Sunday School 8/2/26

With all of the focus on the Democratic Socialists competing in Democratic primaries across the country, I thought I'd spend time with the OG DS, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), who chatted with Kristen Welker in NBC's Meet the Press classroom yesterday. While some of Welker's questions were long, almost all of Sanders' answers were, so be prepared.  

Welker started by referencing a new poll showing that "one third of Democratic-leaning voters now identify as Democratic Socialists (DS)," and noted that, "quite frankly," DS candidates have been winning their primaries. And she asked Sanders if he was confident they could win in purple states. I'm going to try and break up his 470-odd word response into sections so you can catch your breath reading it.

Well, I am, but I’m mostly confident that the American people know that our country today is moving in a very, very bad direction at a time when we have more income and wealth inequality than we’ve ever had in the history of America. What’s going on now makes the Gilded Age of Rockefeller look like an egalitarian utopia. What’s going on now is that millions of our people, right now, in the richest country on Earth, they’re struggling to put food on the table, pay for health care, pay for their rent, pay for their mortgage.

You got half of all the workers who have nothing in savings as they face retirement. Or you’re facing seeing kids unable to afford to go to college in the richest country in the history of the world. So people all over America are looking around, they’re saying, “Hey, wait a minute. The very richest people are becoming richer. Elon Musk himself, one man, owns more wealth by far than the bottom half of American households. What in God’s name is going on?”

And people look at the Republican leadership and Donald Trump, and they say, “You know, this guy’s worried about a Reflecting Pool. I can’t afford my retirement. He’s starting a war in Iran, costing us huge amounts of money, killing innocent people. 18 American servicemen are dead. What are they doing?”

And then you look at the Democratic Party leadership, which also gets their money, like the Republicans, from very wealthy people, and people are saying, “Is the Democratic leadership representing ordinary Americans?” And I think people look at the Republicans, they say, “No, they’re out of touch,” look at the Democratic leadership, say, “No, they’re out of touch.

We need a government, a radical idea, that works for all people and not just for wealthy campaign contributors.” And that’s why, from New York City with (Zoran) Mamdani, and in Colorado, and in California, and in Montana, and I think you’re going to see it in Michigan, people are saying, “Enough is enough. You know, let’s get a government that represents all of us.”

And I’ve got to tell you something, Kristen, that part of the exasperation that the American people are feeling, it’s not just an economy which is rigged. They’re looking at a corrupt — underlying corrupt campaign finance system. And what you’re seeing in Michigan right now is AIPAC, other billionaire-funded super PACs, putting tens and tens of millions of dollars against Abdul El-Sayed. In Minnesota against Peggy Flanagan, same thing.

So we’ve got billionaires buying elections, government working for the billionaires, and ordinary people saying, “We want change.” And that is why progressives, democratic socialists, are doing so well all over this country. They’ve got an agenda that speaks to the needs of working families. They’re prepared to stand up to the oligarchs.

Since Sanders mentioned Michigan, she wondered how confident he was that his endorsed candidate, Dr. Abdul El-Sayed, could "pull out a victory" in Tuesday's primary against the establishment candidate, Congresswoman Haley Stevens.

Look, he has taken on –I’ve never - you know, I’m not a political scientist. I cannot recall where a major candidate was outspent so much by super PACs. I mean, they’re spending tens and tens of millions of dollars against him. The polling recently looks good, but polls don’t win elections, people do. So I would hope that, in Michigan and later next week in Minnesota, people understand the importance of this election. What’s it about?

It’s not just whether Abdul can win or not, beat Haley Stevens. The question is whether or not we live in a democratic society where a candidate fighting for working people can take on tens and tens of millions of dollars of AIPAC money, special interest money. And I hope very much that Abdul is - and I’ll tell you why, and a kind of selfish reason. Everybody in America understands that our current health care system is totally broken. We’re spending unbelievable amounts of money, twice as much per capita as the people of any other country. 85 million uninsured, underinsured. Prices way high.

Dr. El-Sayed is somebody I need in the Senate as he fights for Medicare for All. He’s a doctor. He has seen the broken health care system. We need him to make sure that every man, woman, and child in this country has health care as a human right, as is the case in every other major country on Earth.

Welker noted that Sen. Gary Peters, whose seat is up for grabs, has backed Stevens to replace him, saying

You have to have a candidate who understands that winning a general election doesn’t mean just turning out Democrats. You also have to appeal to a broader cross-section of your state, and Michigan is a true purple state.

To Sanders, she posted this question: "What do you think Dr. El-Sayed will have to do in order to turn out moderates and independents to win a general election if he does win on Tuesday?" In a nutshell, Sanders explained El-Sayed can win because working-class Republicans are in the same boat as all working-class people, and they know the system is broken.

You are struggling to figure out how you’re going to retire with dignity. You understand that the current campaign finance system is broken. You understand that workers need decent wages, and El-Sayed is fighting for a livable minimum wage. And by the way, if you’re a Republican, you know maybe we should be investing our money into Michigan, into Vermont, into America rather than giving the extremist government of Netanyahu and Israel tens of billions of dollars to continue their atrocities against the Palestinian people - I think if you’re a working-class - ok - if you’re a working-class Republican in Michigan, I think you’re going to listen to what El-Sayed says. You’re gonna - and I think many of them will end up voting for him. Independents as well, of course.

Welker asked if El-Sayed should "speak with the same clarity" as Sanders has on the issue of Israel as a Jewish State. El-Sayed has said he "often struggles with the question of whether Israel has the right to exist as a Jewish state.”  Here's the non-answer:

Look, I think right now the immediate issue of the moment is whether or not we continue to put tens of billions of dollars into the extremist Netanyahu government, which has killed 75,000 Palestinians, mostly women and children, wounded 150,000, destroyed their infrastructure. And what the American people are saying overwhelmingly, Democrats, many independents - the majority of independents, and many Republicans, especially younger Republicans, “We’ve got better things to do with our money than to continue to fund the military of Israel.”

They talked a bit about the Maine primary, where Troy Jackson was chosen to replace Graham Platner after widely-reported scandals. Sanders knows Jackson; he'd endorse him if he was asked, and said "I look forward to working with him in the US Senate." And, on comments from Sen. John Fetterman (Kinda D- PA) about Sanders supporting Platner, Sanders suggested that Fetterman "was reflecting the views of about 19% of the Democrats" in PA and is "way out of touch with the people of America."  And, when she asked if he had any regrets about endorsing Platner, he turned to his standard lines:

I’ll tell you, you know, I think right now we’re looking at a campaign in Michigan, we’re looking at a campaign in Minnesota. The people of this country right now are sick and tired of establishment politics and establishment policies. They want change and I and other progressives are going to do everything that we can to bring about those changes.

Finally, they talked about who could carry the progressive banner into the next presidential race, which will be the first without him since 2016.

Kristen there are — one of the untold secrets in Washington is in the U.S. House of Representatives, for example, you have many, many really strong progressives. Many of them are young. Many of them are women. Many of them are people of color. And we have elected many of them. And I think as a result of this election cycle, you’re going to see a lot more coming to Washington. I think as a nation, and by the way, with all due respect, the media spends too much time worrying about who’s going to be a president in two and a half years.

Right now, we have enormous problems facing this country. We’re looking at heat waves all over the world. You’ve got climate change. We’re looking at the big tech oligarchs pushing AI and robotics down our throat. Congress is doing very little to protect working people in that. We’re looking at massive levels of income and wealth inequality, a corrupt campaign finance system. My suggestion is, as a country, as a Congress, as media, let’s focus on the important issues facing working people. Two and a half years from now is a long time to a presidential election. I’m sure it will unfold itself.

I had hoped there'd be more questions about the Democratic Socialists of America platform, and to what extent the DS candidates support the platform. We'll have to wait to see if any of them win in November before anyone starts asking about that. 

For his part, Sanders was Sanders - his answers, in my opinion, were entirely predictable. What do you think?

Sunday School 7/26/26: Extra Credit

For your Sunday School Extra Credit this week, I dropped by the Meet the Press (NBC) classroom to listen in on some talk about the upcoming midterms. 

For the first part of the conversation, host Kristen Welker was joined by NBC's Chief Data Analyst, Steve Kornacki. Here's how Welker set the stage:

Today marks 100 days until the midterm elections. At stake: control of Congress. Will the war in Iran -- and its impact on the economy -- hurt Republicans’ chances of holding onto power? Or can Democrats flip the House and Senate? Even as a fight rages within the party over its future. 

Kornacki dove right into the numbers, putting the landscape in perspective, he said. 

• Trump's approval is at 41% on average across all polls, a little lower than before the 2018 midterms in his first term. 
• In a recent Fox News poll on specific issues, "majority disapprove everywhere. His best mark is 42 on immigration." On Iran, the economy, and inflation, the numbers were apparently much worse.
• In 2022, under Biden, the Dems lost "only a few seats" in the House, and picked up one in the Senate. That's what the Rs are hoping will happen this year, and they "think that their one chance is the image of the Democratic Party."
• A majority of Democrats, in the same Fox poll, "have a favorable view of socialism" but that ends at the party door - socialism is "deeply unpopular" with Independents.
• The Dems need to gain four Senate seats to get control, and they can't lose any seats, either. Their best hopes are in Maine and North Carolina, but where are the other two? Can they come from states that Trump won by double digits - Alaska, Iowa, Ohio, or Texas?
• Iran hangs over the whole mess; in a Politico poll, "65% say the war shouldn't continue, or should continue only if it doesn't make costs worse. And 56% of MAGA share that opinion, compared to several weeks ago when it was 41%.

Later in the lesson, the panel gathered to continue discussing the midterms. Today's crew: New York Times White House correspondent Tyler Pager; Democratic strategist Adrienne Elrod; and Lanhee Chen, a fellow at the Hoover Institution. 

Welker asked Pager what he was hearing from his sources about Iran and the mood at the White House. He said for a while folks were optimistic that "the war would be winding down or at least not on the front of voters' minds when they went to the polls, or even after Labor Day." And now? It seems there are some concerns that fluctuating prices and continuing attacks in the war could be "a huge issue for voters."  On the other hand,

...when you talk to Republicans, they point out a few things that make them somewhat optimistic that things could go a little bit better. One, the huge cash advantage that the Republicans have in the committees. Two, the redistricting efforts that have given Republicans a fighting chance in some areas that they didn’t think they would compete in. And lastly, they think they have a message of attack, particularly around the Democratic Socialist candidates that have won, trying to paint them as representatives of the entire Democratic Party. But most voters care about the economy. And that is going to be — continue to be a huge issue for the party as they try to stave off what appears to be a losing hand heading into November.

Welker turned to Chen, asking about Labor Day as a key date, especially when it comes to getting gas prices down. She said, "The economy is always the single biggest issue" for voters considering which party to support, but noted there's some complexity to the picture for the Rs. She pointed to the redistricting efforts in red states making perhaps 10 to 15 seats more competitive, and the progressive Dems who are far to the left of most Americans.

So those are advantages, no question about it. But the challenge Republicans face is what I consider to be an expectations gap. There’s an expectation about the end of the war. There’s an expectation about prices coming down. And the reality hasn’t always met those expectations. So not only are you seeing challenges with independent voters. The bigger issue for Republicans is energy. It’s the energy of the Republican electorate. Are those most loyal Republican voters going to turn out and vote when Donald Trump is not on the ballot? That’s the big question.

And, talking about "the progressive branch of the Democratic Party," Welker noted the energy level there, and how there's a divide playing out in primaries. She talked about Michigan, where there's a primary next month with a progressive battling a moderate for a Senate seat. She asked Elrod to talk about what's at stake. 

In a nutshell? If the Dems want to take back the Senate, they have to hold Michigan, and "we have a much better shot of holding onto Michigan" if the moderate candidate wins. She also thinks that, in terms of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) candidates more generally, it's a challenge for the Ds because some of the primary winners "may not be as appealing to the electorate in the general election.

But so far, we are seeing this relatively isolated to places like New York City, you know, urban areas, and of course that little blue dot in Colorado in Denver with Diana DeGette’s loss. If El-Sayed is successful in Michigan, that will sort of blow that argument. It’ll flop that argument significantly. Because this is a state that is in the Rust Belt. It is a state that is critical to anybody winning in 2028 for the presidential - for the presidency. So if this happens there, then I think Democrats are going to have a bigger challenge.

And on the other side of the aisle, how much of a challenge does the erosion of the MAGA base on Iran pose?  Pager turned back the clock a bit to answer this one, noting that JD Vance endorsed Trump in part because "Trump would not bring the nation to war." And Vance has been "concerned and frankly opposed" to the war (from the beginning, at least according to many reports - ed.)

So obviously that is a huge concern for the base. And that was what Vance was trying to channel in some of his opposition. The other thing as Lanhee said, we have seen the Republican Party struggle when Donald Trump is not on the ballot, particularly with turnout when it relates to the base... some of these voters that are huge Donald Trump supporters, but are not as reliably showing up for the midterm elections. And so without Donald Trump on the ballot, plus this ongoing protracted overseas conflict, that is a problem for Republicans.

Chen noted the concept of "the MAGA base is a little bit misunderstood" - it's not really a 'base' for the Rs.

... what it really is, is it’s Donald Trump’s coalition. It’s a unique coalition that no other politician has been able to replicate in recent American history. When Donald Trump is not on the ballot, as we talked about earlier, it changes the dynamic, the dynamic significantly. The question of course is: does the president want to get more involved? And what does that mean for individual candidates?

She pointed to Susan Collins, running for her *sixth* term (after pledging to only serve two), as an example of the quandary facing some GOP candidates. In Maine, she'll need the so-called MAGA base, but she can't turn off the moderates who wield a lot of power in the bluish-purple state.

... she’s got to be able to turn out that base of Republican voters while still not turning off moderates who might have a different opinion of the president. Her challenge is going to be very different than you might see in other races. So, the question of how far the president gets involved - this is his base. If he wants to turn on his base, if he wants to devote time and energy to getting those people out to vote, it’s going to change the outcome of the election.

Does that make everything clearer, as we enter the push to the midterms? Iran, affordability, DSA, Trump... right now, these are the likely suspects; we'll see if that changes over the coming weeks. 

Thoughts on the midterms? Want to see me tackle something specific? (And yes, I'll be sharing some info on the DSA in an upcoming post.) Drop a comment.

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

I can't believe I'm doing this again - trying to recap a Sen. Tim Scott interview - but here I am. Scott was in the Meet the Press classroom with Kristen Welker.  

Welker started by asking if Scott respects people's right to peacefully protest; the question came in reaction to increased police involvement on campuses. His response, all 279 words of it, started out with

Well, we certainly respect the right to peaceful protest. What we're seeing on college campuses, however, is too often not peaceful protest. 

He went on to talk about the violence that's occurring, and the 2000 arrests that have been made, and continued

What we have to understand is the antisemitism that we're seeing on college campuses today is akin to what we saw in the 1960s. What we should be saying as a nation, the American people, they're saying it loud and clear. They support eliminating antisemitism from college campuses. They're being very clear. There's no space for hate in America.

He then accused President Biden of pandering by not speaking out sooner, and spoke of the 'privilege' that is federal funding for education, a favorite refrain of the Rs. Welker noted that Scott himself has acknowledged the anti-Semitism in his own party, but I guess because it's not happening on campuses as much as it is at 'conservative' gatherings, it's not as urgent. 

Kristen, let me just say this though, Kristen. Once of the things we should make sure we do is continue to focus on the issues that we are seeing faced by those students today... This is the kind of scourge on our nation, the thing that scars the soul of a country as in we don't stand up for the vulnerable. We should make sure we do that today, tomorrow, and every day going forward.

And ignore the stuff 'we' did in the past.  

Her next question was whether or not he talked with Trump over the weekend - they were together at Mar-a-Lago - about being his running mate.

No, ma'am. What we talked about this weekend was how bad the economy is for single parents like the one that raised me. We had a lot of conversations around the room about the importance of eliminating Bidenomics, about the importance of getting inflation back down to 2%. We were just better off under President Trump. Inflation, Kristen, was at 2% and we had the lowest unemployment rates for African Americans, for Hispanics, for Asians, a 70-year low for women. We had the highest funding for historically Black colleges and universities in the history of the country under President Trump. So we were excited to have a conversation. We had no conversations about the VP pick, to be honest with you, to be clear. But we had a lot of conversations about the failures of Joe Biden and the success of Donald Trump.

Again, Welker tried to argue with him, talking economic numbers, and how some were better under Biden than Trump, but are creeping back up, he said (he's right) and then, using her favorite interview tactic, she asked him again (and again) about the VP role, saying "But just to be very clear. It didn't come up at all? Do you think you're on the short list?"

TS:  No – no, ma'am. It did not come up. African American unemployment rate is 6.4% today –

KW: But what about being – what about being VP–

TS: There's no doubt that it would be –

KW: What about being President Trump's VP? Did it come up at all? Do you think you're on the –

TS: Yes –

KW: – short list?

TS: I hope that the president will choose a person who helps the country unite and heal. I certainly expect to have a decision from President Trump in the next 60 days or so. But he did not bring it up. I certainly didn't bring it up. I'm excited that in this nation a poor kid from South Carolina can rise to the level of being a United States senator. It just tells me that all things are possible for kids growing up in poverty today. Listen to this show and know that all things are possible for your future.

Instead of talking about policy stuff, Welker decided to talk about "some of the headlines this week," and I groaned. At least she didn't mention the criminal election interference trial in New York. Instead, it was Trump's failure to commit to accepting the results of the 2024 election if he weren't the winner. 

Her question for Scott, who voted to certify the 2020 results? "Why would you join a ticket with someone who believes the exact opposite on this critical point? 

Well, I think we have to listen to what President Trump said and not what the reporters said that he actually said. Here's one of the things that he's been very clear, and even talking about the situation in Wisconsin, what he said was he expects there to be an honest election. He expects the results will be clear and for him to be successful. I expect him to be successful as well. There's no doubt that when you look at the polls across our country the one thing that is crystal clear, that the American people now having a contrast between four years of Joe Biden versus four years of Donald Trump. They're really excited to get back to the Trump years. And so I expect the election to be fair, and I expect Donald Trump to be our next president.

She pushed back, quoting Trump's own words, and also mentioned Wisconsin, noting that Trump again this week said he won the state, which he lost. And after that, she asked her question again. 

So again, to the point, you voted to certify the election results of 2020. It's the exact opposite of what you said and did after 2020. Why would you want to be on a ticket with someone where there's such a fundamental difference?

Because he's all about today, tomorrow and the future, he blew off the entire concern. Basically, no worries, we don't have to fret about losing and having to make any kind of decision. Why is that not a problem? 

There is clear facts here. President Trump himself said he expects this election to be fair, he expects it to be honest, and he expects to win. That's what the presidential candidate should expect, and I expect the exact same thing. And frankly the American people agree with him. This is an issue that is not an issue, so I'm not going to make it an issue.

And then it became the Sunday School classroom equivalent of a pissing match, and I can't stand either one of them, I really can't.  

KW: Well, senator, will you commit to accepting the election results of 2024, bottom line?

TS: At the end of the day, the 47th president of the United States will be President Donald Trump, and I'm excited to get back to low inflation, low unemployment –

KS: Wait – wait, senator, yes or no? Yes or no? Will you accept the election results of 2024 no matter who wins?

TS: That is my statement.

KS: But is it – just yes or no? Will you accept the election results of 2024?

TS: I look forward to President Trump being the 47th president and Kristen, you can ask them multiple times –

KS: – Senator, just a yes or no answer.

TS: – but at the end of the day – so the American people, the American people will make the decision. And the decision will be –

KW: But I don't hear you committing – 

TS: – for President Trump. That's clear.

KW: I don't hear you coming to the election results. S

TS: – Here's the deal. This is why so many –

KW: Will you commit to accepting the election results?

TS: This is why so many – this is why so many Americans believe that NBC is an extension of the Democrat party. At the end of the day, I said what I said. I know that the American people, their voices will be heard. And I believe that President Trump will be our next president. It's that simple.

KW: But senator, as you know, the hallmark of our democracy is that both candidates agree to a peaceful transfer of power. So I'm asking you as a potential VP nominee, will you accept to commit to the election results in this election cycle, no matter who wins? Just simply yes or no.

TS: I expect President Trump to win the next election and listen I'm not going to answer your hypothetical question when in fact I believe the American people are speaking today on the results of the election and if it continues – if it continues for the next six months, we find ourselves in a great position where we get back to another degree of American prosperity. I'm looking forward to that.

I'm not going to bore you with the part of the interview about abortion, because again, she asked a question, he gave a non-answer, she pushed back, she asked again, he non-answered again, declared his non-answer to be his answer, and so on. 

Scott has walked away from what he has said believes in, and supports whatever Trump believes in. I believe everyone in the universe knows this, and there really is no reason to interview folks like Scott unless it's to get information on what Trump plans on doing if he's elected.

There is no other reason to invite him to a classroom - any classroom, unless maybe there's an open seat in a kindergarten classroom somewhere. And Welker? With her repetitive badgering of guests, and her asking only the obvious questions, she belongs there most of the time, too. 

See you around campus - Noem's up next. 

Sunday School 3/31/24

We begin the Easter edition of Sunday School with Dana Bash and her Good Friday conversation with Senator Rev. Raphael Warnock (D-GA); here are some excerpts from that conversation, which aired in the State of the Union classroom.

Rev. Warnock said the message he'll be sharing with his congregants is "the good news of Easter is that evil and injustice will not have the last word," and that "Truth crushed to earth will rise again."

As he describes himself as a "Matthew 25 Christian," Bash wondered if people, not just in the US but around the world, "have gotten away from" that theme of "caring for strangers and being welcoming towards people of all different backgrounds." Warnock said how we treat our neighbors and how we take care of those "who are most marginalized is a central tenet" of that chapter, and he said there are "some 2,000 verses in the Scripture" talking about how to treat the poor.

Sadly, you wouldn't know that listening to some of the loudest Christian voices in America today that are often mean to poor people in the name of faith. I don't know what Bible they're reading.

Bash turned to Trump's encouraging folks to buy his $60 licensed Bible, and played a clip from his video; I had that clip, and more, in my  OrangeVerse post last week.

All Americans need a Bible in their home. And I have many. It's my favorite book. It's a lot of people's favorite book. I'm proud to endorse and encourage you to get this Bible. We must make America pray again. 

Warnock noted "The Bible doesn't need Donald Trump's endorsement," and said

The sad thing is that none of us are surprised by this. This is what we expect from the former president. If he's not selling us steaks, he's selling us a school whose degree is not worth the paper that is written on. If he's not selling us a school, he's selling us sneakers. And now he's trying to sell the Scriptures. At the end of the day, I think he's trying to sell the American people a bill of goods. And that worked in 2016, although he did not win the popular vote even in 2016. It did not work in 2020. And I don't think it's going to work in 2024.

Talking about the other documents you get for your $60 - the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and whatnot - Warnock said getting into the Bible business is "risky business for someone like" Trump.

because the folks who buy those Bibles might actually open them up, where it says things like, thou shalt not lie, thou shalt not bear false witness, where it warns about wolves dressed up in sheep's clothing. I think you ought to be careful. 

Bash brought up House Speaker Mike Johnson saying President Biden acknowledging March 31st as the annual Transgender Day of Visibility was "abhorrent" and that Biden "betrayed the central tenet of Easter," which falls on March 31st this year.

...apparently, the speaker finds trans people abhorrent. And I think he ought to think about that. The fact of the matter is, as you said, March 31 has been a day to lift up transgender people who endure violence and bigotry. Easter, the date changes every single day. But this is just one more instance of folks who have -- who do not know how to lead us trying to divide us. And this is the opposite of the Christian faith.

Next, Bash talked with Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY), who's been calling on Speaker Johnson to allow a vote on aid to Ukraine for quite a while now. Lawler thinks they'll finally get one when the House returns from the Easter break., saying "critically important for our allies," and that "we cannot shirk on our responsibility to uphold and defend democracies across the globe."

He's one of the members behind the 'Defending Borders, Defending Democracies Act' which would provide assistance to Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan, and also bring back the 'remain in Mexico' policy and Title 42. He said he's spoken with Johnson directly, and is "confident that he is going to bring a bill to the floor."

His thinking on Rep. Marjorie Flamethrower Taylor Greene (R- You Kidding Me?) and her threat to boot Johnson, Lawler was direct. 

I can't speak for her... But, as I said the day that she introduced it, it's idiotic. And it's not going to actually help advance the cause that she believes in... Infighting does nothing to help advance any of those issues or policy positions. And, in fact, it undermines our majority.

Bash noted Lawler is one of only four House GOP members supporting a federal law allowing IVF, and asked if the rest of his party is "on the wrong side of this issue." Lawler said that if the Rs want to be "a party that supports life, then we should be fighting to protect the ability of families to become parents," and that the people aren't interested in "extremism."

Bash asked a couple of Trump-behaving-badly questions; in a nutshell, Lawler thinks everyone needs to tone it down and watch what they say. On the specific issue of Trump attacking another judge (and the judge's family), he thinks "families should always be off-limits." And, he added, instead of focusing on things the media likes to pay attention to,

... I think the focus of this campaign and this election should be on the American people and the issues facing the American people. 

Next, I dropped in on the MTP classroom, where Kristen Welker talked with GOP Rep. Don Bacon of Nebraska. Welker noted that Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelenskyy announced on social media that he had spoken with Speaker Johnson on the issues his country is facing, saying "Quick passage of U.S. aid to Ukraine by Congress is vital." 

She asked Bacon, a supporter of aid to Ukraine how confident he was that a bill would pass.

Well, Speaker Johnson is an honest man. He truly walks his faith. He doesn't talk his faith, he walks his faith, he shows it. He's committed to making this the first, the top priority, when we return back to Washington, DC.

He said most of his colleagues support military aid, but don't support humanitarian aid that the Senate included in their bill. He and three others, including two Dems, have a $66B bill that would provide aid to Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan, plus border security. Their bill would allow for amendments, which might make it more palatable.

...I know the speaker also wants to have, like, the Repo Act, where we repossess some Russian assets to help them pay for this. Also, maybe, some lend lease segments to the bill. So, some of this may become in the form of loans.

They also want to try and force Biden to give Ukraine different weapons, "higher-tech, more capable" arms to "help them prevail on the battlefield," including the ATACMS guided missiles. Welker pointed out that Biden has been asking for funding to pay for those - for seven months - and the House has held things up. 

Bacon wants there to be some kind of 'bicameral, bipartisan solution," and that he doesn't want to pass a bill if it would pass the Senate. Welker noted the Senate had passed a bill, which the House famously voted down, at Donald Orange Jesus Trump's urging.

Yeah. Well, it didn't have a lot of bicameral support, at least on the Republican side. Why is that? You have about almost $30 billion in humanitarian aid and there's not a lot of support for that amount of humanitarian aid going to Ukraine. We think the EU could do a lot more humanitarian than they are. They just did a $50 billion humanitarian aid and Germany has committed more. We think our role should be more military aid because that's what we're good at. 

I had to pause the video at that point, it being Easter Sunday and all; I shouldn't have been surprised, since it was an R saying it, but still.

When asked whether he thought Johnson could lose the speakership over this issue, Bacon said 

It's possible, I'm not going to deny it. We have one or two people that are not team players. They'd rather enjoy the limelight, the social media. And the fact is with the one-seat majority – and we'll end up with a three- or four-seat majority after some special elections – out of 435 people, it's a very narrow majority. And one or two people can make this a minority.

Personally, he prefers to "work with the team," and doesn't think they need 100% agreement on everything. He also thinks the Dems are tired of the dysfunction over the speakership, and would take steps to keep Johnson from losing the vote if it came to the floor. There might be a standoff after the Ukraine bill is handled, but he hopes Johnson will prevail if it comes to that. 

On impeaching the president, folks he's talked to "say there's not a specific crime" and he'd need that or a misdemeanor to be in favor of the move. But is it time to drop the whole thing?

I don't know if it's time, right now. But I do think we're probably nearing the conclusion of this investigation. And I think it was important for the American people to see that, yes, there's $24 million in foreign money that the family raised and all the hidden LLCs that the money was moved around in. But that is, in itself, not a high crime or misdemeanor.

Welker asked about the Biden-in-the-pickup video image that Trump shared (the same question Bash asked Lawler) and got a similar answer: he doesn't support that, he wants both sides to raise the bar of civility, and said we're better than that.

We're the strongest country in the world... we are the best country to live in, but we're not going to remain that way if we treat our opponents in this way...We've got to be a lot better at how we dialogue with the opposition... 

And because she just can't take an answer for an answer, she pushed him for something more by asking if he thought it was OK that Trump was attacking the families of the judges in his many cases. Bacon said he'll lead by example and focus on the issues.

And I think in Nebraska, in the Midwest, we don't like the nastiness, you know? We have a phrase here, "Nebraska nice," and it's real. 

She then asked, "And, on this Easter, what is your message about bipartisanship and the possibility of working together on something like" rebuilding the Francis Scott Key Bridge? 

... I think our faith calls for the golden rule. It calls for, like, you know, the fruits of the spirit in Galatians, that we should treat each other with respect, decency. And I think, as Christians, sometimes we forget that in this political debate... we've got to hold a higher bar here and remember the gold rule, as we work out the issues facing our country. 

See you around campus.

Sunday School 2/25/24: Extra Credit

For your Extra Credit this week, I spent time with Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Mar-a-Lago) and Kristen Welker in the Meet the Press classroom. 

Donalds, who was among the people receiving votes for House Speaker last fall, is on former president Donald Trump's VP shortlist. 

Topic #1: Trump's Black Conservative Federation Gala comments

Welker played a video clip of Trump talking about his indictments, and asked if he was "implying that he can win Black voters because they get indicted all the time, too." Donalds said "it's part of it," and said that Trump also mentioned issues - the border, the economy - that cause concern for Black voters. 

But then when you layer on the fact that, yes, this is political persecution from the Department of Justice and from radical DAs throughout our country, this is something similar that Black people had to deal with – with the justice system themselves. And so their look – their look of it is real simple: "Well, dang, if the government's going after him with foolishness, he can't be that bad." Especially considering the fact that Joe Biden is terrible at his job.

Welker noted that grand juries brought the indictments against Trump and that there's "no evidence the indictments are political in nature," and asked for his thoughts on former Rep. Cedric Richmond's opinion that Trump's comments were "just plain racist." 

Number one, Richmond's "trying to play politics and use racial politics," Donalds said. And number two, he continued (with my emphasis added)

like I said at the top, the number one reason why minority voters in our country want to support Donald Trump is because he did the job of president. He did a great job... Our country was secure. The economy was great. These are all things that Donald Trump talked about Friday night.

And yes, he also talked about the indictments. 

What Americans don't want to see, especially Black Americans and anybody else, they don't want to see a politicized Justice Department. They don't want to see a two-tier system of justice. They want justice to be followed. They want Lady Justice to be blind. That's what the American people want. That's what Black voters want. That's what everybody wants.

Welker, who clearly can't help herself, came back again, asking if Donalds was "offended at all" by the comments.

No, I wasn't. Because I understood what the president was talking about. And like I said now for the third time, he talked about all the reasons why minority voters want to support him.

Topic #2: The Hur Report

Donalds segued into Biden not being indicted by Special Counsel Robert Hur as indicative of that two-tiered justice system.  

You have to acknowledge the fact that now that the Robert Hur report has come out about Joe Biden's misuse of classified information, which is a violation of the Espionage Act, he had no rights to any of those documents when he was a senator or vice president, yet there are no charges... While President Trump is under prosecution. Come on now. You know that doesn't make any sense at all.

Then they talked over each other, and argued about what the report actually said (open to interpretation, it seems), and then he said

The Espionage Act is clear - you cannot possess those documents as a senator or vice president. You have no rights to those documents as a senator or a vice president. They must remain in a secure facility. Joe Biden took them from a SCIF. That's a violation of the Espionage Act, period.

Welker gave up arguing but before moving on, she said the Hur report said there wasn't enough evidence to bring charges.

Topic #3: IVF (and shouted questions)

Welker brought up Donalds saying he agreed with the Alabama ruling that embryos are children, and she wanted to know if he supported IVF as we know it here, which sometimes ends with donated or destroyed embryos. 

Donalds said he does support IVF, he's got several friends who have been through it, and have beautiful and wonderful children, and said "I totally support the procedure." He also noted he responded to a question as he was "in the middle of a hallway," that he "heard the tail end" of the question, and that he wasn't aware of the Alabama decision when he answered.

By way of explaining his position - that he fully supports IVF - he said

Look, embryos are important to the production of life. We all come from embryos. That's what I said because I heard half her question. But do I support the IVF procedure? 100% I do. It should be made available. And I believe, as President Trump has also said, we really want the Alabama legislature to make sure that that procedure is protected for families who do struggle with having children. That helps them actually create great families, which is what our country desperately needs.

And so Welker, after hearing him state twice that he 100% supports IVF, how important it is, and how he supports legislation protecting it, asked this:

So just to be very clear, though, if you believe that embryos are children, do you think they should be treated as people with all the same legal rights as people?

He should have said, "Are the answers I've given you twice insufficient in some way?" Instead, he said she was "getting into a personhood argument" and that's where legislation - and how legislators put it together - would be critical. And he said - again - 

The IVF procedure is very important to a lot of couples in our country. It should be protected. I agree with President Trump on that. 

And so, 'to put a fine point on it,' as Welker likes to say, she asked if he'd support federal legislative protection for IVF. He said he'd need to see "the devil in the details," but

I feel I could broadly support that. Because, like I said, IVF is something that is so critical to a lot of couples. It helps them breed great families. Our country needs that.

Topic #4: Ukraine, the border, and government funding

Welker played a clip of a 2022 town hall where Donalds said we "needed to be engaged in Ukraine because, quote, "If you essentially allow the bully to bully, you're going to be drawn into a broader conflict you do not want to be a part of."  She wondered what changed since he made those comments. It's really simple, he explained: Biden's failure to secure our country, which is "the first job of the federal government."

...many citizens are saying, "Why are we sending billions of dollars to protect Ukraine while our country remains open?" So my message has been clear. I agree with the Speaker. You want to talk Ukraine funding? Let's talk about it. But you've got to secure America first.

She suggested the House failed to do its job when it refused to take up the Senate border bill; Donalds said it was "a terrible bill," and reminded her that the Senate didn't even pass it. Welker then asked, "So can you really say... you have done everything possible for the border when you've opposed that deal?" 

He pointed to H.R.2, the House bill, which is "the most robust border security package ever to pass a chamber of Congress.," again noting that the Senate did not pass its own bill. And, he said, 

Joe Biden doesn't even need legislation to secure the country. He could do that right now. He can undo all of his executive orders that he put into place when he became president... That's what created the crisis that we have today.

Welker countered with this statement: "Congressman, as you know, executive orders often get tied up in the courts. That's what happened under former President Trump." Have any of Biden's EOs been challenged? If yes, she didn't mention it.

But let me ask you, big picture, because the government is careening toward another potential shutdown in just days. Are you willing to shut down the government over border security?

When he finally got her to listen to him, he said he is "willing to fund the government as long as our border is secure." Welker pressed him again, saying "and of course, the Biden administration's working on executive actions as we speak," and demanded a yes or no answer on whether he'd vote to shut down the government.

I will not be voting for any funding if the border is not secured. Anything I vote for has to secure our border. And the president should agree to that. That's common sense for a nation like America.

As I reviewed the video and the transcript of their conversation for this post, one question stuck in my mind: When did Kristen Welker start working for the Biden campaign? 

See you around campus.

Sunday School 2/18/24

I visited three classrooms Sunday to hear what the Democrats were saying, starting with the This Week classroom, where Jon Karl talked with Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro. 

Karl asked, "What worries you about... a Biden-Trump rematch?" In part, the gov said

this election really is about all of us and whether or not we’re going to rise up and use our voices and ultimately our vote to protect our fundamental freedoms, to scream out for the kind of country that we want, to protect this 247-year experience that began right here... 

Regarding the tight polls in PA, Shapiro correctly noted that the campaign hasn't really started yet, and polls have frequently been wrong in his state. Echoing Jon Stewart, he added

And I would say to folks who are worried about the numbers, stop worrying and start working. 

He gave several examples of how Pennsylvanians "voted for freedom and against extremism," over the past few years, and promised that he'd "do everything in my political power" to make the case against Trump and for Biden.  

Karl mentioned Ezra Klein commenting in the NY Times that Biden should bow out of the race and let the delegates choose the nominee. 

I think Biden, as painful as this is, should find a way (of) stepping down as a hero, that the party should help him find his way to do that, to being the thing he said he would be in 2020, a bridge to the next generation of Democrats... Retirement can be, often is, a trauma. But losing to Donald Trump would be far worse."

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.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) was in the Meet the Press classroom with Kristen Welker, who asked if the Senate Intelligence Committee was going to call Robert Hur to testify. Klobuchar suggested in the upper chamber, they have "many other things" they need to do, legislating tech and dealing with fentanyl among them. 

She also said it would be "up to the president and his lawyers," to address Hur's comments about Biden, but said she's been with him, talking about both domestic and international issues, and she said "he was focused. His recall was good." Her colleagues have said had similar experiences, she said.

...I think that we've got to evaluate what's happening right now by, one, what he has done... and focus on what matters to the American people and compare what he is doing to what we've got as the alternative on the Republican side, which is Donald Trump who is nothing but standing up week by week for chaos.

Welker mentioned growing chatter from Dems about Biden's ability to win a second term, and like Karl, she picked something from Klein's column.

He is not up for this. He is not the campaigner he was even five years ago. The way he moves, the energy in his voice. The Democrats denying decline are only fooling themselves.

Klobuchar disagreed; she listed several Dem wins, none of which really rebutted Klein's point. And, she added,

Time and time again the American people have stood with the policies and the work of Joe Biden because they do not want to go back to the chaos and madness of Donald Trump.

Welker said that "the vast majority of Americans say they are not feeling it" on Biden's handling of the economy, and asked whether it was time for Biden to hang it up. 

Again, I'm a believer in President Biden because I believe he is a good moral person that has the backs of the people of this country... I am proud to be supporting Joe Biden for president.

Welker pushed back about voters not feeling it, and after listing more policy wins, Klobuchar said

He is not running, as the president has said, against the almighty. He is running against Donald Trump. And time and time again, the voters have made clear where they stand on Donald Trump.

Given the choice, moderates and independent voters will go for "someone who believes in democracy" and fights against the Putins of the world, 

as opposed to Donald Trump, who literally a week ago said that Vladimir Putin should be able to do whatever the hell he wants... 

My last stop? The Face the Nation classroom where Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-SC) spoke with Robert Costa. Noting the Congressman was "optimistic" about Biden's re-election campaign, Costa asked, "What keeps you up at night, politically? "

Clyburn said "the misinformation efforts that are underway throughout this campaign" keep him "wide awake."

I've heard so much from people sharing with me things that just aren't true. So much from people who seem to feel that everything they see or hear via the internet has some substance to them. And so that's the thing that keeps me up, whether or not we're going to have a campaign for the presidency free of all of these interruptions and all of the misinformation.

When prompted, he mentioned the AI robocalls in New Hampshire and said similar shenanigans are happening in his state; for example, Dems are being invited to participate in the GOP primary, and folks "saying things over the air that just aren't true." 

Costa switched gears, asking if the administration's support of Israel's war with Hamas could dampen turnout "among young voters and others," Clyburn expressed concern about Israel/Hamas, and Russia/Ukraine, too. People are looking for someone

who can lead us through this stuff. And nobody is better equipped to do that than Joe Biden. He – has the experience. He has the wisdom. He has the demeanor. He has the relationships. He has what it takes to get this country to where it needs to be and to maintain the relationships we need to have with our allies around the world. That you're not going to find on the other side of the aisle.

He's shared his personal thoughts about Netanyahu with Biden, he said, and interestingly, I thought, Clyburn added that while Biden doesn't share all his thoughts publicly

...I know this, he feels about the way I feel when it comes to Netanyahu... his leadership has not been good for Israel. We stand firmly with the people of Israel. But I've always had a real problem with Netanyahu, and that continues to be today.

Costa, the former newspaper guy, did something remarkable - he asked a follow-up question! Two of them!

Costa: You say you have a problem with Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, and you say you've spoken to the president privately about this. Does he have a problem with Netanyahu?

Clyburn: I've shared with the president what my feelings are about Netanyahu. He is going to develop his own feelings about that. He hasn't told me exactly what –

Costa: But does he agree or disagree with your assessment, Congressman?

Clyburn: Well, he's accepted my assessment. I have not asked him whether or not he agreed with me. In fact, I just let him know, 'This is the way I feel. I'm not running the country. You do what you feel is in the best interest of the country.'

Last two questions. First, in 2020, Biden pledged to nominate a Black woman to the Supreme Court; he got Clyburn's endorsement in return. Is there a pledge this time around, too?

He should continue to manage the country the way he's managing it... I would say to him, keep doing what you're doing.

And finally, 83-year-old Clyburn is running for re-election in November. Costa wondered how 81-year-old Biden should handle the age question as the campaign progresses. The answer? talk about his experience and wisdom, and maintain connections with people.

Clyburn's going to be visiting New York, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Georgia, he said, 

carrying the president's message of experience, of a steady hand, of maintaining our trek toward a more perfect union, doing the things that are necessary to maintain our relationships around the world and move this country forward on behalf of all.

He closed by telling Costa he's "fond of saying, this is a great country, in no need of being made great. We've just got to figure out ways to make this country's greatness accessible and affordable for all of our citizens. And Joe Biden is doing that. And we have got to stay focused on that."

Out of the mouths of octogenarians, or something.  

See you around campus. 

Sunday School 2/4/24

The classrooms were rocking yesterday. Let's dive in, starting with Kristen Welker and her catfight with House Speaker Mike I'm Calling the Shots Here Johnson (R-LA) on Meet the Press.

The two repeated themselves multiple times and often spoke condescendingly to each other; here's what I gleaned from the interview on the hot topics of the day.

Johnson thinks we need to take a Reaganesque/Trumpesque approach with Iran - peace through strength - and he said "We should not be appeasing Iran..."

We need to act to decimate the Iran Central Bank, the assets that they've held there. We need to lean on international banks to seize the assets of Iranian proxies. We need to – to put big-time pressure, maximum pressure, on their oil exports. There's a lot that we could do to Iran to send a message instead of this appeasement strategy. 

We need to 'Soleimani' them, like under Trump, when "we used a drone and three missiles" to take out a single bad guy, instead of "using potentially hundreds of munitions to strike close to 100 targets so far." I guess he thinks we're using too much ammo or something.

The House proposed a separate Israeli funding bill because the Senate isn't doing anything; in fact, HR2, "which is our signature bill right out of the beginning, right out of the block" could have solved the border problem if it hadn't "been sitting on Chuck Schumer's desk collecting dust..." And, if you didn't know, Senate bills are DOA in the House, and vice versa.

Johnson hasn't been briefed by his Senate counterparts, and to date he's only heard the same rumors as everyone else. I get the sense that he thinks the bill doesn't matter. 

But here's the essential point... We documented 64 specific actions that Joe Biden and his agencies have taken to create this catastrophe. They did it intentionally... The American people are done with this. The border has to be secured. The president has the authority right now. He doesn't need another act of Congress. He could do it right now. But he's unwilling to do it.

At some point, I stopped listening, but I perked up when I heard them mention Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and his impeachment. Johnson previously said he's very much against a one-party impeachment, as we saw in a clip. He said three times, "The founders of this country warned against single-party impeachments. 

You guys know why. Because they feared it would bitterly and perhaps irreparably divide our nation.

What they're doing with Mayorkas is not that, and it's not a 'policy disagreement,' either. "It's very different, Kristen, in many ways." Let me mansplain "the many ways."

For one, the House has methodically, slowly, deliberately gone through the impeachment process, impeachment inquiry, impeachment investigation on Mayorkas and – and President Biden himself. We've involved three different committees of jurisdiction: Judiciary, Oversight, Ways and Means. We –we have followed the facts where they have led. Not for political purposes. Not because we take pleasure in this. It's, again, a heavy thing to look at the impeachment of a president or a Cabinet secretary. But these facts require it.

I snickered - I mean, wasn't that the same speech Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi gave? Johnson says his GOP team has done a very careful, methodic, nonpartisan investigation.

And it is exactly the opposite of what the House Democrats did in the previous administration. That is a fact, and we can follow those facts and understand them for what they are.

"And that's the truth," said Edith Ann.  

Moving down the hall, George Stephanopoulos was in the chair for his own show; one of his guests was Sen. JD Vance (R-OH YEAH, I'm in the Cult!). Vance is unofficially campaigning to move into Number One Observatory Circle, but he'll have to outlast dozens of others in the Donald J. Trump VP Hunger Games to get the keys.

George opened the interview by playing a video clip of Vance acting very RINO-y back in 2016 when he said he was "a Never Trump guy." George wanted to know why he had changed his mind. 

When you compare Trump's term and Biden's term, Vance says there's a clear difference, and

... It's hard not to conclude that I was wrong and so many were wrong about Donald Trump back in 2015. He delivered, George, he did a good job. And I think it's why we ought to give him another run at it.

George countered with some positive Bidenomics data, then turned to what's happened since then: Trump's 2020 loss, January 6th, the indictments, and the verdicts in the E. Jean Carroll sexual assault and defamation cases. And he asked if being a Trump supporter means that he's "sanctioning that kind of behavior, sexual assault, and defamation?"

Well, I think it's actually very unfair to the victims of sexual assault, to say that somehow their lives are being worse by electing Donald Trump for president, when what he's trying to do, I think is restore prosperity. So, I think it's insulting to victim -- victims of sexual assault.

Wait, what? What the actual hell?  

Trump is trying to restore prosperity, and damn those pesky sexual assault victims for being insulted that so many people are willing to look past not only how Trump talks about sexually assaulting women, but the actual sexual assault he was found guilty of committing. Can't they just be happy he's trying to make them more prosperous? 

Honestly, that's preposterous, and insulting to pretty much anyone other than a MAGA Camper. Vance went on to say most of the cases are "not about prosecuting Trump for something that he did, it's about throwing him off the ballot because Democrats feel that they can't beat him at the ballot box. And so, they're trying to defeat them in court."

That's exactly what Trump did in 2020, with five-dozen-some-odd losing court cases, his Kraken legal team, and the presser at Four Seasons Total Landscaping. Vance didn't mention those, but he argued that fighting an alleged criminal in the courts isn't the right way to go - we should fight over policy in the election.

When George pointed out that it was juries making the decisions, Vance noted

George, if you look at all of these cases, the through line, two-fold. Number one, they’re funded by Donald Trump’s political opponents, and the goal here is not to help us actually have a real conversation about how to advance the country forward. Their goal is to defeat Trump at the courts because these people know they can’t defeat him at the ballot box. 

There was no second fold in "the through line," and George moved on - or, I should say, moved backward - and asked if Vance would have certified the election had he been VP on January 6th. Vance said it was "such a ridiculous question," which it was. George reiterated he wasn't looking forward, he was looking over his shoulder, which prompted Vance to say

I have to make a point here. You constantly say to people like me, 'why do you talk about January the 6th, why do you talk about the election of 2020,' and then you ask about this multiple times during a six-minute interview.

After listing his concerns with the 2020 election, Vance said there was a "political solution" to the problems, and "litigating which slate of electors were legitimate I think is fundamentally the political solution to the problems that existed in 2020."

And I find it weird, George, that people like you obsess with what I call 'what happened in 2020,' you're so incurious about what actually happened in 2020, which is why so many people mistrust our elections in this country. We’ve got to do better, George.

George pushed the 'you'd do what Trump said' point a few times, while Vance maintained that wasn't why he'd have done it - and he continued to hit on the media's obsession. He thinks what's happened since 2020 - instability, the border, and so on - is more important, and said

We need to litigate the 2024 election about those issues. You guys are obsessed with talking about 2020. I'm happy to answer the questions, but I think it's a disservice to the American people that you're so preoccupied with it.

 Next question? What about this advice Vance has for Trump? Roll tape, George!

... if I was giving him one piece of advice, fire every single mid-level bureaucrat, every civil servant in the administrative state. Replace them with our people. And when the courts -- because you will get taken to court -- and when the courts stop you, stand before the country like Andrew Jackson did, and say "The chief justice has made his ruling. Now let him enforce it." 

George asked if Vance really wanted to fire "everyone in the government" and if it was really "OK for the president to defy the Supreme Court?" Vance argued everyone didn't need to be fired, just that Trump should replace "the mid-level bureaucrats with people who aren't responsive to the administration's agenda. That's called democracy."

And then there was a pissing match, with George quoting Vance directly, and Vance trying to clarify that what he meant was

...the president has to be able to run the government as he thinks he should. That's the way the Constitution works...

And, the SCOTUS can make an "illegitimate ruling" and if it did, "the president would have to respond to it."

Eventually, Stephanopoulos said, in effect, "Thanks very much for playing," and closed the interview as Vance was still talking. 

Honestly, I would have sent all of them to after-school detention. 

See you around campus.

Sunday School 1/28/24: Extra Credit

Your Sunday School lesson was all about immigration, and we're continuing that conversation for your Extra Credit. 

I want to note that the House Homeland Security Committee released two articles of impeachment against Homeland Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.

In its 20-page resolution, the Republican-led committee accuses Mayorkas of high crimes and misdemeanors, including "willfully" disregarding immigration law...

Chairman Mark Green, R-Tenn., said the committee had "exhausted all other options to hold Secretary Mayorkas accountable" and that "Congress must exercise its constitutional duty and impeach him."

Now, back to the classrooms, starting with Meet the Press. Kristen Welker talked about the bill with Democratic pollster Cornell Belcher and Matt Gorman, who worked on Sen. Tim Scott's campaign. 

Welker referenced what I characterize as the rock - Donald Trump - and the hard place - the "best possibility of getting a deal in decades" between which the Rs sit. Gorman, who believes President Biden can act unilaterally, said the whole thing reminds him of The Sixth Sense. 

It's been dead a month. No one noticed it yet... The White House and the Senate are acting like they're the only people involved in this. They're not. 

Belcher reflected on our sad history (my words, not his) of 'doing something' about immigration, only to have politics get in the way. We've seen it before, he said,

...(in) 2007 Bush wanted to do immigration. They – they attacked it as amnesty for illegals. Obama thought he had a deal with Boehner. He took it back to the House, and the Republicans killed it...

He said Sen. Tom Tillis (R-NC) who's "not exactly a liberal," says what the Rs are doing 

may be immoral, because they're killing it because president Trump thinks it's good for his politics.

Martha Raddatz (ABC's This Week) shared a taped interview in which Jon Karl asked Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-RA) about the six million people who have been apprehended at the border. 

What ultimately should happen to all those people, you know, the people who don't qualify for asylum, or totally came in illegally?

Newsom said  "You have to deal with the cards that are dealt. You've got to deal with the reality on the ground," but that the "fundamental issue" is, we need immigration reform, not just border security. 

Biden's strategy includes a pathway to citizenship "along the lines of (the GOP's) former hero, Ronald Reagan," Newsom said, adding there's a "$14B plan, right now," that gets us judges and border agents; Congress's refusal to act is just the Rs trying to

... find a crowbar to put in the spokes of the wheels of the Biden administration to disrupt any progress on this because they don't want progress, period.

Raddatz got an interesting response from National Review Editor Ramesh Ponnuru when Sen. Lindsey Graham's name came up. He noted Graham's support doesn't matter much to many Republicans; he's long advocated for "comprehensive immigration reform," but

there are a lot of people in the Republican Party who don't see things the same way Lindsey Graham does on immigration and don't trust him on this issue because they don't agree with him.

Ponnuru also shared where opposition to the bill comes from. Paraphrasing here, some Rs seem to think the 5,000 daily limit is like the rent in NYC - it's too damn high. But that's not all.

...you've got this more basic thing, which a lot of Republicans say, 'if the problem is Biden is not enforcing the laws that are already on the books, which is what they have been saying for months, then passing a new law isn't a solution to that problem.'

I want to swing back to the State of the Union classroom. Dana Bash asked former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) if she was OK with the bill not including "a pathway to citizenship, or even protections for Dreamers." 

Well, no; the fact is, is that we need comprehensive immigration reform. That's not likely with the Congress that we have right now, so we have to move forward. This arrangement that the Democrats and Republicans in the Senate have negotiated is a step forward... But we were never going to get a path to citizenship in this bill. 

I'm giving the last word to Bakari Sellers, a CNN political commentator. He chastised the Ds who "have refused to pay attention to immigration and crime in this country, saying it really didn't exist, it wasn't a problem." What's needed now is the folks who have complained,

we need our good mayors, like Frank Scott from Little Rock, like Chokwe from Jackson, Mississippi, we need Randall Woodfin from Birmingham, Alabama, and we even need mayors who don't know what they're doing, like Eric Adams in New York City, to now simply stand up for this piece of legislation and say, 'this is what we need done.'

This has to be the messaging and the messengers who can get this done for the country. This is not a problem that you kick down the road... This is something you fix right now. This is a problem. Fix it.

That sure beats merely complaining about the other side, doesn't it?

See you around campus, where I'm sure this will continue to be a topic through the election and beyond, if we're smart.