Sunday School 10/28/18

I focused on a single classroom today - Face the Nation with John Dickerson on CBS, instead of trying to make it to a variety of the discussions.

Not surprisingly there was a lot of talk about the recent violence - pipe bombs sent to critics of the president, none of which detonated, and the horrible shooting at the synagogue in Pittsburgh in which 11 people were killed and several more wounded.

Dickerson engaged all of his guests on the issues of partisanship, political rhetoric, and tribalism, and the answers were about what you would suspect from two of his guests, Democratic Senator Chris Coons of Delaware and Republican Senator James Lankford; the two are co-chairs of a weekly prayer breakfast in the Senate.

Coons, for example, thought that it would be helpful when leaders appreciate that some of their arguments may have "inspired or encouraged deranged individuals to take actions" not supported by the politicians themselves to denounce hatred and to step away from the type of arguments that inspire bad acts.

It is important for us to recognize that there's more work that we can and should do to lower the temperature and tone in our national politics. 

Coons noted that the president had denounced anti-Semitism recently. Lankford echoed that, noting that the Pittsburgh shooter condemned Trump for being a 'globalist - both Lankford and the shooter must have missed Trump's declaration of being a 'nationalist' which many have said is coded language for being anti-Semitic and supportive of the White Nationalist movement, they of "Jew will not replace us" fame in Charlottesville. That argument may or may not be true, it's being made in an accusatory fashion from the left, and in a congratulatory one from the right. Go figure.

There is no disputing  Lankford's description of the shooters, whether at Mother Emmanuel or the Tree of Life synagogue or the Republican baseball practice as being done by "hate-filled individuals that are very deranged."

I'll have more from these Senators, and several other people, in an upcoming post on equivalence, or the lack thereof, in rhetoric.

Dickerson also played an interview from a couple of weeks ago with outgoing House Speaker Paul Ryan on the lack of bipartisanship in the media. Ryan basically says that it doesn't sell, so the media doesn't cover it.  He referenced bills passed in the House, including some aimed at reducing human trafficking, and the opioid crisis as examples, and I would agree with him those are subjects that should be party-blind. He also referenced rebuilding the military, which is significantly less bipartisan, because historically that build up comes at the expense of much-needed safety net programs, education, the environment and others.

It-- it doesn't sell. So I, honestly, think, John, it's the hits and the clicks and it's the ratings chased that's on display in America today that says when they're fighting each other, that's when you cover it.

Dickerson went along, asking if the media accepts some portion of responsibility for it, what about the president, his rallies and

Do those rallies accentuate things that unite us - the bipartisan achievements, or are they, do they do something very successful in politics -- wildly successful - which is so division in the country?

Ryan noted that "sometimes" Trump hits the right bipartisan tone, but no always. And then pretended that tribal politics was "sort of a left wing, Alinsky thing." And

Unfortunately, the right practices identity politics now as well. It's the day and age, it's technology and everything else - identify politics, which is now being practiced on both sides of the aisle, is, unfortunately, working. 

And then he pretended that Trump, when speaking about economic growth, tax reform, the military and veterans, is being "inclusive" - which is literally laughable. No one takes even the most benign bipartisan policy and turns it into a partisan war cry like Ryan's leader.  

Ryan went on to say

So to me the best way to combat tribalism is to starve it of its oxygen, which is anxiety: economic anxiety, security anxiety. And if we can pass policies that help improve people's lives, make them more confident about the future, then they'll be less prone to be - to be swayed by the kind of tribalism identity politics we see these days. 

Turning to the panel discussion, here are a few highlights. 

Jeffrey Goldberg (The Atlantic) on the Pittsburgh shooting, noted that while it was 

...not to say that Donald Trump is responsible for the shooting. The shooter is responsible for the shooting. But we live in a climate right now in which the president himself abets or creates a climate in the air in which this - this sort of incident, this sort of tragedy, becomes more imaginable. 

Lanhee Chen (Hoover Institution), on whether the politicians "lack the ability or they are just the wrong people" to talk about cultural issues: 

I think they are the wrong people. But I think they also have to realize that they have been put into a position that requires them to accept additional responsibility... politicians need to start taking this more seriously, that they are public officials whom people will look to as moral leaders as well.  I know we often say we don't elect politicians to be more leaders. Well, maybe we should take that a little more seriously. Maybe they should take that role a little more seriously.

Susan Page (USA Today), on the same topic:

...in particular, we like Presidents to step up at times of great national trauma to bring us together. That is one of the things that Presidents are in a unique position to do and that this president has declined to do, by and large. ...president Trump didn't create -- didn't begin it, but he has certainly increased it.

Goldberg again, on Trump's attempts at projecting the right tone:

Bat as we see in his rallies, he quickly veers from those statements (denouncing anti-Semitism) and goes right back to division. So it, it really is remarkable to me to see how quickly he pivots away from the message he understands or someone has told him he should be delivering, back to division.

Page, on the Senate prayer breakfast chaired by Coons and Lankford:

You know, I think that's great. I am glad they are co-chairing a prayer group. But think of how small our politics are that they are not coming to a reasonable agreement on immigration that could help de-escalate that issue, or on some other big issue that we expect Congress to deal with.

And finally, we'll leave it with Jamelle Bouie (Slate), on the difference in rhetoric or in the type of rhetoric of a Maxine Waters or Mitch McConnell and of a Donald Trump:

I think distinctions are really important. I think there's a qualitative difference, especially in the society that has a history of racialized violence, in a society that is driven by racial division, I think there's a qualitative difference between sort of getting angry and apocalyptic about policy issues and getting angry and apocalyptic about identity issues... I think we have - I think it's important that we don't conflate those two - these two different kinds of incivility. One of them is unfortunate, makes compromise difficult. One of them is an existential issue for people, for people living in the society. 

Thoughts on any parts of the discussion?  Chime in.

See you around campus.  

Trump in Transition (v34)

Darn "Bomb" stuff -- doesn't the Fake News know they're supposed to be talking about him?

Wondering on Wednesday (v152)

On a day when pipe bombs were stopped from being delivered to President Obama, Hillary & Bill Clinton, Eric Holder, Maxine Waters, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and former CIA director John Brennan, the president didn't make his own statement, initially - he "wholeheartedly agreed" with the statement of his veep on a retweet.

When he did make his statement, here's what he offered:

A major federal investigation is now underway. The full weight of our government is being deployed to conduct this investigation and bring those responsible for these despicable acts to justice... We have to unify. We have to come together. Acts or threats of political violence of any kind have no place in the United States of America. This egregious conduct is abhorrent to everything we hold dear. We're extremely angry, upset, unhappy about what we witnessed this morning and we will get to the bottom of it. 

Tonight at his rally in Wisconsin, he served up a plateful of comments on the issue, including this:

My highest duty, as you know, as president, is to keep America safe. That's what we talk about. That's what we do. The federal government is conducting an aggressive investigation and we will find those responsible and we will bring them to justice. Hopefully very quickly. Any acts or threats of political violence are an attack on our democracy itself. 

And this:

No nation can succeed that tolerates violence or the threat of violence as a method of political intimidation, coercion, or control. We all know that. Such conduct must be fiercely opposed and firmly prosecuted. We want all sides to come together in peace and harmony. We can do it. We can do it. We can do it. It will happen.

And this:

For example, those engaged in the political arena must stop treating political opponents as being morally defective. The language of moral condemnation and destructive, routine -- these are arguments and disagreements that have to stop. No one should carelessly compare political opponents to historical villains, which is done often, it's done all the time. Gotta stop. We should not mob people in public spaces or destroy public property. There is one way to settle our disagreements, it's called peacefully at the ballot box.

And this:

As part of a larger national effort to bridge our divides and bring people together, the media also has a responsibility to set a civil tone and to stop the endless hostility and constant negative and often time false attacks and stories. Have to do it. They've gotta stop. Bring people together. 

At no point did he say that he would stop lying, or that he would stop calling people names, or that he would put a halt to the 'lock her up' chants, or that he would stop celebrating people who body slam a reporter, or that he would stop any of his other vile statements, including violence will ensure if the Democrats win.

As it's clearly not the president, I wonder who will be leading the "larger national effort to bridge our divides and bring people together"?

Ranting and Raving (v2): The 2018 Midterm Election

I've pretty much had it with the 2018 elections, on every imaginable front. I'm sick and tired of mud-slinging politicians who say nothing about their own positions but instead spend their entire time lying or purposefully obfuscating the record, story, purpose and positions of their opponent or, as happens here almost daily, asking bizarre questions on social media calling out their opponent for something about which the questioner reveals nothing about his own position. "Look at her! Look at her! Don't look at me!" I'm sick and tired of out-of-district money interfering in what happens in my district and directing who gets elected to represent me. Washington insiders are not NY-24 constituents, and they don't have a clue what's important to me. Neither does my current congressman, because he won't have a town hall meeting if his life depended on it - and it doesn't (see above reference to outside money screwing up my representation). Yeah, this guy? He's brave, oh boy is he brave. We find out about his 'biker town hall' when he posts the pictures. We find out about his 'diner town hall' when he posts the pictures. His breakfast-eating far-western-part of the district constituents found out about it when they saw the handwritten notes taped on their diner door: "Joe Blow here Sat. 8AM." We find out about his visits to carefully chosen companies when he posts the pictures. We see he's in town when he posts the pictures of endorsements he receives. Other than that? Yeah, no. He's not interested in hearing from us unless we're on record as being interested in him. He's from the other party, and I've voted for him twice - but never again. I'm sick and tired of the face, name and policies of Donald Trump being the most important thing in every race in the country. For example, in the race for Attorney General... You want to be NY AG? Tell me what you're going to do for me not what you're going to do to him. You want to take on Trump? Fine - run for Senate or Congress. Maybe I'll vote for you then. (Likely not, but whatever). I'm sick and tired and tired and sick of the ads, which around here have been running since August, I kid you not. Since August. And I'm in a media overlap are, so we have NY-24, and we have NY-23 and we have NY-22 And you know what else I'm sick and tired of? People who refuse to identify themselves, their district, their party in their advertising. What are they afraid of?  "I'm Jane Doe and I'm running as the Democrat in the NY-22 - vote for me!"  Remember when that used to be par for the course?  Not any more. They're too afraid to even say what party they're in. SAD! SICK!! to quote a certain someone. And the lies. Outright, blatant, ridiculously unbelievable lies - I mean, there is no way anyone can believe three quarters of the stuff that appears in the ads, and yet... And yet -- there's no lack of interviews with people here, there and everywhere who completely and totally parrot the lies they see and hear, and you can tell they believe with all their heart what they're saying, a COMPLETE AND TOTAL ENDORSEMENT of the lies in the ads, the lies that come from the candidates directly, the lies that come from incumbents and challengers of both parties - on both sides - and of course from the current resident of the Oval Office, because he lies like the proverbial rug, in spades. I'm tired. I'm low energy. And we still have two weeks to go.

Sunday School 10/21/18

Let's do a quick stroll through the classrooms.

First up: Kentucky's junior senator Rand Paul and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich talking with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday.

Speaking on the credibility of the statement from the Saudi government that Washington Post writer Jamal Khashoggi was killed in a fistfight or some such nonsense, Paul said the statement was "absolutely" not credible, noting

I think it's insulting to anyone who's analyzing this with any kind of intelligent background to think that oh, a fistfight led to a dismemberment with a bone saw. So, no. 

He went on to suggest putting the attack on Khashoggi into context.

Saudi Arabia has basically over the decades been the largest state sponsor of radical Islam and violent jihad. They sponsor thousands of madrassas that teach hatred of Christians and Jews and Hindus around the world. So, this isn't the first instance. This is just another in the line of long instances of Saudi insults to the civilized world. 

And, in sharp contrast to the president,

I think we really need to discontinue our arms sales to Saudi Arabia and have a long and serious discussion about whether or not they want to be an ally or they want to be an enemy. 

Similarly, Gingrich did not mince words.

First of all, their explanation is insultingly stupid. I mean, the idea that this guy walked in the room with 15 security people, got in to a fight and was accidentally killed and they happened to have apparently an ability to dismember hm and get rid of him... This is just stupid.

Next up, Senator Dick Durbin, the Senate Minority Whip,North Carolina Senator Thom Tillis and former White House Communications Director Anthony Scaramucci on Meet the Press with Chuck Todd.

As did Wallace, Todd asked if there was anything credible in the Saudi's story. Durbin was clear no the lack of credibility, and our next steps:

No, and as a matter of fact, the only person on earth outside of the Saudi Kingdom who appears to accept it is president Donald Trump. Here's what we ought to do, and we ought to do it tomorrow morning. We ought to expel - formally expel the Saudi ambassador from the United States until there is a completion of a third party investigation into this kidnap, murder and God knows what followed that occur ed in Istanbul. We should call on our allies to do the same. 

Tillis was also asked the question.

No, not at this point. I agree with everything Dick Durbin just said. We've, we've got to get to the bottom of it. In Saudi Arabia, you do not do something of this magnitude without having clearance from the top. We need to find out who that is and hold him accountable. 

Todd asked whether or not the US could have a positive relationship with the Saudis if the crown prince was still in the picture.

No, I don't think so.  I think, again, if the facts lead to what we all suspect they will, I think it'll be very problematic for our relationship going forward.

In the interview with Scaramucci, Todd asked how Dems should go after Trump when he insults them. After professing to not want to offer the opposition any information, due to his love for the president, The Mooch opened up a little:

...I think the big mistake they're all making is they go right into the Trump insect Twitter light. And so the minute he shoots at them, they cannot help themselves. And they drive themselves right into that light. And then they get vaporized by him...

The answer, he tells us? Read his book.

And so the incident with Senator Warren, she should really read my book, so she can understand how the president, you have to think about the miracle of what he did. He hijacked the Republican Party to get their nomination. And then he hijacked the base of the other party and moved it over to the Republican party. And I try to write about that in the book. Because I have experience, as a kid that grew up in a blue-collar neighborhood with a blue-collar family. And I think I've seen the whole bandwidth of this sort of stuff. 

Oh wait - that's not really his recommendation, after all.

But my recommendation to people is don't engage him in that area because you're going to lose.

And on that happy note, we'll call it a day. 

See you around campus.

Wondering on Wednesday (v151)

Tonight I'm wondering about outrage, real and imagined.

For example, how much attention should we pay to former Attorney General Eric Holder, I wonder?  Holder caused a stir recently when he suggested that the "when they go how, we go high" sentiment of Michelle Obama was incorrect: it should be, "when they go low, we kick them." 

Not unexpectedly, there was outrage from folks who pointed out that there is no room for violence in our political system. Congressman Steve Scalise, who was critically wounded in the shooting at the Congressional Baseball game, wrote that comments like Holder's, and those of other Democrats - have no place in our democracy.

As a survivor of a politically motivated attack, it is tragic to think this is an acceptable state of political discourse in our country. I refuse to stand for this and I will continue to call for an end to it. A healthy, strong democracy is not possible if anyone lives in fear of expressing their views. 

If this is going to stop, it must start with Democratic leaders, who need to condemn, rather than promote these dangerous calls to action. 

In America,we win battles at the ballot box, not through mob rule or intimidation. While it's clear that many Democrats refuse to accept the election of President Trump, if they want change, they need to convince people with their ideas and actually win elections, rather than call for violent resistance, harassment and mob rule.

... when Democratic leaders like Eric Holder call for violence, that is a direct threat to our democracy. 

I hope he and others think long and hard about the world they are creating and the impact they are leaving on this country. 

I agree with Scalise that the level of discourse is, well, swampy at best. We don't need calls for violence, even ones as silly as Holder's. I mean, does anyone really think he's suggesting that Dems rise up and kick their GOP opponents in the shins?  Of course he wasn't, as he pointed out:

OK, stop the fake outrage. I'm obviously not advocating violence. (In fact, when I was AG violent crime in the US was historically low). I'm saying Republicans are undermining our democracy and Democrats need to be tough, proud and stand up for the values we believe in - the end.

Scalise has talked about this before; last month on a couple of Fox shows he said that the Dems needed to denounce the violence. And while it was easy to find those references, I haven't yet located anything where he called out the president for comments made in August to to evangelical leaders. After asking them to use the pulpit to get all of their people to vote in November, Trump told them 

You're one election away from losing everything you've got...they will end everything immediately. They will overturn everything that we've done and they'll do it quickly and violently. And violently. There's violence. When you look at antifa, and you look at some of these groups, these are violent people.

Now, one could wonder whether "they" and "antifa" and "these groups" are all the same, I guess. But the part that seems perfectly clear is that the ones who would be overturning "everything we've done" quickly and violently, as described by Trump, is not antifa or groups, but Congress.

And, of course, there are all of the other comments made by the president that many Republicans laugh off or ignore. And yet, Holder's comment is worthy of outrage... I wonder.

I also have to wonder what Melania Trump was thinking when she talked with Tom Llamas in that ABC interview.

I could say that I'm the most bullied person in the world... One of them, if you really see what people are saying about me.

Um, no. Not even close

First Ladies are always under a microscope, including about their fashion sense and how they comport themselves on foreign trips. So yes, she should have been prepared from the get-go for comments about her shoes and her clothes, including the green jacket, and about her tone-deafness wearing a pith helmet on her recent African tour.

Has she taken unnecessary hits? Of course she has. She did not plagiarize Michelle Obama when her Be Best initiative was rolled out - we all know that. Have people been overly interested in her relationship with her husband? I don't think any more than they have been in any other First Couple.

I'm also wondering about all of the folks who are outraged and say that the 'mainstream media' doesn't cover anything that they want to see covered;  you know -- good news about the administration (jobs reports, stock market, bills passed, crowd size, and what not).  Do you think they don't know these things are covered because they only get their news from pro-Trump sources?

I can only think that if the folks who complain about this would actually ever watch or read anything other than right-leaning outlets, they'd  know how much attention was paid to things they like.  It might not be the effusive coverage they're used to, and it might be a little more balanced, but there's plenty of coverage out there.

And wondering -- plenty of that as well.

Quick Takes (v29): Walking the Talk

Does anyone remember that fateful day earlier this year, when a political action committee announced that it would not accept corporate money? Let's refresh:

Congressional Progressive Caucus PAC (CPC PAC) announced its commitment to campaign finance reform by rejecting contributions from corporate PAC, making it the first major Congressional PAC to reject corporate donations.

Progressive organizations, including End Citizens United, were thrilled. Here's a statement from that group's president, Tiffany Muller:

The CPC PAC's decision to reject corporate PAC money demonstrates their leadership and commitment to unrigging the system. The Caucus has been a longtime champion of everyday families and this move underscores their dedication to giving all Americans a voice in our democracy. Their decision is part of a growing movement to refuse corporate PAC money, we we look forward to working with Representative Pocan, Representative Grijalva and the leadership of Congressional Progressive Caucus to end the influence of big money in politics so that Washington works for all of us.

And Representative Mark Pocan himself added

If we are going to end the influence of corporations and special interests in government, we have to start by not relying on their support.Only by being fully independent of their financial influence can we prioritize people over corporations.

Pretty lofty, for sure, and something I could wholeheartedly support (here's a link to my posts on campaign finance reform for background) -- and something I knew nothing about,. I would have promoted it had I known, even though I'm not a progressive by any stretch.

So imagine my surprise when I saw this headline the other day:

NEARLY EVERY MEMBER OF THE 

CONGRESSIONAL PROGRESSIVE CAUCUS 

STILL TAKES CORPORATE PAC MONEY

Yikes! Nearly every member of the caucus? Even Rep. Pocan? Yep. And it's a challenge for the caucus, and for the candidates themselves.

The new push to go cold turkey on corporate cash is creating tension within the caucus, as progressive members take offense at the implication that their votes might be influenced by big money.

According to Representative Pramila Jayapal of Washington, one of a handful of returning House members who have pledged to refuse corporate money,

People just feel like you're saying they are bought and sold - and some are, but many aren't. It's not like everybody who takes corporate PAC money is bad or only does what the corporations want... But that's not what this is about. It's about re-establishing trust with voters, changing the system, working from multiple angles. 

The article is a good read, as it gets into some of the nitty gritty on the variety of challenges to getting corporate money out of the picture, and also the challenges faced by incumbents who run up against very aggressive, more progressive opponents who use their campaign finance 'purity' as a weapon against the 'establishment' progressives. 

I can appreciate the challenges the candidates face - and that it's hard to go cold turkey on big money designed to buy influence, especially when the other side is not doing the same thing.

But as a long-time believer that corporate money doesn't belong in campaigns, I have to say I'm more impressed by candidates who refuse corporate money than I am by PACs that do.

And I'm much more impressed by candidates who walk the talk than I am by candidates who walk the money.

Sunday School 10/14/18

One classroom only again today -- this time, it's Jake Tapper and the gang on CNN's State of the Union, which Tapper said was "in crisis."

Part of that crisis is Hurricane Michael, the strongest storm to hit the mainland US in a quarter century; the other is the alleged murder of WaPo columnist Jamal Khashoggi, who was last seen entering the Saudi consulate in Turkey on October 2nd. It is believed that he was murdered that day, by the Saudis, but there is no confirmation yet of that, even though Turkish authorities say they have audio and video proof. The president noted that we are investigating this seriously and there will be serious consequences if the allegations are true.

Tapper talked with Marco Rubio about both Michael and Khashoggi. On the storm, Rubio indicated that things obviously are difficult but that he's not been asked to intervene to make sure the federal government is doing for Florida what it needs to. He did remind everyone that there are lots of folks in rural inland areas where the folks might be completely cut off and in dire need, so he's keeping his focus on those parts of the state.

The discussion turned to the impact of climate change on these storms:

The Union of Concerned Scientists said Florida could lose more than one million homes by the end of the century due to rising sea levels because of climate change, which they say is man made. What do you say to constituents who..ask, why are you not one of the leaders in Congress on this issue?

Rubio begged to differ.

Well, I would say that that's not true. We are. We - for example, we have funded this study in Congress that I have pushed for to better understand exactly what you have just said, primarily on the Atlantic side. Sea level rise and changes in the climate...I don't think there's a debate about whether that is happening, because you can measure that. The secondary aspect is, how much of that is due to human activity? And from a  policy-maker, the question is, what policies can we change to deal with that human activity?

Rubio indicated that he's pushed to get some kind of mitigation in place,

primarily because the insurance marketplace is going to start...pricing this in. So we better have answers on places like Miami Beach here in South Florida and the like. The second question about how much is human activity contributing towards that, what percentage of that is due to human activity, and the third question, what laws can we change, that's the more complicated one, especially the third one, because some of the things they're asking for is already happening. If you look at the US today, we're cleaner than we used to be. Natural gas is a clean source. Nuclear energy  is very clean. But you have to fight the same people to approve of that. 

Tapper asked if Rubio thought climate change was man-made, or at least in part man-made.

Yes, look, scientists are saying that humanity and it's behavior is contributing towards that. I can't tell you what percentage of that is due to human activity. And I think many scientists would debate the percentage of what is attributable to man vs. normal fluctuations. But that there's actually a rise in sea level, that temperatures are warmer in the water than they were 50, 80, 100-some years ago, that's measurable. There's no - I don't think there is (an) honest debate about that. The core response to me, though, is what can we do about it?

Then, Tapper asked

And in 20 years, are you going to be able to say to your children and my children, these are the three or four things I pushed for in Congress to help mitigate this factor? 

Rubio answered confidently. Sort of. 

Sure. Well, certainly, mitigating sea level rise, because no matter what we do -- no matter what we do with laws -- if, tomorrow, we stopped all carbon -- let's say we went to all solar panels and did all that stuff, which is not realistic, there would still be - this still - this trend would still continue. And so we're going to have to do something about the impact that it's having on low-level coastal areas. And that means mitigation, hardening, lifting - how we manage water. We're all over that. We have been working on that very hard and continue to, strategies to mitigate against those factors that are going to be in place no matter what happens with our energy policy.

But I'm also not going to destroy our economy. There's a reality here and there's a balance on that end of it that we need to be focused on.

That's quite a #MAGA thing right there, putting "the economy" first, wouldn't you agree?

And no explanation for the comment. Was he talking about the tourist economy? The snowbird economy? The oil, gas and coal industries? The construction industry, which rebuilds coastal communities in the same place, over and over and over again, with a ton of taxpayer dollars in the mix?

On Khashoggi, Rubio was clear and consistent. America needs to take some kind of action against the Saudis if the allegations are true.

...there needs to be a strong response if, in fact, this proves to be true. If they lured this man into that consulate, they went medieval on him, and he was killed and he was chopped up and they sent a death crew down there to kill him and do all this, that would be an outrage. 

I don't think we should continue as 'business as usual' (with the Saudis) until we know exactly what happened here, because what we do know is this: he walked into that consulate, and he never came out.

So the only two things that could have happened is, he's alive and somehow still in there, or he's dead and the Saudis are the ones who did it. There's no other explanation for it, because there was video of him leaving, they would have shown it by now. 

But here's the bottom line. I believe the Trump administration will do something. The president has said that. but, if he doesn't, Congress will. That, I can tell you with 100% certainty. With almost full unanimity, across the board, Republicans and Democrats, there will be a very strong congressional response if, in fact, the Saudis lured him into that consulate, murdered him, cut up his body and disposed of it. 

There is going to be a very strong congressional response.  

Let's hope the serious investigation happens quickly - dare I say 'Kavanaugh quickly'? - and that our response is what this situation demands.

See you around campus.

Sunday School 10/7/18

Lots going on today in the Sunday classrooms, but I only had the heart and stomach for one of them- Fox News Sunday, where Chris Wallace interviewed Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

Wallace started out by asking if the record of judicial appointments under Trump - two Supremes and 26 judges on the circuit court, the fastest pace in history - was McConnells' proudest moment as a senator. Here's McConnell's answer:

I think so. I think the most important thing the Senate is involved in is the personnel business. The House is not in the personnel business. And of the various 1200 appointments that come to us for confirmation, obviously the most important are the lifetime appointments to the courts and we prioritize handling president Trump's outstanding nominees for the Supreme Court as well as the circuit courts and we've done 26 so far as you indicated, record, and there'll be more before the end of the year.

The next question was about McConnell receiving the support of Steve Bannon, who praised the Majority Leader's "strong leadership" after hard-right conservatives have been criticizing McConnell for being "too establishment." Having Bannon's approval, he said (to laughter)

It's almost an out-of-body experience, I must say.

He went on to talk about the last two years, and Tea Party criticism.

Well, it's pretty hard to be the majority leader of the Senate without getting some criticism. I'd rather be judged about my record, and I think this has been an extraordinarily accomplished Congress, in fact, the most productive two year period in the time I've been in the Senate, whether it's taxes, regulations... We've got the economy booming and we are making long-term systemic chances in the courts that will serve future generations of Americans in a very good way.

On that, I'd have a hard time disagreeing more, but that's  just me.

They also talked about Supreme Court seats in general, which included Wallace trying to get a straight answer out of McConnell on what he'd do if there was an open seat on the bench in 2020; he started this by getting McConnell to talk about Merrick Garland.

We didn't attach Merrick Garland's background and try to destroy him; we didn't go on a search and destroy mission. We simply followed the tradition in America, which is if you have a party - a Senate of a different party than the president, you don't fill a vacancy created in the presidential year. That went all the way back to 1888.

Wallace noted a difference between this answer and McConnell's previous comments, noting that when the Garland nomination was made, they wouldn't consider it during a presidential election year, but now he's saying it's only when the Senate is controlled by a different party than the president. And, he wondered, if Trump were to name someone in 2020, would the Senate go ahead with it?

Well, I understand your question, what I told you is what the history of the Senate has been. You have to go back to 1880 to find the last time a vacancy created in a presidential election year on the Supreme Court was confirmed by a Senate of a different party than the president. That's the history -- 

When pressed, he didn't answer.

The answer to your question is, we'll see if there's a vacancy in 2020.

The Senate isn't broken. The institution is fine.

The people there? Well, that's a story for another day.

See you around campus.

It's Disgusting

Today the Senate takes the next concrete step towards confirming Brett Kavanaugh to be the next Supreme Court Justice.

I wish they weren't doing this for a number of reasons:

• Kavanaugh's nomination, we know had to be crammed through before the midterms, because the Rs fear losing their majorities.
• There was a concerted effort to limit documents from his time in the Bush White House and on the bench, materials that would lend senators an opportunity to question him fully on his opinions on critical issues. I know he wouldn't have answered most of them but at least the questions could have been on the table.And not for nothing, but the Republicans pretending that the number of pages being more than was released for recent previous justices means that the relevant pages had been released is absurd. 
• There were others on Trump's vaunted list of justices who would have been confirmable, easily, even had they had similar opinions; Trump was begged by Mitch McConnell not to pick Kavanaugh, and by others to choose a woman, but chose someone who wasn't on the original list, which was a campaign promise not kept by the man so proud of keeping them.
• His belligerent approach to the questioning, at both of his hearings, but in particular at the hearing on what I'll call the high school days, and the lies he told during both of them, in particular during the hearing on the high school days. Everyone knows what he lied about, including Kavanaugh himself, and that cloud will hang over his head for the rest of his career.
• The interview on the Trump News Network, and the op-ed in the Wall Street Journal - both of which seem out line to me, and unbecoming.

But what's really disgusting are the conversations about why senators might vote on the nomination tomorrow, when they'll pull the trigger on the nomination after the debate that'll start today. 

We know many of them will vote based on the hope that Roe will be overturned, or on the desire to prevent that from happening.  The swing of the Court to the right has impacts beyond that case, including on voting rights, corporate rights over the rights of individuals, money in politics, gerrymandering and a whole host of other issues that matter.

We know that many of them will vote because they're ideologically extreme on both fringes, and there's not a lot of room for anything remotely resembling advice and consent.

But what's assumed, by the talking heads, and the writers and bloggers and the rest, is that not a single one of the 'undeclared' senators will vote based on anything other than how best to keep their seat in 2018 or 2020.  According to those folks,

• a Red State Dem (Joe Manchin is one) has to decide whether going against Trump will ruin their chances for reelection, or if it will mobilize their own constituents, most of whom are not supporters of the Kavanaugh nomination
• Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski have to decide whether it's worth it to buck Trump and suffer the consequences.  
• Jeff  Flake isn't running for re-election but may want to challenge Trump in 2020, we're told, so he needs to decide whether his vote will help or hurt his chances...

What's disgusting about all of this is that no one thinks any of these folks will vote based on their conscience. No one expresses confidence that these senators will vote for anything other than a selfish reason - their own careers. 

And what's also disgusting?  They're probably right...

Wondering on Wednesday (v150)

Let's get this out of the way right off the top: I'm not really wondering about very much tonight, because so much of it seems so very straightforward and there's little demand for wonder. That said, let's get right to it.

First up?  There's no marriage like a forced marriage.

The Trump administration on Monday began denying visas to same-sex domestic partners of foreign diplomats and United Nations employees, and requiring those already in the United States to get married by the end of the year or leave the country.

Huh? We're going to force people from other countries to get married in order to stay here? Why would we do this, you ask?  Because back in 2010, President Obama signed an order allowing same-sex partners to get visas, but at that time, only married heterosexual partners could. So, fast forward to the Undo Obama Policies administration we're in today, and the only logical thing to do?

Force gays to marry, obviously. Because now that same-sex marriage is legal (but of course, not required), we must impose the draconian rule on citizens of other countries - even those where same sex marriage is illegal - almost all the time:

The United States informed foreign governments that they would allow ''limited exceptions"  to its new policy in cases involving diplomats from countries where same-sex marriage is illegal. But that government would have to provide documentation proving that same-sex marriage was illegal and commit to accepting same-sex partners of US diplomats.

What's comical, if that's the right term, is that the party of Trump maintains that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Up next?  The First Lady is trying to #BeBest, even as her husband is continuing to #BeAnAss, #BeWorst, #BeACad, and #MAHA (make America horrible again). There is literally nothing to wonder about on the latter, and I wish her the best on her trip away from her husband.

Finally, there's the FBI supplemental background investigation into Brett Kavanaugh, the president's choice for the Supreme Court. It may be done, it might not be. There may be more witnesses to interview - or there may not be. The White House says interview anyone you want, but the White House counsel's office says not so fast, it seems.

There will be no conclusions offered, only interview notes - and the information  will be held extremely close to the vest, too.

All 100 Senators will have access to the new information, but not their staffs. There are also 10 Judiciary Committee staffers who have access to the Kavanaugh file, which is a paper report -- there are no pdfs of emails of it. And it will not be made public.

And anyone who leaks the information is likely to be in trouble, as none of it is to be shared - which is exactly what we have come to expect.

Like I said, not a whole lot of wondering going on.

Sunday School 9/30/18

Press Secretary Sarah Sanders stopped in to visit with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday; Lindsey Graham and Mazie Hirono checked in on This Week with George Stephanopoulos, and John Dickerson had an interesting round table on CBS' Face the Nation. Let's start with Sanders.

After talking at length about the current state of the Kavanaugh nomination, where nothing new was disclosed and Sanders stuck with the Trump line, Wallace moved to a 'lightning round' of questions for her.

On the looming Trump/Rosenstein meeting, she's not sure when it will happen, nor that there's only the one issue on the table, that Rosenstein allegedly threatened to tape the president and to potentially invoke the 25th amendment. She "wouldn't be surprised" if other topics came up, she said, and couldn't speak to whether or not Rosenstein would keep his job.

The next question was about money, and the short-term spending bill the president signed on Friday; the bill funds Homeland Security until 12/7 without any new money for the border wall. If Congress doesn't pass additional funding, Wallace wondered if Trump would shut down the government.

We'll have to wait and see what happens. But the president is committed to making sure we build a wall and getting funding for it. And if I know anything about Donald Trump, he ultimately get what he's fighting for, and that will be the wall.

Finally, he asked about the three weeks it's been since Sanders last held a formal White House press room briefing. She didn't say they'd get rid of the briefings completely, but she pointed out that Trump does more Q&A than any other president did, and that

I always think that if you can hear directly from the president and the press has a chance to ask the president questions directly, that's infinitely better than talking to me. 

From Stephanopoulos's conversations, we didn't learn anything new from Hirono, but these comments from Graham seemed new.

So the FBI will do a supplemental investigation. Them I'm going to call for an investigation of what happened in this committee - who betrayed Dr. Ford's trust, who in Feinstein's office recommended Katz as a lawyer, why did Ms. Ford not know that the committee was willing to go to California, who released the anonymous letter given to the committee by Cory Gardner.  We're going to do a wholesale full-scale investigation of what I think was a despicable process to deter it from happening again.

From Dickerson's round table conversation, here's what Molly Ball offered:

And the emotional outpouring that you saw all across the country, people calling in to their -- their members of Congress, people watching transfixed on screens all across the country, this hearing, it was a really wrenching and emotional occasion for America. And I think it's one that we're going to look back on as a cultural touchstone for years to come. In political terms we are going into a midterm election where had this never occurred, it was already an election about women's anger and women's voices and a female-driven backlash to all of the cultural and political currents of the day...it's almost absurdly fitting that this should be the sort of final political controversy for this year's election.

I'll close with John Dickerson's comments on this mess.

The arena added to the anguish. The world's greatest deliberative body handled society's toughest questions with the nuance of a freight train. Partisanship shattered the dish that is supposed to cool the hot cup. At the end of this drama there will be no winners. And yet, calls to sexual assault hotlines have increased two hundred percent since Ford's testimony. Senators on both sides and even president Trump deemed (Ford) credible. It is now the default in America that accusers must be treated seriously and respectfully. Now, only the willfully ignorant don't know why women don't report abuse.

This means my daughter will live in a better world that her mother, who like thousands of others was inspired to explain why she didn't report last week, a collective act that transformed what had been a wound into a walking stick. There is more anguish to come from this drama, but the culture has changed. A week of public anguish will mean less private anguish in the future. 

For those of you who, like John Dickerson's wife, and me, and tens of thousands of other women, didn't report their abuse, I wish you strength, whether you keep or share your secret, and peace.

See you around campus.

I Have Never Forgotten

I haven't written anything in a few days, mostly because I've been struggling with the topic of the day - the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court, and the allegations of  sexual assault that have been lodged against him.

I can talk about it in a detached sort of way, as I have on social media in reaction to questions or comments - that's relatively easy:

• prior FBI background checks would not have been likely to delve into this type of thing, particularly since, from all appearances Kavanaugh has led an exemplary life as an adult
• having an additional investigation by the FBI at this point should only help Kavanaugh, if he's innocent, and I wonder why he was so afraid to ask for one on his own, or even say that he wanted one, when asked. It seemed odd to me, that exchange with Senator Durbin.
• neither being first in your class nor being a virgin for many many many years have anything to do with sexual harassment, and those seemed like odd defenses to have raised, either in an interview on the friendliest possible network or at a Senate hearing 
• if he's not on the Bench by tomorrow, surely the world won't come to an end; we have concrete proof of that thanks to Mitch McConnell
• no Democrats were going to vote for him, unless out of a desire for self-preservation as Dems in Trump country, and the investigation will not change that. 
• Kavanaugh's performance at the hearing on Thursday seemed to be exactly that: a performance, driven by Trump's comments about his temperament during the Fox News interview than anything else. 
• Dr. Blasey Ford's account sounded plausible, and I found her testimony about the event both compelling and horrifying.

But really talking about it, or writing about it, has been very difficult.

Because I have been the under-aged drinker at parties with no parents around, or with parents who looked the other way.

Because I have been the girl in the bedroom, being drunkenly and aggressively fondled by a 'friend' when I was clearly, drunkenly, unable to give consent.

And I was not the only one, back in the 70s, as a small-town teenager trying to navigate high school.

We didn't have a fancy country club. We had back roads and drinking spots and the Kissing Bridge and other make-out spots and I saw many times those became one and the same, a natural progression, if you will. We had dances at school, with plenty of dark and out of the way spots like parking lots and playgrounds and athletic fields. And there were parties.

I remember one particular party - I was not in attendance - the rumors and gossip and tales of drunken exploits were so rampant that the school principal got involved, urging discussions on under-aged drinking and personal and parental responsibility and things along those lines.

The drinking age was 18; the purchasing age was lower, or there were older friends willing to help out in a pinch. Or there was stealing booze, or there was the basement keg. It was easy.

And, one time, for me, things got out of hand, and could have gotten really out of hand, had someone not knocked on the door. Not out of concern, mind you, but because he wanted the room.

Back then, it wasn't considered sexual assault; I don't know that anyone in high school ever reported it to anyone. We were awkward and nervous and afraid. Afraid to participate, and afraid not to. Alcohol was cool, and liberating. Choices were made, sometimes regretted.

I didn't tell my parents about any of this, about the drinking, or about that time when things got out of hand, because I was in the wrong place doing the wrong thing, and so it was my fault.

They found out about the drinking, of course, but that's a whole nother story. I don't believe they knew about that time when things got out of hand, and could have gotten really out of hand.

I don't have a calendar from high school; somewhere, I have my high school yearbook, not sure exactly where it is. But I know my yearbook, like Brett Kavanaugh's, has references to parties, and drinking, and a whole host of things I'm admonished to never forget.

And like Dr. Blasey Ford, I have never forgotten.

Wondering on Wednesday (v149)

Wondering why the map is so big that is had room for me to be wondering all over it, for starters.

If you were telling a joke, and people laughed, I wonder why you'd say you weren't expecting them to laugh? Or conversely, if you weren't telling a joke, and people laughed, and you said you weren't expecting that reaction, why would you say you were telling a joke? 

If you give a speech talking about how what happens in high school stays in high school, or a speech saying that what happens in law school stays in law school, why would you pretend that it's completely meaningless what you're keeping in high school and law school? 

If you and your friends never had any dates with a girl named Renate, why would you all mention her - repeatedly - in your yearbook, I wonder? And what exactly is a Renate Alumni?

If you believe that your Senate Committee is perfectly capable of investigating allegations of sexual harassment, and of questioning the accused and his accuser, why would you not do the questioning yourself, I wonder? Why hire someone to do it for you?

And if you were a Senator, why would you cede your official responsibility to someone else? Five minutes is precious time, I would think, to do your sworn duty.  And if you're willing to cede your responsibility to someone else on the questioning side, can I vote on your behalf?

If you're a social media company and you're trying to eliminate hate and fake news and lies and manipulative information, I wonder why you're not suspending the president's accounts?

And if the president is allowed to joke about something that's not funny, and we are to believe him when he says he was just kidding, I wonder why we're to assume that everyone else is lying when they say they were just joking around? And why we are supposed to take the president at his word when he says he was kidding, or misspoke, or was taken out of context, but everyone else needs multiple corroborating witnesses if we are to believe them?

Why is it that when China targets American farmers, it's election interference but when Russia actually interferes with our elections, it's a 400 pound guy on a bed in a basement? I'm really wondering about that one. 

If you want to clear your name for anything, I wonder, why would you go on Fox News? Aren't you really just trying to energize your fans, instead of really getting out the truth to others why might actually be swayed by your answers to difficult questions?

If you want credibility for what you're going to say, no matter what it is, I wonder why you'd pick Michael Avenatti as your lawyer?

Similarly, if you're looking to find your way, with short notice, through the ins and outs of a Congressional hearing, I wonder why anyone would question you getting a 'connected' lawyer, one familiar with what you have to face?  

And why is it a political, partisan problem, I wonder, when someone gets a Democrat as an attorney, but it's not a problem when someone gets a Republican as an attorney? 

I have to wonder about this stuff, it's so hard to keep track of what's right and what's wrong.

Like Deja Vu All Over Again

Today the president spoke at the United Nations for the second time. You might be wondering how different today's speech was from the one he made last year. 

Fear not, I've got you covered. Excerpts from 2017 will be in italics; excerpts from today's message will appear in normal font. Last year, he started out by telling the world how great he was.

Fortunately the United States has done very well since Election Day last November 8th. The stock market is at an all-time high -- a record. Unemployment is at its lowest level in 16 years, and because of our regulatory and other reforms, we have more people working in the United States than ever before. Companies are moving back, creating job growth the likes of which our country has not seen in a very long time. And it has just been announced that we will be spending almost $700 billion on our military and defense. Our military will soon be the strongest it's ever been.

This year was no different. Well, after the laughter, that is, when Trump proclaimed his accomplishments in less than two years to be greater than almost any administration in the history of America, it was no different.

America's economy is booming like never before. Since my election we have added $10 trillion in wealth. The stock market is at an all-time high in history, and jobless claims are at a 50-year ow. African-American, Hispanic-American and Asian-American unemployment have all achieved their lowest levels ever recorded. We have added more than 4 million new jobs, including half a million manufacturing jobs. We have started the construction of a major border wall and we have greatly strengthened border security. We have secured record funding for our military, $700 billion this year and $716 billion next year. Our military will soon be more powerful than it has ever been before. In other words, the United States is stronger, safer and a richer country than it was when I assumed office less than two years ago. 

Surely, his strictly American accomplishments were bigly meaningful for the rest of the world, right? He might have struck a more welcome tone with his chants of sovereignty.

We do not expect diverse countries to share the same cultures, traditions, or even systems of government. But we do expect all nations to uphold these two core sovereign duties: to respect the interests of their own people and the rights of every other sovereign nation. This is the beautiful vision of this institution, and this is the foundation for cooperation and success.

Strong, sovereign nations let diverse countries with different values, different cultures, and different dreams not just coexist but work side by side on the basis of mutual respect.

Strong, sovereign nations let their people take ownership of the future and control their own destiny. And strong sovereign nations allow individuals to flourish in the fullness of the life intended by God.  

Each of us here today is the emissary of a distinct culture, a rich history and a people bound together by ties of memory, tradition and the values that make our homelands like nowhere else on Earth.

That is why America will always choose independence and cooperation over global governance, control and domination. I honor the right of every nation in this room to pursue its own customs, beliefs and traditions. The United States will not tell you how to live or work or worship. We only ask that you honor our sovereignty in return.

Doing your fair share is another Trumpian theme, and one that he touched on last year as well as today.

The United States is one of of 193 countries in the United Nations and yet we pay 22 percent of the entire budget and more. in fact, we pay far more than anybody realizes. The United States bears an unfair cost burden, but to be fair, if it could actually accomplish all of its stated goals,especially the goal of peace, this investment would easily be worth it.

Major portions of the world are in conflict and some, in fact, are going to hell. 

I don't like much about the president, but that's a truly classic line, in fact.

The American people hope that one day soon the United Nations can be a much more accountable and effective advocate for human dignity and freedom around the world. In the meantime, we believe that no nation should have to bear a disproportionate share of the burden, militarily or financially. 

Now, remember that he started this year by saying how rich we are and all, which makes this next part kind of funny.

The United States is the world's largest giver in the world by far of foreign aid. But few give anything to us. That is why we are are taking a hard look at US foreign assistance... 

Um, what exactly do we need in terms of foreign aid, anyway?

We will examine what's working, what is not working, and whether the countries that receive our dollars and our protection also have our interests at heart. Moving forward, we will only give foreign aid to those who respect us, and frankly are our friends. We expect other countries to pay their fair share for the cost of their defense.

 And in closing,

The true question for the United Nations today, for people all over the world who hope for better lives for themselves and their children, is a basic one: Are we still patriots? Do we love our nations enough to protect their sovereignty and to take ownership of their futures? Do we revere them enough to defend their interests, preserve their cultures, and ensure a peaceful world for their citizens?

So let this be our mission, and let this be our message to the world: we will fight together, sacrifice together, and stand together for peace, for freedom, for justice, for family, for humanity, and for the almighty God who made us all. 

Thank you. God bless you. God bless the nations of the world. And God bless the United States of America. Thank you very much. 

And this year?

Together, let us choose a future of patriotism, prosperity and pride. Let us choose peace and freedom over domination and defeat. Let us come here to this place to stand for our people and our nations.  Forever strong, forever sovereign, forever just.

Forever thankful for the grace and the goodness and the glory of God. Thank you. God bless you, and God bless the nations of the world. Thank you very much. 

Swampy Glass Houses and Whatnot

Someone on Twitter questioned why "a victim needed a team of high-powered Democratic-operative lawyers."

This led me to wonder why an alleged perpetrator needed to spend day after day after day after day after day at the White House preparing to answer questions about something he says he didn't do?

Just as he did several weeks ago to prepare for his confirmation hearings for the Supreme Court, Brett M. Kavanaugh was back inside a room at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building - again facing questioners readying him for a high-stakes appearance in the Senate.

Commenters on the tweet wondered who was paying for all of that, since the victim is merely a university professor, which caused me to wonder who's paying for all of Kavanaugh's practice. Maybe it's the RNC, which for a time handled the legal bills for the president, a self-proclaimed billionaire several times over (both the number of billions, and the number of proclamations)?

Here are just a couple of mentions of that:

Combined with the Republican National Committee, Trump's campaign paid a total of $5.5 million in legal bills during 2017 amid probes into Russia's role in the 2016 election. The payments were made to law firms, as well as the company owned by the president's family.

The Republican National Committee has for months been quietly paying expenses previously covered by the Trump campaign in an arrangement that experts say is bizarre, but legal. The payments include more than $37,000 a month in rent to president Donald Trump's company, and thousands more in salary to Vice President Mike Pence's nephew, John Pence. The payments started abruptly last September, when the RNC came under pressure to stop paying Trump's personal legal bills in the special counsel's Russia investigation.

Nope -- it's not the RNC. Actually, it's you and me who are paying for Kavanaugh's truth-telling practice sessions.

From the same Washington Post article linked in the second sentence of this post,

This time, the questions were much different. An array of White House aides, playing the role of various senators on the Judiciary Committee, quizzed Kavanaugh last week about his sex life and other personal matters in an attempt to prepare him for a hearing that would inevitably be uncomfortable. 

The article goes on to note

In a preparation session on Tuesday, Kavanaugh faced more than a dozen White House aides in the Eisenhower building, during which aides played different senators for more than two hours.

Dozens of aides, who knows how many hours over the past week or so, spent making sure Kavanaugh tells the truth no matter how he's asked, and that he doesn't lose his cool doing it.

And we're footing the bill.

I wonder why they're not asking Franklin Graham and Ralph Reed and the other evangelical leaders who are threatening the White House that the flock won't vote if the administration doesn't get Kavanaugh confirmed to pay for his 'practice', since they're the ones who have drawn the line in the sand?

Of course, it's nothing new for us to be paying the bills for Trump, his family, his staffers, and his companies.  That's right -- his companies. In this USA Today article from last fall, we learn

Taxpayers are footing the legal bill for at least 10 Justice Department lawyers and paralegals to work on lawsuits related to president Trump's private businesses.

Neither the White House nor the Justice Department will say how much it is costing taxpayers but federal payroll records show the salaries of the government lawyers assigned to the cases range from about $133,000 to $185,000. 

The government legal team is defending president Trump in four lawsuits stemming from his unusual decision not to divest himself from hundred of his companies that are entangled with customers that include foreign governments and officials.

In these cases, Justice Department attorneys are not defending policy actions Trump took as president. Instead, the taxpayer-funded lawyers are making the case that it is not unconstitutional for the president's private companies to earn profits from foreign government and officials while he's in office.

Comically, we're paying them to suggest that there's no difference between foreign government officials and their representatives actually paying to roll around on one of those glorious Trump Hotel mattresses and a different president selling a book.

President Obama, we know he received royalties from the sale of books during his presidency. Did he violate the Emoluments Clause because he likely would have received royalties from the sale of books to foreign government representatives? 

Hmm. Likely would have... actually did...  Yeah, there's a difference there, and you don't have to be a government lawyer to figure that out.

I don't care who's paying Dr. Ford's legal bills - she's entitled to her preparation, just like Kavanaugh is entitled to his. She can choose who'll pay her bills - but we're stuck paying Kavanaugh's, whether we like it or not.

I also care that you and I are constantly paying for the president's money-making business, whether it's office space rentals, or golf cart rentals, or legal bills. And that we pay legal bills for his children. And I care about all of the legal ways campaign contributions can be spent.

The bottom line here? People who are so upset about Ford hiring lawyers should stop and think about the lawyers that they're paying for, without their knowledge, permission or approval.

 And, by the way - people who live in glass swamp houses shouldn't throw pond scum.

Wondering on Wednesday (148)

Let's get right to it, shall we?

I wonder what the president meant when he said "we love the people of Poland coming into the United States in any way, shape or form, OK?" I'm sure he meant in any legal way, shape or form, of course. Right?

White House photo

And now there's no reason to wonder if there's a reduction in the number of Poles we love wanting to come here, after Trump bigly dissed his counterpart, President Andrzej Duda, by not giving him a chair to sit in while signing a new joint strategic partnership.

You'll see the American president, resolutely staring with resolve at the White House photographer from behind the Resolute Desk, and you'll see the insensitive treatment of Duda to Trump's right.

No one could find the man a chair? Not even one of the couple thousand 'senior officials' in the administration? Maybe Poland won't be naming the their hoped-for new military base Fort Trump after all.

Trump visited North Carolina today, to survey damage from Hurricane Florence and greet residents.  Differing from his well known trips to Texas (what a great turnout) and Puerto Rico (tossing paper towels to storm victims), closer to home he helped hand out meals. And, of course, he had to ask about Lake Norman, a large man-made lake north of Charlotte.

And how is Lake Norman, that area? How is that doing? I love that area. I can't tell you why, but I love that area. 

It didn't take a ton of wondering as to why he might be interested.

Moving on to the other major storm occupying the news, I wonder why it is that the Senate feels the need to move forward so quickly on the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation?  I mean, it's not like we need him on the Supreme Court, right?

There's certainly no reason to think that having a 9th judge on the bench is necessary on the first Monday in October 2018, given that we were denied a 9th judge for 293 days when it was a Democrat behind the appointment. Honestly, what's the big hurry?

I'm also wondering about the specific qualifications the Judiciary Committee members and their staffs have for investigating allegations of sexual abuse. I mean, do any of them even watch Law and Order SVU?

And I'm trying to picture them explaining to their daughters, granddaughters, nieces, or any other young women they know why there's no need for an impartial, professional investigation.

Moving on to the deteriorating level of discourse in politics (and everything else, it seems) today,  is anyone wondering why Trump supporter Claudia Tenney is conjuring up Mafioso images in her battle against Anthony Brindisi to represent NY's 22nd congressional district? I know she's doing it now - but did you know she started with this tactic more than a year ago?  Here's a little bit from an interview with USA today in July 2017.

While unloading on her Democratic challenger during a Thursday interview with USA Today, Tenney (R-New Hartford) sought to highlight the "great contrast" between her own father, late state Supreme Court Justice John R. Tenney, and Brindisi's father Louis, who she described as "very heavily involved with the organized crime in Utica for many years, representing them."

"He fought for law and order and Anthony's father represented some of the worst criminals in our community," Tenney said, looking at a picture of her father during a wide-ranging interview in her DC office.

"You have to question...some of the things that have happened in his family. The voters make that decision. I'm not saying Anthony is part of that but that's the family you come from." 

Brindisi's campaign had the best possible answer back then:

Anthony Brindisi believes that name-calling never created a job in Upstate New York.

Fast forward to this week and Tenney is downing her game, to Trumpian levels. In a memo sent to staffers - and to the Utica Observer-Dispatch - we learn from Tenney campaign consultant Tim Edson that

We have the unique situation that we should be cautious about, his family has a track record and this is going to be an intense, tough race (Edson said). And as the pressure  itself on Brindisi and he watches his political career come to an end, (people) need to be vigilant because it's possible his family members could return to the kind of intimidating behavior that's sort of characterized the last 30 years of them being in Utica. 

What the ever-wondering hell is that???  No -- seriously, what the ever-wondering hell IS that???  Is this guy actual proud of himself for this?

Why, yes - yes he is. Just look at his company's website. Here's a snippet, with a little emphasis to help you see what this stereotypical attack on Italian-Americans is all about.

FP1 writes and produces advertising that is inspired, fresh, and cuts through the clutter of typical political and issue ads. The utmost importance is placed on creating advertising that is emotionally and intellectually compelling - with an overall tone that viewers find to be informational, honest, and persuasive - not standard spin. 

I wonder how much Tenney's paying for this "intellectually compelling' crap?  It's not worth one red cent if you ask me.

Collins to Run Again After All

Buffalo-area congressman and Trump first responder Chris Collins is going to be on the ballot for his congressional seat in November after all.

Unfortunately, it seems, trying to get off the ballot under some grand scheme being worked on by Erie County Republicans and Collins could jeopardize his defense against the federal criminal charges filed against him mid-summer, and could have led to a lawsuit by NY Democrats fighting against the plan to replace him on the ballot. It might even have jeopardized his bail, attorneys thought, which negated his earlier statement that he would suspend his campaign:

After extensive discussions with my family and my friends over the last few days, I have decided that it's in the best interests of the constituents of NY-27, the Republican Party, and president Trump's agenda for me to suspend my campaign for re-election to Congress it's in the best interests of the constituents of NY-27, the Republican Party, and president Trump's agenda for me to suspend my campaign for re-election to Congress.

Part of this is because of NY's convoluted election law; he'd only get off the ballot if he was no longer a resident of NY, or nominated for another office, or dead. Something we might want to think about changing in the future,  fellow NY voters...

Speaking of attorneys, it probably shouldn't be shocking to learn that Collins had used campaign funds to pay legal fees related to the insider trading. From this report  in August, we learn (emphasis added)

Since July 2017, Federal Election Commission records show Collins' campaign has been paying up to $60,000 per month in legal services to prestigious law firm Baker Hostetler. The firm is representing Collins in the case.

While it is legal to use campaign funds to pay for legal fees, it's not clear whether Collins' constituents and supporters were aware that donations were being used to assist his legal fight.

Those legal fees covered the time period of two separate House probes, including one by the Office of Congressional Ethics and another by the House Ethics Committee. 

A spokesman for the Collins legal team confirmed that the payments from the campaign were for the investigation by the nonpartisan Office of Congressional Ethics and an ongoing inquiry by the House Ethics Committee. Going forward, the congressman will pay for his legal bills out of his own pocket, the spokesman added. 

That's right -- like a lot of other ridiculous expenses, including steak dinners and golf outings, legal fees can be paid out of campaign funds.

I mean, from an ethical perspective, isn't Collins using campaign funds to pay legal fees kind of like the president using donations to his charitable foundation for his own selfish purposes?

Collins recently did an interview with a Buffalo TV station, noting that he welcomed the FBI when they showed up at his house early one morning back in April, and that he thought when he was talking to them that it was related to the ethics investigations (that started in 2016, he noted). In the interview, he was asked whether he thought he had let his constituents down.

No, again, no allegations against me have a thing to do with my role as a member of Congress. Nor did I ever sell any stock, so I'm holding my head high.

He's right on the latter point -- as his stock is in a trust, he couldn't actually sell any specific stock.

But on the former, I can't disagree more: with two separate ethics investigations, the first finding good reason to refer him for the second one, his ethics have everything to do with his role as a Congressman.

 And voters seem to understand that, apparently; for example, residents in Eden, the likely spot to drop Collins so he wouldn't have to run for his Congressional seat, were not at all excited about that idea.

Car horns honked, eliciting cheers as they drove past the group of protesters standing outside the Eden Town Hall. Signs labeled "fraud," "Collins is a swamp monster," and "Eden not bossed, not bought, not Collins," waved in the air as the crowd marched down to the intersection at Route 62 and East Church Street... The protest is the latest in a series of protests revolving around the Republicans' attempts to get Chris Collins off the November congressional ballot after the congressman suspended his campaign following an indictment for federal insider trading and fraud charges. 

Hopefully, voters in the 27th district will do the right thing in November and not give him a single vote.