3.14.21: All Republicans Have Left Is 'No'

"It makes absolutely no sense to me that people aren't getting vaccinated because of political reasons," to cite Dr. Fauci today. And yet, eighty-one percent of Republicans who voted for Trump said in a poll that they would not get vaccinated. One must admit that that is a pretzel logic that's difficult to digest, but it's the lingering legacy of the last administration.

Instead of mobilizing constituents in the same of public health, Republican-controlled state houses are enacting laws to restrict voting, weighted toward disenfranchising people of color. Two hundred, sixty new voter-restriction laws in 43 states with Georgia at the epicenter, but the state's Lt. Governor, Geoff Duncan, isn't having it. He called the new voter laws proposed by state Republicans a solution in search of a problem. In addition, Mr. Duncan explained that the laws do not remedy the 'problem,' which Republicans are alleging - voter fraud.  

Void of ideas and the ability to govern, it seems like Republicans are emptying their pockets of any political power currency they have left which is their ability to change voting laws to make it more difficult for people of color (who predominantly support Democrats) from voting.

Stacey Abrams, founder of Fair Fight, described these laws as the most repressive since the Jim Crow era and said that Congress, specifically the Senate, needs to do away with the filibuster for voting laws in light of the House passing HR 1. She also explained that her focus is on our democracy, not just voting rights, because she strongly believes that these newly created laws are undemocratic. In a sense she is correct because the goal of all these laws in essence is to have the minority rule the majority.

However, the Senate isn't going to get rid of the filibuster for that, simply not going to happen. The column has long felt that Democrats always want to go big, which isn't an issue, but they go too big and then the load gets dropped on their foot. With that in mind, what if the Democratically controlled House passed a law that made the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November every four years a national holiday? (As it should be.) Instead of the one killer blow, maybe they should try a death-by-1,000-cuts strategy. Make it more difficult for Republicans to say 'no.' And in terms of the filibuster, Senators should be forced to actually do it instead of just threatening. Force them to stand on the Senate floor for 18 hours giving a speech. Some of the octogenarian Senators will think twice.  

To bring it full circle, Dr. Fauci doesn't understand how wearing a mask or taking a vaccine could be political, but for Republicans it has to be all cynical politics - power for the sake of power. With a party bankrupt of ideas as they are, all they is no.

Panel: Hallie Jackson, NBC News; Maria Teresa Kumar, Voto Latino; Lanhee Chen, Hoover Institute; John Heilemann, NBC News

3.7.21: Has Everyone Gone Home A Little Unhappy? Good.

He's a Democrat and he's holding up the bill... How dare he? 

This is where we are that if a Senator, in this case Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV), who supports the $1.9 trillion Covid Relief bill sees something added late in the process that he doesn't like and calls it out, parts of people's brains begin to melt sending the neocortex into full retreat. 

Take a breath...

This shouldn't be a problem and it isn't. Yes, there is an urgency to passing this bill because employment benefits for millions are going to run out in a week, but Democrats should appreciate having a check like Senator Manchin in their party. Just as he explained today to Chuck Todd, he may not always heed Republican Senators' advice or counsel but he wants to hear what they have to say, Democrats should do the same with Mr. Manchin. Granted, the senator from West Virginia has incredible leverage to have his voice heard called 'the deciding vote' for the Democratic agenda. 

This is a good example of compromise (at least among Democrats) because the bill was passed in the Senate, but some things had to be left out effectively leaving all interlocutors a little disappointed. 

With that mind, not raising the minimum wage is something in which his column disagrees with Senator Manchin Senate and Senator Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ). We get it that they are trying to thread the needle that raising the minimum wage isn't directly related to Covid relief and the parliamentarian gave them an out if they wanted, but this was a political needle so that conservative donors in their respective states don't come after them for it. Take that as you will.

As we've said in the past, raising the minimum wage will not be as hard on businesses as the rhetoric allows, but what it does do is giving a better baseline to reach and negotiate for better opportunity. The way we see it is that Republicans in Congress take the position that there shouldn't even be a minimum wage as most people make more than $15 an hour... Most people that they know.  Democrats on the other hand that there should be a minimum wage and that wage should be enough so that you're not working 40 hours per week and still living in poverty, as opposed to just the minimum that an employer is obligated to pay a worker. When considering that nuance, you're bound to end up with some 'no' votes. [Aside: as for the aforementioned, Senator Sinema and her 'no' vote on the minimum wage increase, appreciable sass but very poorly timed.]

As for the price tag of this Covid Relief bill - $1.9 trillion - it's an eye-opener for sure and at the top of the program Mr. Todd mentioned that we've thrown $6 trillion at the pandemic in a year, which definitely raises more than an eyebrow. When Danielle Pletka brought up this very fact, we were right on the same page. The cold fact is that there is no moving on from the pandemic unless we spend this money, and the question has to be asked of how the previous $4.1 trillion was spend - it wasn't all direct payments.

Also, it's interesting to note that when it comes to spending, Republicans and Democrats spend the same amounts - the big differences are to whom and the duration of time. Republicans when in power will give a $2 trillion tax cut to the richest one percent over the course of ten years whereas Democrats will give the same amount to the middle class and working poor immediately.

This bill is designed to do two things: 1) get the pandemic under control and get the population vaccinated and 2) create an economic 'reset' for all the millions of Americans who have suffered to make them somewhat whole again.

If you don't think that should be the goal of the government, just remember that one day you woke up and heard that Amazon effectively pays zero in federal income tax, a company that could pretty much fund the direct payments with one quarter's revenue. 

Yeah, that's what we thought - spend the money.

Panel: Yamiche Alcindor, PBS News Hour; Danielle Pletka, American Enterprise Institute; Jeh Johnson, fmr. Secretary Homeland Security; Jonathan Allen, NBC News

One more thing...
New York Governor Andrew Cuomo... should resign his office immediately. Even if you're a supporter of the governor think about it - the remainder of his current term will not be centered on the greater good of the state and will only serve to distract from governing. The credibility of these women's stories is unequivocal, but even with that aside, Governor Cuomo should not be getting his due process at the expense of the citizens of New York state. A true leader would understand this, the people of the state are more important than one man's political self preservation. (Seriously, who do you think we are? Senate Republicans?)

.

2.28.21: "Protecting People is Protecting the Economy"

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said that he had spoken with President Biden this week and we wonder if he gave him that very simple, yet effective messaging nugget that he put forth on today's program, which was "Protecting people is protecting the economy." Great messaging if you're trying to pass a $1.9 trillion Covid relief package through Congress. Don't you think?

The two main concerns with regard to the bill are that it will make the total government layout $6 trillion in one calendar year, as Chuck Todd pointed out during the discussion, and the other is the inflation that could be caused by infusing so much liquid into an economy that is beginning to recover as Brett Stephens mentioned.

Both parties have been exploding the national debt over the decades and one can only wonder when that day of reckoning will come when the interest payments become unmanageable. Inflation is a concern but with smart fiscal policy it can be mitigated. Pricing going up while wages stay flat so that you're dollar covers less - inflation - has been going on for some time now (an understatement), but if the concern is Venezuela-type inflation, that worry is overblown.

The economy is starting to recover, but the recovery will certainly be disproportionate in who it benefits without the Covid relief bill passing. The relief package consists of elements that directly address Covid efforts - vaccine distribution, testing, tracing, PPE, et al, but its also designed to make people and state governments whole again. It's this part of the bill that Republicans in Congress object to even though Republican governors and mayors are in favor of its passage because they know they need the help to balance their budgets and prevent layoffs of public employees like firemen and police. Some Texas elected officials have stated that people are on their own as it isn't the job of the government to help, then again their not looking at any hurting individual directly in the eye and saying that.

Conservative concern over fiscal policy as mentioned above does need to be seriously considered, however, Republicans can not claim fiscal responsibility or responsibility for much at all if you consider how a Republican president and Senate sat on their hands for the better part of a year while hundreds of thousands died. If they had taken the pandemic seriously, maybe this relief package wouldn't have been necessary, but given where we are now it is absolutely necessary.

The relief package could be all for not if we do not continue to practice mitigation efforts as Dr. Fauci instructed because as he explained the baseline for cases per day is still way too high. He also explained that with the Johnson & Johnson vaccine coming online, productive and distribution will be ramping up even more. Basically, he's telling us we're in a race to get as many people vaccinated as possible as quickly as possible because let's face it, the American people writ large can not be counted on to do the right thing and continue strict mitigation measures. Will they? Not bloody likely, as the saying goes.

We mentioned earlier that Republican leaders and the local and state level want the relief package to pass and in polls 60% of Republican voters want it as well so why didn't Republicans in the House vote for the bill? Why is it projected that none of the Republicans Senators will vote for it either? For Senator Mitt Romney (R-UT) and a select few others, it is about fiscal issues, but for most all the others it's about not giving President Biden a political win under the guise of fiscal responsibility. If Republicans vote for a bill put forward by the Biden Administration then that says to the base that they are legitimizing the Biden presidency, which is a no-no in Trump world, or at CPAC occurring as we write this. 

Republicans should put their complaints about the Biden Administration not being bipartisan until all of them say aloud that Joe Biden is president. It's clearly apparent that they haven't acknowledged basic civics.

Panel: Carol Lee, NBC News; Eugene Robinson, The Washington Post; Brett Stephens, The New York Times; O. Kay Henderson, Radio Iowa Network

One more thing...
How scary is this? A golden Trump statue at CPAC, a false idol compared to the golden calf. As North Dakota governor Kristi Noem (R) said, they've become what they behold... Sheep.

Not to mention the fact that Donald Trump would never ever be seen in shorts and flip-flops, please.

2.21.21: The Mess We're All In

500,000. Americans. Dead.

(WWII - 406,000 American soldier deaths.) 

"This is historic. We'll be talking about it decades and decades from now," Dr. Anthony Fauci said today of the Covid-19 pandemic. 

This is the state we're in.

One can not emphasize enough that the scale of death from Covid-19 didn't have to be. The history that Dr. Fauci is referring to, through this column's lens, is the utter failure of leadership and the blatant disregard for American life on the part of the 45th president not taking the pandemic seriously. He will be subject to history's harshest light. Unforgivable, not to mention a violation of his oath as president.

With regard to schools reopening, what caught our attention was United Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten saying that they now had a roadmap to follow from the CDC, which means that previously there wasn't one. If the CDC guidelines are followed, schools should reopen and the vaccination strategy will catch up. However, as Dr. Fauci noted, you can not give a number or percentage as to how many schools should be open or the ratio of hybrid learning as each community is different and the decision factors for parents and teachers vary, which is natural. In addition to mask-wearing and mitigation, Ms. Weingarten said that teachers are scared because of the health risks to themselves their families, understandably, so facts and education are needed to combat the fear. 

It's a saddeningly, recurrent theme that has permeated American life over the last 5 years and it will take as much collective mental effort as there is money to move past this mindset. That's not to say that one should not be concerned about getting Covid, it just means educating and understanding more as Dr. Fauci and Ms. Weintgarten suggest to be smarter and more compassionate as we move forward. 

Add to the state the mess with Texas.

Fmr. Congressman Will Hurd said that the former president should little or no part all at in the party moving forward, but he is clearly in a small minority within the Republican caucus. However, it's precisely this strictly politically-focused leadership, as opposed to policy-oriented governing, that sees Texas in the mess it's in at this moment. When Chuck Todd asked Mr. Hurd if it was preventable, he said that it was 100% preventable and responsible is a lack of leadership and long term planning. Harsh and direct, but what do you expect when the person answering the question is currently boiling water for his family like millions of other Texans right now. 

Governance under Republican leadership whether in Texas or anywhere else has move off the notion that there only there to attain power and fight culture wars. Former North Carolina governor Pat McCrory said that Republicans will heal themselves by uniting on the issues [read: opposition to any Democratic proposal]. He explained that the Republican party  is going through a process of anger, blaming and disappointment right now just as the Democrats did in 2016. Democratic strategist Cornell Belcher disagreed because a plurality of Democrats weren't considering breaking from the party, which is the case right now with the Republicans.

USA Today's Washington Bureau Chief Susan Page rattled off some disturbing statistics, namely that 58% of Trump supporters think that the January 6th siege on the Capitol was committed by Antifa. This is so absurd that one can hardly speak to this, to say something that would convince one person of the 58% otherwise.

So Mr. McCrory's calculus is off. How do you unify around issues when you can't agree on what the facts on those issues are, starting with the fact that Joe Biden was fairly elected President of the United States.

Unfortunately for all of us, until this cracked fault line is reckoned with, state and federal Republican leaders will only serve to prolong the mess we're in.

 

Panel: Kristen Welker, NBC News; Susan Paige, USA Today; Cornell Belcher, Democratic Strategist; Pat McCrory, fmr. North Carolina Governor

2.14.21: Yes, History will be the judge, but it has already made its ruling

It's often said lately that the Republican party isn't operating on the same set of facts that the rest of us are operating on, an alternative reality if you will. Democrats and their supporters leap into that alternative reality as well in thinking that Republican Senators would ultimately convict the former president in his impeachment trial. 

In the end, everyone was brought back to reality yesterday with a 57-43 vote in the Senate to acquit the former president, not withstanding minority leader Mitch McConnell's much-discussed speech on the floor immediately afterward.

In light of lead impeachment manager Representative Jamie Raskin's (D-MD) that in the court of public opinion and history the managers were successful, it still does come down to actions, votes and the record as described by NPR's Audie Cornish of "All Things Considered," in a less optimistic view of the Republicans moving on from Trumpism.

After the vote, Mr. McConnell denounced Mr. Trump's actions saying that he was directly responsible for what happened on January 6th despite voting to acquit him on 'dubious' constitutional grounds to use Mr. Raskin's words. Former Congressman Carlos Curbelo (R-FL) said that the speech was a clear mark in the start of the fight for the soul of the Republican party. This leaves the question of whether Mr. McConnell along with 7 senators and 11 House members is powerful enough to take that on and get the Republican party back to its roots.

Mr. Curbelo described the eighty-five percent of elected Republican officials as 'willing hostages' to Trumpism, which when he said it sounded a bit strange to this column. It seems like Republicans in the House at least are 'very willing' with 143 of them voting against impeachment so describing them as 'hostages' didn't quite fit. His point is understood that Republicans supported Mr. Trump out of party loyalty and backlash from the base, but are now free to move on. However, that's not the case at all and Ms. Cornish corrected the conversation saying that they are willing supporters, which is indeed the case.

Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) said that with McConnell's vote to acquit, Republican would have never gotten to the required two-thirds of the Senate - Democrats needed McConnell. But as fmr. Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) more astutely explained, there would never be enough Republican votes even if Mr. McConnell vote to impeach because it would weaken his position as minority leader, if not wipe out his leadership role. It's all he has left along with the knowledge that the vote to acquit will turn off huge spigots of donor cash. Seven-figure conservative donors and corporations have made it clear that they would cut off the campaign donations for those who voted to acquit, hence Mr. McConnell's speech, as also explained by Mrs. McCaskill. When explained with such clarity from one who has been on the short end of McConnell's political spear, you can see that this is classic Mitch McConnell, at his most shrewd. 

"Time will tell," said Maryland governor Larry Hogan (R) as to whether traditional Republican principles will win over Trumpism in its caucus but his feeling is that the Republican party will be unable to win on a national or statewide level if it continues to embrace the cult of one person. In trying to 'disentangle' themselves (to use another one from Mr. Raskin) from their votes, traditional Republicans may succeed in the short term, but the bottom line is this:

History will only remember that the President of the United States incited a riot upon the Capitol and betrayed his oath of office by do nothing to stop it. Republican Senators still acquitted him of a crime against the United States.

This is the undeniable meteoric conclusion that will have a ripple effect lasting for decades the world over. (This hints toward a foreign policy discussion we're eager to start.) The adage goes that history will be the ultimate judge, but its already made its ruling.

Panel: Kasie Hunt, NBC News; Audie Cornish, NPR; Clair McCaskill, fmr. Senator (D-MO); Carlos Curbelo, fmr. Congressman (R-FL); 

One more thing...
We didn't discuss the pandemic despite the appearance of the CDC Director Rochelle Walensky and as Mr. Todd noted, it had been a long time since the CDC Director was on the program. The short of it is that CDC guidance for schools if you listened is greatly dependent of the severity of the outbreak in each community. Yet, governors are lifting mask mandates, which Ms. Walensky advised against. Why? Because it begs the common sense question for these governors, which is how do you expect to open schools safely if your community spread is out of control? 

And the silver lining... While the impeachment trial moved along and accompanying media coverage dominating the new cycles all this time, the Biden Administration under the radar has gotten a lot done in ramping up the government's response and is off to a great start.

2.7.21: We Cannot Relieve the Disaster While Democracy Still has a Festering Wound

The debate of about the size of the Covid Relief bill is a healthy and welcomed one. At long last, we are starting to hear discussion about policy, and Republicans are making the argument that the country needs to move on and not go through with the second impeachment of former president Donald J. Trump. There within, as the Bard would say, lies the rub.

How can you discuss policy when you voted not to impeach a president who incited an attack on the Capitol of The United States in an attempt to overthrown a free and fair election, wiping out over two-centuries of the peace transfer of power? Until there is a full accounting of what happened and it is presented to the Senate, how do Democrats negotiate in good faith with Republicans?

It's commendable that Senator Bill Cassidy (R-LA) said he is keeping an open mind in considering all the evidence during the impeachment trial. He also explained that his vote on whether the impeachment was unconstitutional and should therefore not move forward was one that was 'taken in a moment in time,' despite there being precedent for impeaching cabinet officials, of which the president is one, after they have left office. We won't prejudge and say that if Senator Cassidy doesn't vote to convict, etc., as to give that benefit of the doubt. However, until this is resolved it's difficult to negotiate in good faith with any Republican in the Senate that caste this vote, outside of Senator Romney (R-UT), Murkowski (R-AL) and others. 

[Aside: It was four short years ago that we all thought Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) would emerge as the standard bearer for a Republican party prepared for the future. Today? Hardly. He didn't even want to run for reelection last time around and now he's all in on Trumpism.] 

 As a matter of policy, Ms. Kumar drove home a very good point on the Covid relief package, which is if you view this bill through the lens of disaster relief, the amount comes more clearly into focus. State and local municipalities have been hit hard by the continuing stress of the pandemic, not to mention over ten million Americans who haven't returned to work and the healthcare system writ large. 

However, if you view it from that justifiable lens, one can reasonable ask how increasing the minimum wage helps this particular disaster. Targeted lens, targeted approach. As a stimulus bill, you can widen that lens. Large and targeted would probably come in at about $1.45 trillion, which is an insane number in and of itself, but it's necessary to bring centrist Democrats on board like Senators Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) because given what we outlined above, 'taken in a moment in time' to use a phrase, Democrats have to regulate themselves when it comes to spending. As an interesting side note, the Republican governor of West Virginia recently gave an interview in which he said that Congress should go big. Republican governors saying 'go big' and Democratic senators wanting to spend less are all good things, but there is a lingering open wound on our democracy that needed attending to first and that is impeachment.

As for the Republican Party, before today's program we knew we'd be saying something about House minority leader Representative Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), but we weren't sure how we were going to phrase it. Enter Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA). "Kevin McCarthy stands for nothing except for his pursuit to become Speaker of the House... He has no values." Well, OK then, we'll work from that. 

This week Republicans in the House took two votes, one secret ballot and one on the floor of the House. The secret ballot was to decide as to whether to keep Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) in leadership, which they did by a two-to-one margin despite her vote in favor of impeachment. The other on the floor was to strip Rep. Marjorie Taylor Green (R-GA) of her committee assignments because of threats of physical and mortal violence against Democratic members of Congress. Republicans voted that down.

This directly speaks to the aforementioned Mr. McCarthy and his utter incompetence and lack of principle as a leader and 'standing for nothing' as Mr. Schiff described is coming into stark relief. If he truly was the leader of his caucus, say like a Mitch McConnell, they'd all be on the same page... In whatever book, hopefully non-fiction. Instead, Mr. McCarthy is sycophantically sitting in the backseat of the car while the persona non grata former president drives the car. As David French mentioned, that influence cannot be sustained in silence. Be it that that silence is welcomed.

The other problem as Michael Steele described is 'on the ground' with the state legislatures that are controlled by Republicans who are all-in on Trumpism and censuring lawmakers who have spoken out against the former president and his actions. In other words, there within lies the crazy.

However, as the saying goes, one catastrophe at a time and we cannot relieve this disaster as long as there is still this festering wound on our democracy.

See you on the other side of the trial, or maybe half way through...

Panel: Anna Palmer, Punchbowl News; Anna Teresa Kumar, Voto Latino; David French, The Dispatch; Michael Steele, fmr. Republican Party Chair

 

1.31.21: Only One Party is Interested in Moving Forward on Legislation

There is a thread that ran through today's program from the interviews with Dr. Michael Osterholm to White House Chief Economic Advisor Brian Deese to Representative Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) to the panel that is with one party being dysfunctional, divided and not interested in legislating, progress on combating the virus and an economic recovery is going to be extraordinarily difficult.

Washington Bureau Chief for The Washington Post Ashley Parker said that in the last four years, Republicans have been more focused on appearing on conservative media outlets to defend the former president and attacking Democrats than they are in legislating. Princeton professor Eddie Glaude, Jr. also pointed out that it is going to be hard for Democrats to work across the aisle when some Republican lawmakers, namely Rep. Marjorie Taylor-Green (R-GA) and Senators Josh Hawley (R-MO) and Ted Cruz (R-TX) don't believe in the background agreement of a fairly, democratically elected president - in the very act of American democracy that just occurred. 

Mr. Kinzinger has launched a 'country first' website as a counter argument in defense of his stance and to fight against the conspiracy theories that have taken over the party thanks to the former president. Mr. Kinzinger specifically explained how the Republican party has lost its way with its condoning of the Capitol attack and the deaths of five people. He along with other current and former Republican office holders are being censured by their respective state party officials for voting for the impeachment of Donald Trump. 

God forbid that Republicans should exercise their own version of 'cancel culture' but that's how Mr. Kinzinger labeled it. Call it a purity test or cancel culture or whatever you want, but the Republican party is expelling anyone who isn't buying into the 'Big Lie,' conspiracy theories and white grievance.

Ten Republican Representatives in the House voted for impeachment and only ten Senators put together a plan to work with President Biden on Covid relief. Republican strategist Al Cardenas lamented that he wished he would see more courage from Republicans to stand up for what's right. We would add that we wish more Republicans would come to their senses and actually lead, as Adam Kinzinger described. 

Mr. Cardenas also said that it is going to very difficult for bipartisanship when Democrats have already stated that if necessary they have the votes to go it alone on a Covid-relief bill if Republicans don't come along on something. However, the larger question remains... How can one party compromise in good faith with the other when a large swathe Republicans aren't acknowledging the legitimacy of the election. He explained that Mr. Trump's continued influence on the party is going to manifest itself in the Republican primaries, but won't be beneficial in a general. Republican office holders are presented with the choice between fealty to Trump for the sake of reelection and grasping to power or to take a principled stand for American democracy and lead. Unfortunately for all of us, cynical politics wins over principle. 

Cited by the panel, in accordance with the Biden Administration's timeline, by the summer we'll know the effectiveness (success) of the administration's plan. If there are positive results, it won't matter that Democrats acted along party lines. What it will do is further illustrate how the Republican party is unable to lead America, just as Rep. Kinzinger talked about. If there were 100 Republicans in office that had his common sense, democracy wouldn't be in such a precarious state and we could move forward.

However, it's clear that's not the case and this growing extremism in the Republican party comes into starker relief as the days pass. Anyone heard the song "Bad Moon Rising?"

Panel: Amy Walter, Cook Political Report; Ashley Parker, The Washington Post; Eddie Glaude, Jr., Princeton University; Al Cardenas, Republican strategist

1.24.21: How The United States Proceeds Forward: It Depends on the Senate

As Chuck Todd said at the top of today's program, there are a myriad of challenges facing the new Biden Administration that is only four days into office. This column contends that the crises facing the country cannot be mitigated without getting the Covid-19 pandemic under control and getting the American people vaccinated. White House Chief of Staff Ron Klain stated that this is the metric of which the Biden Administration will be judged. The success of the Biden Administration depends on it, but more importantly, the success of the future of the country depends on. The longer that we're unable to get the pandemic under control, the extent of long term damage to the country's overall well-being with grow.

So how does the United States proceed forward? For the Administration's part, they are putting together a nationalized central response to the pandemic, according to Mr. Klain, enacting the Defense Production Act to ramp up supplies of the vaccine and the equipment needed to administer it. In other words, it is gearing up for a massive response, 'throwing everything at it' as Dr. Fauci was quoted saying this week.

As we're well aware, effective action is going to depend on Congress, its ability to act and whether the Senate can walk and chew gum at the same time because its biggest problem aside from not bringing any legislation to the floor is multitasking.

Apparently, it will be a challenge for the Senate to hold an impeachment trial and legislate at the same time. For insights into the two sides thinking, Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Mike Rounds (R-SD) expressed their views on both and the better news is that in terms of a Covid relief bill, both sides feel like they can get to a place of compromise. Impeachment, however, is another story.

On the relief package, The New York Times' David Brooks seemed to agree that a bipartisan agreement can come about reasoning that Democrats put additional measures into the package that can be negotiated out, like a minimum wage increase to 15 dollars an hour.  Chuck Todd asked Mr. Klain, Mr. Durbin and Mr. Rounds this, which came off as a bit of agenda journalism that is never received well. That specific example aside, Senator Rounds has a point that all the provisions should have a direct effect on Covid relief. This sounds reasonable and indicates how Republicans in the Senate may proceed on the bill. 

However, the Senate as to be expected is stumbling out of the gate because they cannot agree on a power sharing accommodation. Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) is proposing a filibuster resolution which is a non-starter according to Senator Durbin. Mr. McConnell insists as part of the rules that the filibuster can not be done away with. Mr. Durbin rightly explained that the result would be that Republicans would threaten a filibuster on every piece of legislation, hence maintaining the status quo in the chamber as a place where bills go to die.

Many say that the filibuster is a legislative relic from the Jim Crow era, including President Barack Obama, and that may be so but is the problem with the filibuster or the procedure surrounding it? Here's how it would go: The Senate Democrat would propose legislation and the Republican minority would threaten a filibuster which would essentially kill the bill. Senators are never pushed to back up their words. If they threaten a filibuster then they have to take to the floor and actually stand there speaking for however many days... That's what filibustering is! We say, call the bluff and have those octogenarians Senators stand on the floor for 18 hours, speaking. Force them to do that on successive bills and see how enthusiastic they are about filibustering after that. 

In addition to the power sharing dilemma, there is the pending impeachment trial of Mr. Trump. Here's where Senator Rounds while trying to give a moderate answer as to not discount the fairness of the election but at the same time trying not to alienate the base of his party, which is really Trump's party at the moment. He said two things that don't quite add up. One, he said an impeachment trial is a moot point because Donald Trump is not in office, hence it's unconstitutional. However, the impeachment is for actions while Mr. Trump was in office and they were grave enough that consideration of barring him from future office must be brought to a vote. Though we agree with Politico's Tim Alberta that impeachment may put Mr. Trump front and center in the media (where he likes to be) bringing him out of the obscurity where he presently resides, accountability for a insurrection against the people of the United States has to be brought to bear. Not to mention that as the days pass and more information comes out, the attack on the Capitol gets only worse. We can not just let that go without legal consequences or it will almost certainly happen again.

The other thing is that Senator Rounds called for an investigation of the November vote to illustrate to Trump supporters that the vote was fair, which is something Mr. Rounds believes. The problem with this is that the question of fairness doesn't come from evidence to the contrary, just the lies by the president and his allies. An investigation gives credence to those lies. Additionally, if a bipartisan Congressional panel investigates, it just opens the door to political grandstanding which would make matters worse and put retched people like Ted Cruz back into the spotlight. If an outside group conducts the investigation, no one will believe the results and then there are even more conspiratorial lies. Investigation: not the way to go.

So how we proceed depends on the United States Senate. That fact alone is cause for worry.

Panel: Yamiche Alcindor, PBS News Hour; Andrea Mitchell, NBC News; Tim Alberta, Politico; David Brooks, The New York Times

1.17.21: The Measure of Accountability for the Damage Wrought Over the Past Four Years.

The United States does not have laws with regard to domestic terrorism. When acts such as what we saw with Timothy McVeigh in Oklahoma City in April of 1995, they are treated as capital crimes, not as an act of terrorism. 

They're obviously needed now as more details and images of the attack on the Capitol and our democracy are providing a clearer picture of the extent and intent of these insurrectionists. As Chuck Todd outlined, right-wing violence has been building for years, and in most recent Mr. Trump has encouraged the justification of such acts by not ever condemning the people and groups who have perpetrated them. When a lone gunman commits mass murder in El Paso, TX citing Mr. Trump's words as the inspiration, the president equivocates. 

On January 6, 2021, Mr. Trump smashed the top off of the bottle and it turns out that the genie that's not going back in is actually scores of right-wing white supremacist militias planning acts on Washington DC and multiple state capitols. Donald Trump has done everything he's could to subvert the process of a peaceful transfer of power, the foundation of our democracy, and for that he cannot ever be forgiven in the annuls of history for a disgraceful act that overshadows all the rest.

He has accomplished his goal of having Americans arming themselves to kill other Americans.

Between the seditionist incitement of the Capitol attack and the additional looming pardons including one possibly for himself, even the National Review's editor-in-chief Rich Lowry said that the Administration is losing credibility and legitimacy before our eyes. 

So where does that leave us on the pending impeachment who will be out of office come this Wednesday? 

There's no doubt that an impeachment trial in the Senate will be characterized as politically vindictive by most Republicans and if it is Constitutional given Mr. Trump is no longer president, as Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) argues. Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) said that it's Constitutionally dangerous if we don't proceed because it would mean that there has no accountability for the president's actions while in office. If we do not proceed, he continued, we'd be missing the larger historical picture in this instance. 

Post-presidency, it's unlikely the Senate will vote to convict Mr. Trump, however, a few variables could change that equation. One of those variables that the panel discussed today was potential pardons in these last few days. They could certainly come like a wave. NBC's Kristen Welker reported that the president is undecided on what to do about pardons, particularly for himself and his family, because of the public relations disaster it would be, not to mention the questionable legality of pardoning yourself. Pulling on that thread a bit, the bad PR could also be legally jeopardizing. A slew of pardons in these last few days, a list of potentially 20 people or more, would sour Republicans on acquittal because of any double digit number and also they know that an acceptance of a pardon is in essence an admission of guilt. For anyone who accepts a pardon, they therefore give up their 5th amendment rights as it pertains to a relevant inquiry, compelling answers. And the kicker to that is if you don't tell the truth, you're not pardoned from the perjury you just committed.

This all equals a messy impeachment trial, littered with explosive and or insane testimony.

Newly elected Representative Nancy Mace (R-SC) said that she didn't vote for impeachment because due process was not followed in the House leading up to the vote. However, she also said that the president should be held fully accountable for his actions. In other words, Representative Mace doesn't disagree with the charges, just the way they're being dealt with, and that is why she is recommending censuring the president. 

[Aside: You may agree or disagree with Rep. Mace on how to proceed, but if the United States Congress had more Republicans like her who puts country over party and with whom you can disagree without being disagreeable, the complexion of the country would change.]

The only way that there isn't extreme political backlash with censure is if it contains language that bars the Mr. Trump from ever holding public office again (a big 'if'), but is it enough accountability for potentially criminal acts?

Whether the president will be impeached or censured by Congress is immaterial because there will never be the proper measure of accounting for all the damage that these four years have wrought on our country. The amount is incalculable. 

If you're well versed in Mr. Trump's career, you'll know that he's left our country like he's left so many of his businesses - bankrupt, broken, sick and wrecked with people in every direction either pissed off, unpaid, disgusted, lied to, cheated, lawyered up or all of the above.

Panel: Kristen Welker, NBC News; Claire McCaskill, fmr. Senator (D-MO); Rich Lowry, National Review

A few more things...
Senator McCaskill said that she thought the Biden Administration could work on its agenda because President Biden will stay out of Senate impeachment business, essentially working around impeachment drama and the Trump Republicans in both chambers. To this point, Mr. Lowry explained that Democrats will be able to do a work around, but not Republicans. A civil war within the party is coming, he said.

Lastly, Mayor Muriel Bowser (D) voiced concern that other areas of the DC metro area could be attacked given that the Capitol Campus is so heavily guarded. She explained that she has been briefed on potential attacks on Washington and across the country. There are more troops in Washington, 25,000, than there were after 9/11 and who are presently stationed in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria combined.  Think about that...