hotair--2020-09-30--Last night's biggest debate loser: Chris Wallace; <span class="red">Trump: "Chris had a tough night"

Last night's biggest debate loser: Chris Wallace; Trump: "Chris had a tough night"

It all started off as planned .
The first presidential debate flowed smoothly , the two candidates engaged each other respectfully , and the moderator allowed the conversation to unfold naturally .
And then the second minute arrived .
Last night ’ s train wreck had more than one author .
Donald Trump repeatedly interrupted , even when it would have been smarter to let his opponent tie himself up in knots .
At times , especially on taxes , Biden had difficulty with remaining on point — but Trump kept letting him off the hook by talking over him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all that much better on interruptions or side interjections , plus Biden reverted to his own form by repeatedly calling Trump names such as “ clown ” or “ fool , ” and also repeatedly telling him to “ shut up , man ” or “ shut your yap.
” At times , it looked and sounded like a chess-board argument between two old men in the park .
However , the two old men playing chess last night were the only two who belonged in that argument .
Rather than let the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , moderator Chris Wallace kept repeatedly inserting himself in the middle , and kept scolding Trump while rarely if ever rebuking Biden .
Trump did more interrupting , so a moderator would need to restrain Trump more , but never once did Wallace rebuke Biden for his own interjections or for the name-calling that Biden did .
Worse than that , Wallace broke the rules himself .
Just before the debate , Fox Business Network ’ s Neil Cavuto explained that everyone had agreed that Wallace would not act as a fact checker @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or lied , it was up to the other candidate to call that out , not the moderator .
Within about the first half hour or so , Wallace began breaking that rule , fact-checking in real time , almost entirely with Trump — except on one notable occasion when Biden couldn ’ t remember which side of the Green New Deal he was on .
As my friend and generous on-air partner last night Hugh Hewitt remarked , “ Candy Crowley was the big winner last night .
She ’ s no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Even allowing that the moderator position in this battle would be a thankless job at best , Wallace didn ’ t grasp that he and his list of questions weren ’ t the stars of the show .
He would yell to shut down an argument over one question even if it hadn ’ t been resolved in order to change the subject , seemingly so Wallace could get through his prepared questions .
The point of presidential debates , however , isn ’ t to limit discussion so that the moderator @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to let voters hear what both candidates have to say to each other as well as us .
Wallace isn ’ t the first moderator to be confused by that , but it seemed especially problematic last night .
Moderators should either let the two men talk , or they shouldn ’ t be on stage in the first place .
Once again , perhaps the presidential commission should rethink the format and the choice of moderators , and refrain from using media figures for the latter at all .
I ’ ll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ candidates themselves did .
Trump ’ s assessment seems pretty accurate , and this exchange demonstrates Wallace ’ s insistence on skewing the question by offering his editorial spin on Trump ’ s position rather than just ask , “ What ’ s your plan for health care in a second term ?
” In fact , it sounds more like an interview question , which is rather ironic since Trump already gave Wallace an interview .
Shouldn ’ t Wallace have saved his let me characterize your position for you questions for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ give him an interview ?
Update : Trump offered his sympathies on Twitter , at least a little :

It all started off as planned. The first presidential debate flowed smoothly, the two candidates engaged each other respectfully, and the moderator allowed the conversation to unfold naturally.
And then the second minute arrived.
Last night’s train wreck had more than one author. Donald Trump repeatedly interrupted, even when it would have been smarter to let his opponent tie himself up in knots. At times, especially on taxes, Biden had difficulty with remaining on point — but Trump kept letting him off the hook by talking over him. Joe Biden didn’t do all that much better on interruptions or side interjections, plus Biden reverted to his own form by repeatedly calling Trump names such as “clown” or “fool,” and also repeatedly telling him to “shut up, man” or “shut your yap.” At times, it looked and sounded like a chess-board argument between two old men in the park.
However, the two old men playing chess last night were the only two who belonged in that argument. Rather than let the two candidates fight their way out themselves, moderator Chris Wallace kept repeatedly inserting himself in the middle, and kept scolding Trump while rarely if ever rebuking Biden. Trump did more interrupting, so a moderator would need to restrain Trump more, but never once did Wallace rebuke Biden for his own interjections or for the name-calling that Biden did.
Worse than that, Wallace broke the rules himself. Just before the debate, Fox Business Network’s Neil Cavuto explained that everyone had agreed that Wallace would not act as a fact checker on stage. If either man erred or lied, it was up to the other candidate to call that out, not the moderator. Within about the first half hour or so, Wallace began breaking that rule, fact-checking in real time, almost entirely with Trump — except on one notable occasion when Biden couldn’t remember which side of the Green New Deal he was on.
As my friend and generous on-air partner last night Hugh Hewitt remarked, “Candy Crowley was the big winner last night. She’s no longer the worst presidential moderator in history.”
Even allowing that the moderator position in this battle would be a thankless job at best, Wallace didn’t grasp that he and his list of questions weren’t the stars of the show. He would yell to shut down an argument over one question even if it hadn’t been resolved in order to change the subject, seemingly so Wallace could get through his prepared questions. The point of presidential debates, however, isn’t to limit discussion so that the moderator can ask questions. It’s to let voters hear what both candidates have to say to each other as well as us. Wallace isn’t the first moderator to be confused by that, but it seemed especially problematic last night.
Moderators should either let the two men talk, or they shouldn’t be on stage in the first place. Once again, perhaps the presidential commission should rethink the format and the choice of moderators, and refrain from using media figures for the latter at all.
I’ll have more thoughts later on how the candidates themselves did. Trump’s assessment seems pretty accurate, and this exchange demonstrates Wallace’s insistence on skewing the question by offering his editorial spin on Trump’s position rather than just ask, “What’s your plan for health care in a second term?” In fact, it sounds more like an interview question, which is rather ironic since Trump already gave Wallace an interview. Shouldn’t Wallace have saved his let me characterize your position for you questions for the man on stage who refuses to give him an interview?
Update: Trump offered his sympathies on Twitter, at least a little:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1311294017469063171


hotair--2020-10-01--Too late? After heavy criticism from Dems, Biden campaign to begin door-knocking

Verrrrry interesting , and one of the more hopeful signs of the campaign for Trump over the past month .
Ed and I have written several times about a curious divergence in this year ’ s campaign .
Republicans are organizing the old-fashioned way , sending staff out into the streets to knock on doors and talk to people face-to-face about their candidate , but Democrats are doing everything virtually .
They ’ re texting , they ’ re emailing , they ’ re calling — but there ’ s no personal contact .
It ’ s too risky in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and it hasn ’ t left the campaign at any disadvantage .
Here ’ s what Biden ’ s campaign manager , Jen O ’ Malley Dillon , told BuzzFeed a few weeks ago : They were all-in on virtual organizing .
But then reports started trickling out that Republicans were making major inroads in Pennsylvania in registering voters .
Then more reports followed about a huge gain in GOP registrations in Florida .
Nervous local Democrats began complaining to the media that they were being outhustled by righties on the ground @ @ @ @ @ @ @ off .
Two weeks ago I wrote that “ you can see the narrative for a Biden loss congealing in real time here : Not enough shoe-leather effort by Democrats.
” Sleepy Joe had gone to sleep on one of the most effective means of turning voters out .
For six months the campaign has been hearing this complaint about door-knocking and for six months they yawned .
And now , suddenly , it ’ s October 1 and something has changed .
What is it ?
What sort of hair-raising data did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ virtual ” campaign so belatedly — especially with a second wave of COVID now materializing in states like Wisconsin ?
Biden this weekend will dispatch several hundred newly trained volunteers to engage voters across Nevada , Michigan , New Hampshire and Pennsylvania .
The effort , focusing on voters who are considered difficult to reach by phone , is expected to spread into several more battleground states and include many more volunteers in the next few days and weeks… “ It ’ s just harder and harder to get people on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Biden volunteer who lives in suburban Harrisburg , Pennsylvania .
“ So being able to go to someone ’ s door and talk to them makes a big difference.
” … Ahead of the voter outreach expansion , Biden ’ s campaign has already opened 109 supply centers across 17 battleground states to help distribute campaign literature , lawn signs and other materials for the canvassers .
Biden volunteers in Pennsylvania and Nevada began dropping campaign literature at voters ’ homes just last weekend , although they were instructed to avoid any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this weekend following a series of training sessions designed to ensure Biden ’ s team can engage with people at doorsteps as safely as possible .
Dillon assured the AP that their text-and-phone strategy remains totally rad and that this isn ’ t a “ new ” strategy so much as a supplement to the old one .
If in fact this is aimed only at voters they ’ ve had trouble reaching by phone , then maybe it ’ s doable in , uh … 32 days ?
But if it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ matching the Trump campaign ’ s door-knocking program , surely it ’ s far too late in the game to mount an effort like that .
I guess we ’ ll find out in 32 days just how rad the virtual-outreach strategy was .
There is one X factor , though , that suggests Team Joe might be able to mobilize quickly : In a word , money .
They ’ re drowning in it .
And no matter how much and how quickly they spend , it seems , their coffers are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ad picture right now : Biden ’ s campaign alone has reserved nearly a quarter billion dollars in advertising over the next five weeks in 18 swing states .
Outside groups that support Biden have blocked off $ 112 million in their own airtime .
President Trump ’ s campaign , which spent heavily on advertising earlier in the year , is set to spend far less .
So far , the campaign has reserved $ 130 million in airtime in 13 states , according to data provided by one Democrat and one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , groups backing Biden have reserved $ 360 million in late television .
Trump and his supporters have blocked off $ 170 million in airtime .
An advantage of better than two to one .
We ’ ll know soon how much each campaign made last month , but bear in mind that Biden easily outraised Trump in August ( $ 365 million to $ 210 million ) and that September ’ s likely to see an even bigger haul due to the burst of donations after Ruth Bader Ginsburg died .
One @ @ @ @ @ @ @ further on both sides as we enter the home stretch to Election Day .
For instance , Biden reportedly made $ 10 million in a single hour during Tuesday ’ s debate : A $ 500 million month might not be out of the question .
And it ’ s not just him , of course .
Senate Dems are raking it in too , with Jaime Harrison reportedly planning to spend $ 13 million in South Carolina this month to try to knock off Lindsey Graham .
Graham has $ 3 million @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comparison .
If Team Biden is basically printing its own money now , is it possible that they could put together a ground game in , say , five or six key states in a few weeks ?
We ’ d need a campaign pro to say , but I wonder if the answer is “ With enough money , anything ’ s possible.
” That ’ s true in every other walk of life , right ?
Why not campaigning ?
It had better be true for Sleepy Joe ’ s sake @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of poor organizing , the recriminations on the left will be atomic : “ What I call it is unilateral disarmament , ” said one adviser to a prominent Democrat-supporting Super PAC [ about the campaign ’ s lack of door-knocking ] , who expressed dismay at how Democrats appeared to be choosing “ the morally right thing ” while running against a Republican Party that does not respect rules , norms , or laws .
“ You have this situation now where one side is doing this one thing that really f**king @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the most valuable thing with candidates .
Persuasion is impossible but for turnout , going to lower-propensity Democrats and ( reminding them that the election is coming ) really matters , ” they said , adding that down-ballot candidates need to find a way around restrictions that the national party campaign committees have placed on the use of their funds for in-person canvassing .
I ’ ll leave you with a glimpse at the two campaigns ’ contrast in styles from NBC .

Verrrrry interesting, and one of the more hopeful signs of the campaign for Trump over the past month. Ed and I have written several times about a curious divergence in this year’s campaign. Republicans are organizing the old-fashioned way, sending staff out into the streets to knock on doors and talk to people face-to-face about their candidate, but Democrats are doing everything virtually. They’re texting, they’re emailing, they’re calling — but there’s no personal contact. It’s too risky in an age of COVID, they claim, and it hasn’t left the campaign at any disadvantage. Here’s what Biden’s campaign manager, Jen O’Malley Dillon, told BuzzFeed a few weeks ago:
They were all-in on virtual organizing. But then reports started trickling out that Republicans were making major inroads in Pennsylvania in registering voters. Then more reports followed about a huge gain in GOP registrations in Florida. Nervous local Democrats began complaining to the media that they were being outhustled by righties on the ground. Biden Inc. continued to shrug it off. Two weeks ago I wrote that “you can see the narrative for a Biden loss congealing in real time here: Not enough shoe-leather effort by Democrats.” Sleepy Joe had gone to sleep on one of the most effective means of turning voters out.
For six months the campaign has been hearing this complaint about door-knocking and for six months they yawned. And now, suddenly, it’s October 1 and something has changed. What is it? What sort of hair-raising data did they see to make them modify their “virtual” campaign so belatedly — especially with a second wave of COVID now materializing in states like Wisconsin?
Biden this weekend will dispatch several hundred newly trained volunteers to engage voters across Nevada, Michigan, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania. The effort, focusing on voters who are considered difficult to reach by phone, is expected to spread into several more battleground states and include many more volunteers in the next few days and weeks… “It’s just harder and harder to get people on the phone,” said Patrick Sullivan, a Biden volunteer who lives in suburban Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. “So being able to go to someone’s door and talk to them makes a big difference.”… Ahead of the voter outreach expansion, Biden’s campaign has already opened 109 supply centers across 17 battleground states to help distribute campaign literature, lawn signs and other materials for the canvassers. Biden volunteers in Pennsylvania and Nevada began dropping campaign literature at voters’ homes just last weekend, although they were instructed to avoid any direct conversations. Those conversations will begin this weekend following a series of training sessions designed to ensure Biden’s team can engage with people at doorsteps as safely as possible.
Dillon assured the AP that their text-and-phone strategy remains totally rad and that this isn’t a “new” strategy so much as a supplement to the old one. If in fact this is aimed only at voters they’ve had trouble reaching by phone, then maybe it’s doable in, uh … 32 days? But if it’s something more comprehensive, aimed at matching the Trump campaign’s door-knocking program, surely it’s far too late in the game to mount an effort like that.
I guess we’ll find out in 32 days just how rad the virtual-outreach strategy was.
There is one X factor, though, that suggests Team Joe might be able to mobilize quickly: In a word, money. They’re drowning in it. And no matter how much and how quickly they spend, it seems, their coffers are instantly replenished. Here’s the ad picture right now:
Biden’s campaign alone has reserved nearly a quarter billion dollars in advertising over the next five weeks in 18 swing states. Outside groups that support Biden have blocked off $112 million in their own airtime. President Trump’s campaign, which spent heavily on advertising earlier in the year, is set to spend far less. So far, the campaign has reserved $130 million in airtime in 13 states, according to data provided by one Democrat and one Republican watching the advertising market… All told, groups backing Biden have reserved $360 million in late television. Trump and his supporters have blocked off $170 million in airtime.
An advantage of better than two to one. We’ll know soon how much each campaign made last month, but bear in mind that Biden easily outraised Trump in August ($365 million to $210 million) and that September’s likely to see an even bigger haul due to the burst of donations after Ruth Bader Ginsburg died. One would also expect contributions to ramp up further on both sides as we enter the home stretch to Election Day. For instance, Biden reportedly made $10 million in a single hour during Tuesday’s debate:
NEW: The Biden campaign has raised more than $21.5 million online today, per a campaign official — its best day of the race. Added to the ~$10 million from 9pm-12 a.m. raised during and post-debate last night and you have a $31.5 million haul in a little over a day. — Shane Goldmacher (@ShaneGoldmacher) October 1, 2020
A $500 million month might not be out of the question. And it’s not just him, of course. Senate Dems are raking it in too, with Jaime Harrison reportedly planning to spend $13 million in South Carolina this month to try to knock off Lindsey Graham. Graham has $3 million in spending earmarked at the moment by comparison.
If Team Biden is basically printing its own money now, is it possible that they could put together a ground game in, say, five or six key states in a few weeks? We’d need a campaign pro to say, but I wonder if the answer is “With enough money, anything’s possible.” That’s true in every other walk of life, right? Why not campaigning?
It had better be true for Sleepy Joe’s sake. If he blows this race because of poor organizing, the recriminations on the left will be atomic:
“What I call it is unilateral disarmament,” said one adviser to a prominent Democrat-supporting Super PAC [about the campaign’s lack of door-knocking], who expressed dismay at how Democrats appeared to be choosing “the morally right thing” while running against a Republican Party that does not respect rules, norms, or laws. “You have this situation now where one side is doing this one thing that really f**king matters… the in-person contact and face-to-face is the most valuable thing with candidates. Persuasion is impossible but for turnout, going to lower-propensity Democrats and (reminding them that the election is coming) really matters,” they said, adding that down-ballot candidates need to find a way around restrictions that the national party campaign committees have placed on the use of their funds for in-person canvassing.
I’ll leave you with a glimpse at the two campaigns’ contrast in styles from NBC.


hotair--2020-10-01--MSNBC panel: To save our democracy, we need a bipartisan commission to "vet" presidential candidates

Yes , nothing says “ democracy ” like … star chambers .
In a hyperbolic discussion of Donald Trump ’ s tax returns and debt load , MSNBC nat-sec analyst Frank Figliuzzi warns that Trump ’ s outstanding debts make him vulnerable to foreign manipulation , as do his business connections abroad .
The supposed mystery of his outstanding loans and his refusal to turn over his tax returns create a critical threat to American security and democracy , Figliuzzi tells the panel .
To keep from making the same mistake in the future , Figliuzzi proposes a “ bipartisan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presumably with the authority to keep voters from nominating them : The basis for this entire argument is specious on its face .
It ’ s true that the New York Times story on Trump ’ s taxes didn ’ t identify his debtors .
However , it ’ s also true that Trump has disclosed that information — as required — every year in filings with the federal government .
The latest such filing took place at the end of July , and it was released to the media .
Anyone who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can simply read the disclosure , which also includes his sources of income .
As is already widely known , Trump mainly deals with Deutsche Bank , which for a while in the 1990s was reportedly the only major lender that would do business with him after his business bankruptcy .
This is , in fact , a much better form of disclosure than tax returns .
It ’ s more direct , and more understandable , too .
That doesn ’ t mean there ’ s no value in tax returns , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s easy to misrepresent or at least take out of context the information they contain .
That ’ s especially true for those who operate in investment and wealth rather than salary and income .
In this case , Trump ’ s debts — which are monumental — still don ’ t outstrip his business ’ assets , whose valuations run into the billions .
It might be necessary to sell assets to cover maturing debts at some point , but that still leaves Trump very much in the black overall , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hysteria is ill-informed and overblown , which is exactly how we get to the star-chamber plan from Figliuzzi .
Just how does a “ bipartisan commission ” demand tax returns , anyway , and what happens when candidates refuse ?
Do they get disqualified from the ballot , and if so , under what authority ?
Even more to the point — who sits on this star chamber to vet political candidates in place of voters ?
How do they get on such a panel ?
What Figliuzzi describes here isn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at best , and it ’ s a bit reminiscent of how Iran operates their elections .
The ruling mullahs “ vet ” candidates for office there , which ensures that the government remains under their control rather than the people of Iran .
In any configuration , it ’ s a mechanism to ensure the survival of the current governing elite , which would make them a ruling elite in short order , and eliminate accountability for their failures .
I ’ d rather trust the voters , and let them correct @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ commission ” restrict options to its own preferences .

Yes, nothing says “democracy” like … star chambers. In a hyperbolic discussion of Donald Trump’s tax returns and debt load, MSNBC nat-sec analyst Frank Figliuzzi warns that Trump’s outstanding debts make him vulnerable to foreign manipulation, as do his business connections abroad. The supposed mystery of his outstanding loans and his refusal to turn over his tax returns create a critical threat to American security and democracy, Figliuzzi tells the panel.
To keep from making the same mistake in the future, Figliuzzi proposes a “bipartisan commission” to vet presidential candidates — presumably with the authority to keep voters from nominating them:
MSNBC’s @FrankFigliuzzi1 proposes creating a "bipartisan commission" to vet presidential candidates to prevent another Trump: "We got this wrong, and this can’t happen again." pic.twitter.com/itZp3ZebJz — Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) October 1, 2020
The basis for this entire argument is specious on its face. It’s true that the New York Times story on Trump’s taxes didn’t identify his debtors. However, it’s also true that Trump has disclosed that information — as required — every year in filings with the federal government. The latest such filing took place at the end of July, and it was released to the media. Anyone who wants to check Trump’s debt can simply read the disclosure, which also includes his sources of income. As is already widely known, Trump mainly deals with Deutsche Bank, which for a while in the 1990s was reportedly the only major lender that would do business with him after his business bankruptcy.
This is, in fact, a much better form of disclosure than tax returns. It’s more direct, and more understandable, too. That doesn’t mean there’s no value in tax returns, but they are complex enough that it’s easy to misrepresent or at least take out of context the information they contain. That’s especially true for those who operate in investment and wealth rather than salary and income. In this case, Trump’s debts — which are monumental — still don’t outstrip his business’ assets, whose valuations run into the billions. It might be necessary to sell assets to cover maturing debts at some point, but that still leaves Trump very much in the black overall, at least for now.
So this hysteria is ill-informed and overblown, which is exactly how we get to the star-chamber plan from Figliuzzi. Just how does a “bipartisan commission” demand tax returns, anyway, and what happens when candidates refuse? Do they get disqualified from the ballot, and if so, under what authority? Even more to the point — who sits on this star chamber to vet political candidates in place of voters? How do they get on such a panel?
What Figliuzzi describes here isn’t democracy. It’s an oligarchy at best, and it’s a bit reminiscent of how Iran operates their elections. The ruling mullahs “vet” candidates for office there, which ensures that the government remains under their control rather than the people of Iran. In any configuration, it’s a mechanism to ensure the survival of the current governing elite, which would make them a ruling elite in short order, and eliminate accountability for their failures.
I’d rather trust the voters, and let them correct their own mistakes, than have a “commission” restrict options to its own preferences.


hotair--2020-10-01--Scott Adams: Trump lost my vote by taking the bait on Chris Wallace's questions about white supremac

Scott Adams: Trump lost my vote by taking the bait on Chris Wallace's questions about white supremacy

What odds can I get in Vegas that he ’ ll find a reason to return to the fold before November 3 ?
What if the reason Trump hasn ’ t tried to debunk the “ Charlotteville hoax ” over the past three years is that it ’ s not a hoax ?
Trump ’ s views of white supremacy also led to an unusual confrontation today between Kayleigh McEnany and , of all outlets , Fox News .
John Roberts asked McEnany to denounce white supremacism clearly at today ’ s briefing : It ’ s a bizarre exchange @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now ?
asks Roberts .
I just told you that the president has denounced that repeatedly , she replies .
No , but I mean right now , Roberts continues .
He came away feeling gaslit , I guess , because not long afterward he was complaining on Fox ’ s airwaves about the White House and not trying to hide his annoyance : McEnany had a solid zinger in response to that afterward : It ’ s true that Trump has denounced white supremacy and/or prominent white supremacists in the past .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ after him about it , one of which is simple partisanship .
Obviously it ’ s in Democrats ’ interest to keep him on the defensive on this subject .
Every time it ’ s raised and a condemnation is requested , it raises a doubt in voters ’ minds about whether that condemnation will be issued .
“ Is Trump a racist ?
” is a good news topic for a party that ’ s scrambling to consolidate black and Latino voters .
The other reason , though , is that his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as halfhearted and perfunctory .
One thing about Trump : When he doesn ’ t like you , he ’ s not shy about it .
Here , for instance , is what he thinks of Never Trumpers : Clear as a bell .
By contrast , here ’ s what he said in 2016 when asked about David Duke , who ’ d expressed his support for Trump a few days earlier : The Sunday uproar started when Trump was asked by Tapper whether he would disavow Duke and other white supremacist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Just so you understand , I don ’ t know anything about David Duke , OK ?
” Trump said .
Trump was pressed three times on whether he ’ d distance himself from the Ku Klux Klan — but never mentioned the group in his answers .
“ I don ’ t know anything about what you ’ re even talking about with white supremacy or white supremacists , ” he said .
“ So I don ’ t know .
I don ’ t know — did he endorse me @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Because I know nothing about David Duke ; I know nothing about white supremacists.
” He was 70 years old at the time .
I ’ m confident he had a basic sense of who Duke was and what white supremacists stand for .
A few days later , after the resulting uproar , he was much clearer .
“ David Duke is a bad person , who I disavowed on numerous occasions over the years , ” he told MSNBC .
“ I disavowed him .
I disavowed the KKK .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ again for the 12th time ?
I disavowed him in the past , I disavow him now.
” He ’ s not opposed to denouncing anyone if it serves his political interests to do so .
It ’ s just that he ’ s never going to fire off a “ human scum ” tweet about you or rant angrily about you at one of his rallies unless you ’ ve committed the only true sin , which is being critical of him .
We ’ ve all watched him daily for five @ @ @ @ @ @ @ between when he ’ s attacking a person with relish , clearly enjoying himself because he ’ s laying into someone whom he regards as an enemy… …and when he ’ s going through the motions , as he does when some reporter browbeats him into saying something mildly disapproving of the KKK .
One response is “ high energy , ” the other is “ low energy , ” to borrow one of his favorite terms .
For Trump , I think it always boils down to whether he has some reason @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He ’ ll never attack someone or some group spontaneously simply because they ’ re immoral .
What does he care about morality ?
But if they ’ re against him then he ’ s against them .
Never Trumpers are “ human scum ” but David Duke is just someone to be casually disavowed as requested .
That ’ s what I think Roberts was agitated about in his exchange with McEnany , even though she repeatedly assured him that the president condemns white supremacy .
What he ’ s really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it .
Don ’ t give me some box-checking mealy-mouthed “ Yeah , fine , I disavow ” answer .
Talk for five seconds about the Ku Klux goddamned Klan with the same degree of contempt with which Trump talks about , say , Nancy Pelosi .
I ’ ll leave you with this , which was tweeted as I was writing this post .
Wish I ’ d been quicker to place that bet in Vegas .

What odds can I get in Vegas that he’ll find a reason to return to the fold before November 3?
.@ScottAdamsSays feels personally abused by Trump bombing on the white supremacy question during the debate. Adams says Trump lost his vote. pic.twitter.com/VQxQstqKso — JD-800 💽 (@thejd800) October 1, 2020
What if the reason Trump hasn’t tried to debunk the “Charlotteville hoax” over the past three years is that it’s not a hoax?
Trump’s views of white supremacy also led to an unusual confrontation today between Kayleigh McEnany and, of all outlets, Fox News. John Roberts asked McEnany to denounce white supremacism clearly at today’s briefing:
Kayleigh McEnany dances around a question from Fox News asking her to categorically condemn white supremacists. Very bizarre. pic.twitter.com/7xoyMHPTxa — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) October 1, 2020
It’s a bizarre exchange. Will you denounce white supremacy right now? asks Roberts. I just told you that the president has denounced that repeatedly, she replies. No, but I mean right now, Roberts continues.
He came away feeling gaslit, I guess, because not long afterward he was complaining on Fox’s airwaves about the White House and not trying to hide his annoyance:
On Fox News, @johnrobertsFox is visibly angry that @PressSec won't offer a clear denunciation of white supremacy: "Stop deflecting. Stop blaming the media. I'm tired of it. " pic.twitter.com/GcPcOsAHqJ — Oliver Darcy (@oliverdarcy) October 1, 2020
McEnany had a solid zinger in response to that afterward:
.@johnrobertsFox I would refer you to your wife’s reporting from 21 hours ago… accurate reporting I cited in the White House Press Briefing. https://t.co/dV3Hzp1UaI — Kayleigh McEnany 45 Archived (@PressSec45) October 1, 2020
It’s true that Trump has denounced white supremacy and/or prominent white supremacists in the past. There are two reasons why people keep after him about it, one of which is simple partisanship. Obviously it’s in Democrats’ interest to keep him on the defensive on this subject. Every time it’s raised and a condemnation is requested, it raises a doubt in voters’ minds about whether that condemnation will be issued. “Is Trump a racist?” is a good news topic for a party that’s scrambling to consolidate black and Latino voters.
The other reason, though, is that his denunciations of white supremacists invariably come off as halfhearted and perfunctory. One thing about Trump: When he doesn’t like you, he’s not shy about it. Here, for instance, is what he thinks of Never Trumpers:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1187063301731209220
Clear as a bell. By contrast, here’s what he said in 2016 when asked about David Duke, who’d expressed his support for Trump a few days earlier:
The Sunday uproar started when Trump was asked by Tapper whether he would disavow Duke and other white supremacist groups that are supporting his campaign. “Just so you understand, I don’t know anything about David Duke, OK?” Trump said. Trump was pressed three times on whether he’d distance himself from the Ku Klux Klan — but never mentioned the group in his answers. “I don’t know anything about what you’re even talking about with white supremacy or white supremacists,” he said. “So I don’t know. I don’t know — did he endorse me, or what’s going on? Because I know nothing about David Duke; I know nothing about white supremacists.”
He was 70 years old at the time. I’m confident he had a basic sense of who Duke was and what white supremacists stand for. A few days later, after the resulting uproar, he was much clearer. “David Duke is a bad person, who I disavowed on numerous occasions over the years,” he told MSNBC. “I disavowed him. I disavowed the KKK. Do you want me to do it again for the 12th time? I disavowed him in the past, I disavow him now.”
He’s not opposed to denouncing anyone if it serves his political interests to do so. It’s just that he’s never going to fire off a “human scum” tweet about you or rant angrily about you at one of his rallies unless you’ve committed the only true sin, which is being critical of him. We’ve all watched him daily for five years now. You know the difference between when he’s attacking a person with relish, clearly enjoying himself because he’s laying into someone whom he regards as an enemy…
“Biden will turn Minnesota into a refugee camp” — Speaking in a state with one of the largest Somali populations in the country, Trump goads his fans into booing refugees, prompting “lock her up!” chants directed at Ilhan Omar pic.twitter.com/dT2yuHxFDZ — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) October 1, 2020
…and when he’s going through the motions, as he does when some reporter browbeats him into saying something mildly disapproving of the KKK. One response is “high energy,” the other is “low energy,” to borrow one of his favorite terms. For Trump, I think it always boils down to whether he has some reason to feel *personally* aggrieved against a target. He’ll never attack someone or some group spontaneously simply because they’re immoral. What does he care about morality? But if they’re against him then he’s against them. Never Trumpers are “human scum” but David Duke is just someone to be casually disavowed as requested.
That’s what I think Roberts was agitated about in his exchange with McEnany, even though she repeatedly assured him that the president condemns white supremacy. What he’s really saying to her is make me believe it. Don’t give me some box-checking mealy-mouthed “Yeah, fine, I disavow” answer. Talk for five seconds about the Ku Klux goddamned Klan with the same degree of contempt with which Trump talks about, say, Nancy Pelosi.
I’ll leave you with this, which was tweeted as I was writing this post. Wish I’d been quicker to place that bet in Vegas.


hotair--2020-10-01--This November California Democrats hope to remove a ban on racial discrimination from the state cons

This November California Democrats hope to remove a ban on racial discrimination from the state constitution

Back in 1996 , California passed Proposition 209 which added a new section to the California constitution .
That core of it was this sentence : “ The state shall not discriminate against , or grant preferential treatment to , any individual or group on the basis of race , sex , color , ethnicity , or national origin in the operation of public employment , public education , or public contracting.
” When it was passed 54 % -46 % , it put an end to affirmative action in the state .
This fall there is a new measure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which would simply remove the section of the state constitution that was added by Prop 209 .
This would once again make affirmative action and discrimination by race , sex , color , ethnicity , or national origin legal in California , at least to the degree that it doesn ’ t interfere with existing federal law .
The lead author is an assemblywoman from San Diego : Assemblywoman Shirley Weber , a San Diego Democrat and chairwoman of the California Legislative Black Caucus , is the lead author of the legislation that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ required two-thirds support in both houses of the state Legislature .
“ I think the death of George Floyd made racism very real for people ; they could see it .
And now what I was asking them to do was to act on it , stop telling me how horrible it is , stop telling me that you really didn ’ t know that , stop telling me that this is such a revelation for you , ” Weber said .
She added : “ Now the question becomes , what are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” But not everyone agrees this is a good idea .
Some even suggest it ’ s insulting : Kali Fontanilla teaches English as a second language in Salinas , California and before that , tutored African American students .
She identifies as Black and biracial , and said students of color don ’ t need their standards lowered .
“ That ’ s insulting to me to say that there ’ s certain groups that because of the color of your skin you ’ re not meeting the standard , you can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) we ’ re going to help you , we ’ re going to give you this crutch to get in , ” she said .
Prop 16 is supported by a whole host of California democrats including Gov .
Newsom , Sen Dianne Feinstein , Rep. Eric Swalwell , Rep. Maxine Waters and Sen. Kamala Harris , plus the founders of Black Lives Matter .
Despite this , it ’ s far from guaranteed to pass .
By the way , the Bay Area has 40 % support but 41 % of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is running behind in San Francisco then it ’ s probably not going to pass .
And a story from ABC 7 helps explain why : Overturning a law that prevents discrimination — that sounds bad , right ?
That ’ s the part that ’ s confusing even supporters of affirmative action .
“ Watching a focus group with Black voters from Los Angeles , they all said no we won ’ t vote for this as it was read to them , ” said Eva Patterson , who co-chairs the Yes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ explained that it was in favor of affirmative action and equal opportunity , and they all said , ‘ Of course we ’ ll vote for this . '
” There ’ s an admission buried in that story above .
When you say Prop .
16 repeals a law against discrimination , people are against it .
When you say it creates “ equal opportunity ” via affirmative action , the same people suddenly support it .
But it ’ s exactly the same thing because affirmative action is racial discrimination .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ necessary to repeal the protection against racial discrimination that exists in current law to move forward with this .
If this does pass and affirmative action measures are adopted in the state , there are consequences as well as benefits .
For every business or individual who gains something from this racial discrimination , someone else pays a price .
That person is not a generic white person , a generic Asian person , etc .
but a real individual who will experience a loss solely because of their race ( or sex @ @ @ @ @

Back in 1996, California passed Proposition 209 which added a new section to the California constitution. That core of it was this sentence: “The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.” When it was passed 54%-46%, it put an end to affirmative action in the state.
This fall there is a new measure on the ballot, Prop 16, which would simply remove the section of the state constitution that was added by Prop 209. This would once again make affirmative action and discrimination by race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin legal in California, at least to the degree that it doesn’t interfere with existing federal law. The lead author is an assemblywoman from San Diego:
Assemblywoman Shirley Weber, a San Diego Democrat and chairwoman of the California Legislative Black Caucus, is the lead author of the legislation that put the question to voters, which required two-thirds support in both houses of the state Legislature. “I think the death of George Floyd made racism very real for people; they could see it. And now what I was asking them to do was to act on it, stop telling me how horrible it is, stop telling me that you really didn’t know that, stop telling me that this is such a revelation for you,” Weber said. She added: “Now the question becomes, what are you going to do about it?”
But not everyone agrees this is a good idea. Some even suggest it’s insulting:
Kali Fontanilla teaches English as a second language in Salinas, California and before that, tutored African American students. She identifies as Black and biracial, and said students of color don’t need their standards lowered. “That’s insulting to me to say that there’s certain groups that because of the color of your skin you’re not meeting the standard, you can’t meet the standard (so) we’re going to help you, we’re going to give you this crutch to get in,” she said.
Prop 16 is supported by a whole host of California democrats including Gov. Newsom, Sen Dianne Feinstein, Rep. Eric Swalwell, Rep. Maxine Waters and Sen. Kamala Harris, plus the founders of Black Lives Matter. Despite this, it’s far from guaranteed to pass.
The poll of over 1,700 likely California voters found 47% of respondents would vote no on Proposition 16, while 31% would vote yes and 22% said they were undecided.
The poll shows 46% of likely Democratic voters support Proposition 16, while 9% of Republicans and 26% of Independents support it. The highest percentage of supporters were located in the San Francisco Bay Area, 40%, and Los Angeles, 37%.
By the way, the Bay Area has 40% support but 41% of respondents were against it. If this is running behind in San Francisco then it’s probably not going to pass. And a story from ABC 7 helps explain why:
Overturning a law that prevents discrimination — that sounds bad, right? That’s the part that’s confusing even supporters of affirmative action. “Watching a focus group with Black voters from Los Angeles, they all said no we won’t vote for this as it was read to them,” said Eva Patterson, who co-chairs the Yes on 16 campaign. “Then we explained that it was in favor of affirmative action and equal opportunity, and they all said, ‘Of course we’ll vote for this.'”
There’s an admission buried in that story above. When you say Prop. 16 repeals a law against discrimination, people are against it. When you say it creates “equal opportunity” via affirmative action, the same people suddenly support it. But it’s exactly the same thing because affirmative action is racial discrimination. That’s why it’s necessary to repeal the protection against racial discrimination that exists in current law to move forward with this.
If this does pass and affirmative action measures are adopted in the state, there are consequences as well as benefits. For every business or individual who gains something from this racial discrimination, someone else pays a price. That person is not a generic white person, a generic Asian person, etc. but a real individual who will experience a loss solely because of their race (or sex or national origin).


hotair--2020-10-01--Chris Wallace: I baked a beautiful cake with my debate preparation -- and then Trump put his foot in

Chris Wallace: I baked a beautiful cake with my debate preparation -- and then Trump put his foot in it

It shouldn ’ t feel amazing that Fox News let a top host from their own network get some airtime today to talk about a presidential debate he just hosted .
But it does feel amazing , because Wallace places blame on the president , accurately , for the battery of interruptions that derailed Tuesday ’ s debate .
We all know how Trump ’ s going to react to this clip .
And more importantly , Fox management knows .
Maybe Fox feels they have him over a barrel .
For all the complaining he does about the network @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effort on his part to punish it .
He ’ ll tweet about OAN once in a blue moon , or he ’ ll whine about Fox ’ s polling , but ask him what he watched on TV last night and he ’ ll say , ” I watch Liz McDonald ; she ’ s fantastic .
I watched Fox Business .
I watched Lou Dobbs last night , Sean Hannity last night , Tucker last night , Laura .
I watched ‘ Fox and Friends ’ in the morning.
” He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even if he wanted to , right now may be the moment in his presidency where he can least afford to alienate Fox .
Media critics have been looking ahead to next month lately and noting that Fox is destined to play an outsized role in deciding whether Trump ’ s inevitable “ I was cheated !
” cries gain purchase on the right in the event that he loses .
A few days ago the Times profiled Arnon Mishkin , the head of Fox ’ s “ decision desk.
” He and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ calling ” states for Biden or Trump on Election Day — or the days following .
The nightmare scenario goes like this : It ’ s a close race , and Mr. Trump leads in the early vote count in Pennsylvania , and needs just that state to win the election .
Tens of thousands of votes are still untallied , and the counting may take weeks — but Mr. Trump has already declared that he ’ s been re-elected .
He ’ s demanding that Fox do the same , making calls @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rupert Murdoch , or working back channels to the executive who effectively runs the network , Viet Dinh .
Mr. Trump ’ s most loyal acolytes at Fox , the prime-time hosts Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham , are backing the president ’ s claim on the air .
And Fox faces the temptation it often succumbs to : offering its audience the alternate reality it wants… This time around , Mr. Mishkin has been skeptical of Mr. Trump ’ s chances on social media and in occasional Fox appearances , echoing Ms. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his friends told me that he ’ s expressed frustration that Fox won ’ t put those views on the air .
I assume OAN will be calling the election promptly for Trump at 8 p.m .
ET .
Will that put any pressure on Fox to make premature calls later in the evening in the Rust Belt on the president ’ s behalf ?
One point Wallace makes in the clip below , and with which Bill Hemmer agrees , is that Trump inadvertently bailed out Biden from damaging answers several times @ @ @ @ @ @ @ irritate viewers by butting in repeatedly for 90 minutes , but to rescue your opponent when he ’ s in the process of making trouble for himself is malpractice .
The person involved in Trump ’ s reelection effort said the president ruined several moments during the Cleveland debate when Biden appeared to be on the brink of delivering an unsatisfactory answer , but was interrupted by Trump before he could complete his sentence .
This person cited Biden ’ s response to Wallace when he asked if the former vice president , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ transition candidate , ” would support the “ Green New Deal ” climate plan championed by progressives .
Biden , whose campaign website describes the multitrillion dollar proposal as a “ crucial framework for meeting the climate challenges we face , ” distanced himself from the deal — that is , until Trump jumped in to suggest his opponent had “ just lost the radical left.
” “ It was one of those things where you just kind of wanted him to finish his thought .
I was like , ‘ You ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him finish it , ’ ” said the person involved in Trump ’ s reelection .
His insistence that Biden has “ lost the radical left ” because of his debate answers is an odd talking point but one he ’ s repeated on Twitter ( “ Radical Left is dumping Sleepy Joe ” ) in the days since .
His whole argument against Biden until now has been that Sleepy Joe is a trojan horse for socialism , too addled to resist progressives once he ’ s elected president .
Now suddenly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , that Biden is so firmly centrist that the left is deserting him .
( Lefties of various stripes , including AOC , have spent the past 48 hours telling reporters that , no , they ’ re not ditching Biden .
The hard-left magazine The Nation even endorsed him today . )
If you ’ re trying to scare suburbanites into voting red by portraying Biden as a pawn of radicals , why turn around with a month to go and highlight the fact that his policies aren ’ t radical enough @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Wallace , who , despite all the interruptions on Tuesday , isn ’ t a fan of cutting the mic of the leader of the free world to try to keep him in line .

It shouldn’t feel amazing that Fox News let a top host from their own network get some airtime today to talk about a presidential debate he just hosted.
But it does feel amazing, because Wallace places blame on the president, accurately, for the battery of interruptions that derailed Tuesday’s debate. We all know how Trump’s going to react to this clip. And more importantly, Fox management knows.
Maybe Fox feels they have him over a barrel. For all the complaining he does about the network, there’s never any sustained effort on his part to punish it. He’ll tweet about OAN once in a blue moon, or he’ll whine about Fox’s polling, but ask him what he watched on TV last night and he’ll say, ”I watch Liz McDonald; she’s fantastic. I watched Fox Business. I watched Lou Dobbs last night, Sean Hannity last night, Tucker last night, Laura. I watched ‘Fox and Friends’ in the morning.”
He’s not going anywhere. And even if he wanted to, right now may be the moment in his presidency where he can least afford to alienate Fox. Media critics have been looking ahead to next month lately and noting that Fox is destined to play an outsized role in deciding whether Trump’s inevitable “I was cheated!” cries gain purchase on the right in the event that he loses. A few days ago the Times profiled Arnon Mishkin, the head of Fox’s “decision desk.” He and his staff will be responsible for “calling” states for Biden or Trump on Election Day — or the days following.
The nightmare scenario goes like this: It’s a close race, and Mr. Trump leads in the early vote count in Pennsylvania, and needs just that state to win the election. Tens of thousands of votes are still untallied, and the counting may take weeks — but Mr. Trump has already declared that he’s been re-elected. He’s demanding that Fox do the same, making calls to Fox Corporation’s co-chairman, Rupert Murdoch, or working back channels to the executive who effectively runs the network, Viet Dinh. Mr. Trump’s most loyal acolytes at Fox, the prime-time hosts Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham, are backing the president’s claim on the air. And Fox faces the temptation it often succumbs to: offering its audience the alternate reality it wants… This time around, Mr. Mishkin has been skeptical of Mr. Trump’s chances on social media and in occasional Fox appearances, echoing Ms. Blanton’s polls. One of his friends told me that he’s expressed frustration that Fox won’t put those views on the air.
I assume OAN will be calling the election promptly for Trump at 8 p.m. ET. Will that put any pressure on Fox to make premature calls later in the evening in the Rust Belt on the president’s behalf?
One point Wallace makes in the clip below, and with which Bill Hemmer agrees, is that Trump inadvertently bailed out Biden from damaging answers several times by interrupting him. Bad enough to irritate viewers by butting in repeatedly for 90 minutes, but to rescue your opponent when he’s in the process of making trouble for himself is malpractice.
The person involved in Trump’s reelection effort said the president ruined several moments during the Cleveland debate when Biden appeared to be on the brink of delivering an unsatisfactory answer, but was interrupted by Trump before he could complete his sentence. This person cited Biden’s response to Wallace when he asked if the former vice president, who has billed himself as a “transition candidate,” would support the “Green New Deal” climate plan championed by progressives. Biden, whose campaign website describes the multitrillion dollar proposal as a “crucial framework for meeting the climate challenges we face,” distanced himself from the deal — that is, until Trump jumped in to suggest his opponent had “just lost the radical left.” “It was one of those things where you just kind of wanted him to finish his thought. I was like, ‘You’ve got him cornered, just let him finish it,’” said the person involved in Trump’s reelection.
His insistence that Biden has “lost the radical left” because of his debate answers is an odd talking point but one he’s repeated on Twitter (“Radical Left is dumping Sleepy Joe”) in the days since. His whole argument against Biden until now has been that Sleepy Joe is a trojan horse for socialism, too addled to resist progressives once he’s elected president. Now suddenly he’s telling people the opposite, that Biden is so firmly centrist that the left is deserting him. (Lefties of various stripes, including AOC, have spent the past 48 hours telling reporters that, no, they’re not ditching Biden. The hard-left magazine The Nation even endorsed him today.) If you’re trying to scare suburbanites into voting red by portraying Biden as a pawn of radicals, why turn around with a month to go and highlight the fact that his policies aren’t radical enough for the actual radicals?
Here’s Wallace, who, despite all the interruptions on Tuesday, isn’t a fan of cutting the mic of the leader of the free world to try to keep him in line.


hotair--2020-10-01--Big AP scoop: People of Praise scrubbed its website of Barrett references ... in 2017

Gee , I wonder when the Associated Press will catch up to the agenda-scrubbing at Black Lives Matter .
2023 ?
2025 ?
They report today in an “ analysis ” that People of Praise , the group to which Judge Amy Coney Barrett belonged , removed all references to her and her husband .
Three years ago , that is … A religious organization tied to Amy Coney Barrett , President Trump ’ s Supreme Court nominee , sought to erase all mentions and photos of her from its website before she meets with lawmakers and faces questions at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a federal appeals judge , has declined to publicly discuss her decades-long affiliation with People of Praise , a charismatic Christian group that opposes abortion and holds that men are divinely ordained as the “ head ” of the family and faith .
Former members have said the group ’ s leaders teach that wives must submit to the will of their husbands .
A spokesman for the organization has declined to say whether the judge and her husband , Jesse M. Barrett , are members .
But an analysis by The Associated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ numerous records from its website during the summer of 2017 that referred to Barrett and included photos of her and her family .
At the time , Barrett was on Trump ’ s short list for the high court seat that eventually went to Justice Brett Kavanaugh .
They also removed references to Barrett ’ s extended family more recently : Why remove them now ?
A spokesman offered the obvious explanation : Gee … ya think ?
After watching what happened to Brett Kavanaugh and his classmates from high school and college @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that fellow members of the Barretts would prefer not to get entangled in oppo research efforts by Senate Democrats , then or now .
Especially now .
At any rate , why would People of Praise remove references to the Barretts in the summer of 2017 ?
I ’ d guess that they wanted to get out of the crossfire that her nomination to the Seventh Circuit produced .
Barrett ’ s well-reported participation in the charismatic ecumenical group was a part of the context that eventually produced Dianne Feinstein ’ s remark @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you , and that ’ s a concern.
” It was also used to paint her then , as now , as some sort of embodiment of the novel The Handmaid ’ s Tale .
Besides , this news is three years old , and it ’ s meaningless .
Barrett got confirmed in September 2017 , and has three years of appellate-court work on which people can draw their own conclusions about fitness .
Nor does it have any legitimate bearing on her confirmation process now .
This is just an attempt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she herself didn ’ t do , and was done over three years ago .
It ’ s not fake news , but it is old news — and irrelevant to boot .
In case you ’ re wondering , a search of the Associated Press portal doesn ’ t produce any results for “ black lives matter website ” or “ black lives matter agenda.
” The latter seems like a fairly important omission , regardless of the scrubbing issue .

Gee, I wonder when the Associated Press will catch up to the agenda-scrubbing at Black Lives Matter. 2023? 2025? They report today in an “analysis” that People of Praise, the group to which Judge Amy Coney Barrett belonged, removed all references to her and her husband.
Three years ago, that is …
A religious organization tied to Amy Coney Barrett, President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, sought to erase all mentions and photos of her from its website before she meets with lawmakers and faces questions at her Senate confirmation hearings. Barrett, a federal appeals judge, has declined to publicly discuss her decades-long affiliation with People of Praise, a charismatic Christian group that opposes abortion and holds that men are divinely ordained as the “head” of the family and faith. Former members have said the group’s leaders teach that wives must submit to the will of their husbands. A spokesman for the organization has declined to say whether the judge and her husband, Jesse M. Barrett, are members. But an analysis by The Associated Press shows that People of Praise erased numerous records from its website during the summer of 2017 that referred to Barrett and included photos of her and her family. At the time, Barrett was on Trump’s short list for the high court seat that eventually went to Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
They also removed references to Barrett’s extended family more recently:
Last week, when Barrett again emerged as a front-runner for the court, more articles, blog posts and photos disappeared. After an AP reporter emailed the group’s spokesman Wednesday about members of Jesse Barrett’s family, his mother’s name was deleted from the primary contact for the South Bend, Indiana, branch. All issues of the organization’s magazine, “Vine and Branches,” were also removed.
Why remove them now? A spokesman offered the obvious explanation:
“Recent changes to our website were made in consultation with members and nonmembers from around the country who raised concerns about their and their families’ privacy due to heightened media attention,” Connolly said.
Gee … ya think? After watching what happened to Brett Kavanaugh and his classmates from high school and college in 2018, I’d bet that fellow members of the Barretts would prefer not to get entangled in oppo research efforts by Senate Democrats, then or now. Especially now.
At any rate, why would People of Praise remove references to the Barretts in the summer of 2017? I’d guess that they wanted to get out of the crossfire that her nomination to the Seventh Circuit produced. Barrett’s well-reported participation in the charismatic ecumenical group was a part of the context that eventually produced Dianne Feinstein’s remark, “The dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s a concern.” It was also used to paint her then, as now, as some sort of embodiment of the novel The Handmaid’s Tale.
Besides, this news is three years old, and it’s meaningless. Barrett got confirmed in September 2017, and has three years of appellate-court work on which people can draw their own conclusions about fitness. Nor does it have any legitimate bearing on her confirmation process now. This is just an attempt to paint Barrett as suspicious over something she herself didn’t do, and was done over three years ago. It’s not fake news, but it is old news — and irrelevant to boot.
In case you’re wondering, a search of the Associated Press portal doesn’t produce any results for “black lives matter website” or “black lives matter agenda.” The latter seems like a fairly important omission, regardless of the scrubbing issue.


hotair--2020-10-01--CNN explainer on the Breonna Taylor case eventually reaches a sensible conclusion

CNN published an explainer about the Breonna Taylor case today .
The headline is a bit of a muddle but they story itself does eventually reach a sensible conclusion about the case .
The piece opens by focusing on a question .
If former detective Brett Hankison was charged for recklessly endangering people in nearby apartments with bullets , why wasn ’ t he charged for recklessly endangering Breonna Taylor ?
None of the officers was charged with her March 13 killing .
Ex-Detective Brett Hankison was charged with three counts of wanton endangerment because some of the shots he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where three people were present .
He has pleaded not guilty .
Yet if Hankison ’ s bullets — which police say he “ blindly ” fired through a window and sliding glass door — threatened Taylor ’ s neighbors , how did they not also endanger the 26-year-old emergency room technician as they passed through her home ?
That question , among others surrounding state Attorney General Daniel Cameron ’ s indictment announcement , perplexes some Kentucky legal minds .
“ I can ’ t explain his logic , unfortunately , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public defender Allison Connelly said .
There is an answer to this question , at least an implied one , but the piece detours through a lot of other questions about the case before getting to it .
• Was the no-knock warrant in the case legal ?
CNN : “ the warrant appears legitimate , experts say.
” • Why wasn ’ t Kenneth Walker charged for shooting Officer Mattingly ?
CNN notes he was charged , then charges were dropped but he could be charged again .
• Can the police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the DA said the use of force by Mattingly and Cosgrove was “ justified.
” Mattingly wrote an email before the DA ’ s announcement saying in part , “ Regardless of the outcome today or Wednesday , I know we did the legal , moral and ethical thing that night .
It ’ s sad how the good guys are demonized , and criminals are canonized.
” • Is the Castle Doctrine part of this case ?
CNN again quoted University of Kentucky law professor Allison Connelly who said , “ The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if he felt he was in danger or he felt Breonna was in danger.
” That is exactly what Walker has claimed in this case , i.e .
he fired because he didn ’ t know who was breaking down the door .
• Could there be more charges for the officers involved ?
CNN suggests it ’ s possible if Kenneth Walker ’ s lawsuit turns up some new evidence but as things stand now , probably not .
And finally , at the end of this we get to the conclusion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actions of both parties were justified : There is a distinct chance that Kentucky law protects both police and Walker , as unsatisfying an outcome as that might be for observers on both sides .
“ What separated these two parties was a door , ” Wine said in May , “ and it ’ s very possible that there was no criminal activity on either side of that door because people couldn ’ t hear what the other party was saying.
” Castle doctrine could protect Walker , Johnson said , while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no-knock warrants — which he says is “ nebulous ” — could protect the officers if investigations ultimately find they were allowed to enter Taylor ’ s home .
It ’ s unfortunate that this is buried at the bottom of the story because I think there are a lot of people in Louisville and elsewhere who still need to hear it .
It ’ s possible neither party broke the law and neither party should be charged .
You have a no-knock warrant signed by a judge and you have the castle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In this case , because the police chose to knock even though they didn ’ t have to , and because Walker and Taylor allegedly didn ’ t hear the police identify themselves , you have these two things colliding at a tense moment in time .
Walker fired not knowing who was coming through the door .
Police returned fire not knowing exactly who had shot and hit one of them .
All of this brings us back to the opening question about former officer Hankison and the headline : “ An @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but not Breonna Taylor , with his bullets .
This may be why.
” Why was Hankison charged with endangering others but not with endangering Breonna Taylor ?
I think the answer is that once Kenneth Walker shot a police officer ( even without meaning to ) police were justified in shooting back .
Two officers did return fire and , unfortunately , hit and killed Breonna Taylor .
The other officer , Hankison , allegedly fired his gun recklessly such that the bullets endangered other people nearby rather than engaging the perceived @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It was the recklessness of his firing that was the problem even though in that moment the decision to fire may have been justified .

CNN published an explainer about the Breonna Taylor case today. The headline is a bit of a muddle but they story itself does eventually reach a sensible conclusion about the case. The piece opens by focusing on a question. If former detective Brett Hankison was charged for recklessly endangering people in nearby apartments with bullets, why wasn’t he charged for recklessly endangering Breonna Taylor?
None of the officers was charged with her March 13 killing. Ex-Detective Brett Hankison was charged with three counts of wanton endangerment because some of the shots he fired allegedly entered a neighboring apartment, where three people were present. He has pleaded not guilty. Yet if Hankison’s bullets — which police say he “blindly” fired through a window and sliding glass door — threatened Taylor’s neighbors, how did they not also endanger the 26-year-old emergency room technician as they passed through her home? That question, among others surrounding state Attorney General Daniel Cameron’s indictment announcement, perplexes some Kentucky legal minds. “I can’t explain his logic, unfortunately,” University of Kentucky law professor and former public defender Allison Connelly said.
There is an answer to this question, at least an implied one, but the piece detours through a lot of other questions about the case before getting to it.
Was the no-knock warrant in the case legal? CNN: “the warrant appears legitimate, experts say.” Why wasn’t Kenneth Walker charged for shooting Officer Mattingly? CNN notes he was charged, then charges were dropped but he could be charged again. Can the police claim self-defense? CNN points out that the DA said the use of force by Mattingly and Cosgrove was “justified.” Mattingly wrote an email before the DA’s announcement saying in part, “Regardless of the outcome today or Wednesday, I know we did the legal, moral and ethical thing that night. It’s sad how the good guys are demonized, and criminals are canonized.” Is the Castle Doctrine part of this case? CNN again quoted University of Kentucky law professor Allison Connelly who said, “The castle doctrine may protect [Walker] if he felt he was in danger or he felt Breonna was in danger.” That is exactly what Walker has claimed in this case, i.e. he fired because he didn’t know who was breaking down the door. Could there be more charges for the officers involved? CNN suggests it’s possible if Kenneth Walker’s lawsuit turns up some new evidence but as things stand now, probably not.
And finally, at the end of this we get to the conclusion. Maybe in this unusual case the actions of both parties were justified:
There is a distinct chance that Kentucky law protects both police and Walker, as unsatisfying an outcome as that might be for observers on both sides. “What separated these two parties was a door,” Wine said in May, “and it’s very possible that there was no criminal activity on either side of that door because people couldn’t hear what the other party was saying.” Castle doctrine could protect Walker, Johnson said, while at the same time the law surrounding no-knock warrants — which he says is “nebulous” — could protect the officers if investigations ultimately find they were allowed to enter Taylor’s home.
It’s unfortunate that this is buried at the bottom of the story because I think there are a lot of people in Louisville and elsewhere who still need to hear it. It’s possible neither party broke the law and neither party should be charged. You have a no-knock warrant signed by a judge and you have the castle doctrine and a legal gun owner. In this case, because the police chose to knock even though they didn’t have to, and because Walker and Taylor allegedly didn’t hear the police identify themselves, you have these two things colliding at a tense moment in time. Walker fired not knowing who was coming through the door. Police returned fire not knowing exactly who had shot and hit one of them.
All of this brings us back to the opening question about former officer Hankison and the headline: “An officer was indicted for endangering neighbors, but not Breonna Taylor, with his bullets. This may be why.” Why was Hankison charged with endangering others but not with endangering Breonna Taylor? I think the answer is that once Kenneth Walker shot a police officer (even without meaning to) police were justified in shooting back. Two officers did return fire and, unfortunately, hit and killed Breonna Taylor. The other officer, Hankison, allegedly fired his gun recklessly such that the bullets endangered other people nearby rather than engaging the perceived threat inside Taylor’s apartment. It was the recklessness of his firing that was the problem even though in that moment the decision to fire may have been justified.


hotair--2020-10-01--Today's hot topics on #TEMS: Debate blame, CNN shame, Phase 4 frame, a new ground game, and more!

Today on The Ed Morrissey Show ( 4 pm ET ) , we have another great lineup for the news of the day !
The show will be streamed on Hot Air ’ s Facebook page and embedded here and on the show page for those who are not on Facebook .
Join us as we welcome : • Duane “ Generalissimo ” Patterson brings us up to date on the week ’ s top stories and gives us a preview of tomorrow ’ s Hugh Hewitt show .
We ’ ll review Tuesday ’ s debate , continuing our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , plus … • What new developments are taking place on Phase 4 relief ?
• Was Tuesday ’ s debate the worst this week ?
We ’ ll look at Chris Cuomo ’ s meltdown with Ted Cruz and the hypocrisy it demonstrates • Suddenly , Team Biden ’ s announcing that it will start door-knocking .
What changed , and what does this mean ?
The Ed Morrissey Show and its dynamic chatroom can be seen on the permanent TEMS page .
Be sure to join us , and don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ debate on my Facebook page , too !
How can Republicans and conservatives keep winning after 2016 ?
Find out in GOING RED , published in April from Crown Forum !

Today on The Ed Morrissey Show (4 pm ET), we have another great lineup for the news of the day! The show will be streamed on Hot Air’s Facebook page and embedded here and on the show page for those who are not on Facebook.
Join us as we welcome:
Duane “Generalissimo” Patterson brings us up to date on the week’s top stories and gives us a preview of tomorrow’s Hugh Hewitt show. We’ll review Tuesday’s debate, continuing our talk from last night on the Aftershow, plus …
What new developments are taking place on Phase 4 relief?
Was Tuesday’s debate the worst this week? We’ll look at Chris Cuomo’s meltdown with Ted Cruz and the hypocrisy it demonstrates
Suddenly, Team Biden’s announcing that it will start door-knocking. What changed, and what does this mean?
The Ed Morrissey Show and its dynamic chatroom can be seen on the permanent TEMS page. Be sure to join us, and don’t forget to keep up with the debate on my Facebook page, too!
How can Republicans and conservatives keep winning after 2016? Find out in GOING RED, published in April from Crown Forum!


hotair--2020-10-01--A tech company CEO said he doesn't want politics in the workplace and people are upset

Bitcoin is a company whose goal is to make it easy for people around the world to buy , sell and manage various cryptocurrency accounts .
As such you might assume it would be a pretty progressive place .
But recently there has been some discontent at the company .
Back in June when large tech companies were posting black squares on Facebook to show their solidarity with Black Lives Matter , Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong refused to jump on the bandwagon .
And that led to a walkout at the company .
Many of his engineers just refused to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issue a statement of support for BLM .
Eventually , Armstrong did issue a series of tweets on the topic starting with this one : But this week Armstrong issued a memo on the divide between political activism and work .
You can read the whole thing here but the gist is that he sees it as a distraction from the mission of his for-profit business .
It has become common for Silicon Valley companies to engage in a wide variety of social activism , even those unrelated to what the company does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really want this in the company they work for .
So why have we decided to take a different approach ?
The reason is that while I think these efforts are well intentioned , they have the potential to destroy a lot of value at most companies , both by being a distraction , and by creating internal division .
We ’ ve seen what internal strife at companies like Google and Facebook can do to productivity , and there are many smaller companies who have had their own challenges here .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to work in these divisive environments .
They want to work on a winning team that is united and making progress toward an important mission .
They want to be respected at work , have a welcoming environment where they can contribute , and have growth opportunities .
They want the workplace to be a refuge from the division that is increasingly present in the world… We have people with many different backgrounds and viewpoints at Coinbase , and even if we all agree that something is a problem , we may not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it .
This is where there is a blurry line between moral statements and politics .
We could use our work day debating what to do about various unrelated challenges in the world , but that would not be in service of the company or our own interests as employees and shareholders .
As I read it , Armstrong isn ’ t trying to discourage people from being activists on their own time .
What he ’ s saying is that coinbase isn ’ t the place for that .
At work , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the company ’ s mission , not debating other issues .
Some people , including UK programmer and venture capitalist Paul Graham responded positively : But needless to say , there are many woke progressives who are not happy at being told they can ’ t take over someone ’ s company with their activism any time they feel like it .
And so you get coverage like this at the Verge , “ There are many issues on which I can easily accept that a cryptocurrency exchange , or really any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ during an election year in which democracy itself is at stake , and state-backed violence against protesters continues unchecked , racial justice can ’ t be one of them.
” Or this lecture from the San Francisco Chronicle ’ s business editor : “ The problem , as countless people pointed out , is that this philosophy works well for people who come from the dominant culture .
If you ’ re not white or male in tech , you start off with a disadvantage , as the industry ’ s continuously dismal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dorsey also offered his criticism saying that acknowledging societal issues impacting customers was the least coinbase should do .
Jessica Alter runs a tech company that supports progressive campaigns and she wasn ’ t happy about it either : This kind of grand unified theory of progressive activism is the gist of most of the criticism I see on Twitter and elsewhere .
The idea being that you can ’ t take a stand on one issue and not be willing to take a stand on every other issue because all oppression is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a lot of far-left activists these days which is why I think Armstrong ’ s refusal to go along with it irks so many people .
But again , he ’ s not saying employees can ’ t spend all their free hours supporting whatever causes they feel the need to support .
He ’ s saying that work time won ’ t be used to make statements or respond to whatever is in the news that week , it will be focused on the company ’ s already ambitious goals in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ focus .
One of the things mentioned in Armstrong ’ s memo was that people who didn ’ t feel comfortable working at Coinbase because of his views on limiting activism at work should think about finding a job someplace else .
Toward that end , Armstrong sent an internal email offering a severance package to anyone who wanted to go .
He ’ s literally willing to pay the woke activists to leave .
There are plenty of other tech companies in Silicon Valley that would welcome woke engineers .
Better to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wanted than to have them stick around and badmouth the company where they work .
As the demands of woke employees on company time and resources become greater and the internal disruptions they cause become more costly ( which seems inevitable ) , more companies may take a second look at this approach .

Bitcoin is a company whose goal is to make it easy for people around the world to buy, sell and manage various cryptocurrency accounts. As such you might assume it would be a pretty progressive place. But recently there has been some discontent at the company. Back in June when large tech companies were posting black squares on Facebook to show their solidarity with Black Lives Matter, Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong refused to jump on the bandwagon. And that led to a walkout at the company. Many of his engineers just refused to work because the CEO wouldn’t issue a statement of support for BLM. Eventually, Armstrong did issue a series of tweets on the topic starting with this one:
https://twitter.com/brian_armstrong/status/1268622377182621696
But this week Armstrong issued a memo on the divide between political activism and work. You can read the whole thing here but the gist is that he sees it as a distraction from the mission of his for-profit business.
It has become common for Silicon Valley companies to engage in a wide variety of social activism, even those unrelated to what the company does, and there are certainly employees who really want this in the company they work for. So why have we decided to take a different approach? The reason is that while I think these efforts are well intentioned, they have the potential to destroy a lot of value at most companies, both by being a distraction, and by creating internal division. We’ve seen what internal strife at companies like Google and Facebook can do to productivity, and there are many smaller companies who have had their own challenges here. I believe most employees don’t want to work in these divisive environments. They want to work on a winning team that is united and making progress toward an important mission. They want to be respected at work, have a welcoming environment where they can contribute, and have growth opportunities. They want the workplace to be a refuge from the division that is increasingly present in the world… We have people with many different backgrounds and viewpoints at Coinbase, and even if we all agree that something is a problem, we may not agree on how to actually go solve it. This is where there is a blurry line between moral statements and politics. We could use our work day debating what to do about various unrelated challenges in the world, but that would not be in service of the company or our own interests as employees and shareholders.
As I read it, Armstrong isn’t trying to discourage people from being activists on their own time. What he’s saying is that coinbase isn’t the place for that. At work, he wants people focused on their jobs and the company’s mission, not debating other issues. Some people, including UK programmer and venture capitalist Paul Graham responded positively:
Yet again, @brian_armstrong leads the way. I predict most successful companies will follow Coinbase's lead. If only because those who don't are less likely to succeed.https://t.co/3wKYAej7qO — Paul Graham (@paulg) September 28, 2020
But needless to say, there are many woke progressives who are not happy at being told they can’t take over someone’s company with their activism any time they feel like it. And so you get coverage like this at the Verge, “There are many issues on which I can easily accept that a cryptocurrency exchange, or really any company, has no opinions. But during an election year in which democracy itself is at stake, and state-backed violence against protesters continues unchecked, racial justice can’t be one of them.”
Or this lecture from the San Francisco Chronicle’s business editor: “The problem, as countless people pointed out, is that this philosophy works well for people who come from the dominant culture. If you’re not white or male in tech, you start off with a disadvantage, as the industry’s continuously dismal diversity reports show.”
Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey also offered his criticism saying that acknowledging societal issues impacting customers was the least coinbase should do.
#Bitcoin (aka “crypto”) is direct activism against an unverifiable and exclusionary financial system which negatively affects so much of our society. Important to at *least* acknowledge and connect the related societal issues your customers face daily. This leaves people behind: https://t.co/0LMlF1qcmG — jack (@jack) September 30, 2020
Jessica Alter runs a tech company that supports progressive campaigns and she wasn’t happy about it either:
Stating out loud that you think economic freedom and social justice can be conveniently disconnected is the epitome of why SV has a bad reputation — Jessica Alter (@jalter) September 29, 2020
This kind of grand unified theory of progressive activism is the gist of most of the criticism I see on Twitter and elsewhere. The idea being that you can’t take a stand on one issue and not be willing to take a stand on every other issue because all oppression is connected. That genuinely is the view of a lot of far-left activists these days which is why I think Armstrong’s refusal to go along with it irks so many people. But again, he’s not saying employees can’t spend all their free hours supporting whatever causes they feel the need to support. He’s saying that work time won’t be used to make statements or respond to whatever is in the news that week, it will be focused on the company’s already ambitious goals in one particular area that is their real focus.
One of the things mentioned in Armstrong’s memo was that people who didn’t feel comfortable working at Coinbase because of his views on limiting activism at work should think about finding a job someplace else. Toward that end, Armstrong sent an internal email offering a severance package to anyone who wanted to go. He’s literally willing to pay the woke activists to leave.
There are plenty of other tech companies in Silicon Valley that would welcome woke engineers. Better to have those people go where they are wanted than to have them stick around and badmouth the company where they work.
As the demands of woke employees on company time and resources become greater and the internal disruptions they cause become more costly (which seems inevitable), more companies may take a second look at this approach.


hotair--2020-10-01--New contender for worst debate: Cuomo-Cruz meltdown on CNN

Ironically , this segment starts off with Chris Cuomo complaining about Donald Trump ’ s behavior in Tuesday ’ s presidential debate .
The CNN anchor then brought on Senator Ted Cruz , and … proceeded to interrupt , insult , bully , and demean Cruz while keeping him from completing an answer for most of the 20 minutes his guest was on the air with him .
The transcript of this segment looks as long as a courtroom record , in large part because Cuomo kept talking over Cruz .
There are 192 entries for Cruz ’ part of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seconds , which suggests that the CNN host allowed Cruz an average time span of under seven seconds for his responses .
Via Twitchy and the Daily Caller , the lowlights of the “ debate ” took place when Cuomo demanded that Cruz answer for Donald Trump ’ s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic , but got irate when Cruz brought up New York and New Jersey : Newsbusters highlights an earlier lowlight , when Cruz parried Cuomo on Trump ’ s response to the white-supremacy question in Tuesday ’ s debate .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ had been much clearer in his denunciation , ” and that “ I was glad today that he walked that back , ” but reminded Cuomo of Biden ’ s track record on white supremacists : CRUZ : The press is partisan in this regard .
So , 10 years ago , 2010 , Joe Biden gave a eulogy for Robert Byrd , who was a Grand Cyclops– CUOMO : You ’ re really going to go with that ?
CRUZ : Oh , yes .
You better believe it .
CUOMO : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ debater .
And Professor Dershowitz tells me you were the star– CUOMO : –smartest student he ever had at Harvard Law .
You ’ re going to go with that weak-ass argument here ?
Byrd , who had a complete enlightenment about how hate was wrong , who changed his life , who spoke about it– That ’ s the way this entire transcript looks , with only the briefest of exceptions .
It ’ s an extraordinarily bad interview , entirely unprofessional , and another great example of media hypocrisy .
Cuomo @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and then turns those same tactics up to eleven on his own show .
And not for the first time , either , although the juxtaposition here is absolutely delicious .
This also highlights the ethical disintegration at CNN involving the Cuomos .
They have allowed their prime time to basically be Cuomo Propaganda Center during this pandemic when proper journalism would have scrutinized New York ’ s response to it .
Cruz brings up New York ’ s record ( and New Jersey ’ s ) because it ’ s germane to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and Cuomo takes it as a personal insult .
Even worse , he insists on giving his brother Andrew the benefit of the doubt on having the worst state death rate in the country while Cuomo at the same insists that Trump doesn ’ t care about 200,000 deaths .
It ’ s an avalanche of hypocrisy based on personal connections , and at the same time Cuomo accuses Cruz of being an apologist .
Either Chris Cuomo is launching an entirely new career as a performance artist — Hypocrisy in Blue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or he ’ s having a professional meltdown .
If it ’ s the former , this segment is brilliant .
If it ’ s not the former , CNN should be embarrassed to still have Cuomo on its air .
The conflict of interest is so large here it all but blocks the screen .
It ’ s that bad .
You can watch the whole thing here … although heaven knows why you ’ d want to .
Update : Turner Media got the video taken down in a copyright claim @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even a fiscal responsibility , at some point ) .
I ’ m not going to bother finding a replacement .
CNN notably doesn ’ t include it on its own YouTube page .
I ’ m not surprised .

Ironically, this segment starts off with Chris Cuomo complaining about Donald Trump’s behavior in Tuesday’s presidential debate. The CNN anchor then brought on Senator Ted Cruz, and … proceeded to interrupt, insult, bully, and demean Cruz while keeping him from completing an answer for most of the 20 minutes his guest was on the air with him. The transcript of this segment looks as long as a courtroom record, in large part because Cuomo kept talking over Cruz. There are 192 entries for Cruz’ part of the conversation in a little under 1200 seconds, which suggests that the CNN host allowed Cruz an average time span of under seven seconds for his responses.
Via Twitchy and the Daily Caller, the lowlights of the “debate” took place when Cuomo demanded that Cruz answer for Donald Trump’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, but got irate when Cruz brought up New York and New Jersey:
Sen. Ted Cruz to Chris Cuomo: "Does it trouble you at all that New York and New Jersey had the highest death rates in the country?" pic.twitter.com/Kwk80T4K1J — Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) October 1, 2020
Newsbusters highlights an earlier lowlight, when Cruz parried Cuomo on Trump’s response to the white-supremacy question in Tuesday’s debate. Cruz said that he wished Trump “had been much clearer in his denunciation,” and that “I was glad today that he walked that back,” but reminded Cuomo of Biden’s track record on white supremacists:
CRUZ: The press is partisan in this regard. So, 10 years ago, 2010, Joe Biden gave a eulogy for Robert Byrd, who was a Grand Cyclops– CUOMO: Right. CRUZ: –of the KKK. CUOMO: Yes. CRUZ: That’s 10 years ago. CUOMO: You’re really going to go with that? CRUZ: Oh, yes. You better believe it. CUOMO: I know you’re a master debater. And Professor Dershowitz tells me you were the star– CRUZ: That– CUOMO: –smartest student he ever had at Harvard Law. You’re going to go with that weak-ass argument here? Byrd, who had a complete enlightenment about how hate was wrong, who changed his life, who spoke about it– CRUZ: Chris, Chris, have you ever– CUOMO: –who changed his ways? CRUZ: –eulogized a Klansman?
That’s the way this entire transcript looks, with only the briefest of exceptions. It’s an extraordinarily bad interview, entirely unprofessional, and another great example of media hypocrisy. Cuomo rants about interruptions and mean-spiritedness by Trump and then turns those same tactics up to eleven on his own show. And not for the first time, either, although the juxtaposition here is absolutely delicious.
This also highlights the ethical disintegration at CNN involving the Cuomos. They have allowed their prime time to basically be Cuomo Propaganda Center during this pandemic when proper journalism would have scrutinized New York’s response to it. Cruz brings up New York’s record (and New Jersey’s) because it’s germane to the discussion on outcomes of pandemic response, and Cuomo takes it as a personal insult. Even worse, he insists on giving his brother Andrew the benefit of the doubt on having the worst state death rate in the country while Cuomo at the same insists that Trump doesn’t care about 200,000 deaths. It’s an avalanche of hypocrisy based on personal connections, and at the same time Cuomo accuses Cruz of being an apologist.
Either Chris Cuomo is launching an entirely new career as a performance artist — Hypocrisy in Blue, opening soon near you! — or he’s having a professional meltdown. If it’s the former, this segment is brilliant. If it’s not the former, CNN should be embarrassed to still have Cuomo on its air. The conflict of interest is so large here it all but blocks the screen. It’s that bad.
You can watch the whole thing here … although heaven knows why you’d want to.
Update: Turner Media got the video taken down in a copyright claim, which is its right (and even a fiscal responsibility, at some point). I’m not going to bother finding a replacement. CNN notably doesn’t include it on its own YouTube page. I’m not surprised.