Wondering on Wednesday 2/28/24

Ready... set... wonder!

Ronna McDaniel is stepping down as chair of the RNC after the Super Tuesday primaries in March. I wonder if she’ll have to get permission from her family to go back to using her maiden name, which she used before Donald Trump frowned on having anyone named Romney involved in the party leadership.

Sen. Mitch McConnell announced he’ll step down as leader of the Republicans in the Senate after the November election, but will serve out the remainder of this term. I sort of wonder if he announced this so he won’t have to endorse Donald Trump? I also wonder if he’s got the courage to do the right thing and pass on making that endorsement.

Michigan Dems held a primary yesterday, and over 100,000 Dems -13% of the total - voted 'Uncommitted,' while 81% voted for President Biden. I was not surprised that Biden did the right thing after the results were announced.

In his statement late Tuesday evening, Biden thanked “every Michigander who made their voice heard today,” noting that “exercising the right to vote and participating in our democracy is what makes America great.”

A couple of things on this one. As I noted previously, I wonder why we all don't have the chance to actively vote for nobody, whether it's ‘uncommitted' or 'none of these candidates,' as they can in Nevada. Second, I wonder why the media can't help tripping over themselves trying to cement a connection between a protest vote in a February primary and the presidential election (checks calendar) over 250 days away. And then I laughed and laughed at the stupidity of my wondering.

I support the protest vote, and the protest; I often wonder if we are doing enough to pressure Israel to at least ensure that sufficient humanitarian aid is reaching the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who are guilty of nothing other than living in Gaza. And if you want to make the argument that "Hamas was elected, so everyone in Gaza must support them," I can't help wondering how you handled the whiplash of going from being an Obama Democrat to a MAGA Republican to a Biden Democrat over the last three elections... I'd love to hear about that, if you're willing to talk about it.

The Supreme Court announced it will hear arguments in April on whether or not a US president has complete immunity - up to and including going as far as having SEAL Team 6 murder a political opponent - or if he's just like any other American thug, and subject to our criminal justice system.  By delaying arguments for five weeks, they're playing into his hands, I think, and that's frustrating. I wonder why there isn't a way for the Supremes to act more expediently when the case is both critically important and significantly time-constrained, unless they're acting exactly as fast as they want to, in which case we might have to wonder about other things, right?

Donald Trump has said he’s unable to come up with the full bond amount in his NY business fraud case. He maintains he can come up with $100M, but getting to the full amount ($355M not counting the daily interest accruals) is impossible, without having to sell off properties.  And I wonder which he’d pick -  Trump Tower, with its 30,000 square-foot penthouse? 40 Wall Street? 

But wait – I wonder if he even can sell any of the NY properties? Would that count as "doing business' in NY, which is prohibited under Judge Arthur Engoron’s decision? And if he has to go elsewhere, would he pick Bedminster, where the buyer would get not only a golf course but also Ivana Trump's burial site? Trump Winery in Virginia?  Or – gasp – Mar-a-Lago, which is worth $27M (accountant valuation), $517M (Trump loan application), or ONE BILLION DOLLARS (Trump's personal opinion)?  There’s just so much wondering on this one. 

And speaking of the Engoron decision, in case you’re wondering, the GoFundMe set up to allow Americans to help their billionaire best friend pay the judgment has raised more than $1.28M from some 22K donors. 

What's on your wondering mind tonight?

Sunday School 2/25/24

Your Sunday School for this week starts with Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) who talked with Martha Raddatz in the This Week classroom. 

Their conversation started with the activist Alabama court ruling that frozen embryos are people, too. That ruling has caused some IVF facilities in the state to suspend services as they try to figure out what the risks are, and whether they can continue offering services. 

We've seen this before, of course, when abortion clinics closed in many states as providers simply aren't willing to take the chance of facing criminal charges for treating their patients.

Duckworth wasn't surprised by the ruling - it's more than that. She's been afraid of this - and talking about it - since 2018.

I said if Neil Gorsuch gets put on the Supreme Court, if Amy Coney Barrett gets put on the Supreme Court, we're going to have an erosion of Roe v. Wade, and even back in 2018, I said, IVF is next. They said they're coming for IVF. So, unfortunately, I wasn’t surprised. I’m devastated for those families that are trying to start families, but I was not at all surprised.

Raddatz noted the decision doesn't overtly ban IVF, but Duckworth, speaking from experience, said that by ruling a fertilized egg is a child, it puts the treatment in jeopardy. Both of her daughters were conceived via IVF; three of the five fertilized eggs were nonviable. With her consent, her doctor destroyed them, and under the Alabama ruling, 

that would be considered potentially manslaughter or murder. Basically, Republicans have put the rights of a fertilized egg over the rights of the woman, and that is not something that I think the American people agree with.

Duckworth has introduced a bill "multiple times and in multiple congresses", most recently last month, that would protect access to IVF nationwide. Raddatz noted that the Republican Senate campaign team "is instructing their candidates to, quote, clearly and concisely reject efforts by the government to restrict IVF," and wondered if there'd be enough support now to pass the bill.

It's been crickets since the Alabama ruling. And let's make it clear. Republicans will say whatever they need to say to try to cover themselves on this, but they have been clear and Donald Trump has been the guy leading this effort to eliminate women's reproductive rights and reproductive choice...not a single Republican has reached out to me on the bill... let's see if they vote for it when we bring it to the floor.

She said the Dems will run on this. And speaking of running, Raddatz brought up Trump's 20-point win in the South Carolina primary. Duckworth, who's a co-chair of the Biden/Harris campaign, said it doesn't really change things.

I think what we talk about, again, is that Donald Trump has been very clear about what he's doing. He's not running for president for the American people. He's not running for president to take care of working families. He's running for president for himself. That's all he cares about every single day. President Biden, in contrast, gets up every day and works hard to protect the American people and works hard to make sure he delivers for working families across this country. The choice is very clear and we just need to continue to hammer home that message.

She agreed with Raddatz that exit polls do give them pause (veterans voting for Trump, for example, after his ridiculously insulting "where's her husband?" stuff), but then, Duckworth said, that's not new. And she reiterated that Trump has

shown us over time who he is, and he's a guy who cares about no one but himself. You know, I have often thought when I go into work with my colleagues, and I assumed they loved America as much as I love America, that we just look at the problem from different perspectives, but we can come to a compromise. Donald Trump cares about one thing, Donald Trump. 

I think most of them think that - or, maybe they used to think that, pre-MAGA. 

Down the hall in the Face the Nation classroom, Margaret Brennan talked with Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-MI); their first topic was this Tuesday's primary and how the state's large Arab/Muslim population might impact the voting.

Brennan said there's a "protest effort underway to vote uncommitted" to let President Biden know they're unhappy about what's happening in Gaza, and she asked if this could damage Biden. Dingell explained there are actually two protests.

One is an 'abandon Biden' campaign, but the other, the major campaign that has made over 100,000 calls – we'll see how many people vote on Tuesday – (is) trying to make sure the president hears them.

Their concerns? Family in Gaza; family members they have lost (20 or more, in some families); the lack of food, medicine, and water (the salt water they're drinking is almost gone); and more.

I don't sleep at night... The sanitary conditions on the ground, there's – I mean, one woman, the aunt of somebody, goes to the bathroom once a day. There – a month ago, there was one toilet for every 220 people, one shower for every 15,000 people. It's a nightmare. And they're scared for their families and they're worried.

A cease-fire is needed, and "when we get a cease-fire...then we sit down... and talk." Until then it's personal, not political. Brennan said she understood that, but at the same time, she noted that Benjamin Netanyahu said "that he is going into Southern Gaza whether President Biden likes it or not," and she wondered if Dingell thinks we're "doing enough to get Americans or families of Americans out of harm's way."

Dingell noted that we don't know what's happening in the various negotiations that are going on, with involvement from the CIA, the National Security Council, and others, including the president.

People need to understand that – what is going on in Rafah right now. The population of Gaza is approximately 2.2 million people; 1.5 million of them have been forced into Rafah... you know, we can argue about the numbers. Nobody denies that 12,000 children have already died... Doctors Without Borders have talked about 1,000 children who have lost limbs, the number of children that don't have families. It would be outrageous for further innocent civilians to be killed. I know that the White House is working very closely with a number of other countries to make it clear that we cannot continue this loss of life.

She's been assured by the White House that "the president is very engaged in delivering very direct messages," and that "in private conversations...he's working towards a temporary cease-fire."

Brennan asked if it was "a mistake" for Biden to not meet with anyone from the Arab/Muslim community. Dingell believes "he is going to need to do that" and that "this community is pretty angry right now." She said she gets protested, even though she's one of the folks who has been "the most empathetic and has been working this issue very hard." Biden did send people out, and

they developed relationships or connected with people that from both sides I've heard that they've got ongoing conversations. And that's got to continue.

And Dingell explained that Michigan's a purple state, and "It's been a purple state as long as I've been doing presidential elections." The Israel-Gaza war is a "very important issue here" but there'll be other ones too. Dingell fought to have Michigan be an early primary state for things like this.

I want to be talking about this issue now, in February -because it will matter in November - and not on October 15th, which has happened too many times in previously presidential elections, that issues that matter in November aren't talked about early.

Touching on the Alabama decision, Brennan asked "Is the concern about reproductive health care access enough to cancel out these negative headwinds?" Dingell noted the state's "unprecedented turnout two years ago" when abortion was on the ballot, and said they've got work to do again this year.

We've got to get young people, we've got to get women, and we've got to go into union halls. And it's great that we've got the union presidents and the union organizations endorsing, but we've got to go in those union halls and draw the comparison, remind people about what Donald Trump did and didn't do, he talked, didn't deliver, and about what Joe Biden has delivered on.

Dingell sees this issue as similarly motivating for voters. especially women who might have thought they were safe and their rights were protected

and now we've seen what the Alabama court has done in terms of IVF... I think a lot of women are going to be very emotional about their women's health decisions should be made between them, their doctor, their faith, and their family, and the federal government's got no business in it. Or state government.

I can't argue with her on that.

See you around campus.

In Case You Missed It (v121)

Ready for a recap of last week's posts? Let's dive in!

As usual, Sunday School was first up, and the Jon Karl/Benjamin Netanyahu interview on This Week was the only lesson of the post. One of the highlights for me was the exchange about how Israel was being mindful of Palestinian civilians and the various ways they tried to keep them safe. Here's a bit of that part of the discussion.

Netanyahu said civilian losses are "a tragedy" of Hamas' making, and that Gazan Health Ministry statistics are unreliable. He also said, "according to these urban warfare experts and other commentators, we've brought down the civilian-to-terrorist casualties, the ratio, down below 1-1, which is considerably less than in any other theater of similar warfare."

Karl was incredulous, but Netanyahu said it was true.

... we've killed and wounded over 20,000 Hamas terrorists, out of that about 12,000 -- 12,000 fighters. And we're doing everything we can to minimize civilian casualties and continue to do so. 

I was incredulous with Karl's apparent lack of curiosity about Netanyahu's response.

Again, no follow-up questions: where did he get the 20,000/12,000 figures? What's the difference between a "Hamas terrorist" and a "fighter"? And what about the tens of thousands of wounded Gazans? It's unconscionable there was no challenge to Netanyahu's statement.

For your Extra Credit, I again only offered one lesson: Sen. Marco Rubio's discussion with Jake Tapper in the State of the Union classroom, which focused on immigration and the so-called border crisis which is so important the Senate couldn't pass a tripartisan bill that folks had worked on for four months -  or wouldn't pass it because the House had declared it DOA. Here's a snippet of the conversation on changes to how we would have handled asylum claims under the failed bill.

Rubio agreed changing the asylum standard is good, but "it's ultimately going to be applied by an administration that has proven its unwillingness to enforce our immigration laws." No matter what he was asked, his answers were consistent: from his perspective, bad liberals were going to be making bad decisions at the border - period.

Now, in the hands of another administration, perhaps that asylum standard could be applied differently. But, ultimately, once you have this asylum corps hired by Mayorkas, hired by Biden, put at the border, they are going to be -- they will have the power...

That got me thinking... 

Given the whole process that occurs after a bill passes - funding allocations, regulation-writing, job classification, hiring, background checks to complete... does he really think all that would happen before January 20, 2025 - or does he think Biden's going to be re-elected?

When it came time for Wednesday's Wondering, I was thinking a lot about President Biden and former president Trump, their ages, and their memories. And, about this.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not giving either of them a pass. I believe they are both the wrong people to be running for president. But if 'we' - the media, the punditry, the keyboard warriors - are going to make the age and mental failings of one of them an issue in the 2024 race, I can't help wondering what it's going to take to get 'us' talking about the other guy, too, with the same level of breathless panic.

I managed to hit another of my old weekly features - TGIF - in which I make somewhat random, definitely opinionated good week/bad week lists. Here's a sampling of what that looks like. The topic? Democrat Tom Suozzi's win in the race to replace George Santos.

About that loss, many House Republicans are venting their frustrations about the decision to expel Santos back in December. Ethically challenged Matt Gaetz is one of course; and so is Texas Rep. Troy Nehls, who declared "...the only way you can win elections, is that you have to get into the slop with the pigs," or at least don't kick them out of the House.

Speaking of pigs, Colorado's Rep. Ken Buck referenced the same hoofed mammal as Nehls did when he explained his 'no' vote on the Mayorkas impeachment.

You can try to put lipstick on this pig, but it's still a pig...

 The rest of that comment is important, too. 

I closed the week with a Sidebar on the TGIF. I had Jon Stewart on my good week list, for his return to the host's desk on The Daily Show.  I appreciated what he said, and how he said it, even though I had seen several critical articles about it - including one from a certain someone's famous relative. I was surprised with her take on it, and on Stewart's power.

 Lots of people, including the former president's niece, Mary Trump, were beside themselves after the show. For example, Ms. Trump tweeted  "Not only is Stewart's 'both sides are the same' rhetoric not funny, it's a potential disaster for democracy." And, she added, "I know Donald, and the media has to stop with the both sides bullshit."

She also penned an email newsletter titled Jon Stewart's Danger To Democracy, in which she blamed him for low voter turnout in 2012 and 2016 - and for helping her uncle get elected. 

And just like that, you're all caught up on the latest pastiche. I hope to see you for this week's posts.

Sunday School 2/11/24

I only did a little bit of learning on Sunday, most of it in the This Week classroom where Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu talked with Jon Karl. 

Before I get into the highlights, I wanted to share this six-week-old information from the Diakonia International Humanitarian Law Centre's website, 

As of 7 January 2024 (figures reported by the Gaza Ministry of Health), at least 22,835 Palestinians in Gaza have been killed, around 70% of whom were women and children, while around 58,416 others have been injured. Thousands more are feared trapped underneath the rubble, and “entire families” have been wiped out – it is estimated that as of 5 January, 1,876 families have lost multiple family members.  

OK - now, the highlights. Netanyahu didn't know "exactly what" President Biden meant when he said the response to the October 7th Haas attack has been "over the top." In Netanyahu's opinion, after the "worst attack on Jewish people since the Holocaust," the Israeli response focuses on going after terrorists and minimizing harm to the civilians he says Hamas uses as human shields. And, he said, they give folks plenty of notice when major attacks are imminent.

We drop thousands of fliers. We phone Palestinians in their homes. We ask them to leave. We give them safe corridors and safe zones. So I think we're -- we're doing the right thing, and let me tell you one other thing. We're going to win this thing. Victory is within reach.

I wish Karl had asked about the people being killed or injured as they fled. He did mention over 28,000 people killed (a more current number than the one above), the "hundreds of thousands" forced from their homes, and the lack of basic necessities, and wondered if there wasn't a "moral obligation to do more... to stop what is seen as a catastrophe." 

Netanyahu said civilian losses are "a tragedy" of Hamas' making, and that Gazan Health Ministry statistics are unreliable. He also said, "according to these urban warfare experts and other commentators, we've brought down the civilian-to-terrorist casualties, the ratio, down below 1-1, which is considerably less than in any other theater of similar warfare."

Karl was incredulous, but Netanyahu said it was true.

... we've killed and wounded over 20,000 Hamas terrorists, out of that about 12,000 -- 12,000 fighters. And we're doing everything we can to minimize civilian casualties and continue to do so. 

Again, no follow-up questions: where did he get the 20,000/12,000 figures? What's the difference between a "Hamas terrorist" and a "fighter"? And what about the tens of thousands of wounded Gazans? It's unconscionable there was no challenge to Netanyahu's statement.

Karl turned to Rafah, Gaza's southernmost city, now home to about half the population. The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) is charged with drafting an evacuation plan along with an attack plan. Karl wondered where the 1.4 million refugees from other parts of Gaza are supposed to go. Netanyahu's response was, um, interesting, to say the least.

Well, Rafah is a -- is a very small percentage of Gaza, and I think it's about 10 percent, or 15 percent... the area north of Gaza, that has already been cleared...

Karl reiterated that there are around 1.4M people there, "and as the German foreign minister said... 'they can't just disappear'. Where are they supposed to go?" Netanyahu suggested there were "plenty of areas" north of Rafah, disregarding that almost everything to the north had been decimated since the war began.

... we're not cavalier about this. This is part of our war effort, to get civilians out of harm's way. It's part of Hamas's effort to keep them in harm's way... Those who say that under no circumstances should we enter Rafah are basically saying, 'lose the war. Keep Hamas there.' 

With many countries against the idea of a full-scale attack on Rafah, Karl asked whether that gave him "a second thought" about moving ahead. Netanyahu was firm: it doesn't. He said they've been taking care of the civilian population of Gaza, "along with the provision of the necessary humanitarian aid." That statement, too, seems to fly in the face of multiple reports, including some stating the IDF sometimes prevents the aid from being distributed. 

Karl wondered how they'd know when Hamas has been eliminated. Netanyahu said they've already taken out "18 of their 24 terrorist battalions," suggesting taking out the rest was key; so is freeing the hostages, and ensuring Gaza's no longer a threat.

You don't have to kill every last terrorist. You don't have to kill every last ISIS terrorist, but you make sure that ISIS was finished as a military force... Hamas is a military force that controls territory. We're well within reach, and we shouldn't stop.

And, "After you've eliminated the military threat, doesn't there need to be a Palestinian state?"  Netanyahu wonders what people mean by a two-state solution.

Should the Palestinians have an army? Should they have -- can they sign a military pact with Iran? Can they import rockets from North Korea and other deadly weapons? Should they continue to educate their children for terrorism and annihilation? Of course, I say, of course not.

He thinks there should be the power of self-government for the Palestinians, but "none of the power should threaten Israel." Israel has to maintain overriding security control over everything west of the Jordan River, including Gaza. Failing to do that will allow terrorism to return.

Karl wondered which was the higher priority, bringing the hostages home, or "totally eliminating Hamas?" Netanyahu said those are not mutually exclusive goals; they've gotten around half the hostages out by applying military pressure, and he suggested that's how they'll get the rest of them. 

...I think the families of the hostages are in a terrible bind. I mean, it's -- it’s just -- it tears your heart out to listen to them and to think about what their relatives are going through. I'm committed to getting them out. We'll make every effort. It requires pressure, and pressure has worked, and pressure will work again.

He thinks enough of the remaining 123 hostages are still alive to "warrant the kind of efforts that we're doing." The goal is to bring the living hostages home, and the remains of those who have died. He also said 

I'm not sure that anybody can put themselves in the position of the families, but neither can the families put themselves in the position of the decision-makers. These are two separate things. 

He's moved by them, but explained he's "also responsible for the safety and the security of the people of Israel," and it's his job to make sure nothing like this happens again.

Finally, Karl wondered about Netanyahu's "assessment" of Biden, in light of the special counsel's mental health evaluation of him. The two have had "more than a dozen" calls - "extended" calls, he said - and they also met in person.

... I found him very clear and very focused. We managed to agree on the war aims and many things. Sometimes we have disagreements, but they weren't borne of a lack of understanding on his part or on my part.

A note: on Monday, Israel rescued two more hostages; the 

complex rescue operation was conducted after receiving “highly sensitive and valuable intelligence.” It involved Shin Bet, Israel’s internal security service, police special forces and an IDF tank brigade... The duo were found on the second floor “in the hands of Hamas terrorists.” Hamas militants were also stationed in adjacent buildings, Hagari said.

The death toll (so far) may be as high as 133 people, with several dozen more injured.

See you around campus.

Sunday School 2/4/24: Extra Credit

National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan made at least four classroom appearances. I'm amazed at his ability to withstand the assault of a lot of repetitive - and often dumb - questions.

I tried to find at least one reasonable exchange from each classroom, starting with State of the Union where he spoke with Dana Bash. I also included a few ridiculous exchanges, like the first one below.

DB: You said it's just the beginning. And I just want to clarify, that means that there will be more strikes coming in the next few days?

JS: What it means is that we will take further action. I'm not going to, obviously, describe the character of that action because I don't want to telegraph our punches. But there will be further action.

DB: Inside Iran? Would you rule that out at this point?

JS: Look, sitting on a national TV program, I'm not going to rule in and rule out any activity anywhere. What I am going to say is that the president will do what he thinks needs to be done and again reinforce the point that he's going to defend our forces and also that he is not looking to get into a war.

A more reasonable exchange occurred regarding Sullivan's oft-repeated comments that we don't want this to become a regional conflict. Bash said there are "10 countries, at least, four major terrorist groups" involved, suggesting it was already that. Sullivan worked hard to explain that the different actions we're seeing, including the Israeli-Hamas war, "are distinct but related challenges."  As such, we'll continue working 

to deal with the challenge of escalation and continue to work to ensure we're responding forcefully, but at the same time staying out of the prospect of the United States getting pulled into a broad war in the Middle East of the kind that we have seen in the past.

Bash said that all of the conflicts lead "down one road, and that is the road to Iran."  He agreed, noting that he'd explained the Iranian connection many times before, including in this classroom and from the podium during briefings.

So, we make no bones about that. Iran has a significant and pernicious responsibility for much of the instability in the Middle East, and that has to be factored into how we approach everything that we're doing and how Israel has to approach everything it's doing.

In the Meet the Press classroom, several ridiculous exchanges were initiated by Kristen Welker. For example, she referenced GOP comments about the Biden administration waiting too long to respond, and how it "telegraphed to the world, including to Iran" our response. How would Sullivan respond to that, she asked. In a nutshell, we did what we said we'd do (retaliate if attacked) and added

...of course, there will always be armchair quarterbacks, but we are confident in the steps that we have taken so far. And we are confident in the course that we are on going forward.

As Dana Bash did, Welker tried to pin Sullivan down on our future responses - except she did it right after asking about the 'telegraphing' complaint.

KW: Have you ruled out strikes inside Iran?

JS Well, sitting here today on a national news program, I'm not going to get into what we've ruled in and ruled out from the point of view of military action. What I will say is that the president is determined to respond forcefully to attacks on our people. The president also is not looking for a wider war in the Middle East.

KW: But is it off the table? Are strikes inside Iran off the table?

JS: Again, Kristen, sitting here on television, it would not be wise for me to talk about what we're ruling in and ruling out.

KW: So, you're not ruling it out?

JS: I'll just say the same thing one more time, which is I'm not going to get into what's on the table and off the table when it comes to the American response.

Did Welker redeem herself after that embarrassing exchange? Well, not really. Moving to the Israel-Hamas war, she said there was a sticking point in the hostage negotiations about "whether this should be a six-week pause in fighting or a permanent ceasefire. What is the United States pushing for?"

JS: Well, what we're pushing for is an outcome in which every hostage gets home, in which Hamas is no longer in charge of Gaza –

KW (interrupting): Would you like to see a permanent ceasefire?

JS (trying to answer her first question): – and not threaten Israel in the way –

KW (interrupting, again): Would you like to see a permanent ceasefire today?

JS: Well, Kristen, everybody wants to see an end to the war. Nobody's rooting for the war to continue... 

But wait - there's more! Here's how the interview closed.

KW: Okay. Let me ask you, finally, Jake: Our new NBC news poll, which we were just discussing, found only 29% approve of President Biden's handling of the war in Gaza. Sixty percent disapprove of his handling of foreign policy, overall. Should the President be factoring the public's disapproval into his foreign policy decisions?

Obviously, he said no, but part of me wanted him to say, "Why yes - yes he will!" just to see the look on her face. 

In the This Week classroom, George Stephanopoulos did better than his counterparts. For example, he asked what our initial strikes on the terror groups had achieved - which is different from 'Did we kill any bad guys?' Sullivan said, "...we believe they had good effect in reducing, degrading the capabilities of the militias and of the Houthis."

He also reiterated that this was just the start of our response, and said there'll be "more actions taken to respond to the death of the – the tragic death of the three brave U.S. service members."

In response to a question on whether we've thought about Iran making a direct response against us, Sullivan acknowledged that was a threat that we're prepared for, adding

And I would just say, from the perspective of Tehran, if they chose to respond directly to the United States, they would be met with a swift and forceful response from us.

He also said we've passed messages back and forth, but "in the last few days, the message that we have sent to Iran has been through our action, not through our words."

Last, we visited the Face the Nation classroom, with Margaret Brennan. Very early on, she asked whether Iran has "done anything to rein in the militias they fund and arm?" since our strikes. The question came barely two days after we launched them, so was it reasonable to think we'd have an assessment on that yet? I'd guess no, but maybe it's just me.

Her next question? 

There are reportedly civilian casualties in Iraq and in Syria as a result of these strikes. Does the U.S. assess that any of those hit in these strikes were actually Iranian Al Quds Force personnel? Or did the fact that this was so telegraphed in advance give those personnel time to go to ground?

Sullivan said he "didn't have anything to report...this morning" on who exactly was killed, but said assessments were continuing. And he refuted the "so telegraphed" comment, as he did in other classrooms. 

And when three service members were killed, of course Iran knew that the United States would respond. So the idea that somehow this was telegraphed, I think, is a bit more of a political talking point than – than a reality. 

She had no reaction to that, of course. And she, too, turned to the polls showing Americans aren't happy with Israel's military campaign - or with President Biden's handling of it. She wondered

At what point is this open-ended Israel conflict in Gaza not just a political problem, but a national security one for the United States to be so closely associated with the Netanyahu government's war, with the civilian casualties that we've seen to date, and the starvation of women and children in Gaza?

In part, he responded, 

...I'm glad you put the question in those terms, because we don't design our policy towards Israel or Gaza or the Middle East based on politics. We do it based on the national security interests of the United States.

We've been clear, he said, that we won't ignore "the immense and terrible suffering" of Palestinians. We'll continue to pressure Israel on that, and it'll be a "top priority" of Secretary of State Antony Blinken when he meets with the Israeli government.

Brennan referenced an interview with Israel's National Security Minister, who seemed to be on a different page than his boss. She asked, "Does Benjamin Netanyahu have control of his government?"  Sullivan rightly responded that it's not up to us to say. 

Look, I'm going to let the Israeli government and Israeli politicians speak for themselves. They certainly have no trouble doing so, as you just related. 

He also explained that a deal allowing for a "sustained pause" so assistance can reach the Palestinians who need it is in our national security interest, and is "a paramount priority for us."

The Israeli government can answer whether it's a paramount priority for them. And depending on that answer, they'll also have to answer to the Israeli people.

So, of course, she turned back to the guy who was "threatening politically the prime minister..." after Sullivan had just said the Israelis could speak for themselves. It was a zero-value question, but he was gracious and answered it anyway.

If you feel so inclined, drop your best shot and ask a dumb question multiple ways; I'll collect and publish any that come in.

See you around campus.

Sunday School 1/14/24

I've got some highlights from Sunday's classroom chats, starting with That Guy from Vermont, Sen. Bernie Sanders, who talked with Jake Tapper on CNN's State of the Union.

On the potential that Israel is using American support to violate the rights of Gazans, TGFV is not amused. 

What is going on in Gaza right now is a horrendous humanitarian catastrophe. We're looking at 23,000 people who have been killed. Almost 60,000 have been wounded. And two-thirds of the people who have been killed are women and children. ...What is going on in Gaza now in three months is worse than what took place in Dresden over a two-year period. 

He's introducing a resolution requiring any American military and financial support provided to other countries "to be used consistent with human rights, international human rights standards, and American law." In his opinion, that's not the case with our aid to Israel. 

On whether Joe Biden will get the support of young progressives - they're as upset as Sanders is on Biden's support for Israel - Sanders thinks folks will rally around Biden, but "it is very hard for young people, for most Americans," to be excited about what's happening. 

You cannot give billions of dollars to a country that ignores your wishes, violates international law. So, I would hope that the president follows through on his concerns and says to Netanyahu, this is unacceptable. You're not getting a nickel more from the United States unless you radically change course. We're not going to see hundreds and hundreds of thousands of children starved to death.

Florida Man Ron DeSantis was in a few classrooms; here are some highlights of his chat with Jon Karl on ABC's This Week. 

On his 'closing argument' for Iowa caucus attendees, he said while Trump is "running for his issues," his own campaign is about issues important to voters and their families, and he cited Trump's legal problems in particular. 

You're going to have criminal trials. You're going to have a lot of focus on things like January 6th by the media. And I think that ends up focusing the election on things that are going to be advantageous for Democrats because you're not going to be talking about the border, you're not going to be talking about the economy.

And he pointed to GOP losses, "whether it's 2018, 2020, 2021, 2022..." which the Democrats... have benefitted (from)."

Karl asked why Republican voters are wrong for overwhelmingly thinking Trump's the one who can beat Biden. He says GOP voters "understandably see Biden as a very feeble, weak and poor president" who anyone can beat. He thinks that might have been the case in the last midterm election. 

We probably never had circumstances more favorable for the party. Biden was unpopular, inflation was hot, the border was a disaster, crime -- all these issues. We should have been able -- every Republican with a pulse should have been able to won -- win, and yet the Democrats made it a referendum on Trump and his adjacent candidates, and there's just certain swing voters that just aren't going to go there at that point. And I think that's been the case over and over again.

He also complained about polling done a year or more before the election, showing Trump is winning, and the impact of that. 

Now I do think they're starting to come -- polls showing the opposite, that Biden wins these swing states. But I would imagine as the year goes on, and should Trump be the nominee, all those polls I think are going to show Biden with a lead over Trump. And so, there -- I think it's been somewhat of a mirage, but people see that, and I think that that does register with them.

Ultimately, he said he has "the best path forward" to unite the party and win. We'll see.

Finally, lame-duck Sen. Joe Manchin (Sorta D from WV) chatted with Margaret Brennan (Interrupter-in-Chief, CBS), in the Face the Nation classroom. 

On how Biden specifically, and Dems generally, should approach the 2024 campaign, he recommends honesty about accomplishments, misses, and how to fix mistakes that were made, including immigration policies. He also said Dems have "moved too far to the left."

America is between the center, center-left, center-right. That's where most of the voters are. And that's where the decisions on who's going to be elected, that's what's going to happen. It's not going to happen from the extremes. But we're playing off of the extremes. That's (why) people are just worn out. Enough is enough.

Manchin and his daughter, former pharma CEO Heather Bresch (of EpiPen pricing scandal fame), have formed Americans Together, not to be confused with No Labels, a political party trying to get ballot access across the country. 

Manchin says the problems in the country can't be fixed from Washington.

... – it's the character of the person you send to Washington, who you're voting for and within your state or your district, and if that person has the character to where they put – they put their country before their party, they put their service before themself, all these types of things. And people can detect that. But they have – get that person in the game.

Gerrymandering and closed primaries make it harder to get people who don't have the financial or political backing to get elected. Fixing those would help, but it has to come from outside DC. 

The business model in Washington is too darn good for the Democrat and Republican parties. They're doing too good. They're getting rewarded for bad behavior. And too much money's coming in.

On whether he'll vote for Biden, someone he's harshly criticized for being pulled "...to the extreme left" and not being "the person we thought was going to bring the country together," he said it was "constructive criticism" and added

I love my country too much to vote for Donald Trump. I love my country too much. And I think it would be very detrimental to my country.

And, finally, the big question:  what about a third party, and would he enter the race? Here's his answer to the first part.

I think that we'll find out. You just have to find out what's going on. If there's a movement, if there's a movement for third party, I think is what you're asking about… can that movement make a difference? I'm not going to be a spoiler, never have been and never will be. But people want options, or they want change. So, we got to see what comes. 

By Super Tuesday, he thinks, we'll know what's what. And, on the second part of the question?

I'm going to do everything I can to save my country. And I will do whatever it takes. And I will help whoever. And I will support whoever that I think can best help this country come back to this commonsense, sensible middle, which is center-left, center-right, working together with a majority.  You can't govern from extremes.

Manchin's right: we can't govern from extremes. But we sure can elect extremists, can't we?

See you around campus.