Quick Takes (v76): Old Guard v. Newcomers

Why are people like me so sick and tired of 'politics as usual,' you ask? There are so many reasons, including the one illustrated below.

Connecticut Democrats are being asked, by a millionaire septuagenarian, to vote him through the party primary and let him fight it out in the general election for a 15th term in Congress. 

Why? Because he's been around long enough to be a committee chairman if the Dems manage to not snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in November, and actually win the House in the midterms.

Calls for generational change in Connecticut
Connecticut Democrat John B. Larson has been in the House of Representatives for 14 terms. He would like at least two more years, but the race to replace him has become the latest test of the left’s desire for generational change.

Larson faces three challengers today — former Hartford mayor Luke Bronin, Hartford school board member Ruth Fortune and state Rep. Jillian Gilchrest — but Bronin is seen as the candidate with the best chance to upset Larson, who turned 78 last month.

Larson is staking his reelection campaign on his seniority, arguing that it would be foolish for voters to throw away the power that comes with age in the nation’s seniority-driven political system. “If you’re coming to Congress for the first time, you start at the bottom and work your way up,” Larson said this month. “But if you have the opportunity to send someone who’s going to be a chairman, that means your voice in your district is amplified.”

Just imagine how different things could be if people didn't just assume that because they've 'been there, done that' for a long time, they're the better choice to represent their constituents.

Just imagine how different things could be if bright newcomers with ideas that are supported by thousands in their district and millions in their party weren't forced to 'wait their turn' to get the opportunity to make a difference. 

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a perfect example of this; she lost a vote to become the ranking member on the House Oversight Committee to an eight-term gentleman from Virginia, Rep. Gerry Connolly, "who has got experience, who is seasoned, who can be trusted, who has a record of productivity," he said after the vote.

Would AOC have been the perfect choice for ranking member? Maybe not. Would giving her the chance have been a mistake? I doubt it. But how long will she or others have to wait to get the experience, become seasoned and trusted, before they get a chance to prove themselves? 

Just imagine how different things could be if everyone who was chosen to serve placed their constituents first, rather than party leadership (or worse, the head of another coequal branch of government), and fought for the things that their district needs, whether it's health insurance, clean water, a chip factory, replacement of aging infrastructure, or brand new infrastructure like rural hospitals and elder care facilities, a modernized airport, data center or yes, even an ICE detention facility, if that's what the people want.

Everyone young or new is not automatically better; everyone old is not automatically worse - this is not about age. Rather, it's about how things change outside the halls and walls of where our elected officials spend their time - on our dime - and how hard it is to get those changes recognized inside those halls and walls. 

There has to be a better way; term limits are a start, of course, but it runs deeper than that, doesn't it? Chime in!

In Case You Missed It (v120)

I thought I'd have gotten more posts done, but in hindsight, I think my frustration with the week's news got the best of me.

Here's what made it out, starting as we usually do with a recap of the Sunday School classrooms.

It was not the best week for several of the hosts, or some of the guests, for that matter. Here's House Speaker Mike Johnson, the very religious man, talking down to Kristen Welker on the subject of the Mayorkas impeachment (which failed, by the way).

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?

Senate and House Republicans decided it was more important to show allegiance to someone who's not in office than it was to do something - anything - about the so-called crisis at the border. And I decided it was more important to Rant and Rave than it was to do laundry.

The same people who pretend they don't need to do anything because the other guy can do something. Unless of course he does, in which case they'll challenge his every move, doubt his every motivation, and keep everything ground to a halt so they can claim they can't get anything done because the other guy, blah bippity blah bippity blah blah blah.

And later 

Yep. The Orange Jesus, the OJ. The man who led the charge against the Soros Deep State, the unelected bureaucrats who he thinks should be 'his' people, who should do whatever he wants, regardless of, you know, laws on the books, or what Congress wants to do on our behalf, regardless of what they're required to do. (And who, by the way, the OJ has promised to fire.)

In his kingdom, everyone loves him, works for him, bows to him, kisses his ring (blecch), and if they don't, well, they're part of the Soros Deep State that's trying to subvert him and drive our country down a path that is decidedly not leading to the MAGA Camp. 

I'm not at all afraid of the Soros Deep State - but the other one, the orange one, scares the crap out of me, and - and it's hiding in plain sight.

Tuesday's Extra Credit was the Jake Sullivan show. He's the administration's National Security Advisor and - at least on Sunday - a man possessing the patience of more than a handful of saints. I have to say, at least a couple of the classroom discussion leaders made themselves look like fools, although I'm sure they thought they did a great job. 

Kristen Welker (MTP) was not the only host to try and get Sullivan to divulge the who, what, where, when, and whys of our continuing retaliation against Iran-backed terror groups and Houthi rebels, after asking him to address MAGA accusations we "telegraphed" our fist retaliatory strikes. I. Kid. You. Not. 

I wasn't sure this was a serious question, but she wasn't the only one who asked it, so I guess it was? 

But wait - there's more! Here's how the interview closed.

Okay. Let me ask you, finally, Jake: Our new NBC news poll, which we were just discussing, found only 29% approve of President Biden's handling of the war in Gaza. Sixty percent disapprove of his handling of foreign policy, overall. Should the President be factoring the public's disapproval into his foreign policy decisions?

Obviously, he said no, but part of me wanted him to say, "Why yes - yes he will!" just to see the look on her face. 

I was scratching my head on a few things when it was time for Wednesday's Wondering. Among the things on my mind? Primaries, and how the media handles them, and how Nevada handles them.

The primary was meaningless, you see, because Nevada has both a Republican primary, which doesn't result in delegates being awarded, and a Republican caucus two days later, which does. Obviously, I can't help wondering why the state GOP thought it was a good idea to have both; the Dems don't. 

Haley lost to 'none of these candidates' - the first time any candidate has lost to 'none' since the option became available in 1975.  My last bit of wondering on this is simply this: why don't we all have that ballot option?

Why don't we have that option? I might explore that in another post...

So, that's a wrap - you're all caught up on last week's posts. 

Go, Niners - beat the Chiefs! 

TGIF 12/2/22

It's time for some good week/bad week accounting again. 

Let's start in Arizona, where the Board of Supervisors of Cochise County has finally certified November's election results. It wasn't out of the goodness of their hearts - it was because a court ordered them to.

Two of the three members - one Democrat, one Republican, voted to do the right thing. The third member - another R - didn't bother showing up.  The judge, Casey McGinley, noted

it is "clear" that the board was "duty bound" to certify the results and submit them to the secretary of state by Monday given that no results were missing from the county's totals.

McGinley said the board "exceeded its lawful authority in delaying the canvass for a reason that was not permitted by the statute."

The Dem supervisor who asked the court to issue a quick decision, had a good week; so did the judge, for requiring the board to do their job. And the supervisor who couldn't be bothered? Yeah, you know what list he's on. 

Let's shift to Texas, and the heartbroken city of Uvalde, where another lawsuit related to the school shooting there in May was filed this week. 

Survivors of the fatal mass shooting at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, have filed a $27 billion class action lawsuit against multiple law enforcement agencies in Texas, according to court documents.

The lawsuit, filed Tuesday in federal court in Austin, names the city, the Uvalde Consolidated Independent School District, the school district’s police department, the Uvalde Police Department, the Texas Department of Public Safety and a number of persons who are members or former members of the agencies listed as defendants. 

The lawsuit says

Instead of swiftly implementing an organized and concerted response to an active school shooter who had breached the otherwise ‘secured’ school buildings at Robb Elementary school, the conduct of the three hundred and seventy-six (376) law enforcement officials who were on hand for the exhaustively torturous seventy-seven minutes of law enforcement indecision, dysfunction, and harm, fell exceedingly short of their duty-bound standards.

This suit just the most recent one to be filed. 

One federal lawsuit filed earlier this week alleges nearly two dozen people and entities, including the gun manufacturer and store that provided the rifle used in the attack, were negligent and failed to protect a student who was killed. Other families filed a similar lawsuit in September.

No amount of money can ever make up for what happened in May, but there needs to be accountability somewhere in all of this. I'd say the folks had a good week for at least bringing the suits and trying to keep the accountability ball rolling.

And, to Florida, where a former president Donald Trump lost another court case. 

A unanimous federal appeals court on Thursday ended an independent review of documents seized from former President Donald Trump’s Florida estate, removing a hurdle the Justice Department said had delayed its criminal investigation into the retention of top-secret government information.

The three-judge panel, which included two Trump-selected Republicans, said

It is indeed extraordinary for a warrant to be executed at the home of a former president — but not in a way that affects our legal analysis or otherwise gives the judiciary license to interfere in an ongoing investigation...

The law is clear. We cannot write a rule that allows any subject of a search warrant to block government investigations after the execution of the warrant. Nor can we write a rule that allows only former presidents to do so. 

The judges from the 11th Circuit who looked beyond who picked them, and did the right thing had a good week. And, of course, put another bad week in the books for the Florida Man.

Continuing our swing through the states, let's look at the Democrats and their plans to realign the early primaries. 

The Democratic National Committee voted on Friday to radically alter its presidential nominating calendar, following President Joe Biden’s recommendations to elevate South Carolina as the first primary state and to eliminate Iowa, breaking with a half-century of historical precedent. But there are still several logistical hurdles for the party to clear to make the new vision a reality.

Under the plan, South Carolina will go first on February 3rd, with New Hampshire and Nevada following three days later. Georgia would vote on February 13th, and Michigan on February 27th. Iowa's completely out of the early states. 

The full DNC still has to approve the plan, and the states that are moving up have until early January to certify they'll be able to meet the schedule. And, New Hampshire's required to go a week before any other state primary, so there's that.

Some people will suggest this was solely a move by the Biden camp to help ensure the octogenarian's chances in '24, but there are legitimate reasons to make some changes to crazy rules that give precedence to Iowa (31st in population, 90% white) and New Hampshire (41st/92% white).

Biden and the Ds had a good week on this; we'll see if it turns into a good week for voters if everything works out.

TGIF, everyone.

Wondering on Wednesday 8/24/22

Ready... Set... Wonder!

Where do we start tonight's wondering? 

Right here in my neck of the woods - in the Empire State - where I find myself wondering why so many national political reporters are talking today about the Dems losing a prominent House member in New York, when there was literally no possible way that two Dems could survive a primary for the same district? The only question in this one was who would survive:  Rep. Carolyn Maloney, chair of the House Oversight Committee, or Rep. Jerry Nadler, chair of the House Judiciary Committee. Nadler won easily.

I read an article in a major national newspaper today about the Nadler/Maloney battle, and was not shocked to see many comments complaining about the redistricting process in NY. No one was complaining about efforts by the Dems to gerrymander five seats blue; rather, the complaints were that a judge didn't accept their efforts the way judges seem to accept the bad Republican maps. And I wonder, if you think gerrymandering is wrong, why are you mad when the courts agree with you? 

Another race in NY that's gotten a ridiculous amount of nation attention was the election to see who would fill the remaining months of former Rep. Antonio Delgado's term (he resigned to become our Lt. Governor). Pat Ryan won the "bellwether" race, as multiple media outlets referred to it, campaigning on a woman's right to choose being a national issue, not a state issue, while Marc Molinaro, the Republican, ran on crime and inflation. How much does this matter in the overall scheme of things, I wonder? I'm not convinced it's indicative of anything, really; NY's a pro-choice state; the 19th district's been blue since 2018; and Ryan will be on the ballot again in November, trying to win the seat in the new 18th district. If he wins that, it might mean something. Until then, I don't think so.

I can't help wondering how Rep. Elise Stefanik, the number three RINO in the House is feeling today. (A RINO, in these pages, is a MAGA Republican). Stefanik strongly supported the deplorable Carl Paladino in the primary for NY's new 23rd district; Paladino lost to NYS GOP chair Nick Langworthy. Stefanik also strongly supported Steve Wells in the primary for NY's new 22nd district. Wells lost to Brandon Williams. 

House GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy might not have had a great morning, after the Paladino loss. It's been reported that McCarthy and Rep. Steve Scalise, his Number Two, weren't happy with Stefanik 'going rogue' with her endorsement. I wonder how today's leadership chat went?

And then we've got President Biden's student loan forgiveness program, announced today. There's lots to dive into on that, and I've got a few bookmarked articles to digest tomorrow. I did wonder, though, at how hard the media worked to find Dem-leaning economists to chime in and say how bad an idea it was - and it wasn't even Larry Summers, the favorite DLE of all.

What's on your wondering minds?

TGIF 8/5/22

Let's see if we can find some good week/bad week list makers, shall we?

Trump-endorsed, Big Lie supporting Kari Lake has won the Arizona GOP gubernatorial primary. As did Trump, Lake "on various occasions during the campaign... has hinted at supposed attempts to steal the primary election, but she has refused to provide any evidence to support her claims."  Sound familiar? 

We'll have to wait a bit, probably not long, to see if she'll declare the general election is rigged, too. Her Democratic opponent? Katie Hobbs, the woman who certified Arizona's 2020 vote, something Lake thinks is worthy of incarceration.

My verdict? Lake had a good week; Arizona had a bad week. 

How about Ted Cruz? First,  he got hammered over his 'no' vote on the PACT Act by Jon Stewart; and then, there was this nonsense for FBI Director Christopher Wray. Cruz, you see, "slammed his boot on the table in opposition to FBI guidelines on symbols that indicate extremist groups." Here's what he said to Wray.

Also included on this text that I was particularly struck(by) is the Gonzales Battle Flag – Come and take it – as indicative of being a violent extremist militia. Well, I will self-report right now that every day in the Senate, I wear my boots that have the Gonzales battle flag on the back of them. Director Wray, what are y'all doing? This makes no sense. Do you agree with this FBI guidance? That the Betsy Ross flag, and the Gadsden flag and the Gonzales Battle Flag, are signs of militia violent extremism.

What's this all about, you ask? A document was leaked to Project Veritas by an FBI 'whistleblower. Cruz's outrage is laughable; after all, the leaked document states, in bold font, 

The use or sharing of these symbols alone should not independently be considered evidence of Militia Violent Extremists presence or affiliation, or serve as an indicator of illegal activity, as many individuals use these symbols for their original, historic meaning, or other non-violent purposes.

I'm not sure why Cruz has the Gonzales Battle Flag on his boots; I'd guess it's probably 50/50 original meaning/militia violent extremist; or, maybe it's just because the boots slam better when they're embellished.

My verdict: Cruz is a self-serving jerk and it's against my religion to give him good week. 

Speaking of the PACT Act, here's an excerpt from a WaPo editorial congratulating those who fought for the bill's passage, and blasting the Rs delaying the bill "at the last minute...and used to score political points..."

The objections hinged on a technicality: Sen. Patrick J. Toomey (R-Pa.) had raised concerns about reclassifying existing toxic-exposure benefits from discretionary spending to mandatory. He argued that this move could free up space in the discretionary budget for legislators to spend on other programs.

Officials, including Veterans Affairs Secretary Denis McDonough, warned that keeping those benefits in the discretionary budget could force the agency to “ration” care, and pointed out that the measure had bipartisan support in June. That did not stop Republican lawmakers from characterizing the bill as an insidious attempt by Democrats to spend hundreds of billions on unrelated causes.

In the end, only 11 Rs voted against it - fewer than the original nays - and Toomey's amendment failed. 

My verdict: supporters (including Stewart) who fought for the bill, online or while camped out on the Capitol steps, had a good week; the GOP senators who changed their votes in July and delayed the bill, only to pass it anyway? A bad week, all around. 

The jury deciding the fate of Nicholas Cruz, who killed 17 and 17 others at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, visited the high school and walked through the crime scene. I can't imagine what that must have been like, but the author of the linked article captured it well, I think, in these thoughtfully written passages.

In one classroom,

... students had written papers about Malala Yousafzai, the Pakistani teenager who was shot by the Taliban for going to school and has since been a global advocate for educational access for women and girls. 

One of the students wrote: "A bullet went straight to her head but not her brain." Another read, "We go to school every day of the week and we take it all for granted. We cry and complain without knowing how lucky we are to be able to learn." 

In another? 

... Hanging on a wall inside was a sign reading, "No Bully Zone." The creative writing assignment for the day was written on the whiteboard: "How to write the perfect love letter." 

And, there was this. 

...still gracing the wall of a second-floor hallway was a quote from James Dean: "Dream as if you'll live forever, live as if you'll die today."

My verdict: what a gut-wrenching experience that must have been for the jurors; I give all 22 of them a lot of credit, and my thanks for their service.

There was another trial going on this week, in Texas, where a jury awarded the family of Jesse Lewis, a six-year-old Sandy Hook Elementary shooting victim, $4.11M in compensatory damages. The money is to be paid by right-wing media blowhard Alex Jones of Infowars fame, who spent years saying the shooting was a "false flag operation," the families were "crisis actors," and the children weren't dead. 

My verdict: without sharing all the gory details on why (you can find them here), Judge Maya Guerra Gamble had a good week. Jones had a bad week, obviously. His attorney, who (ahem) 'mistakenly' sent the plaintiff's attorney two years of Jones' texts had a bad week, (unless he did it on purpose). That the January 6th Committee has requested Jones' texts, and the plaintiff's attorney is cooperating, might just be icing on the cake. 

NOTE: the jury has just awarded $45.2M in punitive damages. 

And finally, I must mention Sen. Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand, my two senators. Gillibrand was one of the senators who introduced a bill to get health care for veterans who were exposed to toxic burn pits; provisions from the original bill were incorporated into the PACT Act.

While she was busy doing that, Schumer was busy working with Sen. Joe Manchin; the two struck a deal on the Inflation Reduction Act, which should come up for vote tomorrow. That's only possible because, after he got Manchin on board, Schumer worked to get Sen. Kyrsten Sinema on board, too. The bill is different from the version before the wheeling and dealing, but if all goes well, it'll pass tomorrow. 

So, perhaps for the first time, both of my senators had themselves a good week. 

TGIF, everyone.

Sunday School 7/3/22: Extra Credit

CNN won the draw for your Sunday School lesson this week, so let's continue with Dana Bash and her guests in the State of the Union classroom.

 Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R- You Kidding Me? You People *Still* Support Him? -IL), the other Republican on the January 6th Committee, had the (ahem) privilege of following Gov. Kristi Noem in the classroom. Here's a recap.

When Bash asked for his reaction to the governor's comments on January 6th, he didn't mince words. She was in the House with him, and he said he was 'blown away' by her interview, in which she questioned the truthfulness of Cassidy Hutchinson.

...it's like "Invasion of the Body Snatchers." This is not the Kristi Noem I served with. The Kristi Noem I served with was conservative, dedicated to truth, and I, at the time, would have thought (she) would have put her country above her political career at any moment.

He said "it is clear she is running for president or vice president. She's scared to death of the base." He referred to Hutchinson as a "26-year-old patriot" and said that Noem calling her into question, but then avoiding

...saying that Donald Trump bore even an ounce of responsibility for January 6th, I get amazed still every day by what some of my colleagues do. This is one of the biggest ones. She used to be something very different.

After playing a clip from Rep. Liz Cheney's primary debate, and noting that Kinzinger called her opponents "a bunch of armpit farters," she suggested that one of them could "very well win."

So, Liz Cheney, you can disagree with her position on whatever, but she stood in front of her constituents and she said, 'look, here's where I'm at on these issues, these core democracy issues. Now you can make a decision whether or not to vote for me.' Frankly, that's what politics should be. That's what every election should be.

And, he said, "(h)er main opponent was a big supporter of Liz Cheney until she found out that maybe she could run against Liz Cheney." He said they're lying to voters, spreading conspiracies, and playing games, and "Americans have got to wake up and demand far better" because

...we have a primary system where somebody like Liz Cheney, a very professional, focused person, regardless of what you think of her politics... can be up against just lies and conspiracy, and 5 to 10 percent of... Wyoming, will actually show up and vote in a primary and make a decision...Look, Liz, God bless her. She is making a stand. I think she can win. But I hope this serves as a lesson to every American. Like, let's fix this system, because the primary system is failing.

He also talked about "typical for Trump world" behavior - the process of distracting people from what's important. He's talking about all the attacks against Hutchinson (like Noem's, really) for testifying to what Tony Ornato told her about Trump's actions in the SUV on January 6th. What no one's refuting, Kinzinger said, is that Trump knew his supporters were armed, and that he really wanted to be at the Capitol with them. 

He said Ornato's welcome to testify under oath, and that the Committee hears from people regularly.

Every day, we get new people that come forward and say, hey, I didn't think maybe this piece of the story that I knew was important, but now that you guys are talking -- like, I do see this plays in here.

And, he said, although it's not what she wants, Hutchinson will be remembered long after the names of Committee members have been forgotten.

She doesn't want to be out in the public spotlight. But she has a commitment to truth that somebody like Kristi Noem, for instance, and most people in our party, would actually benefit to take just a 10 percent ounce of.

Finally, we heard this from Kinzinger: the Committee's not done yet.

There will be way more information. And stay tuned.

 One last note, from Bash:

I want to show our viewers what 'The Washington Examiner' said in an editorial. 'The Washington Examiner' editorial board is conservative:

Trump is unfit to be anywhere near power ever again. Republicans have far better options to lead the party in 2024. No one should think otherwise, much less support him ever again.

And yet he is, according to our sources, likely to announce he is going to run in 2024 as soon as this month.

If you want some extra Extra Credit points, see how many "if he runs, I'll support him" comments you can find from prominent members of the GOP.

See you around campus. 

Wondering on Wednesday, 6/15/22

Ready... Set... Wonder!

So, what's wonder-full tonight? 

The folks over at Fox Entertainment continue beating the drum about the 'assassination attempt' on Justice Bret Kavanaugh and how, if he were a liberal instead of a conservative, the Dems and the media would be apoplectic over the whole thing. That was one of the featured topics of a Fox News Sunday interview this week., in case you missed it.

That got me wondering how the network covered the 'workup' on Justice Sonia Sotomayor the FBI found when investigating Roy Den Hollander, the man who killed the son of a federal judge in New Jersey a while back in 2020. 

Would you be surprised that I found only one article about that threat, which is the same number of articles as there were about Justice Sotomayor's children's book, and about her mangled pronunciation of the vice president's name? You shouldn't be. 

We've got another January 6th Committee hearing tomorrow; it was postponed from today to allow the team to get the multi-media presentation ready. Rep Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) said the postponement "is not a big deal. It's just technical issues." and that's fine. I mean, it's not like someone was having a baby or anything; that happened with Monday's hearing, when former Trump campaign manager Bill Stepien had to miss his in-person testimony when his wife went into labor. 

We did get to hear from fired Fox News political editor Chris Stirewalt, who was in on the decision on election night, when Fox was first to call Arizona for Donald Trump. "We were able to make a call early. We were able to beat the competition" he testified. Not only that, but as Deadline reported, 

After Nov. 7, when networks called the race for Biden, Stirewalt said, Trump’s chances of winning were “none,” barring something totally unexpected from happening. He said that Trump was “better off to play the Powerball” than betting he would win the election.

And, there's this 

Stirewalt said that they “knew it would be significant” calling the state, but “we already knew Trump’s chances were very small and getting smaller” based on the data they saw. 

So, what's the wondering on this? First, did anyone get Trump a Powerball ticket? Did he win anything? And finally, is anyone surprised that the guy from Fox was bragging about beating the competition?

What else? Well, there were some primaries yesterday, and there were some Trump-endorsed candidates who lost (but not many) and some who won, including all the races in Nevada where Trump made an endorsement. And, Sarah Palin will be one of four candidates moving ahead to the special election to finish the term of the late Rep. Don Young, who passed away in March. 

What's fascinating about the Alaska votes this year? It's not Palin; it's that Alaska moved to ranked choice voting this year. And if you're wondering, here's what it means: 

The special primary, where voters chose one of 48 candidates on the ballot, was Saturday; the special general, where voters will rank the top four candidates from the primary, is set for Aug. 16. 

Simultaneously, two more elections — a regular primary and general — are scheduled to elect Alaska’s member of Congress for the next full two-year term, which starts in January. The regular primary election is scheduled for Aug. 16, on the same day and same ballot as the special general. That means voters will be asked to rank the four candidates in the special election, then pick one of 31 candidates in the regular primary. 

The regular general election, where voters will rank the top four of the 31 candidates, is Nov. 8.

Now, I'm a fan of ranked choice voting; it was used in the NYC elections last year, but the rest of our state doesn't have the option, and I wish we did. I don't relish having to choose from over 30, or over 40 candidates for a single race, but being able to send someone to office who earns at least 50% of the vote would be a treat. I wonder, how do the rest of you feel about ranked choice voting? Have you used it? Do you want to? Drop me a message or leave a comment.

Finally, on tonight's broadcast of ABC's World News Tonight, David Muir repeatedly mentioned that Dolly Parton had done something newsworthy. He had it in his opening 'here's what we're talking about tonight" segment, and teased it at every break. When it was finally the last minute of the broadcast, we got the scoop: Parton had donated $1M to Vanderbilt University Medical Center. "I love children..." Parton said; and we love you, Muir said, to close the show.  

Parton's great, Muir's the host of "the most watched show on all of television" so, what's to wonder about on this? Going back to the first story in the post, and the "fanboy" comment about Kimmel, I can't help asking, is there any more "fanboy" news anchor than Muir?

What's got you wondering tonight?

Sunday School 6/12/22: Extra Credit

For your Sunday School Extra Credit, I bring you two interviews from Dana Bash in the CNN State of the Union classroom. First up? Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), who was involved in the 2nd Trump impeachment, and is also on the January 6th Committee. Here are a few highlights of their conversation.

Bash reminded Raskin about his saying the hearings would blow the roof off of the House, and wondered if "the most explosive testimony" was still to come. He said that they're going to "spell out and unspool" everything that was laid out in the first hearing, and he said

I know that our first hearing pierced the sound barrier. People are paying attention. But Americans need to pay further attention, because the danger is still out there. I mean, there was -- I just read this morning that, in Idaho, there was an LGBTQ Pride Day and a riot planted by domestic violent extremist groups, the same kinds of groups that were mobilized for the assault on the Capitol.

Bash asked if they can "prove that Donald Trump knew he lost, while publicly saying that he won." Raskin said he thinks they can 

prove to any reasonable, open-minded person that Donald Trump absolutely knew, because he was surrounded by lawyers, including the attorney general of the United States, William Barr, telling him in no uncertain terms, in terms that Donald Trump could understand, this is BS. He heard it from the White House counsel. He heard it from all of the lawyers who threatened to resign if he staged his little mini-coup against the Department of Justice.

They also talked about what should happen to Donald Trump; Raskin noted they have statutory authority for criminal referrals for contempt of Congress, which they've used with Peter Navarro, Steve Bannon and Mark Meadows, but that there's "not a specific statutory provision for just referring crimes" to the DOJ. That said, 

I suppose our entire investigation is a referral of crimes, both to the Department of Justice and to the American people... this is a massive assault on the machinery of American democracy, when you have a sitting president who tries to overthrow the majority in the Electoral College of his opponent, who beat him by more than seven million votes.

And whether Trump should be indicted Raskin pointed out that "respect by politicians for the independence of the law enforcement function" was one of the things that was "crushed" during the Trump years, and he wasn't going to participate in that. He also noted that Merrick Garland is a constituent, and

I don't browbeat my constituents. I think that he knows, his staff knows, the US attorneys know what's at stake here. They know the importance of it. But I think they're rightfully paying close attention to precedent and history, as well as the facts of this case. 

And, AG Garland made it clear the DOJ is paying attention, so there's that. 

Raskin also confirmed that it was "multiple members of Congress, as the vice chair said," that requested pardons. He said the details will come out "all in due time." And, yes, "...everything we're doing is documented by evidence. Unlike the big lie, which is based on nonsense..." 

Finally, on his carrying a copy of Thomas Paine's 'Common Sense' in his pocket, he said 

what we're going to need to get through this struggle in our history is common sense, the sense that we all have in common about what facts are and about what the truth is, and then common sense about how to move forward pragmatically as Americans. That's what we need - not lies, not conspiracy theory, not propaganda and disinformation. 

Next up was Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY). Bash asked for her reaction to the video shown in the opening hearing, "especially given" that she had told Bash last year she feared she could have been killed or even raped on January 6th. 

In a long and winding answer, she thought her reaction was probably the same one a lot of people had. She talked about the "disinformation and misinformation campaign that happened" afterwards, and that the messaging came from "right-wing disinformation networks... even from members of Congress...."

And so, I think, especially in the wake of that year of people trying to minimize what had happened, re-watching that footage was, I think, just -- it was like bringing everything from that day back again, not just for myself, but I also know for staff that were there that day, for support staff that were working there, for members of Congress that were there, and for the entire country that -- including many veterans that were watching on television, wondering, how could this be us? And so I think it was an incredibly evocative and physically resonant moment for many of us. 

Bash asked about AOC's tweets calling for Reps. Matt Gaetz, Marjorie Taylor Greene, and Lauren Boebert to say whether they had asked for pardons, and wondered if there was a reason she believed they did. AOC referenced Boebert "actively tweeting the speaker's location" and other "evocative, really provocative statements," which she said "very much, I believe, indicates a side here." She said every member of Congress should be able to answer this "very simple question" whether they had asked for a pardon, and she believes the Committee "would never make an allegation so serious" without evidence.

AOC expressed "disappointment" about the Senate's bipartisan gun legislation framework focusing on "increased criminalization and juvenile criminalization, instead of really having the focus on guns." She said they have to look at all options, "recognizing that the Senate simply right now isn't capable of, I believe, passing the comprehensive legislation in all forms that is needed." The proof will be in the text, which hasn't been disclosed, but she hopes it will be "responsibly put together." She said if they "can get background checks through" she hopes it's something she could vote for.

Moving to the midterms, Bash brought up AOC's support of NY State Sen. Alessandra Biaggi against Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney. And she quoted former Obama campaign manager Jim Messina, who said

This is counterproductive. The Supreme Court is about to outlaw abortion. We could lose both houses. So, we are going to focus our time running against each other? Now we're primarying committed progressives, because why? If we lose the House, it's because of dumb stuff like this."

So. what would AOC tell Messina? She pointed out a couple of "electric victories" - Greg Casar in Texas, and Summer Lee in Pennsylvania - saying that

when we are able to elect representatives that excite the Democratic base, that excite young people, that excite a multiclass, multiracial coalition, then that puts us in an even better position to win in November. I think, right now, there are a lot of voters at home that have quite a bit of anxiety about the enthusiasm right now in terms of turnout for the Democratic Party. And I think one of the best things that we can do is elect people with a proven record of being able to excite a base and turn it out.

She said she doesn't believe getting elected once means you're elected forever; that millennials are "deeply underrepresented in Congress" compared to boomers and Gen Xers "when they were our age."

And, at the end of the day, we need to have a generational shift in the United States Congress in order for us to have a policy shift in the United States Congress.

Finally, on whether she'll support President Biden in 2024, she said 

we will cross that bridge when we get to it. But I think, if the president has a vision, then that's something certainly we're all willing to entertain and examine when the time comes... But, right now, we need to focus on winning a majority, instead of a presidential election.

I definitely agree with her on that last part.  The Dems will have to address the Biden elephant in the room at some point, but winning this November has to be the priority.  

We've got another January 6th hearing tomorrow, and I encourage you to watch. 

See you around campus. 

Wondering on Wednesday 5/18/22

Ready... Set... Wonder!

Aw, shucks. North Carolina's Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R-I'm a Liar of the First Degree But I Swear, I Really Was Invited to those Orgies on Capitol Hill!) failed to win his primary and will not get a second term. So, what's next for him, after this year? Some have suggested he'll go to work at Mar-a-Lago, or become a commentator on a right-wing network or something, although I have to wonder if there are any media companies desperate enough to hire him.

Dr. Oz, a guy once famous for being a cardiothoracic surgeon and now famous as a flip-flopping, Trump-endorsed, Columbia University-disaffiliated, quack medicine-promoting, Turkish presidential-election voting, non-resident Republican Senate candidate in Pennsylvania, is effectively tied in that race with another MAGAist. A recount is almost certain to occur, given the margin of separation between them, barring some kind of election fraud 0r random meddling with the mail-in ballots, or some such silliness. 

And I can't help wondering, how fun would it be if some of the well-documented Republican election shenanigans we've learned about were to befall Pennsylvania again? Oh, don't get me wrong - I'm all for secure elections - but there have been so many instances of Rs behaving badly in the Commonwealth, it would almost be too rich if they had a mess in the primary.

On that point, the former president said that Oz should declare himself victorious, without waiting for all the votes to be counted, because, "It makes it much harder for them to cheat with the ballots that they "just happen to find." And, he said, we should go to all paper ballots with same-day voting. I wonder if he's practicing his speech for November 2024?

Sticking with things the former president said, it seems his contract with Trust Me Social or whatever it's called allows him to post on other platforms after a six-hour wait. Yep -according to an SEC filing cited in this Vanity Fair article, 

President Trump is generally obligated to make any social media post on TruthSocial and may not make the same post on another social media site for 6 hours. Thereafter, he is free to post on any site to which he has access. Thus, TMTG has limited time to benefit from his posts and followers may not find it compelling to use TruthSocial to read his posts that quickly.

I wonder, is there anything compelling at all about joining Trump's platform?

Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-You Kidding Me? Of Course My Caucus Supports Me - They Don't Have a Choice) was babbling earlier tonight about baby formula and Peloton memberships, saying the Dems were too busy to do anything about the former because they were focused on the latter.  Meanwhile, the House voted overwhelmingly make more formula available under the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) program. Nine members of McCarthy's House Lunatics Conference v0ted against the bill. 

I don't know about you, but I wonder, wouldn't we all be better off if this crew was at home, faces glued to Peloton apps, instead of bothering to show up to work?

What are you wondering about?

Knock Knock. Who's There? Fickle Democrats

Fickle Democrats who?

Fickle Democrats who sometimes forget what they stand for, when it's convenient for them to do so. And no, this has nothing to do with Joe Biden or Kamala Harris, I'm talking about the race for Congressional seats.

It's hard to be in the majority in the House when your newest, youngest, most progressive members don't appear to appreciate the benefits of being the majority, and are hell-bent on pushing their agenda, which as we know was NOT the winning agenda in the party's presidential primary. But that's not stopping them, it sure isn't.

And, after the success of AOC and Ayanna Presley and Rashida Tlaib and others, there are now all sorts of young whippersnappers who are primarying the old-timers among the Ds, and are trying to knock them off one by one, and they don't seem to care how that might impact the House majority, or the ability to get the majority in the Senate, or to win the White House, all of which are hugely consequential for anything progressive getting accomplished in the next two to four years.

Yeah, it's hard to be a Dem alright; between the different wings of the party, each impatient with the other, and the purity tests, it's not an easy needle to thread. There's a race in the 1st District for Massachusetts that has caught some attention, from a whole host of perspectives, that illustrates this pretty well, I think.

• The seat is currently held by Rep. Richard Neal, who's chair of the House Ways and Means Committee. Neal has the endorsement of the big national unions, some state unions, the late Rep. John Lewis, the Human Rights Campaign, and more. 
• He's been in office since the year his challenger, Holyoke Mayor Alex B. Morse, was born. (Not that there's anything wrong with being in office for 31 years...ahem). Morse is backed by progressive Dems and progressive organizations, including Move On and Our Revolution, which is the Sanders movement, among others.
• In addition to being the mayor, Morse also served as a guest lecturer at UMass-Amherst.

Outside groups have been involved in this campaign, (no surprise there - we're bombarded with them here in my neck of the woods every election), including American Working Families, which has thrown its support behind Neal. The group ran an ad which attacked Morse's record as Holyoke's mayor, said he was being bankrolled by outside groups (that always makes me chuckle, when the accusation comes from an outside group), and "hit him over 'sexual relationships with college students,'" closing the ad with an onerous voice-over saying

Alex Morse. Terrible judgement and a terrible record. 

After the ad appeared, American Working Families issued an apology and asked that the ad not be aired again, stating that it never intended the ad to see the light of day, that it was "accidentally sent to stations instead of a corrected version," and that they regretted the error. I'm not sure what was in the corrected version, but I can guess. Meanwhile, it was aired, it was seen, and it probably hasn't been forgotten.

Here's the thing, though, about the ad: Morse "ultimately acknowledged having had consensual relationships with some students" and at least for a short period of time, considered ending his race. But, there's a twist:

...the allegations against Morse were muddled after The Intercept published messages from some of the students who had made the accusations in which they discussed potential ways to hurt Morse's primary campaign. One student described himself as a "Neal stan" and expressed a desire to get an internship with the Congressman.

The whole thing is ugly, full of intrigue and party politics, and alleged anti-gay harassment, and yes, some of the students who made the accusations had their personal information shared on Twitter, so they'd feel the pain they deserved for their actions. All-in-all, a classic David and Goliath battle, played out on Twitter and elsewhere.

Now, those purity tests I mentioned, that the Dems are famous for? Among them are the ones about all victims of sexual abuse or harassment are to be believed, and that any hint of sexual transgression is enough to get you booted, right?

And let's not forget the longstanding concept that a person cannot have a consensual sexual relationship with someone who has power over them, whether it's a director and an actress, a supervisor and an employee, a police officer and people he's arrested, or a famous comedian making shadow hands over - not actually touching -  a sleeping woman's breasts. That 'imbalance of power' standard exists in the criminal justice system, in pretty much every HR manual, in most company policies, and in the Democratic Party rules.

Most people - even progressives, I'd guess - certainly wouldn't think that a 30-something female college professor who had consensual relations with her male students would be House of Representatives material, would they? Or that a 30-something male college professor who had consensual relations with his female students would be?

Did I mention that Morse is gay? And does that, or should that, give him a pass on the professor/student relationships? He knows his behavior was wrong; he admitted it was, and he apologized, using the classic "if I made anyone uncomfortable" language we've grown accustomed to hearing.

Now, maybe Morse was set up by bad actors trying to encourage a relationship, but he admitted having them, which puts the ball back in his court.

And now, we'll see which fickle Dem purity test matters: the one that says that sexual indiscretions are bad, the one that says progressives are good, or the one that says depending on who you are, an apology is fine and we'll welcome you with open arms.

The primary is today.  FYI, another one to watch? 39-year old  Congressman Joe Kennedy III is challenging 74-year old Ed Markey for Senate. AOC is supporting Markey....

Wondering on Wednesday (v199)

Ready... Set... Wonder!

Let's wonder about the coronavirus, for starters.

Remember when the House held impeachment depositions in the SCIF - the secure, compartmentalized info filing cabinet, or whatever you call it? And how horrible that was?  Well, I wonder why it is that, according to multiple sources who have spoken to Reuters, the administration is holding coronavirus meetings in a similar SCIF?

The officials said that dozens of classified discussions about such topics as the scope of infections, quarantines and travel restrictions have been held since mid-January in a high-security meeting room at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), a key player in the fight against the coronavirus.

And I wonder how it is that an NSC spokesman could make the following statement without snickering?

"From day one of the response to the coronavirus, NSC has insisted on the principle of radical transparency,” said the spokesman, John Ullyot. He added that the administration “has cut red tape and set the global standard in protecting the American people under President Trump’s leadership.”  (Emphasis added.)

Need an example of how we have NOT "set the global standard" under the president's leadership? Let's not try and wrap our arms around the entire response to the virus here in the US, let's wonder just about testing, OK?  Because testing, much more than hand-washing, is the key to identifying and dealing with the virus.

Here's a chart from March 8th published by Science Alert, showing the tests per million people stats from several countries. You'll see the US at the top of the chart, which is where we want to be, right? #MAGA and all? Well, no.

Now, the asterisk there on the US notes that the data is what the CDC has, and it "doesn't include accurate test counts from state, local, private and commercial labs." Which in and of itself is a problem, if you ask me, that the CDC doesn't even know what the heck is going on. 

But fear not; people are trying to figure it out for us. According to this March 9th article in The Atlantic,  

Nearly two weeks after the new coronavirus was first found to be spreading among Americans, the United States remains dangerously limited in its capacity to test people for the illness, an ongoing investigation from The Atlantic has found.

After surveying local data from across the country, we can only verify that 4,384 people have been tested for the coronavirus nationwide, as of Monday at 4 p.m. eastern time. These data are as comprehensive a compilation of official statistics as currently possible.

Now, let's compare that to the example of South Korea, as reported in this article, published today, in The Guardian:

The country is conducting about 15,000 tests a day, free of charge, and has carried out almost 200,000 screenings so far. It has also set up about 50 drive-through testing centres and distributed smartphone alerts about the movements of people who have tested positive.

So, NSC spokesman John Ullyot, if we've only tested around 5000 people, and South Korea is testing 15,000 each day, I'm not interested in having whatever swill you're selling. Thanks but no thanks, as they say.  But I do wonder how you people do this day in and day out, threatening us with "radical transparency" and delivering the exact opposite?

And no, I'm not panicking about the virus. I understand why people might be, but I'm much more panicked by the pandemic of lying permeating the Trump administration. Here are some links - ABC News, the NY Times, and Slate, and there are others -reporting on actual experts testifying before Congress today. I encourage you to take a look and get educated. The bottom line is, all of the news outlets are reporting that this is much worse than the president pretends it is - or wants it to be. 

What else is on the wondering agenda today? Well, there was that 'big Tuesday' thing yesterday, and it was, again, not what That Guy from Vermont was hoping for. He went home to Vermont without addressing supporters.  

Here are the results as we know them, as of around 7:30 PM here in NY. 

If you're a TGFV fan, this was not good, on the heels of Super Tuesday being not good, and on the heels of Iowa and New Hampshire being underwhelming, at best. 

In a statement earlier today, TGFV talked about the issue of electability, and how (per the email I got from him today)

while we are winning - very clearly - the ideological debate, we are losing, right now, the electability debate.

I cannot tell you how many people I and our campaign have spoken to that tell me that they like what our campaign stands for but they are going to vote for Joe Biden because they believe he is the best candidate to beat Trump.

Now. you may wonder if that's enough for him to step aside, and I can assure you, as he did today, that he's not. That will not be happening, at least not before the next round of primaries. He plans on debating hard on Sunday, and it seems he plans on asking all of the questions, not just answering them. During his remarks, he mentioned more than a handful of questions he planned on asking his friend Joe.   

So, what's the wondering about? Well, TGFV has regularly attacked the media for not reporting fairly, and for being part of the massive establishment that wants to take down his campaign. And so, I wonder if the reporters who were there today, or watching on TV were fast and furiously scribbling down the questions he wants to ask Papa Joe?  And I wonder whether reporters are going to ask Papa Joe what questions he wants to ask TGFV, so the moderators can ask those questions, too? 

A couple of other things I'm wondering about? 

The president plans on addressing the nation tonight (9PM, if you're interested) and I don't know yet whether he made enough headway with Congressional Republicans to get his now-til-election-day payroll tax waiver moving (not that he's trying to buy votes or anything), or if he's beaten Fed Chair Jerome Powell enough to get him to drop interest rates again, or what he has up his sleeve.  I wonder about that stuff, a little. 

But I heard on tonight's news that he went to Jared for help. That's right -- Jared of the ever-expanding portfolio has apparently been called in to write the speech that we'll hear later. And I wonder even more what the message will be with him behind the pen. Will we see new settlements of patients, maybe? You know, unilateral movements of them behind fences in areas that we can simply call coronavirus-free, and assume everyone will believe it? 

And I wonder, I do, about all the people who say this is "just the flu" and "just wash your hands" and whatnot, and how they feel about an economic stimulus for something so insignificant? I'm guessing they're up in arms, but you never know. (Well, wait -- we do know, of course. They are conspicuously quiet.)

Finally, let's turn to the sports world. 

We learned today that the NCAA is going to do March Madness without the madness that comes from having bodies in the seats. Other than game-essential folks and limited family members in attendance, the arenas will be empty. And so, I'm wondering if they'll get recordings of rabid fans from all the participating teams and blast them into the arenas during games? Because March Madness in silence? Yeah, there's no madness there. 

And last, we've got some fascinating stuff from the soccer world. As you may know, the US women's national soccer team has sued their governing body for equal pay with the men's team. There are some complicated issues here, from a legal responsibility perspective, but there's also this kind of stuff that makes one wonder.

That US men's team players often face openly hostile fans at their own home games, US Soccer argued, was also evidence that men work a different, more demanding job than women. The US men’s opponents, like Mexico, sometimes attract more supporters to games played on US soil than the US men do, especially in the wake of the men’s failure to qualify for the 2018 World Cup.

Got it? You get paid more when you lose because it's hard to deal with fans who are mad at you for losing, than you do for winning because, I guess, the fans are nicer?

That should make anyone wonder.