Sunday School 1/8/23

The Sunday School classrooms were full of House members: I counted three Ds and eight Rs - there may have been more.

We'll hear from three of them, starting with Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), who earned unanimous support from his caucus during the Speaker vote-a-rama. He stopped by the MTP classroom, where he said his concern with the 'dysfunction' of last week is that it's just the beginning. 

Holding Congress captive is one thing; it's something else entirely doing that to the American people. He said that "the extreme MAGA Republican agenda that apparently has been negotiated into the House rules" could jeopardize our "health, safety, and general well-being," and

(i)t may undermine national security and a robust defense, and undermine our ability to actually advance an agenda that is anchored in kitchen table, pocketbook issues and not extremism.

He's "going to extend the hand of partnership" to the Rs, and look for common ground whenever and wherever possible - but that can't be one-sided. 

We will oppose extremism, of course, whenever necessary. And there are Republicans who are interested in governing. And they're going to have to break from the extreme wings of their party at times around some important issues. And we'll see how that all unfolds.

He and McCarthy "have had some positive, forward-looking conversations" recently, and he hopes they can "agree to disagree without being disagreeable." That's similar to McCarthy's comments upon receiving the gavel. 

Finally, on the historical aspect of his leadership role, Jeffries said, in part, 

... I do think that it is another data point on the journey in America, which is we are a government of the people, by the people and for the people. And that means that folks from a working-class neighborhood in central Brooklyn like myself should have an opportunity to participate in American governance, particularly in the House of Representatives, which is the institution designed to be the closest to the people.

Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) - not one of the "MAGA Republicans" Jeffries mentioned - chatted with Jake Tapper on CNN's SOTU. 

He talked about last week's activities and his disagreement with the 'anti-Kevin' folks he referred to as 'terrorists.' He apologized anyone he offended, even as he was surprised at how sensitive they were. Crenshaw provided some transparency into why the rest of the caucus was upset.

...before we had taken a single vote in a conference with everyone there, Kevin McCarthy had asked one of the leaders of this group, what else do you want? Let's make this work. What else do you want? And they couldn't answer in that moment. And that was a real turning point for a lot of people. That was what created all of that animosity...

He also said there was no reason to keep voting throughout the week if they didn't have the agreement they wanted.  

There was no reason for us to keep voting... keep allowing these speeches that just degraded and diminished and insulted Kevin McCarthy. We didn't have to keep doing that. We could have just adjourned for the whole week and just kept negotiating...  And it seemed very, very pointless.

Based on what he knows, Crenshaw agrees with the upcoming rules changes, and said no matter what people might thing, there's not a lot of disagreement on them. He said the changes to start with a budget and build the 12 appropriation bills from there is the right way to do it. He also agrees with members being able to bring amendments to the floor. The process will be "messy. It will be time-consuming..." but it will make all members feel as if their voice matters. 

Now, let's hear from Freedom Caucus chair Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA); he talked with George on This Week, and said all the shenanigans last week were about power for the American people. 

You know, the American people are very, very tired of this gang of seven, gang of eight, literally seven or eight people, or just a few people in Washington, DC, running all of the policy for the American people. So, when we had a framework of an agreement where the American people can be in charge, when their representatives can actually bring amendments to the floor in good faith, I said, sure, if we can do that, then I'm all in.

What else was included in the "framework of an agreement" they worked out? Accountability, and a budget "that doesn't just continually increase spending," and "single-subject bills."

George, the American people, among other things, are tired of these Christmas tree bills with all these ornaments on them coming for -- in the middle of night, 4,000 pages, $1.7 trillion, 7,200 earmarks. Everything works perfectly for Washington, D.C., but there’s no presents under the tree for the American people... restraining those things and getting those things in order, it's an entire package. It’s not just one thing.  

I'm not sure who he thinks those 7.200 earmarks are for - are they just to keep Perry and the rest of them getting elected?

He said they want a debt limit that works to limit our debt; "(w)e can't just keep doing the same thing under the same conditions with the same management and expect different outcomes." Perry said since he's been in Congress - ten years now - the debt has doubled from around $15T to $31.5T. 

Finally, Perry doesn't think he should have to forego participating on a committee to "investigate the investigations," as George called it, simply because he's part of the investigation into the insurrection. He asked 

why should anybody be limited just because someone has made an accusation? Everybody in America is innocent until proven otherwise. And I would say this, the American people are really, really tired of the persecution and the instruments of federal power being used against them...

I'm suddenly feeling very sleepy, after listening to Perry tell me how exhausted I am. 

See you around campus. 

Mr. Speaker

Finally, the long first week of the new year is over, and we have a Speaker of the House. He may be missing some pieces of soul, or body parts, but he got the votes, and Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Trump) is the guy who'll be wielding the gavel. 

I went to bed after he lost the 14th vote, the one about which McCarthy was sure he'd win, because he had counted the votes. 

Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Blecch) had a different idea, and prevented the victory. It was at that point that the majority of the Republican caucus wanted to punch Gaetz in his smirking fact, and one of them - Alabama's Rep. Mike Rogers - almost did. That would have been a horribly popcorn-worthy moment, for sure. 

Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) garnered the most votes during the week, as the Dems stayed united and gave him all of their votes every time. It didn't matter, really, other than to show that even though they're also a fractured caucus, they know how - and when - to stand together.  

In the end, though, what mattered was that all the Rs were sick of the handful that were holding things up, after all of the concessions that were made, and managed to convince them that that voting 'present' - in effect, voting for no one - was better than voting for someone other than McCarthy. After a planned vote to adjourn until Monday was rejected, the 15th round ended the fight. 

There's lots to digest - oh, excuse me, a lot to unpack, in pundit-speak - including the possibility that many representatives from both sides of the aisle are probably secretly happy with some of the rumored rules changes: being able to offer amendments from the floor, having 72 hours to read bills before a vote, and a 'germane' rule that should help ensure that a bill on ice fishing in Lake Ontario, for example, won't include something ridiculously unrelated, like funding flame-throwing drones for Taiwan... you get the drift. 

There's even a promised vote on term limits; I'm definitely looking forward to that. 

So, while I enjoyed the comedy that came from this week, and watching the Rs attack each other, the Dems enjoy a week of unity, the reading clerks Susan Cole and Tylease Alli deftly handle the voting roll calls, and House Clerk Cheryl Johnson maintain control over an often-unruly crowd, there's some really interesting stuff coming down the pike. 

And, of course, there's some really dumb stuff coming down the pike, too - and it isn't going to take long, according to the new Speaker.

I know the night is late, but when we come back, our very first bill will repeal the funding for 87,000 IRS agents. You see, we believe government should be to help you, not go after you.

And there's more.

Now speaking of committees, we will hold the swamp accountable for the withdrawal from Afghanistan, to the origins of COVID and to the weaponization of the FBI. 

We didn't hear Hunter Biden's name mentioned, but we can be sure that those investigations can't be too far off.

We also heard McCarthy and his allies talk about the importance of Donald Trump in securing the win, so it seems pretty clear that any hope of Trump not being a factor can be tossed out the window, at least at this juncture.

Much more to come as the Rs take control, with the newly empowered gang of 20 getting their rewards, and McCarthy hammering away with the smaller-than-usual gavel. 

Sunday School 11/27/22: Extra Credit

This week's Sunday School was all about the classroom panel discussions. For your Extra Credit, I'll nose around a few of the 'usual suspect' interviews, starting with Dana Bash and Gov. Asa Hutchinson (R-AR) on CNN's SOTU.

"A former president, an antisemite, and a white supremacist walk into Mar-a-Lago. There is no punchline." That was Bash's intro to her discussion with Hutchinson - and I love it. Now - on to the recap.

• Hutchinson said he hopes "someday, we won't have to be responding" to stuff Trump has said or done. About the dinner, it "empowers people when you meet with them... you want to diminish their strength, not empower them." He also said "You have got to be absolutely clear in your communication that this is not acceptable dogma, it's not acceptable conversation, it's not acceptable history, and you have to disavow it. it's as simple as that."

• In his upcoming speech at the Reagan Institute, he's going to talk about things that Republicans "historically" don't do: "attack America's democracy...denigrate our political system...undermine confidence in America...attack those institutions that are fundamental to the rule of law." He said the party "is in a good position coming out of the midterms," but his remarks are for "the individual candidates that strayed from" Republican principles.

• He signed a bill banning biological males from competing in women's sports, so he's "comfortable" with Herschel Walker's attack ad about trans athletes just days after the shooting at a LGBTQ+ bar in Colorado Spring. He also passed anti-hate legislation and said "we shouldn't be targeting anyone because of their race or their gender." He closed with, "What happened at that nightclub is a human tragedy... These are challenging issues. And what happened is just simply wrong."

On MTP, What's-his-name (WHN) talked with Gov. Jared Polis (D-CO). Colorado's been the site of several mass shootings over the years. 

• Polis said everyone's voices need to be heard to fix this. "I think what you really need to do if you're serious about reducing these kinds of gun violence events and mass violence events is try to take the best ideas from all sides that work." That means mental health, and gun policy, and dealing with anti-LGBTQ stuff. "We need to, as a society, as political leaders, walk and chew gum at the same time. We need to look at all the evidence and the facts and try to make decisions that lead to a safer country."

• He said it looks like "this would have been a good instance" for the use of Colorado's 'red flag' law. It's been used "several hundred times, but could have been used even more" to prevent mass shootings, self-harm, or suicide." He also said "it's never comfortable" to get involved in someone else's business, particularly when it's a mental health issue, but "it's certainly better than the alternative," which is doing nothing.

• We need a national solution on guns. One example? Colorado has universal background checks, but neighboring states don't. He also was "generally supportive of national efforts towards closing the gun show loophole, towards having a conversation about. having a "process where you need an additional license or background check for some of the most high-powered weapons, I did support that as a member of Congress."

Finally, Jon Karl talked with Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) in ABC's This Week classroom. 

• Unbanning Trump from Twitter is "a terrible mistake" and that Elon Musk did it via a user poll "further contradicts Musk and his claimed concern about bots on his own platform."

• Appointing a special counsel for Trump investigations is the right move, and "if the same prosecutors that have been investigating the former president and others can be moved on to the special prosecutor's team, then there is every reason to do it, no reason not to do it..." 

• Yes, we could have a trial of a candidate during a presidential campaign. He thinks the position that you can't indict a sitting president "is flawed as a constitutional matter," and he said DOJ can't now say "you also can't indict a former president who wants to run again."

• He doesn't want to "get ahead of" the decision the January 6th Committee issuing any criminal referrals. "I think the evidence is there to make a referral and we just have to decide whether that's the course we are going to take."

• Similarly, the potential for holding Trump in contempt for ignoring the Committee's subpoenas "is being discussed." He expressed frustration with the DOJ, saying "...even where we have held people in contempt, we're only batting 50 percent with the Justice Department in their willingness to enforce it."

• Kevin McCarthy probably will strip Schiff of his Intelligence Committee seat. "I suspect he will do whatever Marjorie Taylor Greene wants him to do. He is a very weak leader of his conference, meaning that he will adhere to the wishes of the lowest common denominator."

• He said the Ds "continually face a variation of the same question, which is should the Democrats do the right -- do the appropriate thing when Republicans have consistently refused to. I think we maintain the high ground. We follow the law. We follow our responsibilities under the separation of powers," and so yes, they should comply with "appropriate oversight."

• And finally, should now 80-year-old Joe Biden run for re-election? "I think he should. I think he's extremely capable. What he's been able to do in the last two years is an unprecedented level of accomplishment. If he wants to continue, I'm for him."

See you around campus. Chime in if you want - my office door's always open.

Sunday School 11/27/22

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sunday School 11/13/22: Extra Credit

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

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

What did think of the election outcome?

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

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

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

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

And, on the threatened announcement from Trump about 2024? 

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

Does he have presidential ambitions of his own?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See you around campus. 

Sunday School 10/23/22

For your Sunday School, I started in the Fox News Sunday classroom, where host Shannon Bream chatted with Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-TX) about immigration and more.

Bream mentioned Cuellar's many conversations with the Biden administration on immigration, and asked if he thought the border is secure. Cuellar, who was born and raised in Laredo and represents the city today, was clear. With nearly 5M people crossing illegally in two years, between those we've apprehended and "the getaways,"

No... it's not secured... I started telling the transition team in December of 2020, this is what's going to be happening. You all have to be ready... we can be compassionate at the border, but you've got to enforce the law. And if you don't return people, then this is what you're going to have.

He also provided a great football analogy about immigration.

... look, we can spend all the defense on the one-yard line called the US/Mexico border, but if we don't go to their 20- yard line, work with Guatemala, work with Mexico and - and get them engaged so they can stop those folks from coming in, then they're just going to be at our doorsteps...

And how does he respond to his opponent's accusation that he "can't point to anything concrete" he's done about immigration? After noting she's not from the district, he said he "works very well with her husband" who's a Border Patrol Chief in Del Rio. He's also announcing a new, $165M Border Patrol checkpoint in Laredo. And, he said,

...by the way, Shannon, if you want to stop drugs, drugs are coming in -- over 90% of their drugs come in through ports of entry. So, we've got to support the men and women in green and the men and women in blue also.

Bream asked if Cuellar "had any regrets" about voting for the American Rescue Plan. He said deficit spending under Biden is less than under the Trump administration, but added we need to control "one of the biggest drivers," oil and gas, which supports 40,000 jobs in his district. He said he helped pass "the ban on oil exports" which created more US jobs, and he wants more drilling here.

Bream wondered if there's a place for him with the Ds; some have suggested his policy positions align more closely with the Rs. Cuellar said "surely, I'm a Democrat. I'm a conservative Democrat. I work in a very bipartisan way." And, he continued, 

And I think every party has the extreme. We have the extreme left. We have the extreme right. But some of us are not sent up to Washington to go make political statements. We're sent to Washington to do the hard job, and that is govern... I think there is definitely room for a conservative, moderate Democrat like myself.

Bream's last question was about the FBI raid at his home several months ago, which his opponent has been mentioning on the campaign trail. Cuellar said he is not the target of the investigation, and he's going to keep focusing on the election, and he said this about his opponent.

What I want to know is what she wants to do? You know, she's focusing on negative attacks. And I think people are sick and tired of the negative attacks. What they want to see is, this is a market of ideas. This is what I want to do. This is what she wants to do. Let the people decide. 

Hear, hear to that. 

Sunday School 9/25/22

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, it is. 

See you around campus.

Sunday School 7/31/22

CBS won the billion-dollar classroom lottery today, so we'll have highlights from Face the Nation for Sunday School and your Extra Credit. John Dickerson sat in for Margaret Brennan. 

We'll start with Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV), and then listen in as Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) chimes in. 

Manchin denied that he had "changed his mind" on anything; rather, the Inflation Reduction Act he agreed to with Sen. Majority Leader Chuck Schumer fights inflation, which is what he wanted. And, he said, the bill doesn't raise taxes.

...the corporate tax in America in 2017, before the Republican tax cut, was 35 percent. They cut it to 21 percent, 14 percent reduction. All the people that I know are paying 21 percent or more. All the even larger corporations, but some of the largest corporations of a billion dollars of value or more don't even want to pay the minimum of 15 percent.

He said he "never thought" people (I think he meant corporations) weren't paying at least 21%. Has he had his head in his state's coal dust for the last decade or more? I mean, I did a post on GE not paying any federal income taxes back in 2011, for heaven's sake. And West Virginia's almost heaven, so Manchin clearly should have known about this.

Dickerson explained the "Republican criticism" that closing loopholes increases taxes which hurts supply, and during inflation you need a lot of supply. Manchin, sounding almost like a Democrat, said

In the last two years, there have been massive record profits across the board by these largest corporations, massive record profits. And it's been the lowest capital expenditure in the last two years, so that didn't drive it...

Dickerson said Manchin's GOP colleagues think he and Schumer "did something underhanded" by saying 'no deal' and then making a deal. He quoted Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) who said this was "a declaration of political warfare." Manchin's reaction?

It's such a shame. John Cornyn is a good friend of mine. He's such a good man. And for the politics to be so toxic right now, first of all, I never thought this would come to fruition. I never spoke with anybody about it, any of my colleagues, because they were frustrated that nothing happened for so long on the other. 

And, Dickerson pressed yet another GOP argument.

-- you made certain representations, they would say, to Republicans, then broke your trust... Susan Collins said: "It's a very unfortunate move that destroys the many bipartisan efforts that are under way," in other words, whether it's on election reform or same-sex marriage, that the well has been poisoned.

Manchin said he considers Collins a "very dear friend," but said he "never told anybody" he wasn't going to do something. 

If I had a chance to fix the energy policy of the United States of America, and I didn't do it, shame on me. If I had the chance to reduce the amount of inflation that people in West Virginia and across the country are enduring right now, shame on me... we were able to provide these solutions. Let's not make them political, John." 

Next up? Sen. Toomey, and Dickerson stayed with the Inflation Reduction Act, asking for Toomey's "principal critique."

Well, it's going to make inflation worse, actually. So, they've got a big corporate tax increase that's going to probably make this recession that we're in worse... this spending is unnecessary. It's going to exacerbate inflation. It is not going to reduce the deficit.

He's a big fan of his friend Joe Manchin, but said Manchin "got taken to the cleaners." He agreed to a bunch of bad policy, and in return he was promised "there's going to be some kind of pro-energy infrastructure bill sometime in the future."

Dickerson noted that The Committee for a Responsible Budget, a "fan" of Toomey's, said that this new bill "would be the first time in many years" that reconciliation was used for deficit reduction. Others have said the same thing, but Toomey disagrees.

... they use the same gimmick that Sen. Manchin said he was opposed to in the past. They claim the revenue over a 10-year window from their big tax increase, and their price controls. And then the expenditure that they acknowledge, they pretend is only going to be for three years. That's the Obamacare subsidies for wealthy Americans. That's an obvious political payoff. The last time they had to do this, they said it would only be for two years. It's about to expire. And they can't - - they can't have it expire before an election. So, they're extending it, but only for three years. They have no intention of ever ending the Obamacare subsidies. Over a 10- year window, that wipes out the purported deficit reduction.

Dickerson didn't question the comment about "wealthy Americans" getting the health insurance subsidies, or the fact that many very much not wealthy Americans would lose their insurance without the subsidies; I wish he had.

Toomey said the supporters of the bill aren't "taking into account how much our economy will slow down from this big corporate tax increase that will mostly hurt manufacturing and domestic investment..." And he explained how the GOP tax cut was supposed to work, how allowing businesses to make capital investments (new plants, new equipment, etc.) and deduct the cost in the same year caused a "huge surge in capital expenditure" and the Dems will "raise the cost of investing in a business."

Folks at the Brookings Institution who studied this would disagree with Cornyn, as would the IMF, but I'm sure he has experts that would say he's right.

They moved on to the PACT Act, which would provide health care to veterans who were exposed to dangerous toxins from burn pits. The Senate shot the bill down, even though they voted for it in June. Cornyn said they want an amendment to "change a provision that has nothing to do with veterans' health care," because the Dems added a provision that's "designed to change government accounting rules, so that they can have a $400 billion spending spree."

Toomey said that the Rs are "fully accepting" the deficit will grow due to the PACT Act - "we accept that as a price we have to pay for people who serve the country." He objects to

a budgetary gimmick, a sleight of hand in accounting rules, that will allow totally unrelated spending of $400 billion over the next 10 years. 

There was more discussion, where Toomey accused Dickerson of being "totally incorrect" in his assessment of Toomey's amendment; Dickerson said "it actually caps annual expenditures for the toxic fund. And after 10 years, it goes away."  However, Toomey argued,

What it caps is how the government accounts for these transfers, but there is no cap on the amount of money that goes over. There is no cap on the total program. Look, if -- honest Democrats evaluating this will tell you, if my amendment passes, not a dime change in spending on veterans' programs. What changes is how the government accounts for it.

Dickerson noted Cornyn may be consistent on the deficit, but many of his colleagues aren't, and asked "why is it important to be fastidious when it comes to veterans, but less so when it comes to, say, supporting chip manufacturers?"

Because, John, once again, you're completely mischaracterizing this... most Republicans think we shouldn't loosen up the budget rules so that Democrats can go on a spending spree on things that have nothing to do with veterans' health care.

To which Dickerson responded,

 Of course, Democrats have to be in charge in the future when that spending happens, and they may very well not be. 

See you around campus.

In Case You Missed It (v100)

Gather 'round, friends - it's time for your recap of last week's posts, in case you missed anything.

The week started with your Sunday School lesson, from ABC's This Week, with Jon Karl sitting in for George Stephanopoulos. Rep. Adam Kinzinger was one of the guests. Karl talked about AG Merrick Garland's statement that no one is above the law, not even a former president. Kinzinger agreed that it seems "more likely now" that we'll see the prosecution of a former president, and that he "hopes they're moving forward on it." 

Here's what came next.

Karl's response? 

So, you -- you hope that there will be a prosecution of Trump himself. Even -- I mean, this is -- I mean, you just have to take a step back here. This is a guy who is sounding like he’s going to run again, so he would be being prosecuted by the president that he is potentially running against.

Kinzinger was clear when he answered.

Look, I worry about everything that has happened for the last few years. And really, I worry about everything that could happen in the future, and that includes things like, you know, what happens if a president’s running for office and he’s indicted, how does that feel? But, the converse of that is, what happens if we don’t do anything? What happens if we look and say, well, he’s running again, we’re concerned how it’s going to look, so that, like, whole coup attempt thing, let’s just up that behind us and hope it never happens again? Because it will happen again.

We all should be worried about this, including those in the House and Senate who were active participants. 

For your Extra Credit, we checked in on Karl's chat with term-limited Gov. Larry Hogan (R-MD); I've often referred to him as my favorite Republican, mostly because he is a Republican, not a Trump-pandering RINO. Here's a bit of the conversation after Karl's comments about one of them, Dan Cox (Hogan's called him a "QAnon whackjob"). He won the GOP gubernatorial primary.

Cox had support from the moronic Democratic Governors Association, and after playing one of the DGA ads, Karl said that even though the ad was "a cynical effort" voters responded to it.

Hogan said that's not quite correct. 

So, first of all, only 20 percent of the people in Maryland are Republican, and 20 percent of them showed up to the polls. So about 2 percent of the people in Maryland voted for this guy. It's not going to be the same in November, I can tell you that. So, it's not a big win. It's really a loss. 

And, obviously, Hogan won't be supporting Cox.

I would not support the guy. I wouldn't let him in the governor's office, let alone vote for him for the governor's office.

Hogan's planning on staying involved after he's out of office, which I think is good. 

On Tuesday, I did a Quick Take on the failure of the Secret Service to secure texts (and frankly, who knows what else) from December 2020 and January 2021. It's inconceivable to me that, in response to a DHS OIG request, there was only a single relevant text during that time period.

The Secret Service submitted the responsive records it identified, namely, a text message conversation from former US Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund to former Secret Service Uniformed Division Chief Thomas Sullivan requesting assistance on January 6, 2021, and advised the agency did not have any further records responsive to the DHS OIG's request for text messages.

For a full month, there was only one text? Seriously? And that text was from a former employee of the Capitol Police to a former Secret Service employee? How incredibly convenient that all seems.

I've done so much wondering lately - way more than makes it into the weekly Wondering on Wednesday posts. This week, I decided to give myself a break from the head-banging and from doing any heavy lifting about the House Oversight Committee's hearing with gun company execs. 

Instead, I shared a few memes from my files; here's one of them.

I also included some clips from the hearing, including a couple from Rep. Katie Porter (D-CA).

On Thursday, I shared a throwback Sunday School post from July 28, 2019. Why that post? Because it featured two people who are currently in the news. 

One's Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) who appears to be lobbying to become the next Speaker of the House, assuming the Dems hold their majority and that Nancy Pelosi stays true to her word to not stay in the role. Back in 2019, though, he was talking about impeachment. 

The other? Andrew Yang, then a presidential candidate, and now one of the founders of the Forward Party. His conversation with Chris Wallace, former host of Fox News Sunday, was interesting, and it's in keeping with his vision for the new party.

Wallace wondered if Yang would attack the front-runners, as a way of getting more air time.

 I don't think that we benefit if I'm throwing rocks at other candidates when, frankly, I agree with them on many, many issues. And I think right now my focus really is on introducing myself to the American people. 

You can read more about his new idea in our TGIF entry, where I credited him with a mixed week. Another in the same boat? Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito. He spoke at a conference in Rome, hosted by Notre Dame, the university in Indiana, and talked about the global reaction to his decision in the Dobbs case.

He also spent time talking about religious liberty, saying

It is hard to convince people that religious liberty is worth defending if they don’t think that religion is a good thing that deserves protection...  Our hearts are restless until we rest in God. 

So, what list did he end up on? 

Alito the man had a good week, I guess, for finding a place where his beliefs are widely accepted. Alito the justice? Bad week. As with the other justices, the less time they spend before partisan groups espousing their beliefs, the better.

I'll see you back here later with a Quick Take or two, Sunday School, and maybe more.

TGIF 7/29/22

It's good week/bad week time again. Let's dive in; I'll tell you which list I put them on, and you're welcome to chime in with your opinions.

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito spoke earlier this month in Rome  at a conference sponsored by the University of Notre Dame. During his keynote address, Alito was heard "mocking foreign leaders who lamented his opinion doing away with a half-century of federal constitutional protection for abortion rights in the US." 

He also spent time talking about religious liberty, saying

It is hard to convince people that religious liberty is worth defending if they don’t think that religion is a good thing that deserves protection...  Our hearts are restless until we rest in God. 

His personal beliefs are fine, but they're none of my business - not to mention that millions of Americans disagree with him. The problem with him expressing them is the appearance that they influence his decisions, as could his appearance at a conference sponsored by the Religious Liberty Institute at Notre Dame. The article notes that "The institute or its faculty members have filed amicus briefs in at least five Supreme Court cases on religious freedom issues."

Alito the man had a good week, I guess, for finding a place where his beliefs are widely accepted. Alito the justice? Bad week. As with the other justices, the less time they spend before partisan groups espousing their beliefs, the better.

Andrew Yang, former presidential and NYC mayoral candidate, has officially formed a third party - the Forward Party - with two Republicans: David Jolly, a former Florida congressman, and Christine Todd Whitman, former governor of New Jersey. 

The linked New York Magazine article notes the Forward Party relies on polls showing dissatisfaction with the current situation in the US, and "showing that “roughly half” of Americans would call themselves independents." Using That Guy from Vermont as an example, the author points out how labels mean different things to different people. 

And, while support for a third party is high, according to Gallup, "that doesn’t mean that many people will actually join one.

Yang, Jolly, and Whitman have their work cut out for them. I'll give them a mixed week - they're trying, and people are talking about them, even if what's being said is not all good. 

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is having a bad week. There's her husband's stock activity, and there's her Asian trip, and a potential visit to Taiwan, which is causing agita on both sides of the Pacific.

But instead of treating the trip like a regular one-off congressional visit... which usually prompts a sternly worded letter from the Chinese Embassy, China has responded to the potential of Pelosi visiting the island by repeatedly upbraiding American counterparts, leaving the Biden administration wondering if Beijing is serious about provoking another crisis in the Taiwan Strait over the speaker’s arrival. 

Stateside, she's "left President Joe Biden's team in a no-win situation - even if it doesn't prompt a serious crisis." Even some Dems are questioning it, as are Republicans.

To the degree that it’s not exactly in America’s interest to drive a crisis right now, then that probably wasn’t particularly well chosen.

To me, it's a mess of her own making, and completely unnecessary for her, and for us.

Will Smith made a video. You can decide for yourself how this is helpful, and to whom.

Donald Trump had a bad week, for two reasons. 

First, he stuck his bone spurs in it with comments about 9/11. Trump's hosting the Saudi-backed LIV Golf Tour at his Bedminster, NJ course, which is not all that far from the site of the former World Trade Center. Families of 9/11 victims condemned his hosting the tourney in a letter which told of their "extreme pain, frustration, and anger," and quoted Trump's own words from 2016:

 … Who blew up the World Trade Center? It wasn’t the Iraqis – it was Saudi. Take a look at Saudi Arabia. Open the documents. We ought to get Bush or somebody to have the documents opened because frankly, if you open the documents, I think you are going to see it was Saudi Arabia … 

But what's he saying now, when he's got the world's attention (and plenty of Saudi money flowing to his business)?

Well, nobody’s gotten to the bottom of 9/11, unfortunately, and they should have, as to the maniacs that did that horrible thing to our city, to our country, to the world, so nobody’s really been there. But I can tell you there are a lot of really great people that are out here today and we’re going to have a lot of fun and we’re going to celebrate.

Staying with the tournament, it seems Bedminster is again using the Presidential Seal "on various items, including golf carts," despite previous complaints, and despite a law against using it this way.

Federal law prohibits knowingly using the printed or other likeness of the presidential seal “for the purpose of conveying, or in a manner reasonably calculated to convey, a false impression of sponsorship or approval by the Government of the United States.”   

Given the previous complaints, it seems "the Trump Bedminster golf course is aware of, or  should be, that using the seal is illegal, but is using it anyway."  What a surprise.

TGIF, everyone.

Wondering on Wednesday 7/20/22

Ready... Set... Wonder! 

CBS News is among the media outlets reporting that Arizona House Speaker Rusty Bowers (R-I'm in a Boatload of Trouble) was censured by the state GOP for crimes against Trump, going along with liberals, a lack of forthrightness with Republicans, his dealings with "the liberal media," and more. 

Bowers, of course, was the guy who testified Trump tried to get him to violate his oath of office and faithfulness to the United States Constitution by offering up a fake set of electors, or some other such illegality as it the standard operating procedure in Trumpworld. 

I'm wondering tonight if Bowers thought saying he'd vote for Trump again, if he ran against Joe Biden, would be enough to save him from his own party? I'm also wondering if there's anything a wayward R can do to get back in his party's good graces?

News is also breaking that a bipartisan group of senators, including Sen. Susan Collins (R-I Think Perplexed is a Good Word to Use Next Time) and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-on't You Think I'd Make a Better Republican?), has dropped a bill that would prevent a conman like former president Donald Trump from throwing out presidential election results. In effect, what this bill will do, if passed, is stop the steal. I wonder why they didn't just name the bill that? 

Democratic senators are also pursuing similar legislation, and I wonder if that's necessary? Unless there's something significant missing from the bipartisan effort, let's get it done.

David Hogg was a student at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, FL when a hideous human being committed mass murder there on Valentine's Day, 2018. Since the shooting, Hogg has become a very vocal activist against politicians and their inaction on gun safety. He's good at it, we know, because he's frequently attacked by the right-wing pundits. 

He also frequently attacks Republican do-nothings, as he did today at a hearing on banning assault weapons, something that Rs do not want to do, under any circumstances. He posted a video of his comments, and his removal from the hearing. 

His point? Knock off the racist, anti-LGBTQ, anti-immigrant talking points; those are what mass shooters use to justify their behavior. And, by the way? The guns used in these things aren't coming from Mexico in some immigrant invasion. They're legally purchased here in the U S of A. 

What's the wondering, you might be wondering? Simply this: who on earth will these GOP folks listen to? Is it going to take one of their own children being shot and killed, or injured, before they will listen?

Speaking of listening, I can't help wondering who on earth the Dems are listening to, that they think the answer to winning elections this year is to prop up Trumpers in their GOP primaries? The most recent example comes from yesterday's gubernatorial primary in Maryland, where Trump-endorsed Dan Cox beat actual Republican Kelly Schulz, who was endorsed by her former boss, Gov. Larry Hogan. 

The Democratic Governors Association - a bunch of goofballs, it would seem - spent over a million bucks propping up Cox, thinking he'd be easier to beat in the general election. Here's who their website says they are: 

We are Democratic Governors.

We grow economies, expand health care, 

fully fund schools, fix the damn roads, and follow the science. 

And we’re ready to build back better.

You want to build back better? Maybe try building up your own candidates, instead of supporting right-wing nut jobs...

Perhaps the best thing to come out of Maryland was this quote from a Schulz aide:

The Maryland Republican Party got together and committed ritualized mass suicide. The only thing missing was Jim Jones and a cup of Kool-Aid.

Shame on the Dems for contributing to that mess. 

What's on your wondering minds tonight?