Showing posts with label ABC News. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ABC News. Show all posts

March 21, 2024

Wondering on Wednesday 3/20/24


Ready... Set... Wonder!

Huh... A billionaire can't pay his bond, and can't find people to help him; I wonder how that happens? And I wonder whether at least some of the companies that won't help aren't helping because they simply don't want to be involved with him, rather than because they really can't help him? I'm also wondering, a bit, why the family doesn't tap their Russian connections, where they used to get 'all the money they need' for the business, or why Jared doesn't message his BFF, the Saudi Crown Prince, for help?

Speaking of help, the GoFundMe to raise money towards the penalty has crossed the $1.5M threshold, with over 26,000 donors contributing to the cause. I really wonder who contributes to something like this - it takes a special kind of person to want to donate money to help a billionaire meet his legal responsibilities, I think.

Dartmouth men's basketball players voted to unionize earlier this month after they were deemed to be employees of the school by a regional National Labor Relations Board office. Needless to say, that prompted a whole lot of discussion on what this means more broadly for the NCAA: how will athletes be paid, how much, and would it be only for their season, or for the entire year, what about NIL, and so on. 

Me? I can't help wondering what the $3.6B in scholarships given to 180,000 DI and DII student-athletes is for, if it's not payment for their services?  

And since we're talking about the NCAA, I also wonder why it insists on opening Pandora's Portal of Program Doom before the seasons are officially over? It happens with football, and now basketball. What on earth is the point of encouraging players to end their season before their season ends?  

Finally, I wonder whether NCAA executives have considered changing careers?  They would make, um, "perfect" additions to pretty much any political office, right? They have all the critical experience: they know how to grab as much money as possible from sponsors and donors, make ridiculous rules that even they don't understand, ignore how those rules impact their constituents, and wait for someone else to fix the mess for them, like they're doing with NIL. If that's not a perfect fit, I don't know what is. 

Back to the billionaire. Donald 'Orange Jesus' Trump, a man alleged to have shared our national secrets with members of his residence/private club, is now eligible to receive national security updates as the presumptive Republican nominee. Given his propensity for blurting out whatever the hell crosses his mind, creating alternative facts at the drop of a hat, and his um, alleged inability to differentiate what's his and what's government property, I'm wondering if we should limit what's shared to only weather forecasts with national implications.

Think about it: the forecasts are specific as to locations, risks, potential damage, and populations impacted. Depending on the situation, forecasts even include global modeling. Surely, they should count as 'national security,' right? I wonder - only a little bit, though - what else a narcissist like the OJ would need. Shouldn't knowing how many of his followers, how many "real Americans," are in the path of a storm, or at least within the Cone of Uncertainty sponsored by Sharpie, be enough? 

Trump is suing George Stephanopoulos (and ABC News) for defamation because Stephanopoulos called him a rapist during his incredibly embarrassing interview with Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC). In the interview, Stephanopoulos repeatedly said that Trump was "found liable for rape" by a jury, which is untrue; the jury in the first E. Jean Carroll case found that he did not commit rape under the definition in NYS law at that time. It was Judge Lewis Kaplan who determined that Trump committed rape 'as commonly understood.' 

I wonder if George has considered that he could lose this case? After all, his interview was dripping with malice, towards Trump and Mace. I also wonder if he has second thoughts about inviting a Congresswoman on his show, specifically because she publicly talked about her own rape, specifically to shame her about her political decisions? And the one I wonder the most about: did his wife welcome him home with open arms after that grotesque interview?  I sure as hell hope not.

One last little bit of wondering on this one, now that NY has changed the definition of rape to match what Judge Kaplan said people understand 'rape' to mean, is someone responsible for updating the myriad references to sexual assault in the NYS criminal code before this change goes into effect in September? Are sentencing guidelines being updated? Are DAs receiving training on how to present cases to grand juries? 

What's on your wondering mind tonight?

January 20, 2024

Quick Takes (v71): Meaningless "Major Endorsements"

Last night on ABC's World News Tonight, we were urged to the edge of our seats with the news that Donald Trump received a "major endorsement." 

Who could it be, I wondered... Meghan McCain? Jeb Bush? Rachel Maddow? Or wait... maybe it was Carly "Look at that Face" Fiorina, who ran against him in 2016? 

Oh, silly me... it was Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC). You remember him, right? The only Black Republican in the Senate? Former presidential candidate? The guy forced by the press into declaring he had a girlfriend?  Yeah, that guy. 

Can you imagine how this must have been "a big boost" for Donald Trump,  and "a major snub" for Nikki Haley, who appointed Scott to the Senate back in 2012?  That's how ABC's Rachel Scott described it about ten minutes into the broadcast. 

My guess? It's neither of those things. 

Sure, all the candidates in the race hope for the endorsements of those who drop out, and one might expect there'd be a bit of loyalty from Scott to Haley, but she's behind both Trump and DeSantis coming out of Iowa, and likely has little chance of winning regardless of who endorses her. 

Now, to be fair, ABC is not the only outlet gushing over the endorsement - it's pretty widespread, with folks all trying to make it sound more meaningful than it is. 

I agree with NH Gov. Chris Sununu, a Haley supporter, who said

If anyone cared about Tim Scott, he'd still be running for president. 

Honestly, I think there are two issues with this: the endorsers, and those who report on the endorsements.

In my opinion, if you're Tim Scott, Doug Burgum or Vivek Ramaswamy, or even folks like Nick Ayers, one of  Mike Pence's former chiefs of staff, you're endorsing Trump because you want something from him, not because you have anything to offer him. 

According to the folks at 538, as of January 14th, Trump had picked up 185 endorsements,

including nine governors, 24 senators, and 116 U.S. representatives. By comparison, only 22 of them had endorsed Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis or former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley. 

How many of those governors, senators, and representatives honestly believe Trump needs their endorsement, and how many of them are more interested in making sure folks who can vote for them know they support Trump? 

If you're a political reporter paid to give your best attention to these things, you should be asking yourself, "What's in it for the endorser?" instead of simply giving free publicity to the endorsee.  

And please, do us a favor: when a truly notable endorsement happens - if Mike Pence, or Nancy Pelosi, or Merrick Garland, or Liz Cheney - decides for incomprehensible reasons to support Trump, let us know. 

September 8, 2020

Sunday School 9/6/20: Extra Credit

For this week's Extra Credit, I went looking for folks talking about the allegations that the president referred to US military veterans as "suckers" and "losers."

I hit the mother lode with the This Week with George Stephanopoulos classroom, where Martha Raddatz was hosting the conversations. She's been on a multi-state tour, and noted that shortly after she arrived in Denver, the article in the Atlantic about Trump's comment hit. She asked voters for their reactions; here are a few of them.
It broke my heart. 
We're not losers. We're not suckers. He's - the government sent us over there (Vietnam). We didn't say, 'send me, send me to war. The government sent us to go fight for this country.
My immediate reaction was what is this? This doesn't make a lot of sense. And each allegation was supported by anonymous sources.  (This man said he absolutely doesn't believe the article).
He tweets a lot, he says a lot and gets all about going after (a) certain voting bloc. It's not what he really feels. And so, when you take it back to national security, I'm really worried that he's going to put men and women needlessly in harm's way.
It didn't surprise me. You can see what he said about Senator McCain from the very start. I think that (he's) someone who respects the military vote but that's not the same thing as respecting the military. 
And, she talked with former Secretary of Defense (and former Republican Senator) Chuck Hagel, asking him for his reaction.
...if these comments are real (and I'll address that in a second) but if they're real, it's beneath the dignity of any commander in chief, truly they're despicable. Now, one of the points that one of the veterans made which was a good point, these are anonymous sources. But let's go back to the words from Trump himself, coming out of his own mouth, starting in 2016 about - what he said about John McCain and what he continued to say about McCain. 
How he degraded the service of Generals Mattis and McMaster, and just recently, General Kelly, the history of this president over the last three, four years is pretty clear. The 2018 experience when he did not go to the American military cemetery in France, to recognize and honor the World War I Marines, every other leader went, every other leader drove, leaders of Germany, France, Canada. And you can go through a litany of past things that he said from his mouth, actions that he's taken, and it corroborates really the Goldberg article in "The Atlantic”.
Hagel also said he thinks this will resonate with servicemen and women,
because what I’ve just said, he's on the record with saying things himself over the past few years. And that -- that makes the credibility of this article and those anonymous comments more and more credible. Now, I said before, if you want to make an anonymous comment and if you feel so strongly about that that you make that comment to an established, well-respected reporter and a magazine, then you ought to have the courage to go out and use your name, too. I’ve always believed that. I think it’s important now. If these guys who said it or allegedly said it, think it’s that important for the future of this country, then they should show some courage and step forward as well.
Interestingly, Raddatz asked one of the doubting veterans she talked to about this if he'd believe it if "someone appeared who had provided information in that article and said it on the record in front of a camera" and the gentleman was still unsure about believing it. Hagel noted that some folks will never believe it, "no matter what is said, no matter who says it," noting
...and that's just the reality of politics and freedom of expression, and we have a great country where you can believe what you want to believe. But facts are facts, Martha. And the reality of those facts (is) pretty clear. I think it's a pretty clear indictment of this president's attitude towards our veterans.
He'll use them. Of course, he’s used them in the last three and a half years as props in his actions, in his statements. No president has ever done that -- use your veterans, use your active military as props. I mean, couple of months ago, he sends an airborne division into Washington, camps them outside of Washington, the mayor didn’t ask for that. The police chief didn't ask for that in Washington, D.C. But it's a continuation of the same actions and words we have seen from this president the last three and a half years.
I have to agree with Hagel. It IS believable that Trump could have said this, given what he's said about and said to veterans, members of a Gold Star family, and his penchant for grasping for the military to get involved in his pet projects (the Wall), the DC stuff that Hagel mentioned, and his repeated claims that he'll "send in the National Guard"- something that's not even his responsibility, for Pete's sake.

The comment by the one veteran, the one who said Trump loves the military voter, not the military? Solid gold.

Also on the show fielding questions on this issue? Ohio's Republican Gov. Mike DeWine, who served in the Senate with both Chuck Hagel and John McCain. His reaction?
Well, Martha, I -- I read the article. But, you know, any time I've been with the president, there's ever been any discussion about the military, he has been extremely respectful, what you would expect of the president. So, you know, that's -- that's been my personal experience.
Raddatz talked about the fact that even Fox News had confirmed parts of the article (other news agencies have done the same).  But DeWine agreed with Hagel that "people should come forward, adding that
...you know, anonymous sources are -- are interesting, but, you know, it's never going to have the credibility, I think, for the general public unless someone -- you know, people actually come forward and are willing to do that.
He said that he doesn't agree with Trump's comments about McCain, whom DeWine called "a dear, dear personal friend."

Raddatz wondered about the over 19 million veterans in the country, who accounted for 13% of 2016 voters (per exit polling). Then, 60% of them voted for Trump, 34% for Hillary Clinton, and asked if DeWine thought this could make a difference in this year's election. He said he really didn't know.
...you know, we're into the campaign. You know, a lot of things come out in a campaign. And I think sometimes people, when -- when they only come out during a campaign, you know, people are somewhat skeptical about them. This is -- you know, we're into the 60 days. And so I don't know what, you know, impact that's going to have. I think, you know, what the president has done in regard to the economy before we hit the -- the virus, you know, I think people in Ohio generally very happy with that. You know, the president made commitments in regard to the Supreme Court and -- and federal courts. We're very happy with what he's done there. So, you know, it's going to -- look, it's going to be a close race in Ohio. I think the president will win Ohio. But Ohio's always going to be a -- a battleground state. And, you know, no -- neither side can ever take Ohio for granted.
You know? On that last part, he's right: neither side can ever take Ohio for granted. And he's right on the part before that, too, I suspect: there are probably lots of single-issue voters, like the ones who focus on Supreme Court justices. Those people cannot be discounted, in this or any election.

See you around the virtual campus. And if you're not wearing your mask, you're doing it wrong.

August 25, 2020

Sunday School 8/23/20: Extra Credit

As promised in our Sunday School post, here are highlights of the interviews with Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, done by ABC's David Muir and Robin Roberts. 

We'll tackle Muir's part first, and right off the bat he asked Biden how it felt to finally be the nominee. Biden mentioned his "overwhelming sense of obligation to get this right" because there's so much at stake.   That led to several questions on the COVID-19 pandemic, summarized below. . 
  • Biden blames Trump for "walking away and not dealing with the solutions" and for not listening to the scientists. Biden will - including shutting down the country again if that's what they recommend. 
  • Harris said that "communities most in need" should get the vaccine first, when we have one, and they both say we need a plan for getting the vaccine out, and need to be working on that plan now, not later.
  • Biden's not concerned about a vaccine being announced before the election; he said, "I would hope that they’d be able to have the vaccine" and while he's been told it's unlikely, "if, God willing, it happened, it’d be wonderful." Picture Trump saying that... 
  • He said that when we do get a vaccine, we need transparency to that people will know it's scientists driving it, not politics,  so that people can trust that it's safe. 
Here're a few more responses; I want to leave room for the other half of the interview.
  • They'll raise taxes on people making over $400K, and on corporations, because it's time they paid their fare share, that it's  not about "punishing anybody." 
  • It is fair to ask a person over 70 if they're fit and ready for the office, he said, and had this message for Trump: "watch me, Mr. president. Watch me."
  • Harris was comfortable signing on as  VP choice, pointing to a number of policies that are "about translating the pain we collectively should feel as a country" and turning that pain into action on multiple fronts, including the Green New Deal - and that setting goals and timelines would be priorities there, along with a million new jobs.
There was  more, but the last question was how Biden would bring people together. In a nutshell? Telling the truth, taking responsibility, and actually inviting the opposition to come and settle problems together.

June 19, 2020

TGIF 6/19/20

Oh, what a week it was... Here's just a slice.

Take John Bolton. Liar, or teller of the most secrety of our secrety stuff? Money-hungry man without a conscience, or money-hungry man without a conscience? A would-be do-gooder, if only there'd been a subpoena, or a man who doesn't really give a rat about our country and protecting it from the Trumpeters?

Could he be all of those rolled into one? Seems like the answer is yes, or sorta kinda maybe. Here's one take on it, from The Atlantic. The author, Thomas Wright, gives a litany of reasons (and likely not a full list, it sounds) of why he's no fan of Bolton, only to land here:
But I have to acknowledge that Bolton behaved honorably as national security adviser when he told his staff to report illegality to the White House lawyers. He also defended those who served under him against Trump loyalists. He is right to publish his book. If he gives a full accounting of what he saw as national security adviser—and from a recent article in The New York Times and an excerpt in The Wall Street Journal, it seems he might have—he deserves credit for it regardless of what he did or did not do during the impeachment hearings and trial. He will have done the nation a service.
ABC's Martha Raddatz has Bolton exclusively, Sunday night; check your local listings.

And speaking of John Bolton, Mick Mulvaney - remember him, the acting chief of staff who was exiled to Ireland to serve as chief groundskeeper or something at Trump's golf course?  Among other things, Mulvaney said something to the effect that no one else who was in The Room Where it Happened mentioned anything inappropriate. And I had to laugh at that - as if Mulvaney, Pompeo, or others still in Trump's universe would recognize anything as being in appropriate? I mean, they thought an obvious quid pro quo was nothing other than a perfect phone call, for Pete's sake.

And speaking of Pete's sake, here's the question NBC's Peter Alexander asked at the presser today.
Why does the president keep hiring people who are dumb as a rock, overrated, way over their heads, whack' and incompetent?
The answer, from Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany? Trump likes "countervailing opinions" and likes to balance his own opinion with those who disagree with him, similar to Lincoln's Team of Rivals model. Except that the words Alexander used in his question are Trump's words, used to describe former staffers - and they did actually apply to Bolton, she added.

And, McEnany went on to say that even the FAILING NEW YORK TIMES!!! which is often FAKE NEWS!!! and which NOBODY READS ANYWAY!! because they're losing subscribers left and right has criticized Bolton. Except, I have to correct the part about the Times losing subscribers left and right - because they didn't have any 'right' ones, right? I mean left? Or something?

Mulvaney, for his part, felt safe in saying that the president isn't good at hiring people.

And speaking of the president, he's having his love-fest tomorrow in Tulsa OK, against the advice of Drs. Anthony Fauci and Deborah Birx, according to this NBC News report. I guess the docs are part of the 'team of rivals' on the White House Coronavirus Task Force?  Anyway, a couple of days ago, Fauci said he would not ("of course not") attend any of Trump rallies, being in a high-risk category, and he added
outside is better than inside, no crowd is better than crowd, and crowd is better than big crowd.
And speaking of crowds (sheesh, this whole post reads like an ad for Segues, doesn't it?), the president had this to say about what might happen in Tulsa.


And, now we learn how it will be "a much different scene" - some 250 National Guard soldiers will be there, unarmed except for shields, batons, and pepper spray, to help keep the peace. Of course, it could have been a very much different scene entirely, but the Oklahoma Supreme Court refused to issue an injunction keeping the rally from going on as planned, saying there was no law requiring masks or physical distancing.

And speaking of the National Guard, it seems some of the folks who were called to duty helping out with coronavirus efforts will be one day short of the 90-day deployment requirement for benefit eligibility.
The issue arose after the administration decided to end federal deployment orders for National Guard members on June 24. The decision would leave some who were placed under federal orders in late March just short of reaching a 90-day threshold that would allow them to collect retirement benefits early, before turning 60. The date also would cut short access to some GI Bill benefits, though that could be earned later.
Which stinks, especially when "we love the military." I can't imagine that no one knew that picking this specific date - a seemingly random Wednesday - would ensure that so many folks who put themselves on the line when asked to, who were away from their families helping protect the country from an invisible Chinese enemy, were going to be treated this way.

I'll leave you with this closing thought. My Sonofa Gov, Andrew Cuomo, is ending his daily coronavirus briefings. No word on whether he's also ending his participation in the Cuomo Brothers show on CNN.

TGIF, everyone.

May 9, 2020

Trump in Transition (v44): The Proper Treatment

Earlier this week, I watched ABC News anchor David Muir interview the president. I pulled the transcript to make sure that what I heard was really what the president said. 

Right from the very first question, Trump did what Trump does: lie, deflect, self-promote - things we are, sadly, so very used to. I recommend setting beverages aside while reading this one.

after mentioning Trump's widely reported statement that "the decision to open the economy is the biggest decision I've ever had to make," Muir asked the president how we save livelihoods without risking more lives. Trump wasted no time being Trump.
Well, I think actually the decision to close the country was the biggest decision I've ever had to make, and I've said that very loud and clear. I mean, we had the greatest economy in history, in the history of the world, not only our economy, it was our greatest economy. Best employment numbers, best numbers in every single way. And they said, sir, we have to close the country... But the biggest decision I've ever had to make is closing the country, and certainly this is now also a big decision but the people want to go back to work.
Now, if he had said that closing the country was the biggest decision, wouldn't you think there would be searchable proof that didn't tie back to this very interview?

Asked if he believed lives could be lost to reopen the country, he started out OK, saying "It's possible there will be some because you won't be locked into an apartment or a house or whatever it is" and he even talked about the increase in suicides that could come from the quarantine, but that "we have to bring it back and that's what we're doing. Again we're going to do it safely." 

A normal president, or pretty much any human being, would have stopped there, having answered the question. But not this one.
And not in all cases but most of the governors are working very much with us on this. We've had a very good relationship pretty much with all the governors because we’ve produced like nobody's ever produced before. What we've done with ventilators, and by the way testing which has been a tremendous success, even though we don't get the proper treatment on it... Nobody's ever done -- this is the biggest mobilization since World War Two and it's -- it's been incredible.
Muir tried to get an answer to whether people going back to work should have access to testing or "do they have to go back to work, having faith in their leaders and you, Mr. president, that the workplace will be safe?" Trump talked about some new data on testing, noting among other things that "it's also, every importantly, we have the best testing. We have the best testing."  Which wasn't an answer, so Muir tried again. Workers "should have no problem" getting tested, Trump said, adding,
And as good as this is, we're even getting better. We came up - don't forget, the cupboard was bare. The other administration - the last administration left us nothing. We didn't have ventilators, we didn't have medical equipment, we didn't have testing. The tests were broken. You saw that. We had broken tests. They left us nothing. And we've taken it and we have built an incredible stockpile - a stockpile like we've never had before.
Muir fought back again, asking what Trump did "to restock those cupboards."

****Please put down any beverages before continuing****
Well, I'll be honest. I have a lot of things going on. We had a lot of people that refused to allow the country to be successful. They wasted a lot of time on Russia, Russia, Russia. That turned out to be a total hoax. Then they did Ukraine, Ukraine and that was a total hoax, then they impeached the president of the United States for absolutely no reason, and we even had 197-to-nothing vote by the Republicans.
And essentially, the same thing by the -- by the, if you take a look at the Senate and the House, I mean it was the same thing. Look, what they've done and now they continue to do it. Remember this: when you see these numbers and testing, you're probably even surprised because I watch Chuckie Schumer get on television, and they have sound bites.
No matter what you do, it's never good enough. But you don't hear about ventilators anymore. That was a big problem. You don't hear about testing much anymore but the other night I saw him go on a show of a very unfunny comedian, and he looks at the camera, says, “testing testing.” They will complain, no matter how good we did. If we took these numbers -- 7 million. This is 7 million tests.
And if I doubled or tripled it, they’d still say -- because it's a sound bite. Because they want to try and win an election, which hopefully they won't win because they're going to double everybody -- the taxes are going to double. All the problems that are going to have, and you're going to be back into a bad economy. We had the greatest economy ever, and we're going to do it again.
Just under 300 words, to avoid having to say only four words: "Nothing. I did nothing."

As to whether he agreed with my Sonofa Gov Andrew Cuomo that governors who were trying to reopen might have to stop, or "turn off the valve...slow things down" if they see spikes in key metrics.
No, I don't know -- I’d have to see his full statement. But look we've gotten along very well. Don't forget Governor Cuomo last week said the President and the federal government had done -- have done a phenomenal job. He said that. A phenomenal job.
Huh?
I can only tell you what he said last week. I mean, David, I can only tell you what he said last week. I mean, it wasn't - two years ago. He said the President and the federal government have done a phenomenal job. That was the word he used and he's right.
We built him 2,900 beds. We moved the ship in. Now, they didn't use it too much, which I'm frankly happy about because they didn't need it because we were right about the numbers. We were actually right about the numbers, but we took the Javits Convention Center and made it into a major hospital in a period of four days. So, he's been you know he's been actually very nice, I think.
Muir tried a third time, and Trump talked about Westchester County and how the state did well there, "... it was actually quite a good job." So, we still don't know whether Trump agrees or disagrees with what Cuomo said. These are not hard questions, folks, that the president isn't answering.

After talking about the models and the projected numbers of cases and mortality (Trump says they've been wrong from day one, in both directions), it was time to blame China for a sec, and then he said, "just one thing, if I could."
I think the American people have to consider themselves now -- and I am considering them to be warriors. We are warriors. We are fighting a war against an invisible enemy. We are warriors, and we have to go back to work and that's what they want to do.
YES! I am a warrior princess! I need a costume and a cape! 

Comparing today to the 1918 pandemic, Trump said this is "Not as lethal, individually, but more contagious." He went on to say that no one's seen anything like it before, and 
The people of this country have done a great job. But now I'm looking at them, and I think they're looking at themselves, as being warriors.
We're warriors. We're fighting something that should have never happened but it's an invisible enemy, and it's tough and it's smart. So -- will it happen to other people? Yes, it could happen to me and it could happen to you. And I'm prepared for that. But look, we're out and we're distancing. We're far away, and a lot of things are happening. We've changed... We’re gonna get back to our normal life... I hope it’s gonna be soon. 
And then, it was time to talk about one of his favorite things.
Somebody said to me like, everybody’s longing for the rallies. We all have a lot of fun at my rallies. And -- I hope we can do that soon. I mean, I hope we can do that. I can’t have a rally with, you know, 7 seats in between everybody. And I hope we can do that soon. The rallies are the least of it, but you know, people are asking me all the time. Just last night, I got three calls -- “When are we gonna do a rally?” I said, “Just relax. Take it easy.” But we’re gonna do -- I hope before the election.
He moved on to how need sporting events, in full arenas. Trump recounted a call he had with sports owners about having full arenas. And, he said
You know, the virus will pass. There'll be more death, that the virus will pass, with or without a vaccine. And I think we're doing very well on the vaccines but, with or without a vaccine, it's going to pass, and we're going to be back to normal. But it's been a rough process. There is no question about it.
Muir wondered how bad it was going to get, the jobs numbers and whatnot.
Well, that is what it is. And you know, it's very interesting. Even the Democrats aren't blaming me for that.... The third quarter, I think, is going to be -- I call it a transition quarter. A lot of people -- you see it. I’ll tell you what. I got on the plane today, there was such spirit. People are starting to feel -- we land in Arizona, I leave from DC, I get calls from everybody, all over the country. I just spoke to the governor of Florida. Florida is really active.
I mean, a lot of these states are really getting back into gear. There's a spirit out there right now that's pretty incredible. But even the Democrats, they're not hitting me with “Oh gee, it's your fault” from that standpoint. Nobody's blaming me. What I want to do is, we have a transition period coming. I think the fourth quarter will be very good. And I think next year is going to be one of the best years we've ever had, economically. There is a pent-up demand that's incredible. The oil's going back up. We're going to start saving some energy jobs. I really think next year is going to be one of the best years we've ever had. Watch it happen.
Muir noted that lots of people, "they're just trying to get through next week, or the next dinner they put on the table."
Well, we've done a lot for that. We've done our small business, as you know, our PPP, paycheck, if you want to call it that, where small businesses are given billions of dollars, so that they can take care of their employees. We've done a lot of other -- look, we've done $2 trillion. And it's actually close to three if you really add it up but $2 trillion has been approved, and we'll probably do more. It's a stimulus. It's to keep people employed, to keep small businesses open.
We just saved the airlines. We just put up 25 billion and 25 billion we're saving the airlines. They are paying a price for it, but we're saving the airlines. The airlines were doing the best business they've ever done, David, the best. And then one day, boom, they have no business left. I mean it's gone. So we just saved the airlines... the markets are working. It's a beautiful thing. 
Look, I think that you're gonna have a very, very terrific transition third quarter. I see it happening. The spirit I see now. People are calling. It's an incredible spirit that's going on, and I'm a person that believes in spirit because you need spirit for success.
Muir tried to turn the conversation away from corporations and back to people, who maybe haven't gotten their stimulus checks or their unemployment, or were eating donated food. Trump said he wanted to give unemployment money directly to the people, but "the Democrats wanted it to go through the system." And lots of states have old equipment that can't handle the process. 
You know, you have really well managed states in this country, and you have some that aren't so well managed, but they have the money. They have to get the money out. Again, I would have rather sent the money directly. They wanted it to go through the unemployment, through the system and exactly what I said. I told you, I told you a lot of people exactly what I said has happened in some cases, where the equipment can’t handle the money. But it's going to get out. That's the state's problem. But we’ll take over that problem if they don't get the money out soon.
He doesn't mention the delay in getting newly approved administrative money to the states, among other issues with getting all of the stimulus money out, because that wouldn't look good.

****Please put down any beverages before continuing****

But nothing would make his next answer look good. The question was "how difficult it has been to balance" projecting optimism and hope with honesty on how "dire" things would be.
It's a very good question and it's a very difficult situation, and I have a media that's extremely hostile. And they have been from before I got elected, you know that, that's why it was called a miracle because I had a hostile media, which Republicans do but I had more than any other -- you know, I even had a, you know, group of Republicans that have lost to me so badly they formed committees. They're a dying breed, but I've had tremendous lack of support from Democrats. They should -- we should all be in this together.
I thought the one thing this is different at -- and what I really thought much different. I thought the Democrats -- because this is a crisis. I thought the Democrats would come together and work with us. They really don't. I see Schumer, you know, the guy is a loser from New York. Schumer’s up there the other day. He doesn't know anything about testing, and he's on a show, and he's going testing, testing, testing. He didn't see charts like this, he doesn't see that. He probably knows. I'm sure he knows, but it's a soundbite. It's a political sound bite. 
They don't use the ventilators anymore now they use the testing but now we've solved testing better than any country in the world. And they should be saying, Great job, not use it as a sound bite when they know it's not true. It's not good. So the one thing I'm most disappointed with, I never expected much from the media and I have to say this, you are included in this group. I know some great journalists; you’ve been very fair to me. 
I know some great journalists, but I know the vast majority. I've seen things that are so bad and so corrupt and so dishonest. It's a shame, especially when it comes to something like this, because our country needs spirit. And they should be given them the facts as to the positive. They can report the positive, there is positive also. There’s horrible death that should have never happened. It should have never have been let out of China. It should have been stopped. It could have been stopped right there, when I talk about putting out the fires. They should have stopped it. 
They didn't. They didn't know how. They probably made a big mistake. Maybe it was in confidence, maybe it was they made a mistake. Whatever it was, it wasn't good. It was very unfortunate. And you got to understand, I had just made a tremendous trade deal months before with China, where they're paying us billions and billions of dollars a month. And I made that, but to me, this supersedes trade deals.
And when Muir asked whether there was an intelligence failure, that we "didn't know the scope of this," there was more about China, and no one agreeing with him on closing the border (although previously he said others said he had to), and more, and then there was this.
Now, at the same time, I want to be optimistic. I don't want to be Mr. Gloom and Doom. It's a very bad subject. I'm not looking to tell the American people when nobody really knows what's happening yet, Oh, this is going to be so tragic. I want to be -- aside from everything else, and I'm going to use a term, and some people love it. and some people hate it, but I love it. I want to be a cheerleader for our country. I don't want to be Mr. Doom and Gloom. So, here I am in January banning, at the same time, I want to be optimistic, but they have a thing -- for instance they do false ads. 
They said I called it a hoax. No, I called the Democrats a hoax because of what they were saying because when I did the ban they're out there saying -- they call me a racist because I did the ban. They called me xenophobic. Sleepy Joe Biden. He said he's xenophobic. He doesn't know what the word means. He’s xenophobic. That's a terrible thing to call somebody. Then four or five weeks later, he sent out a statement that he agreed with what I did, but nobody picked up the statement. Look, we have handled a very bad situation very well. 
We started off with very few medical supplies. By the way, in the military. We started off with a depleted military with no ammunition. My first week in the office I was told we have no ammunition. Now we have the greatest military we've ever built. $1.5 trillion, you know because you reported on it. Same thing with medical. The shelves were bare, the cupboards were bare. We built unbelievable ventilate -- the ventilators now are being built by the thousands. You know we're doing with ventilators now? We're helping Italy, France, Spain, Nigeria, various countries all over the world.
They're calling us for ventilators, and we have so many now that we're able to give them or do whatever deal we make, but I would say it's a great -- it's a great thing to help people in distress. They can't make ventilators. You know, it's a very complicated process. It’s a big machine, and a complex machine. We're giving these ventilators to people and countries all over the world. We've got more than we can use. Governor Cuomo said he needed 40,000 ventilators. I said you don't need that much, Dr. Birx said you don't need that much.
We gave him the amount that he needed which was about 4,000 and he actually gave some recently to Massachusetts where they needed a --We have so many ventilators now. And it was a bad word for -- Two months ago nobody thought a thing like this could happen. And it's companies like Honeywell and General Motors and General Electric and a lot of our greatest companies. 3M really came through in the end. 3M with the face masks and other things they’ve done. We have mobilized -- this is the greatest mobilization since World War Two. 
And I’ll tell you what, I don't need the credit. I should get credit, but I don't need the credit. Who should get the credit is FEMA, the Army Corps of Engineers, and all of the millions of people that worked to get this done. You know, when we sailed the ship in, the comfort, we have the comfort and the mercy. The Mercy is in California, and they were very -- the governor there has been very gracious about it and other things too. But when we had the comfort come into New York harbor, we had a lot of doctors, they weren't expecting this. They were not set up for COVID-19. 
They were set up for regular things like car accidents and appendix and a lot of other things. We converted the ship over. When they didn't use it that much because frankly the numbers fortunately never hit a point where we needed it that much, those doctors and the doctors from the Javits Center went all over New York and parts of New Jersey, and they worked with other professionals. And the other professionals have told me to a T. Governor Cuomo told me, Mayor De Blasio told me...Your great governor of New Jersey... told me, he said these people were so professional it was un -- they'd walk into a room and everybody stood up. These are the medical professionals from the military... These are warriors. And just to finish. 
I watch and I see people walking into hospitals, and people from buildings, many, many different locations singing, and in some cases, you have people from Lincoln Center and from, you know, great musicians playing the horns and instruments. And I watch police and firemen applauding as they walk in, but I see things that I've never quite seen before I would imagine, other than actual warfare.  
Young men and women and some older and some doctors rushing through doors into a very dangerous building, a hospital, putting on outfits as the doors are opening and trying to get everything set. They're not outside taking their time. I'll tell you what, it's a beautiful thing to watch, David. I've never seen anything like it...
They are warriors... But you know what, the people of our country are warriors too. And that's what I'm saying, they have to think of themselves as warriors. We can't sit in a house for the next three years. We can't do it.
And how did the president respond to a question about what he'd say to the families who have lost loved ones?
I want to say: “I love you.” I want to say that we're doing everything we can. I also want to say that we're trying to project people over 60 years old. We're trying so hard and -- everything I've said today -- I'd like to preface it by saying, if you're 60 years old and especially if you're 60 or even less than that and you've had a heart condition or you've had diabetes or a problem of any kind -- it seeks out problems. This is a vicious -- it seeks out weakness, in terms of medical -- 
If somebody has any form of a heart problem or diabetes - anything - it seeks it out. It's a vicious, vicious virus. But I want to just say to the people that have lost family and have lost loved ones, and the people that have just suffered so badly, and just made it - and just made it - that we love you. We're with you. We're working with you. We're supplying vast amounts of money, like never before. We want that money to get to the people. and we want ‘em to get better. 
And we want them - you can never really come close to replacing, when you've lost some - no matter how well we do next year, I think our economy is going to be raging. It's going to be so good. No matter how well, those people can never ever replace somebody they love. But we're going to have something that they're going to be very proud of. And to the people that have lost someone, there's nobody - I don't sleep at night thinking about it. There's nobody that's taken it harder than me. But at the same time I have to get this enemy defeated. And that's what we're doing, David. That's what we're doing.
Finally, "if November becomes a referendum on your handling of the pandemic, are you comfortable with that?"
Well, I am and I'm not. You know, it's a very, it’s a very interesting thought. You know I’ve built the greatest economy and then it was turned off for good reason. We saved millions of lives by doing it. I think people are going to remember that. I think they're going to remember that I rebuilt the military, I think they're going to remember that I gave them the biggest tax cuts in history. I gave them the greatest regulation cuts by far in history. I've given them the best job numbers in history. I’ve rebuilt our military to a level it's never been built, I mean, look, I got for the veterans, I got Choice. They’ve been trying to get Choice for 50 years...
Nobody has ever done these things, and I've saved their second amendment. You wouldn't have a second amendment right now if it wasn't for me. And one other thing, I've always heard judges are the most important thing that a president can do. I set a record on judges. 252 judges. It's unthinkable. Every judge is so important.
252 judges, two Supreme Court justices. Nobody's ever done things like this. So, I hope it's not solely on what I've done here because this is a very, this is like rubber. It's very very amorphous. But you know what, I think in a certain way, and I hope I can say this to you in a couple of months. I think in a certain way maybe our best work has been on what we've done with COVID-19, but, but we haven't gotten- We haven't been treated properly.
Not me, the Army Corps of Engineers, FEMA, the medical people, the police, the nurses, - everybody, even the doctors, they haven't been treated properly. The job they've done is a miracle. We're low in morbidity, we're number one on testing, we’re number one - again - on ventilators and everything. Not number one, we're number one - there is no number two through ten. We're way ahead of every other country in the world, and very important - it's so important.
I think we're doing very well in vaccines, and we're doing very well therapeutically. I think we're gonna have some great answers and, hopefully by the next time we meet, we'll have some of those answers.
I encourage you to read through these responses a second time, if you're still reading now on the first go-round.

This is the person who was chosen by enough people to have become the president of the United States, using the process that we have to choose a president.

This is the person who is talking to our allies, and our enemies.

This is the person who is talking to you and me.

This is the person asking to be given another four years in office.

December 29, 2019

Sunday School 12/29/19

Today, Andrew Yang was the only one of the 2020 Dems making the rounds in the classrooms, so his conversation with Jonathan Karl on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos gets my undivided attention today.

Our Sunday School Extra Credit will cover the discussion on Meet the Press about "our post-truth society" and the spread of information, misinformation, alternative facts, and the like. That's going to be fun, I'm sure!

But today, it's all about Andrew. Here's the clip Jonathan Karl played to open the segment, of Yang talking about money and diversity at the last debate.
Why am I the lone candidate of color on this stage? Fewer than 5% of Americans donate to political campaigns. Do you know what you need to donate to political campaigns? Disposable income. I guarantee if we had a Freedom Dividend of $1000 a month, I would not be the only candidate of color on this stage tonight. 
I remembered that from the debate, and how it made me stop and think. I've donated small amounts to three of the candidates - but I've never really thought about my ability to do that, or more importantly, about someone else's inability to do that. And, honestly, I'm curious about where the conversation's going to go.

Karl presented the clip as Yang "making his pitch for his universal basic income plan" and noted that  "a dozen governors, mayors and members of Congress have already dropped out."  His first question to Yang was on the meaning of his campaign slogan, "Not left, not right, but forward."
Well, Jon, to me it's clear the reason why Donald Trump is our president today is that we automated away four million manufacturing jobs that were primarily based in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Missouri and Iowa, the swing states he needed to win. And what we did to those jobs is what we are now going to do to the retail jobs, the call center jobs, the fast food jobs,  and eventually the truck driving jobs. 
He's right -- who among us hasn't started a call with pretty much any customer service department by going through a bunch of automated prompts before we ever get a chance to talk to a person? And, with the increasing minimum wages we're seeing at the state level, can you remember the last time you walked into a fast food place or Panera and didn't see "order here" kiosks? Or signs outside Dunkin' suggesting you order from your phone and have it ready when you get there?

Here's the last bit of his answer.
We have to have a way forward that works for all Americans independent of (their) political affiliation, so that's what we mean by not left, not right, forward. These problems are technological and apply to us all. 
Karl asked if what he means is that the major parties are too tied to ideology, too far left or right.  Yang pointed out that he was an 'ambassador' (little A, not big A) in the last administration, and added
...to me Democrats still have not asked themselves the hard questions as to how Donald Trump won in 2016 where if you look around the country, you see 30 percent of stores and malls closing. You see record high levels of stress, financial insecurity, student loan debt, even suicides and drug overdoses. These are the problems that voters talk to me about when I'm out there every single day.
And he hit on another of his key points, which I think Elizabeth Warren has added to her repertoire:
And the Democratic Party, unfortunately, is acting like Donald Trump is the cause of all of our problems. He's a symptom and we need to cure the underlying disease.
Karl moved to the details of the Freedom Dividend, which will give everyone over 18 who opts in $1000 a month, free to use however they want. And he wondered about the 'Math' of allowing a Jeff Bezos or a Donald Trump to get the Universal Basic Income (UBI).Yang thanked him for noticing the MATH tagline, which stands for 'Make America Think Harder.' And he explained that his UBI plan is modeled after what they've been doing in Alaska for nearly 40 years - the petroleum dividend that gives everyone in the state the same amount of money, no questions asked. That's what takes away the stigma and makes it truly universal, Yang explained. 

And back to Bezos?
And my way to pay for this is by taking a toll from every Amazon sale, every Google search, every Facebook ad. So we'd be getting hundreds of millions, even billions, from Jeff Bezos. So if we try and send him $1,000 a month to remind him he's an American, it's essentially immaterial. 
Turning to his newly released health care plan, Karl confessed to having some confusion about where Yang stands and played a couple of clips, one of the candidate and one of an unidentified woman, presumably a supporter. Both clips mentioned Medicare for All. His plan, Karl said, "does not call for Medicare for all. In fact, it doesn't even have a public option. So why the dissonance here?"
We need to move towards universal health care that's high quality and nearly cost free for Americans around the country. But reality is, we have millions of Americans who are on private insurance right now and taking those plans away from them very quickly would be untenable for many, many Americans. 
And he suggested the goal should not be to shut down private insurance, but instead
To me, the goal of the government has to be to demonstrate that we can out-compete private plans and then push them out of the market over time. And that's -- that's what we're proposing.
Karl pushed back, saying "...but-- again, I'm confused. Your ad is explicit. Your ad says, Medicare for all. Your plan is not Medicare for all. It's not even 'Medicare for some' because in your plan there -- there's not even a public option."
Our plan is to expand a universal health care system to all Americans. Medicare for All is not the name of a bill. Medicare for All -- is universal health care for all Americans. And that is our vision.
I give Jon Karl credit for pressing on this question, because it does seem confusing. He asked again, "But Medicare for All is Medicare for all, right? I mean --" 
Well, our -- our health care plan would be -- would be based on Medicare and expanding it over time to more and more Americans. You'd lower the eligibility age and then you make it widely accessible.
Karl gave up, saying he "didn't see that" in Yang's plan, but moved on to talk about Yang's campaign.

Reiterating that he's "been the surprise break-through candidate" and that no one expected him to still be in the race or on the stage for the last of the 2019 debates. But, he noted, Yang's yet to break 5% in the early-state polls, and wondered what he has to do "to actually break through to the next level?"

Yang was upbeat in his typically self-deprecating way, saying he loves being described as a "surprise break-through." He also noted it's been a while since there's been an early-state poll - over a month, he said, and so he
can't wait for some new polls to come out that show how much we're growing, how much the energy and enthusiasm and the crowds are getting bigger every time I go to any of the early states. I'm on my way to New Hampshire a little bit later today to celebrate New Year's Eve. And you're going to see, when the polls come out, we'll be at 5 percent or higher. I think significantly higher.
Moving to impeachment, Karl noted that Yang says no one ever asks him about that, and he's also said that Dems spend too much time talking about it. So, he asked Yang to confirm whether he supported impeaching Trump.
Yes, I do support the impeachment process, but voters don't ask me about impeachment, they ask me about health care and child care and education and climate change. And the fact is, we need 20 Republican senators to have a change of heart or a change of mind in order for impeachment to be successful.
So this strikes many Americans like a ballgame where you know what the score is going to be. And until that changes, to me, we need to be focused much more on presenting a new and positive vision that Americans will get excited about. That's how we win in 2020.
Karl tried to turn that into specifics, asking if Yang would advise Dems to "just forgo the Senate trial," noting that Trump's already been impeached and if, as Yang says, we already know the score in the Senate, why spend "the better part of a month, maybe longer" on a trial that Yang says voters don't care about.
Well, we -- we've impeached him. And if you're going to have the trial, you should make it happen as quickly and expediently as possible. I've already said that I think that the other candidates who are in the Senate, Senators Warren and Sanders and Booker and Bennett should feel free to continue their campaigns during the trial because the fact is, we have an election to win later this year and a case to make to the American people.
Karl noted that Yang has suggested he'd "be open to pardoning Donald Trump if (he) were elected" which is something I had not heard before. Karl asked if that was something Yang would do, and if any Democrat won in November, should a pardon be issued?
My focus is on solving the problems that got Donald Trump elected and moving the country forward. And if you look around the world, unfortunately, it's developing countries that have fallen into a pattern of the new president or the new leader prosecuting and sometimes imprisoning the former leader. That's not a precedent that’s been set here in the U.S., and to me, that's something that I would be interested in maintaining. It's not in the country's interest necessarily to look backwards. We need to look forwards.
Hitting this one more time, Karl wondered if Yang would "not want to proceed with prosecuting Donald Trump after he left office" and if he'd be open to a pardon, or if he thought Trump should be pardoned.
Well, we would have to see what the facts were. We’d have to see what the charges were and what the attorney general advises. But my interest is moving the country forward.
That's where they left it, but I did some digging to see what Yang had said about impeachment. Most information points back to the November debate; here's a little more on that from NBC News.
Andrew Yang said he does not think Trump should be facing criminal charges and would consider pardoning Trump if he were in fact prosecuted.
"We do not want to be a country that gets in the pattern of jailing past leaders," Yang said, adding that "there's a reason why Ford pardoned Nixon." 
"I'd actually go a step further and say not just, hey, it's up to my [Attorney General]. I would say that the country needs to start solving the problems on the ground and move forward."
"Would you consider a pardon then?" NBC News asked.
"I would," Yang said.
So - we opened with a clip about diversity and never talked about it again, and we closed with a conversation about pardoning Trump. Interesting way to bookend the interview.

See you around campus.

December 18, 2019

Poll Watch: Impeachment Sentiment

As the full House of Representatives prepares to vote on impeaching president Trump, let's take a look at a couple of recent polls, which may or may not be more reliable than the snarky social media comments I've been seeing.

First, a Fox News poll, which was taken December 8-11. Here's the small print stuff: 1000 registered voters were surveyed via randomly selected landline (221 people) and cellphone (779) numbers which were proportionally distributed across states to align with the number of each state's voters. The margin of error is +/- 3%.

Here's the down and dirty: 89% are following the inquiry closely, and
  • 50% believe Trump should be impeached and removed from office; 46% do not. Of those who do not, 82% think he shouldn't be impeached at all, while 9% think impeachment - but not removal from office - is the right thing to do. 
On the president's behavior?
  • 53% believe he has abused the powers of his office; 50% believe he has obstructed justice;  48% believe he has obstructed Congress, and 45% believe he has committed bribery;
  • 60% do not believe it's appropriate for a president to ask a foreign leader to investigate a political rival; and.
  • 47% believe he held up military aid to Ukraine to pressure them to investigate his political rival, and 58% believe that is not something that presidents typically do.
And, on Congress?
  • 49% say the Democrats really believe that Trump did something impeachable, while 43% believe they are simply trying to hurt him politically, while
  • 36% say the Republicans really believe Trump didn't do anything impeachable, while 52% believe they are simply trying to protect him politically. 

Next, we have a WaPo-ABC News poll, conducted December 10-15. Small print stuff: This one was also a phone survey, with 1,003 adults responding,  70% of whom were reached via cell and 30% via landline. The margin of error is +/- 3.5%.

In this poll, where 62% of respondents have been following the impeachment inquiry closely,
  • 49% say the president should be impeached and removed from office, 46% say no; these are within the margin of error for the survey; and
  • regardless of how respondents feel about impeachment, 51% say that Congress should censure him, while 42% say no. 
On the president's behaviors?
  • 49% believe he improperly pressured Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and his son;
  • 53% disapprove of how he's handled the impeachment inquiry;
  • 49% believe he tried to interfere in the impeachment inquiry; and
  • 71% say Trump should allow his top aides to testify in the Senate
And on Congress?
  • 49% disapprove of the way the Democrats have handled the inquiry;
  • 52% disapprove of the way the Republicans have handled it;
  • 55% think the hearings have been fair to the president; and
  • 62% believe he will get a fair trial in the Senate 
And, sometime later today, we'll have the answer on the two articles of impeachment from the House, and then if all goes as expected, we'll have a limited, very partisan trial in the Senate come January. 

Oh -- on those social media comments I referenced at the top of the post? From my feeds,a significant majority - I'd peg it at 85% or better -  of the people commenting on impeachment-related posts are more interested in denigrating their fellow Americans than they are in discussing impeachment.  

See you later for Wondering on Wednesday.