Sunday School 8/2/26

With all of the focus on the Democratic Socialists competing in Democratic primaries across the country, I thought I'd spend time with the OG DS, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), who chatted with Kristen Welker in NBC's Meet the Press classroom yesterday. While some of Welker's questions were long, almost all of Sanders' answers were, so be prepared.  

Welker started by referencing a new poll showing that "one third of Democratic-leaning voters now identify as Democratic Socialists (DS)," and noted that, "quite frankly," DS candidates have been winning their primaries. And she asked Sanders if he was confident they could win in purple states. I'm going to try and break up his 470-odd word response into sections so you can catch your breath reading it.

Well, I am, but I’m mostly confident that the American people know that our country today is moving in a very, very bad direction at a time when we have more income and wealth inequality than we’ve ever had in the history of America. What’s going on now makes the Gilded Age of Rockefeller look like an egalitarian utopia. What’s going on now is that millions of our people, right now, in the richest country on Earth, they’re struggling to put food on the table, pay for health care, pay for their rent, pay for their mortgage.

You got half of all the workers who have nothing in savings as they face retirement. Or you’re facing seeing kids unable to afford to go to college in the richest country in the history of the world. So people all over America are looking around, they’re saying, “Hey, wait a minute. The very richest people are becoming richer. Elon Musk himself, one man, owns more wealth by far than the bottom half of American households. What in God’s name is going on?”

And people look at the Republican leadership and Donald Trump, and they say, “You know, this guy’s worried about a Reflecting Pool. I can’t afford my retirement. He’s starting a war in Iran, costing us huge amounts of money, killing innocent people. 18 American servicemen are dead. What are they doing?”

And then you look at the Democratic Party leadership, which also gets their money, like the Republicans, from very wealthy people, and people are saying, “Is the Democratic leadership representing ordinary Americans?” And I think people look at the Republicans, they say, “No, they’re out of touch,” look at the Democratic leadership, say, “No, they’re out of touch.

We need a government, a radical idea, that works for all people and not just for wealthy campaign contributors.” And that’s why, from New York City with (Zoran) Mamdani, and in Colorado, and in California, and in Montana, and I think you’re going to see it in Michigan, people are saying, “Enough is enough. You know, let’s get a government that represents all of us.”

And I’ve got to tell you something, Kristen, that part of the exasperation that the American people are feeling, it’s not just an economy which is rigged. They’re looking at a corrupt — underlying corrupt campaign finance system. And what you’re seeing in Michigan right now is AIPAC, other billionaire-funded super PACs, putting tens and tens of millions of dollars against Abdul El-Sayed. In Minnesota against Peggy Flanagan, same thing.

So we’ve got billionaires buying elections, government working for the billionaires, and ordinary people saying, “We want change.” And that is why progressives, democratic socialists, are doing so well all over this country. They’ve got an agenda that speaks to the needs of working families. They’re prepared to stand up to the oligarchs.

Since Sanders mentioned Michigan, she wondered how confident he was that his endorsed candidate, Dr. Abdul El-Sayed, could "pull out a victory" in Tuesday's primary against the establishment candidate, Congresswoman Haley Stevens.

Look, he has taken on –I’ve never - you know, I’m not a political scientist. I cannot recall where a major candidate was outspent so much by super PACs. I mean, they’re spending tens and tens of millions of dollars against him. The polling recently looks good, but polls don’t win elections, people do. So I would hope that, in Michigan and later next week in Minnesota, people understand the importance of this election. What’s it about?

It’s not just whether Abdul can win or not, beat Haley Stevens. The question is whether or not we live in a democratic society where a candidate fighting for working people can take on tens and tens of millions of dollars of AIPAC money, special interest money. And I hope very much that Abdul is - and I’ll tell you why, and a kind of selfish reason. Everybody in America understands that our current health care system is totally broken. We’re spending unbelievable amounts of money, twice as much per capita as the people of any other country. 85 million uninsured, underinsured. Prices way high.

Dr. El-Sayed is somebody I need in the Senate as he fights for Medicare for All. He’s a doctor. He has seen the broken health care system. We need him to make sure that every man, woman, and child in this country has health care as a human right, as is the case in every other major country on Earth.

Welker noted that Sen. Gary Peters, whose seat is up for grabs, has backed Stevens to replace him, saying

You have to have a candidate who understands that winning a general election doesn’t mean just turning out Democrats. You also have to appeal to a broader cross-section of your state, and Michigan is a true purple state.

To Sanders, she posted this question: "What do you think Dr. El-Sayed will have to do in order to turn out moderates and independents to win a general election if he does win on Tuesday?" In a nutshell, Sanders explained El-Sayed can win because working-class Republicans are in the same boat as all working-class people, and they know the system is broken.

You are struggling to figure out how you’re going to retire with dignity. You understand that the current campaign finance system is broken. You understand that workers need decent wages, and El-Sayed is fighting for a livable minimum wage. And by the way, if you’re a Republican, you know maybe we should be investing our money into Michigan, into Vermont, into America rather than giving the extremist government of Netanyahu and Israel tens of billions of dollars to continue their atrocities against the Palestinian people - I think if you’re a working-class - ok - if you’re a working-class Republican in Michigan, I think you’re going to listen to what El-Sayed says. You’re gonna - and I think many of them will end up voting for him. Independents as well, of course.

Welker asked if El-Sayed should "speak with the same clarity" as Sanders has on the issue of Israel as a Jewish State. El-Sayed has said he "often struggles with the question of whether Israel has the right to exist as a Jewish state.”  Here's the non-answer:

Look, I think right now the immediate issue of the moment is whether or not we continue to put tens of billions of dollars into the extremist Netanyahu government, which has killed 75,000 Palestinians, mostly women and children, wounded 150,000, destroyed their infrastructure. And what the American people are saying overwhelmingly, Democrats, many independents - the majority of independents, and many Republicans, especially younger Republicans, “We’ve got better things to do with our money than to continue to fund the military of Israel.”

They talked a bit about the Maine primary, where Troy Jackson was chosen to replace Graham Platner after widely-reported scandals. Sanders knows Jackson; he'd endorse him if he was asked, and said "I look forward to working with him in the US Senate." And, on comments from Sen. John Fetterman (Kinda D- PA) about Sanders supporting Platner, Sanders suggested that Fetterman "was reflecting the views of about 19% of the Democrats" in PA and is "way out of touch with the people of America."  And, when she asked if he had any regrets about endorsing Platner, he turned to his standard lines:

I’ll tell you, you know, I think right now we’re looking at a campaign in Michigan, we’re looking at a campaign in Minnesota. The people of this country right now are sick and tired of establishment politics and establishment policies. They want change and I and other progressives are going to do everything that we can to bring about those changes.

Finally, they talked about who could carry the progressive banner into the next presidential race, which will be the first without him since 2016.

Kristen there are — one of the untold secrets in Washington is in the U.S. House of Representatives, for example, you have many, many really strong progressives. Many of them are young. Many of them are women. Many of them are people of color. And we have elected many of them. And I think as a result of this election cycle, you’re going to see a lot more coming to Washington. I think as a nation, and by the way, with all due respect, the media spends too much time worrying about who’s going to be a president in two and a half years.

Right now, we have enormous problems facing this country. We’re looking at heat waves all over the world. You’ve got climate change. We’re looking at the big tech oligarchs pushing AI and robotics down our throat. Congress is doing very little to protect working people in that. We’re looking at massive levels of income and wealth inequality, a corrupt campaign finance system. My suggestion is, as a country, as a Congress, as media, let’s focus on the important issues facing working people. Two and a half years from now is a long time to a presidential election. I’m sure it will unfold itself.

I had hoped there'd be more questions about the Democratic Socialists of America platform, and to what extent the DS candidates support the platform. We'll have to wait to see if any of them win in November before anyone starts asking about that. 

For his part, Sanders was Sanders - his answers, in my opinion, were entirely predictable. What do you think?

Sunday School 7/26/26: Extra Credit

For your Sunday School Extra Credit this week, I dropped by the Meet the Press (NBC) classroom to listen in on some talk about the upcoming midterms. 

For the first part of the conversation, host Kristen Welker was joined by NBC's Chief Data Analyst, Steve Kornacki. Here's how Welker set the stage:

Today marks 100 days until the midterm elections. At stake: control of Congress. Will the war in Iran -- and its impact on the economy -- hurt Republicans’ chances of holding onto power? Or can Democrats flip the House and Senate? Even as a fight rages within the party over its future. 

Kornacki dove right into the numbers, putting the landscape in perspective, he said. 

• Trump's approval is at 41% on average across all polls, a little lower than before the 2018 midterms in his first term. 
• In a recent Fox News poll on specific issues, "majority disapprove everywhere. His best mark is 42 on immigration." On Iran, the economy, and inflation, the numbers were apparently much worse.
• In 2022, under Biden, the Dems lost "only a few seats" in the House, and picked up one in the Senate. That's what the Rs are hoping will happen this year, and they "think that their one chance is the image of the Democratic Party."
• A majority of Democrats, in the same Fox poll, "have a favorable view of socialism" but that ends at the party door - socialism is "deeply unpopular" with Independents.
• The Dems need to gain four Senate seats to get control, and they can't lose any seats, either. Their best hopes are in Maine and North Carolina, but where are the other two? Can they come from states that Trump won by double digits - Alaska, Iowa, Ohio, or Texas?
• Iran hangs over the whole mess; in a Politico poll, "65% say the war shouldn't continue, or should continue only if it doesn't make costs worse. And 56% of MAGA share that opinion, compared to several weeks ago when it was 41%.

Later in the lesson, the panel gathered to continue discussing the midterms. Today's crew: New York Times White House correspondent Tyler Pager; Democratic strategist Adrienne Elrod; and Lanhee Chen, a fellow at the Hoover Institution. 

Welker asked Pager what he was hearing from his sources about Iran and the mood at the White House. He said for a while folks were optimistic that "the war would be winding down or at least not on the front of voters' minds when they went to the polls, or even after Labor Day." And now? It seems there are some concerns that fluctuating prices and continuing attacks in the war could be "a huge issue for voters."  On the other hand,

...when you talk to Republicans, they point out a few things that make them somewhat optimistic that things could go a little bit better. One, the huge cash advantage that the Republicans have in the committees. Two, the redistricting efforts that have given Republicans a fighting chance in some areas that they didn’t think they would compete in. And lastly, they think they have a message of attack, particularly around the Democratic Socialist candidates that have won, trying to paint them as representatives of the entire Democratic Party. But most voters care about the economy. And that is going to be — continue to be a huge issue for the party as they try to stave off what appears to be a losing hand heading into November.

Welker turned to Chen, asking about Labor Day as a key date, especially when it comes to getting gas prices down. She said, "The economy is always the single biggest issue" for voters considering which party to support, but noted there's some complexity to the picture for the Rs. She pointed to the redistricting efforts in red states making perhaps 10 to 15 seats more competitive, and the progressive Dems who are far to the left of most Americans.

So those are advantages, no question about it. But the challenge Republicans face is what I consider to be an expectations gap. There’s an expectation about the end of the war. There’s an expectation about prices coming down. And the reality hasn’t always met those expectations. So not only are you seeing challenges with independent voters. The bigger issue for Republicans is energy. It’s the energy of the Republican electorate. Are those most loyal Republican voters going to turn out and vote when Donald Trump is not on the ballot? That’s the big question.

And, talking about "the progressive branch of the Democratic Party," Welker noted the energy level there, and how there's a divide playing out in primaries. She talked about Michigan, where there's a primary next month with a progressive battling a moderate for a Senate seat. She asked Elrod to talk about what's at stake. 

In a nutshell? If the Dems want to take back the Senate, they have to hold Michigan, and "we have a much better shot of holding onto Michigan" if the moderate candidate wins. She also thinks that, in terms of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) candidates more generally, it's a challenge for the Ds because some of the primary winners "may not be as appealing to the electorate in the general election.

But so far, we are seeing this relatively isolated to places like New York City, you know, urban areas, and of course that little blue dot in Colorado in Denver with Diana DeGette’s loss. If El-Sayed is successful in Michigan, that will sort of blow that argument. It’ll flop that argument significantly. Because this is a state that is in the Rust Belt. It is a state that is critical to anybody winning in 2028 for the presidential - for the presidency. So if this happens there, then I think Democrats are going to have a bigger challenge.

And on the other side of the aisle, how much of a challenge does the erosion of the MAGA base on Iran pose?  Pager turned back the clock a bit to answer this one, noting that JD Vance endorsed Trump in part because "Trump would not bring the nation to war." And Vance has been "concerned and frankly opposed" to the war (from the beginning, at least according to many reports - ed.)

So obviously that is a huge concern for the base. And that was what Vance was trying to channel in some of his opposition. The other thing as Lanhee said, we have seen the Republican Party struggle when Donald Trump is not on the ballot, particularly with turnout when it relates to the base... some of these voters that are huge Donald Trump supporters, but are not as reliably showing up for the midterm elections. And so without Donald Trump on the ballot, plus this ongoing protracted overseas conflict, that is a problem for Republicans.

Chen noted the concept of "the MAGA base is a little bit misunderstood" - it's not really a 'base' for the Rs.

... what it really is, is it’s Donald Trump’s coalition. It’s a unique coalition that no other politician has been able to replicate in recent American history. When Donald Trump is not on the ballot, as we talked about earlier, it changes the dynamic, the dynamic significantly. The question of course is: does the president want to get more involved? And what does that mean for individual candidates?

She pointed to Susan Collins, running for her *sixth* term (after pledging to only serve two), as an example of the quandary facing some GOP candidates. In Maine, she'll need the so-called MAGA base, but she can't turn off the moderates who wield a lot of power in the bluish-purple state.

... she’s got to be able to turn out that base of Republican voters while still not turning off moderates who might have a different opinion of the president. Her challenge is going to be very different than you might see in other races. So, the question of how far the president gets involved - this is his base. If he wants to turn on his base, if he wants to devote time and energy to getting those people out to vote, it’s going to change the outcome of the election.

Does that make everything clearer, as we enter the push to the midterms? Iran, affordability, DSA, Trump... right now, these are the likely suspects; we'll see if that changes over the coming weeks. 

Thoughts on the midterms? Want to see me tackle something specific? (And yes, I'll be sharing some info on the DSA in an upcoming post.) Drop a comment.

Sunday School 7/26/26

For your Sunday School lesson this week, I spent time in CNN's State of the Union classroom, which was in a New York State of mind.

First up for host Dana Bash was House Minority Leader Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY). Bash noted the Dems are launching something called '100 Days Out Weekend of Action,' a sprint to the midterms, by hosting over 400 events across the country. At the same time, they have to figure out how to regain the majority either through the center or through the "activist left." Noting the latter group wants to "defund the police, abolish ICE, aid to Israel, open borders," she asked Jeffries if he was planning on moving on any of those issues if they win in November. 

Rather than answer her question, he said the Ds would focus on what unites them, and that's "a focus on fighting for an affordable America" because "life in this country is far too expensive," and that's something the whole party agrees on.

Too many people are working hard, they're playing by the rules, but they can't thrive and they can barely survive, not enough food on the table, not enough gas in the tank, unable to actually regularly and consistently afford to pay the rent or pay the mortgage. We want to drive down the cost of groceries, drive down and lower the cost of gasoline, drive down the cost of housing, and also make sure that health care is affordable for every single American. 

Bash tried again, asking whether the party's policy proposals will "be in line with" what some recent progressive winners want, or if they'll move towards "the moderate area" if they win the swing states.  Again, rather than answering the question, he chose bumper stickers: push back against the "one big ugly bill" and its Medicaid cuts, extend the Affordable Care Act subsidies, stop the "reckless and costly war of choice," and stop Trump's tariffs.

After two non-answers, Bash took a more direct approach, noting Jeffries has reportedly "clashed" with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), who's campaigning for progressives, even those challenging incumbents, "including members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC)." She asked if Sanders and others are making it harder for the Ds to win, and if that's what led to the clash. 

Jeffries said it wasn't a clash so much as a "candid conversation" with Rep. Greg Meeks (D-NY), chair of the CBC PAC, and it was about a single North Carolina primary. He added that he thinks Sanders and House and Senate Dems "understand the stakes" - taking control of Congress,

so we can end this MAGA extremism that has been unleashed on the American people that is actively hurting hardworking American taxpayers, and actually commit to making life more affordable for the American people.

She gave him one last chance to explain how he'll handle the progressives; according to him, "not a single person" among the incoming members has raised any of the issues Bash mentioned, other than how Dems are pushing back against the administration's immigration policies, including ICE.

The last question was about New Jersey's non-citizen voting disclosure; Bash, noting that Dems say this "doesn't happen," wondered if the discovery causes a problem for the Dems.

I think that I continue to have confidence in state and local authorities in making sure that there's going to be a free and fair election in November, and, if modest or minor challenges emerge, such as the one that was disclosed voluntarily by the authorities in New Jersey, that it is immediately corrected. And that's what I expect will continue to happen. 

And then? Back to the bumper stickers: Trump and the Rs and voter suppression, their failure to lower prices, the war, skyrocketing gas prices, and Medicaid cuts, before saying this:

They have nothing to run on. We're going to run on fighting for an affordable America.

The next New Yorker in the classroom was Border Czar Tom Homan; he's a North Country native who maintains a home in Sackets Harbor, where protestors have made their views on ICE known.

Bash led with asking if he knows "specifically" what's going on with the ICE officers who were involved in the shootings in Texas and Maine, and whether they'd been reassigned or placed on leave. Homan said he hadn't been involved in the investigations and didn't know the officers' status, but said that the policy is that they'd be put on leave during the investigation. Bash seemed surprised that, "as border czar involved in this," he didn't know for sure what had happened to the agents. He made it clear that ICE reports to Markwayne Mullin, and said

I've said from day one I won't comment on an investigation, but I can tell you I haven't specifically tracked these cases, but I can tell you, per policy, they're usually put on administrative leave pending the investigation, pending sworn statements, internal affairs interviews and the entire investigation. They usually will not be put back on duty until the investigation is over and either have been cleared or, if they've got problems, then they may not go back at all.

That last comment opened the door for Bash to bring up the domestic violence allegations against the officer in Maine (which the officer has denied). According to court documents, one of his ex-wives said that "she experienced severe domestic violence in her marriage and that he always displayed violent behavior, and even that, if anything ever happened to her, he'd be the one to look at." She wondered whether someone "with those issues" should be an ICE agent. 

No, if those of those are facts, he -- I don't think he should ever have cleared vetting. When they hire somebody, they put them through a vetting process and look at all that stuff. So, I know, based on that information -- that's part of the ongoing investigation... -- did the vetting process fail? Was that information not available? Did they not know? So, there's a separate administrative investigation on what happened here.... But the vetting process, I -- if that was factual, he would have an almost impossible time to pass vetting.

Homan said all ICE employees (some 30,000 of them) go through vetting and "this is a kind of a rare instance." And this is just one aspect of the ongoing review.

So, the training is under review. I know this specific case, as far as the vetting, is under review by the internal affairs section. So we will see where it lies. But, certainly, if this person had that type of history, it would have been a vetting issue, and it should have been brought to the attention of those who makes those decisions.

That led to Bash questioning the training, as she did the vetting, pointing to the race to "find as many undocumented immigrants as possible to deport." Homan disagreed with that premise, noting that every law enforcement agency reassesses training protocols and makes changes as needed; he even did that when he was the ICE director. And, he pointed to what Todd Lyons, ICE director last year, told Congress - that while training has changed, the amount of training did not.

They just stopped the duplication. Now it's being reviewed and... look, can we add additional training?  I think Markwayne Mullin made the decision, well, let's do a temporary pause and make sure we -- the officers have what they need to be safe and do the most safe, secure arrests possible. And that review was done pretty quickly.  

Yeah, that 'pause' is a thing, right? Here's Bash:

...during what ended up being a very brief pause, like a day, the homeland security secretary, Markwayne Mullin, said that vehicle stops would be paused, and then the president very quickly overturned that directive. But while the pause was in place, you did say it was done for the safety of the officers and whether something could have been done... my question for you is, how is it possible that all of that got accomplished in just the one day that the pause existed?

Homan pointed to some immediate changes, including at least one officer with a body camera to record all stops, and a journeyman agent assigned to them, as well. 

... (Acting ICE director) David Venturella sent an instruction out that he wants at least one body camera on those vehicle stops, so we have everything on video. So, whether the officer did something right or did something wrong, whether the alien did something right or wrong, it's on video. And I'm a big supporter of video cameras. I'm a big supporter, because I want the American people to see what that officer saw when he took whatever action they took.

Frankly, everyone wants that - the public has wanted that for months. 

Moving on to the panel discussion, we've got three more New Yorkers in the game: Congressmen Tom Suozzi (D), who represents part of the North Shore of Long Island and Mike Lawler (R), who represents folks in Rockland and Putnam Counties, and Syracuse native Maya Willey, president and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. GOP analyst Alyssa Farah Griffin, a native Californian, was also in the mix.

Bash, herself a native New Yorker, opened with a clip from Trump's hour-long rally/WHCA dinner speech.

What do we do here? Is this supposed to be fun? I hate some people. I shouldn't say this. I'm president. I'm not supposed to hate. I'm supposed to love everybody. Sloppy Chris Christie, one of the sloppiest human beings you will ever meet.

Ilhan Omar, one of my favorites. She ought to get the hell out of our country. She shouldn't be here. She shouldn't be in our country. You can't call J.B. Pritzker a fat pig, please.

Briefly, here's what the panel thought:

• Fara Griffin: Listen, he bombed, but the most offensive thing about it was that it wasn't funny...   and President Trump, by the way, can be funny... That did not show up...  I asked myself at the end of what felt like 90 minutes we will never get back of our lives, what was the point of that? It didn't unify him with the press, it didn't ingratiate him more, and he didn't really seem to have any goal. We're talking about Czech crystal, and then we're insulting, kind of going through the greatest hits... I'm not sure why he was there, to be honest. 

• Suozzi: It was just mean. I thought it was just mean-spirited. It wasn't funny. It's supposed to be an entertaining, fun night, and it was just, I thought, mean-spirited.

• Lawler: ... I think it was important for the president to go... from that standpoint, it was a positive... I think he could have been a lot funnier... Frankly, some of the stuff that is said on CNN about the president in real time is a lot harsher than anything he threw on Friday night... I definitely think the president could have brought a little more levity to it than he did

• Willey: Unfunny, mean, all of the above...  one of the points of (the dinner) is to celebrate the First Amendment and free speech... we saw not only a refusal to allow any political satire, in the form of having a comedian there. We also saw a president attacking journalists because they won awards on topics that he didn't like...

Shifting gears to the midterms and a CBS/YouGov poll showing that 78% said the administration is not focusing enough on lowering prices, Lawler was up first; he touted his own record of focusing "almost exclusively" on affordability, including pushing the SALT limit increase and the bipartisan housing bill (enacted by 'executive indifference'), and noted

...it was a Republican House, a Republican Senate, and a Republican White House that worked together to get it done. It was bipartisan. There were a number of Democrat initiatives in there as well. But this will actually increase supply, lower prices, create greater access to capital. These are the things the American people want us to focus on, and that's what I have been focused on.

Suozzi, on the other hand, reminded Lawler that they were both at the Inauguration last January, when we were all promised prices would come down fast. And he pointed to "five specific points directly related to this administration that are raising prices."  (I count four, but who's counting?)

Everybody knows the tariffs increase people's prices, make your food more expensive every day, make your business more expensive. Everybody knows that the war is causing an increase of gas prices at the gas pump. Everybody knows this is the biggest deficit in the history of the United States of America, which causes upward pressure on interest rates, make it impossible to buy a house, to lease a car, to pay for your credit card. Everybody knows that they have cut health care premium tax credits. You and I worked together to try and save the premium tax credits...

Farah Griffin said the Rs are looking to the White House to "please get this president on message" about bringing down prices, but there's "not a great story to tell right now."

With the Iran war going -- continuing to go on, gas prices are not coming down the way that we hoped they would. The ongoing tariff regime, which we seem to announce more tariffs day in and day out, Mexico, Canada, what is next? And this is -- this is where you have got to have sound advisers around him. I imagine Susie Wiles is in his ear saying, 'you have got to get on message ahead of these midterms,' because to -- if you're the president, investigations come, accountability comes if you lose the House and potentially the Senate.

She also said they missed the boat and he should have held a big event for the housing bill, saying

... he completely missed the opportunity there. It's remarkable the inability to see what the American people voted for him to do and then deliver on it.

Willey gets the last word, noting that the messaging is not enough, and furthermore, 

... the truth is, these are self-inflicted wounds. These are not natural occurrences in high prices. These are the creation of decisions this administration has made, the Iran war being a really big and obvious one lost on no one.

And that's a wrap. Did you learn anything? Did the New Yorkers represent the state well? Drop a comment!

Sunday School 7/19/26: Extra Credit

For your Extra Credit this week, I spent time in the Face the Nation (CBS) classroom, focusing on the election security issues we've been discussing since the FOTUS addressed the nation in a televised and widely streamed chat last week. Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) joined Margaret Brennan for a bit; I recapped some of his chat with ABC's Jon Karl in yesterday's Sunday School post. 

Brennan opened this part of the discussion noting that it's "been public for years" that our intelligence folks determined China tried to influence our election by changing what we think, not by hacking or anything like that. She asked Warner, a long-time member of the Senate Intelligence Committee (IC), if it had ever been given any evidence backing up this statement from Trump: 

This evidence shows that the election system we have dangerously exposes – and really exposes like levels never thought possible, to hacking, exploitation and foreign interference. 

"Absolutely not," Warner said, adding that the speech was full of "absurdities and falsehoods," and said that "the only election that Trump is concerned about is 2020. That was the election that his administration was in charge of," and that he "forgets or just omits" Russia. He confirmed the IC hasn't received any report from the administration's analysis of the 2024 election.

 After itemizing moves by the administration, including cutting funding for the Cybersecurity Agency (CISA), abandoning the Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC), which allows states to share voter information to help identify duplicate registrations, deceased voters, and so on, and tanking the Election Assistance Committee (EAC), Warner said this:

Why is he doing all these things? I believe it's because Donald Trump intends to interfere in this year's elections. He knows, if there is a free and fair election, his policies will be rejected at record levels.

Brennan asked (twice) what Warner meant by interference. 

Whether that takes - I think that what we just saw was, this was the opening shot, the opening shot of trying to undermine Americans' confidence that their vote will be actually counted and mean something... I fear as well that if he tries to pull something that could potentially - he's not ruled out bringing ICE to the polls. He's not even ruled out the idea of trying to bar certain voting machines.

Brennan then turned to CBS News contributors David Becker, the executive director of the Center for Election Innovation and Research, and Chris Krebs, the former director of CISA during the 2020 election cycle. Notably, Krebs was fired by Trump for saying that the 2020 election was secure, and that's where Brennan started this segment, asking if anything he heard from Trump changed his assessment.

Not - not at all. In fact, I would say that it further bolsters my confidence in the security of the 2020 election, between what has been released, disclosed last week, and all the information and the results of court challenges and other things in the intervening six years.

Brennan, noting that Trump was particularly aggressive towards Krebs, asked him to describe "the Chinese role in the 2020 election." He said there was an "honest debate and discussion" about China's intent across the intelligence community.

But ultimately, when it came out in the intelligence community assessment that was released in the spring of 2021, it was that China had a preference, and that they were not in favor of President Trump, but their efforts were principally limited to influencing the American public, seeking to pay journalists, media. But it was an influence effort...

A method, he said, China has been using since the early- or mid-2000s. It's not new, he said; "they did turn up the heat, and they are still doing it today. He said, "we have a significant and serious counterintelligence and counterespionage problem with China." And, responding to Trump saying folks did not disclose anything to him, "or to anyone else" or to Congress, Krebs offered this:

In January of 2020, there was a National Intelligence Community memorandum about the 2020 election that talked about the vulnerabilities we saw on systems and the work we needed to do there, but it also talked about the intent of adversaries. And there were countless memos after that...a lot of these products were in senior executive and policymakers' binders, their intelligence binders every single day. We used those to get out there and talk to the American people. I wrote an op-ed in September of 2020 for the general public that discussed various threat actors, including China. So, I have a hard time believing that it didn't get up into the Oval.

Brennan, before leaving this topic, said. "As China was described as attempting to influence, it was Iran and Russia, primary actors directly undermining the election in some of those 2020 statements. It sounds like you're saying he didn't read the memo" (emphasis added). Krebs agreed.

Sunday School 7/19/26

 I spent a little time wandering the halls at Sunday School yesterday, and thought I'd recap some of what was going on in ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos classroom. Jon Karl was in the host's chair this week, and spoke first with Energy Secretary Chris Wright.

Karl mentioned our attacks in Iran, after the deaths of two service members, and wondered if there was more retaliation planned. 

Yes, look, the president’s mission is essential for peace in the Middle East and peace in the world. And that is to prevent Iran from achieving nuclear weapons and to degrade their ability to terrorize their neighbors and the world and global commerce. So, yes, this mission will go on until the mission is done.

Karl repeated that he's asking specifically about retaliation for the deaths of two Americans, and Wright, again, answered a different question.

It’s tragic to lose American lives, but this is a mission that will save countless lives going forward. His focus is on degrading the Iranian ability to terrorize the world, to hold world commerce hostage, as they are doing right now, and to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons. That is unchanged.

The conversation switched to oil. Wright says we are now "assuring that -- that oil and gas and other products can flow through the Strait of Hormuz, with or without Iranian cooperation" while we continue to "degrade" their military and, at the same time, look for a diplomatic solution.

President Trump wants to end it with a peaceful agreement with Iran, but it takes two parties to do that. If they’re -- if they’re -- if they’re ready to do that, that’s the way it will end. If not, we will continue to assure flow of traffic through the Strait without Iran’s cooperation.

Wright strongly disagreed with Karl's contention that traffic through the Strait was effectively stopped, and tossed out some numbers, saying around 7,000,000 barrels are moving through the waterway and slightly less than that through "bypass pipelines," which he said was 2/3 of what moved through before the war and "dramatically up from where we were" the last time he was on the show back in March. And he said that "almost all the public data" he's seen is wrong, adding that

... we count the volume of oil that goes through. The ship numbers are down more dramatically. But, of course, we’re flowing larger tankers now to keep the world markets as well supplied as we can.

Switching gears, Karl noted the president's stated focus on election security as a "top domestic priority," but questioned why his budget cuts $700M from CISA, the cybersecurity agency. Wright said he "wouldn’t look at the inputs, the money spent. I’d look at the outputs, the quality of United States cybersecurity. That’s never been higher than where it is right now under President Trump."

And then, I guess because it's mandatory to do so, Karl asked whether Joe Biden won the 2020 election. Wright said, "He was president for four years. Clearly so," and then, when pressed, said, "Look, I'm not an election evaluator, but it sure seems to me like he did."

Senator Mark Warner (D-VA), the ranking member on the Senate Intelligence Committee, was the second interview. Karl opened by asking how the president should respond to the killing of our two service members. 

Well, first of all, I join with all Americans in condolences to these soldiers. Remember, as we think about this five-month war, this is a war of choice. As a member of the Gang of Eight, there was no imminent threat from Iran against America. So, Donald Trump chose to go to war. It took him two weeks to lay out what he thought his goals were going to be.

And then, he ticked through those goals. I'll condense his response:

• Regime change: We got a worse crowd than before. 
• Getting the enriched uranium:  It's still there... 
• Getting rid of Iran’s missile and drone capability. Obviously, we’ve not been successful there.
• The Strait of Hormuz: he sees " no path in the short term how the Strait is going to be settled."

He expressed his frustration on the drone point in particular, including that they're inexpensive in comparison to our using $2.5M missiles to shoot the drones down, and that the president has refused the offer from Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelenskyy to give us the technology to build our own drones.

In the end, here's where Warner landed: 

This war of choice has been a disaster. It has been a disaster militarily. It has been a disaster in terms of how we’re viewed around the world. It has been a disaster to our friends and allies who have questioned whether we will keep our promises. I’m anxious if it takes a classic Donald Trump move, declare victory tomorrow and be done. But the continuation of this war at this pace will be a continuing disaster.

Karl wondered what happens if we do leave; the Iranians are firing at ships in the Strait, and at our bases throughout the region, and asked how we end it. Warner mentioned "diplomacy negotiated by diplomats who actually know what they're doing," an obvious shot at Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff, a couple of real estate developers who I think don't even officially work for the government. He pointed to the JCPOA, the Obama deal that Trump ditched, as an example of what worked.

But we're not going to  - I don't believe anyone thinks we're going to bomb Iran into submission. And I sure as heck do not believe that - short of troops on the ground- that there's any meaningful way forward to get out that enriched uranium.

Last question on this topic: does Warner agree with cutting off all funding for the war? He says the Department of Defense will ask for more money, and that we're depleting some of our stockpiles, but he also notes

there is $89B...that DOD is sitting on that has not been allocated to specific programs. There are shortages in the region. DOD, use that money first to replenish our supplies. And if the president wants to continue this war, come to Congress, make his case to the American people and to Congress rather than continuing what I think now is, frankly, an illegal action, because he never went through that process.

Turning to the election and the president's pitch the other night, Karl wondered if "there was anything new" in what the president released. Warner said that, over the last decade as chair or vice-chair of the Intelligence Committee, "there's probably no issue I've been more obsessed about..." In that time, his main concern has been Russia, "far and away" the most prominent foreign country in the game, "usually on behalf of Trump." And,

Iran has been very active as well, usually against Trump. North Korea has been active. China’s got the capabilities, but they’ve been more -- less about which candidate and more like, 'can we just make Americans lose confidence?'

And what about the Chinese getting those 220 million voter records?

Well, listen, I'm much more concerned about the fact that the Chinese hacked into the OPM data a number of years back and got personal information about anybody working in the federal government. I'm more concerned about the fact that they tapped into many insurance companies and have got personal information about all of us.

They have incredible data capabilities. And again, the secretary, respectfully, our cybersecurity activity is CISA. It has worked with the private sector. He's cut it like mad. We have another part of election security, and remarkably, Jon, a lot of this election security apparatus was set up, done under President Trump's first term. They did a good job.

The "another part" of election security he's referring to is the Elections Assistance Commission, from which Trump fired all the Democrats and forced out the Republican commissioners. 

... it works with local registrars, state registrars, making sure we vet voting machines... You know, this guy is not looking for a secure election because if we have a free and fair election, he and his allies are going to get beat historically this fall.

Karl then asked about "this so-called SAVE America Act" and how Dems are opposed to it, and he asked Warner if "requiring photo ID to register to vote" is something they should get behind, based on polling that around 80% of all Americans and 71% of Dems say they favor it. That led to a discussion about what Virginia, where they both live, requires. Ultimately, you show ID to register, you don't need to show ID to vote, and they allow 'affidavit' attestations, which can be challenged. Warner says that constitutes voter ID of one form or another. 

Karl asked again if we should have a national standard requiring ID to be shown. Warner pointed out the irony of what happens now.

If you can show any photo that (w)as government-stamped, it would be fine. Certain states will say, we're going to let you show your NRA gun license, but you can't show your student ID. If you're going to have a set of IDs, let's have it across the board as long as it comes from some official point. But this is not about voter ID. The SAVE Act is about voter disenfranchisement... 

Lisa Murkowski, a host of Republicans, don't want the SAVE Act because they know it's anti-voter... the folks who have mail-in voting, Utah is as Republican a state as anyone. They've done mail-in voting for decades. Donald Trump wants to decrease voter participation and undermine confidence in our system.

I know one thing that would improve people's confidence: if the folks who come into the classrooms actually answered the questions they were asked, and if the people asking the questions focused on what's important. 

Jon Karl did a reasonable job from the host's seat, except for the attempted 'gotcha' he asked Chris Wright about the 2020 election. But neither Wright nor Warner addressed the question of how America should respond to the deaths of Americans in the past few days. In response, an "if it were me, I'd..." would provide information and possibly lead to an interesting follow-up or two.

What would you like to have heard from Wright and/or Warner?  Drop a comment! And if you're interested, you can find my thoughts on Trump's remarks here.

Sunday School 5/5/24: Noem's VP Interview

Here's the last of the three vice presidential interviews - whew! 

This time, we've got South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem, who talked with Margaret Brennan in the Face the Nation classroom. Will we see any questions about the dog? I'm willing to bet the answer is yes. 

Brennan had a copy of Noem's book, No Going Back: The Truth on What's Wrong with Politics and How We Move America Forward (and can I tell you how much I hate overly long and self-serving book titles?) with her for the interview, and started out by asking if Trump mentioned  "any of the response to"  the book when Noem was at Mar-a-Lago over the weekend.

Oh, he certainly knows about the book, and I appreciate his endorsement of it. You know, this is really a book that talks about how we're not going back. It's – we're not going back to the days before Donald Trump. Donald Trump broke politics. And I think that's a good thing. We're not going back to the days of Mitt Romney or the Bushes, that now there's a new way to do and talk to the American people, and they appreciate it. It's an honest, genuine conversation about what these citizens can do to take back their government and to have more input. So, this book is really a how-to guide for how to make your voice heard and how – for people in this country, what they can do to really make sure that they are getting genuine elected officials that really want to give them more freedom and liberty.

So, was that a yes? A no? A 'buy my book' entreaty?  I can't really tell, can you?

Brennan turned to Noem's crazy statement about meeting a particular world leader. Here's what the book says: 

I remember when I met with North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un. I'm sure he underestimated me, having no clue about my experience staring down little tyrants. I have been a children's pastor after all." 

Brennan asked if she had met Kim. 

Well, you know, as soon as this was brought to my attention, I certainly made some changes and looked at this – this passage. And I have met with many, many world leaders. I have traveled around the world. As soon as it was brought to my attention, we went forward and have made some edits. So, I'm glad that this book is being released in a couple of days, and that those edits will be in place, and that people will – will have the updated version.

So, was that a yes? A no? A 'I had no idea anyone was actually going to read the book' line? I can't tell.

Brennan said, "So, you did not meet with Kim Jong-un? That's what you're saying." Noem's answer was pretty funny.

No, I have met with many, many world leaders, many world leaders. I have traveled around the world, I think I have talked extensively in this book about my time serving in Congress, my time as governor, before governor, some of the travels that I have had. I'm not going to talk about my specific meetings with world leaders, I'm just not going to do that. This anecdote shouldn't have been in the book. And as soon as it was brought to my attention, I made sure that that was adjusted.

So, "as soon as it was brought to my attention that I lied in my book, I said, 'oh crap!' and called the publisher," or something like that?

And so, we're doing all that we can to make sure that those changes are made. And I'm going to continue to focus on what this book is, and the blueprint that it lays out for the American citizen on all of the things in the background and stories of my life, but also what I think that needs to be identified in politics and was broken today. I talk about how broken the money game is, how broken it is that – that we've got consultants that are getting rich off of elected officials, and then how fake some elected politicians are. 

Every single person in this country wants someone in elected office that's – that's a human being, that doesn't say they're perfect. I take responsibility for that being in the book. And as soon as it was brought to my attention, I asked for it to be changed. So, I'm glad that the release date is in a couple of days. And we're excited to talk to America about my new book, "No Going Back."

Brennan then asked who Noem might have confused with Kim Jung Un, and wondered if it was the previous, female leader of South Korea.

Well, I think you need to remember, Margaret, and everybody needs to remember that I have worked on ag policy and federal policy for over 30 years. My time in serving and making policies in this country has been extensive and covered decades.

No. No one is required to remember how Noem spent the last three decades, given that most people never heard of her until she hitched her wagon to Trump. 

And when Brennan asked if she ever went to North Korea, Noem said, "yes, I have. I have been there." Brennan was shocked but then said she went to the DMZ (not the same thing, by the way) and said the book includes the info she's "willing to share" about that visit. 

I have traveled the world, and I visited with world leaders. And some of that is referenced in the book. And this anecdote is something that, when it was brought to my attention… … we made some changes. And when the book is released, we'll do all that we can to see that – that that is reflected.

Brennan then noted Kim was mentioned not once but twice, at which point Noem asked "Do you have a question for me, Margaret?"

Yes, I do. South Korea is a treaty ally. North Korea is a nuclear-armed adversary, so that's a… pretty big thing to confuse. I know you read this book before it was published because you released video of your recording of the audiobook. You didn't catch these errors when you were recording it?

And then, Noem did what they all do: point the finger at the other guy.

Well, Margaret, as soon as it was brought to my attention, I took action to make sure that it was reflected. And, listen, this is what is so discouraging about politics and the media today, is that we have the White House that just recently came out and confirmed that President Joe Biden has misspoken, has made mistakes, has even outright lied over close to 150 times just this year.

And you've done nothing to question him on any of that. And you're – you're talking about a book that hasn't been released yet, that's been corrected before it's been released. And you haven't said one thing about Joe Biden saying that he was in prison with Nelson Mandela, that he started the civil rights movement, that he drove an 18-wheeler, that his uncle was eaten by cannibals.

And then it got even more fun.

MB: If I had an interview with Joe Biden, who I have asked for multiple times, I will definitely ask him about his record. But I'm asking you about your book here, which we have. So…

KN: Well, I'm just asking – I'm just asking for why – why am I being treated differently than every other person that you've interviewed? I have looked at your last several weeks of your interviews.

MB: I'm quoting you.

KN: You don't – you don't interrupt other people. You let them talk. Thank you for inviting me to have this conversation about this book. This book is extremely important to the people of this country. It is important, because it's a how-to guide of what they can do to have input into their government, how we need breakers and builders in this world.

OK, that part made me laugh out loud. Brennan doesn't interrupt other people? Good lord, she's the interrupter-in-chief of the Sunday School classrooms! She interrupts everyone! 

KN: And I'm taking responsibility for the change that we've made. And the buck stops with me.

MB: OK, and for the mistake in the book?

KN: And I have told you that, and I'm – no, it's not. What I have said is that I have decided that this anecdote should…

MB: You're not taking responsibility for the mistakes in the book?

KN: I have decided this – I – I am saying that this book is very, very good. And I have met with many world leaders, and that I – there are world leaders that I have met with that are in this book. There are many that I met with that are not in this book.

Now, at this point, if you're Noem, wouldn't you just stop talking about your damn book? Seriously, wouldn't you just stop?

KN: And this is an anecdote that – that I asked to have removed, because I think it's appropriate at this point in time.  

I feel the need to interject here with a definition for Gov. Noem.

Hopefully that might help her going forward. 

KN: But I'm not going to talk to you about those personal meetings that I have had with world leaders. I'm just not going to have that conversation, because I think it's important.

"Help me, Obi Wan Kenobi." I want to be the vice president, but I'm not going to talk about my alleged vast foreign policy experience, "because I think it's important" not to? Is that what she's saying?  

Noting that Benjamin Netanyahu is one of the world leaders the governor' has spoken with, Brennan asked if Noem agrees with Trump that "Bibi Netanyahu has been criticized for what took place on October 7."  Here's the gist of her response: what Hamas did was horrific, America should never stand for anti-Semitism, what's happening at colleges is bad and should be "shut down immediately," and Biden should have acted sooner on that. Brennan interpreted that response to mean Noem doesn't agree with what Trump said.

And then, the interview turned where everyone knew it would: Cricket the dog, and how Noem killed the puppy for being aggressive, too excitable to be a decent hunting dog, and for killing chickens.  The question? "I wonder if you have regrets about sharing this story."

I know, everyone wants to hear Noem defend herself on this mess, but let's be honest: had she not been so proud of what she did, no one would ever know that she did it. And let's be honest about something else, too: animals, including misbehaving dogs, are killed on farms. And I dare say, that fate is likely preferable to leaving a 'bad dog' chained up in the hot sun, pouring rain, and freezing snow, with little or no sustenance.   

In a nutshell, Noem says she included the story about killing the dog because it's indicative of how she has "made very difficult decisions" and "because people need to understand" who she is. And who she is, is a mom with little children and the choice between her kids and the dog, well, the kids win. 

Another reason she talks about it in the book?

...because what I'm tired of in this country is politicians who pretend to be something that they're not, that they aren't willing to have the hard conversations and look at the past and the tough decisions that they've made...what I talk about in the book extensively when people are able to get it on Tuesday is to see the whole story and the truth, not the spin that the media has put on this story. The media has put some or removed – removed most of the facts and – and what – the reason this is in there… 

At this point, Brennan should have stopped talking about the dog, but she didn't. She asked why the dog wasn't taken to a shelter. Noem explained it had been to multiple trainers, she had put lots of time into the dog's training, and nothing had changed.  She took responsibility, she didn't ask anyone else to deal with it. And, then, according to Brennan's interpretation of the book, Noem went out a shot a billy goat that "smelled and would chase kids."  

And I'm asking you this because it seems like you're celebrating the killing of animals. 

Noem turned it into a conversation about extremism and political attacks and she's being treated the same as Donald Trump is treated.

… every day, the constant attacks and coming after me. I – during COVID, I was attacked night after night for months after month for the decisions that I made. In fact, you and many other journalists attacked me every single day on TV for months for the decisions that I made in South Dakota, for my people to protect their freedoms and their liberties.

Does that make her a good candidate to be his VP? I would have asked that, but it wasn't my interview.  

MB: And I thanked you for answering questions on it. But on the – on this point, though... You talk multiple times about it. In fact, at the end of the book, you say the very first thing you would do if you got to the White House that was different from Joe Biden, is you'd make sure Joe Biden's dog was nowhere on the grounds. "Commander, say hello to Cricket." Are you doing this to try to look tough? Do you still think that you have a shot at being a V.P.?

KN: Well, number one, Joe Biden's dog has attacked 24 Secret Service people. So, how many people is enough people to be attacked and dangerously hurt before you make a decision on a dog and what to do with it?

MB: Well, he's not living at the White House anymore.

KN: That's – that's a question that the president should be held accountable to.

MB: You're saying he should be shot?

KN: That what's the president should be accountable to, is, what is – what is the number? And I would say, about Republicans criticizing me, these are the same Republicans have criticized me during COVID. They've criticized me when I have made other decisions in South Dakota to protect my state. And my state today is extremely happy and thriving. We're doing well...

She listed a number of positives for her state, reflecting growth and jobs and no debt, and a AAA credit rating. To which Brennan responded

MB: So, you're not going to retract the book? 

I kid you not - that's what she asked.

KN: I – this book is a powerful book... It's an honest book of a blueprint for America of what citizens can do here to take their country back. And I'm so proud of this book and – and what it will bring to people. I hope that they will buy it. They'll find a lot of truthful stories. And we talk a lot about what we can use as an example from Donald Trump on how he has continued to be a real person, been genuine, and been honest to people, and that what bothers me the most about politicians is when they're fake.

MB: But if you have to retract it or parts of it…

Noem said "I'm not – I'm not retracting anything. I'm not retracting anything."

I'd like to retract this interview, what do you think?

See you around campus.

Sunday School 5/5/24: Scott's VP Interview

I can't believe I'm doing this again - trying to recap a Sen. Tim Scott interview - but here I am. Scott was in the Meet the Press classroom with Kristen Welker.  

Welker started by asking if Scott respects people's right to peacefully protest; the question came in reaction to increased police involvement on campuses. His response, all 279 words of it, started out with

Well, we certainly respect the right to peaceful protest. What we're seeing on college campuses, however, is too often not peaceful protest. 

He went on to talk about the violence that's occurring, and the 2000 arrests that have been made, and continued

What we have to understand is the antisemitism that we're seeing on college campuses today is akin to what we saw in the 1960s. What we should be saying as a nation, the American people, they're saying it loud and clear. They support eliminating antisemitism from college campuses. They're being very clear. There's no space for hate in America.

He then accused President Biden of pandering by not speaking out sooner, and spoke of the 'privilege' that is federal funding for education, a favorite refrain of the Rs. Welker noted that Scott himself has acknowledged the anti-Semitism in his own party, but I guess because it's not happening on campuses as much as it is at 'conservative' gatherings, it's not as urgent. 

Kristen, let me just say this though, Kristen. Once of the things we should make sure we do is continue to focus on the issues that we are seeing faced by those students today... This is the kind of scourge on our nation, the thing that scars the soul of a country as in we don't stand up for the vulnerable. We should make sure we do that today, tomorrow, and every day going forward.

And ignore the stuff 'we' did in the past.  

Her next question was whether or not he talked with Trump over the weekend - they were together at Mar-a-Lago - about being his running mate.

No, ma'am. What we talked about this weekend was how bad the economy is for single parents like the one that raised me. We had a lot of conversations around the room about the importance of eliminating Bidenomics, about the importance of getting inflation back down to 2%. We were just better off under President Trump. Inflation, Kristen, was at 2% and we had the lowest unemployment rates for African Americans, for Hispanics, for Asians, a 70-year low for women. We had the highest funding for historically Black colleges and universities in the history of the country under President Trump. So we were excited to have a conversation. We had no conversations about the VP pick, to be honest with you, to be clear. But we had a lot of conversations about the failures of Joe Biden and the success of Donald Trump.

Again, Welker tried to argue with him, talking economic numbers, and how some were better under Biden than Trump, but are creeping back up, he said (he's right) and then, using her favorite interview tactic, she asked him again (and again) about the VP role, saying "But just to be very clear. It didn't come up at all? Do you think you're on the short list?"

TS:  No – no, ma'am. It did not come up. African American unemployment rate is 6.4% today –

KW: But what about being – what about being VP–

TS: There's no doubt that it would be –

KW: What about being President Trump's VP? Did it come up at all? Do you think you're on the –

TS: Yes –

KW: – short list?

TS: I hope that the president will choose a person who helps the country unite and heal. I certainly expect to have a decision from President Trump in the next 60 days or so. But he did not bring it up. I certainly didn't bring it up. I'm excited that in this nation a poor kid from South Carolina can rise to the level of being a United States senator. It just tells me that all things are possible for kids growing up in poverty today. Listen to this show and know that all things are possible for your future.

Instead of talking about policy stuff, Welker decided to talk about "some of the headlines this week," and I groaned. At least she didn't mention the criminal election interference trial in New York. Instead, it was Trump's failure to commit to accepting the results of the 2024 election if he weren't the winner. 

Her question for Scott, who voted to certify the 2020 results? "Why would you join a ticket with someone who believes the exact opposite on this critical point? 

Well, I think we have to listen to what President Trump said and not what the reporters said that he actually said. Here's one of the things that he's been very clear, and even talking about the situation in Wisconsin, what he said was he expects there to be an honest election. He expects the results will be clear and for him to be successful. I expect him to be successful as well. There's no doubt that when you look at the polls across our country the one thing that is crystal clear, that the American people now having a contrast between four years of Joe Biden versus four years of Donald Trump. They're really excited to get back to the Trump years. And so I expect the election to be fair, and I expect Donald Trump to be our next president.

She pushed back, quoting Trump's own words, and also mentioned Wisconsin, noting that Trump again this week said he won the state, which he lost. And after that, she asked her question again. 

So again, to the point, you voted to certify the election results of 2020. It's the exact opposite of what you said and did after 2020. Why would you want to be on a ticket with someone where there's such a fundamental difference?

Because he's all about today, tomorrow and the future, he blew off the entire concern. Basically, no worries, we don't have to fret about losing and having to make any kind of decision. Why is that not a problem? 

There is clear facts here. President Trump himself said he expects this election to be fair, he expects it to be honest, and he expects to win. That's what the presidential candidate should expect, and I expect the exact same thing. And frankly the American people agree with him. This is an issue that is not an issue, so I'm not going to make it an issue.

And then it became the Sunday School classroom equivalent of a pissing match, and I can't stand either one of them, I really can't.  

KW: Well, senator, will you commit to accepting the election results of 2024, bottom line?

TS: At the end of the day, the 47th president of the United States will be President Donald Trump, and I'm excited to get back to low inflation, low unemployment –

KS: Wait – wait, senator, yes or no? Yes or no? Will you accept the election results of 2024 no matter who wins?

TS: That is my statement.

KS: But is it – just yes or no? Will you accept the election results of 2024?

TS: I look forward to President Trump being the 47th president and Kristen, you can ask them multiple times –

KS: – Senator, just a yes or no answer.

TS: – but at the end of the day – so the American people, the American people will make the decision. And the decision will be –

KW: But I don't hear you committing – 

TS: – for President Trump. That's clear.

KW: I don't hear you coming to the election results. S

TS: – Here's the deal. This is why so many –

KW: Will you commit to accepting the election results?

TS: This is why so many – this is why so many Americans believe that NBC is an extension of the Democrat party. At the end of the day, I said what I said. I know that the American people, their voices will be heard. And I believe that President Trump will be our next president. It's that simple.

KW: But senator, as you know, the hallmark of our democracy is that both candidates agree to a peaceful transfer of power. So I'm asking you as a potential VP nominee, will you accept to commit to the election results in this election cycle, no matter who wins? Just simply yes or no.

TS: I expect President Trump to win the next election and listen I'm not going to answer your hypothetical question when in fact I believe the American people are speaking today on the results of the election and if it continues – if it continues for the next six months, we find ourselves in a great position where we get back to another degree of American prosperity. I'm looking forward to that.

I'm not going to bore you with the part of the interview about abortion, because again, she asked a question, he gave a non-answer, she pushed back, she asked again, he non-answered again, declared his non-answer to be his answer, and so on. 

Scott has walked away from what he has said believes in, and supports whatever Trump believes in. I believe everyone in the universe knows this, and there really is no reason to interview folks like Scott unless it's to get information on what Trump plans on doing if he's elected.

There is no other reason to invite him to a classroom - any classroom, unless maybe there's an open seat in a kindergarten classroom somewhere. And Welker? With her repetitive badgering of guests, and her asking only the obvious questions, she belongs there most of the time, too. 

See you around campus - Noem's up next.