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 3/24/24

For this week's Sunday School, we've got Jon Karl and Sen. Marco Rubio (R- The 'Normal' Florida Man) in the This Week classroom. Here are highlights of their conversation, starting with the Israel-Hamas war.

Rubio says he continues to "do everything" he can to keep US support for Israel from becoming a partisan issue; he does that by suggesting President Biden's foreign policy decisions are colored by his worrying "about losing Minnesota and Michigan," and the pressure "from the pro-Hamas wing" of the party.

I think he's trying to have it both ways, still stick with Israel to some extent, but also do things that signal to these people and try to appease them... 

He disagrees with Trump's statement that "Any Jewish person that votes for Democrats hates their religion. They hate everything about Israel, and they should be ashamed of themselves because Israel will be destroyed."  He tried to talk his way through all of the ways someone can think about Israel, Netanyahu, and being Jewish, but it didn't really work. In the end, he said this is "an existential battle," and that "anyone who doesn't understand that is, frankly, whether they know it or not, an enemy of Israel." 

Next topic? The vice-presidency. Rubio says anyone in public service "should be honored by the opportunity" to be the VP, and he made it clear he's not talked with Trump, anybody on his team, any family members, or anyone in his inner circle, and that Trump "has plenty of really good people to pick from."

Karl said he asked because well, you know, the "hang Mike Pence" stuff. Rubio's response?

I will tell you this, that when Donald Trump was president of the United States, this country was safer. It was more prosperous. We had -- we had relations, for example, in a part of the world that I care about called the Western Hemisphere that we’re very strong, we had a lot of good things done there.

This has nothing to do with hanging Mike Pence, of course, but he also said it was a better place when Trump was president, and

I would love to see him return to the White House compared to the guy who's there now, Joe Biden, who’s been a disaster economically. Look at the world, every single day we wake up to a new crisis, to a new conflict. Everything has gone on fire since the time Joe Biden took over.

"Everything" being Afghanistan, Ukraine, the Philippines, China, Taiwan, Haiti, "we wake up every single day, terrorist attacks, 9 million people across the border." Karl was incredulous, but Rubio was adamant that it's all Joe Biden's fault, one way or another. 

And when Karl played the classic 2016 clip of Rubio calling Trump "a con artist... he runs on this idea that he is fighting for the little guy, but he has spent his entire career sticking it to the little guy... friends do not let friends vote for con artists," what was the response?

Yes, but so – so why didn't you play the clip of Kamala Harris basically insinuating that Joe Biden was a segregationist on the debate stage and she’s now his vice president?

Because Karl is interviewing Rubio not Harris, maybe?

Karl switched gears to the immunity issue and asked, "You don't agree with that, do you," referring to the "absolute immunity" claim that the Trump team claims.

Well, I don't – so, I don’t think that – on the case of immunity, there's two separate issues here. One is, can the president do anything? Can he go out and basically, you know, kill one of the members of the staff overnight inside the White House? Obviously, that's an absurd outcome and that's a common crime.

That's an argument Trump's attorneys seem to think is fine - that Trump could have SEAL Team 6 take out a political rival. Rubio then wondered about a "legitimate issue" we have to talk about,

especially after what we've seen the last three years and is, do we want to live in a country where basically the opponents of a president can – can – can extort them, can have leverage over them during their entire presidency and say, don’t worry, once you're out of office, we're going to prosecute you, we’re going to come after, we’re going to charge you for this crime, we’re going to charge you for that crime.

He said "we're living in a country now" where a president would have to think about having to be careful about what they do because if they upset someone, they'll get charged with a crime after they leave office. And that everything's a political prosecution and no one else has been treated this way before. 

Of course, we've never had quite this good a con artist in office before, but that's lost on Rubio, it seems. 

Finally, he doesn't think the folks who attacked the Capitol on January 6th are "absolute patriots like Trump says and should be pardoned, " but he sees a difference between the zip-tie guys and the people "who walked in through an open door," and that only the violent people should have been prosecuted. 

... there are people that have been charged, in some cases egregiously charged, for simply walking in. Not – they didn't attack anybody. 

And, by the way, "Why didn't they do that for the people who set all the fires in Portland?" 

And with that, this veep interview was over.

Quick Takes (v72): The Three Cs

He's important, he's influential, and he'd never been in a Sunday School classroom until his taped interview with Jon Karl aired on This Week. 

'He' is Charlamagne tha God; it was in his interview in 2020 that brought us this comment from then-candidate Joe Biden: 

Well, I tell you what, if you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t black.

Karl started with a quote from his guest, who said the 2024 campaign is "a race between the cowards, the crooks, and the couch." Here's how he defines those three Cs.

...the crooks are the Republicans. The cowards are the Democrats, because they don't fight hard enough on anything. And, you know, the couch is voter apathy. And, you know, that's -- that's who everybody is up against in 2024. 

He doesn't know if anyone benefits from the couch winning, but that's what it feels like will happen; even his audience isn't energetic. He said "nobody wants to see the rematch" between Biden and Trump, and that's why he feels the couch will win.

He also said it's "mind-boggling" to him that people aren't even taking January 6th seriously. He said, "Everybody's acting like it was just a bunch of people, you know, wilding at spring break, you know, down in Florida." 

Karl pointed out that President Biden talks about that all the time, and wondered why it isn't resonating. Charlamagne was blunt: "... there's nothing about...Joe Biden that makes you want to listen to him." He said Biden needs to be leaning on others, like Vice President Kamala Harris ("way more charismatic than him"), California's Gavin Newsom, and Pennsylvania's Josh Shapiro.

And he should just be, I guess, if you want to call it the brains of the operation behind the scenes... Like, that sounds crazy that we're saying that about a president of the United States of America, but he, he has no 'main character energy' at all. None.

And when he compares Biden to Trump, who's nearly as old, the latter seems "a lot more youthful...  like he has a lot more energy."

And I always say this about him: Donald Trump seems more sincere about his lies than Joe Biden does about his truth.

Ouch. If you're part of the Biden campaign, you've got a tough row to hoe with that, I think.

Charlamagne endorsed the Biden/Harris ticket in 2020, mostly because of Harris, and Karl asked if she had met expectations. Another blunt response: she hasn't - but he doesn't think "it's too late for her to pivot." Her problem is that the VP is supposed to speak on behalf of the president, that's it.

But I think, man, we're in a new, a new era, right? Like, like for new jack problems, we need new jack solutions. And she serves a unique purpose, right? Because she is the first woman of color in that position.

Thinking about then-Senator Harris 'prosecuting' witnesses in hearings, Charlamagne said

I want to see her prosecute the case against Donald Trump in this country. I feel like she could go out there and really let the American people, you know, know what's going on. I'd like to see her going on outlets like Fox News. I'd like to see her going in there and mixing it up.

Does he hear from the administration when he's critical of Biden? That's a yes, and he thinks "that's the stupidest (EXPLETIVE DELETED) ever," because he thinks we all should be able to criticize elected officials, especially given what we're up against.  

So what I'm saying to them is, where is the sense of urgency? You can't keep saying that there's a threat to democracy, and democracy as we know it is going to be, be gone, but not act like it.

He also has a problem with the Dems "demonizing" their opponent, saying "Since I've been alive, whoever the Republican presidential candidate has been, they've demonized." 

And now that there's an actual legitimate threat right there in our faces, they're like, they're like the party who cried wolf. Nobody believes them.

He says it's "scary" that he doesn't know who will win. With the insurrection, and Roe being overturned, when you look at it, "it really shouldn't be close, right?" But the polls say Biden would lose to Trump in the general election.

That's where these conversations are coming from, where they're like, you, you might need to step aside and put somebody else in there. Because you know, my fear is that the election is going to be close, right?

He's not going to endorse anyone, Charlamagne said, but he will tell his listeners what he's seeing including this:

For years, they've told us that, you know, these people are threats to democracy. This person is absolutely a threat to democracy.

He'll continue to "speak the truth" about Dems, too. If he lies about Biden, why should anyone believe him when he tells the truth about Trump? He added

... I hate to say this, but why do we keep having to say this: pick your poison. One poison might send you to the hospital for a couple of days. Other ones will absolutely kill you. 

I don't take issue with what Charlamagne said, just as I didn't with what Jon Stewart said. I'd love to hear what you think - drop a comment, if you like.

Sunday School 2/18/24

I visited three classrooms Sunday to hear what the Democrats were saying, starting with the This Week classroom, where Jon Karl talked with Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro. 

Karl asked, "What worries you about... a Biden-Trump rematch?" In part, the gov said

this election really is about all of us and whether or not we’re going to rise up and use our voices and ultimately our vote to protect our fundamental freedoms, to scream out for the kind of country that we want, to protect this 247-year experience that began right here... 

Regarding the tight polls in PA, Shapiro correctly noted that the campaign hasn't really started yet, and polls have frequently been wrong in his state. Echoing Jon Stewart, he added

And I would say to folks who are worried about the numbers, stop worrying and start working. 

He gave several examples of how Pennsylvanians "voted for freedom and against extremism," over the past few years, and promised that he'd "do everything in my political power" to make the case against Trump and for Biden.  

Karl mentioned Ezra Klein commenting in the NY Times that Biden should bow out of the race and let the delegates choose the nominee. 

I think Biden, as painful as this is, should find a way (of) stepping down as a hero, that the party should help him find his way to do that, to being the thing he said he would be in 2020, a bridge to the next generation of Democrats... Retirement can be, often is, a trauma. But losing to Donald Trump would be far worse."

Shapiro agrees with Klein that "the stakes could not be higher," but said Biden'll be the guy, and he'll have Shapiro's support.

...we’ve got to go out and make that case. The president, the vice president and those of us who are privileged who support him and have a front-row seat to this, we've got to go out and do this important work now.  

He said we all are "going to have to stand up and be counted" on whether America will continue "to be a voice of freedom and democracy..." and he's confident voters,

 ...just as they did in 2020, they will rise up; they will demand more; they will seek justice; and they will look to defend freedom in this nation, and they will reject Donald Trump.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) was in the Meet the Press classroom with Kristen Welker, who asked if the Senate Intelligence Committee was going to call Robert Hur to testify. Klobuchar suggested in the upper chamber, they have "many other things" they need to do, legislating tech and dealing with fentanyl among them. 

She also said it would be "up to the president and his lawyers," to address Hur's comments about Biden, but said she's been with him, talking about both domestic and international issues, and she said "he was focused. His recall was good." Her colleagues have said had similar experiences, she said.

...I think that we've got to evaluate what's happening right now by, one, what he has done... and focus on what matters to the American people and compare what he is doing to what we've got as the alternative on the Republican side, which is Donald Trump who is nothing but standing up week by week for chaos.

Welker mentioned growing chatter from Dems about Biden's ability to win a second term, and like Karl, she picked something from Klein's column.

He is not up for this. He is not the campaigner he was even five years ago. The way he moves, the energy in his voice. The Democrats denying decline are only fooling themselves.

Klobuchar disagreed; she listed several Dem wins, none of which really rebutted Klein's point. And, she added,

Time and time again the American people have stood with the policies and the work of Joe Biden because they do not want to go back to the chaos and madness of Donald Trump.

Welker said that "the vast majority of Americans say they are not feeling it" on Biden's handling of the economy, and asked whether it was time for Biden to hang it up. 

Again, I'm a believer in President Biden because I believe he is a good moral person that has the backs of the people of this country... I am proud to be supporting Joe Biden for president.

Welker pushed back about voters not feeling it, and after listing more policy wins, Klobuchar said

He is not running, as the president has said, against the almighty. He is running against Donald Trump. And time and time again, the voters have made clear where they stand on Donald Trump.

Given the choice, moderates and independent voters will go for "someone who believes in democracy" and fights against the Putins of the world, 

as opposed to Donald Trump, who literally a week ago said that Vladimir Putin should be able to do whatever the hell he wants... 

My last stop? The Face the Nation classroom where Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-SC) spoke with Robert Costa. Noting the Congressman was "optimistic" about Biden's re-election campaign, Costa asked, "What keeps you up at night, politically? "

Clyburn said "the misinformation efforts that are underway throughout this campaign" keep him "wide awake."

I've heard so much from people sharing with me things that just aren't true. So much from people who seem to feel that everything they see or hear via the internet has some substance to them. And so that's the thing that keeps me up, whether or not we're going to have a campaign for the presidency free of all of these interruptions and all of the misinformation.

When prompted, he mentioned the AI robocalls in New Hampshire and said similar shenanigans are happening in his state; for example, Dems are being invited to participate in the GOP primary, and folks "saying things over the air that just aren't true." 

Costa switched gears, asking if the administration's support of Israel's war with Hamas could dampen turnout "among young voters and others," Clyburn expressed concern about Israel/Hamas, and Russia/Ukraine, too. People are looking for someone

who can lead us through this stuff. And nobody is better equipped to do that than Joe Biden. He – has the experience. He has the wisdom. He has the demeanor. He has the relationships. He has what it takes to get this country to where it needs to be and to maintain the relationships we need to have with our allies around the world. That you're not going to find on the other side of the aisle.

He's shared his personal thoughts about Netanyahu with Biden, he said, and interestingly, I thought, Clyburn added that while Biden doesn't share all his thoughts publicly

...I know this, he feels about the way I feel when it comes to Netanyahu... his leadership has not been good for Israel. We stand firmly with the people of Israel. But I've always had a real problem with Netanyahu, and that continues to be today.

Costa, the former newspaper guy, did something remarkable - he asked a follow-up question! Two of them!

Costa: You say you have a problem with Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, and you say you've spoken to the president privately about this. Does he have a problem with Netanyahu?

Clyburn: I've shared with the president what my feelings are about Netanyahu. He is going to develop his own feelings about that. He hasn't told me exactly what –

Costa: But does he agree or disagree with your assessment, Congressman?

Clyburn: Well, he's accepted my assessment. I have not asked him whether or not he agreed with me. In fact, I just let him know, 'This is the way I feel. I'm not running the country. You do what you feel is in the best interest of the country.'

Last two questions. First, in 2020, Biden pledged to nominate a Black woman to the Supreme Court; he got Clyburn's endorsement in return. Is there a pledge this time around, too?

He should continue to manage the country the way he's managing it... I would say to him, keep doing what you're doing.

And finally, 83-year-old Clyburn is running for re-election in November. Costa wondered how 81-year-old Biden should handle the age question as the campaign progresses. The answer? talk about his experience and wisdom, and maintain connections with people.

Clyburn's going to be visiting New York, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Georgia, he said, 

carrying the president's message of experience, of a steady hand, of maintaining our trek toward a more perfect union, doing the things that are necessary to maintain our relationships around the world and move this country forward on behalf of all.

He closed by telling Costa he's "fond of saying, this is a great country, in no need of being made great. We've just got to figure out ways to make this country's greatness accessible and affordable for all of our citizens. And Joe Biden is doing that. And we have got to stay focused on that."

Out of the mouths of octogenarians, or something.  

See you around campus. 

Sunday School 2/11/24

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Karl was incredulous, but Netanyahu said it was true.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See you around campus.

Sunday School 11/27/22

Back at it after a longer-than anticipated writing break. I hope all who celebrated the American Thanksgiving holiday did so with an appropriate balance of moderation and exuberance. 

For this week's Sunday School, I meander through the panel discussions, starting off in CNN's SOTU classroom, where Dana Bash hosted Hillary Rosen, Ashley Allison, and Kristen Soltis Anderson, all tied to the network in some capacity, and former Pence chief of staff Marc Short. Here are some highlights:

• Soltis Anderson, on turnout in the Georgia runoff: she thinks the drop-off here will be greater than the 10% turnout drop-off from the '20 general election to '22, and that "it's going to be a harder lift to get them back out to the polls." 

• Rosen, on the midterm election: losing the House is "nothing to celebrate. We're still going to have really horrible committee chairmen taking on issues that the American public do not care about. We're going to have divided, ugly government for the next two years." She thinks the Rs "depended too much on kind of the culture wars." Ultimately, she thinks all of them failed all of us "a little bit on the economic discussion."

• Short, on Trump and that dinner with Ye and Nick Fuentes: "it's incredibly poor judgment... ever since the election in 2020, I think the (former) president's descended deeper into heart of darkness here." He thinks that's why the Rs "are looking in a different direction" for '24. 

• Allison, on 2024: "Donald Trump is homophobic. He is an anti-Semite. He does racist things. And if he's the candidate for 2024, I think it will just not be bad for Republicans. I think it will be bad for our country" because of the polarization and "this heightened tension of hate and violence in our country that we - people are sick of."

Next up, we've got the gang at MTP. What's-his-name had Susan Page (USA Today), Reid Wilson (Pluribus News), Matt Gorman (GOP consultant) and María Teresa Kumar (Voto Latino), and they talked about Rep. Kevin McCarthy, the man who will most likely be the next Speaker of the House. Here's how the panelists looked at things, building off an interview with Rep. Jim Comer (R-KY).

• Page, on McCarthy's chances: Comer made it clear McCarthy doesn't have the votes now, and she said "that doesn't mean he won't get them, but if he gets them, he'll get them by making concessions that he will have to live with for the next two years."

• Wilson, on the Freedom Caucus: they're looking to the future, he said. McCarthy "has within reach the goal he has chased for his entire career, and yet it could be so short-lived. If he's not in service to the Freedom Caucus or in an election if the House Republicans become Joe Biden's bad buy, then you know, this could be an extremely short-lived majority." (Here's how the Freedom Caucus handled the Speaker election in 2015.)

• Gorman, on the new Republicans from Biden-supporting districts: he thinks they're going to provide a check on the far-right members. On things like Congressional oversight, he said they're taking a position of "Wait a minute. We are going to DC to do other things, not just investigate full time." He also suggested that looking into the origins of COVID might rally both the newbies and the right-wingers, if they take a "Look how do we prevent another global pandemic" and, when it comes to China, "what are they covering up?"

• Kumar, on the bigger picture: this is all about being a 'politician,' "trying to figure out, who is, what are the concessions that we can get in trading whatever you want for speakership?" And, she said, with the Rs in charge, there'll be lots of investigations, "but it's all machinations behind the curtain... How do we control the ways and means? How do we actually control the mechanics of legislation?" These are things most Americans don't understand, she said, but there'll be long-term effects "we will feel later."

And finally, a quick stop with Jon Karl and his panel on This Week: Ramesh Ponnuru (National Review and Bloomberg), ABC contributor former Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-SD), Mary Bruce (ABC News), and Rachel Bade (Politico). Much of the conversation was about the Rs and the orange elephant outside the room, desperately trying to get back in. 

• Ponnuru on Trump's announcement: he thinks Trump still has strong support with the base, but maybe not a majority of support, and the launch of his '24 campaign was "lackluster." He noted Trump attacked his magazine, the National Review, and in response, people started sending donating to it, not the kind of reaction Trump expected.

• Heitkamp on the lack of GOP support: she figures Trump is pretty unhappy with the lack of support, and the pointed comments from Rs in Vegas. "Can you imagine how angry he is right now, with all these people on the stage... basically saying, move over?" As the self-described deal maker, he's getting nothing, and he's calling everyone to stand with him, to no avail - or worse. 

• Bade, on scaredy-cat critics: that they won't even say his name when criticizing him "is really telling... still clearly afraid of Trump." And, she thinks, that could lead to a repeat of '16, when everyone thought he was weak and they all joined the fray. If that happens in '24? "Trump still has his core base and he could very easily, you know, run away with this nomination... So yes, it's tough."

• Heitkamp on whether Dems should be rooting for Trump: similar to how the Ds went "all in on more conservative, more Trump candidates," there's some of that now. "Trump is the candidate that keeps losing. If you are going to pick someone to run against, why wouldn't you pick Donald Trump? He's the gift that keeps on giving to Democrats."

See you around campus. And feel free to chime in on McCarthy, Trump, Georgia, or anything else; the comment box is always open.