Email of the Week (v8)

Thursday is 'Email of the Week' day, when I plow through a hundred or so emails from the handful of Democratic presidential candidates I'm following to see what's going on.

So, after having added Tom Steyer, Deval Patrick and Mike Bloomberg to the rolls, I got 156 emails, but the newcomers only accounted for 15 of them. Mayor Pete continues to lead the pack in terms of emails sent, with Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar not far behind. Tom Steyer has yet to ask me for anything.

As we're nearing the end of the month, and the candidates are now facing monthly FEC disclosures, a couple of them told me, and because the Iowa caucuses are next week, it's hot and heavy in the money grab category.  

What's interesting is that the candidates are all setting ridiculous goals - a million by Friday, three million by the end of the week, that kind of thing -  and some are having trouble meeting them - so I wonder about this whole 'shooting yourself in the foot to keep up with the Joneses' thing.

So, what was noteworthy this week? 

• Sanders threw three of the Squad members at us in one email, and he's already focused on NY's April primary; 
• Mayor Pete went on Fox News for a town hall, the only one to do so, I guess;
• Deval Patrick got an endorsement from a NH State Senator; and
• Andrew Yang qualified for the February debate, after missing the January one - maybe the best news of the week.

There were a few emails that were in the running for this weeks' prize, including one from Mayor Pete touting polls showing while he's running slightly behind That Guy From Vermont in New Hampshire, he beats Trump by a larger margin than any of the rest of them. 

Amy Klobuchar is gaining momentum and endorsements, and she told us she's the only debate-worthy candidate who has visited every one of Iowa's 99 counties. 

But this week, because I'm feeling frisky, I'm going with Bloomberg. 

I know -- he's poison, he's killing the process, he's doing it all wrong: I get that. But I'm going to give it to him, anyway - because he's willing to put his own money where his mouth is - even if no one likes that he's doing it - and because I'm curious about how he's doing what he's doing.  Skipping the early states, particularly the two very non-diverse, small states that have always had an outsized impact on who gets elected, is an intriguing approach, and one that's different from Steyer, the other billionaire in the race. 

So, here it is, our coveted Email of the Week.

See you  next week. 

Sunday School Extra Credit 11/17/19

Sunday School was all about the Republicans; Extra Credit is all about the Dems - well, two of them, anyway: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi who chatted with Margaret Brennan on Friday for CBS' Face the Nation, and former Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, who sat down with Chuck Todd on MTP.  This should be fun, don't you think?

Brennan's conversation started with her asking Pelosi her thoughts on why president Trump was tweeting about Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch as she was testifying before the House Intelligence Committee. Pelosi suggested that  he was trying to undermine Yovanovitch and she also pointed out that,

... the president and perhaps some at the White House have to know the words of the president weigh a ton. They are very significant. And he should not frivolously throw out insults, but that's what he does.

She thinks she knows why Trump does that, too.

I think part of it is his own insecurity as an imposter. I think he knows full well that he's in that office way over his head. And so, he has to diminish everyone. 

I'd say that, while the House Speaker's words may not weigh a ton, they have more weight than say, mine - and as such, the speaker should not frivolously throw out insults.  Unless of course, she didn't think she was being either frivolous or insulting.

The conversation turned to impeachable offenses, and what qualifies as one. Pelosi offered that Trump does a lot of not impeachable things,

But when it comes to violating the Constitution of the United States, as he undermines our national security, jeopardizes the integrity of our elections, dishonors his own oath of office, that's about impeachment.

She wouldn't go out on a limb as to what would be a Trump impeachable offense, pointing out that the inquiry is  about "unfolding the facts." And, as to whether she thinks bribery will be one of the articles of impeachment?

I have no idea. Well, there is not even a decision made to impeach the president. This is a finding of facts, unfolding of the truth. And then a decision will be made and that is a decision that goes beyond me. 

Brennan wondered if it they'd really go through all of this investigating and then not impeach him.

That remains - the facts, if the president has information that demonstrates his innocence, in all of this, which we haven't seen. His transcript of a phone all is tucked away in a highly sensitive, compartmentalized intelligence server so we can't see that... If he has information that is exculpatory, that means 'ex' taking way, 'culpable', blame, then we look forward to seeing it. 

And, she refused to entertain discussion with Brennan about what the Republicans think.

You know what? If - if we could just talk about what we want to do - I really have a real discomfort level of responding to what Republicans say because they are in denial about what has happened in the country. So if you want to ask me about where we're going on this - I"m happy to respond to that.  But I - I find it a waste of my time and yours to be talking about what Republicans say.

She didn't want to respond to what the Rs were saying about the grounds for impeachment.

Let their arguments stand because they are in so much quicksand that I don't even want to have it given any more visibility by my dignifying any of their misrepresentations of what they say... I say to everybody else, I'm not here to talk about what they say because they are not facing the reality of what is happening to our country. And this is about our democracy that is at risk with this president in the White House.

In the rest of the interview, they talked about the timetable for the inquiry and when we might see that conclude (there isn't one);  whether Trump gets to "confront his accuser" (she'll make sure he doesn't intimidate the whistleblower, but he's welcome to come before the committee and tell the truth); that there are still multiple committees looking into things, that "none of us came here to impeach a president."

There's more, too, about the normal day to day stuff we don't hear about, like funding the government, USMCA, and her "being the only woman in the room" with two different presidents.