Wondering on Wednesday 11/13/24

 

Ready... Set... Wonder!

It's been a while since I've published my mid-week Wonderings, but today seems like as good a time as any to get back in the saddle. Let's dive in!

Our once and future president (OAFP) visited the White House today to shake hands with President Joe Biden. Current presidents welcoming incoming presidents is all about putting our best feet forward and letting the country know there'll be a smooth transition between administrations. 

I don't wonder, at all, why Biden invited the guy to stop by, even though he was denied the same courtesy four years ago. After all, one of these men is a decent human being, and the other threw paper towels to hurricane victims he didn't even know were Americans. 

Why the OAFP showed up is open to question. I doubt he cares about the transition; I'm sure it was for the cameras, and nothing else. I wonder if we'll see him selling trading cards of him standing over Biden during their handshake. 

Speaking of a smooth transition, Congress passed The Presidential Transition Enhancement Act a while back; the law requires the Democrat and Republican nominees to submit, no later than October 1st of a presidential election year, Memorandums of Understanding with the government related to transition activities, including 

(1) ...an agreement that the eligible candidate will implement and enforce an ethics plan to guide the conduct of the transition beginning on the date on which the eligible candidate becomes the President-elect.

47's team has yet to sign the overdue documents, so while the OAFP is busy lining up his minions, no official transition stuff can happen. If you're wondering what the holdup is, reports point to the ethics requirements. Shocked? I didn't think so. 

Speaking of minions, the joke is he doesn't have a Cabinet, he has a junk drawer, so there's no wonder it's shaping up to be a doozy:

• NY Congresswoman Elise Stefanik has been tapped to be the next Ambassador to the United Nations.  She's not known for her reasonable, even-tempered demeanor, and she's made a name for herself in two ways: her unwavering attacks on anyone who speaks ill of Israel and/or supports Palestinians, and for sucking up to Trump. 

• Another New Yorker, former Congressman Lee Zeldin, has been tapped to head the Environmental Protection Agency. His most notable qualification for this role, it seems, is his 14% approval rating from the League of Conservation Voters. 

• Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee is Trump's pick for Ambassador to Isreal. The first non-Jew to be chosen for this role, he believes that there's no such thing as 'the West Bank' and said that "of course" the annexation of that land is a possibility under the new administration.

• Fox News host (and husband of another Fox News host) Pete Hegseth has been picked to be the new Secretary of Defense. Now, he's not completely without qualification for the role - he is a veteran, after all. And he's got more than a passing familiarity with weapons of war, like these aromatic grenades.  How much of a shock was this, you might be wondering? Well, even his cohost was stunned. 

• Ethically challenged Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz has just been picked to be the Attorney General. This is so absurd, the only thing I'm wondering is if Rep. Jim Jordan turned it down first. 

• Also joining the administration from Florida are Secretary of State pick Sen. Marco Rubio and Rep. Mike Waltz, who's been chosen to be National Security Advisor.

• And moments ago, former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, who's also a former Democrat and a big friend of Russia, was tapped to be the Director of National Security.  

Honestly, you can't make this stuff up.  If this first round of appointments is indicative of what's to come, I can't help wondering whether our allies are laughing or crying right now.

On the plus side? Most of these appointments will require the advice and consent of the Senate. But there's a catch here, that the OAFP is already lobbying for: recess appointments. Given the Rs are now in control of the Senate,  it seems unnecessary - and contrary to the principle of the Legislative branch being separate from but equal to the Executive.

Other presidents have used this mechanism to get stalled appointments through, but the OAFP seems to be plotting to have this be the rule, not the exception, even demanding that whoever became the new Senate Majority Leader had to agree to this foolishness.  I wonder if all the voters who thought they were electing someone who 'believed in the Constitution' had any idea who they really voted for? 

Speaking of the Senate Majority Leader, say hello to Sen. John Thune, the gentleman from South Dakota. He might be the most reasonable announcement of the day.

What's got you wondering these days?

After the Fifth Debate...

Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images

... have we learned anything new? Made any new choices? Agreed on winners or losers? Probably not.

In no particular order, here are some takeaways:

• Joe Biden needs to get out of the race. I'm sorry if I'm offending anyone by saying that, but it's clear to me that his ship has sailed, for a number of reasons: he is not on his game; he often sounds like he doesn't even agree with his own policies; his actually laughable comment that he was brought onto the ticket of the first black president because of his connection to the black community; his turning of a #MeToo question into a domestic violence question, which he then punctuated with repeated 'punching' comments; his recent statement that marijuana is a gateway drug, seemingly lifted out of the 40s or 50s; because his presidency will be a mess, if he's elected and the Dems don't also hold the House and take the Senate; and because even today, we're still holding him to a standard of "well, at least he didn't make it any worse." Love you Joe, but it's time to go.

• I don't understand what -or who - is keeping Tulsi Gabbard on the stage. And no, don't tell me it's Russian bots. 

• For the first time, I felt like paying attention to Tom Steyer, and I'm not sure how that makes me feel. I actually sat up straighter when he mentioned term limits, but then he said something after that which I can't remember now, that made me wonder why I sat up straighter.

• Elizabeth Warren had the most time, but I don't really remember what she said other than corruption corruption corruption. Unless that was I Wrote the Damn Bill, I have trouble telling them apart. I still do not believe that the way to fix the country is to burn it down and hope a phoenix rises from the ashes - and I'm honestly not sure that she really thinks that's necessary, either. I think she's going to tack back to the middle if she wins the nomination, and I think that's going to really antagonize people. 

• "I Wrote the Damn Bill" was his usual self. Should he be the nominee, we can be sure he'll stay planted so far out in left field that there'll be nothing he can to do get anything done with Congress. If I were smart, I'd pay more attention to his policies, and I'll try to do that before the next debate. Honest I will.

• Amy Klobuchar continues to impress me with her Midwestern sensibility and her understanding (missed by the left fielders) that we don't need to pay for things like college for rich kids - we really don't, and we really shouldn't. She's made more than a few appearances on the Sunday shows trying to get her message across, and I'm not sure what she'll need to do to really get things to move. Thoughts on that?

• Mayor Pete needs to do better on the 'people of color' thing - he sounded a bit forced, I thought, when he gave his 'from the heart' comments about understanding how discrimination impacts people, but he has to quickly get out of his own way on this. There a few things no voter wants: to be patronized, to be taken for granted, and to be ignored come to mind right off the bat. He needs to go talk with people, not in a 'focus group' setting, and not just visiting a church on a Sunday. He needs to be in the neighborhoods on a weekday, at night, on a Saturday morning, and listen - not talk, listen. Understand. Feel. Hear. And only then, talk. And not about being gay. 

• I'm pretty sure some of the pundits who do debate winners and losers are watching a different debate than I am. 

• I was pleased, generally, with the questioners, who did not grandstand, did not giggle like schoolgirls, and who generally treated the candidates as adults. For the most part, they let questions be answered, and didn't focus so much on the "your name was mentioned so you can respond" stuff that turned the other debates into quagmires. And they got in some questions that we haven't heard before.

• I want to hear more from Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, and Andrew Yang. That's not likely to happen in these debates, and it's not likely to happen on the Sunday Shows - we need a 'Now for Something Completely Different" moment, I feel. I've shared an idea in the past on how to make the debates more informative, I have yet another idea on how to make the debates more 'debatey' and more valuable.  More on that soon.

One final note? Using Matt Taibbi's  Rolling Stone debate drinking game words, I'm pretty sure I'm still drunk.

Wondering on Wednesday (v186)

This is the 'CNN/NY Times debate winners and losers' version of our weekly wondering.

I know lots of people are not paying attention to the debates, and I kind of get it - there's lots of candidates, it's too early, the debates are too long, and so on - but that's frustrating. Because, after watching the debate (I'm four for four now) and then reading what the experts had to say, I'm not thrilled that the experts in the media (and those not in the media) will be picking the winner for us.

And that's what's going to happen, right? Just like always, they'll spend their time on the front-runners, who are the front runners because of the media attention they have already gotten, and by the time people start voting in the big states, the herd will have been culled through a combination of misdirected media attention and potential voter apathy.

Anyway - enough of that. The experts I checked in with were CNN and the NY Times Opinion gang; Vox; the Washington Post; Fox News; and the BBC. Here's a chart showing who they chose as winners and losers - so, without further ado, let the wondering begin.

I'm not a Bernie Sanders fan. But even if I was, I'd have to wonder how simply being on the stage makes you a debate winner?

I know that sounds horrible, but Sanders himself noted that the procedure he had after his minor heart attack is done thousands and thousands of times a year; it's a common procedure, even if it's uncommon for a presidential candidate. I'm happy he bounced back from it, and that he was his usual grumpy self - pretty sure he wrote the damn bill on that -  but I just don't see how that makes him the winningest of all the candidates.

I also wonder how it's a 'wow' moment when 'The Squad'  - the most very progressive freshmen Dems in the House - goes way out on a one-inch-long limb to endorse the Democratic Socialist? There's no 'news' here;  there's no 'there' there. It would have been news if AOC, Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib had decided to endorse Joe Biden, but that they endorse Sanders? How does that make contribute to Bernie being the debate winner?

Elizabeth Warren got kudos for being the front runner and standing up to 'attacks' from her opponents without folding, which proved that she's tough and strong and a worthy candidate to go up against Trump, the experts said. I agree she stood her ground, but what she faced from her counterparts on the stage is nothing remotely like what she's going to get hit with by Trump, should she be the survivor. I wonder if there's anything that will prepare any of these candidates for that?

I'm happy to see both Buttigieg and Klobuchar ranking high on the winner's side. I find their arguments for moderation compelling, and thought each of them made the case for that. For example, here's Klobuchar on Medicare for All, but her point is true for much of the progressive agenda.

...I appreciate Elizabeth's work. But, again, the difference between a plan and a pipe dream is something that you can actually get done.

Buttigieg made a similar point, noting that the day after a Trump presidency is going to be a particular type of challenge. After pointing out his disagreement that Trump was an aberration and that we can get back to normal, he continued

But I also don't agree with Senator Warren that the only way forward is infinite partisan combat. Yes, we have to fight - absolutely, we have to fight for the big changes at hand but it's going to take more than fighting. Once again, I take you back to that day after Trump has stopped being president. Think about what the president can do to unify a new American majority for some of the boldest things we've attempted in my lifetime...

He listed several of his positions, many of which are also held by a majority of Americans, according to recent polling. So what I'm wondering is, how do Klobuchar and Buttigieg get attention from the media?

Do they have to shoot someone in the middle of 5th Avenue?

I also wonder how Andrew Yang can get more attention, to something other than his MATH pin, which isn't about 'math' per se - it's about Making America Think Harder. His Freedom Dividend is an outside the box proposal, but it's being tested on a small scale, most notably in California, in Stockton. And people belittle this idea without paying attention to why Yang thinks it's important. He, too, deserves more attention for his ideas of empowering Americans, and for why he believes that's so necessary.

Do I agree, at all, with the experts, you might be wondering? Yep - Joe Biden lost the debate, as I believe he has other debates. You'll remember I didn't want him to run - and that was before the Biden Issue crap hit the fan. I'm even more convinced that he's not the right one to move us forward than I was before. Yes, he was feisty during the debate - as was Sanders - but it's not enough.

Kamala Harris did not have a good night (again), nor did Julian Castro (again) or Beto O'Rourke (again), and Cory Booker was middle-of-the-pack safe (again). I don't see a future for the latter three, and I'm wondering how much longer Harris will - or should - stick around, too.

Here's a transcript of the debate, and here's the full video, all three hours of it. I encourage you to take a look at one or both.

After all, if we can binge watch Seinfeld, the show about nothing, shouldn't we be able to binge watch the a debate, the show about our future?

Sunday School 5/19/19

I spent some time with a couple of Democratic presidential candidates today - got two in one classroom (and I could have spent time with a third one had I wanted) - so it was one of those win-win things.

Former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper and Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard chatted with George Stephanopoulus on This Week. Let's take a look, with Hickenlooper up first.

The governor and former veep Joe Biden are sort of in the same lane, George suggested: both are about bringing folks together, ratcheting things down, working across the aisle, and so on -- so why Hickenlooper? He said he was running

...because Donald Trump has been fueling this national crisis of division and it's taking our country backwards. And the answer is not socialism. In Colorado, we were able to bring business and nonprofits together, Democrats and Republicans, to get you almost universal healthcare coverage, to become the number one economy in America, and to beat the NRA with tough gun laws. 

I've been an entrepreneur and a governor. And most of my adult life I've been able to bring adult people together again and again and get tough, progressive things done that people said we couldn't do. And I think it's time to replace the nonsense in Washington with some common sense.  

George pressed him on the 'not socialism' comment, noting it appeared to be a Bernie slam; he also wondered if Hickenlooper was "confident" that consensus-building was what Dems were looking for.

...I spend my whole life, as I said, bringing people together and getting big, progressive things done... I think the real challenge here is how do we get that nonsense that's taking over Washington and replace it with common sense. 

They moved to foreign policy; apparently there's going to be a speech this week, parts of which had been released. George wondered what the part noting might be "looking to withdraw from our global leadership role" due to past "foreign policy mistakes" was all about. Hickenlooper started talking about Trump and his "isolationist and reckless foreign policy" but George wondered who the Dems were that were mentioned in the video.

Well, I don't want to name names, but they're - but they have withdrawn from - you know, they would have the United States withdraw from global engagement and that makes us less safe...

George was not satisfied, asking if any of the 22 other Democrats in the race "call for the retreat" Hickenlooper mentioned.

Almost all the other Democrats - not all, but many of the other Democrats feel that we should back away from fair and open trade. And I believe that, only through, you know, constant engagement and building up that trade are we going to get full security. And I think as we revive US leadership, we're able to not only make our country safer, but as I said we're going to be able to be more prosperous at the same time.

Next, what does he think qualifies him to be commander in chief, given he has no military service or years of experience governing at the federal level.He mentioned a cyber security center in Colorado Springs, deploying the National Guard, and working with military leaders on NORAD. And,

I've, you know, gone out on over a dozen economic development trips, built relationships with leaders around the world. In places like Israel we've had a partnership that addressed terrorism, water conservation, cyber security. I mean, there's a long portfolio there of places where I've been engaged in active foreign affairs.

Noting that Hickenlooper is, at best, polling at 2% (some polls it's only 1%), George wondered if he wouldn't have to start hitting harder at his opponents.

I think little by little, but again, the focus - I'm running because this country is in a national crisis of division and I  -- look, my whole life I've been able to bring people together and get stuff done. I'm the one candidate when you look at the long record of what they've gotten done I can bring -- I really believe I can bring some common sense where right not in Washington you see nothing but nonsense.

Final question: how about running for Senate, instead, like Chuck Schumer has suggested - any chance?

Well, I think I'd be a difficult candidate as a Senator.

And then he repeated, again, his bringing people together and trying to bring common sense to Washington.

Next up - Gabbard. George wondered if she was one of those Dems Hickenlooper mentioned. After explaining her record as an enlistee in the Army National Guard after 9/11, two deployments in the Middle East, and her service in Congress on the Foreign Affairs and Armed Services Committee, she said

(I) bring that experience to the forefront where as president I will end these counterproductive and wasteful regime change wars, work to end this new Cold War and nuclear arms race, recognizing how wasteful and costly they are. 

And take the trillions of dollars that we've been spending, would continue to spend and invest those resources on serving the needs of the American people, things like healthcare, education, rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, protecting our environment. There are many urgent needs here that we need to address and we've got to get our priorities straight. 

Noting that Gabbard resigned a DNC position because of Hillary Clinton's "hawkish interventionist foreign policy" and wondered if that applied to Joe Biden.

...The problem I have seen is that across both Democrat and Republican administrations, and especially in this Trump administration where, right now, he is leading us down this dangerous path towards a war with Iran... 

George clarified that Trump says he doesn't want a war with Iran, but Gabbard said John Bolton and Mike Pompeo tell a different story.

...I think what we're seeing, unfortunately, is what looks like a lot of people in the Trump administration trying to create a pretext or excuse for us to go to war against Iran, a war that would actually undermine our national security, cost us countless American lives, cost civilian lives across the region, exacerbate the refugee crisis in Europe and it would actually make us less safe by strengthening terrorist groups like ISIS and Al-Qaeda. 

George hit her on previous comments she's made - that we have to "end the new Cold War,"  that she's softer than some of the other Dems on Putin and Russia, that she's met with Assad, opposed the arrest of Assange, and has "suggested that Russian election meddling is no worse than America's historically." And he asked if she thought Putin was a national security threat. She said her focus is on keeping us safe.

And what I've pointed out consistently, time and time again, is that our continued wasteful regime change wars have been counterproductive to the interests of the American people and the approach that this administration has taken in essentially choosing conflict rather than seeing how we can cooperate and work out our differences with other countries in the world has been counterproductive to our national security.

George wondered if Dems are taking "too hard a line" on Russia.

I think that the escalation of tensions that we've seen between the US and nuclear-armed countries like Russia and China, and you're right, it has come from this administration, it's also come from some Democrats and Republicans in Congress. It has brought us to this very dangerous point where nuclear strategists point out that we are at a greater risk of nuclear war now than ever before in history and we've got to understand what the consequences of that are.  

She mentioned the fake missile warning in her state, telling folks to seek shelter immediately, and how terrifying it was - and that it pointed to the "very real threat we face" if we continue down the Cold War path.

And this is what I seek to change; to build relationships that are build on cooperation rather than conflict, de-escalate these tensions, work out the differences that we have, the problems that we have with other countries... We've got to be able to work with countries like Russia and China to be able to accomplish that objective to keep the American people safe. 

And that's where they left it.

Have fun digesting these two interviews.  See you around campus.