In Case You Missed It (59)

Grab your cuppa whatever, settle down in a comfy chair somewhere, and enjoy this recap of last week's posts.

Sunday School brought us an interview with Lara Trump, the $15,000/month campaign worker, wife of Eric Trump and daughter-in-law of the president. She spoke with Jake Tapper on CNN's State of the Union, at least until he abruptly thanked her off the air.  Before that happened, she offered this explanation for the president's behavior vis a vis the domestic terrorism plot against one of his favorite targets, Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer.

Well, look, this is - he wasn't doing anything, I don't think, to provoke people to threaten this woman at all. He was having fun at a Trump rally... There are issues at hand here that are bigger than just keeping everybody locked down. So, I think people are frustrated. And look, the president was at a rally. It's a fun, light atmosphere. Of course he wasn't encouraging people to threaten this woman. That's ridiculous.

It is ridiculous, she's right about that.  She was equally ridiculous talking about Joe Biden's stutter, which is when Tapper shut her down.

Your Extra Credit task? Taking in interviews with Tom Perez, the chair of the DNC, and Reince Priebus, who was Trump's first (of four) chiefs of staff. The two talked with Margaret Brennan on CBS' Face the Nation.

Perez is hopeless, IMO - and barely quotable, which this close to an election is an offense the party should really deal with - you know, sit him at a desk opposite whatever three famous Dems will be willing to do it, and summarily dismiss him a la the Celebrity Apprentice. Or tweet his fake resignation letter, or something. 

Priebus is still relatively unlikeable, but at least he does a halfway decent interview, defends his candidate at every turn, and attacks the other guy. Here he is talking about what's left of the time on the calendar before Election Day.

I mean, you know, clearly, I think one of the things that you're going to see over the next couple of weeks is that the President's going to be pivoting, talking about the economy. I think this upcoming debate is going to be really important that the President is that, you know, likable, fun, have a good time. 

I don't think Trump had much fun at the debate, given the rules, do you? 

Midweek, I was Wondering on Wednesday about all kinds of stuff, including alleged foreign election interference, but more about the actual domestic election interference being done by the Republicans, or at least by their minions. I gave an earlier example, of the Trump-loving conservative activists were charged for making threatening robocalls, which to me is worse than Iranians making threatening robo-mails. Why? Um, because they're Americans...

I was also talking about the new Ukraine-China stuff that's being dripped out by Rudy Colludy, and the Republicans who are actively complicit in this, or passively so.

And I wonder if I'm the only one wondering if they think releasing this will make more people vote for the ethically-challenged, debt-challenged, Russia-challenged, China-challenged, taxpayer-soaking, lying, bullying, corrupt president, or if they think this will make fewer people vote for the other guy, giving the ethically-challenged, debt-challenged, Russia-challenged, China-challenged, taxpayer-soaking, lying, bullying, corrupt president a better shot at re-election?

I have my ideas on that, how about you? 

Thursday, I did a PPOD  post - that's Pet Peeve of the Day - on the damn Democrats and how horrible they are, once again, at managing PR. This time, the target of my wrath at my former party was the posters-in-chairs boycott of the Senate Judiciary Committee vote to advance the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the full Senate.

I could do a 'Dems are dumb' PPOD at least monthly, I'm sure, without having to stretch my research muscles enough to even wake up my Fitbit. I could have done a dozen just on the impeachment, for Pete's sake.  This time, my own Sen. Chuck Schumer was the focus of my wrath, for a variety of reasons, including these.

I hate to point out that this silliness, during an election where perhaps the highest priority is gaining the majority in the Senate, is not likely to be the kind of thing that's going to push an undecided voter to choose blue. Worse, it might be just the thing to embolden the red guys in the several very close Senate races that the Dems need to win to get the majority. Why feed the beast?

And, with a 17% approval rating for Congress as a whole - the lowest it's been in a year - why don't you at least show up?

And finally, I closed the week with a stranger-than-usual TGIF entry. I had planned on talking seriously about the debate but first I found myself channeling Trump in his post-presidential book, and channeling Melania, as if she was the one who had control of the president's demeanor during the debate. Those two parts were fun to write, for sure.

In summarizing the debate (and I did offer a possible explanation in the post for my take on things), I offered this.

If I were to sum up the night as simplistically as possible, it would be like this: in Donald Trump's world, we'll be kept all warm and fuzzy by surrounding ourselves with piles of really outstanding 401(k) statements and oil company stock certificates and drugs and vaccines while we sit in bars sharing food off the plates of strangers, and if we need them, we have cages for people who don't want to do that, really nice cages Obama built, while in Biden's world, we'll be kept all warm and fuzzy by masks and by surrounding ourselves with allies that trust us, and 'we' includes everyone no matter where they live, even if they were brought here as babies and toddlers from another country by their parents. 

There you have it - the full and veritable pastiche from last week.  See you later for Sunday School.  

Sunday School 10/18/20 Extra Credit

For your Extra Credit, I bring you Margaret Brennan's Face the Nation interviews with current DNC head Tom Perez and former RNC head and former Trump Chief of Staff Reince Priebus.

Perez was up first; Brennan wondered about the polls, and more importantly whether the Dems had done enough to drive the kind of voter turnout, whether by mail, or early voting, or voting on Election Day.

Perez said he cautions people to "never get on the 'poller-coaster'," and that they're not taking anything for granted - and he pointed to enthusiasm "all over the country." He said Dems turning ballots in, including a whole lotta Dems who didn't vote in the last two elections.  And they're still focusing on the battleground states.

Brennan mentioned polling from Arizona showing 56% of likely voters blame the Dems more than the Rs for not getting a stimulus bill passed, and wondered if holding out for a big bill might backfire on them. Perez had a bit of an issue trying to answer this one, starting out by pointing to the Amy Coney Barrett SCOTUS nomination, and the bill the Dems passed back in May that the Rs ignored, and what not, eventually landing on how the Dems have been fighting and that this is a "health care election." Brennan pointed out that "fighting, talking and doing are two different things," and that the 'not doing' is why people were pointing fingers at the Dems. 

She moved on to a recent court loss, where the Rs won on a ruling that mail-in ballots must be received by 8PM on Election Day in Michigan, and wondered how that might impact things. Again, Perez meandered around, talking about what happened in Wisconsin back in April, and energy, and early voting and what not. But, when Brennan asked, "so, you don't see this as damaging?" here's what he had to say.

Well, I would rather-- I-- I believe democracy works better when everyone can cast their ballot and every ballot is counted. We're in an unprecedented pandemic here, and courts in other states have allowed votes that were postmarked by Election Day to be counted as long as they're received within a short period of time after Election Day. This court did it differently. I disagree categorically with that ruling. But we are moving ahead in Michigan. We're moving ahead everywhere. And again, the pandemic in Michigan-- the pandemic everywhere. This is a crisis. People understand this President has no plan. His closing argument in Michigan is "lock her up." He's fanning the flames of division. He doesn't have a plan for the coronavirus. He doesn't have a plan--for the economy. He's divisive. Joe Biden is bringing us together...People in Michigan remember that it was Joe Biden and Ba-- Barack Obama who saved the auto industry--when Republicans were letting it die.

 And that was that. Let's see how Priebus did during his turn, starting with the first question: is he concerned about the president's chances, as was reported in the Sunday paper?

No, not at all. In fact, I'm not concerned about that at all. I'm-- I'm-- I'm concerned about early vote. I'm concerned about absentee ballot voting, but I'm always worried about early vote and absentee ballot voting. I haven't reemerged. I have always been helpful to the President, helpful to the RNC. But, look, you know, early vote and where we're-- we're at in a pandemic and having five times more people vote in Florida than ever before, these are unprecedented times. The polling is all over the map. This is something that's going to come down to the wire, and I hope and expect the President to win.

About battleground states, he said poling is tough, and talked about the demographics, "working class white voters, suburban women... rural parts of the country" and how the president is winning, and

pushing thirty points ahead in rural America with enthusiasm off the charts. Yes, it's a little bit down in the suburbs. But the hard thing for these pollsters, Margaret, as you bring up, is that they can't measure this kind of disparity between the rural parts of this country and what's happening in the suburbs.

Brennan asked if he thought Trump was going to win Wisconsin, and Priebus seems to think that's the case. He compared Trump winning in 2016 after being down six-and-a-half points on average in the polls, plus the Libertarian Gary Johnson got over 100,000 votes, so it sounded like he thinks so. 

And when Brennan pointed out that Trump's base, the white, non-college-educated voter that turned out in droves for him shrinking, at current polling anyway, Priebus said 

I mean, you know, clearly, I think one of the things that you're going to see over the next couple of weeks is that the President's going to be pivoting, talking about the economy. I think this upcoming debate is going to be really important that the President is that, you know, likable, fun, have a good time. Let Joe Biden speak, and let Joe Biden defend the Obama economy. Let him defend why ISIS was running wild and burning people in cages...

They agreed it's hard to predict what's going to happen, particularly with the pandemic looming large, and that it's hurting the president with voters. In response, Priebus fell back on the go-to talking points, the China travel ban, the task force, the CARES Act, and added

Well, look, I mean, granted, Margaret. Sure, no one likes what's going on in this country. No one likes that their kids are at home and no one likes that a lot of these states are shut down by Democrat governors. That's all true-- but the question is would this person over here, Joe Biden, have done things better or differently?

He also said he thinks Thursday's debate will make a difference for the president. 

"We'll be watching," Brennan said. I'll try again, but how long I last all depends on which ring of the circus we're facing.

See you around the virtual campus. And if you submit your comments to me after the debate on Thursday, you'll really get some extra credit!

In Case You Missed It (v47)

Grab your cuppa - it's time for a recap of last week's posts.

I devoted the entire Sunday School entry to hearing from the president's 4th Chief of Staff (quick - can you name the first three? Answers at the end of the post). And it wasn't easy - I mean, I never thought I'd say this, but I much preferred listening to his predecessor than I do listening to Meadows.

He told us how much the administration is doing about election interference from China, Russia and Iran, something the intelligence community warned us about. "Trump's doing a lot, a lot more than the previous administration," investing "hundreds of millions of dollars" and he signed off on "two different legislative actions...to make sure that election integrity is - is important." 

Not only that, but he also said, "We've been willing to work with secretaries of states of every -- of all 50 states as we look at that and the territories to make sure that their systems have the needed resources for the integrity to be there and so that we can count on that."

Well, goody for them, that they've "been willing to work with" all 50 states.  I mean, in any other administration, not immediately doing that would be a dereliction of duty, but this is the 'be nice to me or you're screwed' administration, so I guess we should give them a participation medal or something.

Among the guest lecturers featured in our Sunday School Extra Credit post? Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin, who was pretty upbeat about the Republican's plan and about working with the Dems to get something done.  There will be a plan announced on Monday, he said. 

...we do have an entire plan, it's a trillion dollars. And let me just remind everybody that of the $3 trillion we've already passed, we have about a trillion to a trillion and a half still left to put into the economy. So these are very, very large amount of money, working with Congress to support this. And what Mark Meadows was saying is that within the trillion-dollar package, there are certain things that have time frames that are bigger priority, so we could look at doing an entire deal, we could also look at doing parts... we can move very quickly with the Democrats on these issues. We've moved quickly before and I see no reason why we can't move quickly again. And if there are issues that take longer, we'll -- we'll deal with those as well. 

And while they're pushing to spend another trillion bucks or three, which is what the House passed - back in May (that bill having sat on The Grim Reaper's desk waiting for the Rs to get off their fannies and figure out what #IMPOTUS wants before they put anything on the table) - is anyone else thinking about the trillion-and-a-half still sitting on the table, and what that was supposed to be used for, and why it hasn't, and if it isn't needed, why don't we just use that money do help people out here? Mnuchin wasn't asked that question, darn it. 

On Tuesday, I reported out the results of my survey on corporate political speech and its impact on consumer choices in a Poll Watch entry. Among the findings? 

I asked whether people had stopped doing business with a company, started doing business with a company, or decided to never do business with a company because of corporate political speech. 

• 63% of respondents said they have stopped being a customer,
• 26% said that they have become a customer, and
• 68% have chosen never to do business with a company because of political speech.

The survey also told what my friends think is the most important corporate political speech issue - can you guess what it is? 

When it came time for Wondering on Wednesday, like many others I was frustrated with the lack of action on the Republicans' COVID relief bill, or stimulus bill, or whatever you want to call it.  I think I've said this before, but being retired and on a fixed income, we are much less economically disadvantaged than people who are unable to work because their business is closed, or because they are not able to work at home, and so on.  But our better circumstances don't mitigate my outrage at stupid stuff, like that gets shoved into these bills once everyone finally agrees to act.  For example, 

How, I wonder, is putting up a new FBI headquarters, across the street from the president's emoluments hotel a component of the HEALS Act, the latest stimulus package from the White House and Senate Republicans? I know that many of the senators are against that $1.75B provision, and that the president insisted it get added to the bill, but really? How does that help with testing, or PPE, or contact tracing, or people making their rent, or getting schools open, or anything else?  

And don't start with me -- I know the HEROES Act, passed months ago by the House, has more than enough porky stuff too, but this is just one more example of the president attempting to feather his own nest, or at least make his nest attractive for feathering.  I'm getting tired of it - really tired.  

I'm getting really tired of all of it, honestly. And all of them. 

Thursday was a pass day - we were supposed to have gone to our favorite restaurant for some socially-distanced outside dining with our favorite people. but a family member was advised to get a COVID-19 test and we had spent some pretty well socially-distanced time with him, so dinner was cancelled and so was writing. (And yes - we're several days into him not having his test results... #MAGAMA).

Among the things on my mind as I was building the TGIF post for your good week/bad week list-making was dealing with the claim from the Fearmonger-in-Chief and other Trumpeters (including Snitty Snitty Bill Barr) think that a foreign government is going to interject fraudulent paper ballots into our election in November.  

I'm trying to picture that level of interference, not only because there will be thousands of different ballots in use in November, gathering votes for everything from dog catcher to president, that would have to be perfectly replicated, and be assigned to actual registered voters who have signatures on file, in the correct jurisdiction... So, is it common sense, or an attempt to sow seeds of doubt in our election processes?

I'm guessing the latter, but as you know, I'm cynical about this White House.

So, that's your full and veritable pastiche for last week. Oh - yes - almost forgot to give you the first three Trump Chiefs of Staff: 

• Reince Priebus (January 20, 2017 - July 31, 2017)
• General John Kelly (July 31, 2017 - January 2, 2019)
• Mick Mulvaney (January 2, 2019 – March 6, 2020)

If you remembered Priebus, give yourself a high five. I had to look that up.

 I'll be back later with today's Sunday School. 

Poll Watch: Opportunities and Blessings

I'm sure by now you've heard about the bizarre, "someone put something in the juice cups again" public portion of Trump's cabinet meeting. You know, the one where everyone sat around and told their fearless leader how fabulous he was?

Trump, of course, tooted his own horn.

Never has there been a president, with few exceptions - case of FDR, he had a major depression to handle - who has passed more legislation and who has done more things than what we've done. I think we've been about as active as you can possibly be at just about record-setting pace.

Oh, the #winning and the #recordsetting, #Icantstandit I truly can't. I don't know that anyone was prepared for Reince Priebus and his remarks, though.

On behalf of the entire senior staff around you, Mr. President, we thank you for the opportunity and the blessing that you've given us to serve you agenda and the American people. And we're continuing to work very hard every day to accomplish those goals. 

In light of his statement, and that of the others talking about the "honor" and "privilege" to serve this president, when they were simply asked to introduce themselves and the department they work in, I thought it would be fun to juxtapose the Cabinet members' sentiments with those of the American people.

Here are some key callouts from a recent Gallup poll

• Trump's approval - 37% 
• his weekly disapproval - 58%, highest of his administration
• only 8% of Democrats approve; 83% of Republicans do.

The approval rating among republicans is down three points from his average, which is not a great sign, I don't think.  Among independents, his approval rating of 41% is five points lower than his average there. 

And, let's see what people are saying over at Public Policy Polling.

• Angela Merkel (+11), Justin Trudeau (+11), Emmanuel Macron (+7) and even Theresa May (+4) are seen more favorably by Americans than our own president (-14) based on their net favorability scores/
• Clinton voters particularly like Merkel and Trudeau; Trump voters only like the British PM.
• Only 24% of all voters support the AHCA (aka the WeDon'tCare Act), with 55% opposing; only 42% o Republicans support the darn thing
• Staying on health care, the ACA is the preferred path, with 51% approving vs. 34% not, and 35%  think the Republican's repeal and replace the right answer; 59% favor keep and fix.  

Dean Debnam, the president of PPP, tells us that

Six weeks after the initial passage of the AHCA voter anger over it isn't subsiding. It continues to be the biggest issue driving a Democratic advantage in 2018.

Why? Because, according to their polls, voters says they're less like to vote for a member of Congress who supported the ACHA (48%) than someone who favored it (24%).

Quinnipiac polling tells a similar story, one that is not all that positive for the president, regardless of his bigly opinion of himself. Let's look at Russia for example.

• A majority of Americans think there's something amiss with Trump's own dealings with Russia; 31% this he did something illegal, with another 29% saying he did something unethical.
• When it comes to Trump's campaign advisors, 40% think there was something illegal going on and 25% think there was unethical behavior. 
• 54% think Trump is too friendly with Russia; 68% are "very" or "somewhat concerned" over Trump's relationship with Russia, a country 45% of voters think is our adversary, not our ally (only 8%). 

Those numbers aren't out of line, given the general lack of consideration for ethical behaviors show by everyone from the lawyers to the cabinet members, and of course there's the Trump Organization, and the bad charities, and the Access Hollywood tape, and more.  Back to the poll:

• Trump's approval rating is even lower -- 34%, down from 37% in May and 35% in April.  

It gets worse.

• 68% say Trump is not level-headed (although 64% of Republicans think he is).
• 59% think he is not honest
• 58% think he doesn't have good leadership skills
• 58% think he doesn't care about average Americans
• 64% think he doesn't share their values

There was some good news, though, which I'm sure will make it into an early morning tweet.

• 62% think he's a strong person; 57% think he's intelligent. 

Even at Fox News, the poll is not showing great things.

• 53% think Trump's agenda and presidency are coming apart
• On taxes, 54% think our current system is worth keeping, with some tweaks - but not major changes
• On the AHCA, 54% oppose the bill; 45% strongly oppose it. 
• 53% think Obamacare has been good for the country (in 2014, 52% thought it was bad for the country)
• Only 51%  are concerned about illegal immigration, a drop from 71% back in September 2010
• And, finally, on climate change, the pendulum has swung from 46% concerned (February 2013) to 60% in the most recent poll

Sure, Reince, the blessings are great, but even among his most friendly audience, things are not looking so good. 

Perhaps there are some other opportunities out there you might want to look at?

Wondering on Wednesday (v86)

Are you enjoying your spring break? You do have a spring break, right? I confess, I took a mini-break from the blog for a week, but now I'm back and wondering, this Wednesday, about all sorts of stuff.

For example, should I wonder which country we're going to bomb next? I mean, three countries in not quite three months in office -- we're off to quite a start, no? Seriously - I'm just kidding. I do wonder though, how many of those Mother of All Bombs things we have in our arsenal. We dropped that one on those Afghani ISIS tunnels last week, but I thought America dropped that particular bomb on November 8th?

Last week the president said in an interview that we were sending an 'armada' to the Korean peninsula as a show of strength against North Korea, to show them that we're not messing around as they continue to test missiles in the hopes of having one capable of reaching our West Coast. In an interview with Maria Bartiromo on the Trump News Network, we heard this:

We are sending an armada. Very powerful. We have submarines. Very powerful, far more powerful than the aircraft carrier, that I can tell you.

The thing is, we're just now sending the armada  however many days later. Because at the time we heard the powerful...very powerful message, the armada was in fact heading away from the Korean peninsula. That might have sent a very powerful message that (a) he doesn't know where his armada is, or (b) his people don't know what he's saying, or (c) it could be a very sneaky way of continuing his approach to not telegraph his plans. Either way, like the dropping of the 20,000,000,000,000 pound bomb on the ISIS tunnel network in Afghanistan, keeping people guessing can actually be considered a foreign policy - as long as someone knows the plan. Someone does know the plan, right? I don't need to know who, I just don't want do wonder if there is someone orchestrating all of this.

Speaking of keeping them guessing, we will have to wonder no more about the fate of Bill O'Reilly, the host of The O'Reilly Factor on Trump News. It seems that the network, after having gone through the embarrassing 'Ailes Factor' last year, had little tolerance for O'Reilly's peccadilloes once it came to light that five women had been paid some $13M to settle complaints of sexual harassment. O'Reilly was let go today.

Probably to no one's surprise, given his history, Donald Trump came to the defense of Ailes last year, noting shortly after Ailes left the network

It's very sad because he's a very good person. I've always found him to be just a very, very good person. And by the way, a very, very talented person. Look what he's done. So I feel very badly. I think it's so sad. He's such a great guy. Roger is - I mean, what he's done on television, is in the history of television, he's gotta be placed in the top three, or four or five. And that includes the founding of the major networks. So, it's too bad. I'm sure it was friendly. 

And, again to no one's surprise, he was in O'Reilly's corner as well.

I think he shouldn't have settled; personally, I think he shouldn't have settled. Because you should have taken it all the way. I don't think Bill did anything wrong. I think he's a person I know well -- he is a good person.

Perhaps there's no reason to wonder any more whether the old "it takes one to know one" adage applies to creepy white guys.

One thing I do wonder about is the race to replace now-HHS Secretary Tom Price, who represented Georgia's 6th district before being tapped to help dismantle the Affordable Care Act in the Trump administration. Yesterday's special election featured 18 candidates: two Independents, five Dems, and a boatload of Republicans. The main Dem, Jon Ossoff, won 48.1% of the vote; because he didn't get at least 50%, he'll face Republican Karen Handel, the distant second-place finisher (19.8%) in a knock-out round in June.  So why do I wonder about this one?

Well, let's see. For starters, Ossoff doesn't even live in the district, he lives down the road with his girlfriend who's in med school at Emory University. And, while he raised more than $8M for the race, the vast majority of that money also doesn't live in the district. In fact, according to an analysis by the Center for Public Integrity,

When the candidates' own campaign money is excluded, the Georgia 6th special election has attracted about one Georgia penny for every $10 in national cash.

I don't know about you, but I wonder where Ossoff's loyalty would fall, should push come to shove: with the constituents of the district, or his moneybags? Do we need campaign finance reform, or what?

CNN photo

And finally, I wonder, what the heck is up with Reince Priebus?

Are things so bad at the White House that he's pretending to be a Secret Service agent travelling with Mike Pence over there in South Korea?

I really wonder about this one.

Sidebar: Sunday School 1/15/17

In yesterday's Sunday School post, I noted that Reince Priebus made some comments on both Meet the Press and This Week with George Stephanopoulos about Congressman John Lewis. Lewis, you'll recall, announced his personal belief that Donald Trump is not a 'legitimate' president because of the Russian interference and its impact on Hillary Clinton's campaign.

Here's what Priebus said

..John Lewis stood up and said in an interview that Donald Trump was not a legitimate president. It's insanity. And it's wrong. And DNI director Clapper said as much many, many times, that there is no evidence any outcome of the election was changed. 

A couple of things came to mind as I read that comment.  Clapper has been clear that there was Russian interference, but equally clear that there was no foreign tampering with ballots or vote counts, and that it would be very difficult to measure the impact of the interference and the publication of leaked information from Clinton campaign officials on people's votes.

Earlier this month, for example, in response to a question from Arizona Senator John "Loser" McCain, Clapper noted

We had no way of gauging the impact that - certainly the intelligence community cannot gauge the impact - it (Russian cyber activities) had on the choices the electorate made. 

Equally true, though, is that the intelligence report that was delivered first to President Obama and then to Trump, noted the following:

We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency (emphasis added). We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump.

And while Priebus and Kellyanne Conway and others on the Trump Train try and distract from the actual intelligence report, and focus on their mantra that there is no evidence the outcome was changed, Donald Trump the candidate thought the information that resulted from the hacking was very important - dare I say, bigly important.

According to an analysis published by ThinkProgress, in the last month of the campaign,

Trump spoke about the Wikileaks  emails at least 164 times from October 10 to election day, saying the word Wikileaks 124 times. That means, on average, Trump discussed Wikileaks more than five times per day. 

More than five times a day. At least one hundred and sixty four mentions in less than a month. But it had no impact on the election, don't be silly. No influence on anyone's decision, didn't change a thing, nope, not at all. Nothing to see here, folks, step away from the illegitimacy.

Here are excerpts from some of his comments, all made between October 10th and October 15th of last year.

• Wikileaks is amazing. The stuff that's coming out, it shows she's a real liar.
• Wikileaks, some new stuff, some brutal stuff. I mean I'd read it to you but to hell with it, trust me it's real bad stuff.
• No one who supports open borders should be able to run for president because we won’t have a country.... Because in the Wikileaks it was all about open borders.
• Wikileaks, I love Wikileaks... Let’s see. During a speech crooked Hillary Clinton, oh she’s crooked folks. She’s crooked as a three-dollar bill. Okay here’s one. Just came out. ‘Lock her up’ is right. 
• It’s just the latest evidence of the hatred that the Clinton campaign really has for everyday Americans and you see, and you see so much from these Wikileaks. 
• I’ll tell you this Wikileaks stuff is unbelievable. It tells you the inner heart, you gotta read it...
• And one of the big advantages of me having a rather large microphone, and meaning a lot of people are listening, is that I can talk about Wikileaks...
• She would be the most dishonest and the most corrupt person ever elected to high office. The Wikileaks emails show the Department of Justice fed information to Clinton...
• The sad part is we don’t talk about Wikileaks because it’s incredible. But Wikileaks just came out with a lot of new ones...
•  It also comes at a time as Wikileaks unveils horrible, horrible things about Hillary Clinton...
• And by the way, Wikileaks came out with lots of really unbelievable things. Just minutes ago. In fact, I almost delayed this speech by about two hours, it’s so interesting. But I decided you’re more important than anybody, okay? It’s all a big, beautiful fraud...

I suppose it's possible that none of this mattered, this leaked information that is believed to have been fed to Wikileaks by the Russians or people associated with them. Julian Assange has denied Russian involvement; naturally, Trump has quoted Assange and Vladimir Putin as reliable deniers, so we have that out there, in contrast to what our own intelligence officials have staid.

Regardless of who fed Wikileaks the info, Trump's repeated references to it indicate he was pretty sure it was helpful, and pretty sure it could help influence how people voted. I believe that's a reasonable outcome, even if not a measurable one.

It doesn't mean that Clinton would have won - but it sure doesn't help Trump's case that the leaks were meaningless and without influence.

Sunday School 1/15/17

Just a quick look at a couple of hot topics on the Sunday morning news shows, with visits to only two classrooms this morning.

Reince Priebus was on NBC's Meet the Press and again on This Week with George Stephanopoulos, talking about John Lewis and about Russia.

On MTP, he noted that Lewis, an icon of the civil rights movement, was wrong to have said that Donald Trump is not a legitimate president "five days before he puts his hand on the Bible" at his inauguration. Priebus reiterated the latest mantra from the Trump camp.

I also think that the Clinton folks wasted a billion dollars of their donors' money and they've got a lot to answer for.

Yeah, I crack up every time I hear this - Kellyanne Conway has used this line a couple of times. Great line, means nothing, but it's a great line.

Anyway, he agreed that the Russians hacked the DNC but that

...none of this would be happening if Hillary Clinton would have simply not used a personal server in violation of federal law.

Todd completely ignored that comment - Clinton's email server had nothing to do with the Russian hack - and instead asked if that 'excused' a foreign government from trying to interfere in our election. Priebus answered

We've never - of course not. All of it's wrong. China's wrong. Russia's wrong. Iran's wrong. All of these entities are wrong for doing what they've done. But back to John Lewis. For him then to say, which no intelligence official is saying, that Donald Trump was elected illegitimately is irresponsible...

Priebus made similar comments on TWwGS when Stephanopoulos asked if it was harder for Dems to come together even though they lost, after Trump's tweets about Lewis.

..John Lewis stood up and said in an interview that Donald Trump was not a legitimate president. It's insanity. And it's wrong. And DNI director Clapper said as much many, many times, that there is no evidence any outcome of the election was changed. 

Some might disagree with Reince's comments; I'll take a look at that in a sidebar later.

I'll add in one more comment about the Russia stuff and John Lewis, from Helene Cooper who was on the panel on MTP. Cooper, a Pentagon correspondent for the NY Times (a media outlet currently on Trump's 'good list' - emphasis on currently), put things in perspective on a couple of fronts.

There's a way to say, "I disagree with John Lewis," without calling Atlanta a crime-infested hell hole. There's a way to disagree with someone, as you saw Reince Priebus just do, as other people have disagreed with John Lewis,without going on a Twitter tantrum. And that's the sort of thing that you do not expect from a commander-in-chief.

 And I think this goes back to what Jeff  (Goldberg, of The Atlantic) was saying. We're now five days out from Donald Trump taking control of the greatest country on Earth. The idea that the president of the United States is going to be having tantrums on Twitter whenever somebody gets under his skin I think is frightening to a lot of people.

 Hear, hear.

Also on TWwGS, there was a conversation about ethics, or what passes as ethics, and who is or should be looking at ethics, particularly Presidential ethics.

We all know, having been told countless times by the Trump team and by the media, that the 'ethics rules don't apply' to the President, and that any efforts Trump makes to separate himself from his business interests here and abroad are voluntary and from the good of his heart. Because, as he told us at his press rally,

So I could actually run my business, I could actually run my business and run government at the same time.

I don't like the way that looks, but I would be able to do that if I wanted to. I would be the only one to be able to do that. You can't do that in any other capacity. But as president I could run the Trump Organization, great, great company, and I could run the company - the country. I'd do a very good job, but I don't want to do that. 

Anyway. The Office of Government Ethics is not thrilled with Trump's only stepping aside and telling his boys not to talk to him about the business as a conflict-clearing solution.

Utah Congressman Jason Chaffetz is less concerned with Trump's actions. Trump filed his financial disclosures, as the law requires, and sure, that emoluments clause is in the Constitution, but what the heck, no big deal there, even though several of Chaffetz's peers are concerned and have asked House Speaker Paul Ryan to get some info so they know whether the emoluments clause is being violated, on day one, as they say.

Stephanopoulos: Another possibility, you have oversight of the general services administration, which holds the lease for the Trump Hotel, which of course the president will still own even though it goes into the Trust. And then page 103 of the lease agreement says that no elected official of the government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia shall be admitted to any share of part of this lease or to any benefit that may arise therefrom. So, the agreement seems to preclude ownership by any government official, like the president, doesn't it?

Chaffetz: I did sign a letter with Elijah Cummings a number of weeks ago and asked for a copy of that contract. I don't know that we have received the final copy of that contract.

Stephanopoulos: But is that something you're going to be looking at?

Chaffetz: I started that a few weeks ago. 

So it would seem - and it would seem as well that Chaffetz has no interest in seeing that investigation through to its logical conclusion.

Today's lesson, however, has come to its logical conclusion.

Trump in Transition (v11)

The Apprentice transition team has moved south for the winter, operating out of Florida now for the holidays.

Yesterday the team communicated a communication about the new White House Communications team from Palm Beach. The short announcement was chock full of communicators who will be handling communications for the President.

There will be at least four official communication people who are also all Assistants to the President: Sean Spicer, press secretary; Hope Hicks, Director of Strategic Communications; Jason Miller, Director of (regular) Communications, and Dan Scavino, Director of Social Media.

Noted the POTUS-elect,

Sean, Hope, Jason and Dan have been key members of my team during the campaign and transition I am excited they will be leading the team that will communicate my agenda that will #MAGA.

(As I write this, Sean Spicer is doing an interview with Matt Lauer on the Today show which digressed into a talking-over-each-other-almost-shout fest,driven in part by Lauer's horrible interview style, to be sure. And I'm thinking to myself, that's exactly what we need in the White House press office -- a calming influence to help settle fears when administration members shoot off their mouths, shoot from the hip, shoot themselves in the foot, and all of those other Second Amendment-style metaphors, right?)

There's been some concern from media types, including the White House Correspondents Association (WHCA), as to how the Trump administration will handle the press. Based on the campaign, it's not unreasonable to think that some media outlets would be kicked out of the briefing room, at least temporarily, until they act bigly nice to the notoriously thin-skinned Trump.

And, of course, there have been signals, maybe trial balloons, that the daily White House briefing may have outlived its usefulness, or at least that a shake-up may be needed. For example, incoming Chief of Staff Reince Priebus noted earlier this month that they might do away with the assigned seating in the briefing room, after stating that the seating charts came about during the Obama administration.

This was the first front row assigned seat issue, as I understand it, started in the Obama administration. In the Bush administration, you just took a seat, and I guess there were a couple of people that have had reserved seats. But for the most part, the more formalized reserved seating piece came in over the last eight years.

Except, of course, like so many things the leaders-to-be have said, this was incorrect.

The WHCA assumed responsibility for assigning the seats in the briefing room over the last two decades at the request of both Republican and Democratic administrations,w ho were mindful of the potential appearance of playing favorites if they assigned the seats themselves.

Perhaps we need one more person on the Communications team - the Assistant to the President and Director of Accurate Communications - who can come in behind the rest of the people in the administration and tell a little truth?

Priebus also noted

Look, I think that many things have to change, and I think that it's important that we look at all of those traditions that are great, but quite frankly, as you know, don't really make news. And you know, even looking at things like the daily White House briefing from the press secretary, I mean, there's a lot of different ways that things can be done, and I can assure you we're looking at that.

Spicer echoed that 'doing things differently' message in his interview on Today, pointing out that that Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram are important as the administration wants to have more Americans involved in the process, like Trump's 40 million combined social media followers. And, of course, those are media platforms on which Scavino and Trump can communicate without having to have any interactions with reporters.

Trump, who hasn't held a press conference since July, didn't announce whether there will be an Assistant to the President and Director of Telephonic Communications with Fox News on the team, but I assume he'll continue using that as a key piece of his communications strategy.

Also not clarified was who will be the Assistant to the President and Director of Banning the Media, and if that person will also fill the role of Assistant to the President and Director of Determining Who in the Media Has Treated the POTUS Fairly and Nicely. or if the latter will need its own full-time person.

I'll have to go check Trump's Instagram account to find out.

Trump: In Transition (v1)

Reuters photo

Donald Trump reconfigured his transition team the other day, adding clarity to how his 'outsider' campaign is approaching the mind-numbing process of building a government.

As has been widely reported, including on the new GreatAgain.gov website (bookmarked that one, I sure did), Trump will have the opportunity to fill some 4,000 positions, over a quarter of which will need Senate approval. Dust off your resumes, if you're interested in working in the #MAGA administration, now's your chance!

Here's the team that's going to help him get ready to lead:

• Dr. Ben Carson

• New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, who had been leading the effort, and for whom the bell tolled after the conviction of two close aides in the Bridgegate scandal; word has it that Trump started losing trust after Christie failed to go along with theGropegate denial plan, and that seeing former Christie aide Bridget Kelly crying on TV was the last straw. 

• Georgia's Former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Newt Gingrich, who suggested in June, in the aftermath of the Pulse nightclub shooting, that we need a new House Un-American Activities Committee to address the issue of ISIS infiltration. You know, root them out, make wildly crazy accusations, in the most Un-American way possible. He apparently forgot that the shooter was reported to the FBI and cleared (twice, if I recall), and that, based on the shooter's participation in the gay community, his allegiance to ISIS would seem to be in doubt.  As Dave Chappelle noted on SNL last night, if he yelled "Wu Tang" before engaging in sexual activities with a young lady, it doesn't mean that he's a member of the Wu Tang Clan. He (Gingrich, not Chappelle) also said we need to test all Muslims in the country but I doubt he'd agree with me that there are lots of other people who should be tested similarly to make sure they share my American values.

• Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, USA (Ret.), who apparently made quite a dent at an intelligence briefing, and has been called America's angriest general. As noted in both of these links, he was one of the 'lock her up' cheerleaders at the Five Dark Days in Cleveland.

• Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani 

• U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions, who's been representing Alabama in Washington for 20 years, and who was known for being quite, shall we say, colorful. I particularly enjoyed his reported comments about the KKK.

• Pennsylvania Congressman Lou Barletta, reported to be an immigration hardliner, who gets a lot of financial support from the infrastructure space, and fellow Keystone stater Tom Marino, who was once chased across the House floor by Nancy Pelosi. 

• Tennessee Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn, who was allegedly involved in exposing private information of doctors and researchers in the aftermath of the dramatically faked Planned Parenthood videos. 

• Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi. You remember her, right? The one to whom Trump's Foundation gave a $25K contribution as she was in the middle of deciding whether or not to sign on to an investigation with other state Attorneys General into Trump's university? Yeah, her. It gets better:  in addition to other donations from Trump and his family, it seems that when the Trump campaign holds an event at Mar-a-Lago, it costs $140,000 but when Bondi held an event there, it cost less than $5,000. Funny how that works. 

• Buffalo-area Congressman Chris Collins, who has a surprisingly sketchy conservative voting record.

• Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law, and the reason why he can't get hold of Ivanka on Saturday, and a man who may or may not have been offended with his father-in-law's comments to Jewish Republicans. Kushner owns the former NY Observer, which as of last week is now a digital-only publication, no longer tied to New York.

• Rebekah Mercer, who with her father is a mega-donating Clinton hater with connections to both Steve Bannon and Kellyanne Conway (or maybe I should say, both Bannon and Conway have connections to Mercer). 

• Steven Mnuchin, Trump's campaign finance chair, possible Treasury Secretary and, according to this article, the Anti-Populist from Hell who was intricately involved in everything that was wrong with the banking industry that led to the Great Recession. 

• California Congressman Devin Nunes. Chair of the House Intelligence Committee and strong defender of a tiny US base off the coast of Portugal, which no one really understands, perhaps other than to point to his Portuguese heritage.

• Anthony Scaramucci, another big money Wall Street guy who once called Trump a political hack and who is known as The Mooch. 

• Peter Thiel, tech gazillionaire, outed gay man, and taker-downer of media company Gawker. I'm not sure which of those biographical points was the one that attracted Trump.

• Donald Trump Jr., number one son, a top executive of the Trump Organization, and of course, a Tweeter like his father; remember the infamous Skittles tweet?

• Eric Trump, who to his credit runs a charity that has raised millions of dollars for St. Jude's Children Research Hospital, but that has some of the same 'challenges' as his father's foundation. He also famously said that his sister was too strong to put up with sexual harassment and that women should just go to HR and report it.

• Ivanka Trump, apple of her father's eye, outside-the-US clothing manufacturer, and brains behind the Trump child care plan, which only applies to married women, and would give a tax credit to families with children that don't have any child care expenses -which would, of course, be considered welfare in a different administration.

• RNC Chairman Reince Priebus, just named Chief of Staff,  Breitbart executive and Trump Campaign CEO Stephen K. Bannon, who was just named Chief Strategist, and VP Mike Pence are also key players.

It will be interesting to see how this group comes together to shape the Trump administration.

There is also the question of the Trump children being so closely involved, at the same time they are also involved in trying to get the Trump Organization structure figured out so that President Trump and Businessman Trump are not entwangled.

Giuliani has recommended a blind trust, but it seems a little hard when your global brand has your name all over it, for anyone to be blind to it, especially someone like Trump. This may be a more interesting thing to watch than which Swampy people get tapped for the new administration.

More to come.

It's Not Honesty, it's Racism

I saw something on a social media page today questioning why people are calling Donald Trump a racist; the thinking is he's not racist, he's just being honest.

A brief refresher: Since May, Trump has made increasingly outrageous comments about Judge Gonzalo Curiel, who has the Trump University fraud case in his court. He's now said he's done talking about it, but according to Trump, the Indiana-born judge, the son of American citizens,

happens to be, we believe, Mexican... (and later, Trump noted) I have a Mexican judge. He's of Mexican heritage and he should have recused himself...

I'm sure you've heard the comments from people who are simply appalled (even if most are not driven to action) by Trump's comments. You know what I'm talking about, right?

• Paul Ryan Calls Donald Trump's Attack on Judge 'Racist' but still backs him
• One of the worst mistakes Trump has made, says Newt Gingrich
• Trump was not speaking about Curiel's heritage, says RNC Senior Advisor Sean Spicer

Here's a great read on comments made by a bunch of noted Republicans, Trump supporters all, including Mitch McConnell, Reince Priebus, John McCain, Bob Corker, Jason Chaffetz and others. Some say we have more important things to worry about, some say they're worried about their own campaign. Priebus even said he didn't know enough about the judge to judge the comment - from which I can only infer that that he didn't care enough to defend his party's standard-bearer, or else that he believes what Trump believes about federal judges with funny-sounding names (which would be ironic, wouldn't it?)

So, if what Trump says is simply honesty, let's make some more honest comments and see how long they'll be tolerated as honesty versus something else entirely.

• These are members of Congress with Hispanic-sounding names: Pete Aguilar, Xavier Becerra, Joaquin Castro, Ted Cruz, Henry Cuellar, Carlos Cubelo, Tony Cardenes, Mario Diaz-Balart, Bill Flores, Luis Guiterrez, Jaime Herrera Beutler, Ruben Hinojosa, Ben Lujan, Bob Menendez, Loretta Sanchez, Jose Serrano, Juan Vargas, Filemon Vela, and Nydia Velazquez. They might "happen to be, we believe, Mexican" as much as Judge Curiel is Mexican, maybe even more so. Should they all recuse themselves from any discussions on immigration, wall-building, trade, the drug war, farming, and education (because of that pesky English as a Second Language stuff)?

• And heaven forbid Bernie Sanders manage to steal the nomination from Hillary Clinton - we'd have a Jewish President? Obviously that would be a problem, even though his name doesn't sound funny like the Notorious RBG, Ruth Bader Ginsburg? I can't imagine she could be impartial an unbiased should a case involving a Jew come before the Supreme Court? 

• And clearly, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor would need to recuse herself as well, right? And what about Elena Kagan - what kind of name is that? Can she be trusted?

• And what about a case of an African American? Down sits Clarence Thomas. And the Catholics on the bench, they must step aside on anything having to do with contraception, certainly - it would be impossible for them to maintain self-control and respect for the law, without letting their religion get in the way, right? 

People who have known him for years - not just his children - say that Trump doesn't have a racist bone in his body.  And they might be right; I don't know and will likely never know if that is the case. 

But what he does have, in spades, is a racist vocabulary that is designed to inflame the most extreme of his supporters, including many in the Republican party across all jurisdictions, and he knows as well as I do that when he suggests that Curiel is unable to be impartial because he "happens to be, we believe, Mexican," inflammation is exactly what will happen. That's what he wants, it's what he needs, and it's what he gets.

To pretend that his comments on Curiel (and others he has made) are merely 'honest' is disingenuous at best, and dangerous at its core: we've already seen what happens when racism is denied, excused, and explained away by white defenders of honesty.  And is that really what we want to be when we are made Great Again?

Leave Your Guns at Home, Please

RECOGNIZE OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO OPEN CARRY FIREARMS AT THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CONVENTION AT THE QUICKEN LOANS ARENA IN JULY 2016

In case you had missed this, it seems someone started a petition at Change.org asking the RNC to reconsider their decision to hold their convention at a gun-free arena. Because, you know, 

This is a direct affront to the Second Amendment and puts all attendees at risk. As the National Rifle Association has made clear, "gun-free zones" such as the Quicken Loans Arena are "the worst and most dangerous of all lies." The NRA, our leading defender of gun rights has also correctly pointed out that "gun free zones...tell every insane killer in America... (the) safest place to inflict maximum mayhem with minimum risk." (March 4, 2016 and Dec. 21, 2012)

Because Cleveland is a top ten most dangerous city, the petition states, the actions of the RNC and The Q, as the arena is known, "are putting tens of thousands of people at risk both inside and outside the convention site." And – 

This doesn't even begin to factor in the possibility of an ISIS terrorist attack on the arena during the convention. Without the right to protect themselves, those at the Quicken Loans Arena will be sitting ducks, utterly helpless against evil-doers, criminals or others who wish to threaten the American way of life.

Once you count ISIS, evil-doers and criminals, could there even be anyone left who would threaten our way of life? Let's see:

All three remaining Republican candidates have spoken out on the issue and are unified in their opposition to Barack HUSSEIN Obama's "gun-free zones."

So, THAT'S who's left to threaten our American way of life, right?  That president with the funny middle name? Of course, we have nothing to fear from the candidate with the funny FIRST name; you know, the one who actually wasn’t born in America? Because, well, you know, because Benghazi or something.

Having outlined the above concerns, and having included some other stuff I didn't (not wanting to spoil the whole thing), the petition asks that appropriate steps be taken to ensure a righteous and open convention come July:

The folks at the Quicken Loans Arena are asked to suspend their no weapons policy (which is consistent with Ohio's open-carry law, by the way) and allow open carry during the convention. (emphasis added)

Not, mind you, all the time - just during the convention. This is not about a principle or closely-held personal belief or anything. 

The NRA should issue an "immediate condemnation of the egregious affront to the Second Amendment..." stemming from the gun-free loophole in Ohio's law. 

The 'loophole' refers to a provision of the Ohio statute that gives private entities the right to ban handguns on their property, so "firearms and other weapons of any kind are strictly forbidden on the premises..."

Governor Kasich, himself one of the last candidates standing, should use his executive powers to override the above-referenced loophole being "exploited" by the arena. 

Reince Priebus, that bastage, needs to provide "an explanation of how a venue so unfriendly to Second Amendment rights was chosen" for the GOP's summer picnic, and he needs to come up with a "contingency plan to relocate the convention" if the open carry restriction is not lifted. 

The other two candidates, Donald Trump and Rafael Cruz, "must call upon the RNC to rectify this affront", yada yada yada, because "Every American is endowed with a God-given Constitutional right to carry a gun wherever and whenever they please."

Meaning, wherever and whenever they please, as long as it's during the RNC Convention, at the Quicken Loans Arena, in Cleveland, OH from July 18 - 21, 2016.  

Alas, all of the honest to goodness reasonable Republicans, along with white supremacists, he-man woman haters, free speech and media haters, schoolyard bullies, and all the rest of the folks who will be under the tent who were hoping for an old-fashioned shoot-em-up convention had their hopes dashed by that gosh darn Secret Service.  

According to an article in the Washington Post (and widely reported elsewhere), it seems the US Code gives the Secret Service the authority to "preclude firearms from entering sites visited by our protectees, including those (sites) located in open-carry states."

Poor things. Part of me was kinda hoping there'd be a real battle for the nomination. 

Wondering Anew

I know, it's Thursday, and I usually do my best wondering on Wednesdays.

But I've got to tell you, catching up on the reactions to President Obama's last SOTU has made me full of wonderment.   Here's just one example.

POTUS said last night that we ought not to target each other, or others because of race or religion.  In that section of his speech, he referenced comments from Pope Francis, who was invited by former Speaker Crying John Boehner to speak to Congress a few months back. The Pope spoke, and Boehner, who cried through the whole thing, and cried even more when Pope Francis went on out Boehner's balcony and acknowledged the massive crowd below.  And then, seemingly immediately, Boehner retired.

And we now face a House led by the young family man Paul Ryan. And where I saw nothing wrong with Obama reminding everyone of the Pope's simple message, Ryan thought very differently.

Here's what Obama said:

We need to reject any politics that targets people because of race or religion. This isn't a matter of political correctness. It's a matter of understanding what makes us strong. The world respects us not just for our arsenal; it respects us for our diversity and our openness and the way we respect every faith.

His Holiness, Pope Francis, told this body from the very spot I stand tonight that, 'to imitate the hatred and violence of tyrants and murderers is the best way to take their place.'  When politicians insult Muslims, whether abroad or our fellow citizens, when a mosque is vandalized, or a kid is called names, that doesn't make us safer. 

That's not telling it like it is. It's just wrong. It diminishes us in the eyes of the world. It makes it harder to achieve our goals. And it betrays who we are as a country.  

And here's what Ryan thought about it, in an interview with USA Today.

I think it sort of degrades the presidency to talk about primary politics in the other party, during primaries. That's not what presidents ought to be talking about in State of the Union addresses. Speaking up for our values and speaking up for our beliefs is one thing. But kind of wading into the primary politics of the other party is just not really what Presidents ought to do.

You know, if  Paul Ryan and Reince Priebus and other 'leaders' of the Republican Party had any cojones, they would have stood up to Donald Trump already - in fact, they would have stood up to him weeks, no months ago, and told him that he's hurting the party and embarrassing America.

They would have told him that they would not support him if he were the party's nominee, and they would have told him that they would not support him if he were elected.  They would have told him to go away, and they would have accepted the consequences of their actions, should there be any.

Instead, Ryan says we can't have a religious test for immigrants, we need to have a security test. Which, by the way, is already in place for folks, causing 15, 18, 24 months or more to pass before we allow most folks in from suspect areas. Unfortunately, trying to define a difference between a religious test and a security test doesn't address what Obama was talking about: the diminishing of America in the eyes of the world, and the betrayal of us as a country.

If the Republicans won't address it themselves, whether from Trump or from any other Republicans in state or federal office, why not the President?

And what's not Presidential about defending our country, I wonder?

Point/Counterpoint: The Comic Book Debate

Not unexpectedly, reaction to the CNBC GOP debate was fast and furious. Or maybe, it was furious and fast.

During the debate, the candidates themselves were quick to pounce on the moderators; a few of those reactions I included in yesterday's post, but I did save a couple.

The first is from Ted Cruz:

You know, let me say something at the outset. The questions that have been asked so far in this debate illustrate why the American people don't trust the media. This is not a cage match. And, you look at the questions - "Donald Trump, are you a comic book villain?" "Ben Carson, can you do math?" "John Kasich, will you insult two people over here?" "Marco Rubio, why don't you resign?" "Jeb! Bush why have your numbers fallen?" How about talking about the substantive issues the people care about? 

And this, from Chris Christie:

Carl, are we really talking about getting government involved in fantasy football?  We have -- wait a second -- we have $19 trillion in debt. We have people out of work. We have ISIS and al Qaeda attacking us.  And we're talking about fantasy football  Can we stop?

The official response from the party came via a letter from RNC head Reince Priebus to Andrew Lack head of NBC, advising

I write to inform you that pending further discussion between the Republican National Committee (RNC) and our presidential campaigns, we are suspending the partnership with NBC News for the Republican primary debate at the University of Houston on February 26, 2016...

CNBC billed the debate as one that would focus on "the key issues that matter to all voters - job growth, taxes, technology, retirement and the health of our national economy." That was not the case. Before the debate, the candidates were promised an opening question on economic or financial matters. That was not the case. Candidates were promised that speaking time would be carefully monitored to ensure fairness. That was not the case.  Questions were inaccurate or downright offensive...

What took place Wednesday night was not an attempt to give the American people a greater understanding of our candidates' policies and ideas... 

Put that in your pipe and smoke it, The Networks of NBC.

Elsewhere, the view was a little different.

John Harwood, he of the "comic book version" question to Trump, defended the way he asked the question in an appearance on On Point, a radio show from WBUR and NPR.  When asked by host Tom Ashbrook if he went "a bridge too far" with the question, here was his response (you can listen to the audio here):

No. Look, there is nobody - including the candidates on that stage - the day before John Kasich had given a speech and he said "we've got somebody who's promising to send 10 or 11 million people out of the country. That's just crazy. That is fantasy."  There is no one on that stage who actually believes that you can send those 11 million people out of the country. There is no economist who believes that you can cut taxes $10T without increasing the deficit. It is simply a set of discussions that is not connected to the real world we live in. And I felt and feel at this moment that it's appropriate to pose that to Donald Trump in that way. 

CNBC's Brian Steel, VP of communications, allowed as how

People who want to be president of the United States should be able to answer tough questions. 

Writing in the Boston Globe, columnist Jeff Jacoby noted, in reference to Cruz's "brutal takedown," that

It was a good night for Cruz and Rubio; a bad night for Bush. But the biggest loser in Boulder wasn't a candidate. It was the media.

And here's Helaine Olen, author of a couple of books on personal finance who also writes for Slate; she also arrived at the conclusion that CNBC was the biggest loser.

The main moderators  (Harwood, Quick, Quintanilla) appeared to be in a different time zone from Jim Cramer and Rick Santelli, who pitched in with a few questions. Although, come to think of it, Quintanilla may have been in a different time zone from everyone.. Were there tough questions? Sure there were more than a few... But mostly, CNBC's debate was a mess.

Olen's take on it was a bit different - she noted that regular viewers would have seen a "familiar" mess which is not exactly a confidence builder.  She also recollected Quintanilla has had other less than shining moments, such as this one:

...his performance managed to remind me almost at once that his finest moment as a journalist was when he got an interview with soon-to-be-indicted $8B Ponzi schemer Allen Stanford and asked him "Is it fun being a billionaire?"

Hmm.  Now I have to wonder, were my expectations too high to begin with?

Back to Priebus, before we go. His letter to NBC News also noted that

The RNC's sole role in the primary debate process is to ensure that our candidates are given a full and fair opportunity to lay our their vision for America's future. We simply cannot continue with NBC without full consultation with our campaigns.

That  'consultation' is going to occur tonight, with a high-powered Republican attorney facilitating things, according to the New York Times.

The article points out that there are different opinions from the camps on how to proceed, illustrating again that while it's relatively easy to rally against the media as a common enemy, it may prove harder to change something that - good, bad, or indifferent - benefits some of the candidates just as much as it marginalizes others.

Stay tuned.