Sunday School 11/12/17

I decided to spend time in only one classroom today: ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos. Martha Raddatz hosted.

Presidential special counselor Kellyanne Conway was first up, and Raddatz grilled her about Judge Roy Moore, the Republican candidate for US Senate from Alabama, who has been accused of child molestation in an incident that occurred decades ago.

Raddatz' first question was whether Conway "had any doubt about the veracity of the allegations."

I said very early in this process that the conduct as described should disqualify anyone from serving in public office. And I'll stand by that. The president and others in the Republican Party have made clear that if the allegations are true, this man should step aside. But I've gone farther than that, and I've reflected something that the vice president said as well which is everybody should know that conduct is disqualifying. And Mr. Moore has denied that conduct. 

Raddatz tried again, hitting on the "if" focus of the remarks, and asked again if Conway had any doubts.

Martha, I only know what I read. And I take very seriously allegations like this, particularly when they involve somebody who happened to be one of my daughters' ages. I take this seriously. I have tried to be a very loud voice for a very long time against sexual impropriety. I know what I read. I don't know the accusers. And I don't know Judge Moore. 

But I also want to make sure that we as a nation are not always prosecuting people through the press. He has denied the allegations. I have read the stories. I have not heard the testimony and the evidence...

The next attempt? "What has to happen before you would advise the president to say Roy Moore should step aside?" Which is almost comical, given the president's history with sexual indiscretions - since he didn't step aside himself, it's hard to see him officially calling on Moore to do the same.

The continued questioning got Conway to go a little off the rails, after Raddatz basically accused her of calling the women liars.

I didn't say that, I didn't say that, OK, I didn't say that. but I also know that credibility has not been imbued on other people when they've tried to raise issues like this based on their political affiliation and based on who they worked for. And we know that. There were many accusers over the years, there was much evidence against a former president, and very little coverage of that, respectfully.

Um, would that be President Bill Clinton? Um, there was very little coverage of that? Really, Kellyanne?  Conway went on to lament the fact that there's more attention being paid to Moore's alleged acts than there are to those of NJ Senator Bob Menendez, who's currently on trial for bribery and corruption.

It went on -- and on - to the point where it just became ridiculous, to be honest. And then Raddatz turned on to Ohio Governor John Kasich.  In this interview, it was all about trying to get Kasich to blame president Trump, for something - anything. First, she wondered about the results of the election on Tuesday.

It had to do with the tone, in my opinion, of our country. And a lot of people are saying, I don't like the tone, I reject the negativity. You know, we're better than that. And so to me -- and then I heard some Republicans saying, well, if we would have just killed Obamacare, that would have helped. Well, I mean, throwing 25 million Americans off of health care, who the heck is thinking that's good?  First of all, I don't care if it's good politically, it's wrong.

Raddatz wondered if it was a rejection of Trump. Kasich replied

I think it is a rejection, at least on Tuesday, and across the country, it wasn't just Virginia and New Jersey, it is a rejection of sort of the negative -- see, there's two paths...

Raddatz suggested the negativity was coming from Trump.

It comes from a lot of different places, OK? A lot of different places. Here's the thing, there's two paths. Do people have trouble? Yes. So when people have trouble, how do you deal with it? Either you tell them, yes, it's really horrible and it's this person's fault, or you see them, you tell them there's a problem and you say together we can lift you up. And I want to help lift them rather than to say, well, you know, this immigrant took your job and that's - that's not our country, that's not the best of who we are.  

Raddatz: "Exactly what you just said, sounds like you're talking about president Trump."

There's a lot of Republicans who feel the same way. I'm not going there. I want to live on the positive side of things. And so if you want to say it's Trump, you say it. I don't have to name names. But there are other people that disappoint me in the party.

She did give him a chance to talk about what Republicans can do to rebuild trust which included making headway on DACA and healthcare (not repeal and replace), and to do something about guns, and I was reminded of how I wish he had been the Republican nominee. Not because I agreed with him, necessarily,but because he would have been a much more reasonable person had he beaten Hillary.

A couple of funny lines came out of this show, which I think did not put Martha Raddatz in a very good light. 

• Matthew Dowd, an ABC political analyst, suggested that Kellyanne Conway "needs to teach a yoga class in how to contort the positions" in the Roy Moore situation.
• Kasich himself, when Raddatz suggested they look to 2018, said "It would be a good time for fortune tellers."
• Republican strategist/ABC News contributor Alex Castellanos: "Donald Trump has made the Democratic Party great again."

See you around campus. 

TGIF 11/10/17

Anyone else happy this week's coming to an end?  I know I am.

The change from Daylight Savings back to Eastern Standard time has made a mess of things, for sure. Compared to some, though, I had a pretty good week.

Louis CK probably is glad this one's over. His fall from grace was pretty spectacular, after five women came forward, four of them brave enough to give their names, and exposed CK for the horrible person he was.

And maybe is, for all we know.

At least he didn't run off to some really expensive, beautifully landscaped sex addiction clinic like Kevin "Is this a good time to come out?" Spacey and despicable Harvey Weinstein supposedly did. Because nothing says "I understand that being a powerful person doesn't give me the right to abuse, debase, and humiliate women" like pretending that you've got a sex addiction. (I'm confident they're receiving treatment here, because the link came from the Trump News Network and is the only network that is not #FakeNews.)

Voters in most states are probably glad this week is over, too, particularly if their candidates won. Or if they vote in a state with hotly contested races. We'll see more of those when we have Trump's midterm election, but for some this was probably plenty bad enough. The race for mayor here in my neck of the woods brought robocalls from NY pols, from Joe Biden, who has well-known ties to Syracuse, from Tom Perez, the head of the DNC, as well as appearances by DNC officials and mention of this race as a plug for the DNC's efforts at the local level.

Why? I have no idea; I look at our mayoral race as a local thing and one that doesn't have any national implications. The Dem candidate lost, by the way. I'm sure it won't be counted against the DNC , and there'll be enough basking in the afterglow from the more important races they did win to keep them busy.

Diverse candidates kicked butt across the country, which is a good thing -- especially in the age of Trump, where support and appreciation for ethnic and gender diversity is, well, limited.

This week also brought us the first anniversary of the president's bigly victorious victory - and I for one am happy he was traveling in Asia rather than, oh, I don't know -- going on national television and telling us how much #winning we are doing that's #MAGAing us from here to the moon and back. Or signing an Executive Order proclaiming himself to be the greatest president since Lincoln. Or some other worthy celebratory event.

TGIF.

OrangeVerse XIX: Ko-Ko-Ko-rea

The president is on his first official trip to Asia, and from all accounts is making the most of it. Here are some very poetic remarks from one of his joint appearances with South Korean President Moon.

Walking Through the Park, and Reminiscing

It is interesting that
it is one year,
as of tomorrow, that
we had our election victory.
And it was a great victory
and a victory
that made a lot of people
very happy. 

And our country

is doing very well

from the standpoint 

of the economy.

It's doing

record numbers,

record stock market

17-year low...

the lowest unemployment

that we've had in 17 years. 

And we've created

trillions and trillions

of dollars of value

for our country. 

So we're

very happy.

Should Five Percent Appear Too Small

We're now working on

massing tax cuts

for our people.

especially for our companies

which produce jobs

in the middle class. 

And I think that's

going along very well. 

We hope we're

going to be victorious

and get that big tax cut

which the American people want.

So Good, So Good, So Good

I had a great time

at Camp Humphreys today

visiting with

the US and the South Korean troops.

Thank you.

And as we

very easily remember,

because it was so good --

we had lunch together

with the troops.

And we had the option

of having a magnificent restaurant

a beautiful room,

and I said,

let's have it with the troops.

And we were very happy about it.

It's a great facility --

Camp Humphreys

and it really is

a very special place.

Tremendous cost --

a lot of it spent

by your government

to make your

country safe.

And any time you

spend wisely for the military

that's always a good thing

to do.

Feelin Stronger Every Day

And your military is

becoming very strong.

Our military is now

going to be, very soon,

at the strongest level.

We're committed

to spending $700 billion,

and that number may even

go up.

For our military

we're ordering new

jet fighters, new

equipment of virtually

every kind.

We make the

finest equipment

in the world,

and you're buying

a lot of it, 

and we 

appreciate that.

And you'll be buying 

a lot of our

military equipment.

Can't Touch This

There's nobody that

comes close,

whether it's 

the planes,

the missiles,

the ships -- 

anything you want

to talk about --

there's nothing like

what we do

in that sense.

And we appreciate

 your big orders

for military equipment.

Gangman Style

The North Korea situation

will be a discussion

that we will have

front and center.

And hopefully is going

to be very successfully

worked out on that. 

And trade is something

that we always talk;

it's one of

my favorite

subjects. I guess

it's one of the reasons

that I had that 

great

successful

victory

last year

at this time.

So we'll be

discussing

trade

also.

Wondering on Wednesday (v110)

Democrats won some races yesterday, which means Republicans lost some.

Is this a sign that the tide has turned, people are wondering, that the Dems finally won some elections during the Trump administration? You'll recall the Ds fared poorly during the special elections to replace folks plucked for administration roles, so this was set up as a huge test of the DNC, of The Message, and so on. If I were to hazard a guess, I'd say no - but I'd hold out hope that perhaps we are coming to our collective senses.

If I were a Republican candidate, I wouldn't spend a lot of time wondering whether to invite Trump to hand with me on the campaign trail -- I'd stay as far away from that as I could.

Other interesting results? Diversity won big across the country, and an Independent will be the next mayor of Syracuse, NY.  It's been over a century since we've had a mayor who was not a Democrat or a Republican. I'm looking forward to what Ben Walsh the Independent will bring to our city, and I'm sort of looking forward to not having party squabbles emanating out of the 2nd floor of City Hall.

Meanwhile, the jobs and trade president, the man with the giant IQ, is wandering around overseas, appearing to ask the Japanese why they don't manufacture cars in the United States, instead of just shipping them over here for us to buy. What on earth, I wonder, did they think of our president at that moment? Were they any better able to wade through his full remarks to understand what he was really talking about? Can they help us do that?  And what did the president think of comments noting that more Japanese vehicles are made in the USA than Ivanka Trump products? 

CNN photo

Trump, sometimes shrouded in fog, was blocked by actual fog in his attempt to be not the first (Mike Pence), or the second (Jim Mattis), or even the third member of his administration (Rex Tillerson) to visit the DMZ.

I wonder, could he have done the stare and glare as well as Mike Pence? 

And speaking of the veep, how about Mila Kunis making those monthly donations to Planned Parenthood in Pence's name? That's a great way to support a cause you believe in, and to send a message to a person you disagree with at the same time. 

But there's a twist here. Kunis is a spokesperson for Jim Beam, the bourbon folks, and Pence fans are making their thoughts about that very well known. Many are threatening to only drink Jack Daniels -- the horror! I wonder how long the company will stick with her, or she with them, in the face of mounting pressure on social media for them to drop her?

Finally tonight, we can report (with little wonder, actually) that President Obama will not actually have to serve as a juror this year in Chicago. His panel was excused today, but I can't imagine trying to get anyone to focus on the case at hand if they were sitting next to Obama in the jury box.

The Election Eve Post - 2017 Edition

It's that time again - the night before the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. That means it's Election Eve, and time for me to do my darnedest to encourage you to vote.

What's in store for us this year? Here in New York, we're able to decide whether we should have a Constitutional Convention to:

• clean up our rules, and to see if we can do something about ethics, which our elected officials seem incapable of doing. Or, 
• maybe we're having the ConCon to let the special interests come in and strip away hard-fought union benefits and public employee pensions. Or, 
• maybe the point of the convention is to allow some crazy folks to "Nuke the Whales" - an actual fake protest sign in the con-ConCon ad that's been playing every day lately.

If we have to rewrite the NY Constitution to accomplish the things we elected our state legislators to do, and if we have people putting more than $3M in the pot to fight the ConCon, it seems we have a bigger problem than how we decide this proposal. It will be interesting to see how this one plays out - it feels like whatever happens, it won't be close, but I could be wrong.  

My home, Syracuse NY, is looking towards the future as we elect a new mayor; our current one, Stephanie Miner, is term-limited and leaving politics - at least for a while.  We have an interesting choice: an Independent (who is actually running as one, with bipartisan support - imagine that!), a Democrat, a Republican, and our perennial Green Party candidate.The Independent and the Dem are locked in a virtual dead heat, with the Republican falling last behind the Green.  

I'm excited by the prospect of my candidate winning - and I really hope that happens. And the cool thing is, anyone can say that about their candidate, whether it's for a state office or the most local jurisdiction. All of these races matter - every one of them. And so do the proposals and propositions and referenda. 

I’ll be voting.  And I want you to vote, too. 

Not because I say it's important; you should vote because it IS important.  

As I do every year, I offer the following motivation, in case you need it, with one addition, which you see in the picture above.

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

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

After all, “the vote is the most powerful instrument ever devised for breaking down injustice and destroying the terrible walls which imprison men because they are different from other men” (7) and “to make democracy work, we must be a nation of participants, not just observers. One who does not vote has no right to complain.” (8) And complain we do, after every election, when the wrong guy wins. If only people who actually voted complained, it’d likely be a lot less noisy. 

Some folks may not vote because they don’t know how to pick the right person. There are a couple different schools of thought on that. On the one hand, some might think that “politics is the art of the possible” (9) while others may subscribe to the thinking that “politics is not the art of the possible, it consists in choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable. And it is true that, the great thing about democracy is that it gives every voter the chance to do something stupid.” (10) 

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

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

The bottom line is, “voting is simply a way of determining which side is the stronger without putting it to the test of fighting;” (15) “voting is a civic sacrament;” (16) and “the future of this republic is in the hands of the American voter.” (17) If all of that seems like too much pressure, you have an out: “Vote for the man who promises least. He’ll be the least disappointing.” (18) 

Please, vote. It really does matter, this year and every year. If you need information on where to vote, or other assistance, visit Vote411.org or contact your local Board of Elections. 

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

Turn It Over on Tuesday - 2017 Edition

Hey New Yorkers -- don't forget to #TurnItOver on Tuesday!

Again this year, we'll have some ballot initiatives to consider when we go to the polls on Tuesday. (You did remember that it's time to vote again, right? Right?!)

Here's what's on the back of the ballot for all New Yorkers:

• Proposal 1, Constitutional Convention Question. "Shall there be a convention to revise the Constitution and amend the same?"

The New York State Constitution requires that every 20 years the people decide if a Constitutional Convention should be held to consider amendments to the State Constitution. The purpose of this Ballot Question is to allow the voters of New York State to determine whether a Constitutional Convention will be held in 2019.  

If a majority voting on this Question votes NO, there will be no Constitutional Convention 

If a majority votes YES, three delegates from each state senatorial district and 15 at-large statewide delegates will be elected in November 2018. The delegates will convene at the Capitol in April 2019. Amendments adopted by a majority of the delegates will be submitted to the voters for approval or rejection in a statewide referendum to be held at least six weeks after the Convention adjourns. The delegates will determine whether to submit proposed amendments as separate questions. Any amendments that the voters approve will go into effect on the January 1 following their approval. 

If a majority votes in favor of a Constitutional Convention, then the delegates will receive for their services the same compensation as that payable to Members of the Assembly. The delegates also will be reimbursed for actual traveling expenses while the Convention is in session, to the extent that Members of the Assembly would be entitled reimbursement during a session of the Legislature. 

The delegates will have the power to appoint the officers, employees and assistants that they deem necessary and to fix the compensation of those officers, employees and assistants. The delegates also will have the power to provide for the expenses of the Convention, including printing of its documents, journal and proceedings. The delegates will determine the rules of their proceedings, choose their officers, and be the judge of the election, returns and qualifications of their members. A vacancy in an office of district delegate will be filled by a vote of the remaining delegates representing the district in which the vacancy occurs; a vacancy in the office of a delegate-at-large will be filled by a vote of the remaining delegates-at-large.

• Proposal 2, Pension Forfeiture for Convicted Officials Amendment (2017). "The proposed amendment to section 7 of  Article 2 of the State Constitution would allow a court to reduce or revoke the public pension of a public officer who is convicted of a felony that has a direct and actual relationship to the performance of the public officer's existing duties.  Shall the proposed amendment be approved?"

New York's Constitution now provides that the benefits of a public pension or retirement system cannot be reduced or impaired. The purpose of the proposed amendment is to allow a court to reduce or revoke the public pension of a public officer who is convicted of a felony that has a direct and actual relationship to the performance of the public officer's existing duties. 

A court could determine, after notice to the public officer and a hearing, if a public officer convicted of such a felony would lose part or all of the pension. In reaching this determination, the court must consider factors including the seriousness of the public officer's crime, the proportionality of a reduction or revocation to the crime, whether forfeiture would result in undue hardship or other inequity to dependent children, spouse, or other dependents, and any other factors provided by the Legislature. The Legislature must enact law that puts this provision into effect, taking into account principles of fairness.  

The proposed amendment would define "public officer" to mean the following: an official filling an elected office within New York; a person holding an office that is filled by appointment by the New York Governor, whether or not that appointment has to be confirmed by the Senate: a county, city, town, or village administrator, manager or equivalent position; the head of any state or local government department, division, board, commission, bureau, public benefit corporation, or public authority in New York who is vested with authority, direction, and control over that entity; the chief fiscal officer or treasurer of a municipal corporation or political subdivision in New York; a judge or justice of the Unified Court System; and a legislative, executive or judicial employee who directly assists in the formulation of legislation, rules, regulations, policy, or judicial decision-making and who is designated by law as a policy-maker.

If approved, the amendment will apply only to crimes committed on or after January 1, 2018. 

• Proposal 3, Forest Preserve Land Bank Amendment (2017).  "The proposed amendment will create a land account with up to 250 acres of forest preserve land eligible for use by towns,villages and counties that have no viable alternative to using forest preserve land to address specific public health and safety concerns; as a substitute for the land removed from the forest preserve, another 250 acres of land, will be added to the forest preserve, subject to legislative approval. The proposed amendment also will allow bicycle trails and certain public utility lines to be located within the width specified highways that cross the forest preserve while minimizing removal of trees and vegetation. Shall the proposed amendment be approved?"

New York State's Constitution protects the State's forest preserve as wild forest land and generally prohibits the lease, sale, exchange or taking of any forest preserve land. The proposed amendment will create two new exceptions to this broad protection of the forest preserve to make it easier for municipalities to undertake certain health and safety projects. 

 First, the proposed amendment will create a land account of up to 250 acres of forest preserve land. A town, village or county can apply to the land account if it has no viable alternative to using forest preserve land for specified health and safety purposes. These purposes are (1) to address bridge hazards or safety on specified highways; (2) to eliminate the hazards of dangerous curves and grades on specified highways; (3) to relocate, reconstruct, and maintain highways; and (4) for water wells and necessary related accessories located within 530 feed of a specified highway, where needed to meet drinking water quality standards. The State will acquire 250 acres to add to the forest preserve to replace the land placed in the health and safety land account, subject to approval by the Legislature. 

Second, the proposed amendment will allow bicycle paths and types of public utility lines to be located within the widths of specified highways that cross forest preserve land. The work on the bicycle paths and utility lines must minimize the removal of trees and vegetation. The proposed amendment will allow a stabilization device (such as a guy wire) for an existing utility pole to be located near the width of a highway when necessary to ensure public health and safety and when no other viable option exists. The proposed amendment prohibits the construction of a new intrastate gas or oil pipeline that did not receive necessary state and local permits and approvals by June 1, 2016. 

The Ballotopedia links I've included for each of the three statewide initiatives provide e a ton of helpful information, including who has lined up in favor and opposed; how well organized the two sides are; how much money has been raised; and what the possible benefits and ramifications are if the proposals pass. I encourage you to review the information, particularly on Proposal 1, which is the most contentious of the three.

In addition, for those of us here in Onondaga County, there's one more.

• Shall there be approved in Onondaga County, Local Law No___-2017, entitled, "A Local Law Amending the Onondaga County Charter and Administrative Code Regarding the Onondaga County Department . of Correction," playing the Onondaga County Department of Corrections under the control of the Sheriff?

Why are we talking about this one?  

• Onondaga County is the only county in  New York that still has divided responsibility over pretrial and post-conviction incarceration oversight. Here, the sheriff's office has responsibility for the Justice Center Jail (where prisoners awaiting trial are held) but not the county's penitentiary, which is where convicted criminals are housed. 
• In addition to being the only one who does it goofy, we could save some money here, we're told; if the sheriff controlled all of the cells, we'd have better control over making sure we don't have empty cells in one facility but overcrowding in the other, which has caused us to pay to house them in facilities outside the county.
• And, of course, because we're looking at consolidation in government (as opposed to a takeover of the city by the county) and this one seems like a no-brainer for the county. 

Remember -- Be sure to #TurnItOver tomorrow when (not if, when) you vote!

Sunday School 11/5/17

So what were the hot topics in today's classrooms? Russia, Donna Brazile, and taxes.

On Meet the Press, which is celebrating its 70th anniversary tomorrow, Chuck Todd talked first with Democrat Mark Warner of Virginia, the vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, asking if the Mueller indictments would have any impact on the truthfulness of folks testifying before the Senate Committee. Here's Warner's response.

Well, the committee itself has been aware of some of this information... What we did see this week, though, was one more example of at least where the Russians had what appeared to be a fairly organized effort in terms of trying to reach out to folks affiliated with the Trump campaign to share 'dirt' or emails about Hillary Clinton... We've got a lot more questions to get answered. 

Todd wondered if the threat of more indictments would make people more cooperative with the Committee, or more fearful of testifying. Warner noted they had talked with a couple hundred people (with the press being kept in the dark many times) but he was generally pleased with the cooperation they were getting.

Then, Todd asked four  times, trying - and failing - to get more details on who the Committee has been talking to or whether there would be any collision with Mueller's work.  Here's Warner's fourth deflection.

Chuck, again, the way we get the kind of cooperation with the witnesses is frankly, to not share the kind of weekly box score of who we've seen and who we've not seen...And at the end of the day, what we owe the American people is the truth and, most importantly, how we make sure we don't have a foreign power like Russia intervene again in our elections.

Senator James Langford (R-OK), also a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, shared a similar response to the question about the two investigations running into each other.

I'm actually not concerned about that at all... they're focused on criminal investigations, we're focused on armchair quarterbacking, making sure every witness has been seen, every fact has been checked, and we're going through the policy aspects, because long-term, we have policy issues we have to discuss on how we handle elections, how we handle social media, how we're handling classified information, how that's getting out into the public sphere. Those are uniquely things that we will work on. The special counsel has things that he will uniquely work on as well.

Langford also noted that there was no threat that Mueller's work would be shut down, by the White House or by the House of Representatives, and that there was no need at this point for any Congressional action to prevent that from happening.

On Donna "Hey Look at Me, I Wrote a Book about the 2016 Election" Brazile's allegations that the Clintons and the DNC rigged the election against Bernie Sanders (who has never been a Democrat), there were two good comments, the first from current DNC chair Tom Perez:

When I hear the word "rigged," let's be very clear. Hillary Clinton won the Democratic primary by four million votes. The DNC does not run elections for primaries. The RNC does not run elections. States run elections - and those elections were run by the states.

The other was from Tom Brokaw.

Well, I think this is a manifestation of all that's wrong with the Democratic party, frankly. I mean, this is a time when they ought to be talking about the future and they ought to be organizing themselves about what they want to do for the country...

Donna is well known, as you all know, for 'ready, fire, aim' on a lot of the stuff that she does. But to go back over this now, when they're trying to win Congressional races and trying to get ready for '18 seems to me to be beyond counterproductive. 

Quickly, over to Fox News Sunday, where Chris Wallace talked to House Speaker Paul Ryan on the DNC issue as well as on the Trump Dossier, about which it was revealed that the Clinton campaign kept this initially Republican donor initiative going as part of their 'opposition research.' (Opposition research, of course, is what the Trump team has said they were lousy at getting on Clinton).

Ryan was nonchalant on the latter (yeah, our investigation was discovering that too); not so much on the former.

The second thing -- that story just broke. I've never seen anything like that. I mean, we all said that the Clintons thought they lived above the rules. So, this takes the cake. I mean, this is pretty amazing. For them to basically be running the DNC in a primary. To see such a deck stack is really pretty jaw-dropping to me. No wonder the Democrats are ticked off. I would be, too. It's amazing to me on the Clintons, this live above the law or above the rules in this thing. 

I understand why the Democrats are mad about this. They should be mad about this, and I don't think I've ever seen anything like this frankly. 

We are fortunate that he got to the tax plan (file on a postcard, death tax, keep your money, special interest loopholes, just don't pay taxes in the first place) and why he's no longer a deficit hawk.

Paul Ryan deficit hawk is also a growth advocate. Paul Ryan deficit hawk also knows that you have to have a faster growing economy, more jobs, bigger take home pay -- that means higher tax revenues. 

Wallace pressed him on the $1.5T deficit spending allowance that the House passed in their budget bill. Oh that? No big deal.

The reason we did it that way is because we believed that the Senate parliamentarian won't let us use what we call dynamic scoring which - that figures out growth. So, we basically did not want to take the chance that some bureaucrat, unelected, would deny our ability to bring a tax bill through that is pro-growth and that reflects those pro-growth estimates. That's why it's done that way.

But we are absolutely convinced -- and we all have economic models that will show this - that this will help the economy grow... we are going to make sure that we actually get this economy growing and this tax reform bill does that. 

Assuming their economic models are even half as accurate as weather models... But that was a whole nother post.

See you around campus.

Poll Watch: Taking a Knee

A recent HBO Real Sports/Marist poll assessed public sentiment on protests by professional athletes during the playing of the national anthem.

You'll recall that president Trump has made this a bigly darn deal, going so far as to suggest that kneeling players should be FIRED as if they were contestants on his ridiculous TV show.

Trump has done his unlevel headed best to get America fired up about this, and had some success in the beginning, for sure. I'm not sure whether it has anything to do with Trump, but friends of mine have sworn off watching the NFL because of the protests, so there has been an impact.

But what does public opinion show?  First, the gory details: the poll was conducted using landlines and cell phones 10/15 - 10/17. Respondents had to be at least 18 years of age. Cell phone numbers were randomly selected from all regions and were proportionally sampled; business phones were excluded. There's more, but you get the drift: it was designed to be random and statistically accurate.

Back in September 2016, when Colin Kaepernick was kneeling during the anthem, 52% of Americans felt that players should be required to stand for the anthem. But in the October poll, 51% say leagues should not require athletes to stand.

Here's some demographic data:

• Percentages of those who think standing should not be required are up 7% in the Northeast and 5% in the West. 
• In the Midwest and South, 50% think players should be required to stand.
• By a large margin (76%), African Americans don't believe players should be forced to stand; this is up 28% over the previous survey.
• Latinos (56%) and whites (54%) also fall on the 'not required' side; these numbers are consistent with the 2016 survey.

So, what else does the poll tell us?

We're OK with the protests, but we're torn on what they mean. 49% think they're disrespectful to the freedoms represented by the anthem; 46% think they're representative of the freedoms the anthem represents.

When it comes to what the anthem itself represents, 57% think it's a symbol of our rights and freedoms; 34% think it's a symbol of the sacrifice our military has made over the years, and 10% are unsure. Last year's results were different: 65%, 27%, and 8%, respectively.

And while we struggle a little trying to get our arms around what this all means, 52% of us think the athletes 'did the right thing' by kneeling or locking arms; 41% think it was the wrong thing to do.

And, the poll shows viewership seems to be steady. Marist first asked about viewership way back in 2009 - the Michael Vick returns from prison days. Back then, 56% said they followed the NFL at least a little.  In this year's poll, that has grown to 69%.

Now - back to president Trump.

• 68% think he was wrong to criticize the players and call for them to be fired; 28% think he was right to do so.
• We are split on whether the Vice President did the right thing with his 'spontaneous' (and by spontaneous, I mean totally planned) walkout of the Colts game last month.

In a PBS Newshour/Marist poll published earlier in October, Americans seemed to be more of one mind. (This poll followed the same general methodology as noted above).

• 60% of us (and 67% of football fans) agree with the NFL that Trump's suggestion that the players should be fired were "inappropriate, offensive and divisive" while only 33% agreed with him.

Looking at the demographics, there's a clear connection between a person's politics and the extent to which they agree with the president.

• 72% of Republicans, 67% of conservative or very conservative self-identifiers and 76% of Trump voters agree with Trump's position.
• White Americans without a college degree, a key Trump demographic, are split; 45% agree with the president; 48% agree with the NFL.

What these two polls show, and most of the other ones as well, is that while president Trump does his darnedest to sway public opinion, he's not always successful.

Yay, us.

Quick Takes (v23): Going Rogue (Updated 11/3/22)

Quick Takes

We all know that the Former Guy has been banned from Twitter since a couple of days after his insurrection in January 2021. 

Now that Elon Musk owns Twitter, there's a lot of speculation on how long it'll be before FPOTUS is allowed back on the platform; given Musk wants to charge 'blue check' users a monthly subscription fee, he might never come back. 

This post, from November 3, 2017, is about the time - before he was banned - that Trump was shut out of his account for 11 blissful, dangerous minutes. 

====================================================

Don't be alarmed at the title - this post has nothing to do with the woman from Wasilla. I didn't mean to scare you, sorry about that.

No, this is all about that glorious, inexplicable feeling of calm that descended on the universe yesterday. I felt it. I'm sure you felt it too, right? Suddenly, things seemed 'right' for a brief period of time, but we didn't quite know why...

What caused that beautiful experience? Well, that's when president Trump's personal Twitter feed (and by personal, I mean the official presidential account) was down for the count, for 11 minutes.

Twitter initially said it was human error that caused the downtime, which inspired a host of tributes on the social media platform to accidentally wonderful acts. But as they investigated to see how it could have happened, it turned out that 'human error' had a name: Rogue Employee, who did this on his or her last day.

#JeSuisRogue #AllHailRogue #EmployeeoftheMonth #YoureHired

While some thought it was a pretty cool thing, and much fun was had on Twitter and other platforms, the reality is there's a certain danger here. I mean, can just anyone working at Twitter shut down the president whenever they want? Are there no protections on his account, or the other verified accounts? How are we all protected from employees like Rogue?

Alexei Oreskovic, writing at Business Insider, suggests there are some serious risks here (emphasis added).

Just think, what if the rogue support staffer on his last day decided to do something different. What if, instead of taking Trump's account offline, the staffer decided to fire off a tweet on Trump's account? Perhaps the staffer might have had Trump say something idiotic or embarrassing. Perhaps the staffer might have had Trump bash a company's stock, in hopes of trading ahead of it and make a quick buck.

And I laughed, and laughed, and laughed. Because Trump does that kind of stuff, what, every other day? Every day? Multiple times a day?

Bash an ally? Check. Threaten free speech? Check. Denigrate our political and justice systems? Check. Threaten opponents? Check. Personally attack anyone who doesn't agree with him? Check. Encourage racism and division? Check. Make other idiotic and embarrassing comments?

CheckCheckCheckCheckCheckCheckCheckCheck

There IS a security component here that Twitter needs to address - there's no question about that. But Oreskovic's comments about idiocy and embarrassment?

Yeah, that's not the concern from Rogue, that's a standing concern every time the president sits down at his keyboard.

Quick Takes (v22):Fueling Rape Prevention

Quick Takes

Rick Perry is making news today, in ways that perhaps only he could.

Perry, who as a candidate for president back in 2012 famously forgot which government departments he would eliminate, is now in charge of one of them.  And it was in his role as Energy Secretary that he lit up the media with a comment about fossil fuels and rape prevention.

Seriously - take a look.

Now, as a Texan and as head of the Energy Department under Trump, I would expect him to be a full-bore fossil fuel supporter - heck, it's in both his DNA and his job description. But, as head of the Energy Department, he has to understand that there's more to energy than the stuff we bring up from the ground, right?

And he should understand that maybe it would be at least an option to consider renewables in Africa, instead of suggesting they import fossil fuels from the US? We're talking about people who are reading by the light of a fire, which suggests they probably don't have a boatload of money to spend on energy imports.

Heck, even the young girl who told him right to his face about not having "those fumes literally killing people" seems to understand this whole energy thing better than Perry.

Putting all of the crazy misguided energy stuff aside, though - do we really need to use rape, or even rape prevention, as a sales pitch - for anything - even something that's going to #MAGA?

Wondering on Wednesday (v109)

Holy moly, there's so much to wonder about tonight. Let's dive in.

What, exactly, would have been the compromise that would have saved us from the Civil War, I wonder? The president's personal General, John Kelly, went on Laura Ingraham's new show on the Trump News Network and educated us on the War Between the States.

It was always loyalty to state first back in those days. Now, it's different today. 

Why yes, yes it is.

Today, we have people thinking that states like Texas or California should secede from the Union - but they don't leave. And we don't have people fighting for the right to sell human beings in the town square anymore, either. Things are indeed different today.

Back to General Kelly:

But the lack of an ability to compromise led to the Civil War. And men and women of good faith on both sides made their stand where their conscience had to make their stand.

What was Kelly thinking, I wonder? Was there some historical figure who should have sacrificed their conscience, as it appears Kelly has done since becoming Chief of Staff? Is this just Kelly channelling his boss?  I mean, remember these comments from the prez?

People don't realize, you know, the Civil War, if you think about it,why? People don't ask that question, but why was there the Civil War? Why could that one not have been worked out?

Kelly also has echoed his boss with his attacks on Florida Congresswoman Frederica Wilson, who brought to light the somewhat odd condolence call from Trump to the widow of Sgt. La David Johnson, who was killed in Niger along with three others. He told Ingraham he would never apologize to Wilson, whom he (at least so far falsely) accused of taking credit for getting a new FBI building funded, something that happened before she was in office.

Speaking of things Kelly's boss said, I wonder if anyone can think of any other President, living or dead, who would have responded to a terrorist attack in New York City by blaming one of New York's senators for, in effect, allowing the terrorist into the country? #whattheeverlovingsniff, I wonder, is wrong with this man?

And #whattheeverlovingsniff is wrong with his staff, that they dug up this nugget about Schumer? Why not blame Mitch McConnell, I wonder? He voted for the bill that included the Diversity Visa Lottery, too.

Now obviously, that question about McConnell was facetious - the question, of course, is why the hell is the president blaming anyone at all for this act, other than the person who was apprehended after being shot by law enforcement immediately after committing the act?

Or maybe the question is, what the hell is wrong with Trump?  In addition to bashing Schumer, he took this opportunity to call out the justice system.

We need quick justice and we need strong justice, much quicker and much stronger than we have right now. Because what we have right now is a joke and it's a laughingstock.

Why yes, yes it is. (In case you're wondering, I'm not talking about the justice system anymore...)

And finally, I wonder, who will be the next one exposed as a serial abuser?

Grains of Salt (v26): Paychex Paychecks

Well, how about that!  It seems Joanie Mahoney, our County Executive, actually does know who her

Grains of Salt

campaign was paying all this time. 

For some time now, going back at least to July, Mahoney has been hiding the identity of the person or people her campaign paid almost $60,000 over the past year, even though Mahoney last ran for office in 2015 and is not up for re-election again until 2019. 

Now, when I say hiding, I mean that on her campaign finance disclosure statements, Paychex is listed as the payee. For those who may not be aware, Paychex handles payroll processing for businesses and, apparently, campaign committees. But in the case of Mahoney's filings, they are not the payee, they are merely the pass-through.

Early on, Mahoney argued that her filings were OK, they were compliant, and of course they were ethical, because it wasn't "government money" being used. The State Board of Elections disagreed, as we were told by John Conklin (on behalf of the Board).

The point is, the thing that needs to be disclosed is who is ultimately receiving the payment, who the payee really is. The payroll processor is not the one who is really the payee. It's the employee who receives the wages, and that should ultimately be disclosed.

Mahoney, a lawyer, would only say the money was for her campaign staff, pointing out that

I have people who continue to do work on behalf of the campaign. I have disclosed everything the way I am required to do.

She further noted

We will discuss with the Board of Elections to ensure our filings continue to be compliant in the future. Our campaign committee has always taken pride in our timely and accurate disclosure filings.

Moving ahead a few days, the Board was advised by Syracuse.com that Mahoney's campaign was not the only one - there were others too, from across the state - who were filing similar disclosure statements. An eye opener, it was for them -- because the people who review filings had never questioned it before. Here's our friend John Conklin again

There was not a consensus that it was a common enough deficiency to spend limited staff time on the issue.

Later in August, the Board ordered Mahoney's campaign, and the others, to amend their filings to accurately reflect who was the actual end recipient of the wages paid by the campaigns.

Finally, we arrived at the outcome that was ordered back in August.  Earlier this month, Mahoney released the name of the person who was being paid almost $60K to work on the campaign: Lesley B. Dublin.  Dublin is the Director of Intergovernmental Affairs for Onondaga County - so while she's not an elected official, she works for county residents. In that capacity, she earns around $79K.

In her spare time - nights and weekends, we're assured - she earns $57K as she

organizes special events and fundraisers for Friends of Joanie Mahoney, and coordinates the campaign's charitable contributions.

Mahoney pats herself on the back for paying one of our employees to be her campaign's employee:

Most elected officials expect their government employees to do campaign work for free and I have never done that. I have always believed that anyone, particularly county employees, who perform campaign responsibilities on their own time should be compensated by the campaign.

I guess we have to give Mahoney credit for her generosity with campaign workers, even if we disapprove of her pretending that it was compliant, or ethical, to hide their names.

What They're Saying: The Manafort Shoe Drops

So, Paul Manafort and his right hand man, Rick Gates, were indicted on a variety of charges, from money laundering to conspiring against the United States. And some overzealous Trump campaign foreign policy advisor volunteer named George Papadopoulos has pleaded guilty and is now a source for the Robert Mueller investigation.

Against that backdrop, what are people saying? Here's a sampling.

But look, today's announcement has nothing to do with the president, has nothing to do with the president's campaign or campaign activity. The real collusion scandal, as we've said several times before, has everything to do with the Clinton campaign, Fusion GPS and Russia. There's evidence of the Clinton campaign colluding with Russian intelligence to spread disinformation and smear the president to influence the election. We've been saying from say one there has been no evidence of Trump-Russia collusion, and nothing in the indictment today changes that at all. ~ Sarah Huckabee Sanders

They've made an indictment. I really have nothing to add because I haven't even read it, so I'm not going to speculate on something I haven't read. So there's just no point in doing that. ~ House Speaker Paul Ryan

The special counsel has found a reason on criminal violations to indict two individuals, and I will leave that up to the special counsel to make that determination. It doesn't change anything with our investigation. We received document from and had interest in two of the individuals named, but clearly the criminal charges put them in the Special Counsel's purview. ~ Richard Burr, (R-NC), Senate Intelligence Committee Chair. 

The president must not, under any circumstances, interfere with the special counsel's work in any way. If he does so, Congress must respond swiftly, unequivocally, and in a bipartisan way to ensure that the investigation continues. ~Chuck Schumer (D-NY)

Sorry, but this is years ago, before Paul Manafort was part of the Trump campaign. But why aren't Crooked Hillary and the Dems the focus?????

... Also, there is NO COLLUSION! ~Donald Trump 

And finally -- you thought I was going to close with the president's profound punctuation, didn't you?  Nope - not tonight. 

And finally,  I'll leave you with this:

It's clear from Mueller's court documents -- if you read between the lines with your head in a microwave - that the Russia-connected "overseas professor" who met Papadopoulos was actually Clinton wearing a costume. She is known as a master of disguise, which explains how she hid her identity while killing President John F. Kennedy, raiding the US consulate in Benghazi and being Charles Manson. ~Rex Huppke, Chicago Tribune

Sunday School 10/29/17

So, what was happening in the NBC classroom this morning?

Chuck Todd had Ohio Republican Senator Rob Portman and Missouri Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill on  Meet the Press.

Todd and Portman talked a little about president Trump; Portman didn't vote for him, he said, but it is his job to work with the duly elected president - as he did with Presidents Obama and Clinton, people with whom he didn't always agree. And, Portman said, character does matter.

Of course. Yeah. Of course character counts. And I don't agree with every tweet. As you know I've spoken up on occasion. And yet, if you're focused on the tweets and not focused on actually accomplishing what people are looking to have happen for them and their family, I think you're getting out of touch with the American people.

They also talked about tax reform, and about the deficit spending that will allow that reform to happen. Todd wove together a few old Portman quotes:

The American people are rightfully frustrated by the fact that we have the biggest deficit in the history of our country and the biggest debt ever.

Debt and deficit will end up in a fiscal crisis and an economic crisis.

It's a question as to whether we're going to just sort of turn our heads and allow this to occur or whether we're going to actually deal with this issue in a way that's responsible for current and future generations. 

Here's what today's Portman says:

First, I'm really excited about this tax reform because I think it will generate a lot more revenue. I actually think it will over the ten-year period. Chuck, you're talking about (what will) result in deficit reduction. Why? Because for the first time in over 30 years we're going to reform the tax code to provide a middle-class tax cut,which is really important. 

But also to encourage more investment for more jobs, more earnings and to improve the economy And what we've said is if we can just improve the economy slightly instead of the 1.9% growth that the Congressional Budget Office says is going to happen let's take it .4% more. If we can just do that, then we begin to actually reduce the deficit. And I think that will happen.

Todd asked what many people outside of DC ask:

Do you realize it's hard to really believe the idea that somehow cut revenue, cut taxes and somehow that's going to increase taxes into -- 

Portman's answer?

Not if you do tax reform... It's not just tax cuts, it's tax reform...  We have a tax code now that actually encourages jobs and investments to go overseas. And this reverses all that. And it's going to result in more investment coming here to this country, more economic activity. Everybody (who) looks at this tax reform proposal will be able to say, "I think across the spectrum this is going to change behavior and it's going to change behavior in a way that encourages more job creation and economic growth..."

McCaskill, the Missouri Democrat, was also asked about taxes and about what Trump said to Democrats he met with. McCaskill noted that it's hard for Dems to support the plan when they have no idea what's actually going to be in it. (Like the rest of us, its seems they'll find out when the GOP unveils the darn thing.) But she did hold out hope.

It's hard for me to take seriously that they want Democrats to participate when they won't show us the bill... So I want to work with them. If we can make this about the middle-class and make this not trickle down but deliver to the middle-class and small businesses, then I think they could get a bipartisan vote on this, and that would be so much better for the country.

Todd pressed her on what she would support, knowing that the minority will not have a ton of chances to get what they want.

I certainly support lowering the corporate tax rates so we're globally competitive. I could live with something in the low twenties. And depending on what they would do on a child tax credit or on making sure that kids can afford college, retirement income - the notion that they're going to mess with the retirement accounts in order to give a tax break to millionaires and billionaires, that just doesn't work. So yeah, I'll compromise. But Chuck, I've had a front-row seat to what happened in Kansas... And they said exactly what Senator Portman said, "Well, we're going to have growth. It's not going to be a problem." It's been a huge problem in Kansas...

We'll close out with  a statement from McCaskill that made Chuck Todd, well, chuckle.

You referenced a couple of cable news hosts. And you said 30% of Missouri is worrying about (what) one cable news host says. 20% is worried about another. And you said half the state's watching Dancing with the Stars. And you focus... you say "I try and focus on the folks watching Dancing with the Stars."

There's some common sense in that statement, for sure.

One other thing we learned today: Trump's approval rating is singularly noteworthy.

Our brand new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll out this morning shows president Trumps approval rating at a low for his presidency. 38% approve, 58% disapprove. It's actually down considerably from where Mr. Trump was just a month ago in the first aftermath of those hurricanes.  It's also the lowest in modern times for a president in the first year of his presidency.

It's going to be a busy week -- an indictment expected from Bob Mueller, the tax bill, and of course, there'll be tweets, for sure. Maybe not about that approval rating, though.

See you around campus.

TGIF 10/27/17

Time to put another week to bed.

We'll have a tax bill to look at next week, it seems, and it can pass as long as there no more than a couple of Republican defections, even though many Americans don't think it's a priority. 

The House this week narrowly approved  their budget bill, kicking off the opportunity for the Senate to do tax reform as part of 'reconciliation' instead of through regular order, which would require the participation of Democrats to reach the 60-vote majority needed for passage. It'll be fun to see how well Mitch McConnell herds his cats this time, after the debacle on health care.

So, other than yet another opportunity for vice president Mike Pence to cast the most important vote of the day, what does the tax reform plan really mean? If rumors are true, folks like me in blue states are apt to lose, while folks in deeply red states are apt to win - no surprise there. And those other people, the bricks and mortar ones, will win as well. it seems.

I'm doing my best to remain patient and see what actually ends up in the plan, though isn't it kinda cool that we mere citizens in the cheap seats are being treated the same as most members of Congress, who also have no real clue what's headed their way? Stay tuned on this one.

What else did we have this week? Well, there was the fascinating tale of the two-dude energy company from Whitefish, MN who landed a $300M contract to restore power to Puerto Rico. There is no reason to think that the company being from the hometown of Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke had anything to do with their getting the contract, but there are LOTS of reasons to look into the deal, including these little nuggets:

• it was a no-bid deal
• it contains a no-audit clause
• it contains a 'no claim against the contractor' clause if work is delayed
• it includes a $330+ per day per worker accommodation payment
• the Governor of Puerto Rico says he wasn't involved in the deal
• FEMA says they weren't involved in the deal

Zinke said he had nothing to do with it either, although he did talk to someone at the firm and that relevant documents would be turned over to the "appropriate officials." Can't you just hear Trey Gowdy (R-Benghazi) saying Whitefish! Whitefish! Whitefish!  Nah --- me neither. 

Rumor has it that Utah Senator Orrin Hatch, the longest-serving Senate Republican since sliced bread, is not going to run again -- and that Mitt Romney, who is the most popular politician and possibly the most popular human in the entire state of Utah will be his replacement. One good thing about Romney? I've already got a Mittenverse tag in the veritable pastiche inventory.

And finally, I would be remiss if I didn't wish Lee Greenwood a happy birthday. 

I know pretty much nothing about Lee Greenwood, except his Proud to be an American song, but because I follow the Tweeter in Chief, I now know it's his birthday. 

In case we missed it the first time, there was a second tweet to remind us.

I'm proud to say TGIF.