powerlineblog--2020-01-17--Thoughts from the ammo line

Thoughts from the ammo line

Ammo Grrrll calls out DEAD-NAMING !
THE WORST THING THERE EVER WAS !
She writes : If you live long enough , you will have the chance to hear astonishing things .
Often , twice .
Ideas cycle around like fashions .
What was passe becomes “ retro ” and comes around again a couple of decades later .
Hemlines go up and down .
I remember when the fashion industry went to mid-calf and maxi dresses to FORCE fashionistas to purchase new clothes .
When hemlines just kept going up and up to loincloth levels , a whole lot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just kept cutting off and hemming up their old skirts and dresses rather than buying new garments !
Or , even ROLLING them up if you were really lazy or went to Catholic Girls ’ School .
Old becomes new again .
Only the coolest people can keep up .
For example , I have learned fairly recently that “ dead-naming ” means calling a trans person by the name he or she was born with and used for decades !
Dead-naming is a GRIEVOUS sin which will get you Twittered to death @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to jail in Canada or in the U.S. if a Democrat ever gets in again , God forbid !
So though we cheered him and honored him and put him on Wheaties boxes long ago , Bruce Jenner and all his accomplishments may never again be mentioned .
Bruce Jenner is dead .
Long live Caitlyn .
I try to call people what they want to be called .
In real life ( a place a lot of leftists rarely visit… ) , my name is Susan .
My Daddy and a very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ called me Susie , and that ’ s fine .
In the last eight years , I have been called and will answer to “ Ammo Grrrll ” or even “ AG.
” Both my husband and Mama always called me Susan and that is what I was mostly called in high school .
Nowadays , few married women take their husbands ’ names .
It makes addressing holiday cards a pain , but on the other hand , it sure makes finding your old female friends a lot easier .
So though @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last name for 52 years , I would not pitch a hysterical fit if someone called me by my “ dead ” or “ maiden ” name !
Because I am not insane .
Anybody know what the deal is with gay men and the formality they seem to prefer in names ?
Maybe your experience is different , but every gay man I have ever known – and remember , I lived in San Francisco just off Castro Street for several years – wanted to be called Robert , or Michael , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or Jimmy .
A notable exception would be Pete Buttigieg .
Though , I suppose if you are a gay man and Butt is already part of your name , adding Peter to the mix would be a bridge too far .
Here ’ s the thing , see .
I ’ m sure there are still a few hardcore homophobes ( a very stupid , inaccurate word , but what passes for “ someone who is put off by or hostile to gay people ” ) .
But there are also very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a friend , a cousin , a sibling , a workmate who is , in fact , gay .
And often it was observed that some of those people had stable , loving , long-term partners .
Meanwhile , your heterosexual nephew ’ s marriage blew up before your check cleared for the set of sixteen silver shrimp forks you were forced to purchase from their Gift Registry because all the cheap stuff had already been taken .
You don ’ t have to be some kind of bigot to have had or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ long-term effects to civilization of changing the millennia-old definition of “ marriage.
” Things that have been absolutely foundational to society should not be abandoned lightly .
At the same time , you can also be a fair-minded person who thinks that Daniel and Kevin next door , who have been together for 28 years , deserve some kind of recognition of that relationship and some legal protection in the matter of hospital visits or inheritance .
But it ’ s academic anyway because that battle was lost .
A massive societal alteration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Americans – FIVE !
— after being soundly defeated for the second time by California referendum , even in the Obama tsunami of 2008 .
And did the losers riot in the street , carry a beheaded image of Obama around , start fires , attack police or even ( God forbid ) physically attack gay people ?
No , they did not .
Compare and contrast with what happened after the 2016 election when 63 MILLION voters and a yuge majority of the Electoral College upset the predetermined coronation of Hillary Clinton @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actual violence after gay marriage won ?
THE WINNERS .
Winning was not enough .
People – well , not Obama , of course – but people , who a few years earlier had supported traditional marriage , were “ outed , ” fired and “ canceled.
” And quicker than you could get used to calling Kevin ’ s partner Daniel his “ husband ” or , worse , his “ wife.
” another country was heard from .
Yes !
In the Diversity Olympics , ding , ding , ding , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Winner : The Transgenders !
!
Move over , you boring old gay people , who are happy with your sex and attracted to others of that same sex !
In the Brave New World of Intersectional Politics , that will no longer be allowed .
Lesbians – you will now be required to date men with dangly bits who are wearing dresses and have decided that they are now women .
Only attracted to real women ?
Tough noogies , bigot !
Woe unto the poor young salesclerk in a hardware store @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rude , clearly unhinged giant of a man who feels entitled to kick over merchandise in a store because he has accurately been called “ Sir ” instead of “ Ma ’ am.
” ( As a woman with a fairly deep speaking voice , many is the time I have been called “ Sir ” on the telephone when making a plane or hotel reservation .
Had I known I could pitch a hysterical fit or get someone fired because of it , think of the 15 minutes of fame I could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ money ! )
Which brings us full circle back to the dead-naming .
Because to support the massive illusion of sex being just a fluid construct requires a Stalinist devotion to erasing everything that has gone before .
It is of a piece , really , with the Taliban dynamiting Buddhist statuary , pretend “ Palestinians ” like Egyptians Yassir Arafat or Edward Said , claiming that Jews were never in Israel , and with the history haters tearing down Confederate statues .
In totalitarian circles , inconvenient history and unacceptable ideas that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Likewise , if you say you are a woman now , then you must always have been a woman and woe be unto some Unwokester who mentions your past .
I can sympathize because I used to be a leftist .
I wish I could pretend it never happened , but I am more honest than that .
I have friends who have been married multiple times ; they have made peace with dead relationships and moved on .
But , especially if there are children involved , they do not punish @ @ @ @ @ @ @ married to someone else .
Or even several someone elses .
Because they are not insane .
We have entered a whole ‘ nother surreal realm of Crazy .
Nothing good can come of it .

Ammo Grrrll calls out DEAD-NAMING! THE WORST THING THERE EVER WAS! She writes:
If you live long enough, you will have the chance to hear astonishing things. Often, twice. Ideas cycle around like fashions. What was passe becomes “retro” and comes around again a couple of decades later. Hemlines go up and down. I remember when the fashion industry went to mid-calf and maxi dresses to FORCE fashionistas to purchase new clothes. When hemlines just kept going up and up to loincloth levels, a whole lot of young ladies, myself included, just kept cutting off and hemming up their old skirts and dresses rather than buying new garments! Or, even ROLLING them up if you were really lazy or went to Catholic Girls’ School. Old becomes new again. Only the coolest people can keep up.
For example, I have learned fairly recently that “dead-naming” means calling a trans person by the name he or she was born with and used for decades! Dead-naming is a GRIEVOUS sin which will get you Twittered to death in a heartbeat, and possibly sent to jail in Canada or in the U.S. if a Democrat ever gets in again, God forbid! So though we cheered him and honored him and put him on Wheaties boxes long ago, Bruce Jenner and all his accomplishments may never again be mentioned. Bruce Jenner is dead. Long live Caitlyn.
I try to call people what they want to be called. In real life (a place a lot of leftists rarely visit…), my name is Susan. My Daddy and a very small circle of my friends have always called me Susie, and that’s fine. In the last eight years, I have been called and will answer to “Ammo Grrrll” or even “AG.” Both my husband and Mama always called me Susan and that is what I was mostly called in high school. Nowadays, few married women take their husbands’ names. It makes addressing holiday cards a pain, but on the other hand, it sure makes finding your old female friends a lot easier. So though I have had my husband’s last name for 52 years, I would not pitch a hysterical fit if someone called me by my “dead” or “maiden” name! Because I am not insane.
Anybody know what the deal is with gay men and the formality they seem to prefer in names? Maybe your experience is different, but every gay man I have ever known – and remember, I lived in San Francisco just off Castro Street for several years – wanted to be called Robert, or Michael, or James. Never Bobby, Mike or Jimmy. A notable exception would be Pete Buttigieg. Though, I suppose if you are a gay man and Butt is already part of your name, adding Peter to the mix would be a bridge too far.
Here’s the thing, see. I’m sure there are still a few hardcore homophobes (a very stupid, inaccurate word, but what passes for “someone who is put off by or hostile to gay people”). But there are also very few people who don’t have a friend, a cousin, a sibling, a workmate who is, in fact, gay. And often it was observed that some of those people had stable, loving, long-term partners. Meanwhile, your heterosexual nephew’s marriage blew up before your check cleared for the set of sixteen silver shrimp forks you were forced to purchase from their Gift Registry because all the cheap stuff had already been taken.
You don’t have to be some kind of bigot to have had or continue to have serious concerns about the long-term effects to civilization of changing the millennia-old definition of “marriage.” Things that have been absolutely foundational to society should not be abandoned lightly. At the same time, you can also be a fair-minded person who thinks that Daniel and Kevin next door, who have been together for 28 years, deserve some kind of recognition of that relationship and some legal protection in the matter of hospital visits or inheritance.
But it’s academic anyway because that battle was lost. A massive societal alteration was decided by a total of five Americans – FIVE! — after being soundly defeated for the second time by California referendum, even in the Obama tsunami of 2008. And did the losers riot in the street, carry a beheaded image of Obama around, start fires, attack police or even (God forbid) physically attack gay people? No, they did not. Compare and contrast with what happened after the 2016 election when 63 MILLION voters and a yuge majority of the Electoral College upset the predetermined coronation of Hillary Clinton.
You know who committed virtual and actual violence after gay marriage won? THE WINNERS. Winning was not enough. People – well, not Obama, of course – but people, who a few years earlier had supported traditional marriage, were “outed,” fired and “canceled.”
And quicker than you could get used to calling Kevin’s partner Daniel his “husband” or, worse, his “wife.” another country was heard from. Yes! In the Diversity Olympics, ding, ding, ding, we now have a new Top Dog Winner: The Transgenders!! Move over, you boring old gay people, who are happy with your sex and attracted to others of that same sex! In the Brave New World of Intersectional Politics, that will no longer be allowed. Lesbians – you will now be required to date men with dangly bits who are wearing dresses and have decided that they are now women. Only attracted to real women? Tough noogies, bigot!
Woe unto the poor young salesclerk in a hardware store who “misgenders” an ugly, rude, clearly unhinged giant of a man who feels entitled to kick over merchandise in a store because he has accurately been called “Sir” instead of “Ma’am.” (As a woman with a fairly deep speaking voice, many is the time I have been called “Sir” on the telephone when making a plane or hotel reservation. Had I known I could pitch a hysterical fit or get someone fired because of it, think of the 15 minutes of fame I could have by now! Maybe even cash money!)
Which brings us full circle back to the dead-naming. Because to support the massive illusion of sex being just a fluid construct requires a Stalinist devotion to erasing everything that has gone before. It is of a piece, really, with the Taliban dynamiting Buddhist statuary, pretend “Palestinians” like Egyptians Yassir Arafat or Edward Said, claiming that Jews were never in Israel, and with the history haters tearing down Confederate statues.
In totalitarian circles, inconvenient history and unacceptable ideas that are declared Dead must never be resurrected. Likewise, if you say you are a woman now, then you must always have been a woman and woe be unto some Unwokester who mentions your past. I can sympathize because I used to be a leftist. I wish I could pretend it never happened, but I am more honest than that. I have friends who have been married multiple times; they have made peace with dead relationships and moved on. But, especially if there are children involved, they do not punish anyone who remembers they used to be married to someone else. Or even several someone elses. Because they are not insane.
We have entered a whole ‘nother surreal realm of Crazy. Nothing good can come of it.


powerlineblog--2020-01-17--Trump Moves to Protect Religious Freedom In Schools

Today President Trump signed a “ guidance ” issued by the Department of Education on “ Constitutionally Protected Prayer and Religious Expression in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools.
” It updates the last such guidance , which was issued in 2003 .
The president promoted the event , coinciding with National Religious Freedom Day , as a step toward freedom of religion .
It is a sign of the times that you have to do a fair amount of Googling to get past the usual spin from media sources and find the actual guidance document .
Almost all media commentary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prayer in school , ” rather than the content of the guidance .
This is a big topic , beyond the scope of a single post , but the White House ’ s summary of the guidance is at least a start .
I would add a few observations : 1 ) One always wonders whether such documents have teeth .
This one provides : In my view , there is no good reason why the federal government should be sending money to local school districts .
Still , this presumably means that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at least until the next Democratic president revokes the guidance .
2 ) The complaint I have heard many times , here in Minnesota , is that Muslim students receive favored treatment compared with Christian and Jewish students .
In many instances , they are dismissed from class in order to pray , special prayer rooms are set up along with foot-washing stations , and so on .
Today ’ s guidance addresses all religions equally , but does not specifically say ( as far as I can see ) that religions must @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I hope I am missing something here , and perhaps , by affirming the general right of religious expression in the public school sphere , the guidance will at least imply equality among religions .
3 ) The main thrust of the guidance is to say that , while public schools can not endorse or promote any particular religion , or religion in general , they also can not discriminate against religious expression or religious groups in comparison with how they treat secular expression or secular school groups .
I am so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an injunction would have been unnecessary .
Now , it apparently is considered radical by most “ mainstream ” news outlets , like , say , NPR : “ Trump Defends School Prayer .
Critics Say He ’ s Got It All Wrong.
” That is what we taxpayers are sponsoring , but somehow , I can ’ t remember ever voting for such principles .
The war over religious freedom has a long way to go , but today the Trump administration took at least a modest step forward .
It is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ liberalism that it is left to a figure like Donald Trump , who certainly never set out to be a hero of religious observance , to erect a firewall against the Left ’ s implacable hostility toward the Christian and Jewish faiths .

Today President Trump signed a “guidance” issued by the Department of Education on “Constitutionally Protected Prayer and Religious Expression in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools.” It updates the last such guidance, which was issued in 2003. The president promoted the event, coinciding with National Religious Freedom Day, as a step toward freedom of religion.
President @realDonaldTrump announced historic steps to protect the Constitutional right to pray in public schools! pic.twitter.com/YsORcxUpWa — The White House (@WhiteHouse) January 16, 2020
It is a sign of the times that you have to do a fair amount of Googling to get past the usual spin from media sources and find the actual guidance document. Almost all media commentary focuses on the political ramifications of “prayer in school,” rather than the content of the guidance.
This is a big topic, beyond the scope of a single post, but the White House’s summary of the guidance is at least a start. I would add a few observations:
1) One always wonders whether such documents have teeth. This one provides:
[A]s a condition of receiving ESEA funds, an LEA must certify in writing to its SEA that it has no policy that prevents, or otherwise denies participation in, constitutionally protected prayer in public schools as detailed in this updated guidance.
In my view, there is no good reason why the federal government should be sending money to local school districts. Still, this presumably means that some kind of enforcement might follow, at least until the next Democratic president revokes the guidance.
2) The complaint I have heard many times, here in Minnesota, is that Muslim students receive favored treatment compared with Christian and Jewish students. In many instances, they are dismissed from class in order to pray, special prayer rooms are set up along with foot-washing stations, and so on. Today’s guidance addresses all religions equally, but does not specifically say (as far as I can see) that religions must be treated equally by the public schools. I hope I am missing something here, and perhaps, by affirming the general right of religious expression in the public school sphere, the guidance will at least imply equality among religions.
3) The main thrust of the guidance is to say that, while public schools cannot endorse or promote any particular religion, or religion in general, they also cannot discriminate against religious expression or religious groups in comparison with how they treat secular expression or secular school groups. I am so old that I can remember when such an injunction would have been unnecessary. Now, it apparently is considered radical by most “mainstream” news outlets, like, say, NPR: “Trump Defends School Prayer. Critics Say He’s Got It All Wrong.” That is what we taxpayers are sponsoring, but somehow, I can’t remember ever voting for such principles.
The war over religious freedom has a long way to go, but today the Trump administration took at least a modest step forward. It is perhaps symptomatic of the craziness of modern liberalism that it is left to a figure like Donald Trump, who certainly never set out to be a hero of religious observance, to erect a firewall against the Left’s implacable hostility toward the Christian and Jewish faiths.


powerlineblog--2020-01-17--The Dem debate’s biggest loser — CNN

The Dem debate’s biggest loser — CNN

Matt Taibbi , writing from the left for Rolling Stone , calls CNN ’ s debate performance on Tuesday “ villainous and shameful.
” Taibbi is referring to CNN ’ s handling of the “ he said , she said ” dispute between Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren .
And he is absolutely right to characterize CNN ’ s performance as he does .
First , CNN ’ s Abby Phillip assumed the truth of Warren ’ s claim that Sanders said a woman couldn ’ t defeat President Trump .
Despite Sanders ’ s past denials , Phillip asked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
” She might just as well have asked when Sanders stopped beating his wife .
Sanders responded with another denial plus a lengthy explanation of why it was implausible to think he said what Warren alleges .
Whereupon Phillip turned to Warren and asked , “ what did you think when Senator Sanders told you a woman could not win the election ?
” Taibbi also discusses CNN ’ s coverage of the Sanders-Warren dispute both before and after the debate .
Some of CNN ’ s talking heads displayed a pro-Warren @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s .
At one point in the post-debate coverage , someone called Jess McIntosh claimed that the dispute wasn ’ t “ he said , she said ” because “ this is a reported-out story that CNN was part of breaking.
” To his credit , Anderson Cooper told McIntosh that this is precisely a “ he said , she said ” dispute .
It was a rare moment of integrity on a night when CNN thoroughly disgraced itself .
Taibbi ’ s only false note is when he compares Phillip ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 1988 whether he ’ d favor the death penalty for someone who raped and murdered his wife .
The questions are nothing alike .
Shaw ’ s question pressed Dukakis about a policy position through an extreme hypothetical .
Phillip shamelessly took the side of one candidate over another in a dispute about facts .
The valid comparison is between Phillip and Candy Crowley .
During a presidential debate in 2012 , she incorrectly took Barack Obama ’ s side in a dispute with Mitt Romney about Benghazi-related facts .
At the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Taibbi gets back on track in his concluding paragraphs : After the debate , Trump fans online were in full schadenfreude mode , crowing about how “ the left ” finally understood that CNN really is fake news .
Overall , # CNNisgarbage trended and # fuckCNN wasn ’ t far behind .
If the network doesn ’ t see trouble in this , it ’ s delusional .
Voters on both sides of the aisle have changed since the Bernard Shaw days .
They pay more attention to media manipulations , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ manipulative than punching above the facts to advance transparent political narratives , which is a new and accepted habit in the commercial news landscape .
We ’ ll find out in Iowa and New Hampshire what Democratic Party voters believe about that Warren-Sanders meeting , but that grimy story pales in comparison to the bigger picture : Episodes like this are why people hate the media .

Matt Taibbi, writing from the left for Rolling Stone, calls CNN’s debate performance on Tuesday “villainous and shameful.” Taibbi is referring to CNN’s handling of the “he said, she said” dispute between Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. And he is absolutely right to characterize CNN’s performance as he does.
First, CNN’s Abby Phillip assumed the truth of Warren’s claim that Sanders said a woman couldn’t defeat President Trump. Despite Sanders’s past denials, Phillip asked, “why did you say that?” She might just as well have asked when Sanders stopped beating his wife.
Sanders responded with another denial plus a lengthy explanation of why it was implausible to think he said what Warren alleges. Whereupon Phillip turned to Warren and asked, “what did you think when Senator Sanders told you a woman could not win the election?”
Taibbi also discusses CNN’s coverage of the Sanders-Warren dispute both before and after the debate. Some of CNN’s talking heads displayed a pro-Warren bias almost as egregious as Phillip’s.
At one point in the post-debate coverage, someone called Jess McIntosh claimed that the dispute wasn’t “he said, she said” because “this is a reported-out story that CNN was part of breaking.” To his credit, Anderson Cooper told McIntosh that this is precisely a “he said, she said” dispute. It was a rare moment of integrity on a night when CNN thoroughly disgraced itself.
Taibbi’s only false note is when he compares Phillip’s question to Bernard Shaw asking Mike Dukakis in 1988 whether he’d favor the death penalty for someone who raped and murdered his wife. The questions are nothing alike. Shaw’s question pressed Dukakis about a policy position through an extreme hypothetical. Phillip shamelessly took the side of one candidate over another in a dispute about facts.
The valid comparison is between Phillip and Candy Crowley. During a presidential debate in 2012, she incorrectly took Barack Obama’s side in a dispute with Mitt Romney about Benghazi-related facts. At the time, she worked for CNN.
Taibbi gets back on track in his concluding paragraphs:
After the debate, Trump fans online were in full schadenfreude mode, crowing about how “the left” finally understood that CNN really is fake news. Overall, #CNNisgarbage trended and #fuckCNN wasn’t far behind. If the network doesn’t see trouble in this, it’s delusional. Voters on both sides of the aisle have changed since the Bernard Shaw days. They pay more attention to media manipulations, and it doesn’t get much more manipulative than punching above the facts to advance transparent political narratives, which is a new and accepted habit in the commercial news landscape. We’ll find out in Iowa and New Hampshire what Democratic Party voters believe about that Warren-Sanders meeting, but that grimy story pales in comparison to the bigger picture: Episodes like this are why people hate the media.
(Emphasis added)
Correct.


powerlineblog--2020-01-17--Dershowitz for the defense

Dershowitz for the defense

“ Arise and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time.
” Winston Churchill “ Proclaim Liberty throughout @ @ @ @ @ the Inhabitants Thereof.
” Inscription on the Liberty Bell

“Arise and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time.” Winston Churchill
“Proclaim Liberty throughout All the land unto All the Inhabitants Thereof.” Inscription on the Liberty Bell


powerlineblog--2020-01-17--President Trump and the Latino vote

President Trump and the Latino vote

Christian Paz , writing in The Atlantic , warns Democrats to worry about the Latino vote in this year ’ s presidential election .
According to Paz , the Trump campaign is doing an excellent job of reaching out to a key segment of the Latino vote — evangelicals .
By contrast , Democrats are “ struggling to engage Latino voters , address issues beyond immigration reform , and treat Latinos as the influential voting bloc they are.
” Only Bernie Sanders has engaged in effective outreach to Latinos , says Paz .
Reportedly , the Sanders campaign has hired @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country .
However , much of Sanders ’ s focus is on California .
This may stand Sanders is good stead in the California primary but it won ’ t help him defeat Trump in the electoral college .
Outreach aside , the Democrats should also worry about the tendency of Latino voters ( not unlike the electorate in general ) to give incumbent presidents a bounce .
Four of the five most recent presidents increased their share of the Latino vote when they ran as the incumbent .
The lone exception is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ during a downturn in the economy .
President Trump likely will run during a lengthy economic surge .
The four presidents who increased their Latino vote share as incumbents include two Republicans .
Ronald Reagan increased his from 35 to 37 percent ; George W. Bush from 35 percent to 40 percent .
Of the Democrats , Bill Clinton ’ s share of the Latino vote rose from 61 percent to 72 percent , an increase explained in part by the fact that Ross Perot was a less formidable third party candidate in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Obama ’ s share rose from 67 to 71 percent .
Barring an economic downturn this year , Trump will be running on an economy that , depending on how one measures its health , is roughly as strong as the best economy any of his five predecessors enjoyed when they sought reelection .
Latinos have benefited significantly .
President Trump received 28 percent of the Latino vote in 2016 , a number comparable to what Mitt Romney and John McCain received as non-incumbents , but well below that of the Bush 43 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
If Paz is right about the Trump campaign ’ s vigorous outreach to Latinos and the comparative neglect of most Democratic candidates , then given the historical trend , it ’ s quite possible that Trump will fare significantly better among Latino voters in 2020 than he did in 2016 .
Indeed , his incumbent bounce could exceed match or exceed the five point increase from which Bush 43 benefited in 2004 .
The likely electoral consequences of such a bounce should , as Paz says , worry Democrats .

Christian Paz, writing in The Atlantic, warns Democrats to worry about the Latino vote in this year’s presidential election. According to Paz, the Trump campaign is doing an excellent job of reaching out to a key segment of the Latino vote — evangelicals. By contrast, Democrats are “struggling to engage Latino voters, address issues beyond immigration reform, and treat Latinos as the influential voting bloc they are.”
Only Bernie Sanders has engaged in effective outreach to Latinos, says Paz. Reportedly, the Sanders campaign has hired more than 150 Latino staffers around the country. However, much of Sanders’s focus is on California. This may stand Sanders is good stead in the California primary but it won’t help him defeat Trump in the electoral college.
Outreach aside, the Democrats should also worry about the tendency of Latino voters (not unlike the electorate in general) to give incumbent presidents a bounce. Four of the five most recent presidents increased their share of the Latino vote when they ran as the incumbent. The lone exception is George H.W. Bush. He ran during a downturn in the economy. President Trump likely will run during a lengthy economic surge.
The four presidents who increased their Latino vote share as incumbents include two Republicans. Ronald Reagan increased his from 35 to 37 percent; George W. Bush from 35 percent to 40 percent.
Of the Democrats, Bill Clinton’s share of the Latino vote rose from 61 percent to 72 percent, an increase explained in part by the fact that Ross Perot was a less formidable third party candidate in Clinton’s second run. Barack Obama’s share rose from 67 to 71 percent.
Barring an economic downturn this year, Trump will be running on an economy that, depending on how one measures its health, is roughly as strong as the best economy any of his five predecessors enjoyed when they sought reelection. Latinos have benefited significantly.
President Trump received 28 percent of the Latino vote in 2016, a number comparable to what Mitt Romney and John McCain received as non-incumbents, but well below that of the Bush 43 and Reagan when they ran as incumbents.
If Paz is right about the Trump campaign’s vigorous outreach to Latinos and the comparative neglect of most Democratic candidates, then given the historical trend, it’s quite possible that Trump will fare significantly better among Latino voters in 2020 than he did in 2016. Indeed, his incumbent bounce could exceed match or exceed the five point increase from which Bush 43 benefited in 2004.
The likely electoral consequences of such a bounce should, as Paz says, worry Democrats.


Rotherham and Race

You probably remember the Rotherham child sex abuse scandal that came to light several years ago .
Investigations have been ongoing since then , and one just-completed inquiry has made headlines in Great Britain .
This is from the London Times : “ Rotherham police chief : we ignored sex abuse of children.
” A senior police officer admitted that his force ignored the sexual abuse of girls by Pakistani grooming gangs for decades because it was afraid of increasing “ racial tensions ” , a watchdog has ruled .
After a five-year investigation , the Independent Office for Police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the Rotherham officer told a missing child ’ s distraught father that the town “ would erupt ” if it was known that Asian men were routinely having sex with under-age white girls .
The chief inspector is said to have described the abuse as “ P*** shagging ” and to have said it had been “ going on ” for 30 years : “ With it being Asians , we can ’ t afford for this to be coming out.
” *** The Rotherham complainant was repeatedly abused over several years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was “ very clear that you were sexually exploited by Asian men ” and upheld a complaint that police “ took insufficient action to prevent you from harm ” .
Until now police forces across the north and the Midlands have consistently denied that concerns about upsetting community sensitivities or accusations of racism were a factor in their past failure to tackle grooming gangs .

You probably remember the Rotherham child sex abuse scandal that came to light several years ago. Investigations have been ongoing since then, and one just-completed inquiry has made headlines in Great Britain. This is from the London Times: “Rotherham police chief: we ignored sex abuse of children.”
A senior police officer admitted that his force ignored the sexual abuse of girls by Pakistani grooming gangs for decades because it was afraid of increasing “racial tensions”, a watchdog has ruled.
After a five-year investigation, the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) upheld a complaint that the Rotherham officer told a missing child’s distraught father that the town “would erupt” if it was known that Asian men were routinely having sex with under-age white girls.
The chief inspector is said to have described the abuse as “P*** shagging” and to have said it had been “going on” for 30 years: “With it being Asians, we can’t afford for this to be coming out.”
***
The Rotherham complainant was repeatedly abused over several years from 2003. The IOPC said it was “very clear that you were sexually exploited by Asian men” and upheld a complaint that police “took insufficient action to prevent you from harm”.
Until now police forces across the north and the Midlands have consistently denied that concerns about upsetting community sensitivities or accusations of racism were a factor in their past failure to tackle grooming gangs.


powerlineblog--2020-01-18--Media Madness: NBC News Tells CNN, “Hold My Beer”

If you think it is impossible to sink lower than CNN , well have a look at a piece up over at NBC News by Noah Berlatsky : Trump Voters Motivated by Racism May Be Violating the Constitution : Can They Be Stopped ?
The article goes on to report on the “ reasoning ” of Terry Smith , a visiting professor of law at the University of Baltimore Law School ( I never heard of him either ) , which Berlansky describes as follows : Terry Smith , a visiting professor at the University of Baltimore School of Law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new book , “ Whitelash : Unmasking White Grievance at the Ballot Box.
” Rather than excuse racist voters or try to figure out how to live with their choices , he argues that racist voting is not just immoral , but illegal .
The government , Smith says , has the ability , and the responsibility , to address it .
This sounds radical .
[ Editorial comment : Why , yes—yes it does sound radical . ]
But Smith argues that it ’ s in line with the Constitution and with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Smith points out that racist appeals in union elections are illegal and that an election in which one side uses racist appeals can be invalidated by the National Labor Relations Board .
Similarly , in the 2016 case Peña v. Rodriguez , the Supreme Court ruled that when a juror expresses overt bigotry , the jury ’ s verdict should be invalidated .
“ When voters go to the booth , they ’ re not expressing a mere personal preference , ” Smith told me .
According to Smith , voters who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are violating the Constitution .
If the Constitution means that overt racist appeals undermine the legality of union elections , it stands to reason that they undermine the legality of other elections , as well .
This plumbs news depths of idiocy , confusion , and crackpot lefty ideology , which readers won ’ t have much trouble sorting out for themselves .
( One might start with a question : if it is illegal for a white to vote against “ black interests , ” why isn ’ t the reciprocal equally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ implication is nonetheless clear : Voting for Republicans should be illegal and therefore prohibited .
Berlatsky and Smith avoid the clear implication of their ridiculous view with lots of evasions and process arguments that all have the same tendency : changes that will result in the election of more Democrats ( not necessarily black Democrats , though ) .
How conveeeenient .
Here ’ s some more of this hot mess which NBC thinks is a “ hot take ” : The usual remedy for racial discrimination is censure or fines .
.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ censure voters who have violated their constitutional duties .
Nullifying elections would be essentially impossible .
But Smith argues that there are other options .
“ I think we can dismantle some of the features of the electoral system that encourage racialized decision-making , ” he says .
“ For instance , you only get a partisan gerrymander by moving people in and out of districts on the basis of their race.
” Ending this practice at the state and federal levels would be a big step toward reducing the power of racism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ending the use of Voter IDs intended to disenfranchise black voters .
Of course , moving people into districts on the basis of their race is the very premise of the Voting Rights Act , but in any case right after saying “ don ’ t move people in and out of districts on account of their race , ” Berlatsky and Smith call for .
.
.
moving people in and out of districts on account of their race .
Really , you can ’ t make this up : Smith suggests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the racist patterns of voting in Senate elections in the South .
Because the majority of white voters in the South vote Republican , and because they outnumber black voters , there isn ’ t a single Democratic senator from the Deep South other than Doug Jones in Alabama , who may well lose his seat in 2020 .
Smith argues that we could remedy these disparate , racially motivated outcomes by creating Senate districts .
Presumably , that would make it at least possible for black voters to elect a senator who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ News thought this drivel worthy of pixels ?
And wonder why people think they are a joke ?
Finally , here is Berlatsky ’ s bio from the end of the piece : “ The Hooded Utilitarian ” ?
Seriously , does he not know that ’ s the perfect description of not just the sartorial preference but in fact the philosophy of the KKK ?
Maybe Berlatsky is conducting a years-long hoax on everyone , in which case I ’ ll tip my hat to him for bringing down NBC News .

If you think it is impossible to sink lower than CNN, well have a look at a piece up over at NBC News by Noah Berlatsky: Trump Voters Motivated by Racism May Be Violating the Constitution: Can They Be Stopped?
The article goes on to report on the “reasoning” of Terry Smith, a visiting professor of law at the University of Baltimore Law School (I never heard of him either), which Berlansky describes as follows:
Terry Smith, a visiting professor at the University of Baltimore School of Law, offers a different response in his new book, “Whitelash: Unmasking White Grievance at the Ballot Box.” Rather than excuse racist voters or try to figure out how to live with their choices, he argues that racist voting is not just immoral, but illegal. The government, Smith says, has the ability, and the responsibility, to address it. This sounds radical. [Editorial comment: Why, yes—yes it does sound radical.] But Smith argues that it’s in line with the Constitution and with years of court rulings. For example, Smith points out that racist appeals in union elections are illegal and that an election in which one side uses racist appeals can be invalidated by the National Labor Relations Board. Similarly, in the 2016 case Peña v. Rodriguez, the Supreme Court ruled that when a juror expresses overt bigotry, the jury’s verdict should be invalidated. “When voters go to the booth, they’re not expressing a mere personal preference,” Smith told me. According to Smith, voters who pull the levers to harm black people are violating the Constitution. If the Constitution means that overt racist appeals undermine the legality of union elections, it stands to reason that they undermine the legality of other elections, as well.
This plumbs news depths of idiocy, confusion, and crackpot lefty ideology, which readers won’t have much trouble sorting out for themselves. (One might start with a question: if it is illegal for a white to vote against “black interests,” why isn’t the reciprocal equally true for Al Sharpton?) The implication is nonetheless clear: Voting for Republicans should be illegal and therefore prohibited.
Berlatsky and Smith avoid the clear implication of their ridiculous view with lots of evasions and process arguments that all have the same tendency: changes that will result in the election of more Democrats (not necessarily black Democrats, though). How conveeeenient.
Here’s some more of this hot mess which NBC thinks is a “hot take”:
The usual remedy for racial discrimination is censure or fines . . . It’s more difficult to censure voters who have violated their constitutional duties. Nullifying elections would be essentially impossible. But Smith argues that there are other options. “I think we can dismantle some of the features of the electoral system that encourage racialized decision-making,” he says. “For instance, you only get a partisan gerrymander by moving people in and out of districts on the basis of their race.” Ending this practice at the state and federal levels would be a big step toward reducing the power of racism at the ballot box, as would ending the use of Voter IDs intended to disenfranchise black voters.
Of course, moving people into districts on the basis of their race is the very premise of the Voting Rights Act, but in any case right after saying “don’t move people in and out of districts on account of their race,” Berlatsky and Smith call for . . . moving people in and out of districts on account of their race. Really, you can’t make this up:
Smith suggests expanding the Voting Rights Act to address the racist patterns of voting in Senate elections in the South. Because the majority of white voters in the South vote Republican, and because they outnumber black voters, there isn’t a single Democratic senator from the Deep South other than Doug Jones in Alabama, who may well lose his seat in 2020. Smith argues that we could remedy these disparate, racially motivated outcomes by creating Senate districts. Presumably, that would make it at least possible for black voters to elect a senator who would support their interests.
And NBC News thought this drivel worthy of pixels? And wonder why people think they are a joke?
Finally, here is Berlatsky’s bio from the end of the piece:
Noah Berlatsky is a freelance writer and cultural critic based in Chicago. He edits the website The Hooded Utilitarian and is the author of several books, including most recently “Wonder Woman: Bondage and Feminism in the Marston/Peter Comics, 1941-1948.”
“The Hooded Utilitarian”? Seriously, does he not know that’s the perfect description of not just the sartorial preference but in fact the philosophy of the KKK?
Maybe Berlatsky is conducting a years-long hoax on everyone, in which case I’ll tip my hat to him for bringing down NBC News.


powerlineblog--2020-01-18--The Week in Pictures: Blowout Impeachment Edition


The Parnas problem

New evidence from Lev Parnas has Democrats more insistent than ever that the Senate impeachment trial include testimony from witnesses who did not appear before the House .
Parnas joins the ranks of John Bolton and Mick Mulvaney as key witnesses the Dems say they need testimony from .
Even the Democrats can ’ t deny that Parnas is a problematic witness .
He appears to be a crook with a motive to lie .
However , Parnas has provided documents to support some of his claims .
The documents can not be dismissed on credibility grounds .
Before turning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take a moment to reflect that it was Rudy Giuliani who selected Parnas as a key operative in Ukraine , and President Trump who selected Giuliani to control administration policy towards Ukraine .
Giving power to sleazes isn ’ t an impeachable offense , but it ’ s a mark against the Trump administration .
What about the documents , though ?
To the extent they tend to show that President Trump , for a time , made important aspects of U.S. policy towards Ukraine contingent on an investigation of Joe and Hunter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ announcement of such an investigation ) , the documents are cumulative .
The evidence gathered by the House leaves no serious doubt that this is what Trump did .
It may be difficult , though , for Trump ’ s defense team and some of his Senate defenders to make this argument .
They steadfastly insist that , in the face of strong evidence to the contrary , that no aspect of Trump ’ s Ukraine policy depended for even a minute on Ukraine investigating , or announcing it would investigate , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s documents shed light on another matter — the removal of Marie Yovanovitch as U.S. ambassador to Ukraine .
The documents show that in early 2019 Yuri Lutsenko , then Ukraine ’ s chief prosecutor , was strongly urging the administration , via emails and texts to Parnas , to fire Yovanovitch .
And they suggest that his cooperation in investigating the Bidens hinged on her removal .
In March , Parnas sent Lutsenko a series of questions about Yovanovitch and the Bidens — questions formulated by John Solomon of The Hill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the questions .
He responded : Parnas understood the “ opponent ” to be Joe Biden .
Phone records show that very soon thereafter , Parnas spoke with Solomon .
A week after Lutsenko ’ s angry email , Solomon published an article airing some of Lutsenko ’ s grievances against Ambassador Yovanovitch .
Lutsenko remained less than fully satisfied .
The next day , he texted Parnas : Parnas understood “ Madam ” to be Yovanovitch , the “ decision ” to be her removal , and “ B ” to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ week later , Lutsenko told Parnas that he had documents showing payments by Burisma , the company on whose board Hunter Biden sat , to a consulting firm for which Hunter Biden worked .
Parnas asked , “ can you send them ?
” Lutsenko responded , “ “ I ’ ll give them to you through the new ambassador , ” adding a smiling emoticon .
A few weeks later , Yovanovitch was recalled from Ukraine .
I ’ m not sufficiently conversant with the record regarding Yovanovitch ’ s firing to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s documents adds meaningfully to the record or , as with his evidence on “ quid pro quo , ” is cumulative .
But let ’ s assume that this is meaningful new evidence .
Does it warrant calling Parnas as a witness ?
I say it doesn ’ t because the conduct described in ( or that can be inferred from ) the documents doesn ’ t remotely rise to the level of impeachable behavior .
President ’ s have the right to remove ambassadors with or without cause .
Indeed , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ partisan political purposes .
It is not an impeachable offense for a president to remove an ambassador because she has incurred the displeasure of someone in the country where she serves whom the administration regards as important ( for whatever reason ) .
Nor is it an impeachable offence for a president to remove an ambassador because she disagrees with the president about whether a former American officials conduct is worthy of being investigated ( even if that former official is a political rival of the president ’ s ) .
Withholding , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Congress to a nation under military attack is a serious matter ( though in this case the aid was withheld only briefly , thus making the matter less serious ) .
Recalling an ambassador , for whatever reason , is not very serious .
It may be a matter for congressional oversight , but it is not even close to the stuff of an impeachment .
To summarize , Parnas ’ s testimony regarding “ quid pro quo ” is cumulative .
His testimony regarding the removal of Marie Yovanovitch is irrelevant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should not take Parnas ’ s testimony in this impeachment trial .

New evidence from Lev Parnas has Democrats more insistent than ever that the Senate impeachment trial include testimony from witnesses who did not appear before the House. Parnas joins the ranks of John Bolton and Mick Mulvaney as key witnesses the Dems say they need testimony from.
Even the Democrats can’t deny that Parnas is a problematic witness. He appears to be a crook with a motive to lie.
However, Parnas has provided documents to support some of his claims. The documents cannot be dismissed on credibility grounds.
Before turning to the documents, let’s take a moment to reflect that it was Rudy Giuliani who selected Parnas as a key operative in Ukraine, and President Trump who selected Giuliani to control administration policy towards Ukraine. Giving power to sleazes isn’t an impeachable offense, but it’s a mark against the Trump administration.
What about the documents, though? To the extent they tend to show that President Trump, for a time, made important aspects of U.S. policy towards Ukraine contingent on an investigation of Joe and Hunter Biden (or at least on the announcement of such an investigation), the documents are cumulative. The evidence gathered by the House leaves no serious doubt that this is what Trump did.
It may be difficult, though, for Trump’s defense team and some of his Senate defenders to make this argument. They steadfastly insist that, in the face of strong evidence to the contrary, that no aspect of Trump’s Ukraine policy depended for even a minute on Ukraine investigating, or announcing it would investigate, the Bidens.
In any case, Parnas’s documents shed light on another matter — the removal of Marie Yovanovitch as U.S. ambassador to Ukraine. The documents show that in early 2019 Yuri Lutsenko, then Ukraine’s chief prosecutor, was strongly urging the administration, via emails and texts to Parnas, to fire Yovanovitch. And they suggest that his cooperation in investigating the Bidens hinged on her removal.
In March, Parnas sent Lutsenko a series of questions about Yovanovitch and the Bidens — questions formulated by John Solomon of The Hill. Lutsenko didn’t take kindly to the questions. He responded:
I’m sorry, but this is all simply b***s**t. I’m f*****g sick of all this. . .I’m prepared to [thrash] your opponent. But you want more and more. We’re over.
Parnas understood the “opponent” to be Joe Biden.
Phone records show that very soon thereafter, Parnas spoke with Solomon. A week after Lutsenko’s angry email, Solomon published an article airing some of Lutsenko’s grievances against Ambassador Yovanovitch.
Lutsenko remained less than fully satisfied. The next day, he texted Parnas:
It’s just that if you don’t make a decision about Madam, you are bringing into question all my allegations. Including about B.
Parnas understood “Madam” to be Yovanovitch, the “decision” to be her removal, and “B” to be Joe Biden.
Less than a week later, Lutsenko told Parnas that he had documents showing payments by Burisma, the company on whose board Hunter Biden sat, to a consulting firm for which Hunter Biden worked. Parnas asked, “can you send them?” Lutsenko responded, ““I’ll give them to you through the new ambassador,” adding a smiling emoticon.
A few weeks later, Yovanovitch was recalled from Ukraine.
I’m not sufficiently conversant with the record regarding Yovanovitch’s firing to say whether the evidence from Parnas’s documents adds meaningfully to the record or, as with his evidence on “quid pro quo,” is cumulative. But let’s assume that this is meaningful new evidence. Does it warrant calling Parnas as a witness?
I say it doesn’t because the conduct described in (or that can be inferred from) the documents doesn’t remotely rise to the level of impeachable behavior.
Presidents have the right to remove ambassadors with or without cause. Indeed, ambassadors are routinely appointed and removed for partisan political purposes.
It is not an impeachable offense for a president to remove an ambassador because she has incurred the displeasure of someone in the country where she serves whom the administration regards as important (for whatever reason). Nor is it an impeachable offence for a president to remove an ambassador because she disagrees with the president about whether a former American official’s conduct is worthy of being investigated (even if that former official is a political rival of the president’s).
Withholding, for political purposes, military aid appropriated by Congress to a nation under military attack is a serious matter (though in this case the aid was withheld only briefly, thus making the matter less serious). Recalling an ambassador, for whatever reason, is not very serious. It may be a matter for congressional oversight, but it is not even close to the stuff of an impeachment.
To summarize, Parnas’s testimony regarding “quid pro quo” is cumulative. His testimony regarding the removal of Marie Yovanovitch is irrelevant to impeachment.
Therefore, the Senate should not take Parnas’s testimony in this impeachment trial.


powerlineblog--2020-01-19--Good News From Mexico

Good News From Mexico

More evidence that President Trump ’ s immigration policies are having great effects , from the Wall Street Journal : “ Mexican Forces Clash With Migrants at Border With Guatemala.
” Mexican security forces used plastic shields to push back hundreds of Central American migrants who tried to force their way across a border bridge from Guatemala into Mexico on Saturday .
Lines of National Guard officers jostled with migrants , some of whom threw bottles and wielded sticks as they tried to push their way into Mexico .
President Andrés Manuel López Obrador has vowed to stop migrants from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to reach the U.S .
The migrants are part of a group of some 1,500 people , mostly from Honduras , who gathered on the Guatemalan side of the Mexican border Friday .
This is another attempt to form a caravan to invade the United States , organized by “ leftist Honduran activist [ s ] .
” ( Parenthetically , I still would like to know who is paying for this “ activism.
” ) But this time , it isn ’ t working .
Why ?
Mexico is determined to stop @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and 2019 , when thousands of migrants entered the country in caravans and headed for the U.S. border .
The regional migration crisis drew the ire of President Trump .
*** The Mexican leader yielded last year to Mr. Trump ’ s demands that Mexico adopt a tougher stance against illegal immigration .
Mr. Trump had threatened to impose tariffs on Mexican imports if Mexico didn ’ t act .
Since then , apprehensions of Central American migrants at the U.S. border have plummeted , while the number of detentions and deportations of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Migrants ’ chances of entering the U.S. are the lowest in years .
The U.S. government has sent nearly 60,000 migrants to Mexico while they wait for the U.S. to process their asylum requests .
The Trump administration has signed asylum agreements with Guatemala , Honduras and El Salvador to send migrants to seek protection in those countries instead of in the U.S. “ Asylum ” in this context is a farce , basically meaning that it is better to live in the U.S. than in Honduras or Guatemala because of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and relatively corruption-free economy .
More important , this is great news , and another practical accomplishment of the Trump administration .
I have often said that my first choice for an immigration policy would be Canada ’ s , but that I would willingly settle for Mexico ’ s .
Here , we are seeing the benefit of Trump ’ s pressure on Mexico to enforce its own laws rather than passing the “ caravan ” buck to us .
Kudos to Donald Trump and his administration .

More evidence that President Trump’s immigration policies are having great effects, from the Wall Street Journal: “Mexican Forces Clash With Migrants at Border With Guatemala.”
Mexican security forces used plastic shields to push back hundreds of Central American migrants who tried to force their way across a border bridge from Guatemala into Mexico on Saturday. Lines of National Guard officers jostled with migrants, some of whom threw bottles and wielded sticks as they tried to push their way into Mexico. President Andrés Manuel López Obrador has vowed to stop migrants from entering the country illegally as they try to reach the U.S. The migrants are part of a group of some 1,500 people, mostly from Honduras, who gathered on the Guatemalan side of the Mexican border Friday.
This is another attempt to form a caravan to invade the United States, organized by “leftist Honduran activist[s].” (Parenthetically, I still would like to know who is paying for this “activism.”) But this time, it isn’t working. Why?
Mexico is determined to stop a replay of similar incidents in 2018 and 2019, when thousands of migrants entered the country in caravans and headed for the U.S. border. The regional migration crisis drew the ire of President Trump.
***
The Mexican leader yielded last year to Mr. Trump’s demands that Mexico adopt a tougher stance against illegal immigration. Mr. Trump had threatened to impose tariffs on Mexican imports if Mexico didn’t act. Since then, apprehensions of Central American migrants at the U.S. border have plummeted, while the number of detentions and deportations of Central Americans by Mexico have risen sharply. Migrants’ chances of entering the U.S. are the lowest in years. The U.S. government has sent nearly 60,000 migrants to Mexico while they wait for the U.S. to process their asylum requests. The Trump administration has signed asylum agreements with Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador to send migrants to seek protection in those countries instead of in the U.S.
“Asylum” in this context is a farce, basically meaning that it is better to live in the U.S. than in Honduras or Guatemala because of the historic benefits of our free enterprise system and relatively corruption-free economy. More important, this is great news, and another practical accomplishment of the Trump administration. I have often said that my first choice for an immigration policy would be Canada’s, but that I would willingly settle for Mexico’s. Here, we are seeing the benefit of Trump’s pressure on Mexico to enforce its own laws rather than passing the “caravan” buck to us. Kudos to Donald Trump and his administration.


powerlineblog--2020-01-18--Bernie’s History With Iran

Bernie’s History With Iran

With Iran back in the spotlight , the Daily Beast reminds us that we–and Bernie Sanders–have been here before : On April 1 , 1979 , the theocratic Islamic Republic of Iran was proclaimed .
Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini , who had returned to Iran from exile to assume command of the revolt , became Supreme Leader in December of that year .
His rise was accelerated by the seizure on Nov. 4 of 52 American diplomats and citizens , and citizens of other countries , at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran .
The hostage crisis became the means by which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Dealing with the hostage taking became the overwhelming political crisis for President Jimmy Carter .
It lasted 444 days .
Virtually all Americans—Democrats , Republicans and independents—united in support of the hostages and the international call for their freedom .
One prominent political figure on the 2020 stage , then almost completely unknown , stood apart by joining a Marxist-Leninist party that not only pledged support for the Iranian theocracy , but also justified the hostage taking by insisting the hostages were all likely CIA agents .
Who was that person ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a member of the Trotskyite Socialist Workers ’ Party .
Not just any member , either ; he was the SWP ’ s presidential elector for Vermont , and he appeared with , and campaigned for , the SWP ’ s presidential candidate .
When its presidential candidate , Andrew Pulley , came to speak at the University of Vermont in October 1980 , Sanders chaired the meeting .
*** In his standard stump speech , Pulley condemned “ Carter ’ s war drive against the Iranian people , ” and said that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of war with Iran , ” which would be fought “ to protect the oil and banking interests of the Rockefellers and other billionaires.
” Americans , he predicted , would soon “ pay on the battlefields with our very own lives.
” Their criticism of the Ayatollah was intended “ to get us ready for war.
” And , Pulley charged , the media who criticized those of us who were against “ American imperialism ” were “ declared insane.
” As for the hostages , Pulley said “ we can be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spies… or people assigned to protect the spies.
” Pulley ’ s words were a direct echo of what the Islamic Society of University Teachers and Students had declared on Nov. 4 , 1979 : “ We defend the capture of this imperialist embassy , which is a center for espionage.
” Not much has changed since 1980 .
Sanders is still a blame-America-first crank who had little or nothing to say about the Iranian-led attack on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad .
But he exploded in fury over the killing of arch-terrorist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a war with Iran , ” just as in 1980 his Socialist Workers ’ Party had no problem with the mullahs holding 52 Americans hostage for over a year , but hysterically warned that the Carter administration was leading us into war with Iran .
Which would have been all our fault .
Sanders was a nasty piece of work then , and he is equally nasty now .

With Iran back in the spotlight, the Daily Beast reminds us that we–and Bernie Sanders–have been here before:
On April 1, 1979, the theocratic Islamic Republic of Iran was proclaimed. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who had returned to Iran from exile to assume command of the revolt, became Supreme Leader in December of that year. His rise was accelerated by the seizure on Nov. 4 of 52 American diplomats and citizens, and citizens of other countries, at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. The hostage crisis became the means by which the Ayatollah crushed political opponents in Iran. Dealing with the hostage taking became the overwhelming political crisis for President Jimmy Carter. It lasted 444 days. Virtually all Americans—Democrats, Republicans and independents—united in support of the hostages and the international call for their freedom. One prominent political figure on the 2020 stage, then almost completely unknown, stood apart by joining a Marxist-Leninist party that not only pledged support for the Iranian theocracy, but also justified the hostage taking by insisting the hostages were all likely CIA agents. Who was that person? It was Bernie Sanders.
Sanders was a member of the Trotskyite Socialist Workers’ Party. Not just any member, either; he was the SWP’s presidential elector for Vermont, and he appeared with, and campaigned for, the SWP’s presidential candidate.
When its presidential candidate, Andrew Pulley, came to speak at the University of Vermont in October 1980, Sanders chaired the meeting.
***
In his standard stump speech, Pulley condemned “Carter’s war drive against the Iranian people,” and said that the U.S. “was on the brink of war with Iran,” which would be fought “to protect the oil and banking interests of the Rockefellers and other billionaires.” Americans, he predicted, would soon “pay on the battlefields with our very own lives.” Their criticism of the Ayatollah was intended “to get us ready for war.” And, Pulley charged, the media who criticized those of us who were against “American imperialism” were “declared insane.” As for the hostages, Pulley said “we can be sure that many of them are simply spies… or people assigned to protect the spies.” Pulley’s words were a direct echo of what the Islamic Society of University Teachers and Students had declared on Nov. 4, 1979 : “We defend the capture of this imperialist embassy, which is a center for espionage.”
Not much has changed since 1980. Sanders is still a blame-America-first crank who had little or nothing to say about the Iranian-led attack on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. But he exploded in fury over the killing of arch-terrorist Qassem Soleimani and pledged to “stop a war with Iran,” just as in 1980 his Socialist Workers’ Party had no problem with the mullahs holding 52 Americans hostage for over a year, but hysterically warned that the Carter administration was leading us into war with Iran. Which would have been all our fault.
Sanders was a nasty piece of work then, and he is equally nasty now.


powerlineblog--2020-01-19--Thread: A Story That Makes You Proud to Be an American

While we await the start of today ’ s conference championship games , I came across a story from a few months back that just makes you want to stand up and salute our armed forces even more than usual : US troops drink Iceland capital ’ s entire beer supply in one weekend More than 6,000 soldiers were in Reykjavik for four days participating in the Trident Juncture 18 – a NATO-led military exercise .
After their drills , the troops reportedly visited the city ’ s downtown bars , where they finished off the entire beer supply .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ brewery Ölgerð Egils Skallagrímssonar had to send emergency beer cases to the bars .
Bar owners reportedly said they have never experienced a situation similar to this before .
Too bad no one had the wit to have our forces invade Greenland the next day .
But speaking of sports , I ’ m hoping to get our senior sports editor and baseball expert—Paul—to weigh in on the sign-stealing scandal of major league baseball .
It is not unusual in the Olympics for medals to be stripped from event winners , sometimes long @ @ @ @ @ @ @ platform , when failed drug tests or other proof of cheating emerges later .
Should the Astros be stripped of their World Series title from 2017 ?
Or should it be accompanied by an asterisk , literally or figuratively , as we now do with Barry Bonds ’ s home run “ record ” ?

While we await the start of today’s conference championship games, I came across a story from a few months back that just makes you want to stand up and salute our armed forces even more than usual:
US troops drink Iceland capital’s entire beer supply in one weekend More than 6,000 soldiers were in Reykjavik for four days participating in the Trident Juncture 18 – a NATO-led military exercise. After their drills, the troops reportedly visited the city’s downtown bars, where they finished off the entire beer supply. According to Icelandinc magazine Visir, the brewery Ölgerð Egils Skallagrímssonar had to send emergency beer cases to the bars. Bar owners reportedly said they have never experienced a situation similar to this before.
Too bad no one had the wit to have our forces invade Greenland the next day.
But speaking of sports, I’m hoping to get our senior sports editor and baseball expert—Paul—to weigh in on the sign-stealing scandal of major league baseball. It is not unusual in the Olympics for medals to be stripped from event winners, sometimes long after the medals were awarded on the platform, when failed drug tests or other proof of cheating emerges later. Should the Astros be stripped of their World Series title from 2017? Or should it be accompanied by an asterisk, literally or figuratively, as we now do with Barry Bonds’s home run “record”?


powerlineblog--2020-01-19--Trump responds, harsh brief to follow

Trump responds, harsh brief to follow

President Trump has filed a short but sweet six-page Answer to the two articles of impeachment forwarded by the House @ @ @ @ @ .
I have embedded a PDF of the Answer below .
Trump ’ s brief @ @ @ @ @ The House impeachment managers filed their 111-page brief last week .
It is accessible online @ @ @ @ @ it , the House brief “ featured a slate of evidence that has emerged in @ @ @ @ @ impeached Trump on Dec. 18.
” Politico does not pause to explain why that might @ @ @ @ @ House brief at face value .
The case for impeachment urged by the House brings @ @ @ @ @ of Fielding Mellish in the film Bananas .
What we have here “ is a @ @ @ @ @ a travesty of a mockery of a sham of a mockery of a travesty of @ @ @ @ @ !
” Not entirely inappropriately , this is the spirit of Trump ’ s Answer @ @ @ @ @ J. Trump by Scott Johnson on Scribd

President Trump has filed a short but sweet six-page Answer to the two articles of impeachment forwarded by the House to the Senate last week. I have embedded a PDF of the Answer below. Trump’s brief is to follow tomorrow.
The House impeachment managers filed their 111-page brief last week. It is accessible online here. As Politico put it, the House brief “featured a slate of evidence that has emerged in the month since the House impeached Trump on Dec. 18.”
Politico does not pause to explain why that might be. It takes the House brief at face value.
The case for impeachment urged by the House brings to mind the immortal words of Fielding Mellish in the film Bananas. What we have here “is a travesty! It’s a travesty of a mockery of a sham of a mockery of a travesty of two mockeries of a sham!” Not entirely inappropriately, this is the spirit of Trump’s Answer.
Answer of President Donald J. Trump by Scott Johnson on Scribd


powerlineblog--2020-01-20--The New York Times Never Disappoints!

The New York Times Never Disappoints!

There ’ s a joke from way back in the 1980s about how the major media would report the announcement that the world is going to end tomorrow .
The Wall Street Journal ’ s headline would say , “ World Ending Tomorrow ; Markets to Close Early.
” USA Today ’ s headline would say , “ World Ending Tomorrow , but We ’ ll Grin and Bear It.
” And the New York Times headline would say : “ World Ending Tomorrow : Women and Minorities Hardest Hit.
” Lo and behold , here is a real New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : It ’ s like they ’ re trying to put the Babylon Bee out of business or something .
Meanwhile , the Times has announced its endorsement for president .
Big surprise : they have endorsed a Democrat .
As they have for the last 50+ years .
But wait—they ’ ve actually endorsed two Democrats : Amy Klobuchar and Elizabeth Warren .
The Times is calling it a “ break with convention , ” but it is exactly the opposite : clearly they can not endorse a white male , no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is more conventional for liberalism today than the default to identity politics .
The Times endorsement essay offers some wonderful comedy writing , such as : “ Senator Warren is a gifted storyteller.
” Did no one at the Times pause for a moment to ponder how true this is ?
And this passage about Klobuchar is fun : “ Reports of how Senator Klobuchar treats her staff give us pause .
They raise serious questions about her ability to attract and hire talented people.
” Well , New York Times editorial writers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about finding out first hand .

There’s a joke from way back in the 1980s about how the major media would report the announcement that the world is going to end tomorrow. The Wall Street Journal’s headline would say, “World Ending Tomorrow; Markets to Close Early.” USA Today’s headline would say, “World Ending Tomorrow, but We’ll Grin and Bear It.” And the New York Times headline would say: “World Ending Tomorrow: Women and Minorities Hardest Hit.”
Lo and behold, here is a real New York Times headline from two days ago:
It’s like they’re trying to put the Babylon Bee out of business or something.
Meanwhile, the Times has announced its endorsement for president. Big surprise: they have endorsed a Democrat. As they have for the last 50+ years. But wait—they’ve actually endorsed two Democrats: Amy Klobuchar and Elizabeth Warren. The Times is calling it a “break with convention,” but it is exactly the opposite: clearly they cannot endorse a white male, no matter how experienced or qualified. Nothing is more conventional for liberalism today than the default to identity politics.
The Times endorsement essay offers some wonderful comedy writing, such as: “Senator Warren is a gifted storyteller.” Did no one at the Times pause for a moment to ponder how true this is?
And this passage about Klobuchar is fun: “Reports of how Senator Klobuchar treats her staff give us pause. They raise serious questions about her ability to attract and hire talented people.” Well, New York Times editorial writers obviously don’t have to worry about finding out first hand.


powerlineblog--2020-01-20--The horror: Trump balked at being spoon fed conventional wisdom

Two of the Washington Post ’ s Trump-despising reporters , Carol Leonnig and Philip Rucker , have a new book about the president called A Very Stable Genius .
In advance of its publication , the Post ran an excerpt in today ’ s paper .
The excerpt describes how three of Trump ’ s then-top advisers — James Mattis , Rex Tillerson , and Gary Cohn — organized a session for the president designed to sell him on key aspects of conventional policy wisdom .
According to Leonnig and Rucker , the three were alarmed by what they viewed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s knowledge of history , especially the key alliances forged following World War II.
” By holding the session — a “ tailored tutorial ” in the authors ’ words — the three hoped to educate Trump .
In particular , they sought to instruct him as to why U.S. troops are deployed in so many parts of the world and why , in the view of the three , America ’ s safety depends on a complex web of trade deals , alliances , and bases across the globe .
Anyone want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ went ?
Right .
According to the Post reporters ’ sources , Trump “ appeared peeved by the schoolhouse vibe.
” Moreover , “ his ricocheting attention span led him to repeatedly interrupt the lesson.
” What nerve !
He ’ s lucky to have avoided detention .
Trump even went so far as to express dismay that the U.S. wasn ’ t winning the war in Afghanistan .
When Gen. Dunford , chairman of the joint chiefs of staff , explained that the military hadn ’ t been under orders to defeat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
According to the Post reporters ’ sources , he said , “ I want to win.
” Then , he added , “ I wouldn ’ t go to war with you people ” and told the assembled group , which included top military commanders , “ you ’ re a bunch of dopes and babies.
” The meeting soon ended .
It was shortly afterwards that Tillerson made his famous remark that Trump is “ a f*****g moron.
” But the account of this meeting , rendered in part by Tillerson @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this assessment .
Rude , yes .
Indelicate , highly .
Trump certainly shouldn ’ t have called our military leaders “ dopes and babies ” ( if he did ) .
But it ’ s not moronic to question internationalist wisdom or to complain about how the war in Afghanistan has gone .
Gen. Dunford , though rightly unhappy , I ’ m sure , with the language Trump used about the military brass , had the correct take on the meeting .
He said : Personally , I probably agree with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tillerson , Cohn , and Dunford pushed at this meeting .
But there ’ s nothing wrong with a president questioning these assumptions .
In fact , such questioning is a good thing .
Here ’ s the important question , though : What policies have emerged from discussions between Trump and the purveyors of conventional wisdom ?
How has Trump synthesized establishment theses — e.g .
on our post-World War II alliance with Western Europe and on trade — with his own skepticism ?
Trump has not dismantled NATO .
The Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ members meet their payment obligation .
Nothing wrong with that .
On trade , the Trump synthesis is an improved agreement with Canada and Mexico .
It ’ s also a more balanced trading relationship with China .
Sounds good to me .
Leonnig and Rucker mention the Iran nuclear deal .
Here , there is no synthesis — not at this point , anyway .
The deal is the thesis ; pulling out , as Trump has done , is the antithesis .
A synthesis would be an improved deal .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Iran nuclear deal is not part of the post-World War II internationalist vision that Mattis , Tillerson , and Cohn were trying to sell to Trump .
Nor was it the product of any contemporary bipartisan consensus .
If it had been , President Obama could have gotten the deal ratified as a treaty .
Trump is neither an iconoclast nor a “ moron ” for pulling out of the Iran nuclear deal .
To get a true sense of the arrogance and condescension behind the Mattis , Tillerson , Cohn “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ statement by a “ senior official ” who helped plan the meeting : We were starting to get out on the wrong path [ Note : the path the president campaigned successfully on and wanted to take ] , and we really needed to have a course correction and needed to educate , to teach , to help him understand the reason and basis for a lot of these things .
We needed to change how he thinks about this , to course correct .
Everybody was on board [ Note : that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wisdom ] , 100 percent agreed with that sentiment , [ but ] they were dismayed and in shock when not only did it not have the intended effect , but he dug in his heels and pushed it even further on the spectrum , further solidifying his views .
Who is the “ f*****g moron ” — the president who pushed back during a “ tutorial ” on conventional wisdom or anyone who didn ’ t realize that this sort of session would not have its “ intended effect ” ?

Two of the Washington Post’s Trump-despising reporters, Carol Leonnig and Philip Rucker, have a new book about the president called A Very Stable Genius. In advance of its publication, the Post ran an excerpt in today’s paper.
The excerpt describes how three of Trump’s then-top advisers — James Mattis, Rex Tillerson, and Gary Cohn — organized a session for the president designed to sell him on key aspects of conventional policy wisdom. According to Leonnig and Rucker, the three were alarmed by what they viewed as “gaping holes in Trump’s knowledge of history, especially the key alliances forged following World War II.”
By holding the session — a “tailored tutorial” in the authors’ words — the three hoped to educate Trump. In particular, they sought to instruct him as to why U.S. troops are deployed in so many parts of the world and why, in the view of the three, America’s safety depends on a complex web of trade deals, alliances, and bases across the globe.
Anyone want to guess how the “tutorial” went?
Right. According to the Post reporters’ sources, Trump “appeared peeved by the schoolhouse vibe.” Moreover, “his ricocheting attention span led him to repeatedly interrupt the lesson.”
What nerve! He’s lucky to have avoided detention.
Trump even went so far as to express dismay that the U.S. wasn’t winning the war in Afghanistan. When Gen. Dunford, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, explained that the military hadn’t been under orders to defeat the enemy, Trump lost his temper.
According to the Post reporters’ sources, he said, “I want to win.” Then, he added, “I wouldn’t go to war with you people” and told the assembled group, which included top military commanders, “you’re a bunch of dopes and babies.”
The meeting soon ended. It was shortly afterwards that Tillerson made his famous remark that Trump is “a f*****g moron.”
But the account of this meeting, rendered in part by Tillerson I assume, doesn’t support this assessment. Rude, yes. Indelicate, highly.
Trump certainly shouldn’t have called our military leaders “dopes and babies” (if he did). But it’s not moronic to question internationalist wisdom or to complain about how the war in Afghanistan has gone.
Gen. Dunford, though rightly unhappy, I’m sure, with the language Trump used about the military brass, had the correct take on the meeting. He said:
[Trump] asked a lot of hard questions, and the one thing he does is question some fundamental assumptions that we make as military leaders — and he will come in and question those. It’s a pretty energetic and an interactive dialogue.
Personally, I probably agree with many of the assumptions that Mattis, Tillerson, Cohn, and Dunford pushed at this meeting. But there’s nothing wrong with a president questioning these assumptions. In fact, such questioning is a good thing.
Here’s the important question, though: What policies have emerged from discussions between Trump and the purveyors of conventional wisdom? How has Trump synthesized establishment theses — e.g. on our post-World War II alliance with Western Europe and on trade — with his own skepticism?
Trump has not dismantled NATO. The Trump synthesis is a NATO in which all members meet their payment obligation. Nothing wrong with that.
On trade, the Trump synthesis is an improved agreement with Canada and Mexico. It’s also a more balanced trading relationship with China. Sounds good to me.
Leonnig and Rucker mention the Iran nuclear deal. Here, there is no synthesis — not at this point, anyway. The deal is the thesis; pulling out, as Trump has done, is the antithesis. A synthesis would be an improved deal. That may be a pipe dream.
But the Iran nuclear deal is not part of the post-World War II internationalist vision that Mattis, Tillerson, and Cohn were trying to sell to Trump. Nor was it the product of any contemporary bipartisan consensus. If it had been, President Obama could have gotten the deal ratified as a treaty. Trump is neither an iconoclast nor a “moron” for pulling out of the Iran nuclear deal.
To get a true sense of the arrogance and condescension behind the Mattis, Tillerson, Cohn “tutorial” for Trump, consider this statement by a “senior official” who helped plan the meeting:
We were starting to get out on the wrong path [Note: the path the president campaigned successfully on and wanted to take], and we really needed to have a course correction and needed to educate, to teach, to help him understand the reason and basis for a lot of these things. We needed to change how he thinks about this, to course correct. Everybody was on board [Note: that’s how it is with conventional wisdom], 100 percent agreed with that sentiment, [but] they were dismayed and in shock when not only did it not have the intended effect, but he dug in his heels and pushed it even further on the spectrum, further solidifying his views.
Who is the “f*****g moron” — the president who pushed back during a “tutorial” on conventional wisdom or anyone who didn’t realize that this sort of session would not have its “intended effect”?


powerlineblog--2020-01-20--What Do Iran, Chile and France Have In Common?

Not much , one would think .
Except for this : all three governments thought it would be a good @ @ @ @ @ price of energy , as the Democratic Party wants to do here in the U.S @ @ @ @ @ three very different contexts , was the same .
Mark Mathis of Clear Energy Alliance @ @ @ @ @ : The Democrats ignore this history–like so much other history that they ignore–at their peril @

Not much, one would think. Except for this: all three governments thought it would be a good idea to significantly increase the price of energy, as the Democratic Party wants to do here in the U.S. The result, in three very different contexts, was the same. Mark Mathis of Clear Energy Alliance explains in this short video:
The Democrats ignore this history–like so much other history that they ignore–at their peril.


powerlineblog--2020-01-21--Hillary Doesn’t ❤ Bernie

Hillary Doesn’t ❤ Bernie

Last week I mentioned the possibility that Michael Bloomberg is setting himself up to run as an independent in the fall .
Today we should entertain the possibility that Hillary is itching to run again , and hoping to be “ on call ” in case of a deadlocked convention .
Did you hear there is a documentary hagiographic film about Hillary coming out soon on Hulu ?
( Of course , it is going to preview soon at the Sundance Film Festival , where , if memory serves , a documentary on Saint Alexandria of Ocasio-Cortez will be out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all about it in today ’ s Hollywood Reporter , which I know is always on the top of every Power Line reader ’ s regular reading pile .
The story recounts how the film was made , and finds that “ The end result , simply titled Hillary , is a largely flattering portrayal.
” Big surprise there .
But there are some fun parts to the story , including Hillary ’ s unsurprising opinion that “ Nobody likes [ Bernie Sanders ] , nobody wants to work with him , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ career politician .
It ’ s all just baloney and I feel so bad that people got sucked into it.
” Of course , some of this is Hillary ’ s bitterness at what she thinks was the sexism of Bernie ’ s challenge to her in 2016 : “ It ’ s his online Bernie Bros and their relentless attacks on lots of his competitors , particularly the women .
And I really hope people are paying attention to that because it should be worrisome that he has permitted this culture — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seems to really be very much supporting it.
” As Glenn Reynolds likes to ask , how come so many liberals and leftists ( and their institutions ) turn out to be such cesspools of sexism ( and racism ) ?
And then Hillary refers to the voices in her head with this question and answer : Is there any piece of you that has considered jumping into the race ?
I have had so many people [ urge me to ] .
Every day .
And I ’ m grateful for people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think it was right for me to step back .
I ’ ll do anything I can to defeat the current incumbent , and to reverse a lot of his damaging policies .
Thankfully , I still have a voice and a following .
Finally , in the Absence of Self-Awareness Department , Hillary demonstrates that she really doesn ’ t know the New York Times or the TV network news bureaus very well : How can the left combat Fox News ?
It ’ s really a shame that all the people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t understood that that ’ s exactly the right question to ask .
We do have some well-off people who support Democratic candidates , there ’ s no doubt about that , but they ’ ve never bought a TV station .
They ’ ve never gobbled up radio stations .
They ’ ve never created newspapers in local communities to put out propaganda .
That ’ s all been done not just by Murdoch and Fox , but by Sinclair and by the Koch brothers and by so many others who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we really influence the thinking of Americans .
Maybe her film is a mockumentary after all ?

Last week I mentioned the possibility that Michael Bloomberg is setting himself up to run as an independent in the fall. Today we should entertain the possibility that Hillary is itching to run again, and hoping to be “on call” in case of a deadlocked convention. Why not? She’s tanned, rested, and ready!
Did you hear there is a documentary hagiographic film about Hillary coming out soon on Hulu? (Of course, it is going to preview soon at the Sundance Film Festival, where, if memory serves, a documentary on Saint Alexandria of Ocasio-Cortez will be out for bid.) You can read all about it in today’s Hollywood Reporter, which I know is always on the top of every Power Line reader’s regular reading pile. The story recounts how the film was made, and finds that “The end result, simply titled Hillary, is a largely flattering portrayal.” Big surprise there.
But there are some fun parts to the story, including Hillary’s unsurprising opinion that “Nobody likes [Bernie Sanders], nobody wants to work with him, he got nothing done. He was a career politician. It’s all just baloney and I feel so bad that people got sucked into it.”
Of course, some of this is Hillary’s bitterness at what she thinks was the sexism of Bernie’s challenge to her in 2016: “It’s his online Bernie Bros and their relentless attacks on lots of his competitors, particularly the women. And I really hope people are paying attention to that because it should be worrisome that he has permitted this culture — not only permitted, [he] seems to really be very much supporting it.”
As Glenn Reynolds likes to ask, how come so many liberals and leftists (and their institutions) turn out to be such cesspools of sexism (and racism)?
And then Hillary refers to the voices in her head with this question and answer:
Is there any piece of you that has considered jumping into the race? I have had so many people [urge me to]. Every day. And I’m grateful for people’s confidence, but I did think it was right for me to step back. I’ll do anything I can to defeat the current incumbent, and to reverse a lot of his damaging policies. Thankfully, I still have a voice and a following.
Finally, in the Absence of Self-Awareness Department, Hillary demonstrates that she really doesn’t know the New York Times or the TV network news bureaus very well:
How can the left combat Fox News? It’s really a shame that all the people who support progressive politics and policies haven’t understood that that’s exactly the right question to ask. We do have some well-off people who support Democratic candidates, there’s no doubt about that, but they’ve never bought a TV station. They’ve never gobbled up radio stations. They’ve never created newspapers in local communities to put out propaganda. That’s all been done not just by Murdoch and Fox, but by Sinclair and by the Koch brothers and by so many others who have played a long game about how we really influence the thinking of Americans.
Seriously, why would a liberal billionaire want to invest in media when the New York Times (etc, etc) works for you for free? Maybe her film is a mockumentary after all?
Now back to impeachment.
P.S. This chart displays one reason why the Clintons are desperate to get back into the major league of presidential politics: