In Case You Missed It (v120)

I thought I'd have gotten more posts done, but in hindsight, I think my frustration with the week's news got the best of me.

Here's what made it out, starting as we usually do with a recap of the Sunday School classrooms.

It was not the best week for several of the hosts, or some of the guests, for that matter. Here's House Speaker Mike Johnson, the very religious man, talking down to Kristen Welker on the subject of the Mayorkas impeachment (which failed, by the way).

Johnson previously said he's very much against a one-party impeachment, as we saw in a clip. He said three times, "The founders of this country warned against single-party impeachments. 

You guys know why. Because they feared it would bitterly and perhaps irreparably divide our nation.

What they're doing with Mayorkas is not that, and it's not a 'policy disagreement,' either. "It's very different, Kristen, in many ways." Let me mansplain "the many ways."

For one, the House has methodically, slowly, deliberately gone through the impeachment process, impeachment inquiry, impeachment investigation on Mayorkas and – and President Biden himself. We've involved three different committees of jurisdiction: Judiciary, Oversight, Ways and Means. We –we have followed the facts where they have led. Not for political purposes. Not because we take pleasure in this. It's, again, a heavy thing to look at the impeachment of a president or a Cabinet secretary. But these facts require it.

I snickered - I mean, wasn't that the same speech Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi gave?

Senate and House Republicans decided it was more important to show allegiance to someone who's not in office than it was to do something - anything - about the so-called crisis at the border. And I decided it was more important to Rant and Rave than it was to do laundry.

The same people who pretend they don't need to do anything because the other guy can do something. Unless of course he does, in which case they'll challenge his every move, doubt his every motivation, and keep everything ground to a halt so they can claim they can't get anything done because the other guy, blah bippity blah bippity blah blah blah.

And later 

Yep. The Orange Jesus, the OJ. The man who led the charge against the Soros Deep State, the unelected bureaucrats who he thinks should be 'his' people, who should do whatever he wants, regardless of, you know, laws on the books, or what Congress wants to do on our behalf, regardless of what they're required to do. (And who, by the way, the OJ has promised to fire.)

In his kingdom, everyone loves him, works for him, bows to him, kisses his ring (blecch), and if they don't, well, they're part of the Soros Deep State that's trying to subvert him and drive our country down a path that is decidedly not leading to the MAGA Camp. 

I'm not at all afraid of the Soros Deep State - but the other one, the orange one, scares the crap out of me, and - and it's hiding in plain sight.

Tuesday's Extra Credit was the Jake Sullivan show. He's the administration's National Security Advisor and - at least on Sunday - a man possessing the patience of more than a handful of saints. I have to say, at least a couple of the classroom discussion leaders made themselves look like fools, although I'm sure they thought they did a great job. 

Kristen Welker (MTP) was not the only host to try and get Sullivan to divulge the who, what, where, when, and whys of our continuing retaliation against Iran-backed terror groups and Houthi rebels, after asking him to address MAGA accusations we "telegraphed" our fist retaliatory strikes. I. Kid. You. Not. 

I wasn't sure this was a serious question, but she wasn't the only one who asked it, so I guess it was? 

But wait - there's more! Here's how the interview closed.

Okay. Let me ask you, finally, Jake: Our new NBC news poll, which we were just discussing, found only 29% approve of President Biden's handling of the war in Gaza. Sixty percent disapprove of his handling of foreign policy, overall. Should the President be factoring the public's disapproval into his foreign policy decisions?

Obviously, he said no, but part of me wanted him to say, "Why yes - yes he will!" just to see the look on her face. 

I was scratching my head on a few things when it was time for Wednesday's Wondering. Among the things on my mind? Primaries, and how the media handles them, and how Nevada handles them.

The primary was meaningless, you see, because Nevada has both a Republican primary, which doesn't result in delegates being awarded, and a Republican caucus two days later, which does. Obviously, I can't help wondering why the state GOP thought it was a good idea to have both; the Dems don't. 

Haley lost to 'none of these candidates' - the first time any candidate has lost to 'none' since the option became available in 1975.  My last bit of wondering on this is simply this: why don't we all have that ballot option?

Why don't we have that option? I might explore that in another post...

So, that's a wrap - you're all caught up on last week's posts. 

Go, Niners - beat the Chiefs! 

Wondering on Wednesday 2/7/24

Ready... set... wonder!

When the media reports that Joe Biden "easily won" a Democratic primary, I wonder why we don't know who he defeats. I know other candidates are in the race, but you'd think the media was totally unaware, given how infrequently they're mentioned.  And I wonder why they always mentioned other folks on the Republican caucus and primary ballots (at least until yesterday's meaningless primary in Nevada). 

The primary was meaningless, you see, because Nevada has both a Republican primary, which doesn't result in delegates being awarded, and a Republican caucus two days later, which does. Obviously, I can't help wondering why the state GOP thought it was a good idea to have both; the Dems don't. 

Haley lost to 'none of these candidates' - the first time any candidate has lost to 'none' since the option became available in 1975.  My last bit of wondering on this is simply this: why don't we all have that ballot option?

This morning, former president Trump woke up for the first time having been told he's not special - he's just a citizen, like the rest of us. And I wondered, briefly, if there's any ketchup left at Mar-a-Lago. Nah, I'm kidding - I know there's not. Seriously though, I do wonder what the Supreme Court will do if Trump files an appeal of the Yes, You Have No Immunity decision by Monday's deadline. I sincerely hope that they don't take up the appeal on this one, but we can't be sure of that.

In my Ranting and Raving post yesterday, I included a link to an article in which Tennessee's Rep. Mark Green was named as the guy who called Trump 'Orange Jesus'. I don't wonder if someone said it, and it doesn't matter to me whether it was Mark Green, or Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, or someone else. What's more concerning, and what causes my wondering, is the number of people who seem to believe the name fits.

Yesterday, the House failed to impeach Alejandro Mayorkas, the DHS Secretary. Rep. Al Green of Texas left his hospital bed and, with some medical people tagging along, cast the tying vote, which was enough to kill the measure. The final tally was 214 -216, allowing another vote later. Speaker Mike Johnson said that the vote was a "setback" and that "democracy is messy," and "sometimes when you're counting votes, and people show up when they're not expected to be in the building, it changes the equation." I'm wondering how big Rep. Al Green's smile was after hearing that!

Not to be outdone by the mess in the lower chamber, the Senate failed to advance the bipartisan immigration bill, which fell 49-50, with both Rs and Ds voting 'no.' And, it postponed a vote on a bill that would provide aid to Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan. I'm wondering if the actions we've seen over the last few days are what people are talking about when they say America looks foolish and inept in the eyes of the world.

There's always more, but that feels like a good place to stop. What's on your wondering minds these days?

Sunday School 2/4/24: Extra Credit

National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan made at least four classroom appearances. I'm amazed at his ability to withstand the assault of a lot of repetitive - and often dumb - questions.

I tried to find at least one reasonable exchange from each classroom, starting with State of the Union where he spoke with Dana Bash. I also included a few ridiculous exchanges, like the first one below.

DB: You said it's just the beginning. And I just want to clarify, that means that there will be more strikes coming in the next few days?

JS: What it means is that we will take further action. I'm not going to, obviously, describe the character of that action because I don't want to telegraph our punches. But there will be further action.

DB: Inside Iran? Would you rule that out at this point?

JS: Look, sitting on a national TV program, I'm not going to rule in and rule out any activity anywhere. What I am going to say is that the president will do what he thinks needs to be done and again reinforce the point that he's going to defend our forces and also that he is not looking to get into a war.

A more reasonable exchange occurred regarding Sullivan's oft-repeated comments that we don't want this to become a regional conflict. Bash said there are "10 countries, at least, four major terrorist groups" involved, suggesting it was already that. Sullivan worked hard to explain that the different actions we're seeing, including the Israeli-Hamas war, "are distinct but related challenges."  As such, we'll continue working 

to deal with the challenge of escalation and continue to work to ensure we're responding forcefully, but at the same time staying out of the prospect of the United States getting pulled into a broad war in the Middle East of the kind that we have seen in the past.

Bash said that all of the conflicts lead "down one road, and that is the road to Iran."  He agreed, noting that he'd explained the Iranian connection many times before, including in this classroom and from the podium during briefings.

So, we make no bones about that. Iran has a significant and pernicious responsibility for much of the instability in the Middle East, and that has to be factored into how we approach everything that we're doing and how Israel has to approach everything it's doing.

In the Meet the Press classroom, several ridiculous exchanges were initiated by Kristen Welker. For example, she referenced GOP comments about the Biden administration waiting too long to respond, and how it "telegraphed to the world, including to Iran" our response. How would Sullivan respond to that, she asked. In a nutshell, we did what we said we'd do (retaliate if attacked) and added

...of course, there will always be armchair quarterbacks, but we are confident in the steps that we have taken so far. And we are confident in the course that we are on going forward.

As Dana Bash did, Welker tried to pin Sullivan down on our future responses - except she did it right after asking about the 'telegraphing' complaint.

KW: Have you ruled out strikes inside Iran?

JS Well, sitting here today on a national news program, I'm not going to get into what we've ruled in and ruled out from the point of view of military action. What I will say is that the president is determined to respond forcefully to attacks on our people. The president also is not looking for a wider war in the Middle East.

KW: But is it off the table? Are strikes inside Iran off the table?

JS: Again, Kristen, sitting here on television, it would not be wise for me to talk about what we're ruling in and ruling out.

KW: So, you're not ruling it out?

JS: I'll just say the same thing one more time, which is I'm not going to get into what's on the table and off the table when it comes to the American response.

Did Welker redeem herself after that embarrassing exchange? Well, not really. Moving to the Israel-Hamas war, she said there was a sticking point in the hostage negotiations about "whether this should be a six-week pause in fighting or a permanent ceasefire. What is the United States pushing for?"

JS: Well, what we're pushing for is an outcome in which every hostage gets home, in which Hamas is no longer in charge of Gaza –

KW (interrupting): Would you like to see a permanent ceasefire?

JS (trying to answer her first question): – and not threaten Israel in the way –

KW (interrupting, again): Would you like to see a permanent ceasefire today?

JS: Well, Kristen, everybody wants to see an end to the war. Nobody's rooting for the war to continue... 

But wait - there's more! Here's how the interview closed.

KW: Okay. Let me ask you, finally, Jake: Our new NBC news poll, which we were just discussing, found only 29% approve of President Biden's handling of the war in Gaza. Sixty percent disapprove of his handling of foreign policy, overall. Should the President be factoring the public's disapproval into his foreign policy decisions?

Obviously, he said no, but part of me wanted him to say, "Why yes - yes he will!" just to see the look on her face. 

In the This Week classroom, George Stephanopoulos did better than his counterparts. For example, he asked what our initial strikes on the terror groups had achieved - which is different from 'Did we kill any bad guys?' Sullivan said, "...we believe they had good effect in reducing, degrading the capabilities of the militias and of the Houthis."

He also reiterated that this was just the start of our response, and said there'll be "more actions taken to respond to the death of the – the tragic death of the three brave U.S. service members."

In response to a question on whether we've thought about Iran making a direct response against us, Sullivan acknowledged that was a threat that we're prepared for, adding

And I would just say, from the perspective of Tehran, if they chose to respond directly to the United States, they would be met with a swift and forceful response from us.

He also said we've passed messages back and forth, but "in the last few days, the message that we have sent to Iran has been through our action, not through our words."

Last, we visited the Face the Nation classroom, with Margaret Brennan. Very early on, she asked whether Iran has "done anything to rein in the militias they fund and arm?" since our strikes. The question came barely two days after we launched them, so was it reasonable to think we'd have an assessment on that yet? I'd guess no, but maybe it's just me.

Her next question? 

There are reportedly civilian casualties in Iraq and in Syria as a result of these strikes. Does the U.S. assess that any of those hit in these strikes were actually Iranian Al Quds Force personnel? Or did the fact that this was so telegraphed in advance give those personnel time to go to ground?

Sullivan said he "didn't have anything to report...this morning" on who exactly was killed, but said assessments were continuing. And he refuted the "so telegraphed" comment, as he did in other classrooms. 

And when three service members were killed, of course Iran knew that the United States would respond. So the idea that somehow this was telegraphed, I think, is a bit more of a political talking point than – than a reality. 

She had no reaction to that, of course. And she, too, turned to the polls showing Americans aren't happy with Israel's military campaign - or with President Biden's handling of it. She wondered

At what point is this open-ended Israel conflict in Gaza not just a political problem, but a national security one for the United States to be so closely associated with the Netanyahu government's war, with the civilian casualties that we've seen to date, and the starvation of women and children in Gaza?

In part, he responded, 

...I'm glad you put the question in those terms, because we don't design our policy towards Israel or Gaza or the Middle East based on politics. We do it based on the national security interests of the United States.

We've been clear, he said, that we won't ignore "the immense and terrible suffering" of Palestinians. We'll continue to pressure Israel on that, and it'll be a "top priority" of Secretary of State Antony Blinken when he meets with the Israeli government.

Brennan referenced an interview with Israel's National Security Minister, who seemed to be on a different page than his boss. She asked, "Does Benjamin Netanyahu have control of his government?"  Sullivan rightly responded that it's not up to us to say. 

Look, I'm going to let the Israeli government and Israeli politicians speak for themselves. They certainly have no trouble doing so, as you just related. 

He also explained that a deal allowing for a "sustained pause" so assistance can reach the Palestinians who need it is in our national security interest, and is "a paramount priority for us."

The Israeli government can answer whether it's a paramount priority for them. And depending on that answer, they'll also have to answer to the Israeli people.

So, of course, she turned back to the guy who was "threatening politically the prime minister..." after Sullivan had just said the Israelis could speak for themselves. It was a zero-value question, but he was gracious and answered it anyway.

If you feel so inclined, drop your best shot and ask a dumb question multiple ways; I'll collect and publish any that come in.

See you around campus.

Ranting and Raving (v10): How Deep is the Deep State?

I shouldn't be shocked that "leaders" like Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Why Didn't I Retire?) would cave to the pressure and stop supporting the immigration bill that the Senate has been working on, for months - although I was surprised it took him only three hours to do so.

I am definitely not shocked that my Congressman, Brandon Williams (R- MAGA Truffle Farm), is going along with the rest of the cult in the House and declaring the bill "dead on arrival" even though it's supported by the Border Patrol union.  And 

Heck, I'm not really even shocked that evangelical House Speaker Rep. Mike Johnson (R-Last Best Hope to Lead) suggested that the union supports the bill because it gives the members a raise; after all, we know his coat has only one color.

But I should be mad, and I am, and you should be, too.

We should all be mad at, and sick and tired of, elected officials pissing and moaning about all of the problems we face, and how horrible things are in the country right now, and how the American people are almost as concerned about everything as Sen. Susan Collins is on any given day, and how the whole world is going to hell in a handbasket because Joe Biden is the president, Democrats control the Senate, and the House GOP majority is so stinking small that (dear lord, It's The Big One, 'Lizabeth) they might have to (gasp!) work with the Democrats to get something done. Clutch those pearls, baby!

Good lord, give me a break already.

The same people who pretend they don't need to do anything because the other guy can do something. Unless of course he does, in which case they'll challenge his every move, doubt his every motivation, and keep everything ground to a halt so they can claim they can't get anything done because the other guy, blah bippity blah bippity blah blah blah.

Or, they'll propose something so extreme even they know it won't pass muster in the other chamber - not that they care - because they can say, look, we did something, and everyone's ignoring us and so it's their fault that nothing's getting done, blah bippity blah bippity blah blah blah.

And all this time, for the last several years, we've been told that if only the 'deep state' - the George Soros-funded shadow government that's keeping the unelected, unmanaged, Democrat bureaucrats in place - was not in control, everything would be better and America would be great and people would be happy and our margins of victory would, you know, actually be margins of victory. 

And yes, you always blame the nonagenarian, Hungarian-American who fled Nazin Germany as a child for everything wrong in our country - that's the MAGA way. Well, you can blame Hollywood. Or black football players. Or white female singers. Or school librarians. But you can never speak ill of the Orange Jesus. That's right - Rep. Mark Greene (R-Not Half as Smooth as Tennessee Whiskey) or maybe another one of his ilk, referred to Donald Trump as the Orange Jesus.

Yep. The Orange Jesus, the OJ. The man who led the charge against the Soros Deep State, the unelected bureaucrats who he thinks should be 'his' people, who should do whatever he wants, regardless of, you know, laws on the books, or what Congress wants to do on our behalf, regardless of what they're required to do. (And who, by the way, the OJ has promised to fire.)

In his kingdom, everyone loves him, works for him, bows to him, kisses his ring (blecch), and if they don't, well, they're part of the Soros Deep State that's trying to subvert him and drive our country down a path that is decidedly not leading to the MAGA Camp. 

I'm not at all afraid of the Soros Deep State - but the other one, the orange one, scares the crap out of me, and - and it's hiding in plain sight.

Hell, it isn't deep at all - it's as shallow as a droplet on a rose petal in my garden. And, not only does it not subvert his will and desires, it actively, openly promotes them - they don't even hide it anymore. Maga Campers - the Deep State soldiers - ignore us, and rub our noses in it when they do.  

We elect these folks to state and national office because we're looking for solutions to the problems we've all been complaining about - often, for years. But now, they do the bidding of an unelected, unmanageable, in-it-for-himself, convicted sex offender who never should have been in office in the first place, and who should never be in office again? 

Really? Is that what they think is the right way to do their jobs? Is that any way to run a country?

It's like we shouldn't even bother having an election this year, since the OJ can just issue pronouncements from his gold-plated golf cart and his minions will all scurry off and do his bidding. (Not to mention, no one can steal the election if we don't have one, right?)

Where's the accountability?  What happened to country over party? How on earth do we find ourselves where we are right now?

What the actual hell? 

What the ever-loving actual hell.  

Sunday School 2/4/24

The classrooms were rocking yesterday. Let's dive in, starting with Kristen Welker and her catfight with House Speaker Mike I'm Calling the Shots Here Johnson (R-LA) on Meet the Press.

The two repeated themselves multiple times and often spoke condescendingly to each other; here's what I gleaned from the interview on the hot topics of the day.

Johnson thinks we need to take a Reaganesque/Trumpesque approach with Iran - peace through strength - and he said "We should not be appeasing Iran..."

We need to act to decimate the Iran Central Bank, the assets that they've held there. We need to lean on international banks to seize the assets of Iranian proxies. We need to – to put big-time pressure, maximum pressure, on their oil exports. There's a lot that we could do to Iran to send a message instead of this appeasement strategy. 

We need to 'Soleimani' them, like under Trump, when "we used a drone and three missiles" to take out a single bad guy, instead of "using potentially hundreds of munitions to strike close to 100 targets so far." I guess he thinks we're using too much ammo or something.

The House proposed a separate Israeli funding bill because the Senate isn't doing anything; in fact, HR2, "which is our signature bill right out of the beginning, right out of the block" could have solved the border problem if it hadn't "been sitting on Chuck Schumer's desk collecting dust..." And, if you didn't know, Senate bills are DOA in the House, and vice versa.

Johnson hasn't been briefed by his Senate counterparts, and to date he's only heard the same rumors as everyone else. I get the sense that he thinks the bill doesn't matter. 

But here's the essential point... We documented 64 specific actions that Joe Biden and his agencies have taken to create this catastrophe. They did it intentionally... The American people are done with this. The border has to be secured. The president has the authority right now. He doesn't need another act of Congress. He could do it right now. But he's unwilling to do it.

At some point, I stopped listening, but I perked up when I heard them mention Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and his impeachment. Johnson previously said he's very much against a one-party impeachment, as we saw in a clip. He said three times, "The founders of this country warned against single-party impeachments. 

You guys know why. Because they feared it would bitterly and perhaps irreparably divide our nation.

What they're doing with Mayorkas is not that, and it's not a 'policy disagreement,' either. "It's very different, Kristen, in many ways." Let me mansplain "the many ways."

For one, the House has methodically, slowly, deliberately gone through the impeachment process, impeachment inquiry, impeachment investigation on Mayorkas and – and President Biden himself. We've involved three different committees of jurisdiction: Judiciary, Oversight, Ways and Means. We –we have followed the facts where they have led. Not for political purposes. Not because we take pleasure in this. It's, again, a heavy thing to look at the impeachment of a president or a Cabinet secretary. But these facts require it.

I snickered - I mean, wasn't that the same speech Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi gave? Johnson says his GOP team has done a very careful, methodic, nonpartisan investigation.

And it is exactly the opposite of what the House Democrats did in the previous administration. That is a fact, and we can follow those facts and understand them for what they are.

"And that's the truth," said Edith Ann.  

Moving down the hall, George Stephanopoulos was in the chair for his own show; one of his guests was Sen. JD Vance (R-OH YEAH, I'm in the Cult!). Vance is unofficially campaigning to move into Number One Observatory Circle, but he'll have to outlast dozens of others in the Donald J. Trump VP Hunger Games to get the keys.

George opened the interview by playing a video clip of Vance acting very RINO-y back in 2016 when he said he was "a Never Trump guy." George wanted to know why he had changed his mind. 

When you compare Trump's term and Biden's term, Vance says there's a clear difference, and

... It's hard not to conclude that I was wrong and so many were wrong about Donald Trump back in 2015. He delivered, George, he did a good job. And I think it's why we ought to give him another run at it.

George countered with some positive Bidenomics data, then turned to what's happened since then: Trump's 2020 loss, January 6th, the indictments, and the verdicts in the E. Jean Carroll sexual assault and defamation cases. And he asked if being a Trump supporter means that he's "sanctioning that kind of behavior, sexual assault, and defamation?"

Well, I think it's actually very unfair to the victims of sexual assault, to say that somehow their lives are being worse by electing Donald Trump for president, when what he's trying to do, I think is restore prosperity. So, I think it's insulting to victim -- victims of sexual assault.

Wait, what? What the actual hell?  

Trump is trying to restore prosperity, and damn those pesky sexual assault victims for being insulted that so many people are willing to look past not only how Trump talks about sexually assaulting women, but the actual sexual assault he was found guilty of committing. Can't they just be happy he's trying to make them more prosperous? 

Honestly, that's preposterous, and insulting to pretty much anyone other than a MAGA Camper. Vance went on to say most of the cases are "not about prosecuting Trump for something that he did, it's about throwing him off the ballot because Democrats feel that they can't beat him at the ballot box. And so, they're trying to defeat them in court."

That's exactly what Trump did in 2020, with five-dozen-some-odd losing court cases, his Kraken legal team, and the presser at Four Seasons Total Landscaping. Vance didn't mention those, but he argued that fighting an alleged criminal in the courts isn't the right way to go - we should fight over policy in the election.

When George pointed out that it was juries making the decisions, Vance noted

George, if you look at all of these cases, the through line, two-fold. Number one, they’re funded by Donald Trump’s political opponents, and the goal here is not to help us actually have a real conversation about how to advance the country forward. Their goal is to defeat Trump at the courts because these people know they can’t defeat him at the ballot box. 

There was no second fold in "the through line," and George moved on - or, I should say, moved backward - and asked if Vance would have certified the election had he been VP on January 6th. Vance said it was "such a ridiculous question," which it was. George reiterated he wasn't looking forward, he was looking over his shoulder, which prompted Vance to say

I have to make a point here. You constantly say to people like me, 'why do you talk about January the 6th, why do you talk about the election of 2020,' and then you ask about this multiple times during a six-minute interview.

After listing his concerns with the 2020 election, Vance said there was a "political solution" to the problems, and "litigating which slate of electors were legitimate I think is fundamentally the political solution to the problems that existed in 2020."

And I find it weird, George, that people like you obsess with what I call 'what happened in 2020,' you're so incurious about what actually happened in 2020, which is why so many people mistrust our elections in this country. We’ve got to do better, George.

George pushed the 'you'd do what Trump said' point a few times, while Vance maintained that wasn't why he'd have done it - and he continued to hit on the media's obsession. He thinks what's happened since 2020 - instability, the border, and so on - is more important, and said

We need to litigate the 2024 election about those issues. You guys are obsessed with talking about 2020. I'm happy to answer the questions, but I think it's a disservice to the American people that you're so preoccupied with it.

 Next question? What about this advice Vance has for Trump? Roll tape, George!

... if I was giving him one piece of advice, fire every single mid-level bureaucrat, every civil servant in the administrative state. Replace them with our people. And when the courts -- because you will get taken to court -- and when the courts stop you, stand before the country like Andrew Jackson did, and say "The chief justice has made his ruling. Now let him enforce it." 

George asked if Vance really wanted to fire "everyone in the government" and if it was really "OK for the president to defy the Supreme Court?" Vance argued everyone didn't need to be fired, just that Trump should replace "the mid-level bureaucrats with people who aren't responsive to the administration's agenda. That's called democracy."

And then there was a pissing match, with George quoting Vance directly, and Vance trying to clarify that what he meant was

...the president has to be able to run the government as he thinks he should. That's the way the Constitution works...

And, the SCOTUS can make an "illegitimate ruling" and if it did, "the president would have to respond to it."

Eventually, Stephanopoulos said, in effect, "Thanks very much for playing," and closed the interview as Vance was still talking. 

Honestly, I would have sent all of them to after-school detention. 

See you around campus.

In Case You Missed it (v119)

Here's your recap of last week's posts, in case you missed anything.  

As usual, we started the week in the Sunday School classrooms, where I focused on immigration. Here's a bit of Margaret Brennan's conversation with Sen. Jim Lankford (R-OK), who helped negotiate the immigration bill we heard so much about last week. 

Lankford said they've been working on the bill for "about four months" and they're trying to get it wrapped up so they can get into people's hands and put false rumors to bed.

So people want to be able to just see it, read it and go through it, and to be able to see the dramatic change that this really makes in how we handle our immigration system and how we work to be able to secure our border completely. That's been the simple request of Americans, whether you're Republican, Democrat, or Independent. People just want a secure border, where we have legal immigration, but we're not promoting illegal immigration. And that's what we've seen in the last three years.

He said some of the language is similar to our pandemic-era Title 42, which allowed the border to be closed when we couldn't process the number of people who were crossing. Right now, he said, when we can't process them, they're just being released into the country.

That's what's driving the mayors in Denver, in Chicago, in New York City, and other places around the country crazy to say, when the border gets crowded, you just release them to our cities, and it causes all the chaos... 

It was interesting that Lankford mentioned some of the country's mayors; so did Bakari Sellers. Here's a highlight in this snip from your Extra Credit.

He chastised the Ds who "have refused to pay attention to immigration and crime in this country, saying it really didn't exist, it wasn't a problem." What's needed now is the folks who have complained,

we need our good mayors, like Frank Scott from Little Rock, like Chokwe from Jackson, Mississippi, we need Randall Woodfin from Birmingham, Alabama, and we even need mayors who don't know what they're doing, like Eric Adams in New York City, to now simply stand up for this piece of legislation and say, 'this is what we need done.'

This has to be the messaging and the messengers who can get this done for the country. This is not a problem that you kick down the road... This is something you fix right now. This is a problem. Fix it.

That sure beats merely complaining about the other side, doesn't it?

Lankford was mentioned again in a Sidebar post, in which we learned that he had been censured by Oklahoma's State Republican Party... at least, that's what it looked like in the beginning. Here's a snip.

According to the censure resolution, 

Senator Lankford playing fast and loose with Democrats on our border policy not only disenfranchises legal immigrants seeking citizenship but it also puts the safety and security of Americans in great danger. 

I'm not sure he's "playing fast and loose" with the Dems; I mean, leading the bipartisan negotiations doesn't sound like he was behaving in a clever and dishonest way with them, does it? 

After news of the censure broke, things started to unravel for what we all thought was the OKGOP.

Interestingly, there are complaints that the Committee's vote to censure Lankford may not have been legitimate, as some members with voting rights weren't invited to the meeting. 

More interestingly, or perhaps comically is the better word, the OKGOP released a new statement today:

The meeting held by certain Republicans on January 27th was an illegitimate meeting. Proper notice was not provided to all members of the State Committee meeting. None of the actions done at the meeting are the official position of the OKGOP and the media is advised to refrain from reporting or suggesting that this was an official action of the 'OKGOP' or 'Oklahoma Republican party' regarding the motions, resolutions, or procedures done at this illegitimate meeting.

Someone's got some 'splaining to do.

Three immigration-related posts in three days - and by then, I was more than ready for some Wondering on Wednesday. I won't lie - the Lankford censure popped up there, too, as did the Florida legislature. That group seems a bit unsettled by what's happening on the book-banning front.

Most of us are aware of the penchant for book banning in Florida. This article by Judd Legum reminds us that the whole mess started when the Rs in FLA attacked alleged "grooming" by school librarians pushing "pornographic" materials in their bookshelves.

Florida's Republican legislature passed — and Ron DeSantis signed — several pieces of legislation that made it easier to take books off the shelves of the state's public schools. This was all seen as smart politics, appealing to parents seeking to protect their children from inappropriate content.

Some of the Rs are getting tired of taking the heat for the ridiculous bans; even noted conservative Bill O'Reilly's books were pulled from the shelves. Legislation is moving along that would "make it more difficult for people to challenge books en masse." That's happened in at least one Florida county, where every book in the library was pulled for review. Legum says the legislation

is an implicit acknowledgment that book banning in Florida schools has gone too far. It also suggests that the enormous number of books being taken off the shelves of Florida schools has become a political problem for Florida Republicans. 

Check the post to see what had me scratching my head on these topics, and a few others.  

I wrapped the week with a Meanwhile, Back in Albany entry on one of my favorite subjects, NY politicians and their gambling revenue addiction. 

And now, it's online casino gaming; here's some info from a Spectrum News report from October 2023.

Lawmakers are working to amend legislation to legalize a new form of online gambling in the state officials say could bring upwards of $1 billion in revenue to New York and help close budget gaps expected over the next few years...

In addition to the revenue, it's flat-out altruistic, too, especially for the New Yorkers who are forced to do their online gambling on apps registered in other states.

We can't help someone with an addiction because we don't know who they are, and once we regulate it in New York, iGaming, we then can help those that might be in need are on their pathway to addiction. We'll put in statutory language in this bill to address that.

Now that the Legislature is back in session, we can see what's up for discussion.

The bill would allow for mobile or online betting on various types of interactive gaming, referred to as iGaming, and iLottery. I'm pretty sure those names are not affiliated with the giant fruit vendor known for selling all the other iThings, or with iCarly, an old Nickelodeon TV show, but there's a chance we could see some kind of copyright lawsuit, right? What are the odds?  

There's a lot in the proposed bill to get riled up about, and I can assure you, riled I was.  

And just like that, you're up to date. Stay tuned for this week's posts - regular features, and more.

Meanwhile, Back in Albany (v47)

Here we go again, New York. 

We're losing gambling money to neighboring states, dammit, and we're not going to take it anymore!

First, there was the casino money we were hemorrhaging to neighboring states.

Then, it was sports betting at our casinos, something we needed, you know, to fund things like education and gambling addiction treatment, and to stop bleeding money to neighboring states. And to help our underperforming casinos, which were not generating nearly the revenue we expected. 

Then it was mobile sports betting, because, you know, funding education, even more gambling addiction treatment, and buying tourniquets to stop the blood loss from all that hemorrhaging we've been doing are important governmental functions, as is helping casinos addict more gamblers.

And now, it's online casino gaming; here's some info from a Spectrum News report from October 2023.

Lawmakers are working to amend legislation to legalize a new form of online gambling in the state officials say could bring upwards of $1 billion in revenue to New York and help close budget gaps expected over the next few years.

Why? Well, we're addicted to the money gambling brings in, of course, and the success of mobile sports betting can't be ignored. It's

spurring discussion to permit online casino gaming — also known as iGaming — in the state, allowing games like blackjack, roulette and others to be played from a mobile device.

And, of course, because of those darn neighboring states that already allow it. After all, as Sen. Joseph Addabbo, chair of the Senate's Addiction Funding Committee (sorry - the Racing, Gaming, & Wagering Committee), says

Other states surrounding us are doing it. We can do this. I think it's the conversation we have to have dictated by the poor fiscal situation we're going to be in next year.

In addition to the revenue, it's flat-out altruistic, too, especially for the New Yorkers who are forced to do their online gambling on apps registered in other states.

We can't help someone with an addiction because we don't know who they are, and once we regulate it in New York, iGaming, we then can help those that might be in need are on their pathway to addiction. We'll put in statutory language in this bill to address that.

Fast forward to January 2024, and the legislation is being worked on in earnest. According to Addabbo 

It's a good bill. We got a lot of input from a lot of individuals, but it's a starting point. It's a starting point where I'm hoping that we can have these kinds of discussions during the budget process.

The bill would allow for mobile or online betting on various types of interactive gaming, referred to as iGaming, and iLottery. I'm pretty sure those names are not affiliated with the giant fruit vendor known for selling all the other iThings, or with iCarly, an old Nickelodeon TV show, but there's a chance we could see some kind of copyright lawsuit, right? What are the odds? 

As proposed, the licensing fees for the iStuff would be a cool $2M, and revenues would be taxed at 30.5%, which could generate a billion dollars annually. And, of course, we're hemorrhaging that money to PA and NJ now. Once we get that back, we'll be in good shape, Addabbo thinks.

We need to look at the outyears, 2025, 2026, where according to the state comptroller the fiscal situation only gets worse, then we do need to figure out a sustainable plan both short-term and long-term and that is iGaming and iLottery.

And what about those problem gamblers? There's $11M in annual funding for "addiction services and supports." I'm not sure if that money is dedicated solely to gambling addicts, or if it covers all other causes of addiction as well. But we do need to act with urgency, it seems.

If we're serious about helping people with a gaming problem, knowing that they're doing iGaming anyway in New York, they're just doing it illegally, then you try to do it this year because that will actually help the New Yorker who is already participating in iGaming.

But wait - there's more! Progressive more!

To ensure "existing union casino employees" aren't threatened by the new option, there's a "a fund of at least $25M annually" towards training and supporting employees of private business enterprises - because that's the New York Way. Addabbo also said we may see more union jobs created because people will be able to sit in their jammies and play poker on their phones - with live dealers. I'm sure they'll be even more addicting than CGI dealers.

Anyone who's already allowed to feed our gambling addiction won't be ignored, either. Existing license holders, including "current video lottery terminal licensees, mobile sports betting operators, state-licensed and Native American casinos" can participate in the iJunk if they like.

I'll be following this one as we go through the legislative session.

Wondering on Wednesday 1/31/24

 Ready... set... wonder!

It's rare for me to update my wondering a mere seven days later, but that's where I find myself today. Last week I wondered about the stock market, what Trump thought of it when he was president, and how his thinking has changed.

That was then, but this is now, and with Joe Biden in the White House, Trump is no longer excited about the market's success. Rather, he's telling his supporters that "the stock market is making rich people richer" - as if that's ever been a bad thing for an alleged billionaire. 

So, why am I wondering about this again, you might be asking?  Well, he apparently has changed his mind - again.  Not only is a booming market great again, it's all because of him! Because of his polls! Because everyone loves him and can't wait for him to be president again!

And I have to wonder, was he lying to me while he was in office, or was he lying to me over the past several weeks, or is he lying to me now?

I learned today that a judge in Delaware's Court of Chancery has tossed Elon Musk's Tesla compensation package, saying that $56 billion was an "unfathomable sum."  Kathaleen McCormick wrote in her decision, which is appealable, of course,

Swept up by the rhetoric of 'all upside,' or perhaps starry-eyed by Musk’s superstar appeal, the board never asked the $55.8 billion question: Was the plan even necessary for Tesla to retain Musk and achieve its goals?

The article I linked above has some interesting information of the corporate intrigue kind, including board members beholden to the CEO and shirking their responsibilities, angry shareholders (that's how the suit came to be), and my favorite piece of information, to which I've added the emphasis:

Amit Batish at Equilar, an executive pay research firm, estimated in 2022 that Musk's package was around six times larger than the combined pay of the 200 highest-paid executives in 2021.

I'm wondering, as I re-read that last part for the umpteenth time today, whether incentive-only compensation packages - according to the article, Musk didn't draw a Tesla salary - should have limits? And I also can't help wondering what a less Musk-friendly board would have done in the compensation negotiations.

In a Sidebar yesterday, I talked about the Oklahoma Republican Party voting to censure Sen. James Lankford, and how the meeting was subsequently deemed illegitimate by the 'real' OKGOP.  And what I'm wondering about here is simply this: how many other GOP organizations are at risk for this same kind of thing, where a cabal is bold enough, willing, and able to take over the party, even temporarily, and create this kind of havoc? And how long before we figure out they exist?

Most of us are aware of the penchant for book banning in Florida. This article by Judd Legum reminds us that the whole mess started when the Rs in FLA attacked alleged "grooming" by school librarians pushing "pornographic" materials in their bookshelves.

Florida's Republican legislature passed — and Ron DeSantis signed — several pieces of legislation that made it easier to take books off the shelves of the state's public schools. This was all seen as smart politics, appealing to parents seeking to protect their children from inappropriate content.

Some of the Rs are getting tired of taking the heat for the ridiculous bans; even noted conservative Bill O'Reilly's books were pulled from the shelves. Legislation is moving along that would "make it more difficult for people to challenge books en masse." That's happened in at least one Florida county, where every book in the library was pulled for review. Legum says the legislation

is an implicit acknowledgment that book banning in Florida schools has gone too far. It also suggests that the enormous number of books being taken off the shelves of Florida schools has become a political problem for Florida Republicans. 

I'm not surprised pols are upset about the consequences of their anti-woke, anti-LGBTQ, anti-everything approach to school libraries; here's what really got to me in Legum's article.

The majority of book challenges in the United States came from 11 people. Two of the most prolific, Bruce Friedman and Vicki Baggett, hail from Florida.

Eleven people are responsible for the majority of book challenges in the United States? How can you not wonder with me how that's even possible?  Eleven people, out of a country of over 334,000,000? How does this even happen?

And finally, Rep. Rob Menendez (D-NJ) pulled less than zero punches in comments directed towards GOP members of the House Homeland Security Committee as they considered impeachment charges against Alejandro Mayorkas.

According to the article, Menendez noted there've been plenty of hearings on the border, but none on things like "emergency preparedness, cyber threats, infrastructure protection, and more," all of which would be in the Committee's portfolio.

We have not lived up to our oversight obligation here on this committee because you all are obsessed with the border. Because you bend the knee to the ‘Orange Jesus’ as you refer to him across the aisle. 

You can watch the video of his comments here, and maybe wonder, as I often do, how much longer the folks in the House will keep it together.

What's on your wondering mind these days?

Sidebar: Sunday School 1/28/24

One more thing before I leave the immigration discussion and move to greener pastures: it's been reported that the Oklahoma Republican Party (OKGOP) has voted to censure US Sen. Jim Lankford, one of their own, for his efforts on the bipartisan bill we've heard so much about recently. 

(I didn't have room for Lankford in the recaps you can read here and here.)

Lankford has represented Oklahoma in the Senate since 2015, but apparently collaborating with the Dems and trying to solve a problem that legislators have either failed or refused to solve in decades is too much for them to take.  

According to the censure resolution, 

Senator Lankford playing fast and loose with Democrats on our border policy not only disenfranchises legal immigrants seeking citizenship but it also puts the safety and security of Americans in great danger. 

I'm not sure he's "playing fast and loose" with the Dems; I mean, leading the bipartisan negotiations doesn't sound like he was behaving in a clever and dishonest way with them, does it? 

Appearing on Fox News Sunday, Lankford noted

It is interesting, Republicans, four months ago, would not give funding for Ukraine, for Israel and for our southern border because we demanded changes in policy. So we actually locked arms together and said, ‘We’re not going to give money for this. We want a change in law. And now, it's interesting a few months later, when we're finally getting to the end, they're like, 'Oh, just kidding, I actually don't want a change in law.'

Other comments about the resolution were reported by KOKH, a Fox affiliate in Oklahoma City. The station's report noted the resolution said

Lankford's 'open border deal' directly conflicts with the GOP's values... We oppose a 'path to citizenship' that would grant citizenship to illegal aliens faster than to immigrants who have come to the United States through legal means.

And, it included a statement from the (We're Not) OKGOP, signed by Wayne Hill, the party's Vice Chairman, which had this to say about the censure.

The State Committee of the Oklahoma Republican party, the Supreme Authority of the OKGOP, has condemned the actions of Senator James Lankford. The resolution calls on Senator Lankford to "cease and desist jeopardizing the security and liberty of the people of Oklahoma and of these United States." Further, "until Senator Lankford ceases from these actions, the Oklahoma Republican Party will cease all support for him.

Today's meeting was attended by 172 active Republicans from all across Oklahoma. the 124 voting members of the State Committee resoundingly approved this resolution and others as their first official act of the 2024 election year.

The OKGOP State Committee is committed to holding elected Republicans accountable to the standards set forth in the OKGOP Platform which supports limited legal immigration. It is our hope that Senator Lankford will acknowledge the direction of the State Committee and do all in his power to defend our border from the current invasion.

Interestingly. there are complaints that the Committee's vote to censure Lankford may not have been legitimate, as some members with voting rights weren't invited to the meeting. 

More interestingly, or perhaps comically is the better word, the OKGOP released a new statement today:

The meeting held by certain Republicans on January 27th was an illegitimate meeting. Proper notice was not provided to all members of the State Committee meeting. None of the actions done at the meeting are the official position of the OKGOP and the media is advised to refrain from reporting or suggesting that this was an official action of the 'OKGOP' or 'Oklahoma Republican party' regarding the motions, resolutions, or procedures done at this illegitimate meeting.

Someone's got some 'splaining to do.