Free-flowing White House Verse

Sure, there's lots of construction noise, and construction lawsuit noise, and some destruction of construction that was underway but didn't meet the Builder-in-Chief's vision, but even with all of that,  there was still plenty of arguing and yelling and ketchup-squishing noise that made it out into the public realm. 

I won't reveal my sources for this; let's just say they're very well-placed, like a good microphone or something. I might write a book, but first I'd probably need to officially be a reporter for the Fake News, to bump up my viewership.

The (alleged) words of the FOTUS are easily identifiable. Others (allegedly) involved? Secretaries Marco Rubio, Pete Hegseth, and Scott Bessent; Deputy Defense Secretary Steve Feinberg; and yours truly. Let the free verse fly, like the American Flag over Greenland!

Talk Like Nobody's Listening (or yell, if you want)

We need more munitions! The Biden and Obama administrations depleted our reserves!

We need more munitions! The Biden administration gave all our weapons to Ukraine! I will end the war in Ukraine on Day One! I will win the Nobel Prize – maybe two, and Obama only has one!

We're fighting Iran because Israel said they were going in, and if we didn’t go with them, we’d look weak, and the world would be a more dangerous place!

We’re fighting Iran because it is TWO WEEKS AWAY from having ‘the nuclear’ and we can’t let that happen! We are winning the war! We have won the war! We will win the war!  We are winning the war! We are playing 5-D chess; they are playing ‘Fast and Furious’ with the ENTIRE MIDDLE EAST, and we won’t let that happen! The Bored of Peace will act swiftly, on my order to Jared, to end all the hostilities and develop plans for MULTIPLE Gold Coast Rivieras on the Persian Gulf, the Gulf of Oman, the Gulf of America, and the Gulf Station in Winthrop, MA – they are ALL ripe for development!

We need more money from Congress because we are almost out of munitions!

We’re out of munitions because I’ve been ending wars around the globe, including in Gaza, Venezuela, Ukraine, Russia, Lebanon, the FIFA Soccer War, the Mulch War - that was BRUTAL but my Skid Steer of Peace has fixed that – we BURIED the opponent and Four Seasons Total Landscaping was declared the victor, by a pile! – and PakIndiaStan, where my tariffs stopped that war cold! NOBEL! NOBEL! NOBEL!

Holy crap, we have fewer munitions in the stockpile than we have barrels of oil in the strategic reserve – the Biden and Obama administrations were completely irresponsible!

Munitions are flowing in from all over the place to the US, where we do NOT have a munitions shortage!

Hi, Congress? It’s me, Pete - the Secretary of War, Tattoos, and Testosterone... we need way more manly dollars to make way more manly munitions. I'm in trouble here; can you help a guy out?

WE ARE NOT ALMOST OUT OF MUNITIONS – WE HAVE MANY MORE MUNITIONS THAN ANYONE ELSE, MORE MUNITIONS THAN ANY COUNTRY IN HISTORY! ANYONE SAYING WE ARE OUT OF MUNITIONS IS A COMMUNIST TRAITOR WHO DESERVES THE ULTIMATE PENALTY! KASH PATEL IS OFFERING A $50,000 REWARD FOR INFORMATION ON THE WHEREABOUTS OF THESE EVIL AMERICA-HATING DUMOCRATS!

We have directed munitions companies to tell us, within 21 days, how the hell they’re going to start delivering way more munitions way more faster than they ever dreamed they could, and how the hell they’re going to expand manufacturing facilities here in the US and hire American workers to make them, and oh, by the way, you can undocumented workers who will work for way less and save us money so we can afford to pay you for the munitions; we’ll tax the crap out of them, not fine you for hiring them, and deport them after we have the munitions we need to solve the shortage we don't have.

WE DO NOT HAVE A MUNITIONS SHORTAGE! THE REFLECTION POND WAS VANDALIZED! JEANNINE PIRRO FOLDED LIKE A COCKTAIL UMBRELLA! I HAVE ORDERED KASH PATEL TO OFFER A $50,000 REWARD FOR INFORMATION PROVING JEANNINE PIRRO IS A LYING, TRAITOROUS DUMOCRAT!!

We expect the Strait of Hormuz to be fully open by Tuesday or Wednesday of last week, maybe by Friday. I’ll have a market-roiling update for you on the status by yesterday, in time for tomorrow’s market opening. And just like K-cars, the K-shaped economy is over – that should help manipulate things nicely, don’t you think?

FAKE NEWS!!! HER EMAILS!!! RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA!!! IT’S ALL FAKE NEWS! COMEY AND MARK KELLY ARE TRAITORS!!! SLEEPY JOE IS A TRAITOR!!! I WANT MY BALLROOM AND I WANT IT NOW!!!

Sunday School 7/26/26: Extra Credit

For your Sunday School Extra Credit this week, I dropped by the Meet the Press (NBC) classroom to listen in on some talk about the upcoming midterms. 

For the first part of the conversation, host Kristen Welker was joined by NBC's Chief Data Analyst, Steve Kornacki. Here's how Welker set the stage:

Today marks 100 days until the midterm elections. At stake: control of Congress. Will the war in Iran -- and its impact on the economy -- hurt Republicans’ chances of holding onto power? Or can Democrats flip the House and Senate? Even as a fight rages within the party over its future. 

Kornacki dove right into the numbers, putting the landscape in perspective, he said. 

• Trump's approval is at 41% on average across all polls, a little lower than before the 2018 midterms in his first term. 
• In a recent Fox News poll on specific issues, "majority disapprove everywhere. His best mark is 42 on immigration." On Iran, the economy, and inflation, the numbers were apparently much worse.
• In 2022, under Biden, the Dems lost "only a few seats" in the House, and picked up one in the Senate. That's what the Rs are hoping will happen this year, and they "think that their one chance is the image of the Democratic Party."
• A majority of Democrats, in the same Fox poll, "have a favorable view of socialism" but that ends at the party door - socialism is "deeply unpopular" with Independents.
• The Dems need to gain four Senate seats to get control, and they can't lose any seats, either. Their best hopes are in Maine and North Carolina, but where are the other two? Can they come from states that Trump won by double digits - Alaska, Iowa, Ohio, or Texas?
• Iran hangs over the whole mess; in a Politico poll, "65% say the war shouldn't continue, or should continue only if it doesn't make costs worse. And 56% of MAGA share that opinion, compared to several weeks ago when it was 41%.

Later in the lesson, the panel gathered to continue discussing the midterms. Today's crew: New York Times White House correspondent Tyler Pager; Democratic strategist Adrienne Elrod; and Lanhee Chen, a fellow at the Hoover Institution. 

Welker asked Pager what he was hearing from his sources about Iran and the mood at the White House. He said for a while folks were optimistic that "the war would be winding down or at least not on the front of voters' minds when they went to the polls, or even after Labor Day." And now? It seems there are some concerns that fluctuating prices and continuing attacks in the war could be "a huge issue for voters."  On the other hand,

...when you talk to Republicans, they point out a few things that make them somewhat optimistic that things could go a little bit better. One, the huge cash advantage that the Republicans have in the committees. Two, the redistricting efforts that have given Republicans a fighting chance in some areas that they didn’t think they would compete in. And lastly, they think they have a message of attack, particularly around the Democratic Socialist candidates that have won, trying to paint them as representatives of the entire Democratic Party. But most voters care about the economy. And that is going to be — continue to be a huge issue for the party as they try to stave off what appears to be a losing hand heading into November.

Welker turned to Chen, asking about Labor Day as a key date, especially when it comes to getting gas prices down. She said, "The economy is always the single biggest issue" for voters considering which party to support, but noted there's some complexity to the picture for the Rs. She pointed to the redistricting efforts in red states making perhaps 10 to 15 seats more competitive, and the progressive Dems who are far to the left of most Americans.

So those are advantages, no question about it. But the challenge Republicans face is what I consider to be an expectations gap. There’s an expectation about the end of the war. There’s an expectation about prices coming down. And the reality hasn’t always met those expectations. So not only are you seeing challenges with independent voters. The bigger issue for Republicans is energy. It’s the energy of the Republican electorate. Are those most loyal Republican voters going to turn out and vote when Donald Trump is not on the ballot? That’s the big question.

And, talking about "the progressive branch of the Democratic Party," Welker noted the energy level there, and how there's a divide playing out in primaries. She talked about Michigan, where there's a primary next month with a progressive battling a moderate for a Senate seat. She asked Elrod to talk about what's at stake. 

In a nutshell? If the Dems want to take back the Senate, they have to hold Michigan, and "we have a much better shot of holding onto Michigan" if the moderate candidate wins. She also thinks that, in terms of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) candidates more generally, it's a challenge for the Ds because some of the primary winners "may not be as appealing to the electorate in the general election.

But so far, we are seeing this relatively isolated to places like New York City, you know, urban areas, and of course that little blue dot in Colorado in Denver with Diana DeGette’s loss. If El-Sayed is successful in Michigan, that will sort of blow that argument. It’ll flop that argument significantly. Because this is a state that is in the Rust Belt. It is a state that is critical to anybody winning in 2028 for the presidential - for the presidency. So if this happens there, then I think Democrats are going to have a bigger challenge.

And on the other side of the aisle, how much of a challenge does the erosion of the MAGA base on Iran pose?  Pager turned back the clock a bit to answer this one, noting that JD Vance endorsed Trump in part because "Trump would not bring the nation to war." And Vance has been "concerned and frankly opposed" to the war (from the beginning, at least according to many reports - ed.)

So obviously that is a huge concern for the base. And that was what Vance was trying to channel in some of his opposition. The other thing as Lanhee said, we have seen the Republican Party struggle when Donald Trump is not on the ballot, particularly with turnout when it relates to the base... some of these voters that are huge Donald Trump supporters, but are not as reliably showing up for the midterm elections. And so without Donald Trump on the ballot, plus this ongoing protracted overseas conflict, that is a problem for Republicans.

Chen noted the concept of "the MAGA base is a little bit misunderstood" - it's not really a 'base' for the Rs.

... what it really is, is it’s Donald Trump’s coalition. It’s a unique coalition that no other politician has been able to replicate in recent American history. When Donald Trump is not on the ballot, as we talked about earlier, it changes the dynamic, the dynamic significantly. The question of course is: does the president want to get more involved? And what does that mean for individual candidates?

She pointed to Susan Collins, running for her *sixth* term (after pledging to only serve two), as an example of the quandary facing some GOP candidates. In Maine, she'll need the so-called MAGA base, but she can't turn off the moderates who wield a lot of power in the bluish-purple state.

... she’s got to be able to turn out that base of Republican voters while still not turning off moderates who might have a different opinion of the president. Her challenge is going to be very different than you might see in other races. So, the question of how far the president gets involved - this is his base. If he wants to turn on his base, if he wants to devote time and energy to getting those people out to vote, it’s going to change the outcome of the election.

Does that make everything clearer, as we enter the push to the midterms? Iran, affordability, DSA, Trump... right now, these are the likely suspects; we'll see if that changes over the coming weeks. 

Thoughts on the midterms? Want to see me tackle something specific? (And yes, I'll be sharing some info on the DSA in an upcoming post.) Drop a comment.

Sunday School 7/26/26

For your Sunday School lesson this week, I spent time in CNN's State of the Union classroom, which was in a New York State of mind.

First up for host Dana Bash was House Minority Leader Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY). Bash noted the Dems are launching something called '100 Days Out Weekend of Action,' a sprint to the midterms, by hosting over 400 events across the country. At the same time, they have to figure out how to regain the majority either through the center or through the "activist left." Noting the latter group wants to "defund the police, abolish ICE, aid to Israel, open borders," she asked Jeffries if he was planning on moving on any of those issues if they win in November. 

Rather than answer her question, he said the Ds would focus on what unites them, and that's "a focus on fighting for an affordable America" because "life in this country is far too expensive," and that's something the whole party agrees on.

Too many people are working hard, they're playing by the rules, but they can't thrive and they can barely survive, not enough food on the table, not enough gas in the tank, unable to actually regularly and consistently afford to pay the rent or pay the mortgage. We want to drive down the cost of groceries, drive down and lower the cost of gasoline, drive down the cost of housing, and also make sure that health care is affordable for every single American. 

Bash tried again, asking whether the party's policy proposals will "be in line with" what some recent progressive winners want, or if they'll move towards "the moderate area" if they win the swing states.  Again, rather than answering the question, he chose bumper stickers: push back against the "one big ugly bill" and its Medicaid cuts, extend the Affordable Care Act subsidies, stop the "reckless and costly war of choice," and stop Trump's tariffs.

After two non-answers, Bash took a more direct approach, noting Jeffries has reportedly "clashed" with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), who's campaigning for progressives, even those challenging incumbents, "including members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC)." She asked if Sanders and others are making it harder for the Ds to win, and if that's what led to the clash. 

Jeffries said it wasn't a clash so much as a "candid conversation" with Rep. Greg Meeks (D-NY), chair of the CBC PAC, and it was about a single North Carolina primary. He added that he thinks Sanders and House and Senate Dems "understand the stakes" - taking control of Congress,

so we can end this MAGA extremism that has been unleashed on the American people that is actively hurting hardworking American taxpayers, and actually commit to making life more affordable for the American people.

She gave him one last chance to explain how he'll handle the progressives; according to him, "not a single person" among the incoming members has raised any of the issues Bash mentioned, other than how Dems are pushing back against the administration's immigration policies, including ICE.

The last question was about New Jersey's non-citizen voting disclosure; Bash, noting that Dems say this "doesn't happen," wondered if the discovery causes a problem for the Dems.

I think that I continue to have confidence in state and local authorities in making sure that there's going to be a free and fair election in November, and, if modest or minor challenges emerge, such as the one that was disclosed voluntarily by the authorities in New Jersey, that it is immediately corrected. And that's what I expect will continue to happen. 

And then? Back to the bumper stickers: Trump and the Rs and voter suppression, their failure to lower prices, the war, skyrocketing gas prices, and Medicaid cuts, before saying this:

They have nothing to run on. We're going to run on fighting for an affordable America.

The next New Yorker in the classroom was Border Czar Tom Homan; he's a North Country native who maintains a home in Sackets Harbor, where protestors have made their views on ICE known.

Bash led with asking if he knows "specifically" what's going on with the ICE officers who were involved in the shootings in Texas and Maine, and whether they'd been reassigned or placed on leave. Homan said he hadn't been involved in the investigations and didn't know the officers' status, but said that the policy is that they'd be put on leave during the investigation. Bash seemed surprised that, "as border czar involved in this," he didn't know for sure what had happened to the agents. He made it clear that ICE reports to Markwayne Mullin, and said

I've said from day one I won't comment on an investigation, but I can tell you I haven't specifically tracked these cases, but I can tell you, per policy, they're usually put on administrative leave pending the investigation, pending sworn statements, internal affairs interviews and the entire investigation. They usually will not be put back on duty until the investigation is over and either have been cleared or, if they've got problems, then they may not go back at all.

That last comment opened the door for Bash to bring up the domestic violence allegations against the officer in Maine (which the officer has denied). According to court documents, one of his ex-wives said that "she experienced severe domestic violence in her marriage and that he always displayed violent behavior, and even that, if anything ever happened to her, he'd be the one to look at." She wondered whether someone "with those issues" should be an ICE agent. 

No, if those of those are facts, he -- I don't think he should ever have cleared vetting. When they hire somebody, they put them through a vetting process and look at all that stuff. So, I know, based on that information -- that's part of the ongoing investigation... -- did the vetting process fail? Was that information not available? Did they not know? So, there's a separate administrative investigation on what happened here.... But the vetting process, I -- if that was factual, he would have an almost impossible time to pass vetting.

Homan said all ICE employees (some 30,000 of them) go through vetting and "this is a kind of a rare instance." And this is just one aspect of the ongoing review.

So, the training is under review. I know this specific case, as far as the vetting, is under review by the internal affairs section. So we will see where it lies. But, certainly, if this person had that type of history, it would have been a vetting issue, and it should have been brought to the attention of those who makes those decisions.

That led to Bash questioning the training, as she did the vetting, pointing to the race to "find as many undocumented immigrants as possible to deport." Homan disagreed with that premise, noting that every law enforcement agency reassesses training protocols and makes changes as needed; he even did that when he was the ICE director. And, he pointed to what Todd Lyons, ICE director last year, told Congress - that while training has changed, the amount of training did not.

They just stopped the duplication. Now it's being reviewed and... look, can we add additional training?  I think Markwayne Mullin made the decision, well, let's do a temporary pause and make sure we -- the officers have what they need to be safe and do the most safe, secure arrests possible. And that review was done pretty quickly.  

Yeah, that 'pause' is a thing, right? Here's Bash:

...during what ended up being a very brief pause, like a day, the homeland security secretary, Markwayne Mullin, said that vehicle stops would be paused, and then the president very quickly overturned that directive. But while the pause was in place, you did say it was done for the safety of the officers and whether something could have been done... my question for you is, how is it possible that all of that got accomplished in just the one day that the pause existed?

Homan pointed to some immediate changes, including at least one officer with a body camera to record all stops, and a journeyman agent assigned to them, as well. 

... (Acting ICE director) David Venturella sent an instruction out that he wants at least one body camera on those vehicle stops, so we have everything on video. So, whether the officer did something right or did something wrong, whether the alien did something right or wrong, it's on video. And I'm a big supporter of video cameras. I'm a big supporter, because I want the American people to see what that officer saw when he took whatever action they took.

Frankly, everyone wants that - the public has wanted that for months. 

Moving on to the panel discussion, we've got three more New Yorkers in the game: Congressmen Tom Suozzi (D), who represents part of the North Shore of Long Island and Mike Lawler (R), who represents folks in Rockland and Putnam Counties, and Syracuse native Maya Willey, president and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. GOP analyst Alyssa Farah Griffin, a native Californian, was also in the mix.

Bash, herself a native New Yorker, opened with a clip from Trump's hour-long rally/WHCA dinner speech.

What do we do here? Is this supposed to be fun? I hate some people. I shouldn't say this. I'm president. I'm not supposed to hate. I'm supposed to love everybody. Sloppy Chris Christie, one of the sloppiest human beings you will ever meet.

Ilhan Omar, one of my favorites. She ought to get the hell out of our country. She shouldn't be here. She shouldn't be in our country. You can't call J.B. Pritzker a fat pig, please.

Briefly, here's what the panel thought:

• Fara Griffin: Listen, he bombed, but the most offensive thing about it was that it wasn't funny...   and President Trump, by the way, can be funny... That did not show up...  I asked myself at the end of what felt like 90 minutes we will never get back of our lives, what was the point of that? It didn't unify him with the press, it didn't ingratiate him more, and he didn't really seem to have any goal. We're talking about Czech crystal, and then we're insulting, kind of going through the greatest hits... I'm not sure why he was there, to be honest. 

• Suozzi: It was just mean. I thought it was just mean-spirited. It wasn't funny. It's supposed to be an entertaining, fun night, and it was just, I thought, mean-spirited.

• Lawler: ... I think it was important for the president to go... from that standpoint, it was a positive... I think he could have been a lot funnier... Frankly, some of the stuff that is said on CNN about the president in real time is a lot harsher than anything he threw on Friday night... I definitely think the president could have brought a little more levity to it than he did

• Willey: Unfunny, mean, all of the above...  one of the points of (the dinner) is to celebrate the First Amendment and free speech... we saw not only a refusal to allow any political satire, in the form of having a comedian there. We also saw a president attacking journalists because they won awards on topics that he didn't like...

Shifting gears to the midterms and a CBS/YouGov poll showing that 78% said the administration is not focusing enough on lowering prices, Lawler was up first; he touted his own record of focusing "almost exclusively" on affordability, including pushing the SALT limit increase and the bipartisan housing bill (enacted by 'executive indifference'), and noted

...it was a Republican House, a Republican Senate, and a Republican White House that worked together to get it done. It was bipartisan. There were a number of Democrat initiatives in there as well. But this will actually increase supply, lower prices, create greater access to capital. These are the things the American people want us to focus on, and that's what I have been focused on.

Suozzi, on the other hand, reminded Lawler that they were both at the Inauguration last January, when we were all promised prices would come down fast. And he pointed to "five specific points directly related to this administration that are raising prices."  (I count four, but who's counting?)

Everybody knows the tariffs increase people's prices, make your food more expensive every day, make your business more expensive. Everybody knows that the war is causing an increase of gas prices at the gas pump. Everybody knows this is the biggest deficit in the history of the United States of America, which causes upward pressure on interest rates, make it impossible to buy a house, to lease a car, to pay for your credit card. Everybody knows that they have cut health care premium tax credits. You and I worked together to try and save the premium tax credits...

Farah Griffin said the Rs are looking to the White House to "please get this president on message" about bringing down prices, but there's "not a great story to tell right now."

With the Iran war going -- continuing to go on, gas prices are not coming down the way that we hoped they would. The ongoing tariff regime, which we seem to announce more tariffs day in and day out, Mexico, Canada, what is next? And this is -- this is where you have got to have sound advisers around him. I imagine Susie Wiles is in his ear saying, 'you have got to get on message ahead of these midterms,' because to -- if you're the president, investigations come, accountability comes if you lose the House and potentially the Senate.

She also said they missed the boat and he should have held a big event for the housing bill, saying

... he completely missed the opportunity there. It's remarkable the inability to see what the American people voted for him to do and then deliver on it.

Willey gets the last word, noting that the messaging is not enough, and furthermore, 

... the truth is, these are self-inflicted wounds. These are not natural occurrences in high prices. These are the creation of decisions this administration has made, the Iran war being a really big and obvious one lost on no one.

And that's a wrap. Did you learn anything? Did the New Yorkers represent the state well? Drop a comment!

Sunday School 7/19/26

 I spent a little time wandering the halls at Sunday School yesterday, and thought I'd recap some of what was going on in ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos classroom. Jon Karl was in the host's chair this week, and spoke first with Energy Secretary Chris Wright.

Karl mentioned our attacks in Iran, after the deaths of two service members, and wondered if there was more retaliation planned. 

Yes, look, the president’s mission is essential for peace in the Middle East and peace in the world. And that is to prevent Iran from achieving nuclear weapons and to degrade their ability to terrorize their neighbors and the world and global commerce. So, yes, this mission will go on until the mission is done.

Karl repeated that he's asking specifically about retaliation for the deaths of two Americans, and Wright, again, answered a different question.

It’s tragic to lose American lives, but this is a mission that will save countless lives going forward. His focus is on degrading the Iranian ability to terrorize the world, to hold world commerce hostage, as they are doing right now, and to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons. That is unchanged.

The conversation switched to oil. Wright says we are now "assuring that -- that oil and gas and other products can flow through the Strait of Hormuz, with or without Iranian cooperation" while we continue to "degrade" their military and, at the same time, look for a diplomatic solution.

President Trump wants to end it with a peaceful agreement with Iran, but it takes two parties to do that. If they’re -- if they’re -- if they’re ready to do that, that’s the way it will end. If not, we will continue to assure flow of traffic through the Strait without Iran’s cooperation.

Wright strongly disagreed with Karl's contention that traffic through the Strait was effectively stopped, and tossed out some numbers, saying around 7,000,000 barrels are moving through the waterway and slightly less than that through "bypass pipelines," which he said was 2/3 of what moved through before the war and "dramatically up from where we were" the last time he was on the show back in March. And he said that "almost all the public data" he's seen is wrong, adding that

... we count the volume of oil that goes through. The ship numbers are down more dramatically. But, of course, we’re flowing larger tankers now to keep the world markets as well supplied as we can.

Switching gears, Karl noted the president's stated focus on election security as a "top domestic priority," but questioned why his budget cuts $700M from CISA, the cybersecurity agency. Wright said he "wouldn’t look at the inputs, the money spent. I’d look at the outputs, the quality of United States cybersecurity. That’s never been higher than where it is right now under President Trump."

And then, I guess because it's mandatory to do so, Karl asked whether Joe Biden won the 2020 election. Wright said, "He was president for four years. Clearly so," and then, when pressed, said, "Look, I'm not an election evaluator, but it sure seems to me like he did."

Senator Mark Warner (D-VA), the ranking member on the Senate Intelligence Committee, was the second interview. Karl opened by asking how the president should respond to the killing of our two service members. 

Well, first of all, I join with all Americans in condolences to these soldiers. Remember, as we think about this five-month war, this is a war of choice. As a member of the Gang of Eight, there was no imminent threat from Iran against America. So, Donald Trump chose to go to war. It took him two weeks to lay out what he thought his goals were going to be.

And then, he ticked through those goals. I'll condense his response:

• Regime change: We got a worse crowd than before. 
• Getting the enriched uranium:  It's still there... 
• Getting rid of Iran’s missile and drone capability. Obviously, we’ve not been successful there.
• The Strait of Hormuz: he sees " no path in the short term how the Strait is going to be settled."

He expressed his frustration on the drone point in particular, including that they're inexpensive in comparison to our using $2.5M missiles to shoot the drones down, and that the president has refused the offer from Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelenskyy to give us the technology to build our own drones.

In the end, here's where Warner landed: 

This war of choice has been a disaster. It has been a disaster militarily. It has been a disaster in terms of how we’re viewed around the world. It has been a disaster to our friends and allies who have questioned whether we will keep our promises. I’m anxious if it takes a classic Donald Trump move, declare victory tomorrow and be done. But the continuation of this war at this pace will be a continuing disaster.

Karl wondered what happens if we do leave; the Iranians are firing at ships in the Strait, and at our bases throughout the region, and asked how we end it. Warner mentioned "diplomacy negotiated by diplomats who actually know what they're doing," an obvious shot at Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff, a couple of real estate developers who I think don't even officially work for the government. He pointed to the JCPOA, the Obama deal that Trump ditched, as an example of what worked.

But we're not going to  - I don't believe anyone thinks we're going to bomb Iran into submission. And I sure as heck do not believe that - short of troops on the ground- that there's any meaningful way forward to get out that enriched uranium.

Last question on this topic: does Warner agree with cutting off all funding for the war? He says the Department of Defense will ask for more money, and that we're depleting some of our stockpiles, but he also notes

there is $89B...that DOD is sitting on that has not been allocated to specific programs. There are shortages in the region. DOD, use that money first to replenish our supplies. And if the president wants to continue this war, come to Congress, make his case to the American people and to Congress rather than continuing what I think now is, frankly, an illegal action, because he never went through that process.

Turning to the election and the president's pitch the other night, Karl wondered if "there was anything new" in what the president released. Warner said that, over the last decade as chair or vice-chair of the Intelligence Committee, "there's probably no issue I've been more obsessed about..." In that time, his main concern has been Russia, "far and away" the most prominent foreign country in the game, "usually on behalf of Trump." And,

Iran has been very active as well, usually against Trump. North Korea has been active. China’s got the capabilities, but they’ve been more -- less about which candidate and more like, 'can we just make Americans lose confidence?'

And what about the Chinese getting those 220 million voter records?

Well, listen, I'm much more concerned about the fact that the Chinese hacked into the OPM data a number of years back and got personal information about anybody working in the federal government. I'm more concerned about the fact that they tapped into many insurance companies and have got personal information about all of us.

They have incredible data capabilities. And again, the secretary, respectfully, our cybersecurity activity is CISA. It has worked with the private sector. He's cut it like mad. We have another part of election security, and remarkably, Jon, a lot of this election security apparatus was set up, done under President Trump's first term. They did a good job.

The "another part" of election security he's referring to is the Elections Assistance Commission, from which Trump fired all the Democrats and forced out the Republican commissioners. 

... it works with local registrars, state registrars, making sure we vet voting machines... You know, this guy is not looking for a secure election because if we have a free and fair election, he and his allies are going to get beat historically this fall.

Karl then asked about "this so-called SAVE America Act" and how Dems are opposed to it, and he asked Warner if "requiring photo ID to register to vote" is something they should get behind, based on polling that around 80% of all Americans and 71% of Dems say they favor it. That led to a discussion about what Virginia, where they both live, requires. Ultimately, you show ID to register, you don't need to show ID to vote, and they allow 'affidavit' attestations, which can be challenged. Warner says that constitutes voter ID of one form or another. 

Karl asked again if we should have a national standard requiring ID to be shown. Warner pointed out the irony of what happens now.

If you can show any photo that (w)as government-stamped, it would be fine. Certain states will say, we're going to let you show your NRA gun license, but you can't show your student ID. If you're going to have a set of IDs, let's have it across the board as long as it comes from some official point. But this is not about voter ID. The SAVE Act is about voter disenfranchisement... 

Lisa Murkowski, a host of Republicans, don't want the SAVE Act because they know it's anti-voter... the folks who have mail-in voting, Utah is as Republican a state as anyone. They've done mail-in voting for decades. Donald Trump wants to decrease voter participation and undermine confidence in our system.

I know one thing that would improve people's confidence: if the folks who come into the classrooms actually answered the questions they were asked, and if the people asking the questions focused on what's important. 

Jon Karl did a reasonable job from the host's seat, except for the attempted 'gotcha' he asked Chris Wright about the 2020 election. But neither Wright nor Warner addressed the question of how America should respond to the deaths of Americans in the past few days. In response, an "if it were me, I'd..." would provide information and possibly lead to an interesting follow-up or two.

What would you like to have heard from Wright and/or Warner?  Drop a comment! And if you're interested, you can find my thoughts on Trump's remarks here.

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.

Sidebar: Sunday School 3/13/22

Several Sunday School classrooms featured comments related to policies or decisions made by the Biden administration. With that in mind, I'm sharing highlights from three administration officials - National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, Defense Department press secretary Adm. John Kirby (Ret.), and Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman - who made the rounds yesterday.

I'll start with Sullivan's chat with Dana Bash on CNN's State of the Union; he also spoke with what's-his-name on Meet the Press and with Margaret Brennan on Face the Nation.

• Russia's attack on the NATO training base "does not come as a surprise;" it shows Putin's frustration on not taking control of Ukraine's major cities, so he's expanding his attacks. The US will "defend every inch of NATO territory."
• Our goal is to support Ukraine and their negotiations with Russia and our allies, but "ultimately, it is Ukraine that will have to make its own sovereign decisions about the shape of any diplomacy going forward."
• We're working on "other capabilities" that could help, instead of planes, and we're confident "we will continue to be able" to get military assistance through the supply lines that have been established.
• Any use of chemical or biological weapons by the Russians will result in a "severe price" (no detailed provided). With our NATO allies, we've made that clear to Russia. And, we're monitoring our nuclear posture, "day by day, hour by hour."
• He's not going to publicly get into what we may or may not do vis-à-vis China if they decide to support Russia more actively or help them evade sanctions.

And from Adm. Kirby's chat with Martha Raddatz on This Week.

• No Americans were at the NATO training base when it was attacked. It's unlikely that a no-fly zone would have prevented it, and while "no-fly zone has a nice air policing sound to it," there's "very little that you can see that would make sense for this war to be escalated between two nuclear powers." 
• Our commitment to NATO's Article 5 is steadfast, but we shouldn't need to fight Putin. We've made it clear to him that all of NATO will defend our territory, and we have an open line with the Russian Ministry of Defense. We've repositioned some resources from Germany to Poland to help with defense.
• We've seen nothing indicating "some sort of imminent chemical or biological attack right now, but we're watching this very, very closely." And no, he's not going into detail here.
• We're looking at Ukraine "with awe and inspiration and pride." They fight "bravely, skillfully and, quite frankly, very creatively. They're using tactics that I don't think anybody predicted they would be able to use or would want to use, but they're doing that and they're defending their cities and population centers and their citizens as best they can." 

Finally, Sherman's conversation about Iran and China with Brett Baier on Fox News Sunday.

• The US consulate in Iraq is secure and everyone's been accounted for after the missile attack launched from within Iran; we don't believe the consulate "was actually the target" of the attack.
• She thinks the new nuclear deal "is close" and we're looking for everyone, including Russia, to bring it to a close; "... imagine these Iranians with a nuclear weapon." Ensuring they don't have one means we have to talk with them, and the Russians. We don't know yet if this deal is "as good as" the 2015 deal.
• She wasn't forthcoming on why the Biden administration hasn't acted on "indictable evidence" against two Iranians who are allegedly behind a plot to assassinate former National Security Advisor John Bolton. 
• It's an "open question" on whether the China/Russia relationship has suffered or strengthened lately. China had been seen as "pretty uncomfortable with an invasion of a sovereign country," and we hope that's still the case.
• Biden, with Congress, will move to remove Russia from "most favored nation status" at the World Trade Organization, which will cause China to have to "make some tough decisions."
• We don't believe China "ought to take Taiwan by force, and will do everything we can to deter that effort."

Hopefully this provides some perspective to the other classroom conversations.

OrangeVerse LIX: Your Dream Wedding

"Get married at Mar-a-Lago," they said. "It'll be fantastic," they said. "You might even get to see the former president!" they said. What blushing, rich-daddy'd, Republican bride wouldn't want that? I mean, how could it go wrong? 

Let us count the ways, according to the folks at the Daily Beast, who recounted a recording that TMZ (who else?) managed to get their hands on. Here's the set up:

Former President Donald Trump wandered into a wedding reception being held at Mar-a-Lago but instead of toasting the happy couple proceeded to run through a laundry list of his own personal grievances, according to a clip of the speech obtained by TMZ.

As you know, every day is Festivus for Former Guy, and that makes wonderful poetry for the rest of us, the folks on the 'least likely to be invited to a Mar-a-Lago wedding" list.

News Flash

Y’know, I just got, 

I turned off the news, 

I get all these flash reports,

and they’re telling me

 about the border,

 they’re telling me

about China,

 they’re telling me

 about Iran—

how’re we doing

with Iran, 

howdya like that? 

 

Let's Make a Deal

Boy, they were ready

to make a deal,

they woulda done

anything, they woulda

done anything,

and this guy goes

and drops the sanctions

and then he says,

‘We’d love to negotiate now,’

[and Iran says],

‘We’re not dealing with

the United States at all,

’oh, well, they don’t

want to deal with us,”

And China,

the same thing,

they never treated us

that way, right?

 

Did You See That?

You saw what happened

 a few days ago, was terrible,

 and uh, the border is not

good, the border is the worst

anybody’s ever seen it,

and what you see now,

multiply it by 10, Jim—

you would know how to

handle the border

 tougher than me.

We have to,

and the tough is... in

the most humanitarian

way, because that’s

what it is.

What’s happening

to the kids,

they’re living in 

squalor, they’re living 

like nobody has ever seen

anybody, there’s never

been anything like what’s,

and you’re gonna have

hundreds, and you have it now

The Shocks

they have the airplane photos,

the shocks, and they call ’em

shocks, and these things are

showing thousands and

thousands of people

coming up from

South America

and it’s gonna be,

it’s just uh, look,

 it’s a disaster.

It’s a humanitarian

disaster from

their standpoint,

and it’s gonna destroy the

country, frankly, the country

can’t afford it because

you’re talking about massive,

just incredible massive amounts.

 Our school systems,

our hospital systems,

everything.

 

A Rough Count

So, it’s a rough thing,

and I just say,

‘Do you miss me yet?’

We did get 75 million votes,

nobody’s ever gotten that.

They said, ‘Get 66 million votes,

sir, and the election’s over.’

We got 75 million and they 

said... but you know,

you saw what happened,

10:30 in the evening,

all of a sudden I said,

‘That’s a strange thing,

why are they closing up

certain places, right?’

Congratulations! 

Now, a lot of things

happening right now,

I just wanted to say,

it’s an honor to be here,

it’s an honor to have you

at Mar-a-Lago, you 

are a great

and beautiful couple.

"Get married at Mar-a-Lago," they said. Just make sure you lock the door to the ballroom.

Sunday School 2/7/21: Extra Credit

As I promised in my Sunday School post, I've got Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg for you today, along with Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-Trump), but well start with Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY). 

Cheney talked with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday, and said she's not resigning, as her state party requested when they censured her for "betraying the trust of Wyoming voters." 

The censure language indicated people still believe that BLM and Antifa were behind the Capitol insurrection. She said they've got a lot of work to do, and she blamed Trump and his lies for that.

We need to make sure that we as Republicans are the party of truth, that we are being honest about what really did happen in 2020 so we actually have a chance to win in 2022 and win the White House back in 2024.

She also said the Dems had no business getting involved in which Rs sit on committees; the Rs should have dealt with that.

Wallace asked if she'd vote to convict Trump in the impeachment. She said she'd listen to the evidence, but added there's a "massive criminal investigation underway. There will be a massive criminal investigation of everything that happened on January 6th and in the days before."

People will want to know exactly what the president was doing. They want to know, for example, whether the tweet he sent out calling Vice President Pence a coward while the attack was underway, whether that tweet, for example, was a premeditated effort to provoke violence... there will be many, many criminal investigations looking at every aspect of this and everyone who was involved, as there should be.

She said "I obviously believe... that what we already know is enough" to impeach him, and that there's no looking past what happened, no pretending that it didn't happen, no trying to move on. "We've got to make sure this never happens again."  

So far, she's not a fan of the new administration. She described the first few days as being "heartbreaking in many ways," and called the cancellation of the Keystone XL pipeline "heartless." The Rs must "stand up and fight back against the kind of far-left governing" they've seen so far, she said.

Let's go down the hall to the This Week classroom for George Stephanopoulos' chat with Mr. Secretary, aka Mayor Pete. The conversation started with the COVID relief plan, which Buttigieg said was both important and something that Americans - including Republicans - strongly support. He downplayed the comments on the recovery plan made by Larry Summer, noting that other economists feel the plan is what we need to grow jobs. And, he wants to avoid what happened after the Great Recession.

And part of what was a real struggle the last time we faced a major economic challenge in 2009, was a sense that there needed to -- if there had been more political will in Washington to do more, the economy might have recovered more quickly. 

Paying for his infrastructure agenda could run into partisan arguments, but he said these investments can pay for themselves, with enormous payback for the American people. He said it's clear people are impatient with "the idea of 'infrastructure week' turning into a punch line" and that lots of ideas on how to pay for the programs surfaced during his confirmation hearings. Not only that, but

...we also have a historic moment on our hands where we’ve realized just how critical these needs are. We can't keep kicking the can down the road and while it's not going to be easy to come to terms on exactly how to sustainably fund it, we know once again, with the economic urgency, the interest rate environment and the gathering political will that we can actually make this happen. And I think it's a great example of bipartisan priority. And if we get it right, it might pull other things along too.

Let's close with Margaret Brennan and Graham on Face the Nation. Their conversation started with foreign policy, and Graham said he'd caution President Biden not to get rid of stuff just because it's a Trump policy. They need to review things to determine if they're working, and if yes, leave them alone.

He hasn't spoken with Biden, but he has spoken to Secretary of State Tony Blinken, and is happy with the approach on Afghanistan, including leaving troops there beyond Trump's May deadline. Graham says he hopes that the administration will look at a bill he and Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ) have proposed that will the Iranians as much nuclear power as they want, but they wouldn't be allowed to enrich it. 

On the hottest of hot topics, Graham said that what Trump did around the insurrection "is not a crime," and further, that "many people had already planned the - to attack the Capitol" before Trump ever spoke back in January, so impeaching him for incitement is wrong.

He said if people think Trump committed a crime, "he can be prosecuted like any other citizen." Impeachment is a political process, and "we've never impeached a president once they're out of office."

I think this is a very bad idea... It's not a question of how the trial ends. It's a question of when it ends... And the only question is... how long does the trial take? But the outcome is really not in doubt. That doesn't mean what happened on January the 6th was okay. It means his impeachment, in the eyes of most Republicans, is an unconstitutional exercise.

He seemed to suggest that Trump was impeached for the wrong thing. Brennan reminded Graham that he said that "the things (Mike Pence) was asked to do in the name of loyalty were over the top, unconstitutional, illegal, and would have been wrong for the country," which sounded like high crimes and misdemeanors to her. Graham's response?

Yeah, well, he wasn't charged with that.

Ultimately, he thinks history will be the judge, and he's in obvious disagreement with Rep. Cheney on the 'moving on' thing.

I'm ready to get on with trying to solve the nation's problems. And as to Donald Trump, he is the most popular figure in the Republican Party. He had a consequential presidency. January the 6th was a very bad day for America, and he'll get his share of blame in history. But I do believe that in 2022, the Republican Party is going to come roaring back...

He thinks Trump's policies have served the country well, and that he "has to rehabilitate himself as a politician." No word on whether he sees himself in need of rehabilitation, after spending the last four years doing the bidding of a "race-baiting, xenophobic, religious bigot." 

See you around campus - bonus points for anyone wearing a Super Bowl Champions Tampa Bay Buccaneers mask.