Breaking Fake News Update (v16)

 Fake News Broke on August 28, 2025!

Is there any surprise that we're using the National Guard not only for law enforcement, but also for mundane tasks that would normally be performed by municipal or federal employees? 

• There certainly shouldn't be, given that the National Parks Service, which used to take care of some of these tasks, now has a three or four hands full of employees in DC, compared to a couple of hundred pre-DOGE and pre-One Big Beautiful Bill Act. 
• There certainly shouldn't be, given that DC has seen federal funding slashed by Congress and the administration. 
• There certainly shouldn't be - after all, even FOTUS declared that crime was down 25% in DC this year alone, so no one should be shocked that there isn't a lot for the Guard members from DC and the red states of Ohio, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, West Virginia, and South Carolina that gleefully ignore high crime in their own states to stand with FOTUS and start Making Restaurants Safe Again for lobbyists, lawyers and politicians. (Are those distinctions without differences?)

I would think, though, that seeing camo-wearing folks with weapons mulching flowers, picking up trash, and loitering in Union Station would be quite the thing in the US capital, wouldn't you agree?

As always, when fake news breaks, we'll be sure to keep you informed. 

TGIF 12/2/22

It's time for some good week/bad week accounting again. 

Let's start in Arizona, where the Board of Supervisors of Cochise County has finally certified November's election results. It wasn't out of the goodness of their hearts - it was because a court ordered them to.

Two of the three members - one Democrat, one Republican, voted to do the right thing. The third member - another R - didn't bother showing up.  The judge, Casey McGinley, noted

it is "clear" that the board was "duty bound" to certify the results and submit them to the secretary of state by Monday given that no results were missing from the county's totals.

McGinley said the board "exceeded its lawful authority in delaying the canvass for a reason that was not permitted by the statute."

The Dem supervisor who asked the court to issue a quick decision, had a good week; so did the judge, for requiring the board to do their job. And the supervisor who couldn't be bothered? Yeah, you know what list he's on. 

Let's shift to Texas, and the heartbroken city of Uvalde, where another lawsuit related to the school shooting there in May was filed this week. 

Survivors of the fatal mass shooting at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, have filed a $27 billion class action lawsuit against multiple law enforcement agencies in Texas, according to court documents.

The lawsuit, filed Tuesday in federal court in Austin, names the city, the Uvalde Consolidated Independent School District, the school district’s police department, the Uvalde Police Department, the Texas Department of Public Safety and a number of persons who are members or former members of the agencies listed as defendants. 

The lawsuit says

Instead of swiftly implementing an organized and concerted response to an active school shooter who had breached the otherwise ‘secured’ school buildings at Robb Elementary school, the conduct of the three hundred and seventy-six (376) law enforcement officials who were on hand for the exhaustively torturous seventy-seven minutes of law enforcement indecision, dysfunction, and harm, fell exceedingly short of their duty-bound standards.

This suit just the most recent one to be filed. 

One federal lawsuit filed earlier this week alleges nearly two dozen people and entities, including the gun manufacturer and store that provided the rifle used in the attack, were negligent and failed to protect a student who was killed. Other families filed a similar lawsuit in September.

No amount of money can ever make up for what happened in May, but there needs to be accountability somewhere in all of this. I'd say the folks had a good week for at least bringing the suits and trying to keep the accountability ball rolling.

And, to Florida, where a former president Donald Trump lost another court case. 

A unanimous federal appeals court on Thursday ended an independent review of documents seized from former President Donald Trump’s Florida estate, removing a hurdle the Justice Department said had delayed its criminal investigation into the retention of top-secret government information.

The three-judge panel, which included two Trump-selected Republicans, said

It is indeed extraordinary for a warrant to be executed at the home of a former president — but not in a way that affects our legal analysis or otherwise gives the judiciary license to interfere in an ongoing investigation...

The law is clear. We cannot write a rule that allows any subject of a search warrant to block government investigations after the execution of the warrant. Nor can we write a rule that allows only former presidents to do so. 

The judges from the 11th Circuit who looked beyond who picked them, and did the right thing had a good week. And, of course, put another bad week in the books for the Florida Man.

Continuing our swing through the states, let's look at the Democrats and their plans to realign the early primaries. 

The Democratic National Committee voted on Friday to radically alter its presidential nominating calendar, following President Joe Biden’s recommendations to elevate South Carolina as the first primary state and to eliminate Iowa, breaking with a half-century of historical precedent. But there are still several logistical hurdles for the party to clear to make the new vision a reality.

Under the plan, South Carolina will go first on February 3rd, with New Hampshire and Nevada following three days later. Georgia would vote on February 13th, and Michigan on February 27th. Iowa's completely out of the early states. 

The full DNC still has to approve the plan, and the states that are moving up have until early January to certify they'll be able to meet the schedule. And, New Hampshire's required to go a week before any other state primary, so there's that.

Some people will suggest this was solely a move by the Biden camp to help ensure the octogenarian's chances in '24, but there are legitimate reasons to make some changes to crazy rules that give precedence to Iowa (31st in population, 90% white) and New Hampshire (41st/92% white).

Biden and the Ds had a good week on this; we'll see if it turns into a good week for voters if everything works out.

TGIF, everyone.

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. 

In Case You Missed It (v25)

Relaxing and not panicking about Corona (the virus or the beer) and watching college basketball, and waiting for the polls to close in an hour and a half or so down in South Carolina... what better time to look back at this week's posts?

This week's Sunday School was a review of part of the panel discussion on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos. The panel was split - two Republicans and two Dems, and while the Rs seemed to be on the same page, the same was not true for the Ds. Rahm Emanuel was one of them; the other was Yvette Simpson, the CEO of the Burlington, VT-based Democracy for America, a progressive PAC.

There was lots of talk about That Guy From Vermont, him being the front-runner and all. Among the comments?

The "broader point," Fagen said, is the lack of vetting for TGFV. "Now, he's the front-runner, and it is coming to him. And we're starting to see the drip, drip of comments about communist leaders around the world and socialist leaders around the world..." We'll have to see how he stands up to having the spotlight on him, she said.

Keep that point in mind as you read the post on debate winners and losers - you'll hear it again...

On Tuesday (before the debate, of course), I tossed out debate drinking game keywords. I had to work at it for a bit to some up with some; as I noted in the post, I was

...trying to stay away from the really obvious drinking game words, of which there many: Medicare for All, billionaires, 1%, Super Tuesday, socialism, African-Americans, coronavirus/COVID-19, frontrunner, and the like.

You can see what I ended up with in the post; how did my list compare with yours?

Wednesday's first post came from The Update Desk, and recapped of how I did with my debate drinking game. Now, before I go any further, I didn't really drink each time my keywords popped up during the two hour slug-fest, because if I had, I'd likely be needing treatment.  Here's a look at how I did.

I actually had a well-hydrated night, looking at my pre-debate list of keywords.  Here's how I did, per the debate transcript. Bolded words are winners.

• Castro, Cuba, Fidel, communism. There were multiple Cuba references and one reference to communist countries, so I'm taking a sip - but not a Big Gulp, since I'm an anti-0besity New Yorker - on that last one.
• Jim Clyburn - he's the most powerful Democrat in South Carolina, and both Klobuchar and That Guy from Vermont dropped his name.

On in the second post on Wednesday, I offered up what the pundits had to say about the winners and losers of the South Carolina debate. I didn't necessarily agree with them, except on the moderators and voters being losers - again - because we're having cage fights instead of policy debates. But I guess that's what we like now, I don't know.  Here's how folks at The Hill looked at things.

From The Hill:

• Winners:  Papa Joe (Above all, Biden sought to portray himself as someone with the political and strategic chops to get things done rather than merely talk about aspirations),Warren (“I don’t care how much money Mayor Bloomberg has,” she said, “The core of the Democratic Party will never trust him.") and TGFV (Sanders won on Tuesday by not obviously losing.)

They weren't the only ones with that take on things, but what a low threshold for TGFV - just don't blow it, and you'll be a winner... Sigh.

In Thursday's Email of the Week post, I took a slightly different approach, it being a debate week and all. Instead of one winner, I published the first post-debate email from each of the five candidates I'm still following.  And, in addition to that, I provided this week's stats. Take a look.

Here's how the week went, with 124 emails filling my mailbox. No surprise (again) that Mayor Pete was the volume winner (again), or that Bloomy brought up the  rear (again).

Yesterday's TGIF brought us a little bit and of that, including some endorsements picked up by Papa Joe and Bloomy, some bizarre comments from Mick Mulvaney, and some fun with NY's Sonofa Gov.  And, there was this.

Speaking of Bloomy, he had to spend a bit of time defending himself in a PBS NewsHour interview with Judy Woodruff, on Muslim surveillance practices in NYC after 9/11. I half expected the Rs to be supporting him on this, given how readily they fell in line with Trump's travel ban, but I haven't seen much support for him.

So, now you're up to date on this week's veritable pastiche. Subscribe, if you're so inclined, in the Instant Gratification box on the right sidebar, and you'll never miss a post.

See you tomorrow for Sunday School, where I'm sure two topics will be the South Carolina primary, and the coronavirus...

South Carolina Debate Winners and Losers

Here is the collected wisdom of the punditry on last night's debate and its winners and losers. The information in parens after the bolded winner or loser is a comment from the linked article.

From the Washington Post: 

• Winners: Papa Joe Biden (He has regularly been a loser on this list, and he was again somewhat uneven on Tuesday night. But he’s the leading candidate in South Carolina and a player on Super Tuesday on March 3, and he seemed likely to continue to be after the debate.) and Elizabeth Warren (One wonders whether she did much to help herself — especially given that last week’s debate didn’t seem to do much for her — but after the past couple of weeks, she will at least remain on voters’ radars.)

• Losers: Bernie Sanders, aka That Guy From Vermont/TGFV (“I’m hearing my name mentioned a little bit. I wonder why.” Indeed.), the CBS moderators (this was a complete free-for-all for much of the debate, with candidates talking over one another and with no one enforcing the rules) and Mike Bloomberg (It just wasn’t much better than last week, which isn’t good. Bloomberg did little to make an affirmative case for himself, even on the electability front.) 

From The Hill:

• Winners:  Papa Joe (Above all, Biden sought to portray himself as someone with the political and strategic chops to get things done rather than merely talk about aspirations),Warren (“I don’t care how much money Mayor Bloomberg has,” she said, “The core of the Democratic Party will never trust him.") and TGFV (Sanders won on Tuesday by not obviously losing.)

• Losers: Bloomy (It wasn’t a disaster. But it wasn’t good… Bloomberg’s huge advertising expenditure might yet save him, but his debating skills won’t.), Tom Steyer (The fundamental issue Steyer has faced is explaining any real rationale for his candidacy. He has so far failed to offer a unique selling point and failed, again, to provide one Tuesday.), and CBS News (The conduct of the debate was messy at times...a flippant final round focused on "misperceptions" about each candidate...)

From CNN:

• Winners: Mayor Pete (The former South Bend, Indiana, mayor was at his absolute best in this debate...If voters were looking for a Sanders alternative who looked like he could be commander in chief in this debate, Buttigieg made a very good case for himself.), Papa Joe (He cast Sanders as a dangerous risk for the Democratic Party to take, with potentially disastrous down-ballot consequences.), Amy Klobuchar (As she has done in nearly every debate, the Minnesota senator did more with fewer opportunities than almost any other candidate on stage), TGFV (no one knocked him out), and Donald Trump (A bitter, angry shout-fest in which virtually every potential nominee's dirty laundry was aired? the president couldn't have drawn up a better debate for his chances of winning a second term.)  

• Losers: Bloomy (The billionaire businessman was better in this debate than in the last one in Las Vegas. But he wasn't good), Warren (She was totally fine. But fine is probably not enough given that Warren has yet to finish in the Top 2 in any state and looks very unlikely to do so in South Carolina on Saturday), the moderators (The five-person CBS team swung between refusing to get involved as the candidates talked over one another for 15-20 seconds at a time and stepping in at unnecessary moments to break up actual substantive disagreements between the candidates. The questions were also not great... the CBS moderators often didn't seem up to the task.) and the live audience (The clapping and booing of candidates was totally out of control. And unfortunately it affected the candidates...and will likely have some reverberations on how people watching on TV thought the field performed.)

From the NY Times Opinion gang, which scores candidates on a 10-point scale to come up with an average:

• Winners: TGFV, with a 7 (Still the Super Tuesday front-runner; took hits but still standing; left me frightened about the election) and Mayor Pete, with a 6.9 (The most effective Sanders critic; had some of the strongest lines; amazingly quick on ihs feet; strong annoying-little-brother energy).

• Losers: Bloomy, with a 4.1 (snippy when challenged; could surprise people - in a good way; your off-color humor sounds like workplace hell for women) and Steyer, with a 3.8 (if he were still in 3rd grade, they'd give him a participation award.)

From Fox News:

• Winners: TGFV (he walked into the debate as the front-runner and walked out of it the front-runner), Warren (The strategy Warren employed Tuesday night is the one she should have been using for the past month: saying that while she holds similar positions to Sanders, she can turn those ideas into reality and get the job done) and Papa Joe (His performance should reassure South Carolina voters and that will help Biden in the primary Saturday.)

• Losers: Bloomy (All the money in the world isn’t going to help Bloomberg win this race because in the end, you can’t hide the real Bloomberg), Mayor Pete (This...keeps him in the cycle of moderate voter cannibalism that could deny all of the moderates the nomination.) and Klobuchar (The New Hampshire debate is now officially a one-hit-wonder for Sen. Klobuchar) and Steyer (Tom Steyer has an endless reservoir of money to stay in the race...that hurts Biden, Buttigieg and Klobuchar and it doesn’t help Steyer – but it does help Sanders.)

From Vox:

• Winners: TGFV (he just needed to hold his own. And he did), IMPOTUS (If there was any single takeaway from Tuesday night’s debate, it’s that Democrats are still very far from united in their quest to beat president Donald Trump.) marijuana legislation (the majority of candidates on the stage supported legalization — and even the moderates, like Biden and Bloomberg, backed decriminalization) and New York City (NYC isn’t like all other cities; otherwise, you would have a Naked Cowboy in every city, Bloomberg said)

• Losers:  Klobuchar (Even a pretty good night wouldn’t have been enough to propel her into Super Tuesday. She needed another gamechanger, and she didn’t get one.), and the moderators (Gayle King desperately requested at one point, as Amy Klobuchar just laughed at her. It felt like a metaphor for the whole proceedings: one of the gladiators in the ring laughing off a would-be referee’s attempt to impose order on chaotic bloodsport.).

And finally, from Alternet.org:

• Winners: there were none, but there were lots of

• Losers: the candidates (The muddled, confused, and slapdash nature of the event made the candidates all look like they were struggling to get a word in edgewise. They talked over each other. The questions would insubstantial and amateurish (ironically, one of the best questions came from Twitter.) There was no cohesion to the discussion and no internal logic behind which candidate got to speak), the moderators (completely failed to manage the candidates when they talked over each other, the completely vacuous questioning, a lack of awareness of some information, including the Warren/Bloomy abortion exchange, the gimmicks of asking for misconceptions and personal mottos...), viewers (Because it was so poorly moderated, the viewers — myself included — must be listed on the “losers” side of the ledger as well).

How did your scorecard compare? 

The Update Desk: 10th Debate Drinking Game

Good morning!  How's your debate hangover today?

I actually had a well-hydrated night, looking at my pre-debate list of keywords.  Here's how I did, per the debate transcript. Bolded words are winners.

• Castro, Cuba, Fidel, communism. There were multiple Cuba references and one reference to communist countries, so I'm taking a sip - but not a Big Gulp, since I'm an anti-0besity New Yorker - on that last one.
• Jim Clyburn - he's the most powerful Democrat in South Carolina, and both Klobuchar and That Guy from Vermont dropped his name.
• Palmetto (because someone will have to say it) - my guess was that Gayle King would be the one to say it, but sadly, she didn't. And neither did anyone else. 
• coalition - several mentions, from Warren, Klobuchar, and even That Other Billionaire, Tom Steyer. 
• Russia, bots - bot of course this one was there - too easy. There were 13 mentions of Trump's favorite frenemy. 
• convention, contested, superdelegates - this was an issue in Nevada, but the CBS folks didn't touch it. 
• HBCU, HBCUs - Warren mentioned this, but she spoke the words historically black colleges and universities instead of using the acronym.
• firewall - I was pretty confident someone would ask Biden about his campaign's frequent comments that SC was his firewall. The question came up, kind of, but not using this word. 
• Israel, peace, settlements - I'm claiming all three of these. The first two were mentioned, and Bloomy either couldn't remember 'settlements' or thought better of using that inflammatory word and instead referred to 'communities.' Either way,  I win.
• turnout - I figured it would be hard for TGFV to not say this one, and I was right. 
• inheritance tax - taxes yes, including a wealth tax and taxes on billionaires, but not specifically the inheritance tax. 
• Green New Deal - everyone wants this, TGFV says there are 20 million jobs in there, climate change is the existential threat to the world, and no questions? SHOCKED, I tell you. 
• Operation Chaos - another hit on my sippy cup here. Operation Chaos is what the Rs are calling their effort to get their voters to the polls to color in the bubble for TGFV (it's an open primary here).  Chaos is what Russia wants.  It's the same thing. 
• establishment (all types of it) - not mentioned, which is odd. I thought maybe one of the reporters would be willing to ask about burning down the house, but they skipped it. 
• vice president - other than this being Papa Joe's title, no mentions. I thought maybe someone would 'go there' on a veep candidate, saying a person of color, or a woman. Biden said he'd make a black woman a Supreme, but that was as close as it got. 
• expectations -again, they skirted this question, which was a natural for Biden. He did however, say he was not 'expecting' to get votes from people of color, he planned on earning them.  

Cheers to me - I did better than I did in last week's Nevada debate.  And I'll have more on the debate later, including a host of winners and losers. 

The 10th Debate Drinking Game, 2/25/20

Everyone ready for tonight's debate?

CBS is hosting the shindig, with moderators Norah O'Donnell and Gayle King, Face the Nation's Margaret Brennan, CBS News chief Washington guy Major Garrett, and Bill Whitaker of 60 Minutes making up the panel.

The candidates, in left to right order on the stage (from your viewpoint, not theirs), are: Bloomy, Mayor Pete, Elizabeth, Bernie Sanders (That Guy from Vermont, or TGFV), Papa Joe, Amy, and Tom Steyer, The Other Billionaire (TOB).

I'm trying to stay away from the really obvious drinking game words, of which there many: Medicare for All, billionaires, 1%, Super Tuesday, socialism, African-Americans, coronavirus/COVID-19, frontrunner, and the like.

Here are the keywords I'm going with tonight:

• Castro, Cuba, Fidel, communism
• Jim Clyburn 
• Palmetto (because someone will have to say it)
• coalition 
• Russia, bots 
• convention, contested, superdelegates
• HBCU, HBCUs
• firewall
• Israel, peace, settlements
• turnout
• inheritance tax
• Green New Deal 
• Operation Chaos
• establishment (all types of it)
• vice president
• expectations

Obviously, I'm hoping for an informative couple of hours, but I'm not going to hold my breath.

And the drinking game? I have no idea how that'll turn out, either. With any luck, I'll have fun, but not a Taco Bell-worth hangover tomorrow. 

Good luck to the candidates, and to you with your keywords.

Sunday School 2/16/20

I love when there's lots of activity in the classrooms, and today was no exception. Joe Biden, Amy Klobuchar, Tom Steyer and Pete Buttigieg were making the rounds this morning, with Klobuchar hitting four classrooms and Steyer two.  

I narrowed it down to one per show, so we've got Biden with Chuck Todd on NBC's Meet the Press, Klobuchar with Martha Raddatz on ABC's This Week, Steyer with Margaret Brennan on Face the Nation (CBS) and Buttigieg with Dana Bash on CNN's State of the Union. That's the order we'll take them in.

Here are some excerpts from the Joe Biden interview. He was circumspect on Trump's attacks, saying that he "realized that whomever was likely to be, whoever he most feared, was going to be the victim of his affection" and also noting that he's tried not to show too much frustration because the election is not about him, it's about pulling the country together.  He admitted that "it had crossed his mind" that Trump's attacks might have actually made a difference in Iowa and New Hampshire.

On his campaign and whether he's got the urgency, the fire that people want to see, he said maybe being so polite and positive wasn't the best approach after all, but he supported his moderate proposals by saying if he gets elected he'll be "one of the most progressive administrations" in the country's history. And, regarding That Guy from Vermont and his policies,  

...what you're up against is things that are almost fanciful. Like, you know, Medicare for All. Thirty-five, thirty, forty trillion dollars. Even Bernie's now saying, "Well, how much is it going to cost?" "Well, who knows. We'll find out." I think that's the phrase he used -- or "we don't know." I mean, part of being president is not just the idea you have. Can you get it done? Have you ever done anything big? Have you ever been able to put together coalitions that bring along Republicans and all the Democrats to get things done? And the idea, I mean it's almost fanciful sometimes.

On Sanders and people always knowing where he stands on things.  

And he's never gotten anything done... he's a decent guy...he's been talking about health care, Medicare for All, universal health care, for 35 years. Nothing's happened. I helped get Obamacare. I helped move it forward. I got the votes. I'm in a position where I take something that I promise you, I'll get done. We take Obamacare. We allow people -- like out here in Nevada, what's going on? Bernie requires, and Elizabeth's plan requires you to give up all private insurance. These folks have broken their necks, the culinary union and others, to get the most comprehensive health care that's out there. And they've given up wages for it... 

I mean come on. This is -- I mean, I think people are so tired of the lack of straightforwardness out there. Now, if I'm wrong, I'm going to be dead wrong, but I really believe that you have to lay out why you're doing what you're doing and how you're going to get it done.

On Bloomberg buying his African-American support, cutting into Biden's support by around half, Chuck Todd said. 

... Anyway, the point is that $60 billion can buy you a lot of advertising, but it can't erase your record. There's a lot to talk about with Michael Bloomberg. You all are going to start focusing on him like you have on me, which I'm not complaining, like you have on me the last six months. You're going to focus on him. His position on issues relating to the African American community, from stop-and-frisk to the way he talked about Obama, to, I mean –

On two of his biggest rivals, one not a Dem and the other a former Republican, and what that says about the Democratic party,

Well, I think what it says is money, billions of dollars, can take you a long, long way. And it says that it's going to be awful hard to go out and win those -- the base support of the Democratic party, the African Americans, Latinos and working-class white folks, and put that coalition together. That's how you win an election. You put that coalition together.

On the need for winning South Carolina, and whether he can "do well" without winning there, 

Well, I think so. But look... look, right after that, within -- on March the 4th we end up with -- going into all the states, which the polling data is now showing me doing incredibly well. Whether it's North Carolina or Georgia or Texas or any of these other places. So look, it's not an apt comparison, but Bill Clinton lost his first eight, ten, 12 primaries and caucuses before he won one. I don't plan on taking that long. But we're just getting to the meat of getting to the number of delegates you need to be able to win this election. And I'm confident we're going to be in good shape.

And from Sen. Amy Klobuchar, starting with her positioning in Nevada, her just starting ad buys, and so on, including only being at 2% in the Las Vegas Weekly poll. 

Well, actually the Las Vegas Review Journal that came out after New Hampshire yesterday had me at 10 points. And that's even a day before our ads even started. So, we're pretty excited about that. I think that came out of all the work we did in New Hampshire. We've had huge crowds, including over 1,000 people in Reno. And I think the newspaper endorsement of The Sun is also very helpful. So, we see ourselves on an upward path.

She said she's in every Super Tuesday state with teams on the ground, she's raised $12M in the past week, and she's feeling good. Raddatz pointed out that no major party nominee finished worse than 2nd in either Iowa or New Hampshire.

Obviously, the next month is critical for us, but I think I’m just approaching this in a different way. And we really shocked the pundits in New Hampshire, and it was all hard work, the endorsements of the papers, the endorsement of The New York Times that I share with my friend Elizabeth, and the kind of momentum that you see. It’s a different year.

On building support with people of color,  

Well, that’s going to be on me. I need people to get to know me. I’ve always gotten high support in all of my elections with the Hispanic and African-American communities in my state -- that is a start... my name identification in states outside of the early few states was not that high, simply because I didn’t have the money like Bloomberg to run more ads during your show than I am on being interviewed on your show. I get that. That’s what happens...That is a big difference.

People don’t know me. And then I’m going to emphasize my record of equal opportunity. The work that I have done in leading so many voting rights bills, including automatically registering kids to vote when they turn 18, getting rid of gerrymandering, getting rid of voting purges. I have a strong record when it comes to voting rights as well as equal opportunity --

As have others, Raddatz talked to her about new evidence in a case where she was the initial prosecutor. The defendant was found guilty but the verdict was overturned and he was retried and convicted by a new prosecutor after Klobuchar became a senator. Now, with new evidence, Klobuchar is saying whole case should be reviewed, old evidence and new. 

Martha, as a prosecutor... our job is to convict the guilty and protect the innocent...all of these cases, when anything new comes in that puts into doubt any conviction, no matter when it is, must be reviewed.  

When I was county attorney, I undertook a major review of all of our serious cases involving DNA... I also pioneered a new way of doing eyewitness identification with The Innocence Project. I went around the country and debated other DAs about having interrogations videotaped because I believe so strongly they should be videotaped. So when you look at my record, the 12 percent decrease in African American incarceration rates when I was there, you see a number of things where I was focused on protecting the innocent.

And my response to this case is this, it must be reviewed immediately and brought to court.

And from Tom Steyer, starting with Margaret Brennan's question on what would constitute success for him in Nevada.

Look, I want to come in first or second. I've spent more time in Nevada than any other candidate. We have a great team on the ground here. I've gone out of my way to try and make sure that I see as many people face to face. And I believe we're putting together the kind of coalition in Nevada and in South Carolina that a Democrat is going to have to put together to win in November of 2020.

On being serious about Nevada and about South Carolina, too, where he has the largest state operation of any candidate (and his wife might have moved there, Brennan said).

Both of these states are diverse states. Both of these states reflect the kind of diversity that is America and that is the Democratic Party. And I think whoever is going to be the candidate has got to be able to show that he or she can pull together that diverse big tent that is the Democratic Party. And I think that's what we're trying to do here in Nevada. And I know that's what we're trying to do in South Carolina... I really think it's about grassroots. I'm a grassroots person. I built one of the biggest grassroots organizations in the United States, next-gen America. And I really believe in people being on the ground, the candidate being on the ground and seeing people face to face.

On the problem of labor force participation (which, I must say, is a very specific question to ask a candidate), the Fed Chair has said is due to the opioid crisis and educational issues. What does he think?

What the Federal Reserve chairman is talking about in terms of opioids and education is how you actually develop long term prosperity and justice. And that is by investing in young people through education, specifically including universal pre-kindergarten, and by dealing with issues of health around the country, including the opioid crisis, including mental health... (president Trump is) avoiding the actual long term prosperity of Americans that is done by investing in the American people, by making us productive over time. And that means education, health care for every American, a living wage.  The wages of Americans-- are outrageously low. 

And on reparations - he's said he's the only one in the race saying he's for them - he admitted that he doesn't have a specific mechanism for them yet, but

...the way to figure out the correct solution in this case is I would have a formal commission on race the first day- starting the first day of my presidency to retell the story of the more than 400 years that African-Americans have been here in America, to tell the story not just of legalized injustice and cruelty, but also of the contributions that the African-American community have made--to the building of America--  what I'm saying is this: in order to come up with solutions, you have to go through together and tell the story, because out of the narrative comes the policy changes. 

He also said he'd put $125B - that's right, $125 billion - into HBCUs, which he said have lost over 40% of their funding in a decade, as just one example of what he's thinking. 

Finally, let's turn to Mayor Pete and Dana Bash, starting with what's going on in Nevada with the Culinary Union, which has come out against That Guy from Vermont and his Medicare for All plan because it would wipe out their hard-fought benefits - and union members are now getting attacked by Sanders supporters.

You know, it's really disturbing to see the Culinary Union attacked, when these are workers who have stood up and fought for, among other things, good health care plans. They're not interested in Washington taking away their choice... 

No one should go after working people for wanting to defend and grow what they have earned. And it's a key point of difference at the policy level between me and Senator Sanders, and, also, I think, very important that supporters of any candidate do this with respect. We have a crisis of respect and decency, obviously, in the White House right now. And it's natural that there's going to be the heat of competition on our side...

On whether Buttigieg thinks TGFV is doing enough to keep his supporters in line, that's a question for him, not for Pete.

What I will tell you is that I'm focused on making sure that my own supporters and our campaign conduct this competition, even when it's heated, with a level of respect for where people are coming from, because we're talking about workers standing up for their own care.

On his health insurance plan differing from M4A, and that union workers would be able to keep their private plans if he was elected, he said that's the absolutely the case. Whereas Sanders' plan abolishes private plans, his does not. 

Now... if my plan is the very best insurance plan in America -- and I think it just might be -- then, eventually, everybody will cross over to it. But I want them to be able to decide. And in the event that it's not, if some plans out there are better, why would we want to kick anybody off of it? This is a commonsense position that most Americans support. It still amounts to the most progressive, major reform to health care that we have had in 50 years. But it is doable. It makes sense. It's the right policy. And it has the advantage of being something that Americans could actually unite around.

On race (Buttigieg and Klobuchar face the same problem here, with low support among Blacks and Latinos), and a Quinnipiac poll showing him at 4% support there, "why aren't those voters coming to you?" he said he's continuing to have conversations with voters, and that the support he's gained in Iowa and New Hampshire should help. 

As we come to more racially diverse states, like here in Nevada and South Carolina, many of the voters of color that I'm talking to are focused in particularly on -- in particular on one thing, defeating Donald Trump. Look, nobody is experiencing the pain of living under this administration more than voters of color. And I'm talking to a lot of highly pragmatic voters who want to know, more than anything else, that you can put together the organization and the message that will decisively defeat this president. There is so much on the line right now, and we have got to get this right.

Bash wondered if he was confident he could convince them to look at him, and look at him differently than they have before.

Absolutely. I mean, I still have to go out there and earn it. This is a process of earning trust with voters who have every reason to be skeptical, who have often felt taken for granted by the Democratic Party, who are, again, very pragmatic right now too. And so I am not going to take any vote for granted, just as I'm not going to leave any vote on the table. We are campaigning hard here in Nevada, across -- across the country. We will be working hard in South Carolina too.

On whether it's "fair to say that what you're doing now is whatever it takes to beat Bernie Sanders and your other Democratic rivals in order to get to the point where you can go after Donald Trump?" even if that means having expensive fundraisers where other candidates might not be.

So, let's be very clear. My campaign is fueled by over two million contributions. I believe the average contribution is under 40 bucks. It is the lifeblood of our campaign...I am following the same fundraising practices that President Obama did and that our leaders have in order to make sure that we draw in all of the support that we need to win. And the campaign I'm building right now is not just for earning the nomination...

My campaign is about belonging. It is about inclusion. I don't define this campaign or define myself by whose help we reject. This is about making sure that everybody who shares these values, everybody prepared to defeat Donald Trump is on the same team pulling together. And we built this from the ground up.

Look, I'm not a millionaire. I haven't been in politics for years or decades. I don't have the advantages of having been a senator. We built this from scratch, and with the hundreds of thousands of individuals who have contributed to this campaign, people of all walks of life. I'm proud of what we have been able to do. And, yes, this is how we're going to defeat this president.

On the walking disgrace that is Medal of Freedom recipient Rush Limbaugh saying Buttigieg is a "37 year old gay guy, mayor of South Bend, who loves to kiss his husband on the debate stage," did he want to respond? 

Well, I love my husband. I'm faithful to my husband. On stage, we usually just go for a hug, but I love him very much. And I'm not going to take lectures on family values from the likes of Rush Limbaugh.

Busy, busy, busy - hope you have the chance to take it all in.

See you around campus.