Showing posts with label Nancy Mace. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nancy Mace. Show all posts

March 21, 2024

Wondering on Wednesday 3/20/24


Ready... Set... Wonder!

Huh... A billionaire can't pay his bond, and can't find people to help him; I wonder how that happens? And I wonder whether at least some of the companies that won't help aren't helping because they simply don't want to be involved with him, rather than because they really can't help him? I'm also wondering, a bit, why the family doesn't tap their Russian connections, where they used to get 'all the money they need' for the business, or why Jared doesn't message his BFF, the Saudi Crown Prince, for help?

Speaking of help, the GoFundMe to raise money towards the penalty has crossed the $1.5M threshold, with over 26,000 donors contributing to the cause. I really wonder who contributes to something like this - it takes a special kind of person to want to donate money to help a billionaire meet his legal responsibilities, I think.

Dartmouth men's basketball players voted to unionize earlier this month after they were deemed to be employees of the school by a regional National Labor Relations Board office. Needless to say, that prompted a whole lot of discussion on what this means more broadly for the NCAA: how will athletes be paid, how much, and would it be only for their season, or for the entire year, what about NIL, and so on. 

Me? I can't help wondering what the $3.6B in scholarships given to 180,000 DI and DII student-athletes is for, if it's not payment for their services?  

And since we're talking about the NCAA, I also wonder why it insists on opening Pandora's Portal of Program Doom before the seasons are officially over? It happens with football, and now basketball. What on earth is the point of encouraging players to end their season before their season ends?  

Finally, I wonder whether NCAA executives have considered changing careers?  They would make, um, "perfect" additions to pretty much any political office, right? They have all the critical experience: they know how to grab as much money as possible from sponsors and donors, make ridiculous rules that even they don't understand, ignore how those rules impact their constituents, and wait for someone else to fix the mess for them, like they're doing with NIL. If that's not a perfect fit, I don't know what is. 

Back to the billionaire. Donald 'Orange Jesus' Trump, a man alleged to have shared our national secrets with members of his residence/private club, is now eligible to receive national security updates as the presumptive Republican nominee. Given his propensity for blurting out whatever the hell crosses his mind, creating alternative facts at the drop of a hat, and his um, alleged inability to differentiate what's his and what's government property, I'm wondering if we should limit what's shared to only weather forecasts with national implications.

Think about it: the forecasts are specific as to locations, risks, potential damage, and populations impacted. Depending on the situation, forecasts even include global modeling. Surely, they should count as 'national security,' right? I wonder - only a little bit, though - what else a narcissist like the OJ would need. Shouldn't knowing how many of his followers, how many "real Americans," are in the path of a storm, or at least within the Cone of Uncertainty sponsored by Sharpie, be enough? 

Trump is suing George Stephanopoulos (and ABC News) for defamation because Stephanopoulos called him a rapist during his incredibly embarrassing interview with Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC). In the interview, Stephanopoulos repeatedly said that Trump was "found liable for rape" by a jury, which is untrue; the jury in the first E. Jean Carroll case found that he did not commit rape under the definition in NYS law at that time. It was Judge Lewis Kaplan who determined that Trump committed rape 'as commonly understood.' 

I wonder if George has considered that he could lose this case? After all, his interview was dripping with malice, towards Trump and Mace. I also wonder if he has second thoughts about inviting a Congresswoman on his show, specifically because she publicly talked about her own rape, specifically to shame her about her political decisions? And the one I wonder the most about: did his wife welcome him home with open arms after that grotesque interview?  I sure as hell hope not.

One last little bit of wondering on this one, now that NY has changed the definition of rape to match what Judge Kaplan said people understand 'rape' to mean, is someone responsible for updating the myriad references to sexual assault in the NYS criminal code before this change goes into effect in September? Are sentencing guidelines being updated? Are DAs receiving training on how to present cases to grand juries? 

What's on your wondering mind tonight?

January 10, 2024

Wondering on Wednesday 1/10/24


Ready... set... wonder!

Does anyone else admit to being shocked that Hunter Biden showed up at the House Oversight and Fake Accountability Committee hearing today? And did anyone else have as much fun watching Aaron Rupar's clips as I did?

The point of the hearing, of course, was to do what's called 'marking up' a bill that would hold him in contempt of Congress for refusing to sit for a closed-door deposition as requested by the folks trying to ruin his father make sure no one ever takes advantage of being in office again. I have to say, it was great theater - there was no lack of excitement, that's for sure.  

For example, Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) said both that Biden "had no balls" and that he was "the epitome of white privilege," while Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-You Freaking Kidding Me?) seemed to take offense when Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Constitutional Lawyer) said Greene had previously displayed pornography in the hearing room when she held up Hunter's 'dick pics.' Greene said it was not porn, to which Raskin replied, "You're the expert." Forgive me for this bit of wondering, but did Rep. Mace miss that hearing?

Earlier this week, we were advised that The Former Guy planned on offering closing remarks in his New York civil fraud case on Thursday. Sadly - or fortunately, depending on your point of view - we'll miss the opportunity to see the courtroom campaign rally because the judge isn't going to allow it

In an email exchange, Judge Arthur Engoron initially said Trump could speak, as long as he limited his remarks to what's required of attorneys:
commentary on the relevant, material facts that are in evidence and application of the relevant law to those facts.

He would not be allowed to introduce new evidence, "comment on irrelevant matters, or "deliver a campaign speech" or impugn the judge, his staff, the attorney general, her lawyers, or the court system, the judge wrote. 

Needless to say, Christopher Kise, Trump's lawyer, balked at that.

"You are not allowing president Trump, who has been wrongfully demeaned and belittled by an out of control, politically motivated attorney general, to speak about the things that must be spoken about," the attorney wrote.

So, what's the wondering on this one, you're wondering? Not a whole lot, really, other than how amazing it is that Trump can always find attorneys to make fools of themselves, knowing (as they must) that there's a risk they won't be paid their full billable amount, and that they may face legal action themselves for the things they say and the acts they commit on his behalf. 

If you don't believe me, look no further than Alina Habba who offered bizarre, and potentially threatening remarks about Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh, one of Trump's SCOTUS nominees. The Supremes will hear arguments about the 14th Amendment decisions in Colorado and Maine. 

I think it should be a slam dunk in the Supreme Court. I have faith in them. You know, people like Kavanaugh, who the president fought for, who the president went through hell to get into place, he'll step up.

And that makes me wonder what argument Kavanaugh will use, since his answer is pre-ordained.

Oh - one more thing, speaking of 'ordained' - if you haven't yet seen the "God gave us Trump" video, you can see it, and an edited script, in this morning's post. I can't help wondering what religious folks think of all of this. 

What's on your wondering mind tonight?

October 25, 2022

Sunday School 10/23/22

For your Sunday School, I started in the Fox News Sunday classroom, where host Shannon Bream chatted with Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-TX) about immigration and more.

Bream mentioned Cuellar's many conversations with the Biden administration on immigration, and asked if he thought the border is secure. Cuellar, who was born and raised in Laredo and represents the city today, was clear. With nearly 5M people crossing illegally in two years, between those we've apprehended and "the getaways,"

No... it's not secured... I started telling the transition team in December of 2020, this is what's going to be happening. You all have to be ready... we can be compassionate at the border, but you've got to enforce the law. And if you don't return people, then this is what you're going to have.

He also provided a great football analogy about immigration.

... look, we can spend all the defense on the one-yard line called the US/Mexico border, but if we don't go to their 20- yard line, work with Guatemala, work with Mexico and - and get them engaged so they can stop those folks from coming in, then they're just going to be at our doorsteps...
And how does he respond to his opponent's accusation that he "can't point to anything concrete" he's done about immigration? After noting she's not from the district, he said he "works very well with her husband" who's a Border Patrol Chief in Del Rio. He's also announcing a new, $165M Border Patrol checkpoint in Laredo. And, he said,

...by the way, Shannon, if you want to stop drugs, drugs are coming in -- over 90% of their drugs come in through ports of entry. So, we've got to support the men and women in green and the men and women in blue also.

Bream asked if Cuellar "had any regrets" about voting for the American Rescue Plan. He said deficit spending under Biden is less than under the Trump administration, but added we need to control "one of the biggest drivers," oil and gas, which supports 40,000 jobs in his district. He said he helped pass "the ban on oil exports" which created more US jobs, and he wants more drilling here.

Bream wondered if there's a place for him with the Ds; some have suggested his policy positions align more closely with the Rs. Cuellar said "surely, I'm a Democrat. I'm a conservative Democrat. I work in a very bipartisan way." And, he continued, 

And I think every party has the extreme. We have the extreme left. We have the extreme right. But some of us are not sent up to Washington to go make political statements. We're sent to Washington to do the hard job, and that is govern... I think there is definitely room for a conservative, moderate Democrat like myself.

Bream's last question was about the FBI raid at his home several months ago, which his opponent has been mentioning on the campaign trail. Cuellar said he is not the target of the investigation, and he's going to keep focusing on the election, and he said this about his opponent.

What I want to know is what she wants to do? You know, she's focusing on negative attacks. And I think people are sick and tired of the negative attacks. What they want to see is, this is a market of ideas. This is what I want to do. This is what she wants to do. Let the people decide. 

Hear, hear to that. 

July 27, 2022

Wondering on Wednesday 7/27/22


Ready... Set... Wonder!

I'm not really feeling the wondering tonight. Truth be told, some of it is the same stuff I've wondered off an on for ages, it seems, and I won't bore you with that.  

Instead, let's ponder these memes together. 





I share these particular memes because today's the day the House Oversight Committee invited gun manufacturer CEOs to Capitol Hill for a chat. Two - Daniel Defense and Storm, Ruger participated. Smith and Wesson didn't. 

Here are a few clips that made it to Twitter by the time I nosed around a bit. You can watch the full hearing here.
Wonder, if you want, about the memes, or about these clips, or anything else on this issue. The comment line is always open.

May 9, 2022

Sunday School 5/8/22

A governor, a state official, a member of Congress, and a US Senator walk in to a classroom - well, four classrooms - to talk about abortion. We'll take them in that order.

Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves talked with Jake Tapper in the State of the Union classroom. Mississippi has a 'trigger law' that will make all abortions illegal, except in cases of rape or where the mother's life is at risk; currently around 3500 abortions are performed annually. 

Reeves said that his state has "started doing the hard work of what a post-Roe-Mississippi will look like," and that if a majority of the SCOTUS justices are going to overturn Roe

we must understand that, while this is a great victory for the pro-life movement, it is not the end. In fact, it is just the beginning. And the beginning is we must show that being pro-life is not just about being anti-abortion. And so, in our state, that -- the work that is being done goes in two directions.

He said they have to do whatever they can to "make it easier on those moms who may be in unwanted pregnancies" and so, 

...I have signed legislation to provide help and resources and money to the 37 pregnancy resource centers that are located in every region of our state. We want to make sure that we get those individuals, ladies and women and expectant mothers, the help that they need from a health care standpoint, but it's not just about the health care. It's about other resources that are available to those moms.

And, the other piece of making things better while forcing women to bear unwanted children is about "the next phase of the pro-life movement."

And what we're trying to do is focus on making adoption easier in Mississippi. We're focusing on improving our foster care system... we're investing in that system over $100 million to improve technology at the Department of Human Services and at our Child Protection Service (CPS).

Tapper gave some grim Mississippi stats: the highest rates of infant mortality and child poverty in the country; no guaranteed paid maternity leave; a rejection of extended paid post-partum care through Medicaid; and a "long-running federal lawsuit" against CPS. He asked why anyone should believe Reeves saying he's concerned about taking care of these babies, or the women. Reeves said he didn't want to hide his state's problem, he wanted to fix them.

It's due in large part to poverty. And so we are focusing every day on fixing the challenges that are before us... when you talk about these young ladies, the best thing we can do for them is to provide and improve educational opportunities for them... We have got to continue to work to provide workforce opportunities, jobs for these individuals. But to do that, they have got to improve the quality of their skills. And we as a state are investing heavily in that.

In 2012, Mississippi was 47th in spending on education; in 2022, the state is ranked 46th; it plans on investing $49M in American Rescue Plan funding in education over the next couple of years. And, the state has only the $7.25 federal minimum wage. Notably,

The 2019 Mississippi Minimum Wage Act, or Senate Bill 2150, aimed to gradually increase the Mississippi minimum wage to $10 an hour by 2022, but this proposal died in committee. In 2021, Mississippi lawmakers continue to debate if and how the state should go about increasing the minimum wage. With Mississippi being the last state to not have a law requiring equal pay for women and men, there is still much discussion to be had.

Seems there's a tough row to hoe there... Maybe taking care of those other things first would make sense? 

Down the hall in the Meet the Press classroom, Michigan's AG Dana Nessel talked with What's-his-name. Her state also has had an abortion ban on the books since 1931; the ban would go into effect when Roe is overturned. Nessel has said she won't enforce that law, but she can't prevent the 83 prosecutors in the state from doing so. She called the law "incredibly draconian and strict," saying it has "virtually no exceptions - no exception for rape, for incest, no exception for medical emergencies." 

Not only that, but there's also a law against selling any drug or combination of drugs "designed expressly for the use of females for the purpose of procuring an abortion," with misdemeanor penalties in play. There's a registry requirement (name of purchaser, date of sale, and the name - and residence - of the prescribing physician.) Nessel also agreed with What's-his-name that even when a woman has a miscarriage, doctors may not want to perform the standards procedures to remove the fetus for fear they could end up in prison. 

To protect female Michiganders of child-bearing age, 

... I think each and every eligible voter in the state should be signing on to the you know, Reproductive Rights for All petition, and then coming to the polls and voting on it in November and voting for every pro-choice Democrat up and down the ticket, whether it's for federal office or for state office.

She'll also fully support lawsuits going to her state's Supreme Court arguing that the right to an abortion is a fundamental right in the Michigan Constitution "under our equal protection clause, under our due process clause...even if the US Supreme Court decides otherwise.  

She'd like to see both a constitutional amendment and a favorable decision from the state Supreme Court.

Let's be clear: women in my state, and in states all over America are going to die because of this position. And I heard the Mississippi governor when you interviewed him, he refused to answer the question of whether or not he would sign a bill completely outlawing the use of birth control. That is not in line at all with how Americans see their rights. And politicians do not belong in our doctor's offices. They don't belong in our bedrooms. And they should not be making these kinds of decisions on behalf of the American public and on behalf of women across America.

Moving south down the hall we meet Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC), who talked at length with Margaret Brennan in the Face the Nation classroom. Grace has been outspoken about being molested at 14 and raped at 16, and that she's pro-life, with exceptions for rape victims. Mace said the fetal heartbeat bill that South Carolina passed has exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother, in part because she told her story.

I felt it was really -- a really important story. A story that's often missed and not told because women are afraid. And you can even see in public comments and on social media when I talk about it, the ways in which that I get attacked for telling that story. And one of the things that I think, you know, partially that's missing in this conversation is that, when you have victims... And it's important for -- for some of us to step forward and tell those stories that are often missed in all of this as well.  

She said she would support Congress passing a bill with those protections, but that what people are missing is that if Roe is overturned, 

it's not an all-out federal ban on abortion, but it puts it back into state legislators and into Congress. You saw Congress a couple of years ago ban late- term abortions, for example. And so, what this does is it puts it back to the states, it puts it back into Congress to deal with and figure out.

They talked about polling; Brennan noted national polling shows "a majority of Americans want to kind of keep the status qu0, but "more than two-thirds of Republicans say abortion should be generally available or available with stricter limits" and wondered if it's a mistake to "just paint this as pro-life, pro-choice?" 

Mace (correctly, I believe), pointed out that "some of the polling is murky, too." It depends on "how you ask the question and who's paying for the polling." And, she gave examples of where we're more liberal on this than they are in Europe, and that it seems, based on some polls, that only 25% - 30% of Americans support abortion without restriction.

Finally, we turn to Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), who stopped by the This Week with George Stephanopoulos classroom to talk with Martha Raddatz about some of the political aspects of the Alito Draft. You know, things like "Do you believe there should be a litmus test? The Democrats have several candidates who do not support abortion rights." Klobuchar didn't gasp, which is more than I can say for myself. 

Instead, she talked about the Dems being a party where people recognize the difference between their personal beliefs and the rights of women to make their own personal choice. And, she added,

I think what you see in our party, is a party that is clearly pro-choice. It believes that a woman should have a right to make her own reproductive health decision when it comes to abortion. That is a position of our party and I think you see it in primary (after) primary. That matters to our voters, certainly now more than ever.

Next question? Senate Dems are going to push for a vote to codify abortion rights, "but it's almost certainly going to be blocked..." That being the case, Raddatz wondered about the options abortion rights advocates - and Democrats - have. Klobuchar said

If we are not successful, then we go to the ballot box. We march straight to the ballot box. And the women of this country and the men who stand with them will vote like they've never voted before because this is 50 years of rights in a leaked opinion where Justice Alito is literally not just taking us back to the 1950s, he's taking us back to the 1850s. He actually cites the fact that abortion was criminalized back when the 14th Amendment was adopted. And so this is a really extreme thought.

And, Raddatz asked if abortion rights should be "the principal issue for Democrats at the ballot box." The senator said "it will not be the only issue." She mentioned the economy, the president's leadership vis-à-vis Ukraine, preserving our democracy, and the extremism the Rs are showing as issues that matter to voters.

But, clearly, when... especially a new generation of women are looking at this and saying, wait a minute, my mom and my grandma are going to have more rights than I'm going to have going forward? I'm going to have to look at a patchwork of states laws with 15 of them already looking to ban medication abortion, which is what people do online and things like that. They're going to look at this and say, what world do I live in?

So, yes, "it's going to be a major issue going into the fall." 

And the final question from Raddatz: in states where abortion would "almost immediately be banned" if Roe is overturned, polling shows most adults "believe abortion should be illegal in most or all cases." Doesn't that mean the laws reflect what the people want?

Klobuchar said, like many people, she thinks 

why should a woman in Texas have different rights and a different future and a different ability to make decisions about her body and her reproductive choices than a woman in Minnesota?

She asked, rhetorically, about putting yourself in someone else's shoes, no matter how hard it might be, and thinking about "a waitress in the middle of Texas who has to make a decision...she's going to quit her job to get on a bus and go 250 miles" to have an abortion.

Those are the kinds of things that are going to be happening. It's especially going to fall on the backs of poor women, women of color. This is just wrong. And that is part of why Justice Blackmun, who is a Republican-appointed justice no less, made that thoughtful decision, looked at the Constitution and said, the right to privacy includes the right for women to make a choice like this.

Four people, all coming from different places, talking about one of the most contention issues we have. 

See you around campus. 

January 17, 2021

Sunday School 1/17/21

Which classrooms are demanding my attention today?  At least three had House members I wanted to hear from: Meet the Press, This Week with George, and CNN's State of the Union. Let's see how much we can fit in.

Before we get to Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) and her chat with Chuck Todd on MTP, I want to give you a quick highlight from Chuck's interview with DC Mayor Muriel Bowser. Todd wondered how long they'd be living with the increased security and what "feels like an armed camp" in DC.

Bowser didn't pull any punches in her response. 

I think the question is a bigger question, Chuck. It is how serious is our country going to take domestic white extremism? And I think what we saw here last week is that we didn't take it seriously enough. We've never believed that so-called patriots would attempt to overthrow their government and kill police officers. But that's exactly what happened. And so, I do think we have to take another posture in our city that is more domestic terrorist focused than external to our country and act accordingly...

As her answer sinks in, let's hear from Rep. Mace. She was disappointed (as was I, honestly) that impeachment was the only option they could consider; the "bicameral, bipartisan effort" to consider censure instead was not an option.

That would one, hold the president accountable for his words and his actions and two, also prohibit from holding office again in the future. Unfortunately, the speaker wouldn't let us bring it up for debate or bring it up for a vote. There were measures, there were folks in place in both chambers, in both parties, that were willing to do that and go that far. But unfortunately, we didn't have the opportunity at all last week.

And while she admitted that keeping Trump from ever holding office again via censure is "complex, constitutionally" they were willing to try and figure it out. Mace said it was "enormously disappointing" that, after she "literally had to walk through a crime scene" to vote to certify the Electoral College votes, leaders Kevin McCarthy and Steve Scalise, and other Rs still objected. That shows they "have reconciliation that needs to happen" within the GOP, and the country.

Mace thinks Liz Cheney will survive and keep her leadership role; not only that, but she noted the irony that "the same people that were complaining and screaming about the president being silenced on Twitter want to silence a dissenting voice within our own party," which is also "very hypocritical and very disappointing."

Part of the American experiment in this country is the ability and opportunity to debate ideas. Even when we disagree, we have the ability to agree to disagree and not attack one another. And there's so much division, not only within our party, but within our country right now. And we've got to do a better job. And I hope and I support Liz Cheney. And I hope that she stays a part of leadership. We need these voices right now more than ever.

We definitely need voices that are not beholden to any person or party, for sure. 

Over in the This Week classroom, George talked with Joaquin Castro (D-TX), one of the impeachment managers. He wasn't sure how long the trial would take, but he said they'd do whatever was needed to make the case for the American people and for members of the Senate. He correctly noted that Trump's been talking about the stolen election and being cheated "for months" and then "got these folks riled up on that day, asked them to march down to the Capitol and when all of this was going on, when there was a riot inside the US Capitol, also didn't send relief to quell it."

George noted that Trump asked people to be peaceful on January sixth, and suggested it was a First Amendment issue, but Castro disagreed. Referring to "the big lie" about the election, and all of the losing court cases, and that Trump "knew what he was doing, and watched as that mob took over the U.S. Capitol..."

He's also not concerned about the constitutionality of convicting a president who's already out of office, and that one of the points of doing it is to make sure Trump can't run for office again. And, they plan on fighting for every vote in the Senate, and making sure Trump is held accountable for "inciting this deadly insurrection..."

Next, George talked with Rep. Peter Meijer (R-MI), another newbie, and one of the ten Rs who voted for to impeach. He said he hasn't seen any evidence that members of Congress or any staffers were involved, and that it's "important" that folks don't "get ahead of the process."

... If anyone was responsible or participated, they should be held to the fullest extent of the law and we can talk about those remedial processes later. But at the moment, I think it's important we don't jump to conclusions.

And, he described the last few days as "absolutely gut-wrenching," saying impeaching a president from his own party was "nothing that we ever hoped to do."

Many of us deliberated deeply. This was not as easy as just saying what is in our best political interest, but, frankly, looking at the evidence, looking at the facts of the case, reading the article and - and asking, is this true by our own experience, by our lived experience? And it was.

Meijer also said that it's a "time for reflection, but also a time for accountability," something he's "deeply committed to."

You know, I'm calling on my party to restore trust, to restore the trust of the voting public and to ensure that we never allow the actions that led up to January 6th and what happened on January 6th, we never allow that outburst of political violence to occur in our name again.

He told George he can't really say a whole lot about any other people's votes on impeachment, or about overturning the election, although he did credit many of his colleagues with "honest and forthright" decision-making, He worries when individual concerns become collective concerns, something that happened after the election, which built into "something that ended up supporting the president's, you know, false idea that he had won in a landslide... "

We need to make sure that we have leaders who are telling folks who trust them what they need to hear, not just what they want to hear.

Politically, he may have cooked his own goose by voting to impeach, but stressed the importance of having "elected leaders who are not thinking solely about what's in their individual self-interest, not what is going to be politically expedient, but what we actually need for country." 

About Trump, he said that "it's time that we acknowledge that what happened on January 6th was a betrayal of what had been accomplished over the past four years... " and added

You know, the president brought some necessary energy. He brought some necessary ideas. He shook the tree. He was a change agent. The challenge was that he -- he didn't know when to stop, and he didn't draw a line.

Finally, on what incoming President Biden can do to help heal the divide?

I think it's incumbent on both parties to ensure that they are not promoting folks within their ranks who are engaged in a politics of deception, but rather having open, thoughtful, honest, engaged conversations. I hope that President Biden will do the same, that he will not give in to some of the more, you know, some of the lower impulses that -- that folks in the progressive wing may try to bring out, but rather say that this is a time for the country to focus on rebuilding; this is a time for the country to focus on rebuilding trust, rebuilding our institutions, rebuilding governance. You know, we need to get through the pandemic. We need to deal with the economic consequences and the fallout. But we also need to heal all of the divides that have been exposed over the past several years.

Wait, what? The lower impulses that the progressives may try to bring out? How can any Republican talk about the "lower impulses" of the other side, given (as I've said before) they play underground limbo on their own side of the aisle? Sorry, Rep. Meijer. I was with you for a while, but you lost me with that.

Unfortunately, we're out of room for CNN SOTU. I'll see what we can fit in to your Extra Credit. 

See you around campus.