In Case You Missed It (v116)

The writing was easier last week, at least for a while. Here's your recap of what made it out of my head. 

I opened the week with a Sidebar driven by all the attention received by What's-his-name, the guy who hosts Meet the Press. He "did his job," fans say, by having another on-air argument with Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI). 

I'm no Johnson fan; I think he's a partisan hack. Even as I dislike him, I admit he's not wrong on everything. For example, he and I agree, the American people deserve to hear about the bad behavior of government officials, and Congress deserves the chance to provide 'oversight' of the government, even if no criminal statutes have been violated. 

WHN thinks that's ridiculous.

So, I guess the problem that I feel like you run into with that decision is what you're saying is if the Justice Department decides a crime wasn't committed, they're not going to prosecute a crime, it sounds like you still want the information out there because you want to politically damage the person that was investigated?

I suggested that maybe we want these bad actors to be held accountable, even if they're not 'officially' criminals, and it led to these questions.

Would WHN say that if the subject of the investigation was Clarence Thomas? Brett Kavanaugh? Marjorie Taylor Green? Matt Gaetz? Ron Johnson? Has he ever said that about any Donald Trump investigation?

We all know the answer to those questions, don't we?

Next up? A Quick Take inspired by the latest classified document finding - a "small number" of them, at the new home of former VP Mike Pence. I caught wind of that via a breaking news alert, and as often happens, my mind started racing. My former boss and co-workers would call out, "Oh, look - a squirrel!" when this happened in staff meetings. Here's a bit of that.

Shortly after seeing the headline, I had sketched out a perfect solution.

The houses, garages, car trunks, libraries, golf bags, duffel bags, diaper bags, bar carts, and sock drawers of every member of Congress, as well as every living president and vice president, must be searched for classified documents or other absconded-with items; the search must happen as soon as possible, to protect our national sanity, er, I mean, our national security.

And Ivanka's grave, too, must be searched - don't forget Ivanka's grave. I mean, who buries his ex-wife on his golf course while under investigation for missing documents?

Who does that? Donald Trump does, that's who.

If we need that kind of document-hunting effort, we'd need funding, which I figured out; and we'd need people to do the work. I had an answer for that, too.

Call up the Texas bounty hunters.

There's a reason they'd be perfect for the job - and it's in the post.  

I spent some time in the Sunday School classrooms, looking for discussions on the debt ceiling, which seems at least as important as worrying about which potential presidential candidate is hurt more by the politics of their document handling.  

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) had some thoughts on the debt, how we got where we are, and a possible solution, which he shared on CNN's State of the Union.

Everybody believes -- I mean, my goodness, when you have $31.4 trillion, and we have thrown caution to the wind, and to blame the Republicans, Republicans to blame the Democrats, who's at fault? Everybody's at fault. We don't have a process. I have been there 12 years, no budget.

He thinks the government needs to have "guardrails" on spending; having a budget, and trying to stick to it, is a good start.  And, while some have suggested forming a commission to develop recommendations, he's not a fan.

Can't you look and find out in government where you can be more efficient, more basically prudent with the taxpayers' money and quit wasting it, don't you think? And we all talk about waste, fraud, and abuse. That's an easy thing to do. But no one looks at it.

Hear, hear! 

It took me until Thursday morning to get the post out, but I did do some Wondering on Wednesday, on hypocrisy and indifference, among other things. Here's the hypocrisy wondering.

One thing I don't have to wonder about? Whether the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability will be asking for Mike Pence's visitor logs. I'm pretty sure that's not going to happen - but I wouldn't be surprised at all if they asked for Jimmy Carter's. 

The indifference part? Mass shootings, and guns. There were three mass shootings in California in a matter of days. One was plastered all over the news; another was pretty widely covered. The other one?

You probably didn't hear much about the third one; it was likely gang- or drug-related, which means, you know, "it was their own damn fault" that young mom and her baby were executed along with several other family members. I wonder why the media doesn't talk about that kind of mass shooting so much? Is it because they wouldn't have time to tell us about storms headed for the I-95 corridor?

So, that's a wrap on last week; as always, feel free to drop a comment on any of the posts. 

Sidebar: Sunday School 1/15/23

Last week, Meet the Press host Chuck Todd aka What's-his-name (WHN) received a lot of attention from folks on the left for his interview with Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson. 

Cheers rang out for how Johnson was 'handled' and how WHN was 'finally doing his job.' The video of the interview was widely shared, too. (Here's the transcript if you want to follow along.)

Give the accolades, you'd think it was a journalistic powerhouse of an interview, right? Well, not unless you think that mocking, laughing, taunting belligerence is the right way to conduct an interview. I don't agree; I think prior hosts of the show would be appalled, and I think WHN is the wrong person for this job.

I'm no Johnson fan; I think he's a partisan hack. Even as I dislike him, I admit he's not wrong on everything. For example, he and I agree, the American people deserve to hear about the bad behavior of government officials, and Congress deserves the chance to provide 'oversight' of the government, even if no criminal statutes have been violated. 

WHN thinks that's ridiculous.

So, I guess the problem that I feel like you run into with that decision is what you're saying is if the Justice Department decides a crime wasn't committed, they're not going to prosecute a crime, it sounds like you still want the information out there because you want to politically damage the person that was investigated?

Or - maybe - we'd like to see bad actors held accountable for their actions? 

Would WHN say that if the subject of the investigation was Clarence Thomas? Brett Kavanaugh? Marjorie Taylor Green? Matt Gaetz? Ron Johnson? Has he ever said that about any Donald Trump investigation?

That leads to another point on which Johnson and I agree: there is a lot of bias in the media, and in politics, of course. We know Johnson and the Rs have no interest in investigating their own guys, or Jared Kushner, or Trump, even as they relish going after the other side; that was clear in this interview. The Dems aren't much different. 

In addition to bias, there's a striking inability by many to discern the difference between a news report and an opinion piece. And a good part of the blame for that belongs to folks like WHN, when they clearly, even eagerly, cross the line between fact-seeking and smoke-blowing in their interviews.

Here's an example; this exchange came after Johnson said the FBI suppressed information about Hunter Biden's laptop before the election. (I clarified which 'they' Johnson was referring to in his comment, and I added emphasis).

JOHNSON: Chuck, Chuck. My concern -- you know, Chuck. You know, part of the problem, and this is pretty obvious to anybody watching this, is you don't invite me on to interview me, you invite me on to argue with me. 

That's true - more on that in a bit. 

JOHNSON: You know, I'm just trying to lay out the facts that certainly Senator Grassley and I uncovered. They (the facts) were suppressed. They (the facts) were censored. They (the FBI) interfered in the 2020 election. Conservatives understand that. Unfortunately, liberals in the media don't. And that's part of the things that -- part of the reasons our politics are inflamed is we do not have an unbiased media. We don't. It's unfortunate. I'm all for free press.

WHN: Well, Senator -- JOHNSON: It needs to be more unbiased. WHN: Senator, look, this is -- JOHNSON: There's misinformation on both sides -- WHN: Look, go to partisan -- JOHNSON: -- but the censorship and suppression -- WHN: Senator -- Senator -- look, we’re trying to do issues here and facts.  JOHNSON: -- primarily occurs on the left. WHN: Partisan cable -- JOHNSON: It's frustrating. WHN:  Look, you can go back on your partisan cable cocoon and talk about media bias all you want. I understand it's part of your identity. 

Notably, this exchange came after WHN said, "I am a journalist. I have to deal in facts." No one believes a word of that - or, I should say, no one should believe a word of that.

Sunday School 1/15/23: Extra Credit

Your Sunday School lesson, from the CNN SOTU classroom, was all about toeing the party line. 

For your Extra Credit this week, I chose to spend time in the MTP classroom, where What's-his-name talked with former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, and with Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI). We'll start with the senator. 

The Biden document issue was front and center. WHN asked if the White House, by not coming clean right away, puts Dems in a tough spot of "not knowing what to defend and what not to defend." Stabenow didn't have an issue here, and she made a distinction between what's happening now and what happened with former president Trump.

They take it very, very seriously. And they're talking to all of the right people. They're not going to defy subpoenas or require FBI raids to be able to get the documents. The president isn't saying that somehow magically when he thinks about classified documents that he can declassify them. I mean, it's totally different right now. Both serious in terms of having classified documents. But the president is doing the right thing.

Stabenow said it was "certainly embarrassing" that they found a "small number of documents, certainly not on purpose," but reiterated they're working with DOJ and the National Archives to correct it. And, she said, her concern is the "chaos" the Rs love to create.

Let's not talk about the fact that we have a manufacturing renaissance going on in this country. More jobs created, lower unemployment rate, higher wages. And what they're proposing to do that would interfere with that would really put us on the edge economically. They don't want to talk with us about how to move the country forward. And I can tell you people in Michigan, they want folks that are going together, get things done, that care about their families and aren't interested in all of this just chaos and investigations. Which is where the Republicans feel comfortable, unfortunately.

WHN wondered if there were any issues Stabenow wanted to work on, now that she's free from the political pressures of reelection. She said she'll continue working across the aisle, as she has "on issue after issue." She pointed to the upcoming five-year farm bill, which has bipartisan support, and said it's about more than just farms.

It's the largest investment we make in land and water conservation for the country. And so that's incredibly important. And frankly, we need workers. And one of the things we need to do is comprehensive immigration reform so that our farmers have access to a legal system for their workers.

The next question - whether Dems should support Kyrsten Sinema's reelection bid - seemed to come out of left field. Stabenow said she and Sinema have worked together, including on gun safety and mental health, but said "we'll let that play out a bit," and that "it's very, very early" to be talking about that.

Stabenow says she finds it interesting that so many people think that Washington DC and Congress are 'broken.' Even given "all the division and chaos and everything that's happening and trying to pull the country apart, (to) stop us from governing," 

we actually, in the last two years with a 50/50 Senate, you don't get closer than 50/50 in the United States Senate, Democratic House and President Biden got more done than at any time, literally in our lifetimes. And that's not an exaggeration.

She believes the reason the Dems gained a seat in the midterms, and why they'll keep the majority in 2024 "is because we are actually focusing on the things that people care about." 

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 10/16/22

Here's a look at a couple of the Senate races at play in November. First up? Dana Bash in the State of the Union classroom with the candidates for the Colorado seat, Joe O'Dea (R) and incumbent Michael Bennet (D).

O'Dea was up first; he was asked what he'd do about inflation if he gets elected. Mostly, "we have got to get our energy policy back on track" and that means "getting the permitting out of the way" 

so we can go back to work here in Colorado and flood the market with increased supply. It'll cause the price to come down. Inflation will go away. That's how you do it.

Bash didn't follow up on that, or on data showing that the Biden administration is approving 96% of the lease permits it receives, or about approved leases not going into production. Instead, she moved on to guns, asking if O'Dea thought any new gun laws were needed. 

He said Dems in his state are ignoring the laws on the books, that we "need more cops on the street" and to "make sure we're enforcing the laws we have." And, specifically on red flag laws, like the one in Colorado that's focused on mental health? Sheriffs tell him it doesn't work, "it puts them at risk. They're not happy with that law," and it needs to be rewritten.

...We need to do more with mental health here to get these people off the street. But we have hundreds of laws on the books. We need to enforce them. We need more cops on our street right now. If you talk to Chief Pazen here of the city and county of Denver -- he's the chief of police -- he will tell you he's short 250 officers. That's because Democrats across the state of Colorado have defunded, demoralized the police. And we need to do better.

Bash followed up, noting that Colorado's approved 146 applications to take guns away from dangerous people in two years, and asked if that didn't make his state safer.

He said no, citing stats saying it's the "the third worst state for violent crime in the United States," and "they just deemed Denver as one of the most unsafe cities in the nation." He said they have record crime everywhere, cashless bail issues, and again, the laws on the books need to be enforced.

Moving on, O'Dea said January 6th was "a black eye on the country" and that Trump "should have done more" to "keep the violence" away from the Capitol. Anyone who was violent needs to be held accountable. Trump should not run again, he said, and he'll "actively campaign" against him and will make sure the Rs have viable choices.

And finally, on abortion, he believes "for the first five months, that decision should be between a woman and her doctor. After that, for rape, incest, life of the mother, medical necessity, I believe that decision should also be between a woman and her doctor."  He says his position "is where most of America is."  

Bash started her interview with Sen. Bennet asking why the Inflation Reduction Act isn't reducing inflation. Bennet pointed out that some pieces "are going to take a while to put into place." He also explained that it's "a global problem," something other Dems forget to do. He blamed oil prices that skyrocketed during the recovery and Putin's invasion of Ukraine. 

Bash interrupted him to note that the media's favorite economist, former Dem Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, said that spending Bennet voted for, "particularly $1.9 trillion for the American Rescue Plan" is making inflation worse. Like other Dems who are paying attention, Bennet noted that other economists disagreed. And, he said, the ARP 

kept 30,000 Coloradans from being evicted... it has funded law enforcement all over the state, mental health services that we desperately need. It cut childhood poverty in half last year because of a bill that I wrote. I'm concerned that the Federal Reserve kept their interest rates at zero for too long and that their quantitative easing was too aggressive. But that's looking in the rearview mirror.

The senator said we can fix things by bringing supply chains back to the US, and "by making sure we are benefitting from the Inflation Reduction Act" by being the leader transitioning away from fossil fuels over the next 25 years. He thinks we're perfectly positioned to do that, and he thinks "that's an amazing place for us to be."

Bash turned to an ad run by a Dem group to help boost O'Dea's primary opponent "because they thought he would be easier" for Bennet to beat - and she wondered how Bennet would paint O'Dea as a "far-right Republican." Bennet said O'Dea does that by himself: he would have voted for all of Trump's SCOTUS picks; he opposes codifying abortion rights; he voted for a ballot issue that banned all abortions; and he doesn't think Trump bears any responsibility for the insurrection. 

Bash asked if it was a "mistake for fellow Democrats to prop him up as" Bennet's opponent. Bennet said we need to reform the campaign finance system, noting he's "got a racist billionaire who's funding a super PAC" that's supporting O'Dea - from Wyoming. 

That's not helping voters in Colorado. But I want, Dana, you to know and I want your viewers to know how out of touch he is with Colorado... not just on the abortion issue, but the idea that he would not support any additional gun laws, including a law Mitch McConnell voted for in the U.S. Senate. He thinks that our red flag law in Colorado after Columbine, after Aurora, is -- is out of touch.

Meanwhile, down the hall in the MTP classroom, What's-his-name talked with Evan McMullin, the Independent running against Republican incumbent Sen. Mike Lee. Notably, the other Utah senator, Mitt Romney, hasn't endorsed Lee. What's-his-name wondered if McMullen had spoken to Romney; McMullen said he hasn't, and said he respects and appreciates Romney's decision to sit this one out.

Lee has said a vote for McMullin is "a vote for the Democrats to keep their majority," and W-H-N wondered if that was correct. McMullin said no.

... look, I'm building a coalition of Republicans, Democrats, Independents, and members of third parties to better represent Utah and to help lead our country forward. And I'm not going to Washington to join a party or to caucus or to play the party power game. I'm going to represent our coalition. 

If he serves all six years, he wouldn't join either party's caucus? He said he'll maintain his independence, and that would help Utah and give it "an added value of influence." After blasting Lee ("He sits on his hands until it's time to vote no and then he goes and complains about our country on cable news."), he said he thinks we've seen

... that the senators in the chamber who are willing to act with greater independence, serving their constituents, standing up to party bosses, standing up to extremist factions and special interest groups, they have the most influence in the chamber. They're more influential, I think, even than the party bosses. And I want that for Utah. 

W-H-N asked about McMullen tweeting in January 2021 that "Not only should Mitch McConnell never be majority leader again, he shouldn't be minority leader either. It's time for something new." He said he wouldn't be involved in choosing the leadership, because it's up to the parties to make that decision.

Next, he was asked whether he would have voted for the Inflation Reduction Act. There were things in it he liked, and some that he didn't like, and he would not have voted for it "as written." He thought it didn't do enough about inflation in the short term, and thinks more needs to be done on that front.

...we need leaders and need a Senate who is going to focus on actually delivering more results to lower inflation. I did like the fact that it started to allow Medicare to negotiate on prescription drugs. We pay far more for prescription drugs than we need to in America...

McMullin favored Roe being overturned, but he's expressed concern that extreme laws were being created since that happened; most of the bills that have surfaced since the decision have been designed to make a political point, and that the extreme positions are "tearing the country apart." 

...we've got to stand up to those extremes. But more importantly, we've got to find a more constructive way forward. And that's about making contraception more available, doing more to support women, children, and families, and improving education on this matter. And that's where I'll focus my time.

Of the three candidates we heard from, I prefer McMullin's approach. We do need more people who are there to represent us, not just to stand with their party or protect their own longevity. 

See you around campus.

Sunday School 10/2/22

For your Sunday School today, we've got multiple interviews with Florida's Republican Senator Rick Scott. The interviews covered much of the same ground, so I tried to move around with the topics. 

On MTP, What's-his-name asked Scott if "things like mobile manufactured housing should even be legal" in Florida anymore. In part, he said they have to look at building codes after every event, to make sure it doesn't happen again. 

At the same time, you know people that they want to live in Florida. They want to live in the Sunshine State. And, you know, the more expensive housing you have, it makes it difficult for people to live there. So I guess it's a balance.

They also talked about insurance, and the need for both stricter building codes, to encourage insurance companies to play in the state, and for eliminating fraud, which costs consumers money and disproportionately impacts the poor, and discourages companies from writing policies.

And on getting federal money for his state, something he and Rubio have requested, What's-his-name suggested there may be some in Congress who "don't want to support" the request, given DeSantis voted against Hurricane Sandy aid because it wasn't paid for by cuts somewhere else. Grab a fork and some croutons.

Well, I think what you have to do is you have to, you have to, you know, spend your money wisely, but you do need – I mean, the federal government is a partner in this. And I learned that as governor. The federal government is a major partner in helping families, helping businesses, helping governments get back to, get back to normal. But you don't want to waste money. As an example, I put a lot of effort into cracking down on the significant fraud in the debris pickup market and what happens after a hurricane. And I've been actually trying to get the bill passed since I've been up there – I've been up there almost four years – to fix that because there is abuse in this. But we do have to provide disaster aid. And whether that's for a hurricane, or whether that's for flooding, or whether that's for wildfires, we've got to do that. And, you know, I hope people will, you know, continue to support and I think we ought to be doing – we've got to come up with a way to do this where it's a longer-term strategy.

And, on the election, does he think the Rs will take back the Senate? Scott thinks they're at "52 seats, plus."

On CNN's State of the Union, Scott told Dana Bash this was probably the worst storm he's seen, given the widespread nature of the damage, even in areas far from the Gulf Coast where Ian made landfall in Lee County. Bash asked him about officials there who didn't issue evacuation orders until less than 24 hours before landfall, which was "an apparent violation of their own policies." She wondered if that was the case, and it the delay cost lives.

Scott talked generically about loss of life, and all lives mattering, and doing everything you can to make sure no lives are lost, and he made sure he didn't pin the tail on anyone's um, er, 'donkey', if you catch my drift. Ultimately, she got him to agree that "I think it's something we have to look at to see why" the evacuation order didn't happen according to the plan. Teeth pulled, or something.

In the Face the Nation classroom, Margaret Brennan talked about the hurricane, of course, and also noted the most recent, offensive remarks from the FPOTUS, who said that Sen. Mitch McConnell has a "DEATH WISH" and made racist modifications to McConnell's wife's name,', and from Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, who claimed that Democrats want Republicans dead and that they have "already started the killings." She asked Scott if he'd rebuke the comments, given he's a member of the leadership.

Scott said we've got to come together, and "I'd also say that what Vice President Harris said yesterday that, or the day before yesterday that, you know if you if you have a different skin color, you're going to get relief." Brennan said, "that's not what the vice president said. She talked about equity and the problem within FEMA. But I'm specifically talking about Marjorie Taylor Greene." (I'll have more on the Veep's comments in a Sidebar.)  

Here's the exchange that followed.

RS: No, no, no. Wait, wait, Margaret. Margaret, let's make sure. FEMA has to be colorblind. FEMA has to provide support to everybody. Now, I - here's what I here's what I'll tell you, I believe that we've got to do -- President Trump has talked about this unbelievable spending that's causing inflation hurting the poorest families. I grew up in a poor family. I watched how inflation hurt my mom. We've gotta watch how we spend this money. 

MB: I know sir. You're talking about substance, and I would love to talk to you about that. But what I quoted you as a phrase saying McConnell has a death wish. He said racist things about Elaine Chao. And then they have already started the killings. I mean, that's not a policy dispute, Senator, the language is what I'm talking about. Isn't that dangerous?

RS: I think we all have to figure out how do we start bringing people together and have a common goal to give every American the opportunity to get a great job, their kids to have an education, they believe they can be anything and make sure everybody lives in a safe committee. That's what I do every day. And I've tried to bring people together to do that. 

 It went on like that a little longer, Brennan focusing on divisive language, and Scott trying to explain Trump was talking about policy.

I believe that what I believe what the President Trump was talking about is the fact that we can't keep spending money. We are -- We're going to hurt our poorest families the most with this reckless Democrat spending and we cannot we got to stop it. We can't cave into their spending. 

On Trump calling Elaine Chao "Coco Chow," Scott waved that off by saying Trump likes to give people nicknames, and he "sure he has a nickname for me." I checked Trump's Twitter archive, and here's the worst thing he ever said about Scott. Perhaps there's a nickname in there somewhere? 

Governor Rick Scott of Florida did really poorly on television this morning. I hope he is O.K. (June 25, 2015).

I'll have interviews with Sen. Marco Rubio and FEMA administrator Deanne Criswell in your Extra Credit. 

See you around campus.  

Oh - one more thing - the Dems have not started killing the Rs, just so you know.

In Case You Missed it (v107)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stay tuned. 

Sunday School 9/11/22: Extra Credit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's what Harris said.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See you around campus. 

Sunday School 9/11/22

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, I’m not. No, I'm not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See you around campus. 

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 8/7/22

Here's your recap from the Meet the Press classroom this morning, starting with what's-his-name's conversation with Stacy Abrams, the Democrat running to unseat Gov. Brian Kemp in Georgia. 

He asked her to explain her stance on abortion (below) and how she'd legislate around it.

My intention is going to be to pass legislation that says a woman has the right to an abortion, and that right continues until a physician determines the fetus is viable outside of the body, except in the case of protecting the woman's life or health.

She said you don't apply "arbitrary gestational limits."  It's a medical decision, she said.

And when we give it back to doctors, when we tell women and their doctors to make these choices, what we are saying is we respect the responsibility that women have and the obligation that doctors have...we should not be setting into law these moving targets that do not reflect the reality that women face when they're sitting in that doctor's office.

What's-his-name said someone on the right would say her position would "essentially" allow abortion throughout the pregnancy; he asked if she'd want to "put guard rails on that." Abrams explained that late-term abortion decisions are incredibly difficult, and that "there is no woman who at eight months has not cherished the notion of this pregnancy."

... to put an arbitrary date in a law devalues the pain and the tragedy of that moment. A doctor is not going to take an action that is not medically required... I understand that there are those who would feel better if we plucked a date out of the air. But we know that that is not scientifically supportable. 

She also said you can't put every exception into a law, and pointed out that in Georgia,

where we have 82 counties without an OB/GYN, 64 counties without a surgeon, 18 counties without a family doctor, and nine without a doctor at all, setting arbitrary limits that are not grounded in the reality of what women face is deeply problematic and ultimately cruel.

He next asked if she was willing to compromise with a Republican legislature. Sadly, that insulting question is relevant, given so many progressives can seem to be unwilling to take a win. 

As someone who served in the legislature for 11 years and was lauded by both parties for my ability to navigate, I will certainly get the best law we can. But we begin making decisions based on what it should be. And then yes, of course, you work towards what you can get. But we have to start with a governor who actually believes that a woman should have the right to control her body and to control her economic freedom.

Turning from domestic politics to foreign policy, Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-DE), who sits on the Foreign Relations Committee, was up next. He was asked if Speaker Pelosi's stop in Taiwan "was worth it, given the fallout?" Van Hollen thinks so; he said "we need to be very clear that China doesn't get to dictate" which US officials go to Taiwan, and when. He added

...what President Xi decided to do was manufacture a crisis over Pelosi's visit. He's got, as you know, this fall, the Communist Party Congress is coming up. He's seeking an unprecedented third term as leader of China. And this is saber-rattling and, you know, chest-bumping by President Xi.

And what does he want to see the US do, "...to reassure the Vietnams, the Japans, the Philippines, who are nervous about what China's doing here, they're nervous about if we're going to have Taiwan's back, do we have to send a message again that we're going to have their back?"

The senator thinks the administration "has been clear" that we'll recognize the One China Policy, but that we've also made it clear we'll "oppose any effort to reunify Taiwan by force or violence," and we've told our allies that as well. He thinks China's "putting missiles into Japan's economic zone, exclusive economic zone, is going to backfire." Japan will probably increase defense spending, and seek "even closer military engagement and cooperation" with the US. 

He also said he doesn't think China making "a run at Taiwan in the next five years" is inevitable. He said we have to "help Taiwan make that as difficult as possible."

We need to continue... to make Taiwan into the porcupine so that when, you know, China looks at Taiwan, it realizes that this is going to be a hell of a fight and not a winnable fight.

He suggested that if China looks at Putin's efforts in Ukraine, they'll see "how a determined people can thwart someone" like Vladimir Putin.

What's-his-name noted that we've long tried to not talk about the US/China relationship in "adversarial terms" and asked, "how do we look at" Xi's response to Pelosi's visit and "not say we're in a cold war with China?"

Van Hollen said he doesn't think we're in a cold war with them; he said "a lot of that depended on what China does next." Xi's escalated actions against Taiwan pre-date Pelosi's visit, and he's "been more aggressive throughout the region." 

At the same time, we have been trying to cooperate with them on these other measures, as you say. I believe they'll be back at the table on those measures. It is important that we have that military-to-military dialogue. But it is important that we also confront and check China, where it's tried to export its model of authoritarianism around the world in Africa, and the Middle East and other places.

Finally, there was a discussion with the panel on Biden's "good news" of late. What's-his-name wondered who gets the credit - Biden? Schumer? Pelosi? 

Anna Palmer (Punchbowl News) says not Biden; he wasn't involved in everything that's been accomplished. Instead, she says Schumer

... kind of been an untested leader and he has gotten a lot of things done here. Everybody would have thought that this was going to be a much smaller package when it came to this reconciliation bill. They come together with this kind of sneak attack, outwits McConnell. And they get this much larger package through, giving Democrats something to run on.

Susan Page (USA Today), said traditionally approval ratings matter a lot, especially when they're bad. 

But you have this unprecedented situation where you've got two presidents who are big factors in this midterm...maybe Donald Trump is more of a negative for Republicans, more of a positive for Democrats, than Joe Biden is for either one.

Cornell Belcher (a Dem pollster) thought that was smart thinking, but Pat McCrory (former NC gov) says Jon Stewart deserves the credit. The lesson for both sides?

...don't pick a fight with a comedian like Jon Stewart or Bill Maher or David Chappelle. They will win. They are quicker than us politicians. And I think right now the only guy on the offensive was the governor of Florida, DeSantis. And yet Trump will not let him share any spotlight.

Nope - he surely won't. 

See you around campus.