thewashingtonexaminer--2020-02-07--The death of the presidential author

The death of the presidential author

When we think of books and presidents , we tend to think of books about , not by , our commanders in chief .
Some books have been influential in shaping our views of individual presidents or of the presidency itself .
Some have added to the luster of certain chief executives .
Some have tarnished their reputations .
We seldom think of presidents as authors themselves — for good reason .
Few presidents have thought much about books beyond their politics , and fewer still have written books disconnected from their political lives .
Nowadays , when we think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is almost invariably a ghostwritten post-presidential memoir designed to set the record straight — and make some money .
This was n't always the case .
Thomas Jefferson 's Notes on the State of Virginia ( 1785 ) was n't composed with his career in mind .
It was a typical expression of a polymath 's natural curiosity .
Theodore Roosevelt 's Naval War of 1812 ( 1882 ) was an outgrowth of his Harvard student thesis and early interest in history .
Woodrow Wilson 's Congressional Government ( 1885 ) was the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our only professor-president .
The most elegant stylist ever to live in the White House , Abraham Lincoln , neither found the time nor seemed to think it essential to express himself in book-length form .
And Ulysses S. Grant 's Personal Memoirs ( 1885 ) is the exception that proves the rule — written not in response to the drama of the Civil War but out of desperate financial necessity , it is nonetheless the best presidential autobiography in U.S. history .
Author in Chief : The Untold Story of Our Presidents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interesting idea in theory that tends to fall short in practice .
This is as much a history of books and publishing in America , of the evolution of popular taste in reading and bookselling ( especially in the 19th century ) , as it is an account of our literary presidents .
It is also more selective than comprehensive and , in certain instances , a little unfair .
For example , the author 's enthusiasm for Barack Obama is no doubt sincere ( and expressed at some length ) .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's dreary campaign potboiler , The Audacity of Hope ( 2006 ) , as to his precocious autobiography , Dreams from My Father ( 1995 ) .
And considerable space is devoted to John F. Kennedy , whose two slim volumes , Why England Slept ( 1940 ) and Profiles in Courage ( 1956 ) , were surely helpful to his career ( Profiles in Courage was awarded not just the National Book Award but the Pulitzer Prize ) but whose authorship owes as much to Arthur Krock and Theodore Sorensen as it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ labor of Herbert Hoover , who not only produced several volumes of autobiography , political essays , and the first study by one president of another ( The Ordeal of Woodrow Wilson , 1958 ) but also translated a medieval text on metals and mining from Latin into English , is summarily dismissed by Fehrman as `` a literary career that produced more pages than readers . ''
Theodore Roosevelt , whose published writings ranged from natural science to the settlement of the American West and whose selected correspondence fills eight thick volumes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` What 's missing in Roosevelt 's nonfiction , '' the author complains , `` is introspection or analysis . ''
The implicit subject here is the changing relationship between politicians and the written word .
Our pre-electronic presidents were very much creatures of their time .
They benefited from educations that were heavily weighted toward classical texts and philosophical literature , and they communicated almost exclusively by writing .
They were indefatigable correspondents and diarists .
The lawyers among them wrote innumerable briefs , and the soldiers drafted detailed accounts of their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ education were , for the most part , copious readers : The talented orators wrote or dictated their own letters and speeches .
This was to some degree a function of necessity .
In the absence of telephones , mass-circulation newspapers , electronic media , and swift transport , politicians lived in a certain isolation and were equally constrained by a custom of reticence .
Until the turn of the 20th century , it was considered unseemly to campaign actively for the White House or publicly vindicate a president 's own tenure there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Buchanan 's Administration on the Eve of the Rebellion ( 1866 ) did n't open the floodgates , but in his instinct for self-justification and initial desire for someone else to write it , Buchanan did anticipate the world we now inhabit .
It has been a very long time since presidents wrote their own speeches , much less memoirs , and the business of post-White House accounts ( the lucrative contracts , the armies of researchers and ghosts , the worldwide publicity tours and merchandising ) tells us more about the presidency @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exceptions , of course : Jimmy Carter 's poetry and memoirs of early life sound very much like their author , as do George H.W .
Bush 's letters .
Dwight D. Eisenhower 's skills as a writer were such that his bestselling account of World War II , Crusade in Europe ( 1948 ) , required little assistance or editing .
Yet it is also useful to note that the modern presidential memoir that comes closest to literature , The Autobiography of Calvin Coolidge ( 1929 ) , succeeds because its brevity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ convey its author 's interior life .
It is , in Fehrman 's admiring words , `` an intimate and emotional book [ that ] gave readers their first contemporary glimpse of the presidency and its human cost . ''
All the more reason , then , to wonder at the absence from these pages of the diary of James K. Polk , first published in a limited edition in 1910 and condensed into a single volume by Allan Nevins in 1929 , which is to this day still the best , most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in its deadpan humor , entertaining account of the presidency by any president .
Philip Terzian , a former writer and editor at the Weekly Standard , is the author of Architects of Power : Roosevelt , Eisenhower , and the American Century .

When we think of books and presidents, we tend to think of books about, not by, our commanders in chief. Some books have been influential in shaping our views of individual presidents or of the presidency itself. Some have added to the luster of certain chief executives. Some have tarnished their reputations. We seldom think of presidents as authors themselves — for good reason. Few presidents have thought much about books beyond their politics, and fewer still have written books disconnected from their political lives. Nowadays, when we think of a president's book, it is almost invariably a ghostwritten post-presidential memoir designed to set the record straight — and make some money.
This wasn't always the case. Thomas Jefferson's Notes on the State of Virginia (1785) wasn't composed with his career in mind. It was a typical expression of a polymath's natural curiosity. Theodore Roosevelt's Naval War of 1812 (1882) was an outgrowth of his Harvard student thesis and early interest in history. Woodrow Wilson's Congressional Government (1885) was the first and arguably most important work of our only professor-president. The most elegant stylist ever to live in the White House, Abraham Lincoln, neither found the time nor seemed to think it essential to express himself in book-length form. And Ulysses S. Grant's Personal Memoirs (1885) is the exception that proves the rule — written not in response to the drama of the Civil War but out of desperate financial necessity, it is nonetheless the best presidential autobiography in U.S. history.
Author in Chief: The Untold Story of Our Presidents and the Books They Wrote, by Craig Fehrman. Avid Reader Press, 448 pp., $30.00.
Author in Chief: The Untold Story of Our Presidents and the Books They Wrote is an interesting idea in theory that tends to fall short in practice. This is as much a history of books and publishing in America, of the evolution of popular taste in reading and bookselling (especially in the 19th century), as it is an account of our literary presidents. It is also more selective than comprehensive and, in certain instances, a little unfair.
For example, the author's enthusiasm for Barack Obama is no doubt sincere (and expressed at some length). But as much attention is paid to Obama's dreary campaign potboiler, The Audacity of Hope (2006), as to his precocious autobiography, Dreams from My Father (1995). And considerable space is devoted to John F. Kennedy, whose two slim volumes, Why England Slept (1940) and Profiles in Courage (1956), were surely helpful to his career (Profiles in Courage was awarded not just the National Book Award but the Pulitzer Prize) but whose authorship owes as much to Arthur Krock and Theodore Sorensen as it does to Kennedy.
Meanwhile, the labor of Herbert Hoover, who not only produced several volumes of autobiography, political essays, and the first study by one president of another (The Ordeal of Woodrow Wilson, 1958) but also translated a medieval text on metals and mining from Latin into English, is summarily dismissed by Fehrman as "a literary career that produced more pages than readers." Theodore Roosevelt, whose published writings ranged from natural science to the settlement of the American West and whose selected correspondence fills eight thick volumes, doesn't fare much better: "What's missing in Roosevelt's nonfiction," the author complains, "is introspection or analysis."
The implicit subject here is the changing relationship between politicians and the written word. Our pre-electronic presidents were very much creatures of their time. They benefited from educations that were heavily weighted toward classical texts and philosophical literature, and they communicated almost exclusively by writing. They were indefatigable correspondents and diarists. The lawyers among them wrote innumerable briefs, and the soldiers drafted detailed accounts of their campaigns. Even those who lacked formal education were, for the most part, copious readers: The talented orators wrote or dictated their own letters and speeches.
This was to some degree a function of necessity. In the absence of telephones, mass-circulation newspapers, electronic media, and swift transport, politicians lived in a certain isolation and were equally constrained by a custom of reticence. Until the turn of the 20th century, it was considered unseemly to campaign actively for the White House or publicly vindicate a president's own tenure there. James Buchanan's stilted memoir Mr. Buchanan's Administration on the Eve of the Rebellion (1866) didn't open the floodgates, but in his instinct for self-justification and initial desire for someone else to write it, Buchanan did anticipate the world we now inhabit.
It has been a very long time since presidents wrote their own speeches, much less memoirs, and the business of post-White House accounts (the lucrative contracts, the armies of researchers and ghosts, the worldwide publicity tours and merchandising) tells us more about the presidency than about individual presidents. There are exceptions, of course: Jimmy Carter's poetry and memoirs of early life sound very much like their author, as do George H.W. Bush's letters. Dwight D. Eisenhower's skills as a writer were such that his bestselling account of World War II, Crusade in Europe (1948), required little assistance or editing.
Yet it is also useful to note that the modern presidential memoir that comes closest to literature, The Autobiography of Calvin Coolidge (1929), succeeds because its brevity, eloquence, and laconic style precisely convey its author's interior life. It is, in Fehrman's admiring words, "an intimate and emotional book [that] gave readers their first contemporary glimpse of the presidency and its human cost." All the more reason, then, to wonder at the absence from these pages of the diary of James K. Polk, first published in a limited edition in 1910 and condensed into a single volume by Allan Nevins in 1929, which is to this day still the best, most informative, revealing, detailed, and, in its deadpan humor, entertaining account of the presidency by any president.
Philip Terzian, a former writer and editor at the Weekly Standard, is the author of Architects of Power: Roosevelt, Eisenhower, and the American Century.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-02-07--Make Architecture Great Again

Make Architecture Great Again

Washington , D.C. , is a melange of architecture that makes little sense .
Some of it is Roman , ( the Supreme Court , the Capitol Building , etc . )
, some of it is French ( namely , the Eisenhower Executive Office Building ) , and the rest is downright ugly .
The Trump administration wants to change that .
A draft of an executive order entitled “ Making Federal Buildings Beautiful Again ” would make classical Roman and Greek architecture the default for new federal buildings in Washington .
Spearheaded by the National Civic Art Society @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s aesthetic and do away with the damage wrought by contemporary architecture , which has “ created a built environment that is degraded and dehumanizing , ” the society said .
“ For too long architectural elites and bureaucrats have derided the idea of beauty , blatantly ignored public opinions on style , and have quietly spent taxpayer money constructing ugly , expensive , and inefficient buildings , ” Marion Smith , the group ’ s chairman , told the New York Times .
A few architects , joined by liberals who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , have expressed displeasure with the executive order .
But one stroll around Washington should be enough to change their minds .
The bureaucratic buildings are nothing more than big , rectangular slabs of concrete plastered with a few windows .
Even the windows are a rarity !
The Department of Energy ’ s building has an entire wall that is nothing but cement , and over at the Department of Labor , there ’ s an interstate on-ramp that literally cuts through the building .
The bureaucracy is an eyesore , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a blot itself , so at least the exterior matches the interior .
Besides , we should hope Trump ’ s executive order is never needed .
Because if it is , that means new government buildings are getting built , and , well , you get the picture .

Washington, D.C., is a melange of architecture that makes little sense. Some of it is Roman, (the Supreme Court, the Capitol Building, etc.), some of it is French (namely, the Eisenhower Executive Office Building), and the rest is downright ugly.
The Trump administration wants to change that. A draft of an executive order entitled “Making Federal Buildings Beautiful Again” would make classical Roman and Greek architecture the default for new federal buildings in Washington.
Spearheaded by the National Civic Art Society, the order attempts to restore Washington’s aesthetic and do away with the damage wrought by contemporary architecture, which has “created a built environment that is degraded and dehumanizing,” the society said.
“For too long architectural elites and bureaucrats have derided the idea of beauty, blatantly ignored public opinions on style, and have quietly spent taxpayer money constructing ugly, expensive, and inefficient buildings,” Marion Smith, the group’s chairman, told the New York Times.
A few architects, joined by liberals who are obligated to oppose the Trump administration, have expressed displeasure with the executive order. But one stroll around Washington should be enough to change their minds. The bureaucratic buildings are nothing more than big, rectangular slabs of concrete plastered with a few windows. Even the windows are a rarity! The Department of Energy’s building has an entire wall that is nothing but cement, and over at the Department of Labor, there’s an interstate on-ramp that literally cuts through the building.
The bureaucracy is an eyesore, but perhaps that’s fitting. Regulation is a blot itself, so at least the exterior matches the interior.
Besides, we should hope Trump’s executive order is never needed. Because if it is, that means new government buildings are getting built, and, well, you get the picture.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-02-07--How Trump stepped back to let McConnell lead impeachment fight

Christmas at Mar-a-Lago and the month ahead was weighing heavily on President Trump 's mind .
In between glad-handing at holiday parties and 18 holes of golf in the winter sun , he was glued to his phone , sounding out friends about the looming Senate impeachment trial and how to play what could be the defining moment of his presidency .
It came down to a critical question of strategy .
Should Trump push for a full trial , filled with witnesses and evidence that could simultaneously damage his opponents and vindicate his actions over Ukraine ?
Or was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ version to get the whole sorry mess over and done within days , denying Democrats a chance to grandstand ?
According to a source familiar with their conversations , he mulled the options in a series of calls with Mitch McConnell , the Senate leader who would have to do the heavy lifting to ensure that 53 Republican senators delivered a `` not guilty '' verdict .
McConnell 's guidance was simple .
`` Leave it to me .
You are getting a lot of advice , '' the Capitol Hill veteran told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ better placed than me to deliver the votes .
Trust me on this . ''
`` I know the Senate better than any of those people you 're talking to , and I know how to make my members feel comfortable , '' was the message delivered , according to the source .
`` Do n't sweat the details .
Ignore the ups and downs , and I will deliver on the big vote at the end . ''
The worry was Trump 's mercurial attention and his fondness for the bully pulpit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ frequent Q & A sessions with the press to heap pressure on senators who expressed public uncertainty , perhaps with one eye on their electorate — such as Susan Collins , a centrist who is up for reelection in Maine this year ?
They needed to be free to make up their minds without worrying about Trump setting Fox commentators and his base on them .
`` Once he got over being pissed about this whole thing , he could see the wisdom of sitting still and letting the Senate come to its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Wall Street Journal .
For the period of his trial , Trump even eschewed one of his favorite moments of the week , the impromptu press conferences on the south lawn of the White House , where he likes to linger , taking questions from journalists before climbing aboard Air Force One .
He came and went with barely a wave for the press .
The biggest test came when details from John Bolton 's draft memoir began leaking , intensifying demands that the Senate call witnesses .
Trump reacted with a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ security adviser .
A sample tweet said , `` Why did n't John Bolton complain about this 'nonsense ' a long time ago when he was very publicly terminated , '' while the White House circulated anti-Bolton talking points .
But for all the fire and fury , none of the brimstone was directed at the senators .
They were left to McConnell , who , in a series of meetings , reminded his troops the trial was as much about preserving their majority as about protecting the president and that a shorter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to a senior Republican source .
The crisis was averted with a 51-49 vote by the end of January , paving the way for the president 's eventual acquittal .
Marc Short , chief of staff to Vice President Mike Pence , said it would have been counterproductive for the White House and its Office of Legislative Affairs ( which was coordinating with Capitol Hill Republicans ) to wade in and tell senators what to do .
`` I think the leg affairs team has done a great job managing the process , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overexertion of pressure here could certainly have negative consequences , '' he said .
`` There 's been a lot of space given for them to do what they think is in their best interest . ''

Christmas at Mar-a-Lago and the month ahead was weighing heavily on President Trump's mind. In between glad-handing at holiday parties and 18 holes of golf in the winter sun, he was glued to his phone, sounding out friends about the looming Senate impeachment trial and how to play what could be the defining moment of his presidency.
It came down to a critical question of strategy. Should Trump push for a full trial, filled with witnesses and evidence that could simultaneously damage his opponents and vindicate his actions over Ukraine? Or was it better to go for a truncated version to get the whole sorry mess over and done within days, denying Democrats a chance to grandstand?
According to a source familiar with their conversations, he mulled the options in a series of calls with Mitch McConnell, the Senate leader who would have to do the heavy lifting to ensure that 53 Republican senators delivered a "not guilty" verdict.
McConnell's guidance was simple. "Leave it to me. You are getting a lot of advice," the Capitol Hill veteran told Trump, "but no one is better placed than me to deliver the votes. Trust me on this."
"I know the Senate better than any of those people you're talking to, and I know how to make my members feel comfortable," was the message delivered, according to the source. "Don't sweat the details. Ignore the ups and downs, and I will deliver on the big vote at the end."
The worry was Trump's mercurial attention and his fondness for the bully pulpit of Twitter. Would he use his frequent Q&A sessions with the press to heap pressure on senators who expressed public uncertainty, perhaps with one eye on their electorate — such as Susan Collins, a centrist who is up for reelection in Maine this year? They needed to be free to make up their minds without worrying about Trump setting Fox commentators and his base on them.
And it worked.
"Once he got over being pissed about this whole thing, he could see the wisdom of sitting still and letting the Senate come to its conclusions," an administration official told the Wall Street Journal.
For the period of his trial, Trump even eschewed one of his favorite moments of the week, the impromptu press conferences on the south lawn of the White House, where he likes to linger, taking questions from journalists before climbing aboard Air Force One. He came and went with barely a wave for the press.
The biggest test came when details from John Bolton's draft memoir began leaking, intensifying demands that the Senate call witnesses. Trump reacted with a string of attacks on his former national security adviser. A sample tweet said, "Why didn't John Bolton complain about this 'nonsense' a long time ago when he was very publicly terminated," while the White House circulated anti-Bolton talking points.
But for all the fire and fury, none of the brimstone was directed at the senators. They were left to McConnell, who, in a series of meetings, reminded his troops the trial was as much about preserving their majority as about protecting the president and that a shorter trial was better for everyone, according to a senior Republican source. The crisis was averted with a 51-49 vote by the end of January, paving the way for the president's eventual acquittal.
Marc Short, chief of staff to Vice President Mike Pence, said it would have been counterproductive for the White House and its Office of Legislative Affairs (which was coordinating with Capitol Hill Republicans) to wade in and tell senators what to do.
"I think the leg affairs team has done a great job managing the process, but I think that any sort of overexertion of pressure here could certainly have negative consequences," he said. "There's been a lot of space given for them to do what they think is in their best interest."


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-02-07--Impeachment risks on both sides

Impeachment risks on both sides

With the impeachment of President Trump finally reaching the widely predicted and almost universally expected anticlimax , one question remains : What are the electoral consequences , or the lack thereof , for members of the House and Senate for their votes on what turned out to be an inconsequential issue ?
The press has featured plenty of speculation on the consequences for Republicans who have supported the president .
That has remained true even though the underlying premise of such accounts is that the weight of opinion has been in favor of impeachment and removal .
Last October , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would consider impeachment , and would go ahead for weeks without an authorizing resolution , many polls showed pluralities for impeachment ( though it was unclear in many cases whether respondents understood that impeachment by the House , without conviction by the Senate , would result in Trump remaining in office ) .
From October through mid-December , polling showed pluralities favoring impeachment and removal resembling those of Hillary Clinton in the 2016 popular presidential vote .
Mid-December saw a shift , with pluralities opposing impeachment and the percentages favoring removal falling rather @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made their case in the House , then delayed for a month sending the case over to the Senate , then presented their arguments in the Senate .
Yet the focus on the fallout from impeachment has been on the potential political jeopardy for Republicans .
Since impeachment poll numbers closely track the results of the 2016 election , it is not very mysterious that Republican Sen. Cory Gardner faces a tough reelection fight in Colorado , whose upscale-heavy electorate voted 48 % -43 % in favor of Clinton .
Nor is it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gangs of angry liberals in Maine , which voted 48 % -45 % for the Democrat .
Democrats also have high hopes of ousting Sen. Martha McSally in Arizona .
The state was only 48 % -45 % for Trump in 2016 , and McSally herself lost to Democrat Kyrsten Sinema 50 % -48 % in 2018 .
This time , McSally is facing off against Democratic candidate Mark Kelly , a former astronaut and the husband of former Arizona Rep. Gabby Giffords .
The Cook Political Report rates the race as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kelly currently holding a slight lead over McSally .
It ’ s a little more puzzling that some Democrats are targeting Sen. Joni Ernst in Iowa .
While Ernst does hold a high unfavorable rating , Iowa went 51 % -42 % for Trump in 2016 .
Current polling shows the president ahead of Joe Biden , Bernie Sanders , and Elizabeth Warren for 2020 , and Trump ’ s place atop the ticket will no doubt buoy Ernst in her reelection bid .
And the chances look iffy for a Democratic challenge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kelly Loeffler was appointed in Georgia , a 50 % to 45 % Trump state .
Loeffler does , however , face a tough primary with Georgia Rep. Doug Collins ’ s late entry into the race , which clouds the picture somewhat .
National Republican Senatorial Committee Director Kevin McLaughlin blasted Collins ’ s primary challenge as “ selfishness , ” saying , “ The shortsightedness in this decision is stunning ” and that it could hurt both Loeffler and fellow Georgia Republican Sen. David Perdue in November .
But Republicans also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ armed with the argument , over and above feelings about Trump , that the Democrats wasted time on a wild goose chase that never had any chance of success .
Democratic Sen. Doug Jones , who was elected in a special election over an unusually unpopular Republican candidate in heavily conservative Alabama , has for some time been considered a long shot to win a full term this year .
Jones ’ s approval rating is one of the lowest in the Senate , and his vote last week to remove a president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ margin in his home state probably seals his fate .
Democrats could also have problems in Michigan , which , together with Wisconsin and Pennsylvania ( which have no Senate races this year ) , produced 46 critical electoral votes for Trump by less than 1 % in 2016 .
Republicans have won only one Michigan Senate race in the last 40 years , but one-term incumbent Gary Peters has the lowest name recognition of any elected senator .
He faces Republican John James , a U.S. Army combat veteran and businessman who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sen. Debbie Stabenow in 2018 .
New Hampshire is also a close battleground .
Its two Democratic senators , Maggie Hassan and Jeanne Shaheen , won their seats with just 48 % and 51 % of the vote , respectively .
Meanwhile , Trump lost the state by only 2,636 votes .
While three Republicans have declared primary bids , it ’ s still unclear who will challenge the incumbent Shaheen for the seat .
Former Trump campaign manager Cory Lewandowski ruled out a run for the seat late last year , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ayotte , who lost her 2016 reelection bid to Hassan by just 1,017 votes , will throw her hat in the ring .
And let ’ s not forget the House of Representatives .
Optimistic liberals like to think of their party ’ s 40-seat gain in 2018 as producing a permanent majority , and many freshmen have been busy collecting funds and spreading their names over their districts .
Votes for impeachment are not a liability for some of the 31 House Democrats now representing districts Trump carried in 2016 .
Three @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or both articles of impeachment , and one , Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey , switched parties .
But votes for impeachment could be a liability for more than half of these 31 Democrats , many of whom could be vulnerable in any case .
In an off-year election such as 2018 , voters may feel free to switch to an opposition-party candidate to rein in a president .
In a presidential year such as 2020 , when control of the entire government is at stake , some voters may be reluctant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if the opposition-party nominees are backing unpopular measures such as `` Medicare for all , '' a ban on fracking , and reparations for slavery .
Elevating impeachment to high visibility carries risks for both parties , the president ’ s and the opposition 's .
In an era of straight-ticket voting , when most voters are aligned solidly with one party or the other , and when one party ’ s voters are solidly aligned with the president and the other party ’ s solidly against , the risks are relatively low @ @ @ @ @ @ @ represent districts or states out of line with their views .
The risks today , of Republicans losing their majority in the Senate or Democrats losing their majority in the House , are low .
But they are not , on either side , nonexistent .
Michael Barone is a senior political analyst for the Washington Examiner , a resident fellow emeritus at the American Enterprise Institute , and the longtime co-author of The Almanac of American Politics .

With the impeachment of President Trump finally reaching the widely predicted and almost universally expected anticlimax, one question remains: What are the electoral consequences, or the lack thereof, for members of the House and Senate for their votes on what turned out to be an inconsequential issue?
The press has featured plenty of speculation on the consequences for Republicans who have supported the president. That has remained true even though the underlying premise of such accounts is that the weight of opinion has been in favor of impeachment and removal. Last October, when Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the House would consider impeachment, and would go ahead for weeks without an authorizing resolution, many polls showed pluralities for impeachment (though it was unclear in many cases whether respondents understood that impeachment by the House, without conviction by the Senate, would result in Trump remaining in office).
From October through mid-December, polling showed pluralities favoring impeachment and removal resembling those of Hillary Clinton in the 2016 popular presidential vote. Mid-December saw a shift, with pluralities opposing impeachment and the percentages favoring removal falling rather than rising. This happened as Democrats made their case in the House, then delayed for a month sending the case over to the Senate, then presented their arguments in the Senate. Yet the focus on the fallout from impeachment has been on the potential political jeopardy for Republicans.
Since impeachment poll numbers closely track the results of the 2016 election, it is not very mysterious that Republican Sen. Cory Gardner faces a tough reelection fight in Colorado, whose upscale-heavy electorate voted 48%-43% in favor of Clinton. Nor is it surprising that Republican Sen. Susan Collins faces gangs of angry liberals in Maine, which voted 48%-45% for the Democrat.
Democrats also have high hopes of ousting Sen. Martha McSally in Arizona. The state was only 48%-45% for Trump in 2016, and McSally herself lost to Democrat Kyrsten Sinema 50%-48% in 2018. This time, McSally is facing off against Democratic candidate Mark Kelly, a former astronaut and the husband of former Arizona Rep. Gabby Giffords. The Cook Political Report rates the race as a “toss-up,” and polls show Kelly currently holding a slight lead over McSally.
It’s a little more puzzling that some Democrats are targeting Sen. Joni Ernst in Iowa. While Ernst does hold a high unfavorable rating, Iowa went 51%-42% for Trump in 2016. Current polling shows the president ahead of Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren for 2020, and Trump’s place atop the ticket will no doubt buoy Ernst in her reelection bid.
And the chances look iffy for a Democratic challenge to the open seat to which Republican Kelly Loeffler was appointed in Georgia, a 50% to 45% Trump state. Loeffler does, however, face a tough primary with Georgia Rep. Doug Collins’s late entry into the race, which clouds the picture somewhat. National Republican Senatorial Committee Director Kevin McLaughlin blasted Collins’s primary challenge as “selfishness,” saying, “The shortsightedness in this decision is stunning” and that it could hurt both Loeffler and fellow Georgia Republican Sen. David Perdue in November.
But Republicans also have targets aplenty, and they are armed with the argument, over and above feelings about Trump, that the Democrats wasted time on a wild goose chase that never had any chance of success. Democratic Sen. Doug Jones, who was elected in a special election over an unusually unpopular Republican candidate in heavily conservative Alabama, has for some time been considered a long shot to win a full term this year. Jones’s approval rating is one of the lowest in the Senate, and his vote last week to remove a president elected by a 62%-34% margin in his home state probably seals his fate.
Democrats could also have problems in Michigan, which, together with Wisconsin and Pennsylvania (which have no Senate races this year), produced 46 critical electoral votes for Trump by less than 1% in 2016. Republicans have won only one Michigan Senate race in the last 40 years, but one-term incumbent Gary Peters has the lowest name recognition of any elected senator. He faces Republican John James, a U.S. Army combat veteran and businessman who came within 5 points of upsetting three-term Sen. Debbie Stabenow in 2018.
New Hampshire is also a close battleground. Its two Democratic senators, Maggie Hassan and Jeanne Shaheen, won their seats with just 48% and 51% of the vote, respectively. Meanwhile, Trump lost the state by only 2,636 votes. While three Republicans have declared primary bids, it’s still unclear who will challenge the incumbent Shaheen for the seat. Former Trump campaign manager Cory Lewandowski ruled out a run for the seat late last year, and it looks unlikely that former Sen. Kelly Ayotte, who lost her 2016 reelection bid to Hassan by just 1,017 votes, will throw her hat in the ring.
And let’s not forget the House of Representatives. Optimistic liberals like to think of their party’s 40-seat gain in 2018 as producing a permanent majority, and many freshmen have been busy collecting funds and spreading their names over their districts. Votes for impeachment are not a liability for some of the 31 House Democrats now representing districts Trump carried in 2016. Three members from these districts voted against one or both articles of impeachment, and one, Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey, switched parties.
But votes for impeachment could be a liability for more than half of these 31 Democrats, many of whom could be vulnerable in any case. In an off-year election such as 2018, voters may feel free to switch to an opposition-party candidate to rein in a president. In a presidential year such as 2020, when control of the entire government is at stake, some voters may be reluctant to risk such a vote, especially if the opposition-party nominees are backing unpopular measures such as "Medicare for all," a ban on fracking, and reparations for slavery.
Elevating impeachment to high visibility carries risks for both parties, the president’s and the opposition's. In an era of straight-ticket voting, when most voters are aligned solidly with one party or the other, and when one party’s voters are solidly aligned with the president and the other party’s solidly against, the risks are relatively low. Only a few congressmen or senators represent districts or states out of line with their views. The risks today, of Republicans losing their majority in the Senate or Democrats losing their majority in the House, are low. But they are not, on either side, nonexistent.
Michael Barone is a senior political analyst for the Washington Examiner, a resident fellow emeritus at the American Enterprise Institute, and the longtime co-author of The Almanac of American Politics.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-02-07--Trump and Pelosi feud reaches boiling point

They have one of the most important relationships in Washington , but Speaker Nancy Pelosi and President Trump aren ’ t even on speaking terms .
In fact , the two haven ’ t talked to each other for nearly four months , and following the events of last week , many in Washington wonder whether they ’ ll ever be willing to work together again .
“ The relationship between Trump and Pelosi looks to be permanently damaged and beyond repair , ” said Ron Bonjean , a GOP strategist who was a top aide to House and Senate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , along with the mudslinging insults , has buried any chances of reconciliation , especially during an election year.
” The Pelosi-Trump relationship was already splintered when Trump entered the House chamber last week to deliver his annual State of the Union speech .
He was greeted at the podium by Pelosi , who just a few weeks ago , led House Democrats to impeach Trump on two articles accusing him of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress .
Pelosi and Trump had avoided communicating with each other for weeks .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a White House meeting about Syria .
Pelosi abruptly left that meeting after she got into a testy exchange with the president in which he called her a “ third-rate politician , ” and she accused him of having allegiance to Russian President Vladimir Putin .
By the time Trump reached the podium in the House on Tuesday , the animosity between the two had reached a high point .
Trump handed both Vice President Mike Pence and Pelosi a copy of his speech and , as he turned away , Pelosi extended @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump didn ’ t shake it .
It ’ s not clear whether he saw Pelosi ’ s outstretched hand , but some perceived it as a snub .
It went downhill from there .
Pelosi scowled through much of Trump ’ s 1-hour-and-18-minute address , in which he took credit for the nation ’ s economic prosperity and touted his legislative achievements .
When Trump was done with the speech , Pelosi tore her copy in half , in full view of the cameras , to signal her rejection of everything Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Pelosi explained last week , telling reporters she shredded the speech because , in her view , it was laden with lies .
“ We do not want the chamber of the House of Representatives to be used as a backdrop for one of his reality shows with unreality in his presentations , ” Pelosi said .
Earlier in the day , Trump reflected on his difficult relationship with Pelosi at the National Prayer Breakfast , which took place a day after the Senate acquitted him of the impeachment charges .
Pelosi @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ When they impeach you for nothing , then you 're supposed to like them ?
” Trump asked the crowd .
“ It 's not easy , folks.
” For now , Pence is subbing in for the president and works with Pelosi on must-pass legislation , including the year-end spending bill that passed in December and is now funding the government through the end of the fiscal year .
It was Pence who called Pelosi to inform her last month of Iran ’ s retaliatory missile strikes against military bases housing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the impeachment effort is over , questions remain about whether Trump is willing or able to work with Democrats on mutual goals , such as lowering prescription drug prices or fixing old and crumbling infrastructure .
Steny Hoyer , a Maryland Democrat and Pelosi ’ s top lieutenant in the House , pointed out that Democrats were able to secure a deal with the Trump administration on a major trade accord with Canada and Mexico and avoided an unpopular year-end spending showdown with the White House that had become routine .
“ The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nancy Pelosi is not wild about Donald Trump , ” Hoyer acknowledged .
“ That could be said of a number of different Congresses probably , and presidents .
But we have a responsibility to work together .
We have done that .
We are prepared to do it .
”

They have one of the most important relationships in Washington, but Speaker Nancy Pelosi and President Trump aren’t even on speaking terms.
In fact, the two haven’t talked to each other for nearly four months, and following the events of last week, many in Washington wonder whether they’ll ever be willing to work together again.
“The relationship between Trump and Pelosi looks to be permanently damaged and beyond repair,” said Ron Bonjean, a GOP strategist who was a top aide to House and Senate Republican leaders. “The impeachment process, along with the mudslinging insults, has buried any chances of reconciliation, especially during an election year.”
The Pelosi-Trump relationship was already splintered when Trump entered the House chamber last week to deliver his annual State of the Union speech.
He was greeted at the podium by Pelosi, who just a few weeks ago, led House Democrats to impeach Trump on two articles accusing him of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.
Pelosi and Trump had avoided communicating with each other for weeks. The two last spoke on Oct. 16 at a White House meeting about Syria.
Pelosi abruptly left that meeting after she got into a testy exchange with the president in which he called her a “third-rate politician,” and she accused him of having allegiance to Russian President Vladimir Putin.
By the time Trump reached the podium in the House on Tuesday, the animosity between the two had reached a high point.
Trump handed both Vice President Mike Pence and Pelosi a copy of his speech and, as he turned away, Pelosi extended her hand then quickly withdrew it when Trump didn’t shake it. It’s not clear whether he saw Pelosi’s outstretched hand, but some perceived it as a snub.
It went downhill from there.
Pelosi scowled through much of Trump’s 1-hour-and-18-minute address, in which he took credit for the nation’s economic prosperity and touted his legislative achievements.
When Trump was done with the speech, Pelosi tore her copy in half, in full view of the cameras, to signal her rejection of everything Trump said.
“I felt liberated,” Pelosi explained last week, telling reporters she shredded the speech because, in her view, it was laden with lies.
“We do not want the chamber of the House of Representatives to be used as a backdrop for one of his reality shows with unreality in his presentations,” Pelosi said.
Earlier in the day, Trump reflected on his difficult relationship with Pelosi at the National Prayer Breakfast, which took place a day after the Senate acquitted him of the impeachment charges.
Pelosi sat four seats away from him.
“When they impeach you for nothing, then you're supposed to like them?” Trump asked the crowd. “It's not easy, folks.”
For now, Pence is subbing in for the president and works with Pelosi on must-pass legislation, including the year-end spending bill that passed in December and is now funding the government through the end of the fiscal year.
It was Pence who called Pelosi to inform her last month of Iran’s retaliatory missile strikes against military bases housing U.S. troops in Iraq.
Now that the impeachment effort is over, questions remain about whether Trump is willing or able to work with Democrats on mutual goals, such as lowering prescription drug prices or fixing old and crumbling infrastructure.
Steny Hoyer, a Maryland Democrat and Pelosi’s top lieutenant in the House, pointed out that Democrats were able to secure a deal with the Trump administration on a major trade accord with Canada and Mexico and avoided an unpopular year-end spending showdown with the White House that had become routine.
“The president doesn't like Nancy Pelosi and Nancy Pelosi is not wild about Donald Trump,” Hoyer acknowledged. “That could be said of a number of different Congresses probably, and presidents. But we have a responsibility to work together. We have done that. We are prepared to do it.”


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-02-07--House subcommittee questions security of dating apps

The dating app you ’ re using to meet the person of your dreams may be sharing your personal data with people you wouldn ’ t take home to meet your parents .
In late January , Illinois Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi , chairman of the consumer policy subcommittee of the House Oversight Committee , launched an investigation into the privacy and security of online dating apps .
The investigation focused on how the apps share users ’ information with third parties and how they screen for underage users and sexual predators .
Krishnamoorthi sent letters asking about privacy and user-screening @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They include The Meet Group , which owns MeetMe , GROWLr , and other social apps ; Bumble Trading , which owns the Bumble app ; New Grindr , which owns the gay dating app Grindr ; and Match Group , which owns OkCupid , Match , and Tinder , among others .
Krishnamoorthi , in a statement , said he ’ s concerned about news reports on underage users and registered sex offenders using dating apps .
“ Our concern about the underage use of dating apps is heightened by reports @ @ @ @ @ @ @ registered sex offenders to use them , while the paid versions of these same apps screen out registered sex offenders , ” Krishnamoorthi wrote in the letters .
“ Protection from sexual predators should not be a luxury confined to paying customers.
” Also , Krishnamoorthi raised concerns about dating apps sharing users ’ personal information with other companies .
He pointed to a January study from the Norwegian Consumer Council , which found that some dating apps share GPS location information , advertising data , and additional information with partner companies .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ users ’ advertising ID with three third parties , Tinder shares it with five third parties , and Grindr with 18 third parties .
The report raises questions about dating apps “ inappropriately selling or sharing intensely personal and sensitive information , ” Krishnamoorthi said .
The subcommittee noted that on June 17 , 2019 , Joseph Meili pleaded guilty in Missouri to third-degree child molestation after he was charged with sodomy , statutory rape , and kidnapping an 11-year-old girl he met through a dating app .
The subcommittee ’ s letter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ data points , including the number of active users , the cost of the dating service , and the ways the apps verify a user ’ s age .
The letters also ask for policies dealing with sex offenders and other criminals , as well as the apps ’ privacy policies .
The letter also asks the companies to disclose all consumer complaints they have received related to the use of their services by people under the age of 18 and all complaints related to rape or sexual assault .
The subcommittee ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ controversy related to dating apps in recent months .
In September , the Federal Trade Commission filed a lawsuit against Match Group , alleging that the company lured free users to pay for subscriptions with communications from fake love interests .
Neither Match Group nor The Meet Group responded to a request for comments on the subcommittee investigation .
Bumble , however , issued a statement saying the company makes the safety and security of users its top priority .
The company looks forward to responding to the subcommittee ’ s letter and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issue , ” the statement said .
New Grindr also responded , saying the use of Grindr by minors is illegal and a clear violation of its terms of service .
“ Any illegal use of our app … is deeply troubling to us , ” the company said in a statement .
Grindr is promoting online safety and working on industrywide solutions and transparency reporting , the company said .
The company has launched an enhanced in-app reporting tool , and its team follows specific protocols to ban offending accounts , it @ @

The dating app you’re using to meet the person of your dreams may be sharing your personal data with people you wouldn’t take home to meet your parents.
In late January, Illinois Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, chairman of the consumer policy subcommittee of the House Oversight Committee, launched an investigation into the privacy and security of online dating apps. The investigation focused on how the apps share users’ information with third parties and how they screen for underage users and sexual predators.
Krishnamoorthi sent letters asking about privacy and user-screening practices to four companies operating dating apps. They include The Meet Group, which owns MeetMe, GROWLr, and other social apps; Bumble Trading, which owns the Bumble app; New Grindr, which owns the gay dating app Grindr; and Match Group, which owns OkCupid, Match, and Tinder, among others.
Krishnamoorthi, in a statement, said he’s concerned about news reports on underage users and registered sex offenders using dating apps.
“Our concern about the underage use of dating apps is heightened by reports that many popular free dating apps permit registered sex offenders to use them, while the paid versions of these same apps screen out registered sex offenders,” Krishnamoorthi wrote in the letters. “Protection from sexual predators should not be a luxury confined to paying customers.”
Also, Krishnamoorthi raised concerns about dating apps sharing users’ personal information with other companies. He pointed to a January study from the Norwegian Consumer Council, which found that some dating apps share GPS location information, advertising data, and additional information with partner companies.
The study found that OkCupid shares a users’ advertising ID with three third parties, Tinder shares it with five third parties, and Grindr with 18 third parties. The report raises questions about dating apps “inappropriately selling or sharing intensely personal and sensitive information,” Krishnamoorthi said.
The subcommittee noted that on June 17, 2019, Joseph Meili pleaded guilty in Missouri to third-degree child molestation after he was charged with sodomy, statutory rape, and kidnapping an 11-year-old girl he met through a dating app.
The subcommittee’s letter asks the four app companies for several data points, including the number of active users, the cost of the dating service, and the ways the apps verify a user’s age. The letters also ask for policies dealing with sex offenders and other criminals, as well as the apps’ privacy policies.
The letter also asks the companies to disclose all consumer complaints they have received related to the use of their services by people under the age of 18 and all complaints related to rape or sexual assault.
The subcommittee’s investigation isn’t the first controversy related to dating apps in recent months. In September, the Federal Trade Commission filed a lawsuit against Match Group, alleging that the company lured free users to pay for subscriptions with communications from fake love interests.
Neither Match Group nor The Meet Group responded to a request for comments on the subcommittee investigation.
Bumble, however, issued a statement saying the company makes the safety and security of users its top priority. The company looks forward to responding to the subcommittee’s letter and “engaging with them on this important issue,” the statement said.
New Grindr also responded, saying the use of Grindr by minors is illegal and a clear violation of its terms of service. “Any illegal use of our app … is deeply troubling to us,” the company said in a statement.
Grindr is promoting online safety and working on industrywide solutions and transparency reporting, the company said. The company has launched an enhanced in-app reporting tool, and its team follows specific protocols to ban offending accounts, it added.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-02-07--Senate Democrat presses GAO to review classified impeachment document from Pence aide

Sen. Chris Murphy asked the Government Accountability Office to review President Trump ’ s use of his authority to classify documents , alleging the commander in chief abused his power for political means .
The Connecticut Democrat sent the GAO his request on Thursday , according to Politico , citing a letter from Vice President Mike Pence ’ s aide Jennifer Williams , which Pence ’ s office classified during the House ’ s impeachment investigation .
`` There was absolutely nothing in that document that should have been classified , '' Murphy said .
`` It was only classified @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president in the middle of an impeachment proceeding , and you are not allowed , as president of the United States , to keep information from the public simply because it ’ s going to hurt you politically . ''
Murphy is also seeking information on whether members of Congress can challenge whether a document should be classified or not .
`` Right now , the only thing we can do is declassify it ourselves , which I do not think is a solution , '' he said , `` but , if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then I do think we need to think about processes by which a third party can weigh in and decide to unclassify something that ’ s just a political embarrassment . ''
Williams gave her letter to the House Intelligence Committee as part of her testimony .
The letter related to a July 25 phone call Trump had with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that Williams described as `` unusual '' and `` inappropriate . ''
A whistleblower complaint about that conversation , in which Trump pressed Zelensky to investigate his political rivals , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The letter was turned over to the Senate as part of the upper chamber 's trial over Trump 's impeachment .
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts denied admitting the letter into the trial as evidence .
House Democrats complained openly during the Senate trial over Trump ’ s impeachment that the letter did not contain any sensitive information and did not need to be classified .
Democrats accused the White House of attempting to hide politically damaging information .
Trump was acquitted on two charges on Wednesday , one week after it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the White House two months ahead of her planned departure .

Sen. Chris Murphy asked the Government Accountability Office to review President Trump’s use of his authority to classify documents, alleging the commander in chief abused his power for political means.
The Connecticut Democrat sent the GAO his request on Thursday, according to Politico, citing a letter from Vice President Mike Pence’s aide, Jennifer Williams, which Pence’s office classified during the House’s impeachment investigation.
"There was absolutely nothing in that document that should have been classified," Murphy said. "It was only classified because it was politically hurtful to the president in the middle of an impeachment proceeding, and you are not allowed, as president of the United States, to keep information from the public simply because it’s going to hurt you politically."
Murphy is also seeking information on whether members of Congress can challenge whether a document should be classified or not.
"Right now, the only thing we can do is declassify it ourselves, which I do not think is a solution," he said, "but, if this doesn’t get better, then I do think we need to think about processes by which a third party can weigh in and decide to unclassify something that’s just a political embarrassment."
Williams gave her letter to the House Intelligence Committee as part of her testimony. The letter related to a July 25 phone call Trump had with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that Williams described as "unusual" and "inappropriate." A whistleblower complaint about that conversation, in which Trump pressed Zelensky to investigate his political rivals, was the impetus for impeachment proceedings.
The letter was turned over to the Senate as part of the upper chamber's trial over Trump's impeachment. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts denied admitting the letter into the trial as evidence.
House Democrats complained openly during the Senate trial over Trump’s impeachment that the letter did not contain any sensitive information and did not need to be classified. Democrats accused the White House of attempting to hide politically damaging information. Trump was acquitted on two charges on Wednesday, one week after it was reported that Williams was leaving her role at the White House two months ahead of her planned departure.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-02-07--Obituary: The Iowa caucuses (1972-2020?)

The Iowa caucuses , the first-in-the-nation presidential nomination contest , died this week after a brief and sudden illness in Des Moines .
The cause of death was sheer ridiculousness .
They were 48 years old .
One of the most peculiar public rituals in U.S. politics , the Iowa caucuses had developed a sterling reputation for picking candidates who would not go on to become president ( Barack Obama 's 2008 victory and George W. Bush 's in 2000 serving as exceptions ) .
Past Iowa winners on the Republican side include Ted Cruz , Rick Santorum , Bob @ @ @ @ @ @ @ George H.W .
Bush ( in 1980 ) .
On the Democratic side , the winning losers include Tom Harkin , Richard Gephardt , and “ Uncommitted , ” the plucky noncandidate who won back-to-back victories over George McGovern in 1972 and Jimmy Carter in 1976 .
Despite the caucuses ' poor predictive ability , candidates from both sides of the aisle have poured millions of dollars and thousands of man-hours into campaigning across the state — in pursuit of just a handful of votes .
Turnout in the caucuses was always just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which perhaps explained why they were such a poor predictor of nationwide results .
The caucuses disproportionately sampled from the staunchly ideological voters , especially the liberal Left around Iowa State University and the University of Iowa , and the religious Right .
The former helped propel Bernie Sanders , an avowed socialist , to a near victory in 2016 and a victory ( maybe ? )
in 2020 , and the latter enabled televangelist Pat Robertson to finish ahead of then-Vice President George H.W .
Bush in 1988 .
The caucuses ' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the nation ’ s outdated , bloated , inefficient , and corrupt agricultural policies .
Despite the fact that farmers are now on average wealthier than nonfarmers , the federal government still distributes billions of dollars in subsidies to an industry that has increasingly become dominated by giant agribusinesses .
In an age of runaway budget deficits , cutting back on pork for pig farmers has seemed to many like a no-brainer , especially since farmers are just a fraction of the nation ’ s overall workforce .
But most presidential candidates , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iowa caucuses , have dutifully pledged allegiance to the status quo .
The caucuses were also very good for the state Republican and Democratic parties , which had been so lavished with attention and money that they had resisted any entreaties to reschedule the caucuses to let other states come first .
In that way , the caucuses were representative of the fact that the modern nominating process was not very good at picking presidential candidates in a time- and cost-efficient way .
And yet , despite these obvious advantages to the state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ poor health for some time .
The 2016 Iowa caucus results separated Sanders from Hillary Clinton by just two-tenths of 1 % , a contest that was so narrow as to prompt scrutiny of caucus practices — including inaccurate results , late reporting , bizarre tiebreaking methods such as coin tosses , poorly trained volunteers , crowded precincts , overly long meetings , and above all , a lack of transparency by the Iowa Democratic Party .
This year , the caucuses quickly took a turn for the worse .
Employing third-party contractors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ votes , Iowa Democrats thought they had strengthened their system .
They thought wrong .
The app failed , and results were delayed for several days .
Additionally , several miscounts occurred as results trickled in over the subsequent week — leading to widespread derision and scorn from the political class and voters at large .
Elections on the frontier in the 1870s were run better than this .
This mishap finally ended the Iowa caucuses ’ long and unspectacular tenure as the first presidential preference contest .
* The Iowa caucuses are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ caucuses , and their cousin , the New Hampshire primary .
*Or , at least , we can hope .
Surely , no presidential candidate will be foolish enough to indulge the Iowa parties with so much time and money in future cycles .
Surely , the two parties will use this year 's spectacle as a spur to initiate a serious investigation into systematic reforms .
Surely , the greatest nation in the history of the world will refuse to subject itself to this quadrennial humiliation ever again .
Jay Cost is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Institute .

The Iowa caucuses, the first-in-the-nation presidential nomination contest, died this week after a brief and sudden illness in Des Moines. The cause of death was sheer ridiculousness. They were 48 years old.
One of the most peculiar public rituals in U.S. politics, the Iowa caucuses had developed a sterling reputation for picking candidates who would not go on to become president (Barack Obama's 2008 victory and George W. Bush's in 2000 serving as exceptions). Past Iowa winners on the Republican side include Ted Cruz, Rick Santorum, Bob Dole (in 1988), and George H.W. Bush (in 1980). On the Democratic side, the winning losers include Tom Harkin, Richard Gephardt, and “Uncommitted,” the plucky noncandidate who won back-to-back victories over George McGovern in 1972 and Jimmy Carter in 1976.
Despite the caucuses' poor predictive ability, candidates from both sides of the aisle have poured millions of dollars and thousands of man-hours into campaigning across the state — in pursuit of just a handful of votes. Turnout in the caucuses was always just a fraction of the statewide electorate, which perhaps explained why they were such a poor predictor of nationwide results. The caucuses disproportionately sampled from the staunchly ideological voters, especially the liberal Left around Iowa State University and the University of Iowa, and the religious Right. The former helped propel Bernie Sanders, an avowed socialist, to a near victory in 2016 and a victory (maybe?) in 2020, and the latter enabled televangelist Pat Robertson to finish ahead of then-Vice President George H.W. Bush in 1988.
The caucuses' tangible accomplishment was ensuring presidential fidelity to the nation’s outdated, bloated, inefficient, and corrupt agricultural policies. Despite the fact that farmers are now on average wealthier than nonfarmers, the federal government still distributes billions of dollars in subsidies to an industry that has increasingly become dominated by giant agribusinesses. In an age of runaway budget deficits, cutting back on pork for pig farmers has seemed to many like a no-brainer, especially since farmers are just a fraction of the nation’s overall workforce. But most presidential candidates, in their desperate attempts to win the Iowa caucuses, have dutifully pledged allegiance to the status quo.
The caucuses were also very good for the state Republican and Democratic parties, which had been so lavished with attention and money that they had resisted any entreaties to reschedule the caucuses to let other states come first. In that way, the caucuses were representative of the fact that the modern nominating process was not very good at picking presidential candidates in a time- and cost-efficient way.
And yet, despite these obvious advantages to the state, the caucuses had nevertheless been in poor health for some time. The 2016 Iowa caucus results separated Sanders from Hillary Clinton by just two-tenths of 1%, a contest that was so narrow as to prompt scrutiny of caucus practices — including inaccurate results, late reporting, bizarre tiebreaking methods such as coin tosses, poorly trained volunteers, crowded precincts, overly long meetings, and above all, a lack of transparency by the Iowa Democratic Party.
This year, the caucuses quickly took a turn for the worse. Employing third-party contractors to build a mobile app to count votes, Iowa Democrats thought they had strengthened their system. They thought wrong. The app failed, and results were delayed for several days. Additionally, several miscounts occurred as results trickled in over the subsequent week — leading to widespread derision and scorn from the political class and voters at large. Elections on the frontier in the 1870s were run better than this.
This mishap finally ended the Iowa caucuses’ long and unspectacular tenure as the first presidential preference contest.* The Iowa caucuses are survived by their sister, the Nevada caucuses, and their cousin, the New Hampshire primary.
*Or, at least, we can hope. Surely, no presidential candidate will be foolish enough to indulge the Iowa parties with so much time and money in future cycles. Surely, the two parties will use this year's spectacle as a spur to initiate a serious investigation into systematic reforms. Surely, the greatest nation in the history of the world will refuse to subject itself to this quadrennial humiliation ever again.
Jay Cost is a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-02-07--Warren blames campaign 'toxicity' on American 'legacy' of racism

Sen. Elizabeth Warren blamed systemic racism for the reason several women of color left her campaign in Nevada .
`` I 'm also very aware that racism and oppression in this country have left a long legacy , '' the Massachusetts Democrat told MSNBC on Thursday .
`` It creates the kind of toxicity where people — power structures — people take advantage of other people .
It 's something for which we have to be constantly vigilant and constantly determined to do better . ''
Warren , 70 , reiterated that she took `` responsibility '' for the events @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leave her Nevada campaign team .
Several of the women said they felt as if they were token minorities for the campaign .
`` During the time I was employed with Nevada for Warren , there was definitely something wrong with the culture , '' Megan Lewis , a field organizer , said .
`` I filed a complaint with HR , but the follow-up I received left me feeling as though I needed to make myself smaller or change who I was to fit into the office culture . ''
Campaign spokeswoman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against the campaign .
`` We have an organization of more than a thousand people , and , whenever we hear concerns , we take them seriously .
It ’ s important that everyone who is part of our team has a voice and can be heard .
That ’ s why we are proud that we have a unionized staff and clear processes for issues to be addressed , '' she said .
Warren is currently polling in third place for the Democratic presidential nomination , according to RealClearPolitics .

Sen. Elizabeth Warren blamed systemic racism for the reason several women of color left her campaign in Nevada.
"I'm also very aware that racism and oppression in this country have left a long legacy," the Massachusetts Democrat told MSNBC on Thursday. "It creates the kind of toxicity where people — power structures — people take advantage of other people. It's something for which we have to be constantly vigilant and constantly determined to do better."
Warren, 70, reiterated that she took "responsibility" for the events that caused six women of color to leave her Nevada campaign team. Several of the women said they felt as if they were token minorities for the campaign.
"During the time I was employed with Nevada for Warren, there was definitely something wrong with the culture," Megan Lewis, a field organizer, said. "I filed a complaint with HR, but the follow-up I received left me feeling as though I needed to make myself smaller or change who I was to fit into the office culture."
Campaign spokeswoman Kristen Orthman tried to downplay the complaints against the campaign. "We have an organization of more than a thousand people, and, whenever we hear concerns, we take them seriously. It’s important that everyone who is part of our team has a voice and can be heard. That’s why we are proud that we have a unionized staff and clear processes for issues to be addressed," she said.
Warren is currently polling in third place for the Democratic presidential nomination, according to RealClearPolitics.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-02-07--Bernie Sanders: 'I don't want to commit' to having a minority or woman vice president

Sen. Bernie Sanders refused to say he would make his vice presidential pick a woman or a minority were he to win the Democratic presidential nomination .
`` Will you name a running mate before the convention ?
And will it be a woman ? ''
the Vermont independent was asked Thursday night during a CNN town hall .
`` That is a good question , and we may very well do it , '' the 78-year-old socialist replied .
`` And look , let me just say this .
This is my promise to you is that my administration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ America in terms of gender equality , in terms of racial equality than any administration in American history . ''
When pressed again whether he would have a woman or a minority vice president pick , he refused to commit .
`` Yeah , I don ’ t want to commit until — I don ’ t want to commit , but , you know , my inclination is to say yes , '' he said .
The senator acknowledged that his answer would not `` satisfy '' everyone .
Sen. Elizabeth Warren @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last month to filling half her Cabinet with women and nonbinary people .
The Massachusetts Democrat also said she would let a transgender child help choose her head of the Department of Education .

Sen. Bernie Sanders refused to say he would make his vice presidential pick a woman or a minority were he to win the Democratic presidential nomination.
"Will you name a running mate before the convention? And will it be a woman?" the Vermont independent was asked Thursday night during a CNN town hall.
"That is a good question, and we may very well do it," the 78-year-old socialist replied. "And look, let me just say this. This is my promise to you is that my administration, my cabinet will look more like America in terms of gender equality, in terms of racial equality than any administration in American history."
When pressed again whether he would have a woman or a minority vice president pick, he refused to commit. "Yeah, I don’t want to commit until — I don’t want to commit, but, you know, my inclination is to say yes," he said. The senator acknowledged that his answer would not "satisfy" everyone.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a fellow 2020 competitor, committed last month to filling half her Cabinet with women and nonbinary people. The Massachusetts Democrat also said she would let a transgender child help choose her head of the Department of Education.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-02-08--Trump vows more rallies even if he wins

Trump vows more rallies even if he wins

President Trump said that , even if he wins reelection in November , he will continue to hold rallies across @ @ @ @ @ at an Opportunity Now Summit in Charlotte , North Carolina , the president touted his @ @ @ @ @ boisterous rallies would continue into a second term .
“ Can you believe how fast @ @ @ @ @ We ’ ll keep the rallies going if we win .
Even when we win @ @ @ @ @ ll do rallies , ” Trump told the crowd , which at one point in @ @ @ @ @ Four more years.
” His speech came just days after being acquitted of two articles @ @ @ @ @ Now Summits are an effort to communicate and highlight efforts to bolster low-income areas .
@ @ @ @ @ Central Piedmont Community College , where he was introduced by Secretary of Housing and Urban @ @ @ @ @ Friday event included workshops on inmate reentry to society , economic development , and discussions @ @ @ @ @ state funding .

President Trump said that, even if he wins reelection in November, he will continue to hold rallies across the country.
Speaking Friday at an Opportunity Now Summit in Charlotte, North Carolina, the president touted his economic achievements and said his boisterous rallies would continue into a second term.
“Can you believe how fast we’re going? We’ll keep the rallies going if we win. Even when we win next time, we’ll do rallies,” Trump told the crowd, which at one point in his speech chanted, “Four more years.”
His speech came just days after being acquitted of two articles of impeachment.
The Opportunity Now Summits are an effort to communicate and highlight efforts to bolster low-income areas. He delivered his remarks at Central Piedmont Community College, where he was introduced by Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Ben Carson.
The Friday event included workshops on inmate reentry to society, economic development, and discussions about applying for federal and state funding.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-02-07--FBI director admits: Yes, surveillance of Carter Page was illegal

FBI Director Christopher Wray agreed that the Justice Department and the FBI illegally surveilled Carter Page when they used British ex-spy Christopher Steele ’ s unverified dossier to obtain four Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrants against the Trump campaign associate .
Wray made the claim during congressional testimony before the Democrat-led House Judiciary Committee earlier this week , as Republicans pressed him for answers about the bureau ’ s response to the Justice Department watchdog ’ s FISA abuse report .
The report by Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz concluded that the FBI ’ s Trump-Russia investigation was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the FBI for 17 “ significant errors and omissions ” related to secret surveillance court filings targeting Page .
The filings made use of the dossier compiled by Steele , who ’ d been hired by Fusion GPS , which in turn was hired by the Hillary Clinton campaign through the Perkins Coie law firm .
Under questioning from Republican Rep. John Ratcliffe of Texas , Wray , who deflected many questions by referring lawmakers back to Horowitz ’ s report , agreed that Page was surveilled illegally .
“ The report @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with respect to at least several of these FISA applications , because there was not probable cause or proper predication , correct ?
” Ratcliffe asked .
Ratcliffe was referring to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court revelation that , in the wake of Horowitz ’ s report , the DOJ told the FISA court it believed the final two Page FISA warrants were invalid but were still reviewing the first two .
The FBI also told the court it was trying to sequester all the information obtained through the Page FISA warrants .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s presiding judge , quoted the DOJ as saying that by the third and fourth warrants against Page , “ if not earlier , there was insufficient predication to establish probable cause to believe that [ Carter ] Page was acting as an agent of a foreign power.
” Boasberg said that “ the Court understands the government to have concluded , in view of the material misstatements and omissions , that the Court 's authorizations ” related to the April 2017 and June 2017 Page FISA renewals “ were not valid.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ not reached a public decision on the initial October 2016 FISA application or the January 2017 renewal .
“ So to the point of one of my Democratic colleagues that there was no fraud on the court , illegal surveillance and changing evidence to conduct illegal surveillance is the very definition of fraud on the court , is it not ?
” Ratcliffe followed up .
“ Well , I certainly think that it describes conduct that is utterly unacceptable , ” Wray said .
“ We have accepted ... every finding in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ including some that are extremely painful to us as an institution.
” In a rare public order , the FISA court criticized how the FBI handled the Page applications as `` antithetical to the heightened duty of candor , '' and demanded an evaluation from the bureau .
The FISA court also ordered a review of all FISA filings handled by Kevin Clinesmith , the FBI lawyer who altered a key document about Page in the third renewal process .
He is now under criminal investigation by U.S. Attorney John Durham , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Attorney General William Barr with investigating the Trump-Russia inquiry .

FBI Director Christopher Wray agreed that the Justice Department and the FBI illegally surveilled Carter Page when they used British ex-spy Christopher Steele’s unverified dossier to obtain four Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrants against the Trump campaign associate.
Wray made the claim during congressional testimony before the Democrat-led House Judiciary Committee earlier this week, as Republicans pressed him for answers about the bureau’s response to the Justice Department watchdog’s FISA abuse report.
The report by Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz concluded that the FBI’s Trump-Russia investigation was flawed, and he criticized the DOJ and the FBI for 17 “significant errors and omissions” related to secret surveillance court filings targeting Page. The filings made use of the dossier compiled by Steele, who’d been hired by Fusion GPS, which in turn was hired by the Hillary Clinton campaign through the Perkins Coie law firm.
Under questioning from Republican Rep. John Ratcliffe of Texas, Wray, who deflected many questions by referring lawmakers back to Horowitz’s report, agreed that Page was surveilled illegally.
“The report acknowledges that ... this was illegal surveillance with respect to at least several of these FISA applications, because there was not probable cause or proper predication, correct?” Ratcliffe asked.
“Right,” Wray replied.
Ratcliffe was referring to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court revelation that, in the wake of Horowitz’s report, the DOJ told the FISA court it believed the final two Page FISA warrants were invalid but were still reviewing the first two. The FBI also told the court it was trying to sequester all the information obtained through the Page FISA warrants.
Judge James Boasberg, the FISA court’s presiding judge, quoted the DOJ as saying that by the third and fourth warrants against Page, “if not earlier, there was insufficient predication to establish probable cause to believe that [Carter] Page was acting as an agent of a foreign power.”
Boasberg said that “the Court understands the government to have concluded, in view of the material misstatements and omissions, that the Court's authorizations” related to the April 2017 and June 2017 Page FISA renewals “were not valid.” Thus far, the DOJ has not reached a public decision on the initial October 2016 FISA application or the January 2017 renewal.
“So to the point of one of my Democratic colleagues that there was no fraud on the court, illegal surveillance and changing evidence to conduct illegal surveillance is the very definition of fraud on the court, is it not?” Ratcliffe followed up.
“Well, I certainly think that it describes conduct that is utterly unacceptable,” Wray said. “We have accepted ... every finding in the inspector general’s report, including some that are extremely painful to us as an institution.”
In a rare public order, the FISA court criticized how the FBI handled the Page applications as "antithetical to the heightened duty of candor," and demanded an evaluation from the bureau. The FISA court also ordered a review of all FISA filings handled by Kevin Clinesmith, the FBI lawyer who altered a key document about Page in the third renewal process. He is now under criminal investigation by U.S. Attorney John Durham, a prosecutor from Connecticut who was tasked by Attorney General William Barr with investigating the Trump-Russia inquiry.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-02-07--'False claims': Christopher Steele stands by dossier after Trump attacks

Christopher Steele waded back into American politics on Friday as the British ex-spy ’ s private investigative firm rebuked criticism from President Trump and defended the Trump-Russia dossier .
“ Yesterday @ realDonaldTrump made false claims about us , ” Steele ’ s company Orbis Business Intelligence tweeted on Friday morning .
“ He wildly exaggerated our fees and , contrary to his claims , we have never stated any of our reporting is ‘ fake ’ .
We stand by the integrity of our research on Kremlin interference in the 2016 election and support for Trump.
” During a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ White House yesterday , Trump repeatedly criticized what he saw as politically motivated investigations against him .
The president harshly criticized Steele , whose salacious and unverified dossier was used extensively by the FBI and the Department of Justice to obtain surveillance warrants against Trump campaign associate Carter Page .
“ Hillary Clinton and the DNC paid for , millions of dollars , the fake dossier , ” Trump claimed .
“ And now , Christopher Steele admits that its a fake because he got sued by rich people .
I should ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you ’ re president , people don ’ t like you suing.
” DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz concluded that the FBI ’ s Trump-Russia investigation was deeply flawed .
The DOJ watchdog criticized the DOJ and the FBI for 17 `` significant errors and omissions '' related to its spy court surveillance of Page .
Steele was hired by the opposition research firm Fusion GPS , which in turn was hired by the Clinton campaign and the DNC through Democratic powerhouse attorney Marc Elias and his Perkins Coie law firm .
Perkins @ @ @ @ @ @ @ million between 2016 and 2017 for its work representing Clinton and the DNC .
Fusion GPS was paid $ 50,000 per month from Perkins Coie , and Steele was paid roughly $ 168,000 by Fusion GPS .
Following Horowitz ’ s report , the DOJ told the FISA Court it believed the final two Page FISA warrants were `` invalid . ''
Meanwhile , the FBI told the court it planned to `` sequester '' all the information obtained through the Page FISAs .
Horowitz ’ s report criticized Steele directly , noting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sources “ raised significant questions about the reliability of the Steele election reporting , ” and bureau officials said Steele “ may have some judgment problems.
” The CIA referred to Steele ’ s dossier as `` internet rumor . ''
The FISA Court ordered a review of all FISA filings handled by Kevin Clinesmith , the FBI lawyer who altered a key document about Page while seeking to renew the third warrant .
He is now under criminal investigation by U.S. Attorney John Durham , a Connecticut prosecutor who was tasked by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Russia inquiry .
“ So we had a campaign — little did we know we were running against some very , very bad and evil people with fake dossiers , with all of these horrible , dirty cops that took these dossiers and did bad things , ” Trump said Thursday .
“ For a detailed , balanced assessment '' of its 2016 work , Steele ’ s company directed its Twitter followers to a 2017 article by former CIA officer John Sipher and a 2018 piece by former senior FBI offer Chuck @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his investigation .
The DOJ ’ s watchdog made it clear that the FBI could not confirm any of Steele ’ s central claims about Page while relying upon the dossier .
“ We determined that prior to and during the pendency of the FISAs the FBI was unable to corroborate any of the specific substantive allegations against Carter Page contained in the election reporting and relied on the FISA applications , and was only able to confirm the accuracy of a limited number of circumstantial facts , most of which were in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

Christopher Steele waded back into American politics on Friday as the British ex-spy’s private investigative firm rebuked criticism from President Trump and defended the Trump-Russia dossier.
“Yesterday @realDonaldTrump made false claims about us,” Steele’s company Orbis Business Intelligence tweeted on Friday morning. “He wildly exaggerated our fees and, contrary to his claims, we have never stated any of our reporting is ‘fake’. We stand by the integrity of our research on Kremlin interference in the 2016 election and support for Trump.”
During a lengthy impeachment acquittal victory-lap speech at the White House yesterday, Trump repeatedly criticized what he saw as politically motivated investigations against him. The president harshly criticized Steele, whose salacious and unverified dossier was used extensively by the FBI and the Department of Justice to obtain surveillance warrants against Trump campaign associate Carter Page.
“Hillary Clinton and the DNC paid for, millions of dollars, the fake dossier,” Trump claimed. “And now, Christopher Steele admits that its a fake because he got sued by rich people. I should’ve sued him too, but when you’re president, people don’t like you suing.”
DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz concluded that the FBI’s Trump-Russia investigation was deeply flawed. The DOJ watchdog criticized the DOJ and the FBI for 17 "significant errors and omissions" related to its spy court surveillance of Page.
Steele was hired by the opposition research firm Fusion GPS, which in turn was hired by the Clinton campaign and the DNC through Democratic powerhouse attorney Marc Elias and his Perkins Coie law firm. Perkins Coie was paid more than $12 million between 2016 and 2017 for its work representing Clinton and the DNC. Fusion GPS was paid $50,000 per month from Perkins Coie, and Steele was paid roughly $168,000 by Fusion GPS.
Following Horowitz’s report, the DOJ told the FISA Court it believed the final two Page FISA warrants were "invalid." Meanwhile, the FBI told the court it planned to "sequester" all the information obtained through the Page FISAs.
Horowitz’s report criticized Steele directly, noting that FBI meetings with Steele’s sources “raised significant questions about the reliability of the Steele election reporting,” and bureau officials said Steele “may have some judgment problems.” The CIA referred to Steele’s dossier as "internet rumor."
The FISA Court ordered a review of all FISA filings handled by Kevin Clinesmith, the FBI lawyer who altered a key document about Page while seeking to renew the third warrant. He is now under criminal investigation by U.S. Attorney John Durham, a Connecticut prosecutor who was tasked by Attorney General William Barr to investigate the Russia inquiry.
“So we had a campaign — little did we know we were running against some very, very bad and evil people with fake dossiers, with all of these horrible, dirty cops that took these dossiers and did bad things,” Trump said Thursday.
Steele’s company disputed the charge.
“For a detailed, balanced assessment" of its 2016 work, Steele’s company directed its Twitter followers to a 2017 article by former CIA officer John Sipher and a 2018 piece by former senior FBI offer Chuck Rosenberg, both written before Horowitz finished his investigation.
The DOJ’s watchdog made it clear that the FBI could not confirm any of Steele’s central claims about Page while relying upon the dossier.
“We determined that prior to and during the pendency of the FISAs the FBI was unable to corroborate any of the specific substantive allegations against Carter Page contained in the election reporting and relied on the FISA applications, and was only able to confirm the accuracy of a limited number of circumstantial facts, most of which were in the public domain,” Horowitz concluded.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-02-07--Virginia poised to nix day honoring Robert E. Lee and make Election Day a state holiday instead

The Virginia House voted to remove Lee-Jackson Day from the state holiday schedule and replace it with Election Day .
Lee-Jackson Day , observed on the Friday before Martin Luther King Jr. Day , honors Confederate Gens .
Robert E. Lee and Thomas “ Stonewall ” Jackson .
It was founded more than a century ago and has been marked by parades and Civil War reenactments , although those events have become increasingly smaller over the years .
The bill , which passed this week after the Virginia Senate approved an identical bill last month , seeks to make Election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November .
Virginia Gov .
Ralph Northam , a Democrat , has expressed support for the legislation being pushed by the Democratic-controlled legislature and said allowing Virginians to have the day off would give them better access to the polls .
“ We need to make Election Day a holiday , ” Northam said during last month ’ s State of the Commonwealth speech .
“ We can do it by ending the Lee-Jackson holiday that Virginia holds ...
It commemorates a lost cause .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Northam , 60 , has been working to improve his image on issues related to race .
Last February , a photograph from Northam ’ s 1984 Eastern Virginia Medical School yearbook was found that showed a pair of unidentified people wearing blackface and a Ku Klux Klan hood .
Northam initially said he was in the photo , but he then backtracked but admitted he ’ d actually appeared in blackface at a different time .
Other states still have days on the books to related to the Confederacy .
Confederate Memorial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Mississippi , and South Carolina , while Florida and Texas observe the day but don ’ t close government offices .

The Virginia House voted to remove Lee-Jackson Day from the state holiday schedule and replace it with Election Day.
Lee-Jackson Day, observed on the Friday before Martin Luther King Jr. Day, honors Confederate Gens. Robert E. Lee and Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson. It was founded more than a century ago and has been marked by parades and Civil War reenactments, although those events have become increasingly smaller over the years.
The bill, which passed this week after the Virginia Senate approved an identical bill last month, seeks to make Election Day a holiday. Elections are held the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.
Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam, a Democrat, has expressed support for the legislation being pushed by the Democratic-controlled legislature and said allowing Virginians to have the day off would give them better access to the polls.
“We need to make Election Day a holiday,” Northam said during last month’s State of the Commonwealth speech. “We can do it by ending the Lee-Jackson holiday that Virginia holds ... It commemorates a lost cause. It's time to move on.”
Northam, 60, has been working to improve his image on issues related to race.
Last February, a photograph from Northam’s 1984 Eastern Virginia Medical School yearbook was found that showed a pair of unidentified people wearing blackface and a Ku Klux Klan hood. Northam initially said he was in the photo, but he then backtracked but admitted he’d actually appeared in blackface at a different time.
Other states still have days on the books to related to the Confederacy. Confederate Memorial Day is a state holiday in Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina, while Florida and Texas observe the day but don’t close government offices.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-02-07--Another impeachment witness sacked: Trump recalls Ambassador Gordon Sondland

President Trump recalled U.S .
Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland , who was an impeachment witness , Friday evening .
Sondland , a Trump donor who became a top envoy , made the announcement that he has been recalled `` effective immediately . ''
“ I am grateful to President Trump for having given me the opportunity to serve , to Secretary Pompeo for his consistent support , and to the exceptional and dedicated professionals at the U.S. Mission to the European Union , ” Sondland said in a statement , according to ABC News .
“ I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work here has been the highlight of my career.
” During his testimony , Sondland initially said there was no quid pro quo agreement between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky regarding allowing pre-approved aid to transfer to Ukraine in exchange for an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden .
However , he later clarified the record saying he “ presumed that the aid suspension had become linked to the proposed anti-corruption statement.
” It was the second significant move of the evening by the Trump administration days after Trump was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Hours earlier , the White House ousted Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman , another government official who testified in the House 's impeachment investigation , from the National Security Council along with his identical twin brother Yevgeny .
Vindman played a prominent role in the investigation into the president over his July 25 phone call with Zelensky .

President Trump recalled U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland, who was an impeachment witness, on Friday evening.
Sondland, a Trump donor who became a top envoy, made the announcement that he has been recalled "effective immediately."
“I am grateful to President Trump for having given me the opportunity to serve, to Secretary Pompeo for his consistent support, and to the exceptional and dedicated professionals at the U.S. Mission to the European Union,” Sondland said in a statement, according to ABC News. “I am proud of our accomplishments. Our work here has been the highlight of my career.”
During his testimony, Sondland initially said there was no quid pro quo agreement between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky about allowing preapproved aid to transfer to Ukraine in exchange for an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden. However, he later clarified the record, saying he “presumed that the aid suspension had become linked to the proposed anti-corruption statement.”
It was the second significant move of the evening by the Trump administration days after Trump was acquitted of two Ukraine-related articles of impeachment.
Hours earlier, the White House ousted Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, another government official who testified in the House's impeachment investigation, from the National Security Council along with his identical twin brother Yevgeny.
Vindman played a prominent role in the investigation into the president over Trump's July 25 phone call with Zelensky.