Wondering on Wednesday 5/8/24

Ready... Set... Wonder!

I wonder what would happen if former president Donald Trump showed up to entertain the media before his trial in NYC, and there weren't any reporters to greet him? Would he just keep on walking into the courtroom? Would he get a minion to find a reporter who could stick a microphone in his face? Would the world come to an end, I wonder? 

There is no duty for the media to stand behind the fences waiting for him. After all, he won't say anything that he hasn't already pushed out as an alleged 'Truth' sometime in the wee hours of the morning. And I find myself wondering whether any assignment editors are willing to 'forget' to assign someone to wait for him. And of course, I wonder about the job security of anyone who did that.

I've long wondered what my sleep number is, and what it says about me... or about my husband, who would have a very different sleep number, I'm sure.

I posted recaps of interviews with three possible Trump VP candidates: Gov. Doug Burgum, Senator Tim Scott, and Gov. Kristi Noem.  There's so much wondering about the interviews, the subjects, and the hosts it's hard to get my thoughts in order. But this much is clear: I have to wonder why any network would bring on any of these folks, or any of the others in the VP mix if these interviews are indicative of what we can expect. I'll have more on this tomorrow.

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Burning Down the House) has been meeting with House Speaker Mike Johnson this week; the two have spent hours together, I guess talking about Greene's demands, which included Johnson agreeing to consider defunding the DOJ's special prosecutors, and maybe even the DOJ itself. 

Earlier today, she posted on X that Trump was happy she'd gotten Johnson to consider her defunding proposal.  And Fox News was happy about that, too. And then, to show how happy she was, she submitted her motion to vacate the chair. 

And it was quickly shot down by the House, with only 11 MAGATs voting to boot Johnson. So, you might be wondering, what am I wondering about here?  Only this: has she now done enough to have her constituents vote her out? I sure hope so. 

Finally, in case you've been wondering, there truly are two systems of justice in America: one for slugs like you and me, and one for slugs like the former president. Why do I say this? Well, today in court, Judge Juan Merchan said Trump was "cursing audibly" and "shaking his head visibly," calling those behaviors contemptuous. 

I don't wonder for even a second that if I acted out like that, after having already been fined $10,000 for multiple contemptuous violations of a gag order, I'd be watching my own trial from a different room. But when you're the former president and presumptive nominee of the MAGA Campers, I guess the rules just don't apply. 

That's it for me - what's on your wondering minds tonight? Drop a comment if you like.

Sunday School 5/5/24: Noem's VP Interview

Here's the last of the three vice presidential interviews - whew! 

This time, we've got South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem, who talked with Margaret Brennan in the Face the Nation classroom. Will we see any questions about the dog? I'm willing to bet the answer is yes. 

Brennan had a copy of Noem's book, No Going Back: The Truth on What's Wrong with Politics and How We Move America Forward (and can I tell you how much I hate overly long and self-serving book titles?) with her for the interview, and started out by asking if Trump mentioned  "any of the response to"  the book when Noem was at Mar-a-Lago over the weekend.

Oh, he certainly knows about the book, and I appreciate his endorsement of it. You know, this is really a book that talks about how we're not going back. It's – we're not going back to the days before Donald Trump. Donald Trump broke politics. And I think that's a good thing. We're not going back to the days of Mitt Romney or the Bushes, that now there's a new way to do and talk to the American people, and they appreciate it. It's an honest, genuine conversation about what these citizens can do to take back their government and to have more input. So, this book is really a how-to guide for how to make your voice heard and how – for people in this country, what they can do to really make sure that they are getting genuine elected officials that really want to give them more freedom and liberty.

So, was that a yes? A no? A 'buy my book' entreaty?  I can't really tell, can you?

Brennan turned to Noem's crazy statement about meeting a particular world leader. Here's what the book says: 

I remember when I met with North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un. I'm sure he underestimated me, having no clue about my experience staring down little tyrants. I have been a children's pastor after all." 

Brennan asked if she had met Kim. 

Well, you know, as soon as this was brought to my attention, I certainly made some changes and looked at this – this passage. And I have met with many, many world leaders. I have traveled around the world. As soon as it was brought to my attention, we went forward and have made some edits. So, I'm glad that this book is being released in a couple of days, and that those edits will be in place, and that people will – will have the updated version.

So, was that a yes? A no? A 'I had no idea anyone was actually going to read the book' line? I can't tell.

Brennan said, "So, you did not meet with Kim Jong-un? That's what you're saying." Noem's answer was pretty funny.

No, I have met with many, many world leaders, many world leaders. I have traveled around the world, I think I have talked extensively in this book about my time serving in Congress, my time as governor, before governor, some of the travels that I have had. I'm not going to talk about my specific meetings with world leaders, I'm just not going to do that. This anecdote shouldn't have been in the book. And as soon as it was brought to my attention, I made sure that that was adjusted.

So, "as soon as it was brought to my attention that I lied in my book, I said, 'oh crap!' and called the publisher," or something like that?

And so, we're doing all that we can to make sure that those changes are made. And I'm going to continue to focus on what this book is, and the blueprint that it lays out for the American citizen on all of the things in the background and stories of my life, but also what I think that needs to be identified in politics and was broken today. I talk about how broken the money game is, how broken it is that – that we've got consultants that are getting rich off of elected officials, and then how fake some elected politicians are. 

Every single person in this country wants someone in elected office that's – that's a human being, that doesn't say they're perfect. I take responsibility for that being in the book. And as soon as it was brought to my attention, I asked for it to be changed. So, I'm glad that the release date is in a couple of days. And we're excited to talk to America about my new book, "No Going Back."

Brennan then asked who Noem might have confused with Kim Jung Un, and wondered if it was the previous, female leader of South Korea.

Well, I think you need to remember, Margaret, and everybody needs to remember that I have worked on ag policy and federal policy for over 30 years. My time in serving and making policies in this country has been extensive and covered decades.

No. No one is required to remember how Noem spent the last three decades, given that most people never heard of her until she hitched her wagon to Trump. 

And when Brennan asked if she ever went to North Korea, Noem said, "yes, I have. I have been there." Brennan was shocked but then said she went to the DMZ (not the same thing, by the way) and said the book includes the info she's "willing to share" about that visit. 

I have traveled the world, and I visited with world leaders. And some of that is referenced in the book. And this anecdote is something that, when it was brought to my attention… … we made some changes. And when the book is released, we'll do all that we can to see that – that that is reflected.

Brennan then noted Kim was mentioned not once but twice, at which point Noem asked "Do you have a question for me, Margaret?"

Yes, I do. South Korea is a treaty ally. North Korea is a nuclear-armed adversary, so that's a… pretty big thing to confuse. I know you read this book before it was published because you released video of your recording of the audiobook. You didn't catch these errors when you were recording it?

And then, Noem did what they all do: point the finger at the other guy.

Well, Margaret, as soon as it was brought to my attention, I took action to make sure that it was reflected. And, listen, this is what is so discouraging about politics and the media today, is that we have the White House that just recently came out and confirmed that President Joe Biden has misspoken, has made mistakes, has even outright lied over close to 150 times just this year.

And you've done nothing to question him on any of that. And you're – you're talking about a book that hasn't been released yet, that's been corrected before it's been released. And you haven't said one thing about Joe Biden saying that he was in prison with Nelson Mandela, that he started the civil rights movement, that he drove an 18-wheeler, that his uncle was eaten by cannibals.

And then it got even more fun.

MB: If I had an interview with Joe Biden, who I have asked for multiple times, I will definitely ask him about his record. But I'm asking you about your book here, which we have. So…

KN: Well, I'm just asking – I'm just asking for why – why am I being treated differently than every other person that you've interviewed? I have looked at your last several weeks of your interviews.

MB: I'm quoting you.

KN: You don't – you don't interrupt other people. You let them talk. Thank you for inviting me to have this conversation about this book. This book is extremely important to the people of this country. It is important, because it's a how-to guide of what they can do to have input into their government, how we need breakers and builders in this world.

OK, that part made me laugh out loud. Brennan doesn't interrupt other people? Good lord, she's the interrupter-in-chief of the Sunday School classrooms! She interrupts everyone! 

KN: And I'm taking responsibility for the change that we've made. And the buck stops with me.

MB: OK, and for the mistake in the book?

KN: And I have told you that, and I'm – no, it's not. What I have said is that I have decided that this anecdote should…

MB: You're not taking responsibility for the mistakes in the book?

KN: I have decided this – I – I am saying that this book is very, very good. And I have met with many world leaders, and that I – there are world leaders that I have met with that are in this book. There are many that I met with that are not in this book.

Now, at this point, if you're Noem, wouldn't you just stop talking about your damn book? Seriously, wouldn't you just stop?

KN: And this is an anecdote that – that I asked to have removed, because I think it's appropriate at this point in time.  

I feel the need to interject here with a definition for Gov. Noem.

Hopefully that might help her going forward. 

KN: But I'm not going to talk to you about those personal meetings that I have had with world leaders. I'm just not going to have that conversation, because I think it's important.

"Help me, Obi Wan Kenobi." I want to be the vice president, but I'm not going to talk about my alleged vast foreign policy experience, "because I think it's important" not to? Is that what she's saying?  

Noting that Benjamin Netanyahu is one of the world leaders the governor' has spoken with, Brennan asked if Noem agrees with Trump that "Bibi Netanyahu has been criticized for what took place on October 7."  Here's the gist of her response: what Hamas did was horrific, America should never stand for anti-Semitism, what's happening at colleges is bad and should be "shut down immediately," and Biden should have acted sooner on that. Brennan interpreted that response to mean Noem doesn't agree with what Trump said.

And then, the interview turned where everyone knew it would: Cricket the dog, and how Noem killed the puppy for being aggressive, too excitable to be a decent hunting dog, and for killing chickens.  The question? "I wonder if you have regrets about sharing this story."

I know, everyone wants to hear Noem defend herself on this mess, but let's be honest: had she not been so proud of what she did, no one would ever know that she did it. And let's be honest about something else, too: animals, including misbehaving dogs, are killed on farms. And I dare say, that fate is likely preferable to leaving a 'bad dog' chained up in the hot sun, pouring rain, and freezing snow, with little or no sustenance.   

In a nutshell, Noem says she included the story about killing the dog because it's indicative of how she has "made very difficult decisions" and "because people need to understand" who she is. And who she is, is a mom with little children and the choice between her kids and the dog, well, the kids win. 

Another reason she talks about it in the book?

...because what I'm tired of in this country is politicians who pretend to be something that they're not, that they aren't willing to have the hard conversations and look at the past and the tough decisions that they've made...what I talk about in the book extensively when people are able to get it on Tuesday is to see the whole story and the truth, not the spin that the media has put on this story. The media has put some or removed – removed most of the facts and – and what – the reason this is in there… 

At this point, Brennan should have stopped talking about the dog, but she didn't. She asked why the dog wasn't taken to a shelter. Noem explained it had been to multiple trainers, she had put lots of time into the dog's training, and nothing had changed.  She took responsibility, she didn't ask anyone else to deal with it. And, then, according to Brennan's interpretation of the book, Noem went out a shot a billy goat that "smelled and would chase kids."  

And I'm asking you this because it seems like you're celebrating the killing of animals. 

Noem turned it into a conversation about extremism and political attacks and she's being treated the same as Donald Trump is treated.

… every day, the constant attacks and coming after me. I – during COVID, I was attacked night after night for months after month for the decisions that I made. In fact, you and many other journalists attacked me every single day on TV for months for the decisions that I made in South Dakota, for my people to protect their freedoms and their liberties.

Does that make her a good candidate to be his VP? I would have asked that, but it wasn't my interview.  

MB: And I thanked you for answering questions on it. But on the – on this point, though... You talk multiple times about it. In fact, at the end of the book, you say the very first thing you would do if you got to the White House that was different from Joe Biden, is you'd make sure Joe Biden's dog was nowhere on the grounds. "Commander, say hello to Cricket." Are you doing this to try to look tough? Do you still think that you have a shot at being a V.P.?

KN: Well, number one, Joe Biden's dog has attacked 24 Secret Service people. So, how many people is enough people to be attacked and dangerously hurt before you make a decision on a dog and what to do with it?

MB: Well, he's not living at the White House anymore.

KN: That's – that's a question that the president should be held accountable to.

MB: You're saying he should be shot?

KN: That what's the president should be accountable to, is, what is – what is the number? And I would say, about Republicans criticizing me, these are the same Republicans have criticized me during COVID. They've criticized me when I have made other decisions in South Dakota to protect my state. And my state today is extremely happy and thriving. We're doing well...

She listed a number of positives for her state, reflecting growth and jobs and no debt, and a AAA credit rating. To which Brennan responded

MB: So, you're not going to retract the book? 

I kid you not - that's what she asked.

KN: I – this book is a powerful book... It's an honest book of a blueprint for America of what citizens can do here to take their country back. And I'm so proud of this book and – and what it will bring to people. I hope that they will buy it. They'll find a lot of truthful stories. And we talk a lot about what we can use as an example from Donald Trump on how he has continued to be a real person, been genuine, and been honest to people, and that what bothers me the most about politicians is when they're fake.

MB: But if you have to retract it or parts of it…

Noem said "I'm not – I'm not retracting anything. I'm not retracting anything."

I'd like to retract this interview, what do you think?

See you around campus.

Sunday School 5/5/24: Scott's VP Interview

I can't believe I'm doing this again - trying to recap a Sen. Tim Scott interview - but here I am. Scott was in the Meet the Press classroom with Kristen Welker.  

Welker started by asking if Scott respects people's right to peacefully protest; the question came in reaction to increased police involvement on campuses. His response, all 279 words of it, started out with

Well, we certainly respect the right to peaceful protest. What we're seeing on college campuses, however, is too often not peaceful protest. 

He went on to talk about the violence that's occurring, and the 2000 arrests that have been made, and continued

What we have to understand is the antisemitism that we're seeing on college campuses today is akin to what we saw in the 1960s. What we should be saying as a nation, the American people, they're saying it loud and clear. They support eliminating antisemitism from college campuses. They're being very clear. There's no space for hate in America.

He then accused President Biden of pandering by not speaking out sooner, and spoke of the 'privilege' that is federal funding for education, a favorite refrain of the Rs. Welker noted that Scott himself has acknowledged the anti-Semitism in his own party, but I guess because it's not happening on campuses as much as it is at 'conservative' gatherings, it's not as urgent. 

Kristen, let me just say this though, Kristen. Once of the things we should make sure we do is continue to focus on the issues that we are seeing faced by those students today... This is the kind of scourge on our nation, the thing that scars the soul of a country as in we don't stand up for the vulnerable. We should make sure we do that today, tomorrow, and every day going forward.

And ignore the stuff 'we' did in the past.  

Her next question was whether or not he talked with Trump over the weekend - they were together at Mar-a-Lago - about being his running mate.

No, ma'am. What we talked about this weekend was how bad the economy is for single parents like the one that raised me. We had a lot of conversations around the room about the importance of eliminating Bidenomics, about the importance of getting inflation back down to 2%. We were just better off under President Trump. Inflation, Kristen, was at 2% and we had the lowest unemployment rates for African Americans, for Hispanics, for Asians, a 70-year low for women. We had the highest funding for historically Black colleges and universities in the history of the country under President Trump. So we were excited to have a conversation. We had no conversations about the VP pick, to be honest with you, to be clear. But we had a lot of conversations about the failures of Joe Biden and the success of Donald Trump.

Again, Welker tried to argue with him, talking economic numbers, and how some were better under Biden than Trump, but are creeping back up, he said (he's right) and then, using her favorite interview tactic, she asked him again (and again) about the VP role, saying "But just to be very clear. It didn't come up at all? Do you think you're on the short list?"

TS:  No – no, ma'am. It did not come up. African American unemployment rate is 6.4% today –

KW: But what about being – what about being VP–

TS: There's no doubt that it would be –

KW: What about being President Trump's VP? Did it come up at all? Do you think you're on the –

TS: Yes –

KW: – short list?

TS: I hope that the president will choose a person who helps the country unite and heal. I certainly expect to have a decision from President Trump in the next 60 days or so. But he did not bring it up. I certainly didn't bring it up. I'm excited that in this nation a poor kid from South Carolina can rise to the level of being a United States senator. It just tells me that all things are possible for kids growing up in poverty today. Listen to this show and know that all things are possible for your future.

Instead of talking about policy stuff, Welker decided to talk about "some of the headlines this week," and I groaned. At least she didn't mention the criminal election interference trial in New York. Instead, it was Trump's failure to commit to accepting the results of the 2024 election if he weren't the winner. 

Her question for Scott, who voted to certify the 2020 results? "Why would you join a ticket with someone who believes the exact opposite on this critical point? 

Well, I think we have to listen to what President Trump said and not what the reporters said that he actually said. Here's one of the things that he's been very clear, and even talking about the situation in Wisconsin, what he said was he expects there to be an honest election. He expects the results will be clear and for him to be successful. I expect him to be successful as well. There's no doubt that when you look at the polls across our country the one thing that is crystal clear, that the American people now having a contrast between four years of Joe Biden versus four years of Donald Trump. They're really excited to get back to the Trump years. And so I expect the election to be fair, and I expect Donald Trump to be our next president.

She pushed back, quoting Trump's own words, and also mentioned Wisconsin, noting that Trump again this week said he won the state, which he lost. And after that, she asked her question again. 

So again, to the point, you voted to certify the election results of 2020. It's the exact opposite of what you said and did after 2020. Why would you want to be on a ticket with someone where there's such a fundamental difference?

Because he's all about today, tomorrow and the future, he blew off the entire concern. Basically, no worries, we don't have to fret about losing and having to make any kind of decision. Why is that not a problem? 

There is clear facts here. President Trump himself said he expects this election to be fair, he expects it to be honest, and he expects to win. That's what the presidential candidate should expect, and I expect the exact same thing. And frankly the American people agree with him. This is an issue that is not an issue, so I'm not going to make it an issue.

And then it became the Sunday School classroom equivalent of a pissing match, and I can't stand either one of them, I really can't.  

KW: Well, senator, will you commit to accepting the election results of 2024, bottom line?

TS: At the end of the day, the 47th president of the United States will be President Donald Trump, and I'm excited to get back to low inflation, low unemployment –

KS: Wait – wait, senator, yes or no? Yes or no? Will you accept the election results of 2024 no matter who wins?

TS: That is my statement.

KS: But is it – just yes or no? Will you accept the election results of 2024?

TS: I look forward to President Trump being the 47th president and Kristen, you can ask them multiple times –

KS: – Senator, just a yes or no answer.

TS: – but at the end of the day – so the American people, the American people will make the decision. And the decision will be –

KW: But I don't hear you committing – 

TS: – for President Trump. That's clear.

KW: I don't hear you coming to the election results. S

TS: – Here's the deal. This is why so many –

KW: Will you commit to accepting the election results?

TS: This is why so many – this is why so many Americans believe that NBC is an extension of the Democrat party. At the end of the day, I said what I said. I know that the American people, their voices will be heard. And I believe that President Trump will be our next president. It's that simple.

KW: But senator, as you know, the hallmark of our democracy is that both candidates agree to a peaceful transfer of power. So I'm asking you as a potential VP nominee, will you accept to commit to the election results in this election cycle, no matter who wins? Just simply yes or no.

TS: I expect President Trump to win the next election and listen I'm not going to answer your hypothetical question when in fact I believe the American people are speaking today on the results of the election and if it continues – if it continues for the next six months, we find ourselves in a great position where we get back to another degree of American prosperity. I'm looking forward to that.

I'm not going to bore you with the part of the interview about abortion, because again, she asked a question, he gave a non-answer, she pushed back, she asked again, he non-answered again, declared his non-answer to be his answer, and so on. 

Scott has walked away from what he has said believes in, and supports whatever Trump believes in. I believe everyone in the universe knows this, and there really is no reason to interview folks like Scott unless it's to get information on what Trump plans on doing if he's elected.

There is no other reason to invite him to a classroom - any classroom, unless maybe there's an open seat in a kindergarten classroom somewhere. And Welker? With her repetitive badgering of guests, and her asking only the obvious questions, she belongs there most of the time, too. 

See you around campus - Noem's up next. 

Sunday School 5/5/24: Burgum's VP Interview

Jake Tapper chatted with Gov. Doug Burgum (R-ND) in the State of the Union classroom. Burgum's one of the folks on the long 'short list' of potential vice presidential candidates for Donald Trump. 

Here's some of the interview, including questions I wish had been asked.

Tapper started by asking if Burgum was "comfortable with" Trump comparing the Biden administration to the Gestapo, referring to a comment Trump made talking to donors. Burgum said Trump talked for a long time, teleprompter-free, on lots of stuff, and it was "largely very upbeat."  More to the point, he said

...I mean, this was a short comment deep into the thing that wasn't really central to what he was talking about. But I understand when -- and I think Americans understand, a majority of Americans feel like the trial that he's in right now is politically motivated. And if it was anybody else, this trial wouldn't even be happening. So I understand that he feels like that he's being unfairly treated. And I think that it's reasonable that someone who's being kept off the campaign trail as the presumptive nominee has got some frustration about that.

Tapper followed up with "So, a public trial with witnesses, a jury, a defense counsel, that's like the Gestapo, the Nazi secret police?"  Oh, that's not what he said, Burgum countered.  Not only that, but

And he wasn't referring to this trial when he made that -- made that comment.

Oh - which trial was he referring to, then? 

But I do think that people understand. I mean, I'm a business guy. This is a business filing case. If it was anybody other than a presidential candidate, this would be a misdemeanor. How it got turned into 34 felonies, when there isn't even a -- the alleged crime, which is -- they haven't even convinced anybody there was a crime. But if it were, it would be a Federal Election Commission crime. And that would be pursued by the federal courts, not by a county DA in New York.

Tapper noted some unspecified polling showing "a plurality of the American people think that President Trump did commit a crime when it comes to this case. And if you add in those who think it was unethical, but not illegal, it's a vast majority." And he asked, "...if Donald Trump becomes a convicted felon because of this case, will that affect your support for him for president?"

Well, if he becomes a convicted felon in this case, that's a -- just a travesty of justice, because, as I just said, when you have got a business filing error that is for something that was -- again, it's not illegal to pay people for nondisclosure agreements.  That happens all the time. I'm sure this network and others have done that. So that's not illegal. And then you have got a -- again, they're trying do this. And the only reason this trial is happening right now, it's the only one that could actually be brought forward. The other four couldn't be brought -- the other three of the four couldn't be brought forward before the election. So,, this one is largely intended to try to achieve a result before the election. And then you can be assured, as Americans would know, that any kind of appeal would be pushed until after the election. So that's why everybody sees this as politically motivated. And, like I said, a filing error is not something that would affect any American people that are trying to put food on the table and gas in the car. It doesn't affect them. And so this is why the outcome of this trial is not going to change a lot of people's minds. It might actually in some ways help President Trump because it reinforces the idea that the Biden administration is willing to use lawfare to try to attack a political opponent.

Um, Governor - the question was, if Donald Trump becomes a convicted felon because of this case, will that affect your support for him for president. Can I get a simple yes or no answer?

There was some pushback by Tapper that Biden has nothing to do with DA Alvin Bragg, and that it's more than a 'business filing error', and the evidence Tapper's seen so far "suggests there at least was some political motivation to this, and they hid it so as to hide that from the public. That's a little bit more than just checking the wrong box on a form. But let's move on..." to the comment Trump made about the Dems basically having a 40% head start because of civil service workers, unions, and "the welfare. And don't underestimate the welfare. They get the welfare to vote."

Tapper asked if the 100,000 folks getting Medicaid in Burgum's state are being paid to vote for Dems.  

No, and I don't think that's the intention that he meant when he said that...

Well, what do you think he did mean when he said that? 

Burgum talked about open borders, and "national security and public safety" and "inflation touches every single American, the wars that are breaking out around the world." And then he talked about student loan debt, which has nothing to do with "the welfare" as anyone describes it.

But then you throw on top of things like the student loan debt, and you start trying to give away hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money, and it's not even -- it's like we're borrowing to give it away. It's not tax and spend. It's borrow, borrow from the Chinese, and give it away. When you see those, those citizens understand those are like preelection payoffs. Those are like, hey, folks, please vote for us because we're -- we're relieving your debt. So, at what point does it cross over, programs like student debt, to just vote-buying? And I think, again, the people that are working hard and are paying off their debts and aren't getting don't loan relief are saying, hey, this is just isn't fair. And, in America, people want things to be fair, not unfair. And I think it's clear that there's vote-buying going on at a scale like we have never seen before.

Governor, do you believe citizens in your state who have met the requirements of various student loan debt-relief programs should continue to be saddled with debt that was supposed to have been discharged years ago?  

Tapper's comeback was actually quite good, I think - take a look.

 Does that offend you more than Donald Trump telling a room full of donors, wealthy people, millionaires, billionaires, that he's going to cut their taxes? Is that -- is that buying votes any different?

Here's how it went after that. 

DB: Well, first of all, I just reject the whole premise of this idea of wealthy donors. I mean, the room of people that were there yesterday are all people that were job creators. These are -- these are Americans that were -- took risks, that...

 JT: So, they're not wealthy?

DB: ... sometimes risk everything they had to start -- to start a business. Well, they're wealthy now because the American system of capitalism worked for them to create jobs, to help them build their communities. These are among the most generous people in the country. They're the ones that are giving back to their -- to philanthropic efforts and building strong communities. They care about their kids and their grandkids. Because they have been successful and because they have worked hard is not somehow that they should be disparaged. This is what we should be celebrating. These people represent the American dream. And part of the way the American dream works is when we have low taxes and low regulation. And Joe Biden wants to -- he's proposing the largest tax increase in the history of America, and proud of it. 

Here's another easy one that Burgum should have been able to answer, but struggled with. Tapper asked about Trump's comments about what happens if he loses, and whether he'd accept the results or if there'd be violence. In a nutshell, Trump's not promising we'll be spared a repeat of January 6th, and of course, there are his comments that he'd 'spare' (pardon) the J6 rioters.  He wondered if Burgum, who has spoken against the J6 mob, was concerned by Trump's rhetoric.

He started talking about the 1960 election when Nixon conceded to Kennedy. And he talked about 2000 when we had the hanging chads. And then he talked about 2016, and suggested that CNN "challenged" those results. 

And when Tapper tried to get him focused on what might happen next January, not about 60-some-odd years ago or 20-odd-years ago or eight years ago, what happened?

Yes, well, I'm -- I'm looking forward to next January, when Vice President Harris certifies the election for Donald Trump. I mean, the American people are the ones that get to decide these elections. But for both parties and for all Americans, we have got to make sure that every county, every precinct is beyond reproach, and that everybody can be confident in our country... It can be done. It's done all over the nation, except, in some cases, we have got -- we could have a handful of counties that this election could turn on again, and we have just got to make sure that, when it's done, both sides feel good about how it was counted.

And what does that have to do with Trump pardoning J6 rioters, not committing to accepting the results of the '24 election, or promising to not provoke violence like he did in 2020? That would be absolutely nothing. 

Simple question for the governor: Do you disagree or agree with Snitty Snitty Bill Barr that "there was no significant fraud that would have changed the results" of the last election?

DB: Well, again, we're talking about - what are you talking about, what happened before the ballots came in or after they came out? 

JT: I'm talking about the results of the 2020 election.

DB: blah, ditty blah, ditty blah blah blah. We're talking about making sure that the 2024 election is secure. And there's no need to keep relitigating 2020. We got to talk about the policies that are going to help people understand. And again, how do we make America safe? How do we get our economy strong again? How do we secure our borders? President Trump is going to is going to do all those things. And this is a unique point in history, because we haven't -- since Grover Cleveland, we haven't had a former president running against a current president. So, Americans have got a better chance than ever to say, was I better off under President Trump than I am under Biden? And the answer for the majority of people is that they were better off under President Trump.

Governor, is there a reason why you won't just answer the question you're asked? Did someone tell you to do that, or are you doing that on your own?

One last chance for him to do that, with this:  "So, just quickly, if you could, if President Trump asks you to serve as his vice president, will you say yes?" For Burgum, that means dropping 300 words without ever

 Well, I think any of that right now is all speculation. I mean, as you opened the show, talking about the veepstakes and the group of people on stage, you couldn't get it -- if you had had any more on there, they'd have been falling off the stage. And prior to that, he said there was 50. So, I think the short list needs to be modified. Maybe there's a list of 50. If I'm on it, who would know? 

And then, for good measure, he threw in another 2oo-some-odd words, none of which was 'yes'. For all I know, he's still talking. 

Gov. Kristi 'The Hunter' Noem's and Sen. Tim Scott's veep interviews are on the way. 

See you around campus.  

Wondering on Wednesday 5/1/24

 

Ready... Set... Wonder!

During last month's discussion on foreign aid bills, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R- Burning Down the House) offered an amendment to the Ukraine bill requiring any Republican who voted for the aid package to conscript into the Ukrainian military. No similar requirements for aid to Israel and Taiwan were put forward. I can't help wondering why the bills weren't treated the same. 

Some people pretend Greene is Putin's representative to the House, so we shouldn't be surprised that she'd stick it to Ukraine. Others think we're not responsible for defending Europe, but we are responsible for Israel's defense, no matter the cost. These arguments are symptomatic of the degradation of our policy debates over the past few years, leaving me to wonder what it'll take to get us back to realistic discussions.

Greene also said that, instead of giving aid to Ukraine, we should focus on our 'America First economy.' Hearing that, I had to wonder if she even knew what was in the bill, or if she'd read any articles on how our aid to Ukraine works. She must know that as much as $68B of the $113B that Congress has approved for Ukraine  "is destined to be invested here at home."

U.S. support for Ukraine thus offers a once-in-a-generation opportunity to sustain a demand signal to address long-standing weaknesses in U.S. DIB systems generally and ordnance and missile production specifically.

Yep - we send our stockpiled, outdated stuff to Ukraine, and we replenish our stockpiles with newer American-made stuff. If that's not an America First policy, I wonder what would be. I also wonder if Marge ever has a clue, if she's this clueless on our Ukraine aid.

Sticking with Marge for a minute longer, she's announced she'll move to oust Speaker Mike Johnson next week, even as the Dem leadership announced they'll vote table any such motion. Most House Republicans don't want her to move ahead; the RNC doesn't want her to; and even Donald Trump doesn't want her to, and yet, she's going to do it anyway. Is anyone wondering with me what the heck she's trying to accomplish?

Speaking of accomplishments, we know one thing the House GOP would rather be doing than sitting through Greene's antics: "going on the offense by attacking Democrats for insufficiently condemning pro-Palestinian protests on campuses" around the country. 

We've all seen the antisemitic signs and heard the chants at the protests; we'll continue seeing and hearing them, even if they're not the focus of the protests. I condemn anti-Semitism and the October attack on Israel; at the same time, I would love to see a ceasefire, to see Gaza flooded with humanitarian aid, to see an end to the indiscriminate killing of tens of thousands of Palestinians, and to see a way forward. To me, those are pro-human positions, not pro-Palestine or antisemitic ones. 

But I wonder why we have to see and hear more about the antisemitic actions of a few protesters than we do about the many; members of Jewish Voices for Peace arrested for holding a Passover Seder/protest outside Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer's house, for example. Or about Jews and Palestinians standing shoulder-to-shoulder, protesting inhumanity together, or about negotiations over divestment issues, especially successful ones. 

And I can't help wondering why two NY Representatives feel anti-Semitism monitors are needed on college campuses. Republican Mike Lawler, one of the two, said, "If colleges will not step up to protect their students, Congress must act."

I'll tip my hat to whoever named the bill - it's a gem: the College Oversight and Legal Updates Mandating Bias Investigations and Accountability, or the COLUMBIA Act.  The bill would give the Department of Education authority to appoint monitors, paid for by the schools, who would "be required to release quarterly, publicly available reports that show what the school is doing to combat anti-Semitism." 

The legislators cite Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as the basis for their bill; I have to wonder how giving one type of discrimination special status fits in with the intent of our civil rights legislation? If we're going to withhold federal funding from colleges and universities, shouldn't it be done in the name of protecting everyone from discrimination? 

As I was preparing to publish tonight's post, news broke that the House passed the Antisemitism Awareness Act. Sponsored by Rep. Lawler, with over 60 co-sponsors, the bill 

would require the Department of Education to use definitions of antisemitism proposed by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) when enforcing anti-discrimination laws.

Other bills dealing with antisemitism are also in the works, according to news reports; we'll see if any of them come to fruition. 

In the meantime, I wonder how people feel about the statements below. Feel free to chime in, if you like.

• "We already have enough laws against discrimination. We need to enforce those laws; we don't need to create new ones."
• "All Lives Matter - why are they demanding we pay attention only to them?"

What's on your wondering minds tonight?