Top Posts of 2019

With the new year upon us, I've been cranking up the thinking and planning sections of my brain, as I'm sure many of you have. For me, that included some penciled in 'wish I could do better on...' things. Not resolutions per se, but intentions I hope to be mindful of this year.  

And it also included my annual look at the blog, updates to the Pages, considerations on changing the layout (none this year, or at least none now), and I also looked at last year's posts. In the course of that, I identified the five posts that appeared to spark your interest the most. Let's take a look. 

The top post was news in January from The Update Desk about the Allyn Family Foundation (AFF) and a new, mixed-use property it's developing in the city of Syracuse, which will house a food hall and market, office space for not-for-profit organizations, and residential units. A public name-the-market contest was held, and that's where our story picks up.

I vaguely remember the social media post where we could vote, and the overwhelming number of comments asking why it didn't mention Syracuse or the Salt City...

And it turns out, the AFF listened to what people wanted, and the name has been chosen: the Salt City Market. It's perfect, and it's a perfect example of ensuring the kind of community buy-in that the organization is looking for. Maarten Jacobs, one of the AFF folks, said

We want this to be a space that people feel they have ownership of the minute it opens.

The post was about a foundation, and a building, and a name - but it was more about the value of listening and responding to constituents, something that we often wish happened more - and something the majority of us can learn to do better. 

Number two was a TGIF post, also from January, dealing with the Covington Catholic High School kids and their interaction with a Native American Vietnam-era veteran, and the media reaction to it. But the post also included someone else who had a bad week: the president. Among other things, 

• five former DHS secretaries, including his own former Chief of Staff General John Kelly, admonished him to get the government reopened;

• he tried to bully his way into delivering performing his State of the Union address as originally scheduled, saying he was going to show up at the appointed time, until

• Nancy Pelosi let him have it with both sides of her gavel, telling him in no uncertain terms that she would not allow that to happen; 

And my favorite part?  

• he threatened to find an alternate location, finally caving in a tweet around midnight (presumably after talking with Sean Hannity) that he would accept Pelosi's decision

In November, the third most popular post also involved the president; this time, it was his proclamations which attracted the attention of the Irony Board. 

This year, in addition to celebrating our Native American heritage, we are celebrating several other things, including National Veterans and Military Families Month, with a proclamation noting (in part - ed)

...Together, we remain committed to fostering a national community of support for these brave heroes and their families.

This president signed this proclamation? This president, the guy who mocked a Gold Star family for speaking out against him; who assaulted the life and memory of John McCain; who deports  immigrant veterans despite the promise of citizenship for their patriotic service or the immigrant families of our veterans and soldiers; and who most recently has turned his "eternal gratitude" on Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman? 

But that wasn't all. Similar ironies were rampant related to his proclamation on our first-ever celebration of  National American History and Founders Month. It's mind-boggling, it really is. 

Coming in at number four? News in March from  The Update Desk, again, on our grand experiment here in New York with commercial casino gambling.

As has consistently been the case, the news is not good for our Vegas-style casinos in the Finger Lakes area, the Southern Tier, the Capital region, and the Catskills.  Leading the way, again, is the del Lago Resort and Casino down the Thruway a bit from Syracuse.

We're told of another downgrade in their credit rating and a likely continued 'negative' outlook.

If the two-year-old del Lago Resort and Casino in the Finger Lakes is to survive, it's going to need new cash investment or face a difficult restructuring of its debts and finances.

The issue? Lower than expected revenue growth and, oh yeah -- too many other opportunities for throwing your money away. The same issues confound the other three, which are not meeting their revenue estimates, either. del Lago was about 57% short of projections...

The financial issues for del Lago and the other casinos have only continued since then; I'm confident I'll have multiple updates on this subject again this year. 

And rounding out the top five was a Poll Watch entry from April, with information gleaned from a Fox News poll taken in March. As did many polls back then (and more current ones as well), it referenced the president's negative approval rating and the even more negative gap between strongly approving and strongly disapproving respondents. 

It also talked about a handful of key issues that have been part of the president's plan, and noted that on three of the four issues, he was under water with respondents.

Questioned on Trump's handling of four key issues - the economy, taxes, immigration, and health care, only on the economy, at +8, did he have a net positive. On taxes (-7), immigration (-13) and healthcare (-15), his approves were below his disapproves. Even worse, the numbers on his signature piece of legislation, the Christmas tax cut, are down from a year ago.

Of course, the only polls that matter are the ones that show him in a positive light, that show him to be the president he thinks he is.  That, too, will continue this year, I'm sure. 

In to 2020 we go - not knowing what will catch your eye this year, but intending to do just that. I hope you stick around.

Ranting and Raving (v3): Solving the Immigration Problem

It's been interesting watching the president's minions deflect questions about the president not making a statement against anti-Muslim terrorism, or why white supremacists find Trump to be an ally, and instead turn the conversation to how hard the president is working to protect us from terrorists of all kinds via his emergency declaration at the southern border.

I've addressed the racism and hatred in several recent posts (here, here, and here) as well as multiple times in the past but today I want to talk about immigration - the wall, and immigration beyond the wall. 

First off, show us the detailed map of where the proposed new wall is to be built, and what kind of wall it will be, along with the impact statements showing why those areas were chosen. Those impact statements would include information on illegal crossings that will be abated when the wall is built, the impact on local landowners, their crops, and their animals; the impact on the environment (such as the kind of flooding that has been experienced in Arizona since part of the wall was put up) and wildlife and the economic impact, if any, that will come from the wall being built. 

This information has to be available, and it should be shared with any interested party - meaning, any American who wants to read it. If it's unavailable, say, because no one has done this detailed study, shame on them. And shame on us. Cease work on the border wall unless and until the information is available. 

And why don't we spend the money Congress previously allocated that has not yet been spent, and the new money just authorized, and see how things are different after those sections of fencing are built? Show us the results from the actions taken, some of which should be immediate, if there is in fact a national emergency? 

Now, here comes the hard part. With the same level of enthusiasm as that being expressed by the president and his supporters, whether elected or otherwise, for building the wall: 

• let's actively get to work finding a way to identify, track down, and deal with the visa over-stayers, who make up a significant percentage of illegal immigrants in the US. This would include delivering them back to their home countries via a formal transfer, not just a "run along home, now" type of message.

• let's make sure the immigration courts are fully funded, fully staffed and aggressively resolving the massive backlog of criminal cases first, and then immigration-only cases that have existed for years. 

• let's first make sure that the private landowners who are going to lose access to their property and perhaps their livelihoods where the new wall is supposed to be built are compensated for their losses. 

• let's solve DACA. That doesn't mean sending teens and twenty-somethings "back" to a country they've never lived in, either.  It means citizenship, plain and simple, barring a criminal record (other than that they were brought here illegally by their parents).

• let's have a public discussion on 'merit' visas, such that we don't find the need to award special privileges to supermodels. 

• let's figure out why we are so hungry to bring in foreign parking valets, bartenders, and housekeepers to work at golf clubs, wineries, and resorts owned by the president- president's sons and other companies. Those jobs should go to Americans. If they need training, the properties can train them - on their own dime, not with taxpayer dollars.

• let's figure out why we want foreign doctors and foreign engineers and so on, all those foreigners who want to love America (but who don't come from shithole countries, of course), instead of making sure that Americans can get an education and that there are funded positions for them to help solve our doctor shortage or engineer shortage or other highly-skilled position shortage.  

• let's make sure that all border crossings are fully equipped with all of the tools and staff they need to effectively identify and interdict the drugs and the murders and rapists and all of those duct-taped women that are flooding our border. 

• let's make sure we've got lots of Americans ready to do apprenticeships with migrant workers so they can learn how to pick crops so that businesses won't be tempted to hire foreigners to help them put food on our tables. 

• let's make sure that we're not allowing asylum seekers to become victimized at the holding centers we put them in, and let's make sure we're not 'losing' children who are taken into custody at the border. 

• let's act like we at least understand what it is that draws people to America, the beacon of hope and justice - and then act with decency towards those who want a part of that. 

• let's make sure that we are supplying adequate funding to the countries that are the main sources of illegal immigration, rather than threatening to cut it, so that they can build up their own countries and make it less appealing for people to make the journey to potential freedom in America. 

• let's figure out if there's any way that we can mitigate the damage to plant and animal species along the border.  

• let's see the negotiator-in-chief shame American wall contractors the same way he shames Boeing and Lockheed Martin into giving us a better price. 

• let's see if we can't come up with something on the border other than a simple wall, something that would, I don't know, produce energy, create permanent jobs (other than law enforcement), empower people on both sides of the border - and maybe let's see if we can partner with Mexico, instead of battling with them? 

• let's see if we can't stop the lying and the fear-mongering and maybe start acting like adults.

None of what's written above says, in any way, that every person who shows up here needs to be allowed to stay. None of it says that we should get rid of ICE or have totally open borders or that walls are immoral or anything like that.

What it does suggest is that we cannot attack a complex problem with only the simplest of solutions, because we have seen time and time again that this does not work. And that's what the wall is - the simplest solution that solves only one part of the 'incoming' problem, and does nothing about any of the other issues that make up "immigration" in the United States.

I'm not pro-crime, pro-gangs, pro-drugs, or any of that other happy horse poop we hear from the president all the time.  I am also not anti-immigration.

I'm all for legal immigration, and I am for treating people who are legitimately seeking asylum here with dignity - and in accordance with international law.

Both parties, all leaders, all members of Congress - every last one of them, regardless of where they sit relative to the proverbial aisle, must look beyond their next election, and stop feeding the beast. They need to do what we sent them there to do, and if they are unwilling - or unable - they must go.

It's that simple. It's as simple as building a wall. 

Wondering on Wednesday (v164)

The weeks, they go by so fast, don't they?

Just last Wednesday, we were reviewing the president's SOTU (something I never really finished doing, I realize - so I'll get to that soon, I promise), and worrying about the potential for another shutdown, and a bunch of women in white and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's random standing around.

And here we are a week later worrying about the potential for another shutdown, we've got more Dem women running for president, and well, the Speaker is  - well, the Speaker is the current Queen of the Meme for her clapback of the president.

On the possibility we'll have another #Trumpshutdown, which his team has said remains on the table, we know that a bipartisan agreement was reached the other day, and we hear that the president is "not happy" with the compromise that was reached, but is expected to sign it if it gets to his desk. He's suggesting that there'll be some $23B for border security when all is said and done, some part of it to be found by juggling money from department budgets that may keep him from having to declare a national emergency to get at funds.

He's also proclaimed that no president has ever worked harder and I have to wonder, where's the data for that? Bueller? Anyone?

TGIF 2/1/19

The first TGIF of February, and it's all good news - how does that sound?

First up,  a shout-out to new Congressman Anthony Brindisi, who represents the district next to mine here in Central New York. Brindisi was named one of the co-chairs of the Blue Dog Coalition, a group of 27  moderate-to-conservative Dems. In his role, he'll be the whip, the one responsible for helping ensure members stick together - and vote together - in support of the caucus's ideals:

The Blue Dogs are dedicated to pursuing fiscally-responsible policies, ensuring a strong national defense for our country, and transcending party lines to get things done for the American people.

Brindisi's already made a dent in his first few weeks in Congress - first, he kept his commitment and did not vote for Nancy Pelosi as House Speaker; and he and John Katko, my Congressman, managed to spend bipartisan time recently calling for an end to the #trumpshutdown.  Good on both of them for that.

Sunday School 1/27/19

Lots going on this morning on the talk shows, most of which will not be addressed in today's post.

For example, I won't say much of anything about Roger Stone's TV appearance but he was asked this absurd question by George Stephanopoulos:

You're in good shape but you're not a young man, 66 years old. Are you prepared to spend the last, best years of your life in jail?

The point of the question, which must have been a plant, was to allow Stone to plug his legal defense fund. If ABC has an ombudsman, I hope that person looks at this interview. Shame on the network for giving Stone this platform. And shame on Stone for having a tattoo of Richard Nixon's face on his back. That's just wrong.

Also on with George today? Former NJ Governor Chris Christie, an ABC News contributor and now the author of  "Let Me Finish: Trump, the Kushners, Bannon, New Jersey and the Power of In Your Face Politics" (a book not to miss, according to USA Today).  Here's a snippet of that interview:

What I outline in the book, though, is garbage in, garbage out. And the problem for the president has been at time, and especially the people he had around him in the beginning, were just not suited to be there. And when you're getting advice from those people, lie the executive orders we talk about right in the beginning, with Steve Bannon and others writing them on the back of an envelope essentially, not vetted... you know, when you do that kind of stuff, when you have people who think they can be rogue actors like that, that ill-serves the president. They got him off to a really bad start in that regard, and it drove me crazy because I knew we had a plan for him that would have gotten him off to a good start with good people. 

It's important to remember that while Steve Bannon formally fired Christie, it was Jared Kushner who gave the order.

TGIF 1/25/19

Wow -- what a week this one was!

I don't know about you, but I got a little tired trying to keep up with who was staring down who, and who was or wasn't blinking, and stuff like that.  Let's take a look.

Covington Catholic had a down and up week when a video appeared to show their #MAGA hat-wearing, women's rights-protesting students engaged in what appeared to be a racist, tomahawk-chopping, chanting in the face of a Native American elder and Vietnam War veteran.

Even their diocese pounced on them, promising a full investigation of their behavior.  And then, more video cropped up, and the race to condemnation turned away (somewhat, but not completely) from the kids and onto the vet, and more particularly onto the media.

There was lots of condemnation to go around on this one, for sure. In the end, the kids were not the instigators; the veteran was of the Vietnam War era, but never served out of the country, and the media? Well, yeah, there's still plenty of condemnation for them, all around: for the original reporting, for being too slow to respond when additional videos were made public, for their treatment of the Native American elder, for their interview with the start of the protest, and for their explanations and apologies, or the lack thereof.

No one was happy, I think - or, maybe I should say no one should be happy.   I expect the students will be invited to the White House, as survivors of the war on religion AND the war against the #fakenews.

But someone definitely had a worse week than the entire city of Covington, Kentucky.

TGIF 1/11/19

Well, happy Friday, everyone! How's your week going?

NY's junior senator Kirsten Gillibrand seems to be having a good week - she's hired some new folks and rented some new office space, and she's also traveling to Iowa, we've heard. Based on all of  this, it seems the senator is staring at 2020 on her calendar. Even though, we remember, she made it clear during her 2018 campaign that she had no designs on a presidential race. "I will serve my six year term." she said.

But if she's planning on serving her full Senate term, maybe all of her work now is really just to get her better name recognition for 2024? Of course, at that point, she might be joined in the race by our Sonofa Gov Andrew Cuomo - he's also not running in 2020, he's assured us, but he sure sounds like he's running sometime soon.

Staying in New York,  I really can't tell if Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is having a good week or a bad week. She seems just fine being in the public eye for, well, for being in the public eye. Giving as good as she gets when people say something about her, whether it's an attack from the right or a nudge from the left; whether it's a response to an interview, an attack on her college dancing, even pictures of naked legs (that aren't hers) or just someone deciding to talk about all of the attention she's getting. Which generates more attention, which generates more responses, which generates more attention, and so on.

I'm going to get yelled at for this, I'm sure, but I'd love for her to be getting attention for her work in Congress, not because she is in Congress. And yes, I know it's early, and I know this new class of Dems is the loudest bunch of folks the media has seen since, well, that orange cur rode the escalator, but the proof is not in the press, it's in the pudding.

A Crisis by Design

The national news media has succumbed to the threat of being yelled at by the biggest bully in the whole damn valley, and all of the major networks will give free airtime to the president so he can tell us all about the crisis at the southern border that, frankly, is entirely by design - his design.

Now, don't get me wrong - we have long had an immigration problem, and it needs to be fixed - about that, there should be no question. But, that immigration problem is not defined by the need for a wall, and it won't be fixed by the construction of a wall, whether it's a big beautiful concrete one (about which the president knows more than anyone) or some variation on a theme of steel slats that is equally aesthetically pleasing (about which the president knows more than anyone) or even just concertina wire and chain link fence (about which the president surely knows more than anyone).

Since he announced his candidacy, "Build That Wall" has been the cry around which his supporters will reliably rally, because we are meant to fear the dark skinned people who cross the southern border.

It matters not whether they have crossed legally or illegally really - because just by looking at them, we are unable to tell which is which, just like we can't tell a good black person walking down the street, or shopping in a store, or making a phone call in a hotel lobby, or swimming in a pool, or hailing a cab, or driving down the highway or doing any number of other things that human beings do, from a bad one.

That's the point of fear. And that's the basis of this 'crisis' that the president has created, embraced, and exacerbated, and which he now must trying and convince us is real.

Sunday School 12/30/18

Too many of the usual suspects were on the shows this morning, including Lindsey Graham and Kellyanne Conway, so I only visited on classroom this morning: Face the Nation on CBS, with Margaret Brennan hosting.

Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL) and Senator Jon Tester (D-MT),  members of the Senate Appropriations Committee, were on the show. Tester was a frequent target of president Trump, primarily over the thought that Trump might want to do some vetting on Dr. Ronny Johnson before nominating him to be VA Secretary.

Shelby was up first; the conversation was mostly about the shutdown and who might be to blame; polls say Trump more than the Dems.

...we've got to move away from the blame game, blaming the president, blaming the Democrats, Pelosi and Schumer and others, and get back to doing what we're sent here to do, funding the government.

Shelby indicated he's had conversations with the president and veep, and that some proposals had been shared, but no progress.

Right now, we're at a standoff, and I think that's not good for the Senate, the House, or America. We can do better and we've got to figure out a way, Margaret, do get to yes. If we blame each other, this could last a long, long time. 

Brennan wondered why continuing funding at the current level, $1.3B, was not enough. Shelby said, simply,

Well, the president wants more... 

Shelby repeated his 'we have to stop blaming each other' speaking point, even on the question of whether he agreed with the president's tweet stating that the deaths of two children at the border were "strictly the fault of the Democrats."

Of course, the majority of Republicans studiously avoid saying they do or don't agree with the president when he tweets stuff like this, or when he lies, or attacks innocent people (including our allies, or their own colleagues) which is why the president continues to tweet and lie and attack on a daily basis.

Regarding Chief of Staff General John Kelly's comment that we need to "stop US demand for drugs and expand economic opportunity in Central America" to solve our immigration problem - which looked like a contradiction to Trump suggesting that we cut aid to Central American countries - Brennan asked if Shelby agreed or if Congress would even consider that.

Well, I don't know yet, The president speaks for himself and he does speak for a lot of the nation because he is the president. But my goal is to secure the border... we're one of the great nations of the world that don't secure the borders...

He did agree that things will be different when the Dems take hold of the House, that there will have to be negotiations on things like protections for DREAMers, but Shelby sees his job as securing the borders - not a lot of room for anything else in his comments.

Tester's interview also focused on the shutdown. Brennan started by referencing Shelby's comments that they need to know what the Dems want, and when.

...The problem is that the president has $1.3B from last year for border security, actually $21B for border security, $1.3B for the wall, (and) that he has spent very, very little of that. And he says he needs more...

Bottom line is, Margaret, is that I don't talk to anybody in the Senate that doesn't want secure borders. It's just how the money is going to be spent. 

He also noted that the president moved the goalposts, originally asking for $1.6B (which Shelby and McConnell both voted for) but then upping the demand to $5B. Tester continued to focus on how the money would be spent, including referencing both manpower and technology as being more effective than a wall.

Brennan asked about adding 'sweeteners' such as protection for DREAMers as a way to get Dems to move up from the current figure.

Well...we've been here before. I was in the room when the president said 'if Congress passes that, I'm going to sign it' and then he moved back away from that... ultimately in the end we do need comprehensive immigration reform, there's no doubt about that. But in the end we need to know what the president wants.  And hopefully he'll stick to it... We need some predictability.

NO! They need to pass comprehensive immigration legislation, send it to his desk, and let him veto it. And then, after he tweets his brains out, they can either go back at it or they can override his veto.  Tester, of all people, should know that his job is not sitting around waiting for the president to pull Congressional puppet strings. 

Brennan asked if there was "a cost for Democrats to appear to work with the president?" Tester's answer?

No, I think what Democrats need to do is they need to work for the country, and make sure that not only the southern border, but the northern border is secure, make sure that we have the ability on the borders to be able to screen every vehicle to make sure that drugs don't come into this country. And I think that if we're able to get a plan to be able to do that, which I don't think is hard to do, I think Democrats and Republicans can work together to make sure that we have a secure border and keep this country safe.

They talked a little about tariffs and how the trade war is hurting farmers (Tester is one). The bottom line on this? We need the foreign markets, and we need to find another way to hold China accountable, "other than using the family farmer, the American farmer, as a tool."

We'll close with how Dems can win in the Midwest and West.

I think it's more of a function of listening and going everywhere. I don't believe in models that say you just knock on this door, you just go to this community and you'll get elected. I think you go everywhere and you listen to everybody. Everybody's got ideas. Some of them are great - take those great ideas back to Washington DC and that's how we win.

Brennan asked if he was suggesting that Dems are out of touch with Tester's part of the country.

I think all politicians have gotten out of touch. In fact, they just go to certain places where they think they can get enough votes to win. 

I think that what makes this country great is a Washington DC that works for everybody and works for this country. And in order to do that, you've got to go everywhere and listen to everybody's concerns and needs and go back and try to find solutions.

Spot on - they ARE out of touch, they ARE focused on winning, they are not focused on doing what we send them there to do.

See you around campus.  

Wondering on Wednesday (v159)

Lo and behold, it's the last Wednesday of 2018 already - how did that happen?

I have to wonder whether anyone else noticed a certain calm today. You know, the kind of calm we have when the president is not watching Fox and tweeting policy statements, personal attacks, and personnel decisions?  The kind of calm that causes others to tweet more softly into the night? The kind of calm that will almost certainly be shattered within hours?

Today the president fulfilled one of the expectations of the office: he made a visit to US troops overseas, making a surprise visit to Iraq. The only real surprise was the timing; it was pretty much a forgone conclusion that he'd go, and he as much as said so in comments after his disastrous trip to Paris to 'celebrate' the anniversary of the end of World War I and then for his failure to participate in Veterans' Day ceremonies when he got back home. He's a very busy man, he's told us, so we appreciate that he did this, finally - although I wonder whether he could have held out much longer.

And while he had originally intended to spend 16 days or so basking in the Florida sunshine with his dues-paying friends at Mar-a-Lago, those plans got squashed when he brought about partial government shutdown. Oh wait - I wonder, are there people reading who might think the shutdown is the fault of anyone other than the president? The guy who said he'd be proud to shut it down? I hope not; after all, it's been beaten in to our heads since the election that we needed to respect him, and so I'm taking him at his word on this one. At his first word, I mean.

I'm not sure when the president will be able to get to Florida, whether he'll be able to be there for his New Year's Eve party or if he'll still be sitting all alone in the Oval Office waiting for the Dems to call. We do know that ticket prices have gone up again, as they did last year, for the bash - which I'd find disappointing if I were having to pay extra but not getting to be within earshot of the POTUS.

We got two different Christmas messages from the president. The first was simple, and complete and needed nothing, coming from this man so usually full of himself.

Merry Christmas!

And then, hours later, as if he realized that he had sold himself short, and us too, he used Christmas as a weapon against his two favorite foes:

I hope everyone, even the Fake News Media, is having a great Christmas! Our Country is doing very well. We are securing our Borders, making great new Trade Deals, and bringing our Troops Back Home. We are finally putting America First. MERRY CHRISTMAS! #MAGA

In between, we learned that because of the Democrats,

It's a disgrace what's happening in our country. But other than that, I wish everybody a very Merry Christmas.

With those season's greetings now enshrined in our history, I can only wonder what he'll wish us in his New Year's Eve message?

InVerse

The one in which we listen to House Speaker- designate Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer respond to comments made by the president; his part of the conversation can be found in the latest OrangeVerse.

Prelude 

A long time.

Soon. Soon.

I

Well, thank you

Mr. president

for the opportunity to meet

with you so that

we can work together...

I think the American people

recognize that we must

keep government open..

that you should

not have a

Trump shutdown

II

You have the White House -

a Trump shutdown

You have the White House -

You have the Senate.

You have the House of Representatives

You have the votes.

You should pass it

right now.

You could bring it up

right now, today.

Well, the fact it

you could get it started that way.

OK

Then do it.

Then do it.

No that's not the point.

No that's not the point.

that's not the point.

That is exactly right. 

III

Well, then go do it.

Go do it.

No, don't put it on the Senate

Put it on the negotiation.

You will not win. 

don't blame it on the senate...

you have the White House, 

you have the Senate, you

have the House of Representatives.

But you can't -- you can't -- 

All right, let me say something here. 

IV

Yeah. Here's what I want to say.

We have disagreements here.

The Washington Post

gave you a whole lot of Pinocchios

because they say you constantly misstate

how much of the wall is built 

and how much of it is there.

but that's not the point

here, we have a disagreement

about the wall

whether it's effective

or it isn't.

Not on border security but

on the wall.

V

We do not want to

shut down the government.

You have called 20 times to

shut down the government. 

You say "I want to

shut down the government. 

We don't.

We want to come

to an agreement...

 because you

let me finish

because you

can't get your way.

VI

We urge you to take it.

It is good border security

It is very good border security

It is actually what the border security 

asked for.

it's what the border - 

you just said it was effective

Yeah

you just said it was effective

We want to do this - 

Wait a second.

Let's call a halt to this

Yeah.

VII

Let's call a halt to this.

We've come in here

as the first branch of government.

Article 1, the legislative branch.

We're coming in, 

in good faith, 

to negotiate with you about

how we can keep the government open.

Open.

The American - 

The American - 

I'm with you

I'm with you

We're going to have border security

And it's the same border

Effective border security

You're bragging about

what has been done.

We want to do the same thing

we did last year this year. 

If it's good then it's good

now... Let's debate. 

Coda

We have taken - 

Let's debate in private. 

We have taken 

this conversation -

Okay?

Yeah.

 - to a place that is 

devoid, frankly

of fact. 

And we can dispel that.

Yes we do.

We do.

Yes.

Wondering on Wednesday (v120)

It's Wednesday -- you know what that means, right?

Why, I wonder, is the president so fixated on having a nice little American Bastille Day. Or North Korea Day. Or Russia Day? I don't know that anyone knows for sure what exactly he's looking for - is it to show that his whatever is bigger than everybody's whatever? Or, to show that he likes out veterans so much he'd make them suffer through an hours-long parade? Or maybe in his cold war dreams, a parade's the only thing that makes sense to show American power? Or, is it just a play for attention?  Regardless, this is a great rendition of the classic "I Love a Parade" to get you in the mood.

What else is on mind tonight? My three nephews; two are Navy men, the third is a civilian Department of Defense employee.  All of them need their paychecks, thank you very much, and so we're all very focused on efforts to ensure the government stays open, even though the president would love a SHUTdown, we'll do a SHUTdown, we need a SHUTdown and together my husband and I said he needs to SHUT up already!

Meanwhile, 

On Wednesday, Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer announced a deal on budget caps that would increase investments in domestic programs and the military by roughly $300 billion over the next two years: the deal lifts funding for domestic programs by $128B and hikes defense budgets by $160B.

Also on Wednesday, Nancy Pelosi broke the record for the longest speech on the House floor since the House had a floor - or, at least since 1909.  Pelosi, of whom I am not a fan, was protesting that McSchumer's plan did not include anything about Dreamers, who are not a deportation priority, according to the Trump administration, and also don't appear to be a legislative priority, if Senators are willing to try and fund the government without ensuring protections for them.

I wonder about $300 billion in new spending in two years -- two years! -- no matter what it's for. I wonder why we can't just agree to address DACA and Dreamers without having to tie that to all of the 'bad' immigration - you know, the killers who come her to kill American teenagers; the chain migration that allows someone to come here and kill American adults, and the drug dealers that come here to kill everyone. THAT immigration, the Trump vision of immigration, is something I will also continue to wonder about, for reasons I've spoken of many times in these pages.

Now, we all have to wonder whether the House will approve what the Senate leaders worked out. As usual, I expect there are almost as many reasons to disapprove of the plan as their are House members, and likely fewer reasons to approve it.

And I'll continue to wonder why the people we send to Congress can't do their jobs - but will get paid anyway, in a shutdown - while my three nephews all can do theirs without any issues, and may not get paid at all.

Poll Watch: Good and Bad News for Democrats

I saw a couple of poll results cross my news feeds and thought I'd share. One seems to provide a bit of good news for the Democrats, but the second one is less promising.

Let's start with the bad news side of the ledger: according to a new NBC News/SurveyMonkey poll, the government shutdown was the fault of Democrats and president Trump, with the Dems having a slight lead in the blame category.

First, the small print: the poll was conducted online January 20 - 22, 2018 from a national sample of 3450 adults, who were selected from the 3,000,000 or so people who take SurveyMonkey surveys daily. The error rate is plus or minus 2.2%.

OK, so that's out of the way - who is more to  blame for the government shutdown?

• 4% don't know
• 18% said Republicans in Congress
• 38% of respondents said president Trump, and
• 39% said Democrats in Congress

That's not a good thing for the Democrats; I've already stated my distaste for it. A huge majority - 81% - said that threatening a shutdown to achieve policy goals is unacceptable, whether it's the president or members of Congress behind the ploy.

Other insights from this poll?

• 60% of respondents think the country is headed in the wrong direction; the same percentage think that Trump did not show strong leadership during the shutdown.
• 79% think it's more important to compromise to find solutions
• 47% strongly disapprove and another 11% somewhat disapprove of the way the president handles his job

In an ABC News/Washington Post poll taken via land line and cell phones January 15 - 18, 2018 (in English and Spanish) of 1005 adults and 846 registered voters (31% Democrats, 23% Republicans and 40% independents), things seem pretty positive for the Dems when it comes to the upcoming mid-term election.

• 51% of registered voters would support the Democrat over the Republican in their district
• 54% of registered voters who are certain to vote support the Democrat 
• 54% of registered voters who are certain to vote who were old enough to vote in the last midterm - and did so - support the Democrat

That's a 6% swing from the Rs to the Ds among likely voters since November.

What else did we learn here?

• Non-whites overwhelming favor the Democrat (74% - 15%); up 27% since November
• Women support the Democrat (64% to 29%); in November, it was 55% - 40%.
• Men still favor the Republican, 51% to 42%, consistent with November
• Independents continue to favor the Democrat (51% to 37%), unchanged from the prior poll

Finally, and unsurprisingly, Trump supporters back the Republican in their district 90% - 6%, where Trump detractors favor the Democrat 88% - 6%. 

What does this all mean? I have no idea, really, and I'm not sure the pollsters do either - but there are a couple of milestones on the horizon, and it would be interesting to see how things look then. 

The first is when the promised raises from the tax reform bill go into effect. That's likely to hit everyone by mid-February, we're told.  The second? What happens in the next sixteen days before the short-term continuing resolution to fund the government is set to expire.

Taking Notice, and Taking Names

Remember when UN Ambassador Nikki Haley said we'd be taking names at the UN?

That list-making was to make sure we didn't miss any of the countries that voted against us by voting for a resolution condemning the United States for moving our embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem; people who voted against the resolution, and for us, were invited to a party!

Tonight, I'm taking names, but the first list is for the opposite reason from Ambassador Haley. This is the good kind of name-taking, the kind we don't get to do all that often, especially when it comes to talking about stuff that happens in Washington DC.

Lamar Alexander (R-TX)

Susan Collins (R- ME)

Chris Coons (D-DE)

Bob Corker  (R-TN)

Joe Donnelly (D-IN)

Jeff Flake (R-AZ)

Cory Gardner (R-CO)

Lindsey Graham (R-SC)

Maggie Hassan (D-NH)

Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND)

Johnny Isakson (R- GA)

Doug Jones (D-AL)

Tim Kaine (D- VA)

Angus King (I-ME)

Amy Klobuchar (D-MN)

Joe Manchin III (D-WV)

Claire McCaskill (D-MO)

Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)

Bill Nelson (D-FL)

Gary Peters (D-MI)

Mike Rounds (R-SD)

Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH)

Mark Warner (D-VA)

This is the bipartisan group of senators who managed to convince their leadership, and some 50 something of their closest honorable friends to vote to end the #stupidshutdown, reopen the government and stop playing chicken with the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of  government employees and members of the military. 

And here are the senators who voted against reopening the government. 

Cory Booker (D-NJ)

Richard Blumenthal (D-CT)

Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV)

Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)

Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)

Kamala Harris (D-CA)

Mazie Hirono (D-HI)

Patrick Leahy (D-VT)

Mike Lee (R-UT)

Edward Markey (D-MA)

Robert Menendez (D-NJ)

Jeff Merkley (D-OR)

Christopher Murphy (D-CT)

Rand Paul (R-KY)

Bernie Sanders (I-VT)

Jon Tester (D-MT)

Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)

Ron Wyden (D-OR)

I don't pretend to know why these folks voted against reopening the government; maybe they're still mad at Mitch McConnell, or at Donald Trump. For all I know, they're made as hell at Hillary Clinton for not winning.  And, to be honest, I also don't know what's in the heart of hearts of the people who worked so hard to get the compromise that this second group of folks had the pleasure of voting against. 

I just know which list I'd use if I were throwing a party for the people whose names I took.

The Real Football is the Military

Everyone knows that there are few things politicians like more than using our military as a giant pawn in every political decision. It doesn't matter whether it's our veterans or active duty or pencil-pushers in the Pentagon - "the military" as a collective entity is top of mind when needed, with little hesitation and even less restraint, by folks from both sides of the aisle.

And, everyone knows that government shutdowns are ridiculous, especially since all of our elected officials know when the budget is due, and know pretty much what they have to do in order to get one passed. I mean, even New York State legislators have been able to pass on-time budget, repeatedly, and that's saying quite a bit. 

The other thing politicians like to do? Blame the other guy. Everyone knows that, too. Here's just one example, from Saturday morning.

And Veep Mike Pence did his part on Sunday too, to make sure the military felt the love. Speaking to soldiers near the Syrian border, Pence had this to say:

Despite bipartisan support for a budget resolution, a minority in the Senate has decided to play politics with military pay. But you deserve better... We're not going to reopen negotiations on illegal immigration until they reopen the government and give you, our soldiers, and your families the benefits and wages you deserve. 

Because, mind you, the Republicans own the military, and only the Republicans should  be playing around with their wages and benefits and don't you forget it! And let's go to a foreign country and slam the American government! That's fun stuff! 

Oh wait -- isn't that what the Rs always said Obama did? We can't have that, can we? I thought this administration was supposed to undo everything the prior administration did?

Juxtapose that Trump-Pence rhetoric against Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) asking for unanimous approval to pay the military during the shutdown, right after Friday night's vote for the Continuing Resolution failed. 

This shouldn't take very long, but I was most disappointed tonight when the President of the United States put out a statement that tried to divide us based on party when it came to support of our military.

There is no such division; everyone in this chamber know it, and so as we have in other instances where we have had a shutdown - and I remember in 2013 we did this right off the bat - I want to make sure that tonight, we send a very clear signal, that we don't want one moment to pass with there being any uncertainty, with any soldier, anywhere in the world, that they will be paid for the valiant work they do on behalf of our national security.

McCaskill then asked, using appropriate parliamentary language, that they get off their collective fannies and approve pay - and death benefits - for the military.  The presiding officer then asked if there were any objections. Enter Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

Mr. President, I am reserving the right to object. We passed similar legislation during the government shutdown back in 2013. My hope is that we can restore funding for the entire government before this becomes necessary. I'm gonna object for tonight but we'll discuss again tomorrow. Therefore I object. 

In less than two minutes, one politician offered to do the right thing, and another one shut the right thing down.

Remind me again - who's playing football with the military?

Sunday School 1/21/18

Did you think maybe they'd be talking about the government shutdown in the classrooms today? You'd be right.

On CNN's State of the Union, Budget Director Mick Mulvaney talked to Jake Tapper about the difference between a government shutdown and a government shutdown. Meaning, the one in 2013 was a good one because then-President Obama owned it, and this one which is a bad one and not something that current president Trump owns.

Tapper showed the old clip of Trump talking about government shutdowns:

Problems start from the top, and they have to get solved from the top. And the president's the leader and he's got to get everybody in a room and he's got to lead. In 25 years and 50 years and 100 years from now, when the government is - you know, when they talk about the government shutdown, they're going to be talking about the president of the United States. Who was the president at that time. They're not going to be talking who the head of the House was, the head of the Senate. 

Mulvaney explained the difference between then and now, focusing on Trump having meetings "in the days leading up to" the shutdown as counting for being actively engaged, compared to Obama in 2013.

President Obama did not engage in that process. I know. I was there... we never heard from the White House. We actually believed they wanted a shutdown. That's the difference here. President Obama wanted a shutdown so that he could weaponize it and make political points out of it, which is exactly what he did.

Never mind that Trump has been reportedly only been talking to Republicans, not Democrats, which would be exactly consistent with 2013.

Mulvaney himself went on the record back then about whether the shutdown was worth it, in another clip Tapper shared.

It was. Any time you fight for something you really believe in, and something you think is important, then the fight is -- the fight is going to be worth it. If you stand up for what you believe in, I think you'll always end up on the right side of things.

Tapper asked if that wasn't what the Dems were doing.

Not really.  And here's the difference... we were voting against a bill we did not like in 2013. 

Alrighty, then. We are on the right side of things, and they are not.

On Meet the Press, Chuck Todd talked with Marc Short, White House director of legislative affairs, who let us know that the president was all over this shutdown, having talked to several Republican leaders (but no Democrats) yesterday, and to a Secretary or two and one of his Generals as well, to make sure he understood what was going on. And, we were told, he was working in a bipartisan way last week - same as Mulvaney told CNN - to try and avoid a shutdown.

Short suggested that Dem votes had nothing to do with anything other than denying Trump's accomplishments.

...when you look back over the last year and you see record tax relief...Supreme Court justice confirmed...more justices confirmed at the circuit court level that any year in American history, repeal of the individual mandate, you see all the things the administration has done and they're being held captive by a base in their party that is angry. And they're responding to that base. This is not about policy, Chuck. It's purely about politics. 

Short let us know, as did Mulvaney said earlier, we're on the right side of thing, and they're not.

We got a second dose of Mulvaney today; he also dropped in on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace. Most of what he said was the same, but he did have more to offer on why this happened, including those archaic rules in the Senate that honor the minority by requiring 60 votes (Trump is again calling for Mitch to go nuclear), for example. Wallace pointed out that they couldn't even get all of the Republicans to vote for this. Twice he pointed out that only 46 Rs voted they way they were supposed to. The third time, he hit hard.

CW: The point is, you do not have your house in order. You have only 46 Republicans supporting this

MM: And again, if you had 10 or 15 Democrats and it still failed, I think your point is fair. But right now, until you have at least nine Democrats, we cannot open the government.

CW: Well, you don't have 51 Republicans either.

MM: Right, but again, short of nine, what difference does it make? Without nine Democrats, this government is not opening. 

Which means, in a nutshell, the Rs aren't unified and they don't care, because it doesn't matter because Benghazi the Dems are to blame.

Wrapping things up, Wallace asked him to handicap the chances of getting the government open.

I really do believe that at heart here, there was an interest by some folks in the Democratic Party to deny the president sort of a victory lap on the anniversary of his inauguration, the chance to talk about the success of the tax bill, success of the economy and jobs. And I think if they get over that, there's a chance that this thing gets done before 9:00 on Monday morning and folks would come to work.If that doesn't happen, it could go several days because I think there's other Democrats who want to see the president give the State of the Union during a shutdown.

Again, alrighty then one more time. Not only do they not care about policy, or have any principles, the Dems are a bunch of  crybabies trying to deny the president his just desserts.

Meanwhile, a couple of things about that  "weaponizing" comment Mulvaney made on MTP. First, here's the childish message on the White House switchboard yesterday:

Thank you for calling the White House. Unfortunately we cannot answer your call today because congressional Democrats are withholding government funding, including funding for our troops and other national security priorities, hostage to an unrelated immigration debate. Due to this obstruction, our government is shut down.

And second, here's the ad  - complete with the "I'm Donald Trump and I approve this message" statement - which our friend Marc Short tried to convince Chuck Todd was released by an "outside organization." In the ad, Democrats are said to be complicit in any murder committed by an illegal immigrant.

It's pure evil. President Trump is right: build the wall, deport criminals, stop illegal immigration now. Democrats who stand in our way will be complicit in every murder committed by illegal immigrants. President Trump will fix our borders and keep our families safe.

I think it's clear whose weapons are locked and loaded, don't you?

See you around campus.

TGIF 1/19/18

Well.

It seems I've been ignoring the call of the TGIF for a bit - sorry about that.  Let's put some perspective on this week, shall we?

Who should we blame for it? That seems to be the big question, at least today. Who will be the blame for shutting down the government, the Rs or the Ds?

And, if a miracle occurs tonight at 10PM Washington Swamp Time (WST) and the shutdown is avoided, who deserves the credit?  We know who will take the credit, of course - but will he deserve it?

What else happened this week, which I'm glad is over? There were arguments about whether or not the president, who insists he is the least racist person ever, or the least racist person ever interviewed by the Washington press corps, pretty darn well seems to be a racist.

And the Republicans, who are practically tripping over themselves to stay in Trump's good graces, are working diligently (one of my favorite Buzzword Bingo squares) to divert the conversation away from what the president said and instead direct it towards their individual interpretations of what the president thought or meant. As in, saying that African nations were shitholes meant we need a wall across our southern border.

Speaking of that wall, there was an interesting disconnect between the president and his Chief of Staff General, who thought saying the president believed in evolution had experienced an 'evolutionary process.'

There's been an evolutionary process that this president has gone through...and I pointed out to all the members that were in the room that they all say things during the course of campaigns that may or may not be fully informed.

In the same interview earlier this week, Kelly shared his thoughts about the possible government shutdown I mentioned at the top of the post.

I spent a fair amount of time on the hill today speaking to members of Congress, both sides of the aisle...and it would seem to have the votes to continue funding the military, take care of the child health care issue, and perhaps some other things. As I understand it, they have the votes and they are fairly confident.

So, there's that. Maybe he'll end up on the right side of this, who knows? I just don't want the Dems on the wrong side of it, that much I do know.

One last thing about the shutdown: sadly, it's of such importance that the poor president couldn't go running off to Mar-a-Lago for some golf rest work. He was scheduled to leave this afternoon, but supposedly is hanging around until he gets to sign a continuing resolution.

What's worse, it seems his inauguration anniversary celebration, scheduled for tomorrow night, may also be in jeopardy if that darn Mitch McConnell can't get his chamber in order. According to this report the shindig is going to be a doozy - $100,000 per couple for dinner and a photo op; for another $150,000, the happy couple could participate in a round table conversation, too.

Sadly I have to rearrange my sock drawer tomorrow - otherwise I'd be there. Honest.

TGIF.