hotair--2020-05-26--Governor Whitmer's husband played the entitlement card, failure ensued

Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer ’ s husband , Marc Mallory owns a boat .
He asked that the marina staff put the boat in the water so that it would be ready for Memorial Day weekend .
His request was denied .
Governor Whitmer lifted some of her stay at home orders last week , asking for people to behave responsibly as the coronavirus pandemic continues to be an issue in Michigan .
One example she mentioned was that she didn ’ t want everyone to rush out to the waterfront regions of Traverse City .
She wants people to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crowds gather for relaxation on the water .
Apparently , her husband didn ’ t get the memo .
Whitmer announced plans to lift restrictions on northern Lower Michigan and the Upper Peninsula ahead of the Memorial Day weekend on May 18 .
Three days after Whitmer warned that even a small spike in coronavirus cases would quickly put the hospital system in dire straits , a post on Facebook appeared from the owner of a marina .
Governor Whitmer ’ s husband , Marc Mallory , a dentist , wanted his boat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weekend .
NorthShore Dock LLC Tad Dowker explained that Mallory made the request of his staff and when Mallory was turned down , the inevitable happened .
Mallory played the entitlement card .
Not cool , dude .
Dowker ’ s Facebook post emerged Thursday — three days after Whitmer announced she would lift some business and travel restrictions on Northern Lower Michigan and the Upper Peninsula , where there are many vacation destinations and fewer COVID-19 cases than other areas of the state .
Whitmer first issued a statewide stay-at-home order to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ March 23 .
“ This morning , I was out working when the office called me , there was a gentleman on hold who wanted his boat in the water before the weekend , ” Dowker posted .
“ Being Memorial weekend and the fact that we started working three weeks late means there is no chance this is going to happen.
” “ Well our office personnel had explained this to the man and he replied , ‘ I am the husband to the governor , will this make a difference ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ after he tried to jump to the front of the line and was denied , Dr. Mallory accepted his answer without throwing a fit .
At least that is what was in his second Facebook post .
Dowker deleted the first post after it went viral .
And , Dowker says he didn ’ t know they were his customers .
The governor and her husband , who have five kids , live in Lansing and own a property in the Elk Rapids area .
No doubt it is normal for Mallory to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weekends with the family .
This , however , is not normal times and his wife has embraced her inner authoritarian with vigor .
Her stay at home orders for the state likely caused the marina owner to be backlogged in work .
Perhaps the first and then second Facebook posts were a way for the marina owner to vent some frustration over the governor ’ s restrictions on his business .
Who would blame him ?
It sounds as if the post was taken down after second thoughts .
The response from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ marina owner had to have known would speak up over the obvious hypocrisy on display , probably overwhelmed his staff during such a busy time .
Mallory isn ’ t a villain here , by the way .
He just messed up by asking for special treatment .
He had a very American reaction to a holiday weekend – let ’ s take out the boat .
What is ridiculous has been his wife ’ s iron fist on private citizens wanting to travel to their own property , like a second home @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their primary residence , which seems ridiculous .
What harm would come from traveling in a car to shelter in place at another property ?
Authoritarianism is a hella drug .
For that matter , what harm would come from a boater on the open water enjoying the outdoors ?
The property owned by the governor and her husband is reported to be about 25 minutes from Traverse City .
Lansing is over 150 miles away , according to this report .
The fallout was what you would expect , especially for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s shortlist of vice-presidential candidates .
Republican lawmakers posted their own Facebook responses to the whole kerfuffle .
Those responses are being muted , though , out of deference to the governor ’ s office .
State Sen. Tom Barrett , R-Charlotte , wrote his own Facebook post on Friday , criticizing Mallory ’ s apparent request for the boat installation .
The post was shared 500 times , Barrett said .
But the lawmaker said he eventually deleted it after the governor ’ s office reached out to the staff of Senate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asking for the post to be removed and contending the comments were false .
Barrett , who looked into the situation further , said he now believes the governor ’ s office had made him an “ unwilling ” accessory in an attempted cover-up of the situation .
The senator also mentioned that Whitmer had told other Michigan residents not to “ descend ” on Traverse City .
“ Yet , what did her family try and do ?
” Barrett said .
Republicans always do this – back down on reasonable criticism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ played .
Republicans never learn , do they ?

Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer’s husband, Marc Mallory owns a boat. He asked that the marina staff put the boat in the water so that it would be ready for Memorial Day weekend. His request was denied.
Governor Whitmer lifted some of her stay at home orders last week, asking for people to behave responsibly as the coronavirus pandemic continues to be an issue in Michigan. One example she mentioned was that she didn’t want everyone to rush out to the waterfront regions of Traverse City. She wants people to “think long and hard” before crowds gather for relaxation on the water. Apparently, her husband didn’t get the memo.
Whitmer announced plans to lift restrictions on northern Lower Michigan and the Upper Peninsula ahead of the Memorial Day weekend on May 18. Three days after Whitmer warned that even a small spike in coronavirus cases would quickly put the hospital system in dire straits, a post on Facebook appeared from the owner of a marina. Governor Whitmer’s husband, Marc Mallory, a dentist, wanted his boat put into the water for Memorial Day weekend. NorthShore Dock LLC Tad Dowker explained that Mallory made the request of his staff and when Mallory was turned down, the inevitable happened. Mallory played the entitlement card. Not cool, dude.
Dowker’s Facebook post emerged Thursday — three days after Whitmer announced she would lift some business and travel restrictions on Northern Lower Michigan and the Upper Peninsula, where there are many vacation destinations and fewer COVID-19 cases than other areas of the state. Whitmer first issued a statewide stay-at-home order to combat the spread of the virus on March 23. “This morning, I was out working when the office called me, there was a gentleman on hold who wanted his boat in the water before the weekend,” Dowker posted. “Being Memorial weekend and the fact that we started working three weeks late means there is no chance this is going to happen.” “Well our office personnel had explained this to the man and he replied, ‘I am the husband to the governor, will this make a difference?'”
The good news is that after he tried to jump to the front of the line and was denied, Dr. Mallory accepted his answer without throwing a fit. At least that is what was in his second Facebook post. Dowker deleted the first post after it went viral. And, Dowker says he didn’t know they were his customers.
“After a long day of keeping crews running, adhering to the additional safety regulations that need to be in place to operate our small business and fielding calls from customers frustrated with our lagging installation schedule I was told the governor’s husband called asking for install availability,” the company posted. “Up until this point we, as a company, had no idea we installed their dock or boat.”
The governor and her husband, who have five kids, live in Lansing and own a property in the Elk Rapids area. No doubt it is normal for Mallory to head to that area during long holiday weekends with the family. This, however, is not normal times and his wife has embraced her inner authoritarian with vigor. Her stay at home orders for the state likely caused the marina owner to be backlogged in work. Perhaps the first and then second Facebook posts were a way for the marina owner to vent some frustration over the governor’s restrictions on his business. Who would blame him?
The governor’s spokesperson released a statement.
“Our practice is not to discuss the governor’s or her family’s personal calendar/schedules. And we’re not going to make it a practice of addressing every rumor that is spread online,” Brown said. “There’s been a lot of wild misinformation spreading online attacking the governor and her family, and the threats of violence against her personally are downright dangerous,” she added.
It sounds as if the post was taken down after second thoughts. The response from Whitmer’s critics, which the marina owner had to have known would speak up over the obvious hypocrisy on display, probably overwhelmed his staff during such a busy time.
Mallory isn’t a villain here, by the way. He just messed up by asking for special treatment. He had a very American reaction to a holiday weekend – let’s take out the boat. What is ridiculous has been his wife’s iron fist on private citizens wanting to travel to their own property, like a second home. She told them to remain in their primary residence, which seems ridiculous. What harm would come from traveling in a car to shelter in place at another property? Authoritarianism is a hella drug. For that matter, what harm would come from a boater on the open water enjoying the outdoors?
The property owned by the governor and her husband is reported to be about 25 minutes from Traverse City. Lansing is over 150 miles away, according to this report.
The fallout was what you would expect, especially for a woman who is on Joe Biden’s shortlist of vice-presidential candidates. Republican lawmakers posted their own Facebook responses to the whole kerfuffle. Those responses are being muted, though, out of deference to the governor’s office.
State Sen. Tom Barrett, R-Charlotte, wrote his own Facebook post on Friday, criticizing Mallory’s apparent request for the boat installation. The post was shared 500 times, Barrett said. But the lawmaker said he eventually deleted it after the governor’s office reached out to the staff of Senate Majority Leader Mike Shirkey, R-Clarklake, asking for the post to be removed and contending the comments were false. Barrett, who looked into the situation further, said he now believes the governor’s office had made him an “unwilling” accessory in an attempted cover-up of the situation. The senator also mentioned that Whitmer had told other Michigan residents not to “descend” on Traverse City. “Yet, what did her family try and do?” Barrett said.
Republicans always do this – back down on reasonable criticism and this lawmaker now realizes he got played. Republicans never learn, do they?


hotair--2020-05-27--What's going on with Trump's job approval lately?

Tom Bevan , the head of RealClearPolitics , caught me off-guard when he tweeted this earlier .
That seemed … not right .
Why would Trump ’ s job approval be crumbling now that daily deaths from coronavirus are down , testing is up , and the economy is beginning to reopen ?
It would have made sense for voters to turn on him temporarily six weeks ago , when New York was still in the thick of its crisis and there was no end in sight to the lockdowns .
But now the picture has brightened a bit .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ not worse .
Here ’ s the same graph that Bevan tweeted , but with a more abbreviated timeline .
This shows Trump ’ s approval from March 27 , when he was underwater by just two points , to today .
The trend is dramatic .
RCP calculated its latest number by taking an average of eight separate polls .
Two of those polls were conspicuously bad for Trump : Morning Consult ’ s latest survey had his job approval at 40/57 while Rasmussen , surprisingly , had it at 42/57 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ both outliers and that the next few polls will confirm that Trump ’ s numbers are closer to 45/52 , in line with his traditional job approval .
I emailed a friend in politics who crunches number like these for a living , though , and he said he thought the trend was real .
When I asked why Trump would be facing a backlash over coronavirus now instead of weeks ago he said it was simple : There ’ s always some lag time in popular opinion between when something happens and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ polls .
It ’ s why politicos focus on second-quarter economic reports instead of third-quarter ones before an election , he said .
It can take months for information to fully penetrate and meaningfully shift public opinion .
I don ’ t know that I buy it .
Reaction to two earth-shaking events , the explosion of coronavirus in the U.S. and the ensuing economic collapse , shouldn ’ t take months to register in polling .
George W. Bush ’ s job approval went from 51/39 to 86/10 within a week of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me that that ’ s an unfair comparison because 9/11 was a discrete event and the pandemic and economic fallout are ongoing crises , okay .
Even so , the trajectory of deaths and job losses was clear enough a month after the lockdowns began .
If Trump ’ s sudden slide is the result of a reaction to that , shouldn ’ t we have seen it in polling a month ago ?
And shouldn ’ t we be seeing some evidence of those supposed slide in the head-to-head polling with Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ within three of the Democrat , not what you ’ d expect if the bottom was falling out in his support .
In fact , look again at the graph above .
After falling modestly between late March and mid-May , his job approval spent a week recovering and climbing again — only to slide again now .
That makes no sense to me .
I think what we ’ re seeing here is statistical noise , soon to disappear .
Although … the Rasmussen numbers lately have been noteworthy .
They ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the business , and yet : It ’ s rare for Rasmussen to record three straight days of -16 or worse in its net approval index for him .
The last time it happened was January 2019 .
Their numbers are the strongest evidence I ’ ve seen of a genuine Trump slide , even if I can ’ t figure out what would explain it .
It can ’ t be his especially weird Twitter antics lately ; no one cares about that outside of the small niche of online political news @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the race , though , even before this new round of polling .
Politico reports today on a visit he received recently from a pair of trusted advisors : David Bossie and Corey Lewandowski , two key allies and former political advisers to Donald Trump , went to the White House last week to issue him a warning : The president was slipping badly in swing states , and he needed to do something to fix it… After his May 18 meeting with Bossie and Lewandowski , Trump called his top campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political standing… Republicans involved with setting up the Thursday meeting with Trump ’ s state directors said they were taken aback by Bossie and Lewandowski ’ s warning .
They felt the need to mollify Trump , who has been kept abreast of his reelection effort but hasn ’ t always been aware of the granular , on-the-ground details .
Maybe that was just Bossie and Lewandowski trying to muscle their way into landing jobs with the campaign , but the two states they reportedly told Trump looked dicey , Arizona and Florida @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The last poll of Florida had Biden up six , the last poll of Arizona had him up seven .
Another poll out of Arizona today is downright hair-raising : Biden ’ s not going to blow Trump out there but Kelly may well blow out McSally , and the little bit of extra turnout he may generate for his race might be enough to help Biden over the finish line .
A separate Politico piece today reports on Trump advisors grumbling that the campaign has wasted precious time by not attacking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ try to define him before he can define himself for the public this summer .
But I think Jason Miller ’ s right : “ The campaign is being smart because voters are not paying attention to politics right now.
” It would have been a bad look for the campaign to start running ads screaming about Burisma in April amid news reports of thousands of COVID-19 deaths per day .
Trump would have been accused of having his priorities out of whack .
It was smart of him and his team to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Now he can attack Biden without it seeming callous .
In lieu of an exit question , here ’ s a poll yesterday that shows Trump leading Biden by three — in Utah .
I don ’ t buy that either , as there were various polls in 2016 that showed him clinging to a shockingly narrow lead there before he ended up winning the state going away .
But needless to say , if there ’ s any truth to that one then he ’ s in deeper trouble than even he @ @ @

Tom Bevan, the head of RealClearPolitics, caught me off-guard when he tweeted this earlier.
The spread on Trump's job approval (-11.0) is the largest it's been since November 6 of last year. pic.twitter.com/nqwhifvKtl — Tom Bevan (@TomBevanRCP) May 27, 2020
That seemed … not right. Why would Trump’s job approval be crumbling now that daily deaths from coronavirus are down, testing is up, and the economy is beginning to reopen? It would have made sense for voters to turn on him temporarily six weeks ago, when New York was still in the thick of its crisis and there was no end in sight to the lockdowns. But now the picture has brightened a bit. His numbers should be looking better, not worse.
Here’s the same graph that Bevan tweeted, but with a more abbreviated timeline. This shows Trump’s approval from March 27, when he was underwater by just two points, to today. The trend is dramatic.
RCP calculated its latest number by taking an average of eight separate polls. Two of those polls were conspicuously bad for Trump: Morning Consult’s latest survey had his job approval at 40/57 while Rasmussen, surprisingly, had it at 42/57. My guess is that they’re both outliers and that the next few polls will confirm that Trump’s numbers are closer to 45/52, in line with his traditional job approval. I emailed a friend in politics who crunches number like these for a living, though, and he said he thought the trend was real. When I asked why Trump would be facing a backlash over coronavirus now instead of weeks ago he said it was simple: There’s always some lag time in popular opinion between when something happens and when public reaction begins showing up in polls. It’s why politicos focus on second-quarter economic reports instead of third-quarter ones before an election, he said. It can take months for information to fully penetrate and meaningfully shift public opinion.
I don’t know that I buy it. Reaction to two earth-shaking events, the explosion of coronavirus in the U.S. and the ensuing economic collapse, shouldn’t take months to register in polling. George W. Bush’s job approval went from 51/39 to 86/10 within a week of 9/11. If you want to tell me that that’s an unfair comparison because 9/11 was a discrete event and the pandemic and economic fallout are ongoing crises, okay. Even so, the trajectory of deaths and job losses was clear enough a month after the lockdowns began. If Trump’s sudden slide is the result of a reaction to that, shouldn’t we have seen it in polling a month ago? And shouldn’t we be seeing some evidence of those supposed slide in the head-to-head polling with Biden? The most recent survey found Trump within three of the Democrat, not what you’d expect if the bottom was falling out in his support.
In fact, look again at the graph above. After falling modestly between late March and mid-May, his job approval spent a week recovering and climbing again — only to slide again now. That makes no sense to me. I think what we’re seeing here is statistical noise, soon to disappear.
Although … the Rasmussen numbers lately have been noteworthy. They’re the most famously Trump-friendly pollster in the business, and yet:
It’s rare for Rasmussen to record three straight days of -16 or worse in its net approval index for him. The last time it happened was January 2019. Their numbers are the strongest evidence I’ve seen of a genuine Trump slide, even if I can’t figure out what would explain it. It can’t be his especially weird Twitter antics lately; no one cares about that outside of the small niche of online political news junkies.
His allies were already nervous about the race, though, even before this new round of polling. Politico reports today on a visit he received recently from a pair of trusted advisors:
David Bossie and Corey Lewandowski, two key allies and former political advisers to Donald Trump, went to the White House last week to issue him a warning: The president was slipping badly in swing states, and he needed to do something to fix it… After his May 18 meeting with Bossie and Lewandowski, Trump called his top campaign lieutenants to vent his frustration about his political standing… Republicans involved with setting up the Thursday meeting with Trump’s state directors said they were taken aback by Bossie and Lewandowski’s warning. They felt the need to mollify Trump, who has been kept abreast of his reelection effort but hasn’t always been aware of the granular, on-the-ground details.
Maybe that was just Bossie and Lewandowski trying to muscle their way into landing jobs with the campaign, but the two states they reportedly told Trump looked dicey, Arizona and Florida, really do look dicey right now. The last poll of Florida had Biden up six, the last poll of Arizona had him up seven. Another poll out of Arizona today is downright hair-raising:
Arizona Senate GE:
Mark Kelly (D) 51% (+10)
Martha McSally (R-inc) 41%@azhighground 5/18-22 — Political Polls (@Politics_Polls) May 27, 2020
Biden’s not going to blow Trump out there but Kelly may well blow out McSally, and the little bit of extra turnout he may generate for his race might be enough to help Biden over the finish line. A separate Politico piece today reports on Trump advisors grumbling that the campaign has wasted precious time by not attacking Biden sooner and more aggressively, to try to define him before he can define himself for the public this summer. But I think Jason Miller’s right: “The campaign is being smart because voters are not paying attention to politics right now.” It would have been a bad look for the campaign to start running ads screaming about Burisma in April amid news reports of thousands of COVID-19 deaths per day. Trump would have been accused of having his priorities out of whack. It was smart of him and his team to hold off until things calmed down. Now he can attack Biden without it seeming callous.
In lieu of an exit question, here’s a poll yesterday that shows Trump leading Biden by three — in Utah. I don’t buy that either, as there were various polls in 2016 that showed him clinging to a shockingly narrow lead there before he ended up winning the state going away. But needless to say, if there’s any truth to that one then he’s in deeper trouble than even he may realize.


hotair--2020-05-27--Hollywood Reporter: Critics say Bret Baier is professional but leans to the right

It ’ s a bit hard to get over the absurdity of this article .
The underlying idea is that , although he seems to be a straight news guy , secretly Bret Baier is probably—wait for it—a Republican .
No , really , that ’ s the gist .
But even there , nearly all of the critical commentary in this Hollywood Reporter story comes from people no one would mistake for impartial sources .
“ I think the partisanship comes through very slyly , ” says a network source , who isn ’ t authorized to comment publicly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ He leans pro-Trump now.
” … Unsurprisingly , Baier ’ s toughest critic is Angelo Carusone , the president of Fox-monitoring advocacy group Media Matters for America .
“ He ’ s supposed to be the news guy , and there are quantifiable illustrations of him advocating for conservative , partisan politics and ideas , ” he says .
That ’ s really all of the space Carusone is given in the story but the idea that Media Matters is a fair judge is pretty absurd .
The group ’ s reason @ @ @ @ @ @ @ News .
But critiques extend beyond anti-Fox advocates , even to people who have largely positive impressions of Baier as a journalist and as a person .
“ He is affable .
He was always professional , ” a former Obama administration official says of Baier .
“ I do think , though , that this idea that he is a sort of straight shooter at Fox News is a complete misnomer .
He is part and parcel to the editorial bent of his network.
” … During the Obama administration , Baier @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi and the so-called “ Fast and Furious ” scandal that was seized on by conservative media opinionators .
“ Bret Baier wasn ’ t a straight shooter in any of that , ” the former Obama administration officials says of his coverage .
“ He was at the tip of the Fox spear.
” A former Obama official thinks Baier is too aggressive on Fast and Furious and Benghazi ?
As shocked as I am to hear it , we ’ re not done with the negative quotes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ admin and a Democratic strategist think he ’ s not fair .
Who would have guessed .
Honestly , I feel like these quotes should come with the equivalent of negative control , i.e .
can these same people recognize bias in the news people at MSNBC and CNN ?
I really wonder if they have any ability to detect bias beyond Fox News .
And even if they can detect it , does it bother them ?
I sort of doubt it .
In any case , the story moves on to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Trump admin figures , though that seems to be mostly about trying to secure interviews .
The closest the story gets to suggesting he takes advantage of those connections for personal gain is this : In October 2017 , Baier had reached out to then-Treasury Dept .
spokesperson Tony Sayegh to request a tour of the U.S. Mint building for his family and friends , according to private emails obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request .
Baier , however , was very undemanding in making the request , writing in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t work — don ’ t worry about it .
Meant to request last week .
Don ’ t spend too much time on it .
If you can point us to someone — and it ’ s easy — great .
If not — no worries .
Thanks.
” But there is some evidence Baier leans to the right .
He recently hosted a multi-part special titled “ The Unauthorized History of Socialism.
” That ’ s obviously evidence he ’ s too right wing for many Democrats .
As far @ @ @ @ @ @ @ isn ’ t a very convincing one and maybe that ’ s to the Hollywood Reporter ’ s credit .
I ’ m sure they could have found more left-wing critics with axes to grind but they really didn ’ t try too hard .
It ’ s really the big picture of this story that makes me shake my head .
In a media environment in which probably 85 % of “ straight news ” journalists are not-so-secretly Democrats/progressives , we ’ ve found space for a story that reveals Bret Baier @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we get the follow-up story on the hosts at MSNBC , CNN , NBC News , ABC News , CBS News , etc.
?
I doubt it will be that hard to find evidence that many of those hosts lean to the left both on air and off .

It’s a bit hard to get over the absurdity of this article. The underlying idea is that, although he seems to be a straight news guy, secretly Bret Baier is probably—wait for it—a Republican. No, really, that’s the gist. But even there, nearly all of the critical commentary in this Hollywood Reporter story comes from people no one would mistake for impartial sources.
“I think the partisanship comes through very slyly,” says a network source, who isn’t authorized to comment publicly. A former on-air colleague adds: “He leans pro-Trump now.”… Unsurprisingly, Baier’s toughest critic is Angelo Carusone, the president of Fox-monitoring advocacy group Media Matters for America. “He’s supposed to be the news guy, and there are quantifiable illustrations of him advocating for conservative, partisan politics and ideas,” he says.
That’s really all of the space Carusone is given in the story but the idea that Media Matters is a fair judge is pretty absurd. The group’s reason for existence is to campaign against Fox News.
But critiques extend beyond anti-Fox advocates, even to people who have largely positive impressions of Baier as a journalist and as a person. “He is affable. He was always professional,” a former Obama administration official says of Baier. “I do think, though, that this idea that he is a sort of straight shooter at Fox News is a complete misnomer. He is part and parcel to the editorial bent of his network.”… During the Obama administration, Baier closely covered the 2012 attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi and the so-called “Fast and Furious” scandal that was seized on by conservative media opinionators. “Bret Baier wasn’t a straight shooter in any of that,” the former Obama administration officials says of his coverage. “He was at the tip of the Fox spear.”
A former Obama official thinks Baier is too aggressive on Fast and Furious and Benghazi? As shocked as I am to hear it, we’re not done with the negative quotes yet:
“I think that Bret is among the more fair ones, but he’s not a fair journalist,” a Democratic Party strategist says. “He is still leading with Obamagate. He is still framing things in this completely, outrageously unfair way that ignores objectivity.”
Media Matters, the Obama admin and a Democratic strategist think he’s not fair. Who would have guessed. Honestly, I feel like these quotes should come with the equivalent of negative control, i.e. can these same people recognize bias in the news people at MSNBC and CNN? I really wonder if they have any ability to detect bias beyond Fox News. And even if they can detect it, does it bother them? I sort of doubt it.
In any case, the story moves on to the suggestion that Baier has been friendly with Trump admin figures, though that seems to be mostly about trying to secure interviews. The closest the story gets to suggesting he takes advantage of those connections for personal gain is this:
In October 2017, Baier had reached out to then-Treasury Dept. spokesperson Tony Sayegh to request a tour of the U.S. Mint building for his family and friends, according to private emails obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request. Baier, however, was very undemanding in making the request, writing in an email: “If it doesn’t work — don’t worry about it. Meant to request last week. Don’t spend too much time on it. If you can point us to someone — and it’s easy — great. If not — no worries. Thanks.”
But there is some evidence Baier leans to the right. He recently hosted a multi-part special titled “The Unauthorized History of Socialism.” That’s obviously evidence he’s too right wing for many Democrats.
As far as media take downs go, this isn’t a very convincing one and maybe that’s to the Hollywood Reporter’s credit. I’m sure they could have found more left-wing critics with axes to grind but they really didn’t try too hard.
It’s really the big picture of this story that makes me shake my head. In a media environment in which probably 85% of “straight news” journalists are not-so-secretly Democrats/progressives, we’ve found space for a story that reveals Bret Baier is probably a Republican. When do we get the follow-up story on the hosts at MSNBC, CNN, NBC News, ABC News, CBS News, etc.? I doubt it will be that hard to find evidence that many of those hosts lean to the left both on air and off.


hotair--2020-05-27--Today's hot question: When will Ratcliffe release transcripts at heart of the Flynn prosecution?

This might be the one key act that could deconstruct a number of non-COVID-19 crises , from a DC Circuit fight to impeachment and the upcoming election .
We can thank outgoing acting DNI Richard Grenell for creating the possibility , although many Democrats on Capitol Hill won ’ t be grateful for it at all .
In his final hours in charge of the nation ’ s intelligence communities , Grenell declassified the transcripts of calls between Michael Flynn and Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak — calls which formed the heart of a special-counsel prosecution effort that has derailed in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tell us ?
And more importantly — will newly installed DNI John Ratcliffe release them ?
Richard Grenell has declassified a new batch of Russia probe documents on his way out as acting director of national intelligence , leaving the decision on whether to make those files public up to newly sworn-in Director John Ratcliffe .
The documents include transcripts of phone calls that then-incoming National Security Adviser Michael Flynn and then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak had in December 2016 , during the presidential transition period .
Grenell said publicly last week that he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ files , after House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff , D-Calif. , asked that he do so .
Fox News has learned that the declassification review of those transcripts is now complete , and it will be left up to Ratcliffe on whether to release them publicly .
By the way , that ’ s not all Grenell declassified on his final day .
Ratcliffe has a few other tough choices to make : The real question isn ’ t will but when .
Now that Grenell has declassified the documents , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Senate Republicans will want to see them , and that means they will leak quickly .
They also might be subject to FOIA demands from outfits like Judicial Watch and others , as well as media outlets with some interest in exploring the ways power might have been abused in Russiagate .
That might leave out the major media outlets , admittedly , but they have a significant number of competitors who will tread that path whether mainstream outlets do or don ’ t .
One party to the call has a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attorney Sidney Powell openly complained last week that the defense had never been provided the calls or the transcripts .
She bet that the word “ sanctions ” never appeared in any of them even though that was the issue on which the FBI and DoJ later claimed Flynn lied , leading to his prosecution .
Even if Flynn had discussed sanctions with Kislyak , though , it would have been legal for him to do so as part of the incoming presidential transition team .
The full set of transcripts could answer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had a legit case against Flynn for obstruction — and that might embarrass one judge in particular , who refuses to sign off on the DoJ ’ s dismissal motion .
Now that the transcripts , at least , have been declassified , expect Powell to demand access to them .
That might accelerate their general publication as well , since they would undoubtedly enter the public record through court filings .
Ratcliffe might not have much choice at all in this case ; Grenell may have made all of those choices inevitable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Ratcliffe likely needs much prompting .
His passionate defense of Donald Trump in House Intelligence Committee hearings derailed the first attempt to nominate him for the DNI position .
Senate Democrats acquiesced to a vote on Ratcliffe only when it became clear that Grenell would impose a policy of radical transparency on US intelligence , especially on its work related to the entire debunked Russia-collusion hysteria .
Ratcliffe has to live with the intel community for a while longer than Grenell — just how much longer depends on the election — and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ things down a bit .
Grenell made that easy for him , too , preparing the ground so that Ratcliffe doesn ’ t have to take many more unpopular moves .
Yesterday , Ratcliffe issued a statement supportive of the intel community , but everyone there has to know what ’ s coming : On Wednesday , Fox News and the New York Post cited sources claiming Grenell declassified these Flynn-Kislyak transcripts and that it was now up to Ratcliffe as the new head of ODNI to decide whether to release the documents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ senior intelligence official who said that Grenell had also finished the declassification process for other Russia investigation documents , including one that was “ very significant in understanding how intelligence was manipulated to support launching the Russia investigation.
” When the Washington Examiner ’ s Rob Crilly asked Trump if he would be willing to release the Flynn-Kislyak transcripts on Wednesday , the president said , “ I would like to hear that conversation , yeah , I would like to hear it personally , so whatever they would like me to do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ won ’ t have to do much now except refrain from reclassifying the information .
The only way he ’ d do that is if it made him look bad , and so far Trump doesn ’ t seem worried about that at all .
That should make a number of other people very worried .

This might be the one key act that could deconstruct a number of non-COVID-19 crises, from a DC Circuit fight to impeachment and the upcoming election. We can thank outgoing acting DNI Richard Grenell for creating the possibility, although many Democrats on Capitol Hill won’t be grateful for it at all. In his final hours in charge of the nation’s intelligence communities, Grenell declassified the transcripts of calls between Michael Flynn and Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak — calls which formed the heart of a special-counsel prosecution effort that has derailed in court.
Just what will these transcripts tell us? And more importantly — will newly installed DNI John Ratcliffe release them?
Richard Grenell has declassified a new batch of Russia probe documents on his way out as acting director of national intelligence, leaving the decision on whether to make those files public up to newly sworn-in Director John Ratcliffe. The documents include transcripts of phone calls that then-incoming National Security Adviser Michael Flynn and then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak had in December 2016, during the presidential transition period. Grenell said publicly last week that he was in the process of declassifying those files, after House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., asked that he do so. Fox News has learned that the declassification review of those transcripts is now complete, and it will be left up to Ratcliffe on whether to release them publicly.
By the way, that’s not all Grenell declassified on his final day. Ratcliffe has a few other tough choices to make:
Fox News has learned that Grenell also completed the declassification review of other documents related to the origins of the Russia probe — including one that a senior intelligence official told Fox News was “very significant in understanding how intelligence was manipulated to support launching the Russia investigation.”
The real question isn’t will but when. Now that Grenell has declassified the documents, it won’t be long before House and Senate Republicans will want to see them, and that means they will leak quickly. They also might be subject to FOIA demands from outfits like Judicial Watch and others, as well as media outlets with some interest in exploring the ways power might have been abused in Russiagate. That might leave out the major media outlets, admittedly, but they have a significant number of competitors who will tread that path whether mainstream outlets do or don’t.
One party to the call has a particular interest in those transcripts. Flynn attorney Sidney Powell openly complained last week that the defense had never been provided the calls or the transcripts. She bet that the word “sanctions” never appeared in any of them even though that was the issue on which the FBI and DoJ later claimed Flynn lied, leading to his prosecution. Even if Flynn had discussed sanctions with Kislyak, though, it would have been legal for him to do so as part of the incoming presidential transition team. The full set of transcripts could answer definitively whether the FBI and DoJ ever had a legit case against Flynn for obstruction — and that might embarrass one judge in particular, who refuses to sign off on the DoJ’s dismissal motion.
Now that the transcripts, at least, have been declassified, expect Powell to demand access to them. That might accelerate their general publication as well, since they would undoubtedly enter the public record through court filings. Ratcliffe might not have much choice at all in this case; Grenell may have made all of those choices inevitable with his final declassification decision.
Not that Ratcliffe likely needs much prompting. His passionate defense of Donald Trump in House Intelligence Committee hearings derailed the first attempt to nominate him for the DNI position. Senate Democrats acquiesced to a vote on Ratcliffe only when it became clear that Grenell would impose a policy of radical transparency on US intelligence, especially on its work related to the entire debunked Russia-collusion hysteria. Ratcliffe has to live with the intel community for a while longer than Grenell — just how much longer depends on the election — and so he might be inclined to slow things down a bit. Grenell made that easy for him, too, preparing the ground so that Ratcliffe doesn’t have to take many more unpopular moves.
Yesterday, Ratcliffe issued a statement supportive of the intel community, but everyone there has to know what’s coming:
On Wednesday, Fox News and the New York Post cited sources claiming Grenell declassified these Flynn-Kislyak transcripts and that it was now up to Ratcliffe as the new head of ODNI to decide whether to release the documents publicly. Fox News also cited a senior intelligence official who said that Grenell had also finished the declassification process for other Russia investigation documents, including one that was “very significant in understanding how intelligence was manipulated to support launching the Russia investigation.” When the Washington Examiner’s Rob Crilly asked Trump if he would be willing to release the Flynn-Kislyak transcripts on Wednesday, the president said, “I would like to hear that conversation, yeah, I would like to hear it personally, so whatever they would like me to do, I’ll do.”
Trump won’t have to do much now except refrain from reclassifying the information. The only way he’d do that is if it made him look bad, and so far Trump doesn’t seem worried about that at all. That should make a number of other people very worried.


hotair--2020-05-27--Man in viral video asks online mob: Stop threatening to kill the Central Park Karen

But … this is our culture now .
How else will we inculcate virtue except by threatening to kill the social media villain du jour ?
No one ’ s going to actually kill her , probably .
We don ’ t murder people to show the gods how pious we are , as primitive man did .
We just put them in fear for their lives for a week .
Don ’ t tell me that ’ s not progress .
He hates the death threats , but he ’ s a little more ambivalent about whether she deserved @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of us can make — not necessarily a racist mistake , but a mistake , ” [ Christian ] Cooper said , “ And to get that kind of tidal wave in such a compressed period of time , it ’ s got to hurt .
It ’ s got to hurt.
” … “ I ’ m not excusing the racism , ” he said .
“ But I don ’ t know if her life needed to be torn apart.
” He opened his mouth to speak further and then stopped @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say the phrase , “ that poor woman , ” he later acknowledged , but he could not bring himself to complete the thought .
I don ’ t fault him for failing to predict that his video of the confrontation would get 25 million views in 24 hours , but surely we ’ re far enough along in the ( d ) evolution of social media to recognize the potential consequences of turning an enemy into a social media villain .
The same pattern recurs when an incident goes viral : The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their employer , the death threats begin .
At a minimum they ’ ll be placed on leave ; chances are they ’ ll be fired , if only to end the bad publicity .
And then it may be a good long while before any company is willing to hire them again .
I ’ m not saying Cooper didn ’ t have a right to feel aggrieved by her behavior or to share his footage with the public , but none of us should be babes in the woods about this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political implications and you ’ ve got the evidence of it on your cell phone , you ’ re taking their life and their livelihood in your hands by posting it .
Maybe in this case that ’ s simple justice : She was clearly expecting that cops would take the side of a white woman in distress against a black man , with unpredictable consequences for his own life and livelihood .
( Ask George Floyd about that . )
If she was willing to put him at risk , well , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she didn ’ t want to lose her job , maybe she should have behaved a little better when it mattered , eh ?
But you are putting someone at risk when you submit your case against them to an Internet jury .
That ’ s just how it is in our decadent world .
It ’ s of no use to say later , “ Please don ’ t make threats.
” The mob will never not behave like a mob once it assembles .
Robert George has a piece on that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ calling for more understanding on all sides in these trying times — and reminding people that Christian Cooper was a bit of a “ Karen ” too .
But Christian did not one of us any favors .
He and Amy may not be related , but they ’ re sure as hell part of the same family of privileged New Yorker .
As one Twitter person put , ironically , Christian is the “ Karen ” in this encounter , deciding to enforce park rules unilaterally and to punish “ intransigence ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s dog with dog treats he regularly wears in his handy utility belt ?
To enforce leash laws ?
… In this time , maybe we should all strive to give people some slack over daily comportment — whether social distancing , mask-wearing or more traditional aggravations like , well , leash violations .
Was Cooper a “ Karen ” in the incident ?
He crossed a line when he told her he ’ d do something to her dog that she wouldn ’ t like , but asking her to put @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t him being peevish or entitled .
He thought the dog would chase away the birds he had come to watch in any area designated for bird-watching .
Besides , I thought the hallmark of a “ Karen ” was going over someone ’ s head to complain to a higher authority about their behavior : “ I want to speak to your manager.
” In this case , the “ manager ” was the cops .
With a little racial provocation mixed in .

But … this is our culture now.
How else will we inculcate virtue except by threatening to kill the social media villain du jour?
No one’s going to actually kill her, probably. We don’t murder people to show the gods how pious we are, as primitive man did.
We just put them in fear for their lives for a week. Don’t tell me that’s not progress.
Christian Cooper, an avid bird-watcher, says he condemns "abhorrent" death threats targeting the woman, who called the police on him during an encounter involving her unleashed dog. "[It] should stop immediately," Cooper says. https://t.co/adONjechM6 pic.twitter.com/zSAFWpTpxz — CNN Tonight (@CNNTonight) May 27, 2020
He hates the death threats, but he’s a little more ambivalent about whether she deserved to lose her job:
“Any of us can make — not necessarily a racist mistake, but a mistake,” [Christian] Cooper said, “And to get that kind of tidal wave in such a compressed period of time, it’s got to hurt. It’s got to hurt.”… “I’m not excusing the racism,” he said. “But I don’t know if her life needed to be torn apart.” He opened his mouth to speak further and then stopped himself. He had been about to say the phrase, “that poor woman,” he later acknowledged, but he could not bring himself to complete the thought.
I don’t fault him for failing to predict that his video of the confrontation would get 25 million views in 24 hours, but surely we’re far enough along in the (d)evolution of social media to recognize the potential consequences of turning an enemy into a social media villain. The same pattern recurs when an incident goes viral: The villain is identified, complaints flood into their employer, the death threats begin. At a minimum they’ll be placed on leave; chances are they’ll be fired, if only to end the bad publicity. And then it may be a good long while before any company is willing to hire them again.
I’m not saying Cooper didn’t have a right to feel aggrieved by her behavior or to share his footage with the public, but none of us should be babes in the woods about this in 2020. If someone misbehaved with political implications and you’ve got the evidence of it on your cell phone, you’re taking their life and their livelihood in your hands by posting it. Maybe in this case that’s simple justice: She was clearly expecting that cops would take the side of a white woman in distress against a black man, with unpredictable consequences for his own life and livelihood. (Ask George Floyd about that.) If she was willing to put him at risk, well, payback’s a bitch. If she didn’t want to lose her job, maybe she should have behaved a little better when it mattered, eh?
But you are putting someone at risk when you submit your case against them to an Internet jury. That’s just how it is in our decadent world. It’s of no use to say later, “Please don’t make threats.” The mob will never not behave like a mob once it assembles.
Robert George has a piece on that theme in the Daily News today, calling for more understanding on all sides in these trying times — and reminding people that Christian Cooper was a bit of a “Karen” too.
But Christian did not one of us any favors. He and Amy may not be related, but they’re sure as hell part of the same family of privileged New Yorker. As one Twitter person put, ironically, Christian is the “Karen” in this encounter, deciding to enforce park rules unilaterally and to punish “intransigence” ruthlessly. And how — luring Amy’s dog with dog treats he regularly wears in his handy utility belt? To enforce leash laws?… In this time, maybe we should all strive to give people some slack over daily comportment — whether social distancing, mask-wearing or more traditional aggravations like, well, leash violations.
Was Cooper a “Karen” in the incident? He crossed a line when he told her he’d do something to her dog that she wouldn’t like, but asking her to put her dog on a leash wasn’t him being peevish or entitled. He thought the dog would chase away the birds he had come to watch in any area designated for bird-watching. Besides, I thought the hallmark of a “Karen” was going over someone’s head to complain to a higher authority about their behavior: “I want to speak to your manager.” In this case, the “manager” was the cops. With a little racial provocation mixed in.


hotair--2020-05-27--One of the people in a phase 1 coronavirus vaccine trial had a serious reaction to the dosage

It was always a possibility that some small fraction of the people who volunteered to be part of a coronavirus vaccine trial would have an adverse reaction to it .
It just happens that one of the people who did have a negative reaction , a man named Ian Haydon , had become the most high-profile test subject thanks to his frequent interaction with the media .
Back in April when Haydon received his first shot as part of the trial , he gave an interview to NBC News about the experience : When I received my first shot on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a mask the whole time and everybody there was wearing masks , but otherwise it was pretty normal .
The shot was basically just like a flu shot — it went into my left shoulder .
It didn ’ t hurt at all when I got it .
I had to do a blood draw immediately before receiving the injection and that ’ s what they ’ re going to compare my blood to going forward , looking for changes .
The appointment took three hours in total and that included staying at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the injection to make sure I didn ’ t have any immediate negative reactions .
Haydon got his second shot as part of the trial a month later , or just about three weeks ago .
But the second shot did not go as well for him .
He had a strong reaction including a high fever and eventually wound up passing out at home .
“ Then , 12 hours after getting the second injection , I suddenly had severe chills .
I decided to go to sleep but woke up in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fever that was over 103 degrees .
I also found I was nauseous , fatigued and had quite a headache , ” Haydon told TODAY .
His partner called the 24-hour hotline for the vaccine study and Haydon was advised to go to urgent care…Haydon received intravenous fluids and Tylenol… After leaving urgent care , Haydon went home to rest .
His fever rose back to 101 degrees and he had to throw up .
“ On my way back to bed I fainted .
My girlfriend caught me as I went down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
She woke me up .
I remember being confused at the sight of my living room ceiling , ” Haydon recalled .
Even after what sounds like a pretty difficult experience , Haydon was hesitant to share his story .
He was concerned it would become grist for the anti-vaccine mill .
He told STAT , “ I understand that sharing the story , it ’ s going to be frightening to some people .
I hope that it doesn ’ t fuel any sort of general antagonism towards vaccines in general @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s an interview Haydon gave to CNBC 9 days ago .
This is before he talked about his reaction .
He did admit in this interview that he felt “ crummy ” after the 2nd injection but didn ’ t really spell out how bad it was .
One of the goals of the phase 1 trial was to determine the appropriate dosage of the vaccine .
And it turns out that Haydon and two other people who also had strong reactions had been given the highest dosage used in the trial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ four participants experienced what are known as “ Grade 3 ” adverse events — side effects that are severe or medically significant but not immediately life-threatening .
Neither the company nor the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases , which is running the trial , have previously detailed the nature of those incidents , but Moderna did disclose that three , likely including Haydon , received the highest dose of the vaccine that was tested , and had reactions that involved their whole bodies .
A fourth received a lower dose and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As far as Haydon is concerned , the trial did exactly what it was supposed to do .
It indicated that too high a dosage of the vaccine could have side effects , but he says that even those weren ’ t life threatening .
He recovered about a day after passing out and is now back to his active routine .
He says he remains “ cautiously optimistic ” about the vaccine .

It was always a possibility that some small fraction of the people who volunteered to be part of a coronavirus vaccine trial would have an adverse reaction to it. It just happens that one of the people who did have a negative reaction, a man named Ian Haydon, had become the most high-profile test subject thanks to his frequent interaction with the media. Back in April when Haydon received his first shot as part of the trial, he gave an interview to NBC News about the experience:
When I received my first shot on April 8, I had to wear a mask the whole time and everybody there was wearing masks, but otherwise it was pretty normal. The shot was basically just like a flu shot — it went into my left shoulder. It didn’t hurt at all when I got it. I had to do a blood draw immediately before receiving the injection and that’s what they’re going to compare my blood to going forward, looking for changes. The appointment took three hours in total and that included staying at the clinic for an hour after receiving the injection to make sure I didn’t have any immediate negative reactions.
Haydon got his second shot as part of the trial a month later, or just about three weeks ago. But the second shot did not go as well for him. He had a strong reaction including a high fever and eventually wound up passing out at home.
“Then, 12 hours after getting the second injection, I suddenly had severe chills. I decided to go to sleep but woke up in the middle of the night with a fever that was over 103 degrees. I also found I was nauseous, fatigued and had quite a headache,” Haydon told TODAY. His partner called the 24-hour hotline for the vaccine study and Haydon was advised to go to urgent care…Haydon received intravenous fluids and Tylenol… After leaving urgent care, Haydon went home to rest. His fever rose back to 101 degrees and he had to throw up. “On my way back to bed I fainted. My girlfriend caught me as I went down and kept me from hitting my head. She woke me up. I remember being confused at the sight of my living room ceiling,” Haydon recalled.
Even after what sounds like a pretty difficult experience, Haydon was hesitant to share his story. He was concerned it would become grist for the anti-vaccine mill. He told STAT, “I understand that sharing the story, it’s going to be frightening to some people. I hope that it doesn’t fuel any sort of general antagonism towards vaccines in general or towards even this vaccine.”
Here’s an interview Haydon gave to CNBC 9 days ago. This is before he talked about his reaction. He did admit in this interview that he felt “crummy” after the 2nd injection but didn’t really spell out how bad it was.
One of the goals of the phase 1 trial was to determine the appropriate dosage of the vaccine. And it turns out that Haydon and two other people who also had strong reactions had been given the highest dosage used in the trial.
In the 45-person Moderna study, four participants experienced what are known as “Grade 3” adverse events — side effects that are severe or medically significant but not immediately life-threatening. Neither the company nor the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which is running the trial, have previously detailed the nature of those incidents, but Moderna did disclose that three, likely including Haydon, received the highest dose of the vaccine that was tested, and had reactions that involved their whole bodies. A fourth received a lower dose and had a rash at the injection site.
As far as Haydon is concerned, the trial did exactly what it was supposed to do. It indicated that too high a dosage of the vaccine could have side effects, but he says that even those weren’t life threatening. He recovered about a day after passing out and is now back to his active routine. He says he remains “cautiously optimistic” about the vaccine.


hotair--2020-05-27--NY Governor's order for nursing homes to take in COVID-19 patients mysteriously... vanishes

One of the more dire statistics coming out of the mountains of data we ’ ve accumulated about the novel Coronavirus is the fact that close to half of all the deaths in the United States from the disease took place in nursing homes .
That figure applies to New York State , one of the hardest hit regions in the country .
And as time has gone on , increasing attention has been paid to Governor Andrew Cuomo ’ s executive order from March 25 stating that nursing homes could not refuse admission to patients , even if they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , however , it ’ s gotten a bit harder to find all of the associated information if you are researching this alarming statistic .
That ’ s because the page on the New York Health Department ’ s website where the Governor ’ s order was previously published has gone missing .
If you had it bookmarked , it now redirects you to an unrelated page .
( Fox News ) New York officials have scrubbed Gov .
Andrew Cuomo ’ s March 25 order requiring nursing homes to take in COVID-19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — even as Cuomo ’ s office insists that the order , which has been linked to thousands of nursing home deaths , remains in effect .
The web page that once contained the order now directs to a page indicating that the file is “ not found.
” The archive indicates that the deletion occurred sometime after May 5 , around the time that criticism over New York ’ s nursing home fatalities intensified .
A copy of the page saved by the Internet archive Wayback Machine , however , shows that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ No resident shall be denied readmission or admission to the NH [ nursing home ] solely based on a confirmed or suspected diagnosis of COVID-19 .
NHs [ Nursing homes ] are prohibited from requiring a hospitalized resident who is determined medically stable to be tested for COVID-19 prior to admission or readmission.
” I first caught wind of this story yesterday when it popped up on the Twitter account for Reagan Batallion .
The Cuomo administration has been beside themselves in trying to play down this story and they ’ ve had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ MSM .
( I ’ m not sure if the connection between that order and the number of nursing home deaths has ever been mentioned on CNN or MSNBC .
I couldn ’ t find anything on a quick search . )
All of the “ explanations ” offered up until now have been ludicrous .
One Cuomo spokesperson told the Post that the Governor hadn ’ t rescinded his order at all .
He simply “ added a directive , this one directed at hospitals , saying they must test patients and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sent back to a nursing home.
” Unfortunately for Team Cuomo , the Way Back Machine has a long memory and we still have the original order .
Here ’ s exactly what it said : “ No resident shall be denied readmission or admission to the NH [ nursing home ] solely based on a confirmed or suspected diagnosis of COVID-19 .
NHs [ Nursing homes ] are prohibited from requiring a hospitalized resident who is determined medically stable to be tested for COVID-19 prior to admission or readmission.
” By this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the nursing homes should have been the first places to be entirely shut down .
Nobody should have been allowed in without full protective gear and a test to ensure they weren ’ t a carrier .
The elderly and those with underlying health issues are the most likely to die of this disease .
And New York was preventing the nursing homes from “ discriminating ” against those who might be infected .
Perhaps this news is starting to seep out and take a toll on Cuomo ’ s sterling image @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much .
The most recent polling shows that his once-phenomenal 71 percent approval rating from April has now sagged to 63 percent .
That ’ s still very high for a governor ( probably because of the blackout in media coverage of the nursing home story ) but it ’ s starting to drop .
And his specific approval record for how he handled nursing homes is now below water at 44 % .
So it sounds like New Yorkers are starting to pay attention after all .

One of the more dire statistics coming out of the mountains of data we’ve accumulated about the novel Coronavirus is the fact that close to half of all the deaths in the United States from the disease took place in nursing homes. That figure applies to New York State, one of the hardest hit regions in the country. And as time has gone on, increasing attention has been paid to Governor Andrew Cuomo’s executive order from March 25 stating that nursing homes could not refuse admission to patients, even if they tested positive for the virus.
Now, however, it’s gotten a bit harder to find all of the associated information if you are researching this alarming statistic. That’s because the page on the New York Health Department’s website where the Governor’s order was previously published has gone missing. If you had it bookmarked, it now redirects you to an unrelated page. (Fox News)
New York officials have scrubbed Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s March 25 order requiring nursing homes to take in COVID-19 patients from the state health department website — even as Cuomo’s office insists that the order, which has been linked to thousands of nursing home deaths, remains in effect. The web page that once contained the order now directs to a page indicating that the file is “not found.” The archive indicates that the deletion occurred sometime after May 5, around the time that criticism over New York’s nursing home fatalities intensified. A copy of the page saved by the Internet archive Wayback Machine, however, shows that Cuomo’s order stated: “No resident shall be denied readmission or admission to the NH [nursing home] solely based on a confirmed or suspected diagnosis of COVID-19. NHs [Nursing homes] are prohibited from requiring a hospitalized resident who is determined medically stable to be tested for COVID-19 prior to admission or readmission.”
I first caught wind of this story yesterday when it popped up on the Twitter account for Reagan Batallion.
Breaking: @NYGovCuomo deleted his March 25th order to force nursing homes to admit recovering coronavirus patients. The NYS Department of health removed the page from their website. pic.twitter.com/wrZ7EfjqsM — Reagan Battalion (@ReaganBattalion) May 26, 2020
The Cuomo administration has been beside themselves in trying to play down this story and they’ve had plenty of cooperation from most of the MSM. (I’m not sure if the connection between that order and the number of nursing home deaths has ever been mentioned on CNN or MSNBC. I couldn’t find anything on a quick search.) All of the “explanations” offered up until now have been ludicrous.
One Cuomo spokesperson told the Post that the Governor hadn’t rescinded his order at all. He simply “added a directive, this one directed at hospitals, saying they must test patients and the patients must be negative before being sent back to a nursing home.”
Unfortunately for Team Cuomo, the Way Back Machine has a long memory and we still have the original order. Here’s exactly what it said:
“No resident shall be denied readmission or admission to the NH [nursing home] solely based on a confirmed or suspected diagnosis of COVID-19. NHs [Nursing homes] are prohibited from requiring a hospitalized resident who is determined medically stable to be tested for COVID-19 prior to admission or readmission.”
By this point, I think we all realize that the nursing homes should have been the first places to be entirely shut down. Nobody should have been allowed in without full protective gear and a test to ensure they weren’t a carrier. The elderly and those with underlying health issues are the most likely to die of this disease. And New York was preventing the nursing homes from “discriminating” against those who might be infected.
Perhaps this news is starting to seep out and take a toll on Cuomo’s sterling image that CNN likes to talk up so much. The most recent polling shows that his once-phenomenal 71 percent approval rating from April has now sagged to 63 percent. That’s still very high for a governor (probably because of the blackout in media coverage of the nursing home story) but it’s starting to drop. And his specific approval record for how he handled nursing homes is now below water at 44%. So it sounds like New Yorkers are starting to pay attention after all.
A closing thought from the Daily Beast’s Harry Siegel


hotair--2020-05-27--Too fun to check: Clinton jetted on Lolita Express to sleep with ... Ghislaine Maxwell?

Believe it or not , this might be the best fallback scenario for Bill Clinton .
According to a new book coming out Tuesday from Alana Goodman and Daniel Halper , the reason that the former president jet-setted with Jeffrey Epstein on the so-called “ Lolita Express ” didn ’ t have to do with underaged girls .
Clinton had a clandestine affair with Epstein ’ s girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell , according to one source in A Convenient Death : Ghislaine Maxwell , a constant presence at the ex- president ’ s side during these trips , was the primary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the world .
“ [ Bill ] and Ghislaine were getting it on , ” a source who witnessed the relationship said in an interview .
“ That ’ s why he was around Epstein—to be with her.
” The source explained that reporters have been missing the point about the Clinton- Epstein relationship by focusing on Epstein ’ s sex crimes .
“ [ Clinton ’ s ] stupid but not an idiot , ” the source says , dismissing the idea that the ex- president was sexually involved with children .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ argues , was Clinton ’ s contacts with Maxwell apart from Epstein .
Those did not go unnoticed in the city adopted by the Clintons after they left the White House : The relationship between Clinton and Maxwell was not confined to these overseas junkets .
It continued in New York City , where Clinton on multiple occasions visited Maxwell ’ s own private townhome at 116 East Sixty-fifth Street , an $ 11 million pad that runs a touch below seven thousand square feet , much more modest than Epstein ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( Maxwell purchased it in 2000 for a mere $ 4.95 million . )
The coziness between the former president and the charming British socialite drew notice in New York social circles .
Clinton and Maxwell were spotted dining together at the Madison Avenue Italian mainstay Nello , according to a 2002 New York magazine article , which described Maxwell as a “ man-eater ” in the same paragraph .
When Clinton went stag to a New York education charity gala in late 2001 — Hillary declined to attend — Maxwell was reportedly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an interesting theory , but … it seems a bit off .
First , Clinton ’ s taste in affairs didn ’ t tend toward high-society types , although they also didn ’ t tend to underage girls , either , at least as far as anyone has ever shown .
Clinton tended to approach women that his own authority and standing could overshadow , not someone who would compete on the same level .
Possible ?
Sure , but this would be out of character .
The New York Post excerpt of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , too .
It notes that Maxwell became a bit of a fixture around the Clinton Foundation and Clinton Global Initiative later , orgs built for the purpose of keeping Hillary Clinton ’ s political power in place .
Maxwell also got one of the few invitations to Chelsea Clinton ’ s wedding in 2010 , an honor that Hillary would have quashed if Bill was carrying on with Maxwell .
Hillary wouldn ’ t have turned the other cheek while Bill ’ s mistress showed up at her daughter ’ s wedding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believe that Hillary wouldn ’ t have figured it out if New York society had been gossiping over the possibility .
Of course , Maxwell ’ s connection to Epstein was already making her toxic .
The book describes how Maxwell got served papers at a Clinton Global Initiative event in 2009 to appear at a deposition related to Epstein ’ s sexual-abuse investigation .
Her money and influence might have gotten her close to the Clintons , but an affair ?
Color me … skeptical .
Plus : doesn ’ t all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mean that Clinton didn ’ t need the Lolita Express to cover for his supposed trysts with Maxwell ?
They operated in the same city for years , and had lots of opportunities without jetting somewhere else .
Which brings us back to the utility of this narrative .
No one has ever offered testimony that Bill took advantage of underage girls , unlike Prince Andrew .
Virginia Giuffre , Andrew ’ s main accuser , has already stated repeatedly that she had no sexual contact with Clinton and never saw him engage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his repeated trips on Epstein ’ s plane raise questions about what he was doing with Epstein , and the Maxwell-affair narrative is about the the best possible way to answer that with any credibility whatsoever .
Possible , certainly , but … also very , very convenient .
By the way , where is Ghislaine Maxwell these days — and what ’ s the status of the reported probe into Epstein ’ s enablers ?
That thread has gotten mighty quiet in recent months .

Believe it or not, this might be the best fallback scenario for Bill Clinton. According to a new book coming out Tuesday from Alana Goodman and Daniel Halper, the reason that the former president jet-setted with Jeffrey Epstein on the so-called “Lolita Express” didn’t have to do with underaged girls. Clinton had a clandestine affair with Epstein’s girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell, according to one source in A Convenient Death:
Ghislaine Maxwell, a constant presence at the ex- president’s side during these trips, was the primary reason Clinton let Epstein ferry him around the world. “[Bill] and Ghislaine were getting it on,” a source who witnessed the relationship said in an interview. “That’s why he was around Epstein—to be with her.” The source explained that reporters have been missing the point about the Clinton- Epstein relationship by focusing on Epstein’s sex crimes. “[Clinton’s] stupid but not an idiot,” the source says, dismissing the idea that the ex- president was sexually involved with children.
One proof of this, the book argues, was Clinton’s contacts with Maxwell apart from Epstein. Those did not go unnoticed in the city adopted by the Clintons after they left the White House:
The relationship between Clinton and Maxwell was not confined to these overseas junkets. It continued in New York City, where Clinton on multiple occasions visited Maxwell’s own private townhome at 116 East Sixty-fifth Street, an $11 million pad that runs a touch below seven thousand square feet, much more modest than Epstein’s palatial townhome a few blocks north. (Maxwell purchased it in 2000 for a mere $4.95 million.) The coziness between the former president and the charming British socialite drew notice in New York social circles. Clinton and Maxwell were spotted dining together at the Madison Avenue Italian mainstay Nello, according to a 2002 New York magazine article, which described Maxwell as a “man-eater” in the same paragraph. When Clinton went stag to a New York education charity gala in late 2001 — Hillary declined to attend — Maxwell was reportedly at his side.
That’s an interesting theory, but … it seems a bit off. First, Clinton’s taste in affairs didn’t tend toward high-society types, although they also didn’t tend to underage girls, either, at least as far as anyone has ever shown. Clinton tended to approach women that his own authority and standing could overshadow, not someone who would compete on the same level. Possible? Sure, but this would be out of character.
The New York Post excerpt of the book gives more room for skepticism, too. It notes that Maxwell became a bit of a fixture around the Clinton Foundation and Clinton Global Initiative later, orgs built for the purpose of keeping Hillary Clinton’s political power in place. Maxwell also got one of the few invitations to Chelsea Clinton’s wedding in 2010, an honor that Hillary would have quashed if Bill was carrying on with Maxwell. Hillary wouldn’t have turned the other cheek while Bill’s mistress showed up at her daughter’s wedding, and it’s tough to believe that Hillary wouldn’t have figured it out if New York society had been gossiping over the possibility.
Of course, Maxwell’s connection to Epstein was already making her toxic. The book describes how Maxwell got served papers at a Clinton Global Initiative event in 2009 to appear at a deposition related to Epstein’s sexual-abuse investigation. Her money and influence might have gotten her close to the Clintons, but an affair? Color me … skeptical.
Plus: doesn’t all of these alleged contacts in New York mean that Clinton didn’t need the Lolita Express to cover for his supposed trysts with Maxwell? They operated in the same city for years, and had lots of opportunities without jetting somewhere else.
Which brings us back to the utility of this narrative. No one has ever offered testimony that Bill took advantage of underage girls, unlike Prince Andrew. Virginia Giuffre, Andrew’s main accuser, has already stated repeatedly that she had no sexual contact with Clinton and never saw him engage sexually with anyone else. Still, his repeated trips on Epstein’s plane raise questions about what he was doing with Epstein, and the Maxwell-affair narrative is about the the best possible way to answer that with any credibility whatsoever. Possible, certainly, but … also very, very convenient.
By the way, where is Ghislaine Maxwell these days — and what’s the status of the reported probe into Epstein’s enablers? That thread has gotten mighty quiet in recent months.


hotair--2020-05-27--Hoo boy: CNBC anchors erupt over Trump, the pandemic, and the stock market

To cleanse the palate , let me stress again that these guys are co-anchors of the same show on CNBC .
We ’ re all used to ye olde “ Democratic talking head versus Republican talking head ” shouting matches on cable news but those involve contributors , people drawn from the ranks of political operatives for the specific task of doing partisan combat .
Anchors are supposed to be above that .
They ’ re moderators .
And of course they ’ re co-workers , and ideally friends .
They ’ re part of a shared enterprise .
Their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The View , ” of course .
But “ The View ” doesn ’ t count because it ’ s a panel discussion by design .
The anchors are essentially permanent contributors , with a secondary duty of asking questions of guests when they come on .
True anchors almost never start swinging at each other on air .
I mean , just try to imagine Steve Doocy and Brian Kilmeade getting into a screaming match over who loves Trump more .
They save that for backstage .
Two things make this clip @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some personally-tinged nastiness spilling over into public view .
One is how comprehensive Joe Kernen ’ s attack on Andrew Ross Sorkin is .
They ’ re not arguing over a narrow point here .
Kernen drags him for a persistent sky-is-falling approach on the coronavirus crisis , from the health implications to the stock market to the economy more broadly .
Did he prepare this spiel or has it been bugging him long enough that it just flowed freely from his lips once he uncorked the grievance ?
Two is the comical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ respective part he ’ s assigned here .
If I showed you a picture of each and told you that one of these guys is a Trump friend/supporter and one is a critic , you ’ d know in a moment who ’ s who , right ?
Kernen looks every inch the blowsy older uncle who wears a MAGA hat on the golf course while Sorkin is the epitome of the polished liberal yuppie whose copy of the day ’ s New York Times is never more than a few feet from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ written for the Times for years , in fact . )
How these two co-exist off the air , God only knows .
Maybe they don ’ t .
Maybe that ’ s what we ’ re seeing here .
One fact check on Kernen before you watch , though .
I don ’ t know where he ’ s getting the idea that the U.S. is way down the list of coronavirus deaths per capita .
We ’ re ninth in the world in that metric among major nations ( although practically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of us ) .

To cleanse the palate, let me stress again that these guys are co-anchors of the same show on CNBC. We’re all used to ye olde “Democratic talking head versus Republican talking head” shouting matches on cable news but those involve contributors, people drawn from the ranks of political operatives for the specific task of doing partisan combat. Anchors are supposed to be above that. They’re moderators. And of course they’re co-workers, and ideally friends. They’re part of a shared enterprise. Their conflicts stay off-camera.
Except for “The View,” of course. But “The View” doesn’t count because it’s a panel discussion by design. The anchors are essentially permanent contributors, with a secondary duty of asking questions of guests when they come on.
True anchors almost never start swinging at each other on air. I mean, just try to imagine Steve Doocy and Brian Kilmeade getting into a screaming match over who loves Trump more.
They save that for backstage.
Two things make this clip arresting apart from the sheer spectacle of some personally-tinged nastiness spilling over into public view. One is how comprehensive Joe Kernen’s attack on Andrew Ross Sorkin is. They’re not arguing over a narrow point here. Kernen drags him for a persistent sky-is-falling approach on the coronavirus crisis, from the health implications to the stock market to the economy more broadly. Did he prepare this spiel or has it been bugging him long enough that it just flowed freely from his lips once he uncorked the grievance? Two is the comical extent to which each man looks the respective part he’s assigned here. If I showed you a picture of each and told you that one of these guys is a Trump friend/supporter and one is a critic, you’d know in a moment who’s who, right? Kernen looks every inch the blowsy older uncle who wears a MAGA hat on the golf course while Sorkin is the epitome of the polished liberal yuppie whose copy of the day’s New York Times is never more than a few feet from his reach. (He’s written for the Times for years, in fact.) How these two co-exist off the air, God only knows. Maybe they don’t. Maybe that’s what we’re seeing here.
One fact check on Kernen before you watch, though. I don’t know where he’s getting the idea that the U.S. is way down the list of coronavirus deaths per capita. We’re ninth in the world in that metric among major nations (although practically every nation in western Europe is ahead of us).


hotair--2020-05-27--Vox: These Democratic billionaires are trying to help Biden win the digital campaign

Today , Vox has an interesting story on a group of four Democratic billionaires who are looking to help the Biden campaign succeed in the 2020 election .
The four in question are , “ LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman , Facebook co-founder Dustin Moskovitz , philanthropist and Steve Jobs ’ s widow Laurene Powell Jobs , and former Google CEO Eric Schmidt.
” But while they have the money and the tech savvy to potentially help Biden , their attempts to outsource this critical part of the campaign isn ’ t always winning friends inside the existing party structure .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ folks think that they know how to do our jobs better .
I would never walk into Google or anywhere else and say , ‘ Your model sucks , ’ ” Jane Kleeb , the chair of the Nebraska Democratic Party , told Recode .
“ I don ’ t second-guess them , and I ’ m asking them not to second-guess us.
” Kleeb and others in Democratic politics have been particularly incensed by a political startup that Hoffman has invested about $ 18 million , his single-biggest bet this cycle , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attempting to build a warehouse to store the data that various progressive groups collect on voters and use it to try to get them to the polls… But Alloy , despite all its promises to revitalize the left ’ s voter file , has had an at-times frosty relationship with party officials like Kleeb , who have their own voter file that they ’ d prefer to improve rather than circumvent .
And some of the party ’ s most senior digital operatives consider Alloy to be an underachievement , saying that it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ publicly announced clients , and , most importantly , squandered significant time and money as it struggled to figure out its role in Democratic politics .
Eric Schmidt , the former Google CEO is apparently backing the Democratic Party ’ s own rival database .
But Schmidt is going beyond that .
His goal is not only to have the data but to provide tech experts to train local party operatives how best to make use of it .
And that effort has apparently been mostly secret until Vox published this story .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the four billionaires ( Powell Jobs and Hoffman ) is Acronym .
You may remember Acronym as the group which funded tech company Shadow , creator of the app that utterly failed during the Iowa caucuses this year .
Acronym CEO Tara McGowan has also created a series of partisan online newspapers which are intended to help Democrats in swing states .
Hoffman has reportedly put $ 10 million into Acronym .
His top political advisor wrote a 12-page memo which explains the thinking .
The idea of creating “ content that has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gone over well with everyone .
Journalist Steve Brill told Vox , “ One of the things that really bothers me is the hypocrisy of people who say that they favor liberal values .
And one of the most basic American values is the democratic process.
” He continued , “ When you undermine that process by posing as journalists — when you ’ re just out to make a partisan hit on someone or a partisan support of someone on the left — I think that is so hideous that it really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ claims their fake newspapers are transparent about their progressive partisanship but as I pointed out last year , that ’ s not really true .
What Acronym is creating and what Hoffman is funding is more accurately termed propaganda .
The story closes by noting that Hoffman was a featured guest last week on a conference call set up by the Biden campaign .
I wonder how all of the Bernie Sanders fans being asked to vote for Biden feel about having billionaires run their own private Biden campaign .

Today, Vox has an interesting story on a group of four Democratic billionaires who are looking to help the Biden campaign succeed in the 2020 election. The four in question are, “LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman, Facebook co-founder Dustin Moskovitz, philanthropist and Steve Jobs’s widow Laurene Powell Jobs, and former Google CEO Eric Schmidt.” But while they have the money and the tech savvy to potentially help Biden, their attempts to outsource this critical part of the campaign isn’t always winning friends inside the existing party structure.
“My problem is when Silicon Valley folks think that they know how to do our jobs better. I would never walk into Google or anywhere else and say, ‘Your model sucks,’” Jane Kleeb, the chair of the Nebraska Democratic Party, told Recode. “I don’t second-guess them, and I’m asking them not to second-guess us.” Kleeb and others in Democratic politics have been particularly incensed by a political startup that Hoffman has invested about $18 million, his single-biggest bet this cycle, in called Alloy. The startup is attempting to build a warehouse to store the data that various progressive groups collect on voters and use it to try to get them to the polls… But Alloy, despite all its promises to revitalize the left’s voter file, has had an at-times frosty relationship with party officials like Kleeb, who have their own voter file that they’d prefer to improve rather than circumvent. And some of the party’s most senior digital operatives consider Alloy to be an underachievement, saying that it has produced few tangible accomplishments, no publicly announced clients, and, most importantly, squandered significant time and money as it struggled to figure out its role in Democratic politics.
Eric Schmidt, the former Google CEO is apparently backing the Democratic Party’s own rival database. But Schmidt is going beyond that. His goal is not only to have the data but to provide tech experts to train local party operatives how best to make use of it. And that effort has apparently been mostly secret until Vox published this story.
One of Schmidt’s key projects is heavily funding a never-publicized group called STAC Labs, created in late 2019 to train state parties on how to use data, according to a job posting, including what the Schmidt-backed Democratic Data Exchange gathers. STAC assigns team members to state parties that serve as consultants, of sorts, to help them model their voters and use data effectively.
Another effort being backed by two of the four billionaires (Powell Jobs and Hoffman) is Acronym. You may remember Acronym as the group which funded tech company Shadow, creator of the app that utterly failed during the Iowa caucuses this year. Acronym CEO Tara McGowan has also created a series of partisan online newspapers which are intended to help Democrats in swing states. Hoffman has reportedly put $10 million into Acronym. His top political advisor wrote a 12-page memo which explains the thinking.
In a private 12-page memo written by Hoffman’s top political adviser, Dmitri Mehlhorn, and distributed to prominent donors late last month, Mehlhorn said the key to “beating Trump’s brand machine” was in part to build an equivalent content machine on the left, “building trusted media channels with peer-to-peer elements” and “content that has a journalistic flavor.”
The idea of creating “content that has a journalistic flavor” hasn’t gone over well with everyone. Journalist Steve Brill told Vox, “One of the things that really bothers me is the hypocrisy of people who say that they favor liberal values. And one of the most basic American values is the democratic process.” He continued, “When you undermine that process by posing as journalists — when you’re just out to make a partisan hit on someone or a partisan support of someone on the left — I think that is so hideous that it really needs to be called out.”
Acronym claims their fake newspapers are transparent about their progressive partisanship but as I pointed out last year, that’s not really true. What Acronym is creating and what Hoffman is funding is more accurately termed propaganda. The story closes by noting that Hoffman was a featured guest last week on a conference call set up by the Biden campaign.
I wonder how all of the Bernie Sanders fans being asked to vote for Biden feel about having billionaires run their own private Biden campaign.


hotair--2020-05-27--Why are Democrats fighting the revival of the US nuclear industry?

While it was easy to miss due to the almost complete lack of media coverage , last week the White House released a new roadmap to revive the United States nuclear power industry .
This has been a neglected issue for a long time , but the proposal could go a long way towards addressing our needs in this area if properly implemented .
The Washington Examiner provided a thorough rundown of the details along with the President ’ s reasoning in wanting to take these actions .
Of course , there were Democrats who immediately slammed the plan , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a look at what ’ s being put on the table .
The report paints a dire picture of the U.S. nuclear energy industry if policymakers take no action , as more nuclear plants retire due to competition from cheaper natural gas and renewables , while China and Russia expand their fleets .
“ The entire U.S. commercial nuclear sector , from mining through power generation , is at high-risk of insolvency , ” the report says .
Brouillette says the strategy also recognizes nuclear ’ s contribution to combating climate change and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ carbon-reduction goals without expanding nuclear .
“ For any nation to come close to the carbon goals that have been set , we feel strongly nuclear technology has to be part of the energy portfolio , ” he said .
Here are some of the biggest items on the agenda boiled down to bullet points : Expand American uranium production while limiting imports from both Russia and China for obvious national security reasons .
This helps our trade balance while limiting their global influence in this huge industry .
And given how often @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ d think he might be a fan .
It also creates more jobs and provides us with new possible exports .
This would help fight climate change because nuclear power doesn ’ t have a carbon footprint .
Democrats constantly blast the president over his supposedly poor environmental record .
But nuclear is the cleanest energy we have outside of hydroelectric and we ’ re nearly maxed out on that already .
Increase exports of nuclear technology to our allies .
And yes , that includes Saudi Arabia , much to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or not , they ’ re going to get the technology and it ’ s better if they get it from us than to be pushed further into the arms of Russia or China .
This would also help our allies to more quickly meet their own carbon emissions goals .
A sensible review of our regulatory restrictions could also make it profitable for energy companies to start building new nuclear plants in the United States .
This industry is dying out , taking big chunks out of our power grid in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ entirely due to overly burdensome regulations that make it virtually impossible to start construction on a new nuclear plant today .
And for those of you wringing your hands and preparing to quote The China Syndrome , I ’ ll remind you of one thing .
During the worst nuclear meltdown ( literally ) in the history of our country at Three Mile Island , the total amount of radiation released was less than you would get walking from your car to the terminal at the Denver airport on a sunny day .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ countries , but we don ’ t use crappy reactor designs that lend themselves to explosions ( Chernobyl ) or build our plants on fault lines in areas that are regularly hit by tsunamis ( Fukushima ) .
We ’ ve been proving for decades that we can do this safely and the arguments against such progress are paper thin .
So why are there still so many people opposing this ?
Just because the Bad Orange Man suggested it ?

While it was easy to miss due to the almost complete lack of media coverage, last week the White House released a new roadmap to revive the United States nuclear power industry. This has been a neglected issue for a long time, but the proposal could go a long way towards addressing our needs in this area if properly implemented. The Washington Examiner provided a thorough rundown of the details along with the President’s reasoning in wanting to take these actions. Of course, there were Democrats who immediately slammed the plan, but let’s at least take a look at what’s being put on the table.
The report paints a dire picture of the U.S. nuclear energy industry if policymakers take no action, as more nuclear plants retire due to competition from cheaper natural gas and renewables, while China and Russia expand their fleets. “The entire U.S. commercial nuclear sector, from mining through power generation, is at high-risk of insolvency,” the report says. Brouillette says the strategy also recognizes nuclear’s contribution to combating climate change and said the U.S. can’t meet carbon-reduction goals without expanding nuclear. “For any nation to come close to the carbon goals that have been set, we feel strongly nuclear technology has to be part of the energy portfolio,” he said.
Here are some of the biggest items on the agenda boiled down to bullet points:
Expand American uranium production while limiting imports from both Russia and China for obvious national security reasons. This helps our trade balance while limiting their global influence in this huge industry. And given how often Biden slams Trump over trade, you’d think he might be a fan. It also creates more jobs and provides us with new possible exports.
This would help fight climate change because nuclear power doesn’t have a carbon footprint. Democrats constantly blast the president over his supposedly poor environmental record. But nuclear is the cleanest energy we have outside of hydroelectric and we’re nearly maxed out on that already.
Increase exports of nuclear technology to our allies. And yes, that includes Saudi Arabia, much to the dismay of many. But like it or not, they’re going to get the technology and it’s better if they get it from us than to be pushed further into the arms of Russia or China. This would also help our allies to more quickly meet their own carbon emissions goals.
A sensible review of our regulatory restrictions could also make it profitable for energy companies to start building new nuclear plants in the United States. This industry is dying out, taking big chunks out of our power grid in the process. And it’s almost entirely due to overly burdensome regulations that make it virtually impossible to start construction on a new nuclear plant today.
And for those of you wringing your hands and preparing to quote The China Syndrome, I’ll remind you of one thing. During the worst nuclear meltdown (literally) in the history of our country at Three Mile Island, the total amount of radiation released was less than you would get walking from your car to the terminal at the Denver airport on a sunny day. There have been radioactive disasters in other countries, but we don’t use crappy reactor designs that lend themselves to explosions (Chernobyl) or build our plants on fault lines in areas that are regularly hit by tsunamis (Fukushima). We’ve been proving for decades that we can do this safely and the arguments against such progress are paper thin.
So why are there still so many people opposing this? Just because the Bad Orange Man suggested it?