Sunday School 9/11/22: Extra Credit

Let's continue with What's-his-Name and Vice President Kamala Harris in the Meet the Press classroom. 

I recapped the first part of the interview in yesterday's Sunday School post; this segment begins with questions about the Supreme Court, and her confidence in it.

Harris said the thinks the SCOTUS is an "activist court," which means 

we had an established right for almost a half a century, which is the right of women to make decisions about their own body as an extension of what we have decided to be the privacy rights to which all people are entitled. And this court took that constitutional right away. And we are suffering as a nation because of it.

She also said she was inspired by Thurgood Marshall, and by the Warren Court, with decisions like Brown vs. Board of Education. Now, though, "it's a very different court" than the one that had justices like Marshall, Warren, and Sandra Day O'Connor.

With no follow-up on that, WHN moved to abortion, asking Harris about a bill being moved forward by Sens. Tim Kaine (D-OH) and Susan Collins (R-ME), which they say would basically codify the protections under Roe for abortion up to 24 weeks. and wondering if she'd "be OK with" that. She said she'd have to read the bill, noting "the details obviously matter."

He noted that this bill is not getting the same support from "some abortion rights groups" as other options, and he asked if it was "more important" to find Republican support for this. She said "Ideally, yes, it would be bipartisan."  

And, should the government "put any limit on abortion?" Harris believes government should not be

telling women what to do with their bodies... telling women how to plan their families... criminalizing health care providers... saying "no exception for rape or incest."

And moving on, "since we're here in Texas," WHN asked if Harris would call the border "secure."  

The border is secure, but we also have a broken immigration system, in particular over the last four years before we came in, and it needs to be fixed.

WHN asked again if she's "confident the border's secure," given we'll see two million crossing this year. 

We have a secure border in that that is a priority for any nation, including ours and our administration. But there are still a lot of problems that we are trying to fix given the deterioration that happened over the last four years. We also have to put into place a law and a plan for a pathway for citizenship for the millions of people who are here and are prepared to do what is legally required to gain citizenship. We don't have that in place because people are playing politics in a state like this and in Congress. By the way, you want to talk about bipartisanship on an issue that at one time was a bipartisan issue both in terms of Republican senators and even presidents.

Next question? Inflation is being made worse by us not having enough low-wage workers, so a "solution on immigration reform that increased particularly lower wage job labor – lower wage labor could actually have an impact on lowering inflation. How is that not the motivating force to get something done here?"

Um, because there is literally zero motivating factor to giving Biden another win? Why do anything before the midterm election, since the Rs have visions of taking over the House and Senate, ensuring nothing gets done for another two years...  But that's my answer. 

Here's what Harris said.

I do believe that, for all reasonable people, all reasonable people are motivated and desirous that we would get something done. I think a big part of the problem though is that there's been political gamesmanship with this issue suggesting that it's a zero-sum game. If you want to deal with the issue, there are practical solutions, which include creating a pathway to citizenship, fixing a broken immigration system, dealing with the root causes of why people are fleeing their home when most people don't want to leave home. And if they do, it's usually because they're fleeing some harm, or they simply can't take care of their basic needs if they stay. There are solutions. And sadly, this has become such a partisan issue, instead of something where we work on it together, agreeing that what we're doing is not working as a nation. It's not working.

That agreement alone will be hard to get, regardless of the outcome of the midterm election. 

WHN then delved into 2024, wondering if there'll be an announcement after the midterms about the Biden/Harris team's plans. Harris said

Listen, the president has been very clear that he intends to run again. And if he does, I will be running with him proudly.

He thought she said 'probably,' which prompted some chuckles. She reiterated that a couple of times, saying "I'm very proud to be his vice president." The talked about Harris now having broken John Adams' record of tie-breaking votes in the Senate, which made her proud.

Who would have thought that this kid born in Oakland, California just broke a record with John Adams... Kind of, you’ve got to appreciate that.

WHN asked her about preparing for "the worst-case scenario that your job may hand you."  She said that she prays it doesn't happen; the rest of her answer seemed designed to show that she's preparing for it by doing the work that a VP does, even if, as WHN noted, there's no job description.

And listen, I think that there is no question that the role and the responsibility of vice president is a very important one. And Joe Biden knows that more than anybody. He and I talk about it. And it is the job of working with the president, doing what I can to be a great partner, to take on and help take on some of the biggest issues that impact our country, both domestically and in terms of foreign policy. And so that's the work that I do. So that has been the work of meeting with over a hundred heads of state around various issues, be it Ukraine or what we need to do around our space program. So that is the work of vice president, and it is important and it is something that I take very seriously.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on this interview: were you satisfied with her answers? Do you have a better sense of her now than before? If Biden decides not to run next year, is she the best Dem to replace her? Chime in!

See you around campus. 

Sunday School 9/11/22

For your Sunday School, I'm going to noodle around in the Meet the Press classroom. What's-his-name (WHN) interviewed Vice President Kamala Harris in Houston last week, and played many clips from the interview today. 

WHN started the interview talking about how our focus "has had to shift from foreign terror to the threat from within." Harris spoke of how we were able to "hold our heads up as a defender and an example of a great democracy," and how we held ourselves up as a "role model." 

So, you look at everything from the fact that there are eleven people right now running for secretary of state, the keepers of the integrity of the voting system of their state, who are election deniers...  you couple that with people who hold some of the highest elected office in our country who refuse to condemn an insurrection on January 6th. And I think what it sends is a signal that causes people to question, “Hey, is America still valuing what they talk about?”

She said she's "very concerned" that thing like this "allow people to call into question our commitment to the principles of "what is right, what is good, what should be fought for, what should be human ideals, and certainly, the ideals of democracies... And that's a shame."

Harris said she finds "interesting" polling showing that 70% of Rs don't believe she and Biden "won the 2020 election legitimately." She's not experiencing that when she's out meeting and talking to people, which prompted WHN to ask, "do you think you talk to a lot of Republicans...?" In response, she said, "Well, I think I talk to a lot of Americans," about infrastructure, access to high-speed internet, and about choice - in particular, she mentioned the overwhelming rejection of government interference in Kansas. 

In response to his question, "what is a semi-fascist?" Harris spoke about it not being helpful when people deny elections or obstruct "the outcome of an election with the largest number of voters ever for a presidential candidate.

And when we look at where we are, I think that we have to admit that there are attacks from within, to your first question. And we need to take it seriously. And we need to stand up together, all of us, and think of this not through a partisan lens but as Americans.

WHN wondered if it was "hard to do both," calling out the obstruction and election denying and at the same time try to unite people, Harris pointed to Biden's long record of bipartisanship, and that he's been criticized for that during his career.

But there are moments in time when we have to also agree, all good people who care about our country, that there are those who right now are vividly not defending our democracy. And I think we want that our Commander-in-Chief, that the president of the United States will speak up and raise the alarm about what this means to our strength and our future, much less our integrity.

Another 'all pundits ask it' question was about Dems helping support MAGA Republicans in their primaries, even when Biden is talking about "good Republicans" and how they're not like the MAGA variety. WHN wondered if the Democratic Party was making a mistake. Harris said it wasn't up to her to tell people how to run their campaigns, and like pretty much all the administration Dems, refused to say whether it reflected badly on the party. Her focus is on "a midterm election in which so much is on the line." 

Our president has said he will not let the filibuster get in the way. If the Senate, through a majority vote, votes to pass the Women's Health Protection Act, he will sign it into law. You know what that means in the midterms? We need to hold on to the Senate and get two more. And then we can put into law the protections of Roe v. Wade. Everything is on the line when you think about the millions of women and people in America who care about them, who understand the significance of protecting a woman's right to make decisions about her own body instead of her government telling her what to do.

WHN asked if she was comfortable making changes to the filibuster for voting rights and a woman's right to choose "could end the legislative filibuster for good."  Her response?

No, I’m not. No, I'm not.

She thinks it could be set aside for these issues and still be in place for other issues, saying "that is very likely, yes."

The last section of this part of the interview was about the Former Guy, and about the certification of the next election. WHN asked how much Trump's being both a past president and a potential presidential candidate should "factor into the decision to charge him?" Harris said she "wouldn't dare tell" the DOJ what to do. She also reiterated that the current administration,

unlike the previous administration, have been very, very careful to make sure that there is no question about any kind of interference in terms of the decisions that the Department of Justice makes in that regard.

And, her opinion on "the argument that it would be too divisive for the country to prosecute a former president?"

I think that our country is a country that has gone through different periods of time, where the unthinkable has happened, and where there has been a call for justice, and justice has been served. And I think that's potentially going to always be the case in our country, that people are going to demand justice and they rightly do.

Next, WHN asked if Harris had contemplated any scenarios that might happen on January 6, 2025. She first said, "Not at all," but then said

No. I mean, well, listen, what have I thought about? I have thought about the fact that, right now, we have an election in less than two months. And if we're going to look at timelines, that's one of the most immediate timelines that I'm looking at.

Yeah, but... he asked if she'd thought about how she'd "handle a certification that did not reflect the outcome of the popular vote in the state?" 

I haven't gotten to that point yet. I have to believe that the United States Congress and all the people who have taken an oath to defend our democracy will ensure and will stand up against anyone who tries to destroy or circumvent the rules and the practices and procedures that we've had in place that have allowed a peaceful transfer of power since the inception of our nation and the founding of our nation. And getting back to the ultimate point, that is – that is what we're talking about when we think about January 6th. We have always had a peaceful transfer of power in our nation, no matter our differences, no matter how bloody-knuckled we've been in campaigns. 

And we can't say that now, WHN pointed out.

Well, certainly, we were on the verge of having a very different outcome. And the injury was still an injury for which we still are experiencing the wound. 

I'll have more from the interview for your Extra Credit. 

See you around campus. 

In Case You Missed It (v106)

Last week's posts kicked off with your Sunday School lesson. We were in ABC's 'This Week' classroom with Martha Raddatz, who spoke with Keisha Lance Bottoms, a senior advisor to President Biden.  

Most of the conversation was about Biden's Independence Hall address (which none of the broadcast networks carried live), and unity, and division. Here's a snippet of the interview.

Raddatz wondered "How has President Biden bridged the divide? What has he done really to unify this country?" She pointed to a Quinnipiac poll showing that 69% of Democrats and Republicans believe democracy is in danger of collapse, but the Republicans blame Joe Biden and the Democrats blame Donald Trump, and said, "Again, how has Joe Biden helped bridge that divide?"

I had some thoughts on that, as you might imagine; Bottoms gave hers, as well. 

Bottoms spoke of Biden's bipartisanship in passing gun legislation as one example, but reiterated the point of his remarks. 

But it’s also going to take for all of us to stand up to hatred and what the president again continues to say it’s this MAGA agenda. The president has not called out all Republicans. He’s been very specific about this MAGA agenda. And I’ll just remind you the words from Martin Luther King Jr., when he said that it’s not the words of our enemies that we will remember, it’s the silence of our friends. And what the president has said is that mainstream Republicans, Independents, Democrats can all come together. We’ve seen us come together to do what’s right on behalf of the American people. But if people are silent, then the very core of who we are as a country is in danger.

I didn't give Raddatz a whole lotta love for the interview, but 

One thing I will give Raddatz credit for was asking about Dems paying for ads in the primaries that work in favor of MAGA Republicans. Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney, head of the DCCC, defends it, and the Democratic Governors Association apparently does, too.

In my opinion, it's dumb, and they shouldn't do it. She did say "tens of millions of Democratic groups who have spent money" but I'm pretty sure the meant "Democratic groups which have spent tens of millions of dollars." Bottoms didn't have a good answer for that - maybe because there isn't one.  

It was an odd interview, so much so that I addressed part of it in a Sidebar post that also came out on Sunday. 

Raddatz mentioned an organization, the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, when she asked Bottoms about an increase in online hate speech, with lots of comments about how Biden attacked all conservatives and all Republicans, which he specifically did not do, of course. 

I was surprised, though, when I checked the ISD website for the info Raddatz mentioned; there was a blurb about Raddatz saying ISD said there was a surge, but I didn't find anything else about it.

I did, however, find a great deal of information using 'Donald Trump' and 'MAGA' as search keywords.

The ISD has posted about 2020 election violence, and the Big Lie and how it's still a threat, and Dark MAGA and the concerns about the 2024 election. They've talked about how Trump fails to convince his followers  to stop their nonsense, and about QAnon, and Facebook, and more.  I included several links in the post for your reading pleasure.

The general theme of it all? Exactly what President Biden was talking about in his remarks - which make Raddatz's line of questioning even stranger - or even more calculated. 

For your Extra Credit, I listened in on the discussion in the State of the Union classroom, where Dana Bash talked with FEMA Director Deanne Criswell. 

Criswell's in a tough spot, and I felt her answers were mostly about not roiling the waters or stepping on anyone's toes.  About her visit to Jackson, the Mississippi state capital,

She said that FEMA was focused on supporting the state's Emergency Management Agency

...with bringing in safe drinking water, bottled water, supporting their operations, but, more importantly, bringing in our federal partners that can really understand what it's going to take to bring this plant back to full operational capacity.

There was more of that kind of bureaucratic speak,  about "assessments" and things happening "in phases" and the "longer-term and the midterm" and having "a lot more to learn..." 

Eventually, after all of the 'non-answers, Bash said what I've been thinking all along.

It's just I'm listening to you, and I'm sure our viewers are listening and thinking, this is 2022. This is a state capital in the United States of America...a city of more than 150,000 people, without running water for nearly a week. And now, as you're saying, not only are they without safe drinking water, you don't have a timeline for when they're going to have that restored. Americans are lining up for hours in the heat just to get the bottles of water you're talking about. Who's to blame for this?

I included some of the history on the water crisis in Jackson in the post. The one thing that's clear? We are long past the point where governmental gobbledygook is going to solve the problem. 

Your Wondering on Wednesday didn't drop until Thursday morning, due to technical difficulties reporting from my secure undisclosed location, but the wondering hasn't stopped. 

On a more serious note, I'm shaking my head at the thought of the WaPo story that "a document describing a foreign government's military defenses, including its nuclear capabilities" was found in the mess of government property found at Mar-a-Lago. And I can't help wondering what kind of damage this information is going to do to our relationships around the world, regardless of which of country's information it was. Research has shown that our standing in the world was diminished during the Trump administration, but it rebounded quickly after Biden's inauguration; who knows what this will do.

Other wondering was on politicians who run for office but are afraid to debate their opponents. It's both Rs and Ds who are backing away from the traditional face-to-face discussions with their opponents, and I think it's dumb. 

In the post, I talked about Georgia, and Arizona, and Pennsylvania, and yes, New York, noting that

I share the opinion of Phil Boas, who opined

Katie Hobbs should debate. 

She should stick to the issues. Leave the theatrics to her opponent. Paint her vision for Arizona. 

Otherwise, why is she here? 

This is a contest of ideas, and in elections, debate is one of the ways in which we compete. You don’t have to match glib witticisms with your opponent, you can stand as a foil to her erratic ideals and ravings.

Finally, since last week was the first week of school for much of the country, I shared a post on Presidents Speaking to Kids as a #tbt entry. Back when President Obama was in office, there was a lot of concern (from folks who are now, most likely, part of the extreme MAGA folks Biden spoke of) about Obama talking to schoolchildren, which is a presidential tradition. 

The concern? He'd indoctrinate them on black power, or Muslim power, or some other sin that Blacks with funny names would, of course, do to our beautiful little white children, or something like that. I share comments from past presidents, including Ronald Reagan, who chose indoctrination of the white, Christian variety. 

My approach to all of that?

So much for indoctrination. Here's a quiz. The statements below came from either President George Herbert Walker Bush or President Barack Obama. Can you tell which comments belong to which President?

I offered five pairs of comments; can you tell which president made each of them? Give it a try and let me know how you did!

On tap later? What's-his-name's interview with VP Kamala Harris, and cleaning up my drafts folder (again).

Wondering on Wednesday 9/7/22

 

Ready... Set... Wonder!

I wonder how happy the Obamas are that their official White House portraits have finally been unveiled, and that it was the Bidens, not the Trumps, who welcomed them to the ceremony? I'm thinking it's off the charts kind of happy - what do you think?

Similarly, I wonder if the Bidens will do the unveiling of the Trump portraits? Or, since they don't seem interested in doing anything presidential or first ladylike, perhaps someone could just hang a couple of magazine covers? There are enough of each of them (but no Vogue cover for Melania, if memory serves).

On a more serious note, I'm shaking my head at the thought of the WaPo story that "a document describing a foreign government's military defenses, including its nuclear capabilities" was found in the mess of government property found at Mar-a-Lago. And I can't help wondering what kind of damage this information is going to do to our relationships around the world, regardless of which of country's information it was. Research has shown that our standing in the world was diminished during the Trump administration, but it rebounded quickly after Biden's inauguration; who knows what this will do.

I've also been wondering about all the politicians - Rs and Ds alike - who are refusing to debate their opponents. For some, like Herschel Walker in Georgia, the reasons seem obvious. Walker is magnificently unqualified for any public office, and I can't imagine anyone working on his campaign would allow him to go face-to-face with Rev. Raphael Warnock. Katie Hobbs, running for governor in Arizona, refuses to debate Kari Lake; Hobbs issued a statement to the effect that she doesn't want to diminish Arizona any further than the Republican primary debate already did. 

John Fetterman finally agreed to debate Dr. Oz in Pennsylvania, and here in New York, Gov. Kathy Hochul says she "always debates" and will do that this year - but we don't know where, when or how many times. She's been ignoring her opponent Lee Zeldin's requests, and ignoring questions from the press as well. I share the opinion of Phil Boas, who opined 

Katie Hobbs should debate. 

She should stick to the issues. Leave the theatrics to her opponent. Paint her vision for Arizona. 

Otherwise, why is she here? 

This is a contest of ideas, and in elections, debate is one of the ways in which we compete. You don’t have to match glib witticisms with your opponent, you can stand as a foil to her erratic ideals and ravings.

Replace 'Katie Hobbs' with the name of any candidate, and the answer would be the same, right?

What are you wondering about tonight?

Sunday School 9/4/22: Extra Credit

For your Extra Credit, we're turning to CNN's State of the Union classroom, where Dana Bash talked with FEMA Director Deanne Criswell, who was on to talk about the muddy waters in Jackson, MS. She had just returned from a trip to Jackson with Mitch Landrieu, the White House infrastructure director.

She said that FEMA was focused on supporting the state's Emergency Management Agency

...with bringing in safe drinking water, bottled water, supporting their operations, but, more importantly, bringing in our federal partners that can really understand what it's going to take to bring this plant back to full operational capacity.

Bash wondered when they'll have clean drinking water, and Criswell said it was "still too early to tell." EPA was there, and the Army Corps of Engineers; there'll be assessments done and what not, and work is "going to happen in phases." In the near term, in addition to getting bottled water out to folks, 

we're providing temporary measures to help increase the water pressure, so people can at least flush their toilets and use the faucets. The longer term and the midterm about how long it's going to take to actually make it safe to drink, I think that we have a lot more to learn about what it's going to take to get that plant up and running.

Bash said what I've been thinking all along.

It's just I'm listening to you, and I'm sure our viewers are listening and thinking, this is 2022. This is a state capital in the United States of America...a city of more than 150,000 people, without running water for nearly a week. And now, as you're saying, not only are they without safe drinking water, you don't have a timeline for when they're going to have that restored. Americans are lining up for hours in the heat just to get the bottles of water you're talking about. Who's to blame for this?

How does this happen, in America? 

Bash didn't mention, and Criswell didn't talk about all the longstanding water problems - and, if you ask residents, the racism that exacerbates them - in Jackson, which are getting national attention as a result of the current crisis. Here are a few articles touching on those.

From NPR: 

The rituals of boiling water, and the luxury of a bath 

Lifelong resident Halima Olufemi, 45, remembers her great-grandmother and grandmother boiling water. "So much so that we would buy extra jugs and they would always pour the water in," she says. "It was a way of life." 

She's now an activist with the People's Advocacy Institute and has been helping distribute water in this emergency.

So has Danyelle Holmes, with the Mississippi Poor People's Campaign. Thirty years ago, she moved here from Greenwood in the Mississippi Delta to go to college and was told not to drink the water. 

"I've never drank tap water since I've been here in the city of Jackson," Holmes says. "Never."

The city's aging water lines can leak, leading to low pressure and contamination. There have also been broken water and sewage lines. And in 2016 the state's health department warned that it had found lead in the water supply.

And there's this, from the international organization Human Rights Watch:

Some reporting has focused on how extreme flooding, exacerbated by the climate crisis, has overwhelmed Jackson’s water system. While climate emergencies will certainly intensify in years to come, Jackson’s  crisis is a human rights failure decades in the making. State officials warned last week: “The consistent delays in timely maintenance have hampered [the water facility’s] ability to properly respond to the demands placed upon it.” But resource constraints have plagued the city and its water and wastewater system, which had a weeks-long service disruption in 2021 and multiple US Environmental Protection Agency citations for dumping millions of gallons of raw sewage into source water. The water and wastewater system requires more money to repair and operate than the city can fund. 

One organizer told Human Rights Watch: “The conservative white power structure in Mississippi has deliberately disinvested in the capitol city of Jackson.” It’s understandable that they would feel that way. Mississippi state has not only failed to fund infrastructure assistance to Jackson, but recently enacted a $524 million income-tax break that has constrained the state budget, including for infrastructure funds. Mississippi is already dependent on federal funds for many government functions and is likely to require much more. Jackson Mayor Chokwe Antar Lumumba estimates the cost to repair the systems is nearly $2 billion, while new federal infrastructure dollars to the state total $75 million.

 From the Washington Post: 

Robert Luckett, a Jackson State university history professor, noted that the contrast was stark this past week in places like County Line Road, which separates Jackson from neighboring Ridgeland. One side of the street had water while on the other, homes, hotels and other businesses made do without, setting up portable bathrooms outside. 

“It’s crazy how you can go one block and you go from a town that has none of the issues we have to a town with no water,” Luckett said. 

“This is all rooted in a politics that is based around racial attitudes and a racist history that continues to impact the city and a White leadership of the state who benefits from their suffering,” he said. “They didn’t think it was fair for the city of Jackson to get these resources when their own constituents didn’t have access to the same pot of money.” 

Roger Wicker, one of the state's two Republican US Senators, has been in office since 2007. A search of his press releases shows he's long been a supporter, and often a leader, in getting funding for rural and small community water systems, as well as for bills dealing with fisheries and commercial fishing, Mississippi River dredging and water management, flood control, and trade and commerce-related water infrastructure. I didn't find anything specific to issues with Jackson's sewage spills or lead in the water.

Wicker discussed the current situation in Jackson in a September 1st interview with another CNN anchor, Jim Sciutto. Here's a statement from his press release, 

“This is an emergency. And the American people are seeing this, they’re being very responsive, and we’re going to need additional federal help to salvage the lives, homes, and futures of our major city,” Wicker said. “I have six grandchildren that live inside the city limits in Jackson. This is personal to me, and it’s my capital city.” 

It's personal to everyone, it seems; hopefully, personal enough for something to be done to address all the issues that have plagued Jackson for decades. And if it isn't personal enough,, there's a multi-billion-dollar federal lawsuit over the lead issue to up the interest. 

See you around campus.

Sidebar: Sunday School 9/4/22

Martha Raddatz led the discussion in ABC's 'This Week' Sunday School classroom. During her interview with Keisha Lance Bottoms, a senior advisor to President Biden, she mentioned an organization I'd never heard of - the Institute for Strategic Dialogue. 

Regular readers know I can't help myself when this happens - I have to do some research. According to the About page on the organization's website, 

The Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD) is an independent, non-profit organisation dedicated to safeguarding human rights and reversing the tide of polarization, extremism and disinformation worldwide. 

And, it's been around for a decade-and-a-half, with headquarters in London and folks in DC, Germany, Jordan, Kenya, and France. 

Since 2006, ISD has been at the forefront of analysing and responding to extremism in all its forms. Our global team of researchers, digital analysts, policy experts, frontline practitioners, technologists and activists have kept ISD’s work systematically ahead of the curve on this fast-evolving set of threats. We have innovated and scaled sector-leading policy and operational programmes – on- and offline – to push back the forces threatening democracy and cohesion around the world today.

Aa a result of its efforts, the website says

Thousands of white supremacist, Islamist and covert disinformation Twitter accounts, Telegram channels and Facebook pages, groups and accounts have been removed as a result of ISD’s digital analysis and advocacy.

Here's how the ISD was brought up in the classroom on Sunday. When asked how Biden's speech was "unifying," Bottoms said, in part, 

So, the president spoke optimistically about who we are as Americans. We are the greatest nation in the world. But also, a reminder that we have to be intentional about being the greatest nation in the world and that we have to call out hatred. We have to call out this balance and that if we don’t, our democracy is in danger.

And Raddatz responded

Whatever you said, the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, which tracks hate speech, said after the Biden speech, there was a surge online in conversations that said Biden’s remarks singling out MAGA Republicans were interpreted as a declaration of war against conservatives and all the Trump voters.

Now, given the organization's focus on hate speech, disinformation and the like, I'm not at all surprised they'd see an uptick, are you?

I was surprised, though, when I checked the ISD website for the info Raddatz mentioned; there was a blurb about Raddatz saying ISD said there was a surge, but I didn't find anything else about it.

I did, however, find a great deal of information using 'Donald Trump' and 'MAGA' as search keywords. Here's some of what the ISD folks have posted. 

• Gunman who tried entering FBI's Cincinnati office is a suspected 'extremist'
• Why did the January 6 rioters plot in plain sight?
• Conspiracies build communities as Trump supporters claim false flag
• Trump leans on Dutch farmers protest against climate measures to rally US base: "You're Next"
• Trump's post-Jan 6 Speech Fails to Convince MAGA nation to concede
• All I know is What's on The Internet: Trump Conspiracy and Extremism
• How the Big Lie conspiracy continues to threaten US democracy
• Narratives of Violence around the 2020 Presidential Election
• The Dominion Voting Systems Election Narrative: Beginnings
• The Dominion Voting Systems Election Narrative: Going Viral
• Dark MAGA: The Latest Cycle in the Far-Right Aesthetics Laundromat
• Trumpists coming together behind 'Dark MAGA' in preparation for 2024
• The Long Road to the Capitol: A Constellation of Actors
• The Boom Before the Ban: QAnon and Facebook
• Online Reactions of the Far-Right to the Far-Left
• Why Voter Fraud Narratives Remain Persistent

Even an article on Canadian right-wing extremism mentions, more than once, Donald Trump and US right-wing extremism.

It's fine if Raddatz wants to quote outside organizations - she also mentioned a Quinnipiac poll, which I'll look at later this week. I just wish she had been more thoughtful about it.

• Either she knew that ISD's data and analysis supported Biden's point about Donald Trump and his right-wing extremist followers and chose to ignore that, or she didn't bother to check.
• Either she knew that Biden's speech specifically didn't attack all conservatives and all Republican voters and chose to ignore that, or she didn't bother to check.

Unless, of course, she was looking for the soundbite that would get trending on social media? 

And blaming Biden for inspiring right-wingers to go nuts online is pretty silly, isn't it? I mean, it's not like they need the current president to inspire them; they've got the former president doing that all day long on his Truth Social platform. 

I'm pretty sure they don't need any extra help from Martha Raddatz.

Sunday School 9/4/22

We're back in the This Week classroom for part of your Sunday School. Martha Raddatz hosted Keisha Lance Bottoms, senior advisor to President Biden in an interview that, in my opinion, went off the rails pretty quickly.

She started with Biden's Independence Hall speech and how the White House said it would be "optimistic" and "was about bringing people together," but pointed to Biden saying "President Trump's MAGA supporters are a danger to democracy" and wondered how that was "unifying."

Now, just for clarification, if you search Biden's speech, the word 'danger' appears three times. 

The first time was when Biden quoted someone else, which seems the most likely instance Raddatz was referring to: 

That’s why respected conservatives, like Federal Circuit Court Judge Michael Luttig, has called Trump and the extreme MAGA Republicans, quote, a ‘clear and present danger’ to our democracy.

The second was when he talked about "we, the people" not getting torn apart: 

We, the people, will not let anyone or anything tear us apart. Today, there are dangers around us we cannot allow to prevail. We hear -- you’ve heard it -- more and more talk about violence as an acceptable political tool in this country. It’s not. It can never be an acceptable tool.

And the third was when he spoke more directly about" public figures," MAGA Republicans prominent among them, and political violence: 

On top of that, there are public figures -- today, yesterday, and the day before -- predicting and all but calling for mass violence and rioting in the streets. This is inflammatory. It’s dangerous. It’s against the rule of law. And we, the people, must say: This is not who we are. 

Shall we forgive Raddatz her lack of specificity? 

Bottoms said Biden "reminded the American people who we are as a country," a democracy "built on the rule of law," "that values the peaceful transition of power," and "that values the right of people to go and vote safely and in peace."  He reminded us that "democracies are fragile," and

if we are not intentional about preserving who we are as a country, if we are not intentional about reminding ourselves that there is a rule of law in this country, then we will be in danger. So, the president spoke optimistically about who we are as Americans. We are the greatest nation in the world. But also, a reminder that we have to be intentional about being the greatest nation in the world and that we have to call out hatred. We have to call out this balance and that if we don’t, our democracy is in danger.

Here's Raddatz, totally dismissing the response to her first question.

Whatever you said, the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, which tracks hate speech, said after the Biden speech, there was a surge online in conversations that said Biden’s remarks singling out MAGA Republicans were interpreted as a declaration of war against conservatives and all the Trump voters.

Really? "Whatever you said..." That's how Raddatz wants to run the interview? Wow. To her credit, Bottoms gave an answer I support.

Well, what I would say to that is that this is what this MAGA agenda has been all about. It’s been about distorting the truth. It’s been about misleading people. It’s been about putting out information that inflames people. And I just encourage people, go to The White House website, WhiteHouse.gov, and read the speech for yourself. I’ve read it multiple times and what I see in the speech, I see words of encouragement. I see optimism. I see a commander-in-chief who was calling out to all of us, no matter our political affiliation.

That brought this question. 

"All of us?" He wasn’t calling out to the MAGA supporters certainly. He mentioned them more than a dozen times and -- as a threat to democracy. Has the president essentially given up on those MAGA Republicans, some 70 million people?

All I can do is sigh. Really loudly, really annoyedly, really frustratingly, sigh. 

Because everyone knows - everyone who hasn't had their head in the sand, or someplace else, since late 2018 or early 2019, at least - knows that there are millions of people who voted for Trump who are not 'MAGA' supporters, at all. They are the disaffected, 'let's try something different' folks who were tired of the same old, same old, who were willing to take a chance on an allegedly successful businessman, who were willing to look past the bluster, and hope that, in conjunction with a reasonable Congress, things they were unhappy with could change. 

These are the people that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton spoke about. And they're the people Joe Biden talked about, too. Here's just one example, for the folks in a booth in the corner in the dark in the back - and for Raddatz.

Now, I want to be very clear -- very clear up front: Not every Republican, not even the majority of Republicans, are MAGA Republicans. Not every Republican embraces their extreme ideology. 

And Bottoms pointed out that Biden has, and will, work with anyone and everyone - Rs, Ds, Is - "to get things done in our country." She didn't say it, but she could have said that the "MAGA Republican agenda doesn't include working with anyone across the aisle," and we have ample proof of that:

• Peaceful transition of power ring a bell? 147 Republicans voted against that. 
• Infrastructure? Only 13 Republicans voted for that; many more have taken credit for it.
• Doing something to ease the baby formula shortage? 192 Republicans voted against that.
• Insulin price controls? 193 voted against that. 
• Build Back Better? All House Rs voted against that. 

Is that Biden's fault? Is it solely the GOP's fault? Is it solely the Dem's fault? 

Raddatz wondered "How has President Biden bridged the divide? What has he done really to unify this country?" She pointed to a Quinnipiac poll showing that 69% of Democrats and Republicans believe democracy is in danger of collapse, but the Republicans blame Joe Biden and the Democrats blame Donald Trump, and said, "Again, how has Joe Biden helped bridge that divide?"

I could be wrong, but I believe we elected a president in 2020, not a miracle worker. Biden can try all he wants, but there's also accountability on the other side to do something other than say that Biden's speech was not unifying (as did many MAGA Republicans on social media), or to vote against everything that Biden puts forth as an agenda item, particularly when a plurality, if not an actual majority of Americans at least theoretically support much of the Dem's agenda; polling has shown this to be the case for several years, the decisions of our elected officials notwithstanding.

 
Bottoms spoke of Biden's bipartisanship in passing gun legislation as one example, but reiterated the point of his remarks. 

But it’s also going to take for all of us to stand up to hatred and what the president again continues to say it’s this MAGA agenda. The president has not called out all Republicans. He’s been very specific about this MAGA agenda. And I’ll just remind you the words from Martin Luther King Jr., when he said that it’s not the words of our enemies that we will remember, it’s the silence of our friends. And what the president has said is that mainstream Republicans, Independents, Democrats can all come together. We’ve seen us come together to do what’s right on behalf of the American people. But if people are silent, then the very core of who we are as a country is in danger.

I don't see that as being difficult to understand, do you? Unity is not forged in one hand, in one party, in one set of policies. It's like a tango - it takes two.

One thing I will give Raddatz credit for was asking about Dems paying for ads in the primaries that work in favor of MAGA Republicans. Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney, head of the DCCC, defends it, and the Democratic Governors Association apparently does, too.

In my opinion, it's dumb, and they shouldn't do it. She did say "tens of millions of Democratic groups who have spent money" but I'm pretty sure the meant "Democratic groups which have spent tens of millions of dollars." Bottoms didn't have a good answer for that - maybe because there isn't one. 

Please, read Biden's speech. You don't have to agree with him, but you should at least know what he said, and the context of his remarks. The punditry would prefer you don't educate yourselves, but I respect you more than they do.

See you around campus.

In Case You Missed It (v105)

A little better week, post-wise. Here's your recap of what made it out last week. 

Your Sunday School was filled with talk about the shenanigans at Mar-a-Lago, and about student loan debt forgiveness. In the State of the Union classroom on CNN, Dana Bash talked with Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) about that, which was a major theme of her presidential campaign. Here's a bit of that. 

Bash wondered about fairness, and other kinds of debt that the government isn't helping with. Warren said she thinks "a lot about fairness," before reciting her own story of going to college when a semester cost $50, getting a part-time job and being able to pay for her education. That's not the case now, where "our public education system is no longer creating opportunities" for folks without financial means.

Instead, we're saying to these young people, you have got to get an education, but we are going to wrap the chains of debt around you. And, for many, you're going to be paying it for decades into the future, including getting Social Security checks garnished. That's not the America we want.

She didn't address the 'fairness' question, and Bash noted the package doesn't do anything about the cost of education. There are "a lot of problems in the whole system," she said, and this is one tool Biden had to help. She said the Dems "have put multiple plans on the table" to deal with the other issues, but the Rs won't get on board.

I didn't research her comment about the Rs not getting on board, but given the last two years, I don't have any immediate reason to doubt her on it. 

For your Extra Credit, I decided to spend time with the panel on Fox News Sunday, where there was some discussion on President Biden's comments on extreme MAGA folks - those comments were amplified, of course, in his address on Thursday. We'll get to that a bit more in a minute.  Here are what I'll call his trial balloon, and some of the discussion.

What we're seeing now is either the beginning or the death knell of an extreme MAGA philosophy. It's not just Trump, it's the entire philosophy that underpins - I'm going to say something, it's like semi-fascism. 

And later, he said, after calling Maryland's Gov. Larry Hogan "a Republican you can deal with,"

 We disagree, but at least he's within the mainstream of the Republican Party. I respect conservative Republicans. I don't respect these MAGA Republicans. 

Juan Williams, a panel regular, was asked how Biden's comments compared to Hillary Clinton and her 'deplorable' comments? 

Williams started with a date: January 6, 2021. Clinton's widely (and often purposefully) misconstrued statement happened before that date, and Biden's was after it. 

After January 6th, you had the reality that there were a group of people, Trump supporters, who attacked the Congress of the United States to stop the certification of a legitimate, fair election. You had people in the crowd who wanted to threaten, if not hang, Vice President Pence. You had a situation where there were Trump officials who were pressuring state officials to manufacture votes and send phony electors to the Congress of the United States. I think if people behave that way, then they can be -- they can expect to be called semi-fascist, fascist, because it's antidemocratic action. You're acting against the constitution of these United States...

There was some disagreement from others on the panel, as you might imagine. 

I was wondering, on Wednesday - but I wasn't typing, so we skipped that regular feature last week. I did manage to get a couple of #tbt posts out on Thursday, both related to topics we're still talking about now. 

The first, from 2012, was a Point/Counterpoint recapping a Facebook conversation on voter ID laws. It was short and sweet - here's the crux of it; the red and blue are indicative of the political leanings of the participants.

It sounds like Obama can't get re-elected unless he has all these people that can't prove who they are to vote for him.

Ha ha - sure sounds like Romney can't get elected without these new laws keeping people from voting... 

Funny - sad funny, not haha funny - how little things have changed in a decade, isn't it?

The second #tbt was a Quick Take on FBI transparency from 2016. Here's a bit of that.

And now? There's some additional consternation, albeit perhaps more limited, as the FBI has decided to release information from their investigation.

(September 2, 2016) the FBI is releasing a summary of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's July 2, 2016 interview with the FBI concerning allegations that classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on a personal email server she used during her tenure. We are also releasing a factual summary of the FBI's investigation into this matter. We are making these materials available to the public in the interest of transparency and in response to numerous Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests...

Your TGIF was untraditional, which seemed fitting given the week's news. Given the discussions on Biden's brief remarks about MAGA extremists - NOT about all Republicans, he made clear - I shared a section of his address from Independence Hall. 

But first, we must be honest with each other and with ourselves.

Too much of what’s happening in our country today is not normal.

Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic.

Now, I want to be very clear -- very clear up front: Not every Republican, not even the majority of Republicans, are MAGA Republicans. Not every Republican embraces their extreme ideology. 

I know because I’ve been able to work with these mainstream Republicans.

But there is no question that the Republican Party today is dominated, driven, and intimidated by Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans, and that is a threat to this country.

It's important to see his full comments in context, because the Rs and the pundits don't want you to see that: they want the soundbites, and the arguments, and the battles. And that's consistent with how they regularly behave. 

I pointed all that out in a Sidebar, with previous examples to show that it's a pretty consistent practice in those circles.  The examples were from Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. The former talked inelegantly about people "clinging to guns or religion" and the latter famously gave us the 'basket of deplorables." But unless you looked for it, you couldn't find the context of those remarks to understand the point they were trying to make. 

The media, which has an obligation to report the truth, and to separate news articles from opinions, didn't do a good job with either of these statements. Too often, they would report on the most inflammatory parts and, if you read the rest of the article, you could probably find a link to the entire quote. Of course, they know how few people read the entire article, right? Oh, hell - let's be honest - they know how many people read only the headline. 

The pundits, with no such obligation to the truth, blatantly ignored anything other than the most incendiary words - it was as if the rest of the quotes were not even spoken. I remember watching clips from the talk shows and the cable shows, and if anyone tried to mention the full breadth of the comments, they were shut down immediately: "Yeah, but he said..." "Yeah, but she said..."  "Yeah, but no one's going to remember that part, they're only going to remember the part that we're talking about..." "Yeah, but..."

The real villains here, in all three cases, IMO, are the Republicans who whole-heartedly embraced the soundbite, particularly Clinton's 'deplorables' comment. They owned it! They put themselves in that basket, they put their colleagues in that basket, they put their donors in that basket, they put their constituents in that basket, and they put everyone who voted for any Republican in that basket. 

And just like back then, the Rs are going overboard again, broadly painting themselves with an industrial sprayer, when the comments were wielded with six-inch-brush. 

And so it goes, as Linda Ellerbee used to say.

Have a good week.