In Case You Missed It (v122)

Time to settle into a comfy chair and catch up on last week's posts, in case you missed anything.

I listened to three Democrats for your Sunday School this week: South Carolina Rep. Jim Clyburn, Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar, and Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro. 

They all put in good words for President Biden, tried to dispel fears about his age, and reminded us why we need him to be re-elected in November.  Here's a bit of Shapiro, referencing Ezra Klein's NYT comments.

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

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

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

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

Switching gears for your Extra Credit, I focused solely on Jake Tapper's chat with former Rep. Liz Cheney who, of course, is persona non grata with the MAGA crowd. She was not impressed with recent comments from Snitty Snitty Bill Barr, who recently said he'd vote for Trump over Biden even though, he also said,

Voting for Trump is playing Russian roulette with the country. Voting for Biden is outright national suicide.

She said he's "absolutely wrong," and even though she hasn't endorsed anyone, she "certainly would never support Donald Trump." Why?

...we know what Donald Trump will do because he's telling us every day. And anybody who has spent any time overseas, who has spent any time studying the history of autocracies and of autocrats knows we have to listen to what Donald Trump's saying. So electing Donald Trump's not Russian roulette. Electing Donald Trump would mean putting in power a man who's committed to unraveling our constitutional framework. So Bill Barr is just wrong on that.

I was Wondering on Wednesday about Choco Tacos, and about a proposed 'trucker boycott' of NYC, among other things,. The boycott was proposed by a trucker named Chicago Ray who tweeted about the boycott as a response to the penalties in the NY financial fraud case.

I'm just one of the many millions of Truckers who believe in God and love this Country. I stand with Trump bc Trump stands with me. Truckers for Trump ain't just a slogan, it's real.

Trump was delighted, as you might imagine, to "have so many Great Patriots" on his side, and so on. But then, Chicago Ray deleted his original tweet, put up another one in which he stressed he was not encouraging anyone to do anything - and then deleted that one, too. And I can't help wondering, is he still a Great Patriot, or not?

I took a more serious turn on Thursday, where I highlighted one more Sunday School interview in a Quick Take. I was not familiar with Charlemagne tha God until I watched his taped conversation with Jon Karl. Here's how things kicked off.

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

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

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

Charlamagne's very quotable, and he had a few in the interview that I think really hit the mark, even though a lot of Dems might be mad at him for saying the quiet part out loud. 

Friday was a two-fer: first, an OrangeVerse entry in which I turn former president Donald Trump's words into verse, and there was my usual Friday feature, TGIF, where I attempt to identify folks I think had a good week or a bad one. 

There were political references, of course, including Rep. Dean Phillips, who's running for president on the Dem line, who had a good week.  There also was a culture reference, one that didn't mention Taylor Swift. 

Beyonce has her first #1 single on the Billboard Country chart, the first Black woman with that achievement in the history of the chart. And some folks don't seem happy about it.

Sure, if a Black woman either native to country music or coming up through the country music ranks would have achieved a similar goal, it would speak to the opening up of the genre to women of color. But that’s not what’s happened here at all. Instead, Beyonce is leveraging her global superstar status earned in the pop and R&B/hip-hop world, the enthusiasm of her Stan army the Beyhive, and the coercion of country music’s institutions to ensconce herself atop the genre.

On the other hand, people are line dancing all over the place to the song - including the Savannah Bananas - does that mean this whole thing is a wash?

See a snippet you like? Click the link and check out the full post - and be sure to stop back this week for more of the pastiche.

Sunday School 2/18/24: Extra Credit

For this week's Sunday School, I focused on some of the Democrats who were wandering the halls. 

For your Extra Credit, I've got former Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Too Sane for MAGA Camp), who talked with Jake Tapper in the State of the Union classroom.

Like most folks, Cheney believes "there's no question" Vladimir Putin is responsible for the death of Alexei Navalny. And that makes it even more important that we "pass the aid bill that the Ukrainians need so urgently to help them continue what they're doing" to defeat the Russians.

And one thing that's really important, Jake, for the viewers to recognize and understand is, one man - one man has the power in his hands to get that done. And that's... Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson. It's very unusual actually in American history to be in a situation where one man holds that kind of power who's not the president.

Officially, it's Johnson, but for all practical intents, haven't her former colleagues in the House (and the Senate, too) ceded that power to Donald Trump? 

She added Johnson's got some soul-searching to do on Ukraine; he needs to understand "exactly what's happening," and how the Ukrainians are the front line in the fight for freedom.

And history will look back at this moment and ask, what did Mike Johnson do? He has said, and I take him at his word, that he believes that God has told him that he's called to be Moses. And I think Mike Johnson ought to look at whether or not this is actually that moment, and he ought to help the Ukrainian people.

Tapper mentioned the pressure on Johnson, and the threat that hangs over his head: the ironically-named House 'Freedom' Caucus, which holds the Speakership hostage, could move to boot him from the role. Cheney agrees but says Johnson should understand it'd be worth it to lose the position to do the right thing. She should know, right?

And, again, he's going to have to explain to future generations, to his kids, to his grandkids whether or not he did what was right, whether or not he was a force for good and aided the cause of freedom, or whether he continued down this path of cowardice and doing what Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin want him to do.

Again, like most folks, she's not impressed with Trump not having said anything about his friend Putin taking out a political rival. She also reminded us that Trump has promised retribution, and that retribution is what Putin did to Navalny. Trump needs to be taken seriously, and

We have to take seriously the extent to which you have now got a Putin wing of the Republican Party. I believe the issue this election cycle is making sure the Putin wing of the Republican Party does not take over the west wing of the White House.

She was harsh on Trump's NATO approach, calling it "dangerous," "disgraceful," and "completely uninformed and ignorant," and said what's "so misguided" about people thinking we should just walk away from Ukraine is

if Putin wins in Ukraine, he's telling us... the Baltics are next, Poland is next, NATO member countries will be next. If Putin wins in Ukraine, the security system -- and he knows this -- the security structures that have maintained peace and security and freedom since the end of World War II will begin to unravel.

She thinks "what the Republicans are doing" with our border issues "is really shameful." She strongly blames the Biden administration for its failures there, but "as soon as the agreement was reached" - the tripartisan Sinema/Langford/Murphy bill - she said Trump stepped in again, preferring an issue to run on, rather than movement to solve the problem. And the "contortions from many leading Republicans," aren't fooling anyone, on anything.

I think, again, the American people are too smart to fall for that, and I think that my former colleagues ought to stop the political contortions and realize how significant and serious this national security moment is.

They talked about Trump's legal issues; regarding the E. Jean Carroll case, she said the jury found that Trump actually did what he said he could get away with on the Access Hollywood tape. And she pointed to the common thread with all of the cases: Trump won't follow the law, he won't tell the truth, and he's got a "fundamental lack of character."

 And I think one of the things that is so troubling about this political season is the extent to which you have got people that used to be good and honorable members of Congress, for example, who have simply, apparently, abandoned the need to actually elect people of character and honor, and instead are embracing him.

Tapper was surprised that Sen. Mitt Romney would be "unique" among the Rs in the Senate and House to say, in effect, that he won't vote for someone who's guilty of sexual assault.  Cheney agreed. 

I mean, you would think that anyone with a daughter, sister, a mother would be where Senator Romney is on that issue. 

Tapper noted that Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH YEAH, I'm in the Cult!) and Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-You Kidding Me? Of Course I'll be His Veep), both said they would not have certified the election on January 6th, and he wondered whether anyone should be comfortable voting for a Republican ticket with either of them on it. That's a big fat no from Cheney - and, she said, Stefanik should be removed from the board of the National Endowment for Democracy. 

Cheney also didn't think much of Snitty Snitty Bill Barr, who recently said he'd vote for Trump over Biden even though, he also said,

Voting for Trump is playing Russian roulette with the country. Voting for Biden is outright national suicide.

She said he's "absolutely wrong," and even though she hasn't endorsed anyone, she "certainly would never support Donald Trump." Why?

...we know what Donald Trump will do because he's telling us every day. And anybody who has spent any time overseas, who has spent any time studying the history of autocracies and of autocrats knows we have to listen to what Donald Trump's saying. So electing Donald Trump's not Russian roulette. Electing Donald Trump would mean putting in power a man who's committed to unraveling our constitutional framework. So Bill Barr is just wrong on that.

And what about her plans? Tapper tried to get her on the record, on a variety of options.

• Is she running for president? No decision yet, but she'll do whatever it takes to stop Trump. 
• If she didn't run, would she support Biden over Trump if they were the choices? She's "not making any announcements or endorsements," but she'll do whatever it takes to stop Trump.
• If she were a South Carolina voter, he assumed she'd support Nikki Haley in the primary? "Yes; I mean, again, I am not making any endorsements, but I don't think that's a hard call at all."

Cheney was - is - much more conservative than I am; heck, she voted with Trump nearly 93% of the time during her career. But she's one of the few politicians who answers the questions she's asked and is not afraid to speak her mind. I wish all of the folks who sat in the classrooms were as accessible. 

See you around campus.

Quick Takes (v71): Meaningless "Major Endorsements"

Last night on ABC's World News Tonight, we were urged to the edge of our seats with the news that Donald Trump received a "major endorsement." 

Who could it be, I wondered... Meghan McCain? Jeb Bush? Rachel Maddow? Or wait... maybe it was Carly "Look at that Face" Fiorina, who ran against him in 2016? 

Oh, silly me... it was Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC). You remember him, right? The only Black Republican in the Senate? Former presidential candidate? The guy forced by the press into declaring he had a girlfriend?  Yeah, that guy. 

Can you imagine how this must have been "a big boost" for Donald Trump,  and "a major snub" for Nikki Haley, who appointed Scott to the Senate back in 2012?  That's how ABC's Rachel Scott described it about ten minutes into the broadcast. 

My guess? It's neither of those things. 

Sure, all the candidates in the race hope for the endorsements of those who drop out, and one might expect there'd be a bit of loyalty from Scott to Haley, but she's behind both Trump and DeSantis coming out of Iowa, and likely has little chance of winning regardless of who endorses her. 

Now, to be fair, ABC is not the only outlet gushing over the endorsement - it's pretty widespread, with folks all trying to make it sound more meaningful than it is. 

I agree with NH Gov. Chris Sununu, a Haley supporter, who said

If anyone cared about Tim Scott, he'd still be running for president. 

Honestly, I think there are two issues with this: the endorsers, and those who report on the endorsements.

In my opinion, if you're Tim Scott, Doug Burgum or Vivek Ramaswamy, or even folks like Nick Ayers, one of  Mike Pence's former chiefs of staff, you're endorsing Trump because you want something from him, not because you have anything to offer him. 

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

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

How many of those governors, senators, and representatives honestly believe Trump needs their endorsement, and how many of them are more interested in making sure folks who can vote for them know they support Trump? 

If you're a political reporter paid to give your best attention to these things, you should be asking yourself, "What's in it for the endorser?" instead of simply giving free publicity to the endorsee.  

And please, do us a favor: when a truly notable endorsement happens - if Mike Pence, or Nancy Pelosi, or Merrick Garland, or Liz Cheney - decides for incomprehensible reasons to support Trump, let us know. 

In Case You Missed It (v99)

What was shaking at veritable pastiche last week? Here's your recap. 

The week started with It Happened Again, a post referencing the Amadou Diallo murder from the 90s, American Skin (41 Shots), the Bruce Springsteen song inspired by it, and the Jayland Walker murder from last month. 

There were 46 entrance wounds on his 25-year-old body: 

• 17 on his pelvis and upper legs, injuring major arteries to his leg and bladder; his pelvis and both femurs were broken.
• 15 on his torso, injuring his heart, lungs, liver, spleen, left kidney, intestines, and multiple ribs.
• 8 on his arms and right hand.
• 5 on his knees, his leg, and his foot
• 1 on his face, breaking his jaw.

Adding insult to those injuries? He was handcuffed after he was murdered. 

Is it a gun, is it a knife

Is it a wallet, this is your life

It ain't no secret (it ain't no secret)

It ain't no secret (it ain't no secret)

No secret my friend

You can get killed just for living in your American skin.

It happened again - and I don't know that I will ever understand why. 

In your Sunday School lesson, we were back in CNN's State of the Union classroom. Host Dana Bash talked with outgoing Gov. Doug Ducey (R-AZ) about the Republican Governors Association.

Ducey talked about how the RGA works and how it works to "keep our states red ...but we don't support lost causes." Bash honed in Doug Mastriano in PA, wondering if he was a "lost cause."  Ducey said no decisions have been made yet given it's still early. 

When Bash asked if someone like Mastriano "should be in such an important swing state in the governor's mansion," Ducey said 

I also think this election should be about the future. I don't think we should think for one more moment about 2020. This is about the 2022 election cycle. And, as I said, the job of the RGA is to elect Republican governors, and that's what we're going to do in this cycle.

For your Extra Credit, it was Bash's conversation with Jared Bernstein, a long-time Biden economic advisor, that had left me scratching my head. Bernstein had to explain a couple of things to Bash that, in my opinion, should have been obvious.

...if we're going to talk about the damage that these high energy prices are having on family budgets, I think we have to talk about the benefits for when those prices come down a little.

And, he also had to explain, 

...the president is unequivocal by not calling 'mission accomplished' on any of this. We're talking about a decline that's completely insufficient when it comes to delivering the relief to family budgets that they need. So, that's why he continues to push on every aspect he can of this issue in terms of increasing the supply of global energy to help mitigate that price increase.

And then, a lightbulb: Bash said, "And you're right. The prices have come down, which is a good thing. It's better than them going the other way." BINGO! 

Compared to others in the administration, Bernstein is a breath of fresh air.

Also on Tuesday, I posted Part Three of our Future Tale. Parts One and Two were recapped, which explained why our narrator was in a really weird alley, and found

A revolving door. 

A revolving door? It was so completely out of place, I almost laughed out loud, but caught myself at the last second. Laughing seemed as out of place as the door, after what I had just been through, what I had yet to fully process. Heck, who am I kidding? I hadn't even begun to process what had happened behind me in the alley; I didn't even know where to start, but I knew laughing wasn't it.

I stopped a few feet away from the door, all glass and brass, ornate like the doors you find in classy old hotels, and simultaneously filthy like you find in abandoned ones. I half expected there to be a bellman in the vestibule, but this wasn't a hotel, there wasn't a vestibule. I'm in an alley for Pete's sake, I told myself, not in some old movie. 

My husband, trying to piece things together, said it made more sense when I explained it was part nightmare, part dream, part The Thoughts That Fly Around My Head When I Should Be Sleeping. I'll have more of the story for you later. 

For your Wondering on Wednesday, I was musing about another of those things I'll never understand: the stupidity of the Democrats.

Speaking of listening, I can't help wondering who on earth the Dems are listening to, that they think the answer to winning elections this year is to prop up Trumpers in their GOP primaries? The most recent example comes from yesterday's gubernatorial primary in Maryland, where Trump-endorsed Dan Cox beat actual Republican Kelly Schulz, who was endorsed by her former boss, Gov. Larry Hogan. 

The Democratic Governors Association - a bunch of goofballs, it would seem - spent over a million bucks propping up Cox, thinking he'd be easier to beat in the general election. 

And, of course, Cox is not the only one. They're also propping up Kari Lake, the goofball running to replace Ducey in Arizona. I swear you can't make this stuff up. 

For #tbt, I revisited this one: Ronald Reagan for President? It started when I, a lifelong registered Democrat (at that time, I was - not anymore) got a call from a survey asking "loyal conservatives" who they wanted for president. Deciding to play along, at least for a while, I asked who the choices were, and the caller told me it was an open question but gave me several of the leading responses, including Ronald Reagan, who passed away in 1989.

Excited that I had such great options, I responded emphatically "Ronald Reagan!" The woman answered, with a chuckle, "Yes, he seems to be a popular choice."  

A dead man is a popular choice to lead the Conservatives forward in their mission to take back America? Really? A dead man? 

I pointed out that it seemed that a dead man (even a dead former president) being a top mention as a 'leader' of the Conservative movement said either quite a bit about their message, quite a bit about loyal local Conservatives, or both. 

Mostly I think it says a lot about the state of affairs in America today. 

I had fun with this one, and so did the caller - and yes, I did confess my Dem status to her.

Friday brought a Quick Take on the bizarre doings at the Federal Election Commission, in particular a hissy fit about a question Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) asked. The FEC is a mess -for one thing, it's equally divided between Ds and Rs, on purpose. For another, there seems to be a commissioner who's a bit judgmental, which led to a Twitter spat.

After the meeting a fellow commish, Ellen Weintraub, tweeted about Trainor's comment, saying in part 

I have never seen a requestor treated so disrespectfully by a member of this Commission. We do not 'pass judgment' on the personal lives of those who come before us asking for guidance.

And, because #thisisus, Trainor responded, misspelling Swalwell's name in the process. 

I've never seen campaign donors treated so disrespectfully! The Republic will persevere even if Swallwell (sic) doesn't get all the junkets he'd like.

To help Trainor our, I was more than happy to share some egregious examples of "campaign donors treated so disrespectfully!" from right here in my own backyard. I'll have more on the FEC for you coming up this week. 

We closed things out with an all good-week  TGIF. The post included a variety of folks involved in some with with the Trump insurrection, including the January 6th Committee's vice chair, Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY).

Her closing remarks at the end of last night's hearing? I don't think I'd change a single word. There were many quotable parts, certainly; here are a couple of the most meaningful. 

Here is the worst part. Donald Trump knows that millions of Americans who supported him would stand up and defend our nation were it threatened. They would put their lives and their freedom at stake to protect her. And he is preying on their patriotism. He is preying on their sense of justice. And on January 6th, Donald Trump turned their love of country into a weapon against our Capitol and our Constitution. 

Off the top of my head, I don't know if any Republican could have handled it better. Neither could more Dems, truth be told.

See you back here later for Sunday School.

TGIF 7/22/22

Let's do an all good-week list today - you up for that?

Here are just a few of the notables who made this a good week, in my opinion.

The jury in Steve Bannon's contempt of Congress trial. 

They took about two hours to reach a verdict and it was the right one.

Steve Bannon, ex-White House strategist and adviser to former President Donald Trump, was found guilty by a jury Friday of criminal contempt of Congress for refusing to appear before the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol. 

Bannon was found guilty of two counts of criminal contempt — one for refusing to appear for a deposition before the panel and the other for refusing to produce requested documents. Each count carries a minimum potential sentence of 30 days and a maximum of one year in jail, as well as a fine of $100 to $1,000.

Naturally, he plans on appealing, but I don't care. I'm going to relish his conviction for as long as I can.

The tech team for the January 6th Committee. 

Last night's hearing was very well put together, and the video clips that were shared were carefully chosen and fit the moment perfectly. Among the highlights: Trump's Rose Garden message on the sixth, and the taping of his message on the seventh; the matching up of video from the Capitol and other testimony from the same time period, and the clips from Fox News and Fox personalities. And yes, the Josh Hawley clips - the fist pump, and the running clips, in full speed and slow motion, too. 

Mallory Nees (@The_Mal_Gallery on Twitter), who was the creative user behind several Josh Hawley running-to-music clips. 

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) may have broken a Guinness World Record on Thursday — if there’s one for guest starring in the most movies and music videos in a single night...

But the footage of Hawley was all the same: two clips that aired in prime time during the most recent hearing of the House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. Both showed Hawley running from rioters as they poured into the building, according to the committee.

Rep. Liz Cheney, vice chair of the January 6th Committee. 

Her closing remarks at the end of last night's hearing? I don't think I'd change a single word. There were many quotable parts, certainly; here are a couple of the most meaningful. 

Here is the worst part. Donald Trump knows that millions of Americans who supported him would stand up and defend our nation were it threatened. They would put their lives and their freedom at stake to protect her. And he is preying on their patriotism. He is preying on their sense of justice. And on January 6th, Donald Trump turned their love of country into a weapon against our Capitol and our Constitution. 

And, perhaps the most important of all: the Thatcher quote. 

This room is full of history, and we on this Committee know we have a solemn obligation not to idly squander what so many Americans have fought and died for. Ronald Reagan’s great ally, Margaret Thatcher, said this: “Let it never be said that the dedication of those who love freedom is less than the determination of those who would destroy it.”  

The many Republicans who have testified including the two we met last night.

Among the Rs testifying in person? 

• State officials from Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Arizona. 
• A retired, highly respected conservative judge. 
• Multiple lawyers. 
• Former staffers for Trump and Mike Pence. 
• A disillusioned Capitol rioter.
• A former spokesperson for the Oath Keepers.

And, from taped testimony or news reports?

• The contemptuous Steve Bannon. 
• More lawyers, more staffers.
• Members of Trump's family.
• The House Minority Leader.
• The Senate Minority Leader.

The case against Trump is being shared by a mostly-Democratic committee, but it's being made by the Republicans. Nothing here is meant to relieve them of their complicity or their acquiescence. And, certainly, nothing forgives them for quickly dropping their facades, their anger or frustration, and traipsing off to Mar-A-Lago to kiss the ring of the man they all fear.

But without the Republicans - Cheney, and Rep. Adam Kinzinger, of course - and all who we've heard from, we wouldn't know what we know. 

TGIF, everyone.

Sunday School 7/3/22: Extra Credit

CNN won the draw for your Sunday School lesson this week, so let's continue with Dana Bash and her guests in the State of the Union classroom.

 Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R- You Kidding Me? You People *Still* Support Him? -IL), the other Republican on the January 6th Committee, had the (ahem) privilege of following Gov. Kristi Noem in the classroom. Here's a recap.

When Bash asked for his reaction to the governor's comments on January 6th, he didn't mince words. She was in the House with him, and he said he was 'blown away' by her interview, in which she questioned the truthfulness of Cassidy Hutchinson.

...it's like "Invasion of the Body Snatchers." This is not the Kristi Noem I served with. The Kristi Noem I served with was conservative, dedicated to truth, and I, at the time, would have thought (she) would have put her country above her political career at any moment.

He said "it is clear she is running for president or vice president. She's scared to death of the base." He referred to Hutchinson as a "26-year-old patriot" and said that Noem calling her into question, but then avoiding

...saying that Donald Trump bore even an ounce of responsibility for January 6th, I get amazed still every day by what some of my colleagues do. This is one of the biggest ones. She used to be something very different.

After playing a clip from Rep. Liz Cheney's primary debate, and noting that Kinzinger called her opponents "a bunch of armpit farters," she suggested that one of them could "very well win."

So, Liz Cheney, you can disagree with her position on whatever, but she stood in front of her constituents and she said, 'look, here's where I'm at on these issues, these core democracy issues. Now you can make a decision whether or not to vote for me.' Frankly, that's what politics should be. That's what every election should be.

And, he said, "(h)er main opponent was a big supporter of Liz Cheney until she found out that maybe she could run against Liz Cheney." He said they're lying to voters, spreading conspiracies, and playing games, and "Americans have got to wake up and demand far better" because

...we have a primary system where somebody like Liz Cheney, a very professional, focused person, regardless of what you think of her politics... can be up against just lies and conspiracy, and 5 to 10 percent of... Wyoming, will actually show up and vote in a primary and make a decision...Look, Liz, God bless her. She is making a stand. I think she can win. But I hope this serves as a lesson to every American. Like, let's fix this system, because the primary system is failing.

He also talked about "typical for Trump world" behavior - the process of distracting people from what's important. He's talking about all the attacks against Hutchinson (like Noem's, really) for testifying to what Tony Ornato told her about Trump's actions in the SUV on January 6th. What no one's refuting, Kinzinger said, is that Trump knew his supporters were armed, and that he really wanted to be at the Capitol with them. 

He said Ornato's welcome to testify under oath, and that the Committee hears from people regularly.

Every day, we get new people that come forward and say, hey, I didn't think maybe this piece of the story that I knew was important, but now that you guys are talking -- like, I do see this plays in here.

And, he said, although it's not what she wants, Hutchinson will be remembered long after the names of Committee members have been forgotten.

She doesn't want to be out in the public spotlight. But she has a commitment to truth that somebody like Kristi Noem, for instance, and most people in our party, would actually benefit to take just a 10 percent ounce of.

Finally, we heard this from Kinzinger: the Committee's not done yet.

There will be way more information. And stay tuned.

 One last note, from Bash:

I want to show our viewers what 'The Washington Examiner' said in an editorial. 'The Washington Examiner' editorial board is conservative:

Trump is unfit to be anywhere near power ever again. Republicans have far better options to lead the party in 2024. No one should think otherwise, much less support him ever again.

And yet he is, according to our sources, likely to announce he is going to run in 2024 as soon as this month.

If you want some extra Extra Credit points, see how many "if he runs, I'll support him" comments you can find from prominent members of the GOP.

See you around campus. 

TGIF 7/1/22

It's list-making time again; here are a few of the likely suspects for good week or bad ween mention.

Cassidy Hutchinson, former aide to Mark 'That's Me in My Rusty Trailer, Yes Siree Bob!' Meadows, former president Trump's fourth Chief of Staff, has been attacked practically since she began her testimony under oath before the January 6th Committee. Which, if you've paid any attention over the last several years, usually is a sign a person's doing some damage in Trumpworld.

The attacking, of course, is coming from anonymous sources, or from right-wing commentators, and from the former president himself. I think he actually paid her a compliment: he said he hardly knew her, which means that what she said she observed or heard while working just steps from the door of the Oval Office, or while she was in the tent at the Steal the Damn Election rally, is probably true. 

She cannot be held to account for what she said she was told by others, but surely if they think she lied or misrepresented them, their lawyers can probably figure out how to get hold of Rep. Bennie Thompson, Rep. Liz Cheney, or any other member of the Committee. 

And no, for the folks in denial, the committee hearings are not a trial, the House is not a courtroom, and if you wanted to have the chance to cross-examine someone, maybe your guy Kevin 'I Might Not Be Your Speaker Much Longer' McCarthy hadn't played his cards so badly, you might not be in this situation now. 

• Good week: Hutchinson, until someone contradicts her under oath.
• Bad week: Meadows, Trump.
• Mixed week: Cheney, for her unforced error of hugging Hutchinson after her testimony.

President Biden has thrown his support behind a filibuster 'carveout' to codify Roe v Wade. It will take a bigly miracle for this to happen, and the chances of that are probably slim to none at best. First of all, Sens. Joe Manchin (D-Coal in Everyone's Stocking!) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Why Am I Doing This?) are opposed to doing that; second, there's bipartisan disagreement on how far they should go with abortion legislation, and third, Sen. Pat Leahy (D- The Only Real Democratic Senator from Vermont) is going to miss at least some time as he rehabs from hip surgery, so there clearly aren't the votes.

• Good week: no one.
• Bad week: Biden and Leahy, for vastly different reasons, and Chuck Schumer, who can't wrangle his caucus to save his life.

Finally, the 2021-2022 term of the Supreme Court has come to an end, with many late decisions that, while not unexpected, sent shockwaves throughout the country. There was joy in Mudville, and there was mud in Joyville. There were some strange crossover decisions, with conservatives joining the liberals, and vice versa which confused a lot of people. Justice Stephen Breyer officially retired, and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was sworn in, ready to start on the first Monday in October.

• Good week: the Religious Right, the NRA, and Mitch McConnell, who is probably most responsible for two of Trump's justices being on the Court.
• Bad week: women, government as we know it, well-regulated militias, and people who don't think religious coercion is a good thing.
• Mixed week: immigration and climate policies.

On the above, we may not yet know the real impact of this term, what the new "conservative" majority means, and how much further backward, or sideways, we'll go in the 2022-2023 term.

TGIF, everyone.

Sunday School 4/10/22

 I spent time in three classrooms today.; let's start with Dana Perino, who hosted Fox News Sunday, and her conversation with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Where The Grim Reaper Lives). 

He feels the administration is doing better on Ukraine, but feels there's a lack of focus on the goal, which he said is for the Ukrainians "to win, to win, to defeat the Russians, the Russians to withdraw from the country."  And, he thinks they're too focused on being green, causing us to ask others to ramp up oil production. He said "we were energy independent as late as 2019. "

We can be energy independent again. The administration needs to take the shackles off domestic production. We can meet our own needs, and we can export and help the Europeans as they wean themselves away from Russian oil and gas, which I think clearly now they realize is the best and safest path forward. 

No one mentioned the ten-to-twenty thousand barrels of Russian crude oil and other products we've imported each month - for the past 20 years or so - or the last president asking OPEC to produce more oil, which he did in 2019. I wonder why?

McConnell says the administration "just can't seem to get their act together on the economy," but that's only part of why "the American people are so down on the president."

The economy, the precipitous withdrawal from Afghanistan, the domestic energy issue we've already been discussing, crime, problems in public education, this administration has really got its hands full and I think they're headed toward a pretty good beating in the fall election.

And if the Rs retake the majorities in the House and Senate, all those issues will be part of the agenda, as will increasing military spending; Biden's current request "doesn't even keep up with inflation." And, McConnell said, "We've got a war going on in Ukraine." 

Well not really: the world has a war going on in Ukraine. All of NATO, all the EU, and most of the UN have skin in this game, too. The Rs complain about domestic spending; if we limit that, we should limit what we spend in Ukraine.

Ultimately, if they win, they'll work to make Biden the moderate he ran as. And even though there's bipartisan polling sentiment that we're headed in the wrong direction, McConnell has faith in us. We've hit rough spots before, he said, and we always figure out how to get back on track.

We are the most important country in the world, the freest country in the world, and let's remember that this Easter. We have a lot to be grateful for and thankful that we are in this wonderful, wonderful country.

Over in the CNN State of the Union classroom, Jake Tapper talked with National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan. Here's the key piece of their discussion that Tapper carried over to his talk with Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Courage of her Convictions).

Sullivan said what we call the horrific acts the Russians have committed is "less important than the fact that these acts are cruel and criminal and wrong and evil and need to be responded to decisively." He outlined some of how we're doing that, before saying

And we will continue to take every step we possibly can to help the Ukrainians succeed on the battlefield and to improve their position at the negotiating table and to make the Russians pay also through increasing costs of sanctions for what they are doing to the people of Ukraine. (Emphasis added)

Cheney was not satisfied with that. In her view, we shouldn't even be talking about Zelenskyy and negotiations. 

We ought to be moving much faster, much more quickly recognizing that the Ukrainians now, given what they have been able to do and how long they have been able to fight and what they have been able to inflict upon the Russian forces, they need advanced weaponry. 

She thinks we should consider both offensive and defensive military support, we should be ensuring shipping lanes in the Black Sea remain open, and we should be giving Zelenskyy "whatever he said he needs."

Hanging up her hawk wings and turning to the January 6th Committee,  Cheney told Tapper no decision has been made on a referral of president Trump to the DOJ for criminal charges. It is, however

it's absolutely clear that what President Trump was doing, what a number of people around him were doing, that they knew it was unlawful. They did it anyway. 

She called it a "massive and well-organized and well- planned effort," and pointed to the 'statement of offense', part of the plea deal with a leader of the Proud Boys, saying it "lays out in really chilling detail" about the planning, the violence, the rally, and, she said,

 -- and, don't forget, Donald Trump tweeted out that message: Be there. Be wild."

The 'statement of offense' Cheney referenced is something we all should read. I encourage you to do that.

Denying a "dispute" on the committee, she said it's the "single most collaborative committee" she's been on, and expressed confidence that they'll come to agreement on "all of the issues we're facing." And, the mere fact that Ivanka Trump testified, without claiming executive privilege, made it clear how contemptuous Dan Scavino and Peter Navarro were in not cooperating.

Asked about politicians going to Eastern Europe and pledging to support another country's democracy, she said this about supporting our own.

But, if we don't stand for our Constitution, if we don't stand for democracy, if we don't stand for freedom, if we -- if we forget that our oath to our Constitution is an oath to a document, it's not an oath to an individual, we have got to always remember that, or our democracy is in peril.  

And finally, a quick visit to Jon Karl, hosting This Week with George Stephanopoulos. This week's segment from Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight was about Sarah Palin entering the race to replace the late Rep. Don Young, her getting Trump's endorsement, and her chances of winning.

Noting she's "an important figure historically," he said there are "reasons to be skeptical" about her chances. On the one hand, she's got "high name recognition and popularity" in the GOP.

A recent Economist/YouGov poll found 62% of Republicans nationally had a favorable view of Palin, compared to just 23% who had an unfavorable one. But within Alaska, she isn't all that popular. Although Palin was a well-liked governor, her approval rating before she left office was 56%.

Alaskans didn't like that she quit on the job in 2009 before serving out her term. In fact, her favorability rating in a poll last October was only 31%. She's also getting a late start on a race that is chock-full of other candidates, almost 50 of them, in fact.

Silver named several of her key rivals, including one who was in the race before Young's death, a former aide to Young, and an indigenous woman who served in the Trump administration.  And, he said

Palin's polarizing image also won't help her given Alaska's new ranked choice voting system where the top four primary candidates advance and then voters rank order them in the general election. Palin's name recognition may help in the first round, but she could be overtaken later by other candidates,...

I don't know exactly what odds I'd put on Palin. It's safe to say her chances are above zero but below 50 percent. But, overall, I'm not really buying her comeback. 

I'm not buying it either, but we'll have to see what happens in June. 

In the meantime, here are highlights of her endorsing Trump back in 2016. And here's a reminder of how she tried to leverage her endorsement of Trump to raise funds so she could travel around the country in support of other candidates. Or, you know, just blow the money. Fun times - fun times, for sure.

See you around campus.  

Sunday School 1/2/22: Extra Credit

The pandemic was one hot topic in the Sunday School classrooms this week; last year's insurrection was the other.

Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MI) and Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY), the chair and vice-chair of the House January 6th Committee, were in the classrooms, as was Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), who is on the committee and is chair of the House Intelligence Committee. 

We'll start with Thompson and his chat with Chuck Todd, which aired on Meet the Press. Asked if what happened was a protest that got out of hand, or an insurrection, Thompson said it was a bit of both.

... you had citizens who have the right to protest, who thought that was the end of what would happen, and you had others who obviously came with bear spray, camouflage, Kevlar, hockey sticks, everything, prepared to do something else. 

They've heard from many who volunteered details on their experiences on January 6th, Thompson said; the goal now is to get to people the Committee "basically identified that they’ve participated," including Reps. Scott Perry (R-PA) and Jim Jordan (R-OH), to cooperate. And if they have the authority to issue subpoenas (that's being looked at), "there'll be no reluctance on our part" to do so.

There's no timeline yet for issuing a report, but they're "in a good place" to start drafting one. Thompson said the Committee "won't be deterred by the attempts to slow things down by (people) suing the committee." He suggested it would be substantive, adding

there is some legislation that we hope to recommend with this report that Congress needs to adopt so that what occurred on January 6th will never happen again... we came critically close to losing this democracy as we've come to know it. And so, it's our duty as patriots, as Americans, as members of Congress, to make sure that we get it right.

Last thoughts? 

... I think if Democrats and Republicans who are ideologically apart like Liz (Cheney) and Bennie Thompson can come together for the good of this country, we'd be in a better place if others could do the same thing.

Speaking of Cheney, here are highlights of her visit with George Stephanopoulos on This Week. She said they have "firsthand testimony" that Trump watched the attack on TV in the dining room next to the Oval Office, and that it's hard to imagine a more significant and more serious dereliction of duty than" Trump's lack of action on January 6th. 

The president could have at any moment, walked those very few steps into the briefing room, gone on live television, and told his supporters who were assaulting the Capitol to stop. He could have told them to stand down. He could have told them to go home -- and he failed to do so. 

Whether it was criminally negligent has yet to be determined, but she did say one possible legislative change to be considered is whether "enhanced penalties for that kind of dereliction of duty" are needed. And she said, as he sat there, "members of his staff were pleading with him to go on television...Leader McCarthy was pleading with him to do that... Ivanka went in at least twice" to get him to stop the violence.

Any man who would not do so, any man who would provoke a violent assault on the Capitol to stop the counting of electoral votes, any man who would watch television as police officers were being beaten, as his supporters were invading the Capitol of the United States, is clearly unfit for future office...

She agreed with Hillary Clinton who said if Trump ran for president and won, "that could be the end of our democracy;" Trump "crossed lines no American president has ever crossed before," he "cannot be trusted," and he "went to war with the rule of law..."

Cheney didn't really have an answer to why a majority of Rs would elect Trump again. Rather, she said the GOP had to choose loyalty to Constitution, or to Trump - they cannot be both. And, she said,

the nation needs a Republican Party that is based on substance and values and principles, and we've got to get back to that if we want to get this nation back on track... at the end of the day, we can't be a party that's based on lies. We've got to be based on a foundation of truth and fidelity to the rule of law. And, in my view, the most conservative of conservative principles is fidelity to the Constitution.

Final thoughts on what gives her hope? The committee does; she believes it's truly non-partisan, made up of folks with "very different policy views" who come together when it comes to defending the Constitution. She suggested that's the kind of "serious leadership" Americans need.

They're looking for people certainly on both sides of the aisle who are going to dedicate themselves to policy and substance and engage in the debates that we need for the health of the nation and get away from the kind of vitriol that we are seeing too frequently, too often, frankly on both sides...

Republicans, she said, "have a particular duty to reject insurrection, to reject what happened on January 6th, and to make sure that Donald Trump is not our nominee and that he's never anywhere close to the reins of power ever again."

And, from Schiff's conversation with Margaret Brennan on Face the Nation, we learn he hopes they'll have hearings soon, and that

...we hope to be able to tell the story to the country so that they understand it isn't just about that one day, January 6th, but all that led up to it, what happened on that day, and the continuing danger going forward.

Schiff said that Trump and his aides "were indicatively involved" in various efforts. He said many things related to the actual attack are still "under deep investigation," but the issue of the White House's role "is at the core of our investigation."

Switching to his Intelligence Committee role, and whether "there was just a failure of imagination in terms of too much focus on militias and organized groups versus sort of a defused threat of political violence," Schiff agreed in part, mentioning. 

the failure to see all the evidence that was out there to be seen for the propensity of violence that day. A lot of it on social media. Now, there are answers for why the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security failed to see it as (clearly) as they should have, and we're looking into that.

As is always the case, Schiff kept talking when he should have stopped. 

But we shouldn't be distracted from the fact that, yes, while there were things that could and should have been done to protect the Capitol that day, the primary lever, instrument, the cause of that violence was the promulgation of a big lie by the former president... it's important that we don't lose sight of the real motivating cause here and -- and not just focus on the security of the building. It's also vital we understand that this was an attack inspired by the commander- in-chief.

He said he doesn't think Trump and "his acolytes" will be successful in delaying documents and "denying justice," adding that the "the courts have been moving with great alacrity" in deciding that the documents should be turned over. 

But when it does go before the Supreme Court, we well get a sense of whether that court is a conservative court or whether it has become just a partisan court. If it's a conservative court, it will not disturb the decisions below, which I think have clearly held that Congress has a right to this information....

We may find out soon just what kind of Court this is. Trump's application for a hold on the Circuit Court's decision that the records should be turned over was filed back on December 23rd. Not long after, the committee asked for a fast-tracked decision by Supremes on Trump's request, and the former president agreed.

See you around campus.

Quick Takes (v62): Keep One, Toss the Rest

They take an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" and to "bear true faith and allegiance to the same" and to "well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office..."

Nothing in their oath says anything about bearing true faith and allegiance to their party.

Nothing in their oath says anything about supporting and defending the charlatan and grifter who used to be president, or about supporting and defending any other individual.

It's just not in the oath - I swear and affirm.

So much of the time, they disregard their oath and work for their own longevity and benefits of office, not for the benefit of the country, not for our vaunted American Ideals, not for you and me. Put many of them in the same room and all we'll see is a pile of insincere, self-centered, scaredy cat hypocrites.

Is this the only example, the move by Kevin McCarthy to delegitimize the House Select Committee on the insurrection, immediately after meeting with the former president, the many McCarthy previously said "bears responsibility" for what happened?

Hell no, there are tons of them. I wear glasses, but the lenses are not rose, I can assure you. We could fill the Boston Harbor a million times over with boxes of hypocrisy from the people we elect - the Boston Harbor, and the Great Lakes, and the entire Mississippi River and all her tributaries, and the Gulf of Mexico, and still have boxes and boxes of hypocrisy left over.

If Washington hypocrisy was water, we'd never have a drought. If it was actual currency, we'd be able to pay for every idea anyone ever thought of, and some ideas we haven't thought of yet.

But it's not actual currency - it's political currency. And so here we are.

If any of the Rs had any courage, they'd walk down the hall to Speaker Pelosi's office and volunteer to be on the Select Committee. All of those "Look at me, I'm bipartisan!" folks in the Problem Solvers Caucus? They'd be lining up to join the Committee. They'd do that, to uphold their oath, to support and defend the Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic. Even if that means they might be investigating members of their own caucus, their colleagues, their friends. And they'd even have the chance to investigate the House leadership as part of the process, which is as it should be. We should expect nothing less, and we should stand for nothing less.

I'm not holding my breath for even a single second, because I know better. We all know better. We must figure out how to get these people out of office.

Except Liz Cheney. She can stay. Not because I agree with her on policy issues, but because she has more courage than the rest of them combined.

Sunday School 5/9/21

Happily, Mother's Day interfered with getting this week's Sunday School post done, but I've got you covered, with Fox News Sunday and the Chris Wallace chat with Rep. Jim Banks (R-IN). 

Rep. Banks is "one of the Republicans leading the charge to remove Rep. Liz Cheney" and replace her with Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY). Lots of us find that choice interesting, given Cheney's much more conservative voting record (80% to Stefanik's 48% rating from Heritage Action) and her 93% vote-with-Former Guy record, compared to Stefanik's 78%. 

Of course, Stefanik has a 100% Former Guy Cult rating, compared to Cheney's 0% there, and that's really all that matters. And Former Guy even knows how to pronounce her name now, I think (he used to say Steph-a-nick, for Pete's sake.)

Banks said the Rs are "almost completely unified in a single mission to oppose the radical dangerous Biden agenda and win back the majority" in the midterms - and anything else gets in the way of that. 

And any leader who's not focused on that, on pushing back against the Biden -- the radical dangerous Biden agenda, at this point, needs to be replaced. But the -- the point here is that we are almost entirely unified on that mission except for Liz Cheney.

When Wallace pushed him to define what Cheney's not doing in that regard, Banks just started babbling.

I'm the -- I'm the leader of the largest conservative caucus Republican study committee. Chris, it's uncomfortable at times, but one of my jobs is to hold my Republican leadership accountable for being focused on the Republican ideals that we stand for and the single mission that we have to win back the majority. And, at this point, the reason, Chris, that you and I are talking about Liz Cheney on this important program on Sunday morning is -- is exact -- the exact evidence that she's failed in her mission as the chief spokesperson of our party. We shouldn't be talking about Liz Cheney; we should be talking about pushing back against the radical Biden agenda. And this is all a distraction from our ability to be able to do that. That -- that's why she will likely be replaced this week.

He says he doesn't know who'll replace her, but the entire universe, including the Chinese rocket derbis, knows it's going to be Stefanik. Wallace asked Banks why he wouldn't talk about Cheney's criticism of Former Guy. More babbling ensued, including Banks saying again that Cheney has lost focus on "the single mission we have in winning back the majority, to push back against the radical Biden agenda is the reason that she needs to be replaced." And, he continued,

 -- and -- and make it clear, make it clear to all of your viewers, Chris, that we're not kicking her out of the Republican Party if she's removed from her leadership post. But in her leadership post, she doesn't just -- any member of Congress doesn't just represent their district, they represent 212 members of the Republican conference and -- and right now it's clear that she doesn't represent the views of the majority of our conference or the focus that all of us have to win back the majority. 

Wallace then asked if Joe Biden was the legitimate president. Banks said "Yes, Joe Biden was elected. He was -- he was inaugurated on January 20th. And he -- he's -- he's the -- our focus."  And when Wallace explained that he asked the question because Banks supported the Texas lawsuit challenging the election results in other states. And he asked Banks if he still questions "whether or not Joe Biden won the election fair and square and got over 270 electoral votes fair and square?" The answer to that question is, well, yes, he does question it.

Yes, Chris, I -- I stand by my vote to object on January 6th. I stand by the Texas lawsuit because I have serious concerns about how the election in November was -- was carried out. 

The rest of his answer was the same as his answer to every other question Wallace asked: fighting the radical dangerous Biden agenda and taking back the majority and having a singular focus (on getting rid of Liz Cheney, of course, but he didn't come right out and say that this time). 

Wallace - he did a great job with this interview, I must say - pushed Banks again on Former Guy and the insurrection, pointing out that Banks had said "... (Former Guy) was not responsible for the attack on the Capitol," something that even GOP leader Kevin McCarthy said was not true. Banks generalized, noting that 

...every single Republican in the Republican conference denounced what happened on January 6 and almost all of us agree there should be some sort of a bipartisan commission to study what happened on that day to make sure that it never happens again.

And when Wallace had to explain that he was asking Banks for his opinion on whether Former Guy contributed to the insurrection, and about the Big Lie, that the election was stolen from him, Banks said he "never said the election was stolen," but he did have concerns about how it was run, and that he'd never apologize for going along with the Texas lawsuit. And then, almost like clockwork, it was back to the distraction and Liz Cheney and "what we have to do to save this country" and that's why they don't need her any more.

And the final question? Did Banks think that Cheney was "misguided" when she makes points like "history is watching and you can't go forward until you resolve this question, the election was fair and square, and that Former Guy played a negative role?" Yep, he does.

 Yes, I -- I've called on Liz Cheney to rejoin the Republican team and help us go out and win the majority in the midterm election. That -- that's where my frustration has bubbled up. I wrote a memo, Chris, recently to Leader McCarthy about how we keep Trump voters in the Republican fold... And Liz Cheney is the only Republican leader who attacked the memo about making the Republican Party the party of the working class. If she doesn't get that, that that's an important part of the formula to win the majority back in the midterm election and win the White House back in 2024, then she doesn't belong in a leadership position.

So, to recap:  Former Guy good. Former Guy voters good. Mission to win back the majority good. Election bad. Cheney bad. Any questions?

See you around campus.