Sunday School 7/19/26

 I spent a little time wandering the halls at Sunday School yesterday, and thought I'd recap some of what was going on in ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos classroom. Jon Karl was in the host's chair this week, and spoke first with Energy Secretary Chris Wright.

Karl mentioned our attacks in Iran, after the deaths of two service members, and wondered if there was more retaliation planned. 

Yes, look, the president’s mission is essential for peace in the Middle East and peace in the world. And that is to prevent Iran from achieving nuclear weapons and to degrade their ability to terrorize their neighbors and the world and global commerce. So, yes, this mission will go on until the mission is done.

Karl repeated that he's asking specifically about retaliation for the deaths of two Americans, and Wright, again, answered a different question.

It’s tragic to lose American lives, but this is a mission that will save countless lives going forward. His focus is on degrading the Iranian ability to terrorize the world, to hold world commerce hostage, as they are doing right now, and to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons. That is unchanged.

The conversation switched to oil. Wright says we are now "assuring that -- that oil and gas and other products can flow through the Strait of Hormuz, with or without Iranian cooperation" while we continue to "degrade" their military and, at the same time, look for a diplomatic solution.

President Trump wants to end it with a peaceful agreement with Iran, but it takes two parties to do that. If they’re -- if they’re -- if they’re ready to do that, that’s the way it will end. If not, we will continue to assure flow of traffic through the Strait without Iran’s cooperation.

Wright strongly disagreed with Karl's contention that traffic through the Strait was effectively stopped, and tossed out some numbers, saying around 7,000,000 barrels are moving through the waterway and slightly less than that through "bypass pipelines," which he said was 2/3 of what moved through before the war and "dramatically up from where we were" the last time he was on the show back in March. And he said that "almost all the public data" he's seen is wrong, adding that

... we count the volume of oil that goes through. The ship numbers are down more dramatically. But, of course, we’re flowing larger tankers now to keep the world markets as well supplied as we can.

Switching gears, Karl noted the president's stated focus on election security as a "top domestic priority," but questioned why his budget cuts $700M from CISA, the cybersecurity agency. Wright said he "wouldn’t look at the inputs, the money spent. I’d look at the outputs, the quality of United States cybersecurity. That’s never been higher than where it is right now under President Trump."

And then, I guess because it's mandatory to do so, Karl asked whether Joe Biden won the 2020 election. Wright said, "He was president for four years. Clearly so," and then, when pressed, said, "Look, I'm not an election evaluator, but it sure seems to me like he did."

Senator Mark Warner (D-VA), the ranking member on the Senate Intelligence Committee, was the second interview. Karl opened by asking how the president should respond to the killing of our two service members. 

Well, first of all, I join with all Americans in condolences to these soldiers. Remember, as we think about this five-month war, this is a war of choice. As a member of the Gang of Eight, there was no imminent threat from Iran against America. So, Donald Trump chose to go to war. It took him two weeks to lay out what he thought his goals were going to be.

And then, he ticked through those goals. I'll condense his response:

• Regime change: We got a worse crowd than before. 
• Getting the enriched uranium:  It's still there... 
• Getting rid of Iran’s missile and drone capability. Obviously, we’ve not been successful there.
• The Strait of Hormuz: he sees " no path in the short term how the Strait is going to be settled."

He expressed his frustration on the drone point in particular, including that they're inexpensive in comparison to our using $2.5M missiles to shoot the drones down, and that the president has refused the offer from Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelenskyy to give us the technology to build our own drones.

In the end, here's where Warner landed: 

This war of choice has been a disaster. It has been a disaster militarily. It has been a disaster in terms of how we’re viewed around the world. It has been a disaster to our friends and allies who have questioned whether we will keep our promises. I’m anxious if it takes a classic Donald Trump move, declare victory tomorrow and be done. But the continuation of this war at this pace will be a continuing disaster.

Karl wondered what happens if we do leave; the Iranians are firing at ships in the Strait, and at our bases throughout the region, and asked how we end it. Warner mentioned "diplomacy negotiated by diplomats who actually know what they're doing," an obvious shot at Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff, a couple of real estate developers who I think don't even officially work for the government. He pointed to the JCPOA, the Obama deal that Trump ditched, as an example of what worked.

But we're not going to  - I don't believe anyone thinks we're going to bomb Iran into submission. And I sure as heck do not believe that - short of troops on the ground- that there's any meaningful way forward to get out that enriched uranium.

Last question on this topic: does Warner agree with cutting off all funding for the war? He says the Department of Defense will ask for more money, and that we're depleting some of our stockpiles, but he also notes

there is $89B...that DOD is sitting on that has not been allocated to specific programs. There are shortages in the region. DOD, use that money first to replenish our supplies. And if the president wants to continue this war, come to Congress, make his case to the American people and to Congress rather than continuing what I think now is, frankly, an illegal action, because he never went through that process.

Turning to the election and the president's pitch the other night, Karl wondered if "there was anything new" in what the president released. Warner said that, over the last decade as chair or vice-chair of the Intelligence Committee, "there's probably no issue I've been more obsessed about..." In that time, his main concern has been Russia, "far and away" the most prominent foreign country in the game, "usually on behalf of Trump." And,

Iran has been very active as well, usually against Trump. North Korea has been active. China’s got the capabilities, but they’ve been more -- less about which candidate and more like, 'can we just make Americans lose confidence?'

And what about the Chinese getting those 220 million voter records?

Well, listen, I'm much more concerned about the fact that the Chinese hacked into the OPM data a number of years back and got personal information about anybody working in the federal government. I'm more concerned about the fact that they tapped into many insurance companies and have got personal information about all of us.

They have incredible data capabilities. And again, the secretary, respectfully, our cybersecurity activity is CISA. It has worked with the private sector. He's cut it like mad. We have another part of election security, and remarkably, Jon, a lot of this election security apparatus was set up, done under President Trump's first term. They did a good job.

The "another part" of election security he's referring to is the Elections Assistance Commission, from which Trump fired all the Democrats and forced out the Republican commissioners. 

... it works with local registrars, state registrars, making sure we vet voting machines... You know, this guy is not looking for a secure election because if we have a free and fair election, he and his allies are going to get beat historically this fall.

Karl then asked about "this so-called SAVE America Act" and how Dems are opposed to it, and he asked Warner if "requiring photo ID to register to vote" is something they should get behind, based on polling that around 80% of all Americans and 71% of Dems say they favor it. That led to a discussion about what Virginia, where they both live, requires. Ultimately, you show ID to register, you don't need to show ID to vote, and they allow 'affidavit' attestations, which can be challenged. Warner says that constitutes voter ID of one form or another. 

Karl asked again if we should have a national standard requiring ID to be shown. Warner pointed out the irony of what happens now.

If you can show any photo that (w)as government-stamped, it would be fine. Certain states will say, we're going to let you show your NRA gun license, but you can't show your student ID. If you're going to have a set of IDs, let's have it across the board as long as it comes from some official point. But this is not about voter ID. The SAVE Act is about voter disenfranchisement... 

Lisa Murkowski, a host of Republicans, don't want the SAVE Act because they know it's anti-voter... the folks who have mail-in voting, Utah is as Republican a state as anyone. They've done mail-in voting for decades. Donald Trump wants to decrease voter participation and undermine confidence in our system.

I know one thing that would improve people's confidence: if the folks who come into the classrooms actually answered the questions they were asked, and if the people asking the questions focused on what's important. 

Jon Karl did a reasonable job from the host's seat, except for the attempted 'gotcha' he asked Chris Wright about the 2020 election. But neither Wright nor Warner addressed the question of how America should respond to the deaths of Americans in the past few days. In response, an "if it were me, I'd..." would provide information and possibly lead to an interesting follow-up or two.

What would you like to have heard from Wright and/or Warner?  Drop a comment! And if you're interested, you can find my thoughts on Trump's remarks here.

Sunday School 3/24/24

For this week's Sunday School, we've got Jon Karl and Sen. Marco Rubio (R- The 'Normal' Florida Man) in the This Week classroom. Here are highlights of their conversation, starting with the Israel-Hamas war.

Rubio says he continues to "do everything" he can to keep US support for Israel from becoming a partisan issue; he does that by suggesting President Biden's foreign policy decisions are colored by his worrying "about losing Minnesota and Michigan," and the pressure "from the pro-Hamas wing" of the party.

I think he's trying to have it both ways, still stick with Israel to some extent, but also do things that signal to these people and try to appease them... 

He disagrees with Trump's statement that "Any Jewish person that votes for Democrats hates their religion. They hate everything about Israel, and they should be ashamed of themselves because Israel will be destroyed."  He tried to talk his way through all of the ways someone can think about Israel, Netanyahu, and being Jewish, but it didn't really work. In the end, he said this is "an existential battle," and that "anyone who doesn't understand that is, frankly, whether they know it or not, an enemy of Israel." 

Next topic? The vice-presidency. Rubio says anyone in public service "should be honored by the opportunity" to be the VP, and he made it clear he's not talked with Trump, anybody on his team, any family members, or anyone in his inner circle, and that Trump "has plenty of really good people to pick from."

Karl said he asked because well, you know, the "hang Mike Pence" stuff. Rubio's response?

I will tell you this, that when Donald Trump was president of the United States, this country was safer. It was more prosperous. We had -- we had relations, for example, in a part of the world that I care about called the Western Hemisphere that we’re very strong, we had a lot of good things done there.

This has nothing to do with hanging Mike Pence, of course, but he also said it was a better place when Trump was president, and

I would love to see him return to the White House compared to the guy who's there now, Joe Biden, who’s been a disaster economically. Look at the world, every single day we wake up to a new crisis, to a new conflict. Everything has gone on fire since the time Joe Biden took over.

"Everything" being Afghanistan, Ukraine, the Philippines, China, Taiwan, Haiti, "we wake up every single day, terrorist attacks, 9 million people across the border." Karl was incredulous, but Rubio was adamant that it's all Joe Biden's fault, one way or another. 

And when Karl played the classic 2016 clip of Rubio calling Trump "a con artist... he runs on this idea that he is fighting for the little guy, but he has spent his entire career sticking it to the little guy... friends do not let friends vote for con artists," what was the response?

Yes, but so – so why didn't you play the clip of Kamala Harris basically insinuating that Joe Biden was a segregationist on the debate stage and she’s now his vice president?

Because Karl is interviewing Rubio not Harris, maybe?

Karl switched gears to the immunity issue and asked, "You don't agree with that, do you," referring to the "absolute immunity" claim that the Trump team claims.

Well, I don't – so, I don’t think that – on the case of immunity, there's two separate issues here. One is, can the president do anything? Can he go out and basically, you know, kill one of the members of the staff overnight inside the White House? Obviously, that's an absurd outcome and that's a common crime.

That's an argument Trump's attorneys seem to think is fine - that Trump could have SEAL Team 6 take out a political rival. Rubio then wondered about a "legitimate issue" we have to talk about,

especially after what we've seen the last three years and is, do we want to live in a country where basically the opponents of a president can – can – can extort them, can have leverage over them during their entire presidency and say, don’t worry, once you're out of office, we're going to prosecute you, we’re going to come after, we’re going to charge you for this crime, we’re going to charge you for that crime.

He said "we're living in a country now" where a president would have to think about having to be careful about what they do because if they upset someone, they'll get charged with a crime after they leave office. And that everything's a political prosecution and no one else has been treated this way before. 

Of course, we've never had quite this good a con artist in office before, but that's lost on Rubio, it seems. 

Finally, he doesn't think the folks who attacked the Capitol on January 6th are "absolute patriots like Trump says and should be pardoned, " but he sees a difference between the zip-tie guys and the people "who walked in through an open door," and that only the violent people should have been prosecuted. 

... there are people that have been charged, in some cases egregiously charged, for simply walking in. Not – they didn't attack anybody. 

And, by the way, "Why didn't they do that for the people who set all the fires in Portland?" 

And with that, this veep interview was over.

Sunday School 2/18/24

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shapiro agrees with Klein that "the stakes could not be higher," but said Biden'll be the guy, and he'll have Shapiro's support.

...we’ve got to go out and make that case. The president, the vice president and those of us who are privileged who support him and have a front-row seat to this, we've got to go out and do this important work now.  

He said we all are "going to have to stand up and be counted" on whether America will continue "to be a voice of freedom and democracy..." and he's confident voters,

 ...just as they did in 2020, they will rise up; they will demand more; they will seek justice; and they will look to defend freedom in this nation, and they will reject Donald Trump.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Out of the mouths of octogenarians, or something.  

See you around campus. 

Sunday School 2/11/24

I only did a little bit of learning on Sunday, most of it in the This Week classroom where Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu talked with Jon Karl. 

Before I get into the highlights, I wanted to share this six-week-old information from the Diakonia International Humanitarian Law Centre's website, 

As of 7 January 2024 (figures reported by the Gaza Ministry of Health), at least 22,835 Palestinians in Gaza have been killed, around 70% of whom were women and children, while around 58,416 others have been injured. Thousands more are feared trapped underneath the rubble, and “entire families” have been wiped out – it is estimated that as of 5 January, 1,876 families have lost multiple family members.  

OK - now, the highlights. Netanyahu didn't know "exactly what" President Biden meant when he said the response to the October 7th Haas attack has been "over the top." In Netanyahu's opinion, after the "worst attack on Jewish people since the Holocaust," the Israeli response focuses on going after terrorists and minimizing harm to the civilians he says Hamas uses as human shields. And, he said, they give folks plenty of notice when major attacks are imminent.

We drop thousands of fliers. We phone Palestinians in their homes. We ask them to leave. We give them safe corridors and safe zones. So I think we're -- we're doing the right thing, and let me tell you one other thing. We're going to win this thing. Victory is within reach.

I wish Karl had asked about the people being killed or injured as they fled. He did mention over 28,000 people killed (a more current number than the one above), the "hundreds of thousands" forced from their homes, and the lack of basic necessities, and wondered if there wasn't a "moral obligation to do more... to stop what is seen as a catastrophe." 

Netanyahu said civilian losses are "a tragedy" of Hamas' making, and that Gazan Health Ministry statistics are unreliable. He also said, "according to these urban warfare experts and other commentators, we've brought down the civilian-to-terrorist casualties, the ratio, down below 1-1, which is considerably less than in any other theater of similar warfare."

Karl was incredulous, but Netanyahu said it was true.

... we've killed and wounded over 20,000 Hamas terrorists, out of that about 12,000 -- 12,000 fighters. And we're doing everything we can to minimize civilian casualties and continue to do so. 

Again, no follow-up questions: where did he get the 20,000/12,000 figures? What's the difference between a "Hamas terrorist" and a "fighter"? And what about the tens of thousands of wounded Gazans? It's unconscionable there was no challenge to Netanyahu's statement.

Karl turned to Rafah, Gaza's southernmost city, now home to about half the population. The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) is charged with drafting an evacuation plan along with an attack plan. Karl wondered where the 1.4 million refugees from other parts of Gaza are supposed to go. Netanyahu's response was, um, interesting, to say the least.

Well, Rafah is a -- is a very small percentage of Gaza, and I think it's about 10 percent, or 15 percent... the area north of Gaza, that has already been cleared...

Karl reiterated that there are around 1.4M people there, "and as the German foreign minister said... 'they can't just disappear'. Where are they supposed to go?" Netanyahu suggested there were "plenty of areas" north of Rafah, disregarding that almost everything to the north had been decimated since the war began.

... we're not cavalier about this. This is part of our war effort, to get civilians out of harm's way. It's part of Hamas's effort to keep them in harm's way... Those who say that under no circumstances should we enter Rafah are basically saying, 'lose the war. Keep Hamas there.' 

With many countries against the idea of a full-scale attack on Rafah, Karl asked whether that gave him "a second thought" about moving ahead. Netanyahu was firm: it doesn't. He said they've been taking care of the civilian population of Gaza, "along with the provision of the necessary humanitarian aid." That statement, too, seems to fly in the face of multiple reports, including some stating the IDF sometimes prevents the aid from being distributed. 

Karl wondered how they'd know when Hamas has been eliminated. Netanyahu said they've already taken out "18 of their 24 terrorist battalions," suggesting taking out the rest was key; so is freeing the hostages, and ensuring Gaza's no longer a threat.

You don't have to kill every last terrorist. You don't have to kill every last ISIS terrorist, but you make sure that ISIS was finished as a military force... Hamas is a military force that controls territory. We're well within reach, and we shouldn't stop.

And, "After you've eliminated the military threat, doesn't there need to be a Palestinian state?"  Netanyahu wonders what people mean by a two-state solution.

Should the Palestinians have an army? Should they have -- can they sign a military pact with Iran? Can they import rockets from North Korea and other deadly weapons? Should they continue to educate their children for terrorism and annihilation? Of course, I say, of course not.

He thinks there should be the power of self-government for the Palestinians, but "none of the power should threaten Israel." Israel has to maintain overriding security control over everything west of the Jordan River, including Gaza. Failing to do that will allow terrorism to return.

Karl wondered which was the higher priority, bringing the hostages home, or "totally eliminating Hamas?" Netanyahu said those are not mutually exclusive goals; they've gotten around half the hostages out by applying military pressure, and he suggested that's how they'll get the rest of them. 

...I think the families of the hostages are in a terrible bind. I mean, it's -- it’s just -- it tears your heart out to listen to them and to think about what their relatives are going through. I'm committed to getting them out. We'll make every effort. It requires pressure, and pressure has worked, and pressure will work again.

He thinks enough of the remaining 123 hostages are still alive to "warrant the kind of efforts that we're doing." The goal is to bring the living hostages home, and the remains of those who have died. He also said 

I'm not sure that anybody can put themselves in the position of the families, but neither can the families put themselves in the position of the decision-makers. These are two separate things. 

He's moved by them, but explained he's "also responsible for the safety and the security of the people of Israel," and it's his job to make sure nothing like this happens again.

Finally, Karl wondered about Netanyahu's "assessment" of Biden, in light of the special counsel's mental health evaluation of him. The two have had "more than a dozen" calls - "extended" calls, he said - and they also met in person.

... I found him very clear and very focused. We managed to agree on the war aims and many things. Sometimes we have disagreements, but they weren't borne of a lack of understanding on his part or on my part.

A note: on Monday, Israel rescued two more hostages; the 

complex rescue operation was conducted after receiving “highly sensitive and valuable intelligence.” It involved Shin Bet, Israel’s internal security service, police special forces and an IDF tank brigade... The duo were found on the second floor “in the hands of Hamas terrorists.” Hamas militants were also stationed in adjacent buildings, Hagari said.

The death toll (so far) may be as high as 133 people, with several dozen more injured.

See you around campus.

Sunday School 2/4/24

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wait, what? What the actual hell?  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See you around campus.

Sunday School 1/28/24: Extra Credit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sunday School 1/14/24

I've got some highlights from Sunday's classroom chats, starting with That Guy from Vermont, Sen. Bernie Sanders, who talked with Jake Tapper on CNN's State of the Union.

On the potential that Israel is using American support to violate the rights of Gazans, TGFV is not amused. 

What is going on in Gaza right now is a horrendous humanitarian catastrophe. We're looking at 23,000 people who have been killed. Almost 60,000 have been wounded. And two-thirds of the people who have been killed are women and children. ...What is going on in Gaza now in three months is worse than what took place in Dresden over a two-year period. 

He's introducing a resolution requiring any American military and financial support provided to other countries "to be used consistent with human rights, international human rights standards, and American law." In his opinion, that's not the case with our aid to Israel. 

On whether Joe Biden will get the support of young progressives - they're as upset as Sanders is on Biden's support for Israel - Sanders thinks folks will rally around Biden, but "it is very hard for young people, for most Americans," to be excited about what's happening. 

You cannot give billions of dollars to a country that ignores your wishes, violates international law. So, I would hope that the president follows through on his concerns and says to Netanyahu, this is unacceptable. You're not getting a nickel more from the United States unless you radically change course. We're not going to see hundreds and hundreds of thousands of children starved to death.

Florida Man Ron DeSantis was in a few classrooms; here are some highlights of his chat with Jon Karl on ABC's This Week. 

On his 'closing argument' for Iowa caucus attendees, he said while Trump is "running for his issues," his own campaign is about issues important to voters and their families, and he cited Trump's legal problems in particular. 

You're going to have criminal trials. You're going to have a lot of focus on things like January 6th by the media. And I think that ends up focusing the election on things that are going to be advantageous for Democrats because you're not going to be talking about the border, you're not going to be talking about the economy.

And he pointed to GOP losses, "whether it's 2018, 2020, 2021, 2022..." which the Democrats... have benefitted (from)."

Karl asked why Republican voters are wrong for overwhelmingly thinking Trump's the one who can beat Biden. He says GOP voters "understandably see Biden as a very feeble, weak and poor president" who anyone can beat. He thinks that might have been the case in the last midterm election. 

We probably never had circumstances more favorable for the party. Biden was unpopular, inflation was hot, the border was a disaster, crime -- all these issues. We should have been able -- every Republican with a pulse should have been able to won -- win, and yet the Democrats made it a referendum on Trump and his adjacent candidates, and there's just certain swing voters that just aren't going to go there at that point. And I think that's been the case over and over again.

He also complained about polling done a year or more before the election, showing Trump is winning, and the impact of that. 

Now I do think they're starting to come -- polls showing the opposite, that Biden wins these swing states. But I would imagine as the year goes on, and should Trump be the nominee, all those polls I think are going to show Biden with a lead over Trump. And so, there -- I think it's been somewhat of a mirage, but people see that, and I think that that does register with them.

Ultimately, he said he has "the best path forward" to unite the party and win. We'll see.

Finally, lame-duck Sen. Joe Manchin (Sorta D from WV) chatted with Margaret Brennan (Interrupter-in-Chief, CBS), in the Face the Nation classroom. 

On how Biden specifically, and Dems generally, should approach the 2024 campaign, he recommends honesty about accomplishments, misses, and how to fix mistakes that were made, including immigration policies. He also said Dems have "moved too far to the left."

America is between the center, center-left, center-right. That's where most of the voters are. And that's where the decisions on who's going to be elected, that's what's going to happen. It's not going to happen from the extremes. But we're playing off of the extremes. That's (why) people are just worn out. Enough is enough.

Manchin and his daughter, former pharma CEO Heather Bresch (of EpiPen pricing scandal fame), have formed Americans Together, not to be confused with No Labels, a political party trying to get ballot access across the country. 

Manchin says the problems in the country can't be fixed from Washington.

... – it's the character of the person you send to Washington, who you're voting for and within your state or your district, and if that person has the character to where they put – they put their country before their party, they put their service before themself, all these types of things. And people can detect that. But they have – get that person in the game.

Gerrymandering and closed primaries make it harder to get people who don't have the financial or political backing to get elected. Fixing those would help, but it has to come from outside DC. 

The business model in Washington is too darn good for the Democrat and Republican parties. They're doing too good. They're getting rewarded for bad behavior. And too much money's coming in.

On whether he'll vote for Biden, someone he's harshly criticized for being pulled "...to the extreme left" and not being "the person we thought was going to bring the country together," he said it was "constructive criticism" and added

I love my country too much to vote for Donald Trump. I love my country too much. And I think it would be very detrimental to my country.

And, finally, the big question:  what about a third party, and would he enter the race? Here's his answer to the first part.

I think that we'll find out. You just have to find out what's going on. If there's a movement, if there's a movement for third party, I think is what you're asking about… can that movement make a difference? I'm not going to be a spoiler, never have been and never will be. But people want options, or they want change. So, we got to see what comes. 

By Super Tuesday, he thinks, we'll know what's what. And, on the second part of the question?

I'm going to do everything I can to save my country. And I will do whatever it takes. And I will help whoever. And I will support whoever that I think can best help this country come back to this commonsense, sensible middle, which is center-left, center-right, working together with a majority.  You can't govern from extremes.

Manchin's right: we can't govern from extremes. But we sure can elect extremists, can't we?

See you around campus.                     

Sunday School 2/12/23

We'll start your Sunday School lesson in the State of the Union classroom, where Jake Tapper talked with Rep. Mike Turner (R-OH), chair of the House Intelligence Committee.

Here's Turner's take on classified documents. 

I just don't get this, Jake. I don't get it with Biden, Pence, or Trump. All of them keep finding documents that are classified, stuffed places. I just -- I have no understanding of it. I can tell you that members of Congress who, like me, deal with highly classified information in the Intelligence Committee, the Armed Services Committee, the Foreign Affairs Committee, we're all just stumped. We don't understand how this could be happening. We don't understand how all three could have been so lackadaisical about this.

He said there's legislation "that will make it even more difficult and give different penalties to be able to enforce mishandling classified documents."

Turning to Ukraine, he's "very disappointed" in folks on both sides of the aisle who think we've done enough.

The majority of Congress understands that this is crucial. We are fighting on the front lines of democracy. The fact that Zelenskyy has been -- as president, they -- will rally his country to fight against Russia, and we have been able to arm them, it is really unprecedented that a nation like that could stand to a superpower like Russia. But they're doing so with the commitment to keep the sovereignty of their nation. And Russia's atrocities are just appalling. Anyone who sees what Russia is doing in killing innocent civilians, destroying the infrastructure there has to be moved to want to support the Ukrainians.

In the MTP classroom, What's-his-name talked with Rep. Jim Himes (D-CT) about our relationship with China, especially if the recent objects we've shot down turn out to be theirs. Himes said we need to be careful since we don't know yet what those objects were.

I think it's fair to say that the Chinese are probably pretty embarrassed that they let a surveillance platform – the first one – go over the United States. It became a, you know, 'cause célèbre' around the world. We now own it. That's not a comfortable thing for the Chinese. And, of course, we canceled the trip of the Secretary of State. So my guess is that the other two objects are not Chinese, that China is doing everything they can right now to keep as low a profile as possible. But, who knows? We won't know for – I guess, until the administration fully briefs on what these things are. And to be fair, remember, Chuck, when you go by one of these things in an F-22 or an F-18, you're moving pretty fast. Until you actually pick up the pieces on the ground, there'll be some uncertainty.

It'll be fun to watch this unfold, especially since we shot down a third one after the show aired. 

In the This Week classroom, George Stephanopoulos talked with David Miliband, head of the International Rescue Committee, about the difficulties in getting aid to Syria after the devastating earthquake last week.  

There are several issues, not the least of which is that part of Syria is rebel-controlled. Miliband said 

there is news from the United Nations that the Syrian government is going to allow aid to go into this rebel-held area from the government-controlled side. But, frankly, that’s an indirect route, and it’s caught up in politics.

The UN says the "most direct route to help people is across the Turkish-Syrian border, north to south, opening up more crossing points." 

People haven’t gotten food. They haven’t gotten medicine. They haven’t gotten basic hygiene supplies. The water and sanitation is in ruins. So this is a community for whom the earthquake was one massive hit. But the grave danger they face now almost affects more people.

He also explained that borders are effectively blocked for survivors and that people are afraid to go into government-controlled areas.

They fear being prosecuted or recruited into the army of President Assad. Many... about one and a half million to 2 million of those trapped in northwest Syria have fled from other parts of the country because of the fighting. And the Turkish border is also blocked for them. So, these people are caged in, effectively.

The US needs to lead - diplomatically through the UN,  financially, and by ensuring that the Syrian people aren't forgotten, after the dozen-year civil war.

The world has moved on. But the crisis has not been resolved. And a forgotten crisis is not a resolved crisis. What happens is that people on the edge, left on the edge where natural disasters strike that pushed over the precipice, and that’s what we’re seeing now.

I heard a report from the BBC this morning that two additional border crossings have been approved for international aid to flow into the rebel-held part of the country; up to now, there had been only one. 

Sunday School 1/29/23

In this week's Sunday School, I've got recaps of a few discussions on the Tyre Nichols case and on policing more generally. 

We'll start with Dana Bash and her panel in the State of the Union classroom: Rep. Summer Lee (D-PA), author/CNN pundit Bakari Sellers, former Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL), and CNN's Scott Jennings.

Lee said people talk about public safety, but "where we stop short every single time is talking about, how do we invest in communities that have been underinvested," and mentioned education and jobs as the kind of investments needed.

We have data. We know what makes communities safe. But, every single time, we defer, we kind of go back right to, well, 'policing in and of itself is public safety.' Public safety doesn't begin or end with policing.

She said the conversation needs to move a lot more quickly than it is right now, and that 

We need to start "looking deeply into our culture, looking deeply within ourselves and figuring out why we make policy decisions that we know have adverse impact on these communities, that we know are setting communities up for failure." 

Jennings had many more questions than answers after seeing the videos. He said, "we have an epidemic of hard hearts in this country." Among his questions?

how these officers were hired. And what were the standards? Where do they come from? What was the testing? And what kind of people are we putting with such power in our communities that they feel like they could drag you out of a car and beat you to death? I mean, these -- this is not protecting and serving. This is not law and order. 

Sellers said even if police reform legislation had passed and everything had been implemented, it wouldn't be enough.

(W)e still... have to have a conversation about culture because what we saw and the conversation that we have to have is about the nuance around systems in this country. And systemic racism is a word that people don't want to hear... we're so anti-intellectual that they clench up when they hear it, but it's a conversation that we have to have.

Police have been given more training, resources, and equipment- which didn't prevent this from happening. He said we need to have a real conversation, 

whether it's a 'hard heart' conversation, or a 'cultural conversation', or a... 'black folk don't get the benefit of their humanity' conversation, this is where we have to have this difficult conversation. 

Sellers draws a "direct line" from this incident to things like the lack of safe drinking water in black communities, poor and unsafe schools, and healthcare disparities for blacks, saying, "That is systemic racism across institutions."

Kinzinger acknowledges that we need to have "real conversations" but hates the term. You start the discussion on how to fix things, he said,

And then what happens is the online kind of profit machine kicks up. And, on the right, it's all the sudden, like, we have to back the blue and not talk about any reforms. And sometimes, on the left, it ends up being basically -- you saw it to the extreme, defund the police. And then you end up hating each other, not talking about it, not solving problems. This is a moment where I think, if we can actually be like, OK, look, neither side is going to get exactly what they want in policing or in reform, but we can make a huge difference, sort of like the Justice for George Floyd Act, we can make a difference. But everybody's got to get away from just default(ing) to their corners.