Sunday School 10/25/20

A whole bunch of the usual suspects were making the rounds Sunday, including:

•  Kate Bedingfield from the Biden campaign, Corey Lewandowski from the Trump campaign (Meet The Press); 
• Trump's 4th Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (State of the Union); 
• National Security Advisor Robert O'Brien and former FDA Commish Dr. Scott Gottlieb (Face the Nation); and 
• RNC Chair Ronna McDaniel and Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, who's a Biden co-chair (Fox News Sunday). 

I'll plow through all of that and see what might make it into this week's Extra Credit. For now, though, I'm doing something out of character: I'm going to spend time with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. AOC. One of the Squad. She talked with Jake Tapper, and I've got your recap.

In introducing the interview, Tapper said AOC was working to make sure young people turned out to vote, and that she was "taking a novel approach to getting it done." Before they got to that, they talked around some other topics, starting with the stimulus. Tapper asked her if she thought it was time for the Dems to get it passed now. She said it was "incredibly important" but added

...frankly, I think the thing that's important is the Republican side really needs to get their act together. When we hear one thing about an offer from the White House, you also hear Mitch McConnell saying that he doesn't have the votes for it internally. And so, while they're trying to present this united message of kind of having all their ducks in a row, the fact of the matter is, they can't even get their own senators to agree to a pack -- to their own package. And so, really, a lot of this package is going to rely on Democratic votes. It's going to require delivering every Democratic vote in the Senate and peeling off Republican votes to agree to it.

Tapper then asked about fracking, noting AOC had introduced a bill to ban all fracking nationwide within five years. That doesn't jive with Joe Biden's view, which Tapper rightfully called "confusing," and he wondered if she was bothered now, being on the other side of this issue from the party's nominee. She said no, saying Biden

has made very clear that he does not agree with a fracking ban. And I consider that -- you know, it will be a privilege to lobby him should we win the White House. But we need to focus on winning the White House first. And I'm happy to make my case. 

Turning to younger voters, Tapper wondered if the fracking thing would turn them off enough to stay home. AOC said that younger voters have "a very disciplined, activist mind-set" and aren't so much voting for their "favorite person" or someone they think is "perfect."

...right now, young people are so clear on their stances on many political issues, that they believe that they want to vote for a president that is at least going to be receptive to their advocacy, activism and protest... Joe Biden is a much better person in that position to be receptive and actually listen to the voices of advocates than Donald Trump, who is intensely focused on enriching himself and his friends.

She also said that Biden's desire to get rid of subsidies for fossil fuel companies was an "important first step," even if he wouldn't get rid of fossil fuels "for a long time." 

So, when you eliminate government subsidies, they -- it becomes more difficult for fossil fuels to compete in the market. And so, I think, while -- again, while the vice president wants to make sure that he's not doing it by a government mandate or regulation, I do believe that we are moving towards that future.

They talked about her role as a member of Congress under a Biden administration, and whether that included pushing him to the left. AOC said first they had to win, something the Dems have been trying to remind the pundits for the last month or so.

Frankly, I think it would be a privilege and it would be a luxury for us to be talking about what we would lobby... and how we will push the next Democratic administration... my role is consistent, in making sure that we push the Democratic Party to have a larger vision for our future, to listen to the needs of the working class, of people who are living paycheck to paycheck, young people, people of color, because I believe that is the base of the Democratic Party, and that who -- that is who we are, that it is our job to make sure that we are serving all people in the United States, and particularly our base.

Moving on, Tapper mentioned the reported interest by Bernie Sanders in being Labor Secretary in a Biden administration, should there be one. AOC said it was "critically important" that Biden appoints progressive leaders, and that "we're not just going back to how things were and rewinding the tape before the Trump administration." 

The future is now, she thinks,

...and we have the unique, frankly, once-in-a-generation opportunity to have the White House, the Senate and the House majorities Democratically-controlled, then I believe we have an obligation to the American people to show what a Democratic administration can actually accomplish and that we can govern, and that we can truly have leaps in policy that people can feel in their everyday lives that makes voting Democratic worth -- not just worthwhile, but a memorable shift from just a flatline of this idea of bipartisanship, which often just becomes Republican manipulation.

The interview finally turned to AOC playing a video game on Twitch; a half a million people were engaged live, and more than 5M have watched it since. Tapper admitted he had to have his kids explain what the big deal was (maybe I should talk to them?) and he asked AOC whether it was possible to turn playing a video game into voter turnout, and wondered where she got the idea.

She said yes, and she got the idea from the time she spends on social media and seeing folks using Twitch to raise a ton of money for charities. That led to testing it as a voter mobilization strategy.

She said during the game, they were directing people to IWillVote.com, where they could register and develop a plan, something they've been pushing folks to do for some time now. The voting plan matters more than just registering, she said, because "people who make a plan to vote are statistically much more likely to vote" than if they merely register.

And we are seeing early returns in places like Florida, where youth turnout is -- in early voting is astronomically higher than it was than even in 2016. And so, we do know that young people are starting to become an extraordinarily powerful electorate that are issues-focused. 

Tapper told her it was "interesting watching you drag your party into the 21st century," which wasn't the first time they laughed during the interview. 

Last question: Will AOC support Nancy Pelosi, who has indicated she's going to run to continue as Speaker? Saying again that winning was the first priority, and she thinks they will, and growing the majority is also likely, here's her answer.

I believe that we have to see those races as they come, see what candidates are there. I am committed to making sure that we have the most progressive candidate there. But if Speaker Pelosi is that most progressive candidate, then I will be supporting her.

Not a full-throttled endorsement, is it? I have to agree with Tapper's comment - he called her answer "interesting" - and with AOC's apparent hesitancy, even if I disagree with her reasoning. 

See you around the virtual campus. And if I see you outside somewhere, you better be wearing a mask. 

In Case You Missed It (59)

Grab your cuppa whatever, settle down in a comfy chair somewhere, and enjoy this recap of last week's posts.

Sunday School brought us an interview with Lara Trump, the $15,000/month campaign worker, wife of Eric Trump and daughter-in-law of the president. She spoke with Jake Tapper on CNN's State of the Union, at least until he abruptly thanked her off the air.  Before that happened, she offered this explanation for the president's behavior vis a vis the domestic terrorism plot against one of his favorite targets, Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer.

Well, look, this is - he wasn't doing anything, I don't think, to provoke people to threaten this woman at all. He was having fun at a Trump rally... There are issues at hand here that are bigger than just keeping everybody locked down. So, I think people are frustrated. And look, the president was at a rally. It's a fun, light atmosphere. Of course he wasn't encouraging people to threaten this woman. That's ridiculous.

It is ridiculous, she's right about that.  She was equally ridiculous talking about Joe Biden's stutter, which is when Tapper shut her down.

Your Extra Credit task? Taking in interviews with Tom Perez, the chair of the DNC, and Reince Priebus, who was Trump's first (of four) chiefs of staff. The two talked with Margaret Brennan on CBS' Face the Nation.

Perez is hopeless, IMO - and barely quotable, which this close to an election is an offense the party should really deal with - you know, sit him at a desk opposite whatever three famous Dems will be willing to do it, and summarily dismiss him a la the Celebrity Apprentice. Or tweet his fake resignation letter, or something. 

Priebus is still relatively unlikeable, but at least he does a halfway decent interview, defends his candidate at every turn, and attacks the other guy. Here he is talking about what's left of the time on the calendar before Election Day.

I mean, you know, clearly, I think one of the things that you're going to see over the next couple of weeks is that the President's going to be pivoting, talking about the economy. I think this upcoming debate is going to be really important that the President is that, you know, likable, fun, have a good time. 

I don't think Trump had much fun at the debate, given the rules, do you? 

Midweek, I was Wondering on Wednesday about all kinds of stuff, including alleged foreign election interference, but more about the actual domestic election interference being done by the Republicans, or at least by their minions. I gave an earlier example, of the Trump-loving conservative activists were charged for making threatening robocalls, which to me is worse than Iranians making threatening robo-mails. Why? Um, because they're Americans...

I was also talking about the new Ukraine-China stuff that's being dripped out by Rudy Colludy, and the Republicans who are actively complicit in this, or passively so.

And I wonder if I'm the only one wondering if they think releasing this will make more people vote for the ethically-challenged, debt-challenged, Russia-challenged, China-challenged, taxpayer-soaking, lying, bullying, corrupt president, or if they think this will make fewer people vote for the other guy, giving the ethically-challenged, debt-challenged, Russia-challenged, China-challenged, taxpayer-soaking, lying, bullying, corrupt president a better shot at re-election?

I have my ideas on that, how about you? 

Thursday, I did a PPOD  post - that's Pet Peeve of the Day - on the damn Democrats and how horrible they are, once again, at managing PR. This time, the target of my wrath at my former party was the posters-in-chairs boycott of the Senate Judiciary Committee vote to advance the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the full Senate.

I could do a 'Dems are dumb' PPOD at least monthly, I'm sure, without having to stretch my research muscles enough to even wake up my Fitbit. I could have done a dozen just on the impeachment, for Pete's sake.  This time, my own Sen. Chuck Schumer was the focus of my wrath, for a variety of reasons, including these.

I hate to point out that this silliness, during an election where perhaps the highest priority is gaining the majority in the Senate, is not likely to be the kind of thing that's going to push an undecided voter to choose blue. Worse, it might be just the thing to embolden the red guys in the several very close Senate races that the Dems need to win to get the majority. Why feed the beast?

And, with a 17% approval rating for Congress as a whole - the lowest it's been in a year - why don't you at least show up?

And finally, I closed the week with a stranger-than-usual TGIF entry. I had planned on talking seriously about the debate but first I found myself channeling Trump in his post-presidential book, and channeling Melania, as if she was the one who had control of the president's demeanor during the debate. Those two parts were fun to write, for sure.

In summarizing the debate (and I did offer a possible explanation in the post for my take on things), I offered this.

If I were to sum up the night as simplistically as possible, it would be like this: in Donald Trump's world, we'll be kept all warm and fuzzy by surrounding ourselves with piles of really outstanding 401(k) statements and oil company stock certificates and drugs and vaccines while we sit in bars sharing food off the plates of strangers, and if we need them, we have cages for people who don't want to do that, really nice cages Obama built, while in Biden's world, we'll be kept all warm and fuzzy by masks and by surrounding ourselves with allies that trust us, and 'we' includes everyone no matter where they live, even if they were brought here as babies and toddlers from another country by their parents. 

There you have it - the full and veritable pastiche from last week.  See you later for Sunday School.  

TGIF 10/23/20: The Final Debate

TGIF indeed - it's Friday, and that means we don't have any more presidential debates this cycle. And it means that, whether he wins or loses, the president won't be participating in any more of these debates.  

Stepping away for a moment for a standing ovation is fine; I did the same, I surely did. And I remembered reading about the 42-minute-long standing ovation Leontyne Price received at the Met back in '61, and immediately thought that Trump will get a longer one if he loses. 

He'd be proud of that, I'm sure, and he'd tout it in his next book, I'm sure, as one of his great accomplishments: 

When I lost the rigged election, it was rigged and I fought but in the end I lost because everyone was against me, the deep state and the IRS and Pelosi and even the Supreme Court, after I put those three judges there, they all turned on me in the end, you can't trust anyone these days, they turned on me, and all the blue state governors I helped so much during the pandemic when they were nice to me - I helped them, even they admit it, just ask them, at least they did admit it when it was good for them but not any longer, I guess - I got the greatest standing ovation, probably even greater than the late, great Abraham Lincoln - he was almost as great as me, they say, at least some people say, maybe, I don't think he even comes close, really, but that's what they say -  "Sir, Lincoln was almost as great a president as you," that's what they say, I don't know; I got the greatest standing ovation since Lincoln attended that play, or maybe since that black lady sang that song in NYC, horrible what happened to NYC, I used to love it there, but I had to move, like everyone else, bodies piling up everywhere, and taxes, it's horrible what de Blasio and Cuomo did to my city - she was an opera singer, right? I didn't know blacks could sing opera, did you? And she wasn't even fat - how can you sing opera if you're not fat? I mean, that's where the whole 'it ain't over 'til the fat lady sings' come from, right? Fat lady opera singers? It's a good thing they can sing, no one likes a fat lady, right? I remember one time I said I'd go into the crowd at one of my rallies and kiss all the beautiful women, and the good-looking men, and I even said I'd kiss the rest of them, but not, you know, the 'opera singers,' if you know what I mean... Great ovation I got - the people stood and clapped for hours, not just 42 minutes like they did for her. I think some of them are probably still clapping now. Greatest ovation ever, by far, especially if you count the internet and all the networks, even MSDNC and fake news CNN and the papers, the failing New York Times and the Bezos Post and all the rest, add it all up and it was probably the greatest standing ovation since Jesus. I love the evangelicals, and they love me, and I can imagine how hard they clapped for me, all I did for them. I did a lot for them, and they know it, and they hopefully will never forget it. What an ovation, it was really something, wasn't it? Greatest ovation ever.

Anyway, back to the debate. 

Kristen Welker of NBC was the first debate moderator of the modern era - the era in which we use long-available technology to threaten to silence, or actually silence both the loudmouth bully and the folksier interrupter, so that we could actually hear their messages.

At the beginning of the festivities, the president looked for all practical intents and purposes as if he was sedated. He seemed to more resemble the cardboard cutout of him I have in the corner of my office, with an impeached sign hanging around his neck, than the image he typically presents. Whether it was drugs, or some kind of shocking device (maybe Melania had a voice-activated one hidden in her mask?

I told the Donald, he can't keep bullying everyone. He needs to #BeBest and like a great First Lady, I will help my husband when he needs me. I know the signs and when I see them, I will shock his bone spurs and he will straighten up and he will not be a bully to the poor old man or to the woman at the desk. He needs to be nicer to the woman at the desk, he needs the women to vote for him. Or we will have to go home. Except we can't go home because he moved us Florida. I miss New York. There is nothing to do in Florida. Maybe if my voice thing doesn't #BeBest I can go home. I want to go home. Je veux aller a la maison. Quiero ir a casa. Ich will nach Hause gehen. Voglio andare a casa. If it doesn't work, "I don't really care, do u?"

Anyway, they talked about a bunch of stuff, including the pandemic, American families, race in American, climate change, national security and leadership.  The president talked about himself, and about Biden's money and "houses all over the place" which was one of the funniest things he's ever said, and about Obamacages and about maybe one day having a thought about having an idea about having a great health insurance plan and protecting pre-existing conditions, as if the goal is to make sure people have them, not that they have insurance that covers them.  Biden talked about the people, and about being a president for everyone whether they voted for him or not, and about not China, and about who the president was running against.

If I were to sum up the night as simplistically as possible, it would be like this: in Donald Trump's world, we'll be kept all warm and fuzzy by surrounding ourselves with piles of really outstanding 401(k) statements and oil company stock certificates and drugs and vaccines while we sit in bars sharing food off the plates of strangers, and if we need them, we have cages for people who don't want to do that, really nice cages Obama built, while in Biden's world, we'll be kept all warm and fuzzy by masks and by surrounding ourselves with allies that trust us, and 'we' includes everyone no matter where they live, even if they were brought here as babies and toddlers from another country by their parents. 

Of course, all of this could be just the hangover fog from the cider donuts and wine that I consumed during the debate.

#MAGAMA.  Please, vote like your life depends on it. Because it does. 

PPOD 10/22/20: Chuck Schumer's Dems

The Senate Judiciary Committee moved the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett on to the next phase, to the full Senate, with a vote likely coming on Monday. I can't think of anything that will stop that from happening, barring some sudden urge to set her nomination aside and, I don't know, consider some legislation, or start another investigation, or something. 

The vote was unanimous, I guess. All twelve Republicans voted yes. All ten Democrats didn't bother showing up to vote.  

Oh, wait. Sorry Excuse me. All ten Democrats boycotted the vote. Sorry if I misrepresented what happened today. I'll let my very own Senator, Chuck Schumer, explain.

Democrats will not lend a single ounce of legitimacy to this sham vote in the judiciary... The nomination of Amy Coney Barrett is the most illegitimate process I have ever witnessed in the Senate, and her potential confirmation will have dire, dire consequence for the Senate, for the Supreme Court, and our entire country for generations to come. The Senate Republican majority is conducting the most rushed, the most partisan, and the least legitimate nomination to the Supreme Court in our nation's history.

Blah blah blah, wah wah wah, sis boom bah.

As a former Dem, I'm (still) embarrassed by what passes for leadership in the party. Between House Speaker Nancy 'Let me clap you back and tear up your speech and fill my quiver with lots of arrows' Pelosi, and Chuck 'I never met a camera I didn't like' Schumer (there are others, too), it's hard to look at the leadership of the party with any respect. (Pelosi herself has been a PPOD recipient in the past.)

Rather than skipping out on the meeting, the adult thing to do would have been to show up,  explain one more time for the record why it was the wrong thing for the Judiciary Committee to do, respond to whatever statements the Rs made (instead just reading their remarkably similar prepared remarks), and then voting against moving the nomination forward. 

Instead, they put pictures of people who benefited from the Affordable Care Act in their chairs, and hoped that their colleagues on the other side of the aisle would look at those, feel bad, and delay the vote. Not only that, but it seems they also thought that not showing up would mean the vote wouldn't happen. Schumer said "the rules require a quorum" and for the Judiciary Committee, that means at least 9 Rs and two Ds would have to be present to hold a vote. The thought that the rules would apply here, or on any other issue related to Mitch McConnell's relentless march towards as close to a 100% conservative federal judiciary as is humanly possible, is absurd.  (McConnell, too, is a previous PPOD recipient).

I hate to point out that this silliness, during an election where perhaps the highest priority is gaining the majority in the Senate, is not likely to be the kind of thing that's going to push an undecided voter to choose blue. Worse, it might be just the thing to embolden the red guys in the several very close Senate races that the Dems need to win to get the majority. Why feed the beast?

And, with a 17% approval rating for Congress as a whole - the lowest it's been in a year - why don't you at least show up?

For their childishness, for their ill-advised PR stunt, for failing to show up and do their jobs, for thinking the rules would apply, and for pulling this crap now, with so much hanging in the balance, Chuck Schumer and the Judiciary Committee Dems are my Pet Peeve of the Day.

Wondering on Wednesday 10/21/20

Ready... Set... Wonder!

Well, what's to my wondering mind should appear, but an announcement that the FBI is going to make a major announcement about election security tonight. I wonder why people are wondering why that's going to be something about Hunter Biden? 

What else? The president walked out of his 60 Minutes interview, and threatened to release the video himself, taking it out of the hands of the network and interviewer Leslie Stahl. He hasn't said why he walked out but he attacked her, of course, because that's what he does to women who don't agree with him. Sometimes, it's almost like he's so upset about these interviews that he's got blood coming out of his... wherever, or something.

The president is not going to be happy that his own FBI is pointing fingers at Iran and Russia, not Iran and China, right now, live. Apparently these two foreign actors have obtained voter registration info, including perhaps email addresses and are sending fake stuff to people trying to scare them into thinking their votes will not be safe. I don't have to wonder why foreign folks try this stuff, because we've already seen American actors try something similar, including a couple of big fans of the president, who allegedly orchestrated threatening robocalls to Detroit residents, advising among other things that if they voted by mail, their information would be used for mandatory vaccination tracking.

We've got another debate tomorrow night, with mute buttons. Trump people are upset because this means it won't be a cage match, and the president will have to act like, I don't know, a regular person and not scream and shout and bully his way through the questions - no wondering that he's upset about that. And again, it's a woman moderator, Kristen Welker and from NBC, and he hasn't gotten over his 'loss' to Savannah Guthrie on his ill-fated town hall... Biden people are probably less annoyed by the changes, and actually may like them, because that'll cut out Biden's own less-than-presidential comments and interjections when Trump was talking. We'll see if it makes a difference, but I'm not holding out hope that it will.

I wonder if I'm the only one sitting back and watching elected officials who support the ethically-challenged, debt-challenged, Russia-challenged, China-challenged, taxpayer-soaking, lying, bullying, corrupt president summoning all of the available righteous indignation they can muster to try and get Twitter, the media, and Rudy Giuliani, the president's Russia-challenged, Borat-challenged personal attorney to do their work for them? 

And I wonder if I'm the only one wondering why, if this weren't 1000% election interference on the part of said personal attorney and right-wing media, they held back allegedly more damaging information, to be released between now and November 3rd?  

And I wonder if I'm the only one wondering if they think releasing this will make more people vote for the ethically-challenged, debt-challenged, Russia-challenged, China-challenged, taxpayer-soaking, lying, bullying, corrupt president, or if they think this will make fewer people vote for the other guy, giving the ethically-challenged, debt-challenged, Russia-challenged, China-challenged, taxpayer-soaking, lying, bullying, corrupt president a better shot at re-election?

Honestly? I don't wonder about those last three things, at all. For the first, I know I'm not alone. For the second, I know I'm not alone. And for the third, we know it's the latter. 

What are you wondering about?

Sunday School 10/18/20 Extra Credit

For your Extra Credit, I bring you Margaret Brennan's Face the Nation interviews with current DNC head Tom Perez and former RNC head and former Trump Chief of Staff Reince Priebus.

Perez was up first; Brennan wondered about the polls, and more importantly whether the Dems had done enough to drive the kind of voter turnout, whether by mail, or early voting, or voting on Election Day.

Perez said he cautions people to "never get on the 'poller-coaster'," and that they're not taking anything for granted - and he pointed to enthusiasm "all over the country." He said Dems turning ballots in, including a whole lotta Dems who didn't vote in the last two elections.  And they're still focusing on the battleground states.

Brennan mentioned polling from Arizona showing 56% of likely voters blame the Dems more than the Rs for not getting a stimulus bill passed, and wondered if holding out for a big bill might backfire on them. Perez had a bit of an issue trying to answer this one, starting out by pointing to the Amy Coney Barrett SCOTUS nomination, and the bill the Dems passed back in May that the Rs ignored, and what not, eventually landing on how the Dems have been fighting and that this is a "health care election." Brennan pointed out that "fighting, talking and doing are two different things," and that the 'not doing' is why people were pointing fingers at the Dems. 

She moved on to a recent court loss, where the Rs won on a ruling that mail-in ballots must be received by 8PM on Election Day in Michigan, and wondered how that might impact things. Again, Perez meandered around, talking about what happened in Wisconsin back in April, and energy, and early voting and what not. But, when Brennan asked, "so, you don't see this as damaging?" here's what he had to say.

Well, I would rather-- I-- I believe democracy works better when everyone can cast their ballot and every ballot is counted. We're in an unprecedented pandemic here, and courts in other states have allowed votes that were postmarked by Election Day to be counted as long as they're received within a short period of time after Election Day. This court did it differently. I disagree categorically with that ruling. But we are moving ahead in Michigan. We're moving ahead everywhere. And again, the pandemic in Michigan-- the pandemic everywhere. This is a crisis. People understand this President has no plan. His closing argument in Michigan is "lock her up." He's fanning the flames of division. He doesn't have a plan for the coronavirus. He doesn't have a plan--for the economy. He's divisive. Joe Biden is bringing us together...People in Michigan remember that it was Joe Biden and Ba-- Barack Obama who saved the auto industry--when Republicans were letting it die.

 And that was that. Let's see how Priebus did during his turn, starting with the first question: is he concerned about the president's chances, as was reported in the Sunday paper?

No, not at all. In fact, I'm not concerned about that at all. I'm-- I'm-- I'm concerned about early vote. I'm concerned about absentee ballot voting, but I'm always worried about early vote and absentee ballot voting. I haven't reemerged. I have always been helpful to the President, helpful to the RNC. But, look, you know, early vote and where we're-- we're at in a pandemic and having five times more people vote in Florida than ever before, these are unprecedented times. The polling is all over the map. This is something that's going to come down to the wire, and I hope and expect the President to win.

About battleground states, he said poling is tough, and talked about the demographics, "working class white voters, suburban women... rural parts of the country" and how the president is winning, and

pushing thirty points ahead in rural America with enthusiasm off the charts. Yes, it's a little bit down in the suburbs. But the hard thing for these pollsters, Margaret, as you bring up, is that they can't measure this kind of disparity between the rural parts of this country and what's happening in the suburbs.

Brennan asked if he thought Trump was going to win Wisconsin, and Priebus seems to think that's the case. He compared Trump winning in 2016 after being down six-and-a-half points on average in the polls, plus the Libertarian Gary Johnson got over 100,000 votes, so it sounded like he thinks so. 

And when Brennan pointed out that Trump's base, the white, non-college-educated voter that turned out in droves for him shrinking, at current polling anyway, Priebus said 

I mean, you know, clearly, I think one of the things that you're going to see over the next couple of weeks is that the President's going to be pivoting, talking about the economy. I think this upcoming debate is going to be really important that the President is that, you know, likable, fun, have a good time. Let Joe Biden speak, and let Joe Biden defend the Obama economy. Let him defend why ISIS was running wild and burning people in cages...

They agreed it's hard to predict what's going to happen, particularly with the pandemic looming large, and that it's hurting the president with voters. In response, Priebus fell back on the go-to talking points, the China travel ban, the task force, the CARES Act, and added

Well, look, I mean, granted, Margaret. Sure, no one likes what's going on in this country. No one likes that their kids are at home and no one likes that a lot of these states are shut down by Democrat governors. That's all true-- but the question is would this person over here, Joe Biden, have done things better or differently?

He also said he thinks Thursday's debate will make a difference for the president. 

"We'll be watching," Brennan said. I'll try again, but how long I last all depends on which ring of the circus we're facing.

See you around the virtual campus. And if you submit your comments to me after the debate on Thursday, you'll really get some extra credit!

Sunday School 10/18/20

Folks, tonight I have for you an interview with Lara Trump who, along with Kimberly "The Best is Yet to COME!!!" Guilfoyle, is one of the $15,000-per-month hidden campaign payroll women who are close to Trump sons. 

Lara, who is Eric Trump's wife, sat down with Jake Tapper on CNN's State of the Union for a fascinating exercise in classroom futility. It started, as Tapper's recent sessions have, with his lament at the lack of availability of anyone - literally anyone - from the White House to talk about important things, or should I say, things related to the coronavirus. 

Tapper asked her about the president's rally the other day when Mr. Trump suggested that we "lock them all up" as the crowd chanted to lock up Michigan's Gretchen Whitmer. And what did Mrs. Trump think about all of that? Well, she said, "it was the president's Department of Justice that actually thwarted" the plot against Whitmer, and that in Michigan, she thinks people "still feel like they are totally locked down" and "want to get back to some normalcy."

When Tapper pointed out that policy disagreements are one thing, but this kind of rhetoric is unhelpful, and maybe "the president should tone it down when talking about people about home there have literally been threats against their lives," Trump said she can show him her own social media and threats against her and her children, and that "this is not just on one side..." Tapper said threats against her are detestable, but pointed out that Joe Biden isn't encouraging this kind of thing - and if he were, Tapper would be calling on Biden to tone it down as well. 

Seeing that her argument wasn't going anywhere, she turned to a different tactic.

Well, look, this is - he wasn't doing anything, I don't think, to provoke people to threaten this woman at all. He was having fun at a Trump rally... There are issues at hand here that are bigger than just keeping everybody locked down. So I think people are frustrated. And look, the president was at a rally. It's a fun, light atmosphere. Of course he wasn't encouraging people to threaten this woman. That's ridiculous.

That's one word for it, I guess. 

Tapper moved on to Trump's problem with women, like the ones in a video he shared who have concerns about how the president has handled the pandemic, and asked how she would respond to them. She hit all the required talking points, including slamming Biden on his "lucrative" connections to China, and added "we have therapeutics that the president, the president himself, has proven by using them and coming over COVID. He's done with COVID now, and they work." And, she added, "the president has done, actually, an incredible job, Jake, with the coronavirus."

Tapper tried to explain the numbers, including the highest death rate in the world. She said that "we're coming out of it, we're seeing the death rate decrease dramatically." And, 

We also have a huge population. Whenever you want to compare us to Canada, compare us to Europe. We're doing actually much better than Europe is... not only with the virus, but financially. We are. These are numbers. You can go look them up. 

"Look them up! Look them up!! Look them up!" Look up those pesky facts, if you want to. Perhaps she should?

And when she said "Joe Biden, with the socialist policies he's trying to implement, would actually ruin America," Tapper gave up and tried to shift to "some questions where we can get direct answers."

• "I assume the answer is yes," that the president tested negative before the first debate, but she wasn't there and didn't know for sure.
• "Again, I -- I don't work in the White House. You will have to ask the president that directly (whether he'll release a negative test for everyone to see before Thursday's debate). He just had COVID. He has now been cleared of COVID, so that means he's had a negative test. I'm sure he will have another one before he goes to this debate."
• "If we're asked to wear masks, we will absolutely do so" at the debate."
• "We know that people get out of the White House and they get very lucrative book offers. They get speaking engagements, where paid a lot of money, Jake, to go out and say very negative things about this president," regarding comments from General John Kelly.

Tapper moved on to comments she and the president had made about Joe Biden's stutter (here's my Sidebar on that), and asked her how it makes kids with stutters feel when she makes fun of people like them.

LT: First and foremost, I had no idea that Joe Biden ever suffered from stutter. I think what we see on stage with Joe Biden, Jake, is very clearly a cognitive decline. That's what I'm referring to. It makes me uncomfortable to watch someone on stage search for questions and  try and figure out an answer.

JT: You have no - you have - I can't -  it's so amazing - it's amazing to me that... "a cognitive decline." You...

LT: Well, when you're trying to tell me that what I was suggesting was stuttering... 

JT: I think that you were mocking his stutter.

LT:  ...I had no idea Joe Biden...

JT: Yes, I think you were mocking his stuffer.

LT: Of course I wasn't, Jake. Wow. 

JT; And I think you have absolutely no standing to diagnose somebody's cognitive decline, especially...

LT: I'm not diagnosing, I'm saying that we see the Joe Biden of today is not the Joe Biden of five years ago, of ten years ago.

JT: I would think that somebody in the Trump family would be more sensitive to people who do not have medical licenses diagnosing politicians from afar. Plenty of people have diagnosed (the president) from afar. I'm sure it offends you. You don't have any standing to say...

LT: I'm not diagnosing him.  What I'm saying, Jake...

JT: You just talked about a cognitive decline.

LT: ...is that we can clearly see that Joe Biden is struggling...

JT: I have one last question for your, Lara. You campaigned...

LT:  ... at many times on stage. And that's very concerning to a lot of people that this could be the leader of the free world. That's all I'm saying.

JT:  Thank you, Lara Trump.

LT.  I genuinely feel sorry for Joe Biden.

JT. I appreciate it.  I'm sure it was from a place of concern. We all -- we all believe that. Lara Trump, thank you so much.

And that was the end of their chat. 

Let me know your thoughts in the comments. Do you think Lara Trump is concerned about Joe Biden? Or do you think she's being a Trump and making the kind of comments her husband, brother-in-law, and father-in-law are known for? And how would we know for sure? Drop a comment, if you like.

See you around the virtual campus - masks on, of course.

In Case You Missed It (v58)

Last week was a sparse week for posts - I decided to spend time enjoying life rather than aggravating over all of the craziness out there in the world.  

That said, here's your week in review; grab your cuppa, a mimosa, or a Bloody Mary and dive in.

For your Sunday School entry, I checked in with Margaret Hoover, who does some pretty good interviews with folks on Firing Line. A conservative, Hoover's not trying to break news on her show, I don't think; instead, she's trying to give us a good look at a single interviewee over the course of her 30 minute show. I think it's an effective format, and I'm going to pay more attention to her show. 

Last week, she talked with Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) about the stimulus (she prefers a comprehensive bill because it allows for negotiation more than one-off bills do) and about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's 25th Amendment bill (wrong thing, wrong time), and about the coronavirus pandemic. Here's an exchange on what might have been different under a Democratic administration.

It's not even about a Democratic alternative. If the COVID response had actually even just followed any type of scientific recommendations you would see a much better response and fewer death rates and spread of the virus than it had under President Trump.

But, she added, it's more than that.

I've watched Republican administrations respond to pandemics, specifically as President Bush did. So I would think it's not just about Democrats or Republicans, it's about president Trump's failures. 

Not sure anyone can really argue with that.

Your Extra Credit entry included Margaret Brennan's um, question-and-no-answer session, I guess you'd call it, with RNC Chair Ronna McDaniel. I'm not going to quote that one here; you can read it and weep at your leisure. 

Also on the show? Leonard Schleifer, the head of Regeneron, the company that makes the 'cure' that the president got at Walter Reed when he went there to work for a few days, and have his picture taken and stuff. Oh, sorry -- and to get treated for COVID-19, sorry. Among the things we learned? His company has a huge government contract to make the drug, which was worked out 

...before we actually had any data from randomized trials. They went ahead and said, listen, you start manufacturing the product, we will commit to buy it from you. Stop manufacturing the other products that you're working on or move them elsewhere. And let us make sure that if it does work, it'll be available. And what the government said--

That's a $450M contract for Regeneron, and Brennan wondered how much supply that will buy.

Well, they bought from us several hundred thousand, maybe around three hundred thousand doses, which they are going to make it for free. What I think that the administration has been working recently-- I saw an announcement with-- with AstraZeneca. Look, we need-- Regeneron can't do this alone. We need the entire industry. And I'm so proud the industry has risen. We have companies like Lilly, great companies. We're partners with Roche, one of the best companies in this whole field. Amgen is involved. AstraZeneca is involved. Black-Scholes is involved. We all have to step up-- if we're going to provide enough of this.

Brennan pointed out that, last Friday alone, we saw nearly 60,000 new cases, and in Regeneron's FDA application for emergency use authorization, the company said they had 50,000 doses - less than a current one-day supply...

It's important to note that Regeneron is just one of several companies the government has committed a boatload of taxpayer money to - some $2B -  on the hopes that their therapeutics and vaccines will work. 

Mid-week, I was Wondering on Wednesday about the SCOTUS hearings in the Senate, about the 'too bad, so sad' outcome of the DOJ's investigation into the 'unmasking' of Michael Flynn - no charges will be issued -  and about masks and stuff. On that last point, I shared this experience from a visit to a restaurant when My Sweet Baboo and I were on a road trip. 

Two gentlemen and  'face coverings required for entry' signs attracted my attention.  Gentleman A came in with who appeared to be his wife and two kids, fully and appropriately masked. However, his mask was tucked firmly against the underside of his nostrils. Gentleman B, one of two who arrived together on separate motorcycles, apparently didn't have a mask or doesn't wear one, but he tried to rise to the occasion today by holding his t-shirt in his teeth and tucking his nose down so it pointed into his shirt. 

And I wonder, first of all, why they thought what they were doing was appropriate and in keeping with the requirement? And secondly, why did the waitress allow them to come in when clearly the potentially dangerous parts of their faces were uncovered? And finally, specifically regarding Gentleman B, how on earth did I keep from busting out laughing? 

How, indeed. 

By far, my favorite post of the week was Thursday's: my  Town Hall Questions for the Candidates, in which I asked the questions I've always wanted to ask Trump and Biden. For example, since the media only talks to Biden about the coronavirus, and his campaign primarily talks to us about the coronavirus, I thought I'd ask about policy. You know - immigration, Middle East Peace, infrastructure, and so on. And, I asked about education:

Do you believe that public education funds should be given to parents, directly or through tax breaks, to help cover the costs of sending their children to private elementary or secondary schools?  Please explain your position.

For the president, who likes to focus on 'promises made, promises kept' in his campaign materials, I wanted to know a couple things from him that are immigration-related. For example, 

How much money has the United States charged Mexico for the border wall, how much of that has been paid, and what are your plans to collect any outstanding balance from the Mexican government?

And this one, too.

What specific steps has your company taken to ensure that you no longer hire undocumented workers at your properties, and should other companies be required to take the same steps?

Promises, blah blah blah. 

That was all I published. I did have a TGIF post that I threw in the trash, because the words weren't really flowing well. All I managed to get on the page was this picture.

It seemed unfair to post that without any explanation - do you agree?

Have a great day - - I'll be back later with your Sunday School. 

Town Hall Questions for the Candidates

As you know, we were supposed to have a town hall-style debate tonight, but then the president got COVID, went to the hospital, went for a ride, went home, and such. And so, we were going to have a virtual debate instead of a joint town hall. 

But the president thought that was stupid, so he refused, and the debate was cancelled. But then he was cured of COVID, and decided that he'd have a town hall opposite the one that Joe Biden decided to have once the debate was cancelled. So, Biden's on ABC from Philly, and Trump's on NBC from somewhere in Florida. 

No one asked me what I wanted to ask them, but regular readers know that I don't really worry too much about stuff like that. Heck, if I waited for someone to ask me what I thought, we wouldn't be having this conversation, would we?

So, without further ado, here are my questions, first for Joe Biden:

1. What is your highest immigration policy priority, and what specifically would your administration do to address it?
2. Do you believe that public education funds should be given to parents, directly or through tax breaks, to help cover the costs of sending their children to private elementary or secondary schools?  Please explain your position.
3. Would you work to re-open negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, to try and come up with a two-state solution? If yes, how would you approach this? If not, why not?
4. Would you support a 21st century Works Progress Administration and Civilian Conservation Corps to help put Americans to tackle infrastructure projects and maintenance in our national parks and forests? If not, why not?
5. What are three things (other than filling Cabinet and other key positions) a Biden/Harris administration would focus on in the first 100 days?

And for Donald Trump:

1. Many people think you are a bully, obnoxious, and a bad role model for young people. Looking back on your behavior throughout your first term, what if anything would you do differently to help change that impression of you, and what if anything will you do differently should you be re-elected?
2. How much money has the United States charged Mexico for the border wall, how much of that has been paid, and what are your plans to collect any outstanding balance from the Mexican government?
3. Who is your favorite dictator, and why?
4. What specific steps has your company taken to ensure that you no longer hire undocumented workers at your properties, and should other companies be required to take the same steps?
5. If you weren't talking about yourself all the time, who would you be talking about?

I don't expect we'll hear anything like this during the town halls tonight, but hey - you never know.

Wondering on Wednesday 10/14/20

 

Ready... Set... Wonder!

Where to start with this week's wondering? Well, there's the Amy Coney Barrett hearings in the Senate, where (at least yesterday, anyway) many of the questions were silly (what's on your notepad, young lady? And whatever it was that Sen. Mazie Hirono was talking about, for example). Today, many of the questions from both sides were about the Affordable Care Act, which several Republican state Attorneys General sued to toss out. One of those states? Indiana, Barrett's home state. 

I mention that, because according to a few reports, she said she didn't know that Trump ran on, and continues to run on, getting rid of the ACA. I wonder how anyone in a state that's part of the suit to kill it can pretend to be unaware of his position, certainly not someone who was just appointed to the bench in 2017 - during, of course, the Trump administration... How stupid do they think we are, I wonder?

If you're of a certain age, you probably remember the threat of things being put on your permanent record...And today, with a particularly insane tweet from the president mocking the elderly, the infirm, residents of senior housing, nursing homes, rehab centers, and, of course, Joe Biden, I thought of the old 'permanent record' thing. And I wonder what it will be like for folks in the future to read through our history, from Bush to Obama to Trump, and wonder what the hell happened to our country? And I wondered how weird it would be to look at that permanent record, at some point in the future, and find out what happened to the person who added all this crap to it.  

 

I also have to wonder, only for about three seconds or so, why the powers that be on the peacock network decided to host a town hall meeting with IMPOTUS at the same time Joe Biden is doing a town hall on another network. Three, two, one, money. Simple, right?  I mean, it's not because they feel a compelling desire to have Americans hear from Trump, the man who never shuts up. It's not that they are at all interested in having people hear from Joe Biden, because they don't care about that, either. On the plus side?  Nah, there is no plus side. 

My Sweet Baboo and I went for our third and likely final fall foliage road trip of 2020 today, and there came a time when finding 'facilities' and food was more important than looking at pretty stuff. We stopped at a diner we've driven by without stopping at least a couple dozen times over the years. I don't have to wonder anymore about the food - it was delish. The facilities? Clean, well appointed and not in use when we arrived - a huge plus.  

Two gentlemen and  'face coverings required for entry' signs attracted my attention.  Gentleman A came in with who appeared to be his wife and two kids, fully and appropriately masked. However, his mask was tucked firmly against the underside of his nostrils. Gentleman B, one of two who arrived together on separate motorcycles, apparently didn't have a mask or doesn't wear one, but he tried to rise to the occasion today by holding his t-shirt in his teeth and tucking his nose down so it pointed into his shirt. 

And I wonder, first of all, why they thought what they were doing was appropriate and in keeping with the requirement? And secondly, why did the waitress allow them to come in when clearly the potentially dangerous parts of their faces were uncovered? And finally, specifically regarding Gentleman B, how on earth did I keep from busting out laughing? 

I wonder about other stuff too, like what a crushing blow it must have been to the president when Snitty Snitty Bill Barr's DOJ investigation into the 'unmasking' of Michael Flynn ended with no substantive findings and no charges - in effect, a highly awaited "October Surprise" that wasn't. Trump has repeatedly said that Barr is either "going down as the greatest AG in the history of our country, or he'll go down as just a regular guy." I doubt the latter will happen, after his shenanigans and statements and obfuscations and all that, but Trump can dream, I guess. I mean, clearly he does that, right? No need to wonder about that at all.

And finally, we learned today that Barron Trump also had tested positive for the coronavirus, but has since tested negative. I'm happy about that, I really am. I'd wondered about his health during the time that both his parents were infected with COVID. I'd also wondered about Melania's health as well, since we were not hearing about that. Today we learned that she has now tested negative for the virus, and I'm happy about that, too.  

When the president was asked about Barron, after Melania's note was published on the White House website, his answer? "Barron's fine. And Amy's doing a fantastic job, and we're heading out to Iowa, and we have a big rally, a lot of people, as always, but we have a lot of people and we look forward to it. Again, Amy I think is doing an incredible job." I can't help wondering what it feels like to be the person the question was actually about.

What's got you wondering tonight?

Sunday School 10/11/20 Extra Credit

For Extra Credit this week, I offer Margaret Brennan's conversation with Ronna McDaniel, the chair of the Republican National Committee, on Face the Nation. McDaniel's one of the whopping mess of Republicans with COVID-19, is recovering at home, and feeling better, she said.

Highlights from their discussion:

She's not seeing in the RNC numbers that there's been a drop in the president's numbers because of his not being on the campaign trail - in fact, she said, they've seen an increase in his numbers, and suggested that stems from voters being frustrated "by the corrupt debate commission" for canceling the 2nd debate. And when Brennan reminded her that there are Republicans on the Commission for Presidential Debates, she said they are not 'non-partisan Republicans. Those Republicans have been very critical of this president." And, comically, she accused them of not following the science! 

In response to Brennan's question about the economy being Trump's "most resonant message" but he's tied with Biden in Michigan on who'd handle the economy, and why the message seemed not to be working,  she continued talking about the debate, about the Supreme Court, blah blah blah, and finally said the president "is doing better on" the economy; that the PPP loans are "what saved this economy." 

There was a point where Brennan tried - really tried to get McDaniel to answer a simple question: is the president going to resume holding in-person fundraisers. Here's how that went:

RMcD: Margaret. You have a candidate for president right now-- doing an absolute personal power grab. No, Joe Biden is running on the biggest power grab in history, and you guys want to talk about fund-raising protocols? He is saying he's going to stack--

 MB: I want to ask what the President's doing in the next few days, because you are twenty-three days from an election.

RMcD: He's going to say he's going to stack the Supreme Court, get rid of the filibuster and he's being given a free pass. This should be all the media is focused on. I understand you don't like Donald Trump. I understand we don't like Republicans.

MB: Actually, he-- you said the President--

RMcD: We have a Democrat running on the biggest power grab, the absolute biggest power grab in the history of our country and reshaping the United States of America--

 MB: Okay, so--

RMcD: --and not answering the question. That's all we should be talking about.

MB: Okay, so I think you--

RMcD:  That's all we should be talking about.

MB: I think you answered the question of yes assuming-- resuming in-person fund-raisers for the President.

RMcD: No, we--

MB: But let me ask you about--

RMcD: Who cares?

MB:  --voting.

RMcD: Who cares if we have fund-raisers when you have a candidate running to upend--

MB: Because it's the President. I want to know what he's doing. Let's--

RMcD: But he's going to upend checks and balances in the third branch of government. Why are we not--

MB:  Well, he's going to hold rallies in the next few days.

RMcD:  --talking about this non-stop? No, this is Joe Biden who's going to upend checks and balances, get rid of the checks and balances that are fundamental to our Constitution and won't answer if he's going to stack the Supreme Court.

MB: Well, let's-- let's talk about--

RMcD: This is all the media should be focusing on.

That was fun, right?  It's pretty clear that McDaniel should not be booked on any of the shows, because she has no intention of answering questions. Brennan should have cut the interview off - they all should do that -respectfully, of course.

Another guest? Leonard Schleifer, the head of Regeneron, the company that made the experimental antibody cocktail the president took as part of his COVID-19 treatment. Brennan asked Schleifer whether his drug cures COVID and makes you immune (the president has said both of those things).

So the President's case is a case of one, and that's what we call a case report. And it is evidence of what's happening, but it's kind of the weakest evidence that you can get. Although, there are some very interesting aspects of his case, such as he was elderly, he had some risk factors, and that he did not have his own immune system in gear when he was sick and he got treated with our immune system in a vial, if you will. But the real evidence has to come about how good a drug is and what it will do on average has to come from these larger clinical trials, these randomized clinical trials, which are the gold standard. And those are ongoing. We've got some preliminary evidence that we've talked with the FDA, and we're going for an emergency use authorization because we think it's appropriate at this time. But, yes, the President's case is a case report, perhaps the most analyzed case report ever-- but it's just low down on the evidence scale that we really need.

He said the drug does create immunity, and that immunity is "probably going to last you for months." And, as to the president saying he wants the drug to be free for everyone, Schleifer said they had talked about that, earlier this year,

...before we actually had any data from randomized trials. They went ahead and said, listen, you start manufacturing the product, we will commit to buy it from you. Stop manufacturing the other products that you're working on or move them elsewhere. And let us make sure that if it does work, it'll be available. And what the government said--

That's a $450M contract for Regeneron, and Brennan wondered how much supply that will buy.

Well, they bought from us several hundred thousand, maybe around three hundred thousand doses, which they are going to make it for free. What I think that the administration has been working recently-- I saw an announcement with-- with AstraZeneca. Look, we need-- Regeneron can't do this alone. We need the entire industry. And I'm so proud the industry has risen. We have companies like Lilly, great companies. We're partners with Roche, one of the best companies in this whole field. Amgen is involved. AstraZeneca is involved. Black-Scholes is involved. We all have to step up-- if we're going to provide enough of this.

Brennan pointed out that, last Friday alone, we saw nearly 60,000 new cases, and in Regeneron's FDA application for emergency use authorization, the company said they had 50,000 doses - less than a current one-day supply - and she wondered how the drug is going to be distributed.

Schleifer said it's going to be the government, the FDA, ethical experts, and so on, trying to determine how to get it go the people "who most need it, who would most benefit from it." He mentioned the elderly, those at high risk - and said "we have to figure out how to ration this."

He also said that it's possible his company's drug could be used as a prophylactic, perhaps to household members of people infected with the virus, or maybe to folks with the critical underlying conditions - those with diabetes, asthma, maybe pregnant women - but that some of that is still awaiting evidence. 

He left it with a great analogy, that they're building the plane and flying it at the same time. If that's not a great way of looking at life during this pandemic, I'm not sure what is.

See you around the virtual campus. Don't be late for class, and remember, you're still supposed to be wearing your mask. 

Sunday School 10/11/20

For tonight's Sunday School, I decided to start with Illinois Sen. Tammy Duckworth, who visited the Firing Line with Margaret Hoover classroom. Duckworth is a Purple Heart recipient, a mom,  and an Asian-American.  

They spent some time talking about the coronavirus, including on what might have been different if Democrats had led the response instead of Donald Trump.  

It's not even about a Democratic alternative. If the COVID response had actually even just followed any type of scientific recommendations you would see a much better response and fewer death rates and spread of the virus than it had under President Trump.

But, she added, it's more than that.

I've watched Republican administrations respond to pandemics, specifically as President Bush did. So I would think it's not just about Democrats or Republicans, it's about president Trump's failures. 

About the president's own bout of COVID, and his suggestion that he caught the virus from Gold Star families, Duckworth's comments were pretty forceful.

...I think it's shameful again that he'd blame others for catching this virus when we know he's been the one modelling very bad behavior, going to rallies not wearing masks. He's told people not to wear masks. And even now during a time when we know he's still contagious, he's still not wearing masks and subjecting those around him to this pandemic. Earlier he blamed military men and women and police officers for exposing Hope Hicks. He keeps trying to put the blame on others but he's the one not wearing a mask and prevents other people from wearing masks.

She was equally clear-headed on House Speaker Pelosi's talk about the 25th Amendment, saying she thinks it's not appropriate and that "we should be talking about the election," since people have already started voting.

On stimulus talks, she prefers a single comprehensive bill vs. standalone bills, saying that the former "is the art of compromise. Everyone gets a little something you want and there are things you don't want." 

I want protections for families and workers. I want another round of stimulus payments. I want money in there for municipalities who lost tax revenue and are right now facing severe financial distress. For me, compromise means coming together and putting something together. The president wants to cherry pick and I don't know that cherry-picking is good for our country as a whole... I think we could put something together. I'm not saying I would be opposed to doing something important (as a) standalone, but I think it's better to put it all together.

The second classroom I visited was CNN's State of the Union, where Jake Tapper talked with Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI); she's a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and starting tomorrow will be participating in the hearings on the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett. 

Tapper noted that Hirono has said the Rs have the votes, and he wondered what Hirono would be asking about. She said she'd be focusing on the Affordable Care Act and on a woman's right to choose. And, she added,

This nominee poses a clear and present danger. The immediate danger is to the health care of over 20 million Americans who have health care thanks to the Affordable Care Act, the over 100 million Americans who are protected under the Affordable Care Act because they have preexisting conditions, not to mention the seven million who have tested positive for COVID, who will be put into the category of those with preexisting conditions.

Tapper asked whether there's anything the Ds can do to stop the nomination from moving forward.

Well, if we can get two more brave Republicans to face up to the fact that they are going to be voting on -- for somebody who's going to take away the health care of hundreds of thousands of their constituents, if we can get two more Republicans to have that courage, we can stop her.

She also said that Barrett's religion is "immaterial, irrelevant," and that she's not going to be asking questions about that. 

Tapper moved on to the lack of a mandatory testing protocol on Capitol Hill, and whether she felt comfortable, as someone diagnosis with cancer, going to the Senate.

Well, the fact that Mitch McConnell and the chairman of the Judiciary Committee have not put in place appropriate protocols, that tells you the seriousness with which they regard this virus and its spread. So, for my own protection and that of everyone that I come in contact with, I will get a test after I do this interview with you.

Last question? Tapper wondered about Hirono's reaction to Trump referring to Sen. Kamala Harris as "a monster," noting that she and Harris are two of the four women of color in the Senate.  

It's typical Trump that he will attack anybody. He calls people names. So, when he can't come up with anything more substantive, he will just call somebody a name. And he's called me names. So, that's the president.

And then -- and there's a clear choice, by the way, in this election. Are we going to vote for this unhinged person of -- who is running around in super-spreader events, by the way?

The irony of a president who's going to spread the virus, and Republicans who want to put on the court a person who is going to knock out the Affordable Care Act in the middle of a pandemic, and Joe Biden, who actually wants to get control over the virus and move us forward, the -- people are already voting. I hope they made the right choice, based on the fact that this nominee is a threat to their health care, which is, by the way, the number one concern of Americans right now.

It's going to be an interesting week, for sure. And if you want to do some light reading, there's Barrett's statement to the Judiciary Committee. 

See you around the virtual campus. 

In Case You Missed It (v57)

Let's stroll down short-term memory lane, shall we? Here's your recap of last week's posts.

For your Sunday School, I literally drew names to see what classrooms I'd visit, and I ended up with George Stephanopoulos and Jake Tapper, which is better than ending up with Chuck Todd, wouldn't you agree?  

George talked with Jason Miller, a campaign guy from the Trump team. 

Miller was happy to talk happily about how happy everyone is that Trump is happily getting over his case of COVID-19 and how happy his doctors are not telling us the truth and stuff, and when George pointed out that 72% of respondents in a recent poll said Trump didn't take the risk of getting COVID-19 seriously enough and had not even protected himself, Miller recited all the things that Trump did that were completely unresponsive to the question. 

George tried to help him out by giving some concrete examples: 

... the president had to take it head-on, but he didn't have to have -- hold rallies where people did not social distance, where did not wear masks. He didn't have to mock former Vice President Joe Biden for wearing a mask and reporters who wore masks. He didn't have to continue to go to event after event without wearing a mask.

Again, we have an epic fail from Miller: the president is one of the most tested people in the country...  anyone spending time with him is tested before hand, they keep their distance - 

 -- the closest I ever get to the president is about eight feet, maybe six feet, usually a pretty solid distance back. A lot of times it's more like ten feet. 

Eight feet, six feet, ten feet - don't ever go fishing with this guy, he'll turn a guppy into a shark... 

In the CNN State of the Union classroom, Tapper continued his 'take no prisoners, I'm going to say what people all across the country are saying, and I don't care' attitude. Some people find it annoying; I find it refreshing. Check the post for his conversation with Ohio's Gov. Mike DeWine, one of many who won't say a bad thing about the president if you stood them in the middle of 5th Avenue... 

Your Extra Credit post had another Trump campaign guy, Steve Cortes, in the Fox News Sunday classroom. His rose-colored-glasses are even rosier than Jason Miller's.  Wallace pointed out what everyone knows -- someone, or maybe everyone - wasn't telling the truth about the president's health. 

As to the doctor lying, or Mark Meadows lying, Cortes didn't want to talk about that but when Wallace asked if the American people don't deserve the truth, Cortes said yes, and he was the one giving it to us. And, of course,

... we talk directly to the patient, in this case the President of the United States, who tells us things are going great. The whole world heard directly from the doctor who said things are going great. I mean to me, if the patient and the doctor say things are great and you hear from both of them and see both of them, to me, that is sort of case closed, really.

Yes - when the man who has told over 20,000 lies in his short time in office says he's healthy, we should believe him.

Mid-week, I was Wondering on Wednesday about all kinds of stuff, including the head-spinning announcement that Trump was pulling his negotiators and that we wouldn't see any stimulus until after he wins the election. Take a look.

Will there be a stimulus payment for Americans who are struggling and those who are not? Will there be a bailout for the 'too big to fail' airline industry?  Do we have to wait until after the election, when Donald Trump says he will be elected, before we'll see a rescue plan - for anyone? Or, maybe, those hearty, wholesome, crime-free red states will get some stimmy, and us blue-staters will have to wait until... when, I wonder? But the big wondering is, what happens if we hold off on handing out any relief until after the election and (drum roll please) Donny gets sent packing?  Who gets the bump then? Blue states? Blue states and maybe purple swing states that voted for Papa Joe and Mom-ala? I mean, has Trump thought this through, I wonder?

We now know, of course, that Trump hadn't thought it through, and then he came out with a couple of different 'roid-influenced statements and now, honestly, I don't even remember for sure whether anyone's talking or not.  

Thursday was a two-fer; the first post brought my recap of the vice-presidential debate. I focused not the talkin points that Sen. Kamala Harris and VP Mike Pence gave, and not on zingers they were trying to inject into the Interwebs, but rather on their answers to specific questions they were asked. Here's a look at a couple of those.  First, a question to Pence (PQ), the leader of the White House Coronavirus Task force:

PQ. Why is the US death toll, as a percentage of our population, higher than that of almost every other wealthy country?

A.

That's right - no answer. And here's a pretty important question for Sen. Harris (HQ):

HQ.  have you had a conversation or reached an agreement with Vice President Biden about safeguards or procedures when it comes to the issue of presidential disability? And if not, and if you win the election next month, do you think you should? 

A.

Yeah, no answer to that one either.  Neither of them answered direct questions on the economy, or on abortion... We really need to change the way we do these darn things. (I've talked about this before.)

The second post was a Quick Take on the domestic terrorism plot against Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and law enforcement officers. Whitmer, you may remember, has been a thorn in the president's side on all things related to the pandemic, and he famously tweeted that her state should be liberated, around the time that armed protesters were gathering, confronting legislators and police, and what not.  Here are a couple of thoughts on that kind of thing, from Whitmer at the time of the tweet, and from LEOs announcing the arrests of the terrorist militia members.

When she was asked then whether the president's tweet might encourage more protests, Whitmer hoped it wouldn't, and "she also noted that people are feeling anxious about the pandemic and its economic fallout. And, she said.

The most important thing that anyone with a platform can do is to try and use that platform to tell people, 'We're going to get through this."

The collected federal and state law enforcement officers spoke of "elaborate plans" to kidnap Whitmer and overthrow the government, and referred to the "rather unprecedented" nature of the case - and, I'd suggest, the rather unprecedented state of affairs in the country today. 

...it does send a very vivid reminder that while we may be in a period of discourse, possibly even divisiveness and fighting across the nation, law enforcement stands united.

And finally, blissfully, it was time for your TGIF. I'd been reading lots of comments on lots of subjects, and used the post to recount some of them. Here's a couple for you.

Some people who think it's offensive to talk about the fly on Mike Pence's head think it's perfectly OK to call people names, including libtard. Apparently insECTS are must worse than insULTS. (I love that one!)

Some people think that white supremacists and BLM are literally the same people.(Not just Joe Biden literally, but actually - literally - the same people.)

Chew on that last one for a bit... I did, for sure. 

So that's it -- your veritable pastiche from last week.  See you later for Sunday School.