theguardian--2020-02-28--Don't call Elizabeth Warren's campaign dead yet | Moira Donegan

You wouldn ’ t know it looking at the headlines , but the Democratic primary is not over .
After three contests , only one of which had a clear and definitive victor , the media has declared that the nominee will inevitably be the Vermont senator Bernie Sanders .
Emissaries from the party ’ s centrist wing have begun wetting themselves accordingly .
To hear some pundits tell it , both the primary contest and the general election have already been decided : it will definitely be Sanders , they tell us , and he will definitely lose .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Warren , the Massachusetts senator whose campaign has faltered in recent months .
After a third place finish in Iowa and a disappointing fourth place showing in New Hampshire , her candidacy has largely been presumed dead .
An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll of potential general election matchups didn ’ t even include her .
The television host Joe Scarborough , declaring that the party must unify to defeat Sanders , unhelpfully called on Warren to drop out of the race on Monday , along with the only other woman still running @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Is it time for Elizabeth Warren [ to drop out ] ?
” Scarborough asked on MSNBC .
“ Is it time for her to get out of the race ?
” But the day before Scarborough made his comments , a new CBS national poll showed that Warren had surged to second place .
Her debate performance in Nevada the week before had been incendiary , re-energizing her passionate base of support .
At the debate , she dismissed the centrist Klobuchar for her inadequate healthcare plan .
“ Its two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Post-It , ” she said .
And she took down the arrogant and ill-prepared Mike Bloomberg , grilling him on his use of NDAs to silence women who have sued him and his company for sexual harassment and discrimination .
The former mayor of New York stood blinking and sputtering next to her , dismayed and unable to answer her attacks .
The next poll released after the debate showed Bloomberg down 20 points .
The message of Warren ’ s Nevada debate performance was clear : what she did to Bloomberg , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ took note .
She raised more money than any other candidate after that debate .
After the New Hampshire primary , her campaign had set an ambitious goal of raising $ 7m before the Nevada contest ; they raised more than double that , much of it from first-time donors .
Female candidates are long warned against expressing anger , and for months on the campaign trail Warren had been rigorously positive , declining to take the bait offered her in earlier debates by Pete Buttigieg , the former mayor of South Bend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down news stories about a sexist remark allegedly made to her in private by Sanders .
Mostly , she responded to criticism in good faith , by doing her homework .
When her rivals complained that she had no proposition for how to pay for Medicare for All she rolled out an ambitious plan to do so in full , something that the other candidates running on Medicare for All were never asked to do .
When it was pointed out that she needed more support from black voters , she began building @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of her policy platform .
As a female candidate , she was subjected to double standards and double binds : she can ’ t be angry or emasculating to her male rivals , but she also can ’ t seem weak , or vacuously chipper .
Her response was largely to avoid conflict , and to keep her own side of the street clean .
The result is perhaps the most rigorously researched and socially accountable policy platform of any presidential candidate in the nation ’ s history .
For a while , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ summer and fall , and she built an organizing operation and a grassroots donor network rivaled only by Sanders , a white man who has effectively been running for president for five years .
But the media loves to write the story of a downfall , and reports of a sexist comment by Sanders proved disastrous for her campaign early this year .
Sanders supporters called her a snake ; other voters wondered whether the misogyny they were demonstrating might not doom a female candidate in a general election .
Her fundraising remains @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but now , her candidacy has all but been declared dead .
Perhaps this is why Warren now feels free to be frankly angry : not just because playing nice has stopped working , but because her treatment has been deeply unfair .
She is the most qualified , the most intelligent and she has run the best campaign , and yet she is being passed over in favor of candidates who are less honest , less prepared , less capable , less morally committed , or simply male .
That Warren has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ candidates is legitimately unfair , and anger is an appropriate response .
But the American people are angry , too .
They are angry at a billionaire class that has enriched themselves at working people ’ s expense ; they are angry at the cruelty of the Trump administration ; they are angry at their student debt and at the impunity of men who sexually abuse women .
And they are angry , too , at the way this election has panned out : they are angry that the media and the Democratic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ values ; they are angry that all the candidates who have survived until voting are white and that most are male ; they are angry that a racist , sexist and misogynist billionaire has been able to buy his way into the primary contest , arguing that the only way for a Democrat to beat Trump is to have enough money to essentially rig the election in his favor .
They are angry that they think this billionaire might be right .
Warren has always had a keen sense of injustice , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it .
She seems to have finally stopped playing the unwinnable game of trying to be a likable female candidate , and to have embraced something closer to her real self : a woman who is mightily and eloquently pissed at what is being done to working Americans , and with an exact and thoroughgoing understanding of what has to be done to make things right .
Win or lose , her anger and her passion have inspired millions , and no Democrat will win the White House without her guidance and her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anger – and women ’ s anger – at their own peril .

You wouldn’t know it looking at the headlines, but the Democratic primary is not over. After three contests, only one of which had a clear and definitive victor, the media has declared that the nominee will inevitably be the Vermont senator Bernie Sanders. Emissaries from the party’s centrist wing have begun wetting themselves accordingly. To hear some pundits tell it, both the primary contest and the general election have already been decided: it will definitely be Sanders, they tell us, and he will definitely lose.
Absent from these prognostications has been Elizabeth Warren, the Massachusetts senator whose campaign has faltered in recent months. After a third place finish in Iowa and a disappointing fourth place showing in New Hampshire, her candidacy has largely been presumed dead. An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll of potential general election matchups didn’t even include her. The television host Joe Scarborough, declaring that the party must unify to defeat Sanders, unhelpfully called on Warren to drop out of the race on Monday, along with the only other woman still running, the Minnesota senator Amy Klobuchar. “Is it time for Elizabeth Warren [to drop out]?” Scarborough asked on MSNBC. “Is it time for her to get out of the race?”
But the day before Scarborough made his comments, a new CBS national poll showed that Warren had surged to second place. Her debate performance in Nevada the week before had been incendiary, re-energizing her passionate base of support. At the debate, she dismissed the centrist Klobuchar for her inadequate healthcare plan. “Its two paragraphs. It’s like a Post-It,” she said. And she took down the arrogant and ill-prepared Mike Bloomberg, grilling him on his use of NDAs to silence women who have sued him and his company for sexual harassment and discrimination. The former mayor of New York stood blinking and sputtering next to her, dismayed and unable to answer her attacks. The next poll released after the debate showed Bloomberg down 20 points.
The message of Warren’s Nevada debate performance was clear: what she did to Bloomberg, she can do to Trump. Voters took note. She raised more money than any other candidate after that debate. After the New Hampshire primary, her campaign had set an ambitious goal of raising $7m before the Nevada contest; they raised more than double that, much of it from first-time donors.
Female candidates are long warned against expressing anger, and for months on the campaign trail Warren had been rigorously positive, declining to take the bait offered her in earlier debates by Pete Buttigieg, the former mayor of South Bend, Indiana, and attempting to tamp down news stories about a sexist remark allegedly made to her in private by Sanders. Mostly, she responded to criticism in good faith, by doing her homework. When her rivals complained that she had no proposition for how to pay for Medicare for All she rolled out an ambitious plan to do so in full, something that the other candidates running on Medicare for All were never asked to do. When it was pointed out that she needed more support from black voters, she began building a racial justice element into every plank of her policy platform. As a female candidate, she was subjected to double standards and double binds: she can’t be angry or emasculating to her male rivals, but she also can’t seem weak, or vacuously chipper. Her response was largely to avoid conflict, and to keep her own side of the street clean. The result is perhaps the most rigorously researched and socially accountable policy platform of any presidential candidate in the nation’s history.
For a while, it worked: Warren surged in the summer and fall, and she built an organizing operation and a grassroots donor network rivaled only by Sanders, a white man who has effectively been running for president for five years. But the media loves to write the story of a downfall, and reports of a sexist comment by Sanders proved disastrous for her campaign early this year. Sanders supporters called her a snake; other voters wondered whether the misogyny they were demonstrating might not doom a female candidate in a general election. Her fundraising remains robust, as does her polling, but now, her candidacy has all but been declared dead.
Win or lose, her anger and her passion have inspired millions, and no Democrat will win without her guidance and her help
Perhaps this is why Warren now feels free to be frankly angry: not just because playing nice has stopped working, but because her treatment has been deeply unfair. She is the most qualified, the most intelligent and she has run the best campaign, and yet she is being passed over in favor of candidates who are less honest, less prepared, less capable, less morally committed, or simply male. That Warren has been dismissed in favor of these lesser candidates is legitimately unfair, and anger is an appropriate response.
But the American people are angry, too. They are angry at a billionaire class that has enriched themselves at working people’s expense; they are angry at the cruelty of the Trump administration; they are angry at their student debt and at the impunity of men who sexually abuse women. And they are angry, too, at the way this election has panned out: they are angry that the media and the Democratic leadership seem to be antagonistic toward progressive values; they are angry that all the candidates who have survived until voting are white and that most are male; they are angry that a racist, sexist and misogynist billionaire has been able to buy his way into the primary contest, arguing that the only way for a Democrat to beat Trump is to have enough money to essentially rig the election in his favor. They are angry that they think this billionaire might be right.
Warren has always had a keen sense of injustice, and a righteous anger at those who perpetuate it. She seems to have finally stopped playing the unwinnable game of trying to be a likable female candidate, and to have embraced something closer to her real self: a woman who is mightily and eloquently pissed at what is being done to working Americans, and with an exact and thoroughgoing understanding of what has to be done to make things right. Win or lose, her anger and her passion have inspired millions, and no Democrat will win the White House without her guidance and her help. Democrats ignore Warren’s anger – and women’s anger – at their own peril.


theguardian--2020-02-27--If Bernie Sanders thinks Cuba is worth defending, he should talk to gay dissidents | Aaron Hicklin

I remember visiting Havana in 2015 and browsing the book stalls around the Plaza de Armas .
From a distance they looked inviting – like those you see along the Seine in Paris .
But up close it became apparent that we were being duped .
The books were standard issue hagiographies of Che Guevara and Fidel Castro , alongside the occasional biography of “ Papa ” Hemingway .
Like going into a bar with a painted bookcase on the wall , it was an illusion of knowledge , a facade of enlightenment .
Books are agents of freedom ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The book stalls in Havana made a mockery of that .
Among the many Cuban writers notably absent at those state-controlled book stalls was Renaldo Arenas , the gay dissident who catalogued the persecution of gay men under Castro ’ s regime , including his own arrest and solitary confinement in a one-meter-high cell .
Arenas eventually escaped to the United States , part of the famous Mariel boatlift .
Julio Capó Jr , an associate professor of history at the University of Massachusetts , has described it as , in part @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ravaged by Aids , Arenas killed himself in 1990 , shortly after completing his luminous memoir Before Night Falls .
The book , coincidentally reissued this week in an elegant Penguin Classics edition , is an extraordinary testament to defiance and dispossession .
Arenas was a wonderfully fluid writer , and Before Night Falls is brazenly sexy , filled with ribald anecdotes of his many sexual encounters .
“ We would bring our notebooks and write poems or chapters of our books , and would have sex with armies of young men , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and literary went hand in hand.
” That kind of thinking and behavior has always been at odds with leftwing revolutionaries .
It is too hedonistic , too indulgent .
As a student at college in the early 1990s I recall being told that gay rights were a bourgeois affectation .
The coming revolution took precedence over identity politics .
Gay men , in particular , were seen as silly dilettantes unable to apply themselves to the serious business of changing the world .
There was a sense that we were possessed by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could only contribute witty bon mots where what was needed were “ men ” at the barricades .
Like the heroic poses of Guevara or Castro on those book jackets in Plaza de Armas , the narrative of revolution was profoundly chauvinistic .
When Bernie Sanders doubled down on his old “ not everything was bad ” defense of Fidel Castro last weekend , citing things like Castro ’ s literacy programs , I thought of my fellow students from the early 90s .
Although society has transformed since I left college , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the past .
Cuba ’ s record on LGBTQ rights has improved in the last 20 years , but Castro was singularly ruthless in his persecution of gay men , lesbians and transgender people .
Many of Arena ’ s friends were either jailed , forced to flee the country , or killed themselves .
The rest curried favor with the regime by turning informants .
To single out the country ’ s successes feels dangerously like a form of whitewashing .
Just try to imagine a candidate extolling any aspect of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would argue that a literacy program is itself a bad thing , to ignore the indoctrination that went hand-in-hand with that program , the censorship of writers that fell afoul of the state , the blacklisting – and far , far worse – of queer artists like Arenas or Virgilio Piñera , seems more than tin-eared .
It seems complicit in normalizing injustice .
Literacy is only half useful if all you are allowed to read is communist propaganda .
Just last year Reporters without Borders classified Cuba as 168 out of 180 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Freedom .
Of course , no thinking person , Sanders included , believes that Cuban literacy was worth the human cost , but it ’ s also likely that Cuba ’ s history of persecuting LGBTQ people wasn ’ t on his radar in 1980 , when he first praised Castro ’ s record .
To be fair , it wasn ’ t much on anyone ’ s radar .
Most Americans were deeply homophobic themselves at the time .
Dissidents like Arenas didn ’ t get asylum in the US because they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seen as anticommunist .
Sanders is no homophobe .
As mayor of Burlington , he marched in the city ’ s gay pride in 1983 , and was among the lone senators to vote against Bill Clinton ’ s misguided Defense of Marriage Act that defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman .
But there ’ s a sense in which his ideals , as in this case , can trip him up .
Consistency is , of course , his greatest asset , but it can also be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then he might benefit from admitting that sometimes you get it wrong .
• None Aaron Hicklin was Editor in Chief of Out magazine from 2006-2018 .

I remember visiting Havana in 2015 and browsing the book stalls around the Plaza de Armas. From a distance they looked inviting – like those you see along the Seine in Paris. But up close it became apparent that we were being duped. The books were standard issue hagiographies of Che Guevara and Fidel Castro, alongside the occasional biography of “Papa” Hemingway. Like going into a bar with a painted bookcase on the wall, it was an illusion of knowledge, a facade of enlightenment. Books are agents of freedom; they teach us to think and question. The book stalls in Havana made a mockery of that.
Among the many Cuban writers notably absent at those state-controlled book stalls was Renaldo Arenas, the gay dissident who catalogued the persecution of gay men under Castro’s regime, including his own arrest and solitary confinement in a one-meter-high cell. Arenas eventually escaped to the United States, part of the famous Mariel boatlift. Julio Capó Jr, an associate professor of history at the University of Massachusetts, has described it as, in part, a “homosexual purge”.
Ravaged by Aids, Arenas killed himself in 1990, shortly after completing his luminous memoir Before Night Falls. The book, coincidentally reissued this week in an elegant Penguin Classics edition, is an extraordinary testament to defiance and dispossession. Arenas was a wonderfully fluid writer, and Before Night Falls is brazenly sexy, filled with ribald anecdotes of his many sexual encounters. “We would bring our notebooks and write poems or chapters of our books, and would have sex with armies of young men,” he wrote. “The erotic and literary went hand in hand.”
That kind of thinking and behavior has always been at odds with leftwing revolutionaries. It is too hedonistic, too indulgent. As a student at college in the early 1990s I recall being told that gay rights were a bourgeois affectation. The coming revolution took precedence over identity politics. Gay men, in particular, were seen as silly dilettantes unable to apply themselves to the serious business of changing the world. There was a sense that we were possessed by the spirit of Oscar Wilde, and could only contribute witty bon mots where what was needed were “men” at the barricades. Like the heroic poses of Guevara or Castro on those book jackets in Plaza de Armas, the narrative of revolution was profoundly chauvinistic.
When Bernie Sanders doubled down on his old “not everything was bad” defense of Fidel Castro last weekend, citing things like Castro’s literacy programs, I thought of my fellow students from the early 90s. Although society has transformed since I left college, Sanders’ take on Cuba seemed marooned in the past. Cuba’s record on LGBTQ rights has improved in the last 20 years, but Castro was singularly ruthless in his persecution of gay men, lesbians and transgender people. Many of Arena’s friends were either jailed, forced to flee the country, or killed themselves. The rest curried favor with the regime by turning informants. To single out the country’s successes feels dangerously like a form of whitewashing. Just try to imagine a candidate extolling any aspect of Spain under Franco.
Although no one would argue that a literacy program is itself a bad thing, to ignore the indoctrination that went hand-in-hand with that program, the censorship of writers that fell afoul of the state, the blacklisting – and far, far worse – of queer artists like Arenas or Virgilio Piñera, seems more than tin-eared. It seems complicit in normalizing injustice. Literacy is only half useful if all you are allowed to read is communist propaganda. Just last year Reporters without Borders classified Cuba as 168 out of 180 countries in the world ranking of Press Freedom.
Of course, no thinking person, Sanders included, believes that Cuban literacy was worth the human cost, but it’s also likely that Cuba’s history of persecuting LGBTQ people wasn’t on his radar in 1980, when he first praised Castro’s record. To be fair, it wasn’t much on anyone’s radar. Most Americans were deeply homophobic themselves at the time. Dissidents like Arenas didn’t get asylum in the US because they were gay, but because they were seen as anticommunist.
Sanders is no homophobe. As mayor of Burlington, he marched in the city’s gay pride in 1983, and was among the lone senators to vote against Bill Clinton’s misguided Defense of Marriage Act that defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman. But there’s a sense in which his ideals, as in this case, can trip him up. Consistency is, of course, his greatest asset, but it can also be his greatest liability. Every now and then he might benefit from admitting that sometimes you get it wrong.


theguardian--2020-02-26--Who won the Democratic debate? Our panelists' verdict | Jessa Crispin, Lloyd Green, Benjamin Dixon,

Who won the Democratic debate? Our panelists' verdict | Jessa Crispin, Lloyd Green, Benjamin Dixon, Malaika Jabali and Art Cullen

‘ Warren dominated the mic and Sanders held his ground ’ Oh yeah , man .
Let ’ s get into it .
Let ’ s dive into the issues that other debate moderators have not yet dared to approach so far .
Let ’ s ask questions such as : “ Would you , as president , support a ban on trans fats and large sodas ?
” Did everyone else get this push notification from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention warning that there was going to be a “ disruption to everyday life ” with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t know if that was just Russia meddling in the election or whatever , but I am wondering why it took 90 minutes for the moderators to bring the virus up , and why their question was framed around whether the United States should completely freak out and shut down all the borders .
Not , should we do something about the fact that the uninsured will often avoid doctors when they are ill because they are afraid of unpredictable medical bills , or how our rural hospitals are shutting down , or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against Iran , where a coronavirus outbreak is worsening .
Look , I know Mercury is retrograde , but there is absolutely no excuse for this shameful performance .
As for the candidates , for someone who doesn ’ t support the use of filibuster , Elizabeth Warren sure did dominate the microphone on Tuesday night .
Pete Buttigieg tried to make everything about him by talking over everyone , Michael Bloomberg was absolutely adorable trying to explain the history of hostilities in the Middle East , and Tom Steyer somehow felt emboldened @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part of his wealth on private prisons and mines .
Amy Klobuchar was also there .
The mood was chaotic , the audience paid a lot of money to behave like they were attending a Jerry Springer show , most of the candidates ’ hair was weirdly terrible , and the only person to hold their ground was Bernie Sanders .
He stayed on message , he refused to take easy bait , and he didn ’ t do what I would have done , which is when asked about his “ controversial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Cuba taught people how to read he did not yell “ would all of you people grow up ” and storm off the stage .
This is the last time we ’ ll see probably about half of these candidates , after Super Tuesday annihilates their campaigns .
Too bad .
Sure gon na miss Pete and Amy fighting over who is the most midwestern candidate .
• None Jessa Crispin is the host of the Public Intellectual podcast .
She is a Guardian US columnist ‘ Donald Trump was the winner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Democrats held a prime-time steel cage match .
Seven presidential aspirants repeatedly traded verbal blows .
After two-plus hours , Donald Trump emerged victorious – and he wasn ’ t even in the ring .
Even worse , many of the combatants appeared removed from reality .
Coronavirus , a reeling stock market , and low unemployment now shape our landscape .
Yet the potential pandemic drew no mention until Michael Bloomberg , New York City ’ s former mayor , raised the threat the virus poses .
Medicare-for-All continued to receive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Americans take a dim view of government being the be-all and end-all of individual healthcare .
By the numbers , US adults reject socialism by better than two-to-one .
Jeremy Corbyn ’ s fate is a cautionary tale .
As the 2018 midterms remind us , control of the US House of Representatives and US Senate hinges on wooing and winning persuadable voters .
Yet , Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren posture as if they can impose their will upon a blank slate .
As for the rest of the field , Pete @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Joe Biden looked and sounded engaged .
His sense of humor may yet get him to the finish line first in South Carolina ’ s upcoming Saturday primary .
• None Lloyd Green was opposition research counsel to George HW Bush ’ s 1988 campaign and served in the Department of Justice from 1990 to 1992 Judging purely by the reaction of the crowd watching the Democratic primary debate live in South Carolina , you would think Bloomberg had a magnificent comeback – almost as if he had miraculously developed a personality @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Warren quickly found herself on the receiving end of an angry crowd as she excoriated Bloomberg for his and his company ’ s past that is littered with sexual harassment accusations .
It ’ s extraordinary that Warren ’ s attempt to champion the women who have been silenced by his non-disclosure agreements was met with furious booing .
Bernie Sanders found himself on the receiving end of raucous booing , too , when he challenged Mayor Bloomberg throughout the night , including when he was criticizing Bloomberg ’ s relationship with China @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before rumors about Bloomberg purchasing the audience started spreading around .
So much so that one of Bloomberg ’ s top staffers had to inform Josh Lederman of NBC news that the Bloomberg campaign “ did not pay people to attend the debate and cheer for Bloomberg ” .
Perhaps not .
Still , a few Google searches later we quickly discovered that the price of tickets to the South Carolina debate ranged between $ 1,750 and $ 3,200 .
And while this does not mean these individuals were paid by Bloomberg to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the audience members were most likely in a financial position to oppose candidates like Warren and Sanders , who would likely raise their taxes .
So it may be the case that Bloomberg had no need to purchase support in the South Carolina debate when the system established by the Democratic party created the conditions under which only the wealthiest people in South Carolina could attend and , subsequently , cheer on the oligarch who would ensure their taxes would not go up .
• None Benjamin Dixon is the host of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hard to identify anything but losers of this debate .
As expected , Bernie Sanders – who has won the popular vote in each of the primaries and caucuses thus far – was attacked at the onset with red scare-level fear mongering about basic social policies from both the moderators and most of the candidates .
Virtually all the other candidates , except perhaps Elizabeth Warren , who exuded an air of calm , acted as if their chances would be blasted into oblivion unless they threw the kitchen sink at every answer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tests the candidates ’ appeal to a significant black electorate in South Carolina , this came across as virtue signaling instead of meaningful engagement with the issues at hand .
Candidates used Bloomberg ’ s stop-and-frisk policy , for instance , to discuss virtually every racial inequality under the sun and plug various race-centric plans they are running on .
Will black voters buy it ?
We ’ ll soon find out .
What a wretched debate , two hours of shouting and interrupting and pandering from which it was hard to discern @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Bernie Sanders .
He remains the frontrunner because nobody else made a point .
The others had their chance to bash him as a Fidel Castro sympathizer , but didn ’ t manage to pull it off .
None took him down over healthcare , since it appears to be the issue that has driven him to the front .
Elizabeth Warren would have ground Michael Bloomberg into dust over sexism ( and failure to release his tax returns ) if the moderators had allowed her .
But the moderators had no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mark just before South Carolina and Super Tuesday .
So none of them really made a mark .
Biden did himself no harm but did not deliver the sort of performance that could propel him into Super Tuesday and stunt Sanders ’ s rise .
Bloomberg looked bad enough that it should give African Americans serious doubts about whether to abandon Biden for him .
Sanders won by not making any big mistakes and by offering a reasonable defense of his comments about Latin America , and Biden held his own on friendly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Art Cullen is editor of The Storm Lake Times in northwest Iowa , where he won the Pulitzer Prize for editorial writing .
He is a Guardian US columnist and author of the book Storm Lake : Change , Resilience , and Hope in America ’ s Heartland , just out in paperback

Jessa Crispin, Lloyd Green, Benjamin Dixon, Art Cullen and Malaika Jabali

‘Warren dominated the mic and Sanders held his ground’
Oh yeah, man. Let’s get into it. Let’s dive into the issues that other debate moderators have not yet dared to approach so far. Let’s ask questions such as: “Would you, as president, support a ban on trans fats and large sodas?”
Did everyone else get this push notification from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention warning that there was going to be a “disruption to everyday life” with the looming coronavirus pandemic? I don’t know if that was just Russia meddling in the election or whatever, but I am wondering why it took 90 minutes for the moderators to bring the virus up, and why their question was framed around whether the United States should completely freak out and shut down all the borders. Not, should we do something about the fact that the uninsured will often avoid doctors when they are ill because they are afraid of unpredictable medical bills, or how our rural hospitals are shutting down, or how we have sanctions on medical supplies against Iran, where a coronavirus outbreak is worsening. Look, I know Mercury is retrograde, but there is absolutely no excuse for this shameful performance.
As for the candidates, for someone who doesn’t support the use of filibuster, Elizabeth Warren sure did dominate the microphone on Tuesday night. Pete Buttigieg tried to make everything about him by talking over everyone, Michael Bloomberg was absolutely adorable trying to explain the history of hostilities in the Middle East, and Tom Steyer somehow felt emboldened to talk about economic justice despite building part of his wealth on private prisons and mines. Amy Klobuchar was also there.
The mood was chaotic, the audience paid a lot of money to behave like they were attending a Jerry Springer show, most of the candidates’ hair was weirdly terrible, and the only person to hold their ground was Bernie Sanders. He stayed on message, he refused to take easy bait, and he didn’t do what I would have done, which is when asked about his “controversial” remarks about thinking it was good that Cuba taught people how to read he did not yell “would all of you people grow up” and storm off the stage. This is the last time we’ll see probably about half of these candidates, after Super Tuesday annihilates their campaigns. Too bad. Sure gonna miss Pete and Amy fighting over who is the most midwestern candidate.
Jessa Crispin is the host of the Public Intellectual podcast. She is a Guardian US columnist
‘Donald Trump was the winner yet again’
On Tuesday night, the Democrats held a prime-time steel cage match. Seven presidential aspirants repeatedly traded verbal blows. After two-plus hours, Donald Trump emerged victorious – and he wasn’t even in the ring.
Even worse, many of the combatants appeared removed from reality. Coronavirus, a reeling stock market, and low unemployment now shape our landscape. Yet the potential pandemic drew no mention until Michael Bloomberg, New York City’s former mayor, raised the threat the virus poses.
Medicare-for-All continued to receive outsized attention despite the fact that most Americans take a dim view of government being the be-all and end-all of individual healthcare. By the numbers, US adults reject socialism by better than two-to-one. Jeremy Corbyn’s fate is a cautionary tale.
As the 2018 midterms remind us, control of the US House of Representatives and US Senate hinges on wooing and winning persuadable voters. Yet, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren posture as if they can impose their will upon a blank slate.
As for the rest of the field, Pete Buttigieg delivered a crisp performance. Meanwhile, Joe Biden looked and sounded engaged. His sense of humor may yet get him to the finish line first in South Carolina’s upcoming Saturday primary.
Lloyd Green was opposition research counsel to George HW Bush’s 1988 campaign and served in the Department of Justice from 1990 to 1992
‘The well-heeled audience booed Sanders and Warren and loved Bloomberg’
Judging purely by the reaction of the crowd watching the Democratic primary debate live in South Carolina, you would think Bloomberg had a magnificent comeback – almost as if he had miraculously developed a personality that Americans could connect with.
Elizabeth Warren quickly found herself on the receiving end of an angry crowd as she excoriated Bloomberg for his and his company’s past that is littered with sexual harassment accusations. It’s extraordinary that Warren’s attempt to champion the women who have been silenced by his non-disclosure agreements was met with furious booing.
Bernie Sanders found himself on the receiving end of raucous booing, too, when he challenged Mayor Bloomberg throughout the night, including when he was criticizing Bloomberg’s relationship with China.
It didn’t take long before rumors about Bloomberg purchasing the audience started spreading around. So much so that one of Bloomberg’s top staffers had to inform Josh Lederman of NBC news that the Bloomberg campaign “did not pay people to attend the debate and cheer for Bloomberg”.
Perhaps not. Still, a few Google searches later we quickly discovered that the price of tickets to the South Carolina debate ranged between $1,750 and $3,200. And while this does not mean these individuals were paid by Bloomberg to cheer for him, it does mean that the audience members were most likely in a financial position to oppose candidates like Warren and Sanders, who would likely raise their taxes.
So it may be the case that Bloomberg had no need to purchase support in the South Carolina debate when the system established by the Democratic party created the conditions under which only the wealthiest people in South Carolina could attend and, subsequently, cheer on the oligarch who would ensure their taxes would not go up.
Benjamin Dixon is the host of the Benjamin Dixon Show
‘Attempts to woo black voters sounded like virtue signalling’
It’s hard to identify anything but losers of this debate. As expected, Bernie Sanders – who has won the popular vote in each of the primaries and caucuses thus far – was attacked at the onset with red scare-level fear mongering about basic social policies from both the moderators and most of the candidates.
Virtually all the other candidates, except perhaps Elizabeth Warren, who exuded an air of calm, acted as if their chances would be blasted into oblivion unless they threw the kitchen sink at every answer.
Ahead of the first primary that tests the candidates’ appeal to a significant black electorate in South Carolina, this came across as virtue signaling instead of meaningful engagement with the issues at hand. Candidates used Bloomberg’s stop-and-frisk policy, for instance, to discuss virtually every racial inequality under the sun and plug various race-centric plans they are running on. Will black voters buy it? We’ll soon find out.
Malaika Jabali is a public policy attorney, writer and activist
‘Sanders won an awful debate’
What a wretched debate, two hours of shouting and interrupting and pandering from which it was hard to discern much sense. All that noise worked for Bernie Sanders. He remains the frontrunner because nobody else made a point. The others had their chance to bash him as a Fidel Castro sympathizer, but didn’t manage to pull it off.
None took him down over healthcare, since it appears to be the issue that has driven him to the front. Elizabeth Warren would have ground Michael Bloomberg into dust over sexism (and failure to release his tax returns) if the moderators had allowed her. But the moderators had no control over candidates desperate to make a mark just before South Carolina and Super Tuesday. So none of them really made a mark.
Biden did himself no harm but did not deliver the sort of performance that could propel him into Super Tuesday and stunt Sanders’s rise. Bloomberg looked bad enough that it should give African Americans serious doubts about whether to abandon Biden for him. Sanders won by not making any big mistakes and by offering a reasonable defense of his comments about Latin America, and Biden held his own on friendly ground in South Carolina.


theguardian--2020-02-27--Alabama blocked a man from voting because he owed $4

In 2018 , with the midterm elections approaching , Alfonzo Tucker Jr was particularly eager to vote .
The mayor of Tuscaloosa , Alabama , Tucker ’ s hometown , was running for governor , and the year before he had canvassed for Doug Jones , a Democrat running in a closely watched US Senate race .
But Tucker wasn ’ t able to cast a ballot – state officials refused to even let him register .
It wasn ’ t until weeks later that he learned why he had been deprived of the right to vote .
The US @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and fair representation , but it is also the country where minorities are frequently disenfranchised for political gain .
Among the most vulnerable are millions of Americans , disproportionately African Americans , like Tucker , who have been entangled in America ’ s racially biased criminal justice system , and lose civil liberties like voting as a result .
The barriers facing Americans like Tucker , advocates say , are modern adaptations of poll taxes and other devices which were designed to keep people from the voting booths during the Jim Crow era @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to curb the civil rights of African Americans .
Alabama is one of 30 states that requires people with felony convictions to pay back the financial obligations associated with their sentence before they can vote again .
Tucker ’ s case is particularly glaring .
He lives less than a hundred miles north-west of Selma , the birthplace of the voting rights movement in America .
This week , civil rights leaders are commemorating the 55th anniversary of the Selma to Montgomery marches led by Martin Luther King Jr and civil rights activists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Americans from voting .
Many were brutally beaten in Selma during the protests .
The specific policy that had ensnared Tucker dates back to the turn of the 20th century when Alabama leaders , openly seeking to preserve white supremacy , stripped anyone convicted of a crime of “ moral turpitude ” , among other offenses , of the right to vote .
“ What is it that we want to do ?
Why , it is within the limits imposed by the federal constitution , to establish white supremacy in this state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the convention , said at the time .
“ If we would have white supremacy , we must establish it by law – not by force or fraud , ” he added .
Tucker said the legacy of that discrimination affects the lives of people like him today .
“ I read about the challenges during the 60s , 50s , that black people had to overcome just to vote , ” Tucker said .
“ It ’ s the same thing going on in 2020.
” Tucker , who sometimes goes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He has lived in Tuscaloosa his whole life , now in a modest house 10 minutes outside of downtown .
He says he would have left the city where he grew up , but never had the money .
Sitting in his living room , surrounded by pictures of family , Tucker said things are much different now for him than they were in the early 1990s , when he was much more “ aggressive ” .
In the late 1980s , he got into a fight at a club with a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up being convicted of third-degree assault , a misdemeanor .
A few years later , he fought with a police officer and was convicted of second-degree assault , a felony .
He wound up going to prison for two years and serving several more on probation .
After he got out of prison , Tucker rebuilt his life , working at steel factories and in maintenance , and chipping away at the approximately $ 1,600 that the court had ordered him to pay .
He had two more children , which made him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He joined the Nation of Islam .
Before his conviction , Tucker had never voted .
But in prison , Tucker had read about Medgar Evers , who fought for equal citizenship and was assassinated in Mississippi in 1963 .
When he got out , he started regularly voting in elections .
He and his wife Narkita would bring his young children into the voting booth with them , wanting to teach them about the importance of a single vote , and the long struggle African Americans had faced to gain access to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tucker got a letter from his state officials saying he could no longer vote .
He was angry and upset , but didn ’ t act immediately – the letter didn ’ t tell him anything about how to get his voting rights back .
Then came another letter , a few years later , this time addressed to his son , Alfonzo Tucker III , who had just turned 18 , and claiming that he too was ineligible to vote .
The younger Tucker , however , didn ’ t have a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , possibly because he shared his father ’ s name .
Tucker got his son registered to vote , but the episode lit a fire in him .
As the 2018 midterm elections approached , he went to an event where activists were helping people with felony convictions learn about their voting rights , and called up the Alabama board of pardons and paroles to talk about his case .
Two weeks later , the board sent him a letter saying he still owed $ 135.10 in connection with his conviction .
Tucker @ @ @ @ @ @ @ income , borrowed money from his sister to pay off the debt .
But just when he thought it was settled , a courthouse clerk told him he owed money for another decades-old criminal offense – an additional $ 5,535.47 which she said he had to pay back to gain back his vote .
Faced with the staggering amount , Tucker contacted Blair Bowie , an attorney at Campaign Legal Center , a Washington DC voting rights group .
It took Bowie 15 minutes to realize Alabama officials made a huge mistake .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ only have to pay off the money originally assessed as part of their criminal conviction to regain their voting rights .
By 2018 , Tucker had paid back most of what he owed .
But , unbeknown to him , the state had added an additional debt of $ 131.10 , a fee that was irrelevant to whether he could vote because it was not part of his original conviction .
And the $ 5,535.47 debt was from a misdemeanor offense , Bowie saw , which does not cause someone to lose their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tucker actually owed in order to vote was $ 4 .
“ What is voter suppression if not officials wrongly telling you that you can ’ t vote ?
” Bowie said .
“ That ’ s been a classic way of disenfranchising people , particularly in Alabama.
” After he paid the $ 135.10 , Tucker drove two hours to Montgomery , the state capitol , with a friend to hand-deliver the receipt to a staffer at the board of pardons and paroles .
But weeks later he had not heard anything @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and Tucker couldn ’ t vote .
The parole board declined to comment on Tucker ’ s case .
Bowie eventually referred Tucker to John Paul Taylor , an organizer with the Southern Poverty Law Center , who followed up with the board and got Tucker registered to vote in 2019 .
Bowie and Taylor said Tucker shouldn ’ t have had to rely on experts to get his voting rights back .
“ Here ’ s a very clear example of a person who has jumped through every single hoop that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re still being denied because of something that they really don ’ t even know about , ” Taylor said .
Meanwhile , Tucker and Bill Foster , the friend he went to Montgomery with , helped start a group in Tuscaloosa to assist people with felonies get their voting rights back .
Tucker ’ s story helps people understand that they can in fact vote once they complete their sentence , said Larry Tucker , his cousin .
And Alfonzo said he ’ s met other people who have wrongly been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ So far , Tucker estimates that they ’ ve been able to help about 10 people – people like Terrance Gray , 49 , who learned he was eligible to vote last year .
Gray believed he had been ineligible to vote since he was released from prison in 1996 .
“ He told me that it will make a difference if more people go and vote , ” Gray said of Tucker .
“ He ’ s always been on me about that.
” Tucker plans to cast his first ballot since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he likes Bernie Sanders ) .
He thinks the state should give him back the extra $ 131.10 that he paid .

In 2018, with the midterm elections approaching, Alfonzo Tucker Jr was particularly eager to vote. The mayor of Tuscaloosa, Alabama, Tucker’s hometown, was running for governor, and the year before he had canvassed for Doug Jones, a Democrat running in a closely watched US Senate race.
But Tucker wasn’t able to cast a ballot – state officials refused to even let him register. It wasn’t until weeks later that he learned why he had been deprived of the right to vote.
He owed the state $4.
The US is founded on the promise of democracy and fair representation, but it is also the country where minorities are frequently disenfranchised for political gain. Among the most vulnerable are millions of Americans, disproportionately African Americans, like Tucker, who have been entangled in America’s racially biased criminal justice system, and lose civil liberties like voting as a result.
The barriers facing Americans like Tucker, advocates say, are modern adaptations of poll taxes and other devices which were designed to keep people from the voting booths during the Jim Crow era – when white politicians used the law to curb the civil rights of African Americans. Alabama is one of 30 states that requires people with felony convictions to pay back the financial obligations associated with their sentence before they can vote again.
Tucker’s case is particularly glaring. He lives less than a hundred miles north-west of Selma, the birthplace of the voting rights movement in America. This week, civil rights leaders are commemorating the 55th anniversary of the Selma to Montgomery marches led by Martin Luther King Jr and civil rights activists as they protested against laws preventing African Americans from voting. Many were brutally beaten in Selma during the protests.
A letter hangs on Alfonzo Tucker’s refrigerator stating that his right to vote has been revoked. Photograph: Johnathon Kelso/The Guardian
The specific policy that had ensnared Tucker dates back to the turn of the 20th century when Alabama leaders, openly seeking to preserve white supremacy, stripped anyone convicted of a crime of “moral turpitude”, among other offenses, of the right to vote.
“What is it that we want to do? Why, it is within the limits imposed by the federal constitution, to establish white supremacy in this state,” John Knox, the chair of the convention, said at the time. “If we would have white supremacy, we must establish it by law – not by force or fraud,” he added.
Tucker said the legacy of that discrimination affects the lives of people like him today.
“I read about the challenges during the 60s, 50s, that black people had to overcome just to vote,” Tucker said. “It’s the same thing going on in 2020.”
Tucker, who sometimes goes by Zo, speaks softly and deliberately. He has lived in Tuscaloosa his whole life, now in a modest house 10 minutes outside of downtown. He says he would have left the city where he grew up, but never had the money.
Sitting in his living room, surrounded by pictures of family, Tucker said things are much different now for him than they were in the early 1990s, when he was much more “aggressive”. In the late 1980s, he got into a fight at a club with a University of Alabama football player and wound up being convicted of third-degree assault, a misdemeanor. A few years later, he fought with a police officer and was convicted of second-degree assault, a felony. He wound up going to prison for two years and serving several more on probation.
After he got out of prison, Tucker rebuilt his life, working at steel factories and in maintenance, and chipping away at the approximately $1,600 that the court had ordered him to pay. He had two more children, which made him want to stay out of trouble. He joined the Nation of Islam.
Before his conviction, Tucker had never voted. But in prison, Tucker had read about Medgar Evers, who fought for equal citizenship and was assassinated in Mississippi in 1963. When he got out, he started regularly voting in elections. He and his wife Narkita would bring his young children into the voting booth with them, wanting to teach them about the importance of a single vote, and the long struggle African Americans had faced to gain access to the ballot.
But in 2013, Tucker got a letter from his state officials saying he could no longer vote.
A voting sign near a main street in Tuscaloosa. Photograph: Johnathon Kelso/The Guardian
He was angry and upset, but didn’t act immediately – the letter didn’t tell him anything about how to get his voting rights back. Then came another letter, a few years later, this time addressed to his son, Alfonzo Tucker III, who had just turned 18, and claiming that he too was ineligible to vote. The younger Tucker, however, didn’t have a criminal record. It was a mistake, possibly because he shared his father’s name.
Tucker got his son registered to vote, but the episode lit a fire in him. As the 2018 midterm elections approached, he went to an event where activists were helping people with felony convictions learn about their voting rights, and called up the Alabama board of pardons and paroles to talk about his case. Two weeks later, the board sent him a letter saying he still owed $135.10 in connection with his conviction.
Tucker, who relies in part on disability income, borrowed money from his sister to pay off the debt. But just when he thought it was settled, a courthouse clerk told him he owed money for another decades-old criminal offense – an additional $5,535.47 which she said he had to pay back to gain back his vote.
Faced with the staggering amount, Tucker contacted Blair Bowie, an attorney at Campaign Legal Center, a Washington DC voting rights group. It took Bowie 15 minutes to realize Alabama officials made a huge mistake.
Under Alabama law, people with felonies only have to pay off the money originally assessed as part of their criminal conviction to regain their voting rights. By 2018, Tucker had paid back most of what he owed. But, unbeknown to him, the state had added an additional debt of $131.10, a fee that was irrelevant to whether he could vote because it was not part of his original conviction. And the $5,535.47 debt was from a misdemeanor offense, Bowie saw, which does not cause someone to lose their voting rights in Alabama.
All that Tucker actually owed in order to vote was $4.
“What is voter suppression if not officials wrongly telling you that you can’t vote?” Bowie said. “That’s been a classic way of disenfranchising people, particularly in Alabama.”
After he paid the $135.10, Tucker drove two hours to Montgomery, the state capitol, with a friend to hand-deliver the receipt to a staffer at the board of pardons and paroles.
Alfonzo Tucker holds his receipt for payment showing he paid the amount owed to restore his voting rights. Photograph: Johnathon Kelso/The Guardian
But weeks later he had not heard anything back. The elections came and went, and Tucker couldn’t vote. The parole board declined to comment on Tucker’s case.
Bowie eventually referred Tucker to John Paul Taylor, an organizer with the Southern Poverty Law Center, who followed up with the board and got Tucker registered to vote in 2019.
Bowie and Taylor said Tucker shouldn’t have had to rely on experts to get his voting rights back.
“Here’s a very clear example of a person who has jumped through every single hoop that you’ve given them and they’re still being denied because of something that they really don’t even know about,” Taylor said.
Meanwhile, Tucker and Bill Foster, the friend he went to Montgomery with, helped start a group in Tuscaloosa to assist people with felonies get their voting rights back. Tucker’s story helps people understand that they can in fact vote once they complete their sentence, said Larry Tucker, his cousin. And Alfonzo said he’s met other people who have wrongly been told they owe the state money.
So far, Tucker estimates that they’ve been able to help about 10 people – people like Terrance Gray, 49, who learned he was eligible to vote last year. Gray believed he had been ineligible to vote since he was released from prison in 1996.
“He told me that it will make a difference if more people go and vote,” Gray said of Tucker. “He’s always been on me about that.”
Tucker plans to cast his first ballot since the ordeal this year (he says he likes Bernie Sanders). He thinks the state should give him back the extra $131.10 that he paid.


theguardian--2020-02-26--Baby-faced assassin: the 29-year old at the heart of Trump's 'deep state' purge

Johnny McEntee may never surpass the fame he garnered in 2011 as a college football quarterback starring in a viral trick shot video of him throwing footballs great distances into trash cans that racked up more than 7m views .
Now , as the recently named White House director for presidential personnel , McEntee , 29 , has been put in charge by Donald Trump of canning federal employees – not footballs – suspected of harboring secret anti-Trump sentiments .
McEntee summoned cabinet liaisons to the White House last week to tell them to root out Trump critics in their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
McEntee has also put a freeze on political appointments and told colleagues that the White House would be selecting cabinet deputies from now on , according to the New York Times .
The sudden conferral on the young McEntee , a former close personal aide to the president and reported favorite of the first lady , of such broad power over thousands of civil service careers is highly unusual in the history of US government , according to public administration experts .
But as Trump winds up his re-election machinery , McEntee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dozens of such moves taking place across the executive branch to install Trump loyalists , purge Trump critics and protect the president ’ s political wellbeing , whatever the cost .
The gist of Trump ’ s project , critics say , is to hone the federal government to the one purpose he believes it ought to serve : helping him .
It is also a process supercharged by Trump ’ s acquittal at the end of his impeachment trial .
“ The failure to remove the president on impeachment , and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the president ’ s whims , clearly have emboldened him and inclined him to remove any hint of dissent , clearly in the White House and more widely in the executive branch , ” said Jonathan Stevenson , a senior fellow at the International Institute for Strategic Studies and former National Security Council official under Barack Obama .
The outflow of civil servants has coincided with an inflow of trusted former Trump deputies , some of whom had previously left the White House in the turbulence of Trump ’ s first three years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the chief of staff , John Kelly , over a problem with McEntee ’ s security clearances reportedly relating to online gambling .
Now McEntee is back and Kelly is long gone .
The former communications director Hope Hicks , 31 , who left the White House in 2018 saying she had tired of Washington , is now returning as an aide to Trump ’ s son-in-law Jared Kushner , 39 .
Immigration zealot Stephen Miller , 34 , is reprising his starring campaign-season role as the choreographer of Trump ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an occasion for widespread alarm among former intelligence officials , Trump last week installed an avid loyalist , Richard Grenell , as acting director of national intelligence , despite Grenell having no experience as an intelligence officer or in managing a large bureaucracy .
Grenell , 53 , was moved into the job after Trump grew enraged that Congress had been briefed by intelligence officials that Russia was interfering in the 2020 election on Trump ’ s behalf .
Intelligence sources later said the briefing had exaggerated the bias of Moscow for Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ smart with a tremendous skillset ” but unqualified for the intelligence job , said Mark Groombridge , who worked with Grenell at the US Mission to the United Nations and on Log Cabin Republican issues .
Having “ a Trump toady and a sycophant ” as director of national intelligence raised national security concerns , said Groombridge .
“ The issue is : is there anyone in the administration who will tell truth to power ?
” said Groombridge .
“ Who will have the integrity to say , ‘ Mr President , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ This is something you need to know ?
’ And that ’ s the primary concern I think people have with Ric , and I think it ’ s legitimate.
” In the role of intelligence director , which oversees 17 spy agencies , Grenell has quickly advanced the purge-and-replace project .
He expunged the second-ranking official at ODNI , Andrew Hallman , a career intelligence officer , and hired Kashyap Patel , 37 , a former White House aide who helped run a series of attacks on the intelligence community over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Patel is tasked with “ cleaning house ” of Trump critics “ from top to bottom ” , CBS News reported .
Grenell did not reply to a request for comment .
Trump ’ s conspiratorial fixation on the notion that he is under siege from a faceless “ deep state ” and his insistence on personal loyalty to him across government both appear to have grown stronger since the first days of his presidency , when he told the then FBI director James Comey over dinner , “ I need loyalty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ groups have encouraged the evolution , dishing Trump lists of supposed enemies and alternative lists of potential loyalist replacements , many familiar from Fox News , Axios reported .
In the judgment of the conservative media voices Trump listens to most , even the coronavirus is a plot against the president .
It ’ s unclear whether there are enough Trump loyalists to replace everyone on the lists of his enemies .
Officials purged from executive branch posts since the impeachment acquittal on 5 February include the impeachment witnesses Gordon Sondland and Alexander @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from his national security assignment ; US attorney Jessie Liu , who opposed prosecution of former FBI official Andrew McCabe , a Trump bugbear ; Pentagon official Elaine McCusker , who resisted a White House directive last year to suspend aid to Ukraine ; John Rood , a Pentagon official who certified that Ukraine had met anti-corruption benchmarks required for aid to flow ; deputy national security adviser Victoria Coates ; and Joseph Maguire , Grenell ’ s predecessor .
“ There might be a few people who slip through the cracks , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Trump ’ s purge .
“ You can ’ t read everybody ’ s minds , and there are people I think probably at the National Security Council – I ’ m sure there are a number of people who question Trump ’ s leadership and even his suitability for the job , and yet they stay for their own reasons .
“ A complete and airtight purge probably is impossible .
But substantial headway can be made , and apparently is being made.
” Trump ’ s defenders in the media @ @ @ @ @ @ @ executive branch employees as he pleases , and they defend his attacks on the traditional separation between politics and career service by weaving ominous tales of plots against the president from within .
Trump ’ s response has been to dig deeper into his list of loyalists and send Johnny up against the Deep State .
It ’ s a game critics warn that everyone could lose .

Johnny McEntee may never surpass the fame he garnered in 2011 as a college football quarterback starring in a viral trick shot video of him throwing footballs great distances into trash cans that racked up more than 7m views.
Now, as the recently named White House director for presidential personnel, McEntee, 29, has been put in charge by Donald Trump of canning federal employees – not footballs – suspected of harboring secret anti-Trump sentiments.
McEntee summoned cabinet liaisons to the White House last week to tell them to root out Trump critics in their ranks, according to reporting by Axios. McEntee has also put a freeze on political appointments and told colleagues that the White House would be selecting cabinet deputies from now on, according to the New York Times.
The sudden conferral on the young McEntee, a former close personal aide to the president and reported favorite of the first lady, of such broad power over thousands of civil service careers is highly unusual in the history of US government, according to public administration experts.
But as Trump winds up his re-election machinery, McEntee’s elevation is only one among dozens of such moves taking place across the executive branch to install Trump loyalists, purge Trump critics and protect the president’s political wellbeing, whatever the cost.
The gist of Trump’s project, critics say, is to hone the federal government to the one purpose he believes it ought to serve: helping him. It is also a process supercharged by Trump’s acquittal at the end of his impeachment trial.
“The failure to remove the president on impeachment, and the Senate’s malleability and acquiescence to the president’s whims, clearly have emboldened him and inclined him to remove any hint of dissent, clearly in the White House and more widely in the executive branch,” said Jonathan Stevenson, a senior fellow at the International Institute for Strategic Studies and former National Security Council official under Barack Obama.
The outflow of civil servants has coincided with an inflow of trusted former Trump deputies, some of whom had previously left the White House in the turbulence of Trump’s first three years.
McEntee was forced out in 2018 by the chief of staff, John Kelly, over a problem with McEntee’s security clearances reportedly relating to online gambling. Now McEntee is back and Kelly is long gone.
The former communications director Hope Hicks, 31, who left the White House in 2018 saying she had tired of Washington, is now returning as an aide to Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, 39. Immigration zealot Stephen Miller, 34, is reprising his starring campaign-season role as the choreographer of Trump’s every move on the issue.
In an occasion for widespread alarm among former intelligence officials, Trump last week installed an avid loyalist, Richard Grenell, as acting director of national intelligence, despite Grenell having no experience as an intelligence officer or in managing a large bureaucracy.
Grenell, 53, was moved into the job after Trump grew enraged that Congress had been briefed by intelligence officials that Russia was interfering in the 2020 election on Trump’s behalf. Intelligence sources later said the briefing had exaggerated the bias of Moscow for Trump specifically.
Grenell is “savvy and smart with a tremendous skillset” but unqualified for the intelligence job, said Mark Groombridge, who worked with Grenell at the US Mission to the United Nations and on Log Cabin Republican issues.
Having “a Trump toady and a sycophant” as director of national intelligence raised national security concerns, said Groombridge.
“The issue is: is there anyone in the administration who will tell truth to power?” said Groombridge. “Who will have the integrity to say, ‘Mr President, you’re wrong,’ or ‘This is something you need to know?’ And that’s the primary concern I think people have with Ric, and I think it’s legitimate.”
In the role of intelligence director, which oversees 17 spy agencies, Grenell has quickly advanced the purge-and-replace project. He expunged the second-ranking official at ODNI, Andrew Hallman, a career intelligence officer, and hired Kashyap Patel, 37, a former White House aide who helped run a series of attacks on the intelligence community over its investigation of the 2016 Trump campaign.
Patel is tasked with “cleaning house” of Trump critics “from top to bottom”, CBS News reported. Grenell did not reply to a request for comment.
Richard Grenell, Donald Trump’s new acting director of national intelligence, has quickly advanced the purge-and-replace project. Photograph: Alexander Becher/EPA
Trump’s conspiratorial fixation on the notion that he is under siege from a faceless “deep state” and his insistence on personal loyalty to him across government both appear to have grown stronger since the first days of his presidency, when he told the then FBI director James Comey over dinner, “I need loyalty. I expect loyalty.”
External hard-right groups have encouraged the evolution, dishing Trump lists of supposed enemies and alternative lists of potential loyalist replacements, many familiar from Fox News, Axios reported. In the judgment of the conservative media voices Trump listens to most, even the coronavirus is a plot against the president.
It’s unclear whether there are enough Trump loyalists to replace everyone on the lists of his enemies. Officials purged from executive branch posts since the impeachment acquittal on 5 February include the impeachment witnesses Gordon Sondland and Alexander Vindman, whose brother was also purged from his national security assignment; US attorney Jessie Liu, who opposed prosecution of former FBI official Andrew McCabe, a Trump bugbear; Pentagon official Elaine McCusker, who resisted a White House directive last year to suspend aid to Ukraine; John Rood, a Pentagon official who certified that Ukraine had met anti-corruption benchmarks required for aid to flow; deputy national security adviser Victoria Coates; and Joseph Maguire, Grenell’s predecessor.
“There might be a few people who slip through the cracks, but not many,” said Stevenson of Trump’s purge. “You can’t read everybody’s minds, and there are people I think probably at the National Security Council – I’m sure there are a number of people who question Trump’s leadership and even his suitability for the job, and yet they stay for their own reasons.
“A complete and airtight purge probably is impossible. But substantial headway can be made, and apparently is being made.”
Trump’s defenders in the media and government point out he may choose executive branch employees as he pleases, and they defend his attacks on the traditional separation between politics and career service by weaving ominous tales of plots against the president from within.
Trump’s response has been to dig deeper into his list of loyalists and send Johnny up against the Deep State. It’s a game critics warn that everyone could lose.


theguardian--2020-02-25--How Bloomberg is wooing black voters despite his stop-and-frisk policy

The former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg has made a huge push in recent weeks to attract black voters to his ground-breaking campaign to win the Democratic nomination for president .
As he has poured more than half a billion dollars so far into creating the richest nomination campaign in US history , he has ploughed huge efforts into trying to win over one of the most vital parts of the Democratic electorate : black voters .
In recent days Bloomberg has rolled out a bevy of endorsements , including from Congressional Black Caucus members who have previously criticized some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the legislature in South Carolina , which is the vital next state to vote .
He has used paid media to target African American communities and has participated in events in parts of the country that are key for Democratic African American turnout – like the Alabama Democratic Conference or Detroit ’ s Greenwood Initiative .
Bloomberg ’ s campaign has opened field offices in states where African Americans make up significant portions of the Democratic vote – Georgia , Alabama and North Carolina .
But all that huge effort may have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pile-on by his rivals in the primary debate last week that focused on his controversial “ stop-and-frisk ” policing strategy as mayor that unfairly targeted blacks and Hispanics .
“ [ It was ] devastating .
I don ’ t think there ’ s anyone with the history of Michael Bloomberg that people can actually say he ’ s better for black folk than any other candidate , ” said Bakari Sellers .
“ I think beyond Pete [ Buttigieg ] , Amy [ Klobuchar ] , he ’ s probably last to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are looking for somebody who can beat Donald Trump and last night he failed that test royally.
” For Bloomberg wooing black Americans might represent the single biggest challenge to his astonishing campaign that has already spent over $ 500m to create a national bid for the White House by hiring thousands of staffers and flooding the airwaves and social media with expensive political ads .
It has bought him a place on the debate stage , forced his way into polls and leapfrogged many poorer rivals to become a top-tier candidate .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ both skepticism and curiosity among the black community about Bloomberg and his campaign , said Alicia Garza , the co-founder of the Black to the Future Action Fund .
“ I do think that there ’ s a lot of skepticism of what he will produce for black communities , ” Garza said .
“ Certainly there are people and black leaders who have gotten behind him .
What we know about black voters is that we ’ re practical .
If we ’ re looking at a framework of can Bloomberg beat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out there who say , ‘ yeah , we can.
’ But I think when we start to look at his policies and his record in relationship to black communities it ’ s a pretty mixed bag.
” Garza added : “ There are certainly concerns about his record with stop-and-frisk .
There are certainly concerns about some comments that he ’ s made about African Americans and Latinos and who will hire us ?
He ’ s made a lot of comments about women and trans people and I do think that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Democrats of all backgrounds this cycle really want a candidate who can beat Trump .
That remains one of the main priorities of Democratic voters .
“ The interesting thing about this election – it has bordered on one concept : can you beat Trump ?
Can you beat Trump ?
Nobody is talking about in terms of race .
Nobody ’ s talking about it in terms of gender .
The big question is ‘ can you beat Trump ?
’ ” said veteran Democratic strategist Minyon Moore .
Bloomberg , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ styled his presidential bid around the argument that he ’ s best equipped to beat President Trump .
And in the months since Bloomberg has entered the Democratic primary , his approval numbers among African Americans have grown .
“ There is this real sentiment within the black community that is both broadly felt and intense – the need to get rid of ” Trump , said Adrienne Shropshire , the executive director of the African American organizing group BlackPac .
“ People who are without a doubt looking for someone who can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is going to cheat … and they believe that Bloomberg can counter that , that Bloomberg has more money than [ Trump ] does .
There is this sort of two New Yorkers thing that Bloomberg , because he ’ s a New Yorker , he knows how to fight him , that he ’ ll use whatever tactics he needs to win.
” In the last two Quinnipiac University national polls Bloomberg ’ s approval ratings among African American voters have jumped from 7 % in January to 22 % in February @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for support among black voters .
Biden still polls competitively among black voters in South Carolina , a state with a large Democratic African American community that candidates covet .
But there are also black voters who remain skeptical of Bloomberg .
Sellers said Bloomberg is effectively trying to buy his way into the election despite tone-deaf policies .
“ I call what he ’ s doing an attempt to economically persuade individuals to support his campaign , ” Sellers said .
Still , Bloomberg ’ s viability has seeped into the American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the podcast Lovett or Leave It , comedian Larry Wilmore went on a riff about the motivations of Africans Americans who support Bloomberg .
“ I think black people want a winner more than anyone else .
That ’ s why the whole Bloomberg thing ’ s confusing .
White people who want black people to react to racism exactly how they react to racism – it ’ s like ‘ how can you vote Bloomberg ?
’ Because that motherfucker ’ s got some bling and can win , ” Wilmore @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before becoming more serious .
“ That ’ s how they ’ re reacting to it ” The black vote is regarded as crucial for any successful Democratic presidential candidate .
In 1976 the then Georgia governor , Jimmy Carter , won the Democratic nomination with strong support among black voters in the south .
Four years later when Senator Ted Kennedy ran , the coalition Carter had built among the African American community helped him stave off Kennedy ’ s challenge and win his party ’ s nomination .
In 1988 support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ win a swath of key southern states and propelled him to be the runner-up in the Democratic primary , behind Governor Michael Dukakis .
More recently , Bill Clinton and Barack Obama catapulted over rivals to their party ’ s nomination and eventually the presidency thanks to support from black voters .
Strong black support for Bloomberg in particular is also key to his strategy .
He has skipped the first four early primary states to concentrate on the set of “ Super Tuesday ” contests in March .
A few of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ essential blocs of African American voters .
Even before Bloomberg qualified for the debate , he had been doing practice sessions with his team .
Some of the attacks were obvious : he would have to explain his stop-and-frisk policies as mayor .
He would have to explain calling the signature healthcare law of the first black president “ a disgrace ” .
He would also have explain past comments he made saying getting rid of a discriminatory housing law was the reason for the 2008 mortgage crisis .
All of those topics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last week and Bloomberg ’ s opponents landed blows on the mayor .
“ Democrats are not going to win if we have a nominee who has a history of hiding his tax returns , of harassing women , and of supporting racist policies like redlining and stop-and-frisk , ” Warren said at one point during the debate , referring to Bloomberg .
“ Look , I ’ ll support whoever the Democratic nominee is .
But understand this : Democrats take a huge risk if we just substitute one arrogant billionaire for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ South Carolina really serves as the first indicator of major black support within the Democratic party .
Arisha Hatch the vice-president and chief of campaigns for the progressive not-for-profit Color of Change said support hasn ’ t coalesced around one candidate .
“ I think black voters , for the most part , are very much undecided in this primary election , ” said Hatch .
Hatch added : “ The next couple of weeks are going to be very telling .
”

The former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg has made a huge push in recent weeks to attract black voters to his ground-breaking campaign to win the Democratic nomination for president.
As he has poured more than half a billion dollars so far into creating the richest nomination campaign in US history, he has ploughed huge efforts into trying to win over one of the most vital parts of the Democratic electorate: black voters.
In recent days Bloomberg has rolled out a bevy of endorsements, including from Congressional Black Caucus members who have previously criticized some of his policies and prominent African Americans in the legislature in South Carolina, which is the vital next state to vote.
He has used paid media to target African American communities and has participated in events in parts of the country that are key for Democratic African American turnout – like the Alabama Democratic Conference or Detroit’s Greenwood Initiative.
Bloomberg’s campaign has opened field offices in states where African Americans make up significant portions of the Democratic vote – Georgia, Alabama and North Carolina.
But all that huge effort may have come into jeopardy with a nationally televised pile-on by his rivals in the primary debate last week that focused on his controversial “stop-and-frisk” policing strategy as mayor that unfairly targeted blacks and Hispanics.
“[It was] devastating. I don’t think there’s anyone with the history of Michael Bloomberg that people can actually say he’s better for black folk than any other candidate,” said Bakari Sellers. “I think beyond Pete [Buttigieg], Amy [Klobuchar], he’s probably last to that specific issue. But black folk are looking for somebody who can beat Donald Trump and last night he failed that test royally.”
For Bloomberg wooing black Americans might represent the single biggest challenge to his astonishing campaign that has already spent over $500m to create a national bid for the White House by hiring thousands of staffers and flooding the airwaves and social media with expensive political ads.
People pray before a speech by Mike Bloomberg at the Buffalo Soldiers National Museum in Houston, Texas. ‘I do think that there’s a lot of skepticism of what he will produce for black communities,’ said Alicia Garza, co-founder of Black to the Future Action Fund. Photograph: Callaghan O’Hare/Getty Images
It has bought him a place on the debate stage, forced his way into polls and leapfrogged many poorer rivals to become a top-tier candidate. But even with all that there remains both skepticism and curiosity among the black community about Bloomberg and his campaign, said Alicia Garza, the co-founder of the Black to the Future Action Fund.
“I do think that there’s a lot of skepticism of what he will produce for black communities,” Garza said. “Certainly there are people and black leaders who have gotten behind him. What we know about black voters is that we’re practical. If we’re looking at a framework of can Bloomberg beat Trump I think there are black voters out there who say, ‘yeah, we can.’ But I think when we start to look at his policies and his record in relationship to black communities it’s a pretty mixed bag.”
Garza added: “There are certainly concerns about his record with stop-and-frisk. There are certainly concerns about some comments that he’s made about African Americans and Latinos and who will hire us? He’s made a lot of comments about women and trans people and I do think that that concerns voters, especially black voters.”
Democrats of all backgrounds this cycle really want a candidate who can beat Trump. That remains one of the main priorities of Democratic voters.
“The interesting thing about this election – it has bordered on one concept: can you beat Trump? Can you beat Trump? Nobody is talking about in terms of race. Nobody’s talking about it in terms of gender. The big question is ‘can you beat Trump?’” said veteran Democratic strategist Minyon Moore.
In the last two Quinnipiac University national polls Bloomberg’s approval ratings among African American voters have jumped from 7% in January to 22% in February
Bloomberg, like former vice-president Joe Biden, has styled his presidential bid around the argument that he’s best equipped to beat President Trump. And in the months since Bloomberg has entered the Democratic primary, his approval numbers among African Americans have grown.
“There is this real sentiment within the black community that is both broadly felt and intense – the need to get rid of” Trump, said Adrienne Shropshire, the executive director of the African American organizing group BlackPac. “People who are without a doubt looking for someone who can do that. People believe that Trump is going to cheat … and they believe that Bloomberg can counter that, that Bloomberg has more money than [Trump] does. There is this sort of two New Yorkers thing that Bloomberg, because he’s a New Yorker, he knows how to fight him, that he’ll use whatever tactics he needs to win.”
In the last two Quinnipiac University national polls Bloomberg’s approval ratings among African American voters have jumped from 7% in January to 22% in February.
But Bloomberg is hardly a lock for support among black voters. Biden still polls competitively among black voters in South Carolina, a state with a large Democratic African American community that candidates covet.
But there are also black voters who remain skeptical of Bloomberg. Sellers said Bloomberg is effectively trying to buy his way into the election despite tone-deaf policies.
“I call what he’s doing an attempt to economically persuade individuals to support his campaign,” Sellers said.
‘The interesting thing about this election – it has bordered on one concept: can you beat Trump? Can you beat Trump?’ Photograph: Callaghan O’Hare/Getty Images
Still, Bloomberg’s viability has seeped into the American political debate. During a recent episode of the podcast Lovett or Leave It, comedian Larry Wilmore went on a riff about the motivations of Africans Americans who support Bloomberg.
“I think black people want a winner more than anyone else. That’s why the whole Bloomberg thing’s confusing. White people who want black people to react to racism exactly how they react to racism – it’s like ‘how can you vote Bloomberg?’ Because that motherfucker’s got some bling and can win,” Wilmore said in the podcast episode, chuckling before becoming more serious. “That’s how they’re reacting to it”
The black vote is regarded as crucial for any successful Democratic presidential candidate.
In 1976 the then Georgia governor, Jimmy Carter, won the Democratic nomination with strong support among black voters in the south. Four years later when Senator Ted Kennedy ran, the coalition Carter had built among the African American community helped him stave off Kennedy’s challenge and win his party’s nomination. In 1988 support by southern African Americans helped Jesse Jackson win a swath of key southern states and propelled him to be the runner-up in the Democratic primary, behind Governor Michael Dukakis.
More recently, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama catapulted over rivals to their party’s nomination and eventually the presidency thanks to support from black voters.
Strong black support for Bloomberg in particular is also key to his strategy. He has skipped the first four early primary states to concentrate on the set of “Super Tuesday” contests in March. A few of the southern Super Tuesday states have large and essential blocs of African American voters.
Even before Bloomberg qualified for the debate, he had been doing practice sessions with his team. Some of the attacks were obvious: he would have to explain his stop-and-frisk policies as mayor. He would have to explain calling the signature healthcare law of the first black president “a disgrace”. He would also have explain past comments he made saying getting rid of a discriminatory housing law was the reason for the 2008 mortgage crisis.
All of those topics came up in the debate in Nevada last week and Bloomberg’s opponents landed blows on the mayor.
“Democrats are not going to win if we have a nominee who has a history of hiding his tax returns, of harassing women, and of supporting racist policies like redlining and stop-and-frisk,” Warren said at one point during the debate, referring to Bloomberg. “Look, I’ll support whoever the Democratic nominee is. But understand this: Democrats take a huge risk if we just substitute one arrogant billionaire for another.”
With all that though, South Carolina really serves as the first indicator of major black support within the Democratic party. Arisha Hatch the vice-president and chief of campaigns for the progressive not-for-profit Color of Change said support hasn’t coalesced around one candidate.
“I think black voters, for the most part, are very much undecided in this primary election,” said Hatch.
Hatch added: “The next couple of weeks are going to be very telling.”


theguardian--2020-02-26--Sanders and Bloomberg come under attack in Democratic debate – video

Democratic presidential candidates focus on Bernie Sanders in bid to slow frontrunner ’ s momentum before Super Tuesday as Elizabeth @ @ @ @ @ on Mike Bloomberg over his history with women 's rights • Sanders and Bloomberg come @ @ @ @ @ debate – live

Democratic presidential candidates focus on Bernie Sanders in bid to slow frontrunner’s momentum before Super Tuesday as Elizabeth Warren kept up her attack on Mike Bloomberg over his history with women's rights
Sanders and Bloomberg come under attack in chaotic Democratic debate – live