Sunday School 5/22/22: Extra Credit

In a changeup from this week's Sunday School  which was about foreign policy and the economy, the focus of your Extra Credit is the November elections.

We'll start with Margaret Brennan and her chat with Sen. Rick Scott (R-Darn Right I Want to Raise Taxes on the Poor!) in the Face the Nation classroom. Scott leads the effort to get more Republicans elected. As he's done in other interviews, he jumped right in with an opinion without waiting for a question. His target? Numbers from a new CBS poll Brennan mentioned in her lead-in.

I think those numbers are consistent with what we've seen, that inflation is still the number one issue in the country... I think the election this fall is going to be about inflation... And I think it bodes well for Republicans.

Brennan noted only 51% polled say they trust the GOP more than the Dems on inflation, while 49% trust the Dems; she wondered how Scott and the Rs will change that. 

So, I think we have to talk about the things that we're going to do to make it better for people. But, if you go and look at the races around the country, Biden's numbers are really, really bad. And he's -- he is the face of the Democrat Party right now.

Brennan's next question was a good one: basically, if inflation is the big issue, why do Rs keep "relitigating 2020." Scott said people care that this election will be '"fair and their votes are not going to be diluted," and hope the Rs will make that happen. He also said that people "want to know what happened, why it happened" in 2020.

Well, they want to know -- they want to know that -- exactly what happened, if -- were there problems, exactly what happened. They'd like to know that. But, also, they're -- you know, they also want to make sure we win in '22. So, they -- they want to make sure that we're going to make sure their vote's not diluted. So, I think you have to -- you have to talk about making sure people understand what happened in 2020, but also make sure you know -- they know that you're going to focus on making sure that 2022 is a -- is a fair election.

Got it? It's all about making sure things are surely made sure by making sure of being sure. That's what they want. Without saying a darn thing. As long as you're talking about 2020, I guess. But not about all the fraud committed by Rs. Don't mention that. They surely don't want to know anything about that, for sure.

After some discussion on Scott's plan that is not the GOP plan, Brennan asked about white supremacy. The polling data show only 23% of Rs say condemning that kind of hatred is very important, while 75% of Ds think it is. She asked him why there's such a gap there.

Well, clearly, we ought to all condemn any hatred. We ought to condemn any white supremacy. We -- I mean, we've got to figure out how to come together. I believe we got to stop all this racial politics.... So, we've got to figure out how to bring people together.

Brennan then asked, "So, you would tell all Senate Republicans running for election that they need to, each and every one of them, condemn white nationalism?" Surely, no. No way.

Well, I tell people what I believe. And every -- every Senate candidate on both sides is going to decide what is important to them and what is important to the citizens of their state...  if they asked me, I would say, 'be clear. Be clear.' I mean, we do not believe, none of us -- I don't think any American should believe in white supremacy or hatred of any kind. I mean, it's wrong.

But, as he said, "they want to make sure we win in '22," so, just go with the flow in your neck of the woods - even if that means promoting white supremacy. The tent is big enough, I guess.

Her next guest was Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), who's chair of the House Democratic Caucus. Brennan noted poll findings that "young people, Hispanics and half of Black Americans say the president has been too slow to react." And, his 'effectiveness' and 'competency' ratings are low. Add in a majority of Dems saying the economy is 'bad,' and Brennan wondered how the Dems will hold their majority.

Jeffries said he's "very confident" they'll hold on, saying President Biden "has done a very good job under incredibly difficult circumstances." He pointed to several things that are out there causing an "unsettled" electorate, as people are

experiencing COVID fatigue, inflationary pressures, high gas prices, a war in Ukraine, a radical, extreme Republican Party that doesn't appear to believe in democracy any longer. And so this is a tough moment for our country.

He said Biden has been a "decisive" leader, starting with the American Rescue Plan, noting 

We rescued the economy, put shots in arms and money in pockets, kids back in school, laid the foundation for a robust economic recovery that has led to more than eight million good-paying jobs being created and unemployment at 3.6% That's a tremendous start. Of course, there's more that needs to be done.

Brennan focused on the 'slow to react' metric, using police reform as an example. Two years after the death of George Floyd, she said Biden's been "looking at an executive order on police reform for months now, continues to say it's coming." She asked Jeffries if Biden needed to act on something like that before November.

Well, it's my hope and expectation that we will see some further decisive action from the administration. It's unfortunate that we find ourselves in this position because Senator Tim Scott decided to walk away from negotiations that were bipartisan in nature...

Brennan said it was the Dems who walked away, not the Rs, and asked if the urgency on police reform was "fading." Jeffries said they're going to "lean into public safety," and recited a list of issues that are important, but he didn't really address the 'urgency' question. 

Today, I can: this afternoon, news is breaking that Biden will sign his long-awaited executive order Wednesday, on the anniversary of George Floyd's death.

Another hit from the poll? She said more than a third of Dems "call their own party weak" - and 41% of young people think that, which "could hurt your turnout." She asked if it was time for a change in Congressional leadership. Jeffries was firm that, with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, "we've been acting decisively." And, he continued, 

But I think we do have to crystallize the differences between what we're about and what Republicans are all about. It's clear that Washington Republicans want to raise taxes on everyday Americans, on police officers, on firefighters, on nurses, on factory workers, on grocery store clerks. And we are trying to provide them with relief. The Republicans, including your prior guest, actually want to end Social Security and Medicare as we know it in five years, forcing it to sunset. Those are serious differences between the two parties. And I think, once the voters understand that dynamic, the choice will be as clear as a sunny day in San Diego. 

Finally, Brennan wondered if "Democrats put their own communities at risk" in New York by their asinine gerrymandering (my word, not Brennan's). Jeffries did his best to blame the Republican judge, and the special master, and the Court of Appeals - but not the Dems, at the feet of whom all the blame lies.

Well, the process, unfortunately, was hijacked by the Court of Appeals. A bad process has now led to a bad result. You're talking about five different congressional districts where the Black and Latino population was degraded. The only -- most significant Jewish district in the country has been detonated, for no good reason...

That said, Jeffries stated, 

...here's what's most important. We're going to remain united, because we believe in a very simple vision for America. Work hard, play by the rules, you should be able to provide a comfortable living for yourself and for your family... educate your children, purchase a home, and retire with grace and dignity.

"Play by the rules."  Four words we don't hear, or see in action all that much from either party. 

See you around campus.  

The Journal of Unpopular Opinions (Chapter 1)

No one in the leadership of the Democratic Party has what it takes to fight the battles the party is facing, much less win those battles. 

No one else in the Democratic Party is standing up to fight those battles.

No one in the Democratic Party will stand up to fight those battles. They're afraid of something, or of someone, or of the several someones in the part leadership. 

Face it: while Nancy Pelosi is considered by many to be a strong Speaker in terms of how she manages her caucus (although, that seems to be open to question these days), she is a horrible advocate for the Democratic Party and its priorities. 

I've shared my, shall we say, 'lack of enthusiasm' for Pelosi in the past, such as here, when she was re-elected Minority Leader in 2016. She lost 63 votes to Ohio's Rep. Tim Ryan, who expressed then the same frustrations as I have today. I suspect Ryan still has them, too.

...my level of frustration came from the idea that we're going to have, for two more years, the same conversation as we've been having since 2010 (when the Dems lost 63 seats and the House majority in the mid-term election).

And I think the level of frustration in our caucus is as great as I've ever seen it. And it's time to do something about it, not just talk about it. Because now we're not even the national party. We're a coastal party. And we've got to move forward. If we're not going to get voters in Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, go back down south. When I first got in Congress, we had members from Tennessee. We've got to go back there and campaign and get those folks back in the fold.

Ryan also talked about how the Dems don't unify the demographics, but "talk about them and treat them as individual groups" and emphasized that they've

... got to get the message right. We've got to have the right messenger. And we've got to have someone who can not just go on MSNBC, but go on Fox and Fox Business and CNBC, and go into union halls and fish frys and churches all over the country and start a brush fire about what a new Democratic Party looks like.

Ryan is now running for the US Senate; he faces a progressive challenger in the primary. Of course, he does - because one thing Dems are good at is fighting each other.

And don't get me started on Chuck Schumer. I've long not been a fan. Here's just one illustration of why: having the Judiciary Committee Dems pull a stupid stunt instead of voting against advancing the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett out of committee. Schumer thought that not showing up was the best way to "not lend a single ounce of legitimacy" to the process. My take? 

Rather than skipping out on the meeting, the adult thing to do would have been to show up, explain one more time for the record why it was the wrong thing for the Judiciary Committee to do, respond to whatever statements the Rs made (instead of just reading their remarkably similar prepared remarks), and then vote against moving the nomination forward. 

Instead, they put pictures of people who benefited from the Affordable Care Act in their chairs, hoping their colleagues on the other side of the aisle would look at those, feel bad, and delay the vote.

This is the leader of the Dems in the Senate? Good grief.

The issues facing the country today - and facing the majority Democrats - have not changed over the past many years. The solutions to those problems are still out there, and they're still not being talked about in a way that will bring us to the solutions we desperately need. 

Who is the Democrat who will stand up and say, "Before we start taxing the super-rich, why don't we make sure that the tax code doesn't contain 50,000 ways to avoid paying taxes? If they don't have to pay the taxes on the books now, what good is adding more going to do?"

Who is the Democrat who will stand up and say, "With literally hundreds of bills that may limit voting rights under consideration around the country, some already passed into law, why on earth are seven of ten articles in our voting rights bill not related to voting?"

Who is the Democrat who will stand up and say, "Do we really want to require banks to report $600 transactions to the IRS? Is that really the best way to find tax avoidance by the wealthy?"

Who is the Democrat who will stand up and say, "Why aren't we doing everything we possibly can to ensure that existing programs for student loan relief and repayment are accessible and working as intended, instead of pushing to eliminate all student debt?"

Who is the Democrat who will stand up and say, "What the hell are we doing, holding up nearly $2 trillion in infrastructure spending? Why aren't we pushing the bipartisan Senate bill through, getting it signed, and putting that to good use right now?"

Who is the Democrat who will stand up and say, "I don't care how we get it done, but we will have a plan - well before December - on the debt ceiling. Period."

Who is the Democrat who will stand up and say, "Where are the problem solvers? They don't have to be Problem Solvers, but we need to solve some problems, and fast."

I desperately want *That* Democrat to exist. The one who knows that getting something is better than getting nothing, the one who knows that trying to get Santa to give you everything you've ever wanted since you were three years old, all at once, is insane. I don't know if he or she even exists, but if *That* Democrat is out there, now is the time to stand up and be heard. Now is the time to read your caucus the riot act. Now is the time to get something done.

What they're doing now is not sustainable, and if they think the shellacking they took in 2010 was bad, wait until they see what happens next year.

Wondering on Wednesday 2/3/21

 

Ready... Set... Wonder!

You know, I've often wondered what goes through the minds of our elected representatives as they sit in Washington, trying to the people's work, and watching the machinations of the party leaders. 

For example, say there's a big-time conspiracy theorist, a true believer in the cannibalistic pedophiles in the deep state Democratic party from which only Donald John Trump can save us, and in Jewish space lasers, and in the killing of Democratic leaders, and in the insurrection at the Capitol, and that school shootings are false flags, and that the government or the cabal or the laser-wielders set up the Las Vegas concert shooting to scare people into accepting gun reforms, and a whole host of other stuff about which I've only read, and in which I personally have zero belief. 

And say that she gets elected and ends up in the House of Representatives, and she refuses to act in a manner in keeping with what most civilized people consider to be adult behavior worthy of someone holding federal office. And say that she's chummy with the former president, and they, you know, talk and stuff, and she has his full and total endorsement and support. 

And say that the members of the other party are unhappy with her statements, and want her to be stripped of committee assignments, which is how the House traditionally has disciplined people who are really offensive or behave offensively. And say her party leaders get together and try to figure out what the hell to do with her, knowing that she has the full and total support of the former president, but they can't figure out what to do without facing the Florida man's wrath. And they cave, and decide to do nothing. 

And, say the members of the other party say, "Listen, party of the loved-by-the-former-president conspiracy theorist, if you don't take care of this, we will - we'll strip her of her assignments."

And then the conspiracy theorist-protecting party says, "Fine - if you strip our extremist of her committees, we're going after one of your extremists, the one from Minnesota, and we're going to move to strip her of her assignments." 

And then the majority party says, "Fine, if you go after ours because we went after yours, we're going to do a strong show of support for your third-ranking leader. At least she's smart enough to understand that you can't let the president foment insurrection and cheer when it happens, even as his most loyal servant is being hunted by the insurrectionists who think that hanging him is an appropriate punishment for following the Constitution." 

And the party devoid of leadership other than their #3 decides, "Fine - you want to throw your support behind one of ours? We're going to throw our support behind one of yours - another extremist, the loudmouth from Queens, and move to have her inserted into a leadership role currently held by one of your octogenarians. "

And the octogenarian leaders get together and announce, "Well, if that's what you want, fine - but then we'll move to shrink all of the committees and subcommittees - so you'll have lots of members without assignments!"

And the party of the gerrymandering chickens decides "Fine! If you do that, we'll refuse to attend any meetings, and you'll never have a quorum and won't be to get anything done!" 

And the petty majority party says, "Fine, if that's what you want - we won't even set a calendar and we won't even meet, so you won't be able to prevent us from having a quorum.  And then the president will do everything by executive order, just like the former president did, because Mitch McConnell held the legislation we passed hostage! And see how you like us now!"

And the party of the we're-more-pissed-off-than-you-are says "Fine. We'll get the nut-bag off the committees, but only because she's going to keep us from obstructing the majority, and that's our goal, to obstruct you and win back our majorities in the midterms next year." 

And the party of two impeachment a term graciously says "That's what we wanted anyway, thank you very much and have a nice day."

And the party of the nut-bag says, "But first, before we strip her of committees, we're going to try and force you to act on her plan to impeach President Biden for things he said he did when he was vice president. So how do you like us now?"

And the party of the oh-crap-forgot-about-that-little-issue says, "Well, since you're in the minority, good luck with that. You can't make us do anything we don't want to!"

And the party of the only slightly more obnoxious lunatics (depending on what day it is) says, "Ha! We'll all go on Fox and OAN and Newsmax and Breitbart and whatever social media will have us, and spill the beans and make everyone think it's going to happen, and that's just as good as it actually happening -- look how well we did with all the election fraud stuff!"

And the leader of the only slightly less obnoxious lunatics (depending on what day it is) says, "Well, why don't we talk together about committee assignments, before we do anything rash?" 

And ALL the voters stand up, go to their doors or windows and scream, in unison,

WE'RE MAD AS HELL AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE! IF YOU'RE NOT GOING TO FOCUS ON US, PACK YOUR BAGS AND GO HOME!

I wonder, this Wednesday, since some of what's documented above is true, what the other members of the House - those not in leadership positions, those not participating in all of this backdoor intrigue, and those who don't qualify as extremists - think of all of this? 

Are they standing at their doors or windows screaming along with the rest of us? Are they hanging their heads in abject embarrassment somewhere? 

Or are they gleefully sitting around, popcorn at hand, watching all of this transpire and hoping to land in a better spot when the dust settles? 

I surely hope they're in the 'screaming along with the rest of us' bucket, or at the very least in the 'hanging their heads in abject embarrassment' bucket. 

If they're eating popcorn, they can pack their bags as far as I'm concerned.

What's on your mind tonight?

Sunday School 1/31/21: Extra Credit

 For your Extra Credit this week, I dropped in on two Republicans. In the Meet the Press classroom, Chuck Todd talked with Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL), and in the Fox News Sunday classroom, Chris Wallace talked with Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana. I'll take them in that order.

Chuck said a couple of other House 'yes' votes on impeaching Trump backed out of the interview. Kinzinger's poison, it seems, especially now that he's launched Country1st.com, a PAC calling itself "a home for principled Americans who are tired of the poisonous extremism that has overtaking our beloved nation's politics." 

He said "it's really difficult" being the face of the anti-Trump GOP; lots of people, including family members, have turned on him. And even though he's been accused - twice - of being possessed by the devil, he's undeterred. 

...let's take a look at the last four years, how far we have come in a bad way. How backwards looking we are, how much we peddle darkness and division. And that's not the party I ever signed up for. And I think most Republicans didn't sign up for that. 

Even given that, he said it's invigorating to stand up for what he believes in. And, the question of whether the GOP can survive without Trump is the right question to ask. He thinks the focus on getting reelected is the wrong approach, and that there's a leadership problem in the party. That includes House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy trotting off to Mar-a-Lago, further tying Trump and the party together, and feeding his desperation to stay relevant. They "they shouldn't be a Trump-first party, they should be a country-first party." 

And we need to quit being the party that even one iota defends an insurrection, a dead police officer and other dead Americans on the Capitol. There is no equivalency to that. And we have to run from that as fast as we can.

Chuck talked about Dems having a hard time engaging with the Rs; he quoted Rep. Dan Kildee of Michigan, who said 

I have a hard time interacting with those members right now. Especially with those I had a closer relationship with. I'm not going to deny the reality that I look at them differently now. They're smaller people to me now.

And, he asked, how can the Rs - "the party that's defending the Marjorie Taylor Greenes of the world" - "lecture" the Dems on bipartisanship? Kinzinger agreed, saying the GOP "has lost its moral authority..." They can fight back, defend their principles, of course, but

when I ask people now what is a conservative principle, how many people think that conservative principles are things like just build the wall and, you know, charge the Capitol and have an insurrection?  

Kinzinger said he'd "certainly vote her off committee" but he's unsure about kicking Marjorie Taylor Greene out of the House; voters have a right to choose who they want to represent them, he said.

On impeachment, he gets that some Senators are looking for an easy way out by using a process argument, that you can't impeach someone who's out of office, but it's not the time for that.

...this is a red line in American history.... ten of us in the House took the tough vote... What we can't say, Chuck, is in the last two months of a president, you can do whatever you want, including incite a mob to insurrection, because it's just too late in the process to convict you.

They need to send a message, "that people like Donald Trump can never hold that office again."

The VP Debate: Questions and Answers

Another post started with a confession - shame on me.

I did not watch the entire debate. I lasted about half an hour, and then I switched over to watch North Woods Law, a show about conservation officers in New Hampshire and how they deal with people, and animals, on a daily basis. 

Their work entails listening to what people say, and what they don't say; setting aside their own beliefs and impressions to cut to the chase and take care of an issue; and acting with empathy and compassion towards people (and animals) when they are not at their best. 

As I listened to as much of the debate as I did, I tried to act like a North Woods officer, and really listen to the questions that were being asked, and the answers that were given. When the lies and honestly, the "let me get my talking points in here before time runs out, or even after time runs out, because that's what I'm here for, really" stuff, I gave up and promised myself and others that I'd watch it today and that I would read the transcript. 

I kept my promise, I did.

Below is my take on the actual questions, sometimes hidden in a lot of moderator talk, and the portion of any response that directly addressed the question that was asked. 

HQ is a question asked of Senator Kamala Harris; PQ is a question asked of VP Mike Pence. If the answer provided was not directly responsive to the question, you'll see a blank space where the answer should be. 

Here is the debate, in a nutshell.

HQ. What would a Biden administration do in January and February that a Trump administration wouldn’t do? Would you impose new lockdowns for businesses and schools and hotspots, a federal mandate to wear masks?

A. And our plan is about what we need to do around a national strategy for contact tracing, for testing, for administration of the vaccine, and making sure that it will be free for all.

*****     *****     *****

PQ. Why is the US death toll, as a percentage of our population, higher than that of almost every other wealthy country?

A.

*****     *****     *****

PQ. How can you expect Americans to follow the administration’s safety guidelines to protect themselves from COVID when you at the White House have not been doing so?

A. The difference here is President Trump and I trust the American people to make choices in the best interest of their health

*****     *****     *****

HQ. If the Trump administration approves a vaccine before or after the election, should Americans take it, and would you take it?

A. If the public health professionals, if Dr. Fauci, if the doctors tell us that we should take it, I’ll be the first in line to take it, absolutely. But if Donald Trump tells us that we should take it, I’m not taking it.

*****     *****     ***** 

PQ. Vice President Pence, have you had a conversation or reached an agreement with President Trump about safeguards or procedures when it comes to the issue of presidential disability? And if not, do you think you should?

A.

*****     *****     *****

HQ.  have you had a conversation or reached an agreement with Vice President Biden about safeguards or procedures when it comes to the issue of presidential disability? And if not, and if you win the election next month, do you think you should? 

A.

*****     *****     *****

PQ. Neither President Trump, nor Vice President Biden has released a sort of detailed health information that had become the modern norm until the 2016 election. And in recent days, President Trump’s doctors have given misleading answers, or refused to answer basic questions about his health. And my question to each of you in turn is, is this information voters deserve to know?

A. And the transparency that they practiced all along the way will continue. The American people have a right to know about the health and well-being of their president, and we’ll continue to do that. 

*****     *****     *****

HQ. Do voters have a right to know more detailed health information about presidential candidates and especially about presidents, especially when they’re facing some kind of challenge?

A. Absolutely. And that’s why Joe Biden has been so incredibly transparent. And certainly, by contrast that the President has not, both in terms of health records…I’m glad you asked about transparency because it has to be across the board. Joe has been incredibly transparent over many, many years. The one thing we all know about Joe, he puts it all out there. He is honest, he is forthright…

*****     *****     *****

HQ. And you would pay for that new spending by raising four trillion dollars in taxes on wealthy individuals and corporations. Some economists warn that could curb entrepreneurial ventures that fuel growth and create jobs. Would raising taxes put the recovery at risk? 

A.

*****     *****    *****

PQ. Should Americans be braced for an economic comeback that is going to take not months, but a year or more?

A.

*****     *****     *****

PQ. Do you believe as the scientific community has concluded, that man-made climate change has made wildfires bigger, hotter, and more deadly and have made hurricanes wetter, slower and more damaging?

A. And with regard to hurricanes, the National Oceanic Administration tells us that actually as difficult as they are, there are no more hurricanes today than there were 100 years ago.

*****     *****     ***** 

HQ. What exactly would be the stance of a Biden-Harris administration toward the Green New Deal?

A. I will repeat and the American people know that Joe Biden will not ban fracking…And part of those jobs that will be created by Joe Biden are going to be about clean energy and renewable energy…And so Joe believes, again, in science…Joe is about saying we’re going to invest that in renewable energy, which is going to be about the creation of millions of jobs. We will achieve net zero emissions by 2050, carbon neutral by 2035…We will also reenter the Climate Agreement with pride.

*****     *****     *****

PQ. Vice President Pence, do you believe that climate change poses an existential threat?

A. As I said, Susan, the climate is changing.

*****     *****     ***** 

PQ. How would you describe our fundamental relationship with China? Competitors? Adversaries? Enemies?

A.

QH. How would you describe our fundamental relationship with China? Are we competitors? Adversaries? Enemies?

A.

*****     *****     ***** 

HQ. What is your definition of the role of American leadership in 2020? 

A. Just think about it as relationships. So we know this in our personal and professional relationships, you got to keep your word to your friends. Got to be loyal to your friends. People who’ve stood with, you got to stand with them. You got to know who your adversaries are and keep them in check… it’s about relationships. And the thing that has always been part of the strength of our nation in addition to our great military has been that we keep our word…

*****     *****     *****

PQ. If Roe v. Wade is overturned, what would you want Indiana to do? Would you want your home state to ban all abortions?

A.

*****     *****     *****

HQ. If Roe V Wade is overturned, what would you want California to do? Would you want your home state to enact no restrictions on access to abortion? 

A.

*****     *****     *****

PQ. Tell us specifically, how would your administration protect Americans with preexisting conditions to have access to affordable insurance if the Affordable Care Act is struck down? 

A.

****     *****     ***** 

HQ. In the case of Breonna Taylor was justice done? 

A. I don’t believe so…And her life was taken unjustifiably and tragically and violently.

*****     *****     ***** 

PQ. In the case of Breonna Taylor, was justice done?

A. I trust our justice system, a grand jury that reviews the evidence.

*****     *****     *****

HQ. If your ticket wins and president Trump refuses to accept a peaceful transfer of power, what steps would you and vice president Biden then take? What would happen next?  

A.

*****     *****     *****

PQ. If vice president Biden is declared the winner and president Trump refuses to accept a peaceful transfer of power, what would be your role and responsibility as vice president? What would you personally do?

A.

*****     *****     *****

PQ. If our leaders can’t get along, how are the citizens supposed to get along? 

A. I want to tell you that we’re going to work every day to have government as good as our people, and the American people each and every day. Love a good debate. We love a good argument. But we always come together and are always there for one another in times of need. And we’ve especially learned that through the difficulties of this year.

*****     *****     *****

HQ. If our leaders can’t get along, how are the citizens supposed to get along?

A. Joe has a longstanding reputation of working across the aisle, and working in a bipartisan way. And that’s what he’s going to do as president… I do believe the future is bright. And it will be because of your leadership, and it will be because we fight for each person’s voice through their vote.

And blissfully, that was the end of it. 

Now, you may think that all the other stuff that was said during the 90 minutes or so of the debate was necessary, or helpful, but to me, it wasn't. It was just talking points, it was trying to get the soundbite in, it was looking for a zinger... and even those fell pretty flat.

You can see that, if we scheduled the debates for 30 minutes, there'd be more than enough time for the actual questions and answers. And if the Commission on Presidential Debates wants to allow an hour of random chatter after the actual question part, that's up to them. 

I've been watching debates since 1968, when I followed the election with my Dad, a history teacher, who was trying to get his high school juniors and seniors engaged in our process for choosing a president. That was also the first year I 'voted,' going into the booth with him, pulling the curtain back, and pushing the lever for his choices. With that foundation, I've been engaged in this stuff ever since, but my distaste for the debate process has increased as my interest in actually sitting through them while they are happening has waned.

How about you? Did you think anyone answered questions that were actually asked? Did I miss anything that was responsive to the specific question posed by Susan Page? What did you think of the debate as a whole?

Sunday School 12/2/18

Today we'll spend time in the CBS Face the Nation classroom, since we missed them on last weeks' rounds. As I'm sure was the case in the other classrooms, there was a considerable amount of time devoted to remembering President George Herbert Walker Bush, who passed away on Friday at the age of 94.

Host Margaret Brennan talked with her CBS colleagues Bob Schieffer and Norah O'Donnell, as well as with his former staffers  Secretary of State James Baker, who was with him on Friday, and Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney. Both shared personal and professional memories of 41.

Elsewhere on the show, Brennan talked with Sunday regular Senator Mark Warner, (D-VA) about Bush first of all. Warner outlined a distinction between the Bush brand of Republicanism and the current version - the key difference being moral character.

President Bush was a class act and I think he realized, and reflecting on this program this morning, American leadership is critical. But that leadership needs to be both economic, military but also moral leadership... He always knew that America was stronger with alliances and the rest of the world looked to that American leadership in all those realms, as I mentioned - militarily, economically, but also morally, and I think it would be -- all of us as we reflect on his legacy to remember that those lessons are still important for all of us to keep in mind. 

They also talked about the Senate Intelligence Committee, and about Michael Cohen's guilty plea for lying to Congress; that all came about because the Mueller team asked for a transcript of Cohen's testimony before the Committee.  Warner noted that if you lie to Congress, they'll go after you and they'll make a referral to Mueller if necessary - and that a number of referrals have been made. He also noted,

I think if I'd been a Republican delegate going into the summer of 2016 I think it would have been a relevant fact to know that actually Donald Trump was still trying to do business with the Russian government; maybe that's why he was so reluctant to say anything bad about Vladimir Putin.

Even though, of course, Trump denied as a candidate and continues to deny any prior relationship with Russia or any business dealings with them - at least until this week, when he describe loose and very cool business practices.  And, he pointed out that it can be argued whether whatever happened was a crime, but the president's still a liar.

Brennan wondered whether Cohen was ordered to lie; Warner doesn't know but thinks it's a relevant question. She also pressed him a little on the referrals he mentioned, asking if that meant the Committee has told Mueller that "a number of Trump associates are lying and we have proof of it." He was non committal on details but that they have an ongoing relationship with Mueller, but that the Committee is a counterintelligence investigation vs. the Special Counsel, a criminal investigation. And, that

...We want to make clear that lying to Congress is a crime. 

Next up, the unpronounceable USMCA, the new trade agreement that's so much like the old one, NAFTA (see how that rolls off the tongue?)  Warner thinks, without having fully reviewed the new agreement, that it could probably have been renegotiated within the existing NAFTA framework. And he expects push back from Congress on both sides of the aisle.

From the panel discussion, here are a couple of highlights:

Jeffrey Goldberg (The Atlantic) on what people on Capitol Hill are thinking about the investigation: ...this week I was asking a number of Democrats how aggressive they think (the Russia investigations are) going to get. They think it's going to get extraordinarily aggressive and we're going to be entering a whole new phase where the subpoenas are going to be coming, flying fast and furious, and the fights between the White House and Congress over who can - who will be able to testify are going to be ferocious.

David Nakamura  (WaPo) on agreement with China from the G20, which Trump called a 'major success': I think it's more a limited success. It did avert, you know.. the next level of this trade war with China because new tariffs could go or have gone into effect at the beginning of next year. But they seem to have averted that at least for 90 days. They basically said they're going to have a truce, sort of a temporary cease fire on these tariffs.. But I think more deeper analysis shows that these intrinsic problems between US and China on trade are not going away and to say it could happen within 90 days is somewhat unrealistic. 

I'll close with something from Schieffer from almost 40 years ago, a conversation with Bush 41 on toughness. Schieffer set it up by saying

He ran for president when Reagan left office but his campaign got off to a terrible start. George Bush was a nice man - modest, kind, a man who actually wrote thank-you notes. Trouble was, some mistook niceness for weakness. The question, "are you tough enough?" was asked of him repeatedly. 

Here's Bush answering that question on FTN in 1979:

I equate toughness with moral fiber, with character, with principle, with demonstrated leadership in tough jobs where you emerge not bully somebody, but with the respect of the people you led. That's toughness. That's fiber. That's character. I have got it. And if I happen to be decent in the process, that should not be a liability. 

Yes - that should not be a liability.

See you around campus.

The Update Desk: Casino Gambling

Last November, I shared the news ( in this Meanwhile Back in Albany post) that New York's gamble on allowing private, non-Native American casino gambling was not doing as well as expected.

The majority of voting New Yorkers who remembered to turn over their ballots back in 2013 decided we would amend our constitution back in 2013 to allow for up to seven new casinos "for the legislated purposes of promoting job growth, increasing aid to schools, and permitting local governments to lower property taxes through revenues generated."

As I noted in that post in November, the first three casinos - del Lago Resort and Casino (Waterloo) Tioga Downs in the Southern tier (which has its own crazy story) and Rivers Resort and Casino (Schenectady) are all under performing, by some $200 million or so, according to projections.

Competition is increasing - the fourth of the 'up to seven' casinos will open in the Catskills later this spring. The new place, Resorts World Catskills, will have a 100,000 square foot casino, 2150 slot machines, and 134 table games, along with a hotel, spa, golf course, and multiple dining options.

Also opening soon is Point Place, the latest offering from the Oneida Nation, which owns Turning Stone Resort Casino in Verona (east of Syracuse) and another mini-casino in Chittenango. Point Place, in Bridgeport, is supposed to cater to folks in Onondaga County, where the Legislature doesn't want to be in the gambling business and repeatedly turns down even putting up an OTB parlor, as well as from the communities around Oneida Lake and points north.

As noted in this recent article on Casino.org,

When Point Place Casino near Syracuse opens on March 1, the boutique $40M, 65,000 square foot casino will feature 500 slot machines and 20 table games. And while that might be great news for area gamblers, it's not quite as welcomed by the competition.

New York gambling venues have been sprouting up across the state since legislators opted to legalize four commercial casinos in 2013. The result has been a increasingly crowded upstate market, with private and Native American gaming operators fighting for the same customer base. 

NY legislators and Governor Cuomo don't seem to be too worried. For example, here's a fabulously irresponsible comment from Senator John Bonacic, the Mount Hope Republican who happens to be chair of the Racing, Gaming and Wagering Committee in the state senate, who noted in effect that developers always lie to get approval for their projects.

It was a very competitive process for four casino licenses, and of course their consultants were going to put rosy projections in order to get the Gaming Commission to hopefully give them a license. 

Gee, thanks for the oversight, Senator -- you do know that means oversee, not overlook, right?

For his part, our ever optimistic Sonofa Gov noted about the new casinos

They've all been wildly successful in creating jobs and building beautiful complexes.

Which, as we know, counts for everything with him. The state is littered with beautiful buildings created as part of these economic development, money-for-schools or tax revenue generators (but that's a whole nother post.)

So as we look to March, and hundreds of thousands of square feet of new gaming space, we have this dreary outlook on Wilmorite's del Lago from Moody's, which landed on January 10th.

Moody's Investor Services downgraded Lago Resort and Casino, LLC's Corporate Family Rating today to Caa2 from B3 even while the company's Probability of Default Rating was lowered to Caa2-PD from B3-PD. At the same time, Lago's 1st lien revolver and term loan were downgraded to Caa1 from B2 and its 2nd lien term loan was downgraded to Caa3 from Caa2. The rating outlook is negative. 

In English, what does that mean (emphasis added)?

Key credit challenges include Lago's slower than expected ramp up, single asset profile, and the highly competitive nature of the market which it operates that may impede the company's ability to support its capital structure. There are five gambling facilities, including four racinos and one Native American full scale casino within 100 miles of del Lago's location...

The negative rating outlook considers Moody's expectation that, despite the likelihood that Lago will cover its cash interest obligations and remain in compliance with its financial covenants during the next 12 months, albeit marginally, without a substantial improvement in the rate and degree of ramp-up or an additional equity investment by the owners, Lago will not be able to achieve a level of performance that can support its existing debt capital structure. 

 Lago's rating could be lowered if it appears there will be debt restructuring that involves impairment to existing lenders..

Now, it would be unfair if I failed to mention spin-off economic benefits stemming from del Lago and the other new casinos. For example, the State of New York might be making some extra money.

Data obtained from the State Thruway Authority shows Exit 41 (del Lago is just across the Thruway from the toll booths) had a monthly average of 266,306 vehicles the year before del Lago opened, the casino says. Since the casino opened, average monthly traffic at Exit 41 has increased to 381,477 vehicles...

Another real success story is the Magee Diner, just down the road from del Lago. It's one of several local businesses where gamblers can use their rewards points. The diner's owner, Gary Schlegel, has seen sales increase 15% since the casino opened.

We see more and more new faces in our restaurant every day, and 80 percent of the time my customers tell me they are on the way to or from del Lago.

Schlegel plans on adding outdoor dining and said he's going to see about getting a liquor license, too. This is great news, but as with any other downstream economic effect, this will last only as long as del Lago lasts. Like those shiny under-leased or empty new buildings I mentioned above, hopes and dreams of small business owners are also scattered across the landscape.

I don't want the casinos to fail -- we're already over-invested in them. And I certainly don't want the small business owners who are seeing a bump in business go back to where they were, or worse - fail completely - should the casino 'trickle-down' revenue streams dry up. 

What I do want, though, is responsible stewardship and leadership from our elected officials. That, my friends, shouldn't have to depend on a roll of the dice or the luck of the draw.