TGIF 12/2/22

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The lawsuit says

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

This suit just the most recent one to be filed. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TGIF, everyone.

Sunday School 11/27/22

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sunday School 11/13/22: Extra Credit

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

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

What did think of the election outcome?

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

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

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

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

And, on the threatened announcement from Trump about 2024? 

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

Does he have presidential ambitions of his own?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See you around campus. 

Sunday School 11/13/22

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Election Eve Post, 2022 Edition

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you need information on where to vote, help on 

your ballot, or any other assistance,  

contact your local Board of Elections. 

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

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

Sunday School 10/16/22: Extra Credit

Your Sunday School lesson covered a couple of key US Senate races; for your Extra Credit, I'm going to see how much punditry I can fit into a single post. We'll start with George and the gang in ABC's This Week classroom: Chris Christie, Donna Brazile (both of ABC News), Julie Pace (AP), and Maggie Haberman (NY Times).

The FPOTUS loomed over part of the conversation. There's the whistleblower report saying he pressured at least one person to give Melania shares in Trump Social. Haberman called that "staggering" and "very hard to explain away," and she cautioned us not to forget about this investigation. 

And what about the person close to Trump allegedly being told to move documents at Mar-a-Lago - after Trump was subpoenaed? George said "that's obstruction." Christie said when it comes to charging a former president, "you can't treat it any differently than any other case, but you have to know that it's going to be 'bang, right between the eyes.' If not, you don't bring a case.

Brazile said even if Trump shows up to answer his subpoena from the January 6th Committee, he won't say anything. But she wishes he would tell his story, he should be willing to - but he won't, because "he doesn't have the truth on his side." Pace agreed when George said polls aren't showing a bump for Dems as a result of the hearings, and that the Ds aren't pressing this issue. Rather, "Democrats are scrambling to try to figure out how they can form an economic message." 

Haberman said the election deniers is "the story that is actually not getting a ton of attention" given the crush of information that's out there, and that secretaries of state elected this cycle will be the ones to impact 2024, as they'll be deciding whether to certify the results. 

Christie said the January 6th Committee "was resigned to having a credibility problem because of the membership of the committee and the way that was done." He also said "there's nobody there to argue the other side," to which George said "But there's - there's no other side..." Brazile agreed. Christie said "I think you can question a lot of these witnesses who came up, and test their credibility." 

Brazile pushed back pretty hard, wondering if Christie wanted to test the credibility of Bill Barr, the people who were advising Trump in the Oval, or "of the cops who got their heads smashed in - is that who you're going to test?" Christie said no, but he also mentioned there are people with "convenient memories" about things now, who didn't have them before. The bigger issue is, Trump's not on the ballot, so it's hard to make the 2022 election about him, or about January 6th.

With three weeks to go, Brazile said "Democrats must understand in the closing weeks they have to put freedom on the ballot... and they have to challenge the assumption that they're afraid to run on their record." Christie said the Rs should be talking about high prices, crime, fentanyl overdoses due to the open border... "if they talk about anything else they're nuts." And while some races are close, he thinks the Rs will have a 15-seat margin in the House.

Pace says the Dems should be worried about Georgia, both the Warnock/Walker Race, and Brian Kemp's expanding lead against Stacey Abrams. And, she said, Kevin McCarthy "has a battle for the speakership on his hands," and while he's "trying to make this case" for his return as Speaker, "the margin, how far he can push it out, that's the crucial metric here."

In the MTP classroom, What's-His-Name and his panel - Amy Walter (Cook Political Report), Eugene Daniels (Politico), former NC Gov. Pat McCrory (NBC), and María Teresa Kumar (NBC) - talked about the midterms, and crime. Walter said the Dems "have known that the crime issue was a challenge for them" from the beginning, and she said "they've been playing defense on this for quite some time."

Kumar said that "one of the conversations we're not having is that this is an opportunity for the Democrats to own police enforcement... all of a sudden, these Republicans and Republican leadership flipped on it, and said it was an FBI sting job. That is not the party of law enforcement. And if anything, it's undermining a really basic institution." McCrory said he was "shocked the Democrats aren't bringing up guns," but said on "everyday crime, the Democrats are on their heels. And they deserve to be on their heels."

Moving on, Daniels said it "was always going to happen" that the Rs would be all over the place on abortion, creating "kind of this hodgepodge of different ideas of what voters might want to hear at that time... People can just pick and choose whatever they want, even within the issue themselves." Walter said how important the issue is depends on where the voter is. "...if you're in a state with abortion restrictions -- you are much more motivated than if you're in a state that doesn't." So, in reliably blue states, it's not that big an issue.

The panel also touched on the FPOTUS; Walter noted "he would like the 2022 election to continue to be about him," while Rs want it to not be about him. And she said the January 6th Committee hearing last week "didn't generate the kind of headlines and the kind of wall-to-wall coverage" people might have wanted. And saying he'd be subpoenaed was nothing like it would have been had they said "we believe he should be indicted." Daniels said it's just too much chaos for the Rs, but they can't say it out loud and risk offending his core supporters.

McCrory said "the Democrats are running away from Biden in this election, too... Democrats don't want Biden or Harris either, and Republicans frankly don't want Trump. And they're the ones trying to consume the TV time." 

Kumar thinks that "with Biden, his challenge is that he hasn't been able to communicate to the American people what he's done. I mean, we can say that the difference between Donald Trump and the difference with Biden is, Biden is a policy president. So, he has – he's going to make fundamental changes for a generation." 

She compared that with Trump, saying "his consequence is not policy. It's his legacy of undermining elections. And it's not just him, it’s not him, but he actually has a cadre of individuals right now seeking office that are election deniers. And that legacy is far more dangerous for a modern-day president than any other thing because it believes in undermining our democracy."

Ain't that the truth. 

See you around campus.

Wondering on Wednesday 8/24/22

Ready... Set... Wonder!

Where do we start tonight's wondering? 

Right here in my neck of the woods - in the Empire State - where I find myself wondering why so many national political reporters are talking today about the Dems losing a prominent House member in New York, when there was literally no possible way that two Dems could survive a primary for the same district? The only question in this one was who would survive:  Rep. Carolyn Maloney, chair of the House Oversight Committee, or Rep. Jerry Nadler, chair of the House Judiciary Committee. Nadler won easily.

I read an article in a major national newspaper today about the Nadler/Maloney battle, and was not shocked to see many comments complaining about the redistricting process in NY. No one was complaining about efforts by the Dems to gerrymander five seats blue; rather, the complaints were that a judge didn't accept their efforts the way judges seem to accept the bad Republican maps. And I wonder, if you think gerrymandering is wrong, why are you mad when the courts agree with you? 

Another race in NY that's gotten a ridiculous amount of nation attention was the election to see who would fill the remaining months of former Rep. Antonio Delgado's term (he resigned to become our Lt. Governor). Pat Ryan won the "bellwether" race, as multiple media outlets referred to it, campaigning on a woman's right to choose being a national issue, not a state issue, while Marc Molinaro, the Republican, ran on crime and inflation. How much does this matter in the overall scheme of things, I wonder? I'm not convinced it's indicative of anything, really; NY's a pro-choice state; the 19th district's been blue since 2018; and Ryan will be on the ballot again in November, trying to win the seat in the new 18th district. If he wins that, it might mean something. Until then, I don't think so.

I can't help wondering how Rep. Elise Stefanik, the number three RINO in the House is feeling today. (A RINO, in these pages, is a MAGA Republican). Stefanik strongly supported the deplorable Carl Paladino in the primary for NY's new 23rd district; Paladino lost to NYS GOP chair Nick Langworthy. Stefanik also strongly supported Steve Wells in the primary for NY's new 22nd district. Wells lost to Brandon Williams. 

House GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy might not have had a great morning, after the Paladino loss. It's been reported that McCarthy and Rep. Steve Scalise, his Number Two, weren't happy with Stefanik 'going rogue' with her endorsement. I wonder how today's leadership chat went?

And then we've got President Biden's student loan forgiveness program, announced today. There's lots to dive into on that, and I've got a few bookmarked articles to digest tomorrow. I did wonder, though, at how hard the media worked to find Dem-leaning economists to chime in and say how bad an idea it was - and it wasn't even Larry Summers, the favorite DLE of all.

What's on your wondering minds?

Sunday School 8/21/22

We've got three Congressman in the classrooms today. 

Ed O'Keefe talked with Rep. Mike Turner (R-OH), the ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee, in the Face the Nation classroom. 

On the Mar-a-Lago search, Turner said releasing the affidavit would help explain how the FBI justified "raiding...and spending nine hours in the president's house," when they had other options they could have used. And, he said, "the American public want" the AG focused on things like "human and drug smuggling at the border... Chinese espionage, out-of- control crime in our cities."

He said his committee's concerned about "an allegation of classified documents," and that the DOJ should show them what they went to find, and what the "imminent national security threat" was. He's also concerned about the resources devoted to the search, "when we have real imminent national security threats, like Chinese espionage, the border, issues that -- things that are going on in Ukraine."

And when O'Keefe asked "what use could a former president have for classified or top-secret information once he's left office," Turner was unsure. 

Well, I don't know. I mean, you would have to ask him. But certainly, we all know that every former president has access to their documents. It's how they write their memoirs...

Have any used Top Secret/SCI documents for that, I wonder? Turner seems to doubt the classification of what was found. He said the FBI said "they were identified as marked classified," and, he said, Trump said he declassified them. He thinks the important thing is the "abuse of discretion" on the part of the FBI.

...we have evidence of the FBI abusing that discretion, and of misconduct on behalf of the FBI...There are real questions as, what is the FBI doing here? ...the rank-and-file FBI agents, everybody agrees we support them. We have great faith in them. But the leadership of the FBI, when they undertake a raid against the current president's political rival, you have to ask these questions.

We have "great faith" in the people, but we want to defund or even abolish the organization... And, when is the "real question" ever going to be," what is the former president doing?" Never, it would seem.

In the Meet the Press classroom, What's-his-name talked with Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney (D-NY), chair of the DCCC; he was asked if it was "fair to say now, there's no moral victory" for the Dems; either they keep the House, or they lose. Maloney agreed, but pointed to what he called "a summer of strength" and said the Ds are "going to buck history by making history." 

Look, we know that we need to get things done. That's the hard path that we've chosen. The other side has had a summer of stumbles, obstructing veterans' health care, ripping away 50 years of reproductive freedom, and now trying to defund the FBI and ignore a serious threat to our national security with Trump's latest scandal. We're going to address real problems. We think that's going to bring it home.

On the laughable question from What's-his-name, on whether the Ds "put party over country" by running ads talking about MAGA candidates, Maloney said "Absolutely not."

The moral imperative right now, Mr. Todd, is to keep the dangerous MAGA Republicans who voted to overturn our election out of power. There were 139 of them who voted against the results of the election back in January 2021...We believe that by running a commercial that called our opponent an extremist who was too conservative for Western Michigan, we teed up the choice in the fall.

Maloney was asked if "cynical moves like this" are why "everybody hates both political parties." He said his job "is to win elections for the Democrats and I take that seriously," again noting the importance of not letting McCarthy become speaker. There will always be "difficult moral questions, philosophical questions about tactics," he said. Indeed.

Finally, we've got Jake Tapper and Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) in the State of the Union classroom. Tapper wondered if Crenshaw, a former Navy Seal, is bothered that there was apparently classified information at Mar-a-Lago?

Yes. Well, look, you know me, Jake, and I'm not wanting to withhold criticism, and even make my own side mad. I want to get to the truth...but I will be honest with you here. It -- this -- it's hard to justify what the Department of Justice did here, in my opinion. 

It's not a question that it's bad to have classified material in a non-SCIF environment, right? So, that's a non-secret, compartmentalized infrastructure there. That's wrong. But there's ways to mitigate that. There's ways to resolve that issue. 

Besides, Trump's "been cooperating with them on these issues for a while now, for months." That's why the Rs, even the ones who don't think much of Trump, he said, are coalescing on the issue of the unjustness of the government taking these steps. 

Tapper said skepticism is fine, but there was signoff by a judge, and he wondered if law enforcement isn't innocent until proven guilty. 

Yes, again, people signing off on it doesn't mean it's -- it doesn't -- that it has precedent. It doesn't. This is a very unprecedented measure. And you know that when you're going after an ex-president who may run again, that this is -- this is automatically political. You can't -- you cannot separate the legal aspects of this from the political aspects of it. You can't. And it doesn't seem to me like they have acted responsibly as a result of that. And look, again, why not just ask him? Why not just ask him?

Remember, everything is unprecedented until someone does it. In this case, how many ex-presidents who may run again have allegedly taken TS/SCI and other classified documents with them after losing an election, have lied to the government about it, have paid liars to lie to the government about it, have a record of cavalier handling of national security, including in the very place that was searched, and of destroying documents? 

That Trump is unprecedented doesn't give him a pass, especially since the Rs say this is all about accountability - just not for the guy who had his house searched. Maybe this is one of those "difficult moral questions, philosophical questions" mentioned in the Maloney interview.

I do agree that Marjorie Taylor Greene and AOC "can go join the defund law enforcement club if they want."

See you around campus.

Sunday School 7/17/22: Extra Credit

For Sunday School, we were in the State of the Union classroom. Let's go back there for Extra Credit, and drop in on Dana Bash and her chat with Jared Bernstein. He's a long-time economic adviser to President Biden.

As all pundits do, Bash quoted former Obama advisor Larry Summers on the topic of inflation. Summers has said "nobody can suppose that inflation is under control." 

Bernstein first pointed out Biden "said repeatedly after the report came out that inflation is unacceptably high." On the out-of-date comment, he said that since the June report was issued, gas is down "about 50 cents a gallon...that's about the fasted decline in about a decade." It's still too high, but might give some folks some "breathing room." 

Bash said a lot of Dems "don't agree that message is working." It took a minute to figure out what message she was referring to, but she got there by playing a clip of her asking Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) if she'd tell her constituents "the data is out of date," and of course Baldwin said no, but she also said

It's great news that, in the last month, gas prices have gone down by about 40 cents per gallon. That's really not the break people are looking for.

It seems, then, that Biden and Baldwin are saying the same thing: gas prices, one of the biggest contributors to inflation, have dropped noticeably, but it's not enough. Bernstein then explained to Bash what everyone seems uninterested in talking about:

...if we're going to talk about the damage that these high energy prices are having on family budgets, I think we have to talk about the benefits for when those prices come down a little.

And, he also had to explain, 

...the president is unequivocal by not calling 'mission accomplished' on any of this. We're talking about a decline that's completely insufficient when it comes to delivering the relief to family budgets that they need. So, that's why he continues to push on every aspect he can of this issue in terms of increasing the supply of global energy to help mitigate that price increase.

And then, a lightbulb: Bash said, "And you're right. The prices have come down, which is a good thing. It's better than them going the other way." BINGO! 

Then, she talked about predictions of where the price of oil may go in the future - that it could soar 50% or more after European sanctions against Russian gas are implemented. 

Bernstein started by saying he should have mentioned that while the price of gas is down "about 8-9%, the oil price is down about 20%."

So, when we talk about the president doing all he can to provide relief at the pump, one of the things that he's doing is trying to nudge these companies to pass some of those savings along to consumers. You know, in the first quarter of this year, some of the biggest oil companies had a net profit of $35 billion. Now, these are companies we helped, to the tune of billions of dollars, during the pandemic...

Bash interrupted with "but will prices go back up?" Bernstein continued with his answer.

during the pandemic downturn. They ought to share some of that profitability with the American people right now, especially as we're supporting Ukraine's efforts in their war against Russia.

As to higher prices, he said "nobody can see reliably" a couple of quarters down the road, as there's too much volatility. He thinks prices will continue to go down this month, though.

Again, Dana, look, this is minutia. We have so much more work to do. And when it comes to prescription drugs and health care premiums, as you said in your introduction, Democrats are there. And that is essential.

But wait - there's more to talk about on oil, Bash said. And by 'oil' she meant the fist-bump picture of Biden and MSB, the Saudi Crown Prince. And the question about oil was, "Why is he fist-bumping a murderer?"

Bernstein's answer - "Well, Dana, you're talking to an economic policy adviser. And I'm much more able to give you fulsome readouts on meetings, not greetings..." Bash said "OK. So, is there a deliverable" out of the meeting? 

Bernstein pointed her to Biden's Washington Post op-ed about the meeting, and he also said that the Middle East is a critical region of the world, and the US needs to be engaged, and that we're better off economically if there's a more stable Middle East. He also noted the Saudis said they'd increase their oil production capacity. The administration has also been pressuring OPEC to do more, and some OPEC members have "talked about doing precisely that for July and August."

Moving to Biden's domestic agenda and Sen. Joe Manchin's hindrance of it, Bash noted Biden has urged the Senate to "pass the scaled-down plan" which doesn't include climate change. The question for Bernstein: Is Biden frustrated with his former colleague?  Seems that's a yes. 

At the same time, Biden's "very compelled to get Congress to work with him on his climate agenda." And, he continued, if he can't get "a legislative path to clean energy, the urgency of the problem is so significant..." that he'll continue using Executive Orders to get things done.

But the urgency of the issue, Dana, is, I think -- it is beyond me how anyone could miss it, over $100 billion per year of cost to our economy based on floods, wildfires, droughts. Look at the geopolitical pressures from this, a Russian petrocrat... who's prosecuting a war based on weaponizing fossil fuels. So, there is a great rationale to undertake what this president will do. And he will continue to press.

In my opinion, Bernstein did much better than Brian Deese, director of the National Economic Council. Maybe it's his familiarity with Biden, I don't know. At least he answered what he was asked, which is more than many classroom guests think about doing.

My question for you, students, is this: what will the Dems do now?

a. Try and pass a bill before the August recess that extends the Obamacare subsidies* and allows Medicare to negotiate prescription drug prices. Get it done, and you've got a win. If the Rs block it, Dems have a ready-made campaign message: Not only are the Rs taking away your rights to reproductive health care, but they're also forcing a health care premium increase on your Obamacare plan. And, they refuse to allow Medicare to negotiate savings on your prescriptions.

b. Don't even try to get anything done before the August recess, hope inflation goes down, and then work with Manchin to get a bill done in September, before the midterms. 

c. Do nothing, except of course go all-in on bashing Manchin in the press at every opportunity. 

d. Do something else (describe it with a comment.)

See you around campus.

*Learn more about the Obamacare subsidies here. 

Sunday School 6/12/22: Extra Credit

For your Sunday School Extra Credit, I bring you two interviews from Dana Bash in the CNN State of the Union classroom. First up? Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), who was involved in the 2nd Trump impeachment, and is also on the January 6th Committee. Here are a few highlights of their conversation.

Bash reminded Raskin about his saying the hearings would blow the roof off of the House, and wondered if "the most explosive testimony" was still to come. He said that they're going to "spell out and unspool" everything that was laid out in the first hearing, and he said

I know that our first hearing pierced the sound barrier. People are paying attention. But Americans need to pay further attention, because the danger is still out there. I mean, there was -- I just read this morning that, in Idaho, there was an LGBTQ Pride Day and a riot planted by domestic violent extremist groups, the same kinds of groups that were mobilized for the assault on the Capitol.

Bash asked if they can "prove that Donald Trump knew he lost, while publicly saying that he won." Raskin said he thinks they can 

prove to any reasonable, open-minded person that Donald Trump absolutely knew, because he was surrounded by lawyers, including the attorney general of the United States, William Barr, telling him in no uncertain terms, in terms that Donald Trump could understand, this is BS. He heard it from the White House counsel. He heard it from all of the lawyers who threatened to resign if he staged his little mini-coup against the Department of Justice.

They also talked about what should happen to Donald Trump; Raskin noted they have statutory authority for criminal referrals for contempt of Congress, which they've used with Peter Navarro, Steve Bannon and Mark Meadows, but that there's "not a specific statutory provision for just referring crimes" to the DOJ. That said, 

I suppose our entire investigation is a referral of crimes, both to the Department of Justice and to the American people... this is a massive assault on the machinery of American democracy, when you have a sitting president who tries to overthrow the majority in the Electoral College of his opponent, who beat him by more than seven million votes.

And whether Trump should be indicted Raskin pointed out that "respect by politicians for the independence of the law enforcement function" was one of the things that was "crushed" during the Trump years, and he wasn't going to participate in that. He also noted that Merrick Garland is a constituent, and

I don't browbeat my constituents. I think that he knows, his staff knows, the US attorneys know what's at stake here. They know the importance of it. But I think they're rightfully paying close attention to precedent and history, as well as the facts of this case. 

And, AG Garland made it clear the DOJ is paying attention, so there's that. 

Raskin also confirmed that it was "multiple members of Congress, as the vice chair said," that requested pardons. He said the details will come out "all in due time." And, yes, "...everything we're doing is documented by evidence. Unlike the big lie, which is based on nonsense..." 

Finally, on his carrying a copy of Thomas Paine's 'Common Sense' in his pocket, he said 

what we're going to need to get through this struggle in our history is common sense, the sense that we all have in common about what facts are and about what the truth is, and then common sense about how to move forward pragmatically as Americans. That's what we need - not lies, not conspiracy theory, not propaganda and disinformation. 

Next up was Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY). Bash asked for her reaction to the video shown in the opening hearing, "especially given" that she had told Bash last year she feared she could have been killed or even raped on January 6th. 

In a long and winding answer, she thought her reaction was probably the same one a lot of people had. She talked about the "disinformation and misinformation campaign that happened" afterwards, and that the messaging came from "right-wing disinformation networks... even from members of Congress...."

And so, I think, especially in the wake of that year of people trying to minimize what had happened, re-watching that footage was, I think, just -- it was like bringing everything from that day back again, not just for myself, but I also know for staff that were there that day, for support staff that were working there, for members of Congress that were there, and for the entire country that -- including many veterans that were watching on television, wondering, how could this be us? And so I think it was an incredibly evocative and physically resonant moment for many of us. 

Bash asked about AOC's tweets calling for Reps. Matt Gaetz, Marjorie Taylor Greene, and Lauren Boebert to say whether they had asked for pardons, and wondered if there was a reason she believed they did. AOC referenced Boebert "actively tweeting the speaker's location" and other "evocative, really provocative statements," which she said "very much, I believe, indicates a side here." She said every member of Congress should be able to answer this "very simple question" whether they had asked for a pardon, and she believes the Committee "would never make an allegation so serious" without evidence.

AOC expressed "disappointment" about the Senate's bipartisan gun legislation framework focusing on "increased criminalization and juvenile criminalization, instead of really having the focus on guns." She said they have to look at all options, "recognizing that the Senate simply right now isn't capable of, I believe, passing the comprehensive legislation in all forms that is needed." The proof will be in the text, which hasn't been disclosed, but she hopes it will be "responsibly put together." She said if they "can get background checks through" she hopes it's something she could vote for.

Moving to the midterms, Bash brought up AOC's support of NY State Sen. Alessandra Biaggi against Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney. And she quoted former Obama campaign manager Jim Messina, who said

This is counterproductive. The Supreme Court is about to outlaw abortion. We could lose both houses. So, we are going to focus our time running against each other? Now we're primarying committed progressives, because why? If we lose the House, it's because of dumb stuff like this."

So. what would AOC tell Messina? She pointed out a couple of "electric victories" - Greg Casar in Texas, and Summer Lee in Pennsylvania - saying that

when we are able to elect representatives that excite the Democratic base, that excite young people, that excite a multiclass, multiracial coalition, then that puts us in an even better position to win in November. I think, right now, there are a lot of voters at home that have quite a bit of anxiety about the enthusiasm right now in terms of turnout for the Democratic Party. And I think one of the best things that we can do is elect people with a proven record of being able to excite a base and turn it out.

She said she doesn't believe getting elected once means you're elected forever; that millennials are "deeply underrepresented in Congress" compared to boomers and Gen Xers "when they were our age."

And, at the end of the day, we need to have a generational shift in the United States Congress in order for us to have a policy shift in the United States Congress.

Finally, on whether she'll support President Biden in 2024, she said 

we will cross that bridge when we get to it. But I think, if the president has a vision, then that's something certainly we're all willing to entertain and examine when the time comes... But, right now, we need to focus on winning a majority, instead of a presidential election.

I definitely agree with her on that last part.  The Dems will have to address the Biden elephant in the room at some point, but winning this November has to be the priority.  

We've got another January 6th hearing tomorrow, and I encourage you to watch. 

See you around campus.