Obama's Biden betrayal

Joe Biden heads into the Iowa caucuses , and thus actual voting in the Democratic presidential primaries , as the national front-runner .
In other words , what he ’ s been for most of the campaign .
According to the RealClearPolitics average , the former vice president holds a sizable polling lead in Nevada and South Carolina and a slim edge over socialist Bernie Sanders in Iowa and New Hampshire .
Nationally , he leads the Democratic field by 8 points .
Yet if there ’ s anything remarkable about Biden ’ s campaign , it ’ s how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it .
Though his campaign stops are well attended , hundreds are not waiting for hours in line to get a photo with him as they are with Elizabeth Warren .
He lacks ardent online advocates in the vein of Sanders ’ s “ Bernie Bros ” or Andrew Yang ’ s “ Yang Gang.
” On the contrary , most social media discussion of Biden cuts the opposite way , as evinced by the recent viral trend of teenagers posting “ Please don ’ t make me vote for Joe Biden ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Delaware senator in a November skit on Saturday Night Live , Woody Harrelson joked : “ The hearings have made it clear : Donald Trump doesn ’ t want me to be the nominee .
Vladimir Putin doesn ’ t want me to be the nominee .
Nobody in America wants me to be the nominee.
” Among those who share this antipathy toward Uncle Joe , ironically enough , is Barack Obama .
The former president famously discouraged his vice president from seeking the Democratic nomination in 2016 , preferring instead to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As Biden recounted in his 2017 memoir , Promise Me , Dad , he knew Obama and his team “ were putting a finger on the scale for Clinton.
” Now , Obama has been signaling his opposition to Biden ’ s run yet again .
When Biden announced his presidential campaign in April , he did so without Obama ’ s endorsement .
“ President Obama has long said that selecting Joe Biden as his running mate in 2008 was one of the best decisions he ever made , ” read the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ He relied on the Vice President ’ s knowledge , insight , and judgment throughout both campaigns and the entire presidency .
The two forged a special bond over the last 10 years and remain close today.
” “ I asked President Obama not to endorse , ” Biden told reporters at the time .
“ Whoever wins this nomination should win it on their own merits.
” Obama is both the most popular and the most famous Democrat in America , and according to Gallup , he was one of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ admired by Americans in 2019 ( tied with Trump , coincidentally ) .
Biden , on the other hand , has run for his party ’ s presidential nomination unsuccessfully twice already , in 1988 and 2008 .
It beggars belief that he would have asked Obama not to endorse him .
Yet he has stuck to this line .
“ Everyone knows I ’ m close with him , ” Biden said in an interview last month .
“ I don ’ t need an Obama endorsement.
” In any case , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his association with the Obama administration and his relationship with Obama .
It took all of three sentences for Biden to bring up the former president in the Jan. 14 CNN/ Des Moines Register debate , shoehorning a mention of how Obama “ picked [ him ] to be his vice president ” into an answer about the Iraq War .
Invocations of the patron saint of the Democratic Party are as central to Biden ’ s run as is Sanders ’ s demagoguing of “ billionaires ” or Warren ’ s lying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is practically Joe ’ s campaign slogan .
Campaigning , Biden has reversed a number of positions from his long career in politics , including his support for the Iraq War and for the Hyde Amendment , and he has apologized for working with segregationist senators to oppose busing in the 1970s .
Whatever is out of political fashion , he 's ready to disavow .
Yet on matters involving Obama ’ s record , he has remained steadfast .
Even as Sanders , Warren , and the also-rans blasted the healthcare system @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` Medicare for all , '' Biden has continued to tout Obamacare , Obama ’ s singular legislative achievement .
While he does propose changes ( which is as much an implied criticism of the law as it is political maneuvering ) , Biden ’ s healthcare plan is nevertheless wrapped in a promise to “ protect and build on Obamacare.
” Yet , in tone and frequency , one senses these overtures are directed as much toward Obama personally as they are to the voters who made up his 2008 and 2012 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” bus tour through Iowa , Biden told supporters he would be open to nominating Obama for the Supreme Court .
“ If he ’ d take it , yes , ” said Biden .
If , indeed .
A particularly plaintive moment came back in June , when Biden attempted to rekindle the fires of his and Obama ’ s much-ballyhooed “ bromance.
” “ Happy # BestFriendsDay to my friend , @ BarackObama , ” Biden ’ s account tweeted , along with a picture of two friendship bracelets with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” The bracelets were a callback to 2016 , when Biden tweeted the same picture to wish the then-president a happy 55th birthday .
Obama had been recorded making the bracelets during a get-out-the-vote video as one of “ 5 things that are harder than registering to vote.
” No such buddy-buddy moment was forthcoming in June , however , as the tweet came and went without a response from Obama .
The bromance is now very much one-sided .
As in 2016 , Obama pretty clearly doesn ’ t want Biden to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ viability depends on his attachment to Obama .
Thus , the awkward dance is fated to continue .
Obama ’ s legacy is Biden ’ s hope , but Biden ’ s candidacy is a threat to Obama ’ s legacy .
After all , Biden ’ s presumed moderation on policy , his old age , and his whiteness brand him as a figure of the liberal establishment , not a progressive warrior .
And the last thing Obama wants to be is an obstacle to leftist triumph , or passé .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ his relationships with Democratic voters built while campaigning as Obama ’ s vice president .
Biden was then asked about an article that reported how Obama had confided to another Democratic primary candidate that Biden “ really doesn ’ t have it ” when it comes to connecting intimately with voters .
In response , Biden completely changed course and conceded the criticism with a garbled , circular argument , saying , “ He may have said that .
And if it ’ s true , and he said it , there ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feigned neutrality in the primary contest , but his fingerprints are all over it .
When his longtime friend Deval Patrick jumped into the fray in November , it was seen as a signal of Obamaworld ’ s dissatisfaction with the state of the race .
Contra Biden , Obama had actively pushed Patrick to run for president as early as 2017 .
As Edward-Isaac Dovere recounted in the Atlantic , Patrick ’ s campaign , and especially his decision to enter the race so late , were held by those in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of how much anxiety there is among Obama ’ s inner circle about Biden ’ s campaign.
” Speaking in Singapore in December , Obama mused that women are “ indisputably ” better leaders than men .
“ Now women , I just want you to know ; you are not perfect , but what I can say pretty indisputably is that you ’ re better than [ men ] .
I ’ m absolutely confident that for two years , if every nation on Earth was run by women , you would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on just about everything ... living standards and outcomes.
” Then , he added pointedly , “ If you look at the world and look at the problems , it ’ s usually old people , usually old men , not getting out of the way.
” It ’ s hard not to see Biden , 77 and very much male , as a primary target of this remark .
Perhaps not merely coincidentally , more than 200 Obama administration aides and campaign alumni signed a letter of endorsement for Warren ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Obama does not want Biden to be the nominee , then , the question is , why not ?
Put simply , Barack Obama does not want Joe Biden to be the arbiter of his legacy .
Ironically , Biden hit upon this the first time around .
Explaining how Obama “ had been subtly weighing in against ” him running in 2016 , Biden wrote in Promise Me , Dad : “ In January 2015 the president was convinced I could not beat Hillary , and he worried that a long primary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Democratic nominee vulnerable in the general election .
More than anything , he did not want to see a Republican in the White House in 2017 .
I got it , and never took issue with him .
This was about Barack ’ s legacy , and a significant portion of that legacy had not yet been cast in stone.
” Obama was a “ pen and phone ” president .
Beyond Obamacare , his main “ legacy ” achievements — the Iran deal , the Paris climate accords , gender identity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — were initiated by executive fiat and not inked into law by Congress .
He didn ’ t want to see a Republican in the White House in 2017 who could make his precarious accomplishments disappear just as easily with the stroke of a pen .
In 2016 , losing was , putatively , Obama ’ s fear of a Biden nomination .
In 2020 , this worry is more suspect .
According to the RealClear average , Biden also fares best of all the Democratic primary candidates in head-to-head polling against Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Obama relent ?
Two reasons .
The first is an obvious one .
Obama , like the rest of us , knows Biden is a loose cannon , often foolish , and an altogether unreliable torchbearer .
Biden can not be trusted to shepherd Obama ’ s legacy into the history books in the manner and glory Obama so wishes .
“ Nobody messes with Joe !
” Obama joked back in 2009 when putting his vice president in charge of “ oversight ” for the stimulus package programs .
The joke , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the time , is that “ everybody messes with Joe.
” “ Biden couldn ’ t oversee a ham sandwich , ” but that was no matter .
He was on the ticket to help win Pennsylvania and Ohio and in the administration to be Obama ’ s fall guy .
( It ’ s also worth remembering that Amtrak renamed the train station in Wilmington , Delaware , which came in $ 5.7 million over budget after receiving $ 20 million in stimulus funding , after Biden . )
Biden is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Thanksgiving ; you may love him , but you don ’ t put him in charge of the family trust .
The second reason is more about Obama than Biden .
Obama believes history to have two sides and that he is on the virtuous one .
Being on “ the right side of history ” is so fundamental to Obama that he had Martin Luther King Jr. ’ s quote , “ The arc of the moral universe is long , but it bends toward justice , ” sewn into the carpet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be remembered as the father of a new progressive age .
What and who come after him are nearly as important as anything he did in office .
If Clinton had won the White House as he expected , his legacy would have been nearly set .
She would have continued his domestic policies , whether with congressional support or again by executive order and regulation , appointed liberal , living-Constitution judges , and followed the leftist zeitgeist .
He would have been the first black president ; she , the first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moral universe would have bowed in the direction he desired .
Biden , however , is old , male , and straight .
To elect another white septuagenarian liberal would be to move backward in a way , whatever the details of policy .
Biden ’ s other sin is that he was Obama ’ s vice president .
Obama smartly realizes that if Biden becomes president , criticism of a Biden administration would become , in the hazy eyes of history , a criticism of both their administrations , both presidencies , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would become Obama ’ s record , much in the same way Biden is now running for president by attempting to link Obama ’ s legacy with his own .
If followed by a progressive woman , or another black or gay progressive , Obama could be remembered forever as the forefather of leftist Hope and Change .
If followed by Biden , he is likely to be remembered , and blamed , for a Biden presidency that is insufficiently woke and , likely , insufficiently successful .
And a man of Obama @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that possibility .
Nor can Obama come out and openly reject Biden ’ s candidacy , for that would also reflect poorly on his legacy and on his past statements about all of Biden ’ s presidential qualities and virtues .
The real question is , what if the only alternative to Biden ends up being Sanders ?
The Vermont socialist doesn ’ t generally attack Obama by name , but instead frames his socialist quest on the premise that the Obama revolution never happened .
In Bernie ’ s telling , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; the Wall Street cowboys are just as lawless and unrestrained .
Plus , a Sanders victory would make Obama look a fool for his gestures toward centrism on the campaign trail , as it would reveal you don ’ t have to be seen as moderate to win .
Indeed , a Sanders presidency could be even more damaging to Obama 's legacy than a Biden one .
So Obama is stuck between his ego and a hard place , firing off passive-aggressive potshots at the only candidate on stage promoting his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ best chance of beating Trump .
Some legacy .
J .
Grant Addison is the deputy editor for the Washington Examiner magazine .

Joe Biden heads into the Iowa caucuses, and thus actual voting in the Democratic presidential primaries, as the national front-runner. In other words, what he’s been for most of the campaign. According to the RealClearPolitics average, the former vice president holds a sizable polling lead in Nevada and South Carolina and a slim edge over socialist Bernie Sanders in Iowa and New Hampshire. Nationally, he leads the Democratic field by 8 points.
Yet if there’s anything remarkable about Biden’s campaign, it’s how little enthusiasm anyone seems to have for it. Though his campaign stops are well attended, hundreds are not waiting for hours in line to get a photo with him as they are with Elizabeth Warren. He lacks ardent online advocates in the vein of Sanders’s “Bernie Bros” or Andrew Yang’s “Yang Gang.” On the contrary, most social media discussion of Biden cuts the opposite way, as evinced by the recent viral trend of teenagers posting “Please don’t make me vote for Joe Biden” videos on TikTok.
Portraying the former Delaware senator in a November skit on Saturday Night Live, Woody Harrelson joked: “The hearings have made it clear: Donald Trump doesn’t want me to be the nominee. Vladimir Putin doesn’t want me to be the nominee. Nobody in America wants me to be the nominee.”
Among those who share this antipathy toward Uncle Joe, ironically enough, is Barack Obama. The former president famously discouraged his vice president from seeking the Democratic nomination in 2016, preferring instead to throw his weight behind Hillary Clinton. As Biden recounted in his 2017 memoir, Promise Me, Dad, he knew Obama and his team “were putting a finger on the scale for Clinton.” Now, Obama has been signaling his opposition to Biden’s run yet again.
When Biden announced his presidential campaign in April, he did so without Obama’s endorsement. “President Obama has long said that selecting Joe Biden as his running mate in 2008 was one of the best decisions he ever made,” read the statement released by Obama spokeswoman Katie Hill. “He relied on the Vice President’s knowledge, insight, and judgment throughout both campaigns and the entire presidency. The two forged a special bond over the last 10 years and remain close today.”
“I asked President Obama not to endorse,” Biden told reporters at the time. “Whoever wins this nomination should win it on their own merits.” Obama is both the most popular and the most famous Democrat in America, and according to Gallup, he was one of the two men in the world most admired by Americans in 2019 (tied with Trump, coincidentally). Biden, on the other hand, has run for his party’s presidential nomination unsuccessfully twice already, in 1988 and 2008. It beggars belief that he would have asked Obama not to endorse him. Yet he has stuck to this line. “Everyone knows I’m close with him,” Biden said in an interview last month. “I don’t need an Obama endorsement.”
In any case, Biden has spent the entire campaign touting his association with the Obama administration and his relationship with Obama. It took all of three sentences for Biden to bring up the former president in the Jan. 14 CNN/Des Moines Register debate, shoehorning a mention of how Obama “picked [him] to be his vice president” into an answer about the Iraq War. Invocations of the patron saint of the Democratic Party are as central to Biden’s run as is Sanders’s demagoguing of “billionaires” or Warren’s lying. “BIDEN 2020: OBAMA” is practically Joe’s campaign slogan.
Campaigning, Biden has reversed a number of positions from his long career in politics, including his support for the Iraq War and for the Hyde Amendment, and he has apologized for working with segregationist senators to oppose busing in the 1970s. Whatever is out of political fashion, he's ready to disavow. Yet on matters involving Obama’s record, he has remained steadfast. Even as Sanders, Warren, and the also-rans blasted the healthcare system for being inadequate in their push for "Medicare for all," Biden has continued to tout Obamacare, Obama’s singular legislative achievement. While he does propose changes (which is as much an implied criticism of the law as it is political maneuvering), Biden’s healthcare plan is nevertheless wrapped in a promise to “protect and build on Obamacare.”
Yet, in tone and frequency, one senses these overtures are directed as much toward Obama personally as they are to the voters who made up his 2008 and 2012 coalition. On his “No Malarkey” bus tour through Iowa, Biden told supporters he would be open to nominating Obama for the Supreme Court. “If he’d take it, yes,” said Biden. If, indeed.
A particularly plaintive moment came back in June, when Biden attempted to rekindle the fires of his and Obama’s much-ballyhooed “bromance.” “Happy #BestFriendsDay to my friend, @BarackObama,” Biden’s account tweeted, along with a picture of two friendship bracelets with the names “Joe” and “Barack.” The bracelets were a callback to 2016, when Biden tweeted the same picture to wish the then-president a happy 55th birthday. Obama had been recorded making the bracelets during a get-out-the-vote video as one of “5 things that are harder than registering to vote.” No such buddy-buddy moment was forthcoming in June, however, as the tweet came and went without a response from Obama.
The bromance is now very much one-sided. As in 2016, Obama pretty clearly doesn’t want Biden to be nominated. Yet Biden’s viability depends on his attachment to Obama. Thus, the awkward dance is fated to continue. Obama’s legacy is Biden’s hope, but Biden’s candidacy is a threat to Obama’s legacy. After all, Biden’s presumed moderation on policy, his old age, and his whiteness brand him as a figure of the liberal establishment, not a progressive warrior. And the last thing Obama wants to be is an obstacle to leftist triumph, or passé.
In a December interview, Biden touted his relationships with Democratic voters built while campaigning as Obama’s vice president. Biden was then asked about an article that reported how Obama had confided to another Democratic primary candidate that Biden “really doesn’t have it” when it comes to connecting intimately with voters. In response, Biden completely changed course and conceded the criticism with a garbled, circular argument, saying, “He may have said that. And if it’s true, and he said it, there’s truth to it.”
Obama has feigned neutrality in the primary contest, but his fingerprints are all over it. When his longtime friend Deval Patrick jumped into the fray in November, it was seen as a signal of Obamaworld’s dissatisfaction with the state of the race. Contra Biden, Obama had actively pushed Patrick to run for president as early as 2017. As Edward-Isaac Dovere recounted in the Atlantic, Patrick’s campaign, and especially his decision to enter the race so late, were held by those in the know as “the clearest sign yet of how much anxiety there is among Obama’s inner circle about Biden’s campaign.”
Speaking in Singapore in December, Obama mused that women are “indisputably” better leaders than men. “Now women, I just want you to know; you are not perfect, but what I can say pretty indisputably is that you’re better than [men]. I’m absolutely confident that for two years, if every nation on Earth was run by women, you would see a significant improvement across the board on just about everything ... living standards and outcomes.” Then, he added pointedly, “If you look at the world and look at the problems, it’s usually old people, usually old men, not getting out of the way.”
It’s hard not to see Biden, 77 and very much male, as a primary target of this remark. Perhaps not merely coincidentally, more than 200 Obama administration aides and campaign alumni signed a letter of endorsement for Warren’s presidential campaign later that month.
If Obama does not want Biden to be the nominee, then, the question is, why not? Put simply, Barack Obama does not want Joe Biden to be the arbiter of his legacy. Ironically, Biden hit upon this the first time around. Explaining how Obama “had been subtly weighing in against” him running in 2016, Biden wrote in Promise Me, Dad:
“In January 2015 the president was convinced I could not beat Hillary, and he worried that a long primary fight would split the party and leave the Democratic nominee vulnerable in the general election. More than anything, he did not want to see a Republican in the White House in 2017. I got it, and never took issue with him. This was about Barack’s legacy, and a significant portion of that legacy had not yet been cast in stone.”
Obama was a “pen and phone” president. Beyond Obamacare, his main “legacy” achievements — the Iran deal, the Paris climate accords, gender identity policy by regulation, and little else — were initiated by executive fiat and not inked into law by Congress. He didn’t want to see a Republican in the White House in 2017 who could make his precarious accomplishments disappear just as easily with the stroke of a pen.
In 2016, losing was, putatively, Obama’s fear of a Biden nomination. In 2020, this worry is more suspect. According to the RealClear average, Biden also fares best of all the Democratic primary candidates in head-to-head polling against Trump. So, why won’t Obama relent?
Two reasons. The first is an obvious one. Obama, like the rest of us, knows Biden is a loose cannon, often foolish, and an altogether unreliable torchbearer. Biden cannot be trusted to shepherd Obama’s legacy into the history books in the manner and glory Obama so wishes. “Nobody messes with Joe!” Obama joked back in 2009 when putting his vice president in charge of “oversight” for the stimulus package programs. The joke, as Washington Examiner columnist Rob Long explained at the time, is that “everybody messes with Joe.” “Biden couldn’t oversee a ham sandwich,” but that was no matter. He was on the ticket to help win Pennsylvania and Ohio and in the administration to be Obama’s fall guy. (It’s also worth remembering that Amtrak renamed the train station in Wilmington, Delaware, which came in $5.7 million over budget after receiving $20 million in stimulus funding, after Biden.) Biden is the fun uncle who acts out on Thanksgiving; you may love him, but you don’t put him in charge of the family trust.
The second reason is more about Obama than Biden. Obama believes history to have two sides and that he is on the virtuous one. Being on “the right side of history” is so fundamental to Obama that he had Martin Luther King Jr.’s quote, “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice,” sewn into the carpet in the Oval Office. Obama wants to be remembered as the father of a new progressive age. What and who come after him are nearly as important as anything he did in office.
If Clinton had won the White House as he expected, his legacy would have been nearly set. She would have continued his domestic policies, whether with congressional support or again by executive order and regulation, appointed liberal, living-Constitution judges, and followed the leftist zeitgeist. He would have been the first black president; she, the first woman president. The arc of the moral universe would have bowed in the direction he desired.
Biden, however, is old, male, and straight. To elect another white septuagenarian liberal would be to move backward in a way, whatever the details of policy.
Biden’s other sin is that he was Obama’s vice president. Obama smartly realizes that if Biden becomes president, criticism of a Biden administration would become, in the hazy eyes of history, a criticism of both their administrations, both presidencies, lumped together. Biden’s record would become Obama’s record, much in the same way Biden is now running for president by attempting to link Obama’s legacy with his own. If followed by a progressive woman, or another black or gay progressive, Obama could be remembered forever as the forefather of leftist Hope and Change. If followed by Biden, he is likely to be remembered, and blamed, for a Biden presidency that is insufficiently woke and, likely, insufficiently successful. And a man of Obama’s supreme vanity cannot risk that possibility.
Nor can Obama come out and openly reject Biden’s candidacy, for that would also reflect poorly on his legacy and on his past statements about all of Biden’s presidential qualities and virtues. The real question is, what if the only alternative to Biden ends up being Sanders? The Vermont socialist doesn’t generally attack Obama by name, but instead frames his socialist quest on the premise that the Obama revolution never happened. In Bernie’s telling, the corporate fat cats are just as fat; the Wall Street cowboys are just as lawless and unrestrained. Plus, a Sanders victory would make Obama look a fool for his gestures toward centrism on the campaign trail, as it would reveal you don’t have to be seen as moderate to win. Indeed, a Sanders presidency could be even more damaging to Obama's legacy than a Biden one.
So Obama is stuck between his ego and a hard place, firing off passive-aggressive potshots at the only candidate on stage promoting his presidential record and the one with the best chance of beating Trump. Some legacy.
J. Grant Addison is the deputy editor for the Washington Examiner magazine.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-17--Cory Booker mortgaged his reputation for a failed presidential bid

On Day Three of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh ’ s confirmation hearings , Cory Booker seized the political spotlight .
With one hand pointed toward the ceiling , the New Jersey senator looked around the chamber and vowed to give up everything , even his position in the Senate , to release “ confidential documents ” that would expose Kavanaugh as a racist .
“ This is about the closest I ’ ll probably ever have in my life to an ‘ I am Spartacus ’ moment , ” Booker proclaimed .
Alas , the documents Booker promised were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an investigator the night before .
Nor did they confirm that Kavanaugh had participated in racial profiling .
Six months later , Booker announced his candidacy for the White House .
Booker ’ s Spartacus moment was a dud , much like his ensuing presidential campaign , which he suspended on Jan. 13 .
But it did solidify Booker ’ s new political image , one that he had been crafting since President Trump ’ s election .
Before Booker reached the Senate , the two-term mayor of Newark , New Jersey , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ palled around with Republican Gov .
Chris Christie and supported policies that were too conservative for most liberals , such as school choice and reasonable entitlement reform .
He even vocally criticized former President Barack Obama ’ s 2012 campaign for pushing “ nauseating ” attacks on Mitt Romney and private equity , a criticism he later walked back , unconvincingly .
So it ’ s no wonder , then , that Booker ’ s election to the Senate was hailed not as a victory , but as a tragedy .
Salon called @ @ @ @ @ @ @ elite , a camera hog , and a political cipher , ” and the New Republic described Booker as a sellout whose only concern was “ agitating for the cause of himself ” and “ the moneyed classes.
” Booker rejected the idea that he was “ some sort of Manchurian candidate for the right , ” but nevertheless used this reputation to his advantage in the Senate .
He extended an olive branch to the other side of the political aisle and actively worked to co-sponsor bipartisan projects such as criminal justice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hold his centrism against him , Booker intended to show them why they were wrong .
Yet Booker didn ’ t change the Democratic Party ; it changed him .
As he settled into the Senate , his views became predictably partisan , and he willingly sacrificed his bipartisan relationships when party loyalty demanded it .
When Trump nominated former Sen. Jeff Sessions for attorney general , Booker fell in line and denounced Sessions , calling his views “ deeply troubling.
” Just two years earlier , Booker had worked with Sessions to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 1965 civil rights march in Alabama .
And despite his commitment to criminal justice reform , Booker threatened to withdraw his original support for the First Step Act , a bill intended to improve the treatment of prisoners while increasing efforts to rehabilitate them , after Trump vowed to sign it .
Booker eventually voted for the measure , but only after joining several of his Democratic colleagues in a letter that declared the bill a meaningless half-measure and “ a step backwards.
” Booker ’ s lurch to the left occurred @ @ @ @ @ @ @ senator realized that if he wanted to have any kind of leadership role in the Democratic Party , he ’ d have to abandon nuance and join the resistance .
He began to advertise himself as everything that Trump was not : civil , thoughtful , and unifying , all while distancing himself from the centrist positions he had once held .
He flip-flopped on school choice , embraced Medicare for All , and demanded that Congress do something about gun violence .
His past appeals for bipartisanship fell by the wayside , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but with a narrower focus : “ The only way to beat hate is not to bring in more hate , but to bring in love and hope , and uniting people in solving the persistent injustices in our country , ” Booker declared .
Trump , in this telling , was the one bringing in the hate , and Republicans were enabling it ; thus , Booker argued , the Democratic Party must become a unified coalition against Trump and Trumpism .
Despite his consistent pleas for civility , the Democratic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , denouncing Trump as a “ racist ” and “ misogynist ” in an attempt to prove that he could fight the president on the debate stage if given the chance .
Booker was still the nice guy , the senator known for bear hugs and congeniality , and the down-to-earth politician who lived in a run-down New Jersey housing project and had lived off of food stamps for a week .
But Booker also wanted to be known as a fighter , someone who wouldn ’ t give an inch to Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s nomination .
Before allegations of sexual assault had even surfaced , Booker insisted that the judge and his supporters were “ complicit in evil.
” Gone was the thoughtfulness Booker had once been known for .
After Christine Blasey Ford accused Kavanaugh of sexual assault in high school , Booker declared , without proof , that Kavanaugh was a sexual offender and a racist .
This was his Spartacus moment , the moment in which he demanded that Democratic voters take him seriously .
They did n't .
Booker ’ s campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ polls , and after failing to qualify for the sixth and seventh Democratic primary debates , Booker admitted he didn ’ t have the funding to continue .
`` Our campaign has reached the point where we need more money to scale up and continue building a campaign that can win — money we don ’ t have , and money that is harder to raise because I won ’ t be on the next debate stage and because the urgent business of impeachment will rightly be keeping me in Washington , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democratic voters didn ’ t find Booker ’ s hardline act convincing .
The thing that made Booker attractive to Democrats and Republicans alike was his openness .
And that disappeared the moment Booker decided to run for president , and with it , his chances of a successful campaign .
Booker had fallen into the trap the late John McCain , who had apparently taken a liking to Booker , had once warned him about : particularistic politics .
What made Booker so intriguing to someone such as McCain was his willingness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t .
But that changed , too .
The Booker campaign ’ s proposed policies were indistinguishable from Elizabeth Warren ’ s and Bernie Sanders ’ s , and as a result , he failed to stand out or make a significant impression .
Even his signature issue , gun control reform , was dominated by Beto O ’ Rourke .
The one thing that hasn ’ t changed about Booker is his unfiltered earnestness .
But his subtle shape-shifting over the past few years threw that earnestness into doubt .
His @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was politically inconvenient , and his support for centrist policies lasted until it became too difficult to maintain .
It wouldn ’ t be fair to call Booker a political chameleon , but he is a fair-weather politician , drifting from one side of the liberal spectrum to the other whenever it suits him .
Now that Booker is no longer running for president , he might drift back toward the center and take up the bipartisan mantle once more .
But it ’ s unlikely anyone will listen .
Booker ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it , any standing he once possessed .
Now , voters are left to wonder whether it was all just an act .
Kaylee McGhee is a commentary writer for the Washington Examiner .

On Day Three of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings, Cory Booker seized the political spotlight.
With one hand pointed toward the ceiling, the New Jersey senator looked around the chamber and vowed to give up everything, even his position in the Senate, to release “confidential documents” that would expose Kavanaugh as a racist. “This is about the closest I’ll probably ever have in my life to an ‘I am Spartacus’ moment,” Booker proclaimed.
Alas, the documents Booker promised were not confidential, having been released by an investigator the night before. Nor did they confirm that Kavanaugh had participated in racial profiling.
Six months later, Booker announced his candidacy for the White House.
Booker’s Spartacus moment was a dud, much like his ensuing presidential campaign, which he suspended on Jan. 13. But it did solidify Booker’s new political image, one that he had been crafting since President Trump’s election.
Before Booker reached the Senate, the two-term mayor of Newark, New Jersey, was a self-proclaimed bipartisan centrist. He palled around with Republican Gov. Chris Christie and supported policies that were too conservative for most liberals, such as school choice and reasonable entitlement reform. He even vocally criticized former President Barack Obama’s 2012 campaign for pushing “nauseating” attacks on Mitt Romney and private equity, a criticism he later walked back, unconvincingly.
So it’s no wonder, then, that Booker’s election to the Senate was hailed not as a victory, but as a tragedy. Salon called him “an avatar of the wealthy elite, a camera hog, and a political cipher,” and the New Republic described Booker as a sellout whose only concern was “agitating for the cause of himself” and “the moneyed classes.”
Booker rejected the idea that he was “some sort of Manchurian candidate for the right,” but nevertheless used this reputation to his advantage in the Senate. He extended an olive branch to the other side of the political aisle and actively worked to co-sponsor bipartisan projects such as criminal justice reform. If Democrats were going to hold his centrism against him, Booker intended to show them why they were wrong.
Yet Booker didn’t change the Democratic Party; it changed him. As he settled into the Senate, his views became predictably partisan, and he willingly sacrificed his bipartisan relationships when party loyalty demanded it. When Trump nominated former Sen. Jeff Sessions for attorney general, Booker fell in line and denounced Sessions, calling his views “deeply troubling.” Just two years earlier, Booker had worked with Sessions to introduce legislation to honor the participants of the 1965 civil rights march in Alabama.
And despite his commitment to criminal justice reform, Booker threatened to withdraw his original support for the First Step Act, a bill intended to improve the treatment of prisoners while increasing efforts to rehabilitate them, after Trump vowed to sign it. Booker eventually voted for the measure, but only after joining several of his Democratic colleagues in a letter that declared the bill a meaningless half-measure and “a step backwards.”
Booker’s lurch to the left occurred when Trump became president, and the senator realized that if he wanted to have any kind of leadership role in the Democratic Party, he’d have to abandon nuance and join the resistance. He began to advertise himself as everything that Trump was not: civil, thoughtful, and unifying, all while distancing himself from the centrist positions he had once held. He flip-flopped on school choice, embraced Medicare for All, and demanded that Congress do something about gun violence.
His past appeals for bipartisanship fell by the wayside, too. Booker still called for solidarity, but with a narrower focus: “The only way to beat hate is not to bring in more hate, but to bring in love and hope, and uniting people in solving the persistent injustices in our country,” Booker declared. Trump, in this telling, was the one bringing in the hate, and Republicans were enabling it; thus, Booker argued, the Democratic Party must become a unified coalition against Trump and Trumpism.
Despite his consistent pleas for civility, the Democratic senator became more aggressive in his rhetoric, denouncing Trump as a “racist” and “misogynist” in an attempt to prove that he could fight the president on the debate stage if given the chance. Booker was still the nice guy, the senator known for bear hugs and congeniality, and the down-to-earth politician who lived in a run-down New Jersey housing project and had lived off of food stamps for a week. But Booker also wanted to be known as a fighter, someone who wouldn’t give an inch to Trump.
That brings us to Kavanaugh’s nomination. Before allegations of sexual assault had even surfaced, Booker insisted that the judge and his supporters were “complicit in evil.” Gone was the thoughtfulness Booker had once been known for. After Christine Blasey Ford accused Kavanaugh of sexual assault in high school, Booker declared, without proof, that Kavanaugh was a sexual offender and a racist.
This was his Spartacus moment, the moment in which he demanded that Democratic voters take him seriously.
They didn't. Booker’s campaign never broke 4% in the national polls, and after failing to qualify for the sixth and seventh Democratic primary debates, Booker admitted he didn’t have the funding to continue. "Our campaign has reached the point where we need more money to scale up and continue building a campaign that can win — money we don’t have, and money that is harder to raise because I won’t be on the next debate stage and because the urgent business of impeachment will rightly be keeping me in Washington,” he said in a statement.
Perhaps Democratic voters didn’t find Booker’s hardline act convincing. The thing that made Booker attractive to Democrats and Republicans alike was his openness. And that disappeared the moment Booker decided to run for president, and with it, his chances of a successful campaign.
Booker had fallen into the trap the late John McCain, who had apparently taken a liking to Booker, had once warned him about: particularistic politics. What made Booker so intriguing to someone such as McCain was his willingness to consider proposals that other Democrats wouldn’t. But that changed, too. The Booker campaign’s proposed policies were indistinguishable from Elizabeth Warren’s and Bernie Sanders’s, and as a result, he failed to stand out or make a significant impression. Even his signature issue, gun control reform, was dominated by Beto O’Rourke.
The one thing that hasn’t changed about Booker is his unfiltered earnestness. But his subtle shape-shifting over the past few years threw that earnestness into doubt. His commitment to bipartisanship disappeared the moment it was politically inconvenient, and his support for centrist policies lasted until it became too difficult to maintain. It wouldn’t be fair to call Booker a political chameleon, but he is a fair-weather politician, drifting from one side of the liberal spectrum to the other whenever it suits him.
Now that Booker is no longer running for president, he might drift back toward the center and take up the bipartisan mantle once more. But it’s unlikely anyone will listen. Booker’s Spartacus moment has passed, and with it, any standing he once possessed. Now, voters are left to wonder whether it was all just an act.
Kaylee McGhee is a commentary writer for the Washington Examiner.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-17--Gay rights group sells out to fear

Gay rights group sells out to fear

When the Trump administration announced in March 2019 the launch of an international initiative to support the decriminalization of homosexuality , it laid down a landmark .
For a Republican administration to take a stand for gay rights on the world stage was simply unprecedented , a sign of just how quickly the country had shifted toward gay acceptance during the early 21st century .
But in what might seem like a paradoxical twist , the largest gay rights organization in the country , the Human Rights Campaign , came out swinging against President Trump in response , criticizing his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s “ intentions and commitments.
” For those familiar with the group , though , such partisanship won ’ t come as a surprise .
The once-venerable nonprofit organization fought on the front lines of the struggle for gay rights , but the inevitable ideological corruption that comes with partisan prestige , demanding donors , and lush expense accounts has left the Human Rights Campaign a shell of what it once was .
The organization was founded by gay-rights advocate Steven Endean in 1980 and was then called the Human Rights Campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political action committee supporting pro-gay legislation and candidates , but within a decade transitioned and became a nonprofit organization dedicated to a more holistic advancement of gay rights .
At first , the group did exactly what it sought to do .
The early decades of its work were characterized by large-scale events and campaigns raising awareness of anti-gay hate crimes and fundraising for victims ’ families .
So , too , the organization successfully lobbied to have an archaic ban repealed that barred people with HIV from entering the country .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , culminating in its 2010 repeal .
The group 's president at the time , Joe Solmonese , remarked that “ a sad chapter in our nation 's response to people with HIV and AIDS has finally come to a close , and we are a better nation for it.
” In the 2010s , the Human Rights Campaign fought for same-sex marriage rights by sponsoring state-level ballot initiatives and filing an influential `` friend of the court '' brief in the 2015 Supreme Court case Obergefell v. Hodges , which legalized gay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case , Jim Obergefell , was a long-time member and activist .
For the first several decades of its work , the organization certainly leaned left , but there was nonetheless a bipartisan element to its work .
The group worked with Republicans initially to advance the Employment Non-Discrimination Act , an early piece of legislation that would have added sexual orientation as a protected class under federal anti-discrimination employment laws .
The Human Rights Campaign even endorsed a few Republicans , such as Senate candidate Al D ’ Amato in 1998 ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The group backed centrist Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins as recently as 2014 .
That spirit of cooperation changed with the election of Trump .
His ascendency threatened the organization 's vested interest because Trump 's tenure had the potential to make gay rights a backburner , consensus issue , meaning the checks written to the group by nervous pro-gay donors could dry up .
After all , Trump made history as the first president to take office supporting same-sex marriage .
Even President Barack Obama opposed gay marriage rights for the first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only announced his shift in 2012 , conveniently coming out in support of gay marriage just as public opinion polls began to shift to majority support ( and prompted by a purportedly stray pro-gay-marriage statement from his vice president , Joe Biden ) .
Meanwhile , Trump waved the rainbow flag on the Republican campaign trail , and at the 2016 Republican National Convention , Trump supporter Peter Thiel proudly endorsed Trump as a gay American , receiving robust applause from the audience in a display that would have been unthinkable even four @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s record , while still positive , was more complicated than his on-the-trail enthusiasm for gay rights .
There was the president ’ s decision , opposed by gay-rights advocates , to bar transgender troops from serving in the military .
But it ’ s worth noting that this same policy barring transgender inclusion was in place for years under both Obama and President Bill Clinton , both of whom were heralded as gay rights heroes ( and endorsed by the Human Rights Campaign ) .
Trump has nominated gay Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ including U.S .
Ambassador to Germany Richard Grenell and U.S .
Circuit Court Judge Patrick Bumatay .
Trump also became the first Republican president to acknowledge gay pride month .
It wasn ’ t exactly a shock to see Trump earn the endorsement of the conservative gay rights organization Log Cabin Republicans for his reelection campaign .
Observers might have thought that groups such as the Human Rights Campaign would relish the chance for an at least somewhat hospitable Republican administration and try to work with it .
The opposite has proven true @ @ @ @ @ @ @ David , said in a recent interview that Trump is the “ worst president on LGBTQ issues ever , ” claiming that “ we are living in an uncharted territory where LGBT people are being attacked every single day by the Trump administration.
” The group ’ s claims about the president 's policies aren ’ t always fabricated entirely but are often twisted , distorted , hyperbolic , or made in bad faith .
For instance , the organization cried wolf about the Trump administration denying citizenship to the children of gay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an obscure Obama-era policy in question .
So , too , it maliciously misrepresented the Trump Department of Justice ’ s stand on anti-discrimination statutes to transform what was a legal disagreement about the proper interpretation of federal law into a normative position that gay and transgender people don ’ t deserve anti-discrimination protections .
Beyond Trump , the Human Rights Campaign in recent years has shredded any hope of bipartisanship by using its annual “ LGBT rights ” legislator scorecards as left-wing , catch-all grades .
In practice , this means the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” for unrelated positions on issues such as immigration , Obamacare , and abortion , making it clear that the organization has become an extension of the Democratic National Committee .
Worse , the group put out a statement blasting as “ deeply dangerous ” Republican congressman Chris Stewart , who introduced a gay and transgender rights bill , because it disagreed with some of the exceptions his bill contained .
Why has the organization strayed so far from its original mission and become hyperpartisan ?
The answer is sadly simple .
Famed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ phenomenon that can affect nonprofit organizations in his book Basic Economics .
He wrote ( emphasis mine ) : “ Those individuals who happen to be in charge of a non-profit institution at a given time can substitute their own goals for the institution ’ s ostensible goals or the goals of their founders … Much money can be dissipated in creating luxurious surroundings in the organization ’ s workplace or arranging showy conferences in posh hotels and resorts , held in upscale locations around the country or overseas .
Non-profit organizations that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have similar incentives to alarm their respective constituencies over various social , political , or other issues , and few constraints to confine themselves to accurate or valid bases for those alarms.
” Sowell wrote these lines decades ago , but they describe the Human Rights Campaign of 2020 to a T. In 2018 , according to publicly available financial documents , the group 's then-president , Chad Griffin , earned nearly $ 550,000 annually from the organization for his work .
Both its vice presidents earned north of $ 325,000 , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 5 million in compensation .
The organization boasts a roughly $ 25 million office complex in the Dupont Circle neighborhood of Washington , D.C. , a sprawling edifice that includes a “ state-of-the-art multimedia production facility ” and “ the stunning Equality Center , a meeting and event space.
” The Human Rights Campaign bought first-class airfare for its employees and a club membership for its president .
Plus , its annual awards gala features celebrities , professional athletes , and top Democrats such as Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ table in liberal politics , rubbing elbows with Meryl Streep and Christina Aguilera .
The glitz , glam , and sheer profitability of the group 's “ gay rights ” crusade are astounding .
It ’ s not hard to see why it has chosen to , as Sowell wrote , “ alarm its constituency ” rather than acknowledge reality and work across the aisle .
If the organization ever acknowledged that the crisis it was founded to address no longer exists , well , then no longer would there be any reason @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
None of this is to suggest the fight for full gay rights is over and won .
But the Human Rights Campaign ’ s apocalyptic rhetoric has only increased as the gay and transgender community has made unprecedented gains , including under a Republican president , all but guaranteeing the biggest victories are permanent .
In the nonprofit world , however , fake outrage is better for the bottom line .
Brad Polumbo is deputy opinion contributors editor for the Washington Examiner .

When the Trump administration announced in March 2019 the launch of an international initiative to support the decriminalization of homosexuality, it laid down a landmark. For a Republican administration to take a stand for gay rights on the world stage was simply unprecedented, a sign of just how quickly the country had shifted toward gay acceptance during the early 21st century. But in what might seem like a paradoxical twist, the largest gay rights organization in the country, the Human Rights Campaign, came out swinging against President Trump in response, criticizing his record and casting doubt on the administration’s “intentions and commitments.”
For those familiar with the group, though, such partisanship won’t come as a surprise. The once-venerable nonprofit organization fought on the front lines of the struggle for gay rights, but the inevitable ideological corruption that comes with partisan prestige, demanding donors, and lush expense accounts has left the Human Rights Campaign a shell of what it once was.
The organization was founded by gay-rights advocate Steven Endean in 1980 and was then called the Human Rights Campaign Fund. It started out as a political action committee supporting pro-gay legislation and candidates, but within a decade transitioned and became a nonprofit organization dedicated to a more holistic advancement of gay rights.
At first, the group did exactly what it sought to do. The early decades of its work were characterized by large-scale events and campaigns raising awareness of anti-gay hate crimes and fundraising for victims’ families. So, too, the organization successfully lobbied to have an archaic ban repealed that barred people with HIV from entering the country. It fought against this policy for two decades, culminating in its 2010 repeal. The group's president at the time, Joe Solmonese, remarked that “a sad chapter in our nation's response to people with HIV and AIDS has finally come to a close, and we are a better nation for it.”
In the 2010s, the Human Rights Campaign fought for same-sex marriage rights by sponsoring state-level ballot initiatives and filing an influential "friend of the court" brief in the 2015 Supreme Court case Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized gay marriage nationally. The plaintiff in that case, Jim Obergefell, was a long-time member and activist.
For the first several decades of its work, the organization certainly leaned left, but there was nonetheless a bipartisan element to its work.
The group worked with Republicans initially to advance the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, an early piece of legislation that would have added sexual orientation as a protected class under federal anti-discrimination employment laws. The Human Rights Campaign even endorsed a few Republicans, such as Senate candidate Al D’Amato in 1998 (endorsing him over Chuck Schumer). The group backed centrist Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins as recently as 2014.
That spirit of cooperation changed with the election of Trump. His ascendency threatened the organization's vested interest because Trump's tenure had the potential to make gay rights a backburner, consensus issue, meaning the checks written to the group by nervous pro-gay donors could dry up.
After all, Trump made history as the first president to take office supporting same-sex marriage. Even President Barack Obama opposed gay marriage rights for the first four years of his presidency. Obama only announced his shift in 2012, conveniently coming out in support of gay marriage just as public opinion polls began to shift to majority support (and prompted by a purportedly stray pro-gay-marriage statement from his vice president, Joe Biden). Meanwhile, Trump waved the rainbow flag on the Republican campaign trail, and at the 2016 Republican National Convention, Trump supporter Peter Thiel proudly endorsed Trump as a gay American, receiving robust applause from the audience in a display that would have been unthinkable even four years earlier.
Once in office, Trump’s record, while still positive, was more complicated than his on-the-trail enthusiasm for gay rights. There was the president’s decision, opposed by gay-rights advocates, to bar transgender troops from serving in the military. But it’s worth noting that this same policy barring transgender inclusion was in place for years under both Obama and President Bill Clinton, both of whom were heralded as gay rights heroes (and endorsed by the Human Rights Campaign).
Trump has nominated gay Americans to top posts in his administration, including U.S. Ambassador to Germany Richard Grenell and U.S. Circuit Court Judge Patrick Bumatay. Trump also became the first Republican president to acknowledge gay pride month. It wasn’t exactly a shock to see Trump earn the endorsement of the conservative gay rights organization Log Cabin Republicans for his reelection campaign.
Observers might have thought that groups such as the Human Rights Campaign would relish the chance for an at least somewhat hospitable Republican administration and try to work with it. The opposite has proven true.
The organization's president, Alphonso David, said in a recent interview that Trump is the “worst president on LGBTQ issues ever,” claiming that “we are living in an uncharted territory where LGBT people are being attacked every single day by the Trump administration.”
The group’s claims about the president's policies aren’t always fabricated entirely but are often twisted, distorted, hyperbolic, or made in bad faith. For instance, the organization cried wolf about the Trump administration denying citizenship to the children of gay parents. Turns out, it was an obscure Obama-era policy in question. So, too, it maliciously misrepresented the Trump Department of Justice’s stand on anti-discrimination statutes to transform what was a legal disagreement about the proper interpretation of federal law into a normative position that gay and transgender people don’t deserve anti-discrimination protections.
Beyond Trump, the Human Rights Campaign in recent years has shredded any hope of bipartisanship by using its annual “LGBT rights” legislator scorecards as left-wing, catch-all grades. In practice, this means the group now brands GOP lawmakers “anti-gay” for unrelated positions on issues such as immigration, Obamacare, and abortion, making it clear that the organization has become an extension of the Democratic National Committee. Worse, the group put out a statement blasting as “deeply dangerous” Republican congressman Chris Stewart, who introduced a gay and transgender rights bill, because it disagreed with some of the exceptions his bill contained.
Why has the organization strayed so far from its original mission and become hyperpartisan? The answer is sadly simple. Famed economist Thomas Sowell explained the corrupting financial phenomenon that can affect nonprofit organizations in his book Basic Economics. He wrote (emphasis mine):
“Those individuals who happen to be in charge of a non-profit institution at a given time can substitute their own goals for the institution’s ostensible goals or the goals of their founders … Much money can be dissipated in creating luxurious surroundings in the organization’s workplace or arranging showy conferences in posh hotels and resorts, held in upscale locations around the country or overseas. Non-profit organizations that are financially dependent on current contributions … have similar incentives to alarm their respective constituencies over various social, political, or other issues, and few constraints to confine themselves to accurate or valid bases for those alarms.”
Sowell wrote these lines decades ago, but they describe the Human Rights Campaign of 2020 to a T.
In 2018, according to publicly available financial documents, the group's then-president, Chad Griffin, earned nearly $550,000 annually from the organization for his work. Both its vice presidents earned north of $325,000, and the top 17 highest-paid employees split almost $5 million in compensation. The organization boasts a roughly $25 million office complex in the Dupont Circle neighborhood of Washington, D.C., a sprawling edifice that includes a “state-of-the-art multimedia production facility” and “the stunning Equality Center, a meeting and event space.”
The Human Rights Campaign bought first-class airfare for its employees and a club membership for its president. Plus, its annual awards gala features celebrities, professional athletes, and top Democrats such as Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. The organization is at the cool kids’ table in liberal politics, rubbing elbows with Meryl Streep and Christina Aguilera.
The glitz, glam, and sheer profitability of the group's “gay rights” crusade are astounding. It’s not hard to see why it has chosen to, as Sowell wrote, “alarm its constituency” rather than acknowledge reality and work across the aisle. If the organization ever acknowledged that the crisis it was founded to address no longer exists, well, then no longer would there be any reason for its donors to keep writing checks.
None of this is to suggest the fight for full gay rights is over and won. But the Human Rights Campaign’s apocalyptic rhetoric has only increased as the gay and transgender community has made unprecedented gains, including under a Republican president, all but guaranteeing the biggest victories are permanent. In the nonprofit world, however, fake outrage is better for the bottom line.
Brad Polumbo is deputy opinion contributors editor for the Washington Examiner.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-16--11 people arrested during impeachment protests in Senate office buildings

Police arrested 11 people during “ remove Trump ” demonstrations on Capitol Hill as the Senate accepted impeachment articles from the House .
Some of the protesters standing in the rotunda of the Russell Senate Office Building were wearing black shirts with white letters .
When they stood side-by-side , their bodies spelled out the words “ remove Trump , ” which is also the name of a group affiliated with the Women ’ s March and other liberal organizations .
Although they initially stood silently in the rotunda , the group began to chant and unfurled a large black @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Remove Trump.
” Some of the demonstrators also managed to make their way into Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ’ s office .
While at the Kentucky Republican ’ s office , some people stood outside and wore shirts that spelled out the word “ recuse.
” According to the Hill , six people were arrested at the Russell Building at about 1 p.m. , and five more were arrested in the atrium of the Hart Building a while later .
All were booked on charges of crowding , obstructing , or incommoding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the House impeachment managers read the articles of impeachment against Trump before the Senate .
Chief Justice John Roberts was also sworn in to preside over the impeachment trial , which will begin on Tuesday .

Police arrested 11 people during “remove Trump” demonstrations on Capitol Hill as the Senate accepted impeachment articles from the House.
Some of the protesters standing in the rotunda of the Russell Senate Office Building were wearing black shirts with white letters. When they stood side-by-side, their bodies spelled out the words “remove Trump,” which is also the name of a group affiliated with the Women’s March and other liberal organizations.
Although they initially stood silently in the rotunda, the group began to chant and unfurled a large black flag that also bore the words “Remove Trump.”
Not so silent now. pic.twitter.com/enP4RPEeDR — Garrett Haake (@GarrettHaake) January 16, 2020
Some of the demonstrators also managed to make their way into Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s office. While at the Kentucky Republican’s office, some people stood outside and wore shirts that spelled out the word “recuse.”
According to the Hill, six people were arrested at the Russell Building at about 1 p.m., and five more were arrested in the atrium of the Hart Building a while later. All were booked on charges of crowding, obstructing, or incommoding at the offices.
On Thursday, the House impeachment managers read the articles of impeachment against Trump before the Senate. Chief Justice John Roberts was also sworn in to preside over the impeachment trial, which will begin on Tuesday.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-16--Martha McSally fundraises off viral 'liberal hack' jibe at CNN reporter

Hours after Sen. Martha McSally called a CNN reporter a “ liberal hack , ” her campaign was using the moment to raise money .
The Arizona Republican , facing a tough reelection battle against former astronaut and US Navy capitain Mark Kell , sent out an email Thursday afternoon that linked to a donation page .
Earlier that day , CNN reporter Manu Raju tried to ask McSally , 53 , a question , to which she responded by refusing to comment and labeling him a “ liberal hack.
” “ I 've said it before and I 'll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the Senate to play politics , especially with liberal hacks who profit off of spin , ” McSally , a former Air Force colonel who was the first American woman to fly in combat , said in her fundraising email .
“ I 'm in the Senate to fight for all Arizonans , not play games with the left-wing media.
” Raju , 39 , asked McSally on Thursday morning if the Senate should consider new evidence in President Trump ’ s impeachment trial .
“ Manu , you ’ re a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ talking to you , ” she shot back at the reporter .
Raju followed up , “ You ’ re not going to comment.
” McSally again rebuffed him and referred to him as a “ liberal hack.
” McSally was appointed to replace former Sen. John Kyl , who retired after replacing the late Sen. John McCain .
She is running again in 2020 and will face a tough challenge from astronaut Mark Kelly , the husband of former Democratic Arizona Rep. Gabby Giffords .
CNN 's public relations team said McSally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for a U.S .
Senator to sink to this level and treat a member of the press this way for simply doing his job .
”

Hours after Sen. Martha McSally called a CNN reporter a “liberal hack,” her campaign was using the moment to raise money.
The Arizona Republican, facing a tough reelection battle against former astronaut and US Navy capitain Mark Kell, sent out an email Thursday afternoon that linked to a donation page. Earlier that day, CNN reporter Manu Raju tried to ask McSally, 53, a question, to which she responded by refusing to comment and labeling him a “liberal hack.”
“I've said it before and I'll say it again: I'm not in the Senate to play politics, especially with liberal hacks who profit off of spin,” McSally, a former Air Force colonel who was the first American woman to fly in combat, said in her fundraising email. “I'm in the Senate to fight for all Arizonans, not play games with the left-wing media.”
So, @MarthaMcSally's "liberal hack" crack against @mkraju was basically just a set-up for raising campaign money. pic.twitter.com/qaR4KNun1Y — Dave Levinthal (@davelevinthal) January 16, 2020
Raju, 39, asked McSally on Thursday morning if the Senate should consider new evidence in President Trump’s impeachment trial.
“Manu, you’re a liberal hack. I’m not talking to you,” she shot back at the reporter.
Raju followed up, “You’re not going to comment.” McSally again rebuffed him and referred to him as a “liberal hack.”
McSally was appointed to replace former Sen. John Kyl, who retired after replacing the late Sen. John McCain. She is running again in 2020 and will face a tough challenge from astronaut Mark Kelly, the husband of former Democratic Arizona Rep. Gabby Giffords.
CNN's public relations team said McSally’s remark was “extremely unbecoming for a U.S. Senator to sink to this level and treat a member of the press this way for simply doing his job.”


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-16--Federal watchdog says Trump administration broke law by withholding Ukraine aid

The U.S. government ’ s congressional watchdog determined that the Trump administration violated the law when it withheld hundreds of millions of dollars in security aid to Ukraine in the summer of 2019 .
The Government Accountability Office released a nine-page report Thursday concluding the Office of Management and Budget violated the Impoundment Control Act when it held up $ 214 million appropriated by Congress to the Department of Defense to help Ukraine as it deals with a Russian incursion in the eastern part of its country .
“ Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Congress has enacted into law , ” wrote the independent legislative branch agency 's general counsel Thomas H. Armstrong in the decision .
“ The Office of Management and Budget withheld funds for a policy reason , which is not permitted under the Impoundment Control Act .
The withholding was not a programmatic delay .
Therefore , we conclude that the Office of Management and Budget violated the Impoundment Control Act.
” The watchdog , led by Obama-appointed Comptroller General Gene Dodaro , is an arm of Congress , and the executive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And the Office of Management and Budget quickly pushed back .
“ We disagree with GAO 's opinion , ” OMB ’ s director communications Rachel Semmel told the Washington Examiner .
“ OMB uses its apportionment authority to ensure taxpayer dollars are properly spent consistent with the president 's priorities and with the law.
” A senior administration official told the Washington Examiner that the congressional watchdog ’ s findings “ are a pretty clear overreach as they attempt to insert themselves into the media ’ s controversy of the day.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ has a history of the flip-flops.
” “ In their rush to insert themselves in the impeachment narrative , maybe they ’ ll have to reverse their opinion again , ” the official said .
“ The Constitution grants the President no unilateral authority to withhold funds from obligation , ” Armstrong wrote .
“ Instead , Congress has vested the President with strictly circumscribed authority to impound , or withhold , budget authority only in limited circumstances as expressly provided in the Impoundment Control Act.
” The determination comes the same day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to allegations of abuse of power in Ukraine is set to kick off in the Senate .
The two articles of impeachment passed by the House charge the president with soliciting Ukraine 's help to interfere in the 2020 election and with obstructing the congressional investigation into the matter .
They are buttressed by language alleging this is a pattern of behavior by the president .
The impeachment effort followed an anonymous whistleblower complaint about a July 25 phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky .
In the call , immediately @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weaponry from the United States , Trump asked Zelensky `` to do us a favor though , ” to look into CrowdStrike and any possible Ukrainian election interference in 2016 .
Trump urged Zelensky later in the call to investigate “ the other thing , ” referring to allegations of corruption related to Joe and Hunter Biden , telling Zelensky to speak with his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani and Attorney General William Barr .
Last month , the Trump administration responded to a November GAO inquiry by insisting “ the executive branch has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appropriations are spent wisely , in accordance with statutory requirements.
” “ The President of the United States is required to ‘ take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.
’ As part of carrying out this duty , the executive branch must ensure that Federal agencies spend appropriated funds in an efficient and effective manner , consistent with the purpose for which the funds were appropriated , ” OMB general counsel Mark Paoletta wrote in a nine-page letter .
“ Pauses in obligational authority are necessary for proper stewardship of taxpayer funds.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ no basis in law , ” the congressional watchdog countered on Thursday , saying the law “ does not permit deferrals for policy reasons.
” The watchdog ’ s report said it is still investigating other potentially funds withheld last August , alleging the budget office held up some foreign military financing funds appropriated to the State Department for Ukraine .
The watchdog said the budget office “ may have delayed ” $ 26.5 million when it held up some funds for six days and that another $ 141.5 million “ may have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ considered by OMB .
”

The U.S. government’s congressional watchdog determined that the Trump administration violated the law when it withheld hundreds of millions of dollars in security aid to Ukraine in the summer of 2019.
The Government Accountability Office released a nine-page report Thursday concluding the Office of Management and Budget violated the Impoundment Control Act when it held up $214 million appropriated by Congress to the Department of Defense to help Ukraine as it deals with a Russian incursion in the eastern part of its country.
“Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law,” wrote the independent legislative branch agency's general counsel Thomas H. Armstrong in the decision. “The Office of Management and Budget withheld funds for a policy reason, which is not permitted under the Impoundment Control Act. The withholding was not a programmatic delay. Therefore, we conclude that the Office of Management and Budget violated the Impoundment Control Act.”
The watchdog, led by Obama-appointed Comptroller General Gene Dodaro, is an arm of Congress, and the executive branch is not bound by its conclusions. And the Office of Management and Budget quickly pushed back.
“We disagree with GAO's opinion,” OMB’s director communications Rachel Semmel told the Washington Examiner. “OMB uses its apportionment authority to ensure taxpayer dollars are properly spent consistent with the president's priorities and with the law.”
A senior administration official told the Washington Examiner that the congressional watchdog’s findings “are a pretty clear overreach as they attempt to insert themselves into the media’s controversy of the day.” The official claimed the GAO “has a history of the flip-flops.”
“In their rush to insert themselves in the impeachment narrative, maybe they’ll have to reverse their opinion again,” the official said.
“The Constitution grants the President no unilateral authority to withhold funds from obligation,” Armstrong wrote. “Instead, Congress has vested the President with strictly circumscribed authority to impound, or withhold, budget authority only in limited circumstances as expressly provided in the Impoundment Control Act.”
The determination comes the same day the impeachment trial against President Trump related to allegations of abuse of power in Ukraine is set to kick off in the Senate.
The two articles of impeachment passed by the House charge the president with soliciting Ukraine's help to interfere in the 2020 election and with obstructing the congressional investigation into the matter. They are buttressed by language alleging this is a pattern of behavior by the president.
The impeachment effort followed an anonymous whistleblower complaint about a July 25 phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. In the call, immediately after Zelensky expressed interest in purchasing anti-tank weaponry from the United States, Trump asked Zelensky "to do us a favor though,” to look into CrowdStrike and any possible Ukrainian election interference in 2016. Trump urged Zelensky later in the call to investigate “the other thing,” referring to allegations of corruption related to Joe and Hunter Biden, telling Zelensky to speak with his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani and Attorney General William Barr.
Last month, the Trump administration responded to a November GAO inquiry by insisting “the executive branch has a duty to taxpayers to ensure that appropriations are spent wisely, in accordance with statutory requirements.”
“The President of the United States is required to ‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.’ As part of carrying out this duty, the executive branch must ensure that Federal agencies spend appropriated funds in an efficient and effective manner, consistent with the purpose for which the funds were appropriated,” OMB general counsel Mark Paoletta wrote in a nine-page letter. “Pauses in obligational authority are necessary for proper stewardship of taxpayer funds.”
“OMB’s assertions have no basis in law,” the congressional watchdog countered on Thursday, saying the law “does not permit deferrals for policy reasons.”
The watchdog’s report said it is still investigating other potentially funds withheld last August, alleging the budget office held up some foreign military financing funds appropriated to the State Department for Ukraine. The watchdog said the budget office “may have delayed” $26.5 million when it held up some funds for six days and that another $141.5 million “may have been withheld while a congressional notification was considered by OMB.”


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-17--Trump impeachment team to include Ken Starr and Alan Dershowitz

President Trump 's impeachment team will include two former independent counsels , Ken Starr and Robert Ray , and constitutional law professor Alan Dershowitz .
The team will be led by White House counsel Pat Cipollone and will include Jay Sekulow , a personal attorney to the president .
Former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi will also join the president 's defense , according to one report , along with longtime Trump counsel Jane Raskin , adding two women to the team .
Dershowitz , 81 , shared a statement this morning , written in the third person , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ oral arguments at the Senate trial to address the constitutional arguments against impeachment and removal .
While Professor Dershowitz is non partisan when it comes to the constitution — he opposed the impeachment of President Bill Clinton and voted for Hillary Clinton — he believes the issues at stake go to the heart of our enduring Constitution .
He is participating in this impeachment trial to defend the integrity of the Constitution and to prevent the creation of a dangerous constitutional precedent . ''
Starr , 73 , who in December said impeachment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overthrow the president , led the investigation into President Bill Clinton , the second U.S. president to be impeached .
As independent counsel he also led the Whitewater investigation , and was succeeded in the role by Ray , 59 .
Ray and Dershowitz share checkered histories .
Ray was charged with stalking in 2006 , while Dershowitz is dogged by his longstanding ties to Jeffrey Epstein , the convicted sex offender for whom Dershowitz helped arrange a plea deal in 2008 .
`` Establishment Republicans '' stopped Dershowitz from testifying in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said in December , citing `` consternation '' over Epstein , who died in jail after an arrest on separate charges last year .
`` He would have carved them up . ''
“ I think that was a mistake , ” Gaetz said at the time .
“ I do n't think there is anyone we could put in that chair better than Alan Dershowitz .
There 's a decent chance Dershowitz would have been the professor of some of the Democrat witnesses . ''

President Trump's impeachment team will include two former independent counsels, Ken Starr and Robert Ray, and constitutional law professor Alan Dershowitz.
The team will be led by White House counsel Pat Cipollone and will include Jay Sekulow, a personal attorney to the president. Former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi will also join the president's defense, according to one report, along with longtime Trump counsel Jane Raskin, adding two women to the team.
Dershowitz, 81, shared a statement this morning written in the third person that read: "Professor Dershowitz will present oral arguments at the Senate trial to address the constitutional arguments against impeachment and removal. While Professor Dershowitz is non partisan when it comes to the Constitution — he opposed the impeachment of President Bill Clinton and voted for Hillary Clinton — he believes the issues at stake go to the heart of our enduring Constitution. He is participating in this impeachment trial to defend the integrity of the Constitution and to prevent the creation of a dangerous constitutional precedent."
Starr, 73, who in December said impeachment was "absolutely" an effort to overthrow the president, led the investigation into President Bill Clinton, the second U.S. president to be impeached. As independent counsel, he also led the Whitewater investigation and was succeeded in the role by Ray, 59.
Ray and Dershowitz share checkered histories. Ray was charged with stalking in 2006, while Dershowitz is dogged by his longstanding ties to Jeffrey Epstein, the convicted sex offender for whom Dershowitz helped arrange a plea deal in 2008.
"Establishment Republicans" stopped Dershowitz from testifying in the House, Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida said in December, citing "consternation" over Epstein, who died in jail after an arrest on separate charges last year. "He would have carved them up."
“I think that was a mistake,” Gaetz said at the time. “I don't think there is anyone we could put in that chair better than Alan Dershowitz. There's a decent chance Dershowitz would have been the professor of some of the Democrat witnesses."


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-17--WATCH LIVE: Trump welcomes 2019 college football champions to White House

President Trump will welcome the Louisiana State University Tigers , winners of the 2019 College Football Playoff National Championship , @ @ @ @ @ Friday at 11 a.m. EST .
The LSU Tigers defeated the Clemson University Tigers 42-25 @ @ @ @ @ that Trump and first lady Melania Trump attended .

President Trump will welcome the Louisiana State University Tigers, winners of the 2019 College Football Playoff National Championship, to the White House on Friday at 11 a.m. EST.
The LSU Tigers defeated the Clemson University Tigers 42-25 on Monday in a game that Trump and first lady Melania Trump attended.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-17--'Terrible debater and speaker': Trump slams 'Mini Mike Bloomberg'

President Trump trashed 2020 Democrat Mike Bloomberg , calling the septuagenarian a `` terrible speaker '' and mocking the billionaire 's height at 5 feet , 8 inches .
`` Mini Mike Bloomberg doesn ’ t get on the Democrat Debate Stage because he doesn ’ t want to - he is a terrible debater and speaker , '' tweeted Trump on Friday .
`` If he did , he would go down in the polls even more ( if that is possible ! )
. ''
The president further slammed Bloomberg in a follow-up tweet soon after , saying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ purposely wrong - A vanity project for him to get into the game .
Nobody in many years has done for the USA what I have done for the USA , including the greatest economy in history , rebuilding our military , biggest ever tax & regulation cuts , & 2nd A ! ''
Bloomberg , 77 , has spent wildly this primary season , pumping an estimated $ 200 million of his wealth into a campaign that has lacked enthusiasm from voters .
He opted to self-fund his campaign , forgoing any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ required by the Democratic National Committee to participate in the primary debates .
The former New York City mayor has vowed to donate $ 1 billion to whoever becomes the Democratic nominee and has dumped big money into swaying gun control legislation in battleground states such as Virginia .
He is currently polling 6.6 % in the latest national polling average from RealClearPolitics .

President Trump trashed 2020 Democrat Mike Bloomberg, calling the septuagenarian a "terrible speaker" and mocking the billionaire's height at 5 feet, 8 inches.
"Mini Mike Bloomberg doesn’t get on the Democrat Debate Stage because he doesn’t want to - he is a terrible debater and speaker," tweeted Trump on Friday. "If he did, he would go down in the polls even more (if that is possible!)."
Mini Mike Bloomberg doesn’t get on the Democrat Debate Stage because he doesn’t want to - he is a terrible debater and speaker. If he did, he would go down in the polls even more (if that is possible!). — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 17, 2020
The president further slammed Bloomberg in a follow-up tweet soon after, saying, "Mini Mike Bloomberg ads are purposely wrong - A vanity project for him to get into the game. Nobody in many years has done for the USA what I have done for the USA, including the greatest economy in history, rebuilding our military, biggest ever tax & regulation cuts, & 2nd A!"
Mini Mike Bloomberg ads are purposely wrong - A vanity project for him to get into the game. Nobody in many years has done for the USA what I have done for the USA, including the greatest economy in history, rebuilding our military, biggest ever tax & regulation cuts, & 2nd A! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 17, 2020
Bloomberg, 77, has spent wildly this primary season, pumping an estimated $200 million of his wealth into a campaign that has lacked enthusiasm from voters. He opted to self-fund his campaign, forgoing any opportunity to meet the grassroots donor threshold required by the Democratic National Committee to participate in the primary debates.
The former New York City mayor has vowed to donate $1 billion to whoever becomes the Democratic nominee and has dumped big money into swaying gun control legislation in battleground states such as Virginia. He is currently polling 6.6% in the latest national polling average from RealClearPolitics.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-17--'Be a good boy': Parnas claims ex-Trump attorney asked him to sacrifice himself for president

An indicted associate of Rudy Giuliani claimed an attorney visited him in jail and told him he needed to sacrifice himself to protect President Trump .
Lev Parnas , who has been charged with violating campaign finance laws , recounted the alleged conversation with former Trump lawyer John Dowd during an interview that aired Thursday with MSNBC ’ s Rachel Maddow .
“ I started seeing in the process of the bail stuff , the way things were going on , they were more concentrating on — I didn ’ t feel that they were trying to get me out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ John Dowd , instead of comforting me , trying to calm me down , telling me , ’ It ’ s going to be OK , don ’ t worry , ’ basically started talking to be like a drill sergeant , giving me orders , like , ‘ Be a good boy.
’ ” Parnas clarified that he was not quoting Dowd verbatim , but that ’ s how he interpreted Dowd ’ s message .
He said he fired Dowd during that heated conversation .
“ Were they telling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protect the president ?
” Maddow asked .
“ That ’ s what I felt , ” Parnas said .
“ They tried to keep me quiet.
” Parnas , who helped in Giuliani ’ s campaign to pressure Ukraine to investigate Trump ’ s political rival Joe Biden and his son Hunter , has made several bombshell allegations ahead of Trump ’ s impeachment trial , including his Wednesday claim that Trump “ knew exactly what was going on.
” He has also provided documents and messages to the House Intelligence Committee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which included a letter Giuliani sent to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that indicated Giuliani was acting at the direction of Trump .
Trump claimed Thursday he was unaware of the letter and doesn ’ t know Parnas .

An indicted associate of Rudy Giuliani claimed an attorney visited him in jail and told him he needed to sacrifice himself to protect President Trump.
Lev Parnas, who has been charged with violating campaign finance laws, recounted the alleged conversation with former Trump lawyer John Dowd during an interview that aired Thursday with MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow.
“I started seeing in the process of the bail stuff, the way things were going on, they were more concentrating on — I didn’t feel that they were trying to get me out,” Parnas, 47, said. “John Dowd, instead of comforting me, trying to calm me down, telling me, ’It’s going to be OK, don’t worry,’ basically started talking to be like a drill sergeant, giving me orders, like, ‘Be a good boy.’”
Parnas clarified that he was not quoting Dowd verbatim, but that’s how he interpreted Dowd’s message. He said he fired Dowd during that heated conversation.
“Were they telling you to sacrifice yourself in order to protect the president?” Maddow asked.
“That’s what I felt,” Parnas said. “They tried to keep me quiet.”
Parnas, who helped in Giuliani’s campaign to pressure Ukraine to investigate Trump’s political rival Joe Biden and his son Hunter, has made several bombshell allegations ahead of Trump’s impeachment trial, including his Wednesday claim that Trump “knew exactly what was going on.”
He has also provided documents and messages to the House Intelligence Committee with more details about the pressure campaign, which included a letter Giuliani sent to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that indicated Giuliani was acting at the direction of Trump.
Trump claimed Thursday he was unaware of the letter and doesn’t know Parnas.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-17--When campaigning on healthcare, vagueness is the smart political move

Elizabeth Warren 's recent drop in the polls is the latest reminder of a reality politicians contend with again and again : When it comes to campaign pledges , vagueness is often the best policy .
Warren did the opposite .
Having billed herself as the Democratic presidential candidate who `` [ has ] a plan for '' solving a vast array of problems for voters , she released a detailed , $ 26 trillion `` Medicare for all '' spending proposal along with a follow-up transition plan .
In contrast , rival Bernie Sanders , who authored the Medicare @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out how the government would take on an estimated $ 34 trillion in new spending over a decade .
Sanders 's poll numbers surged even though he recently suffered a heart attack , while Warren 's popularity took a nosedive .
The example illustrates how ambiguity can be essential to political success .
While journalists and rivals frequently press candidates to break down how they would fulfill their promises , including how they 'd fund their visions , voters do n't appear to punish candidates who are keen on their stances while light @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pay because then it 's easy to criticize the details and the price tag , '' said Darrell West , director of governance studies at the Brookings Institution .
`` What a lot of politicians have found is that vagueness works just fine . ''
Vagueness works for other areas of policymaking , but it can become particularly pronounced in healthcare , where proposed reforms tend to be expensive , have high stakes , and cause massive disruptions .
`` The more details candidates propose about what they are doing on healthcare , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in politically , and the less it tends to sell , '' said Liz Mair , president of Mair Strategies and a GOP communications strategist .
`` In general , people are very wary of change when it comes to something as personal and difficult as healthcare . ''
For Warren , releasing a spending plan made her vulnerable to attacks that she vastly underestimated the costs of `` Medicare for all . ''
Her transition plan , which would have first made a government plan optional , opened her up to accusations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for all '' purist .
Warren appeared to change her strategy after that .
In the final debate before the Iowa caucuses , Warren steered clear of details and even avoided using the phrase `` Medicare for all . ''
Republicans in Congress have fallen into similar traps .
They succeeded during several election cycles on the promise to `` repeal and replace '' Obamacare .
Still , once a replacement plan materialized , several GOP lawmakers reversed course after being met with an outcry from medical groups and voters .
In turn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2016 by attacking Republicans for trying to repeal Obamacare , particularly its rules obligating insurers to cover sick people .
They did not run on detailed proposals about how they would fix Obamacare or on sweeping changes to the healthcare system .
Peter Loge , director of the Project on Ethics in Political Communication at George Washington University , said that voters do n't necessarily care to hear all the details of a candidate 's policies but that they do view the ideas as a way of `` coloring in the lines '' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most of us , most of the time , policy details are proxies for other things : Does this person care about people like me ?
Does this person talk about values the way I talk about values ? ''
said Loge , who was a House senior adviser during the creation of Obamacare .
Practically speaking , politicians have more flexibility about how they fulfill their promises if they do n't lock themselves into a specific bill or detailed plan until later on , when an idea has the chance to become @ @ @ @ @ @ @ always fulfill the promises they make when they run for the Oval Office if they end up before an unwilling Congress .
Plus , sometimes public opinion changes or new information becomes available , leading a politician to change course , Michael Tomz and Robert Van Houweling , political science professors at Stanford University and the University of California , Berkeley , respectively , write in the synopsis of their forthcoming book Political Repositioning .
If public officials stick to specific promises rather than compromise because they worry they 'll otherwise be attacked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ At the same time , there is a balancing act involved .
Mair said that if politicians provide so few details that it 's impossible to know where they stand , then they risk opening them up to criticisms that `` this person is a fraud . ''
Over in the White House , President Trump is frequently vague on policy , particularly about how he wants to change the healthcare system .
Though his administration is siding with a lawsuit from GOP states to invalidate Obamacare , he still has n't released @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , saying only that it would be `` phenomenal '' and that Republicans would be `` the party of healthcare . ''
Despite outside pressure , Trump might be better off being tight-lipped about the issue .
Unless the Supreme Court decides to take up Obamacare , the fate of the law wo n't be decided until far after the 2020 elections , saving Trump and the GOP from the immediate pressure of presenting a fallback plan .
`` It would n't make any political sense to release a detailed plan at this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats are already on the defensive over 'Medicare for all . '
He will want the election to be contested on their plan , not his own . ''

Elizabeth Warren's recent drop in the polls is the latest reminder of a reality politicians contend with again and again: When it comes to campaign pledges, vagueness is often the best policy.
Warren did the opposite. Having billed herself as the Democratic presidential candidate who "[has] a plan for" solving a vast array of problems for voters, she released a detailed, $26 trillion "Medicare for all" spending proposal along with a follow-up transition plan.
In contrast, rival Bernie Sanders, who authored the Medicare for All Act, didn't spell out how the government would take on an estimated $34 trillion in new spending over a decade. Sanders's poll numbers surged even though he recently suffered a heart attack, while Warren's popularity took a nosedive.
The example illustrates how ambiguity can be essential to political success. While journalists and rivals frequently press candidates to break down how they would fulfill their promises, including how they'd fund their visions, voters don't appear to punish candidates who are keen on their stances while light on specifics.
"Specificity doesn't pay because then it's easy to criticize the details and the price tag," said Darrell West, director of governance studies at the Brookings Institution. "What a lot of politicians have found is that vagueness works just fine."
Vagueness works for other areas of policymaking, but it can become particularly pronounced in healthcare, where proposed reforms tend to be expensive, have high stakes, and cause massive disruptions.
"The more details candidates propose about what they are doing on healthcare, the more trouble they tend to get in politically, and the less it tends to sell," said Liz Mair, president of Mair Strategies and a GOP communications strategist. "In general, people are very wary of change when it comes to something as personal and difficult as healthcare."
For Warren, releasing a spending plan made her vulnerable to attacks that she vastly underestimated the costs of "Medicare for all." Her transition plan, which would have first made a government plan optional, opened her up to accusations that she was not a "Medicare for all" purist. Warren appeared to change her strategy after that. In the final debate before the Iowa caucuses, Warren steered clear of details and even avoided using the phrase "Medicare for all."
Republicans in Congress have fallen into similar traps. They succeeded during several election cycles on the promise to "repeal and replace" Obamacare. Still, once a replacement plan materialized, several GOP lawmakers reversed course after being met with an outcry from medical groups and voters.
In turn, Democrats successfully swept the House in 2016 by attacking Republicans for trying to repeal Obamacare, particularly its rules obligating insurers to cover sick people. They did not run on detailed proposals about how they would fix Obamacare or on sweeping changes to the healthcare system.
Peter Loge, director of the Project on Ethics in Political Communication at George Washington University, said that voters don't necessarily care to hear all the details of a candidate's policies but that they do view the ideas as a way of "coloring in the lines" about candidates' values.
"For most of us, most of the time, policy details are proxies for other things: Does this person care about people like me? Does this person talk about values the way I talk about values?" said Loge, who was a House senior adviser during the creation of Obamacare.
Practically speaking, politicians have more flexibility about how they fulfill their promises if they don't lock themselves into a specific bill or detailed plan until later on, when an idea has the chance to become law. Presidents in particular can't always fulfill the promises they make when they run for the Oval Office if they end up before an unwilling Congress.
Plus, sometimes public opinion changes or new information becomes available, leading a politician to change course, Michael Tomz and Robert Van Houweling, political science professors at Stanford University and the University of California, Berkeley, respectively, write in the synopsis of their forthcoming book Political Repositioning. If public officials stick to specific promises rather than compromise because they worry they'll otherwise be attacked, then they can become ineffective.
At the same time, there is a balancing act involved. Mair said that if politicians provide so few details that it's impossible to know where they stand, then they risk opening them up to criticisms that "this person is a fraud."
Over in the White House, President Trump is frequently vague on policy, particularly about how he wants to change the healthcare system. Though his administration is siding with a lawsuit from GOP states to invalidate Obamacare, he still hasn't released a backup plan for the healthcare law, saying only that it would be "phenomenal" and that Republicans would be "the party of healthcare."
Despite outside pressure, Trump might be better off being tight-lipped about the issue. Unless the Supreme Court decides to take up Obamacare, the fate of the law won't be decided until far after the 2020 elections, saving Trump and the GOP from the immediate pressure of presenting a fallback plan.
"It wouldn't make any political sense to release a detailed plan at this point," said West. "Democrats are already on the defensive over 'Medicare for all.' He will want the election to be contested on their plan, not his own."