Sunday School 3/27/22: Extra Credit

In this week's Sunday School we heard from a Right Winger and a Woke Lefty on issues unrelated to regime change and ethics. For your Extra Credit, we're going to look at the latter, starting with three guests John Dickerson had on Face the Nation. 

First up? Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Dammit, I'm a Republican; Trump is a Menace). The bulk of their conversation was about the Ginni Thomas texts, the January 6th Committee, and the Supreme Court. (Full disclosure: Thomas and her husband, Justice Clarence Thomas, recently received one of my Dirty Snowpile awards.)

Kinzinger wouldn't officially confirm or deny the texts existed, since they were leaked, but he said the Committee's bottom line was to get the facts and share them with us.

We're going to get to the bottom of this. And as we're seeing in Ukraine, people are willing to die for democracy. We at least have to be willing to put careers on the line for the same cause.

He's got a point there...  Sadly, he didn't offer much of value, other than his lack of confidence that Mark Meadows, the recipient of the texts in question, has been fully forthcoming. There's a reason why he's been turned over to the DOJ for a potential contempt prosecution.

I mean, he was cooperating with us for a little bit, and then... to make Donald Trump happy, he stopped cooperating. We gave him plenty of space to come back to resume that. He has not. And, in fact, he's waived executive privilege a thousand times by presenting us what he already has. So, no, I'm not convinced he's handed over everything to us. 

Next up? Bob Woodward (WaPo) and Robert Costa (CBS), who broke the story the texts. Dickerson asked for an explanation on the importance of the messages. Woodward compared them to Watergate, which was tampering on the front end of the election process. This is different because "they come after the election is over." 

Costa noted this "campaign, spearheaded by then-president Trump," crossed all three branches of government "in at least tangential ways." It wasn't just pressuring Pence and Congress to overturn the results, and pressuring the states to invalidate the votes.

... you had the executive branch doing everything possible to have a legal challenge that would maybe go all the way, as Trump said, to the Supreme Court. This was Trump pulling every lever of power. And one of those levers, it appears to be...his own chief of staff at least communicating on legal strategy with the spouse of a justice.

Woodward said that Chief Justice John Roberts "really has grounds for being worried" about the Court being seen as political. He pointed Justice Amy Coney Barrett's "remarkable speech" a few months back, 

She said, I want to prove to you that we are not a bunch of partisan hacks in the Supreme Court. And she said justices - all justices - must be hyper vigilant to make sure they're not letting personal biases creep into their decision since justices and judges are people, too. So, she made it very clear that this hypervigilance should be the condition in which justices operate.

And yet, we have Ginni Thomas and Mark Meadows texting about 'war' and 'good vs. evil' and 'not giving up' in their efforts to overturn the election, and Justice Thomas not recusing himself from January 6th-related cases... 

Costa appreciated the Committee's frustration by Meadows and what else he might have, and that includes any texts with Ginni Thomas after the end of November. I agree; it seems weird they would suddenly end. After all, she attended the Stop the Steal rally, until her feet got cold, and allegedly has ties with some of the groups behind the event. 

That said, The Committee has "done hundreds of interviews. They have thousands of pages of documents" from cooperating witnesses,

but they still feel in many ways they do not have enough. Steven Bannon has refused to cooperate. Mark Meadows has now refused to cooperate. So, the question facing ...Kinzinger and others is, where is the John Dean who's going to put the hand in the air and start outlining all of these different facets?

 Woodward said "there are always surprises," so it possible there's a John Dean out there. And

remember, the January 6th committee, in a filing in California, has said they have a good-faith conclusion that Trump and people around him engaged in a full-fledged criminal conspiracy to overturn the election. They rule this as criminal. 

And just yesterday, that judge ruled it was "more likely that not" that Trump "corruptly attempted to obstruct the Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2021." 

Costa said the "real test" for the Committee is whether they give Thomas a chance to speak voluntarily, or if they subpoena her. And, he said, it's not just about her conversations with Meadows. 

We just don't have the full picture at this point about her relationship with Justice Thomas and his knowledge of her exchanges with the chief of staff.

Ain't that the truth. 

Finally, let's hear just a bit from Sen. Cory Booker (D-No One's Going to Steal My Joy!), who chatted with What's-his-name on Meet the Press.  In addition to talking about the #KBJ hearings, the host brought up the text thing, using former AG Loretta Lynch and the meeting on the tarmac with Bill Clinton as an example of someone recusing themselves, and asked if Justice Thomas "should follow the Loretta Lynch precedent?" 

Booker ignored that example; instead, he offered a relevant one: Justice Elena Kagan.

Out of 70-some cases, she recused herself over 20 times... not necessarily because she was conflicted, but because she understood that even the appearance of impropriety would delegitimize the Court. And the Court needs that legitimacy in this nation. So clearly, Justice Thomas should have recused himself. That's not even at question here. (Emphasis added.)

He said he's frustrated with the Court "as a whole, that they have not taken better measures to police themselves." That includes holding lower courts to ethics rules that they "don't put upon themselves." And, he gave one my favorite examples of shady ethics: justices giving paid speeches to partisan groups that may have direct matters, or amicus briefs, before the Court.

There are a lot of ethics rules that they do not, have not put upon themselves that are just common sense and ultimately lead to a delegitimized court. And I think that they need to use this Thomas affair as an opportunity to change their ethics rules.

He didn't add "or we'll change the rules for them" - but that possibility is already on the table, as it should be.

See you around campus. Unless you need to recuse yourself for something. 

Wondering on Wednesday 5/4/22

Ready... Set... Wonder!

If you're like many folks, no matter where you stand on the opinion outlined in the Alito draft suggesting that Roe v. Wade is being overturned, you're probably wondering who leaked the darn thing in the first place. 

Many on the right assumed it was a liberal justice's clerk, trying to rally the troops and get folks riled up to either (a) change the presumed outcome of the decision, or (b) change the presumed outcome of the midterm elections. And, of course, they did the whole "we're the victims here" because someone stole their thunder, or something. 

Me? I wondered which of the justices leaked the draft. My first guess? 

I think it was Ginni Thomas in Clarence's office with a spatula who flipped the Roe-killing draft out the window into the hands of a reporter who had been snooping around trying to figure out if there was any medical reason for Clarence to have spent a week in the hospital at the exact time that Ginni was in the headlines because of her life-and-death January 6th text messages to Trump's 4th Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, the guy who wants us to believe his permanent address is a rusty old trailer on top of Scaly Mountain.

That the reporter happened to be there with an open catcher's mitt is pure chance.

And now we'll have to wait to see how long before Clarence goes back into the hospital - or until Ginni goes into the hospital, leaving Clarence to text his CPAC friends for some suitably conservative recipes to cook while Ginni is indisposed.

And my second? 

Or, maybe it was Kavanaugh, by the keg, who used the draft to mop up a mess created by his leaving the tap open when he went to check his calendar from 6th grade to see whether he needed go to the gym on the first Monday in May.

Finding out that was not the case - it's the first Monday in October that's relevant now - he over-served himself, and tossed the damp draft and a bunch of Red Solo cups into the trash on his way to bed, where soon dreams of Renate danced in his head. He might have even sung the Renate Alumni fight song in his stupor, but I can't say for sure.

And that's where the draft was found - in the dumpster with the cups and their residual draft -by the reporter from Politico, who had a nose for news - and beer - and sniffed out the story of the year.

If you had to wonder, who do you think let the draft see the light of day? And, perhaps more importantly, why?

Other wondering on this week's big story? What else will fall? If the standard is things that are deeply rooted in our history, clearly additional attacks on voting rights will be affirmed, and encouraged.

Inter-racial marriage? It's hard to imagine that surviving, right? Consider our 'deeply rooted history' of enslaving blacks to do the work that was beneath us, and how young black girls became the sexual targets of their white overseers. And who could forget the murder of blacks for the offense of looking at white women, or speaking to them? How could we possibly allow them to marry into our families, with this deeply rooted history of ours?

Similarly, I wonder how long before we say that marriage equality has no deep roots in America? Any bets on that? And, I wonder, do people know how many states still have laws on the books banning and/or refusing to recognize same-sex marriage? Sure, they're being ignored since the Obergefell decision, but they're still on the books.

Another issue about which we can wonder? Can any of the alleged privacy protections in the Constitution actually protect women who want to use contraception? I mean, think about it. 

• Our life expectancy is falling. 
• The birth rate is falling. 
• We're projected to be a minority-white country - by 2045.  

Is it really beyond our wildest imagination, I wonder, for some red-state pseudo-religious legislature to decide that what we need more than anything is more cute white babies, and act to make sure that happens by restricting access to contraception?

I know Alito said, in the draft, that this was just about abortion, but we know we can trust that about as far as we can throw him, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, or Coney Barrett.

What's got you wondering tonight?

Wondering on Wednesday (9/21/22)

Ready... Set... Wonder!

What's flowing from the wondering tap tonight? Random stuff, like an article in the Daily Star that Google traffic in Russia shows a spike in searches for "how to break your own arm," as folks scramble to avoid conscription into the fight against Ukraine. Those who aren't trying to hurt themselves are "leaving the country in droves," causing massive traffic jams at the Russia/Finland border. 

This comes on the heels of reports from several months ago that Russian were shooting themselves in the leg to get evacuated from the front lines. I'm not wondering a whole lot about why they are (or were) doing this kind of thing; rather, I'm wondering what will happen to them when the Putineers find out how hard they're working to avoid the war.

Let's see, what else? Oh - Texas Gov. Greg Abbott is in the news again, but not for migrants this time. Rather, he's signed an executive order declaring Mexican drug cartels 'terrorists' in the Lone Star State.

Texans are victimized by Mexican cartels that produce and import (fentanyl). So, cartels are terrorists. And it's time that we started treating them that way.

His order directs law enforcement to "identify gangs that are supporting Mexican cartels and work to seize assets as well as disrupt cartel networks." And, he's

also directed Texas agencies to alert the public about the fentanyl crisis, including schools and workplaces through mediums like social media and public service announcements to make clear, that truly one pill can kill."

I don't have a problem with anything he did, including asking the White House to make a similar federal declaration; it's reasonable, and certainly defensible, which some of his recent antics aren't. But here's where the wondering comes in: fentanyl's been killing Americans, including Texans, for years, in rapidly increasing numbers. Abbott said that in Texas last year, nearly 1700 fentanyl-related deaths were reported. So, why did it take him so long to order his government to get the word out?

We can finally stop wondering if the January 6th Committee will have a chat with G-G-G-Ginni-and-the-texts Thomas, wife of SCOTUS scoundrel Clarence. Reuters reported that a deal has been struck that'll allow them to chat "in the coming weeks." In fact, her lawyer says, Thomas is 

eager to answer the Committee's questions to clear up any misconceptions about her work relating to the 2020 election.

 I like that - "her work" relating to the election - how cute!

Speaking of "cute," I think that about sums up the Trump team's court filing in response to the DOJ's appeal of the stay ordered by Judge Aileen Cannon. Here's how the NY Times reported on today's decision in the case.

In a strongly worded 29-page decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit blocked part of an order by a federal judge that had temporarily barred the department from using the classified materials in its inquiry into whether Mr. Trump illegally retained national defense documents and obstructed the government’s repeated efforts to recover them. 

The decision has many tasty comments, if you're interested. Yay for us, yay for justice, and yay for not having to wonder if anyone was going to fall for Judge Cannon's overly generous treatment of Trump.

And finally, let's talk about NY AG Tish James and her $250 million civil suit against Donald, Donny, Ivanka, and Eric. Fraud, she says, when the Trumps overvalued their properties by the tens and hundreds of millions, making themselves look more loan-worthy, avoiding taxes, and so on. Two examples? His gold-plated Trump Tower penthouse was allegedly worth over $300 million (and he declared it three times bigger than it is); and he claimed Mar-a-Lago, his Florida document storage facility, was allegedly worth over $700 million, if you built houses on it, which you cannot. 

She got in a dig or two during her announcement, which is to be expected, even if she appeared much less gleeful taking him down than she did in campaign videos when she ran for election in 2018. The deplorable Donald Trump, Jr. posted a montage on Twitter; it's full of her plans and her rage and her threats against his then-president father. 

So, I'm left wondering why I'm sitting here appreciating a tweet from Donny, something I thought I'd never do, and wondering how Tish James is going to defend herself from the onslaught of clearly-documented 'witch hunt' charges, and wondering why it is that prominent Dems always seem to shoot themselves in the foot.

What're you wondering about tonight?

In Case You Missed It (v83)

Lots going on out there, right? In case you missed anything, here's a stroll through last week's posts. 

Sunday was the night Will Smith killed his career and won an Oscar, in that order. It was also the night I resurrected an old theme: the Dirty Snowpile Awards. Unlike the Oscars, there aren't any defined categories for the DSAs - it's whatever strikes me when I look at the filthy things. 

Here's one of this year's winners. 

 The My Snowpile's So Small It Fits on this T-shirt award goes to the thousands of politicians, their advisors, or whoever it is that decided we should have a government of the t-shirt, by the t-shirt and for the t-shirt. You know what I'm talking about, right? Policies and positions that fit on a t-shirt are great; anything else, we don't give a hoot about. And don't forget how those slogans get twisted and turned into opposition missiles, either.

I gave a few examples; My Body My Choice came immediately to mind (that'll make sense when you see one of other awards), and there were many others I'm sure would be familiar to you. And I would have been remiss had I not mentioned this last part. 

Sadly, one of the most important things with all this 'governing by slogan' stuff is that you buy the t-shirt, literally or figuratively.

Your Sunday School included highlights of a Fox News Sunday interview host John Roberts had with Sen. Rick Scott (R-Florida Man). One of the questions Roberts asked was why Scott included a requirement that all legislation sunset after five years in his 'plan to rescue America' during an election year.

Scott complained that Roberts was just dishing out "Democrat talking points," but that's not the case. Roberts said that was in the plan, he's right. Scott tried to deflect, saying 

Also in the plan, it says we ought to, every year, talk about exactly how we're going to fix Medicare and Social Security... No one that I know of wants to sunset Medicare or Social Security, but what we're doing is we don't even talk about it. Medicare goes bankrupt in four years. Social Security goes bankrupt in 12 years. I think we ought to figure out how we preserve those programs. Every program that we care about, we ought to stop and take the time to preserve those programs.

I added the emphasis to Scott's answer; find out why in the post.

It was nice to spend some Extra Credit time with Sen. Cory Booker (D-No One's Going to Steal My Joy!), who chatted with What's-his-name on Meet the Press. They talked about the #KBJ hearings, and about G-G-G-Ginni and The Texts. 

What's-his-name talked about former AG Loretta Lynch, who recused herself from involvement with any Hillary Clinton investigations after her meeting on the tarmac with Bill Clinton, and he asked Booker if Justice Thomas "should follow the Loretta Lynch precedent?" 

Booker ignored that example; instead, he offered a relevant one: Justice Elena Kagan.

Out of 70-some cases, she recused herself over 20 times... not necessarily because she was conflicted, but because she understood that even the appearance of impropriety would delegitimize the Court. And the Court needs that legitimacy in this nation. So clearly, Justice Thomas should have recused himself. That's not even at question here. (Emphasis added.)

I wonder why What's-his-name is still hosing the show, I really do.

Speaking of wondering, I did plenty of that on Wednesday, including some about the document-challenged Trump administration and the "bigly gap" in the phone logs on January 6th. 

How bigly, you're wondering? Here's what CBS News is reporting.

The lack of an official White House notation of any calls placed to or by Trump for 457 minutes — from 11:17 a.m. to 6:54 p.m. — on Jan. 6, 2021 means there is no record of the calls made by Trump as his supporters descended on the U.S. Capitol...

I also did some calculations to help you understand what the gap means in yoga pose terms, in case you wondered about that, like I did.

And almost before I realized it, it was TGIF time again. And surprisingly, I had Hillary Clinton in the second post of the week. Hard to believe, right? She

...had a teeny little bit of a bad week, after she was fined $8000 by the Federal Elections Commission for funding the Steele dossier back in 2016. The DNC was fined $105,000 as well. The fines resulted from a 2018 lawsuit filed by the Coolidge Reagan Foundation, a 501 (c)3 organization with the flimsiest website I've ever seen for this type of group. I'd be surprised if they could even pay for the filing fee for the lawsuit. 

Pretty sad when that's what the FEC is focused on these days. It would seem there's a whole lot more current stuff happening, but that's a story for another day. 

Wondering on Wednesday 12/14/22

 

Ready... Set... Wonder!

In no particular order, I'm wondering tonight about holiday parties. You know, the kind we host or attend, with family, or coworkers, or friends and neighbors. Or, you know, the kind attended by Associate SCOTUS Justice Brett Kavanaugh. The party in question was hosted by "far-right operative" Matt Schlapp, who runs the Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC), the group that's hosted both Donald Trump flag-kissing events and Hungarian right-wing strongman Viktor Orban. 

In a planned leak of party attendees, Kavanaugh's name is at the top of the list; other names below his include some with business before the Court. The linked article provides some details on that, and also notes

If Kavanaugh was a judge in any other federal court, his attendance at Schlapp's party might have violated Cannon 2 of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges. Specifically, Kavanaugh is permitting Schlapp and others to, at a minimum, "convey the impression" that they have special access.  

A judge should neither lend the prestige of the judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others nor convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge.

We know Kavanaugh's not the only one, nor are the conservative justices alone on stuff like this. But with all the focus on Justice Clarence Thomas, his wife Ginni, Justice Samuel Alito and his parties, and the leaks, I can't help wondering why Kavanaugh didn't just find a quiet bar somewhere to share some holiday cheer. 

Speaking of "all the focus on" people, I'd be remiss if I didn't mention Brittney Griner, the WNBA star and world's most famous vaper. Griner, you know, was released from her Russian prison camp in an exchange for convicted international arms dealer Viktor Bout who had served more than half his 25-year sentence. Not released along with Griner? Former Marine Paul Whelan, who's been held in Russia on espionage charges. 

I don't know enough to talk intelligently about whether any trade for Bout would have been a good idea, and I certainly don't know diddly about the negotiations that led to the exchange. All I do know is lots of people were arguing about whether we should have brought home the vaping 'woke' black lesbian National Anthem protestor, or if we should have brought home the white former presumably straight presumably non-vaping Marine.

Noticeably missing from any of the arguments? The fact that Whelan was a staff sergeant in the Marines, until he was busted down to private, and was given a bad conduct discharge. I have to wonder this: if people were as aware of his military history as they are of her National Anthem history, would they think he was really all that much better a trade? 

And speaking of history, there's Texas, which has a long history of interjecting into things that the government doesn't really need to get involved in: keeping pregnant women on life support against their wishes, or providing bounties to folks who report women seeking health care, or wanting to investigate parents of trans children for child abuse, for example.  

And, we learned, the Lone Star State is still interested in interjecting where it doesn't need to be. As the WaPo reported, Texas AG Ken Paxton went looking for info on transgender Texans. 

“Need total number of changes from male to female and female to male for the last 24 months, broken down by month,” the chief of the DPS’s driver license division emailed colleagues in the department on June 30, according to a copy of a message obtained by The Washington Post through a public records request. “We won’t need DL/ID numbers at first but may need to have them later if we are required to manually look up documents.”

That's what Department of Public Safety staff were asked to provide, based on a verbal request from Paxton. And they found "more than 16,000 such instances," which led them to tell the AG they couldn't provide the data he asked for.

So, what's the wondering, you're wondering? Simply, this: what the actual hell is going on down there? What compelling government interest is there in having this data? Is it because their plan to charge parents got shot down, so they're going to attack adults instead? Or is it because Paxton's a Texas-sized jerk? 

What's got you wondering these days?

Sunday School 4/3/22

There were some interesting conversations in the classrooms yesterday, including the one between Margaret Brennan and NYC Mayor Eric Adams on Face the Nation. 

Brennan seemed hell-bent on hitting him from both the left and the right on crime. Noting NY has "some of the toughest gun laws in the country," she first asked "where are the guns coming from?" Her next question, such as it was? 

But you know that acknowledging that and having some of the toughest gun laws in the country will have critics say, well, look, it makes no difference if you have tight gun laws.

That was followed up by "So why aren't the laws working?" and, finally, "It sounds like you're expecting more executive actions or orders from the president to do this because none of it's going to get through Congress."

I think Adams, a 22-year veteran of the NYPD, did a poor job with her questions. He didn't mention the Iron Pipeline, which is how illegal guns get to NYC and the rest of New York. He said his anti-gun team had "removed over 20-something guns off the street," while other reports show 85 'ghost guns' alone - not counting other illegal guns - had been recovered by early March. 

Worse than that, he didn't push back at all on her ridiculous suggestion that gun laws weren't working. He said "We need to stop criticizing good, proper law enforcement with the proper proactive things to keep guns out of the hands of young people..." But what he didn't say - and what no one else says, either - spoke louder than what he did say. 

This is how people must answer this question, every time it's asked.

Show me a single law that is 100% effective. Laws against voter fraud, DWI, white collar crimes, child abuse, drug possession, motor vehicle laws, rape and murder, insurrection, other violent crimes... no law is 100% effective - but they still work, either as a deterrent to prevent crimes, or to get criminals off the streets. Critics should imagine a world without any of these "ineffective" laws, and tell us how much they'd like living in it.

He also failed to call out Congress for their inaction, another opportunity missed. 

George Stephanopoulos talked with Ron Klain, President Biden's chief of staff, on This Week. Crime came up in that classroom, too. Here's the bizarre first question on this topic. 

How did Democrats get on the wrong side of the crime issue that's coming up right now, especially in the wake overnight another killing in Sacramento, at least six dead in a mass shooting?

Hmm... Do we even know the party affiliation of the perps, or the victims, in this shooting? And is there a specific policy that got the Dems "on the wrong side" of this crime? George didn't elaborate on any of that, so we may never know. 

Klain doesn't think Dems are on the wrong side of it; he pointed to Biden's plans for "for robust funding of police," part of which was in the omnibus bill Congress passed last month.

We also want to make sure we have in place police reform and community violent intervention to help reduce crime. We have a plan to fight crime. Congress is making progress on that.

He also said the administration's 

working very hard to be at the forefront of efforts to both control crime and have balanced and sensible policing. We think we can do both. That's what we stand for. And that's the plans we put forward to the Congress.

On crime of a different type, George asked if a NY Times report saying "Mr. Biden confided in his inner circle that he believed former president Donald J. Trump was a threat to democracy and should be prosecuted. He has said privately that he wanted Mr. Garland to act less like a ponderous judge and more like a prosecutor" was true.

Klain said he's never heard Biden say that, or "advocate the prosecution of any person." And, he reminded George that that Biden promised decisions on who gets prosecuted would not be handled in the White House.

Only Richard Nixon and Donald Trump, in the modern era, believed that prosecution decisions should be made in the Oval Office... We have returned the practice that every other president, Democratic and Republican, has had since Watergate, other than Trump, to let those decisions be made at the Justice Department. The president has confidence in the attorney general to make those decisions, and that's where those decisions should be made.

When asked, Klain confirmed that POTUS: hasn't had any contact with DOJ on the Hunter Biden investigation, was "confident Hunter Biden didn't break the law" and was "confident his family didn't cross any ethical lines." 

Finally on G-G-G-Ginni and the Texts, any pending legislation on ethics for the Supreme Court, and whether Clarence Thomas should recuse himself from January 6th-related cases, Klain said he wasn't familiar with the specific legislation; the administration's position continues to be that the January 6th Committee and DOJ are the right places for exploring the insurrection and should be allowed to do their work; and that it's not the White House's place to stick its nose into what the Supremes do.

What's-his-name talked with Hillary Clinton on Meet the Press. The only 'crime' they talked about was Crimea. I was kind of surprised; after all, she's a Dem, and part of a major international child sex trafficking crime syndicate, and she and Bill have had all those people killed over the years.

Asked about the "moment" the Dems are having, on "what the party stands for," and where it stands - to the left, to the left, or closer to the center, Clinton said the hand-wringing "was in their DNA" and that it happens whether they're in power or not.

She thinks Biden is doing a good job, and said she's

not quite sure what the disconnect is between the accomplishments of the administration and this Congress and the understanding of what's been done and the impact it will have on the American public, and some of the polling and the ongoing hand-wringing. I've always thought that the best politics is doing the best job you can do. And there's a lot that Democrats can talk about in this upcoming midterm.

Of course, she's "well aware that midterms are obviously always difficult for the party in power." But, 

we've got a great story to tell. And we need to get out there and do a better job of telling it. And for those who, you know, say it hasn't gone far enough, that's always the chorus in Democratic Party politics. But I would add that in Republican Party politics, you have an even greater disconnect. Unfortunately, most of that party has now gone to the, you know, to the extreme and are saying and doing things that have no basis in reality. So, we've got a good case to make if we get our focus in the right place to do it.

They surely do need to get out there and tell the story! And, there was another thing the Dems need to do. 

And, frankly, standing up to the other side with their craziness and their calls for impunity and nuttiness that we hear coming from them, I don't think the average American, frankly, wants to be governed by people who live in a totally different reality.

If only...

See you around campus.