Sunday School 1/21/24: Extra Credit

In yesterday's Sunday School, I recapped three classroom visits, all with Republican governors. 

Today, the focus is on Sen. Tim Scott's Trump endorsement. As I noted last week, most of the media is falling all over themselves over how big a deal it is. Now, you can read it for yourself. My comments are interspersed throughout the post.

Scott sat down with Dana Bash in the State of the Union classroom, where the first question was why Trump, why not Haley?

It comes right down to, what does America need for the next president? It would be four more years of Donald Trump. And why do I say that? I say that because I worked with President Trump on really important issues impacting American voters and American families. We worked together. I helped write the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in 2017, the largest tax decrease in American history.

I hope Scott remembers that many of the most impactful provisions of the bill he wrote are set to expire next year.  

Think about uniting this country. He gave the highest level of funding for historically black colleges and universities in the history of the country. We had the most inclusive economy, seven million new jobs, the lowest unemployment rates for African-Americans, Hispanics, Asians, a 70-year low for women, and a 50-year low for the majority of the population,... during the Trump years.

A couple things: in some GOP circles, providing historic HBCUs funding is likely considered "woke," not a sign of unity; unemployment rates dipped even lower during Biden's term, and are fairly consistent with Trump's pre-COVID numbers; and while we know that presidents don't 'create' jobs, Biden has 'created' nearly twice as many as Trump.

We had a stronger economy, a healthy military, and a safer world. When I compare and contrast, the only, the only conclusion is Donald Trump.

Scott said he and Haley exchanged texts "several times" since he got out of the race, and he expanded upon his thinking in endorsing Trump. 

I'm not asking a question about who's from my home state. I'm not asking a question who would be -- is a good person or a better person. I think President Donald Trump is a strong president, will be a strong president again, and will have the kind of accomplishments that will unite this nation around economic opportunity.

If he's not looking for a "good person," he's found his man.

Bash talked about Scott's "a very positive, very hopeful campaign." She played a video clip of Scott asking a crowd, "Victimhood or victory? Grievance or greatness?" and said it sounded like he was talking about Trump.

No, listen, I -- we absolutely, positively, unequivocally need an America that's not filled with victims.

Trump is the victim-in-chief, for Pete's sake. So, if not Trump, who was Scott talking about? 

I'm actually talking about how Joe Biden has destroyed our economy and made victims out of people waiting for the government to show up. I'm talking about having a president who's weaponizing the DOJ against political adversaries. We need Lady Justice wearing a blindfold. I want America, every single American in every corridor of this nation to have confidence in their DOJ, not a Biden-led DOJ.

Has he not been paying attention? Has he never heard of Bill Barr? 

I want every child growing up in poverty, like I did, to have access to quality education. Unfortunately, the Democrats have sold their souls to the teachers' unions, trapping poor black kids in inner cities into failing schools and out of their best future. I want a nation where every child looks into the future and says, the American dream works for me. I was that kid.

And so when I think about bringing this country together, not under grievance, but over greatness, not being victims, but being victorious, I am talking about the future of this nation... and politicians who get in the way of that.

 Bash asked if he doesn't "see any grievance in Donald Trump's campaign for president?"

Well, here's what I can tell you. And for a person who's seen the DOJ weaponized against him, for a person who, before he was ever sworn into office, "The Washington Post" said they were going to make sure that he is a one-term president, when you look at the challenges he faced, there's no doubt that he has been aggrieved. 

I think Scott's confused; back in 2010, Sen. Mitch McConnell said “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." Maybe that's what he remembered hearing?

The question is, what are the American voters looking for? Here's what they're looking for. They're looking for a president who represents their best future, and not his. That president is not Joe Biden. It's Donald Trump. 

I have concerns about a second Joe Biden term, as do many people I know, but I don't think Donald Trump represents anyone's best future, other than his own.

Bash then turned to Scott's belief that Trump will "restore law and order," which is interesting. She pointed to Trump's recent experiences with the law, including trying to overturn the 2020 election, promising to pardon his rioters (he calls them hostages), the stolen documents case, and his latest call for total presidential immunity, and asked how that equated to law and order. 

Well, he has a legal team that can answer the questions of the legal challenges that he faces.

Yes - including a lawyer who said presidential immunity would apply if the president ordered SEAL Team 6 to murder a political rival. That's kind of hard to ignore, I think.

But what I can tell you is that, when you look around the cities, when you grow up in poor communities, like I did, and you watch the crime ravishing your communities, you ask yourself what president has allowed that to happen. It's Joe Biden.

Bash didn't interrupt to ask, "What is the president's role in dealing with crime in cities and poor communities?" but I would have. 

When you have DAs around the country that say it's no longer a crime to steal $1,000 worth of goods, and those stores start closing in San Francisco and across the country, you ask yourself what president allowed that lawless behavior to continue. That's Joe Biden.

I'm not denying there are serious issues facing retail stores - we've seen the video, right? But again, "What is the president's role in telling elected DAs how to do their jobs?" And, "What is the president's role in making sure that businesses don't lie about crime in the press and in Congressional hearings?"  And, "What is the president's role in making sure politicians don't spread the same lies?"

You ask yourself, who can restore the kind of law and order in our nation to allow it to go forward... that would be Donald Trump.

Bash tried again, focusing on the 'hostage' language, noting Scott was at the Capitol on January 6th, jacket off, sleeves rolled up, ready to defend himself "presumably until I died."  Would he now refer to the folks facing prosecution as hostages?

I would say that every single person facing our justice system should have justice done. The facts and the evidence in each individual case matters. I have confidence that that process will play out. Here's what I said also in the book that I wrote. I talked about January the 6th, because I'm one of the few people who was actually there with the people outside; 99 percent of the people who showed up were there to exercise their First Amendment rights. What I said then is what I will say now. I don't hold those people at harm. I don't hold them responsible for the actions of a few. I do hold the few responsible, no one else.  People have to be responsible for themselves.

Bash tried two more times to get a specific agreement that 'hostages' was the wrong term, but Scott only said, "We should have confidence in restoring the blindfold to Lady Justice." I'm not sure dressing Lady Justice as a blindfold-wearing hostage helps. 

Scott was asked if he was comfortable with Trump 'birthering' Nikki Haley, as he did Barack Obama, Ted Cruz, and who knows how many others. His answer is laughable. 

Well, I'm watching rhetoric on all sides of the issues facing becoming president. What I mean by that is, the rhetoric from Joe Biden is terrible, but it is -- and it's salacious.

Salacious? Really? I must have bigly missed something! Has Biden campaigned making comments that are "arousing or appealing to sexual desire or imagination?" That sounds a whole lot more like the House GOP (remember Hunter Biden's photos?) or Trump to me.

Nikki Haley questions whether 70-year-olds should be allowed to run for president. I think there is so much negativity and toxicity in this aim to becoming president again or for the first time that we should be very clear and look at both sides of the comments made. What I can tell you, the average voter is more interested in their future and their kids than they are the comments being thrown around by political candidates.

And, whether it's the man he sold his soul to endorsed or anyone else, 

Well, I would like for all politicians to comport themselves in a way that is consistent with the highest office.

But I'm happy to endorse the rudest, meanest, most belligerent, most violent, most openly dictatorial, most impressively indicted, most unlike me candidate I could find, instead of gracefully serving out my term and spending time with my bride-to-be. 

The last word on this goes to CNN's Amanda Carpenter, who was in the classroom for the interview.

I mean, I've just got to comment a bit on how Tim Scott has closed his race. That interview he conducted with you made me really sad. It was really hard to watch. I think you rarely see a person with his reputation, as an optimistic, charismatic leader, sully it in the way that he did in that interview...

See you around campus. 

Sunday School 1/21/24

I visited several classrooms yesterday, mostly to listen to the Republican side of things. 

First up?  Former 2024 presidential candidate and now Trump endorser Gov. Doug Burgum (R-ND) met with Martha Raddatz in the This Week classroom. 

Burgum ran as a 'unifying' candidate before pulling out of the race $12M poorer. Raddatz asked if he believes Trump has the best chance of pulling the country together. He didn't answer the question but said serving as governor was better under Trump than under Biden.

And as we know, during the time that President Trump was in office, I mean, we had peace and prosperity in America. And under President Biden, we’ve got chaos around the world...

He centered his candidate on the economy, energy policy, and national security and how they're interrelated, and says

Joe Biden is taking us in the wrong direction on all of those, 180 degrees the wrong direction, and -- and not -- I'm confident that President Trump is -- he’s going to be right on the economy, right on energy policy, and right on national security.

Raddatz asked why he supports election-denier Trump; Burgum's on record saying Biden won in 2020. After trying twice to get an answer, she simply asked if he was an election denier too. He says no.

We have to make sure that Americans have confidence in these elections... Americans lack confidence in this, and that’s why -- that’s why we’ve got to make sure going forward that we have confidence. Democracy doesn’t exist unless people can trust the outcome of an election.

Another non-answer came to a question about Trump 'birthering' Nikki Haley. In a nutshell? Everyone's mean, the Dems say bad things about each other, too, and "it's the norm" in our politics. He's wrong on that, I think, but he's not all that far from right, is he?

Down the hall in the Face the Nation classroom, Margaret Brennan talked with Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders (R-kansaw). 

In Arkansas, other than "to save the mother's life in a medical emergency," all abortions are banned.  Any attempts to modify the law have been blocked by the state's Attorney General. Brennan wondered if Sanders would consider a ballot initiative to modify the law.

Look, I'm proud of the fact that Arkansas is one of the most pro-life states in the country. I'm unapologetically pro-life. I believe that we are a culture that protects life, that values life. I think that's who we are as a country and I'll continue to support those measures.

Brennan acknowledged the personal belief but asked if Sanders had any interest in hearing what her constituents thought. No need for that; she said her state is "overwhelmingly" pro-life, she said, and she's proud of efforts they've made, including with adoption, foster care, education, and 

empowering every single Arkansan to have a great quality of life. We are looking at every aspect in making sure that we're doing what we can to protect and value life at every stage here in the state of Arkansas.

She didn't expand post-partum care from 60 days to twelve months; some of her GOP counterparts did. Brennan asked why not, given the state has long had a high maternal mortality rate. Sanders said she wants to "do everything we can" during pregnancy and after, and that they've made several changes already. Unlike some of her counterparts, Arkansas will be participating in a summer food assistance program the feds are offering. 

When asked about Trump and Biden both being too old to be part of a new generation of leaders, Sanders talked about the candidates' records, not their ages, and to no one's surprise, thinks Trump is the better choice. As to whether Trump can unite us, she said

You know, one of the things that I think is so often left out of Donald Trump's story is the patriotism and the love of country that he brought back. We haven't seen that in this president... In fact, we've seen the total opposite. 

Brennan disagreed with several things Sanders touted as Trump's successes, including immigration, the Middle East, and Ukraine, to which Sanders responded,

Well, that's why we need him to come back for four years because he didn't get to finish, but he certainly made significant progress...

If you're wondering, she's focused on being governor for "the next seven years," seemingly shutting out becoming Trump's veep.  

Last, a speed round with Gov. Chris Sununu (R-NH), who was heckled by Kirsten Welker on  Meet the Press. 

Is New Hampshire "make or break" for Haley?

No. No. She doesn't have to win. I mean, look, nobody goes from single digits in December to "you absolutely have to win" in January. I think that's a media expectation that's being set out there...

Is he concerned about Trump's mental capability, based on recent comments? 

I mean, look, the point is you have two nearly 80-year-olds fighting this thing out. That's not what America wants...this is not Donald Trump, the disruptor of 2016. This guy has lost his fastball... We always want that next generation. Neither of these guys represent the next generation.

Should a president have Trump's version of immunity? 

Of course not... I don't care what political party you're from, whether you're an extreme conservative or a socialist liberal – everybody should be concerned with that type of mentality going into the White House.

How can he support Trump, if he's the nominee?

I think most Republicans are going to get behind the Republican nominee...  This is how bad Joe Biden is. Six months ago Trump couldn't beat Biden...So this is where we've come, where Joe Biden is so bad that even folks would get behind Donald Trump.

And his last point?

... the more that come out, the better chance we have of beating him at the ballot box. And that's the only way to do it. The voters decide who's going to be the nominee. Not the media, not Chris Sununu, not even Nikki Haley. It's the voters, and that's the best process.

Truer words, and whatnot.  See you around campus.

In Case You Missed It (v117)

Finally - a busy writing week!

It's been a long time - just shy of a full year - since I had a week with enough posts to warrant a recap. Hopefully, it's the start of a regular posting habit.  In case you missed anything, here's what made it out of my head. 

I started and ended the week with a Quick Take post. The first was about Rep. Brandon Williams, my congressman, and how far off base he was when he dropped a Bible verse to recognize Martin Luther King Jr. Day, and then went about as far away from what the verse was about as one could possibly go when he talked about immigration. 

I'm not a religious person, but that doesn't stop me from looking up verses when I see them, particularly when they're offered up by politicians. As I interpret Isaiah 58, the basic question is "Aren't we doing enough?" and the answer is, pretty much, "No - you're not,"  if you continue to oppress others, finger-point and speak ill of them, and deny them food and shelter. 

Next up? Visits to the Sunday School classrooms, including chats with That Guy from Vermont (CNN State of the Union), Florida Man Ron DeSantis (This Week), and Joe Manchin (Face the Nation). 

 

Sanders thinks folks will eventually rally around Biden, but it's tough given the way things are going with Israel and what's happening in Gaza.

You cannot give billions of dollars to a country that ignores your wishes, violates international law. So, I would hope that the president follows through on his concerns and says to Netanyahu, this is unacceptable. You're not getting a nickel more from the United States unless you radically change course. We're not going to see hundreds and hundreds of thousands of children starved to death.

Manchin was asked whether he'll vote for Joe Biden; here's what he had to say about that.

I love my country too much to vote for Donald Trump. I love my country too much. And I think it would be very detrimental to my country.

In your Extra Credit, we heard from former Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan, a Republican, and David Axelrod, who made a name for himself during the Obama years. It was fun to hear their thoughts on Iowa, offered the day before the caucuses. 

Hogan noted that Donald Trump was going to win, but noted

I don't think it matters that much, because, for the past 24 years, the winner of the Republican Caucus in Iowa has not been the nominee. So it's really about the fight for second place.

And while he had good things to say about Nikki Haley's chances, Axelrod thought she had some things to be concerned about, notably polling showing a distinct lack of enthusiasm from her supporters.

... 49% of Donald Trump's supporters said they were extremely enthusiastic about voting for him, 23% of Ron DeSantis'. For Haley, that number was 9%. 

Turns out he was right. 

 I was Wondering on Wednesday about more abusive legislation on tap for Florida, where

the state legislature continues to attack people and things they don't like. Among the latest proposed bills is one that would effectively end legal recognition of trans people.

 When I first heard about this last week, it was in the context of driver's licenses and a required gender affidavit - and I couldn't help wondering if trans people were really worse drivers than anyone else.

That wasn't the reason - but it's only almost as silly as the reason suggested by one of the sponsors, which I included in the post.  

A fun bit of wondering was inspired by the tourism folks in Lexington, KY, who are looking to the Final Frontier for visitors. I'm not sure they thought the whole thing through, but you can decide for yourself. 

And finally, there was the second Quick Take, about endorsements and how they're treated by the media. When Sen. Tim Scott endorsed Trump yesterday, the media was all gaga over how important it was. It's not, really, if you consider this:  

According to the folks at 538, as of January 14th, Trump had picked up 185 endorsements,

including nine governors, 24 senators, and 116 U.S. representatives. By comparison, only 22 of them had endorsed Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis or former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley. 

Help me understand: did Trump need Scott's endorsement, or did Scott make the endorsement for his own purposes? Why can't the media discern the difference, and report on it appropriately?

That's last week in a nutshell; be sure to check back this week for our regular features, and maybe a few extras.

Quick Takes (v71): Meaningless "Major Endorsements"

Last night on ABC's World News Tonight, we were urged to the edge of our seats with the news that Donald Trump received a "major endorsement." 

Who could it be, I wondered... Meghan McCain? Jeb Bush? Rachel Maddow? Or wait... maybe it was Carly "Look at that Face" Fiorina, who ran against him in 2016? 

Oh, silly me... it was Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC). You remember him, right? The only Black Republican in the Senate? Former presidential candidate? The guy forced by the press into declaring he had a girlfriend?  Yeah, that guy. 

Can you imagine how this must have been "a big boost" for Donald Trump,  and "a major snub" for Nikki Haley, who appointed Scott to the Senate back in 2012?  That's how ABC's Rachel Scott described it about ten minutes into the broadcast. 

My guess? It's neither of those things. 

Sure, all the candidates in the race hope for the endorsements of those who drop out, and one might expect there'd be a bit of loyalty from Scott to Haley, but she's behind both Trump and DeSantis coming out of Iowa, and likely has little chance of winning regardless of who endorses her. 

Now, to be fair, ABC is not the only outlet gushing over the endorsement - it's pretty widespread, with folks all trying to make it sound more meaningful than it is. 

I agree with NH Gov. Chris Sununu, a Haley supporter, who said

If anyone cared about Tim Scott, he'd still be running for president. 

Honestly, I think there are two issues with this: the endorsers, and those who report on the endorsements.

In my opinion, if you're Tim Scott, Doug Burgum or Vivek Ramaswamy, or even folks like Nick Ayers, one of  Mike Pence's former chiefs of staff, you're endorsing Trump because you want something from him, not because you have anything to offer him. 

According to the folks at 538, as of January 14th, Trump had picked up 185 endorsements,

including nine governors, 24 senators, and 116 U.S. representatives. By comparison, only 22 of them had endorsed Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis or former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley. 

How many of those governors, senators, and representatives honestly believe Trump needs their endorsement, and how many of them are more interested in making sure folks who can vote for them know they support Trump? 

If you're a political reporter paid to give your best attention to these things, you should be asking yourself, "What's in it for the endorser?" instead of simply giving free publicity to the endorsee.  

And please, do us a favor: when a truly notable endorsement happens - if Mike Pence, or Nancy Pelosi, or Merrick Garland, or Liz Cheney - decides for incomprehensible reasons to support Trump, let us know. 

Wondering on Wednesday 1/17/24

 

Ready... set... wonder!

I'd guess that no one was surprised with the outcome of the Iowa Republican caucuses; Donald Trump won, garnering more than 50% of the vote. Ron DeSantis (2nd) and Nikki Haley (3rd) got fewer votes - combined - than Trump. I have to wonder, though, why media outlets were calling the vote for Trump barely half an hour after the caucuses started? Sure, it was pretty much a foregone conclusion that he would win, but come on - at least let people go through the process.

Another thing I'm wondering? How many people stayed home, and why did they? As of last November, Iowa had 718,000 registered Republicans, but only about 110,300 people voted. 

Was it the weather? Was it an enthusiasm gap for DeSantis and Haley voters? Did the media's constant Trump-gushing have an impact? We may never know, for sure, but I think we can agree that an early declaration of victory like what happened this week is not helpful.

One last thing before we leave presidential politics,  I find myself wondering if Trump's abuse of Nimarata Nikki Haley's full name, following his promotion of the lie that she's ineligible to be president, is indicative of his concerns that she has a chance against him? Remember, he took this same approach to the candidacies of former President Barack Hussein Obama and Sen. Rafael 'Ted' Cruz. Of course, there's always a chance that he's just a jerk and can't help himself, so maybe we shouldn't read anything into it.

Meanwhile, back in Florida, the state legislature continues to attack people and things they don't like. Among the latest proposed bills is one that would effectively end legal recognition of trans people.

The bill starts by defining "sex" in a way that excludes transgender people and incorporating this definition at the beginning of Florida's legal code - Section 1.01.  It demands that every law in Florida adhere to this definition, effectively eliminating all transgender legal representation in a single move. It then goes through many areas of code and creates additional policies that allow for the tracking of transgender people's assigned sex at birth and the enforcement of laws that exclude or criminalize them.

When I first heard about this last week, it was in the context of driver's licenses and a required gender affidavit - and I couldn't help wondering if trans people were really worse drivers than anyone else. Come to find out, one of the authors of the bill says it's to protect law enforcement. According to Rep. Dean Black of Jacksonville, 

We need law enforcement to know what they are dealing with. If you can go change your gender on your driver's license on a whim, that can actually endanger law enforcement.

Not sure why officers will be 'protected' by knowing the birth gender of a driver, especially in a state that now offers permitless concealed firearms carry, but maybe that's just me.

We'll close with an interesting bit of tourism promotion from the city of Lexington, KY, where the Convention and Visitors Bureau (CVB) is going where no CVB has gone before: outer space.

The agency said it worked with scientists and scholars to beam the message toward potentially habitable planets in the TRAPPIST-1 solar system 40 lightyears away.

The effort was led by Lexington native Robert Lodder, who is an expert in computer engineering, astrology, and Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence.

If you're wondering, the message, which was sent with FAA approval, opens with

The first thing you'll notice as you descend through Earth's atmosphere above Central Kentucky is the lush green countryside that surrounds Lexington's vibrant city center. That's our famous bluegrass.

It includes recommendations where ET and friends can "stay and eat and shop." 

Now, I think this is kind of cool - I mean, why not have some fun, right?  But I can't stop wondering what's going to happen the first time one of the visitors stops at a horse farm, for example, and thinks it's a restaurant? 

What's on your wondering mind these days?

Sunday School 1/14/24: Extra Credit

 For your Extra Credit this week, I eavesdropped as  Democrat political operative David Axelrod and Larry Hogan, former GOP governor of Maryland, chatted with Jake Tapper in the CNN State of the Union classroom.  

It's interesting, now that we know the results of the Iowa caucus (Trump won, DeSantis was a distant second, and Haley was a close third), to hear their take on things.

Tapper asked Hogan who he wanted to win, and what the path to the nomination looked like for that person. Obviously, Hogan knew that it was "pretty clear that Donald Trump is going to win Iowa," but he also said

I don't think it matters that much, because, for the past 24 years, the winner of the Republican Caucus in Iowa has not been the nominee. So it's really about the fight for second place.

DeSantis, he said, put a lot of effort into Iowa, but he sees Nikki Haley as the one with the momentum. That matters, he said, because "what this race is really all about is to try to nominate the strongest possible nominee for November." Haley has the momentum, Hogan said.

...she has the potential of moving into second place, although it be at a distant second place, which gives her momentum heading into New Hampshire, where she's only seven points down. 

Tapper asked if that was an endorsement.  

I think we want to have the strongest possible nominee in November. Polls show that that is Nikki Haley, that she's 17 points ahead of Joe Biden, and it's a toss-up with Trump and Biden, and DeSantis is losing. So, yes, I think it's time for the party to get behind Nikki Haley. My friend Chris Christie dropped out of the race in New Hampshire. I appreciate his effort. But I believe that Nikki Haley is the strongest chance for us to put forth our best possible candidate for November.

Axelrod said that if DeSantis finished third, "he will be on his way back to Tallahassee, rather than New Hampshire," given the amount of time and money spent in Iowa. He also said if he were Haley, he'd be concerned about polling.  She was in second place, but "every other number would be a little concerning.," 

... 49% of Donald Trump's supporters said they were extremely enthusiastic about voting for him, 23% of Ron DeSantis'. For Haley, that number was 9%. And you have to ask yourself, if you're not terribly enthusiastic, are you going to drag yourself out on a night like this?

Also, "...half her support comes from independents and Democrats who say they're going to vote in the Republican caucuses."

Are they going to drag themselves out on a bitterly cold night to sit through two hours of discussion to cast a vote for Nikki Haley? It may happen. It could happen, but it looks worrisome to me...

And, he said if she doesn't beat DeSantis, in New Hampshire "the perception will be that she missed her mark." 

Tapper switched gears to the issue of a third party entering the fray. He noted that Hogan had stepped down from the leadership of No Labels, and asked if he was "exploring a run for president" on a No Labels ticket. 

Hogan admitted his move had "created a whole lot of speculation," but he didn't mean for that to happen, and his position on running hasn't changed.

I'm focused on trying to nominate the strongest possible Republican we can, which is why I'm urging everyone to get behind Nikki Haley. I wish my friend Axe could come up with a better nominee for the Democrats, quite frankly, because 70% of the people in America do not want to vote for Joe Biden or Donald Trump.

But, no, I'm -- I -- they're going to, I think, continue to try to get access to the ballot. They're going to wait and see if we're stuck with these two bad choices in -- on the November ballot. And I think they will make their decision in March or April, but my position has not changed.

Axelrod's glad Hogan stepped away, and said Trump's "best friends... are third-party candidates."

...if you look at polling, he tends to pick up marginally because of these third-party candidates. Certainly, that would be the case if No Labels fielded a candidate. And I think Larry was smart to step off of their board. And I would be sad, because I like him as a friend, to see him used in that way that would help Donald Trump in the election.

The final word went to Hogan. 

We would not be discussing any of this if Biden and Trump were not so weak. And so it's an interesting election. But I can tell you, I wouldn't want to be associated with anything that would be a spoiler for either Donald Trump or Joe Biden. And we will just have to wait and see. It's going to be a wild ride, I think, in 2024.

I suspect my favorite Republican is right on that last part.  See you around campus. 

Sunday School 1/14/24

I've got some highlights from Sunday's classroom chats, starting with That Guy from Vermont, Sen. Bernie Sanders, who talked with Jake Tapper on CNN's State of the Union.

On the potential that Israel is using American support to violate the rights of Gazans, TGFV is not amused. 

What is going on in Gaza right now is a horrendous humanitarian catastrophe. We're looking at 23,000 people who have been killed. Almost 60,000 have been wounded. And two-thirds of the people who have been killed are women and children. ...What is going on in Gaza now in three months is worse than what took place in Dresden over a two-year period. 

He's introducing a resolution requiring any American military and financial support provided to other countries "to be used consistent with human rights, international human rights standards, and American law." In his opinion, that's not the case with our aid to Israel. 

On whether Joe Biden will get the support of young progressives - they're as upset as Sanders is on Biden's support for Israel - Sanders thinks folks will rally around Biden, but "it is very hard for young people, for most Americans," to be excited about what's happening. 

You cannot give billions of dollars to a country that ignores your wishes, violates international law. So, I would hope that the president follows through on his concerns and says to Netanyahu, this is unacceptable. You're not getting a nickel more from the United States unless you radically change course. We're not going to see hundreds and hundreds of thousands of children starved to death.

Florida Man Ron DeSantis was in a few classrooms; here are some highlights of his chat with Jon Karl on ABC's This Week. 

On his 'closing argument' for Iowa caucus attendees, he said while Trump is "running for his issues," his own campaign is about issues important to voters and their families, and he cited Trump's legal problems in particular. 

You're going to have criminal trials. You're going to have a lot of focus on things like January 6th by the media. And I think that ends up focusing the election on things that are going to be advantageous for Democrats because you're not going to be talking about the border, you're not going to be talking about the economy.

And he pointed to GOP losses, "whether it's 2018, 2020, 2021, 2022..." which the Democrats... have benefitted (from)."

Karl asked why Republican voters are wrong for overwhelmingly thinking Trump's the one who can beat Biden. He says GOP voters "understandably see Biden as a very feeble, weak and poor president" who anyone can beat. He thinks that might have been the case in the last midterm election. 

We probably never had circumstances more favorable for the party. Biden was unpopular, inflation was hot, the border was a disaster, crime -- all these issues. We should have been able -- every Republican with a pulse should have been able to won -- win, and yet the Democrats made it a referendum on Trump and his adjacent candidates, and there's just certain swing voters that just aren't going to go there at that point. And I think that's been the case over and over again.

He also complained about polling done a year or more before the election, showing Trump is winning, and the impact of that. 

Now I do think they're starting to come -- polls showing the opposite, that Biden wins these swing states. But I would imagine as the year goes on, and should Trump be the nominee, all those polls I think are going to show Biden with a lead over Trump. And so, there -- I think it's been somewhat of a mirage, but people see that, and I think that that does register with them.

Ultimately, he said he has "the best path forward" to unite the party and win. We'll see.

Finally, lame-duck Sen. Joe Manchin (Sorta D from WV) chatted with Margaret Brennan (Interrupter-in-Chief, CBS), in the Face the Nation classroom. 

On how Biden specifically, and Dems generally, should approach the 2024 campaign, he recommends honesty about accomplishments, misses, and how to fix mistakes that were made, including immigration policies. He also said Dems have "moved too far to the left."

America is between the center, center-left, center-right. That's where most of the voters are. And that's where the decisions on who's going to be elected, that's what's going to happen. It's not going to happen from the extremes. But we're playing off of the extremes. That's (why) people are just worn out. Enough is enough.

Manchin and his daughter, former pharma CEO Heather Bresch (of EpiPen pricing scandal fame), have formed Americans Together, not to be confused with No Labels, a political party trying to get ballot access across the country. 

Manchin says the problems in the country can't be fixed from Washington.

... – it's the character of the person you send to Washington, who you're voting for and within your state or your district, and if that person has the character to where they put – they put their country before their party, they put their service before themself, all these types of things. And people can detect that. But they have – get that person in the game.

Gerrymandering and closed primaries make it harder to get people who don't have the financial or political backing to get elected. Fixing those would help, but it has to come from outside DC. 

The business model in Washington is too darn good for the Democrat and Republican parties. They're doing too good. They're getting rewarded for bad behavior. And too much money's coming in.

On whether he'll vote for Biden, someone he's harshly criticized for being pulled "...to the extreme left" and not being "the person we thought was going to bring the country together," he said it was "constructive criticism" and added

I love my country too much to vote for Donald Trump. I love my country too much. And I think it would be very detrimental to my country.

And, finally, the big question:  what about a third party, and would he enter the race? Here's his answer to the first part.

I think that we'll find out. You just have to find out what's going on. If there's a movement, if there's a movement for third party, I think is what you're asking about… can that movement make a difference? I'm not going to be a spoiler, never have been and never will be. But people want options, or they want change. So, we got to see what comes. 

By Super Tuesday, he thinks, we'll know what's what. And, on the second part of the question?

I'm going to do everything I can to save my country. And I will do whatever it takes. And I will help whoever. And I will support whoever that I think can best help this country come back to this commonsense, sensible middle, which is center-left, center-right, working together with a majority.  You can't govern from extremes.

Manchin's right: we can't govern from extremes. But we sure can elect extremists, can't we?

See you around campus.                     

Quick Takes (v70): Aren't We Doing Enough?

Rep. Brandon Williams (R-NY-22) is my congressman.  He was not my preferred candidate, but as a constituent, I try and stay engaged.

 Today I received the latest edition of the newsletter, the Williams Weekly Wrap-up, which just happened to arrive on Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, an occasion politicians are incapable of ignoring, regardless of whether they agree with - or practice - Dr. King's philosophy. Here's how Rep. Williams addressed it: 

MLK day is not a day for politicians, it's a day for pastors. We must speak the truth as he did.  "Then your light will appear like the dawn, and your recovery will come quickly. Your righteousness will go before you, and the Lord's glory will be your rear guard." Isaiah 58:8

A bit later in the Wrap-up, Williams wrote about a school in Brooklyn; take a look: 

James Madison High School in Brooklyn was closed down this Wednesday in order to house nearly 2,000 migrants who had previously been at Floyd Bennett Field. 

This short-notice disruption in the lives of American families and the education of American students was the result of numerous successive oversights, at multiple levels of government.

It's not clear if he's counting Congress as one of those "multiple levels of government," but if I had to hazard a guess, I'd say no. His update continues: 

The ongoing migration crisis has been ignored for long enough that now, every state has become a border state, and every city has become a border city.

I joined members of the Education and Workforce Committee in writing to Mayor Adams in hopes that we can receive answers to questions of why a public school was chosen as the site to shelter migrants, whether there are currently any plans to use other public schools to this end, and what will be done moving forward to prepare these facilities to return to educational use.

You can read our letter in its entirety here.

Here's the opening of the letter, which was dated Thursday, January 11th:

We were alarmed to see recent news reports that a school in Brooklyn was closed and students sent home in order to shelter nearly 2,000 migrants. As you know, James Madison High School was ordered to close on Wednesday, January 10, because of the decision to house migrants from Floyd Bennett Field in the school’s gym. These students were forced into unplanned virtual learning, and it remains unclear how long the disruption will last (emphasis added) or whether there will be future disruptions. Furthermore, it appears this was a last-minute decision with little notice given to affected parents. 

The letter didn't miss the opportunity to call out that long-term remote learning isn't optimal - even though the Representatives had no idea how long the remote learning would continue. 

Now, here's my favorite part, with emphasis added: 

We find this school closure completely abhorrent. As we have made clear time and time again, schools should be used for educating students, not housing illegal aliens. It is grossly unfair to penalize school children for a problem not of their making, and it is entirely irresponsible to put illegal aliens over our own citizens... It is shameful that children enrolled in New York City’s public schools had their education interrupted because Democrats have shown so little interest in stopping illegal immigration. The nation’s children should come first, not those who break the law. 

Is your blood boiling yet? Your heart pounding with America First-ness? A "Yeah, screw them!" feeling? Those are the emotions the letter strives to inspire, so please, don't let them down.

It ended with questions for Mayor Adams, with a demand for answers within 14 days. Paraphrasing the letter, why pick a school to put the migrants in? Were they vetted first?  When were parents notified? How long will the school be closed? How is the school being prepared for students to return? Could this happen with other schools? If yes, how and when?

So, why were migrants housed at James Madison High School? The AP's Melissa Goldin fact-checked and posted her findings on the afternoon of January 12th. Here's what she found. 

In anticipation of a potentially damaging storm, nearly 2,000 migrants being housed in tents at an outdoor Brooklyn shelter were moved temporarily to a nearby high school in the borough’s Midwood neighborhood on Tuesday night. All of the migrants had left the school by early the next morning. Classes were held remotely on Wednesday and resumed in person on Thursday.

Per the article, "the migrants had all returned to Floyd Bennett Field by 4:27 a.m. on Wednesday, after winds had subsided." So, by the time the letter was drafted, the migrants, like Elvis, had already left the building.

I'm not a religious person, but that doesn't stop me from looking up verses when I see them, particularly when they're offered up by politicians. As I interpret Isaiah 58, the basic question is "Aren't we doing enough?" and the answer is, pretty much, "No - you're not,"  if you continue to oppress others, finger-point and speak ill of them, and deny them food and shelter. Here are verses 3-7 and 9-10, to add context to verse 8, the one Williams quoted.  

"Why have we fasted, but You have not seen? 

We have denied ourselves, but You haven't noticed!"

"Look, you do as you please on the day of your fast, 

and oppress all your workers.

You fast [with] contention and strife

to strike viciously with [your] fist. 

You cannot fast as [you do] today, [hoping] to

make your voice heard on high.

Will the fast I choose be like this: A day for a person to

deny himself, to bow his head like a reed, and to

spread out sackcloth and ashes? Will you call this a fast

and a day acceptable to the Lord?

Isn't the fast I choose: to break the chains of wickedness,

to untie the ropes of the yoke, 

to set the oppressed free,

and to tear off every yoke?

Is it not to share your bread with the hungry,

to bring the poor and homeless into your house,

to clothe the naked when you see him,

and not to ignore your own flesh [and] blood?

Then your light will appear like the dawn, 

and your recovery will come quickly.

Your righteousness will go before you

and the Lord's glory will be your rear guard.

At that time, when you call, the Lord will answer;

when you cry out He will say: Here I am.

If you get rid of the yoke from those around you,

the finger-pointing and malicious speaking,

And if you offer yourself to the hungry,

and satisfy the afflicted one,

then your light will shine in the darkness,

and your night will be like noonday." 

I could be completely off base with my interpretation, but even if I am, would anyone really be proud to leave them out there, in that storm? 

And would one who was proud of that really be talking about Dr. King today?

Wondering on Wednesday 1/10/24

Ready... set... wonder!

Does anyone else admit to being shocked that Hunter Biden showed up at the House Oversight and Fake Accountability Committee hearing today? And did anyone else have as much fun watching Aaron Rupar's clips as I did?

The point of the hearing, of course, was to do what's called 'marking up' a bill that would hold him in contempt of Congress for refusing to sit for a closed-door deposition as requested by the folks trying to ruin his father make sure no one ever takes advantage of being in office again. I have to say, it was great theater - there was no lack of excitement, that's for sure.  

For example, Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) said both that Biden "had no balls" and that he was "the epitome of white privilege," while Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-You Freaking Kidding Me?) seemed to take offense when Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Constitutional Lawyer) said Greene had previously displayed pornography in the hearing room when she held up Hunter's 'dick pics.' Greene said it was not porn, to which Raskin replied, "You're the expert." Forgive me for this bit of wondering, but did Rep. Mace miss that hearing?

Earlier this week, we were advised that The Former Guy planned on offering closing remarks in his New York civil fraud case on Thursday. Sadly - or fortunately, depending on your point of view - we'll miss the opportunity to see the courtroom campaign rally because the judge isn't going to allow it. 

In an email exchange, Judge Arthur Engoron initially said Trump could speak, as long as he limited his remarks to what's required of attorneys:

commentary on the relevant, material facts that are in evidence and application of the relevant law to those facts.

He would not be allowed to introduce new evidence, "comment on irrelevant matters, or "deliver a campaign speech" or impugn the judge, his staff, the attorney general, her lawyers, or the court system, the judge wrote. 

Needless to say, Christopher Kise, Trump's lawyer, balked at that.

"You are not allowing president Trump, who has been wrongfully demeaned and belittled by an out of control, politically motivated attorney general, to speak about the things that must be spoken about," the attorney wrote.

So, what's the wondering on this one, you're wondering? Not a whole lot, really, other than how amazing it is that Trump can always find attorneys to make fools of themselves, knowing (as they must) that there's a risk they won't be paid their full billable amount, and that they may face legal action themselves for the things they say and the acts they commit on his behalf. 

If you don't believe me, look no further than Alina Habba who offered bizarre, and potentially threatening remarks about Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh, one of Trump's SCOTUS nominees. The Supremes will hear arguments about the 14th Amendment decisions in Colorado and Maine. 

I think it should be a slam dunk in the Supreme Court. I have faith in them. You know, people like Kavanaugh, who the president fought for, who the president went through hell to get into place, he'll step up.

And that makes me wonder what argument Kavanaugh will use, since his answer is pre-ordained.

Oh - one more thing, speaking of 'ordained' - if you haven't yet seen the "God gave us Trump" video, you can see it, and an edited script, in this morning's post. I can't help wondering what religious folks think of all of this. 

What's on your wondering mind tonight?

So... God Gave us Trump?

Have you seen the new Trump Adoration video? It's a total rip-off of the famous 1978 Paul Harvey speech, "So God Made a Farmer," of course, and it's a doozy.

In addition to being full of things God would never say, it's full of comical contradictions, such as Trump coming home hungry - in the dark, as he's seen in this picture - but having to wait for Melania to finish lunch "with friends, and then tell the women to come back real soon - and mean it."  

There are other mismatches between the video and the script; you might need to sit through it a couple of times to catch them all.

I took the opportunity to edit the script; if I had the talent and patience, I'd create a video to go along with it, but I'm pretty sure you'll get the picture - all of the pictures, in fact. 

And on June 14, 1946, God looked down on his planned paradise and said, “I need a charlatan” so God gave us Trump.

And then God said, “I need someone who will play tennis and baseball while stricken with bone spurs, and use those bone spurs as a reason to avoid fighting for his country,” so God gave us Trump.

And then God said “I need someone who will party all night and then get up in the morning and spend all day lying about his business prowess, talking about his money, and showing off his gold-plated toilet,” so God gave us Trump.

And then God said, “I need someone who will salivate over his own daughter, relentlessly promote her sexy body, and suggest that if only she weren’t his child, he’d be dating her,” so God gave us Trump.

Inexplicably, God said, “I need someone who will get up before dawn and cheat on his first wife with his second, his second with his third, and his third with sex workers,” so God gave us Trump.

And then God said, “I need someone who will mock and denigrate women, boast about sexually assaulting them, say because he’s rich he can get away with it, and buy a beauty pageant so he can prowl the contestants' dressing rooms unabated,” so God gave us Trump.

At some point, God said, “I need to test the capacity of Americans to take their civic duty seriously, and to do that we need a celebrity blowhard who used to call into radio shows using fake names to promote himself to run for the president of the United States,” so God gave us Trump. 

And then God said, “I need someone rude enough, with arms strong enough to push his way through a group of world leaders to get in the front for the picture, and stupid enough to share the nation's secrets with people willing to pay to spend time with him," so God gave us Trump.

And then God said, “I need someone strong enough to suck up to dictators like Vladimir Putin, Viktor Orban, Kim Jong Un, and Xi Jinping, and bold enough to talk about how much he admires their strength, their total control over their people, their intelligence, and the pageantry of their military parades,” so God gave us Trump.

Again, inexplicably, God said, “I need someone who’s not afraid to lie about belonging to a church, who says the Bible is his favorite book, is unable to mention even a single passage he’s fond of, who will hold the Good Book upside down for a photo op as protestors are cleared from My house, and autograph copies for his adoring fans,” so God gave us Trump.

And speaking of adoration, God said, “I need someone who doesn’t represent anything I stand for, to gloat while others lay hands on him, proclaim him their Savior, and shout his praises from the pulpit,” so God gave us Trump.

And God said, “I need a patriot who’s unafraid to maul and grope the United States flag as if it was one of his sex workers, to hug it and kiss it while making lewd faces, as a crowd of people who despise many of the freedoms the flag stands for cheer him on,” so God gave us Trump.

And God said, “I need someone so self-centered he will mock our war heroes when they disagree with him, call them losers, say he doesn’t like people who were captured and tortured by our enemies,” so God gave us Trump.

And God said, “I need a leader to tell Americans to ‘get over it’ when faced with yet another school shooting, to proclaim he had the tallest building in New York City after terrorists attacked and destroyed the tallest buildings in New York City, and to comfort natural disaster victims by tossing rolls of paper towels to them,” so God gave us Trump.

And God said, “I need someone who will quote the vile language of evil leaders who came before him, taking the words as his own, knowing that others will immediately rise to his defense and take the words as their own,” so God gave us Trump.

And God said, “I need someone who will lie about everything, who will steal from charities, and who will raise children who do the same,” so God gave us Trump.

And God said, "I need someone who will ignore the law when it suits him, and face dozens of civil and criminal charges; someone who will proclaim immunity no matter what, even murder; who'll talk about 'his judges' as if they swore an oath to him, not to the Constitution, and who will, even now, refuse to commit to accepting the results of an election," so God gave us Trump.

And God said, ‘I need someone who will surround himself with people who believe everything he says, twist and turn his worst ideas into action plans, help strip rights away from anyone who disagrees with or has nothing to offer him, and who are willing to go to the ends of the earth in service to him, but not me,” so God gave us Trump.

And then God shook his head and said, “Holy cow, they actually fell for that?”

January 6, 2024

 

Wondering on Wednesday 1/3/24

It's been a minute since I last 'officially' wondered on a Wednesday, but there's no time like a new year to jump back into the fray. 

Perhaps today, maybe even before I finish this post, part or all of Jeffrey Epstein's 'list' will be released.  The list contains names that were included but redacted in court documents. Among the folks whose names are expected? Former President Bill Clinton, Microsoft founder Bill Gates, Britain's Prince Andrew, former president Donald Trump, and one-time Trump lawyer Alan Dershowitz, if media reports are correct. 

To my knowledge, only one of those folks has suggested that he'd date his daughter, if only she weren't his daughter, and was accused of raping a thirteen-year-old child. But he's not the one who's getting the most attention here... I wonder why that is?

Also rumored to be on the list? Late-night host Jimmy Kimmel, according to noted conspiracy theorist Aaron Rodgers. I'm not exactly sure where Rodgers got his information, and Kimmel has vigorously denied the accusation. When I think of Rogers and conspiracy theories, the one I've wondered about is how he managed to get hurt on the first play of his first game with the NY Jets, and still collect his full salary. 

Harvard president Claudine Gay has tendered her resignation, making her the shortest-tenured president in the school's history. She's had a tough go of it since Rep. Elise Stefanik (MAGA-NY) attacked Gay and two other female college presidents over allegations that they did not sufficiently protect Jewish students from anti-Semitism in the aftermath of the horrific Hamas terrorist attack in Israel last October. Gay is the second to resign; Penn's Liz Magill did so in December. 

Stefanik, a Harvard alum, seems an odd choice to lead the attack on this issue, given her use of 'replacement theory' rhetoric in campaign ads, and her strong support of Trump, who recently spoke of immigrants poisoning the blood of our country. Both of those themes, of course, can be tied back to Nazi Germany. I have to wonder how she ignores that connection, and then attacks others for not doing enough to protect Jews.

Speaking of ignoring things, there was lots of chatter about Ambassagov Nikki Haley (Running in 5-inch heels -SC) and her 'gaffe' at a town hall in New Hampshire, where she said that the cause of the Civil War

was basically how government was going to run. The freedoms and what people could and couldn't do. 

This was after she took a deep breath and suggested that it wasn't an easy question. But here's the thing many in the media missed, which is what I'm wondering about:  this is not the first time she's given this kind of answer. Back in 2010, when she was running for governor of the first state to secede from the Union, she said one side was fighting for tradition and the other side was fighting for change.  

Folks, that's not a gaffe - it's a mindset. And it's perfectly OK for the media to call a spade a spade, especially when a person's standing in a garden holding one by the handle.

Finally, wonder with me as I meander through some of the reasons states shouldn't be allowed to keep Donald Trump off the ballot. 

• There's the argument that, while an insurrectionist is not qualified to hold office, there's no reason why an insurrectionist can't run and win. Now, I don't know for sure why anyone would want to allow a candidate who's not eligible to serve to participate. I mean, Trump himself went to great lengths to convince Americans that Barack Obama was not eligible to be president due to him having a funny name not being a natural-born American... can you imagine Trump allowing an insurrectionist Obama to be on any ballot? 

• There's the argument that the 14th Amendment's Section 3 - the 'Disqualification Clause' - was put in because we needed to keep secessionists out of office, and it "hasn't been used since then," so why would it apply now since the Civil War has nothing to do with what's happening today?  I'm sure folks would be shocked - shocked, I say - to learn that in 2022, a New Mexico judge removed one of the state's county commissioners for participating in the January 6th attack on the US Capitol. 

• There's the argument that Trump hasn't been charged, tried, or convicted of insurrection, so you can't disqualify him. Except that the disqualification clause doesn't require charges, a trial, or a conviction. We certainly shouldn't be putting words into the mouths of the folks who wrote the Amendment, should we? And, there's the little matter of a Colorado district court judge who determined that Trump incited an insurrection on January 6th. That judge stopped short of banning Trump from the ballot, and the state's Supreme Court overturned that part of his decision. 

• Finally, there's the argument that Trump can't be held accountable because we need to prevent a civil war - what a bunch of hooey! We cannot use the threat of danger - especially when that threat has been suggested by you-know-who and his MAGA minions - to allow the Constitution to be tossed aside. And if you think I'm wrong, ask yourself what Trump would be saying right now if any of his opponents had done what he did and were trying to stay on the ballot. There's no need to wonder about that, at all - he'd be suing to block them from every ballot in the country. 

I'd forgotten how good it felt to get this stuff out of my head... what are you wondering about?