The Election Eve Post, 2025 Edition

Another Election Eve, already?

Yep. And this is my thirteenth ‘Monday-before-the-first-Tuesday-in-November’ post, trying to encourage everyone to vote.

Voting is arguably the most important right we have. After all, it’s the only chance we have to determine who will lobby on our behalf in the halls and backrooms of government. And it’s really the only time many of the folks we elect pay any direct attention to us. Absent elections, would incumbents or their challengers bother with the mailings, phone calls, town halls, surveys, and personal visits? Would we hear from unions and so-called ‘interest groups’ if they weren’t trying to get us to vote for their favorite? Pretty sure we all know the answer to that.

But voting is also among the least respected of our rights, and that’s incredibly frustrating to me. Between efforts to limit who can vote, how we can vote, where we can vote, what we can and can’t do while standing in line to vote, and gerrymandering and redistricting, where the politicians try to choose us, instead of us choosing them. 

Add in the many ways in which our voices and our ability to influence candidates have been overwhelmed by all money flowing from in from PACS, political parties, corporations, lobbyists, business organizations, unions, billionaire donors and all the rest, especially all the money from outside the district where we are supposed to pick representatives, and I get why people might throw up their hands and say, “Why should we even bother?”  

We should bother because every vote matters in every election. We should bother because the more people stay away, the more the powers-that-be will think they can do whatever they want. We should bother because the more we participate, the better our chances of holding the people we elect accountable. We should bother if we care at all about the direction our schools, villages, towns, cities, counties, states, and the federal government are heading. 

And finally, we should bother because if we don’t, we’ll more often than not end up having to choose between the lesser of two or more bad candidates, instead of between the best of two or more good ones.

And wouldn’t that be a wonderful problem to have? 

I offer below my annual motivational message, in case you're still on the fence about exercising your right to vote.

After some thought, “I have come to the conclusion that politics are too serious a matter to be left to the politicians."(1)  Actually, “The idea of an election is much more interesting to me than the election itself…the act of voting is in itself the defining moment.”(2) And why is it that “When the political columnists say ‘every thinking man’ they mean themselves, and when candidates appeal to ‘every intelligent voter’ they mean everyone who is going to vote for them”?(3) 

We know it’s true that “Bad officials are elected by good citizens who didn’t vote”(4), and that “A citizen of America will cross the ocean to fight for democracy, but won’t cross the street to vote in a national election.”(5) Do we still not realize, after all these years, that “lower voter participation is a silent threat to our democracy… it under-represents young people, the poor, the disabled, those with little education, minorities and you and me”? (6) 

After all, “the vote is the most powerful instrument ever devised for breaking down injustice and destroying the terrible walls which imprison men because they are different from other men” (7) and “to make democracy work, we must be a nation of participants, not just observers. One who does not vote has no right to complain.” (8) 

And complain we do, after every election when 'the wrong guy' wins. If the only people who complained were the ones who voted, it’d likely be a lot less noisy, don't you think? 

Some folks may not vote because they don't know how to decide who to vote for, or they're afraid they'll vote 'wrong.' There are a couple of different schools of thought on that. On the one hand, some might think that.

“Politics is the art of the possible” (9), while others may subscribe to the thinking that “politics is not the art of the possible, it consists in choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable. And it is true that the great thing about democracy is that it gives every voter the chance to do something stupid.” (10) 

Said another way, a “Vote (is) the instrument and symbol of a freeman’s power to make a fool of himself and a wreck of his country.” (11) But that’s OK – “personally, I believe that our American system works as long as you participate in it. You must vote and make your voice heard; otherwise you will be left out.” (12) 

It’s generally true that if you “ask a man which way he’s going to vote and he’ll probably tell you. Ask him, however, why – and vagueness is all.”(13) But voting’s really easy; and “all voting is a sort of gaming, like checkers or backgammon, with a slight moral tinge to it, a playing with right and wrong.” (14) And just about everyone likes to play a game now and then, right? 

The bottom line is, “voting is simply a way of determining which side is the stronger without putting it to the test of fighting;”(15) “voting is a civic sacrament;”(16) and “the future of this republic is in the hands of the American voter.”(17) 

And remember, if all of that seems like too much pressure, you have an out: “Vote for the man who promises least. He’ll be the least disappointing.” (18) 

Please, vote. It really does matter, this year and every year. Honestly, "there is no such thing as a vote that doesn't matter."(19) Besides, "not voting is not a protest. It is a surrender." (20)  

My final pitch?  "Talk is cheap, voting is free; take it to the polls." (21)

If you need information on where to vote, help with your ballot, or any other assistance, contact your local Board of Elections. Lots of people are out there, ready and willing to help. 

 If you're an early voter and have already done your civic duty, thank you! If you're not going to be around on Election Day and voted by absentee ballot, thank you! And if you vote the old-fashioned way, by showing up at your polling place on Election Day like I do, thank you!  

And thanks to these folks for their words of wisdom: 1 - Charles De Gaulle; 2 – Jeff Melvoin; 3 – Franklin P Adams; 4 and 13 – Andrew Lack; 5 - Bill Vaughan; 6 - Nancy Neuman; 7 - Lyndon B Johnson; 8 - Louis L’Amour; 9 – Otto Von Bismarck; 10 – Art Spander; 11 – Ambrose Bierce; 12 - Mari-Luci Jaramillo; 14 – Henry David Thoreau; 15 – H.L. Mencken; 16—Theodore Hesburgh; 17 – Dwight D. Eisenhower; 18 – Bernard Baruch); 19 - Barack Obama; 20 - Keith Ellison; 21 - Nanette L. Avery

The Journal of Unpopular Opinions (Chapter 4)

When a president, congressman, senator, governor, state legislator, or anyone else tells you that the only way they can ‘protect you from the other side’ or ‘continue serving you to the best of their abilities’ is to treat you as if you haven’t got an independent thought in your head, run screaming from the room.

*****     *****     *****     *****     

Off-cycle Congressional redistricting by Republicans, like that done (so far) in Texas, North Carolina, Ohio, and soon Indiana, which will tackle it starting Monday, has nothing to do with what voters want and everything to do with what the politicians want: to protect their longevity by caving to a president who clearly knows he is as unpopular as we the people believe he is.

I don't have a lot of sympathy for similar redistricting efforts by the Democrats, such as those under consideration in Maryland, Illinois, and New York (so far). Some consider these noble efforts, from a 'we can't let them rig the election' or whatever the logic is, but I disagree. It's a shameless attempt to grab power, to protect their longevity, and to cheat the system, which is exactly what the Ds claim the Rs are doing.  

California's goal is the same, but the process is different, so I dislike it slightly less than I do the blatant stuff being done elsewhere. The Golden State has an independent Citizens Redistricting Commission, so the legislature needs voter approval to bypass that group and institute its own maps - and I hope voters reject the Prop 50 ballot initiative. 

Why?  Because we should be demanding the right to choose our politicians, rather than letting them choose us. We should never give a politician our vote simply because we share a party affiliation. We should be making them work for every vote they want and earn every vote they get. 

And we should never stand for them giving in to the narcissistic, panicked demands and threats of the person at the top of their party, no matter how high the throne upon which that person sits.

For too long, we have acted as if the term ‘voting rights’ only applies to ensuring access to voting.  For years, we have sat by, watching the people who have been trusted to represent us:

• make it harder for us to vote by taking away options like early voting, mail-in ballots, and other changes, and by implementing ridiculous rules that directly and negatively impact women, the elderly, and economically disadvantaged voters, because 'those people' are more likely to vote against a certain party;

• constantly bang the drum about all kinds of voter fraud, ignoring years of evidence that there is negligible impact from the extremely limited fraud that occurs, and complaining that elections they don't are rigged, and threatening states, which have constitutional control over their voting rules, with all kinds of retribution if they don't change their ways to diminish or exclude certain voters;

• allow our voices to be overshadowed and overwhelmed by the tens of millions of dollars politicians of both parties receive from corporations, political parties, unions, lobbyists, PACs, and super-rich donors, in return for who knows what legislative promises; and

• blatantly look away from - heck, they run away from - our legitimate concerns about the direction of our country, their policies, and their ineffectiveness.

And here we are today, 

• letting them disrespect us even more by rearranging us into districts they assume will give them an advantage; 

• letting them assume we’re nothing but sheep that will vote for a party rather than for our issues and interests; and 

• letting them assume they no longer have to work for our votes.  

You know what they say about people who assume, right? That old line about 'making an ass...'?

Don’t let them get away with it.

• If your state asks you to vote for off-cycle redistricting, vote no.

• If your state just goes ahead and redistricts off-cycle, let the folks who represent you know that you’re unhappy about it, and that you’ll vote against them at the earliest opportunity. And then, do exactly that.

• And if they’re not talking about it, or have decided not to play the game, thank them – and remind them that they still have to work for – and earn – your vote, every single election.

It's time we fully use our voting rights - and there's no better time to start than this Tuesday, Election Day. 

The 2024 Election Eve Post

 It's that time again, folks. It's Election Eve, and time for me to do my absolute best to encourage you to vote. 

Every election is 'consequential' in some way, and everyone likes to say that 'this' election - the current one - is the most consequential vote we've ever had.  I don't know for sure if that's true; I'd love to ask my Dad, who was an American History teacher, but he's not here to help me with that. He did, however, teach me the importance of voting, and that I keep with me always.   

This is the first year I've heard a candidate say that if a certain subset of voters cast their ballots for him, they'd never have to vote again. I think that's an extremely poor message to send, and I hope all registered voters, regardless of demographic cohort, plan on voting in every election for as long as they live - that's a small price to pay to support our country, I think, and it's a pretty easy commitment to meet if you think about it.

Oh, I get it - sometimes people have a hard time making a choice. I'd love it if that happened because the candidates were all so good the choice was difficult; sadly, too often we're faced with choosing the lesser of however many evils are in the race, and for many, that might be the case again this year. 

I also get that some people think that politicians don't give a hoot about them and their issues, and so they don't vote as a protest. I wish that weren't the case, because I believe one thing that's going to get candidates to pay attention to you is to vote, especially when we're talking about the people who want to represent you at the local and state level. Your voice is never more important than in those races - but it's also important to vote at the top of the ticket in presidential years; you never know how your protest will impact the race. 

And I get that it's hard to separate the wheat from the chaff, as the song goes, when we're bombarded with mailers and phone calls and texts and ads and folks knocking on our doors and the signs we see all over the place. But the truth is out there, if you're willing to look for it. 

We can find it in our own echo chambers, comfortably enjoying the validation of our own views, but we'll be better prepared to vote if we look outside our comfort zone to learn what's really happening. We owe it to ourselves, at least, and really to our country, to do that. 

And I hope that, at some point, that's going to be the norm, not the exception. 

Anyway, as one recent former presidential candidate so often says - anyway, I offer below my annual motivational message, in case you're still on the fence about voting.

After some thought, “I have come to the conclusion that politics are too serious a matter to be left to the politicians." (1)  Actually, “The idea of an election is much more interesting to me than the election itself…the act of voting is in itself the defining moment.”(2) And why is it that “When the political columnists say ‘every thinking man’ they mean themselves, and when candidates appeal to ‘every intelligent voter’ they mean everyone who is going to vote for them”?(3) 

We know it’s true that “Bad officials are elected by good citizens who didn’t vote”(4), and that “A citizen of America will cross the ocean to fight for democracy, but won’t cross the street to vote in a national election.”(5) Do we still not realize, after all these years, that “lower voter participation is a silent threat to our democracy… it under-represents young people, the poor, the disabled, those with little education, minorities and you and me”? (6) 

After all, “the vote is the most powerful instrument ever devised for breaking down injustice and destroying the terrible walls which imprison men because they are different from other men” (7) and “to make democracy work, we must be a nation of participants, not just observers. One who does not vote has no right to complain.” (8) 

And complain we do, after every election when 'the wrong guy' wins. If the only people who complained were the ones who voted, it’d likely be a lot less noisy, don't you think? 

Some folks may not vote because they don't know how to decide who to vote for, or they're afraid they'll vote 'wrong.' There are a couple different schools of thought on that. On the one hand, some might think that

“Politics is the art of the possible” (9) while others may subscribe to the thinking that “politics is not the art of the possible, it consists in choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable. And it is true that the great thing about democracy is that it gives every voter the chance to do something stupid.” (10) 

Said another way, a “Vote (is) the instrument and symbol of a freeman’s power to make a fool of himself and a wreck of his country.” (11) But that’s OK – “personally, I believe that our American system works as long as you participate in it. You must vote and make your voice heard; otherwise you will be left out.” (12) 

I like that part, about our system working as long as people participate. If enough people vote - and vote every time they have the chance to - sooner or later, the people running for office will have to pay attention to us, not just to their donors.

It’s generally true that if you “ask a man which way he’s going to vote and he’ll probably tell you. Ask him, however, why – and vagueness is all.” (13) But voting’s really easy; and “all voting is a sort of gaming, like checkers or backgammon, with a slight moral tinge to it, a playing with right and wrong.” (14) And just about everyone likes to play a game every now and then, right? 

The bottom line is, “voting is simply a way of determining which side is the stronger without putting it to the test of fighting;”(15) “voting is a civic sacrament;”(16) and “the future of this republic is in the hands of the American voter.”(17) 

And remember, if all of that seems like too much pressure, you have an out. 

“Vote for the man who promises least. He’ll be the least disappointing.” (18) 

Please, vote. It really does matter, this year and every year. Honestly, "there is no such thing as a vote that doesn't matter."(19) Besides, "not voting is not a protest. It is a surrender." (20)  

My final pitch?  "Talk is cheap, voting is free; take it to the polls." (21)

If you need information on where to vote, help on 

your ballot, or any other assistance,  

contact your local Board of Elections. 

Lots of people are out there, ready and willing to help. 

If you're an early voter and have already done your civic duty, thank you. 

If you're not going to be around on Election Day and voted by absentee ballot, thank you. Be sure to get your ballot in before the deadline! 

And if you're planning on voting the old-fashioned way, by showing up at your polling place on Election Day like I do, thank you. 

(Thanks to these folks for their words of wisdom: 1 - Charles De Gaulle; 2 – Jeff Melvoin; 3 – Franklin P Adams; 4 and 13 – Andrew Lack; 5 - Bill Vaughan; 6 - Nancy Neuman; 7 - Lyndon B Johnson; 8 - Louis L’Amour; 9 – Otto Von Bismarck; 10 – Art Spander; 11 – Ambrose Bierce; 12 - Mari-Luci Jaramillo; 14 – Henry David Thoreau; 15 – H.L. Mencken; 16—Theodore Hesburgh; 17 – Dwight D. Eisenhower; 18 – Bernard Baruch); 19 - Barack Obama; 20 - Keith Ellison; 21 - Nanette L. Avery

The Journal of Unpopular Opinions (Chapter 2)

I was reading what I anticipated would be a funny take on 'gender reveal' parties, those often way-over-the-top shindigs with explosions and death and destruction and whatnot. 

The article was moving along, I was chuckling, and then? Then the 'U' word appeared. You know what I'm talking about, right? Here's how it showed up in the article.

 We are fortunate enough to have the resources for almost the ultimate in frivolity: gender reveal parties. Ukraine is the ultimate in seriousness, in a life-and-death battle with all the suffering and horrors of war. Gender reveal parties should be an opportunity for us to be thankful for what we have and to support and fund our fellow humans in Ukraine.

Seriously? Gender reveal parties should be an opportunity for us to send money to Ukraine? As you can tell from the opening of this post, I think gender reveal parties are kind of crazy, but I also think the constant focus on Ukraine, to the exclusion of everything else (other than the price of gas,) is equally crazy.

Like people everywhere, I'm horrified by what I've seen and heard about in Ukraine. I've watched President Zelenskyy's messages to our Congress, to elected officials in other countries, and the UN. I support sanctions on Russia, and I support us giving some military and humanitarian support to Ukraine. 

That said, I think it's ridiculous - and, frankly, grossly unfair - to expect us to turn everything we do, and everything that brings us joy, into an opportunity to help Ukraine. 

Frankly, there are other crises happening in the world, too.? Here are just a handful of them.

• China has committed crimes against humanity by their treatment of Uyghurs and other predominantly Muslim ethnic groups; over a million are dead, hundreds of thousands imprisoned, and others sent into forced labor over the past several years. 
• In South Sudan, hundreds of thousands of people have been displaced or killed; nearly 5,000,000 children are not in school, and some 8,00,000 people are facing hunger or famine. This, too, has been going on for years,
• So has the war in Yemen;  4,000,000 people have been displaced, more than 110,000 have been killed, and over 20 million need humanitarian aid.
• And don't forget Somalia, with a million deaths, and more than a million people displaced in that country's ongoing civil war.
• And, have we already forgotten about Afghanistan and the Taliban?

Why do these get less attention? Other than China, we rarely hear about these conflicts, and when we do, it's well after the Ukrainian news of the day. And would we have heard much about China, absent the Olympics? 

Why is that? Is it because these aren't social-media-savvy countries? Is it because civil wars don't matter? Is it because these people don't look like us? It's hard to ignore that last question.

And, in case you're thinking everything's hunky-dory here at home, think again.

• Politicians from both parties continue to choose their voters, instead of the voters choosing their politicians; it's been going on for decades, and is getting worse instead of better as gerrymandering flourishes.
• Politicians are doing their best to make voting more complicated instead of easier, and while they say they are making voting more secure, we know that what many of them are trying to do is make it easier for them to erase the vote of the people.
• We are pulling books from schools and libraries, because people who have never read them have been told by their churches or their politicians that this is the right thing to do.
• We are (knowingly) underfunding public education (here in New York, for example) and allowing individuals to take taxpayer money out of public schools and give it to private schools - including corporate, profit-driven entities - and religious schools.
• States are codifying vigilante justice to avoid having laws struck down by the courts. So far -- so far -- it's just laws against abortion; who knows where they'll go next with this plan of attack. Texas started this; others are following.
• States are trying to pass laws to prevent citizens from seeking medical are in other states (Missouri and Oklahoma for starters), or threatening to jail parents - potentially with life sentences - for seeking medical treatment for their children (Idaho), and charge providers with felonies for providing treatment (Oklahoma, again).
• And let's not forget the "Don't Say Gay" bills - yes, that's plural now, with Alabama following Florida's lead.
• States are attacking marriage equality, proposing marriage contracts that would only be allowed for opposite-sex couples (Tennessee).
• States have passed laws allowing doctors to pick their patients, instead of having to treat everyone - even people they don't like (Ohio, Arkansas, Mississippi, Texas...).

In America, folks - this is all happening, right here in America, to Americans.

Should we care about Ukraine? Of course. Should we care only about Ukraine? Of course not. 

We should learn (or remember) how to walk and chew gum at the same time; we can hear about, and care about, more than one thing at a time. Even if the people don't look like us, or don't have great social media skills.  

We should never let our guard down here at home, no matter how compelling the news from elsewhere in the world might be.

And we should allow ourselves a little joy, without feeling guilty and without feeling obligated to anyone else. 

Dear Democrats: Can We Talk?

You might not remember me, but I was one of you for decades, up until 2019. If you're interested, here's why I left you. And even if you don't care about me anymore, I still care about you - and I have to say this:

You will officially, completely screw things up 

if you don't get your heads out of the clouds, 

out of the sand, out of the weeds, and out of your caucus,

 and start paying attention. 

Here are some things I think you need to understand, from a person who always votes - but not always for you.

1. Joe Biden won the election, and you hold the majorities in DC, but you've never had a mandate. Biden got more votes not because of his policies, but because so many people who voted for him did so because they despised Donald Trump. I'd guess maybe as much as 30% of his votes came from us - yep, I'm one of them. 

Whether you remember this or not, we remember that Joe Biden was the nominee because the other candidates could not beat Trump. We were sick of Trump, and voted accordingly. But we also remember that the progressives were not hitting it out of the park in the primaries, because most people are not as progressive as you wanted us to be. 

Successfully denying Trump a second term while holding less than 51% of both the House and the Senate do not a legislative mandate make. Any thinking to the contrary is both foolish and foolhardy.

2. You act like a presidential term lasts only from Inauguration Day to Veterans Day. As a result, you prioritize everything equally, which means you prioritize nothing. 

To you, everything is an existential threat. Child Care. Universal pre-k. Climate. Broadband. Voting rights. Billionaires. Health insurance. Student loan debt. Drug prices. Corporate profits. Defunding the Police. Free college. You name it, it's an existential threat - except maybe immigration. You seem to have forgotten about that. 

But are these really threats to our very existence as a country? Are these really threats to the continuation of humanity? Arguably, the only one that meets that level is climate change; the others do not. That doesn't mean they aren't all important - but thinking you must solve all of them at once, coupled with your inability to prioritize them, is ridiculous. 

3.You throw everything you can think of into every bill. We are sick of that, frankly, whether it's you or the other guys doing it. Not to mention, it jeopardizes your chances of getting anything passed. 

Look, I get it. The tent is big, and everyone's got lofty goals and good intentions - but that's a foolish way to legislate.  Need an example? How's this one: what do a code of ethics for Supreme Court justices, requiring candidates for House, Senate, and the Presidency to release ten years of income tax returns, and public financing of campaigns have to do with my right to cast a ballot? Absolutely nothing.

We are not stupid. We know, and you do too, that those provisions were drafted because you wanted to stick it to Trump for not releasing his taxes, because you're mad about how blatantly chummy and political some of the Supremes are, and because you've long wanted to get the other guy's money out of the mix. 

We also know those things will make it nearly impossible to get a voting rights bill passed and signed.

4. You think all elections are a reflection of national politics, and you try and make them so. 

• Look at this ad the Virginia Dems ran against Glenn Youngkin. Why even mention Trump at all?  

• Or, this mailer placed by the New York State Dems against my mayor in Syracuse. No one's ever accused him of any affinity or affiliation with the Proud Boys - no one, until the Dems did. What the actual hell were they thinking?

Where do the state parties get those ideas? Are they getting them from the national parties, or from the various campaign committees? Even if they pull this stuff out of thin air, it's got to stop. 

5. You don't treat voters - particularly your own voters - with respect.

There've long been complaints that you only care about voters when you need them, not when they need you - particularly Black voters. And, you treat us as if we can't possibly understand how important your work is, and that our frustration with your inaction is unfounded. 

You're wrong on both counts. We never asked you for perfection, and we don't have the luxury of waiting for you to craft something perfect. We all need something, and we don't have the luxury of watching you accomplish nothing. You will lose us. You're already losing us. 

6. This cannot be overstated: you are horrible messengers.

• You are comfortable talking about what you're against, but not what you're for.
• You're miserable at marketing. Did you really think Defund the Police could hold a candle to Make America Great Again? Do you think it's helpful to hobnob with the rich while wearing a dress emblazoned with "tax the rich" - when the dress is worth more than a year's salary for someone earning $15/hour?
• You're either uncapable of fighting - or unwilling to fight - the lies told by the other side. Critical Race Theory and immigration are perfect examples. Need another? Election fraud, like the allegations in the VA gubernatorial race. 
• You're great at infighting. Progressives, in particular, are adept at attacking moderates and at making it nearly impossible to accomplish anything. The only people who think that's helpful are your GOP counterparts.
• You still haven't found anyone able and willing to get in front of microphones and in the faces of the talking heads and sell me and everyone else that your really understand what matters to us, what you stand for, how that'll help us, and how you're going to accomplish it. I've said it before, but it bears repeating: you need That Democrat, and you needed them way before yesterday.

In closing, I'd like to let you know that I just sent a thank you note to my Republican congressman; it's the second time I've done that in the past couple of months. I let him know that I'll be voting for him in the midterms next year. 

I didn't want to keep that last part from you, because I know I'm not the only one who's going to do that. I'll continue voting for people who understand what matters, regardless of their party affiliation. 

If you want me to vote for you again, I hope you'll take my advice to heart. 

Thanks. 

Sunday School 10/17/21

I spent all my Sunday School time in CNN's State of the Union classroom, where Jake Tapper was in the host chair. 

First up? Mayor Pete, er, I mean, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, who was asked, re: the current supply chain issues, if "Americans need to prepare ourselves for it to get worse before it gets better?"  He said that "a lot of" the challenges from this year "will continue into next year," but said that it's not just supply issues, it's demand issues, too.

Demand is off the charts. Retail sales are through the roof. And if you think about those images of ships, for example, waiting at anchor on the West Coast, you know, every one of those ships is full of record amounts of goods that Americans are buying, because demand is up, because income is up, because the president has successfully guided this economy out of the teeth of a terrifying recession.

The ports are handling record volume, he added, but the supply chain - mostly private business interests - can't keep up. He said the administration's role now is "to be an honest broker," and bring everyone together, get commitments and "get solutions that are going to make it easier."

Tapper asked if President Biden would consider lifting the Trump-era tariffs on China, saying it's not a panacea but it would help alleviate some of the supply-side pressures. Secretary Pete said that "every idea is being taken seriously," but the focus now is on the operations side of things, including getting commitments to keep the ports of L.A. and Long Beach open 24/7. 

But, he acknowledged, that's only a part of what's needed. We also have to get the containers out of the port, onto trucks, and off to where we need them. He said the Transportation Department is working with states on getting CDL licenses issued faster, "so we can get more qualified, safe truckers on the road." Passing the infrastructure bill would help, too.

Tapper pointed to the delay on that, and wondered if Buttigieg was "frustrated" by the delay, and if the progressives erred demanding the human infrastructure bill needed to be passed first. He said "the reality is" we need both bills, 

not only to make sure that we have the right kind of infrastructure, but to make sure that life gets better in this country for people trying to raise children and for people trying to participate in the work force. 

And on whether it would make sense for Americans to do their holiday shopping early, or if that would make things worse, Buttigieg was rah-rah about things - including that the holidays will be better this year than last.

... a year ago, millions of Americans were sliding into poverty who now have jobs. And a year ago, a lot of us were gathering with loved ones over a screen. It's going to be different this year because of the president's leadership, because of being able to get more and more Americans vaccinated and make that available free to every American. 

Finally, on the exceedingly rude comments made by Tucker Carlson about Buttigieg taking paternity leave, he said he wasn't apologizing to Carlson (or anyone else), and that all Americans deserve the same opportunity. He also said it was unnecessary to name an acting secretary while he was on leave, in part because he was available to them the whole time.

Rep. Adam Kinzinger was next. As one of the two Rs on the House January 6th committee, he's a guy everyone loves to hate, right?  

The Journal of Unpopular Opinions (Chapter 1)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sunday School 7/4/21

I did a drive-by of a couple of Sunday School classrooms yesterday: CNN's State of the Union, and Fox News Sunday.

Dana Bash talked with Gov. Asa Hutchinson (R-AR) on SOTU; here are some highlights.

• With only 42% of eligible Arkansans vaccinated and "younger adults that's now getting hit with the Delta variant," the gov says they're focusing on making the vaccine accessible and that "everybody knows the need. He thinks the vaccination rate is good enough that "we can avoid the surge in hospitalizations that puts us in jeopardy" for a third wave, but said "in a rural state, in a conservative state, there is hesitancy" to get vaccinated. 
• He supports the bipartisan infrastructure bill, saying that it's paid for "the best news." He likes that it's "limited to the traditional infrastructure of roads and bridges," and funding for some water and broadband projects. He doesn't want it tied to the other bill, noting that "we have more money than we could spend right now in terms of some of the federal money that's flowed in our direction."
• He's sending National Guard troops to Texas, but denies it's political theater. He called what's happening at the border now "disaster. It's a human tragedy," with the Biden administration policy changes. He'd never use political donations for something like this, as Gov. Kristi Noem (R-Trump Dakota) is doing, saying that responding to other states "in terms of disaster" is a state function" and he'd consider it "a bad precedent to have that privately funded."
• He wouldn't rule out a run for president in 2024, but said after his term ends next year, he wants "to be engaged in the national debate. It's important, the direction of our party, our country."

Also in the SOTU classroom? Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-SC).

• He said the new Select Committee on the insurrection might be able to avoid having Former Guy testify; he "would not want to see a former president testifying in such a situation as this." If that's what it takes, though, he'd be OK with it, noting that "this is more than any one person. This is country... since 1776, this country has been in pursuit of perfection. And we need to keep that pursuit going... this is a great time for us to re-dedicate ourselves to what we have all been looking forward to for a long time, liberty and justice for all."
• Dems have always been for voter ID, just equitable ID requirements. When you tell me that you got to have a photo ID, and a photo for a student for an activity card is not good, but, for a hunting license, it is good, that's where the rub is." He doesn't know anyone who's against IDing themselves when they go to vote. "But we don't want you to tell me my ID is no good because I don't own a gun and I don't go hunting." And that voter registration card you receive? That should be a valid ID for voting. 
• He doesn't agree with Sen. Joe Manchin (D-Filibuster), saying "we need to get rid of the filibuster for constitutional issues, just as we have done for budget issues." For arguments on political issues, like building a wall, or how high it should be, the filibuster is OK, if extended debate is allowed. But now, "we will allow a senator to sit downtown in a spa somewhere, pick up the telephone and call in the filibuster, and effectively stop voting rights and other constitutional rights... won't even come to the floor to argue his or her position. That's what is wrong with this filibuster..." 
• He still has hopes for police reform, saying " I think we're going to get there." He says there's still time, and that "it is teetering on some divisions between the sheriffs and, say, the police chiefs, but we can reconcile those. I'm holding out hope that we get this done, because it needs to be done."

Mike Emanuel sat in for Chris Wallace down the hall to the right. He had Rep. Mike McCaul (R-TX), the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, in the guest chair. They talked about infrastructure, COVID, the border, and about Afghanistan. To do that justice, I'll save it for this week's Extra Credit. 

See you around campus - assuming, that is, that you made it through yesterday's birthday unscathed. 

Wondering on Wednesday 6/9/21

Ready... Set... Wonder!

Lordy, there's a whole lot of stuff to wonder about this Wednesday, so let's dive in.

You've probably heard about the richest people in America - and by people, I mean the living, breathing kind, not the brick-and-mortar kind - who pay diddlysquat in federal income taxes, while the rest of us regular folks diligently pay our fair share.

The investigative journalists at Pro Publica have obtained IRS records for the richest Richie Richs in the country, and they're letting us in on a pretty poorly kept secret: the rich *are* different. Here's just a taste of what they've found about what they're calling the 'true tax rate' guys like Bezos, Bloomberg, Buffett and Musk pay, based on the taxes they paid each year compared to "how much Forbes estimated their wealth grew in that same time period." 

According to Forbes, those 25 people saw their worth rise a collective $401 billion from 2014 to 2018. They paid a total of $13.6 billion in federal income taxes in those five years, the IRS data shows...(which) amounts to a true tax rate of only 3.4%.

I don't know about you, but I'm certain My Sweet Baboo and I are paying way more than 3.4% as our 'fair share' and it feels really wrong that the billionaires are paying only that much on theirs. 

So here's what I'm wondering: why is it acceptable for extremely rich brick-and-mortar people (aka corporations) and their living, breathing founders and CEOs and what not to all pay zero or nearly zero in federal taxes.  

I also wonder why the Rs are adamant that raising taxes on either type of people is a non-starter. And yes, in case you're wondering, I wonder how this information got leaked, and how long it's going to take to find the leaker.

Have you run out and purchased a gun cabinet's worth of Swiss Army knives yet? If not, I wonder what on earth you're waiting for? According to the judge who struck down California's assault weapons ban, 

Like the Swiss Army knife, the popular AR-15 rifle is a perfect combination of home defense weapon and homeland defense equipment. Good for both home and battle.

I'm wondering also about all the people who said you shouldn't take a knife to a gun fight, and if our border patrol agents and TSA screeners are all armed with those 'perfect' red-handled homeland defense items.  

I'm also wondering about Florida Man Matt Gaetz, who shot down all the stuff the NRA has been saying for years about guns and hunting and target shooting and stuff. Here's Gaetz:

The Second Amendment is not about, it’s not about hunting, it’s not about recreation, it’s not about sports. The Second Amendment is about maintaining within the citizenry the ability to maintain an armed rebellion against the government if that becomes necessary. I hope it never does, but it sure is important to recognize the founding principles of this nation and to make sure that they are fully understood.

It appears Gaetz and the judge are on the same side of the gun issue, but not the same page, but that's not where the wondering is. Rather, I'm wondering how Gaetz pretends he hopes it doesn't become necessary to have an armed rebellion against the government, when we just had one six months ago? And when he's on the road with nutjob Marjorie Taylor Greene trumpeting support for the guy who was - and still is - the object of the insurrectionists' affection?

The Grim Reaper has spoken on the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, saying that it's unnecessary.

The Supreme Court concluded that conditions that existed in 1965 no longer existed. So there’s no threat to the voting rights law. It’s against the law to discriminate in voting on the basis of race already. And so I think it’s unnecessary.

I don't wonder so much about Senator McConnell's opposition to ensuring everyone has the right to vote; that's to be expected. I do wonder, though, what Sen. Joe Manchin thinks about this, since he said there are ten Rs who would go along with allowing debate on the bill. 

As always, there's more, but that's it for now. What are you wondering about?

Sunday School 6/6/21

And, we're back at it, plodding our way through the Sunday Shows. 

Let's start with John Dickerson and his chat with Sen. Joe Manchin (D, kinda - WV) on Face the Nation. Dickerson wasted no time, starting out by saying Dems, including President Biden, think Manchin is "standing in the way" of their agenda. Manchin disagreed, noting that everyone knows he's "always tried to work in a bipartisan way" and he said "Let's unite this country. We don't need to be divided any further."

To that end, he doesn't want Dems to go it alone, even if others in his party think Manchin is "basically putting all the negotiating leverage in the hands of" the ten Rs Biden needs to get past the filibuster. Rather, he says, they must "work within the framework," adding

There's been seven brave Republicans that have spoken out. They have voted, whether it be impeachment or the wrongdoings of the president, whether it be for a commission. We have to continue to keep striving to make sure that we can get to that ten. And that's why we're called the deliberate body. We keep working towards that goal. 

In the business world, we had 'analysis paralysis' getting in the way, and in the Manchin world, we have 'prohibitive deliberative' thinking getting in the way. Take voting rights.

Manchin said the For the People Act is way too big and has too much stuff in it that the Rs will never go along with. On the other hand, he said it's appropriate to work on the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, which he thinks "truly does protect the voting rights." It's good, but needs to be more bipartisan, and with Rs like Alaska's Sen. Lisa Murkowski on board, deliberating will make it better and something the Rs can vote for, too. 

Dickerson wondered, as do all the rest of us, why on earth the Rs would go along with anything that endangers the successes they've had at the state level implementing restrictive voting bills. 

Well, because, you see, it's like this.

John, they achieved what they've achieved before they won - thinking they had to make changes. Why in the world would they want to make changes that basically subvert- because I can tell you what goes around, comes around. It could be more damaging to them too. The bottom line is the fundamental purpose of- of our democracy is the freedom of our elections. If we can't come to an agreement on that, God help us, John. And someone's got to fight for this. And we've got to say, listen, the divided country that we're in today, the insurrection that we saw on January the 6th, if we don't try to heal that, if we don't make every effort and go beyond the call of duty, then what are we and who are we? We've been known to go around the world and promote democracy and observe other elections. What kind of credibility do you think we have in doing that today? So, I'm going to fight for this and I think the Republicans will fight for this and understand we must come together on a voting rights bill in a bipartisan way. You can't divide our country further by thinking you've given leeway to one or the other. 

Is it me, or is Manchin the Senate's Nero, fiddling around the margins of bipartisanship, while watching the "fundamental purpose of our democracy" go up in flames?

Down the hall in the CNN State of the Union classroom, Jake Tapper talked with Maine Senator Angus King, who's an Independent but maybe more a Dem than Manchin. King is on the Senate Intelligence Committee, and he's also co-chair of the Cyberspace Solarium Commission.

King thinks "we have been a cheap date" over the past decade or two, because we haven't really responded strongly to cyber attacks. Our adversaries need to know that "they will pay a price, there will be a cost" for attacking the US or our infrastructure, but "thus far, they haven't really felt that." And, he cautioned, "We keep getting wakeup calls, and we keep not waking up." The problem? Most of the risk - "85% or 90% of the target space," is in the private sector.

...  If one person at one desktop in the operations center of a pipeline system bites on a phishing e-mail or opens an attachment they shouldn't, then we're sunk. So, it's -- this is a -- it's a cliché to say all of government, but this is all of everybody has got to be in on this.

There may be a need for legislation to move things along. He says "we need essentially an entirely new relationship" between the feds and the private sector, even as he admits that talking about "the 'relationship between private sector and federal government' is an is kind of an oxymoron." Somehow, we must build trust.

Speaking of trust, King understands Biden's desire to have a "decent" relationship with Putin and Russia. That said, he's pretty sure they'll talk about cyber when they get together in ten days. And, we need them to crack down on bad guys within their borders, just as we would if "we had an international bank robbery outfit in Richmond, Virginia, that was robbing banks in Europe..." we'd be all over that, and he's right.

This interview, too, steered toward voting rights. King's been working on the For the People Act; it's in the Rules Committee, where he's a member. Tapper mentioned Sen. Manchin's lack of support, as well concerns of other Dems, both in the Senate and at the state level, that the bill goes too far. King agrees; he's made Schumer and Sen. Amy Klobuchar aware that there "are clearly some things" he thinks need to be negotiated.

 -- but the guts of it, Jake, is voting rights. It has a lot of other pieces. It has -- for example, it has public financing of elections. It has a lot of other pieces in it. But the important part for me is protecting voting rights. And I think that's becoming more urgent by the day, based upon what's going on around in the states.

King realizes, even if other people aren't talking about it as much, that changes that would allow a state legislature to "essentially overturn the results of an election" are extremely important. 

Remember, Raffensperger stood up in Georgia and said, no, we have certified these elections, the governor certified them. We're worried that -- or I'm worried that they're going to turn that over and say, OK, a Republican legislature can say, we think there was fraud in Fulton County, and, therefore, we're going to certify a different set of electors. That's really dangerous. 

Finally, Tapper asked him whether he believes the Republicans "negotiate in good faith or are just obstructionists. What are they doing today? Are they negotiating in good faith? Do you support eliminating the filibuster?" I love his answer:  "Well, it's kind of schizophrenic."

He pointed to some things that are being done in a bipartisan manner, such as a bill designed to "help us compete with China." He said those negotiations have been completely bipartisan, and while it stalled before the Memorial Day break, he's hopeful they can get it finalized.

But I was thinking about that bill... If the bill had had Joe Biden's name on it, we wouldn't even be talking about it, I don't think. I mean, it's -- that's sort of where we have gotten this.

The bill he's working on started with a conversation between Schumer and Sen. Todd Young (R-IN), and is working "through regular order" with committees and amendments and whatnot.

But then, on other areas, it's been -- as you say, it's been pretty well stalled. I think the infrastructure bill is a good test, because, listen, there's not a lot of policy there. This is just numbers. It's helping the country. And we ought to be able to find a resolution on that. If we can't, that spells trouble. 

And is King ready to scrap the filibuster? 

Not in general. I'm very reluctant about it. But if it comes down to voting rights and the rights of Americans to go to the -- go to the polls and select their leaders vs. the filibuster, I will choose democracy.

That's where we're going to leave it. I'll have Condi Rice and maybe a couple more senators in tomorrow's Extra Credit. 

See you around campus. 

Sunday School 4/18/21

I'm going to cover two interviews with former Speaker of the House Rep. John Boehner, who's written a book - On the House: A Washington Memoir - that he wants us to read. 

First up? His chat with Dana Bash on CNN's State of the Union; she called his book  "definitely the funniest and probably the most candid" political memoir shes' ever read. Having said that, she dove right in, pointing out we've had 47 mass shootings already in this year, and reminded him of his failure to get any kind of gun control passed after the Sandy Hook shooting. First, did he have regrets about that, and second, does he want to see the Rs coming to the table "to at least pass something?"

He said back in the day, "we couldn't find common ground with the other side" but hopefully that'll be different now, because "this - it's - frankly, it's heartbreaking. I think it's embarrassing our country to the rest of the world. And we have got to find a way to deal with the problem." He agreed it would be a "top priority" if he were still Speaker, and he noted that it's "not about what everybody wants. It's a matter of what can be accomplished in a bipartisan way."

Pointing to the many names he used to refer to some of his former colleagues ("political terrorists, knuckleheads, the chaos caucus"), Bash said he was kind of "like a doctor who is identifying a disease, but not giving a prescription" for fixing it, and wondered why he didn't tell us how to fix it in the book.

Boehner said he thinks "governing in America today is far harder than it was when I was there. But what I have suggested here over the last several months is, Republicans have to go back to being Republicans," which means focusing on fiscal responsibility, and a strong national defense. They'll need a plan they can all agree on if they're to get back into the majority in the House and Senate, or to win back the White House.

But still, Bash said, he talks in his book about misinformation and lies, both from right-wing media and from GOP lawmakers, including perpetuating the big lie, that the election was stolen. She asked if they were eroding democracy. After a bit of pressure, he said both parties have fringe members, and

remember, there are good members on both sides of the aisle. You know, 90% of Congress are good, decent, honest people trying to do the right thing for their constituents and for the country. But, in my case, on any given day, there were two or three dozen what I call knuckleheads who just wanted -- they wanted chaos. They wanted it all their way or no way.

And on bills related to how Americans exercise their right to vote, some 360 of them, according to the Brennan Center for Justice? Boehner noted that before he was in Congress, when he was a legislator in Ohio, election issues were bipartisan issues, "because people need to have confidence in those systems," but after "the challenges that the last election proved out," states are "trying to figure out a way to make it more fair, more secure." 

And, he said, those folks who want chaos? They have a bigger platform to "make their points and, frankly, create chaos."

It brings more attention to them. They're able to raise more money. And the idea of governing is something foreign to most of them.

Finally, on 2024, 

...what I want to happen is somebody that stands up and represents all the principles of the Republican Party, somebody that can bring the Republican Party together and win elections.

And, here are some highlights from his interview with Chuck Todd on Meet the Press. Their conversation started with a question on what if any responsibility Boehner has, or that he holds himself to, "for the change in the party" as it lurched rightward during his tenure as Speaker. He said that some of them just didn't want to join the party, they wanted it "100% their way or no way." He also said he didn't think he could have done more,

You know, hindsight's 20/20. It's easy to look back now, ten years, six years ago and wonder. But I can tell you that I did everything every day I could to bring them into the party, make them part of the party, but some of them just frankly didn't want to come.

On white supremacy, and the attempt to start what's effectively a white supremacist caucus, Chuck wondered how this worked its way into the Republican party.

I have no idea how this even showed up. I wouldn't call it mainstreamed in our party, but I can tell you that this so-called America First Caucus is one of the nuttiest things I've ever seen. Listen, America is a land of immigration. We've been the world's giant melting pot for 250 years. And we ought to celebrate the fact that we are this giant melting pot. And to see some members of Congress go off and start this America First Caucus is -- it's the silliest thing I've ever seen. And Republicans need to denounce it.

Boehner has said he voted for Trump's re-election; Chuck wondered how he feels about that post-January 6th.

I was disappointed in what happened after the election, the president continuing to make claims about the election being stolen. And I kept looking for evidence, like most Americans did. Where's the evidence? How can you keep saying something that -- without providing any proof? And there wasn't any. And clearly on January 6th, it was one of the saddest days in my life, watching the place I have worked -- watching a place where I and my team did everything we could for that institution -- being trashed by a mob.

That said, Boehner refused to say if the actions of the former president were disqualifying from leading the country again. 

Listen, Chuck, I'm not in office any more. What he does or doesn't do really is of no interest to me. I'm trying to make sure that Republicans understand, as a Republican Party, we need to go back to the principles of what it means to be a Republican...things that hold Republicans and the Republican Party together and has for the last 150 years. Let's go back to being Republicans.

And, in case you're wondering, here's Boehner's answer on any potential future political campaign.

I'd rather set myself on fire than to run for office again.

No comment on that last part. See you around campus.