In Case You Missed it (v107)

Lots going on outside the pages of veritable pastiche last week; here's a recap of what happened in them.

Two posts made it out, both focused on NBC's exclusive interview with VP Kamala Harris. In your Sunday School, topics included changes to the filibuster, election deniers, Dems supporting MAGA Republicans, the 2025 election certification, and internal threats from extremists. 

Here's a bit of that part of the conversation, with What's-his-Name (WHN) in the host's chair on Meet the Press.

In response to his question, "what is a semi-fascist?" Harris spoke about it not being helpful when people deny elections or obstruct "the outcome of an election with the largest number of voters ever for a presidential candidate.

And when we look at where we are, I think that we have to admit that there are attacks from within, to your first question. And we need to take it seriously. And we need to stand up together, all of us, and think of this not through a partisan lens but as Americans.

WHN wondered if it was "hard to do both," calling out the obstruction and election denying and at the same time try to unite people, Harris pointed to Biden's long record of bipartisanship, and that he's been criticized for that during his career.

But there are moments in time when we have to also agree, all good people who care about our country, that there are those who right now are vividly not defending our democracy. And I think we want that our Commander-in-Chief, that the president of the United States will speak up and raise the alarm about what this means to our strength and our future, much less our integrity.

I don't think she wanted to talk about the specific language President Biden used to describe the extreme MAGA Republicans, and honestly I think that's the case with most of her answers.

In your Extra Credit, the Harris interview topics included the Supreme Court, abortion, 2024, and immigration. Here, too, Harris seemed to have trouble answering the question.

And moving on, "since we're here in Texas," WHN asked if Harris would call the border "secure."  

The border is secure, but we also have a broken immigration system, in particular over the last four years before we came in, and it needs to be fixed.

WHN asked again if she's "confident the border's secure," given we'll see two million crossing this year. 

We have a secure border in that that is a priority for any nation, including ours and our administration. But there are still a lot of problems that we are trying to fix given the deterioration that happened over the last four years. We also have to put into place a law and a plan for a pathway for citizenship for the millions of people who are here and are prepared to do what is legally required to gain citizenship. We don't have that in place because people are playing politics in a state like this and in Congress. By the way, you want to talk about bipartisanship on an issue that at one time was a bipartisan issue both in terms of Republican senators and even presidents.

Next question? Inflation is being made worse by us not having enough low-wage workers, so a "solution on immigration reform that increased particularly lower wage job labor – lower wage labor could actually have an impact on lowering inflation. How is that not the motivating force to get something done here?"

Um, because there is literally zero motivating factor to giving Biden another win? Why do anything before the midterm election, since the Rs have visions of taking over the House and Senate, ensuring nothing gets done for another two years...  But that's my answer. 

You'll have to check the post to find out what Harris said. 

I'm going to spend some time (again, I'm telling you this) working on clearing out my drafts folder. With any luck, that'll mean posts will be posted. 

Stay tuned. 

Sunday School 9/11/22

For your Sunday School, I'm going to noodle around in the Meet the Press classroom. What's-his-name (WHN) interviewed Vice President Kamala Harris in Houston last week, and played many clips from the interview today. 

WHN started the interview talking about how our focus "has had to shift from foreign terror to the threat from within." Harris spoke of how we were able to "hold our heads up as a defender and an example of a great democracy," and how we held ourselves up as a "role model." 

So, you look at everything from the fact that there are eleven people right now running for secretary of state, the keepers of the integrity of the voting system of their state, who are election deniers...  you couple that with people who hold some of the highest elected office in our country who refuse to condemn an insurrection on January 6th. And I think what it sends is a signal that causes people to question, “Hey, is America still valuing what they talk about?”

She said she's "very concerned" that thing like this "allow people to call into question our commitment to the principles of "what is right, what is good, what should be fought for, what should be human ideals, and certainly, the ideals of democracies... And that's a shame."

Harris said she finds "interesting" polling showing that 70% of Rs don't believe she and Biden "won the 2020 election legitimately." She's not experiencing that when she's out meeting and talking to people, which prompted WHN to ask, "do you think you talk to a lot of Republicans...?" In response, she said, "Well, I think I talk to a lot of Americans," about infrastructure, access to high-speed internet, and about choice - in particular, she mentioned the overwhelming rejection of government interference in Kansas. 

In response to his question, "what is a semi-fascist?" Harris spoke about it not being helpful when people deny elections or obstruct "the outcome of an election with the largest number of voters ever for a presidential candidate.

And when we look at where we are, I think that we have to admit that there are attacks from within, to your first question. And we need to take it seriously. And we need to stand up together, all of us, and think of this not through a partisan lens but as Americans.

WHN wondered if it was "hard to do both," calling out the obstruction and election denying and at the same time try to unite people, Harris pointed to Biden's long record of bipartisanship, and that he's been criticized for that during his career.

But there are moments in time when we have to also agree, all good people who care about our country, that there are those who right now are vividly not defending our democracy. And I think we want that our Commander-in-Chief, that the president of the United States will speak up and raise the alarm about what this means to our strength and our future, much less our integrity.

Another 'all pundits ask it' question was about Dems helping support MAGA Republicans in their primaries, even when Biden is talking about "good Republicans" and how they're not like the MAGA variety. WHN wondered if the Democratic Party was making a mistake. Harris said it wasn't up to her to tell people how to run their campaigns, and like pretty much all the administration Dems, refused to say whether it reflected badly on the party. Her focus is on "a midterm election in which so much is on the line." 

Our president has said he will not let the filibuster get in the way. If the Senate, through a majority vote, votes to pass the Women's Health Protection Act, he will sign it into law. You know what that means in the midterms? We need to hold on to the Senate and get two more. And then we can put into law the protections of Roe v. Wade. Everything is on the line when you think about the millions of women and people in America who care about them, who understand the significance of protecting a woman's right to make decisions about her own body instead of her government telling her what to do.

WHN asked if she was comfortable making changes to the filibuster for voting rights and a woman's right to choose "could end the legislative filibuster for good."  Her response?

No, I’m not. No, I'm not.

She thinks it could be set aside for these issues and still be in place for other issues, saying "that is very likely, yes."

The last section of this part of the interview was about the Former Guy, and about the certification of the next election. WHN asked how much Trump's being both a past president and a potential presidential candidate should "factor into the decision to charge him?" Harris said she "wouldn't dare tell" the DOJ what to do. She also reiterated that the current administration,

unlike the previous administration, have been very, very careful to make sure that there is no question about any kind of interference in terms of the decisions that the Department of Justice makes in that regard.

And, her opinion on "the argument that it would be too divisive for the country to prosecute a former president?"

I think that our country is a country that has gone through different periods of time, where the unthinkable has happened, and where there has been a call for justice, and justice has been served. And I think that's potentially going to always be the case in our country, that people are going to demand justice and they rightly do.

Next, WHN asked if Harris had contemplated any scenarios that might happen on January 6, 2025. She first said, "Not at all," but then said

No. I mean, well, listen, what have I thought about? I have thought about the fact that, right now, we have an election in less than two months. And if we're going to look at timelines, that's one of the most immediate timelines that I'm looking at.

Yeah, but... he asked if she'd thought about how she'd "handle a certification that did not reflect the outcome of the popular vote in the state?" 

I haven't gotten to that point yet. I have to believe that the United States Congress and all the people who have taken an oath to defend our democracy will ensure and will stand up against anyone who tries to destroy or circumvent the rules and the practices and procedures that we've had in place that have allowed a peaceful transfer of power since the inception of our nation and the founding of our nation. And getting back to the ultimate point, that is – that is what we're talking about when we think about January 6th. We have always had a peaceful transfer of power in our nation, no matter our differences, no matter how bloody-knuckled we've been in campaigns. 

And we can't say that now, WHN pointed out.

Well, certainly, we were on the verge of having a very different outcome. And the injury was still an injury for which we still are experiencing the wound. 

I'll have more from the interview for your Extra Credit. 

See you around campus.