In Case You Missed It (v121)

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

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

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

Karl was incredulous, but Netanyahu said it was true.

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

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

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

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

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

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

That got me thinking... 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 The rest of that comment is important, too. 

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

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

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

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

Sidebar: TGIF 2/16/24

In yesterday's TGIF, I put Jon Stewart on my good week list; here's what I said.

Jon Stewart returned to the host's chair on Comedy Central's The Daily Show, and I thought he did fine. Of course, I'm not afraid of pointing out shortcomings on the Dem side of the aisle, just as I'm not afraid of pointing them out on the aisle's other side.

While I thought his monologue was entertaining, it didn't pull any punches. 

• He talked about Biden not being able to remember things in his deposition and he showed a clip of not one, but four people named Trump not being able to recall things in their depositions;
• he blasted Biden's handlers, who aren't keeping a good handle on him, allowing him to make bad decisions, and bad appearances, like going on TikTok instead of doing the traditional Super Bowl Sunday presidential interview;
• he mocked just one of Trump's absurd statements - that Pennsylvania would change its name if he didn't win the election;
• he said Trump and Biden are "similarly challenged" age-wise, and gaffe-wise and
• he lamented that the strong, focused, on-his-game Biden that all of his staffers, appointees, and friends see is never filmed.

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

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

Mary Trump, and the many others who jumped all over Stewart for "both-side-ism," missed the real point of his monologue. I added emphasis for her, and them.

We are not suggesting neither man is vibrant, productive, or even capable - but they are both stretching the limits of being able to handle the toughest job in the world. What's crazy is thinking that we're the ones, as voters, who must silence concerns and criticisms. It is the candidates' job to assuage concerns, not the voters' job not to mention them.

Stewart goes out of his way to say Biden isn't Trump, and lists the many ways they are not the same, and then says

But the stakes of this election don't make Donald Trump's opponent less subject to scrutiny - it actually makes him more subject to scrutiny. And if the barbarians are at the gate, you want Conan standing on the ramparts, not "chocolate chip cookie man."

The 'chocolate cookie man' comment is not a slap at Biden per se; it's a slap at the people who kept him away from - or didn't get him into - the Super Bowl Sunday interview and instead posted a bad TikTok video. Those folks, he said, deserve to be fired. 

Stewart told us that "The next nine months or so, depending on the coup schedule - they're gonna suck." We're going to be bombarded with emails, phone calls, and more,

and it's all going to make you feel like Tuesday, November 5th is the only day that matters. And that day does matter, but man, November 6th ain't nothing to sneeze at, or November 7th. If your guy loses, bad things might happen but the country is not over, and if your guy wins, the country is in no way saved.

He continued, after admitting that the old Jon Stewart was "too glib" and "too dismissive" of the fact that

... the work of making this world resemble one that you would prefer to live in is a lunchpail fucking job day in and day out where thousands of committed anonymous smart and dedicated people bang on closed doors and pick up those that are fallen and grind away on issues until they get a positive result and even then, have to stay on to make sure that result holds. 

So, the good news is, I'm not saying you don't have to worry about who wins the election - I'm saying you have to worry about it every day before it and every day after it. For ever. Although on the plus side, I'm told that at some point, the sun will run out of hydrogen.

If Mary Trump and all the others who jumped all over Stewart had paid attention to his full monologue, they'd understand that he's not "a danger to democracy," he's promoting participation in our democracy, and he's promoting accountability on the part of people who put these candidates before us. 

Is he wrong? 

TGIF 2/16/24

What a busy few days we've had! Here are my good week and bad week lists. 

Jon Stewart returned to the host's chair on Comedy Central's The Daily Show, and I thought he did fine. Of course, I'm not afraid of pointing out shortcomings on the Dem side of the aisle, just as I'm not afraid of pointing them out on the aisle's other side.

House Speaker Mike Johnson may think he had a good week, but I beg to differ. First, there was the declaration that the Senate's tripartisan border bill would be DOA in the House; then, the House impeached Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas in a purely partisan effort (even though he pretended that wasn't the case). And then? Tom Suozzi, a Democrat, won the special election for the NY-3 seat previously held by serial liar George Santos.

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

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

You can try to put lipstick on this pig, but it's still a pig. And this is a terrible impeachment. It sets a terrible precedent. The first impeachment of Donald Trump was a bad impeachment. And we've got to stop this in this body, or we are going to - further lose our credibility with the American public. 

And, sticking with the bad impeachment theme, Rep. James Comer, chair of the House Intelligence Committee, saw another of his key Biden investigation witnesses get in trouble. This time, it was Alexander Smirnov, who was charged with lying to the FBI about Joe and Hunter Biden each being paid $5M by Burisma executives in 2015 or 2016.  

Last time, it was Gal Luft, head of a think tank, who alleged that the Bidens received payments from the Chinese, and that Hunter had a mole in the FBI. Luft is a wanted fugitive, indicted for arms trafficking, being an unregistered foreign agent, and other charges.

Sir Paul McCartney's week ended on a high note: his missing bass has been found. It was stolen in 1972 from a roadie's van. According to the folks responsible for tracking it down, it'll need some work before it can be played again. You can read more about the instrument, the search, and how it was found at The Lost Bass Project. 

And finally, Donald Trump was handed another nine-figure penalty by a judge, and NY AG Letitia James attempted to be funny with a Valentine's Day poem that was neither particularly funny, nor particularly poetic. And yes, I know most folks will say James had a good week, but we'll see what happens on appeal.

Who made your lists this week?

Sunday School 8/7/22

Here's your recap from the Meet the Press classroom this morning, starting with what's-his-name's conversation with Stacy Abrams, the Democrat running to unseat Gov. Brian Kemp in Georgia. 

He asked her to explain her stance on abortion (below) and how she'd legislate around it.

My intention is going to be to pass legislation that says a woman has the right to an abortion, and that right continues until a physician determines the fetus is viable outside of the body, except in the case of protecting the woman's life or health.

She said you don't apply "arbitrary gestational limits."  It's a medical decision, she said.

And when we give it back to doctors, when we tell women and their doctors to make these choices, what we are saying is we respect the responsibility that women have and the obligation that doctors have...we should not be setting into law these moving targets that do not reflect the reality that women face when they're sitting in that doctor's office.

What's-his-name said someone on the right would say her position would "essentially" allow abortion throughout the pregnancy; he asked if she'd want to "put guard rails on that." Abrams explained that late-term abortion decisions are incredibly difficult, and that "there is no woman who at eight months has not cherished the notion of this pregnancy."

... to put an arbitrary date in a law devalues the pain and the tragedy of that moment. A doctor is not going to take an action that is not medically required... I understand that there are those who would feel better if we plucked a date out of the air. But we know that that is not scientifically supportable. 

She also said you can't put every exception into a law, and pointed out that in Georgia,

where we have 82 counties without an OB/GYN, 64 counties without a surgeon, 18 counties without a family doctor, and nine without a doctor at all, setting arbitrary limits that are not grounded in the reality of what women face is deeply problematic and ultimately cruel.

He next asked if she was willing to compromise with a Republican legislature. Sadly, that insulting question is relevant, given so many progressives can seem to be unwilling to take a win. 

As someone who served in the legislature for 11 years and was lauded by both parties for my ability to navigate, I will certainly get the best law we can. But we begin making decisions based on what it should be. And then yes, of course, you work towards what you can get. But we have to start with a governor who actually believes that a woman should have the right to control her body and to control her economic freedom.

Turning from domestic politics to foreign policy, Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-DE), who sits on the Foreign Relations Committee, was up next. He was asked if Speaker Pelosi's stop in Taiwan "was worth it, given the fallout?" Van Hollen thinks so; he said "we need to be very clear that China doesn't get to dictate" which US officials go to Taiwan, and when. He added

...what President Xi decided to do was manufacture a crisis over Pelosi's visit. He's got, as you know, this fall, the Communist Party Congress is coming up. He's seeking an unprecedented third term as leader of China. And this is saber-rattling and, you know, chest-bumping by President Xi.

And what does he want to see the US do, "...to reassure the Vietnams, the Japans, the Philippines, who are nervous about what China's doing here, they're nervous about if we're going to have Taiwan's back, do we have to send a message again that we're going to have their back?"

The senator thinks the administration "has been clear" that we'll recognize the One China Policy, but that we've also made it clear we'll "oppose any effort to reunify Taiwan by force or violence," and we've told our allies that as well. He thinks China's "putting missiles into Japan's economic zone, exclusive economic zone, is going to backfire." Japan will probably increase defense spending, and seek "even closer military engagement and cooperation" with the US. 

He also said he doesn't think China making "a run at Taiwan in the next five years" is inevitable. He said we have to "help Taiwan make that as difficult as possible."

We need to continue... to make Taiwan into the porcupine so that when, you know, China looks at Taiwan, it realizes that this is going to be a hell of a fight and not a winnable fight.

He suggested that if China looks at Putin's efforts in Ukraine, they'll see "how a determined people can thwart someone" like Vladimir Putin.

What's-his-name noted that we've long tried to not talk about the US/China relationship in "adversarial terms" and asked, "how do we look at" Xi's response to Pelosi's visit and "not say we're in a cold war with China?"

Van Hollen said he doesn't think we're in a cold war with them; he said "a lot of that depended on what China does next." Xi's escalated actions against Taiwan pre-date Pelosi's visit, and he's "been more aggressive throughout the region." 

At the same time, we have been trying to cooperate with them on these other measures, as you say. I believe they'll be back at the table on those measures. It is important that we have that military-to-military dialogue. But it is important that we also confront and check China, where it's tried to export its model of authoritarianism around the world in Africa, and the Middle East and other places.

Finally, there was a discussion with the panel on Biden's "good news" of late. What's-his-name wondered who gets the credit - Biden? Schumer? Pelosi? 

Anna Palmer (Punchbowl News) says not Biden; he wasn't involved in everything that's been accomplished. Instead, she says Schumer

... kind of been an untested leader and he has gotten a lot of things done here. Everybody would have thought that this was going to be a much smaller package when it came to this reconciliation bill. They come together with this kind of sneak attack, outwits McConnell. And they get this much larger package through, giving Democrats something to run on.

Susan Page (USA Today), said traditionally approval ratings matter a lot, especially when they're bad. 

But you have this unprecedented situation where you've got two presidents who are big factors in this midterm...maybe Donald Trump is more of a negative for Republicans, more of a positive for Democrats, than Joe Biden is for either one.

Cornell Belcher (a Dem pollster) thought that was smart thinking, but Pat McCrory (former NC gov) says Jon Stewart deserves the credit. The lesson for both sides?

...don't pick a fight with a comedian like Jon Stewart or Bill Maher or David Chappelle. They will win. They are quicker than us politicians. And I think right now the only guy on the offensive was the governor of Florida, DeSantis. And yet Trump will not let him share any spotlight.

Nope - he surely won't. 

See you around campus.

TGIF 8/5/22

Let's see if we can find some good week/bad week list makers, shall we?

Trump-endorsed, Big Lie supporting Kari Lake has won the Arizona GOP gubernatorial primary. As did Trump, Lake "on various occasions during the campaign... has hinted at supposed attempts to steal the primary election, but she has refused to provide any evidence to support her claims."  Sound familiar? 

We'll have to wait a bit, probably not long, to see if she'll declare the general election is rigged, too. Her Democratic opponent? Katie Hobbs, the woman who certified Arizona's 2020 vote, something Lake thinks is worthy of incarceration.

My verdict? Lake had a good week; Arizona had a bad week. 

How about Ted Cruz? First,  he got hammered over his 'no' vote on the PACT Act by Jon Stewart; and then, there was this nonsense for FBI Director Christopher Wray. Cruz, you see, "slammed his boot on the table in opposition to FBI guidelines on symbols that indicate extremist groups." Here's what he said to Wray.

Also included on this text that I was particularly struck(by) is the Gonzales Battle Flag – Come and take it – as indicative of being a violent extremist militia. Well, I will self-report right now that every day in the Senate, I wear my boots that have the Gonzales battle flag on the back of them. Director Wray, what are y'all doing? This makes no sense. Do you agree with this FBI guidance? That the Betsy Ross flag, and the Gadsden flag and the Gonzales Battle Flag, are signs of militia violent extremism.

What's this all about, you ask? A document was leaked to Project Veritas by an FBI 'whistleblower. Cruz's outrage is laughable; after all, the leaked document states, in bold font, 

The use or sharing of these symbols alone should not independently be considered evidence of Militia Violent Extremists presence or affiliation, or serve as an indicator of illegal activity, as many individuals use these symbols for their original, historic meaning, or other non-violent purposes.

I'm not sure why Cruz has the Gonzales Battle Flag on his boots; I'd guess it's probably 50/50 original meaning/militia violent extremist; or, maybe it's just because the boots slam better when they're embellished.

My verdict: Cruz is a self-serving jerk and it's against my religion to give him good week. 

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.

In the end, only 11 Rs voted against it - fewer than the original nays - and Toomey's amendment failed. 

My verdict: supporters (including Stewart) who fought for the bill, online or while camped out on the Capitol steps, had a good week; the GOP senators who changed their votes in July and delayed the bill, only to pass it anyway? A bad week, all around. 

The jury deciding the fate of Nicholas Cruz, who killed 17 and 17 others at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, visited the high school and walked through the crime scene. I can't imagine what that must have been like, but the author of the linked article captured it well, I think, in these thoughtfully written passages.

In one classroom,

... students had written papers about Malala Yousafzai, the Pakistani teenager who was shot by the Taliban for going to school and has since been a global advocate for educational access for women and girls. 

One of the students wrote: "A bullet went straight to her head but not her brain." Another read, "We go to school every day of the week and we take it all for granted. We cry and complain without knowing how lucky we are to be able to learn." 

In another? 

... Hanging on a wall inside was a sign reading, "No Bully Zone." The creative writing assignment for the day was written on the whiteboard: "How to write the perfect love letter." 

And, there was this. 

...still gracing the wall of a second-floor hallway was a quote from James Dean: "Dream as if you'll live forever, live as if you'll die today."

My verdict: what a gut-wrenching experience that must have been for the jurors; I give all 22 of them a lot of credit, and my thanks for their service.

There was another trial going on this week, in Texas, where a jury awarded the family of Jesse Lewis, a six-year-old Sandy Hook Elementary shooting victim, $4.11M in compensatory damages. The money is to be paid by right-wing media blowhard Alex Jones of Infowars fame, who spent years saying the shooting was a "false flag operation," the families were "crisis actors," and the children weren't dead. 

My verdict: without sharing all the gory details on why (you can find them here), Judge Maya Guerra Gamble had a good week. Jones had a bad week, obviously. His attorney, who (ahem) 'mistakenly' sent the plaintiff's attorney two years of Jones' texts had a bad week, (unless he did it on purpose). That the January 6th Committee has requested Jones' texts, and the plaintiff's attorney is cooperating, might just be icing on the cake. 

NOTE: the jury has just awarded $45.2M in punitive damages. 

And finally, I must mention Sen. Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand, my two senators. Gillibrand was one of the senators who introduced a bill to get health care for veterans who were exposed to toxic burn pits; provisions from the original bill were incorporated into the PACT Act.

While she was busy doing that, Schumer was busy working with Sen. Joe Manchin; the two struck a deal on the Inflation Reduction Act, which should come up for vote tomorrow. That's only possible because, after he got Manchin on board, Schumer worked to get Sen. Kyrsten Sinema on board, too. The bill is different from the version before the wheeling and dealing, but if all goes well, it'll pass tomorrow. 

So, perhaps for the first time, both of my senators had themselves a good week. 

TGIF, everyone.

Wondering on Wednesday (v175)

Right off the bat, I'm wondering where the heck summer colds come from, and I'm wondering why they're so much worse than other colds?
Seriously, I've not been able to string together enough words to make a single sentence in four days.

More importantly, though, I want to do some wondering about the president, and women. Now, I'm not going to go back and relive the 'grab them by the pussy' stuff or the porn stars or the creepy beauty pageant owner stuff, because that's so yesterday's news.

I want to wonder about new news, as it were.  News like this, which I found in a fact sheet issued yesterday on the White House website.

Today, the Trump Administration released a Strategy on Women, Peace and Security, which aims to increase women's meaningful leadership in political and civic life. This Strategy implements the Women, Peace and Security Act signed by President Trump in 2017.

Another thing the fact sheet tells us?

The United States will promote the protection of women and support humanitarian assistance efforts that address women's economic security, safety, and dignity. The United States will work with partner countries to remove barriers, laws and regulations that impede women's access to justice and participation in the peace and security process.

So, I wonder, if we are supporting "humanitarian assistance efforts that address women's economic security, safety and dignity," why have we

• gutted funding to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), including not only their core family planning activities, but also specific services UNFPA is providing in humanitarian crises in Syria, Iraq and Yemen? And yes, we did that - on International Women's Day in 2018.
• expanded the Mexico City Policy to include "nearly all bilateral global health assistance" including maternal and child health, the WASH program (household-level water, sanitation and hygiene, nutrition, HIV under PEPFAR, tuberculosis, malaria, neglected tropical diseases, and global health security, and certain types of research activities?
• dramatically slashed "life-saving financial assistance" in areas of humanitarian crisis around the world?  Trump's 2018 budget, for example, included unprecedented cuts to international humanitarian funding for food, shelter, global health, maternal/child health and international peacekeeping measures, and while funding was restored by Congress, the 2019 budget came back with more cuts for refugees, disaster assistance, food aid, global health programs and more?

How can pretend we are concerned about women's "security, safety and dignity" if we are actively trying to strip away Temporary Protected Status  for folks who were allowed to come to the US from 10 countries, among them El Salvador, Haiti, and Guatemala, to avoid "disease, violence, starvation, the aftermath of natural disasters, and other life-threatening conditions" - including women with American-born children?

And more importantly still, I wonder how it is that we can not just once ($12B), but twice (another $16B), come up with billions of dollars in welfare aid to farmers, in response to a completely manufactured crisis - one caused directly by the president - but we can't figure out a way to finance a fund to take care of 9/11 first responders?

Or, how is it that we can make the United States Postal Service pre-fund decades of benefits - the only agency required to do this, by the way - but we can't figure out a way to finance a fund to take care of 9/11 first responders?

This piece has the long and winding history of getting the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act passed. Zadroga was a NYPD officer and the first whose death was attributed to his exposure to toxins at Ground Zero. The bill only included a little over $4B, and passed despite the best efforts of Republicans who thought it was "too expensive." Funding had been extended only through the end of next year, which is atrocious.

If you didn't see Jon Stewart's testimony yesterday before a congressional subcommittee, you missed a gut-wrenching 10 minutes. It's worth watching, or watching again if you've already seen it.

And it seems that Stewart and the first responders who also went to Washington to plead their case may have made a difference, according to the NY Post.

The bill that permanently authorizes the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund passed out of the House Judiciary Committee unanimously Wednesday...  At the full committee markup Wednesday, a handful of lawmakers were absent, but (Chairman Jerry) Nadler dismissed calls to make the committee vote a roll call vote. 

The bill, sponsored by Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), will likely need to be scored by the Congressional Budget Office before it can get a full vote in the House, but it is expected to pass, as the legislation has 313 bipartisan co-sponsors.

Kudos to Stewart, but boy, it's hard to imagine that this needed a hard sell that generated tons of  negative media coverage for Congress as a whole.

I mean, if we can't get this right, who are we?