TGIF 3/25/22

After last week's all good news TGIF, we're back to the regular format, where both good and bad week stories are included. Let's dive in with a good week mention, to get us off on the right foot. 

Some great unemployment news came out Thursday, giving the Biden team a bit of a good week. It's possible you missed it; good news doesn't garner wall-to-wall coverage in the press like bad news does

Here's the scoop, from the White House:

This morning, we received news that the number of Americans on unemployment insurance fell to its lowest level since 1970 and the number of Americans filing new claims fell to its lowest one-week level since 1969. 

Now, it wasn't just the White House talking about the great numbers. Reuters concurred. 

The number of Americans filing new claims for jobless benefits dropped to a 52-1/2-year low last week, while unemployment rolls continued to shrink, pointing to rapidly diminishing labor market slack that will keep boosting wage inflation.

Piggybacking on that good news, I'll give a shoutout to businesses that are paying higher wages to get and keep good employees. I'm especially proud of them for not waiting for the government to order them to do that.

Hearings were held this week on Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson. As with other recent SCOTUS hearings, we saw a teeny bit of time spent on learning about the nominee, and an overwhelming amount of time spent on career advancement, harassment, and showing off by Judiciary Committee members. Here are some noteworthy takeaways from the hearings, both good and bad.

Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE) had a good week, for calling out the bad behavior of his  colleagues - and not just the ones making fools of themselves in these hearings. While explaining why he doesn't want cameras in SCOTUS proceedings, he offered this bit of wisdom, with which I can't argue. 

I think we should recognize the jack-assery we often see around here is partly because of people mugging for short-term camera opportunities.

On the very bad week side of the ledger, there's Sen. Ted Cruz (R- Cancun). I've made no secret about my dislike of him over the years, and nothing he said this week changed my opinion of him.

Of all the folks on the Judiciary Committee, he was the most hypocritical, especially on the issue of critical race theory. Here's what he thinks about that, and about Judge Jackson being on the board of the school that he says

aggressively teaches critical race theory, and that is an extreme and divisive theory that pits children against other children, divides us based on race, and teaches a false and revisionist history of our nation.

The problem? He sends his daughters to a school that espouses a similar philosophy. For example, statements by school leaders after the murder of George Floyd said the school

must be antiracist and eliminate racism of any type - including institutional racism - within our school, community, and beyond.

And, from the school's website, we learn that "cultural proficiency, diversity, global awareness and inclusivity" will be incorporated "into all facets of the curriculum." One can't help thinking Cruz has never looked at his daughters' homework. Unless  he only gives a hoot about this stuff when the cameras aren't on.

In fairness, I must give the Rs on the committee a wee dollop of credit; it seems the idea of boycotting the vote to move Judge Jackson's nomination out of committee is DOA. Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) said

There's not going to be any boycott. There's zero, not one iota (of a chance) that we would boycott.

Other senators, including the despicable Lindsey Graham (R-Shriekerville) said he didn't think that was the right way to handle it. John Cornyn (R-TX) said they should

show up and try our best to be on our best behavior and treat the nominee respectfully. (Emphasis added)

Good luck with that, if what they showed this week is any indication. 

Speaking of being on best behavior, Judge Jackson was remarkable. Her grace, tolerance, and patience were on display throughout the hearings. There was a moment, though, when she took a very long pause before answering one of Sen. Cruz's questions. Elie Mystal of The Nation explained what that pause meant; in part, she said

It’s the calculation when black people try to decide: “Am I gonna risk it all for this?” 

Jackson took a moment to decide if it was worth it to throw everything away—her chance, her good name, maybe even her whole career—just to tell Ted Cruz, a man she’s known for over 25 years, what she really thought of him. 

She decided against it, of course.

And in that moment, she proved herself better than Cruz, Graham, Cornyn, Hawley, and all the rest of them. 

I'll close with one more reference to Cruz; as I said, he had a very bad week. USA Today columnist Rex Huppke addressed the same question as Elie Mystal - did Jackson think babies are racist? Here's his take.

Some viewers wondered why a man who looks like he rubbed honey on his face then rolled on the floor of a barbershop would pose such a question. In fact, the collective eye roll was so intense the Earth briefly tilted off its axis.

But I stood and cheered the bold senator from Texas/Cancun. He was speaking truth to power and addressing an issue few Americans have ever been willing to face: Babies are incredibly racist. 

We know this, he opines, because babies "are silent on the issue." 

If babies aren’t racist, and if a clearly intelligent and serious U.S. senator is out there floating a possible epidemic of infant racism, don’t you think babies themselves would stand up, immediately fall down, and then assure everyone they don’t have a racist bone in their soft and pliable bodies?

Of course, they would. 

TGIF, everyone. 

Wondering, on Wednesday (v54)

Ahh...  A nice relaxing night to sit and wonder about stuff.

I wonder how much time Ted Cruz (R-Canada, R-Cuba, R-Texas) spent thinking about his nefarious plot? You know, the one in which he and John Kasich (R-Hungry, R-Ohio) would dance around each other, rather than competing directly against each other, in an effort to stop His Hairness from getting the nomination on the first ballot?

In case you missed it, the deal which I think Mitt Romney started asking for weeks ago was supposed to have Kasich head west for New Mexico and a couple other places, and leave Indiana to Cruz, who was believed to have the better chance there to beat Trump. If they weren't actively competing against each other, they figured, one would be stronger and have a better chance of winning.

Then John Kasich was asked, between bites of something (since lately he's always shown eating, it seems), whether he would tell his supporters to vote for Cruz. Um, that's a big negative. His supporters should vote for him, he said.  The 'deal' such as it was, unravelled just that fast. The point of it, according to Kasich, was that neither campaign has unlimited money and they both were trying to economize - not give up on their supporters, or have their supporters give up on them.

That sure made me wonder about the art of the deal Ohio-style, and I'm sure it made Ted Cruz wonder too.

So what's a wondering, wandering, lost-on-the-campaign trail guy to do, especially after finishing third in four out of five primaries last night?  Well, let's see.  I know -- tell the media you're going to make a big announcement, and then spend some time wondering what you're going to announce?

Yeah, that sounds like a plan. And then without further ado, announce your plan to be forever linked in failure with....

After a great deal of time and thought, after a great deal of consideration and prayer, I have come to the conclusion that if I am nominated to be president of the United States that I will run on a ticket with my vice presidential nominee Carly Fiorina. 

What a country Canada, Cuba and America are, eh?

And speaking of Making America Great Again, I wonder how totally ridiculous it would sound if Hillary Clinton (and yes, even Carly Fiorina) decided to accuse Donald Trump of "playing the man card" -- would they sound as stupid as does Trump when he accuses Hillary of playing the woman card?  My guess is yes, yes they would sound as stupid as he does. But I'm willing to bet that both Clinton and Fiorina are smarter than that.

And speaking of smarter than that, according to a recent Rasmussen poll from earlier this month, here's what likely voters thought about which of the candidates was 'qualified' to be president:

• 54% thought Kasich was
• 50% thought Hillary was
• 48% thought Bernie Sanders was
• 40% thought Cruz was

How many said yes to Trump?  27%.  

I wonder what 'card' he's playing?

TGIF 8/5/22

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In one classroom,

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

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

In another? 

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

And, there was this. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TGIF, everyone.

Sunday School 12/8/19

Let's spend some time on impeachment today, talking with folks from both sides of the circus. I'll have a Sunday School Extra Credit with Cory Booker coming up a little later, since I promised to cover the 2020 Democratic candidates and their classroom appearances. 

We'll get things started with a conversation between George Stephanopoulos and Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) on ABC's This Week. Lofgren, George told us, has played a role in every modern impeachment, which means she's been in office for more than 35 years. 

Lofgren was asked to "make the concise version" of the case that allegations against Trump are more serious than those against either Nixon or Clinton. She explained that Nixon abused his power by trying to influence the election and by covering it up. Trump, she said,

not only has he abused his power to improperly put his thumb on the -- on the scale for the election, he used a foreign power to do it. And that is -- really hits all of the buttons that the founding fathers were concerned about.

George hit her with one of the many Republican defenses, that Trump didn't get what he wanted, and that the aid was released. Lofgren said that "as a matter of fact" people died while the aid was suspended, and that Trump is continuing to use "agents to get improper things done," referring to Rudy Giuliani, and that this is "an ongoing threat" to national security. She added

 And it's an abuse of power that is -- needs to be dealt with, really. It's -- it's depressing, honestly. I wish the president's behavior had been better.

Lofgren thinks they should focus the impeachment "only on those items where we have direct evidence" and noted they don't have direct witness testimony for what's in the Mueller report.

Stephanopoulos referenced a WaPo editorial suggesting that witnesses and documents being blocked by Trump could "provide a fuller, and to many Americans, more persuasive picture of his guilt."  He wondered if the House should wait for that information, as the editorial suggested. Trump has "improperly withheld" witnesses, she said, adding

I'm mindful that the last time we fully litigated that claim, it took 18 months. So to allow the president to engage in frivolous appeals so that the appeals extend beyond his term of office really is not what the constitution provides...

And she said she thinks they'll be able to make the case without having to wait for that information.  And in response to a question that impeachment will replace the "certainty of presidential terms," something she said a long time ago, that Congress could use partisan impeachment to change the outcome of an election, she disagreed.

... I think I did say throughout the Clinton impeachment was, first you need a high crime and misdemeanor. Lying about sex is not an abuse of presidential power, maybe husband power. And certainly Trump has done the same thing when it comes to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal. We're not proceeding on his lies about his affairs. That has nothing to do with the abuse of presidential power any more than it did in the Clinton administration.

She finished by again, equating Trump's actions with those of Nixon, and that

...the founders were very concerned that the president that they had created in the constitution had enormous powers. And if unchecked, if the use of that power was made to subvert the constitutional order, there had to be a remedy and that remedy was impeachment.

Let's move on to a couple of excerpts from Chuck Todd's conversation with Ted Cruz, the Republican senator from Texas, on NBC's Meet the Press. Cruz said something about Trump being tough on Russia, and Todd asked if what the president did with Ukraine was "somehow tough on Russia" or if instead Trump "by just introducing all of this delayed aid, play into the hands of Russia." Here's Cruz not answering.

You know, Chuck, substance matters. By any measure, the president's policy and this administration's policy have been tougher on Russia and, actually, better for Ukraine than Obama's was. Let me give you an example. You just mentioned Ukrainian aid. The Donald Trump administration gave lethal defensive aid to Ukraine, Javelin missiles, to take out Russian tanks. Do you know what? Throughout the Obama administration, I repeatedly pressed President Obama to give lethal aid to Ukraine. I traveled to Ukraine. I went to the Maiden Square, in Kiev. And they needed lethal aid. But the Obama administration, they sent, teddy bears and MREs. They wouldn't actually give weapons. And at the end of the day, Chairman Nadler doesn't want to talk about any of that. He doesn't want to talk about the substance.

Speaking about House Democrats, Cruz suggested it was "garbage. What nonsense" for them to suggest that "you don't have to prove a crime, you don't have to prove a law was violated, to impeach a president."

Chuck Todd let out four 'whoas' at that line, arguing that high crimes and misdemeanors are not defined in the Constitution, and that the Constitution was written before they even wrote the laws. Here's Cruz

So actually what the Constitution -- Chuck, actually, what the Constitution says is you can impeach a president for treason, bribery, or high crimes and misdemeanors. It specifies it. High crimes and misdemeanors was a -- hold on, Chuck. Don't interrupt me-

So high crimes and misdemeanors was a term of art that the framers used -- and you know, it's striking. In poker, there's something called a tell. When a player has a really bad hand, and they reveal it, it's a tell. What we saw last night was a tell from the House Democrats. You know, just a few weeks ago, their talking point was bribery, bribery, bribery. They're now admitting they can't prove a crime. They can't prove a law was violated. And here's why. Any president, any administration, is justified in investing corruption. And there was serious evidence of real corruption concerning Hunter Biden on the board of Burisma, the largest natural gas company in Ukraine. You know how much Hunter Biden was paid every month? $83,000. That's $1 million a year.

I don't even know where to start with that answer, if it's an answer. 

• Pretending the Constitution requires a criminal act? That's a lie. 
• Hunter Biden getting a job isn't in and of itself an indication of corruption; if anything, you could argue that it was an attempt at currying favor with the Obama administration, but that has not been proven - and is not a crime. 
• That Biden was paid $83,000 per month? Well, it was $50,000 a month, so the inflation since he got the job is pretty impressive - and not a crime. 

And then he blamed the media, Cruz did, fro not caring about any of this. Except that, as Todd rightly said, the reason anyone - including Cruz - knows anything about this is because the media reported it. Todd asked if there was corruption, why didn't we have American officials do the investigation, why ask a foreign government to do it?  Here's this non-answer.

So I believe any president, any Justice Department, has the authority to investigate corruption. In this case, there was serious evidence, on the face, of corruption. The reason Hunter Biden got that position is because his daddy was Vice President of the United States.

Next question: does Cruz believe that Ukraine meddled in the 2016 election?

I do. And I think there's considerable evidence of that.

Next question - after reciting several examples of crap Trump launched against Cruz in 2016,  "is it not possible that this president is capable of creating a false narrative about somebody, in order to help him, politically?"

Except that's not what happened. The president released the transcript of the phone call. You can read what was said on the phone call...

And then, provided the evidence that Ukraine interfered in our election. Make sure you've got your seat belt on.

Ukraine blatantly interfered in our election. The sitting ambassador from Ukraine wrote an op-ed blasting Donald Trump --  during the election season. --  That is unusual...  and they wanted Hillary Clinton to get elected.

Because an op-ed is... election interference.

Got it.

See you around campus.

Quick Takes (v5): Brokaw and Trump

Quick Takes

I don't think Tom Brokaw likes Donald Trump.

For the second time in about ten days, Brokaw has offered commentary on Trump and what he's doing to this election cycle, and perhaps, to all elections in the future.

On Meet the Press at the end of January, Brokaw allowed as how the thrice-married Trump, a man who has had affairs all over the world, was doing just fine with evangelicals in Iowa (although he under-performed the polling and only finished second).

Tonight, on NBC's Nightly News, Brokaw lamented the loss of civility personified by Trump. The name calling, Brokaw pointed out. The finger-wagging; the shushing; the sneering, the whole mess that is Trump on the campaign trail, he left out.

The latest example of this?  Trump's repeating of an audience member's comment (a woman's comment, by the way) that Ted Cruz is a "pussy."  Which, of course, drew a huge roar from the crowd. We would expect nothing less.

It is hard to imagine any other candidate lasting a week using his language and style. But it is working for him, helped by the echo chamber of social media and cable television. 

Brokaw is right on one point - no one else could get away with this. But he's wrong on one very significant point: it's not just social media and cable TV that are keeping Trump alive. It's the mainstream media, like his very own NBC, which keeps Trump alive, in the news, all the time -- and for free.

While other significantly more civil candidates struggle to get air time, and have to pay millions to get ads on television, Trump is there, every night, for free. It's so ridiculous, he even points it out to them, and they do it anyway.

Brokaw notes that

By tonight we'll know if the Trump 'take-no-prisoners' style adds up to a big victory.

The answer, we have learned, is yes.

Trump was projected the winner with barely over 10% of the vote counted; as I write this, now less than a quarter of the votes have been tallied, and Trump, at 34%, is leading John Kasich (15%), with Jeb! and Ted Cruz tied at 12%.

The Update Desk 10/21/15: Joe, Paul, and Dough

Back on September 13th, I suggested that Joe Biden shouldn't run for President. Today, he agreed with me.

In a brief Rose Garden speech, Biden conceded that it was now simply too late for him to mount a realistic campaign, as his family's grieving process took the time that Biden would have otherwise spend building a campaign structure, raising money, and getting everyone's skin thickened up for the inevitable landslide of attention, both good and bad.

I'm glad he's out - and I appreciate his intention to not sit idly by, but to speak out on issues as his term as Vice President winds down.

While I will not be a candidate, I will not be silent. I intend to speak out clearly and forcefully, to influence as much as I can where we stand as a party and where we need to go as a nation. 

He might not be in the race, but at this point I'll take help from anyone who can help shape the debate.

Paul Ryan, on the other hand, has decided to put his hat into the ring to be Speaker of the House, a job he does not want, does not need, and won't take unless the entire Republican contingent in the House agrees to his terms.

Which is kind of funny, when you think about it, given that Crying John Boehner is out and the heir apparent Kevin McCarthy is out because they did not agree to the terms of the alleged Freedom Caucus, a group of some 40 hard line conservatives who are trying to shift the House to, oh, I don't know -- what's further right than the Pacific Ocean?

One of his big 'requests' is that he needs more time with his family, including his three young children. The Speaker historically has spent a lot of time criss-crossing the country raising money for the party and House members, something which Ryan will not do in the traditional way, should he be selected for the leadership role.

At least in that regard, he has something in common with Biden.

And now for that guy Dough. In my post Big Money in Little Politics earlier this week, I shared some info from a NY Times article on a relative handful of folks, some 158 families, who (through June 30th) had given $176,000,000 to candidates or their super PACs, and lamented, as I have before, the role that money plays in taking folks like you and me out of the political game.

That little $176M is a mere drop in the bucket, folks.  According to OpenSecrets.org, there are huge sums of money going to candidates in the 2016 cycle.

As of October 21, 2015, 1,207 groups organized as super PACS have reported total receipts of $303,520,383. 

Here's just a sampling:

• Right to Rise USA (Jeb Bush): $103,167845
• Unintimidated PAC (Scott Walker): $20,022,405
• Conservative Solutions PAC (Marco Rubio): $16,057,755
• Priorities USA Action (Hillary Clinton):$15,654,457
• Keep the Promise III (Ted Cruz): $15,000,000
• Keep the Promise I (Cruz): $11,007,096
• America Leads (Chris Christie): $11,003,304
• Keep the Promise II (Cruz): $10,000,000
• Opportunity and Freedom I (Rick Perry):$10,000,000

$303,520,383. So far. And that's just this bucket of contribution, it's not all of it.

It's kind of fun to note how much money has gone to folks who are either doing poorly (Bush, Rubio, Christie and even Cruz) or are out of the picture completely (Walker, Perry).

What's that saying about a fool and his money? 

Wondering, on Wednesday (v30)

Well, let's see, what do we have tonight?

The New England Patriots were fined $1,000,000 for 'deflategate' and lost a couple of draft picks. Tom Brady was suspended for four 'real games' (meaning, he can play in the pre-season but will sit out the first four games after that), unless he wins on appeal. 

I'm wondering, this Wednesday, what the heck the NFL was thinking? I mean, suspending a QB for four games that matter?  Sheesh.  Don't they know anything about suspending players? 

Look at Major League Baseball. MLB, as we know, suspends pitchers for three or four games for things like throwing fastballs at heads - knowing, when they do this, that the suspended pitcher will almost never miss a game. Why? Because of the rotation that allows them to only pitch after half a week or so of rest between games.  Who woulda thunk that the NFL actually wanted to punish someone?

Brady's appeal, which is almost inevitable, is being met with both support and derision. On the one hand, he didn't actually touch the footballs himself, but apparently put big-league pressure on the locker room staff to the point where they decided to manipulate things to Brady's liking.  And since he wasn't culpable in the act, he shouldn't be suspended, or shouldn't be suspended so harshly, or something.  

On the other hand, there's this sentiment, eloquently expressed by Ian O'Connor (via ESPN):

This isn't Pete Rose gambling on baseball or Lance Armstrong and Alex Rodriguez pumping one illegal drug after another into their bodies for a competitive edge. Brady should tell the public that he thought he was merely driving 63 in a 55 mph zone, that he didn't realize taking some air out of the ball was a big deal, and that he now realizes it is a very big deal. 

He should apologize to (Pats owner Robert) Kraft for lying to him and making the owner look and sound like a fool...He should apologize to (the locker room guys) for putting franchise-player pressure on employees in no position to resist it...and, importantly, to fans everywhere who thought Tom Brady would be among the last quarterbacks to spike the integrity of his sport.

'Franchise-player pressure' is an understandable concept, right? It's the kind of pressure that 'allows' a manager to harass an employee. It's the kind of pressure that 'compels' people to lie for their bosses, or shred documents, or to erase a tape while doing a previously undefined yoga pose, or any of a host of things along those lines.

I don't think, though, that 'franchise player pressure' is what Texas Senator and Republican Presidential Candidate Ted Cruz exerted when he questioned whether the training exercise known as Jade Helm 15 was in fact a cover for an Obama administration military takeover of Texas. (I wondered about a related issue last week). Cruz has been assured by the Pentagon that everything's on the up and up, he said.

I'm wondering, though, how the person at the Pentagon who responded to Cruz's staff on this managed to do it with a straight face. And whether, in the end, the person would really rather have responded with this:

Perhaps, then, you would prefer not an official proclamation but a reasoned answer. As a master debater in college (Princeton, right?), you surely appreciate the reliability of logic, your public statements over the past few years notwithstanding. If you are disinclined to take the United States Armed Forces at their word when we promise no ill intentions towards Texas, then perhaps your considerable and vaunted intellectual powers, which once posited the regrowth of hymens as a guard against unauthorized incursions in domestic affairs, could be swayed by incontrovertible fact. 

That's just one small portion of a hysterical response offered  by "Secretary Ashton Carter" on Huffington Post the other day. I'm sure the Secretary wishes he could get away with saying something like that. Heck, I can think of lots of times I would love to be able to respond like that, can't you?

The post ends with a comment about Cruz being "the rudest Canadian we've ever run across."  And I wonder, is that last point debatable?

TGIF 2/19/21

Time to get this week into the books, starting with the bad week list.

Can we agree that Sen. Rafael Edward 'Ted' Cruz (R-TX), he of 'the vacation that spawned a hashtag industry,' belongs at the top of the list?  

You can find any number of links to articles referencing his really bad idea to run off to Cancun for a $300/night quickie vacation with his wife and kids, in the middle of a pandemic and a major weather event impacting his constituents across the Lone Star State.  Just know that having the police help make sure you get to the airport, lying that you were just dropping off your daughters in another country while they were on a school break, lying that you immediately knew it was wrong, lying about having a return flight booked, the next day, and having your wife's 'hey, come and join us in Cancun" text messages be made public is probably the new dictionary definition of a bad week. 

And those hashtags? Here are a few: #FledTed #FlyinCruz #CancunCruz and #CancunCruz -feel free to use them on social media. 

Sticking with Cruz, but taking a different tack, we have Donny Jr. He blasted the calls for Cruz to resign, saying that senators work in Washington passing laws and stuff, they're not really needed in their states and, you know, who doesn't need a vacation?  He also slammed those who attacked Cruz but gave "their Democratic governors" a pass as they violated their own executive orders and shut their states down. A bunch of people from 'left' Twitter pounced on Donny for not knowing that Texas hasn't had a Democratic governor in years - but that's not what he said or what he meant. He was talking about 

• Gavin Newsom (D-CA) who went maskless to a restaurant to celebrate a lobbyist's birthday, violating his own pandemic rules. Newsom is facing a likely recall vote in the coming weeks, in part because of that dinner. 
• He was talking about the husband of Gretchen Whitmer (D-MI) trying to get his boat in the water before Memorial Day, while the Gov was asking people to stay away from the lakes to reduce COVID spread. Whitmer eventually said her husband was joking, but no one was laughing. 
• He was talking about my Sonofa Gov heading down to Georgia to be celebrated, maskless and in violation of his own 'unnecessary travel' restrictions. 

I love a little righteous indignation as much as the next person, but be sure you understand what's being said before attacking - even before attacking someone named Trump. 

On the good week side of the ledger? Well, President Biden told the G7 that 

I am sending a clear message to the world, America is back. The transatlantic alliance is back and we are not looking backward we are looking forward together.

His message was well-received, at least by British PM Boris Johnson, who said "As you've seen and heard earlier, America is unreservedly back as the leader of the free world, and that is a fantastic thing." I'd agree with that. 

How about the 'tip war' going on in Cincinnati? Xavier and University of Cincinnati alums have raised over $34,000 for restaurant workers by ridiculously over-tipping on their bills. It started with a $1000 tip from a Xavier alum, which was topped by the $1001 offered by a UC alum, and it just keeps going. 

You've surely heard by now that NASA's Perseverance rover made it safely to Mars, after a months-long, nearly 300,000,000-mile journey. If you're interested you can follow the giant SUV-sized rover on Twitter. 

And there was good news out of Texas, even amidst all the trouble. An Austin man helped rescue over 100 stranded drivers; World Central Kitchen, founded by chef Jose Andres, has partnered with Houston restaurants  to provide over 2000 meals for folks impacted by the power outages. And, AOC, the Queens progressive, set up a website to raise money for 12 Texas organizations; her supporters chipped in $2M within 24 hours.

A restaurant owner in Chicago has been buying up all the tamales he can get from food trucks, which are struggling during the pandemic and the brutal cold weather. He uses his dozens and dozens of tamales to stock 'Love Fridges' - community refrigerators that folks in need can tap for meals as needed. Others are donated to homeless shelters. 

There's all kinds of good news out there; we just have to condition ourselves to look for it. 

TGIF, everyone.

Wondering, on Wednesday (v34)

If you watch the evening news, you've probably seen a few thousand pharmaceutical commercials, everything from painful sex to painful joints to painfully dry eyes to painfully not being able to perform to painful diabetic nerve pain to painful embarrassment due to losing your keys and finding them in the refrigerator. After a rude awakening, I was thinking I might need to "talk to my doctor" about a drug, the one for painful night leg cramps. Boy I had a doozy of one in my calf around 4 this morning. I'm wondering now what drug I need to take to help me remember the name of the drug I wonder if I need to talk to my doctor about taking...

C Neibergall/AP Photo

Speaking of drugs, I think the conservatives who are up in arms about the pictures of Senator Ted Cruz (R-Canada) with posters of guns in the background need to take a chill pill.

Yeah, it's true that the guns are pointing at his head, but is that his fault for standing where that could happen, or is it the fault of the photographer for taking pictures of Cruz?  And is Cruz upset, or are the gun-shy gun fans upset?  After all, it he was the one who, at an Iowa campaign stop just a couple of days after the murders in Charleston, joked about gun control:

You know the great thing about the state of Iowa is, I'm pretty sure you all define gun control the same way we do in Texas - hitting what you aim at.

It might just be me, but I think if you crack that joke on the heels of a mass murder in a church, you shouldn't be too concerned about a bunch of paper guns in frames on the wall.

Charleston's murderer, Dylann Roof, has a clear identity as a racist bastard, but a less clear identity as a person.  Seems the national press pronounce his last name Roof like 'rewf', but the folks down south have generally said it Roof like 'hoof'. Who was it who said "You can say anything about me you want to, as long as you get my name right?" Seems Mr. Rewf or Mr. Roof missed that bit in his research.

I didn't call Roof an 'alleged' murderer, or an 'accused' murderer, as many in the media continue doing.  Why? Because he confessed. I'm also not going to call him crazy or insane or nuts or any of the common mental health terms we use so freely in cases like this.  He planned it, he did it, he admitted it. At this point let's leave it up to his lawyers to try and figure out where the dust settles. I'm comfortable calling him what he called himself: a killer, a murderer, a racist.

Another person who I won't call nuts or crazy or insane is Pope Francis. I'm going to let Catholics handle the name calling, as it seems there are many who are upset with the Pontiff for his encyclical on climate change, the environment and man's disastrous treatment of our home. Francis has continued his messaging, tweeting frequently in the past several days along these lines:

The earth, our home, is beginning to look more and more like an immense pile of filth.

Economic interests easily end up trumping the common good.

Many things have to change course, but it is we humans above all who need to change.

Among the folks who are irked with the Holy Father is Jeb Bush, who converted to Catholicism many years ago, and who is not afraid of using his faith in his messaging, or defending his faith publicly, as he did back in 2013 when he thought (or pretended he thought) that President Obama was closing the US embassy to the Vatican. On the Pope's encyclical, Bush had this to say:

I hope I'm not going to get castigated for saying this by my priest back home, but I don't get economic policy from my bishops or my cardinal or my pope. I think religion ought to be about making us better as people and less about things that end up getting in the political realm.

Like abortion. Or marriage equality. Oh wait, those are not political issues, sorry. Those are just tax protected Sunday sermon topics. Ending poverty, finding equal justice, saving Mother Earth, those are political issues.  Silly me.

Finally, speaking of silly, am I the only one wondering if the people who went out and bought guns, all kinds of guns, when President Obama got elected, or here in NY before the SAFE Act went into effect, are the same ones who are now out there buying up anything and everything with the Confederate flag on it?

I just don't get it. I'm wondering, should I talk to my doctor about that?

Point/Counterpoint: The Comic Book Debate

Not unexpectedly, reaction to the CNBC GOP debate was fast and furious. Or maybe, it was furious and fast.

During the debate, the candidates themselves were quick to pounce on the moderators; a few of those reactions I included in yesterday's post, but I did save a couple.

The first is from Ted Cruz:

You know, let me say something at the outset. The questions that have been asked so far in this debate illustrate why the American people don't trust the media. This is not a cage match. And, you look at the questions - "Donald Trump, are you a comic book villain?" "Ben Carson, can you do math?" "John Kasich, will you insult two people over here?" "Marco Rubio, why don't you resign?" "Jeb! Bush why have your numbers fallen?" How about talking about the substantive issues the people care about? 

And this, from Chris Christie:

Carl, are we really talking about getting government involved in fantasy football?  We have -- wait a second -- we have $19 trillion in debt. We have people out of work. We have ISIS and al Qaeda attacking us.  And we're talking about fantasy football  Can we stop?

The official response from the party came via a letter from RNC head Reince Priebus to Andrew Lack head of NBC, advising

I write to inform you that pending further discussion between the Republican National Committee (RNC) and our presidential campaigns, we are suspending the partnership with NBC News for the Republican primary debate at the University of Houston on February 26, 2016...

CNBC billed the debate as one that would focus on "the key issues that matter to all voters - job growth, taxes, technology, retirement and the health of our national economy." That was not the case. Before the debate, the candidates were promised an opening question on economic or financial matters. That was not the case. Candidates were promised that speaking time would be carefully monitored to ensure fairness. That was not the case.  Questions were inaccurate or downright offensive...

What took place Wednesday night was not an attempt to give the American people a greater understanding of our candidates' policies and ideas... 

Put that in your pipe and smoke it, The Networks of NBC.

Elsewhere, the view was a little different.

John Harwood, he of the "comic book version" question to Trump, defended the way he asked the question in an appearance on On Point, a radio show from WBUR and NPR.  When asked by host Tom Ashbrook if he went "a bridge too far" with the question, here was his response (you can listen to the audio here):

No. Look, there is nobody - including the candidates on that stage - the day before John Kasich had given a speech and he said "we've got somebody who's promising to send 10 or 11 million people out of the country. That's just crazy. That is fantasy."  There is no one on that stage who actually believes that you can send those 11 million people out of the country. There is no economist who believes that you can cut taxes $10T without increasing the deficit. It is simply a set of discussions that is not connected to the real world we live in. And I felt and feel at this moment that it's appropriate to pose that to Donald Trump in that way. 

CNBC's Brian Steel, VP of communications, allowed as how

People who want to be president of the United States should be able to answer tough questions. 

Writing in the Boston Globe, columnist Jeff Jacoby noted, in reference to Cruz's "brutal takedown," that

It was a good night for Cruz and Rubio; a bad night for Bush. But the biggest loser in Boulder wasn't a candidate. It was the media.

And here's Helaine Olen, author of a couple of books on personal finance who also writes for Slate; she also arrived at the conclusion that CNBC was the biggest loser.

The main moderators  (Harwood, Quick, Quintanilla) appeared to be in a different time zone from Jim Cramer and Rick Santelli, who pitched in with a few questions. Although, come to think of it, Quintanilla may have been in a different time zone from everyone.. Were there tough questions? Sure there were more than a few... But mostly, CNBC's debate was a mess.

Olen's take on it was a bit different - she noted that regular viewers would have seen a "familiar" mess which is not exactly a confidence builder.  She also recollected Quintanilla has had other less than shining moments, such as this one:

...his performance managed to remind me almost at once that his finest moment as a journalist was when he got an interview with soon-to-be-indicted $8B Ponzi schemer Allen Stanford and asked him "Is it fun being a billionaire?"

Hmm.  Now I have to wonder, were my expectations too high to begin with?

Back to Priebus, before we go. His letter to NBC News also noted that

The RNC's sole role in the primary debate process is to ensure that our candidates are given a full and fair opportunity to lay our their vision for America's future. We simply cannot continue with NBC without full consultation with our campaigns.

That  'consultation' is going to occur tonight, with a high-powered Republican attorney facilitating things, according to the New York Times.

The article points out that there are different opinions from the camps on how to proceed, illustrating again that while it's relatively easy to rally against the media as a common enemy, it may prove harder to change something that - good, bad, or indifferent - benefits some of the candidates just as much as it marginalizes others.

Stay tuned.

Sunday School 11/21/21

For this week's Sunday School, we'll start with Dana Bash and her State of the Union chat with Gov. Chris Sununu (R-NH), and then check in with Margaret Brennan for her conversations with Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) and Ted Cruz (R-Cancun) on Face the Nation.

Sununu agrees that "everyone likes" the kind of things that are in the Build Back Better bill (BBB) passed by the House - clean energy, climate incentives, universal pre-K, and so on. That's good, but the "immense amount of money" is an issue. He thinks 

fiscal responsibility has left the window out of Washington, DC, and I think that's a frustration for all Americans. 

Inflation "is the worst tax you can put on low- and middle-income families, he added; the answer is finding the middle - and that takes more than cutting the size of the spending.

You do it by looking at what happens at a local level. How do you make sure these programs can get implemented? Remember, the Senate supports a policy. They support funding. And then they go on to the next thing. It's governors and the citizens in local communities that have to implement these programs and that feel the real cost of them. 

He also mentioned, without any detail and without follow up from Bash, that in February, the feds are putting in regulations that will bring "further barriers to getting a CDL license, just getting someone a trucking license." According to the NYS DMV website, the new federal "barriers" include ensuring that new drivers are, you know, trained to be drivers. Oh, the horror.

Sununu turned down a Senate run, saying "as a governor, you can actually play defense and protect the interests of your citizens" from what happens in Washington. And that includes his belief that "politics in its entirety on both sides of the aisle in Washington is screwed up. I mean, it really is," mostly due to them focusing on the wrong priorities.

I agree with a lot of what he said about Washington; how about you?

For her part, Sen. Gillibrand said Sen. Joe Manchin "has come a long way" on paid family leave, and he's "come forward with a lot of really smart questions" in the past few weeks. They both want it to be "an earned benefit" and she's "optimistic" they can come up with something that's bipartisan. The problem is, other Rs who are interested in paid leave aren't interested in what Manchin's looking for. 

Specifically on Manchin's desire to strengthen the "social safety net," Gillibrand says that's what paid family leave will do. 

We know if it's parental leave, parents, mothers are 40% more likely to get back to work if they have paid leave, which goes to Sen. Manchin's concerned that he wants to strengthen our social safety nets. He wants to strengthen Social Security. That's what paid leave does. It gets people back to work. 

They talked about the increase in the SALT deduction cap, which the House bumped up from $10K to $80K, which she hopes will make it through the Senate. Brennan failed to ask Gillibrand what she was doing back home to get NY to reduce taxes, instead of putting this massive benefit to the wealthy in the BBB. While she says the increase will help the middle class, it would give about 40% of the overall benefit to folks making between $366K and $866K, according to the Tax Policy Center. 

Gillibrand also said she thinks Dems are getting the message out now that voters should stick with them in the midterms. And, they'll be doing that even more once the darn thing is signed, when they'll be in their districts talking about how the bill helps families and how that helps the economy.

Brennan wondered if Senator Cruz he agreed with fellow potential 2024 candidates Nikki Haley and Tom Cotton that we should fully boycott the Beijing Olympics. He thinks the Olympics should have been moved to another location, but not with a full boycott.

You know, Jimmy Carter tried that in the 1970s. All it did was punish a generation of athletes. We've got young men and young women, Americans, who spent their whole lives practicing for this moment. I don't want to punish those young athletes.

He agrees with the administration (without agreeing with Brennan that he agrees), on a "so-called diplomatic boycott," in which we "try to minimize the attention" by not sending any high-ranking government officials. But wait - there's more.

Number one, that we actually show the courage the Women's Tennis Association is showing to call out the murder, the genocide, the torture, the lies, the complicity in COVID-19 of the Chinese communist government to speak the truth. And then number two, I really hope our young men and women, that they go over there and kick their commie asses. We need to win in the Olympics.

He'd also like to see corporations "show a tiny bit of courage" and not do any Olympic-related advertising; he thinks that would make sense.

And finally, is Cruz running for president? He said he has "no idea what's going to happen in 2024" and that the Former Guy has a decision to make - is he running, or is he not. Aside from that, 

I can tell you that- that when I ran in 2016, we came incredibly close. I came in second. There's a long history of runner-ups becoming the next nominee, and it was the most fun I've ever had in my life. But there's a lot of time between now and 2024.

See you around campus.

Sunday School 2/21/21: Extra Credit

For your Extra Credit, I wanted to spend time with a least some of the Texans who were in the classrooms yesterday.

For starters, Margaret Brennan had Houston's Dem Mayor Sylvester Turner and Fort Worth's GOP Mayor Betsy Price in the Face the Nation classroom. Turner said that President Joe Biden was welcome to visit any time and he wouldn't be a distraction or a burden, and, as far as what his city needs, plumbing supplies, licensed plumbers and water are high on the list.

Brennan asked him why the water utility - which reports up to him - wasn't better prepared for the cold, and his plans for fixing things. He said "the power outages and the water system are all interconnected," and that they brought in extra generators to try and keep the water system afloat, if you will. He thinks maybe as soon as Monday or Tuesday, they'll be good to go.

He noted that when he was a legislator a decade ago, he submitted a bill to require adequate reserves be maintained to prevent blackouts; it didn't even get a hearing. The grid is built for hot summers, not cold winters - and, "climate change is real. It is real, and these major storms can happen at any time." That's why they need reserves, and why they need an open grid, connected to the grid outside Texas.

Turner said the bill needs to go to the state, not the consumers, and he said Houston has a "huge rainy-day fund" and 

...for people in... this city or in other cities, when they're getting these exorbitant electricity bills and they're having to pay for their homes, repair their homes, they should not have to bear the responsibility of paying a thousand dollars a day, or two thousand dollars a day. 

He said they're back on track already with vaccines; some started up this past Saturday, and a big FEMA site will open Monday; that one can handle an added 6000 shots a day for several weeks.  

In addition to our normal supply, I suspect that this coming week we'll probably vaccine more than a hundred thousand people in the city of Houston. The people are resilient. I'm very proud of the people in the city of Houston, how they've come together. 

Moving to Mayor Price, Brennan noted that the Rs have been in charge of Texas, and the energy system, for years and wondered if anything needed to change. Price said local leaders will demand answers from the state - "solid answers and solutions" - because "the citizens are depending on their local leaders to insist that we get answers." 

I admit I was surprised to learn from Brennan that "the majority of the ERCOT board, the energy grid operator, the people on the board don't even live in the state of Texas." She wondered if they were "in touch at all" with what's happening. Price said she was surprised to learn that, too.

I certainly hope they're in touch, but it doesn't appear that way. And I think that's what surprised more people than anything is that they are not Texans who have not been living here. Most people didn't realize that, including myself. I didn't realize that. And, of course, now you've had the perfect storm, a state-wide storm that's tested our system. And we just have to-- we went through this ten years ago.

She said back when Mayor Turner put his solution on the table, "Texas was coming out of an economic downturn and they just didn't want to spend the money to do it." Now - even with COVID - the economy's strong enough and they have to take care of it, Price said.

Price also said while her attention is focused on getting "power, water and food delivered to our citizens," they'll look to partner with the feds, perhaps for grants for folks without insurance who have broken pipes and flooded homes. And, like Turner, she said they'd be starting vaccinations right back up, by Tuesday at the latest.

Finally, GOP Rep. Michael McCaul chatted with Dana Bash on CNN's State of the Union. Bash asked if what he and others have gone through with this storm isn't really "exhibit A of why some regulation is needed when it comes to protecting people's health and safety." He said it would have been helpful if they could have shared power with other grids, and he referenced the report from 2011 that recommended they winterize operations. Now, they have to look at how to implement those recommendations, "so this never happens again."

McCaul said he hoped that the emergency disaster declaration will help people with their outrageous electric bills, as well as with repairs to their damaged pipes and cleaning up from the water damage.

Bash asked him about the criticism and "some downright anger" at Rs in Texas, including Gov Abbott and Sen. Ted Cruz, and the "high-profile" Dems - Beto O'Rourke, who ran against Cruz in 2018, and AOC, all the way from Queens - "organizing phone banks, distributing supplies, raising millions of dollars for Texans in need." McCaul thought it was great that the two "are crossing party lines," and said the Rs "need to be helping as well." And that's the way it should be. As to folks taking heat?

Look, when a crisis hits my state, I'm there. I'm not going to go on some vacation. I know Mr. Cruz called it a mistake, and he's owned up to that. But I think that was a big mistake. And, as for me, I was on the ground trying to help my people out and my constituents. And that's what we should be doing in a time of crisis, just like we did during the hurricane season as well.

He appreciates the irony of Texas, "probably the energy capital of the world," literally powerless against a winter storm.

Houston, and Texas in general, we have more energy in this state than any other state in the United States, and arguably more than any in the world, and yet here we are without energy. How does that make sense? And we can blame it on wind and solar, but that's about 25 percent of the grid; 75 percent is natural gas and coal. They were all frozen in their operations. So, this winterization idea that I talked about that was set forth in the 2011 report is something that I believe we need to strongly move forward and make the investment that they failed to do in the past.

It's also ironic that it's likely going to take federal dollars to fix the grid they built to not have to deal with the federal government, isn't it?

See you around campus.

Wondering, on Wednesday (v59)

Lord knows I'm not a Trump fan, but I have been doing my utmost best to watch the #RNCinCLE, as the Republican National Convention has been hashtagged, in an effort to figure out what the heck the Republicans stand for generally, or what Trump stands for specifically.

Similarly, I'll be watching the DNC next week for the same reason.

Why, I wonder, did the campaign go through all the effort to have each day of the campaign be 'themed' if there was apparently never any intention to pay attention to the theme? They may as well have had a skywriter flying over Cleveland than publishing a schedule and setting expectations for Making America Safe Again, and Making America Work Again, which is how the first two days were tagged.

Monday night was one of the most somber nights of television I can remember, as bruised person after bruised person stepped up to the podium and told tales of losing loved ones in war, in Benghazi, or at the hands of illegal immigrants, or it seemed, generally suffering from endless, crippling malaise.

Thankfully, we had Rudy Giuliani, who at least pumped up the room and brought some energy.  And there was Melania Trump, who didn't talk about anything having to do with safety but at least she defended her man, the plagiarism issue notwithstanding. Scott Baio and Antonio Sabato Jr.? They were on stage auditioning for the next round of Celebrity Apprentice; I almost expected Gary Busey and Omarosa to appear on stage with them, or with the Junior Duck Dude. Ted Nugent can't be all that far behind, right? Oh - and yes, again, the Trump campaign used music which they were not authorized to -- We Are the Champions, causing Freddie Mercury to roll in his grave, for sure.

Tuesday night, no one talked about jobs except Donald Trump Jr. who talked about working with blue collar mentors as he and his brother worked their way up in the ranks at the company. I wonder, because I don't recall him mentioning it, whether Ivanka also worked with the cement guys and the sheetrock guys? Chris Christie auditioned for Attorney General; Ben Carson talked about God and Lucifer. I'm not sure what else happened, those were the highlights of what I remembered and I missed Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, and Kevin McCarthy - nothing to learn from them.

Tonight is Make America First Again, and so far it's been a quiet night; Laura Ingraham, and some other blond woman, and Eileen Collins spoke. Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker is up now, and for the first time the most prominent chant is not Lock Her Up, it's America Deserves Better, which is kind of thematic, I guess. He at least put together the two words that the various speakers the rest of the week haven't been able to: Trump Pence. You remember them, right?

I wonder how the Republicans in Washington, particularly the House Majority and the Senate Majority, feel about Walker's attack on do-nothings in Washington that are only making things worse and stifling conservative leadership which is, for better or worse, taking hold in statehouses across the country?  Did Walker really imply that we'd all be better off with those two majorities not being in place? Or was that wishful inference on my part?

As I'm writing this, the news just cut away to Donald Trump arriving at the Q center, something that nominees don't do until they accept their party's nomination. That he timed his arrival to ensure a cutaway from Ted Cruz is almost certain.

And what about Ted? He's running for President in 2020, of course. Nothing to wonder about there. He got a rousing cheer when he mentioned the Brexit, and the Constitution, and when he mentioned love. And other than congratulating Trump, he never mentioned the nominee's name. He encouraged his voters to not stay home come November, that too was clear. This was the most fun it's been all week.

If you're Mike Pence, and you're doing your big speech tonight, I wonder how the heck you're going to take the audience back?

The American People Have Spoken

While I was sitting here late last week doing the math and scratching my head on the damage from all of the health care related judgments and bankruptcies in Central New York so far this year (here are the ugly numbers), our elected representatives in Washington were doing what they do best: wasting time, wasting money, and wasting their breath with outright lies and truth-stretching, all played out in front of a national media that's afraid to tell the public what's really going on.

Yes, they're messing around with shutting down the government, and in another couple of weeks potentially jeopardizing the good faith and credit of the country, by passing spending bills that would fund the government - except for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA or more commonly, the ACA).  The first bill sent by the House to the Senate led to Canadian-American Ted Cruz (R-Texas) babbling on the floor of the Senate for 21 hours or so, only to be shut down procedurally by Harry Reid, who I think may be the least exciting thing ever to have come from the state of Nevada. After the 100 - 0 vote to move on (yes, Cruz voted to move on, just like everyone else did), the Senate proceeded to strip off the ACA defunding amendment and send what they call a clean bill back to the House, with a 54 -44 vote.

Saturday night, the House Republicans gathered in a booth in the corner in the dark in the back to chat, then came out and had some more votes, and passed another version of a funding bill that will be rejected by the Senate just like the last one was.

This version includes a delay in the ACA until 2015 (by a 232-192 vote), a repeal of the medical device tax that's part of the ridiculously complex ACA funding plan (248-174), and would allow businesses to choose whether to include contraceptive coverage in their no-cost-to-the-member preventative services.  This hugely controversial provision of the women's preventative services benefit package already comes with a religious exemption, but it's more complicated than just saying "I disagree on religious grounds" and so many (on both sides) see it as cumbersome.

The House will also continue funding for military-related programs, via another amendment to their bill, which is a nice tip of the hat to our soldiers who may otherwise receive an IOU from Congress -- while Congress would of course get a paycheck.  This one passed by a vote of 423 -0. I'm not sure exactly why this was not important enough to make the cut for the first bill?

Throughout all of their 40 some-odd votes to repeal the ACA and their defunding efforts, the Republicans insist that "The American People Have Spoken" (which whether written or spoken must include the emphasis of capital letters) - and don't want Obamacare.

Well, to an extent, the Republicans are correct: The American People Have Spoken on this subject several times already. The Affordable Care Act was debated and passed by both Houses of Congress, and signed by the President. It was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States. And, Barack Obama was re-elected president last November. Weren't The American People Speaking then?

Not surprisingly, when the health care reform act is called Obamacare, which is how the Rs derisively refer to it, people have a more negative response to it than when it's referred to as the Affordable Care Act. Why? Because, not for nothing, The American People are remarkably gullible when it comes to sound bites and advertising.  Bacon ice cream, anyone? Pharmaceutical advertising?  How about that full page Cialis ad in the paper?  Because after all, nothing says "Good Morning!" like an erectile dysfunction conversation over a waffle and a cuppa.

The Republicans also fail to mention when they talk about The American People Having Spoken is that when surveys show that The American People don't like Obamacare, there's a pretty good percentage who don't like it because it doesn't go far enough. Yep -- depending on the survey, as many as a quarter of the people who don't like it don't like it because it's not good enough.

Finally, and more importantly, surveys of The American People Speaking also show that folks simply don't understand what the ACA does or includes.  For example, this recent poll by NBC news found that:

• 34% admit they don't understand it very well
• 35% understand it only somewhat
• 30% understand it pretty well or very well

Folks, that is what the Republicans are counting on - that they can cloud the discussion with nonsense (death panels, for god's sake, people still think the ACA includes death panels!), cram some nonsense advertising down people's throats, and then throw some cutesy sound bites out there for the media to soft-pedal. It's beyond ridiculous.

What they will not mention, however, are survey results like this: in the same NBC poll, 73% of The Americans Who Have Spoken say they're already satisfied with their health coverage.  Which is cool -- because the ACA implementation began in 2010; so, many folks who are satisfied with the coverage they have now, are satisfied with benefits that might only be available because of the ACA.  Pretty sure the R's are not going to be tossing that statistic around much.

Yes, the American People Have Spoken.

Let's move on. Fund the government, and oh, when you have something meaningful put together to amend the ACA, I'm all ears.