Sunday School 5/27/18

I decided to give Chuck Todd and NBC's Meet the Press a visit today - the only classroom I visited on Memorial Day.

You may recall I ignored him last week because they had the non-Democrat from Vermont on the show, so I thought it would be in the spirit of fair play to drop in this week. The main guest today was Lame Duck Arizona Republican Senator Jeff Flake.

Flake talked a little about North Korea (denuclearization may not happen), and a little more about Chinese company ZTE (Flake is against a deal with them), but mostly about the president.

Todd played a portion of Flake's commencement speech to grads of the Harvard Law School - take a look:

How did we arrive at a moment of such peril - wherein a president of the United States publicly threatens - on Fox & Friends, historians will note - to interfere in the administration of justice, and seems to think that the office confers on him the ability to decide who and what gets investigated, and who and what does not? Obviously, ordering investigations is not a legitimate use of presidential power.

The questions to Flake were whether he believed that president Trump was abusing his power, if Congress would get to the point of doing something, and would that lead to an impeachment proceeding.

Well, let me just compliment the Congress in the last couple of days. The president had this diversion tactic, obviously, with so-called Spygate. I don't think any of us were referring to it in that way. But Congress said no. To have a briefing like the president wanted with just one party was not right. And so, it wasn't just some of the Democrats saying that was not proper, a lot of Republicans were saying that as well. So I, i saw the kind of pushback that we need to have. But it needs to happen more often. When the president says things that are totally wrong, it's the responsibility of members of Congress, particularly those in the president's party, to stand up and say "That is not right. Truth is not relative. And there are no alternative facts here. And I have seen instances where we haven't done that well. And we've got to to it better.

Flake also expressed some feeling behind the scenes that Trump might be "laying the groundwork  to move on" Robert Mueller or perhaps Rod Rosenstein, but that there was hesitance on some people's part to address his actions publicly. When asked where the hesitance might come from, Flake's answer was not really all that surprising.

This the president's party. And if you're running in a primary right now, and you stand up to the president, to stand up in some cases for empirical truth, then you have a -- you have trouble in the primaries. And that's no doubt. So i, I I do think that, you know, as we get through the primary season - perhaps, then many of my colleagues will find a voice. But right now, it's difficulty politically.

I don't know about you, but I think the commencement address, the comments on the Rs not pushing back hard enough on the president's lies, and that until the primaries are over, there shouldn't be any high expectations re: the Republicans are all spot on.

There was one last question; Todd wanted to know if Flake had completely ruled out running for president.

It's not in my plans. But I've not ruled anything out. I do hope that somebody runs on the Republican side other than the president, if nothing else, simply to remind Republicans what conservatism is. And what Republicans have traditionally stood for.

I'm going to leave it there. See you around campus.

Sunday School 3/18/18

Busy busy busy day today - lots of Republicans were making the rounds this morning, and I tried to keep track of them as best as I could.

Let's start with Fox News Sunday, where Chris Wallace talked with Trey Gowdy, the lame duck South Carolina congressman. He and Wallace talked about one of Trump's lawyers calling for Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein to shut down the Mueller investigation. Gowdy is not a fan.

I don't (support that) and I think the president's attorney frankly does him a disservice when he says that and when he frames the investigation that way. Chris, if you look at the jurisdiction for Robert Mueller, first and foremost, what did Russia do to this country in 2016? That is supremely important, and has nothing to do with collusion So, to suggest that (Rosenstein) should shut down and all that is he is looking at is collusion, if you have an innocent client, Mr. Dowd, act like it.

Russia attacked our country. Let special counsel Mueller figure that out. And if you believe as we have found, there's no evidence of collusion, you should want special counsel Mueller to take all the time, and have all the independence he needs to do his job. 

Wallace noted that John Dowd, the lawyer they're talking about, doesn't appear to be "freelancing... going off by himself here" (in contrast to, say, Michael Cohen, the Trump attorney who 'freelanced' to the tune of $130K in the Stormy Daniels deal), mentioning Trump's embarrassing tweet storm. Gowdy repeated his comment about acting like an innocent man, if in fact you are one.

On CBS's Face the Nation, Margaret Brennan talked with Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, who has already announced he won't vote for Mike Pompeo, Trump's choice to replace Rex Tillerson as Sec State, or for Gina Haspel, his pick to replace Pompeo as CIA director. The senator also visited at least one other classroom himself this morning.  Brennan asked him about his position on Pompeo and Haspel.

I have been very supportive of the president on taxes, regulation, the judiciary. But when it comes to foreign policy, the thing I liked about president Trump was his opposition to the Iraq War. I guess what I'm perplexed by is that he keeps nominating people around him on foreign policy who actually thought the Iraq War was so good that they want to have an Iran War now. And so I think the lesson of the Iraq war was that there are unintended consequences from regime change and so I don't think somebody being the head of - being Secretary of State who wants regime change in Iran is a good thing, or who wants regime change in North Korea.

 On Haspel, my main concern about her is that she oversaw an illegal black ops operation in Thailand that included torture and I don't think torture is what America is about...

In fact, her colleagues have said that she was an enthusiastic supporter of this enhanced interrogation, or water boarding, or torture, as most of have come to believe it. There is also evidence that she signed a cable to destroy the evidence. There were videotapes, which I'm sure were ghastly, of the simulated drowning. And these were destroyed with her support and advocacy when the returned home to Washington. So, I think there's got to be plenty of good people at the CIA who weren't involved with torture. And, really, we're supposed to e the symbol of hope for the world. And people who want freedom from totalitarianism, they want freedom from torture. They don't want freedom to torture. And so I think this sets a terrible - this sets a terrible example for the world. 

I don't always agree with Senator Paul, but in this case, I do.

Who else was making the rounds today?

Weekly favorite Republican senators Lindsey Graham of South Carolina (I ignored him today) and Jeff  Flake, the lame duck from Arizona, were both on CNN's State of the Union, where Jake Tapper opened with "the state of our union is waiting to see who might be fired next." Tapper's questions were similar to what was being asked on the other shows, except for when he asked Flake if he had any idea when he'd make his decision whether to run against Trump in 2020.

Well, all I can say is, I hope that somebody does challenge the president.

I think that -- and what I have seen out there, what I experienced on Friday in New Hampshire and what I'm seeing is that there is a crying need out there for some Republicans to stand up and say, this is not normal, this is not right. 

We want Republicans who will take higher ground, and to see what's going on right now in terms of the chaos and these actions that clearly are not conservative on tariffs and whatnot. So it's not just the policies, but the behavior as well. 

People want to remember the Republican Party as the decent party. And it is not right now. And so what I'm seeing is, there's a crying need for that. I don't know who will step up in the end. I hope somebody does. I'm not ruling it out, but certainly I am - I think the odds are long that I would do it.

Last, and least, Texas Congressman Mike Conaway who led the Intelligence Committee's Russia investigation, made his first appearance, and perhaps simultaneously his last, on the Sunday shows, visiting with Chuck Todd on NBC's Meet the Press.

See you around campus.

Taking Notice, and Taking Names

Remember when UN Ambassador Nikki Haley said we'd be taking names at the UN?

That list-making was to make sure we didn't miss any of the countries that voted against us by voting for a resolution condemning the United States for moving our embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem; people who voted against the resolution, and for us, were invited to a party!

Tonight, I'm taking names, but the first list is for the opposite reason from Ambassador Haley. This is the good kind of name-taking, the kind we don't get to do all that often, especially when it comes to talking about stuff that happens in Washington DC.

Lamar Alexander (R-TX)

Susan Collins (R- ME)

Chris Coons (D-DE)

Bob Corker  (R-TN)

Joe Donnelly (D-IN)

Jeff Flake (R-AZ)

Cory Gardner (R-CO)

Lindsey Graham (R-SC)

Maggie Hassan (D-NH)

Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND)

Johnny Isakson (R- GA)

Doug Jones (D-AL)

Tim Kaine (D- VA)

Angus King (I-ME)

Amy Klobuchar (D-MN)

Joe Manchin III (D-WV)

Claire McCaskill (D-MO)

Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)

Bill Nelson (D-FL)

Gary Peters (D-MI)

Mike Rounds (R-SD)

Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH)

Mark Warner (D-VA)

This is the bipartisan group of senators who managed to convince their leadership, and some 50 something of their closest honorable friends to vote to end the #stupidshutdown, reopen the government and stop playing chicken with the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of  government employees and members of the military. 

And here are the senators who voted against reopening the government. 

Cory Booker (D-NJ)

Richard Blumenthal (D-CT)

Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV)

Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)

Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)

Kamala Harris (D-CA)

Mazie Hirono (D-HI)

Patrick Leahy (D-VT)

Mike Lee (R-UT)

Edward Markey (D-MA)

Robert Menendez (D-NJ)

Jeff Merkley (D-OR)

Christopher Murphy (D-CT)

Rand Paul (R-KY)

Bernie Sanders (I-VT)

Jon Tester (D-MT)

Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)

Ron Wyden (D-OR)

I don't pretend to know why these folks voted against reopening the government; maybe they're still mad at Mitch McConnell, or at Donald Trump. For all I know, they're made as hell at Hillary Clinton for not winning.  And, to be honest, I also don't know what's in the heart of hearts of the people who worked so hard to get the compromise that this second group of folks had the pleasure of voting against. 

I just know which list I'd use if I were throwing a party for the people whose names I took.

Complicit No More

Arizona's other Republican Senator, Jeff Flake, announced today he would not be running for re-election. Flake had long been a lightning rod for the Tweeter in Chief,  but in an emotional speech on the Senate floor, he lit into the president like a man who had just found his cojones voice.  

Here are a few excerpts.

...let me begin by noting the somewhat obvious point that these offices that we hold are not ours indefinitely...Sustained incumbency is certainly not the point of seeking office...

I rise today with no small measure of regret. Regret because of the state of our disunion. Regret because of the disrepair and destructiveness of our politics. Regret because of the indecency of our discourse. Regret because of the coarseness of our leadership. 

That we must never adjust to the present coarseness of our national dialogue with the tone set up at the top. We must never regard as normal the regular and casual undermining of our democratic norms and ideals. We must never meekly accept the daily sundering of our country. The personal attacks, the threats against principles, freedoms and institution, the flagrant disregard for truth and decency. 

The reckless provocations, most often for the pettiest and most personal reasons, reasons having nothing whatsoever to do with the fortunes of the people that we have been elected to serve... 

...we must stop pretending that the degradation of our politics and the conduct of some in our executive branch are normal. They are not normal. Reckless, outrageous and undignified behavior has become excused and countenanced as 'telling it like it is' when it is actually just reckless, outrageous and undignified. 

And when such behavior emanates from the top of our government, it is something else. It is dangerous to a democracy. Such behavior does not project strength... It instead projects a corruption of the spirit and weakness...

... I must say that we have fooled ourselves for long enough that a pivot to governing is right around the corner, a return to civility and stability right behind it...We know better than that. By now, we all know better than that..

Were the shoe on the other foot, we Republicans — would we Republicans meekly accept such behavior on display from dominant Democrats? Of course, we wouldn’t, and we would be wrong if we did...

...And as a matter and duty of conscience, the notion that one should stay silent — and as the norms and values that keep America strong are undermined and as the alliances and agreements that ensure the stability of the entire world are routinely threatened by the level of thought that goes into 140 characters — the notion that we should say or do nothing in the face of such mercurial behavior is...profoundly misguided.

...Leadership knows that most often a good place to start in assigning blame is to look somewhat closer to home. Leadership knows where the buck stops... Humility helps, character counts. Leadership does not knowingly encourage or feed ugly or debased appetites in us...

... politics can make us silent when we should speak and silence can equal complicity. I have children and grandchildren to answer to.

...To be clear, the anger and resentment that the people feel at the royal mess that we’ve created are justified. But anger and resentment are not a governing philosophy.

There is an undeniable potency to a populist appeal by mischaracterizing or misunderstanding our problems and giving in to the impulse to scapegoat and belittle...

We were not made great as a country by indulging in or even exalting our worst impulses, turning against ourselves, glorifying in the things that divide us, and calling fake things true and true things fake...

.. A political career does not mean much if we are complicit in undermining these values. 

Some may say this was a self-indulgent act; some will say it's easy to have cojones a voice when a man is walking away from a re-election fight he was apt to lose, thanks to his enemy in the Oval Office. But even some Republicans applauded Flake's message, not just his leave-taking.

I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that House Speaker Paul Ryan, who has been looking for his own cojones voice since before the election, said this today:

All this stuff you see on a daily basis, on Twitter this and Twitter that, forget about it.

Sunday School 9/3/2017

I decided to stroll over to the CNN classroom today, and see about the State of the Union.  Dana Bash was hosting today.

Guests were the governor of Texas, Gregg Abbott, and California Congressman Adam Schiff, the Democrat's number one on the House Intelligence Committee. And, the other Arizona Republican senator who is not named by president Trump - not the one who cost us the Obamacare repeal and replace; the other guy:

And nobody wants me to talk about your other senator, who's weak on borders, weak on crime, so I won't talk about him. Nobody wants me to talk about him. Nobody knows who the hell he is. And now -- see, I haven't mentioned any names.

Yeah, that guy was on the show, and that's where today's lesson will focus.

Bash talked with that guy, Senator Jeff Flake (a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee), about what's going on in the Koreas, starting with Trump's critical tweet about South Korea, in which he noted "appeasement won't work." Flake refused to characterize the president's tweet, but noted that South Korea "certainly will be with us in whatever we decide." Bash wondered whether Trump's rhetoric was backing us into a corner.

Well, what we have been doing over the years has certainly not slowed the advance of their nuclear program, but I don't think that harsh rhetoric does either.... Certainly, sanctions are - are not, you now, arresting that development either. So just about nothing we have done so far has helped slow it down. They seem intent on moving forward.

Bash shared this statement from the president's personal white nationalist, Steve Bannon.

There's no military solution to North Korea's nuclear threats. Forget it. Until somebody solves the part of the equation that shows me that 10 million people in Seoul don't die in the first 30 minutes from conventional weapons, I don't know what you're talking about. There's no military solution here. They got us." 

Flake responded:

But obviously, that's something that they have to consider and everyone dealing with this situation has to consider. This -- there -- there - you know, it becomes cliche to say there are no good options here, but there really aren't. 

Bash threw another grenade at Flake, this time quoting former National Intelligence Director James Clapper, and wondered if Flake shared Clapper's concern:

I worry about,frankly, you know, the access to nuclear codes. If in a fit of pique, he decides to do something about Kim Jong-un, there's actually very little to stop him.

Here's his answer (there was a follow up nudge from Bash in here):

Well, I -- I do have good confidence in our national security team and those who are advising the president. And the president doesn't have experience in this -- in this kind of situation, but few presidents do when they come into office. And I'm confident that the people around the president are giving him good advice, and I believe that he will follow it. I sure hope he does. Obviously, you like a leader that's measured and sober and consistent. Our allies want to hear that. I think our adversaries need to hear that. But we have got a good team around the president... I have had my concerns, I think everyone has, at some of the statements that have been made by the president with regard to NATO and other areas in foreign policy. Like I said, I think we -- we want somebody who is -- who is measured and sober and consistent and conservative in this regard. But he has a good team around him, and I have confidence in them. 

She closed this part of the interview asking Flake for his opinion on Trump's threat to pull out of our trade deals with South Korea -- an ally of ours, by the way:

I -- I don't think that that would be good in any circumstances. Now, it's particularly troubling, given what South Korea is faced with. I think that we need to do more trade, not less. And withdrawing from trade agreements is a very troubling sign. 

Moving on to the potential that Trump will cancel DACA, the program that protects from deportation those children brought here illegally by their parents. Flake believes we need to "take immediate action to protect DACA kids." (As I was working on this post, word came that Trump will indeed cancel DACA, but with a 6-month delay, assuming he sticks with the decision.)

Bash asked if this Trump should go back on his promise, "very popular among Republicans in places like your state" to repeal DACA? 

Flake's answer is spot on.

Because it would be the right think to do to go back on a promise. Obviously you hope that presidents keep some of their campaign promises and you hope that they ignore others. This is one that he ought to ignore.

There are 800,00 DACA kids, kids who were brought across the border. The median age, I think, is six years old when they came across the border.  They should not be punished for the sins of their parents. That's just the basic principle that we ought to follow here. They are in -- either in school or have graduated and are working. Almost all of them, I think 90-some percent of them, are in the work force. To remove them from the country, to split up families like this, is just not the way we ought to go. 

Bash's follow up question? "If the president says that he will extend the protections for dreamers, but do it in exchange for funding from Congress, from you for his border wall, would you go along with that compromise?"

Obviously, all of us believe in border security. It depends on what he means by the wall. And we still really haven't seen what he means by the wall. If that's a metaphor for border security, we can certainly support that. But if he's talking about a solitary brick and mortar 2,000 mile edifice on the border, then no, nobody ought to support that. So, we really  haven't seen what the president is really talking about when he talks about the wall. 

Other than it must be aesthetically pleasing, maybe solar, and perhaps see through so we can be safe from the sacks of drugs being tossed over it.

Or, maybe, so we can duck from the agricultural workers and laborers jumping over it to steal jobs from Americans.

See you around campus.