thehuffingtonpost--2020-03-02--Elizabeth Warren Announces Plan For Swift Federal Action On Coronavirus

It is , instead , a list of steps that she would like to see Congress and President Donald Trump take right now , in order to contain the outbreak , to help those affected by it , and to stop the economy from falling into a recession .
Key actions would include making tests and treatments free to anybody who needs them , providing paid leave to people who must miss work or care for relatives , and propping up the economy with about $ 400 billion in new government spending .
The plan follows up on a broader @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the outbreak became prominent in January .
It also fleshes out promises Warren has been making in just the past few days , as the outbreak has gained a footing in the U.S. and seized the nation ’ s attention .
As of early Monday , public health officials had confirmed nearly 90 cases and were expecting to find many more with increased testing .
Over the weekend , two patients died in the Seattle area , which seems to be the center of a major outbreak .
State and federal officials @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say that , although scientists are still learning about the disease , coronavirus is likely to be a lot like the flu , posing a serious threat primarily to the elderly and to people with underlying medical problems .
The Seattle cases , for example , appear to include several older patients at a long-term care facility .
But that still means a large number of Americans face the risk of serious , potentially life-threatening illness .
And even people most likely to handle the disease well , because of their relative youth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they can ’ t afford to pay for tests and treatments ― or because they can ’ t afford to miss work .
Democratic candidates for the 2020 presidential nomination have said the outbreak highlights holes in the nation ’ s safety net , reinforcing the case for policies such as universal health care and paid sick leave .
But those are major , long-term policy changes that presently have nowhere near the support they need to pass either the House or the Senate .
So , for now , Warren is saying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ temporary measures that could speed through Congress as part of emergency legislation that some leaders have already promised to take up in the coming days .
“ I rang the alarm for years before the 2008 financial crisis and we could have reduced the severity of the crash if we had acted quickly , ” said Warren .
“ My plan is what a competent administration would be pushing for ― assertive and feasible steps to limit the spread of the virus and get ahead of its potentially huge economic effects.
” What @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wants Congress to make coronavirus testing and treatment free by requiring that private insurers cover it with no out-of-pocket costs , having public insurance programs such as Medicare and Medicaid do the same , and then creating a new uncompensated care fund that would finance tests and treatments for people who have no insurance .
Warren also wants the federal government to provide emergency funding to safety net providers , such as community clinics , as well to state public health departments .
This money could mean hiring additional health care workers or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ perhaps including mobile or drive-through units so that people could get tests and treatments without infecting others .
Health care is only one part of Warren ’ s strategy .
She also wants to create an emergency paid leave program , under which anybody who has to miss work because they have coronavirus ― or because they have to care for somebody with coronavirus ― could get money to replace lost wages .
Campaign officials said that the emergency paid leave initiative could operate through existing unemployment insurance programs .
The paid leave @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Today , many workers don ’ t stay home when they are sick , potentially infecting others , because they can ’ t afford to lose the income .
A paid leave program would change that , helping to keep them financially afloat while protecting their co-workers from coronavirus exposure .
Coronavirus has already disrupted the supply chain from China , where the disease first appeared .
And , as the virus spreads in the U.S. and elsewhere , economic activity is likely to slow down across the country ― with travel , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take major hits .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) on Monday will lay out a detailed plan for swift federal action to combat the coronavirus outbreak.
The proposed initiative, which Warren’s presidential campaign shared with HuffPost on Sunday evening, is not another item on Warren’s agenda for what she would do if she becomes president.
Advertisement
It is, instead, a list of steps that she would like to see Congress and President Donald Trump take right now, in order to contain the outbreak, to help those affected by it, and to stop the economy from falling into a recession.
Key actions would include making tests and treatments free to anybody who needs them, providing paid leave to people who must miss work or care for relatives, and propping up the economy with about $400 billion in new government spending.
Many of the moves Warren has in mind would mirror actions the federal government has taken to address past outbreaks and pandemic scares, including H1N1 in 2009 and SARS in 2003.
The plan follows up on a broader public health agenda she released when news about the outbreak became prominent in January. It also fleshes out promises Warren has been making in just the past few days, as the outbreak has gained a footing in the U.S. and seized the nation’s attention.
Advertisement
State and federal officials have urged Americans to remain calm and say that, although scientists are still learning about the disease, coronavirus is likely to be a lot like the flu, posing a serious threat primarily to the elderly and to people with underlying medical problems. The Seattle cases, for example, appear to include several older patients at a long-term care facility.
But that still means a large number of Americans face the risk of serious, potentially life-threatening illness. And even people most likely to handle the disease well, because of their relative youth or good health, may struggle because they can’t afford to pay for tests and treatments ― or because they can’t afford to miss work.
Already, the news is full of outrage-generating stories, like the patient in Miami who got a surprise medical bill of $3,275 because his insurance company wouldn’t cover the costs of tests he sought after experiencing symptoms consistent with the virus.
Democratic candidates for the 2020 presidential nomination have said the outbreak highlights holes in the nation’s safety net, reinforcing the case for policies such as universal health care and paid sick leave. But those are major, long-term policy changes that presently have nowhere near the support they need to pass either the House or the Senate.
Advertisement
So, for now, Warren is saying that lawmakers should focus on quick, temporary measures that could speed through Congress as part of emergency legislation that some leaders have already promised to take up in the coming days.
“I rang the alarm for years before the 2008 financial crisis and we could have reduced the severity of the crash if we had acted quickly,” said Warren. “My plan is what a competent administration would be pushing for ― assertive and feasible steps to limit the spread of the virus and get ahead of its potentially huge economic effects.”
What Warren’s Plan Would Do
Warren’s plan has several provisions, starting with attempts to help people who need or will need medical attention.
She wants Congress to make coronavirus testing and treatment free by requiring that private insurers cover it with no out-of-pocket costs, having public insurance programs such as Medicare and Medicaid do the same, and then creating a new uncompensated care fund that would finance tests and treatments for people who have no insurance.
Warren also wants the federal government to provide emergency funding to safety net providers, such as community clinics, as well to state public health departments. This money could mean hiring additional health care workers or setting up new, temporary facilities ― perhaps including mobile or drive-through units so that people could get tests and treatments without infecting others.
Advertisement
As for a vaccine, Warren would like the government to guarantee bulk purchases in order to encourage mass production, and then to make sure vaccines are available at no charge.
If, after a vaccine is developed, a private manufacturer charges “an outrageous price,” Warren said, the government should consider granting a production license to other manufacturers. The government threatened something similar during the anthrax scare of 2001.
Health care is only one part of Warren’s strategy. She also wants to create an emergency paid leave program, under which anybody who has to miss work because they have coronavirus ― or because they have to care for somebody with coronavirus ― could get money to replace lost wages. Campaign officials said that the emergency paid leave initiative could operate through existing unemployment insurance programs.
The paid leave program has a public health rationale: Today, many workers don’t stay home when they are sick, potentially infecting others, because they can’t afford to lose the income. A paid leave program would change that, helping to keep them financially afloat while protecting their co-workers from coronavirus exposure.
Warren’s other big proposal involves the economy.
Coronavirus has already disrupted the supply chain from China, where the disease first appeared. And, as the virus spreads in the U.S. and elsewhere, economic activity is likely to slow down across the country ― with travel, entertainment, and in-person retail likely to take major hits.
Advertisement
Some forecasters are predicting the economy will go through at least one quarter of zero growth.
To avoid further contraction, Warren is calling a stimulus package that would include increased aid to states, infrastructure funding, and unemployment benefits.
In addition, Warren wants to make low- or no-interest loans available to companies “negatively affected by supply chain disruptions, reductions in tourism, or other temporary coronavirus-related impacts, and that will use the funds to avoid layoffs and hours reductions, not for additional executive compensation, dividends, or share buybacks.”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-03-02--Dick Van Dyke Hams It Up At Bernie Sanders Rally, Crowd Chants 'We Love Dick'

Dick Van Dyke took the stage at a rally for Democratic presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders over the weekend , hamming it up for a crowd that at one point broke into a chant of “ We love Dick !
” Alongside performances by Public Enemy and comedian Sarah Silverman , Van Dyke spoke in support of the Vermont senator on Sunday , two days before the crucial Super Tuesday primaries when 14 states vote .
Dick Van Dyke : `` I never saw Bernie as a career politician .
I just saw him as a patriot who worked hard '' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) March 2 , 2020 Van Dyke delivered some introductions , broke into some dance moves and serenaded the crowd with a “ Bye , Bye Birdie ” -inspired tune about Sanders : “ We love you , Bernie .
Yes we do .
We love you Bernie , and we ’ ll be true .
When you ’ re not near us , we ’ re blue .
Oh Bernie , we love you.
” The 94-year-old legendary actor also joked about his age , saying : “ I am what ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ At one point , Van Dyke “ lost his train of thought ” on stage , but the crowd covered for him with chants of “ We love Dick !
” according to a Sanders supporter who was present .
Van Dyke formally endorsed Sanders last month , saying in a now-viral video that he ’ s a “ very enthusiastic ” supporter .
“ I want to urge my generation to get out and vote for him , please , ” Van Dyke says in the video message .

Dick Van Dyke took the stage at a rally for Democratic presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders over the weekend, hamming it up for a crowd that at one point broke into a chant of “We love Dick!”
Alongside performances by Public Enemy and comedian Sarah Silverman, Van Dyke spoke in support of the Vermont senator on Sunday, two days before the crucial Super Tuesday primaries when 14 states vote.
Advertisement
Dick Van Dyke: "I never saw Bernie as a career politician. I just saw him as a patriot who worked hard" pic.twitter.com/UB9C2arWrV — Andrew Beale (@iambeale) March 2, 2020
Van Dyke delivered some introductions, broke into some dance moves and serenaded the crowd with a “Bye, Bye Birdie”-inspired tune about Sanders:
“We love you, Bernie. Yes we do. We love you Bernie, and we’ll be true. When you’re not near us, we’re blue. Oh Bernie, we love you.”
Dick Van Dyke winning all the hearts #BernieinLA pic.twitter.com/9sJh1eqa4Z — Neoliberalismo Tear-Drinker (@Mister_3am) March 2, 2020
Advertisement
The 94-year-old legendary actor also joked about his age, saying: “I am what’s left of Dick Van Dyke.”
At one point, Van Dyke “lost his train of thought” on stage, but the crowd covered for him with chants of “We love Dick!” according to a Sanders supporter who was present.
Thousands of Bernie supporters chanting, “we love dick!”. Dick Van Dyke will make an amazing and youthful VP. #BernieInCA #bernieinLA #Bernie2020 pic.twitter.com/S9KrvnDj80 — Andrew Soto (@andrew_sotoo) March 2, 2020
Van Dyke formally endorsed Sanders last month, saying in a now-viral video that he’s a “very enthusiastic” supporter.
“I want to urge my generation to get out and vote for him, please,” Van Dyke says in the video message.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-03-02--Biden Races To Gain New Party Endorsements

New York billionaire Mike Bloomberg in particular could create problems for Biden ’ s establishment appeal .
Bloomberg , who will appear on a 2020 ballot for the first time on Tuesday , has invested more than half a billion dollars into presidential bid and wracked up many high-profile endorsements of his own .
And the campaign highlights a several new endorsements .
Perhaps the most powerful endorsement would come from former President Barack Obama , who has a relationship with most of the candidates and has talked with several in recent weeks as primary voting has begun .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ victory , but still has no plans to endorse in the primary at this point .
Biden , meanwhile , pressed his case during a round of national television interviews that reflected a stark reality a day after his resounding primary victory in South Carolina : The former vice president was forced to rely upon free media coverage because he was understaffed , underfunded and almost out of time as he fought to transform his sole win into a national movement .
Biden pledged to improve his campaign operation , his fundraising haul @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in an interview on ABC ’ s “ This Week.
” He warned of a “ stark choice ” between him and Sanders , while making the case he was the candidate who could win up and down the ballot and in states beyond those voting next week .
“ Most of them have seen the writing on the wall for at least the last week , ” said Rufus Gifford , who held top fundraising posts on both of Obama ’ s campaigns and was part of Biden ’ s fundraising operation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democratic alternative to Bernie Sanders is Joe Biden.
” Sanders , who dominated the money race for much of the year even though he did not court wealthy donors , said it was not the overall fundraising haul that should impress but the enthusiasm of working people fueling his candidacy .
In addition to his phone call with Biden , Buttigieg also spoke with Obama , who has been calling most of the candidates who have departed the race .
Obama praised Buttigieg ’ s campaign and his decision to step aside at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , according to a person with knowledge of the call .
But the first four states were always more about momentum more than math .
Super Tuesday states offer a trove of 1,344 new delegates based on how candidates finish .
Just 150 delegates have been awarded so far .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
SELMA, Ala. (AP) — An emboldened Joe Biden claimed a trove of new endorsements and campaign cash on Monday in an urgent scramble to rally the Democratic Party’s moderate wing behind him — and against progressive Bernie Sanders — as the Democrats’ shrinking presidential field raced toward Super Tuesday.
One of Biden’s leading moderate rivals, Pete Buttigieg, suspended his campaign Sunday just 24 hours after Biden scored a resounding victory in South Carolina, his first of the 2020 roller coaster nomination fight. Buttigieg and Biden spoke late Sunday night, but it was unclear if Buttigieg planned to endorse the former vice president.
Advertisement
Other Democrats appeared undeterred and vowed to press on, potentially toward a contested convention.
The fast-moving developments came at a key crossroads in the Democratic Party’s turbulent primary season. Fourteen states, one U.S. territory and Democrats abroad will vote on Tuesday, which offers almost 10 times more delegates in a single day than have been awarded over the first month.
Fiery progressive Sanders remained the undisputed front-runner. But the rest of the field was decidedly unsettled, even after Biden’s South Carolina blowout and the departures of Buttigieg and billionaire activist Tom Steyer.
Democratic presidential candidate former Vice President Joe Biden, gestures during a campaign rally Sunday, March 1, 2020, in Norfolk, Va. (AP Photo/Steve Helber) ASSOCIATED PRESS
Advertisement
New York billionaire Mike Bloomberg in particular could create problems for Biden’s establishment appeal. Bloomberg, who will appear on a 2020 ballot for the first time on Tuesday, has invested more than half a billion dollars into presidential bid and wracked up many high-profile endorsements of his own.
Yet Biden appeared to have the momentum on the eve of Super Tuesday after his blowout South Carolina victory.
The Biden campaign reported back-to-back days of $5 million fundraising hauls, by far the best 48-hour stretch of his campaign. Biden himself touted the threshold Sunday night on a call with donors, according to one person on the call.
And the campaign highlights a several new endorsements. Perhaps the most powerful endorsement would come from former President Barack Obama, who has a relationship with most of the candidates and has talked with several in recent weeks as primary voting has begun. He spoke with Biden after his South Carolina victory, but still has no plans to endorse in the primary at this point.
Yet the new Biden backers include California Sen. Barbara Boxer, Rep. Jennifer Wexton, D-Va., Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White, former Arkansas Sen. Blanche Lincoln, and Rep. Gil Cisneros, D-Calif.
Advertisement
Virginia Rep. Don Beyer, the first member of Congress to endorse Buttigieg, said he planned to endorse Biden and expected Buttigieg to as well.
“I do think it’s the most logical,” Beyer said of a Biden endorsement, given his echo of the former Vice President’s call for civility, a mantra of the Buttigieg campaign. “I think Joe is the next best possibility.”
Biden, meanwhile, pressed his case during a round of national television interviews that reflected a stark reality a day after his resounding primary victory in South Carolina: The former vice president was forced to rely upon free media coverage because he was understaffed, underfunded and almost out of time as he fought to transform his sole win into a national movement.
Biden pledged to improve his campaign operation, his fundraising haul — and even his own performance — in an interview on ABC’s “This Week.” He warned of a “stark choice” between him and Sanders, while making the case he was the candidate who could win up and down the ballot and in states beyond those voting next week.
Biden added a swipe at one of Sanders’ signature lines during an appearance on “Fox New Sunday”: “The people aren’t looking for revolution. They’re looking for results.”
Advertisement
Sanders was focused on California, the crown jewel of Super Tuesday. California alone offers 415, which is more than double the amount of delegates allocated through Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina.
Sanders predicted victory in California as he rallied thousands of supporters in multiple stops and attacked Biden’s record on foreign policy, trade and Social Security, among other issues.
“My point here is not just to be negative about Joe,” Sanders said. “My point here is to ask you, ‘What campaign is going to beat Donald Trump?’”
Sanders has struggled to win over many elected officials in Washington, but earned a high-profile endorsement Monday from Democracy for America, a national grassroots organization originally led by former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, that boasts thousands of members across the county.
“The overwhelming support for Bernie we saw in our member vote should be a wake-up call to the broken, visionless, corporate Democratic establishment,” said the organization’s chair Charles Chamberlain. “American’s want fundamental change in Washington, not a return to the status quo.”
Advertisement
The future for candidates not names Biden or Sanders appeared uncertain at best.
A handful of high-profile political strategists with ties to the former president encouraged Biden’s rivals — including Bloomberg — to quit the race to allow anti-Sanders’ Democrats to unify behind Obama’s former vice president.
“Most of them have seen the writing on the wall for at least the last week,” said Rufus Gifford, who held top fundraising posts on both of Obama’s campaigns and was part of Biden’s fundraising operation. “It’s clear the Democratic alternative to Bernie Sanders is Joe Biden.”
Text messages reviewed by The Associated Press revealed an outpouring of interest in Biden from donors supporting other candidates, including Buttigieg and Elizabeth Warren.
But in an example of Biden’s challenge ahead, Sanders said Sunday he raised an eye-popping $46.5 million for February. That compared to $29 million for Warren and $18 million for Biden over the same period.
Sanders, who dominated the money race for much of the year even though he did not court wealthy donors, said it was not the overall fundraising haul that should impress but the enthusiasm of working people fueling his candidacy.
Advertisement
Biden allies conceded that the post-South Carolina fundraising surge would have little impact on Super Tuesday.
“Super Tuesday is too close,” said former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, a Biden supporter. “Fortunately, Joe Biden has been on the national scene for 35 years. He has less need to advertise.”
In addition to his phone call with Biden, Buttigieg also spoke with Obama, who has been calling most of the candidates who have departed the race. Obama praised Buttigieg’s campaign and his decision to step aside at this critical juncture in the Democratic primary, according to a person with knowledge of the call.
Biden’s other rivals showed no interest in getting out of the race. In fact, some vowed to keep fighting no matter what happened on Super Tuesday.
Warren campaign manager Roger Lau spoke brazenly of pushing into a floor battle at the Democratic National Convention this summer if no candidate emerged from the primary season with a clear majority, which was possible even if someone had a large delegate lead.
Advertisement
“The convention in Milwaukee is the final play,” Lau wrote in a Sunday memo.
And Bloomberg, who this week will be on the ballot for the first time, insisted that he was not going anywhere before Tuesday’s primaries.
“I’m optimistic,” he told voters in Selma, Alabama, where many of the White House hopefuls gathered for ceremonies commemorating civil rights heroism.
Yet Bloomberg received a mixed reception as he spoke from the pulpit of Selma’s Brown Chapel AME Church. Multiple parishioners stood and turned their backs to the New York billionaire neared the end of his 10-minute speech. That was after the pastor told the congregation that Bloomberg initially said he was too busy to attend because he had to “beat Donald Trump.”
Through four primary contests, the AP allocated at least 58 delegates to Sanders, including two added Sunday as South Carolina’s remaining votes dribbled in. Biden vaulted past Buttigieg into second place with at least 50 delegates — shrinking Sanders’ lead from what had been 30 delegates before South Carolina to eight. Buttigieg, Warren and Sen. Amy Klobuchar remained stuck at 26, eight and seven, respectively.
But the first four states were always more about momentum more than math. Super Tuesday states offer a trove of 1,344 new delegates based on how candidates finish. Just 150 delegates have been awarded so far.
Advertisement
___


thehuffingtonpost--2020-03-02--Supreme Court Rejects Gun Rights Group's Challenge To Bump Stocks Ban

WASHINGTON , March 2 ( Reuters ) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rebuffed a bid by gun rights advocates to overturn President Donald Trump ’ s ban on “ bump stocks ” - devices that enable semi-automatic weapons to fire rapidly like a machine gun - implemented after the 2017 Las Vegas mass shooting .
The justices left in place a lower court ’ s decision that upheld the Trump administration ’ s action to define bump stocks as prohibited machine guns under U.S. law .
The ban , which went into effect in March 2019 , was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ killed 58 people at a music festival in Las Vegas in which the gunman used bump stocks .
It represented a rare recent instance of gun control at the federal level in a country that has experienced a series of mass shootings .
Numerous gun control proposals have been thwarted in the U.S. Congress , largely because of opposition by Republican lawmakers and the influential National Rifle Association gun rights lobby .
The Firearms Policy Foundation , a gun rights group , and other plaintiffs sued in federal court to try to reverse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Court last year refused to block the ban from going into effect while the legal challenges against it were considered in the courts .
The justices also refused to temporarily exempt from the plaintiffs in the case from the ban .
Bump stocks use a gun ’ s recoil to bump its trigger , enabling a semiautomatic weapon to fire hundreds of rounds per minute , which can transform it into a machine gun .
The ban required owners to turn in or destroy the attachments and those caught in possession of them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prison .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
WASHINGTON, March 2 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rebuffed a bid by gun rights advocates to overturn President Donald Trump’s ban on “bump stocks” - devices that enable semi-automatic weapons to fire rapidly like a machine gun - implemented after the 2017 Las Vegas mass shooting.
The justices left in place a lower court’s decision that upheld the Trump administration’s action to define bump stocks as prohibited machine guns under U.S. law.
Advertisement
The ban, which went into effect in March 2019, was embraced by Trump following a massacre that killed 58 people at a music festival in Las Vegas in which the gunman used bump stocks. It represented a rare recent instance of gun control at the federal level in a country that has experienced a series of mass shootings.
Numerous gun control proposals have been thwarted in the U.S. Congress, largely because of opposition by Republican lawmakers and the influential National Rifle Association gun rights lobby.
The Firearms Policy Foundation, a gun rights group, and other plaintiffs sued in federal court to try to reverse Trump’s action. The Supreme Court last year refused to block the ban from going into effect while the legal challenges against it were considered in the courts. The justices also refused to temporarily exempt from the plaintiffs in the case from the ban.
Bump stocks use a gun’s recoil to bump its trigger, enabling a semiautomatic weapon to fire hundreds of rounds per minute, which can transform it into a machine gun. The ban required owners to turn in or destroy the attachments and those caught in possession of them could face up to 10 years in prison.
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-03-02--Super Tuesday Is Do Or Die For Warren And Bloomberg

But the pair find themselves in shockingly similar political positions heading into the single most important day on the Democratic presidential primary calendar , a date both campaigns have long pointed to as the real start to a long march to the Democratic National Convention in Milwaukee this summer .
Strong performances from a triumphant Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and a resurgent former Vice President Joe Biden in early states have significantly weakened their political hands and left them with dreams of a contested convention as their most likely paths to the nomination .
Both campaigns may find it difficult @ @ @ @ @ @ @ without surprisingly robust performances on Tuesday night , when roughly one-third of the delegates to the convention will be handed out .
And Warren ’ s and Bloomberg ’ s campaigns are even using eerily parallel messaging to show why they would be better presidents than their ideological rivals , pointing to a potential coronavirus pandemic as the type of crisis they could better handle than Sanders or Biden .
Both are also counting on a surge of television and digital advertising to keep their vote counts high in crucial states like Texas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of delegates .
Warren has faced less explicit pressure , but polling indicates she could win at most just one of the first 18 states to vote ― her home state of Massachusetts .
Some progressives are growing increasingly antsy about her presence in the race and fear she could limit Sanders ’ delegate advantage .
One previously neutral left-leaning group , Democracy For America , endorsed Sanders on Monday .
And other groups could seek to push Warren out of the race after Tuesday .
“ If you haven ’ t heard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of money for nothing.
” Bloomberg is , if nothing else , right about how much money he ’ s spent .
His campaign has spent more than $ 64 million on television ads in Texas alone .
By comparison , Biden has spent just over $ 217,000 ; Warren and a super PAC backing her have spent just under $ 950,000 ; and Sanders has spent $ 4.5 million , according to a Democrat tracking ad buys in the state .
Bloomberg has a whopping 19 field offices in the state , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign claims to have the only presence in the heavily Latino areas along the U.S.-Mexico border , and is hosting more than 30 events a week .
On the day of the New Hampshire primary , halfway through a rough run in the early states , Warren ’ s campaign pointed to Super Tuesday as the day everything would get better .
“ Warren is poised to finish in the top two in over half of Super Tuesday states ( eight of 14 ) , in the top three in all of them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up at-large statewide delegates in all but one , ” campaign manager Roger Lau wrote at the time .
Not mentioned in the memo : the threat to Warren in her home state of Massachusetts , where Sanders campaigned on Friday and Saturday .
Polls indicate Sanders has a slight edge in a tight race there , which could lead to an embarrassing loss .
Some Warren allies questioned Sanders ’ tactics , noting he could likely net more delegates by keeping her under the 15 % viability threshold in Texas and California @ @ @ @ @ @ @ win in the Bay State .
In her speech in Houston , Warren ― who long refused to air virtually any criticism of her opponents ― laid into her rivals for the nomination , including Sanders .
She said his “ 30-year track record shows he consistently calls for things he fails to get done.
” Biden was “ so eager to cut deals with Mitch McConnell and the Republicans that he ’ ll trade good ideas for bad ones.
” Bloomberg was nothing more than a billionaire play-acting “ whose track record @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to protect himself and his rich friends over everyone else .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
HOUSTON ― Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren and former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg are political rivals of the first order. The progressive senator who seeks to limit the influence of the wealthy on policymaking and the multibillionaire media mogul who is determined to use his fortune to advance centrist policies have exchanged fiery and exasperated barbs at the last two Democratic presidential debates, and Warren has aired hundreds of thousands of dollars in attack ads against him.
But the pair find themselves in shockingly similar political positions heading into the single most important day on the Democratic presidential primary calendar, a date both campaigns have long pointed to as the real start to a long march to the Democratic National Convention in Milwaukee this summer. Strong performances from a triumphant Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and a resurgent former Vice President Joe Biden in early states have significantly weakened their political hands and left them with dreams of a contested convention as their most likely paths to the nomination. Both campaigns may find it difficult to justify their continued existence to allies without surprisingly robust performances on Tuesday night, when roughly one-third of the delegates to the convention will be handed out.
Advertisement
And Warren’s and Bloomberg’s campaigns are even using eerily parallel messaging to show why they would be better presidents than their ideological rivals, pointing to a potential coronavirus pandemic as the type of crisis they could better handle than Sanders or Biden. Both are also counting on a surge of television and digital advertising to keep their vote counts high in crucial states like Texas and California that will award huge numbers of delegates.
The pressure is likely greater on Bloomberg, who has fewer long-standing ties to the Democratic Party, and based his very entrance into the race on the idea that Biden would limp into Super Tuesday ― a possibility the former vice president’s nearly 30-point win in South Carolina erased. Two of the most senior strategists in the Democratic Party suggested on Saturday night that Bloomberg should exit the race.
“The reality is Bloomberg needed Biden to lose South Carolina to have any chance,” David Plouffe, who managed former President Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign, said on MSNBC. A few channels over on CNN, top Obama strategist David Axelrod had similar musings: “As long as Biden is competitive in this race, where’s the path for Bloomberg?”
Advertisement
Democratic presidential candidate former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg speaks during a campaign rally on March 1, 2020 in San Antonio, Texas. Joe Raedle via Getty Images
Warren has faced less explicit pressure, but polling indicates she could win at most just one of the first 18 states to vote ― her home state of Massachusetts. Some progressives are growing increasingly antsy about her presence in the race and fear she could limit Sanders’ delegate advantage. One previously neutral left-leaning group, Democracy For America, endorsed Sanders on Monday. And other groups could seek to push Warren out of the race after Tuesday.
“If you get to a point where the difference between Biden and Bernie is down to five points, and Warren is that five points, there’s going to be a lot of pressure on her to drop out,” a Democratic strategist said, requesting anonymity to avoid alienating Warren and her campaign.
Both Warren and Bloomberg received a boost on Sunday night, when former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg dropped out of the contest, potentially making it easier for them to hit the 15% viability threshold necessary to receive delegates in states and districts across the Super Tuesday map.
“If you haven’t heard it, then we spent a lot of money for nothing.”
At a Bloomberg event in Houston on Thursday morning, an older-leaning but diverse crowd munched on a plentiful spread of breakfast tacos and picked up free T-shirts from the campaign, listening to Bloomberg deliver an brief stump speech and take no questions before jetting off to a campaign stop in Oklahoma, another Super Tuesday state.
Advertisement
“You’ve all heard our slogan, ‘Mike will get it done,’” Bloomberg said, in the midst of a speech that portrayed him as uniquely positioned to use his combination of money and management experience to pass gun control and climate change legislation. “If you haven’t heard it, then we spent a lot of money for nothing.”
Bloomberg is, if nothing else, right about how much money he’s spent. His campaign has spent more than $64 million on television ads in Texas alone. By comparison, Biden has spent just over $217,000; Warren and a super PAC backing her have spent just under $950,000; and Sanders has spent $4.5 million, according to a Democrat tracking ad buys in the state. Bloomberg has a whopping 19 field offices in the state, and has visited six times. The campaign claims to have the only presence in the heavily Latino areas along the U.S.-Mexico border, and is hosting more than 30 events a week.
He’s repeated this type of heavy investment across the Super Tuesday map, hiring more staffers, spending more on ads and opening more offices in any other candidates. But at least in the largest states ― Texas and California ― his investments place him in third and fourth place, according to polling averages.
Bloomberg’s relatively low rate of return has Biden allies in a tizzy, arguing the billionaire is effectively boosting Sanders by stealing ideological moderates and Black voters from the former vice president. On Sunday, a super PAC supporting Biden, Unite The Country, suggested Bloomberg should drop out of the contest.
“Bloomberg’s $500 million in advertising is basically serving as the Bernie Sanders super PAC, dividing the large share of Democratic voters who do not identify in the super-liberal lane of the party,” the group’s leaders wrote. “Mayor Bloomberg should decide soon if he wants to be the reason why Bernie Sanders is the nominee of the party.”
Advertisement
The Bloomberg campaign has rejected that argument, arguing the first four states are electorally insignificant. “Mike Bloomberg has not been on the ballot yet,” Bloomberg campaign manager Kevin Sheeky said not long after the South Carolina results rolled in. (The campaign has a point: Ten times as many delegates will be awarded on Tuesday as in the first four states combined.)
The Biden campaign, full of energy after South Carolina, has been eagerly suggesting voters could switch en masse from Bloomberg to the former vice president. “I know y’all dated, flirted, dabbled with Mike Bloomberg a little bit,” said Richmond Mayor Levar Stoney, a Biden endorser, at a rally in Virginia on Sunday. “All is forgiven, it’s time to come home.”
But interviews with Bloomberg voters in Houston indicated there may be more resistance to Biden than otherwise thought. Many of them viewed Sanders as an equally existential threat as Trump, and were deeply disappointed in the rest of the Democratic field.
“This election is huge. American Democracy is under threat from the left and the right,” said David Hoyer, a physician who said Bloomberg would “end the lying, the nonsense and the craziness.”
He quickly ticked through the flaws of the rest of the field: “Sanders is gonna lose, Warren is a nutcase. The Republicans will roll over Buttigieg. Biden is too old.”
Advertisement
Getting Bloomberg out of the race may prove to be easier said than done. While he has no television ad time reserved after Tuesday, a multibillionaire can snap his fingers and restart the ad blitz. Asked on CBS’s “60 Minutes” on Sunday night if he would stop running if he wasn’t in the top three after Super Tuesday, Bloomberg responded quickly: “No, of course not.”
‘Milwaukee is the final play.’
Warren’s first words after arriving onstage at her rally in front of 2,000 people in Houston on Saturday night were blunt: “I want to be the first to say the outcome of the first four contests haven’t gone exactly as I hoped.”
Earlier in the day, Warren had finished fifth in the South Carolina primary, following up back-to-back fourth-place finishes in New Hampshire and Nevada and a third-place finish in Iowa. But Warren, more than any other non-billionaire candidate in the race, invested early and often in the Super Tuesday states. Her campaign has 60 organizers on the ground in Texas, and started knocking doors and calling voters back in August.
Presidential hopeful Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren speaks during a town hall in Houston, Texas, on Feb. 29, 2020. MARK FELIX via Getty Images
On the day of the New Hampshire primary, halfway through a rough run in the early states, Warren’s campaign pointed to Super Tuesday as the day everything would get better. “Warren is poised to finish in the top two in over half of Super Tuesday states (eight of 14), in the top three in all of them, and is on pace to pick up at-large statewide delegates in all but one,” campaign manager Roger Lau wrote at the time.
Advertisement
In a memo released Sunday morning, Lau sounded a bit like a door-to-door salesman whose next big payday was always right around the corner. His optimism about Super Tuesday was turned down, though he still insisted Warren would earn delegates “in nearly every state in play on Super Tuesday.”
Instead, Lau said, the campaign ― reinforced by a $29 million fundraising haul in February powered by her filleting of Bloomberg at a debate in Las Vegas, and a pop-up super PAC that has spent more than $12 million supporting her ― was looking to a contested convention as a route to victory.
“In the road to the nomination, the Wisconsin primary is halftime, and the convention in Milwaukee is the final play,” Lau wrote, noting the campaign has already put $4.1 milllion into paid media into states that vote later in March, and up to the Wisconsin primary on April 7. “Our grassroots campaign is built to compete in every state and territory and ultimately prevail at the national convention in Milwaukee.”
Not mentioned in the memo: the threat to Warren in her home state of Massachusetts, where Sanders campaigned on Friday and Saturday. Polls indicate Sanders has a slight edge in a tight race there, which could lead to an embarrassing loss. Some Warren allies questioned Sanders’ tactics, noting he could likely net more delegates by keeping her under the 15% viability threshold in Texas and California instead of by squeaking out a narrow win in the Bay State.
In her speech in Houston, Warren ― who long refused to air virtually any criticism of her opponents ― laid into her rivals for the nomination, including Sanders. She said his “30-year track record shows he consistently calls for things he fails to get done.” Biden was “so eager to cut deals with Mitch McConnell and the Republicans that he’ll trade good ideas for bad ones.” Bloomberg was nothing more than a billionaire play-acting “whose track record as mayor shows he’ll govern to protect himself and his rich friends over everyone else.”
Advertisement
But even more of her speech was dedicated to how she would respond to the spread of coronavirus in the United States, laying out a plan on how she would combat the virus’s spread and its economic impacts: Testing and a theoretical vaccine should be free to all, she said, and the government should ready a fiscal stimulus to help businesses hurt by supply chain disruptions.
“This crisis is a reminder that this primary isn’t a game. We are picking a president ― and we need someone whose core values can be trusted, who has a plan for how to govern, and who can actually get it done,” she said. (Bloomberg, who placed a national three-minute network television ad buy on Sunday to lay out his plan to respond to the crisis, is making a similar argument.)
In recent days, the Warren campaign has tried to turn back the clock by releasing more of her detailed policy plans, a throwback to when her ideas dominated the primary conversation and earned her significant amounts of media attention. She released a marijuana legalization plan before a town hall in Denver, a plan for border communities before one in San Antonio and a plan for farmworkers before an event on Monday night in Los Angeles. But it seems unlikely another white paper will lead to a delegate boost.
Randi Weingarten, the American Federation of Teachers president who endorsed Warren in her personal capacity on Saturday night, remained optimistic ― perhaps stubbornly so.
“People would have said the same thing about Joe Biden before tonight,” she said when asked if there was still time for Warren to reemerge as a top-tier candidate. “And there was a decisive victory that Joe Biden had tonight and it changed the dynamics of the race.”
Advertisement
The change in dynamics needs to come soon. Shortly before Warren walked onstage on Saturday night, a small group of supporters started a “here to stay” chant, echoing the candidates’ words at a rally last weekend in Seattle.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-03-02--A Trump-Pence Blimp May Be Coming To A Sky Near You

President Donald Trump ’ s reelection campaign plans to fly a Trump-Pence blimp over swing states between May and July @ @ @ @ @ .
The blimp will invite onlookers to text the word “ Fly ” to a @ @ @ @ @ the users to a list of supporters .
Those users will then receive Trump campaign @ @ @ @ @ President Donald Trump greets the crowd after speaking at an event in Maryland on Saturday @ @ @ @ @ campaign has been flush with campaign dollars , with his team reeling in $ 86 @ @ @ @ @ Republican National Committee ’ s chairperson announced Monday .
This has allowed his team to @ @ @ @ @ spending .
Trump ’ s Democratic rivals , with one exception , each pulled in @ @ @ @ @ amount in February .
That exception was Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I-Vt. ) , who @ @ @ @ @ 46 million .
Sen. Elizabeth Warren ( D-Mass . )
earned the second highest amount @ @ @ @ @ 29 million .
Former Vice President Joe Biden raised $ 18 million .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
President Donald Trump’s reelection campaign plans to fly a Trump-Pence blimp over swing states between May and July, Politico first reported Sunday.
The blimp will invite onlookers to text the word “Fly” to a mobile number that will add the users to a list of supporters. Those users will then receive Trump campaign advertisements and donation requests.
Advertisement
Visiting states could include Arizona, Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania or Wisconsin.
President Donald Trump greets the crowd after speaking at an event in Maryland on Saturday. ASSOCIATED PRESS
Trump’s reelection campaign has been flush with campaign dollars, with his team reeling in $86 million in February, the Republican National Committee’s chairperson announced Monday. This has allowed his team to be more creative with its spending.
Trump’s Democratic rivals, with one exception, each pulled in less than half of that amount in February. That exception was Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who raked in more than $46 million.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) earned the second highest amount, with more than $29 million. Former Vice President Joe Biden raised $18 million.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-03-02--Supreme Court Will Hear Obamacare Case, But Probably Not Until Next Term

The Supreme Court will hear the latest challenge to the Affordable Care Act but almost certainly not until its next term , which begins in October .
The justices on Monday announced that they would take the case but did not give a timetable , which customarily means they would hear the case in the next term .
“ They didn ’ t say anything about the schedule — that means it will be argued next term in the normal course , ” Nicholas Bagley , a law professor at the University of Michigan , told HuffPost .
“ The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but I think it ’ s very unlikely to happen.
” The court ’ s official calendar shows six days of oral arguments before the presidential election , which take places Tuesday , November 3 .
But it typically takes weeks , sometimes months , after oral argument for the justices to issue rulings .
As a result , the outcome of the lawsuit is likely to remain unknown when Americans go to the polls , even though the case is part of a decadelong battle between the nation ’ s two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ruling in favor of the lawsuit would unleash chaos while directly affecting literally tens of millions of Americans .
“ The court will hear the case in the fall — whether before the election or after , we don ’ t yet know — with a decision to come in the spring of 2021 , ” Bagley said .
The case , Texas v. U.S. , comes from 20 Republican state officials and has the support of President Donald Trump .
It claims that a newly introduced , fatal constitutional flaw in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the federal courts end the entire program .
If that were to happen , 20 million people could lose health coverage , according to projections from the Urban Institute .
Far-reaching provisions of the law , including its protections for people with pre-existing conditions , would also come off the books .
Democratic officials from 20 states plus the District of Columbia , along with the U.S. House of Representatives , have stepped in to defend the Affordable Care Act because the Justice Department , heeding Trump ’ s order , will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lawsuit has no merit , and they have the weight of the legal establishment on their side .
Even lawyers aligned with Republicans who shaped previous challenges to the Affordable Care Act have said they think this latest challenge should fail .
But the lawsuit has already won in a U.S. District Court , and late last year its core argument carried the day before a three-judge panel from the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals .
The central issue in the case is the Affordable Care Act ’ s “ individual mandate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more precisely , was ― a financial penalty for people who do not have insurance .
The 2017 Republican tax cut , passed by Congress and signed by Trump , left the language of the mandate in place but reduced the penalty to zero .
In a previous challenge to the Affordable Care Act , the Supreme Court had upheld the mandate as a legitimate use of congressional power to tax .
If the penalty is zero , the lawsuit claims , then the mandate can ’ t be a tax , rendering @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s unconstitutional , the lawsuit says , then the whole law is , too , because the mandate is supposedly an essential part of the law ’ s machinery .
But the two circuit judges said they weren ’ t so sure the rest of the law had to go .
They sent the case back to O ’ Connor with instructions to go back through the Affordable Care Act to see if maybe some parts can remain .
That could have dragged out the case for years , since O ’ Connor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new ruling , and then his ruling would have prompted yet another appeal to the circuit court , and then that circuit court ’ s new ruling would just as inevitably have prompted an appeal to the Supreme Court .
Rather than wait for that process to play out , the Democratic lawyers asked the Supreme Court to take the case directly and do so as quickly as possible .
On Monday , the court said yes to taking the case but no to taking it right away .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
The Supreme Court will hear the latest challenge to the Affordable Care Act but almost certainly not until its next term, which begins in October.
The justices on Monday announced that they would take the case but did not give a timetable, which customarily means they would hear the case in the next term.
Advertisement
“They didn’t say anything about the schedule — that means it will be argued next term in the normal course,” Nicholas Bagley, a law professor at the University of Michigan, told HuffPost. “The parties can move for expedited consideration again, but I think it’s very unlikely to happen.”
The court’s official calendar shows six days of oral arguments before the presidential election, which take places Tuesday, November 3. But it typically takes weeks, sometimes months, after oral argument for the justices to issue rulings.
As a result, the outcome of the lawsuit is likely to remain unknown when Americans go to the polls, even though the case is part of a decadelong battle between the nation’s two political parties ― and even though a ruling in favor of the lawsuit would unleash chaos while directly affecting literally tens of millions of Americans.
“The court will hear the case in the fall — whether before the election or after, we don’t yet know — with a decision to come in the spring of 2021,” Bagley said.
Advertisement
The case, Texas v. U.S., comes from 20 Republican state officials and has the support of President Donald Trump. It claims that a newly introduced, fatal constitutional flaw in the law known as “Obamacare” requires that the federal courts end the entire program.
If that were to happen, 20 million people could lose health coverage, according to projections from the Urban Institute. Far-reaching provisions of the law, including its protections for people with pre-existing conditions, would also come off the books.
Democratic officials from 20 states plus the District of Columbia, along with the U.S. House of Representatives, have stepped in to defend the Affordable Care Act because the Justice Department, heeding Trump’s order, will not.
These Democrats argue that the lawsuit has no merit, and they have the weight of the legal establishment on their side. Even lawyers aligned with Republicans who shaped previous challenges to the Affordable Care Act have said they think this latest challenge should fail.
But the lawsuit has already won in a U.S. District Court, and late last year its core argument carried the day before a three-judge panel from the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Advertisement
The central issue in the case is the Affordable Care Act’s “individual mandate,” which is ― or, more precisely, was ― a financial penalty for people who do not have insurance. The 2017 Republican tax cut, passed by Congress and signed by Trump, left the language of the mandate in place but reduced the penalty to zero.
In a previous challenge to the Affordable Care Act, the Supreme Court had upheld the mandate as a legitimate use of congressional power to tax. If the penalty is zero, the lawsuit claims, then the mandate can’t be a tax, rendering it unconstitutional.
And if it’s unconstitutional, the lawsuit says, then the whole law is, too, because the mandate is supposedly an essential part of the law’s machinery.
The district judge, Republican appointee Reed O’Connor, endorsed this argument. Two circuit court judges, both of them also Republican appointees, agreed with him about the mandate’s constitutionality. (A third judge, a Democratic appointee, dissented.)
But the two circuit judges said they weren’t so sure the rest of the law had to go. They sent the case back to O’Connor with instructions to go back through the Affordable Care Act to see if maybe some parts can remain.
Advertisement
That could have dragged out the case for years, since O’Connor would have needed time to issue a new ruling, and then his ruling would have prompted yet another appeal to the circuit court, and then that circuit court’s new ruling would just as inevitably have prompted an appeal to the Supreme Court.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-03-02--Sheriffs Seek Voter Approval To Use Inmate Food Money Elsewhere

GADSDEN , Ala. ( AP ) — Voters in two northeast Alabama counties will decide Tuesday whether their sheriffs can use jail inmate food money for other purposes .
In Etowah and Marshall counties , local constitutional amendments would let the sheriffs use all leftover money on sheriff ’ s office business , up from 25 % now .
Etowah County Sheriff Jonathon Horton is pledging to use any leftover money to fund school resource officers at county schools .
The referendums are part of the fallout from earlier state efforts to keep sheriffs from personally pocketing any money that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That practice was long legal in Alabama , but was finally banned after a series of scandals .
A Pickens County sheriff was convicted of tax fraud charges after keeping food money and using his church food pantry to feed inmates instead .
A Morgan County sheriff settled a lawsuit after she withdrew food money and loaned it to a used car dealership .
A former Etowah County sheriff was accused of using food money to buy a beach house , although auditors and ethics officials have found nothing illegal about what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Times statewide legislation passed last year increased the state payment per inmate per day to $ 2.25 total , including a 5-cent earmark for kitchen maintenance , and makes the account a public one , rather than a personal account for the sheriff .
If there is a surplus , state law permits 25 % of it to go toward other law enforcement expenses .
“ This amendment will let Etowah County use not just 25 % , we could use 100 % , ” the sheriff said .
The amendment says specifically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ school resource officers .
Currently , the sheriff ’ s office , Etowah County schools and the county commission split the cost of some officers .
“ It would help us work toward getting SROs at every school , ” Etowah County Superintendent Alan Cosby said .
Marshall County Sheriff Phil Sims said the county has extra money in its jail food fund that can ’ t be spent under the current state law .
He told WHNT-TV that he ’ s hired a dietitian to make sure inmates get nutritious food and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ raise money for other purposes .
“ They ’ re inmates , I understand , but you still have to take care of them , ” Sims said .
“ They are still humans .
You still have to feed people , take care of them , and treat them respectfully , treat them humanly .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
GADSDEN, Ala. (AP) — Voters in two northeast Alabama counties will decide Tuesday whether their sheriffs can use jail inmate food money for other purposes.
In Etowah and Marshall counties, local constitutional amendments would let the sheriffs use all leftover money on sheriff’s office business, up from 25% now. Etowah County Sheriff Jonathon Horton is pledging to use any leftover money to fund school resource officers at county schools.
Advertisement
The referendums are part of the fallout from earlier state efforts to keep sheriffs from personally pocketing any money that’s left over after feeding inmates. That practice was long legal in Alabama, but was finally banned after a series of scandals.
A Pickens County sheriff was convicted of tax fraud charges after keeping food money and using his church food pantry to feed inmates instead. A Morgan County sheriff settled a lawsuit after she withdrew food money and loaned it to a used car dealership. A former Etowah County sheriff was accused of using food money to buy a beach house, although auditors and ethics officials have found nothing illegal about what he did.
Horton tells The Gadsden Times statewide legislation passed last year increased the state payment per inmate per day to $2.25 total, including a 5-cent earmark for kitchen maintenance, and makes the account a public one, rather than a personal account for the sheriff.
If there is a surplus, state law permits 25% of it to go toward other law enforcement expenses.
“This amendment will let Etowah County use not just 25%, we could use 100%,” the sheriff said. The amendment says specifically that Horton can use the money on school resource officers. Currently, the sheriff’s office, Etowah County schools and the county commission split the cost of some officers.
Advertisement
“It would help us work toward getting SROs at every school,” Etowah County Superintendent Alan Cosby said.
Marshall County Sheriff Phil Sims said the county has extra money in its jail food fund that can’t be spent under the current state law. He told WHNT-TV that he’s hired a dietitian to make sure inmates get nutritious food and wouldn’t pinch food costs to raise money for other purposes.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-03-02--Bloomberg’s Stop-And-Frisk Was ‘State-Sanctioned Sexual Assault’ Of Men Of Color

The two officers asked Hudson if he had any weapons or drugs on him and then frisked him .
Hudson said the cops didn ’ t explain why they stopped him , and he was not told where he would be touched during the 20-second patdown , But at one point , Hudson said , an officer groped his private areas , thoroughly feeling around between his thighs and his testicles .
Under then-New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg , the New York Police Department stopped over 6 million people between 2002 and 2013 , the overwhelming majority of whom @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Bloomberg running for the Democratic presidential nomination and ranking third in national primary polls , there ’ s been an intense reexamination of what is now widely seen as a racist policing tactic .
In 2011 , at the height of the stop-and-frisk practice , around 685,000 stops were recorded in the city .
About 90 % involved Black or Latinx individuals , and nearly 90 % of the people stopped were found to be innocent ― that is , they weren ’ t arrested or given a summons .
While stop-and-frisk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of how the NYPD abused them under the Bloomberg administration , they didn ’ t start then .
The Supreme Court held stop-and-frisk to be a constitutional law enforcement tactic under the Fourth Amendment in the 1968 decision of Terry v. Ohio .
To this day , it ’ s used across the country at the discretion of individual police officers and departments .
Police are permitted to stop a person when they have a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed or is about to commit a crime .
An officer can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are not carrying a weapon .
Police can also ask to search a person ’ s pockets or bags , but the person has to consent to that search .
If cops find something illegal , they can then arrest the individual and bring them back to the police station where a more invasive strip or cavity search usually is executed in private .
Even in my discussions with Hudson , it took multiple conversations for him to characterize his experience as sexual assault ― he first chose to describe what happened as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t want to say it was assault for fear of being embarrassed , ” he told me .
“ I felt very uncomfortable throughout the whole time and felt helpless ― as if I couldn ’ t say no to what they were doing.
” I would start at either the front or rear center of the suspect ’ s midsection and run my fingers along and beneath their belt , then frisk their waistband , front and back pockets , groin , and buttocks .
The groin and buttocks bear special mention @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me in training that criminals knew and took advantage of the fact that officers were naturally uncomfortable searching these areas .
The potential for avoiding discovery made those areas particularly attractive as hiding spots , which in turn made it particularly important for me to search there .
To do so , I would make the same motions as I ’ ve just described , reaching around over the front of the thighs and doing the same from the back , running my hand along clothing between suspects ’ legs starting on one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Inevitably , this involved contact ( through gloves and clothing ) with suspects ’ buttocks and genitalia , but that contact was essential for an effective frisk .
“ The cop ’ s interest is ‘ I ’ ve got to make sure that you don ’ t have any weapons.
’ And yeah , that is going to require me to touch your breasts or to touch your penis or testicles or to put pressure on clothing that ’ s going to make contact with your anus , ” he explained .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ my perspective was that ’ s just what I need to do to do an effective frisk.
” It was only after he became a law professor that Stoughton realized the practice he was trained to employ as a police officer could be perceived as problematic and even violating .
“ It really wasn ’ t until later that I started to think , ‘ Oh , shit , maybe there are other perspectives on this , ’ ” he said .
“ Maybe someone didn ’ t take my incidental contact with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I thought it was.
” Stoughton said it was common practice at the police agency where he worked to alert the person where they were going to be touched before they were touched ― both to be informative and to ensure that the situation didn ’ t escalate .
He cautioned that not every police agency abides by this guideline , and he doesn ’ t think that the NYPD took the correct precautions to put citizens at ease during frisks .
Beyond New York City , many other police forces have used @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In September 2017 , M.B .
Cottingham , a Black man , was hanging out with some friends in his Washington , D.C. , neighborhood when police stopped them .
When one officer asked Cottingham about a bulge in his sock , Cottingham pulled out a city-legal amount of marijuana and volunteered to let the officer frisk him , hoping it would de-escalate the situation .
During the frisk , however , the cop went far beyond what ’ s allowed during a patdown under Terry v. Ohio : He grabbed Cottingham ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into Cottingham ’ s buttocks and anus .
The type of sexual violation that comes with frisks happens to women and LGBTQ people too , especially women and queer people of color .
Police sometimes assume that Black transgender women are sex workers because they ’ re trans and use frisks to fondle private areas to confirm their own ideas about gender identity , said Ritchie , the police misconduct attorney .
In widely reported cases , women of color have been stopped and illegally strip-searched in public .
In 2016 , San @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s tampon in an unconstitutional cavity search in public while allegedly looking for weapons or drugs .
Ritchie , a New York native , said she knows many women of color in the city who have been sexually harassed by police , including those who had police use a stop to get their phone number and then harassed them to go on a date via text message .
During the Bloomberg years , it was so well known that stop-and-frisks could be sexually invasive that women often called them “ stop and gropes @ @ @ @ @

Illustration: Rebecca Zisser/HuffPost; Photo: Getty
It started off as a good night in 2012 for Lawrence Hudson. He was at a holiday party for the Brooklyn radio station where he was interning over his winter break. At just 21 years old, he was the youngest host in the station’s history.
About halfway through the party, Hudson decided to call his mom. It was too loud in the office so he made his way outside, a cup still in hand. There was only ice left in the cup so he threw it in the garbage once he got outside.
Advertisement
That’s when a police cruiser pulled up.
“I was really, really nervous,” Hudson told me by phone. “I’m a Black man in America. I know what the NYPD does.”
The two officers asked Hudson if he had any weapons or drugs on him and then frisked him. Hudson said the cops didn’t explain why they stopped him, and he was not told where he would be touched during the 20-second patdown, But at one point, Hudson said, an officer groped his private areas, thoroughly feeling around between his thighs and his testicles.
“It was a very powerless feeling,” he said. “If they weren’t police officers, somebody definitely would have said it was sexual assault.”
The cops eventually let Hudson go with a ticket for possession of an open container of alcohol, although he said they never checked the cup that he’d thrown out. Two months later, he would get a letter in the mail that the court had automatically dismissed the ticket.
Advertisement
He went back upstairs to the party but “felt empty” the rest of the night. “I was just a college student,” he said. “I was just trying to work hard and do what I had to do for my career. But my experience at work was really never the same after that.”
Under then-New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg, the New York Police Department stopped over 6 million people between 2002 and 2013, the overwhelming majority of whom were young men of color. Today with Bloomberg running for the Democratic presidential nomination and ranking third in national primary polls, there’s been an intense reexamination of what is now widely seen as a racist policing tactic. In 2011, at the height of the stop-and-frisk practice, around 685,000 stops were recorded in the city. About 90% involved Black or Latinx individuals, and nearly 90% of the people stopped were found to be innocent ― that is, they weren’t arrested or given a summons.
While stop-and-frisk practices drew a lot of attention because of how the NYPD abused them under the Bloomberg administration, they didn’t start then. The Supreme Court held stop-and-frisk to be a constitutional law enforcement tactic under the Fourth Amendment in the 1968 decision of Terry v. Ohio. To this day, it’s used across the country at the discretion of individual police officers and departments. Police are permitted to stop a person when they have a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed or is about to commit a crime. An officer can then frisk that individual to ensure they are not carrying a weapon. Police can also ask to search a person’s pockets or bags, but the person has to consent to that search. If cops find something illegal, they can then arrest the individual and bring them back to the police station where a more invasive strip or cavity search usually is executed in private.
Criticism of stop-and-frisk has focused on the rampant racial profiling that is deeply entwined with the practice. What’s been left out of the conversation, however, is the sexual violation that often comes with it. HuffPost spoke to multiple experts who agreed that frisks are invasive and could be characterized as sexual violence.
“It’s an open secret that frisks also create an opportunity for abuse,” Josephine Ross, a law professor at Howard University and an expert in police misconduct, wrote in a 2018 paper on sexual violence in policing. “Even constitutional frisks can feel like rape to those on the receiving end.”
“Even constitutional frisks can feel like rape to those on the receiving end.” - Josephine Ross, Howard University law professor
Andrea Ritchie, a police misconduct attorney and expert in police violence against women of color and LGBTQ people, agreed that even the legal definition of a frisk amounts to “state-sanctioned sexual assault.”
“The way stop-and-frisk was deployed by the NYPD was a virtual declaration that this community is criminalized and you can do anything you want to them,” she told HuffPost. “What we sometimes forget is ‘you can do anything you want to them’ includes sexual violence.”
Advertisement
Men who experience unwanted touching or groping during police frisks ― whether legal or illegal ― are the least likely to disclose or report any type of sexual violation, Ross said, much less to press charges.
Even in my discussions with Hudson, it took multiple conversations for him to characterize his experience as sexual assault ― he first chose to describe what happened as harassment. “I just didn’t want to say it was assault for fear of being embarrassed,” he told me. “I felt very uncomfortable throughout the whole time and felt helpless ― as if I couldn’t say no to what they were doing.”
Hudson described Bloomberg’s stop-and-frisk policy as “a lot of headaches and heartaches for African Americans.” He knew cousins, friends and colleagues ― all primarily young men of color ― who had been stopped and frisked. “I understand that people have to do their jobs,” he said. “But in regards to the officer that night, he didn’t have to search that area. I was no threat, but they still did it.”
For safety purposes, police officers across the country are trained to search for weapons on a person during frisks. They are often warned that people hide weapons and drugs in places that cops may be squeamish about checking and therefore less likely to search, such as a person’s private areas.
Advertisement
“Officers are basically trained to touch people in a way that you would call sexual assault if it wasn’t done by a trained police officer,” said Ross, who has a forthcoming book with Cambridge University Press in which she presents a feminist critique of stop-and-frisk.
Seth Stoughton, a former police officer of five years in Tallahassee, Florida, conducted “easily hundreds” of stop-and-frisks, he told HuffPost. Now an associate professor at the University of South Carolina who looks at policing regulations, Stoughton explained in a 2017 paper how he used to execute frisks:
I would start at either the front or rear center of the suspect’s midsection and run my fingers along and beneath their belt, then frisk their waistband, front and back pockets, groin, and buttocks. The groin and buttocks bear special mention, as it had been drilled into me in training that criminals knew and took advantage of the fact that officers were naturally uncomfortable searching these areas. The potential for avoiding discovery made those areas particularly attractive as hiding spots, which in turn made it particularly important for me to search there. To do so, I would make the same motions as I’ve just described, reaching around over the front of the thighs and doing the same from the back, running my hand along clothing between suspects’ legs starting on one side and making my way across. Inevitably, this involved contact (through gloves and clothing) with suspects’ buttocks and genitalia, but that contact was essential for an effective frisk.
Stoughton told HuffPost that the frisks “were very invasive” because he was routinely “making contact with genitals.” At the same time, he said, frisks were a mundane and admittedly forgettable part of the job for police.
Advertisement
“The cop’s interest is ‘I’ve got to make sure that you don’t have any weapons.’ And yeah, that is going to require me to touch your breasts or to touch your penis or testicles or to put pressure on clothing that’s going to make contact with your anus,” he explained. “But as a working cop, my perspective was that’s just what I need to do to do an effective frisk.”
It was only after he became a law professor that Stoughton realized the practice he was trained to employ as a police officer could be perceived as problematic and even violating. “It really wasn’t until later that I started to think, ‘Oh, shit, maybe there are other perspectives on this,’” he said. “Maybe someone didn’t take my incidental contact with their genitals as the incidental interaction that I thought it was.”
Stoughton said it was common practice at the police agency where he worked to alert the person where they were going to be touched before they were touched ― both to be informative and to ensure that the situation didn’t escalate. He cautioned that not every police agency abides by this guideline, and he doesn’t think that the NYPD took the correct precautions to put citizens at ease during frisks.
“It wasn’t always lawful. It wasn’t particularly effective. And it wasn’t rightful,” Stoughton said of the use of stop-and-frisk under Bloomberg’s administration. “It was undermining rather than building the type of community relationship that effective policing really depends on.”
Advertisement
Beyond New York City, many other police forces have used and continue to use stop-and-frisk today. In September 2017, M.B. Cottingham, a Black man, was hanging out with some friends in his Washington, D.C., neighborhood when police stopped them. When one officer asked Cottingham about a bulge in his sock, Cottingham pulled out a city-legal amount of marijuana and volunteered to let the officer frisk him, hoping it would de-escalate the situation. During the frisk, however, the cop went far beyond what’s allowed during a patdown under Terry v. Ohio: He grabbed Cottingham’s genitals and repeatedly thrust his fingers into Cottingham’s buttocks and anus.
Warning: Some viewers may find the below video to be graphic and triggering.
Cottingham protested and told the officer: “You just stuck your finger in my ass, man. Don’t do that.” Instead of stopping, the officer put Cottingham’s hands in cuffs and continued probing Cottingham’s genitals.
“Once he thrust his finger in my bottom, I wanted to turn around and punch him in his face,” Cottingham, who later sued the officer, told the American Civil Liberties Union. “But the thought that kept running across my mind is, they gonna kill you. I thought about teddy bears being up under the tree or becoming a hashtag. I have kids that I have to live for.”
Advertisement
The type of sexual violation that comes with frisks happens to women and LGBTQ people too, especially women and queer people of color. Police sometimes assume that Black transgender women are sex workers because they’re trans and use frisks to fondle private areas to confirm their own ideas about gender identity, said Ritchie, the police misconduct attorney. In widely reported cases, women of color have been stopped and illegally strip-searched in public. In 2016, San Antonio police pulled out a woman’s tampon in an unconstitutional cavity search in public while allegedly looking for weapons or drugs.
Ritchie, a New York native, said she knows many women of color in the city who have been sexually harassed by police, including those who had police use a stop to get their phone number and then harassed them to go on a date via text message. During the Bloomberg years, it was so well known that stop-and-frisks could be sexually invasive that women often called them “stop and gropes,” Ritchie said.
“There’s a tremendous opportunity for abuse when you have a program like that ― increased frequency in contact, increased intensity of contact, increased possibility for extortion or forced sexual activity and certainly sexual harassment,” she added.
Additionally, these stops can create opportunities for more pervasive sexual assault. The most glaring example is former Oklahoma City police officer Daniel Holtzclaw, who was convicted on 18 counts of rape, sexual battery and other charges for using his authority as a cop to sexually abuse women. Almost all of the 13 survivors who testified during his 2015 trial were poor Black women with criminal histories. He approached most of them using the stop-and-frisk tactic.
Although Bloomberg disavowed stop-and-frisk and apologized for how his administration had used it just a week after he announced his presidential run, that hasn’t magically halted the controversial practice across the country. Most police officers may think of stop-and-frisks like Stoughton did ― as a mundane and forgettable part of the job. But what about the victims of stop-and-frisk who don’t find the interaction so easily forgettable?
Advertisement
Hudson, now a law student at Howard University, said he didn’t realize how badly he was being violated that night back in 2012. “It definitely traumatized me,” he told me. “I don’t like police officers, even to this day.”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-03-02--Progressive Group That Urged Warren To Run In 2016 Endorses Sanders In 2020

Democracy for America , the progressive political action committee behind the “ Run Warren Run ” campaign to get Sen. Elizabeth Warren ( D-Mass . )
to jump into the 2016 presidential race , announced Monday that it ’ s endorsing Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I-Vt. ) for the party ’ s 2020 nomination .
Founded in 2004 by former Vermont Gov .
Howard Dean , DFA eventually backed Sanders ’ s presidential bid in 2016 after Warren declined to run .
Though Warren is running in this election cycle , DFA announced in a statement Monday that its members @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Bernie Sanders has built a powerful multi-racial , multi-generational movement and we ’ re excited to join the campaign at this critical moment in the Democratic race , ” DFA Chair Charles Chamberlain said in a statement .
Biden and Sanders are often compared with one another on the campaign trail , given their similar progressive political agendas .
But Sanders has surged to the front of the Democratic pack , which has narrowed significantly in recent weeks following the first handful of presidential primary contests .
Sanders virtually tied for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg , who dropped out of the race Sunday , in the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary .
He won in a landslide in the Nevada caucuses but trailed former Vice President Joe Biden for second place in the most recent primary in South Carolina .
Warren , on the other hand , has had disappointing showings in the caucuses and primaries so far .
She hasn ’ t broken past third place in any of the contests and came in a distant fifth in South Carolina .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ is proud to have DFA ’ s support .
“ They ’ ve led the fight to guarantee health care as a human right , protect and expand Social Security , and end our nation ’ s endless wars , ” Sanders said .
“ Together , we will build a movement that sweeps Donald Trump out of the White House and transforms this country so that it works for the working class .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Democracy for America, the progressive political action committee behind the “Run Warren Run” campaign to get Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) to jump into the 2016 presidential race, announced Monday that it’s endorsing Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) for the party’s 2020 nomination.
Founded in 2004 by former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, DFA eventually backed Sanders’s presidential bid in 2016 after Warren declined to run. Though Warren is running in this election cycle, DFA announced in a statement Monday that its members had overwhelmingly voted to support Sanders again.
Advertisement
“Bernie Sanders has built a powerful multi-racial, multi-generational movement and we’re excited to join the campaign at this critical moment in the Democratic race,” DFA Chair Charles Chamberlain said in a statement.
Warren and Sanders are often compared with one another on the campaign trail, given their similar progressive political agendas. But Sanders has surged to the front of the Democratic pack, which has narrowed significantly in recent weeks following the first handful of presidential primary contests.
Sanders virtually tied for first place with former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, who dropped out of the race Sunday, in the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary. He won in a landslide in the Nevada caucuses but trailed former Vice President Joe Biden for second place in the most recent primary in South Carolina.
Warren, on the other hand, has had disappointing showings in the caucuses and primaries so far. She hasn’t broken past third place in any of the contests and came in a distant fifth in South Carolina.
Advertisement
Sanders said in a statement that he is proud to have DFA’s support.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-03-02--Chris Matthews Resigning From MSNBC Amid Criticism Over Sexist Remarks

“ After conversation with MSNBC , I decided tonight will be my last ‘ Hardball , ’ ” he said , stating that he wanted to pass the baton to a younger generation with “ better standards than we grew up with ― fair standards ” about behavior in the workplace .
His announcement comes days after he came under fire for an interview of Sen. Elizabeth Warren ( D-Mass . )
after Tuesday night ’ s Democratic debate in South Carolina .
In their conversation , the longtime host went after Warren for relating allegations against rival candidate Mike @ @ @ @ @ @ @ renewed criticism of Matthews for his own history of sexual harassment allegations and sexist remarks , including rape jokes about Bill Cosby and comments about Hillary Clinton ’ s ability to lead as a woman .
Laura Bassett , a former HuffPost reporter , revealed last week in GQ that Matthews inappropriately flirted with her in the makeup room on several occasions before she appeared live on his show , complimenting her on her appearance and asking , “ Why haven ’ t I fallen in love with you yet ?
” She @ @ @ @ @ @ @ HuffPost but chose not to name him at the time for fear of retaliation .
In a separate slip-up last week , Matthews confused South Carolina Democratic Senate candidate Jaime Harrison with Sen. Tim Scott ( R-S.C. ) , both of whom are Black , while reporting live on air during a Donald Trump campaign rally in South Carolina .
And earlier this month , he compared Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders ’ s sweeping win in the Nevada caucuses to the 1940 Nazi invasion of France ― a particularly offensive comment given that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of his family were killed in the Holocaust .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
MSNBC’s “Hardball” host Chris Matthews announced on air Monday that he’s resigning amid renewed criticism of his sexist behavior.
“After conversation with MSNBC, I decided tonight will be my last ‘Hardball,’” he said, stating that he wanted to pass the baton to a younger generation with “better standards than we grew up with ― fair standards” about behavior in the workplace.
Advertisement
His announcement comes days after he came under fire for an interview of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) after Tuesday night’s Democratic debate in South Carolina. In their conversation, the longtime host went after Warren for relating allegations against rival candidate Mike Bloomberg of sexual harassment.
“Why would he lie?” Matthews, who’s also battled sexual harassment charges, asked Warren of Bloomberg. “Just to protect himself?”
The incident renewed criticism of Matthews for his own history of sexual harassment allegations and sexist remarks, including rape jokes about Bill Cosby and comments about Hillary Clinton’s ability to lead as a woman.
Advertisement
Laura Bassett, a former HuffPost reporter, revealed last week in GQ that Matthews inappropriately flirted with her in the makeup room on several occasions before she appeared live on his show, complimenting her on her appearance and asking, “Why haven’t I fallen in love with you yet?” She wrote about the experience in 2017 for HuffPost but chose not to name him at the time for fear of retaliation.
In a separate slip-up last week, Matthews confused South Carolina Democratic Senate candidate Jaime Harrison with Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.), both of whom are Black, while reporting live on air during a Donald Trump campaign rally in South Carolina.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-03-02--Task Force Expert Instantly Contradicts Trump On 'Quick' Coronavirus Vaccine — Again

President Donald Trump promised Monday that “ very exciting things are happening rapidly ” on the coronavirus front , including a possible “ quick ” vaccine .
But that hope was instantly dashed by the top health expert on his COVID-19 task force , who said a vaccine might be ready in 18 months .
Trump appeared to confuse when a vaccine could be tested with when it could be safely used by Americans .
Trump ’ s specifics on the battle against coronavirus were vague , but he promised they would undoubtedly be “ very successful.
” He made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Oval Office with task force members and 10 pharmaceutical company executives .
Trump also vowed that “ we will continue to do exactly what we ’ ve been doing , ” even though the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has been sharply criticized over its flawed , limited tests for the disease .
As for a vaccine , Trump said , “ I ’ ve heard very quick numbers , that of months .
And I ’ ve heard pretty much a year would be an outside number .
So I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ range .
But ... you ’ re talking about three to four months in a couple of cases , a year in other cases.
” Dr. Anthony Fauci , the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases , instantly corrected Trump : “ Let me make sure you get the ... information.
” A vaccine could be ready “ at the earliest [ in ] a year to a year-and-a-half , no matter how fast you go , ” said Fauci , noting : “ Like I ’ ve been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also corrected Trump after his first news conference on the coronavirus last Wednesday , when the president insisted a vaccine was “ very close.
” Fauci later said a coronavirus vaccine could take up to two years .
The president underscored at the meeting that one company was talking about a vaccine in “ two months.
” But Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar pointed out to him that a vaccine could be ready to begin testing in two months .
Vaccines go through three stages of testing before they ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Regeneron Pharmaceuticals CEO Leonard Schleifer explained to Trump that a faulty vaccine can make a disease worse .
“ You don ’ t want to rush and treat a million people and find out you ’ re making 900,000 of them worse , ” he said .
Trump responded : “ Good idea.
” Executives also had to explain to a stumped Trump that a typical flu vaccine won ’ t work against the new coronavirus .
Critics on Twitter were stunned that Trump boasted about “ exciting things ” concerning the coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cases in the nation ( 102 as of Monday evening ) and the death count ( six people in Washington state ) .
Here we go again with the word salad nonsense and filler that does n't indicate that Trump knows what 's going on .
Cases are up .
Deaths are up .
None of that is exciting .
It 's not a game show .
It 's life and death , and his choices/statements have dire consequences .
— lawhawk ( @ lawhawk ) March 2 , 2020

LOADING ERROR LOADING
President Donald Trump promised Monday that “very exciting things are happening rapidly” on the coronavirus front, including a possible “quick” vaccine. But that hope was instantly dashed by the top health expert on his COVID-19 task force, who said a vaccine might be ready in 18 months.
Trump appeared to confuse when a vaccine could be tested with when it could be safely used by Americans.
Advertisement
Trump’s specifics on the battle against coronavirus were vague, but he promised they would undoubtedly be “very successful.” He made his remarks as he met in the Oval Office with task force members and 10 pharmaceutical company executives.
Trump also vowed that “we will continue to do exactly what we’ve been doing,” even though the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has been sharply criticized over its flawed, limited tests for the disease.
As for a vaccine, Trump said, “I’ve heard very quick numbers, that of months. And I’ve heard pretty much a year would be an outside number. So I think that’s not a bad range. But ... you’re talking about three to four months in a couple of cases, a year in other cases.”
Dr. Anthony Fauci, the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, instantly corrected Trump: “Let me make sure you get the ... information.” A vaccine could be ready “at the earliest [in] a year to a year-and-a-half, no matter how fast you go,” said Fauci, noting: “Like I’ve been telling you, Mr. President.”
Advertisement
Fauci also corrected Trump after his first news conference on the coronavirus last Wednesday, when the president insisted a vaccine was “very close.” Fauci later said a coronavirus vaccine could take up to two years.
The president underscored at the meeting that one company was talking about a vaccine in “two months.” But Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar pointed out to him that a vaccine could be ready to begin testing in two months. Vaccines go through three stages of testing before they’re available to the public much later.
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals CEO Leonard Schleifer explained to Trump that a faulty vaccine can make a disease worse. “You don’t want to rush and treat a million people and find out you’re making 900,000 of them worse,” he said. Trump responded: “Good idea.”
Executives also had to explain to a stumped Trump that a typical flu vaccine won’t work against the new coronavirus.
Advertisement
The president appeared a bit foggy about vaccines in general. Schleifer explained about antibodies.
TRUMP asks a pharmaceutical CEO: "This would be a combination of a vaccine and also it will -- put it in a different way -- make you better, quicker?" pic.twitter.com/N7Wti1UByC — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) March 2, 2020
Critics on Twitter were stunned that Trump boasted about “exciting things” concerning the coronavirus, given the rapidly mounting number of cases in the nation (102 as of Monday evening) and the death count (six people in Washington state).
Exciting things like what? Intubating and ventilating assisted living residents? https://t.co/VFgntLYfL2 — Andrea R MD (@AndreaR9Md) March 2, 2020
Here we go again with the word salad nonsense and filler that doesn't indicate that Trump knows what's going on.
Cases are up.
Deaths are up.
None of that is exciting. It's not a game show. It's life and death, and his choices/statements have dire consequences. — lawhawk (@lawhawk) March 2, 2020
Advertisement
Trump, soon as the experts leave: “So we’ll just go with the flu vaccine.” https://t.co/TZd9PliSBA — Richard Marx (@richardmarx) March 3, 2020
This is scaryyyy pic.twitter.com/dmXMJmiyta — Nanette M Alders (@nanettema) March 2, 2020
Just slap a flu vaccine on this bad boy and we're done. — CSPAM2 (@cspamus1) March 2, 2020
Here’s Trump’s entire meeting: