In Case You Missed It (v117)

Finally - a busy writing week!

It's been a long time - just shy of a full year - since I had a week with enough posts to warrant a recap. Hopefully, it's the start of a regular posting habit.  In case you missed anything, here's what made it out of my head. 

I started and ended the week with a Quick Take post. The first was about Rep. Brandon Williams, my congressman, and how far off base he was when he dropped a Bible verse to recognize Martin Luther King Jr. Day, and then went about as far away from what the verse was about as one could possibly go when he talked about immigration. 

I'm not a religious person, but that doesn't stop me from looking up verses when I see them, particularly when they're offered up by politicians. As I interpret Isaiah 58, the basic question is "Aren't we doing enough?" and the answer is, pretty much, "No - you're not,"  if you continue to oppress others, finger-point and speak ill of them, and deny them food and shelter. 

Next up? Visits to the Sunday School classrooms, including chats with That Guy from Vermont (CNN State of the Union), Florida Man Ron DeSantis (This Week), and Joe Manchin (Face the Nation). 

 

Sanders thinks folks will eventually rally around Biden, but it's tough given the way things are going with Israel and what's happening in Gaza.

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.

Manchin was asked whether he'll vote for Joe Biden; here's what he had to say about that.

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.

In your Extra Credit, we heard from former Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan, a Republican, and David Axelrod, who made a name for himself during the Obama years. It was fun to hear their thoughts on Iowa, offered the day before the caucuses. 

Hogan noted that Donald Trump was going to win, but noted

I don't think it matters that much, because, for the past 24 years, the winner of the Republican Caucus in Iowa has not been the nominee. So it's really about the fight for second place.

And while he had good things to say about Nikki Haley's chances, Axelrod thought she had some things to be concerned about, notably polling showing a distinct lack of enthusiasm from her supporters.

... 49% of Donald Trump's supporters said they were extremely enthusiastic about voting for him, 23% of Ron DeSantis'. For Haley, that number was 9%. 

Turns out he was right. 

 I was Wondering on Wednesday about more abusive legislation on tap for Florida, where

the state legislature continues to attack people and things they don't like. Among the latest proposed bills is one that would effectively end legal recognition of trans people.

 When I first heard about this last week, it was in the context of driver's licenses and a required gender affidavit - and I couldn't help wondering if trans people were really worse drivers than anyone else.

That wasn't the reason - but it's only almost as silly as the reason suggested by one of the sponsors, which I included in the post.  

A fun bit of wondering was inspired by the tourism folks in Lexington, KY, who are looking to the Final Frontier for visitors. I'm not sure they thought the whole thing through, but you can decide for yourself. 

And finally, there was the second Quick Take, about endorsements and how they're treated by the media. When Sen. Tim Scott endorsed Trump yesterday, the media was all gaga over how important it was. It's not, really, if you consider this:  

According to the folks at 538, as of January 14th, Trump had picked up 185 endorsements,

including nine governors, 24 senators, and 116 U.S. representatives. By comparison, only 22 of them had endorsed Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis or former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley. 

Help me understand: did Trump need Scott's endorsement, or did Scott make the endorsement for his own purposes? Why can't the media discern the difference, and report on it appropriately?

That's last week in a nutshell; be sure to check back this week for our regular features, and maybe a few extras.

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.                     

In Case You Missed It (v116)

The writing was easier last week, at least for a while. Here's your recap of what made it out of my head. 

I opened the week with a Sidebar driven by all the attention received by What's-his-name, the guy who hosts Meet the Press. He "did his job," fans say, by having another on-air argument with Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI). 

I'm no Johnson fan; I think he's a partisan hack. Even as I dislike him, I admit he's not wrong on everything. For example, he and I agree, the American people deserve to hear about the bad behavior of government officials, and Congress deserves the chance to provide 'oversight' of the government, even if no criminal statutes have been violated. 

WHN thinks that's ridiculous.

So, I guess the problem that I feel like you run into with that decision is what you're saying is if the Justice Department decides a crime wasn't committed, they're not going to prosecute a crime, it sounds like you still want the information out there because you want to politically damage the person that was investigated?

I suggested that maybe we want these bad actors to be held accountable, even if they're not 'officially' criminals, and it led to these questions.

Would WHN say that if the subject of the investigation was Clarence Thomas? Brett Kavanaugh? Marjorie Taylor Green? Matt Gaetz? Ron Johnson? Has he ever said that about any Donald Trump investigation?

We all know the answer to those questions, don't we?

Next up? A Quick Take inspired by the latest classified document finding - a "small number" of them, at the new home of former VP Mike Pence. I caught wind of that via a breaking news alert, and as often happens, my mind started racing. My former boss and co-workers would call out, "Oh, look - a squirrel!" when this happened in staff meetings. Here's a bit of that.

Shortly after seeing the headline, I had sketched out a perfect solution.

The houses, garages, car trunks, libraries, golf bags, duffel bags, diaper bags, bar carts, and sock drawers of every member of Congress, as well as every living president and vice president, must be searched for classified documents or other absconded-with items; the search must happen as soon as possible, to protect our national sanity, er, I mean, our national security.

And Ivanka's grave, too, must be searched - don't forget Ivanka's grave. I mean, who buries his ex-wife on his golf course while under investigation for missing documents?

Who does that? Donald Trump does, that's who.

If we need that kind of document-hunting effort, we'd need funding, which I figured out; and we'd need people to do the work. I had an answer for that, too.

Call up the Texas bounty hunters.

There's a reason they'd be perfect for the job - and it's in the post.  

I spent some time in the Sunday School classrooms, looking for discussions on the debt ceiling, which seems at least as important as worrying about which potential presidential candidate is hurt more by the politics of their document handling.  

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) had some thoughts on the debt, how we got where we are, and a possible solution, which he shared on CNN's State of the Union.

Everybody believes -- I mean, my goodness, when you have $31.4 trillion, and we have thrown caution to the wind, and to blame the Republicans, Republicans to blame the Democrats, who's at fault? Everybody's at fault. We don't have a process. I have been there 12 years, no budget.

He thinks the government needs to have "guardrails" on spending; having a budget, and trying to stick to it, is a good start.  And, while some have suggested forming a commission to develop recommendations, he's not a fan.

Can't you look and find out in government where you can be more efficient, more basically prudent with the taxpayers' money and quit wasting it, don't you think? And we all talk about waste, fraud, and abuse. That's an easy thing to do. But no one looks at it.

Hear, hear! 

It took me until Thursday morning to get the post out, but I did do some Wondering on Wednesday, on hypocrisy and indifference, among other things. Here's the hypocrisy wondering.

One thing I don't have to wonder about? Whether the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability will be asking for Mike Pence's visitor logs. I'm pretty sure that's not going to happen - but I wouldn't be surprised at all if they asked for Jimmy Carter's. 

The indifference part? Mass shootings, and guns. There were three mass shootings in California in a matter of days. One was plastered all over the news; another was pretty widely covered. The other one?

You probably didn't hear much about the third one; it was likely gang- or drug-related, which means, you know, "it was their own damn fault" that young mom and her baby were executed along with several other family members. I wonder why the media doesn't talk about that kind of mass shooting so much? Is it because they wouldn't have time to tell us about storms headed for the I-95 corridor?

So, that's a wrap on last week; as always, feel free to drop a comment on any of the posts. 

Sunday School 1/22/23

The classrooms were full of talk about documents, even before Mike Pence found some at his house, but I did find some folks discussing the debt ceiling.  

We'll start with Dana Bash and her guests on CNN's State of the Union. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) thinks President Biden shouldn't negotiate with the Republicans. 

...the MAGA Republicans should note one important fact. Almost 25 percent of all of the national debt accumulated over the history of the United States, 230 years, was accumulated during the four years of Donald Trump.

He says they need to accept responsibility for paying for the debt, and they need to understand the consequences of not doing that.

And if we play games with this, if we delay this, if we have short-term extensions of the national debt, we run the very risk of a recession in this economy, millions of Americans out of work and interest rates going even higher, denying people an opportunity to buy a home or a car. And this economy will be stalled. We shouldn't play games with the national debt.

Bash recalled when Senator Biden was "the lead negotiator" on spending cuts in exchange for a debt limit; Durbin thinks it's different now, because of "the Trump years" and the "15 ballots to choose the speaker."

... he gave the authority to each member of the House to initiate a vote of no confidence on a daily basis. I mean, this is a House of Representatives which is under control of the MAGA Republicans at this point. And I'm fearful that very few constructive things will emerge.

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV), who disagrees with Durbin, thinks not negotiating is a "mistake." 

...we should be able to talk and find out where our differences are. And if they are irreconcilable, then you have to move on from there and let the people make their decisions. Using the debt ceiling and holding it hostage hasn't worked in the past, OK? And anyone who wants to look at what happened in 2011 and 2013, then go ahead. It didn't work out well. 

Bash asked who was holding it hostage; sounds like the GOP. He said 60% of retirees in West Virginia are on Social Security and Medicare, and he doesn't like people scaring "the bejesus out of them" by putting cuts on the table. Rather, they need to "set a target" and look for wasteful spending that can be cut. 

Everybody believes -- I mean, my goodness, when you have $31.4 trillion, and we have thrown caution to the wind, and to blame the Republicans, Republicans to blame the Democrats, who's at fault? Everybody's at fault. We don't have a process. I have been there 12 years, no budget.

He thinks that's wrong. After all

...every American has to live within a budget. If they don't, they're in trouble financially. Every business that is successful has to live within a budget. Every state has to live within a budget. Shouldn't the federal government have some guardrails that say, hey, guys, you're getting over -- you're overreaching here and you're overspending? 

He says we have to pick the priorities, including "the security of our country, opportunities for people and taking care of the most vulnerable, and making sure the people that have earned it through basically their Social Security and Medicare are protected."

He doesn't want cuts to benefits; rather, raising the income cap for the FICA tax is "the easiest and quickest thing" they can do. And the last thing we need is a committee to look at this stuff; he agrees with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) on that. 

Can't you look and find out in government where you can be more efficient, more basically prudent with the taxpayers' money and quit wasting it, don't you think? And we all talk about waste, fraud and abuse. That's an easy thing to do. But no one looks at it.

Rep. Mike McCaul (R-TX), who voted to raise the debt ceiling three times since '17, says if they don't do it again, there'd be "catastrophic economic consequences." And, we don't have any time to waste.

The fact is, we should be having these conversations right now. We know that Secretary Yellen is going to put -- she can put this off until June. June's going to be the target month. But the speaker of the House is willing to sit down today with the president of the United States and try to work this out. And I would encourage him to do that.

In the Face the Nation classroom, Margaret Brennan asked Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) if it's a mistake for the White House not to negotiate with the Rs. 

We should have a "clean lift of the debt ceiling," he said, and he doesn't think anyone should "flirt with not paying" our credit card. The Republicans should come out with what they want to cut.

Is it the cutting Social Security and Medicare that Rick Scott wanted to, is it cutting aid to Ukraine in the middle of a war between a democracy and an illegally invading dictator? Let them put on the table what they want to cut so that the American public can see what their priorities are.

Kaine and Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) have sponsored the Protect Our Credit Act; it says

the president has got to cover the debts of the United States. And if that includes raising the debt ceiling, the president can do that. But if Congress disapproves, then you can have an expedited up or down vote in Congress.

It's similar to an Obama-era move by Sen. Mitch McConnell back in the day, Kaine said. Maybe that means it'll get bipartisan support?

See you around campus. 

In Case You Missed it (v109)

I managed to get three posts out last week - here's your recap, in case you missed anything.

For your Sunday School, I hung out in the Fox News Sunday classroom where host Shannon Bream talked with Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV). He talked about his desire to get permitting reform passed; getting that considered was the deal he made for his vote on the Inflation Reduction Act, a deal that strongly perturbed his Republican colleagues. 

Bream was armed with a lot of ammo on that.

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

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

Manchin pointed out that the Rs, with his support, have been fighting for - for years - to get this done. 

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

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

His closing remarks were also spot on; let me know what you think.

Picking up where Manchin left off, for your Extra Credit,  I wandered down the hall to the State of the Union classroom. Jake Tapper talked with two former Tennessee governors, one of each flavor. Phil Bredesen (D) and Bill Haslam (R), are co-hosting a podcast called You Might Be Right.

Tapper delved into the perceived difficulties of trying to have a bipartisan conversation on critical issues in a time of great partisan divide. Here was his first attempt, which Haslam mostly dodged. 

Tapper asked Haslam what he'd say to folks who say it's not possible to find common ground "with people who are literally trying to undermine democracy?"  Tapper was referring to the many Rs, including the top leaders in the House, who push the Big Lie and, "in the view of many critics, don't seem to have a real commitment to democracy."

He asked it again, suggesting "it's difficult to have an argument" about important topics like taxes, foreign policy, abortion and so on "if the other side won't even accept the results of a free and fair election." 

Bredesen took the question this time, pointing out that "if we get stuck on that" there won't be a lot of progress made.

What Bill and I are trying to do is to say, look, there are some issues there that are -- they're very difficult and people are in hard corners, but there's a lot of issues in this country having to do, I mean, with the debt and with the environment and so on, that there are real problems that need solutions. And trying to explore with the public at large, not necessarily with the Congress, but the public at large, as to what some of those common grounds might be, I think, is important.

He also pointed out the difference between two governors talking, and Congress.

I mean, we both were in the business world before politics. We both were mayors and then governors. I mean, those are all jobs where you actually have to do something Monday morning. If there's a problem out there, you're expected to do something to begin to -- begin to solve it. That's just a very different environment than you have in the Congress, for example, where there's very little problem-solving going on, but there's a lot of posturing going on and working to the base. So, I hope that the combination of experiences of the two of us bring something a little different to the discussions as well.

Compare this line of thinking to the utter pettiness of Sen. John Cornyn in the Sunday School recap...  maybe Cornyn and the rest of the folks in DC should tune in to the podcast. 

I did a few good week/bad week mentions for your TGIF post; here are a couple of them.

Speaking of the gaffe master, he might have exceeded our wildest imaginations at a White House hunger conference this week, when he called out for the late Rep. Jackie Walorski, who was killed in a car accident in August. Walorski was a co-chair of the Hunger Caucus, and was one of the folks who introduced the bill that led to the conference. And, of course, the pack of reporters, hungry as always for a sound-bite and air time, undertook "a series of tense exchanges" trying to get an answer as to why Biden, well, pulled a Biden. Is an answer necessary?

Supreme Court Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was formally sworn in this week, and will take her seat on the bench on Monday, at a time when 60% of us believe the Court is "out of touch" and 66% believe there should be term limits for Justices.  Those sentiments aren't indicative of KBJ, of course, but she's coming on the Court at a difficult time, with some tough cases on affirmative action and college admissions, LGBTQ rights, and election issues, among others.

That's a wrap on the week -- I'll be back later, hopefully with a fuller slate of posts and an empty drafts folder. 

Wish me luck. 

Sunday School 9/25/22: Extra Credit

Part of what Sen. Joe Manchin was trying to get across to Fox News Sunday host Shannon Bream in yesterday's Sunday School was that people - and the country - are more important than the politics of the day.  It's a message sure to fall on deaf ears, on both sides of the aisle and across the airways and the interwebs, but he's right.

Down the hall in the CNN State of the Union classroom, Jake Tapper had a conversation with two former governors of Tennessee: Phil Bredesen, a Democrat, and Bill Haslam, a Republican. They host a new podcast, You Might Be Right.

Tapper asked Haslam what he'd say to folks who say it's not possible to find common ground "with people who are literally trying to undermine democracy?"  Tapper was referring to the many Rs, including the top leaders in the House, who push the Big Lie and, "in the view of many critics, don't seem to have a real commitment to democracy."

Haslam dodged the meat of the question, the part about the lack of commitment to democracy, by saying that 

most Americans aren't out there watching -- wondering about this or engaging in an argument this way or another. They're living their lives. But they do want to understand it better. What we're trying to do is take difficult issues, show both sides of the problem, so that people can understand, the other side might have a point.

So, Tapper tried again, suggesting "it's difficult to have an argument" about important topics like taxes, foreign policy, abortion and so on "if the other side won't even accept the results of a free and fair election." 

Bredesen took the question this time, pointing out that "if we get stuck on that" there won't be a lot of progress made.

What Bill and I are trying to do is to say, look, there are some issues there that are -- they're very difficult and people are in hard corners, but there's a lot of issues in this country having to do, I mean, with the debt and with the environment and so on, that there are real problems that need solutions. And trying to explore with the public at large, not necessarily with the Congress, but the public at large, as to what some of those common grounds might be, I think, is important.

And, Bredesen said, when you look at both sides you get to better answers than you do if you "just stick to the catechism of one party or the other..."

Haslam was asked about white evangelicals and what role they play in "both the extremism in the Republican party today and also the potential solutions" he and Bredesen discuss. Tapper asked about this because Haslam's been vocal about "how far off-track the church has gone." Haslam said in his experience in office,

believers act just like everyone else when it comes to the political sphere, instead of being different and saying, one of the reasons that you serve in offices like Phil and I did is to actually solve a problem, to make a difference, to -- it's not about making a point. It's about making a difference. And I'm trying to encourage people of faith to say, how can you actually make a difference? Make a difference means actually trying to solve a problem, instead of just yelling at the other side about how horrible they are.

Bredesen added that their backgrounds help other folks understand the importance of actually solving problems and getting things done.

I mean, we both were in the business world before politics. We both were mayors and then governors. I mean, those are all jobs where you actually have to do something Monday morning. If there's a problem out there, you're expected to do something to begin to -- begin to solve it. That's just a very different environment than you have in the Congress, for example, where there's very little problem-solving going on, but there's a lot of posturing going on and working to the base. So, I hope that the combination of experiences of the two of us bring something a little different to the discussions as well.

Tapper asked Bredesen to talk about the root of the cultural canyon he sees between "the so-called cultural elite and folks who know somebody who drives a Ford F-150."  From Bredesen's perspective,

I think we're living in an America which is obviously divided, although my perception is, it's not as divided as you would think by listening to the Congress or listening -- listening to the media. If I walk into the grocery store and see people, probably, I'm sure, on both sides of a lot of these issues, I mean, they're largely the same -- the same people with the same desires in life and the same intentions as to what they do.

He thinks, more than anything, it's an urban-rural divide, one that "may be inevitable" given how the country has moved away from rural areas into cities. 

But I think it's possible to bring it back together again. We were very divided in the '30s, and World War II fixed it. I'm not suggesting that we want another war or something, but there will be some challenge that comes up to the country at some time that I think will help to pull us back together and find our common roots.

And Haslam noted, "we're pretty evenly divided as a country," noting the 50/50 Senate, a handful of votes separating the House, and the fact that we've not had a president elected by a double-digit margin in years.

But the problem is, we have become kind of segregated by our beliefs. And so we think everybody thinks the way we do, and we can't believe anybody would think differently. Part of what we're doing with this podcast... is modeling former Senator Howard Baker saying "always remember, the other person might be right." And that's what's lost in this -- in the discussions we're having today, is this idea of, the goal is to get to the right answer, not to get to my answer. And so we're trying to take hard topics, present people that have two very different perspectives, and then present some potential solutions.

I'm going to check out the podcast, to see how they approach the topics that wish our politicians would talk about, instead of focusing on getting the perfect soundbite. 

Checking back with Manchin, here's how he ended his chat with Bream.

And I sure do put the country first and America. It's all about America, not about Democrats or Republicans.

Tonight, Manchin pulled his permitting reform bill from the funding plan the Senate is considering. In a statement, he said

It is unfortunate that members of the United States Senate are allowing politics to put the energy security of our nation at risk. The last several months, we have seen firsthand the destruction that is possible as Vladimir Putin continues to weaponize energy. A failed vote on something as critical as comprehensive permitting reform only serves to embolden leaders like Putin who wish to see America fail. For that reason and my firmly held belief that we should never come to the brink of a government shutdown over politics, I have asked Majority Leader Schumer to remove the permitting language from the Continuing Resolution we will vote on this evening.

Over the last several weeks there has been broad consensus on the urgent need to address our nation’s flawed permitting system. I stand ready to work with my colleagues to move forward on this critical legislation to meet the challenges of delivering affordable reliable energy Americans desperately need. We should never depend on other countries to supply the energy we need when we can produce it here at home. Accelerating the construction of energy infrastructure is critical to delivering that energy to the American people and our allies around the world. Inaction is not a strategy for energy independence and security.

Is it critical enough to actually do something? Only time will tell...

See you around campus - and be prepared to discuss issues as if "the other person may be right."

Sunday School 9/25/22

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, it is. 

See you around campus.

In Case You Missed It (v101)

Here's your recap of last week's posts. It seems some of the posts in my head didn't make it to the interwebs; hopefully I can work on that this week, so I can get some sleep.

I started the week Ranting and Raving about our glorified Wild West culture, where in Texas - where else? - a man who was robbed at an ATM shot several rounds, and several more, in the general direction of where the person who robbed may or not have been, he didn't really know. 

It was also in the direction of a family's vehicle, and the nine-year-old little girl inside who died as a result of what people are laughably calling self-defense. The shooter was not charged with a crime, but he "continues to grieve for" the little girl and, according to his attorney, "the grand jury made the right decision and that the person responsible for her death is the robber." 

The murderer, they said, 

did what we believe anyone in that situation would have done. We are relieved that, despite the emotion and tough decisions that had to be made in dealing with this case, justice was served for (the murderer).

I'm sorry, but there is zero justice being served here, 

• Unless you think that an idiot who's so dumb, he'd shoot at a random vehicle in the ATM line deserves justice. 
• Unless you think that an innocent nine-year-old little girl is acceptable collateral damage for a robbery. 
• Unless you think that a person who shoots at a stranger's vehicle in an ATM line is acting in self-defense, when he doesn't even know whether the person who robbed him is in that car, or any other car in the ATM line.

This stuff is just nuts.

Also nuts? Sunday School, although I think it's better now that I focus on a single classroom instead of wandering up and down the halls. Last week's featured classroom was Face the Nation, where Sen. Joe Manchin made an appearance and explained that he hadn't changed his mind on things - he had just opened his eyes, or something. 

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

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

For your Extra Credit, I listened in as my favorite Fed banker, Neel Kashkari, talked economics with John Dickerson. On the question of whether implementing a minimum 15% corporate tax would hurt supplies and increase inflation, Kashkari said we need to focus on the short-term,  

the demand side effects totally swamp the supply side effects. And so, when I look at a bill that's being considered, that your two senators talked about, my guess is over the next couple of years it's not going to have much of an impact on inflation. It's not going to affect how I analyze inflation over the next few years. I think long-term it may have some effect. But, over the near term, we have an acute mismatch between demand and supply. And it's really up to the Federal Reserve to be able to bring that demand down. 

For some reason, whatever I was Wondering on Wednesday didn't make it out of my head. I'm blaming the heat, the humidity, no A/C, and the fact that I don't have a light on my screened porch which means I can't write out there at night.

On Thursday, I threw it back to Sunday School from two years ago that day; Mick Mulvaney, former Trump budget guy, former Trump acting chief of staff, former Trump "dude sent to Ireland to get him out of the way," former Trump supporter, talked with Chuck Todd on MTP about mass shootings; the show was on right after the El Paso and Dayton murders.  

Let's just say they were both, well, they were both their 'best' selves. Here's some of their exchange, talking about Trump and his "dehumanizing rhetoric. Todd asked, "Is he not the president of all Americans here? It does seem as if he's always more worried about how his base is going to react to something than how the American, you know, moral fabric is protected?

He absolutely is the president of all Americans, alright...Listen, we're going to have policy discussions, but my guess is, you show me how you feel about the president, and I'll show you who you think was responsible for the shooting. 

Todd did not drop it there, adding "well, unfortunately, it does appear this was a political motive of this domestic terrorist." And here was Mulvaney's final thought.

This was a political motive by a crazy person with a gun. How do we stop crazy people from getting guns? That's a - -if we can't agree on that, if we can't figure out a way to prevent that from happening, there's very little hope for this nation. Let's try and fix what allows sick people to get these types of weapons.

Here we are, two years later, with the same arguments and the same lack of 'real' action, and, to a large degree, the same "very little hope for this nation." Mulvaney's words, remember - not mine. 

Finally, I attempted the good week/bad week stuff in TGIF. There was lots going on, but much of the post dealt with the Senate and their efforts - partisan and bipartisan - to get things accomplished. There was the Inflation Reduction Act, and the PACT Act, and more.

Speaking of the PACT Act, here's an excerpt from a WaPo editorial congratulating those who fought for the bill's passage, and blasting the Rs delaying the bill "at the last minute...and used to score political points..."

The objections hinged on a technicality: Sen. Patrick J. Toomey (R-Pa.) had raised concerns about reclassifying existing toxic-exposure benefits from discretionary spending to mandatory. He argued that this move could free up space in the discretionary budget for legislators to spend on other programs.

Officials, including Veterans Affairs Secretary Denis McDonough, warned that keeping those benefits in the discretionary budget could force the agency to “ration” care, and pointed out that the measure had bipartisan support in June. That did not stop Republican lawmakers from characterizing the bill as an insidious attempt by Democrats to spend hundreds of billions on unrelated causes.

As I get ready to post this, they're still at it in the Senate; the Rs are still fighting, but the Dems are holding strong. We'll see how long it takes for the 'vote-a-rama' to end.

See you later for Sunday School, if not sooner. 

Sunday School 7/31/22

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And, Dickerson pressed yet another GOP argument.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To which Dickerson responded,

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

See you around campus.