corners, but there's a lot of issues in this country having to do, I mean, with the debt and with the environment and so on, that there are real problems that need solutions. And trying to explore with the public at large, not necessarily with the Congress, but the public at large, as to what some of those common grounds might be, I think, is important.

And, Bredesen said, when you look at both sides you get to better answers than you do if you "just stick to the catechism of one party or the other..."

Haslam was asked about white evangelicals and what role they play in "both the extremism in the Republican party today and also the potential solutions" he and Bredesen discuss. Tapper asked about this because Haslam's been vocal about "how far off-track the church has gone." Haslam said in his experience in office,

believers act just like everyone else when it comes to the political sphere, instead of being different and saying, one of the reasons that you serve in offices like Phil and I did is to actually solve a problem, to make a difference, to -- it's not about making a point. It's about making a difference. And I'm trying to encourage people of faith to say, how can you actually make a difference? Make a difference means actually trying to solve a problem, instead of just yelling at the other side about how horrible they are.

Bredesen added that their backgrounds help other folks understand the importance of actually solving problems and getting things done.

I mean, we both were in the business world before politics. We both were mayors and then governors. I mean, those are all jobs where you actually have to do something Monday morning. If there's a problem out there, you're expected to do something to begin to -- begin to solve it. That's just a very different environment than you have in the Congress, for example, where there's very little problem-solving going on, but there's a lot of posturing going on and working to the base. So, I hope that the combination of experiences of the two of us bring something a little different to the discussions as well.

Tapper asked Bredesen to talk about the root of the cultural canyon he sees between "the so-called cultural elite and folks who know somebody who drives a Ford F-150."  From Bredesen's perspective,

I think we're living in an America which is obviously divided, although my perception is, it's not as divided as you would think by listening to the Congress or listening -- listening to the media. If I walk into the grocery store and see people, probably, I'm sure, on both sides of a lot of these issues, I mean, they're largely the same -- the same people with the same desires in life and the same intentions as to what they do.

He thinks, more than anything, it's an urban-rural divide, one that "may be inevitable" given how the country has moved away from rural areas into cities. 

But I think it's possible to bring it back together again. We were very divided in the '30s, and World War II fixed it. I'm not suggesting that we want another war or something, but there will be some challenge that comes up to the country at some time that I think will help to pull us back together and find our common roots.

And Haslam noted, "we're pretty evenly divided as a country," noting the 50/50 Senate, a handful of votes separating the House, and the fact that we've not had a president elected by a double-digit margin in years.

But the problem is, we have become kind of segregated by our beliefs. And so we think everybody thinks the way we do, and we can't believe anybody would think differently. Part of what we're doing with this podcast... is modeling former Senator Howard Baker saying "always remember, the other person might be right." And that's what's lost in this -- in the discussions we're having today, is this idea of, the goal is to get to the right answer, not to get to my answer. And so we're trying to take hard topics, present people that have two very different perspectives, and then present some potential solutions.

I'm going to check out the podcast, to see how they approach the topics that wish our politicians would talk about, instead of focusing on getting the perfect soundbite. 

Checking back with Manchin, here's how he ended his chat with Bream.

And I sure do put the country first and America. It's all about America, not about Democrats or Republicans.

Tonight, Manchin pulled his permitting reform bill from the funding plan the Senate is considering. In a statement, he said

It is unfortunate that members of the United States Senate are allowing politics to put the energy security of our nation at risk. The last several months, we have seen firsthand the destruction that is possible as Vladimir Putin continues to weaponize energy. A failed vote on something as critical as comprehensive permitting reform only serves to embolden leaders like Putin who wish to see America fail. For that reason and my firmly held belief that we should never come to the brink of a government shutdown over politics, I have asked Majority Leader Schumer to remove the permitting language from the Continuing Resolution we will vote on this evening.

Over the last several weeks there has been broad consensus on the urgent need to address our nation’s flawed permitting system. I stand ready to work with my colleagues to move forward on this critical legislation to meet the challenges of delivering affordable reliable energy Americans desperately need. We should never depend on other countries to supply the energy we need when we can produce it here at home. Accelerating the construction of energy infrastructure is critical to delivering that energy to the American people and our allies around the world. Inaction is not a strategy for energy independence and security.

Is it critical enough to actually do something? Only time will tell...

See you around campus - and be prepared to discuss issues as if "the other person may be right."

Sunday School 9/25/22

I decided to spend some time in the Fox News Sunday classroom, to check in on new host Shannon Bream, who was tapped to fill the seat held by Chris Wallace for nearly two decades. 

One of her guests was Sen. Joe Manchin (D-They're ALL My Friends); it was his 'yes' vote that led to the passage of the dangerously named Inflation Reduction Act way back in August. Here's Bream's into to her chat with Manchin. 

She introduced him by noting the bargain he struck with Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) that would "reform the tedious federal permitting process for new energy projects," something Schumer's trying to find a way to go in order to "avoid a potential government shutdown." And, she quoted a Wall Street Journal comment about Manchin having "had political leverage but the bill shows he traded his voted on the cheap." Did you, she asked?

Nope - he didn't, he said, and he's got a response being published today in the WSJ; he said it answers "every one of the things which they basically have evaluated wrongly." And, he said,

But this is a chance in a lifetime for us to have energy independence, Shannon. For us to have security in this nation, which we need, and making sure that we can take care of the American people with low energy prices, producing more oil, producing more gas. But we have to have permitting reform if you're going to deliver it. You have no way of infrastructure to deliver it. So, everyone knows that. My Republican friends know that.

Much of the conversation centered around Republicans who are mad at Manchin because he struck a deal and the IRA passed. It seems most of them thought that he would be a no, and the Rs could hit the Biden administration with a loss just a few months before the midterms. 

For example, Bream brought up an amendment to the IRA from his fellow WV Senator Shelley Moore Capito that Manchin voted against ("hers is a messaging bill"), and ("she's totally supportive of my approach basically as it incorporated many of the things she and 46 other Republican senators had endorsed").

Not only that, but "Well, certainly, you understand where Republicans don't think they should be the ones to come across the aisle to vote for a measure that primarily benefits you, which was done in exchange for your vote on a measure they didn't support -- not a single one of them vote for the Inflation Reduction Act." 

And there's more - she quoted something in 'Politico' from Sen. John Cornyn, "Given what Senator Manchin did on the reconciliation bill, it's engendered a lot of bad blood. There's not a lot of sympathy on our side to provide Senator Manchin a reward." The point of that? Why should the Rs help him now?

Manchin handled it all as well as can be expected, starting by saying "this is not about me." He spoke of the twelve years he's worked with the Rs on their top priority - permitting reform. 

We can't build anything in America. It takes five to 10 years. The developed world takes one to three years. And why should we so behind the developed world bringing products to market, to be able to have the infrastructure to move energy around? And we're asking people around the world to do things for us, we won't do for ourselves? My Republican friends know exactly where we are. This is not about the previous legislation. This is something, a high priority that we have for our country.

His point? It's bigger than partisan stuff or hurt feelings  - it's about time, and history. 

If we don't, Shannon, take advantage of this and come together as Americans, we're going to look back five or 10 years from now and wonder why we're not able to meet demands, why are we allowing Putin to kind of control, dictate our energy policies, and what we are trying to respond to and not able to do it in a timely fashion because we can't move the energy in America -- whether it's going to be new transmission lines for renewables or basically for fossils and oil and gas that moves the products we need today. That's what this is about. And we need to come together as Americans.

Bream brought up a letter from a group of senators asking Schumer to separate the permitting reform piece from the federal spending bill. The senators - including Booker, Warren, Duckworth, and That Guy from Vermont - are concerned Manchin's bill will make the climate worse, and that it "would actually disproportionately hurt low-income Americans and communities of color if it does get passed."

Manchin's not surprised that TGFV and the others are against his plan - they've never been for it, and "that's why we've never had it." Even with the folks behind the letter, Manchin said "overwhelmingly, Democrats in both the House and the Senate are supporting" the bill, and he hopes that's enough to swing the Rs

We have a golden opportunity and we have a majority, overwhelming majority of Democrats supporting it. And they're doing it because this is the right time and the right thing to do for our country. But, also, it's a time we basically can bring Democrats and Republicans together as we've done with the bipartisan infrastructure bill... with the CHIPS bill. And we continue to do things when we need to do something for our country. 

He echoed the same line of thinking when Bream asked him if, as Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) said, he didn't have all his ducks in a row when he went along with Schumer on the IRA. The Rs have had a ton of input on his bill, because he's been working on it with them for over a decade. 

... they have tremendous amount of input in this. But the process has come down to party line vote which is unfortunate, but it is what we're dealing with in a toxic political atmosphere. But I can assure you, everybody, we try to take everyone's input on this and my Republican friends' input is in this piece of legislation. So, I'm just hoping that and I'm very optimistic that we have the opportunity, they realize this opportunity and they'll never pass again in our lifetime.

He gently reminded any Rs watching that they weren't successful last time around.

When they had everything, when they -- in 2016 to 2020, Shannon, they had Republican president, Republican House, Republican Senate, we couldn't -- we couldn't move it because I was the only Democrat. Now we're in a position where we have a majority Democrats and our Republican friends can take it across the line.

After sharing some gloom and doom from Carl Icahn, who, Bream said, compares U.S. inflation to the fall of the Roman Empire, she asked Manchin "what regrets do you have at this point in voting for the Inflation Reduction Act...?"

He doesn't appear to have any regrets. He said the bill "puts more energy back into the markets" - and cleaner energy, too. Similarly, when you allow Medicare to reduce the price of drugs, that's helping inflation, and he said 300,000 of his constituents rely on Medicare.

The bottom line, for the folks who say the IRA will have little impact on inflation, in his view? They might not see a reduction in inflation right now, but they'll definitely see it.

because this does nothing but gives us a chance to reduce inflation... I have worked very hard to make sure we had an opportunity to be energy-independent and secure and fight Putin's war. 

And, in closing, he said "And I sure do put the country first and America. It's all about America, not about Democrats or Republicans," to which Bream replied, "That's what Americans are hoping for."  

Yes, it is. 

See you around campus.

In Case You Missed It (v108)

I did a little better getting posts out last week - I hit all four of the regular weekly features, which I haven't done in a while. Immigration - well, migration, I guess might be the better term - was a hot topic. Here's your recap.

For your Sunday School, I focused on Jon Karl's conversations in the This Week classroom. Among his guests? Oscar Leeser, the mayor of El Paso, and Eric Adams, the mayor of NYC. Here's a bit of the conversation with Leeser.

Karl asked Leeser to explain what he does when he arranges for migrants to move north, which is different than what Gov. Greg Abbott is doing by dropping them in front of the Vice President's residence. 

Leeser made a great point in his response.

...if you look at -- the people are not coming to El Paso, they're coming to America, and that's something that's really important.

While (in my words, not the mayor's), Abbott shoves people on a bus and sends them to a political target, Leeser and NGOs in El Paso try to get them where they want to go, where they have people they know. In the past, around 95% of asylum seekers and migrants had sponsors - family or friends who have arranged transportation, and who are waiting for the person to arrive. And now?

So, we have about 50% of the people today that do not have a sponsor, they don’t have money. So, we're helping and working to get them to where they want to go. So, that's been really important that we don't send anyone where they don't want to go. We make sure we help them and we put human beings and, you know, and we put them on buses with food and make sure they get to their destination where -- and make sure that we always continue to treat people like human beings.

Folks on the panel also chimed in. For example, the WaPo's Mariana Sotomayor suggested

there doesn't seem to be much of a strategy from the administration or from Capitol Hill. It might be a topic this week, what with the Martha's Vineyard shenanigans, but this close to the midterms, no one's apt to want to talk about it, other than the Rs - but they're not talking about legislative solutions; they've "tried and tried and tried again and there's just no discussion right now about whether to actually engage in any changes."

Stick around to the end of the post to hear from Marc Short, former chief of staff to VP Mike Pence, who had, um, interesting thoughts about this issue.

The conversation continued in your Extra Credit, where I listened in on Jake Tapper's conversation with Mayor Adams, who was also in CNN's State of the Union classroom. On the larger issue, 

Adams said it's a humanitarian crisis "created by human hands," and that it's one of those moments where everyone is supposed to "come together and coordinate." That means the federal government, and the governors of Texas and Florida. And, he said,

We should not be really treating other cities and municipalities in the manner that we're witnessing now. And so, we need resources for housing, resources to make sure that we can properly give people the medical care, all of the basic necessities that you would give new arrivals that enter a city.

Tapper asked him about a message for the photo-op governors, Abbott of Texas and DeSantis of Florida.

Adams talked about them "hiding up" their actions on guns, for example, and on a woman's right to choose.

You see, this is their way of covering up when many people have been really concerned about the erosion of basic human rights. We're seeing crisis calls for coordination. We received a minimum of six buses early this morning, over 11,000 individuals, asylum-seeking migrants, have come to the city already. It is time for us to coordinate this humanitarian crisis that our country is facing.

Also in the classroom with Tapper? Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD), who said

discussions "are ongoing" in the Senate, and said the last "hard push" was in 2017, when he and Sen. Angus King (I-ME) co-sponsored a bipartisan bill that got 54 votes. It addressed Dreamers, chain migration, a pathway to citizenship, and that "nothing has happened during this administration." 

Tapper didn't interrupt to ask what happened to the 2017 effort, when the Rs had a trifecta: the House, the Senate, and of course, the Trump White House. And he didn't ask what happened to immigration legislation in the next Congress in 2019, when the Rs held a 53-to-45 majority in the Senate. It would have been interesting to hear Rounds explain why nothing happened. 

Moving on to Wednesdays' wondering, Gov. Abbott popped up, but not for reasons related to his burgeoning travel agent career. He signed an Executive Order declaring Mexican drug cartels 'terrorists' in the Lone Star State.

Texans are victimized by Mexican cartels that produce and import (fentanyl). So, cartels are terrorists. And it's time that we started treating them that way.

His order directs law enforcement to "identify gangs that are supporting Mexican cartels and work to seize assets as well as disrupt cartel networks." And, he's

also directed Texas agencies to alert the public about the fentanyl crisis, including schools and workplaces through mediums like social media and public service announcements to make clear, that truly one pill can kill."

I don't have a problem with anything he did, including asking the White House to make a similar federal declaration; it's reasonable, and certainly defensible, which some of his recent antics aren't. But here's where the wondering comes in: fentanyl's been killing Americans, including Texans, for years, in rapidly increasing numbers. Abbott said that in Texas last year, nearly 1700 fentanyl-related deaths were reported. So, why did it take him so long to order his government to get the word out?

For your TGIF, we had two good week/bad week opportunities from the Sunshine State. Not surprisingly, DeSantis was one of them. I didn't pick who had what kind of week, I left that up to you. 

Ron DeSantis. Do I need to say more? I mean, I can. There's a case going to trial over his replacing an elected District Attorney; there's the lawsuit filed by the migrants from Texas who were sent to Martha's Vineyard; and there are calls to investigate him over that stunt, which included giving them incorrect information about benefits available to them. 

The other Florida reference was, perhaps, less expected: it seems the special master FPOTUS demanded in his attempts to kill or at least delay the investigations into his handling of our documents doesn't seem to be as 'special' as hoped. 

And what about Judge Raymond Dearie? First, there was the dessert ruling that Donald Trump can't have is cake and eat it, and there's put up or shut up with Trump's nonsensical claims about the FBI and the documents, and there's and you're going to pay for it - hardly music to the former president's ears. 

 I'll be back later with Sunday School; hope you'll be back, too.

TGIF 9/23/22

Randomly, here's some news of the week. I'm going to let you decide who had a good week, a bad week, or something else entirely.

I happened to catch the news the other day and there was a guy pontificating on the House floor. He looked a lot like Rep. Jim Jordan, except he was wearing a suit jacket, and I couldn't imagine anything so important that he'd actually dress like a member of Congress, instead of like a cheesy accountant or an ambulance-chasing attorney. Anyone know what was going on?

Ron DeSantis. Do I need to say more? I mean, I can. There's a case going to trial over his replacing an elected District Attorney; there's the lawsuit filed by the migrants from Texas who were sent to Martha's Vineyard; and there are calls to investigate him over that stunt, which included giving them incorrect information about benefits available to them. 

And what about Judge Raymond Dearie? First, there was the dessert ruling that Donald Trump can't have is cake and eat it, and there's put up or shut up with Trump's nonsensical claims about the FBI and the documents, and there's and you're going to pay for it - hardly music to the former president's ears. 

Who else? Oh, how could I forget New York's AG Tish James, who ran on a platform of going after Trump. She did that, and this week filed a $250M civil suit against Trump and his business associate offspring. There are lots of questions on the lawsuit, and the AG's motivation, and it'll likely never go to trial. In the meantime, James referred Trump and family to the IRS and to prosecutors for potential criminal charges, so there's that. 

Roger Federer played his last tennis match in the Laver Cup.

And finally, the world said goodbye to Queen Elizabeth II on Monday. Clearly, and understandably, there were mixed feelings about her, the monarchy, Charles being king, and a whole lot more. But as someone with no personal stake in it, I thought everything was beautiful, and surely something to see people lining the streets of London and Windsor to pay their respects.

Good week? Bad week? Make your picks.

TGIF, everyone.

Wondering on Wednesday (9/21/22)

Ready... Set... Wonder!

What's flowing from the wondering tap tonight? Random stuff, like an article in the Daily Star that Google traffic in Russia shows a spike in searches for "how to break your own arm," as folks scramble to avoid conscription into the fight against Ukraine. Those who aren't trying to hurt themselves are "leaving the country in droves," causing massive traffic jams at the Russia/Finland border. 

This comes on the heels of reports from several months ago that Russian were shooting themselves in the leg to get evacuated from the front lines. I'm not wondering a whole lot about why they are (or were) doing this kind of thing; rather, I'm wondering what will happen to them when the Putineers find out how hard they're working to avoid the war.

Let's see, what else? Oh - Texas Gov. Greg Abbott is in the news again, but not for migrants this time. Rather, he's signed an executive order declaring Mexican drug cartels 'terrorists' in the Lone Star State.

Texans are victimized by Mexican cartels that produce and import (fentanyl). So, cartels are terrorists. And it's time that we started treating them that way.

His order directs law enforcement to "identify gangs that are supporting Mexican cartels and work to seize assets as well as disrupt cartel networks." And, he's

also directed Texas agencies to alert the public about the fentanyl crisis, including schools and workplaces through mediums like social media and public service announcements to make clear, that truly one pill can kill."

I don't have a problem with anything he did, including asking the White House to make a similar federal declaration; it's reasonable, and certainly defensible, which some of his recent antics aren't. But here's where the wondering comes in: fentanyl's been killing Americans, including Texans, for years, in rapidly increasing numbers. Abbott said that in Texas last year, nearly 1700 fentanyl-related deaths were reported. So, why did it take him so long to order his government to get the word out?

We can finally stop wondering if the January 6th Committee will have a chat with G-G-G-Ginni-and-the-texts Thomas, wife of SCOTUS scoundrel Clarence. Reuters reported that a deal has been struck that'll allow them to chat "in the coming weeks." In fact, her lawyer says, Thomas is 

eager to answer the Committee's questions to clear up any misconceptions about her work relating to the 2020 election.

 I like that - "her work" relating to the election - how cute!

Speaking of "cute," I think that about sums up the Trump team's court filing in response to the DOJ's appeal of the stay ordered by Judge Aileen Cannon. Here's how the NY Times reported on today's decision in the case.

In a strongly worded 29-page decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit blocked part of an order by a federal judge that had temporarily barred the department from using the classified materials in its inquiry into whether Mr. Trump illegally retained national defense documents and obstructed the government’s repeated efforts to recover them. 

The decision has many tasty comments, if you're interested. Yay for us, yay for justice, and yay for not having to wonder if anyone was going to fall for Judge Cannon's overly generous treatment of Trump.

And finally, let's talk about NY AG Tish James and her $250 million civil suit against Donald, Donny, Ivanka, and Eric. Fraud, she says, when the Trumps overvalued their properties by the tens and hundreds of millions, making themselves look more loan-worthy, avoiding taxes, and so on. Two examples? His gold-plated Trump Tower penthouse was allegedly worth over $300 million (and he declared it three times bigger than it is); and he claimed Mar-a-Lago, his Florida document storage facility, was allegedly worth over $700 million, if you built houses on it, which you cannot. 

She got in a dig or two during her announcement, which is to be expected, even if she appeared much less gleeful taking him down than she did in campaign videos when she ran for election in 2018. The deplorable Donald Trump, Jr. posted a montage on Twitter; it's full of her plans and her rage and her threats against his then-president father. 

So, I'm left wondering why I'm sitting here appreciating a tweet from Donny, something I thought I'd never do, and wondering how Tish James is going to defend herself from the onslaught of clearly-documented 'witch hunt' charges, and wondering why it is that prominent Dems always seem to shoot themselves in the foot.

What're you wondering about tonight?

Sunday School 9/18/22: Extra Credit

As promised in your Sunday School lesson, here's a longer interview with NYC Mayor Eric Adams, who talked with Jake Tapper in the CNN State of the Union classroom.

Tapper began by noting that "more than 11,000 asylum seekers have passed through New York's shelter system since May, including roughly 2,500 bused to New York from Texas."  Adams has said NYC is "nearing its breaking point" and has even talked about bringing in cruise ships as temporary shelters. With that backdrop, Tapper asked what Adams needs from President Biden and the feds, and "how much longer can New York continue" without additional resources. 

Adams said it's a humanitarian crisis "created by human hands," and that it's one of those moments where everyone is supposed to "come together and coordinate." That means the federal government, and the governors of Texas and Florida. And, he said,

We should not be really treating other cities and municipalities in the manner that we're witnessing now. And so, we need resources for housing, resources to make sure that we can properly give people the medical care, all of the basic necessities that you would give new arrivals that enter a city.

He also said they're not going to run out of resources; they're "going to follow the law... as well as our moral obligations and responsibilities." He said it's already challenging, and will continue to be so, because NYC is a "right-to-shelter" city. And when Tapper asked about his message for DeSantis and Abbott, Adams talked about them "hiding up" their actions on guns, for example, and on a woman's right to choose.

You see, this is their way of covering up when many people have been really concerned about the erosion of basic human rights. We're seeing crisis calls for coordination. We received a minimum of six buses early this morning, over 11,000 individuals, asylum-seeking migrants, have come to the city already. It is time for us to coordinate this humanitarian crisis that our country is facing.

He disagreed when Tapper said "it seems like you agree this is a crisis that needs more attention from the Biden administration," and said it's something that needs more coordination from the whole country, "at the federal level, the state level, and even city-to-city. Tapper tried again, asking if Biden and the Dems in Congress should make immigration a priority, "using their political capital to finally fix this problem," given it's been since Reagan was in office that we last had major immigration reform legislation.

Adams said one of the most important things we can to is allow migrants to work.

They came here to pursue the American dream. I don't think it really is logical to allow people to be here for months without the ability to seek employment, particularly during a time when we are seeking employees on various sectors in our city.

And, from the other side of the aisle - in fact, from the other side of the country - Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD) was on next, with immigration one of the topics. Tapper asked if he agrees with the moves by Abbott and DeSantis. Rounds said they're trying to send a message to the rest of the country "about the plight of those individuals that are coming from south of the border." Pointing to the ridiculously high number of border-crossers under the Biden administration - he said it's "about 3.4 million" (and I'm not fact-checking that) coming to our southern states.

What is a governor supposed to do? They're trying to send a message to the rest of the country that this is not acceptable, and that their states can't handle that type of an inflow.

And it's not just the people - it's the drugs, too. He said his state's Native American reservations "have got huge inflows of drug trafficking coming into our state into some of the heaviest poverty areas of the entire country," and South Dakota's 1200 miles from the border.

So, it's affecting all of our states, but the administration is not doing anything about it.

I wish Tapper had said, "I'll have you back to talk about Native American poverty and drug problems," but he didn't. He did ask if there wasn't a "degree of trolling here" and whether he "really have no issue with using human beings, a one-month-old baby, little kids to make a political point like this?"

Rounds said it needs to be put into perspective, "This is every single day thousands of individuals coming across with babies" to our southern states.

And so, yes, I mean, do any of us like the situation that we're in? Absolutely not. Matter of fact, I would suspect that the individuals in the Southern states that are trying to find a way to get the attention of the administration would love to have other alternatives to them. It's been 606 days since Joe Biden took office, and this problem has done nothing except continue to develop. This is a national problem. And yet these governors on -- along the Southern borders are the ones that are faced with trying to address it.

Tapper suggested what we need is "a comprehensive immigration bill" addressing border security and a pathway to citizenship for all the folks who've been here for decades. And, he said

In the more than 20 years I have been in this town, I have seen people like President George W. Bush and Senator Lindsey Graham and Senator Marco Rubio trying to get immigration reform done, working with Democrats. Every time, they were defeated by House Republicans, who wouldn't go along with any sort of compromise. Would you support restarting bipartisan negotiations to try and -- try to finally fix this broken immigration system?

Rounds said discussions "are ongoing" in the Senate, and said the last "hard push" was in 2017, when he and Sen. Angus King (I-ME) co-sponsored a bipartisan bill that got 54 votes. It addressed Dreamers, chain migration, a pathway to citizenship, and that "nothing has happened during this administration." 

Tapper didn't interrupt to ask what happened to the 2017 effort, when the Rs had a trifecta: the House, the Senate, and of course, the Trump White House. And he didn't ask what happened to immigration legislation in the next Congress in 2019, when the Rs held a 53-to-45 majority. It would have been interesting to hear Rounds explain why nothing happened. 

Instead, Tapper let Rounds continue.

Yes, would we like to step forward again and try and approach again? Absolutely. Do we have to address it? Yes. Do we have to have border security? Before anything else can happen, we have got to be able to defend that border. We have got to be able to make a border that actually works. Otherwise, why should people pay any attention to the laws that we have gotten? What good would it do to reform them if we're not going to enforce them?

Rounds is right, but he would have had a better case if he had expanded upon the "ongoing" discussions, or if he said he and King were back at it with his bill from 2017, or if he had responded in any way at all to Tapper's comment about House Republicans who refuse to compromise.

Blaming the administration is easy, but it would have been a whole lot more powerful if he had a better story to tell.

See you around campus.

Sunday School 9/18/22

We're talking immigration this week, starting with your Sunday School and ABC's This Week classroom. Jon Karl was in the host's chair, and talked first with Oscar Leeser, El Paso's mayor. 

Karl asked him to describe what's happening in his city, with 1300 migrants a day arriving there. Leeser said it's more than that - north of 1500, nearly 2000 in recent days and some 80% are Venezuelans. 

Leeser said he's got a good working relationship with the Border Patrol, and that

our goal, and it will continue to be our goal, is never to drop anybody off in the streets of El Paso and make sure that no one’s homeless, no one’s hungry. So, we have our NGOs, which is non-governmental organizations that really have opened up their doors and we’ve gotten hotels. And in the last few days we’ve not had any people released into the streets of El Paso...

Karl asked Leeser to explain what he does when he arranges for migrants to move north, which is different than what Gov. Greg Abbott is doing by dropping them in front of the Vice President's residence. 

Leeser made a great point in his response.

...if you look at -- the people are not coming to El Paso, they're coming to America, and that's something that's really important.

While (in my words, not the mayor's), Abbott shoves people on a bus and sends them to a political target, Leeser and NGOs in El Paso try to get them where they want to go, where they have people they know. In the past, around 95% of asylum seekers and migrants had sponsors - family or friends who have arranged transportation, and who are waiting for the person to arrive. And now?

So, we have about 50% of the people today that do not have a sponsor, they don’t have money. So, we're helping and working to get them to where they want to go. So, that's been really important that we don't send anyone where they don't want to go. We make sure we help them and we put human beings and, you know, and we put them on buses with food and make sure they get to their destination where -- and make sure that we always continue to treat people like human beings.

NYC Eric Adams was up next; I'll have a longer interview with him in your Extra Credit, so I'll keep his remarks here brief. Adams said he's been working with New York Senators Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand, as well as with the Biden administration, 

to talk about how do we coordinate and their goal is to make sure that we get the resources and the coordination that’s needed, as the mayor of El Paso stated. These migrants and asylum seekers are not coming to any particular city. They're coming to America. This is an American crisis that we need to face, the humanitarian crisis that were made by human hands by some of the governors in our southern states.

He said there's no coordination with the childish governors Abbott and now DeSantis. He reached out to Abbott and his team, asking for coordination but that's not what they got.

They took the call and stated that they would coordinate... and they did not coordinate at all because I don’t think it was politically expedient for them to coordinate. It was more to do this basically political gamesmanship that you're seeing now.

And, finally, he's committed to New York City remaining a sanctuary city, echoing Mayor Leeser's thoughts.

Let's be clear here, we've all come from somewhere. Our lineage came from a location and the pursuit of the American dream is what we’ve all fought for... And I will always believe that this is a country where people want to pursue the American dream, and there are ways it can be done correctly.

So, having heard from a sender, and a receiver, it's time to hear from the panel: Marc Short, former chief of staff to VP Mike Pence; former Sen. Heidi Heitkamp; Mariana Sotomayor (WaPo), and Alex Burns (Politico). Here are a few highlights.

• Heitkamp said that the 'stunts' perpetrated by Abbott and DeSantis aren't working. She also said that some of what's happening now was predictable, and there was a "lack of preparation" which she blames on both the current and previous administrations. She also said there's a difference between how we treat Cubans and Venezuelans, even though both are "fleeing the same kind of dictatorial, communist regime. And finally, Biden should sit down with Abbott and DeSantis now and figure something out.

• Short said none of this was happening under the previous administration because it "actually secured the border." He also talked about the "hypocrisy and...in many cases, fake outrage" by folks on the left and in the media. And, he said, migrants in Florida aren't walking there themselves, the Biden administration is flying them in - and it's not just Florida. How's that OK, he asked, but it's wrong for governors to ship them to "one of the wealthiest communities in America..."

• Sotomayor said there doesn't seem to be much of a strategy from the administration or from Capitol Hill. It might be a topic this week, what with the Martha's Vineyard shenanigans, but this close to the midterms, no one's apt to want to talk about it, other than the Rs - but they're not talking about legislative solutions; they've "tried and tried and tried again and there's just no discussion right now about whether to actually engage in any changes."

• Burns said the governors are "playing to gallery on the right in their own parties and in their own states, ahead of re-election votes that both of them are highly, highly likely to prevail in and then, maybe, turn around and run for president." He said that we have a "generational, bipartisan policy failure" on immigration, but Abbott and DeSantis aren't doing anything that serious from a policy perspective.

• Karl noted that "the administration is not putting forward anything" either.

I agree with Jon Karl on that point, the Vice President's comments last week about our "secure" border notwithstanding.

I'll close with perhaps the oddest comment from the classroom, which came from Marc Short, who said

... if we were really concerned about the humanitarian crisis, Jon, then actually what we would be doing is we'd be stopping the crisis at the border, where there's 200,000 migrants every month. And they estimate 50 percent of the young women are either raped or sexually molested making that long journey from Peru and Colombia up there. If we actually had a policy in place that returned migrants to Mexico while they waited for their asylum appeals, as happened in the Trump-Pence administration, you wouldn't have the same humanitarian crisis we have today.

What on earth is he trying to say here? That the women who are raped or sexually assaulted on the way here would be better off if they were kept in Mexico? Or is it that he couldn't care less about what happens to them on the trip, as long as we don't get stuck with them?

Pretty sure we all know the answer to that question.

See you around campus.

In Case You Missed it (v107)

Lots going on outside the pages of veritable pastiche last week; here's a recap of what happened in them.

Two posts made it out, both focused on NBC's exclusive interview with VP Kamala Harris. In your Sunday School, topics included changes to the filibuster, election deniers, Dems supporting MAGA Republicans, the 2025 election certification, and internal threats from extremists. 

Here's a bit of that part of the conversation, with What's-his-Name (WHN) in the host's chair on Meet the Press.

In response to his question, "what is a semi-fascist?" Harris spoke about it not being helpful when people deny elections or obstruct "the outcome of an election with the largest number of voters ever for a presidential candidate.

And when we look at where we are, I think that we have to admit that there are attacks from within, to your first question. And we need to take it seriously. And we need to stand up together, all of us, and think of this not through a partisan lens but as Americans.

WHN wondered if it was "hard to do both," calling out the obstruction and election denying and at the same time try to unite people, Harris pointed to Biden's long record of bipartisanship, and that he's been criticized for that during his career.

But there are moments in time when we have to also agree, all good people who care about our country, that there are those who right now are vividly not defending our democracy. And I think we want that our Commander-in-Chief, that the president of the United States will speak up and raise the alarm about what this means to our strength and our future, much less our integrity.

I don't think she wanted to talk about the specific language President Biden used to describe the extreme MAGA Republicans, and honestly I think that's the case with most of her answers.

In your Extra Credit, the Harris interview topics included the Supreme Court, abortion, 2024, and immigration. Here, too, Harris seemed to have trouble answering the question.

And moving on, "since we're here in Texas," WHN asked if Harris would call the border "secure."  

The border is secure, but we also have a broken immigration system, in particular over the last four years before we came in, and it needs to be fixed.

WHN asked again if she's "confident the border's secure," given we'll see two million crossing this year. 

We have a secure border in that that is a priority for any nation, including ours and our administration. But there are still a lot of problems that we are trying to fix given the deterioration that happened over the last four years. We also have to put into place a law and a plan for a pathway for citizenship for the millions of people who are here and are prepared to do what is legally required to gain citizenship. We don't have that in place because people are playing politics in a state like this and in Congress. By the way, you want to talk about bipartisanship on an issue that at one time was a bipartisan issue both in terms of Republican senators and even presidents.

Next question? Inflation is being made worse by us not having enough low-wage workers, so a "solution on immigration reform that increased particularly lower wage job labor – lower wage labor could actually have an impact on lowering inflation. How is that not the motivating force to get something done here?"

Um, because there is literally zero motivating factor to giving Biden another win? Why do anything before the midterm election, since the Rs have visions of taking over the House and Senate, ensuring nothing gets done for another two years...  But that's my answer. 

You'll have to check the post to find out what Harris said. 

I'm going to spend some time (again, I'm telling you this) working on clearing out my drafts folder. With any luck, that'll mean posts will be posted. 

Stay tuned. 

Sunday School 9/11/22: Extra Credit

Let's continue with What's-his-Name and Vice President Kamala Harris in the Meet the Press classroom. 

I recapped the first part of the interview in yesterday's Sunday School post; this segment begins with questions about the Supreme Court, and her confidence in it.

Harris said the thinks the SCOTUS is an "activist court," which means 

we had an established right for almost a half a century, which is the right of women to make decisions about their own body as an extension of what we have decided to be the privacy rights to which all people are entitled. And this court took that constitutional right away. And we are suffering as a nation because of it.

She also said she was inspired by Thurgood Marshall, and by the Warren Court, with decisions like Brown vs. Board of Education. Now, though, "it's a very different court" than the one that had justices like Marshall, Warren, and Sandra Day O'Connor.

With no follow-up on that, WHN moved to abortion, asking Harris about a bill being moved forward by Sens. Tim Kaine (D-OH) and Susan Collins (R-ME), which they say would basically codify the protections under Roe for abortion up to 24 weeks. and wondering if she'd "be OK with" that. She said she'd have to read the bill, noting "the details obviously matter."

He noted that this bill is not getting the same support from "some abortion rights groups" as other options, and he asked if it was "more important" to find Republican support for this. She said "Ideally, yes, it would be bipartisan."  

And, should the government "put any limit on abortion?" Harris believes government should not be

telling women what to do with their bodies... telling women how to plan their families... criminalizing health care providers... saying "no exception for rape or incest."

And moving on, "since we're here in Texas," WHN asked if Harris would call the border "secure."  

The border is secure, but we also have a broken immigration system, in particular over the last four years before we came in, and it needs to be fixed.

WHN asked again if she's "confident the border's secure," given we'll see two million crossing this year. 

We have a secure border in that that is a priority for any nation, including ours and our administration. But there are still a lot of problems that we are trying to fix given the deterioration that happened over the last four years. We also have to put into place a law and a plan for a pathway for citizenship for the millions of people who are here and are prepared to do what is legally required to gain citizenship. We don't have that in place because people are playing politics in a state like this and in Congress. By the way, you want to talk about bipartisanship on an issue that at one time was a bipartisan issue both in terms of Republican senators and even presidents.

Next question? Inflation is being made worse by us not having enough low-wage workers, so a "solution on immigration reform that increased particularly lower wage job labor – lower wage labor could actually have an impact on lowering inflation. How is that not the motivating force to get something done here?"

Um, because there is literally zero motivating factor to giving Biden another win? Why do anything before the midterm election, since the Rs have visions of taking over the House and Senate, ensuring nothing gets done for another two years...  But that's my answer. 

Here's what Harris said.

I do believe that, for all reasonable people, all reasonable people are motivated and desirous that we would get something done. I think a big part of the problem though is that there's been political gamesmanship with this issue suggesting that it's a zero-sum game. If you want to deal with the issue, there are practical solutions, which include creating a pathway to citizenship, fixing a broken immigration system, dealing with the root causes of why people are fleeing their home when most people don't want to leave home. And if they do, it's usually because they're fleeing some harm, or they simply can't take care of their basic needs if they stay. There are solutions. And sadly, this has become such a partisan issue, instead of something where we work on it together, agreeing that what we're doing is not working as a nation. It's not working.

That agreement alone will be hard to get, regardless of the outcome of the midterm election. 

WHN then delved into 2024, wondering if there'll be an announcement after the midterms about the Biden/Harris team's plans. Harris said

Listen, the president has been very clear that he intends to run again. And if he does, I will be running with him proudly.

He thought she said 'probably,' which prompted some chuckles. She reiterated that a couple of times, saying "I'm very proud to be his vice president." The talked about Harris now having broken John Adams' record of tie-breaking votes in the Senate, which made her proud.

Who would have thought that this kid born in Oakland, California just broke a record with John Adams... Kind of, you’ve got to appreciate that.

WHN asked her about preparing for "the worst-case scenario that your job may hand you."  She said that she prays it doesn't happen; the rest of her answer seemed designed to show that she's preparing for it by doing the work that a VP does, even if, as WHN noted, there's no job description.

And listen, I think that there is no question that the role and the responsibility of vice president is a very important one. And Joe Biden knows that more than anybody. He and I talk about it. And it is the job of working with the president, doing what I can to be a great partner, to take on and help take on some of the biggest issues that impact our country, both domestically and in terms of foreign policy. And so that's the work that I do. So that has been the work of meeting with over a hundred heads of state around various issues, be it Ukraine or what we need to do around our space program. So that is the work of vice president, and it is important and it is something that I take very seriously.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on this interview: were you satisfied with her answers? Do you have a better sense of her now than before? If Biden decides not to run next year, is she the best Dem to replace her? Chime in!

See you around campus. 

Sunday School 9/11/22

For your Sunday School, I'm going to noodle around in the Meet the Press classroom. What's-his-name (WHN) interviewed Vice President Kamala Harris in Houston last week, and played many clips from the interview today. 

WHN started the interview talking about how our focus "has had to shift from foreign terror to the threat from within." Harris spoke of how we were able to "hold our heads up as a defender and an example of a great democracy," and how we held ourselves up as a "role model." 

So, you look at everything from the fact that there are eleven people right now running for secretary of state, the keepers of the integrity of the voting system of their state, who are election deniers...  you couple that with people who hold some of the highest elected office in our country who refuse to condemn an insurrection on January 6th. And I think what it sends is a signal that causes people to question, “Hey, is America still valuing what they talk about?”

She said she's "very concerned" that thing like this "allow people to call into question our commitment to the principles of "what is right, what is good, what should be fought for, what should be human ideals, and certainly, the ideals of democracies... And that's a shame."

Harris said she finds "interesting" polling showing that 70% of Rs don't believe she and Biden "won the 2020 election legitimately." She's not experiencing that when she's out meeting and talking to people, which prompted WHN to ask, "do you think you talk to a lot of Republicans...?" In response, she said, "Well, I think I talk to a lot of Americans," about infrastructure, access to high-speed internet, and about choice - in particular, she mentioned the overwhelming rejection of government interference in Kansas. 

In response to his question, "what is a semi-fascist?" Harris spoke about it not being helpful when people deny elections or obstruct "the outcome of an election with the largest number of voters ever for a presidential candidate.

And when we look at where we are, I think that we have to admit that there are attacks from within, to your first question. And we need to take it seriously. And we need to stand up together, all of us, and think of this not through a partisan lens but as Americans.

WHN wondered if it was "hard to do both," calling out the obstruction and election denying and at the same time try to unite people, Harris pointed to Biden's long record of bipartisanship, and that he's been criticized for that during his career.

But there are moments in time when we have to also agree, all good people who care about our country, that there are those who right now are vividly not defending our democracy. And I think we want that our Commander-in-Chief, that the president of the United States will speak up and raise the alarm about what this means to our strength and our future, much less our integrity.

Another 'all pundits ask it' question was about Dems helping support MAGA Republicans in their primaries, even when Biden is talking about "good Republicans" and how they're not like the MAGA variety. WHN wondered if the Democratic Party was making a mistake. Harris said it wasn't up to her to tell people how to run their campaigns, and like pretty much all the administration Dems, refused to say whether it reflected badly on the party. Her focus is on "a midterm election in which so much is on the line." 

Our president has said he will not let the filibuster get in the way. If the Senate, through a majority vote, votes to pass the Women's Health Protection Act, he will sign it into law. You know what that means in the midterms? We need to hold on to the Senate and get two more. And then we can put into law the protections of Roe v. Wade. Everything is on the line when you think about the millions of women and people in America who care about them, who understand the significance of protecting a woman's right to make decisions about her own body instead of her government telling her what to do.

WHN asked if she was comfortable making changes to the filibuster for voting rights and a woman's right to choose "could end the legislative filibuster for good."  Her response?

No, I’m not. No, I'm not.

She thinks it could be set aside for these issues and still be in place for other issues, saying "that is very likely, yes."

The last section of this part of the interview was about the Former Guy, and about the certification of the next election. WHN asked how much Trump's being both a past president and a potential presidential candidate should "factor into the decision to charge him?" Harris said she "wouldn't dare tell" the DOJ what to do. She also reiterated that the current administration,

unlike the previous administration, have been very, very careful to make sure that there is no question about any kind of interference in terms of the decisions that the Department of Justice makes in that regard.

And, her opinion on "the argument that it would be too divisive for the country to prosecute a former president?"

I think that our country is a country that has gone through different periods of time, where the unthinkable has happened, and where there has been a call for justice, and justice has been served. And I think that's potentially going to always be the case in our country, that people are going to demand justice and they rightly do.

Next, WHN asked if Harris had contemplated any scenarios that might happen on January 6, 2025. She first said, "Not at all," but then said

No. I mean, well, listen, what have I thought about? I have thought about the fact that, right now, we have an election in less than two months. And if we're going to look at timelines, that's one of the most immediate timelines that I'm looking at.

Yeah, but... he asked if she'd thought about how she'd "handle a certification that did not reflect the outcome of the popular vote in the state?" 

I haven't gotten to that point yet. I have to believe that the United States Congress and all the people who have taken an oath to defend our democracy will ensure and will stand up against anyone who tries to destroy or circumvent the rules and the practices and procedures that we've had in place that have allowed a peaceful transfer of power since the inception of our nation and the founding of our nation. And getting back to the ultimate point, that is – that is what we're talking about when we think about January 6th. We have always had a peaceful transfer of power in our nation, no matter our differences, no matter how bloody-knuckled we've been in campaigns. 

And we can't say that now, WHN pointed out.

Well, certainly, we were on the verge of having a very different outcome. And the injury was still an injury for which we still are experiencing the wound. 

I'll have more from the interview for your Extra Credit. 

See you around campus.