Wondering on Wednesday 5/11/22

 

Ready... Set... Wonder!

We'll start with some random wondering today, and see where we end up.

For example, you know how when you're on an interstate or even some other highways, and there's a long, steep hill, and as you near the crest of the hill, there are signs advising truckers to check their brakes and use a different gear as they progress down the hill? Well, did you ever notice any signs as you near the bottom of the same long, steep hill, going in the opposite direction, advising trucks to check their accelerator or shift into a gear that'll help them get up the hill faster?

Me neither. And I wonder why that is?

And speaking of traveling on interstates and other highways, have you ever noticed how often the weigh stations are closed? I'd guess, in all our years of traveling, it's got to be at least 97%  of the time. In fact, they're closed so often we cheer when one's open. And what's got me wondering is, how are we supposed to be protected on the road if no one's inspecting or weighing the trucks? Bueller? Bueller? Anyone?

On a more serious note, the US Senate's GOP minority, plus one blocked an attempt by the Senate Dems (minus one) to codify the abortion protections in Roe. What's interesting here is that the plus and minus one, Sen. Joe Manchin (D-I'm in it to Win it for Coal!) would have supported a narrower bill. And Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Sen. Susan Collins (R- I Can't Believe Kavanaugh Lied to Me, the Bastage!) also would have supported a narrower bill. But the Dems wouldn't have any of it, and so it failed, to advance, 49-51. 

The point of the vote, which was guaranteed to fail, was to get every senator on record for where they stand on abortion in advance of the midterm election this fall. And the wondering I have here is, will it make a bit of difference, in the overall scheme of things? Only time will tell, but I have my doubts - serious doubts. 

What else? Oh, Elon Musk. We must talk about Elon Musk, because it's in the code of conduct somewhere, I know I've read it. Musk says that Twitter's permanent ban on The Former Guy was wrong. Actually, what he said was 

I would reverse the perma-ban. ... Banning Trump from Twitter didn't end Trump's voice, it will amplify it among the right and this is why it's morally wrong and flat out stupid.

At the same time, Musk says he is  very much of the same mind with proposed new standards for content moderation for EU countries. And, at the same time, TFG says he won't go back to Twitter if his account's reinstated; he'd rather stay on his own platform, Whateveritscalled. So, what am I wondering on all of this? Well, will Musk really go along with local content moderation, causing his teams to do massive amounts of work to meet the standards, which, if we adopt anything like that here, will mean that Trump won't be able to tweet anyway, so what's the point of reinstating him? And does anyone believe him when he says he won't go back on Twitter as soon as he has the chance? I sure don't.

Another random thought... how much did it cost, I wonder, for folks to wash the chalk off the sidewalk in front of Sen. Collins' house in Maine? And, I further wonder, will they wash it off again, now that new messages have appeared? 

And finally, thinking about the protests that are happening outside the homes of Supreme Court Justices, I have to wonder how it feels for them to experience something like that women experience on the way from their cars to their medical appointments?  It's hard not to wonder why chanting and shouting and singing and waving signs outside a Justice's house is possibly a criminal act, while doing the same, and more, while being in much closer proximity, to boot - to women at a medical facility, and their escorts, is merely an exercise of the 1st Amendment's free speech rights.

What are you wondering about tonight?

Sunday School 1/30/22

I wandered into ABC's This Week classroom yesterday. Here are some highlights. The segment that got the most press, from what I could see, was the George Stephanopoulos interview with Sen. Susan Collins (R-Very Concerned) and what she didn't say. But let's start with what she did say. 

Collins appreciates adding diversity to the Supreme Court, but says the "clumsy at best" process around Biden's promised nomination of a Black woman "adds to the further perception that the court is a political institution like Congress when it is not supposed to be." And, she disagreed with George that this was the same thing President Reagan did during the 1980 campaign.

Actually, this isn't exactly the same. I've looked at what was done in both cases. And what President Biden did was as a candidate, make this pledge. And that helped politicize the entire nomination process. What President Reagan said is, as one of his Supreme Court justices, he would like to appoint a woman.

I'm very concerned with the senator's research skills - because Reagan did not say he "would like to appoint a woman." He went much further than that.

I am announcing today that one of the first Supreme Court vacancies in my administration will be filled by the most qualified woman I can possibly find, one who meets the high standards I will demand for all court vacancies. 

Not only that, but thanks to some great research and documentation, we now know Reagan did it for exactly the same reason Biden did: to secure votes from a specific demographic in order to garner his party's nomination. 

Now, to the attention-grabbing part. George asked Collins about president Trump's hint that he'd pardon January 6th insurrectionists if he gets elected in '24, and whether she could  "imagine any circumstances where (she) could support his election." Collins said Trump shouldn't have said that; she thinks we "should let the judicial process proceed." And when George pushed her on not ruling out supporting Trump, here's what she said.

Well, certainly it's not likely given the many other qualified candidates that we have that have expressed interest in running. So, it's very unlikely.

It's also very unlikely she'll commit to anything, if she can't even commit to this. 

The panel this week included political animals Donna Brazile, Donna Shalala, and Chris Christie, and Reihan Salam, president of the conservative Manhattan Institute.

Here's Brazile on SCOTUS, after noting that 108 of the 115 Supremes have been white males, some of whom "were extraordinary..."

But the fact is, 55 years after Thurgood Marshall was put on the court, 31 years after Clarence Thomas, 13 years after Sonia Sotomayor, this is a moment when the country can finally say equal justice under the law applies to everybody. It's an extraordinary move by the president. I welcome this appointment. And I'm going to fight with everything I have, to make sure that this extraordinary woman gets confirmed.

Here's Christie after noting that "elections have consequences."

...it wouldn't have been the way I would have approached it, by pre-announcing something like that, but Joe Biden won the election. He gets to make the choice. And every one of the 100 senators has a right then to scrutinize this person's background, experience, and decide whether or not they deserve lifetime tenure.

And Shalala, on both the prospect of a Black woman joining the Court and on polling showing most American just want the most qualified person. (I don't believe that for a NY minute, I've gotta tell you, but I digress). 

Well, it brings someone with a different experience, a black woman's experience. It makes the court look like America. It makes it look fairer. And I'm not surprised the majority of Americans think he ought to just pick the -- the qualified candidate. That's, in fact, an advancement, that we ought to pick the qualified candidate. But a black woman on the court, it will make a difference.

And, here's Salam, after noting he thought Biden's promise "was a mistake," because it limited his options 

... I think that one thing to keep in mind is that the Democratic coalition is awfully diverse along many different dimensions. Donna Shalala mentioned that there's such a thing as a black women's experience. When you look at the four leading contenders, as far as news reports go, these are people with dramatically different experiences and actually some subtle differences in ideological sensibilities as well... So I think that recognizing the distinctions among black women and recognizing that there are many other kinds of diversity one could bring to the bench is a good and valuable thing. And Democrats ought to keep it in mind.

Perhaps the most remarkable comment of this discussion was about the politics of the whole thing, and it came not from a panelist, but from the host. Christie set it up.

...But on the politics of this, George, for the midterms, when you have inflation where it is, when you have crime where it is, the things that affect people's everyday lives, they don't see the Supreme Court affecting their everyday lives in the same way that inflation, crime, and foreign policy crises do. So, I think it may have some small effect, but nowhere near a determinative one.

Here's the comment from Stephanopoulos.

It has rarely been a big - a big voting issue in either presidential or midterm elections...

Um, really, George? I'm Susan Collins-level very concerned with your failed memory of the 2016 and 2020 elections. The Supreme Court was one of the keys to Trump's victory in the former, and he also used it in the latter. Sheesh - everyone knows that.

I was going to end the post there, but instead I'll close with thoughts about Rs not wanting to stick a fork in a Trump 2024 run. Here's Salam's take on it.

Well, I think that it makes sense for people to want to preserve freedom of action. You do not know how the environment might change. There are a lot of Republicans, a lot of conservatives who said at the very beginning of the 2015-2016 campaign cycle that they wouldn't support Donald Trump. But then things changed. And we could condemn them. We could praise them for that. But the reality is that, you know, politics, the environment moves very, very quickly.

And, here's Brazile.

I can't imagine President Trump saying he will pardon the very same people who injured 140 policemen. I can't imagine President Trump saying at a rally that he would pardon people who said, kill Mike Pence, assassinate Nancy Pelosi. There's -- there's -- there's no place in our politics for that type of rhetoric and that type of action and leadership. So I hope the Republicans reject Donald Trump so that they can move past this movement and we can try to figure out how to bring the country together. 

From where I sit, 'bringing the country together' remains a Herculean, or even Sisyphean task, but one can always hope. I encourage you to join me in not holding your breath on this one.

See you around campus.

Wondering on Wednesday 2/24/21

Ready... Set... Wonder!

In no particular order, here's the stuff that's got me scratching my head tonight.

Neera Tanden, President Biden's choice to head the Office of Management and Budget, seems to be on a fast track to failure, as Joe Manchin (the most important Senator in the Universe, or something like that) is opposed and so are at least a few Republicans, including Susan Collins, Mitt Romney, and Rob Portman. The primary reason Tanden's nom is not looking good? She was a mean tweeter. 

One of her targets was Manchin's daughter, a pharma CEO allegedly having something to do with the exorbitant price of Epi-pens. Collins thinks that Tanden exhibits the kind of animosity that Biden has "pledged to transcend." Romney can't support someone who's sent "a thousand mean tweets." Portman says the OMB director needs to work "productively" with people on both sides of the aisle. And I wonder, why would the OMB director need to be held to a higher standard than the (former) president?

Merrick Garland, the guy who coulda woulda shoulda been a SCOTUS associate justice, looks well on his way to being confirmed as the next Attorney General of the United States; similarly, the standard for him is higher than for his predecessor, and for the former president. It cracks me up, the hypocrisy. Texas Sen. John Cornyn, a staunch Trump supporter, said that Garland met his 'sole' criteria - a promise to conduct investigations "without succumbing to political pressure." Really, Senator? When did you stumble upon your 'sole' criteria, I wonder?

Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson? I just wonder about him generally. And Rep. Jim Jordan, too. They could be in the wondering every week.

US Postmaster General Louis DeJoy told Congress yesterday they'll have to get used to him because he's going to be sticking around. He offered support for a plan to eliminate the need to pre-fund future health insurance costs, so that's progress. But he also suggested improving service by slowing down delivery of first-class mail, and said something about having the USPS stop using planes to move mail around the country. I wonder if he doing a CBA on a revived Pony Express? That would surely accomplish both of his goals.

At the same time, his longevity is potentially threatened by the pesky Biden administration's efforts to fill seats on the governing board. And they are not all white men, darn those inclusive Dems. I wonder if any of them have sent any mean tweets in the past? Hope not. 

And finally, watch this video of House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R Mar-a-Lago) and #3 Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Purgatory) answer a question on whether 45 should appear a CPAC (the 'hug a flag like it's a porn star conference) this weekend, and wonder with me how long the Rs are going to put up with her refreshing honesty.

What are you wondering about?

We Deserve Consistency; We'll Get Hypocrisy

There was an article in Mother Jones reminding us of the positions of a number of current Republican Senators regarding an opening on the Supreme Court occurring in the last year of a president's term - a situation we face now, because of the passing of the #NotoriousRBG, Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. 

We know the position of Mitch McConnell - the American people deserve to have their voice heard, and so the incumbent president (if that person is a Democrat, anyway) does not get to nominate someone - the incoming president does. McConnell has told us that's out the window, and the president has asked for swift confirmation of his nominee. We may know as early as Monday, it's been reported, who the nominee will be.  

And, of course, we know because of the tomfoolery of Harry Reid and other childish senators back in the day, it only takes a simple majority to confirm a lifetime appointment to the SCOTUS.  Three Republicans would need to refuse to vote at all, or to vote with the Democrats, in order to block Trump's pick. 

Right now, Alaska's Lisa Murkowski  seems to be a no, saying just yesterday before the announcement of Ginsburg's passing, that she would not vote to fill the seat before the election. And, as I write this, Maine's Susan Collins has tweeted, in part, 

Given the proximity of the presidential election, however, I do not believe that the Senate should vote on the nominee prior to the election. In fairness to the American people, who will either be re-electing the president or selecting a new one, the decision on a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court should be made by the president who is elected on November 3rd. 

We'll see if Mitt Romney or anyone else steps up to put a stop to McConnell and Trump. In the meantime, let's wander down memory lane and read the wise words spoken by these fifteen senators, all of whom, I'm sure, will let us down when push comes to shove. 

• Sen. Cory Gardner (R-CO): I think we’re too close to the election. The president who is elected in November should be the one who makes this decision...We are deep in the heart of a political campaign, a divisive election, a divisive president, who has done nothing but overreached Congress time and time again. 

• Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX):With (Scalia's ) passing, the Constitution is unambiguous about what happens next. President Barack Obama has exercised his authority to nominate someone to fill the vacancy, but the Senate has an equal authority to determine whether to proceed with that nomination. I believe the American people deserve to have a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court Justice, and the best way to ensure that happens is to have the Senate consider a nomination made by the next President...The direction of the court is now in question, and the Senate has an essential role to play. At this critical junction in our history, the American people should have the opportunity for their voice to be heard. Senate Republicans are committed to making sure that they do.

• Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) It has been 80 years since a Supreme Court vacancy was nominated and confirmed in an election year. There is a long tradition that you don’t do this in an election year...In an election year, we have a long tradition that a lame-duck president doesn't get to jam a Supreme Court nominee through on the very end. 

• Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-Trump): If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump’s term, and the primary process has started, we’ll wait to the next election. 

• Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL): The precedent's been set. It's been over 80 years now since, in the last year of the last term of a sitting president, there isn't Supreme Court nominees, 80 years. And there's a reason for that. And the reason is that the next president should have a chance to fill that void, not someone who's never going to answer to the electorate again. We're going to have an election this year. And in the election, people are going to get to choose a candidate for president. And part of that vote will be, what kind of nominee do you want, because we're going to be asked now who -- what kind of person or what kind of justice would you put on the Supreme Court? So, let the voters weigh in, in November, and then we will have an appointment. The court can function with eight justices. It does it all the time.

• Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) It makes the current presidential election all that more important as not only are the next four years in play, but an entire generation of Americans will be impacted by the balance of the court and its rulings... I will oppose this nomination as I firmly believe we must let the people decide the Supreme Court’s future.

• Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) “A lifetime appointment that could dramatically impact individual freedoms and change the direction of the court for at least a generation is too important to get bogged down in politics. The American people shouldn’t be denied a voice.

• Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA) We will see what the people say this fall and our next president, regardless of party, will be making that nomination. We understand that, in November if people are unhappy with the way that we have been governing in the United States Senate, they would speak out. But from what we have heard, people are excited about the opportunity to voice their opinion through the ballot box, whether they’re Democrats, whether they’re Republicans... Let’s all talk about it and then in November we’ll have that decision. And if the decision is made that we have another Democratic president, that’s a decision we will live with.

• Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) The campaign is already under way. It is essential to the institution of the Senate and to the very health of our republic to not launch our nation into a partisan, divisive confirmation battle during the very same time the American people are casting their ballots to elect our next president. Vice President Biden (referring to Biden's 1992 remarks on a hypothetical SCOTUS opening) – and this is not something I’ve said very often – was absolutely correct. There should be no hearings. There should be no confirmation. The most pragmatic conclusion to draw is to hold the Supreme Court vacancy until the American people’s voices have been heard.

•  Sen. David Perdue (R-GA): The very balance of our nation’s highest court is in serious jeopardy. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I will do everything in my power to encourage the president and Senate leadership not to start this process until we hear from the American people. Given our global security crisis and debt crisis, the upcoming election will not only determine the direction of our country, but also serve as a referendum on the Presidency and Congress, and now the Supreme Court. President Obama's record of ruling through executive action and regulatory mandates has show he is willing to circumvent Congress and bypass the will of the people. (Note: for more information on president Trump and executive orders, check out my comments on Ivanka Trump's speech at the RNC here.)

• Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI)  I strongly agree that the American people should decide the future direction of the Supreme Court by their votes for president and the majority party in the U.S. Senate.  America needs Supreme Court justices who share Justice Scalia's commitment to applying the Constitution as written and to the freedom it secures.

• Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) In the final year of a presidency, it is common for vacancies that arise on the Supreme Court to await the outcome of the next election. Given that we are already well into the presidential election process and that the Supreme Court appointment is for a lifetime, it makes sense to give the American people a more direct say in this critical decision. The next Court appointment should be made by the newly-elected president. If that new president is not a member of my party, I will take the same objective non-partisan approach to that nominee as I have always done.

• Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) In this election year, the American people will have an opportunity to have their say in the future direction of our country. For this reason, I believe the vacancy left open by Justice Antonin Scalia should not be filled until there is a new president.

• Sen. John Hoeven (R-ND) There is 80 years of precedent for not nominating and confirming a new justice of the Supreme Court in the final year of a president’s term so that people can have a say in this very important decision.

• Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH) I believe the best thing for the country is to trust the American people to weigh in on who should make a lifetime appointment that could reshape the Supreme Court for generations. This wouldn’t be unusual. It is common practice for the Senate to stop acting on lifetime appointments during the last year of a presidential term, and it’s been nearly 80 years since any president was permitted to immediately fill a vacancy that arose in a presidential election year.

Note that, while the bulk of the information comes from the Mother Jones article, it generously included the source of the quotes they used, and I reviewed those for additional or alternate information.

What's your best bet?  Will there be a vote before the election? Will Trump threaten anyone who dares to even hint that they might not toe the line? Will someone stand up and say they don't give a crap whether Trump endorses them or not, and vote against him? 

I think you know my thoughts on those questions -- and I'm happy to hear yours. 

TGIF 2/7/20

It's list-making time again.

Religion had a bad week, I think - or maybe it was a good one, I'm not sure. I'm not religious, so it's hard for me to tell on these things.

But we do know the president, The Chosen One, according to a former Cabinet member and countless evangelicals, the guy who alleged to be a member of church but hadn't been seen in it for years, who so loves the Bible he can't even pick  a favorite verse or even say whether he's an Old Testament or New Testament guy, denigrated prayer and religion in general, at the National Prayer Breakfast.

And then went on to laugh about it with some of the same people a few hours later.

Hail to the Chief had a bad week. Sadly, because the president decided to re-celebrate Festivus - actually, every day is Festivus for him - in the East Room at the White House, he was given this ceremonial musical honor before babbling for over an hour in what the White House website refers to as Remarks By President Trump to the Nation. He described it much better himself, I think.

And this is really not a news conference.  It’s not a speech.  It’s not anything. 

Truer words, and whatnot. But he did spend time on the bodies of Steve Scalise and Jim Jordan, so I'd say they had a bad week.

Nancy Pelosi had a bad week, and I'm not going to be convinced otherwise, even given that she was attacked at the breakfast by Trump and responded appropriately, I think, after that. The rest of her week is not wiped away by that.

Susan Collins? Yeah, bad week. I mean, what on earth was she thinking, saying that she believed the president "has learned from" the impeachment? I mean, that's a 'When Harry Met Sally' moment right there - I want whatever the heck she's having, for sure.

Who else is on the list? It's not a person, but payback, the b*tch, is having a very good week. Let's see: Mitt Romney (who had a great week, by the way)? Attacked at the aforementioned prayer breakfast.  Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman?  Removed from the NSC, escorted out of the White House, and transferred to the Department of the Army - as was his brother, Lt. Col. Yevgeny Vindman, guilty of being his brother's twin. Gordon Sondland? Recalled as Ambassador to the EU. Expect more of that.

Let's see, what else. Iowa had the worst week ever as the first-in-the-nation vote; results from the caucus were delayed, the app was bad, Republicans supposedly jammed the phone lines (all that took was a Google search to find the number), and the vote is so close, it's almost truly a dead heat. That Guy From Vermont (TGFV) and Mayor Pete 'won', but TGFV 'lost' because he did much more poorly than expected.  The Des Moines Register had to kill their last poll before the caucus, which didn't help. And, really, nobody showed up to vote. Not nobody, really, but way fewer bodies than many (including TGFV) had hoped. That's likely bad for Democrats - not just in Iowa but more broadly.

And speaking of TGFV, there are a number of reports floating around that Republicans are planning on turning out in droves in open primary state, and planning on voting for TGFV - which shows you who the president isn't afraid of (in case you missed that in his SOTU.)

Ah yes, the SOTU, forever stained by the presentation of the presidential Medal of Freedom to Rush Limbaugh.

TGIF everyone - TGIF.

TGIF 1/24/20

Gather around, boys and girls - it's time for this week's TGIF list.

For the good week side, I'm going to put California Rep. Adam Schiff - a man with whom I've had a few bones to pick over the past several months - right on top. By all accounts, even from people who don't agree with what he's saying, he's been doing a good job, an effective job, leading the House impeachment managers as they present their opening arguments to the Senate. Lawyers, judges, pundits, Republicans, goofballs on Twitter and blogs (like me!) tend to agree with how he's handling the task.

Now, that doesn't mean that he hasn't made some goofs, or that his team hasn't made some goofs, or that they haven't talked too much - but it is a rare treat for me to say I approve of Schiff.  Jerry Nadler? Yeah, not so much. I think he's mostly been pissing people off, including Maine's Senator Susan Collins, who says she was the one who had a note sent to Chief Justice John Roberts, the presiding officer, to have him admonish "people on both sides" for their behavior. (Not sure if it was "fine people on both sides" or if it was just politicians...)

Of the other impeachment managers I've heard, I think Rep. Zoe Lofgren has also been doing a good job, better than Rep. Sylvia Garcia, the other one I've heard the most. And yes, that means that like many Senators, I haven't been sitting at my desk paying attention, reading books, playing with my Trump fidget spinner, or swigging milk or water. But, I'm not under oath nor do I have to abide by any rules saying I have to be there - so a big "welcome to the bad week list" to all of the Senators who have skipped out, with a particular hi-dee-ho to Tennessee's Marsha Blackburn, who was live on Fox when she was supposed to have been in the chamber paying attention. And a similar hi-dee-ho to whoever's been taking attendance and not reporting all of these folks to the time-out room.

The president was having a week, flying off to Davos to talk about how great things are, and saying that he's never met Lev Parnas except for maybe some photos, until today when a tape was leaked of Trump talking to Parnas about Masha Yovanovitch, saying "take her out" - like a boss, as they say on the car commercial. Mike Pence thinks the tape is real, so that should be good enough for Trump to stop lying about Parnas. Or, maybe not.

Speaking of Mike Pence, I seem to recall he was a huge supporter of Space Force?  And today, we got to see the new Space Force logo, chosen, we're told, by some important people. But first, let's refresh ourselves on the original draft logos, which were deemed "no good" by professional designers.

And here, is the winner, as announced by the president today. 

To which George Takei - Sulu on Star Trek - said, "Ahem. We are expecting some royalties from this..."

Fun stuff to end this long week.

TGIF, everyone.

Sunday School 6/17/18

Since it's Father's Day, I spent time in the classrooms where there was discussion on the issue of separating kids from their parents at the border. I managed to sit in on Meet the Press, Face the Nation, and This Week, where we'll start with white nationalist and former Trump chief strategist Steve Bannon.

Jonathan Karl was in the host's chair today, and asked Bannon how, amidst all the criticism from both the left and the right, the separation policy can be justified.

I don't think you have to justify it. We have a crisis on the southern border. But the elites in this city - and this ties into Korea, ties into everything that took place this week - the elites, the permanent political class in this city want to manage situations to, you know, to bad outcomes.  And Donald Trump is not going to do that. He's just not going to kick the can down the road...

We ran on a policy, very simply, stop mass illegal immigration and limit legal immigration, get our sovereignty back, and to help our workers, OK? And so he went to a zero tolerance policy...

Bannon went on to make a completely misguided point about some other immigrants, completely unrelated to the issue at hand.

And by the way, I don't see the mainstream media, and I don't see the liberal left embracing the Angel Moms, those people that were permanently separate from their children because of illegal aliens that came over here and committed crimes and killed people. 

You know, the way the Republicans do. After attacking the pope, Catholics in general (he is one, he said) and saying that no way should DACA recipients ever get citizenship, he chiefly offered his immigration strategy.

I strongly recommend that we just wait until 2019, right, to address this, because I think we're going to have a big November... I would definitely shut down the government over the wall, absolutely... So yes, I would say on - in September, if they have not allocated money for the wall, let's shut down the government, and by the way on November 6, let the voters decide.

 Had enough?  Well, maybe not so fast.

Let's take a listen as Kellyanne Conway chats with Chuck Todd on MTP. Todd asked if the president was ready to pick up the phone and stop the separations,which Lindsey Graham said he could do.

The president is ready to get meaningful immigration reform across the board. And Chuck, let me tell just tell you, nobody likes seeing babies ripped from their mothers' arms, from their mother's wombs, frankly. But we have to make sure that DHS's laws are understood through the soundbite culture that we live in...

Like Bannon, she made an invalid connection, in her case to say that prior administrations have also struggled with this.

Secretary of DHS under President Obama told the New York Times this weekend that this was the bane of his existence for three years. He was describing the fact that they had to detain families in these large facilities for very long periods of time. Why? Because in the summer of 2014 we saw the surge, particularly from Central America, tens of thousands, if not more, unaccompanied minors coming to the border and trying to gain entry.

Which begs the question, if they were unaccompanied minors, from whose arms were they being ripped?  Anyway - she went on to echo the administration's argument, that we're treating these illegals the same way we treat citizens who are convicted of a crime and sentenced to jail (after arraignment, a bail hearing, a trial, a determination of guilt, and sentencing).  

And then she blamed the Democrats for not having ESP.

Chuck, I don't remember a single Democrat, I could be mistaken, maybe one murmured it, but in the one hour meeting back in January in the cabinet room where the president invited senators and congressmen from the Republican and Democratic parties to the cabinet room... Did the issue come up? The Democrats only want to talk about DACA, the Dreamers. Why weren't they talking about this?

To his credit Todd pointed out that the separation policy was issued in April, which on most calendars is after January.

What they should have said is, "Look, we had a surge over the border in 2014, Mr. president, under President Obama, and it shocked everyone, and we simply didn't have the capacity. We want to avoid that in the future and work with you." 

And, she added,

...if the Democrats are serious, and if a lot of Republicans are serious, they'll come together. The won't just talk about this week, 'the Dreamers,' or just 'the wall,' or just 'catch and release.' It's all of the above.

And insisting on that, of course, is what's been preventing comprehensive immigration reform for decades. 

Finally we hear from Maine's Republican Senator Susan Collins, whose interview was aired on CBS' Face the Nation. Her conversation with Margaret Brennan included her disagreement with the separation policy.

I do not (agree with it). Senator Jeff Flake and I have written tot he administration to ask for more information about the policy, but we already know two things. First, from the experience of previous administrations it does not act as a deterrent to use children in this fashion. And second, and much more important, it is inconsistent with our American values to separate these children from their parents unless there's evidence of abuse or another very good reason.

Collins is not a softy on immigration - not at all. She called out the administration for saying they would not separate children from their asylum-seeking parents, but that is what's happening. As she pointed out,

What the administration has decided to do is to separate children from their parents to try and send a message that if you cross the border with children, your children are going to be ripped away from you. That's traumatizing to the children who are innocent victims and it's contrary to our values in this country.

That's not to say we shouldn't act to try to curb illegal immigration. We should, and I support the president's proposals for border security. We do need to strengthen our security at the border. We need to work with those countries in Central American from which these families are coming to end the gang violence that is encouraging them to leave. And in some cases we need to repatriate the whole family back to the home country. 

But we know from years of experience that we need to fix our immigration laws and that using children is not the answer. 

We'll leave it there for this week. See you around campus. 

Sunday School 1/28/18

Just an observation, before we head off down the hall to the classrooms: I thought there were 535 members of Congress - you know, 435 in the House and 100 more in the Senate?

For some reason, it seems like the booking people for our Sunday lectures only know of about 25 or so of them. Maybe we can convince them we'd like to see a little more diversity of opinion on on Sunday mornings?

NBC's Meet the Press had House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin III, and intelligence guru Robert Gates. Topics included the report that Trump wanted to fire Robert Mueller; the Nunes memo; immigration, DACA and the wall; and sexual harassment.

On ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos, Martha Raddatz hosted Senator Lindsey Graham, Ken Starr and ABC correspondent Dan Abrams, talking about immigration, Trump/Mueller, and Steve Wynn. The more interesting part of the show today was the trip from California to Texas along the border.

Here's a woman who, as a DACA qualifier, went to college and law school:

My mom had heard of the American dream, and she wanted us to experience that. And she knew my dreams wouldn't be fulfilled in the - the place where we were because her dreams weren't fulfilled... My family has been here 30 years paying taxes, contributing with our labor. We have created businesses. We are job creators. I understand that we --we broke the law by being here. And I feel there should be a way for us to become lawful immigrants, to become citizens some day.

Or this one, a Trump supporter who lives a few miles from the border and who thinks Dreamers should be allowed to stay, but also supports the wall:

I think it would stop a lot of them from coming over. I mean, I'm sorry, they need to come over here to take care of their families, I understand that. But most of them come over, and a lot of them earn their money and they're sending it back down there, they're not spending it here. Aren't we supposed to be boosting, or taking care of us first?

And there's this gentleman, a visa overstayer, now married to an American woman.

I think there should be more control of who gets into the country and how they get into the country, because -- we do need low-skill workers to do the jobs that most Americans don't want to do.

Finally, two people who were brought here illegally as kids, one of whom is DACA qualified and studying to be a nurse, talking about the potential for citizenship dangled by the president.

I would love to be able to be a citizen, but I think for me, and for what we see in our own community is that it would be a lot more important to be able to keep our families together.

Raddatz also talked to several border area politicians, too.  All in all, some good stuff in there.

The two best parts of Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace had to be South Carolina's Trey Benghazi Gowdy - and yes, I actually said best part and Trey Gowdy in the same sentence - talking about the Mueller investigation, the Nunes memo, and the damage the Republicans are doing to themselves, and Juan Williams reminding everyone that lovers talk to each other.

First, Gowdy. On Mueller's investigation, he had this to say.

And by the way, he's got two -- there are two components to his jurisdiction. There is a criminal component. But there's also a counterintelligence component that no one ever talks about because it's not sexy and interesting. But he's also going to tell us definitively what Russia tried to do in 2016. So the last time you and I were together, I told my Republican colleagues, leave him the hell alone and that's still my advice. 

And while he's not convinced there's 'no there there' with the Nunes memo (also a topic of conversation), on Republicans hurting their own credibility with their "secret societies and palace coups," Gowdy was clear.

Yes, Republicans are the best I've ever seen at taking good facts and overstating them and therefore changing the narrative... I don't know what they meant by secret society...  Republicans are better served by letting the texts speak for themselves... Republicans would be well served, let the texts speak for themselves...quit engaging in hyperbole, which we seem to do a lot.

Williams was fun during the discussion about the text messages between Lisa Page and Peter Strzok, the lovebirds who worked on the Clinton and Trump investigations. Strzok was the one removed from the Trump investigation and demoted to Human Resources immediately upon the text messages coming to Mueller's attention, months ago.

Wallace was trying to get things riled up with the group, but Williams wasn't having it.

JW: Come on Chris, they -- people have personal opinions. You and I have personal opinions. I think we come out here and try to do an honest job. 

CW: Wait, wait, you're not at all troubled by those texts?

JW: Well, first of all - no, be -- remember, they're lovers. So this is like pillow talk between two people who  have personal opinions. I don't know that it has impacted their capacity to lead at investigation. What I see here is a repeated effort coming from the right. They throw spitballs at the wall trying to somehow disparage the FBI, discredit Robert Mueller....

 CW: How about then Peter Strzok and Lisa Page are saying, well, let's not go into that Clinton investigation loaded for bear.

JW: Well, wait a second, they're talking. It's like and and me joking and saying, hey Chris, president Trump, we wish, would come on this show and then --

CW: I'm not joking, I'm serious.

JW:  I know. I know. but I'm saying we wish. But I'm saying -- and I say, Chris, well you know what, if you want him to come back, maybe we shouldn't ravage him this time. That's a joke between Juan and Chris. That's not an indication of how you're actually going to conduct the interview.  But this is, again, discredit the FBI because they're worried that Mueller, in fact, is going to find something. That's what going on...

Hear, hear.

Finally, one quick update from the interview with Maine's Susan Collins on CNN's State of the Union. Asked for her reaction to the story about porn star Stormy Daniels and her $130,000 payout from the Trump camp, Collins had this to say.

Well, I don't know the circumstances of it. In some ways, this sounds like an issue that's between president and Mrs. Trump, because it doesn't seem to be a workplace issue, as far as I know.

On that note, see you around campus.

Taking Notice, and Taking Names

Remember when UN Ambassador Nikki Haley said we'd be taking names at the UN?

That list-making was to make sure we didn't miss any of the countries that voted against us by voting for a resolution condemning the United States for moving our embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem; people who voted against the resolution, and for us, were invited to a party!

Tonight, I'm taking names, but the first list is for the opposite reason from Ambassador Haley. This is the good kind of name-taking, the kind we don't get to do all that often, especially when it comes to talking about stuff that happens in Washington DC.

Lamar Alexander (R-TX)

Susan Collins (R- ME)

Chris Coons (D-DE)

Bob Corker  (R-TN)

Joe Donnelly (D-IN)

Jeff Flake (R-AZ)

Cory Gardner (R-CO)

Lindsey Graham (R-SC)

Maggie Hassan (D-NH)

Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND)

Johnny Isakson (R- GA)

Doug Jones (D-AL)

Tim Kaine (D- VA)

Angus King (I-ME)

Amy Klobuchar (D-MN)

Joe Manchin III (D-WV)

Claire McCaskill (D-MO)

Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)

Bill Nelson (D-FL)

Gary Peters (D-MI)

Mike Rounds (R-SD)

Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH)

Mark Warner (D-VA)

This is the bipartisan group of senators who managed to convince their leadership, and some 50 something of their closest honorable friends to vote to end the #stupidshutdown, reopen the government and stop playing chicken with the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of  government employees and members of the military. 

And here are the senators who voted against reopening the government. 

Cory Booker (D-NJ)

Richard Blumenthal (D-CT)

Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV)

Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)

Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)

Kamala Harris (D-CA)

Mazie Hirono (D-HI)

Patrick Leahy (D-VT)

Mike Lee (R-UT)

Edward Markey (D-MA)

Robert Menendez (D-NJ)

Jeff Merkley (D-OR)

Christopher Murphy (D-CT)

Rand Paul (R-KY)

Bernie Sanders (I-VT)

Jon Tester (D-MT)

Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)

Ron Wyden (D-OR)

I don't pretend to know why these folks voted against reopening the government; maybe they're still mad at Mitch McConnell, or at Donald Trump. For all I know, they're made as hell at Hillary Clinton for not winning.  And, to be honest, I also don't know what's in the heart of hearts of the people who worked so hard to get the compromise that this second group of folks had the pleasure of voting against. 

I just know which list I'd use if I were throwing a party for the people whose names I took.

Wondering on Wednesday (v115)

Anyone not a corporation or other specific beneficiary of the GOP's 'massive' tax plan celebrating tonight, I wonder?

I hope my friends at AT & T be celebrating when they get their promised $1000 bonus.  The bonus is being paid as a "Hey, about our merger with Comcast? We're promising $1B in investments, and a couple hundred million in bonuses, and we sure as hell hope that makes you like our merger way more bigly than you do now!"

Of course, one could cynically wonder how hard it would have been for AT & T to give this kind of bonus in the past, with or without a merger on the line or a corporate tax cut dangled in front of them. After all, according to this NY Times article from March, the company has benefited handsomely from tax subsidies.

In fact, it was the biggest winner of all companies receiving subsidies between 2008 and 2015:

• AT & T: ($38.1 billion)
• Wells Fargo ($31.4 billion)
• JPMorgan Chase ($22.2 billion)
• Verizon ($21.1 billion)
• IBM ($17.8 billion)
• General Electric ($15.4 billion)
• Exxon Mobil ($12.9 billion)
• Boeing ($11.9 billion)
• Procter & Gamble ($8.5 billion)
• Twenty-First Century Fox ($7.6 billion)
• Time Warner ($6.7 billion)
• Goldman Sachs ($5.5 billion)

Wells Fargo, number two on the list the heavily subsidized and a remarkably ethically challenged company, opening more than three million fake accounts on behalf of unknowing customers, firing 5000+ employees (as if they cooked up the whole scheme to open the accounts), and more, also announced it was raising the company's minimum wage to $15/hour and was planning $400M in philanthropic efforts next year.  Call me crazy, but this is a company desperate to remake its reputation, and oh by the way is (maybe) facing almost $200M in penalties for their continued bad acts. I wonder if that has anything to do with their immediate announcement about how wonderful they are?

And I also wonder if Bernie Sanders is happy about the $15 an hour, or if he's mad about the corporate tax cut?  Talk about being between a rock and a hard place, right?

Speaking of winners and losers, I've lost some respect for Maine's Senator Susan Collins for her votes on the tax bill. You'll remember initially she was a no on the bill, because she had serious concerns about the lack of funding for the cost-sharing reduction payments that were being made under the Affordable Care Act (the president killed the subsidies back in October, you'll recall), and she had concerns about the the anticipated increase in premiums stemming from the repeal of the individual mandate, which was included in the tax bill. In an exchange on the Senate floor, Collins obtained assurances from Mitch McConnell that the Senate would take up her two issues, "ideally prior to the adoption of any tax reform conference agreement and certainly before the end of the year."

That may mean before the end of 2018.  Well, OK, probably sooner -- Collins issued a statement today with Sen. Lamar Alexander talking about maybe Valentine's Day would be more reasonable. I have to wonder what other "ideally" and "certainly" promises McConnell and his team made to other members of his caucus that will not be kept?

Finally tonight, let's wonder a little what the heck was going through Rosie O'Donnell's mind when she tweeted this potentially criminal offer:

I know I'm not the only one wondering if, like Kathy Griffin, O'Donnell will soon be parading her apology for all the world to see? Or, will she get the knock on the door from law enforcement asking if they can have a chat about her tweet before she gets the chance to suitably apologize?

What are you wondering about?

Sunday School 12/10/17

We're back to our regular Sunday School programming, after last week's look at religion and politics.

Today, I dropped in on Face the Nation on CBS. One of John Dickerson's guests was Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL), who talked about Roy Moore, Al Franken, and funding the government.

Durbin followed Susan Collins (R-ME) on the show, so some of his questions drive from her answers. You know how that goes.

On the Roy Moore issue, Dickerson asked Durbin whether the Senate has any business overturning the will of the people, if they do in fact elect Moore this week.

Well, John, I can tell you this. First, the decision is to be made by the voters in Alabama on Tuesday. And I hope they will do the right thing in terms of defining their standards and values when it comes to people representing them in Washington. But we have heard from Republican senators first who have suggested that if Roy Moore ends up being elected to the Senate, he would face close scrutiny, investigation, even removal from the Senate once he arrives.

I agree with Senator Collins; it's a complicated issue. (Note: Collins described it as a very tough decision.) But I tell you this. We faced the reality this past week. I've known Al Franken for over 20 years. He is my friend. He was on the floor of the Senate announcing his resignation; I sat just a few feet away from him. He said it was the worst day in his political life. It was a somber feeling. It was a reality. And I hope the voters of Alabama appreciate that reality when they make their decision on Tuesday.

After Moore and Franken, the conversation turned to taxes. Dickerson wondered what the Democrats could do to change the bill, since it was moving to the conference committee with enough Republican votes to pass.

...Susan Collins made it clear she's still waiting before she makes her final decision. I think others are in the same position. Jeff Flake, for example, from Arizona made it clear that bringing up this issue about DACA and DREAMers is critical to his vote when it comes to tax. So I can't assume where the Republicans will end. But they have an awful lot to accomplish in a very short period of time.

Dickerson asked if getting a deal on DACA would be worth shutting down the government.

Well, I can tell you this. We don't want to see the government shut down. We want to move forward in a bipartisan fashion to solve our problems. We believe that DACA is central; the president is the one who made this the issue. September the 5th he eliminated the DACA program and put in doubt the future of over 780,000 people in America. And we want to get this done and accomplished.

34 Republicans in the House came out last week and said, "Do it before the end of the year." The Senate Republicans have said the same thing. Lisa Murkowski yesterday tweeted that her Christmas wish - her greatest Christmas wish is to see this done, DACA and the DREAMer issue resolved, this calendar year. It is within the power of the Republicans to get this done and to put together a package we can pass. We want to stand by them, work with them, and get that done. 

And, there's the Children's Health Insurance program, too, that needs to be dealt with. Dickerson reminded Durbin about a statement he made

I'm not prepared to go home for the holidays until we get our work done.

Was that still the case, Dickerson wondered?

Well, I feel very strongly about it...DACA to me personally and the DREAM Act are very personal and mean an awful lot. But when we're talking about funding our government, providing the resources and programs that many middle income families use across America, dealing with the opioid crisis, making certain that we take care of our veterans, making certain that we have the money for biomedical research, these are part of the conversation and part of the dialogue as we close down this budget. It is up to the Republicans to make a decision about what we will do. I think we can get this done. 

That's a nice dose of optimism there, and a good way to start the week.

See you around campus.

The Update Desk: TGIF 9/22/17

One of the topics in last week's TGIF post was the latest attempt by the Republicans to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act.  News had broken that Arizona Senator John McCain was going to vote no, and I had hoped that others would join him and Kentucky's Rand Paul to kill the bill.

Over the weekend, and really to no surprise at all, the authors of the Graham-Cassidy-Heller-Johnson bill sweetened the pot, ostensibly to help states and balance the distribution of funds for the block grants that states would get and use to develop a health care plan that made sense for them. Except that the states to benefit included homes of the announced or expected 'no' votes, such as Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.

There were updates for us today, including

• some 50 disability activists were arrested after protesting a Senate Finance Committee hearing (the only one scheduled on the current bill)
• a report from the Congressional Budget Office noting that millions more would become uninsured under the GCHJ plan. The CBO report will not be comprehensive, because they simply don't have time given the September 30th deadline to get something done under 'reconciliation' which requires only a Mike Pence majority to pass legislation.
• Susan Collins, the Republican senator from Maine, announced her opposition to the revised version of the bill, joining McCain and Paul who had previously said no - and making the bill Pence-proof.

So, what happens now?  That's up to Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, the man who will decide if it's worth it to actually put a losing vote to the floor, to publicly shame the defectors and put them at risk in their next election. 

He might do that, or he might not, since at the same time he shames those who are agin him, he exposes himself  -- again -- as a poor leader unable to rally his troops, and sets himself up for even more bigly criticism from the president. 

Maybe he withstands that criticism, and thinks about what it seems Americans want: corrections to the Affordable Care Act. The majority of us, according to poll after poll after poll this year, want to keep and fix the ACA, not repeal it and replace it with something that doesn't even begin to come close.

Democratic and Republican governors have a plan they say will work -- 10 of them sent McConnell and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer a letter a week or so ago, asking them to drop their nonsense and take a look at something reasonable. 

If McConnell is half a leader, he'll sit down with those governors - Democrats Hickenlooper, Bullock, McAuliffe, Bel Edwards and Wolf, and Republicans Kasich, Walker, Sandoval, Scott and Baker - and Schumer, and get to work accomplishing something that will actually do some good, rather than just crossing off a campaign promise - even one that's seven years old, and counting. 

Sunday School 7/30/17

I only had time for one classroom today, so I stopped in to see what was going on at NBC with Meet the Press, hosted by Chuck Todd.

HHS Secretary Tom Price was on, as was Maine's Senator Susan Collins, on of the three 'no' votes on the failed Skinny Repeal measure that, at least for now, ground discussion on repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act to a halt.

Price parroted the same old, same old stuff we've been hearing from the Republicans since even before the ACA was passed. Here he is answering Chuck Todd's question on what he could have done differently

Well I think what the president has explained and punctuates is his seriousness about this issue and his passion for turning the healthcare system in a direction that puts patients first, not government and not insurance companies. We've all got a lot of work to do. We've continued to work with the members of the United States Senate. We look forward to continuing to work with them, and our house partners as well, to make certain that we move this healthcare system in that better direction, where patients and families and doctors are in charge, not Washington DC.

Here's a question, frankly, I didn't expect to see asked:

Do you feel it is your job at HHS to implement the affordable care act as it was meant to be or are you there to--some people think you don't want to see it work, so that's why we've seen cancelled TV advertising, the attempts to not get people to enroll, the cancelling of contracts that help with enrollment. And so some have accused that you do not want to see it work as it was intended. Can you explain?

Here's Price's answer:

Yea, no, our job is to follow the law of the land and we take that mission very, very seriously. And the role of the health and human services department is to improve the health, the safety and the wellbeing of the American people. And what we understand, what the American people understand is that their health and wellbeing is being harmed right now by the current law. And so our goal is to make--is to put in place, as well as the president's goal, is to put in place a law, a system, that actually works for patients. You can't do that under the current structure. You can't do that just with regulation. It requires an act of congress and that's why the president has been so passionate about making certain that the, that the congress of the United States repeals and replaces Obamacare. 

Todd pressed him again, asking

So if they come up with a fix that helps, essentially gives some certainty to the insurance companies to go into rural markets, are you then going to implement the affordable care act as it was meant to be, including encouraging people to sign up, encouraging enrollment, encouraging Medicaid expansion? 

Price's answer, again, was nonsense.

Well, our, as I said, our responsibility is to follow the law and again we take that responsibility very seriously and we will continue to do so. But remember that the current law right now is failing the American people... You've got premiums that are up, deductibles that are up, people having that insurance card and no care, got insurers fleeing the market. 83 insurance companies fled the health insurance market last year. That's before this administration came in. This system is imploding upon itself and that's what we're trying to care of. That's what the president has said. That's why we need repeal and replace. 

So, there you have it: the Secretary of HHS is admitting that his department, responsible for the Affordable Care Act, is pretty much going to continue ignoring the law because they don't like it and they think that Americans don't like it either. Glad to have that out in the open.

Susan Collins faced similar questions from Todd, including this one.

Are you confident, though, that Secretary Price at HHS is implementing - is trying to keep this law afloat, that is doing everything he can to create certainty or are you concerned that there are some aspects of HHS implementation right now that are actually undermining the law, attempting to sort of create more problems in order to force Congress to act?

Collins does not express that confidence. 

I’m troubled by the uncertainty that has been created by the administration. When it comes to the subsidies that are given to very low-income people to help them with their co-pays and their deductibles, I hear this described by some as an insurance company bailout. That’s not what it is. It is vital assistance to people who make between 100 and 250 percent of the poverty level and allows them to afford their out-of-pocket costs. And the uncertainty about whether that subsidy is going to continue from month to month is clearly contributing to the destabilization of the insurance markets. And that’s one thing that Congress needs to end. We need to make very clear that that subsidy is important to those very low income people and we need to appropriate the money to ensure that it continues.

Todd then asked if she was ready to tell Mitch McConnell that she'd never be in his corner unless he went to 'regular order' - hearings, testimony, bipartisanship - you know, legislating stuff.

I’ve made very clear that I believe we would produce far better legislation if we went through the normal process of having committee hearings, hearing from health care providers, from insurance regulators, from advocacy groups, from governors, from everyone involved and then produce bipartisan legislation with input from both Democrats and Republicans. That’s how we get the best legislation. And that is the best path forward to fix the very real flaws that Democrats and Republicans alike see in the Affordable Care Act. So that’s the path that I want to take and that means not going through reconciliation, but going through the normal committee processes I’ve been urging all along and as Senator John McCain urged in his very eloquent speech on the senate floor.

One can only hope that Collins, and Lisa Murkowski (the senator from Alaska who was threatened by Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke about her vote) are able to actually work on bipartisan solutions to fix the ACA. And when the moderate Republicans come knocking, the Dems better show up with good intentions and work to get something accomplished.