Sunday School 1/19/20

None of the Democratic presidential candidates were around today, but a few of the House impeachment managers were out and about, as was attorney Alan Dershowitz, who's doing part of Trump's defense (but prefers we don't say he's part of Trump's defense team).

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-Trump) was slithering around, too, of course.

Today, I decided to pass on impeachment and instead sit in on a conversation between Gary Cohn,Trump's former director of the National Economic Council, and Margaret Brennan on CBS' Face the Nation. Cohn, you may recall, left the administration in 2018, and is now back in the private sector.

In general, he doesn't see a recession coming; consumer spending is strong, in part because we have all that extra disposable income from the Christmas Tax Cut. He's also not worried about interest rates, and thinks growth will continue to be strong. He's happy we have a new trade deal with China, but says it doesn't address the whole intellectual property issue which was "the big issue that he and Trump agreed upon." He still doesn't like tariffs, and thinks they have "totally hurt the United States."

On addressing income inequality through taxes on billionaires, taxes on financial transactions and the like, Cohn (a Democrat) notes that if we want to get more revenue,

which I'm not against, (if) we have to collect more revenue, it's going to come from the top half of workers. And it fact, it's going to come from the top 10% of workers. That's where you can find the taxable income. I think that we will end up doing that. We will potentially need to do that. But these fangled plans that they're coming up with, we don't need to do things like that to collect more income from people. We have a basic tax system that works, and we can do some fundamental things, if we need to collect more money. The question is, do we need to collect more money? 

Here's where he sounds a lot like me.

You know, we look at spending and we look at revenue and we don't talk about them in the same sentence. We collect taxes and we spend. And Congress never thinks about how much money they have to spend. They just go spend... you wouldn't run your household like that. I wouldn't run my household like that. 

And then this happened - Brennan said  "But you're -- you're a Democrat."

Cohn; Yes, I am.

Brennan: Is there a single Democrat that you would consider voting for?

Cohn: There - there - I'll consider voting for anyone. I vote on policy.

Brennan: Even Elizabeth Warren, whose policy you just tried to -

Cohn:  I would consider voting for anyone, I said. I didn't say I would. I said I'd consider voting for them.

Brennan: Well, that's evasive.

Cohn. Yeah.  

Fun stuff there, for sure, suggesting that every Democrat has to be a tax-and-spender. But, when Brennan asked about Wall Streeters "continuing to vote along the lines of whatever the president is putting forward" even if, she said, they don't like how he behaves, here's what Cohn said about the Dems.

...what I do know is, the economy is really strong, and the Democrats haven't really come up with an idea of how to help the economy get even stronger. So it's probably easier to talk about corporate greed, and talk about Wall Street, and talk about technology companies because they don't really have an answer for an economy that's growing at 2.5% with 3.5% unemployment and 3% wage growth. I haven't heard their answer on that, except let's tax it to death.

Cohn did admit that, while he's "very supportive" of the president on the economy and deregulation,

... I just don't vote on the economy. I vote on a lot of the social issues as well. So, you know, in many respects, I've got to balance both sides of that equation before I figure out who I'm gonna vote for.... I'm leaving the door open. But at this point, I don't have any intention not to vote for the president. 

Brennan moved on to wondering if there's "anyone around the president who can be direct with him right now", who can do what Cohn said he did when he was there - disagree with him, and live to tell about it  - who'd doing that now, was basically what Brennan was after.

..he's got advisors in there that I'm sure are telling him differences. I know that there are people in there - 

He specifically mentioned Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin and tariffs, but didn't really get to what Brennan was fishing for. He touched on that, though - a little more than a month ago - as this Politico article shows, recounting an interview Cohn did on David Axelrod's The Axe Files podcast.

I am concerned that the atmosphere in the White House is no longer conducive or no one has the personality to stand up and tell the president what he doesn't want to hear. 

We (early members of Trump's administration) were not bashful...It was a group that was willing to tell the president what he needed to know whether he wanted to hear it or not. 

None of us are there any more. 

And that was the lead-in to the last bit of the interview, when Brennan turned to the topic of the day - the new book, A Very Stable Genius, written by two Pulitzer Prize-winning journalists from the Washington Post. Here's how that exchange went.

Brennan: Lastly, I want to ask you about a new book. I know you haven't read it. It's coming out, and there have been excerpts released that directly reference you, which is why I want to give you a chance to respond. 

...the president is - is in this meeting accused of calling advisers "dopes and babies" and the like. Is the - the description of the president and his management style matching your experience?

Cohn: I don't know what book you're referring to. As you said, I haven't read it, so I - I wouldn't know.

It's almost impossible to believe that he hadn't heard of he book from news reports, or that he hadn't heard from reporters looking for comment, as Brennan was doing, but anyway - when Brennan asked him specifically about "the management style of berating advisors," which Cohn would likely be familiar with even if there was no book, here's what he had to say.

Look... what you see on TV is exactly what you get in private with the president. The president is the same person behind closed door as he is out in public, which is - which is a unique feature. You know, it's not like he turns it on or turns it off when he walks outside. So you've seen everything the president has. That's exactly what you see when you're in a private meeting with him.

Which is kind of funny; so many of the president's supporters and minions and the politicians he owns work so hard to distract us from his horrible comments and his awful behavior, or blame us and the medial and his 'enemies' and tell us how he can't help lashing out after the horrible treatment he receives....

But thanks to Cohn, we know that those excuses are just as untrue as so much of what Trump says, in his own inimitable, abusive style. Which makes me wonder, how must it feel to be treated that way, and still go out and defend him? I'm guessing it's something like this.

For your Extra Credit this week, I'll look at some of what the impeachment managers had to say.

See you around campus.

The Update Desk: Chris Collins, One Last Time

How many times have we talked about former Rep. Chris Collins, the disgraced former Buffalo-area congressman who denied and then pled guilty to insider trading and other charges? There have been more than a few updates, for sure - take a look. 

First, there was this:

Collins, you have likely heard, has been charged with insider trading; the charges stem from him being on the board of an Australian pharma company, and him allegedly using information he learned about the failure of one of the company's drugs, which he then allegedly shared with his son (perhaps as he attended a White House gathering, if the timeline is correct), and his son allegedly shared the information with his soon-to-be father-in-law. 

And, there was this announcement: 

After extensive discussions with my family and my friends over the last few days, I have decided that it's in the best interests of the constituents of NY-27, the Republican Party, and president Trump's agenda for me to suspend my campaign for re-election to Congress.

I will fill out the remaining few months of my term to assure that our community maintains its vote in Congress to support president Trump's agenda to create jobs, eliminate regulations, reduce the size of government and lower taxes.

I will also continue to fight the meritless charges brought against me and I look forward to having my good name cleared of any wrongdoing.

 But then, we're in New York, so

Buffalo-area congressman and Trump first responder Chris Collins is going to be on the ballot for his congressional seat in November after all.

Unfortunately, it seems, trying to get off the ballot under some grand scheme being worked on by Erie County Republicans and Collins could jeopardize his defense against the federal criminal charges filed against him mid-summer, and could have led to a lawsuit by NY Democrats fighting against the plan to replace him on the ballot. It might even have jeopardized his bail, attorneys thought.

And, we're in New York so, he won re-election. Which brought us to this.

Collins is in the news again, for a couple of reasons. First, the House is going to reopen its ethics investigation into his case, which was suspended back when he was indicted on federal charges. But not to worry -- the House has promised the Department of Justice that they'll not interfere with the criminal case against him.

And that led to this.

Well, he's back, and now news is breaking from his hometown newspaper, the Buffalo News: 

WASHINGTON – Rep. Chris Collins resigned Monday, a day before he is expected to plead guilty Tuesday to federal charges stemming from an insider trading scheme that prosecutors first detailed in an indictment nearly 14 months ago.

And finally, we are here, with this latest update from his hometown paper. 

Chris Collins cried so hard that many of his words got lost in his anguish.

But that act of contrition meant only so much to US District Court Judge Vernon S. Broderick, who on Friday sentenced Collins to 26 months in prison for launching an insider trading scheme with a call to his son from a White House picnic in June 2017.

Saying that he believes "there is a need to both show respect for the law and to inflict just punishment," Judge Broderick added a $200,000 fine and a year of supervised release to the prison time, ending what the paper called "an unusually long three-hour sentencing hearing" which included a very emotional statement from Collins in which he said, among other things,

I violated my core values...  People feel sorry for me. They shouldn't. I did what I did. 

He spoke of the damage to his son's reputation, the problems caused for his son's in-laws, and for his own family, and said of former colleagues who reached out to him that morning,

I let them down -- and the president of the United States.

Broderick pointed out that, in addition to the damage Collins himself called out, he had also left his district unrepresented for months.  And US Attorney Geoffrey Berman, who prosecuted the case, said this.

Lawmakers bear the profound privilege and responsibility of writing and passing laws, but equally as important the absolute obligation of following them. Collins' hubris is a stark reminder that the people of New York can and should demand more from their elected officials, and that no matter how powerful, no lawmaker is above the law.

And sadly, that's a message that New Yorkers have had a hard time mastering, as we've seen so many times before.

We need to do better, we really do.

In Case You Missed it (v19)

Afraid you missed a post this week, with everything going on? Fear not - I've got you covered. 

Tom Steyer chatted with Jake Tapper on CNN's SOTU and Michael Bennet did the same with Chuck Todd in this week's Sunday School.  Here's a snippet of Steyer's answer to Tapper's question on whether the businessman had bought his way onto the stage.

I have been a grassroots organizer, as you know, for 10 years, and that is exactly what I'm doing in the early primary states. I am going in. I'm listening to people. I spend all my time in the kinds of meetings that I love, which is taking questions and asking questions and listening and learning. And so in fact that's what I think has happened...

For our Sunday School Extra Credit I checked in with the panel on ABC's This Week, talking about George's interview with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her strategy of holding the impeachment articles. Regarding the news that came out after the articles were approved, the WaPo's Rachael Bade suggested that

...in fact, there might have been even more news focused on those things, if everybody wasn't asking, 'what is Nancy Pelosi doing (with) the articles?' So, I do think there are a lot of Democrats who, while not going on the record and saying it, a lot of them have concerns about this.

Tuesday brought us the seventh debate of Democrats wanting to be president. As in all of the other debates, one of the topics was health insurance - Medicare for All, of course. 

Klobuchar (along with Papa Joe and Mayor Pete) says we need to build on the ACA which by the way is 10 points more popular than Trump who wants to kill it, and her plan actually pays for everything. A plan, we need a plan, not a bunch of pipe dreams. We need things that will actually pass, like one of her bills with 34 cosponsors in the Senate.

And then it was time for Wondering on Wednesday, where , not surprisingly, one of the topics was impeachment. 

We are free (at last) from wondering when on earth House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was going to free the two articles of impeachment from purgatory and actually send them over to the Senate. And we're free from wondering who'll be the House managers who will present the case against the president.  In addition to the obvious (if tainted) Committee Chairs Adam Schiff, who's 59, and Jerry Nadler (72), we've got five others, who, according to this Politico article, reflect Pelosi's

desire for geographic, racial and gender diversity... and draws from the Democratic Caucus' wide swath of legal and national security-related experience. 

In the first of two posts on Thursday, I took a look at the 10%, the 1%, and the 0% - companies that paid $0 in federal taxes last year. One thing I noticed, in looking at the people not the companies, was this.

To be honest, I think many people who express concerns about the 'wealth gap' are in the Top 10% based on income, and some may be there based on net worth as well, who have no idea they've "made it" - which is just one problem we have when talking about all of this income stuff in generalities.

And, in the regular Email of the Week feature, I had to struggle to find a winner. It was almost like we had reverted to where we were months ago.

This was crunch time for many of the candidates, and let me tell you, there were an awful lot of emails were filled with 'Donate' buttons and 'could you just send a little something before midnight/before tomorrow/before it's too late?"  That's what usually happens right before a debate -- and then after the debate, there's the 'I just got off the stage' email, which - you guessed it - also asks for money.

I was glad it was finally the end of the week -- TGIF time. One more time, we had to talk about impeachment - this time, it wasn't what Nancy Pelosi was doing, though. It was what the president was doing with his impeachment team that caught my eye: Ken Starr (yes, THAT Ken Starr) was added to the team - and so was Alan Dershowitz.

... Former Florida AG Pam Bondi is already on the team, helping with 'communications' which, I think, means making appearances on the Fox shows, but I'm not sure.  And, as the article notes, Monica Lewinsky (like Hillary, a 'Leaves of Grass' recipient) chimed in on Twitter.

On Friday morning, shortly after news about Starr joining Trump's legal team broke, Lewinsky wrote in a Twitter post "this is definitely an 'are you f---ing kidding me? kinda day."

So - now you're up to date! Remember, you can always subscribe and never miss a post - look for the Instant Gratification box on the right sidebar.

TGIF 1/17/20

Are we ready for this week's list-makers? As has been the case recently, I'm having a hard time deciding what list these folks should be on - maybe it'll be easier for you.

Let's start with Kenneth Starr. I can't decide which impeachment will be better for Starr's career, the cigar-wielding, serial 'Leaves of Grass' giver, or the race-baiting, xenophobic bigot?

That's right - if you didn't hear the news, Starr has joined president Trump's impeachment defense team, as has Alan Dershowitz. Former Florida AG Pam Bondi is already on the team, helping with 'communications' which, I think, means making appearances on the Fox shows, but I'm not sure.  And, as the article notes, Monica Lewinsky (like Hillary, a 'Leaves of Grass' recipient) chimed in on Twitter.

On Friday morning, shortly after news about Starr joining Trump's legal team broke, Lewinsky wrote in a Twitter post "this is definitely an 'are you f---ing kidding me? kinda day."

And then there's Lev Parnas, the guy with the scoop on all the guys who are pretending that they don't know him or anything about his involvement in the Ukraine affair. All the guys who are pretending that the documents and  pictures and texts that Parnas has shared are fake. Which is kind of funny, when you think about it. Take a look at this snip from a recent Daily Beast article.

In addition to charges of violating campaign-finance laws, Parnas has repeatedly been hit with lawsuits accusing him of refusing to pay rent or live up to his end of various business deals. As recently as 2016, he was ordered by a federal judge to pay more than $500,000 to family trust after he borrowed money for a movie that never ended up being made. 

Seriously, if there was no name in the first sentence, any reasonable person could have thought it was about the president, the guy for whom these same men have forsaken all others, and their ethics, and their collective consciences, and the truth. But I digress.

Here's The Woman Who Pretends To Be White House Press Secretary (TWWPTBWHPS), speaking of Parnas on Trump's personal news network.

The president has said he did not know him and I've got to say, just to say, 'Rudy told me these things' doesn't mean that it has anything to do with the president and it certainly doesn't mean that the president was directing him to do anything. We stand by exactly what we've been saying, the president did nothing wrong. The phone calls, the transcripts say everything there is to it. This is a man who's under indictment and who's actually out on bail. This is a man who owns a company called 'Fraud, Inc.' So I think that's something that people should be thinking about. You know, we're not too concerned about it. Once again, we know that everything in the Senate is going to be fair. It's unfortunate that he's now making a media tour with a lot of the outlets that are against the president. I think that shows exactly what he's doing.

Let's get Stephanie Grisham - she's the TWWPTBWHPS - added to this week's list. First of all, I think this may be the longest statement she's issued since adding the West Wing to her East Wing assignment. And second of all, look how well she pushes the company line, talking about the transcripts that aren't, the Rudy-slamming, mentioning Parnas' indictment and bail, pretending there's going to be a fair trial in the Senate - she's darn good, isn't she?

Of course, she messed up the name of Parnas' company - his business is called Fraud Guarantee, not Fraud, Inc. I think the latter's a Trump Organization holding company for Trump Steaks, Trump University, the Trump Foundation, and so on, maybe not.

For all the people who think Parnas should be completely discounted, all his evidence is right there in his phone, just like Rudy Giuliani says about HIS evidence. I'm not sure who's more reliable of those two, but I'm leaning towards Parnas.

I'm going to put That Guy From Vermont, Elizabeth Warren, and Amy Klobuchar on the list this week - the first two on the bad side, the latter on the good side. Klobuchar continued to demonstrate that she's focused on voters in this election campaign, speaking both about and to Iowans in particular, and to moderates like me in general. I appreciate that, as a non-affiliated voter looking for a candidate.

The other two - TGFV and Warren -  I think royally screwed up during the debate, and of course that hot mic at the end really got to the heart of it: let's call each other a liar on national television, shall we?

The same three of course are now going to be locked in the Senate for Trump's impeachment, without their phones or laptops. It'll be interesting to see who makes the rounds in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina on their behalf, and equally interesting to see whether Joe Biden, Tom Steyer, and/or Pete Buttigieg capitalize on the other three not being out there.

Did I leave out anyone important?

TGIF, everyone.

Email of the Week (v6)

Thursday is 'Email of the Week' day, when I plow through a hundred or so emails from the handful of Democratic presidential candidates I'm following to see what's going on.

This was crunch time for many of the candidates, and let me tell you, there were an awful lot of emails were filled with 'Donate' buttons and 'could you just send a little something before midnight/before tomorrow/before it's too late?"  That's what usually happens right before a debate -- and then after the debate, there's the 'I just got off the stage' email, which - you guessed it - also asks for money.

I thought about giving a team email award, to whichever candidate's team asked me for money the most; and I thought about giving this week's recognition to Cory Booker's suspension email, but I just did that for Julian Castro. So,I read through all 95 emails, and finally found something that was more than just a bald-faced ask for cash.

So, without further ado, here's the coveted email of the week, which echoed one of the sound-bite moments from Tuesday's debate.

Thank you for being part of this grassroots movement. I hope I made you proud on the debate stage tonight.

One of the most important issues we talked about was how we’ll beat Donald Trump. There’s a question out there: Can a woman win? Let’s tackle that question head on:

Collectively, the men on the debate stage tonight have lost ten elections. There were only two people on this stage tonight who have won every single election that they've been in — and they were the women.

Since Donald Trump was elected, women candidates have outperformed men candidates in competitive races. And in 2018, we took back the House and state houses across the country, because of women candidates and women voters.

Here's what I know: the real danger that we face as Democrats is picking a candidate who can't pull our party together, or someone who takes big parts of the Democratic constituency for granted. We need a candidate who will excite all parts of the Democratic party, bring everyone in, and give everyone a Democrat to believe in. And I’m ready to do just that.

Hope and courage win elections. That’s how I will make you proud, every single day, as this party’s nominee — and as the first woman president of the United States.

We're building a grassroots movement together - and together, we will win. Can you chip in tonight and help power this campaign forward? 

Thank you for being a part of this.

Elizabeth  

I'm going to add Tom Steyer to the mix, I think - but I'm not budging on Deval Patrick and Michael Bloomberg - at least, not yet. Maybe the self-funded campaign will bring us some new email panache.

Quick Takes (v48): The Zero Percenters

Quick Takes

We've been hearing for a long time about the 10%, the 1% and even the .10%. You know, the rich, the richer, and the richest of Americans, the ones with all of the money. The people we love to hate. The millionaires and billionaires, the latter group which That Guy From Vermont says shouldn't even exist.

There are lots of ways to identify who falls into these buckets, as this article shows. I've put two calculations into the table: individual income, as of 2019, and net worth, as of 2016, the most recent data available for this method of calculation.

To be honest, I think many people who express concerns about the 'wealth gap' are in the Top 10% based on income, and some may be there based on net worth as well, who have no idea they've "made it" - which is just one problem we have when talking about all of this income stuff in generalities. 

We also hear a lot -- a LOT -- about corporations that don't pay any taxes, and of course, about their owners or executives. You know - Jeff Bezos. Jeff Bezos. Jeff Bezos. And maybe some other folks, but honestly I'd be hard pressed to name any of them, as would most people. Because, if we were to believe the politicians (you know the ones I'm talking about), Jeff Bezos is the worst person in the entirety of the history of the universe.

But here's the thing: there are LOTS Of corporations that don't pay federal taxes, or that get credits against their federal tax liability, giving them an effective tax rate of zero percent. Not just Amazon - although that's the one about which we hear the most.  There's a list, from CNBC, that came out back in December showing the 91 Fortune 500 companies - 91! - with that coveted 'zero percent or less' effective tax rate.

It includes Amazon, we know, but also companies I'm bucketing as follows:

• energy and natural resources, including American Electric Power, Atmos Energy, Chesapeake Energy, Duke Energy,Edison International, Occidental Petroleum and more; 
• financial services, including Ally Financial, Brighthouse Financial, Hartford Financial Services, Prudential Financial Services, and SPX; 
• food and beverage services, including Aramark, Darden Restaurants, MolsonCoors, and Starbucks;
• automotive, logistics and transportation: FedEx, General Motors, Goodyear Tire and Rubber, Navistar International, Penske Automotive, Ryder Systems, and Trinity Industries;
• travel and tourism: Alaska Air Group, Avis Budget Group, JetBlue Airways, MGM Resorts International;
• media: Netflix, Gannett;
• construction: Beacon Roofing, Builders FirstSource, Mohawk Industries;
• fashion: Levi Strauss, Phillips-Van Heusen, Tapestry;
• health care/pharmaceutical: Eli Lilly, McKesson, Tenet Healthcare;
• long-established companies with familiar names, including  Deere, DowDuPont, Halliburton, Honeywell International, IBM, OwensCorning, PitneyBowes, US Steel, Whirlpool; and
• tech companies: Activision Blizzard, DXC Technology, Nvidia, and Salesforce.com among them.

Note that my bucketing is based on personal knowledge or a quick, 100,000-foot-level Internet search and may not directly match how the company considers itself. I do know that many of these companies (and those from the list that I didn't include above) could be hugely diversified and may defy this kind of general bucketing done by a rank amateur like me, or even by an expert. 

That said, I tried to show the breadth of the issue of companies not paying federal taxes, and to illustrate the dearth of publicity about any of these companies - other than Amazon, of course - from the candidates who are running for president or other elected office.  

I get that we like to put faces and names on political issues - easier for people to understand, to remember, and to attack with anger -- I get it.

But,

• if you're running as the climate change guy, look at all the energy companies on the full list, and tell me why you're not shouting about those companies and telling me what we can do if they only paid taxes; 
• if you're running as the savior of health insurance (or even health care) as we know it, look Eli Lilly and McKesson, and talk to me about what you're going to do to make sure they pay their fair share; and; 
• if you're running as the person who's going to clean up Wall Street (again) and the financial industry (again), why are you not pointing your fingers at the easy, easy targets on this list, and showing us all the things you'll do with all that tax revenue?

And, instead of telling us how you're going to tax the wealthy a lot and tax the middle class not very much,l - understanding that people in that 10% bucket think they are the middle class and think they don't deserve to be taxed any more - why not start telling us how you're going to ensure we get that 21% corporate tax rate from all these companies?

Wondering on Wednesday (v193)

Ready... Set... Wonder!

We are free (at last) from wondering when on earth House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was going to free the two articles of impeachment from purgatory and actually send them over to the Senate. And we're free from wondering who'll be the House managers who will present the case against the president.  In addition to the obvious (if tainted) Committee Chairs Adam Schiff, who's 59, and Jerry Nadler (72), we've got five others, who, according to this Politico article, reflect Pelosi's

desire for geographic, racial and gender diversity... and draws from the Democratic Caucus' wide swath of legal and national security-related experience. 

The five:

• Zoe Lofgren, 72. Like Schiff, she represents California and is a lawyer. She was a Judiciary Committee staffer for Nixon's impeachment, and was in the House for Clinton's. She was first elected in 1994. 
• Hakeem Jeffries, 49. He represents folks in New York State (as does Nadler), and is chair of the House Democratic Caucus. He's also a lawyer, Trump critic, and Pelosi supporter. 
• Val Demings, 62. She represents Florida, and was previously the Orlando Police Chief. Demings is on both the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees, but is not a lawyer.
• Jason Crow, 40. The first-termer from Colorado doesn't sit on either Intelligence or Judiciary, but on the Armed Service Committee. He's is one of the "national security freshmen" in the Caucus, he's a lawyer, and is a veteran of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. 
• Sylvia Garcia, 69. The Texas freshman is a member of the Judiciary Committee, is a lawyer and a former municipal judge in Houston, a city she served as controller.

There's plenty to wonder about here, including what the Trump nicknames are going to be for these folks. I mean, it won't be possible for him to resist the urge, right?

What else is wonder-worthy tonight?

Well, there was the debate last night, which was generally serious, and the moderators were pretty specific with their questioning. There was less of the 'you get a question and you get the same question, and you get the same question" thing that we've seen in previous debates. Some have even said it was the most 'debate-like' debate we've had yet, which is not saying much, but at least we're making progress, I guess.

I wonder what Iowa voters think about all of this? Did they learn anything new last night, or was it just more of the same, convincing them that they've made the right choice - if they've made up their minds already? And more importantly, what did the majority of them, the ones who haven't made up their minds or can be swayed to change their minds - what did they learn last night?

And finally, with Tom Steyer representing the billionaire class on the debate stage, the billionaire who wasn't on the stage was representing the 'meatball' class on Twitter during the debate.  Seriously.

And that was just one of the goofy tweets Team Bloomberg put out there for entertainment during the debate.  You can read more of them in this NY Post article.

I can't help wondering what folks in the Bloomberg ad states think about all of this? And what the Bloomberg team was really trying to do here? 

The Seventh Debate...

CNN

There they are: the five Democrats and That Guy From Vermont (TGFV) who qualified for the January debate last night on CNN. Here's the gist of the conversation from the #allwhite #mostlyold affair.

I missed some of the 'Commander in Chief' section, but I did catch that too many of these candidates have been around too long, in that they're able to tell us how they voted 15 or 20-odd years ago, and they're able to argue about it with each other, as did Papa Joe Biden and TGFV. 

Mayor Pete was able to get in a bit of a dig at that, noting that he served with people too young to remember the votes those two, and Warren too, I think, were talking about -- and that the people who are enlisting today might not even have been alive on 9/11, so the fact that we're using really old Authorizations for the Use of Military Force (AUMFs) to justify actions that are being taken now is kind of odd. Klobuchar pointed to bipartisan support for a Senate bill to require a new AUMF for anything related to Iraq.

Warren and Steyer pointed to their judgment; the former is from a military family, sits on the Armed Services Committee, spends time with the troops, fights for their benefits and says that corruption in DC (defense contractors, lobbyists, DOD, members of Congress, and whatever administration is in office) puts them at risk. The latter focused on his experience dealing with international leaders in business and government, and says we need an outside perspective. He and Warren also agree that we're spending way too much money on defense.

Moving to trade, TGFV will not vote for the USMCA, basically saying that the incremental changes it will make are not enough, that it doesn't do anything about climate change, and even though the AFL-CIO supports is, the Machinists don't - and they support him. He also said he's sick and tired of trade deals being negotiated by corrupt CEOs, corrupt politicians, and corrupt everything and everyone else, and that trade deals are done to enrich multinational corporations, and he's sick of that too.

Warren, Klobuchar, and Buttigieg all support the new deal, even though it's only giving incremental benefit to workers and farmers - but incremental is better than nothing.  Klobuchar pointed out that this is about real people and we should be talking about them, not ideological concepts - and if we don't do this, we can't take on China. They all also want to see climate and worker rights incorporated but again, take the win, now, for the people who desperately need the help, Skippy.

Warren also touched on how corporations and lobbyists are whispering in the ears of government negotiators, that needs to change, we need to call out the corruption of the trade deals and fix that. And we need climate people, we need farmers, we need workers, we need everyone else at the table during the negotiations and all of those things need to be included if we're going to let people do business with America - which is what everyone wants to do.

Biden says he's the best one to take this on, and that we need corporate responsibility and that no trade deal under a Obama Biden administration would be done without labor and climate people at the table. And, he said, we need enforceable agreements, we need to set the rules, and we need our allies at the table too.

Steyer on day one will eliminate Trump tariffs, eliminate special waivers, focus on farmers and workers and climate, because he four kids need us to fix it (and oh, by the way, Mayor Pete - you're the same age as Steyer's kids...jab, jab), to which Mayor Pete basically said talk is cheap, everyone's saying the right things about climate but it's time to start actually doing something about it.

The whole "a woman can't be elected president" turned out to be a nothingburger - it wasn't even an all-out 'he said, she said' because, while TGFV denied making the comment and pointed to all the wonderful things he's done for women, as well as to Hillary Clinton winning the popular vote, as well as to kicking off a 'draft Warren push at some point in his really long career, for her part Warren didn't engage on her accusation, she was allowed to deflect to the larger question of who can win.

She and Klobuchar, Warren said, are the only people on the stage who have never lost an election. She herself if the only person up there to have beaten a Republican incumbent in 30 years, which lead to an eye-rolling conversation between her and TGFV about whether 1990 was "in 30 years" or not.   Klobuchar has won all over the place (red, blue, purple, urban, rural, etc.), and that - along with competency - is what the Dems need to beat Trump, she said.

TGFV pointed out his grass's roots are deeper than the Warren's or anyone else's, and although he didn't come right out and say it, he's a better Larry David impersonator than the rest of them combined. Meanwhile, Papa Joe? He campaigned for 27 great women in 2018, he's got the broad-est (get it?) coalition, and I think he thinks it's cool that two women are on the stage with him.

On healthcare - this one's going to be hard summarize, but here goes. TGFV says his plan will cost substantially less than what people pay now; Biden says the people deserve to know how the candidates are going to pay for their plans and TGFV's plan is NOT paid for, and it's way too expensive compared to just expanding Obamacare. His own plan, Papa Joe says, limits drug costs, allows Medicare to negotiate prescription costs, limits increases in costs to the rate of medical inflation, and oops, I'm probably out of time but you get the drift.

TGFV argued that 'workers' are paying 20% of their income on health care, which is insane. I worked 40 years and NEVER paid that much for health care - EVER. And, the administrative nightmare, corrupt insurance companies and drug companies need to walk the proverbial plank and do what other countries do, whether anyone likes it or not.

Klobuchar correctly points out that the majority of people are not on board with the details of M4A, even though they like the concept. That's a tough row to hoe for the M4A plans, and they don't even touch addiction, mental health and our looming long-term care crisis.

Warren wants to start ending the suffering, using presidential powers, and then eventually get to M4a but corruption and whatnot, I think. And, even though she supports incremental changes on trade deals for workers and farmers and stuff, that's not enough here. And oh, by the way, the 1%, for your Bingo cards.

Klobuchar (along with Papa Joe and Mayor Pete) says we need to build on the ACA which by the way is 10 points more popular than Trump who wants to kill it, and her plan actually pays for everything. A plan, we need a plan, not a bunch of pipe dreams. We need things that will actually pass, like one of her bills with 34 cosponsors in the Senate.

Mayor Pete's plan, which allows you to keep your plan if you want to, requires some people to have to pay something for it, and that's OK with him - and it's way cheaper than the others. We need to focus on outcomes and benefits, not how "big" it is. Warren says he's wrong, we need to get help to families and stuff. Even though, Klobuchar noted, Warren will kick 149 million people off their current insurance, even if she says it won't.

Steyer supports the ACA with a public option - but also that government is being held hostage by drug companies, hospitals, and insurance companies. Or maybe that was Warren. Or TGFV, I can't tell half the time. And we need term limits, which has nothing directly to do with health care or health insurance or jobs or anything. but I agree -- we need term limits, so we wouldn't be having Dem debates with a bunch of old white folks with 100 years of public office between them.

TGFV was asked what happens to everyone who works in health care, their jobs and livelihoods and related jobs and livelihoods. He brushed it off, pretty much -- there's a trust fund, and job training and free college or something like that, but meanwhile he talked about waste, profiteering, and all that jazz - and got away with it. None of the other candidates had to even discuss that point and how their plans would handle that.  And yes, Warren said, the government should get into the generic drug manufacturing business - so maybe that's where all those displaced workers can go?

On childcare and education, my favorite line was from TGFV who complained that childcare workers make less than fast food workers. I literally laughed out loud at that, coming from Mr. Fight for $15. A few of them want to limit childcare to a set percentage of income, with Mayor Pete saying if we didn't do that, we'd continue to have a gender employment gap. Warren wants free education, free childcare and free universal pre-K, regardless of income, except for the folks subject to her wealth tax would who would pay around $19M each for the rest of us to get the free stuff.  And she'll raise the pay of childcare workers and teachers.

Biden was a single parent, he knows what it means to struggle, we need a $8K tax credit for childcare and oops, I'm out of time, maybe, or maybe not, but you get the drift.

Mayor Pete says we shouldn't be paying for free college for children of millionaires and billionaires, saying we need to spend the money we get where it matters: on things that benefit everyone, which paying for these kids to go to college doesn't do. Besides, the public expectation is education through 12th grade,  not forever.

Klobuchar pointed out we need to invest where we need the training, not make blanket plans - home care workers, nursing assistants, electricians and plumbers - those are where the jobs are going to be, not for MBAs...  And, Steyer said he kids should not be entitled to free colleges - that's not an appropriate expenditure of tax money, no matter who the money comes from.

On impeachment they all agreed it was necessary, wouldn't make it harder to run against Trump, won't embolden him (I mean honestly, he's already a jerk of epic proportions), and the senators have to do their duty.  Warren said the c-word (corruption) again, and maybe again, on this part. Klobuchar said if they can't get four Republicans to vote for witnesses, they Rs might as well give Trump a crown and scepter, and this whole thing is a decency check on Trump.

The best answer on this was Steyer's response to the question on whether his spending millions saying Trump needs to be impeached will have been worth it if Trump is acquitted. In a nutshell, he said if someone doesn't think getting 8.5 million people motivated to sign petitions, to contact their elected officials, to stand up for what's right - if you don't think that's worth it, you have a very different opinion of what's right than he does.  Way too few people responded with applause on that. I was disappointed.

On climate, they all agree we need to do stuff, they all agree we can't act alone, but we have to act and we have to include farmers as part of the process since they'll be part of the solution. And we have to deal with this where it hurts the most - in poor neighborhoods and in the impact to people of color who are hit by this more than others. And we can't forget taking care of farmers who won't be in business anymore, who can't be relocated to areas that are not flood prone, for example, and the same applies to factories.

Warren would put back in place the good Obama regs, roll back the bad Trump changes; stop all drilling and mining on public lands including offshore, and corruption. Klobuchar said natural gas is a 'transition' fuel to get us to carbon neutral, and we have to make people whole when we take away their livelihoods as we move where we want to be.

TGFV says the Green New Deal will solve all the world's problems, he helped write that damn bill too, or something. The arm-waving is very distracting to someone like me who has ADD. Papa Joe's been doing this for forty years, he knows what he's talking about, and he'll put back his Obama administration mileage requirements and jobs and charging stations, YEAHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!! (Oh wait, that last part was Howard Dean, sorry).

And finally, the random questions, like

• maybe black folks have decided that they don't like Pete Buttigieg, rather than that they don't know enough about him. I thought that was a rhetorical question, but he tried to answer it, saying he continues to pick up endorsements from people of color and he'll be a president with a personal commitment to do the right thing by everyone.
• maybe it's going to be harder for TGFV because people don't want a socialist president; he seems unconcerned, saying he'll run a campaign proving that Trump is corrupt and the Democratic Socialists aren't. He's going to take the whole damn thing on and he's going to win.

They all chimed in on a question about the good economy and how to beat Trump who's already running on that issue, or how to beat him in general. Steyer built his multinational business on his own, without millions in daddy's seed money, and then he walked away and is now doing good things, not bad things like Trump. He can fight on this issue and win. 

Buttigieg can win on that, because he's one of the people Trump pretends to be interested in and care about - and, by the way, he can bring faith into the picture in a real way, not the fake way Trump does. And Mayor Pete is a veteran, not a draft dodger. 

Klobuchar says we want something different - we're tired of the 15,000 lies and counting Trump, and she's from flyover country - her home, her friends, her people are there. And her family trust is a very different one from his - but it's like the one most of us have. 

Warren and her Republican brothers agree  society that works for billionaires is bad, corporations not paying taxes is bad, and if they can agree, she's the one who can unite everyone and win. 

Biden has been the object of Trump's affection longer than anyone, he laughed, and he's got support from blacks, the working class, from around the world, and he can't wait to debate Trump on the economy, because the American people are being clobbered. 

And finally, closing arguments:

• Klobuchar: Trump thinks it's about him, she knows it's - the voters. They need someone like her to bring people along and who cares about the things that matter. It's easy to be a jerk like Trump or to have all kinds of ideological plans that won't ever see the light of day, but that's not going to beat him. If you're tired of all of that, she said, you've got a home with her.
• Steyer has played team sports all his live, and Americans are now his teammates. No one gets to run down the field and kick his teammates in the face, and that's what Trump does. Support him on caucus night, and you can save the world.
• Mayor Pete: join him to send not just Trump, but Trumpism, to the dust heap. End the dysfunction, join him if you can summon the courage to break from the past and change all of this nonsense. Caucus for him on the third. 
• Warren: look at all this stuff we didn't talk about (a laundry list of individual bullet points that matter to individual pockets of Americans) but her heart is filled with hope that together we can build a coalition that can decide the fate of the country and when we build the movement we can make real change 
• TGFV: good debate (arms waving) but we're not even talking about the important stuff (arms waving) people living paycheck to paycheck, living in the street, no guaranteed child care, only guaranteed arm waving, a broken criminal justice system, think big not small (size of arm waving matters) take on the 1% and the corporations. No mention of killing billionaires.
• Papa Joe: character is on the ballot - American character. Not hate, not xenophobia that is spewed by Trump. We can fundamentally (not literally, not even Joe Biden literally) restore decency and regain the respect of the world. We are the United States of America, dammit - there's nothing we can't do if we pull together. Oops, I'm out of time. Let's go do it!

Whew. 

Sunday School Extra Credit 1/12/20

I wanted to spend some time with one of the roundtable gangs in this week, and chose the panel from ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos, since they had House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to talk about.

This Week's group included former NJ Governor Chris Christie; former Obama administration ambassador to South Africa Patrick Gaspard; Rachael Bade of the WaPo, and Molly Ball from Time Magazine.

For background on the panel's discussion about impeachment, I've included some of Pelosi's comments from her chat with George. First off, she said she always intended to send the articles, so "there shouldn't be any mystery to that."

What we did want, though, and we think we accomplished in the past few weeks, is that we wanted the public to see the need for witnesses, witnesses with firsthand knowledge of what happened, documentation which the president has prevented from coming to Congress as we review this. 

And, in response to George's statement that Mitch McConnell (R-White House) still isn't promising there'll be any witnesses, Pelosi said

Well, he has -- he will -- I think that he will be accountable to the American people for that. Over 70% of the American people think that the president should have those witnesses testify. So, again, it is - it's about a fair trial. They take an oath to -- to have a fair trial. And we think that would be with witnesses and documentation. So, that dynamic has - now the ball is in their court to either do that, or pay a price for not doing it. 

How did the panel react?  Rachael Bade noted that Pelosi was "clearly putting a positive spin on what a lot of Democrats have privately said was a failed strategy." She didn't get any commitment on having witnesses, or on how the trial would be run - and, the "revelations" that dropped over the past weeks, including John Bolton saying he'd testify if asked to, "probably would have happened regardless" of Pelosi's actions, adding

And, in fact, there might have been even more news focused on those things, if everybody wasn't asking, 'what is Nancy Pelosi doing (with) the articles?' So, I do think there are a lot of Democrats who, while not going on the record and saying it, a lot of them have concerns about this.

Molly Ball talked responded to George's statement about Dems who suggested (again, off the record)  Pelosi didn't have a choice because McConnell can't be trusted, particularly "that maybe he might even move quickly to dismiss."

Ball said the standoff between Pelosi and McConnell was "very sort of unstoppable force meets immovable object," noting they're both "very clever" tacticians - but she discounted the quick dismissal theory.

I think that that was probably never a strong possibility, just because of president Trump. It's been clear from the start that he always wanted to have the exoneration of a Senate trial, not a mere dismissal. And he has been putting pressure on McConnell behind the scenes this whole time. And so that - if there was any leverage on the part of the Democrats, that was where the leverage sat. 

Stephanopoulos suggested, though, that the president had come around to McConnell's strategy of having no witnesses, if it's actually successful. Chris Christie thought that shift was "inevitable" - because, he said, "nobody does this better than Mitch McConnell."

And that's what Nancy Pelosi learned over the last three weeks, and what Chuck Schumer has learned time and time again.. And the president has learned over time, by watching all the judges he's gotten confirmed, and all the ways he's done things to make the president's legacy even better, that it's probably smart to listen to McConnell on this. 

He pointed to Pelosi's "serious error in political judgment"- holding back the articles - as the primary reason "this has been a really good three weeks for the president." He also noted that during this time, we haven't had the media doing special reports on the start of the trial and whatnot - so Trump was able to talk about other stuff, as he chose.

Patrick Gaspard did not agree with Christie so much, noting that they're "arguing balls and strikes after the game's already been decided."

The president of the United States has been impeached by Congress.... And you right that nobody's better than Mitch McConnell at obstructing governance."

Needless to say, there was some laughter when Christie pointed out that wasn't exactly what he said.  Gaspard continued, noting that

now the pressure is on him and his caucus and senators in states that were won by Hillary Clinton last time whose names are on the ballot now. And they have got to defend this process. 

Christie said the game was over, noting Trump's "not going to be removed;" he also expressed confidence that there won't be witnesses - and Bade agreed, even as Stephanopoulos mentioned both Mitt Romney and Susan Collins said they'd like to hear from folks. She pointed out they need four Republicans to go along with the Dems, and "that's going to be an uphill battle" given how well McConnell manages his caucus.

She's also watching the Trump-McConnell dynamic, which she finds "really interesting," pointing to their contrasting styles.

And yet, throughout this whole past few weeks, Trump has been deferring to McConnell over and over again regarding witnesses. McConnell privately convinced him, 'let's not call in Hunter Biden, let's not call in Joe Biden, let's do no witnesses, because if they bring in someone like Bolton, it's mutual assured destruction' is what he's told his members. 

Moving to the three Democratic candidates who are also senators -  Amy Klobuchar, Elizabeth Warren, and That Guy from Vermont - they talked about how the impeachment trial might impact them. Joe Biden and Mayor Pete - who don't have to worry about it - could gain some ground if they're out there pretty much alone.

Molly Ball agreed with Stephanopoulos that Iowa is "anybody's ballgame right now" and that the impeachment trial is on everyone's mind, particularly the Vermonter,  now leading in the polls, who

is not going to be able to be out there on the stump. And it's a potentially big problem to try to do these things simultaneously. The senators are required to be there at the trial, but they can't talk, and so they're sort of sitting on their hands watching the clock wind down.

She also noted that the debate this week "is going to be very important" given how tight the field is.

The issue of witnesses may also make a mess of things in New Hampshire - and beyond, conceivably, which Rachel Bade recognized. For the Dems, it's a blessing and a curse, she said. On the one hand, Dems have been waiting for months to hear from first-hand witnesses.

I mean, the top Republican talking point pushing back against these charges against the president has been, 'oh, your witnesses are second-hand information. None of them have actually talked to the president.' Well, Democrats want to hear from those people who have been talking to the president, Bolton. Mick Mulvaney. 

On the other hand, she said,

But if they decide, at the end of it, it's going to take about two weeks for them to go through opening arguments... if they get that fourth Republican to call in, you know, Bolton or some of these first-hand witnesses, then that could mean another two to four weeks, I mean, of impeachment trial all throughout the various caucuses in the states.

And that could be a big problem for Sanders and Warren, she said.

Christie got the last word on this., saying that the presidential candidate senators are "real fans of the -- of the Pelosi strategy, I guess, right?" and adding

Three weeks - three weeks they've waited now. And that extends them even further into the - into the season. Nancy Pelosi is not going to be getting any cards or letters from those four thanking her for her great, failed strategy.

Christie included Booker, who was still in the race when the panel was having their conversation - he dropped out today - and whether there are four senators in the hunt or only three, I suspect he's right on his point that none of them are thanking their lucky stars for Pelosi right about now.

What will be interesting is to see what Mitch McConnell does once he has the articles in hand. Does he rush forward to put the president out of his misery, or does he put the brakes on a little, to make it a little less comfortable for the candidates?  Stay tuned.

That's your extra credit -- see you around campus.

Sunday School 1/12/20

Two of the 2020 Dems were in the classrooms this morning - Tom Steyer, with Jake Tapper on CNN's State of the Union, and Michael Bennet with Chuck Todd on Meet the Press, which is where we'll start.

Bennet, a Colorado senator since 2009, has only been in two debates, most recently in July, so it wouldn't be surprising if you didn't remember he was still out there fighting for attention - and votes.  Let's listen in and see what's going on.

First up? Impeachment, and how difficult it's going to be when Bennet and the other senators will have to be in DC to participate as jurors in the president's trial, instead of out campaigning.

Bennet thinks it will be "disruptive" but, noting there's nothing he can do about it, said

I choose not to worry about it. We have, all of us, a constitutional responsibility that we have to fulfill here...I take my oath seriously. And in the meantime, I'm spending every single second I can in New Hampshire, trying to fulfill my commitment to hold an additional 50 town halls here. 

He said he's already spent more time there than the others, and will continue to do that.

Todd asked him (somewhat oddly, I thought) as "a guy that...has spent a lot of time reading Federalist Papers" what power he thinks the Dems have, being the minority party, "to force a fair trial?" Noting the stakes "could not be higher here," Bennet said the Trump is holding both the American people and the Constitution "in contempt," mentioning "the decision to provoke a war, potentially, with Iran, his stonewalling of the House, and now his stonewalling of the Senate," adding

...I think the framers... would demand of the people that are sitting in judgment that they put the Constitution in front of the president, and that they use this as an opportunity to remind the American people why the rule of law is so important and why nobody, including the president, is above the law. 

So, even if Bennet didn't know what the Federalist Papers were, he's exactly where just about every other Democrat is: no one is above the law, period. Todd wondered about public opinion, asking if "two thirds of the public isn't there, does that matter to you?"

I think it's important for public opinion to at least understand that what we're trying to do is hold the president accountable. And we may not have gotten, in the end, a conviction of the president. But maybe what we did was reestablish the standard of ethics that we expect out of a president and the standard of constitutional law that we expect from a president. I think that's important, in and of itself. 

My next question would have been something along the lines of "You sound like that's all you're going to get out of the trial. Is that correct?"

Instead, Todd wondered if  Bennet thought four Republicans would join the Dems in asking for witnesses (John Bolton was mentioned). Bennet said he had no expectations, but that he doesn't think it's impossible. Americans, he said, want witnesses and "they want to see the records from the White House as well."

Next, the conversation turned to Iran. Todd wondered if Trump's actions may have "inadvertently strengthened the Sanders wing of the party over, say, the Biden wing or the moderate wing" - Bennet's lane.

Actually, I'm much more concerned that what he's strengthened is the hardliner wing of the Iranian government. That is what he's done since he became president. I think that's what he's done, again, with the action that he's taken...  

And that calls for "heightened scrutiny" of the president, in a nonpartisan way.

...when you have a president who's as lawless as this one seems to be, on the international stage and the domestic stage, I think it's important for not just Democrats to come together, but Americans to come together and say, 'We're going to put the Constitution ahead of this president.'

Bennet agreed that it's "much harder" to unite the Dems if you were in favor of the Iraq War, and it's harder to fight Trump under those circumstances too - because Trump "takes every single position..."

Todd asked if that means Sanders is more electable than Biden, who was in favor of the war, I guess he said, until he wasn't. After noting people would say "that was not his (Biden's) finest hour," he continued

... from my vantage point, there's a real question in my mind about whether any of the leading candidates can take on Donald Trump, which is why I've stayed in this race, Chuck. 

In New Hampshire, voters  are "more undecided today then they were six weeks ago or six months ago" bu "they know we need to nominate somebody who can beat Donald Trump."  He thinks he's the one, while agreeing there's a point where he (and others) will "have to coalesce around a leader," if there one, by end of February or end of March.

Yeah, I definitely think that's the right timeline. I think we will have to coalesce around somebody. My hope, Chuck, is to come in the top third in New Hampshire.  And I'm slogging it out... trying to see if we can make progress here. But at some point, the most important thing for us is to come together and make sure Donald Trump is a one-term president. 

They left it there, without, I noticed, Todd's customary "be safe out there on the trail' sendoff.  Hmm.

In Case You Missed It (v18)

Too busy this week trying not to break your New Year's resolutions to read blog posts?  Not a problem - here's your week in review, starting with this week's Sunday School classroom visits.

I sat in with Senator Elizabeth Warren and Mayor Pete Buttigieg as they made the rounds. Among the topics discussed? The killing of Iranian terrorist Qassem Soleimani, and how the military should be used; impeachment; Warren's 'backtracking' on some key policies; and Buttigieg's alleged coziness with fatcat donors. Take a look, at Warren on Meet the Press and Mayor Pete on State of the Union.

On her support for the USMCA, what's called NAFTA 2.0, which she previously opposed, she said the "Democrats got in and negotiated a very different deal than we had a year ago" even as she said it wasn't a "great arrangement," noting that workers and farmers have been hurt by the Trump administration and need support.

 Again, staying with Warren's attacks, Tapper asked if Buttigieg would match her commitment to not appoint any high-dollar donors as ambassadors. Anyone he appoints "will be there on their merits, and will be neither qualified or disqualified based on the idea that they supported and believed in my campaign."

I gave Sunday School Extra Credit to anyone who put up with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who hit every classroom, and got almost the exact same questions in each. And, he made a distinct point to make reference to the previous administration on every show, too. Here's just one example.

Remember where we came in. In 2015, the Obama-Biden administration essentially handed power to the Iranian leadership and acted as a quasi-ally of theirs, by underwriting them -- underwriting the very malicious - that killed Americans.

He got better at making sure to mention Joe Biden, not just Barack Obama. Helluva guy, Pompeo is - in case the Ukraine nonsense doesn't stick, let's make sure the faithful think that Biden is comfy with terrorists... Gotta cover all the bases for the boss, right?  

In a Quick Takes entry, I looked at the influence of billionaire money in the Dem race, and learned that, on the one hand, the Bloomberg (and Steyer) bucks are having a significant impact on advertising rates, as reported by the NY Post.  

That's right - Bloomberg's spending has resulted in a 22% increase in a "typical TV market," the article says, pointing to an analysis by Advertising Analytics. As a for instance, 

Houston was among the markets that responded most actively to the new advertiser, it added. This is partially attributable to Bloomberg’s $1 [million] buy increasing the political spending in the market tenfold. This shock spending increase was matched by a 45% increase in rates, which is among the highest of any market. 

The flip side of the coin? How much influence in the primaries themselves is the money having? I look at that, too. 

The coveted Democratic Presidential candidate Email of the Week had a first-time winner - and one of the best opening lines of any email I've gotten in recent memory.  Can you guess who sent it?

Quite frankly, our criminalization of cannabis is stupid and racist. 

When it came to TGIF, among the list-makers was House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who has finally decided to move the impeachment along. Here are a few of the contributors to my assessment of her bad week.

• Some of her own flock were suggesting publicly it was time to get this moving;
• having no say, really, in what happens in the Senate, she was merely sitting on the sidelines as Mitch McConnell and Chuck Schumer fought about what the trial would look like; 
• Several senators threatened to change the Senate rules to declare this all a nothingburger if the Articles weren't sent over timely; and
• McConnell voted his support for just such a proposal.

There were some folks who had a good week, too.

And finally, I pulled out the Irony Board today, in which I looked a progressive star not having a whole lot of interest in paying her union dues... that just seems odd to me.

And speaking of a 'blanket rule', I always thought that everyone in the union was supposed to pay the dues - even people who disagreed with what the union was doing, right? That doesn't get you a pass - not according to politicians, anyway. Some courts have ruled in favor of the 'don't want to pay' crowd, but you won't find a lot of Democrat pols taking that position.

 Not only that, but

I wonder what would happen if all the folks who are in unions today, or who get all the union jobs proposed under the Green New Deal all the sudden decided that paying dues was for the birds? I'm pretty sure a certain congresswoman would have something to say about that...

So, there you have it -- the veritable pastiche for the week, in a nutshell.  Drop your email in the 'Instant Gratification' box at the top of the right sidebar to be sure you don't miss a post. 

See you next week!

The Irony Board: AOC's Not Paying Dues?

I love me some good irony, don't you?

And that's just what we have today, with this article from The Hill about how progressive favorite Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, or AOC as she's known - the very pro-union AOC -  is apparently going to refuse to do the one thing almost all union members do: pay their dues.

According to The Hill's reporting,

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) on Friday defended her decision not to pay dues to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) saying she would seek to funnel money directly to Democrats in tough races. 

Asked by The Hill if she intended to pay dues to the House Democratic campaign arm this cycle, Ocasio-Cortez replied, "I don't think so." 

Huh?  How's that again?

Ocasio-Cortez, who "has emerged as one of the Democratic Party's most prolific fundraisers in the House," outraised all other House Dems in Q3 2019, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi. She and the Speaker have clashed in the past, and according to the article, she's had issues with the DCCC as well,

particularly after it began sidelining vendors who work with candidates seeking to challenge incumbent Democrats in primaries. 

Instead of paying the ~$250K dues, she's hoping to raise that money and give it to other candidates - House Dems, and "non-incumbent candidates." And, her behavior is not making other members of her union happy. Rep. Gregory Meeks, also from NY, said this in an interview on Fox.

Sometimes the question comes: 'Do you want to be in a majority or do you want to be in the minority? And do you want to be part of a team?'

An unnamed Dem was, according to Fox, "less diplomatic."

Deadbeat Cortez should pay her bills. She's always whining about people paying their fair share and here she is, leaving her friends with the bill. 

And, of course, helping progressive candidates in battles against incumbents like Rep. Henry Cuellar of Texas (who has paid his dues) is not sitting well with her fellow Dems. Cuellar said of AOC supporting his primary opponent,

Certainly, these are new times, which is something that we certainly don't agree with. To have people try to purify the caucus because they don't agree with them - 100%, I certainly don't agree with that. Hopefully we will start to get away from this circular firing squad.

 For her part, AOC says she's "happy to support some incumbents, but it's not just a blanket rule."

And speaking of a 'blanket rule', I always thought that everyone in the union was supposed to pay the dues - even people who disagreed with what the union was doing, right? That doesn't get you a pass - not according to politicians, anyway. Some courts have ruled in favor of the 'don't want to pay' crowd, but you won't find a lot of Democrat pols taking that position.

And I thought that union members didn't attack their own? I get that you can support a different slate of candidates for union leadership roles than the incumbents, for example - free and fair elections being part and parcel of the union construct, and all. But refusing to support your fellow members?  That goes against everything the labor movement and the pro-labor politicians stand for, doesn't it? I always thought it did.

I wonder what would happen if all the folks who are in unions today, or who get all the union jobs proposed under the Green New Deal all the sudden decided that paying dues was for the birds? I'm pretty sure a certain congresswoman would have something to say about that...