Sunday School 7/19/26: Extra Credit

For your Extra Credit this week, I spent time in the Face the Nation (CBS) classroom, focusing on the election security issues we've been discussing since the FOTUS addressed the nation in a televised and widely streamed chat last week. Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) joined Margaret Brennan for a bit; I recapped some of his chat with ABC's Jon Karl in yesterday's Sunday School post. 

Brennan opened this part of the discussion noting that it's "been public for years" that our intelligence folks determined China tried to influence our election by changing what we think, not by hacking or anything like that. She asked Warner, a long-time member of the Senate Intelligence Committee (IC), if it had ever been given any evidence backing up this statement from Trump: 

This evidence shows that the election system we have dangerously exposes – and really exposes like levels never thought possible, to hacking, exploitation and foreign interference. 

"Absolutely not," Warner said, adding that the speech was full of "absurdities and falsehoods," and said that "the only election that Trump is concerned about is 2020. That was the election that his administration was in charge of," and that he "forgets or just omits" Russia. He confirmed the IC hasn't received any report from the administration's analysis of the 2024 election.

 After itemizing moves by the administration, including cutting funding for the Cybersecurity Agency (CISA), abandoning the Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC), which allows states to share voter information to help identify duplicate registrations, deceased voters, and so on, and tanking the Election Assistance Committee (EAC), Warner said this:

Why is he doing all these things? I believe it's because Donald Trump intends to interfere in this year's elections. He knows, if there is a free and fair election, his policies will be rejected at record levels.

Brennan asked (twice) what Warner meant by interference. 

Whether that takes - I think that what we just saw was, this was the opening shot, the opening shot of trying to undermine Americans' confidence that their vote will be actually counted and mean something... I fear as well that if he tries to pull something that could potentially - he's not ruled out bringing ICE to the polls. He's not even ruled out the idea of trying to bar certain voting machines.

Brennan then turned to CBS News contributors David Becker, the executive director of the Center for Election Innovation and Research, and Chris Krebs, the former director of CISA during the 2020 election cycle. Notably, Krebs was fired by Trump for saying that the 2020 election was secure, and that's where Brennan started this segment, asking if anything he heard from Trump changed his assessment.

Not - not at all. In fact, I would say that it further bolsters my confidence in the security of the 2020 election, between what has been released, disclosed last week, and all the information and the results of court challenges and other things in the intervening six years.

Brennan, noting that Trump was particularly aggressive towards Krebs, asked him to describe "the Chinese role in the 2020 election." He said there was an "honest debate and discussion" about China's intent across the intelligence community.

But ultimately, when it came out in the intelligence community assessment that was released in the spring of 2021, it was that China had a preference, and that they were not in favor of President Trump, but their efforts were principally limited to influencing the American public, seeking to pay journalists, media. But it was an influence effort...

A method, he said, China has been using since the early- or mid-2000s. It's not new, he said; "they did turn up the heat, and they are still doing it today. He said, "we have a significant and serious counterintelligence and counterespionage problem with China." And, responding to Trump saying folks did not disclose anything to him, "or to anyone else" or to Congress, Krebs offered this:

In January of 2020, there was a National Intelligence Community memorandum about the 2020 election that talked about the vulnerabilities we saw on systems and the work we needed to do there, but it also talked about the intent of adversaries. And there were countless memos after that...a lot of these products were in senior executive and policymakers' binders, their intelligence binders every single day. We used those to get out there and talk to the American people. I wrote an op-ed in September of 2020 for the general public that discussed various threat actors, including China. So, I have a hard time believing that it didn't get up into the Oval.

Brennan, before leaving this topic, said. "As China was described as attempting to influence, it was Iran and Russia, primary actors directly undermining the election in some of those 2020 statements. It sounds like you're saying he didn't read the memo" (emphasis added). Krebs agreed.

Sunday School 5/5/24: Noem's VP Interview

Here's the last of the three vice presidential interviews - whew! 

This time, we've got South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem, who talked with Margaret Brennan in the Face the Nation classroom. Will we see any questions about the dog? I'm willing to bet the answer is yes. 

Brennan had a copy of Noem's book, No Going Back: The Truth on What's Wrong with Politics and How We Move America Forward (and can I tell you how much I hate overly long and self-serving book titles?) with her for the interview, and started out by asking if Trump mentioned  "any of the response to"  the book when Noem was at Mar-a-Lago over the weekend.

Oh, he certainly knows about the book, and I appreciate his endorsement of it. You know, this is really a book that talks about how we're not going back. It's – we're not going back to the days before Donald Trump. Donald Trump broke politics. And I think that's a good thing. We're not going back to the days of Mitt Romney or the Bushes, that now there's a new way to do and talk to the American people, and they appreciate it. It's an honest, genuine conversation about what these citizens can do to take back their government and to have more input. So, this book is really a how-to guide for how to make your voice heard and how – for people in this country, what they can do to really make sure that they are getting genuine elected officials that really want to give them more freedom and liberty.

So, was that a yes? A no? A 'buy my book' entreaty?  I can't really tell, can you?

Brennan turned to Noem's crazy statement about meeting a particular world leader. Here's what the book says: 

I remember when I met with North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un. I'm sure he underestimated me, having no clue about my experience staring down little tyrants. I have been a children's pastor after all." 

Brennan asked if she had met Kim. 

Well, you know, as soon as this was brought to my attention, I certainly made some changes and looked at this – this passage. And I have met with many, many world leaders. I have traveled around the world. As soon as it was brought to my attention, we went forward and have made some edits. So, I'm glad that this book is being released in a couple of days, and that those edits will be in place, and that people will – will have the updated version.

So, was that a yes? A no? A 'I had no idea anyone was actually going to read the book' line? I can't tell.

Brennan said, "So, you did not meet with Kim Jong-un? That's what you're saying." Noem's answer was pretty funny.

No, I have met with many, many world leaders, many world leaders. I have traveled around the world, I think I have talked extensively in this book about my time serving in Congress, my time as governor, before governor, some of the travels that I have had. I'm not going to talk about my specific meetings with world leaders, I'm just not going to do that. This anecdote shouldn't have been in the book. And as soon as it was brought to my attention, I made sure that that was adjusted.

So, "as soon as it was brought to my attention that I lied in my book, I said, 'oh crap!' and called the publisher," or something like that?

And so, we're doing all that we can to make sure that those changes are made. And I'm going to continue to focus on what this book is, and the blueprint that it lays out for the American citizen on all of the things in the background and stories of my life, but also what I think that needs to be identified in politics and was broken today. I talk about how broken the money game is, how broken it is that – that we've got consultants that are getting rich off of elected officials, and then how fake some elected politicians are. 

Every single person in this country wants someone in elected office that's – that's a human being, that doesn't say they're perfect. I take responsibility for that being in the book. And as soon as it was brought to my attention, I asked for it to be changed. So, I'm glad that the release date is in a couple of days. And we're excited to talk to America about my new book, "No Going Back."

Brennan then asked who Noem might have confused with Kim Jung Un, and wondered if it was the previous, female leader of South Korea.

Well, I think you need to remember, Margaret, and everybody needs to remember that I have worked on ag policy and federal policy for over 30 years. My time in serving and making policies in this country has been extensive and covered decades.

No. No one is required to remember how Noem spent the last three decades, given that most people never heard of her until she hitched her wagon to Trump. 

And when Brennan asked if she ever went to North Korea, Noem said, "yes, I have. I have been there." Brennan was shocked but then said she went to the DMZ (not the same thing, by the way) and said the book includes the info she's "willing to share" about that visit. 

I have traveled the world, and I visited with world leaders. And some of that is referenced in the book. And this anecdote is something that, when it was brought to my attention… … we made some changes. And when the book is released, we'll do all that we can to see that – that that is reflected.

Brennan then noted Kim was mentioned not once but twice, at which point Noem asked "Do you have a question for me, Margaret?"

Yes, I do. South Korea is a treaty ally. North Korea is a nuclear-armed adversary, so that's a… pretty big thing to confuse. I know you read this book before it was published because you released video of your recording of the audiobook. You didn't catch these errors when you were recording it?

And then, Noem did what they all do: point the finger at the other guy.

Well, Margaret, as soon as it was brought to my attention, I took action to make sure that it was reflected. And, listen, this is what is so discouraging about politics and the media today, is that we have the White House that just recently came out and confirmed that President Joe Biden has misspoken, has made mistakes, has even outright lied over close to 150 times just this year.

And you've done nothing to question him on any of that. And you're – you're talking about a book that hasn't been released yet, that's been corrected before it's been released. And you haven't said one thing about Joe Biden saying that he was in prison with Nelson Mandela, that he started the civil rights movement, that he drove an 18-wheeler, that his uncle was eaten by cannibals.

And then it got even more fun.

MB: If I had an interview with Joe Biden, who I have asked for multiple times, I will definitely ask him about his record. But I'm asking you about your book here, which we have. So…

KN: Well, I'm just asking – I'm just asking for why – why am I being treated differently than every other person that you've interviewed? I have looked at your last several weeks of your interviews.

MB: I'm quoting you.

KN: You don't – you don't interrupt other people. You let them talk. Thank you for inviting me to have this conversation about this book. This book is extremely important to the people of this country. It is important, because it's a how-to guide of what they can do to have input into their government, how we need breakers and builders in this world.

OK, that part made me laugh out loud. Brennan doesn't interrupt other people? Good lord, she's the interrupter-in-chief of the Sunday School classrooms! She interrupts everyone! 

KN: And I'm taking responsibility for the change that we've made. And the buck stops with me.

MB: OK, and for the mistake in the book?

KN: And I have told you that, and I'm – no, it's not. What I have said is that I have decided that this anecdote should…

MB: You're not taking responsibility for the mistakes in the book?

KN: I have decided this – I – I am saying that this book is very, very good. And I have met with many world leaders, and that I – there are world leaders that I have met with that are in this book. There are many that I met with that are not in this book.

Now, at this point, if you're Noem, wouldn't you just stop talking about your damn book? Seriously, wouldn't you just stop?

KN: And this is an anecdote that – that I asked to have removed, because I think it's appropriate at this point in time.  

I feel the need to interject here with a definition for Gov. Noem.

Hopefully that might help her going forward. 

KN: But I'm not going to talk to you about those personal meetings that I have had with world leaders. I'm just not going to have that conversation, because I think it's important.

"Help me, Obi Wan Kenobi." I want to be the vice president, but I'm not going to talk about my alleged vast foreign policy experience, "because I think it's important" not to? Is that what she's saying?  

Noting that Benjamin Netanyahu is one of the world leaders the governor' has spoken with, Brennan asked if Noem agrees with Trump that "Bibi Netanyahu has been criticized for what took place on October 7."  Here's the gist of her response: what Hamas did was horrific, America should never stand for anti-Semitism, what's happening at colleges is bad and should be "shut down immediately," and Biden should have acted sooner on that. Brennan interpreted that response to mean Noem doesn't agree with what Trump said.

And then, the interview turned where everyone knew it would: Cricket the dog, and how Noem killed the puppy for being aggressive, too excitable to be a decent hunting dog, and for killing chickens.  The question? "I wonder if you have regrets about sharing this story."

I know, everyone wants to hear Noem defend herself on this mess, but let's be honest: had she not been so proud of what she did, no one would ever know that she did it. And let's be honest about something else, too: animals, including misbehaving dogs, are killed on farms. And I dare say, that fate is likely preferable to leaving a 'bad dog' chained up in the hot sun, pouring rain, and freezing snow, with little or no sustenance.   

In a nutshell, Noem says she included the story about killing the dog because it's indicative of how she has "made very difficult decisions" and "because people need to understand" who she is. And who she is, is a mom with little children and the choice between her kids and the dog, well, the kids win. 

Another reason she talks about it in the book?

...because what I'm tired of in this country is politicians who pretend to be something that they're not, that they aren't willing to have the hard conversations and look at the past and the tough decisions that they've made...what I talk about in the book extensively when people are able to get it on Tuesday is to see the whole story and the truth, not the spin that the media has put on this story. The media has put some or removed – removed most of the facts and – and what – the reason this is in there… 

At this point, Brennan should have stopped talking about the dog, but she didn't. She asked why the dog wasn't taken to a shelter. Noem explained it had been to multiple trainers, she had put lots of time into the dog's training, and nothing had changed.  She took responsibility, she didn't ask anyone else to deal with it. And, then, according to Brennan's interpretation of the book, Noem went out a shot a billy goat that "smelled and would chase kids."  

And I'm asking you this because it seems like you're celebrating the killing of animals. 

Noem turned it into a conversation about extremism and political attacks and she's being treated the same as Donald Trump is treated.

… every day, the constant attacks and coming after me. I – during COVID, I was attacked night after night for months after month for the decisions that I made. In fact, you and many other journalists attacked me every single day on TV for months for the decisions that I made in South Dakota, for my people to protect their freedoms and their liberties.

Does that make her a good candidate to be his VP? I would have asked that, but it wasn't my interview.  

MB: And I thanked you for answering questions on it. But on the – on this point, though... You talk multiple times about it. In fact, at the end of the book, you say the very first thing you would do if you got to the White House that was different from Joe Biden, is you'd make sure Joe Biden's dog was nowhere on the grounds. "Commander, say hello to Cricket." Are you doing this to try to look tough? Do you still think that you have a shot at being a V.P.?

KN: Well, number one, Joe Biden's dog has attacked 24 Secret Service people. So, how many people is enough people to be attacked and dangerously hurt before you make a decision on a dog and what to do with it?

MB: Well, he's not living at the White House anymore.

KN: That's – that's a question that the president should be held accountable to.

MB: You're saying he should be shot?

KN: That what's the president should be accountable to, is, what is – what is the number? And I would say, about Republicans criticizing me, these are the same Republicans have criticized me during COVID. They've criticized me when I have made other decisions in South Dakota to protect my state. And my state today is extremely happy and thriving. We're doing well...

She listed a number of positives for her state, reflecting growth and jobs and no debt, and a AAA credit rating. To which Brennan responded

MB: So, you're not going to retract the book? 

I kid you not - that's what she asked.

KN: I – this book is a powerful book... It's an honest book of a blueprint for America of what citizens can do here to take their country back. And I'm so proud of this book and – and what it will bring to people. I hope that they will buy it. They'll find a lot of truthful stories. And we talk a lot about what we can use as an example from Donald Trump on how he has continued to be a real person, been genuine, and been honest to people, and that what bothers me the most about politicians is when they're fake.

MB: But if you have to retract it or parts of it…

Noem said "I'm not – I'm not retracting anything. I'm not retracting anything."

I'd like to retract this interview, what do you think?

See you around campus.

Sunday School 1/28/24

For your Sunday School this week, I'm focusing on the immigration conversations in the classrooms.

Donald Trump doesn't want Senate Republicans to help get a bill to the House, and he doesn't want the House to pass a bill if one makes it to them. We know that because Mitch McConnell said the first part, and Trump himself has made the second part clear. 

We'll start with Face the Nation where Margaret Brennan (Interrupter-in-Chief, CBS) talked with Sen. James Lankford (R-OK), one of the negotiators of the Senate bill. Lankford said they've been working on the bill for "about four months" and they're trying to get it wrapped up so they can get into people's hands and put false rumors to bed.

So people want to be able to just see it, read it and go through it, and to be able to see the dramatic change that this really makes in how we handle our immigration system and how we work to be able to secure our border completely. That's been the simple request of Americans, whether you're Republican, Democrat, or independent. People just want a secure border, where we have legal immigration, but we're not promoting illegal immigration. And that's what we've seen in the last three years.

He said some of the language is similar to our pandemic-era Title 42, which allowed the border to be closed when we couldn't process the number of people who were crossing. Right now, he said, when we can't process them, they're just being released into the country.

That's what's driving the mayors in Denver, in Chicago, in New York City, and other places around the country crazy to say, when the border gets crowded, you just release them to our cities, and it causes all the chaos... 

With this bill, we can "turn those folks back around to Mexico," he said, which "gives the authority to the United States and to law enforcement, rather than...the criminal cartels." He said 'humanitarian parole' remains an issue, because it's "attracting more people" here, and we end up turning them loose without knowing if they even qualify for asylum.

Brennan wondered if the bill would pass without Trump's support. Lankford said he's looking forward to Trump being able to read the bill before he makes a decision, adding

... there is no question, no matter what your political persuasion is, we would not have had the immigration crisis we're experiencing right now if President Trump would have been president the last three years...

But even Trump wanted more authority on immigration, and what "he was specifically asking Congress to change" on asylum, and deportation funding, are included in the bill. 

 So, if he were to be president, this would be new authorities that he had actually asked for when he was president before.

Eventually, the interview turned to the obligatory talk of endorsing Trump. I believe there's a rule - think I saw it on Walter Cronkite's Facebook page - that every Republican must be asked the question.  

Lankford said he hasn't endorsed anyone, but Trump would "be a much better president than what we're dealing with right now, definitely on national security." Brennan asked if the $83M verdict in the E. Jean Carroll defamation case gives him "any pause about (Trump) returning to office?" Nope.

I don't want to jump in the middle of a legal case. It's been interesting the number of legal cases that have come up against President Trump and then have failed and have been dropped or have been kicked out of the courts on it. This one has actually went through. He's already said he's going to challenge it. So let the courts actually make their decisions and let the American people make their decisions.

And then, of course, because he couldn't help himself, he added

We got states like Colorado that are trying to be able to block the people of Colorado from being able to choose who they vote for. Let the American people decide this in November.

Brennan didn't mention the 60-odd election fraud cases that Trump lost or that were tossed, but she did point out that the Supremes might be making the decision on the ballot case.

Next up? Dana Bash and her State of the Union classroom conversation with Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT), another senator crafting the bill She asked Murphy if they have a deal. He said the same as Lankford: there's a bipartisan deal, they're working on the text, and

the question is whether Republicans are going to listen to Donald Trump, who wants to preserve chaos at the border because he thinks that it's a winning political issue for him, or whether we are going to pass legislation which would be the biggest bipartisan reform of our border immigration laws in 40 years.

He said the bill gives whoever is president "new, important power to be able to better manage the flow" of people crossing the border. He's glad Biden came out "forcefully in favor" of the bill, and noted that "Republicans have said they will let - they will let Vladimir Putin march his army in and through Ukraine if we don't pass a bill that includes border provisions and Ukraine funding."

That would be "catastrophic" not just for the US but for the "whole world." The stakes are high, and

The consequences of failure are enormous. And I do have confidence that enough Republicans in the Senate are going to join us to pass this bipartisan legislation, potentially as early as the next week or two, and we can show that Washington can still stand up and work on these big problems, even if Donald Trump is rooting for chaos.

He confirmed some of the bill's provisions, including the ability to temporarily close the border when crossings "reach catastrophically high levels." It also shortens the timeframe for hearing asylum cases from "sometimes five to ten years" to "six months in some cases." It also speeds up the process for getting people work permits.

Murphy disagrees that Biden already has the necessary authority, calling that "a political talking point." The people who say that are the people who introduced those same tools in HR2, their "massive border reform bill." And now?

...they want to keep the border in a chaotic situation for political purposes. Remember, Donald Trump didn't do a much better job. Presentations reached a 10-year high ... The only reason that fewer people started to show up was because COVID hit... So, when Donald Trump says,' I didn't need any new powers,' that's just not true. 

Also in the classroom with Bash? Gov. Kristi Noem (R-SD but I really want to be VP). Noem thinks Texas should defy the Supreme Court's ruling that the federal government can cut down Gov. Greg Abbott's razor wire, and enforce their state rights to control their border.

She told a story she heard when she was in Texas, about a mom from Nicaragua who "had been told that America is open, please come." 

She brought her daughter, her 6-year-old daughter, and was facilitated through by cartels and said where she was so mistreated was in Mexico, that she sat in Mexico for three months and was put through horrific work conditions and terrible conditions for her and her daughter for three months before they then brought her across the river and forced her across into a dangerous situation.

Later in the interview, though, here's what she said about keeping people in Mexico.

Why doesn't President Biden take action today? I mean, today can be 'day one'. He can immediately announce that he's reinstating the stay-in-Mexico policy...We have a president that has all the tools that he needs to protect our country today, and he's refusing to do that.

So, do we make them stay in Mexico, or no? I'm so confused. 

And what does Noem think of some of the comments in a video Bash played?

SEN. JOHN CORNYN (R-TX): The question is, do you want to get something that will help us stem the tide of humanity coming across the border and drugs, or do you want to get nothing? SEN. KEVIN CRAMER (R-ND): I just reject the idea that we should reserve a crisis for a better time to solve it. SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): I think the best thing for the Republican Party to do right now is try to work with Democrats. 

Noem thumped her chest and accused the senators of "casting aspersions that they do not have the knowledge and the facts to speak to." 

Because they weren't around when Trump was president? Because they didn't support his border policies? Because she wants to be Trump's VP so badly, she can taste it? 

She also this about the esteemed Republicans:

So you can say a lot of things and talk a lot of talk. And U.S. senators are really good at spinning a story to make themselves look good. 

Not that job-hunting governors would ever do that.

See you around campus.

Sunday School 1/22/23

The classrooms were full of talk about documents, even before Mike Pence found some at his house, but I did find some folks discussing the debt ceiling.  

We'll start with Dana Bash and her guests on CNN's State of the Union. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) thinks President Biden shouldn't negotiate with the Republicans. 

...the MAGA Republicans should note one important fact. Almost 25 percent of all of the national debt accumulated over the history of the United States, 230 years, was accumulated during the four years of Donald Trump.

He says they need to accept responsibility for paying for the debt, and they need to understand the consequences of not doing that.

And if we play games with this, if we delay this, if we have short-term extensions of the national debt, we run the very risk of a recession in this economy, millions of Americans out of work and interest rates going even higher, denying people an opportunity to buy a home or a car. And this economy will be stalled. We shouldn't play games with the national debt.

Bash recalled when Senator Biden was "the lead negotiator" on spending cuts in exchange for a debt limit; Durbin thinks it's different now, because of "the Trump years" and the "15 ballots to choose the speaker."

... he gave the authority to each member of the House to initiate a vote of no confidence on a daily basis. I mean, this is a House of Representatives which is under control of the MAGA Republicans at this point. And I'm fearful that very few constructive things will emerge.

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV), who disagrees with Durbin, thinks not negotiating is a "mistake." 

...we should be able to talk and find out where our differences are. And if they are irreconcilable, then you have to move on from there and let the people make their decisions. Using the debt ceiling and holding it hostage hasn't worked in the past, OK? And anyone who wants to look at what happened in 2011 and 2013, then go ahead. It didn't work out well. 

Bash asked who was holding it hostage; sounds like the GOP. He said 60% of retirees in West Virginia are on Social Security and Medicare, and he doesn't like people scaring "the bejesus out of them" by putting cuts on the table. Rather, they need to "set a target" and look for wasteful spending that can be cut. 

Everybody believes -- I mean, my goodness, when you have $31.4 trillion, and we have thrown caution to the wind, and to blame the Republicans, Republicans to blame the Democrats, who's at fault? Everybody's at fault. We don't have a process. I have been there 12 years, no budget.

He thinks that's wrong. After all

...every American has to live within a budget. If they don't, they're in trouble financially. Every business that is successful has to live within a budget. Every state has to live within a budget. Shouldn't the federal government have some guardrails that say, hey, guys, you're getting over -- you're overreaching here and you're overspending? 

He says we have to pick the priorities, including "the security of our country, opportunities for people and taking care of the most vulnerable, and making sure the people that have earned it through basically their Social Security and Medicare are protected."

He doesn't want cuts to benefits; rather, raising the income cap for the FICA tax is "the easiest and quickest thing" they can do. And the last thing we need is a committee to look at this stuff; he agrees with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) on that. 

Can't you look and find out in government where you can be more efficient, more basically prudent with the taxpayers' money and quit wasting it, don't you think? And we all talk about waste, fraud and abuse. That's an easy thing to do. But no one looks at it.

Rep. Mike McCaul (R-TX), who voted to raise the debt ceiling three times since '17, says if they don't do it again, there'd be "catastrophic economic consequences." And, we don't have any time to waste.

The fact is, we should be having these conversations right now. We know that Secretary Yellen is going to put -- she can put this off until June. June's going to be the target month. But the speaker of the House is willing to sit down today with the president of the United States and try to work this out. And I would encourage him to do that.

In the Face the Nation classroom, Margaret Brennan asked Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) if it's a mistake for the White House not to negotiate with the Rs. 

We should have a "clean lift of the debt ceiling," he said, and he doesn't think anyone should "flirt with not paying" our credit card. The Republicans should come out with what they want to cut.

Is it the cutting Social Security and Medicare that Rick Scott wanted to, is it cutting aid to Ukraine in the middle of a war between a democracy and an illegally invading dictator? Let them put on the table what they want to cut so that the American public can see what their priorities are.

Kaine and Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) have sponsored the Protect Our Credit Act; it says

the president has got to cover the debts of the United States. And if that includes raising the debt ceiling, the president can do that. But if Congress disapproves, then you can have an expedited up or down vote in Congress.

It's similar to an Obama-era move by Sen. Mitch McConnell back in the day, Kaine said. Maybe that means it'll get bipartisan support?

See you around campus. 

Sunday School 10/2/22

For your Sunday School today, we've got multiple interviews with Florida's Republican Senator Rick Scott. The interviews covered much of the same ground, so I tried to move around with the topics. 

On MTP, What's-his-name asked Scott if "things like mobile manufactured housing should even be legal" in Florida anymore. In part, he said they have to look at building codes after every event, to make sure it doesn't happen again. 

At the same time, you know people that they want to live in Florida. They want to live in the Sunshine State. And, you know, the more expensive housing you have, it makes it difficult for people to live there. So I guess it's a balance.

They also talked about insurance, and the need for both stricter building codes, to encourage insurance companies to play in the state, and for eliminating fraud, which costs consumers money and disproportionately impacts the poor, and discourages companies from writing policies.

And on getting federal money for his state, something he and Rubio have requested, What's-his-name suggested there may be some in Congress who "don't want to support" the request, given DeSantis voted against Hurricane Sandy aid because it wasn't paid for by cuts somewhere else. Grab a fork and some croutons.

Well, I think what you have to do is you have to, you have to, you know, spend your money wisely, but you do need – I mean, the federal government is a partner in this. And I learned that as governor. The federal government is a major partner in helping families, helping businesses, helping governments get back to, get back to normal. But you don't want to waste money. As an example, I put a lot of effort into cracking down on the significant fraud in the debris pickup market and what happens after a hurricane. And I've been actually trying to get the bill passed since I've been up there – I've been up there almost four years – to fix that because there is abuse in this. But we do have to provide disaster aid. And whether that's for a hurricane, or whether that's for flooding, or whether that's for wildfires, we've got to do that. And, you know, I hope people will, you know, continue to support and I think we ought to be doing – we've got to come up with a way to do this where it's a longer-term strategy.

And, on the election, does he think the Rs will take back the Senate? Scott thinks they're at "52 seats, plus."

On CNN's State of the Union, Scott told Dana Bash this was probably the worst storm he's seen, given the widespread nature of the damage, even in areas far from the Gulf Coast where Ian made landfall in Lee County. Bash asked him about officials there who didn't issue evacuation orders until less than 24 hours before landfall, which was "an apparent violation of their own policies." She wondered if that was the case, and it the delay cost lives.

Scott talked generically about loss of life, and all lives mattering, and doing everything you can to make sure no lives are lost, and he made sure he didn't pin the tail on anyone's um, er, 'donkey', if you catch my drift. Ultimately, she got him to agree that "I think it's something we have to look at to see why" the evacuation order didn't happen according to the plan. Teeth pulled, or something.

In the Face the Nation classroom, Margaret Brennan talked about the hurricane, of course, and also noted the most recent, offensive remarks from the FPOTUS, who said that Sen. Mitch McConnell has a "DEATH WISH" and made racist modifications to McConnell's wife's name,', and from Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, who claimed that Democrats want Republicans dead and that they have "already started the killings." She asked Scott if he'd rebuke the comments, given he's a member of the leadership.

Scott said we've got to come together, and "I'd also say that what Vice President Harris said yesterday that, or the day before yesterday that, you know if you if you have a different skin color, you're going to get relief." Brennan said, "that's not what the vice president said. She talked about equity and the problem within FEMA. But I'm specifically talking about Marjorie Taylor Greene." (I'll have more on the Veep's comments in a Sidebar.)  

Here's the exchange that followed.

RS: No, no, no. Wait, wait, Margaret. Margaret, let's make sure. FEMA has to be colorblind. FEMA has to provide support to everybody. Now, I - here's what I here's what I'll tell you, I believe that we've got to do -- President Trump has talked about this unbelievable spending that's causing inflation hurting the poorest families. I grew up in a poor family. I watched how inflation hurt my mom. We've gotta watch how we spend this money. 

MB: I know sir. You're talking about substance, and I would love to talk to you about that. But what I quoted you as a phrase saying McConnell has a death wish. He said racist things about Elaine Chao. And then they have already started the killings. I mean, that's not a policy dispute, Senator, the language is what I'm talking about. Isn't that dangerous?

RS: I think we all have to figure out how do we start bringing people together and have a common goal to give every American the opportunity to get a great job, their kids to have an education, they believe they can be anything and make sure everybody lives in a safe committee. That's what I do every day. And I've tried to bring people together to do that. 

 It went on like that a little longer, Brennan focusing on divisive language, and Scott trying to explain Trump was talking about policy.

I believe that what I believe what the President Trump was talking about is the fact that we can't keep spending money. We are -- We're going to hurt our poorest families the most with this reckless Democrat spending and we cannot we got to stop it. We can't cave into their spending. 

On Trump calling Elaine Chao "Coco Chow," Scott waved that off by saying Trump likes to give people nicknames, and he "sure he has a nickname for me." I checked Trump's Twitter archive, and here's the worst thing he ever said about Scott. Perhaps there's a nickname in there somewhere? 

Governor Rick Scott of Florida did really poorly on television this morning. I hope he is O.K. (June 25, 2015).

I'll have interviews with Sen. Marco Rubio and FEMA administrator Deanne Criswell in your Extra Credit. 

See you around campus.  

Oh - one more thing - the Dems have not started killing the Rs, just so you know.

Sunday School 6/19/22

I've got three interviews for you today, starting with Dana Bash and Rep. Fred Upton (R-Yes, I Voted to Impeach Him) in the State of the Union classroom. 

He said he thinks the January 6th Committee is making a dent with moderates and independents. While the economy and gas prices are the big issues, 

there's been real interest in what's going on... I think that it's had an impact on voters across the country. And we will see how this thing plays out. The committee has been very careful not to divulge any details in advance of their hearings.

He expressed frustration with folks who are talking to the committee now, saying

...where have they been for the last year-and-a-half? Why weren't they saying what they're saying now a year-and-a-half ago, particularly to those of us that actually witnessed what was going on, to back us up a little bit?

Upton said people "still like (president Trump) a lot... he's had a number of decisive wins, where he's endorsed candidates that they have won...he certainly entertains a majority of the Republican base, and will be hard to stop" if he runs in 2024.

And, frankly, as we look at the economy, we look at gas prices, all these different things, folks are not really happy with the Biden administration, which is why he is mired at a level even below where Donald Trump was at this point in his tenure.

Bash asked if there'll be anyone left who's willing to stand up to Trump, since half of the ten House Republicans who voted to impeach him won't be back next year, and "the remainder are facing some pretty tough reelection battles." Upton thinks there are.

And you've got to remember too, though there were only 10 of us that voted to impeach, there were 35 of us that voted for a bipartisan commission to look at this. And we know that there were a lot of folks who were, frankly, scared of their reelection, which is why they voted the other way as well... But we will -- that's why politics is so much fun sometimes. It's -- we will see how things all shake out.

Upton said he's hopeful the Senate can get a deal on guns, although he thought they'd have gotten there by now. And, he added,

Law-abiding folks, they shouldn't have any fears in terms of what's -- what's going on. It's been a rallying point, particularly for the NRA and the gun owners of America. You look at their Web site and they're, like, raising cash like you wouldn't believe in terms of their Second Amendment rights are being taken away.

That's not what's happening here, he said, but that thinking has "been elevated, for sure," mentioning that Texas Republicans Sen. John Cornyn and Rep. Dan Crenshaw were both "accosted" at their state's GOP convention.

George talked with Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen in the This Week classroom. He mentioned a Wall Street Journal report that 44% of economists expect a recession. Both President Biden and Fed Chair Jerome Powell have made bringing inflation down a top priority, and she said

I don't think a recession is inevitable.

She pointed to still-strong consumer spending, while admitting "higher food and energy prices are certainly affecting consumers" and changing spending patterns. And, she said most folks "continue to have buffer stocks of savings" to help maintain spending levels, so she doesn't see that as a "likely cause of a recession" in the coming months. And, she said, the labor market is 

 arguably the strongest of the post-war period. Not only is the unemployment rate near historic lows but there are two job vacancies for every unemployed worker, so the labor market remains extremely strong; unemployment insurance claims near their lowest levels in history.

She said that having had high inflation "in first half of this year ...locks in high inflation really for the entire year," but she expects the pace of inflation will come down, and she cautioned, "there are so many uncertainties relating to global developments..."

George asked her to explain why in Europe the core inflation rate was under 4% but in the states it's 6%. I didn't think she answered that. She talked about "energy price spillover" being half of inflation, 

food and energy, and there are spillovers because energy is an important input into almost everything in the economy. It is true that we've had core inflation over and above that -- that is too high and the Fed will take steps to bring it down.

She mentioned Biden's "historic releases" from the strategic reserve, which have kept gas prices from being even higher, and said he's ready to work the with the oil industry and Congress to bring down "other costs that are burdening households," notably drug and healthcare costs and housing. 

She also countered some of what the oil industry folks argue, saying

I think that producers were partly caught unaware of the strength of the recovery... and weren't ready to meet the needs of the economy; high prices should induce them to increase supplies over time... The way in which we can ensure reasonable energy expenses for households is to move to renewables, to address climate change, as a medium-term matter. 

A gas tax holiday may be on the table (Biden said he might have a decision by the end of the week on that). And, Yellen said, he's "reviewing tariff policy toward China." 

We all recognize that China engages in a range of unfair trade practices that it's important to address. But the tariffs we inherited, some serve no strategic purpose and raise costs to consumers. And so, reconfiguring some of those tariffs so they make more sense and reduce some unnecessary burdens is something that's under consideration --

She wouldn't give any timeline for that. 

In the Face the Nation classroom, Margaret Brennan talked with Dr. Scott Gottlieb, the network's go-to guy for COVID stuff, about the newly authorized vaccine for kids five and under. 

Gottlieb anticipates this rollout will be "more complicated" than previous ones, saying people skilled with giving kids this age need to be involved. He thinks most kids will get them at their pediatrician's office, and that might make it take longer to get doses distributed.

He also said "it's continued to concern" him that that "only about 30% of kids ages 5-11 have been vaccinated" with two doses, which is lower than original estimates. And, he said

there are surveys showing that about 20% of parents plan to vaccinate children under the age of 5. I suspect it may end up being lower than that...a lot of parents may choose to take a wait-and-see attitude and reconsider this in the fall. 

They also talked about Florida, which is "affirmatively against" vaccinating kids in this age-group. Gottlieb thinks that was the wrong move. "They could have taken a neutral stance and just merely said, we're not recommending the vaccine for children." He clarified that they're not blocking access to the vaccine, just "not facilitating access."

See you around campus. 

Sunday School 6/5/22: Extra Credit

I'm switching gears from your Sunday School lesson on people trying to do something about gun murders, to people trying to do something about the January 6th insurrection... let's dive into this week's Extra Credit.

Jake Tapper had former Rep. Denver Riggleman (R-VA) in the State of the Union classroom. He worked as an advisor to the House January 6th Committee for several months, leaving at the end of April to focus on helping Ukraine.

Before we get into his interview, the Committee is unhappy with Riggleman's appearances on CNN, as Politico noted last Friday. After one interview last week, the Committee's staff director sent an email regarding an "unauthorized" interview. Per the article, the email said Riggleman's appearance was "in direct contravention to his employment agreement."  And, of course, Riggleman "sharply disagreed" with that portrayal.

So, in the interest of not piling on to the Committee's dismay, I'll limit my excerpts to Riggleman's exuberance and personal opinions, and omit anything that could be remotely sensitive.

He said that the hearings are "going to be very concise," and "very exciting," and

...I think people are going to be absolutely surprised how much was known... And I think that's what's going to be exciting to see the committee. There's some very talented investigators behind the doors, and even with our teams and things like that and what they found, but, again, the investigators going through the thousands of interviews that they have and all the data and the videos.

I think -- I do think they're going to be very successful in those six -- I think in those six hearings.

And, he has hopes for the rest of us.

... the American people have to look at this from the beginning, take their notes, and understand that the committee has to build a case in a very solid, facts-based way. There's not going to be a lot of partisan whining or screaming. The investigators behind the door are nonpartisan individuals. They're going to present this case in a very cogent way. But the American people need to -- they need to take notes.

Tapper pressed on whether there's some kind of orange-haired smoking gun here. The only part I can comfortably repeat is that Riggleman said there were multiple groups looking at more data than he'd ever seen before - "it's absolutely incredible" - and that the Committee has to put it all together and that's what makes it exciting, and the "talent behind the door" made all of this possible, or something.

He agrees with Rep. Liz Cheney (R- stands for Real Republican) that the GOP has become a personality cult, not a party, and said he doesn't consider himself a Republican anymore. What he saw during his time with the Committee

has even pushed me further away, that the party has moved away from conservative principles to this cult of personality that Liz Cheney is talking about. She's absolutely correct. And when you see it behind the door... it's absolutely stunning, that cult of personality, but also the belief systems, that I don't think any real conservative could follow at any point. It's absolutely insane what people have sort of put their arms around. 

I can't agree more with that assessment, even without peeking behind the door. 

Down the hall, Margaret Brennan spoke with Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) on Face the Nation. Schiff, you'll recall, was involved in both Trump impeachments, and is a member of the January 6th Committee. 

On the DOJ not charging Mark Meadows and Dan Scavino, Schiff said it is "very puzzling why these two witnesses would be treated differently than the two" the DOJ decided to prosecute (Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro). 

These witnesses have very relevant testimony to offer in terms of what went into the violence of January 6th, the propagation of the big lie, and the idea that witnesses could simply fail to show up. And when the statute requires the Justice Department to present those cases to the grand jury, they don't, is deeply troubling. We hope to get more insight from the Justice Department, but it's a, I think, a grave disappointment and could impede our work if other witnesses think they can likewise refuse to show up with impunity.

He also said there's plenty of stuff they could have testified about that wouldn't come close to executive privilege - things about the campaign, relevant documents and the like.

None of which is protected by privilege. And the idea that you can simply refuse to show up, rather than show up and say, as to this question I'm going to assert a privilege, that just invites others to be in contempt of Congress or be in contempt of judges around the country in other courtrooms. And I think it's a very dangerous precedent to set.

Schiff said he wouldn't comment on any specific witnesses or testimony, but did say

...one of the themes that we will be fleshing out is the fact that in advance of the 6th, that there was an understanding of the propensity for violence that day, of the participation of white nationalist groups, of the effect that the continued propagation of his big lie to rile up the country and rile up the president's base was likely to lead to violence. 

Sunday School 5/29/22

Spending time with folks from Texas who were in the classrooms yesterday, starting with Valde County Commissioner Ronald Garza; he talked with Margaret Brennan on Face the Nation.

Brennan asked him why the school district police 'commander' wasn't on site when the shooting began; later, she clarified and said the 'officer' wasn't on site. Either way, Garza didn't have the answer, although he said it's possible he could have been at another campus at the time. She also asked if it was true "the chief of police for the school district is now under police protection himself" and if that was "reflective of the feeling in the community..."

Well, you know, rightly so. You know, people are - are asking questions. Parents lost children. They're devastated. And it's - it's - it's just a sad situation. And I think the community deserves answers.

She also noted there's talk in "communities around the country" about whether more school security is needed, and legislators are talking about getting funding for that. Given Uvalde has a separate police force solely for the school district, she asked Garza if a lack of security was the problem there.

...Perhaps it was a lack of security, training. You know, I think there's multiple factors that might be involved here. But you know, right now, it's easy- It's easy to point fingers right now. It's easy to play the blame game. But, you know, our community I think needs to focus on- on the- on the- on healing right now...

He said he welcomes the FBI investigation, which he said Rep. Joaquin Castro asked for; according to reports, the mayor of Uvalde also made the same request. 

I think we need to learn more. As tragic as this may seem, we need to learn from this, you know, and parents deserve answers.

Garza knows the family of the shooter, and said he has "no indication" as to any motive. He described the family as one that "value(s) church, they value hard work, known them for many years- great grandparents, grandparents, uncles, aunts: He also said what happened shouldn't be a reflection on the family.

You know, we raise our children, and we try to raise them in the right way. But- but sometimes our children have different thoughts, have different attitudes, personalities, but we do the best we can.

Finally, on whether the school will be destroyed, Garza was not sure, and admitted to having "mixed emotions" on that. He went there, and his father taught there, "his second teaching assignment."

My grandkids went through there and my kids went through there- those pecan trees that are out there at Robb school, my dad planted them in 1965. Every day after school, he and a few students would water those pecan trees so we- we- we have very strong ties to the school and you know, my hope is - I hope it's not- the school is not razed. Yes, do we need a memorial out there maybe? Do we need to section off the area where the shooting took place? Perhaps. But you know that- and again, that's just my opinion. 

The decision on what to do with, or at, the school, will be an agonizing one, I suspect.  

Down the hall, Dana Bash was in the host's chair in the State of the Union classroom; one of her guests was State Sen. Roland Gutierrez, a Democrat, who represents Uvalde. 

Her first question? "...how is it that 9- and 10-year-olds had the presence of mind in that kind of terrifying situation to dial 9/11 multiple times, pleading for help, asking for police to come, and the grownups in the hallway didn't come in?" And Gutierrez didn't pull any punches, saying "the whole thing is a shame. I'm disgusted by all of it."

I understand the human condition, the notion that this other guy might have superior firepower. But, at the end of the day, the protocols were breached. The active shooter protocols dictate that you go in. First, there were seven officers. By 12:03, there was 19 officers. So many things went wrong here. I'm asking a lot of questions. I am told that I'm going to be getting a ballistics report next week, along with many other issues that need to be addressed.

And, to Bash's question on whether the delay saved lived, he gave an example of a child who had been shot in the back, and died. She's one of the ones who might have been saved, had first responders gone in, so "absolutely, these mistakes may have led to the passing away of these children as well."

He also has lots of questions - significant concerns, he said - on the operational aspect of things. As Bash noted, there were local, state, and federal law enforcement personnel on site.

I have asked DPS at what point each one of their officers arrived. At what point does the local police take operational control, or should they? At what point does the next superior power, DPS, take operational control, or should they? And, lastly, the federal government, they waited some as well. At what point should they not have taken operational control?

He said that no one has told him they expressed frustration or 'challenged' the school district police commander about his decisions, but that it was the Border Patrol team that, out of frustration, decided to go in. And, he said, 

 I had a long talk with Colonel McCraw yesterday. He was devastated. As you have seen on television, he's acknowledged that there were errors here. What I have suggested to him is that it's not fair to put it on the local ISD cop. At the end of the day, everybody failed here. We failed these children. We even failed them in the Texas legislature.

On that last point, Bash wondered if "there are enough Republicans to pass" legislation, such as chancing the age to purchase this type of weapon from 18 to 21, or even on having a special session, something Gutierrez "confronted" Gov. Greg Abbott about, Bash noted.

He said it's the "first time ever" he's seen Rs calling for a special session, and he said some of his GOP colleagues "who at this point don't want to be identified," have said the age needs to be raised. 

Those are the kind of things that make sense, red flag laws, waiting periods, making sure that we have a more significant, robust background check. 

Bash mentioned he sounded 'hopeful' and he said that's he does what he does.

I ran for office because I am hopeful. I am -- I have in my life created change at different levels of government. If I do nothing for the rest of my career but yell at Greg Abbott and others that are not willing to listen, then that's what I'm going to do.

We must have change. I have spent time with many of these families. And this is just heartbreaking. I just cannot do this anymore. It is heartbreaking. No family should go through what these people are going through. 

We need so many more legislators, from both sides of the aisle, who are willing to yell at their 'do-nothing' counterparts on things like this. 

Later today, I'll post another set of recommendations on what we can do, if only people would listen. You can read the first chunk of them here. 

See you around campus. 

Sunday School 5/22/22: Extra Credit

In a changeup from this week's Sunday School  which was about foreign policy and the economy, the focus of your Extra Credit is the November elections.

We'll start with Margaret Brennan and her chat with Sen. Rick Scott (R-Darn Right I Want to Raise Taxes on the Poor!) in the Face the Nation classroom. Scott leads the effort to get more Republicans elected. As he's done in other interviews, he jumped right in with an opinion without waiting for a question. His target? Numbers from a new CBS poll Brennan mentioned in her lead-in.

I think those numbers are consistent with what we've seen, that inflation is still the number one issue in the country... I think the election this fall is going to be about inflation... And I think it bodes well for Republicans.

Brennan noted only 51% polled say they trust the GOP more than the Dems on inflation, while 49% trust the Dems; she wondered how Scott and the Rs will change that. 

So, I think we have to talk about the things that we're going to do to make it better for people. But, if you go and look at the races around the country, Biden's numbers are really, really bad. And he's -- he is the face of the Democrat Party right now.

Brennan's next question was a good one: basically, if inflation is the big issue, why do Rs keep "relitigating 2020." Scott said people care that this election will be '"fair and their votes are not going to be diluted," and hope the Rs will make that happen. He also said that people "want to know what happened, why it happened" in 2020.

Well, they want to know -- they want to know that -- exactly what happened, if -- were there problems, exactly what happened. They'd like to know that. But, also, they're -- you know, they also want to make sure we win in '22. So, they -- they want to make sure that we're going to make sure their vote's not diluted. So, I think you have to -- you have to talk about making sure people understand what happened in 2020, but also make sure you know -- they know that you're going to focus on making sure that 2022 is a -- is a fair election.

Got it? It's all about making sure things are surely made sure by making sure of being sure. That's what they want. Without saying a darn thing. As long as you're talking about 2020, I guess. But not about all the fraud committed by Rs. Don't mention that. They surely don't want to know anything about that, for sure.

After some discussion on Scott's plan that is not the GOP plan, Brennan asked about white supremacy. The polling data show only 23% of Rs say condemning that kind of hatred is very important, while 75% of Ds think it is. She asked him why there's such a gap there.

Well, clearly, we ought to all condemn any hatred. We ought to condemn any white supremacy. We -- I mean, we've got to figure out how to come together. I believe we got to stop all this racial politics.... So, we've got to figure out how to bring people together.

Brennan then asked, "So, you would tell all Senate Republicans running for election that they need to, each and every one of them, condemn white nationalism?" Surely, no. No way.

Well, I tell people what I believe. And every -- every Senate candidate on both sides is going to decide what is important to them and what is important to the citizens of their state...  if they asked me, I would say, 'be clear. Be clear.' I mean, we do not believe, none of us -- I don't think any American should believe in white supremacy or hatred of any kind. I mean, it's wrong.

But, as he said, "they want to make sure we win in '22," so, just go with the flow in your neck of the woods - even if that means promoting white supremacy. The tent is big enough, I guess.

Her next guest was Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), who's chair of the House Democratic Caucus. Brennan noted poll findings that "young people, Hispanics and half of Black Americans say the president has been too slow to react." And, his 'effectiveness' and 'competency' ratings are low. Add in a majority of Dems saying the economy is 'bad,' and Brennan wondered how the Dems will hold their majority.

Jeffries said he's "very confident" they'll hold on, saying President Biden "has done a very good job under incredibly difficult circumstances." He pointed to several things that are out there causing an "unsettled" electorate, as people are

experiencing COVID fatigue, inflationary pressures, high gas prices, a war in Ukraine, a radical, extreme Republican Party that doesn't appear to believe in democracy any longer. And so this is a tough moment for our country.

He said Biden has been a "decisive" leader, starting with the American Rescue Plan, noting 

We rescued the economy, put shots in arms and money in pockets, kids back in school, laid the foundation for a robust economic recovery that has led to more than eight million good-paying jobs being created and unemployment at 3.6% That's a tremendous start. Of course, there's more that needs to be done.

Brennan focused on the 'slow to react' metric, using police reform as an example. Two years after the death of George Floyd, she said Biden's been "looking at an executive order on police reform for months now, continues to say it's coming." She asked Jeffries if Biden needed to act on something like that before November.

Well, it's my hope and expectation that we will see some further decisive action from the administration. It's unfortunate that we find ourselves in this position because Senator Tim Scott decided to walk away from negotiations that were bipartisan in nature...

Brennan said it was the Dems who walked away, not the Rs, and asked if the urgency on police reform was "fading." Jeffries said they're going to "lean into public safety," and recited a list of issues that are important, but he didn't really address the 'urgency' question. 

Today, I can: this afternoon, news is breaking that Biden will sign his long-awaited executive order Wednesday, on the anniversary of George Floyd's death.

Another hit from the poll? She said more than a third of Dems "call their own party weak" - and 41% of young people think that, which "could hurt your turnout." She asked if it was time for a change in Congressional leadership. Jeffries was firm that, with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, "we've been acting decisively." And, he continued, 

But I think we do have to crystallize the differences between what we're about and what Republicans are all about. It's clear that Washington Republicans want to raise taxes on everyday Americans, on police officers, on firefighters, on nurses, on factory workers, on grocery store clerks. And we are trying to provide them with relief. The Republicans, including your prior guest, actually want to end Social Security and Medicare as we know it in five years, forcing it to sunset. Those are serious differences between the two parties. And I think, once the voters understand that dynamic, the choice will be as clear as a sunny day in San Diego. 

Finally, Brennan wondered if "Democrats put their own communities at risk" in New York by their asinine gerrymandering (my word, not Brennan's). Jeffries did his best to blame the Republican judge, and the special master, and the Court of Appeals - but not the Dems, at the feet of whom all the blame lies.

Well, the process, unfortunately, was hijacked by the Court of Appeals. A bad process has now led to a bad result. You're talking about five different congressional districts where the Black and Latino population was degraded. The only -- most significant Jewish district in the country has been detonated, for no good reason...

That said, Jeffries stated, 

...here's what's most important. We're going to remain united, because we believe in a very simple vision for America. Work hard, play by the rules, you should be able to provide a comfortable living for yourself and for your family... educate your children, purchase a home, and retire with grace and dignity.

"Play by the rules."  Four words we don't hear, or see in action all that much from either party. 

See you around campus.