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.

Sunday School 11/21/21

For this week's Sunday School, we'll start with Dana Bash and her State of the Union chat with Gov. Chris Sununu (R-NH), and then check in with Margaret Brennan for her conversations with Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) and Ted Cruz (R-Cancun) on Face the Nation.

Sununu agrees that "everyone likes" the kind of things that are in the Build Back Better bill (BBB) passed by the House - clean energy, climate incentives, universal pre-K, and so on. That's good, but the "immense amount of money" is an issue. He thinks 

fiscal responsibility has left the window out of Washington, DC, and I think that's a frustration for all Americans. 

Inflation "is the worst tax you can put on low- and middle-income families, he added; the answer is finding the middle - and that takes more than cutting the size of the spending.

You do it by looking at what happens at a local level. How do you make sure these programs can get implemented? Remember, the Senate supports a policy. They support funding. And then they go on to the next thing. It's governors and the citizens in local communities that have to implement these programs and that feel the real cost of them. 

He also mentioned, without any detail and without follow up from Bash, that in February, the feds are putting in regulations that will bring "further barriers to getting a CDL license, just getting someone a trucking license." According to the NYS DMV website, the new federal "barriers" include ensuring that new drivers are, you know, trained to be drivers. Oh, the horror.

Sununu turned down a Senate run, saying "as a governor, you can actually play defense and protect the interests of your citizens" from what happens in Washington. And that includes his belief that "politics in its entirety on both sides of the aisle in Washington is screwed up. I mean, it really is," mostly due to them focusing on the wrong priorities.

I agree with a lot of what he said about Washington; how about you?

For her part, Sen. Gillibrand said Sen. Joe Manchin "has come a long way" on paid family leave, and he's "come forward with a lot of really smart questions" in the past few weeks. They both want it to be "an earned benefit" and she's "optimistic" they can come up with something that's bipartisan. The problem is, other Rs who are interested in paid leave aren't interested in what Manchin's looking for. 

Specifically on Manchin's desire to strengthen the "social safety net," Gillibrand says that's what paid family leave will do. 

We know if it's parental leave, parents, mothers are 40% more likely to get back to work if they have paid leave, which goes to Sen. Manchin's concerned that he wants to strengthen our social safety nets. He wants to strengthen Social Security. That's what paid leave does. It gets people back to work. 

They talked about the increase in the SALT deduction cap, which the House bumped up from $10K to $80K, which she hopes will make it through the Senate. Brennan failed to ask Gillibrand what she was doing back home to get NY to reduce taxes, instead of putting this massive benefit to the wealthy in the BBB. While she says the increase will help the middle class, it would give about 40% of the overall benefit to folks making between $366K and $866K, according to the Tax Policy Center. 

Gillibrand also said she thinks Dems are getting the message out now that voters should stick with them in the midterms. And, they'll be doing that even more once the darn thing is signed, when they'll be in their districts talking about how the bill helps families and how that helps the economy.

Brennan wondered if Senator Cruz he agreed with fellow potential 2024 candidates Nikki Haley and Tom Cotton that we should fully boycott the Beijing Olympics. He thinks the Olympics should have been moved to another location, but not with a full boycott.

You know, Jimmy Carter tried that in the 1970s. All it did was punish a generation of athletes. We've got young men and young women, Americans, who spent their whole lives practicing for this moment. I don't want to punish those young athletes.

He agrees with the administration (without agreeing with Brennan that he agrees), on a "so-called diplomatic boycott," in which we "try to minimize the attention" by not sending any high-ranking government officials. But wait - there's more.

Number one, that we actually show the courage the Women's Tennis Association is showing to call out the murder, the genocide, the torture, the lies, the complicity in COVID-19 of the Chinese communist government to speak the truth. And then number two, I really hope our young men and women, that they go over there and kick their commie asses. We need to win in the Olympics.

He'd also like to see corporations "show a tiny bit of courage" and not do any Olympic-related advertising; he thinks that would make sense.

And finally, is Cruz running for president? He said he has "no idea what's going to happen in 2024" and that the Former Guy has a decision to make - is he running, or is he not. Aside from that, 

I can tell you that- that when I ran in 2016, we came incredibly close. I came in second. There's a long history of runner-ups becoming the next nominee, and it was the most fun I've ever had in my life. But there's a lot of time between now and 2024.

See you around campus.

Wondering on Wednesday (v179)

I had no idea it's been so long since I've wondered out loud, as it were, on Wednesday - looks like it was a month ago?

I wonder about that right off the bat. I mean, vacation aside, it's not like there nothing head-scratch worthy going on. Sigh

Here's just some of what has me wondering tonight.

• The 'prorogation' of the British Parliament. What a fascinating process! Just suspend the whole thing, and don't let anything get in my way, says PM Boris Johnson. And we thought the filibuster was bad? How long, I wonder, before #POTUS will be asking Snitty Snitty Bill Barr if there's a way he can do the same thing here? It would be way more cooler than just forcing Mitch McConnell to 'go nuclear', something Trump has called for several times. I mean, he sees a massive military parade, and wants one... He sees an obsequious press in a dictatorial country, and wants one... I mean, this 'put parliament on the sidelines' thing is right up his alley.

• There are around a dozen members of Congress not running for reelection next year - so far - and the majority of them are Republicans. This is on the heels of 34 Republicans not running for reelection in 2018. There are a variety of reasons cited - usually the desire to do something else (is Fox News hiring?), or spend more time with their families, and so on. Most don't say it's because they can no longer keep quiet about the direction the party is taking, but I have to wonder how much that plays a part?  And will we have to wait for the books to come out before we know for sure? 

• How many resorts are there in the United States that are near airports and are not owned by the Trump family, I wonder? And why wouldn't the United States government consider using even the worst of those resorts for the next G7 summit, instead of entertaining discussions about enriching the president by using his Doral resort? How hard do you have to wonder about simple things like this?

• And speaking of Snitty Snitty Bill Barr, is there really no other place for him to throw his annual holiday party than the president's hotel in DC, I wonder?  Seriously - that's the ONLY place that could accommodate him, in all of the capitol area? And lest you're wondering, this is not a case of me being disappointed I'm not on the guest list - it's really a case of how can people like Barr be so unconcerned about the appearance of a conflict of interest, of a lack of independence, for the role of AG, for the Justice Department as an institution, and for the people that work there? 

• It seems that Kirsten Gillibrand is the first of the rest of the 2020 Democratic presidential candidates to read the handwriting on the wall; a couple of hours ago she announced she's dropping her candidacy after failing to qualify for the September 12th debate. Who else will be announcing a similar decision tonight, I wonder?  Ten have qualified: Biden, Sanders, Warren, Harris, Buttigieg, Booker, Klobuchar, Castro, Yang and Castro. The rest have not. I'm liking that smaller debate stage - how about you?

There's more to wonder about - there always is. What's on your mind?

The Dem Debates, Round Two

I did it. I watched all of both of this week's debates.

And I shared what was going on with any willing reader on my Facebook page. I did get a thank you from a few people who noted (paraphrasing here) "thank you for sparing me the agony" or similar sentiments.

So, after watching and capturing the shenanigans for posterity, what do I know now that I didn't know before, or what happened that solidified my earlier thinking?

For starters, the progressive candidates went on record stating that if you challenge their ideas as being too far out there for the majority of the electorate, you're not worthy of being called a Democrat, you shouldn't be running for president, or both.  I have changed my registration from Democrat to unaffiliated, in part for that reason, that the progressives think it's their way or the highway, and the rest of us can just go home.

On the other hand, the more moderate candidates believe that the extreme policies will hand the election to Donald Trump, and so we have to find a reasonable way to bring Independents, disaffected Trump voters, and yes, Democrats, including the millions who stayed home in 2016, to show up at the polls to vote for our guy or gal. It will be interesting to see how this continues to play out. 

What else?

Twice I've suggested that Joe Biden should not run for president. He listened to me in 2015 race, but he ignored me this time. After last night's debate, I'm even more convinced than I was after the first one that I'm right and he shouldn't have entered the race.

I've been listening to the pundits saying that Biden did much better than the first time, that his defense of his record last night should have reassured his voters that everything's going to be OK. But I've gotta say, I agree with one of the talking heads on CNN during the wrap up that the bar was set so low for Biden after his disastrous performance in the first debate that he would have had a hard time not doing better.

And I'm reminded, as I hope you are, of those same 'low bar' expectations when Trump was debating his opponents - and it never went away. The bar continues to be low for Trump as president, even lower than it was for Trump as candidate. Have we learned nothing? Or, should I say, have the pundits learned nothing?

I honestly don't know if Biden has the best chance to beat Donald Trump - I know lots of people think he does, but I'm not convinced. 

I don't like Bernie Sanders, at all. Not just because he doesn't belong on the stage with Democrats - because he isn't one - but because he comes off as an always-angry two-trick pony: "big pharma and health insurance companies" is pony number one, and "millionaires and billionaires" is pony number two. Or vice versa, I'm not sure anymore which pony is which.

But healthcare and health insurance are not the same thing, and health insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies are not the same thing. And not all health insurance companies are for profit bullies. Bernie and the rest of them conflate all of this, and it makes a mess of things. He and the others have to be doing this on purpose. I can't like him any less than I do already, but that makes me like the rest of them a little less, too.

If the candidates in the Tuesday debate, or in the Wednesday debate, were the only ones in the race, we'd have a better idea of where things stand. But they're not the only ones, so we have moderators torn between trying to keep all the focus on the group they're sitting in front of, or trying to make it seem like the debate is really 20 people not just ten. This stinks for the candidates, for the moderators, and most importantly for the voters who have only a speaking point's relationship with the candidates and the debates. And those speaking points, the zingers? Those are the media's bread and butter, for sure.

You know what I'm talking about - "I wrote the damn bill!" and Warren's "I don't know why people take the time to run..." line, and Booker's "You're dipping in the Kool-aid" crack, Gillibrand's promise to Clorox the Oval Office, and more. But there is so much more to the debates than the snappy retorts and attacks and hit lines. And while it seems there's no time like the present to play the sound bites, we don't seem to have time to talk about anything else other than who's leading in the polls (which are meaningless right now). To quote Joe Biden, that's a bunch of malarkey. It is never too early to talk about what these 20 candidates  stand for. Again, look back to the 2016 race, and don't repeat the same mistakes.

What else?

It's time - or past time, as the case may be - for some of these folks to do a Swalwell and step away from the race. Who's on that list? Marianne Williamson. Tim Ryan. Bill de Blasio. Michael Bennet. Steve Bullock. Julian Castro. Beto O'Rourke. The other five who are supposedly in the race - Tom Steyer, Seth Moulton, Joe Sestak, Wayne Messam, and Mike Gravel - yeah, no. Don't even bother.

That leaves us with, in no particular order, Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg, Elizabeth Warren, Andrew Yang, Cory Booker, Sanders, Biden, Tulsi Gabbard, John Delaney, John Hickenlooper, Jay Inslee, Amy Klobuchar, and Kirsten Gillibrand.

It's a good mix (even if I wish two or three of them weren't in it), and includes veterans, young people, old people, moderates, progressives, business owners, people of color, lawyers, entrepreneurs, wealthy people, a climate guy - in short, it leaves us with people who have different enough thoughts on how to move forward to have an actual conversation.

And finally, speaking of hit lines, and of moving forward, I'm going to leave you with Andrew Yang's closing statement. He's not a conventional candidate, by any stretch of the imagination, but he nailed what's going on, and how people react to what's going on, very clearly.

Coming up next? Questions I wish I had heard at the debates. 

Pre-debate Jitters

The Democrats are kicking off the 2020 election season on Wednesday, with Senators Elizabeth Warren (MA) Cory Booker (NJ) and Amy Klobuchar  (MN); former Obama HUD Secretary Julian Castro, who also served as mayor of San Antonio; Reps. Tulsi Gabbard (HI) and Tim Ryan (OH); former Reps Beto O'Rourke (TX) and John Delaney (MD; Gov. Jay Inslee (WA); and NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio taking the stage in Miami for the first half of the first debate.

Thursday night, we'll be treated to the second half, which will feature former Vice President Joe Biden; Senators Kamala Harris(CA), Michael Bennet (CO), Kirsten Gillibrand (NY) and Bernie Sanders (VT), who is still not a Democrat; Rep. Eric Swalwell (CA); former Gov. John Hickenlooper (CO); South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg; self-help author Marianne Williamson; and entrepreneur Andrew Yang.

Each of the participants has achieved at least 1% recognition nationally in approved polls, has raised money from at least 65,000 individual donors, including getting at least 200 donors in 21 states, or both (Biden, Booker, Buttigieg, Castro, Gabbard, Gillibrand, Harris, Inslee, Klobuchar, O'Rourke, the non-Dem, and Warren).

Four other candidates - Rep. Seth Moulton (MA), Governor Steve Bullock (MT), former Rep. Mike Gravel (AK), and Miramar, FL mayor Wayne Messam - failed to make the cut.

There will be no opening statements (yay), but each candidate will have one minute for a closing argument. Answers to questions will be limited to one minute, with 30 seconds  for followup questions, not there'll be much time for them.

Savannah Guthrie, Lester Holt, Chuck Todd, Rachel Maddow and José Diaz-Balart are the talking heads. Holt will be the official moderator of the first hour, with Guthrie and Diaz-Balart joining in; for the second hour, Todd and Maddow will share moderating duties, with Holt joining.  I have not seen the rules for how much time the talking heads (particularly Maddow and Todd) will be able to chew up - that might be one of the more interesting things to keep an eye on. 

There's no defined list of questions that will be asked, and of course no guarantee that each candidate will be asked the same questions or be given the opportunity to chime in on all of the issues.  It's expected that there will be questions on health care, climate change, education (free college, wiping out student debt, and so on), and of course the great divide between rich and poor people and rich and poor corporations. 

We should also expect questions on foreign policy, immigration, race, and gender, and on anything critical SCOTUS decides this last week of their session. 

And, there's the e-word: electability, whatever that means. And impeachment. - don't forget impeachment. 

Dear lord, this could be cluster with one moderator and only a handful of folks on the stage answering questions.

20 candidates.

5 moderators.
4 hours.
3 networks.
2 nights.

What could possibly go wrong?  Or maybe the better question is, what could possibly go right?

Sunday School 5/19/19

I spent some time with a couple of Democratic presidential candidates today - got two in one classroom (and I could have spent time with a third one had I wanted) - so it was one of those win-win things.

Former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper and Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard chatted with George Stephanopoulus on This Week. Let's take a look, with Hickenlooper up first.

The governor and former veep Joe Biden are sort of in the same lane, George suggested: both are about bringing folks together, ratcheting things down, working across the aisle, and so on -- so why Hickenlooper? He said he was running

...because Donald Trump has been fueling this national crisis of division and it's taking our country backwards. And the answer is not socialism. In Colorado, we were able to bring business and nonprofits together, Democrats and Republicans, to get you almost universal healthcare coverage, to become the number one economy in America, and to beat the NRA with tough gun laws. 

I've been an entrepreneur and a governor. And most of my adult life I've been able to bring adult people together again and again and get tough, progressive things done that people said we couldn't do. And I think it's time to replace the nonsense in Washington with some common sense.  

George pressed him on the 'not socialism' comment, noting it appeared to be a Bernie slam; he also wondered if Hickenlooper was "confident" that consensus-building was what Dems were looking for.

...I spend my whole life, as I said, bringing people together and getting big, progressive things done... I think the real challenge here is how do we get that nonsense that's taking over Washington and replace it with common sense. 

They moved to foreign policy; apparently there's going to be a speech this week, parts of which had been released. George wondered what the part noting might be "looking to withdraw from our global leadership role" due to past "foreign policy mistakes" was all about. Hickenlooper started talking about Trump and his "isolationist and reckless foreign policy" but George wondered who the Dems were that were mentioned in the video.

Well, I don't want to name names, but they're - but they have withdrawn from - you know, they would have the United States withdraw from global engagement and that makes us less safe...

George was not satisfied, asking if any of the 22 other Democrats in the race "call for the retreat" Hickenlooper mentioned.

Almost all the other Democrats - not all, but many of the other Democrats feel that we should back away from fair and open trade. And I believe that, only through, you know, constant engagement and building up that trade are we going to get full security. And I think as we revive US leadership, we're able to not only make our country safer, but as I said we're going to be able to be more prosperous at the same time.

Next, what does he think qualifies him to be commander in chief, given he has no military service or years of experience governing at the federal level.He mentioned a cyber security center in Colorado Springs, deploying the National Guard, and working with military leaders on NORAD. And,

I've, you know, gone out on over a dozen economic development trips, built relationships with leaders around the world. In places like Israel we've had a partnership that addressed terrorism, water conservation, cyber security. I mean, there's a long portfolio there of places where I've been engaged in active foreign affairs.

Noting that Hickenlooper is, at best, polling at 2% (some polls it's only 1%), George wondered if he wouldn't have to start hitting harder at his opponents.

I think little by little, but again, the focus - I'm running because this country is in a national crisis of division and I  -- look, my whole life I've been able to bring people together and get stuff done. I'm the one candidate when you look at the long record of what they've gotten done I can bring -- I really believe I can bring some common sense where right not in Washington you see nothing but nonsense.

Final question: how about running for Senate, instead, like Chuck Schumer has suggested - any chance?

Well, I think I'd be a difficult candidate as a Senator.

And then he repeated, again, his bringing people together and trying to bring common sense to Washington.

Next up - Gabbard. George wondered if she was one of those Dems Hickenlooper mentioned. After explaining her record as an enlistee in the Army National Guard after 9/11, two deployments in the Middle East, and her service in Congress on the Foreign Affairs and Armed Services Committee, she said

(I) bring that experience to the forefront where as president I will end these counterproductive and wasteful regime change wars, work to end this new Cold War and nuclear arms race, recognizing how wasteful and costly they are. 

And take the trillions of dollars that we've been spending, would continue to spend and invest those resources on serving the needs of the American people, things like healthcare, education, rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, protecting our environment. There are many urgent needs here that we need to address and we've got to get our priorities straight. 

Noting that Gabbard resigned a DNC position because of Hillary Clinton's "hawkish interventionist foreign policy" and wondered if that applied to Joe Biden.

...The problem I have seen is that across both Democrat and Republican administrations, and especially in this Trump administration where, right now, he is leading us down this dangerous path towards a war with Iran... 

George clarified that Trump says he doesn't want a war with Iran, but Gabbard said John Bolton and Mike Pompeo tell a different story.

...I think what we're seeing, unfortunately, is what looks like a lot of people in the Trump administration trying to create a pretext or excuse for us to go to war against Iran, a war that would actually undermine our national security, cost us countless American lives, cost civilian lives across the region, exacerbate the refugee crisis in Europe and it would actually make us less safe by strengthening terrorist groups like ISIS and Al-Qaeda. 

George hit her on previous comments she's made - that we have to "end the new Cold War,"  that she's softer than some of the other Dems on Putin and Russia, that she's met with Assad, opposed the arrest of Assange, and has "suggested that Russian election meddling is no worse than America's historically." And he asked if she thought Putin was a national security threat. She said her focus is on keeping us safe.

And what I've pointed out consistently, time and time again, is that our continued wasteful regime change wars have been counterproductive to the interests of the American people and the approach that this administration has taken in essentially choosing conflict rather than seeing how we can cooperate and work out our differences with other countries in the world has been counterproductive to our national security.

George wondered if Dems are taking "too hard a line" on Russia.

I think that the escalation of tensions that we've seen between the US and nuclear-armed countries like Russia and China, and you're right, it has come from this administration, it's also come from some Democrats and Republicans in Congress. It has brought us to this very dangerous point where nuclear strategists point out that we are at a greater risk of nuclear war now than ever before in history and we've got to understand what the consequences of that are.  

She mentioned the fake missile warning in her state, telling folks to seek shelter immediately, and how terrifying it was - and that it pointed to the "very real threat we face" if we continue down the Cold War path.

And this is what I seek to change; to build relationships that are build on cooperation rather than conflict, de-escalate these tensions, work out the differences that we have, the problems that we have with other countries... We've got to be able to work with countries like Russia and China to be able to accomplish that objective to keep the American people safe. 

And that's where they left it.

Have fun digesting these two interviews.  See you around campus.

Knock Knock. Who's There? Aggressive Progressives

Aggressive progressives who?

Aggressive progressives who are so full of themselves they're apparently willing to sacrifice everything, even as they admit it will likely hurt them in the future.

Huh, you say? What's this all about?

Well, according to this report from NPR's Scott Detrow, the outer-lefties are suggesting getting rid of the filibuster in the US Senate, and moving to a simple 51-vote majority to pass legislation.  Here's how Detrow sets the stage:

Most of the Democrats running for president want to create a national single-payer health care system. They want to begin a massive transition from fossil fuels to clean energy. They want to legalize marijuana pass broad family leave policies, and do a whole lot of other things that previous generations of presidential candidates have balked from fully endorsing.

Those are all good things, if you're a fan of that agenda - so why might there be a problem? Well, the aggressive progressives want to see an end to the filibuster, so that the agenda can be pushed through - assuming that the Dems take control of the Senate in the 2020 election.  Here's Ezra Levin, co-founder of the Indivisible Project.

In order to actually pass a big, bold pro-democracy package, or a big, bold climate package, or a health care package, we're going to need to be able to do that with 51 votes. 

TGIF 2/22/19

Count me among the folks who are happy that this week is over, and hopefully things can get back to normal starting tomorrow, whether I knock off that bottle of wine tonight or not!

Let's see how some other folks did, starting in the sports world.

We got news (I saw it last Saturday, so it counts for this week) that a confidential settlement had been reached by Colin Kaepernick and the NFL, which resolves the second most hated man in football's collusion lawsuit. Whether or not it leads to a job on an NFL team -- he hasn't played since the 2016 season - remains to be seen, but there are a number of teams that might as well take a chance on him as not. Some have speculated that maybe the Pats would take a chance on him, and that's probably the most logical since they're the most hated team in the NFL.  Maybe hate plus hate could be a match made in heaven?

Speaking of the Pats, news broke today that the team's owner, Robert Kraft, had been caught in a South Florida sting and is being charge with two misdemeanor counts of soliciting a prostitute. Rumor has it there's video - but rumor also has it that there are bigger fish to fry in the sting, which may include sex trafficking, although I've seen nothing long those lines mentioned in reference to Kraft. Categorical denials are coming from his people.

Also on the seedy side of the street? Singer/producer R Kelly has been charged with multiple counts of aggravated sex abuse. Kelly has been getting new attention for prior bad acts, it seems, after a six-hour documentary, Surviving R Kelly, recently aired. If the allegations are true, he deserves whatever punishment he gets.

The Update Desk: Please Say it Ain't So

I'd love to say it ain't so, but it is in fact so, according to these updates:

• The Associated Press tweeted  BREAKING: Amazon drops New York City as one of its new headquarter locations, will not search for another.
• Reuters tweeted BREAKING: Amazon says it will not build headquarters in New York after mounting opposition $AMZN
• J David Goodman tweeted AMAZON CANCELS PLAN TO COME TO NEW YORK "After much thought and deliberation, we’ve decided not to move forward with our plans to build a headquarters for Amazon in Long Island City, Queens" - Amazon spokeswoman Jodi Seth

And here is the statement released by Amazon, as published in the NY Times:

After much thought and deliberation, we've decided not to move forward with our plans to build a headquarters for Amazon in Long Island City, Queens. For Amazon, the commitment to build a new headquarters requires positive, collaborative relationships with state and local elected officials who will be supportive over the long term. While polls show that 70% of  New Yorkers support our plans and investment, a number of state and local politicians have made it clear that they oppose our presence and will not work with us to build the type of relationships that are required to go forward with the project we and many others envisioned in Long Island City.

We are disappointed to have reached this conclusion - we love New York, its incomparable dynamism, people and culture - particularly the community of Long Island City, where we have gotten to know so many optimistic, forward-leaning community leaders, small business owners, and residents. There are currently over 5,000 Amazon employees in Brooklyn, Manhattan, and Staten Island, and we plan to continue growing these teams.

We are deeply grateful to Governor Cuomo, Mayor de Blasio, and their staffs, who so enthusiastically and graciously invited us to build in New York City and supported us during the process. Governor Cuomo and Mayor de Blasio have worked tirelessly on behalf of New Yorkers to encourage local investment and job creation, and we can't speak positively enough about all of their efforts. The steadfast commitment and dedication that these leaders have demonstrated to the communities they represent inspired us from the very beginning and is one of the big reasons our decision was so difficult. 

We  do not intend to re-open the HQ2 search at this time. We will proceed as planned in Northern Virginia and Nashville, and we will continue to hire and grow across our 17 corporate offices and tech hubs in the US and Canada. 

Thank you again to Governor Cuomo, Mayor de Blasio, and the many other community leaders and residents who welcomed our plans and supported us along the way. We hope to have future chances to collaborate as we continue to build our presence in New York over time.

It will be interesting to see who, now, will be creating the 25,000 $150,000 promised jobs that would have helped create and support countless small businesses that would have spun off from this project, and how long it will take for those jobs and small businesses to materialize. And unionize, of course.  I'll wait patiently for that.

And I'll wait patiently for all of the politicians who proudly declare that they won't accept corporate money to similarly disavow union money.

And, I'll wait patiently for the Dems in the NY Legislature to immediately meet with NY's  Congressional delegation - Schumer, Gillibrand, and all the folks in the house, including AOC -  to demand legislation to update corporate tax regulations so that so that American companies like Amazon can no longer legally have a $0 federal tax liability - and I want them to do that FIRST, before they worry about taxing the rich businessmen who own and run the companies that they so desperately do not want here in the Empire State. 

Waiting patiently, but not holding my breath (I'm not an idiot).

Poll Watch: It's All About That Base

Ruh roh.

Seems that in at least one recent poll, the president's base is cracking. A recent NPR/Marist poll shows degradation in Trump's support across all of his key demographics.

Among Republicans (-10), white men without college degrees (-7), white evangelicals (-13), suburban men (-18) ,and even white women without college degrees (-24), his support in the January poll is down compared to December. According to Lee Miringoff, the Marist Institute for Public Opinion's director,

For the first time, we saw a fairly consistent pattern of his base showing evidence of cracking. Don't know if that's temporary - tied to the government shutdown - or a broader problem the president is having. 

The numbers shown for each group reflect the net change in support between the two polls. So for example, in the December poll, white women without college degrees had a +20 favorable rating (54% approve of Trump's job performance vs. 34% disapprove) but in the January poll, the disapproves (47%) outnumber the approves (43%), for a net loss of 24 points.

Overall, the president's approval rating in this poll stands at 39%, compared to a disapprove rating of 53%, with the number reflecting strong disapproval at 45%.

What else did this poll tell us?  Let's take a look.

TGIF 1/11/19

Well, happy Friday, everyone! How's your week going?

NY's junior senator Kirsten Gillibrand seems to be having a good week - she's hired some new folks and rented some new office space, and she's also traveling to Iowa, we've heard. Based on all of  this, it seems the senator is staring at 2020 on her calendar. Even though, we remember, she made it clear during her 2018 campaign that she had no designs on a presidential race. "I will serve my six year term." she said.

But if she's planning on serving her full Senate term, maybe all of her work now is really just to get her better name recognition for 2024? Of course, at that point, she might be joined in the race by our Sonofa Gov Andrew Cuomo - he's also not running in 2020, he's assured us, but he sure sounds like he's running sometime soon.

Staying in New York,  I really can't tell if Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is having a good week or a bad week. She seems just fine being in the public eye for, well, for being in the public eye. Giving as good as she gets when people say something about her, whether it's an attack from the right or a nudge from the left; whether it's a response to an interview, an attack on her college dancing, even pictures of naked legs (that aren't hers) or just someone deciding to talk about all of the attention she's getting. Which generates more attention, which generates more responses, which generates more attention, and so on.

I'm going to get yelled at for this, I'm sure, but I'd love for her to be getting attention for her work in Congress, not because she is in Congress. And yes, I know it's early, and I know this new class of Dems is the loudest bunch of folks the media has seen since, well, that orange cur rode the escalator, but the proof is not in the press, it's in the pudding.

Taking Notice, and Taking Names

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

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

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

Lamar Alexander (R-TX)

Susan Collins (R- ME)

Chris Coons (D-DE)

Bob Corker  (R-TN)

Joe Donnelly (D-IN)

Jeff Flake (R-AZ)

Cory Gardner (R-CO)

Lindsey Graham (R-SC)

Maggie Hassan (D-NH)

Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND)

Johnny Isakson (R- GA)

Doug Jones (D-AL)

Tim Kaine (D- VA)

Angus King (I-ME)

Amy Klobuchar (D-MN)

Joe Manchin III (D-WV)

Claire McCaskill (D-MO)

Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)

Bill Nelson (D-FL)

Gary Peters (D-MI)

Mike Rounds (R-SD)

Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH)

Mark Warner (D-VA)

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

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

Cory Booker (D-NJ)

Richard Blumenthal (D-CT)

Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV)

Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)

Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)

Kamala Harris (D-CA)

Mazie Hirono (D-HI)

Patrick Leahy (D-VT)

Mike Lee (R-UT)

Edward Markey (D-MA)

Robert Menendez (D-NJ)

Jeff Merkley (D-OR)

Christopher Murphy (D-CT)

Rand Paul (R-KY)

Bernie Sanders (I-VT)

Jon Tester (D-MT)

Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)

Ron Wyden (D-OR)

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

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

Trump in Transition (v26)

He's a mean one, Mr. Trump. A jerk, a slime, a pig! Oh -- sorry. I must have been typing out loud again.

The president continues his backsliding, hateful transition to the oafish NYC real estate developer he was before, well, before that fateful escalator ride.

He's a pig, for sure -- by his own admission.  He's rude - countless examples, not the least of which was his Megyn Kelly 'blood coming out of her...wherever' which, as he told us, meant her eyes (yeah, right) or his comment about Carly Fiorina's face. Or Rosie O'Donnell. Or flatchested women the world over.

So who is the latest victim of this delightful man and his petty attacks? That would Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, of course. And what did she do to Trump? Well, let's take a look at her tweets from earlier today.

When it comes to sexual assault, harassment and the general mistreatment of women, we must be able to call out anyone, Democrat or Republican. 

As elected leaders, let's rise to the occasion and not shrink away from it. That is what the larger #MeToo movement is all about. Let's send a clear message none of this is okay. 

 That means Farenthold should step aside. Moore should never set foot in the Senate, and president Trump should be held accountable.

The accusations against more are disgusting. And president Trump has admitted on tape to how he treats women. His campaigning for Moore isn't leadership, it's shameful. 

We are in a moment of reckoning - and the silence from Republicans is deafening. It is long past time for them to join Democrats in holding members of their own party accountable. 

President Trump should resign. But, of course, he won't hold himself accountable. Therefore, Congress should investigate the multiple sexual harassment and assault allegations against him. 

Now, I appreciate there are some very strong feelings about Gillibrand's position. She led the charge against Al Franken with her zero tolerance position, which endeared her to many and blew any chance she had of becoming president, according to others. Heck -- some commenters want her primaried for what she did to Franken; they, and others, feel she was both late to the game on calling out Trump, and wrong to call for an investigation of the creep-in-chief but not allowing Franken the same courtesy.  It's a mixed bag, for sure.

And after all of this, there was the Trump response, which was bigly presidential as you might imagine.

Lightweight Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, a total flunky for Chuck Schumer and someone who would come to my office "begging" for campaign contributions not so long ago (and would do anything for them), is now in the ring fighting against Trump. Very disloyal to Bill and Crooked - USED!

Garbled message aside ("begging"? Disloyal to Bill and Crooked? USED! -- #WhatTheSniff), it's hard not to notice the (and would do anything for them) comment nestled in there, isn't it?  What do you think he meant?

a. This is simply talking about a rigged system that we have that is broken, in which special interests control our government.

b. This is a (fill in the blank) shooting off his mouth because, well, because he's a (fill in the blank) who frequently acts like a (fill in the blank), in the most presidential way possible.

c. This was an attempt to bully, intimidate and slut-shame Senator Gillibrand.

d. This was a statement by a misogynist, compulsive liar, and admitted sexual predator and a bully from whom no one is safe.

Yeah -  no matter which response you pick, the guy's a pig, a jerk, and a slime.

And no, I won't respect the office if the person occupying it doesn't have the sense to. And he's still #notmypresident.

20 Questions, 20 Answers

Today's Post Standard editorial, It's Time to Play 20 Questions, is an open invitation for all of us to have a little fun.  It doesn't matter whether you're happy and optimistic, or a miserable, cynical skeptic; as a city resident, county resident or even an out-of-towner, you can chime in. Full disclaimer: in general I resemble at least few of those categories above: I'll admit to being an optimistic if skeptical city resident, at the very least. Answering the questions might put me in some different buckets, we'll see.

Here goes:
1. Is $17,000 to keep the bathrooms clean at the New York State Fair really an excessive expenditure when you figure in the number of bathrooms (about 40), the length of the Fair (12 days) and the loudness of the complaints when the bathrooms are disgusting and run out of toilet paper?

If you've ever been in one of the Fair bathrooms, you'll know that this is money well spent. Those 40 bathrooms have a potential customer base of between 50,000 and 100,000 users per day, and it's worth it to have someone supervise the people hired to clean them. And no, I'm not interested, at any price. 

2. Is Onondaga County government just being super-efficient -- kind of like the private sector -- in its super-speedy review of plans to build an amphitheater on the west shore of Onondaga Lake?

I have to admit, it was hard not to chuckle at the comments from Legislature Chair Ryan McMahon who noted that "This is the first time in my nine years in government, people have been criticized for moving too fast in government."  Apparently he's forgotten about the stadium project, which Onondaga County tried to get shoehorned into the Governor's budget without including Stephanie Miner?  

I would love to see the square wooden wheels of government turn more quickly, on several things -- most notably reform, consolidation and spending -- but when you're talking about $30 million taxpayer dollars to build a seasonal amphitheater on top of decades-old waste beds, in the backyard of the snowiest major city in the Northeast, is time really of the essence?

3. Or is Onondaga County Government trying to ram the project through while nobody's looking?

Yes. And not for nothing, I'm as interested in the comments from concert promoters as I am in the environmental impact statement.  "If you build it, they will come" might have worked in an Iowa cornfield, but I'm not convinced that it will work here, given all of the other entertainment venues that are available within an easy drive.

4.  Why hasn't Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said anything about the implosion of the Moreland Commission to Investigate Public Corruption, whose members he deputized as special prosecutors?

Um, because he's as culpable in the failure of the Moreland Commission as our Sonuva Governor? Do you think he realizes that he dropped the ball, by not "talking to people" on the Commission, by not making suggestions to and meeting with the commissioners, including our own DA-for-Life William Fitzpatrick?  Or is it because he'll do just about anything to stay away from Cuomo at this point, since the two have long had a fractious relationship?

5.  What will the Syracuse University student -- the one who helped design an app to warn Israelis when rockets are about to fall on their heads -- come up with next?

Maybe he can warn us when the drones referenced in #13 are about to fly over our heads? 

6.  Why hasn't anyone built a glass-enclosed party palace in downtown Syracuse before now?

Lack of vision and lack of downtown momentum. Glad we've overcome both!

7.  Where are the Syracuse Chiefs fans -- considering the team is in the thick of a playoff picture, there's a ton of fun off the field and they're giving away a funeral this coming Wednesday, August 13th?

I'm still not convinced on that whole funeral give-away. That said, I haven't been to a Chiefs game since Josh Beckett did a rehab start for the Pawtucket Red Sox. I found my pictures from that night and guess what? There were about as many empty seats as filled seats, even for Beckett.

Now, had you asked me when that game was, I would have guessed a generic 'couple of years ago' --  but in fact, it was in July of 2010.  I had no idea it was that long ago.

I'm not a Chiefs fan, but what the heck's wrong with me that I haven't been to a game in more than four years?  That's a question most of us should ask ourselves.

8. Why is it taking so long to reconstruct West Fayette Street downtown?

The answer is 42. 

9.  Will Syracuse University get more applicants, now that it's been anointed the No. 1 party school in the nation?

Perhaps the better question is, how many folks will leave after the first semester when they realize that the ranking is unwarranted? And will they transfer to LeMoyne "we may be Jesuit but..." College, where at least they have Dolphy Day?

10.  Did President Barack Obama really think he could avoid being dragged back into Iraq?

Maybe he thought he'd be impeached first and wouldn't have to deal with it? On a more serious note, do we always have to go where others fear (or fail) to tread? Must we always be the world's police? Is our manifest destiny to continually try and secure the destiny of others? And how do we sit back and watch our ally Israel cause similar damage against Hamas in Gaza killing hundreds of innocent men, women and children in the process, at the same time we bomb others who cause the same carnage, albeit for different reasons?  Maybe 42 is the answer here as well. 

11. When is a political endorsement from a union not a political endorsement from a union? (Ask Dan Maffei and John Katko).

His uncle and my aunt were hanging up clothes. My union folded, it joined one of those. They support the other guy, so I had nowhere to go, but to throw my support to Cousin Katko. Or something like that, if Timothy Hogan spoke in verse.  

12. What is it with professional athletes and domestic violence?

From the time they're in junior high school, or even earlier, when they get discovered in Pop Warner or AAU leagues, promising athletes become a prized commodity; they're told they're special, and many are given special treatment, as soon as it's possible for someone to do so. Whether having female 'escorts' (wink wink) to them when they're college recruits, or not having to go to class, take tests or write papers, or being excused for sexual assault as high schoolers, or free clothes and all the rest, we show and tell athletes that they're special and all the rest of us are throw-aways, just like an old pair of free sneakers. Sadly, many of them learn that lesson more readily than all of the other critical life lessons that are right in front of them. 

And no, I'm not excusing the athletes' behavior, I'm complaining about the enablers, the ones who sweep bad behavior under the rug to make sure that (enter athlete's name) gets to play on (enter day of the week) in the big game against (enter key rival's name).  

And about league commissioners who put a higher price on smoking pot than on hitting a woman and then dragging her from an elevator.  

13.  With drones poised to start flying over Central New York, how soon before the fist invasion of privacy lawsuit is filed?

As soon as soybeans, corn, and wheat achieve personhood, or corporation-hood, and obtain free speech rights.

14.  Why can't Sens. Charles Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand fly coach like the rest of us?

Good lord, is Chuck 'Touchdown' Schumer wearing those crazy astronaut diapers on his trips around the state?  He pays almost $300,000 to fly around on a plane that doesn't even have a bathroom? 

15.  Would it really be unethical to give experimental drugs to people dying of Ebola?

Ethical questions are supposed to be tough, and to me this one is. Would it be right to experiment on third-world people with the experimental drug, which might not even work? If it's wrong for us to have done that over the years with prisoners,blacks, mentally ill and the poor,how can it be right to do it now? And is it even necessary to do that, since traditional methods, if employed effectively, work effectively?  I think I'm on the 'yes' side of this one. I think.

16.  Can you believe it's football season already?

No. I sure hope my 49er's are ready. And I can't wait for us to get rolling with Scott Shafer press conferences after SU games.

17.  Who will be the next USA Basketball player to quit, after that gruesome injury to Paul George?

Can't say who will be next, don't know enough about it. But if the pros are afraid to play for fear they'll get hurt, perhaps with a career-ending injury, that leaves college kids. If they get afraid of maybe getting hurt before their NBA careers even start, will the USA be left fielding teams of walk-ons and high-school kids against the pros who compete with us (on our favorite teams) during the season and against us in international play? That would stink. 

18. Would today's hyper-partisan Congress have impeached Richard Nixon?

I can't imagine that they would have. Nor, if he was President now, that Nixon would resign. Back then, doing something for the good of the country meant something. Now, not so much. 

19.  Will we ever come to a consensus on Interstate 81?

I'm afraid our conversation will reach the end of its useful life about the same time the highway does.  At the same time, though, I'm glad that voices are being heard and that DOT is listening.  (Ryan McMahon, pay attention...)

20.  The State Fair is almost here.  Where did summer go?

A good portion of it went (as always) to work, weeding, and writing.  This year, we have to add in widing our bikes and dodging waindwops.

How would you have answered the questions? Share your responses in the comments.