Sunday School 2/28/21: Extra Credit

In yesterday's Sunday School, I gave you excerpts from five of the seven senators who were in the classrooms. There was nothing surprising in any of those interviews, and I suspect the other two - Rick Scott (R-FL) and Mark Warner (D-VA) - were equally unsurprising. You can check out their interviews on Fox News Sunday. 

Today, I want to focus on Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's chat with Chuck Todd on MTP. President Biden and Trudeau had a virtual meeting last week, in which Trudeau spoke highly of the state of things in the world, according to this article in The Guardian. 

Among other things, he said that "US leadership has been sorely missed over the past years," and added, "And I have to say a we were preparing the joint rollout of the communique on this, it's nice when the Americans are not pulling out all the references to climate change and instead adding them in." 

Chuck asked Trudeau about the 'leadership vacuum' he alluded to, and the PM said the issues the two countries are facing are things that "we naturally have to work together on," and he sees there being an active engagement between our two countries - and he's happy to see us re-engaging.

I think certainly there were things that were more challenging under the previous administration in terms of moving the dial in the right direction on the international stage. But, at the same time, you know, we all have democracies that go in different directions from time to time. And the, the sweep of the work that we need to do together as, as allied nations in the G7 and elsewhere, continues to be really important.

Chuck wanted specifics on global policy initiatives that Biden can help move forward. Trudeau pointed to COVID, saying the Biden approach is more in line with the Canadian approach - science, and protecting the people "as the best way to protect the economy," and supporting people as we move through it. Other things he mentioned? the US rejoining COVAX, rejoining the fight to address climate change, and on "the tremendous economic opportunities" linked to clean energy and clean jobs, and how those will help the middle class "and those working hard to join it."

Trudeau was asked about what's behind the low number of Canadians being vaccinated, compared to our equally unimpressive numbers.

Obviously, it's not going as fast as, as everyone would want. We all want this pandemic to be over yesterday and to vaccinate everyone as quickly as possible. But we're confident that in the coming weeks, hundreds of thousands of vaccines every week, millions into the coming months. We are going to have everyone vaccinated probably by the end of the summer. And that is something that we're, we’re very positive and excited about.

He also said they have contracts with multiple vaccine makers, with three now approved in Canada (Pfizer, Moderna, and now Astra-Zeneca) and hopes to approve more of them in the coming weeks. In the meantime, he said, they must "just keep hanging on" like everyone else is doing. 

Where we've got a slightly less warm and fuzzy relationship is on the Keystone XL pipeline, which was shut down by Executive Order on January 21st. Chuck asked Trudeau to make the environmentalist case for the pipeline, to help those of us who are against it. He said we probably haven't noticed how much Canada has done in fighting climate change, even as they recognize that "the world still relies on fossil fuels right now." But it's about balance, and transforming the energy mix to reduce carbon emissions as much as possible. So, while he KXL decision was disappointing, there's a lot than can be done.

So, Chuck asked, does this mean it's now a done, and done dead, deal? Trudeau said they're more interested in making sure we're moving forward "in ways that are good for both of our countries."

I think there's so much we can do together that I don't spend too much time worrying about the tension points. It'll always come up in our relationship, but we'll work through them, particularly given the alignment on so many things that we're able to bring with this new administration.

Two last questions, the first of which was about Trudeau's reaction to seeing the Capitol riot back in January. 

Dismay. A reminder of the fact that democracy is something we need to keep working at. A reminder that none of us are immune from polarization and anger and frustration. Certainly, there is -- there was a real sense that we all need to be careful about what we say and how we, how we lead as a way of trying to bring people together and unify people. But that was a, that was a scene that Canadians watched with consternation and horror and, and real concern.

As did I, and almost everyone I know. I say almost everyone, because some people have made no comments at all about it - and I'd hate to assume that they were fine with it, as were a very limited few to admit that. I don't want to project that on anyone. 

And the final question: What's the metric for reopening the border? 

 I think there's an awful lot of different metrics we need to look at on, on border and on keeping Canadians safe from Covid-19. Obviously, case counts, presence of variants, hospitalizations -- all these things factor into the expert analysis. Our public health experts telling us what the right measures are and how concerned we have to be about, about variants. Obviously as vaccinations increase, we’re all hoping for good news and to get through this. But we'll continue to engage with the, with the White House and with the administration on the best times to start releasing border measures. But, for now, we all need to keep safe, and that means keeping them in place.

I can't wait for them to be safely relaxed - it'll mean both countries are in a better place with the pandemic, and with vaccines, - and it'll mean that we can make trips across the border for photography and other adventures. 

Masks up - and I'll see you around campus.

Ranting and Raving (v4): It's not the Impeachment, Stupid

So, there's this WaPo column, "Let's be honest. Impeachment hurt Trump's response to coronavirus," making the rounds on social media.

 The column was written by Henry Olsen., who joined the paper last year, and, according to the announcement that he'd be a daily columnist, he's "a widely respected thought leader in American politics and conservatism... His work will offer a steady stream of new ideas, informing and challenging readers to explore issues from his unique perspective."

OK - challenge accepted. Here's Olsen's premise:

President Trump has been roundly criticized for allegedly failing to prepare for the coronavirus crisis before it arrived in the United States. Those critics conveniently overlook something else that could have been distracting the president’s attention during that crucial period: impeachment.

It seems forever ago, but Trump’s impeachment was the major story in January and early February — the same time that disease was forcing China to lock down cities. Despite the near certainty that Republicans would not vote to convict the president, Democrats and most of the major media were almost entirely focused on impeachment. As a result, the White House was focused on addressing this threat to its survival, not on preparing for a threat from China that might never even materialize.

Olsen admits that "Trump's efforts to prepare the nation for this pandemic ha(ve) been far from perfect," and I think that's a fair assessment. No one, not even a Never Trumper like me, expects any president to be perfect. I mean, that would be even sillier than expecting My Sweet Baboo to be perfect, or any of our cats.

Trump did ban travel from China, as Olsen indicates - and he did take flak for that from many quarters: unions, medical professionals, the ACLU, members of Congress, the international community, etc. GOP hardliners agreed with it; Dem hardliners did not, which should be to no one's surprise. But Olsen takes a huge leap at this point, saying

Given that impeachment managers were regularly calling Trump a king or incipient dictator, a more forceful response against the virus in January or early February likely wouldn't have gone well.

That one made me laugh out loud. We're talking about Donald Trump, who blurts out whatever he feels like blurting, whether it's a policy change, a threat against a Republican who dares disagree with him, any number of insults at any number of Democrats or just random crap directed at random citizens. He doesn't shrink away from anything - he tells us that all the time. If you need an example, ask the McCain family.

Olsen moves on to suggest that

In fact, the situation could be even worse today had the Democrats gotten their way. Imagine if Republicans had buckled under the pressure and backed the Democratic move to subpoena witnesses. The Senate would have spent most of February interviewing witnesses in depositions and probably fighting in court to force recalcitrant witnesses to testify.

Four witnesses. Four witnesses. That's what the Democrats wanted.

If the Senate Judiciary and Intelligence Committees can't depose four people (some of whom publicly stated their willingness to testify, and for whom the questions basically wrote themselves) in a matter of days, not weeks, shame on them. And if the other 50-some-odd Senators not on those two committees can't find something to do during that time, shame on them, too.

Yes, I understand that after the depositions, there would be a continuation of the trial in the Senate, and that would have occupied all of the Senators, I get that. But to pretend that these men and women are incapable of, say, legislating in the morning and listening to testimony in the afternoon, or that they are incapable of doing anything at all while their colleagues are doing their work, is an insult to all of them.

And, do you remember the issue with the witnesses who testified before the House Committees?  None of them, we were told repeatedly by House lawyers and GOP Representatives, had any direct conversations with the president on any relevant subject. Not one of them was truly a 'fact witness' the GOP said, because they didn't talk to Trump. That being the case, there was no need for any of them to testify in the Senate trial.

And that's exactly why, if you're like Olsen and looking for a reason that it would be "extremely unlikely that the matter would have been over by the end of (February)" look no further than the Senate witness list, which included these people: Adam Schiff, the whistleblower, Joe Biden, Hunter Biden - for Pete's sake, they'd be as relevant as the Ghost of Christmas Past, the Easter Bunny, a unicorn or two, and Bigfoot (or Darryl). Hypocrisy much, GOP?

I do agree with Olsen on some things, though, including that "impeachment's lingering stain is damaging the country even today." We just disagree on why - and who - contributes to that stain.

Olsen suggests that Trump and Pelosi not speaking during the COVID-19 crisis is an indicator of the lingering stain, but it's a completely different stain, one painted with layers and layers of Trump's and Pelosi's actions starting before the impeachment ever happened.

Not only that, but Trump's failure to invite Pelosi - or a single Democrat - to any number of bill signings (including the recent one for the pandemic stimulus package) is indicative of a deeper stain on the country than impeachment: the president is a petulant belligerent child, a narcissist, and a jerk, He knows it, Olsen knows it, and so does everybody else.

Olsen laments that "any action (Trump takes) is subject to criticism." Seriously? Seriously??

Name a single politician, in the history of this or any other country, who has not been in the same boat? And don't forget that Trump, by his words and actions, rains criticism upon his own head - regularly, under normal circumstances. During the coronavirus crisis? Almost daily.

And then, Olsen continues,

Had he acted decisively in February when he had time, many surely would have accused him of manufacturing a crisis to distract the public from impeachment. Now that we are suffering from that month’s relative inaction, he is attacked for failing to act in advance. Damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t. 

To drive home that point, he lists out the things that other world leaders - including "the sainted Canadian Prime Minister" - also didn't do in advance of the pandemic. I wouldn't say Trudeau is 'sainted' but I would accuse him of being an empathetic human being, an accusation that has never been made about Trump. Olsen continues, "the rational analyst sees these facts and notes that it is extremely difficult for politicians to foresee an event unprecedented in modern times and act accordingly."

Funny how it we haven't seen it presented as being "extremely difficult" for politicians not to act like bastards when it comes time for them to respond to such an unprecedented event. You know, like going to the CDC and saying that he prefers a couple thousand people stay on a cruise ship so that his numbers don't look bad. Or that we haven't seen it presented as being "extremely difficult" for politicians to not say these other things.

Why is it not presented as "extremely difficult?"  Because it's not difficult  at all for any politician, other than Trump.

Yes, "it must end," Olsen says, the "hyper-partisanship that views any act that (Trump) could possibly take as presumptively tainted and wrong. " And, I'll note, Olsen did not, the lockstep marching by the GOP, which started well before impeachment and continues through whatever day it is that you're reading this, also must end, as must the GOP view that any act Trump takes is presumptively correct, as if each and every one is individually the greatest thing since sliced bread.

So, too, must Trump's insistence that he be showered with truckloads of flattering flatulence at every occasion. That is another lingering stain on our country.

It's not the failed impeachment that brought us here; impeachment is the icing on the cake, the dressing on a salad, the salt on the caramel, the... you get the drift. It's the whole of the Trump that has brought us here, and the whole of those Democrats who are their own worst enemies.

Yes, it's surely time to "put country over party." That applies to Democrats, whether they're Never Trumpers or not. It applies to Never Trumpers like me, who have left the Democratic Party in our rear -view mirrors. It also applies to Independents.

And it most assuredly also applies to Republicans. Asking only people on the left to make the "country over party" declaration is as absurd as expecting the president to suddenly start acting like some who was elected leader of the free world. Don't tell me that - tell him that. He acts as if he doesn't believe it to be true, and he still has a laser focus on all who suggest he was undeserving.

Nope. It's not impeachment that's making it harder for Trump, but I know what is: people like Olsen, who set the bar so much higher for people like me, than they do for the president they so adore.

Sunday School 6/10/18

Oh dear - the classrooms were quite boisterous today!  There was a whole lot of posturing going on, and name calling, and tit-for-tatting and all that kind of stuff.  Let's take a look, shall we?

There were two Trumpeters making the rounds today: Peter Navarro, who's the president's trade advisor, and Larry Kudlow, the director of Trump's National Economic Council.

Navarro was the more over the top of the two, speaking with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday about that backstabbing, traitorous blankety-blank we used to call Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.  Wallace led into Navarro's tirade by mentioning Trudeau's statements about going ahead with promised retaliatory tariffs, which are to take effect on July 1st. Trump responded as he usually does (my words, not Wallace's) by calling his opponent names - 'weak' and 'meek and mild' and 'very dishonest'.  And Wallace asked if that was really how we wanted to deal with our 2nd largest trading partner. I recommend fastening your seat belts for the response.

Chris there's a special place in hell for any foreign leader that engages in bad faith diplomacy with president Donald J. Trump and then tries to stab him in the back on the way out the door. And that's what Bad Faith Justin Trudeau did with that stunt press conference. That's what Weak, Dishonest Justin Trudeau did. And that comes right from Air Force One. 

Well, except Navarro admitted those were his special place in hell words, not Trump's.

And I'll tell you this, to my friends in Canada, that was one of the worst political miscalculations of a Canadian leader in modern Canadian history. All Justin Trudeau had to do was take the win... Trump did the courtesy to Justin Trudeau to travel up to Quebec for that summit. He had other things, bigger things on his plate in Singapore... He did him a favor and he was even willing to sign that socialist communique. And what did Trudeau do -- as soon as the plane took off from Canadian airspace, Trudeau stuck our president in the back. That will not stand. 

Whoa.  The United States participating in a G7 summit is a 'courtesy'? What did he have on his plate that is more important than representing our country at a meeting of our closest allies? I mean, it might have been a courtesy if Melania had attended, but I'm not sure at what point the president of the US doing his job should be considered a courtesy, especially since he has nothing else on his plate, by his own admission.

But wait - there's more!

And as far as this retaliation goes, the American press needs to do a much better job of what the Canadians are getting ready to do because it's nothing short of an attack on our political system and it's nothing short of Canada trying to raise it's high protectionist barriers even higher on things like maple syrup and other goods.

Well, cheese and crackers, not maple syrup!!!  I don't know where Navarro's been lately, but Canada retaliating against the US in a trade war is not an attack on our political system. That's actually what Russia did, but you know, these pesky details are hard to remember, if you've been living under a rock.

Navarro went on to bash Canada for NAFTA, saying we'd have a great deal on that existing deal, if only the Canadians would deal with Trump instead of trying to deal with Congress, blah blah blah, yadda yadda yadda.

They are just simply not playing fair. Dishonest. Weak.

 Navarro was reminded of his earlier statement that no one would retaliate against our new tariffs, with Wallace pointing out Canada's $13B, and the EU's $3B in tariffs since our announcement. In response, Navarro talked about Germany, where we says we have a $151B annual trade deficit, and not only that - not only that, but

Germany has tariffs on autos four time higher than our tariffs on the equivalent German imports here and they sell us three times as many cars as we sell them.

Because we like German engineering almost as much as the Germans do, maybe?

So on the issues alone, we have allies strategically. But when it comes to these trade disputes, these allies basically are robbing us blind. The president is not going to put up with that.  

Nope -he's going to tweet about it, and send minions out to yell at our allies.

Kudlow, for his part, didn't declare a final resting place for Trudeau; in fact, he made it a point to talk about how directly involved he was with the Prime Minister, as if tooting his own horn would make everything right with the world. Here are some of the high points of his conversation on Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan.

Regarding why the president called Trudeau weak and dishonest:

Well, to be honest with you, Prime Minister Trudeau - by the way, I respect. I have worked with him in good faith, getting through a good communique on Friday and Saturday. So, he holds a press conference. The president is barely out of there on a plane to North Korea, and he starts insulting us. You know, he starts talking about US is insulting Canada. We are not -- we, Canada, are not going to be pushed around. 

Brennan noted that Trudeau was talking about the trade tariffs.

That's correct, and in general, OK, it was an attack on the president. "We're going to have retaliatory tariffs." Now, these are things that the prime minister said before, basically, but he didn't say them after a successful G7 communique, where president Trump and the others all worked in good faith to put a statement together, which, by the way, almost nobody expected to happen. In fact, reporters were asking me before the trip whether the president was going to show up at all. He did. He negotiated. He directed his team, myself and others. We worked it out. We used good language that was acceptable. 

At which point Brennan noted

And the the president reneged on that G7 statement.

Kudlow:

No, No, I'm sorry.  And then Trudeau decided to attack the president. That is the key point. And yes, you know, if you attack this president, he is going to fight back.  But here is the key point, Margaret. The president is going to negotiate with Kim of North Korea in Singapore. It is a historic negotiation. And there is no way this president is not going to stand strong, number one. He is not going to allow other people to suddenly take potshots at him hours before that summit. And number two, Trudeau should have known better.

On and on it went, and it went on and on on CNN's State of the Union as well.  Let's pick up when Tapper reminds Kudrow that Trump is known for this kind of thing.

JT: But president Trump does that all the time, though, doesn't he?

LK: No, he doesn't.

JT: He doesn't say things for domestic consumption? 

LK: No, the point is, if you are going through a treaty process, a communique, and you have good faith... And those leaders were together. I mean, I was right smack in the middle of it on Friday night and Saturday morning. You don't walk away and start firing bullets. Now, look

JT: I can't believe that an adviser to president Trump is saying that - because president Trump does that all the time.  He does things for - for domestic consumption.

LK: Jake, not in -- not after you pull a treaty or a deal together...

 JT: Why walk away from it just because of something Justin Trudeau said for domestic consumption.

LK: No, not something. Look you -- yes, for domestic political consumption. But it was a global statement. The whole world listened to what he said. Look, you're reporting it here in Washington, as you must.  

 JT: Sure.

LK: I get that. You just don't behave that way, OK? It is a betrayal, OK? He is essentially double-crossing -- not just double-crossing president Trump, but the other members of the G7, who were working together and pulling together this communique. You know, you never get everything you want. There are compromises along the way; president Trump played that process in good faith. 

So I ask you, he gets up in the airplane and leaves. And then Trudeau starts bashing him in a domestic news conference? I'm sorry, that is a betrayal. That is a double-cross. It pains me, because I like Trudeau. I was working with him. We were together putting words on paper.... 

It pains me to keep going, to keep paying attention. It pains me that none of them realize, or admit, that if the president hadn't acted like a two-year old and resorted to name-calling, no one would be paying any attention to the fact that the Canadian Prime Minister reiterated comments he had made previously to everyone, including government officials, media outlets from both countries, and to Kudrow himself. 

It pains me that the president of the United States is a big crybaby, a big bully...  I can go on, but that pains me too.

See you around campus.