hotair--2020-02-06--Will Strzok and Page play at CPAC?

Will Strzok and Page play at CPAC?

Coming to you live , from Donald Trump ’ s celebratory presser to a stage at the Conservative Political Action Conference ?
The play FBI Lovebirds : Undercovers had a nice run last year , but producer/director Phelim McAleer wants to bring it to the masses at CPAC the end of this month .
For those who may have missed it , Phelim ’ s play starred Dean Cain and Kristy Swanson as Peter Strzok and Lisa Page , the two FBI agents whose texts discussed their distaste for Trump and an “ insurance plan ” in case of his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s verbatim art form to dramatize the texts that Congress and the inspector general discovered .
Politico called it “ Hamilton for MAGA people , ” while Vice News described it as “ DC ’ s most dangerous play.
” Phelim has launched an IndieGoGo project to raise funds for a staging at CPAC , with both Cain and Swanson reprising their roles .
This will be an updated version , Phelim promises : Even more exciting – this will be the first play performed at CPAC in their nearly 50 years as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ !
This is a huge opportunity to bring even more people the truth about Russia Collusion .
But you should know that this opportunity also comes with incredible cost .
In order to bring this play to a wider audience , you and I will need to raise $ 54,000 by February 23rd in order to make this project happen .
All eyes will be on CPAC this year and it will have a massive media coverage and live coverage on popular outlets like CSPAN , CNN , Fox News , and ABC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ perform at CPAC will also include brand new material that was uncovered in the IG Report .
This will be the most impressive and compelling performance of FBI Lovebirds yet !
Also – our favorite ( and very funny ) actors Dean Cain and Kristy Swanson have agreed to return as our leads Peter Strzok and Lisa Page !
For those who don ’ t recall just how well this plays on stage , here ’ s the original trailer for the play ’ s first run : CPAC is coming soon , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Donations are tax-deductible , and especially if you ’ re coming to CPAC , you ’ ll want to be part of this event .
Townhall will be a CPAC sponsor this year too , with both Jazz Shaw and myself in attendance .
VIP members will get a special reception , and we have other events and access planned , too .
It certainly would be fun to watch this play on stage with our friends , so let ’ s make it happen .

Coming to you live, from Donald Trump’s celebratory presser to a stage at the Conservative Political Action Conference? The play FBI Lovebirds: Undercovers had a nice run last year, but producer/director Phelim McAleer wants to bring it to the masses at CPAC the end of this month.
For those who may have missed it, Phelim’s play starred Dean Cain and Kristy Swanson as Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, the two FBI agents whose texts discussed their distaste for Trump and an “insurance plan” in case of his election. FBI Lovebirds uses Phelim’s verbatim art form to dramatize the texts that Congress and the inspector general discovered. Politico called it “Hamilton for MAGA people,” while Vice News described it as “DC’s most dangerous play.”
Phelim has launched an IndieGoGo project to raise funds for a staging at CPAC, with both Cain and Swanson reprising their roles. This will be an updated version, Phelim promises:
Even more exciting – this will be the first play performed at CPAC in their nearly 50 years as the biggest conservative conference in the world! This is a huge opportunity to bring even more people the truth about Russia Collusion. But you should know that this opportunity also comes with incredible cost. In order to bring this play to a wider audience, you and I will need to raise $54,000 by February 23rd in order to make this project happen. All eyes will be on CPAC this year and it will have a massive media coverage and live coverage on popular outlets like CSPAN, CNN, Fox News, and ABC. The version that we will hopefully perform at CPAC will also include brand new material that was uncovered in the IG Report. This will be the most impressive and compelling performance of FBI Lovebirds yet! Also – our favorite (and very funny) actors Dean Cain and Kristy Swanson have agreed to return as our leads Peter Strzok and Lisa Page!
For those who don’t recall just how well this plays on stage, here’s the original trailer for the play’s first run:
CPAC is coming soon, so time is of the essence. Donations are tax-deductible, and especially if you’re coming to CPAC, you’ll want to be part of this event.
Townhall will be a CPAC sponsor this year too, with both Jazz Shaw and myself in attendance. VIP members will get a special reception, and we have other events and access planned, too. It certainly would be fun to watch this play on stage with our friends, so let’s make it happen.


hotair--2020-02-06--Today's hot topics on #TEMS: Impeachment end, Dem 2020 rend, Bloomberg's blend, SOTU transcend, and

Today's hot topics on #TEMS: Impeachment end, Dem 2020 rend, Bloomberg's blend, SOTU transcend, 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 won ’ t be able to make it today , but Salena Zito joins us to discuss her latest on the election , especially Mike Bloomberg ’ s path to the nomination .
We ’ ll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Union , and Trump ’ s strategy going forward .
• To get the view on all these issues and more from across the aisle , my pal Rick Ungar returns to the show .
We ’ ll talk about Iowa , New Hampshire , whether the party is panicking over Bernie Sanders , and much more .
Don ’ t miss it !
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 won’t be able to make it today, but Salena Zito joins us to discuss her latest on the election, especially Mike Bloomberg’s path to the nomination. We’ll also talk about the State of the Union, and Trump’s strategy going forward.
To get the view on all these issues and more from across the aisle, my pal Rick Ungar returns to the show. We’ll talk about Iowa, New Hampshire, whether the party is panicking over Bernie Sanders, and much more. Don’t miss it!
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--2020-02-06--San Francisco's Director of Public Works created an alternate reality of clean streets (before his a

San Francisco's Director of Public Works created an alternate reality of clean streets (before his arrest)

San Francisco ’ s Director of Public Works , Mohammed Nuru , who goes by “ MrCleanSF ” on Twitter , was arrested on public corruption charges last week .
Federal authorities charged San Francisco Public Works Director Mohammed Nuru and high-profile restaurateur Nick Bovis with fraud Tuesday following a public corruption probe .
The schemes involved an envelope of cash , fraudulent city contracts , improper gifts from a Chinese developer and a $ 2,000 bottle of wine , according to authorities .
FBI agents on Monday arrested Nuru , 57 , and Bovis , 56 , at their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ complaint Tuesday for one charge of wire fraud .
Nuru is separately charged with lying to the FBI after initially being arrested on Jan. 21 and being told to keep quiet about the investigation .
“ The complaint alleges corruption pouring into San Francisco from around the world , ” said David Anderson , U.S. attorney for the Northern District of California , at a news conference Tuesday .
One of the schemes involved trying to bribe a public official to give Nick Bovis restaurant space inside an airport .
Another involved doing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ faces up to 20 years in prison if convicted .
But another aspect of this getting attention in the wake of Nuru ’ s arrest is his apparent habit of cleaning the streets in advance of any public event involving the city ’ s mayor .
As a result , the city that the mayor would see when she stepped out was always a lot cleaner than the one residents see on a daily basis .
In fact , it could be described as an alternate reality : Mayor London Breed arrived at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2018 to find an alternate reality .
The heart of the Tenderloin sparkled , and homelessness didn ’ t exist… That ’ s because Public Works crews and police had arrived before the mayor to clear the area of homeless people and debris and install metal barricades to prevent them from entering the park across the street .
Jim Cruz-Youll , a Castro resident who works in tech , was passing by and thought the scene looked unusual .
He took photos and videos of the total turn-around of the block and posted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s corruption charges against longtime Public Works director Mohammed Nuru .
“ Where you see the street is empty in those photos , there had been lots of people there previously , ” he told me of the shiny images of Ellis Street .
“ I asked , ‘ What ’ s going on ?
’ They said , ‘ Oh , the mayor ’ s coming !
We ’ re cleaning this up.
’ But they weren ’ t cleaning .
They were moving people out of sight.
” Here are some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the site Mayor Breed visited that day : According to one person who worked for public works under Nuru , this wasn ’ t a one-off .
This is what happened every time Mayor Breed went out .
“ It was 100 % true that wherever the mayor went , the cleaning happened before , ” the anonymous staffer told the Chronicle .
I suspect this sort of thing isn ’ t that uncommon for public figures around the country .
The question is whether or not this sort of thing create a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is really going on .
London Breed was elected on a promise to address the homeless crisis and clean up the streets .
So it doesn ’ t seem possible that she didn ’ t have some idea how serious the problem was .
But if so , that suggests she also had a pretty good idea that the sparkling streets that she saw everywhere she went outside for a public event wasn ’ t reality .
Still , this has probably been going on for a decade or more , long before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mess .
You have to wonder if , to some degree , “ MrCleanSF ” helped create and alternate reality which kept these issues on the back burner longer than they should have been .

San Francisco’s Director of Public Works, Mohammed Nuru, who goes by “MrCleanSF” on Twitter, was arrested on public corruption charges last week.
Federal authorities charged San Francisco Public Works Director Mohammed Nuru and high-profile restaurateur Nick Bovis with fraud Tuesday following a public corruption probe. The schemes involved an envelope of cash, fraudulent city contracts, improper gifts from a Chinese developer and a $2,000 bottle of wine, according to authorities. FBI agents on Monday arrested Nuru, 57, and Bovis, 56, at their Bay Area homes before unsealing a federal complaint Tuesday for one charge of wire fraud. Nuru is separately charged with lying to the FBI after initially being arrested on Jan. 21 and being told to keep quiet about the investigation. “The complaint alleges corruption pouring into San Francisco from around the world,” said David Anderson, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of California, at a news conference Tuesday.
One of the schemes involved trying to bribe a public official to give Nick Bovis restaurant space inside an airport. Another involved doing favors for a Chinese billionaire. Nuru faces up to 20 years in prison if convicted.
But another aspect of this getting attention in the wake of Nuru’s arrest is his apparent habit of cleaning the streets in advance of any public event involving the city’s mayor. As a result, the city that the mayor would see when she stepped out was always a lot cleaner than the one residents see on a daily basis. In fact, it could be described as an alternate reality:
Mayor London Breed arrived at Glide Memorial Church one day in August 2018 to find an alternate reality. The heart of the Tenderloin sparkled, and homelessness didn’t exist… That’s because Public Works crews and police had arrived before the mayor to clear the area of homeless people and debris and install metal barricades to prevent them from entering the park across the street. Jim Cruz-Youll, a Castro resident who works in tech, was passing by and thought the scene looked unusual. He took photos and videos of the total turn-around of the block and posted them on Twitter after last week’s corruption charges against longtime Public Works director Mohammed Nuru. “Where you see the street is empty in those photos, there had been lots of people there previously,” he told me of the shiny images of Ellis Street. “I asked, ‘What’s going on?’ They said, ‘Oh, the mayor’s coming! We’re cleaning this up.’ But they weren’t cleaning. They were moving people out of sight.”
Here are some of the before and after photos of the site Mayor Breed visited that day:
https://twitter.com/JimYoull/status/1222414049582804994
According to one person who worked for public works under Nuru, this wasn’t a one-off. This is what happened every time Mayor Breed went out. “It was 100% true that wherever the mayor went, the cleaning happened before,” the anonymous staffer told the Chronicle. I suspect this sort of thing isn’t that uncommon for public figures around the country. The question is whether or not this sort of thing create a bubble that insulates public figures from what is really going on.
London Breed was elected on a promise to address the homeless crisis and clean up the streets. So it doesn’t seem possible that she didn’t have some idea how serious the problem was. But if so, that suggests she also had a pretty good idea that the sparkling streets that she saw everywhere she went outside for a public event wasn’t reality. Still, this has probably been going on for a decade or more, long before Breed was elected to clean up the mess. You have to wonder if, to some degree, “MrCleanSF” helped create and alternate reality which kept these issues on the back burner longer than they should have been.


hotair--2020-02-06--Santorum: Romney just hung vulnerable Senate Republicans out to dry

Mitt Romney told Chris Wallace yesterday that he expects “ extraordinary consequences ” for his vote to convict and remove Donald Trump , but Romney might not be the one to feel them .
Romney has another four-plus years before his next election , and Mitch McConnell needs every vote he can get in the meantime .
Trump will huff and puff , but there was never much love lost between them anyway , and Romney has no career path outside the Senate in politics anyway .
The people who should be worried about extraordinary consequences are the vulnerable Senate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the vote , Rick Santorum tells Alisyn Camerota on CNN ’ s New Day .
Romney played right into Chuck Schumer ’ s hands , and that ’ s what will cause the most resentment , Santorum explains : SANTORUM : I think most of his colleagues are not going to be particularly happy with him .
You know , as Mitch McConnell said yesterday , this was not so much to go out and get Donald Trump , this impeachment , but was to get , you know , control of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ handful of Republicans who were up for re-election so the Democrats can take the Senate .
SANTORUM : I think Mitt Romney voting with the Democrats on this really makes these vulnerable Republicans more vulnerable , and I think that ’ s where the pushback inside the caucus is going to be a lot harder on him .
That ’ s almost undeniably the biggest consequence of Romney ’ s switch .
Had Romney stuck with his caucus , Democrats still would have attacked Susan Collins , Cory Gardner , and other Senate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Romney ’ s vote to convict makes them all look a little more like Trump ’ s handmaidens .
There ’ s no doubt Romney made it more difficult for them to compete in November .
That ’ s likely why Romney felt compelled to write everyone a note yesterday ahead of the vote .
No doubt Romney knows full well he left the vulnerable 2020 incumbents out to dry and probably figured he owed them at least an explanation .
Will it help ?
The final line , “ I trust that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our conscience , ” is likelier to get even further under their skin , however , for its apparent insinuation to the contrary — plus the fact that it ’ s also likely to appear in campaign ads against them in the fall .
It might not have mattered as much if Joe Manchin or Kyrsten Sinema had gone the other way .
Both of them issued statements after Romney , and one has to wonder whether they might have decided differently had Romney voted to acquit .
We ’ ll never know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Romney ’ s big reveal two hours before the vote effectively tore away any political cover either would have had to break from their own caucuses .
That may be another point that vulnerable GOP incumbents will stew over for the next nine months … or longer .
Have fun in the lunchroom , Sen. Romney .
Update : I wrote “ acquit ” where I meant “ convict , ” and have fixed it above .
Thanks to Matt C for the correction .

Mitt Romney told Chris Wallace yesterday that he expects “extraordinary consequences” for his vote to convict and remove Donald Trump, but Romney might not be the one to feel them. Romney has another four-plus years before his next election, and Mitch McConnell needs every vote he can get in the meantime. Trump will huff and puff, but there was never much love lost between them anyway, and Romney has no career path outside the Senate in politics anyway.
The people who should be worried about extraordinary consequences are the vulnerable Senate Republicans that Romney hung out to dry on the vote, Rick Santorum tells Alisyn Camerota on CNN’s New Day. Romney played right into Chuck Schumer’s hands, and that’s what will cause the most resentment, Santorum explains:
JUST NOW: "Mitt Romney voting with the Democrats on this really makes these vulnerable Republicans more vulnerable."@RickSantorum on @NewDay pic.twitter.com/2lPvyfyYYT — John Berman (@JohnBerman) February 6, 2020
SANTORUM: I think most of his colleagues are not going to be particularly happy with him. You know, as Mitch McConnell said yesterday, this was not so much to go out and get Donald Trump, this impeachment, but was to get, you know, control of the Senate and try to defeat a handful of Republicans who were up for re-election so the Democrats can take the Senate. CAMEROTA: Well — SANTORUM: I think Mitt Romney voting with the Democrats on this really makes these vulnerable Republicans more vulnerable, and I think that’s where the pushback inside the caucus is going to be a lot harder on him.
That’s almost undeniably the biggest consequence of Romney’s switch. Had Romney stuck with his caucus, Democrats still would have attacked Susan Collins, Cory Gardner, and other Senate Republicans for their acquittal votes, but Romney’s vote to convict makes them all look a little more like Trump’s handmaidens. There’s no doubt Romney made it more difficult for them to compete in November.
That’s likely why Romney felt compelled to write everyone a note yesterday ahead of the vote. No doubt Romney knows full well he left the vulnerable 2020 incumbents out to dry and probably figured he owed them at least an explanation. Will it help? The final line, “I trust that we have all followed the dictates of our conscience,” is likelier to get even further under their skin, however, for its apparent insinuation to the contrary — plus the fact that it’s also likely to appear in campaign ads against them in the fall.
It might not have mattered as much if Joe Manchin or Kyrsten Sinema had gone the other way. Both of them issued statements after Romney, and one has to wonder whether they might have decided differently had Romney voted to acquit. We’ll never know until we read their memoirs, but Romney’s big reveal two hours before the vote effectively tore away any political cover either would have had to break from their own caucuses. That may be another point that vulnerable GOP incumbents will stew over for the next nine months … or longer. Have fun in the lunchroom, Sen. Romney.
Update: I wrote “acquit” where I meant “convict,” and have fixed it above. Thanks to Matt C for the correction.


hotair--2020-02-06--Laura Ingraham: I might have to move to Utah to primary Mitt Romney

Fox is the GOP ’ s prime messaging operation , and effective messaging of course encourages election turnout , so it ’ s interesting that Ingraham would go on at length here about Romney when not one , not two , but three Democrats from reliably red states also upset their Republican constituents yesterday by voting to remove Trump .
Many more Democrats from purple states that were won by Trump in 2016 did so too — Gary Peters in Michigan , Tammy Baldwin in Wisconsin , Bob Casey in Pennsylvania .
We can expand the universe further by including @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might be ready to flip this fall .
Minnesota , represented by Democrats Amy Klobuchar and Tina Smith , went for Hillary in 2016 by just a point and a half .
Peters , Smith , and Doug Jones are all on the ballot this fall , making last night a prime opportunity to get the Fox faithful revved up to turn out and beat them .
Instead it was Romneypalooza , aimed at a guy whose seat will surely remain Republican in 2024 whether it ’ s him or someone else on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ probably will be someone else , not because Romney ’ s going to lose a primary but because he ’ ll eventually decide that a 77-year-old has better things to do with his time than fart around in a Senate caucus that now exists solely to rubber-stamp judges and run interference for Trump on whatever the political mess of the day is .
He ’ ll retire before his next race .
Certainly he ’ ll retire if Trump wins reelection this fall and the party looks set to follow a Trumpist path @ @ @ @ @ @ @ noticed something in Ingraham ’ s hosannas to Trump ’ s swamp-draining prowess in the segment below .
She seems to take it for granted that Utahns can and should be punished for one vote cast on a non-policy matter by a senator who votes consistently with Trump on policy .
Which seems … kind of swampy .
“ If you ’ re one of Romney ’ s constituents in Utah , you ’ re out of luck , ” she said .
“ If you ’ re a businessman in need of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bother calling his office .
He has no power anymore.
” Let us consider this businessman Ingraham has conjured , suffering under dysfunctional regulation .
According to her , the businessman ’ s fate and that of his employees depend not on the merits of his request for relief , nor his senator ’ s willingness to alert congressional colleagues to his problem .
Rather , the businessman ’ s fate turns on Beltway power games––how the senator voted on impeachment , a perception of partisan disloyalty , and the impulse to punish @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scandalize us .
The sincere needs of citizens should be the priority in Washington .
Yet Ingraham was not decrying corruption .
She was attacking Romney and gloating over his ostensible loss of power .
This is an old point by now , but “ drain the swamp ” was never actually about draining the swamp .
It was about making the swamp work for a different group of cronies while cutting enemies out .
Ingraham ’ s just following that logic to its conclusion .
The best political argument against Romney ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ yammering about loyalty but the point made by Rick Santorum this morning on CNN .
( Ed has a fuller post about that coming soon . )
Romney deprived vulnerable GOP incumbents like Susan Collins and Cory Gardner of political cover by voting to remove , he noted .
If he had stuck with the team , Collins and Gardner could have answered their critics on the stump by noting that no Republicans in the House or Senate concluded that what Trump did was wrong .
They can ’ t do that anymore @ @ @ @ @ @ @ answer this question from Democratic voters : “ Why did Mitt Romney see a removable offense when you didn ’ t ?
You claim you ’ re an independent but he ’ s the one who showed real independence.
” It ’ s true that Collins and Gardner have less room to maneuver now , but they still have plenty of room .
Collins already previewed some of her arguments in defense of her vote in her floor speech a few days ago .
My first response to critics if I were her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vote .
Sure , fine , the vote to remove in the Senate was bipartisan but the vote *against* impeachment was bipartisan in the House .
The Ukraine matter was a close call on the merits , a fact borne out by every poll on impeachment/removal , not just the partisan splits in Congress .
We ’ re not supposed to remove a president on “ close calls , ” which is why there ’ s a 67-vote threshold in the Senate .
And really , why focus on Romney as the one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of other centrist-y Republicans , most notably Lisa Murkowski , agreed that Trump should be acquitted ?
Why isn ’ t Murkowski the touchstone of “ reasonableness ” here ?
There ’ s another point .
If Romney made life harder for Collins and Gardner , he also made life harder for Doug Jones , Joe Manchin , and Kyrsten Sinema by boxing them into removal votes despite the fact that they represent red states .
Jones may be a special case since he ’ s probably doomed this fall no matter what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ electoral reasons to want to support acquittal .
Once Romney showed his cards , that became hard .
If it ’ s uncomfortable for Collins and Gardner to answer when Democrats asked why they didn ’ t behave as Romney did , it would have been really hard for Manchin and Sinema to answer the same question .
“ You call yourself a Democrat and you voted to acquit ?
Mitt Romney had the guts to vote to remove as a Republican and you didn ’ t even have the guts to do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ !
” Romney forced them to cross the Republican majorities in their home states .
Granted , the time horizon for revenge here is long , as Manchin and Sinema won ’ t face voters again until 2024 .
But Trump ’ s memory is long too .
If he wins a second term , I sense he might remember their removal votes and mention it on the trail four years from now .
Or will he be too obsessed with Romney ’ s ( unlikely ) reelection campaign that same fall to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ majorities are nice and all but revenge is the spice of life .

Fox is the GOP’s prime messaging operation, and effective messaging of course encourages election turnout, so it’s interesting that Ingraham would go on at length here about Romney when not one, not two, but three Democrats from reliably red states also upset their Republican constituents yesterday by voting to remove Trump. Many more Democrats from purple states that were won by Trump in 2016 did so too — Gary Peters in Michigan, Tammy Baldwin in Wisconsin, Bob Casey in Pennsylvania. We can expand the universe further by including blue states that are trending red and might be ready to flip this fall. Minnesota, represented by Democrats Amy Klobuchar and Tina Smith, went for Hillary in 2016 by just a point and a half. Peters, Smith, and Doug Jones are all on the ballot this fall, making last night a prime opportunity to get the Fox faithful revved up to turn out and beat them.
Instead it was Romneypalooza, aimed at a guy whose seat will surely remain Republican in 2024 whether it’s him or someone else on the ballot. And I think it probably will be someone else, not because Romney’s going to lose a primary but because he’ll eventually decide that a 77-year-old has better things to do with his time than fart around in a Senate caucus that now exists solely to rubber-stamp judges and run interference for Trump on whatever the political mess of the day is. He’ll retire before his next race. Certainly he’ll retire if Trump wins reelection this fall and the party looks set to follow a Trumpist path for the next decade.
Conor Friedersdorf noticed something in Ingraham’s hosannas to Trump’s swamp-draining prowess in the segment below. She seems to take it for granted that Utahns can and should be punished for one vote cast on a non-policy matter by a senator who votes consistently with Trump on policy. Which seems … kind of swampy.
“If you’re one of Romney’s constituents in Utah, you’re out of luck,” she said. “If you’re a businessman in need of a regulation reexamined, don’t bother calling his office. He has no power anymore.” Let us consider this businessman Ingraham has conjured, suffering under dysfunctional regulation. According to her, the businessman’s fate and that of his employees depend not on the merits of his request for relief, nor his senator’s willingness to alert congressional colleagues to his problem. Rather, the businessman’s fate turns on Beltway power games––how the senator voted on impeachment, a perception of partisan disloyalty, and the impulse to punish him for it. That ought to scandalize us. The sincere needs of citizens should be the priority in Washington. Yet Ingraham was not decrying corruption. She was attacking Romney and gloating over his ostensible loss of power.
This is an old point by now, but “drain the swamp” was never actually about draining the swamp. It was about making the swamp work for a different group of cronies while cutting enemies out. Ingraham’s just following that logic to its conclusion.
The best political argument against Romney’s vote yesterday isn’t the yammering about loyalty but the point made by Rick Santorum this morning on CNN. (Ed has a fuller post about that coming soon.) Romney deprived vulnerable GOP incumbents like Susan Collins and Cory Gardner of political cover by voting to remove, he noted. If he had stuck with the team, Collins and Gardner could have answered their critics on the stump by noting that no Republicans in the House or Senate concluded that what Trump did was wrong. They can’t do that anymore. Now they’ll have to answer this question from Democratic voters: “Why did Mitt Romney see a removable offense when you didn’t? You claim you’re an independent but he’s the one who showed real independence.”
It’s true that Collins and Gardner have less room to maneuver now, but they still have plenty of room. Collins already previewed some of her arguments in defense of her vote in her floor speech a few days ago. My first response to critics if I were her would be to point to the House vote. Sure, fine, the vote to remove in the Senate was bipartisan but the vote *against* impeachment was bipartisan in the House. The Ukraine matter was a close call on the merits, a fact borne out by every poll on impeachment/removal, not just the partisan splits in Congress. We’re not supposed to remove a president on “close calls,” which is why there’s a 67-vote threshold in the Senate. And really, why focus on Romney as the one true barometer of independence when a variety of other centrist-y Republicans, most notably Lisa Murkowski, agreed that Trump should be acquitted? Why isn’t Murkowski the touchstone of “reasonableness” here?
There’s another point. If Romney made life harder for Collins and Gardner, he also made life harder for Doug Jones, Joe Manchin, and Kyrsten Sinema by boxing them into removal votes despite the fact that they represent red states. Jones may be a special case since he’s probably doomed this fall no matter what but Sinema and especially Manchin had sound electoral reasons to want to support acquittal. Once Romney showed his cards, that became hard. If it’s uncomfortable for Collins and Gardner to answer when Democrats asked why they didn’t behave as Romney did, it would have been really hard for Manchin and Sinema to answer the same question. “You call yourself a Democrat and you voted to acquit? Mitt Romney had the guts to vote to remove as a Republican and you didn’t even have the guts to do it as a member of our party!”
Romney forced them to cross the Republican majorities in their home states. Granted, the time horizon for revenge here is long, as Manchin and Sinema won’t face voters again until 2024. But Trump’s memory is long too. If he wins a second term, I sense he might remember their removal votes and mention it on the trail four years from now. Or will he be too obsessed with Romney’s (unlikely) reelection campaign that same fall to bother targeting easily beatable Democrats? Senate majorities are nice and all but revenge is the spice of life.


hotair--2020-02-06--Pelosi on tearing up the SOTU: 'I'm always dignified'

CNN reporter Manu Raju asked Nancy Pelosi today about her decision to tear up President Trump ’ s State of the Union speech , asking if it was “ dignified.
” Pelosi gave a rambling five minute response , claiming she decided she had to do something to symbolize for America her distaste for what Trump was saying .
“ I tore up a manifesto of mistruths , ” Pelosi said .
If you ’ ve been listening to Pelosi for long enough you can probably hear when she ’ s uncorking new talking points .
“ Manifesto of mistruths @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her staff worked out in advance .
“ It was necessary to get the attention of the American people to say this is not true and this is how it affects you , ” she said .
“ And I don ’ t need any lessons from anybody , especially the President of the United States , about dignity.
” As an example of what offended her , Pelosi pointed out the chants of “ four more years ” that broke out at the start of the speech .
But Trump didn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ encourage them .
They were started by Republican elected officials in the chamber .
They certainly weren ’ t part of the speech she tore up .
Pelosi then suggested CNN ’ s Manu Raju was out of line for even asking the question : “ It ’ s appalling the things that he says and then you say to me ‘ Tearing up his falsehoods , isn ’ t that the wrong message ?
’ No it isn ’ t. ” “ I have tried to be gracious with him .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ added .
Next , Pelosi took issue with Trump ’ s guests .
“ Now all presidents have guests…constant guests ?
That was not a State of the Union that was a state—his state of mind .
We want a state of the union.
” Pelosi claimed she offered her hand to Trump in friendship because , “ He looked to me like he was a little sedated .
He looked that way last year too.
” Didn ’ t newspapers recently express shock over videos which were circulated online to suggest Pelosi @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the president was sedated ?
Not sedate , as in calm , but “ sedated , ” as in drugged .
Is this what dignity looks like , Nancy ?
She wrapped up her marathon answer saying , “ He has shredded the truth in his speech .
He ’ s shredding the constitution in his conduct .
I shredded his state-of-his-mind address.
” Again , that sounds a bit like a scripted talking points .

CNN reporter Manu Raju asked Nancy Pelosi today about her decision to tear up President Trump’s State of the Union speech, asking if it was “dignified.” Pelosi gave a rambling five minute response, claiming she decided she had to do something to symbolize for America her distaste for what Trump was saying.
“I tore up a manifesto of mistruths,” Pelosi said. If you’ve been listening to Pelosi for long enough you can probably hear when she’s uncorking new talking points. “Manifesto of mistruths” definitely sounds like something she or her staff worked out in advance.
“It was necessary to get the attention of the American people to say this is not true and this is how it affects you,” she said. “And I don’t need any lessons from anybody, especially the President of the United States, about dignity.”
As an example of what offended her, Pelosi pointed out the chants of “four more years” that broke out at the start of the speech. But Trump didn’t start those chants or appear to encourage them. They were started by Republican elected officials in the chamber. They certainly weren’t part of the speech she tore up.
Pelosi then suggested CNN’s Manu Raju was out of line for even asking the question: “It’s appalling the things that he says and then you say to me ‘Tearing up his falsehoods, isn’t that the wrong message?’ No it isn’t.” “I have tried to be gracious with him. I’m always dignified,” Pelosi added.
Next, Pelosi took issue with Trump’s guests. “Now all presidents have guests…constant guests? That was not a State of the Union that was a state—his state of mind. We want a state of the union.”
Pelosi claimed she offered her hand to Trump in friendship because, “He looked to me like he was a little sedated. He looked that way last year too.” Didn’t newspapers recently express shock over videos which were circulated online to suggest Pelosi sounded drunk? Why is Pelosi suggesting the president was sedated? Not sedate, as in calm, but “sedated,” as in drugged.
Is this what dignity looks like, Nancy?
She wrapped up her marathon answer saying, “He has shredded the truth in his speech. He’s shredding the constitution in his conduct. I shredded his state-of-his-mind address.” Again, that sounds a bit like a scripted talking points.
Here’s Nancy:


hotair--2020-02-06--<span class='red'>Live video/blog: Trump's <s>first</s> second public remarks on acquittal; Update:

Live video/blog: Trump's <s>first</s> second public remarks on acquittal; Update: Comey among the "dirty cops" behind the process

Final thoughts : So much for the “ retribution.
” Trump basically summed up his thoughts that he ’ s been expressing on Twitter and in front of the cameras for months , and spent most of the speech thanking his allies .
It was far more rally than retribution , and Trump barely even mentioned Romney at all .
If he ’ s planning on continuing to fight back , it ’ s entirely focused outwardly , if this speech is any indication .
1:22 — Impeachment was “ a phony , rotten deal by some very evil and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nancy Pelosi for hypocrisy over starting impeachment in the first place .
Quotes her earlier insistence that it shouldn ’ t be started without bipartisan support .
Laments a wasted year in Congress .
1:18 — Goes after Robert Mueller , too , calling him part of the “ top scum ” at the FBI .
1:15 — Back to Russia-collusion , this time hitting at Andrew McCabe , Peter Strzok , and Lisa Page .
“ They were going to try to overthrow the government , ” Trump says , and said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fired “ sleazebag ” Comey .
Promises that they will pursue the investigation into the situation .
1:07 — It ’ s been a while since impeachment even came up .
He ’ s doing a great recap of the attack on Steve Scalise and other congressmen at the moment .
1:02 — Still running down the thank-yous , not making any comments on the case at the moment .
Tweaks Mark Meadows for supporting another candidate in the 2016 cycle at first .
12:54 — Mentions Iowa fiasco , repeats the GOP @ @ @ @ @ @ @ care but can ’ t count votes , and notes his own 97 % win in the GOP caucuses .
12:52 — Still notable that Trump is not putting forth a specific and detailed rebuttal , but rather just noting the same arguments he ’ s made during the impeachment process .
He ’ s having fun .
12:51 — Trump pledges to work hard to make Kevin McCarthy the next Speaker because of impeachment .
Says he will stump in “ Trump districts ” to get Republicans elected to the House .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ corrupt , having been kicked out of the military , and getting hired by Burisma when he was broke and getting showered in cash .
12:46 — Casually says Mike Pompeo was on the Zelensky call , which Pompeo had at one time avoided acknowledging .
12:44 — The victory lap is continuing , calling both Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi both “ horrible person [ s ] .
” Democrats “ stick together like glue , ” and says they ’ d impeach anyone if they saw a political advantage in it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back for more , ” Trump says , unless they start paying attention to the polls .
Cites his own numbers , but jokes , “ It ’ s no way to get your poll numbers up.
” 12:42 — First allusion to Mitt Romney , but to contrast him with Mike Lee .
And then adds at the end , “ Tell the people of Utah : I ’ m sorry about Mitt Romney.
” 12:37 — Alludes to potentially stepping on these remarks at the prayer breakfast this morning , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Perhaps that ’ s an acknowledgment that he might have misjudged that moment , but if so , it ’ s only by implication .
Proceeding with more thanks to others in the room .
12:36 — What ’ s clear , after the initial start to this , is that Trump is enjoying himself .
This is a kind of rally speech , and Trump himself called it a “ celebration ” rather than a speech .
12:35 — High praise for Mitch McConnell , while noting that he ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ laughter in the room for those comments .
12:32 — Calls Adam Schiff a “ corrupt politician ” and a “ failed screenwriter.
” Makes a quick reference to the Vindmans but doesn ’ t go any further .
12:31 — Is focusing all of his criticism thus far on the Russia-collusion investigation .
No specific mention yet of the Ukraine-Gate allegations , but he ’ s clearly making a case that Democrats were trying to manufacture an impeachment to undo the election .
12:28 — Holds up his acquittal headline and jokes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ headline I ’ ve gotten from the Washington Post , ” to laughs around the room .
12:27 — “ I did nothing wrong , nothing wrong , ” Trump insists .
12:24 — James Comey was among the “ dirty cops ” who created the impeachment process , and says if he hadn ’ t fired Comey he might not be standing there .
That was also the argument for obstruction on that point from Democrats , too , but Trump accused Comey of trying to cook a case against him .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ it was corrupt… ” 12:21 — Finally starting with “ Hail to the Chief , ” which is clearly intended to send its own message .
12:19 — Here ’ s something to consider as the delay drags on — it allows the news channels to fill the time with whatever context and framing they prefer .
It might be smarter to get these events under way as close to the announced time as possible in the future .
Just sayin ’ .
12:13 — My pal and colleague Katie Pavlich is in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ turned off : Update , 12:03 pm ET — Looks like they ’ re running a bit late , as is usual for White House events .
The stream is running but they haven ’ t turned the cameras on , although people are apparently being seated in the East Room .
Standing by .
Originally , the White House scheduled this noon speech as Donald Trump ’ s first remarks after his Senate acquittal on impeachment .
Trump threw a wrench into the works by , er , previewing his thoughts at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He didn ’ t sound interested in the Gospel exhortation of turning the other cheek and loving one ’ s enemies this morning , and Stephanie Grisham warned that he won ’ t sound any more interested in either this afternoon .
He ’ ll show some “ humility , ” Grisham told Fox News , but also about how to make people “ pay for that.
” Hmmmmm .
Aaron Blake wonders if the “ heads on a pike ” moment has arrived : Shortly after the vote , Trump and his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those he believed had wronged him .
And that ’ s especially the case with Sen. Mitt Romney ( R-Utah ) , who on Wednesday became the first member of a president ’ s own party to vote to remove him from office .
The White House said in a statement after Trump ’ s acquittal that “ only the President ’ s political opponents — all Democrats , and one failed Republican presidential candidate — voted for the manufactured impeachment articles.
” … The Post also reported in July 2017 that at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ threatened electoral consequences for senators who oppose him , suggesting that Sen. Dean Heller ( R-Nev. ) could lose his reelection bid next year if he does not back the effort .
The president also invited conservative opposition against anyone else who stands in the way.
” The pattern is obvious , and however direct the threat was in this case , there ’ s no mistaking what awaited any senator like Romney who voted against Trump .
Trump has used retribution as perhaps his most effective political tool , keeping GOP lawmakers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , even at the depths of his popularity .
Eh … meh .
Point me to the president who hasn ’ t used his influence in the same manner to enforce party discipline , and I ’ ll show you the president who doesn ’ t get anything passed in Congress .
Let ’ s just say , though , that Trump didn ’ t sound interested in letting bygones be bygones this morning , in what Grisham called a “ preview ” of what ’ s coming up next .
That certainly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but it might be a bit of a gamble .
Right now Trump ’ s peaking in the polls , his State of the Union speech reset the public narrative of his presidency , and his political opponents are melting down in Iowa .
Trump ’ s having the best week of his presidency right now , Guy Benson writes : This might be a first test of message discipline , or it might just be seen as a victory lap in which Trump is owed at least one last opportunity to let @ @ @ @ @ @ @ brief run around the room .
Nancy Pelosi might have been the Tore Loser , as the New York Post put it , but will Trump be a sore winner — or offer another look at a let ’ s get down to business presidency ?
You can watch the speech live below on the White House ’ s YouTube channel .
I ’ ll live-blog the speech and offer my own analysis with reverse-chronological updates at the top .

Live video/blog: Trump's first second public remarks on acquittal; Update: Comey among the "dirty cops" behind the process
Final thoughts: So much for the “retribution.” Trump basically summed up his thoughts that he’s been expressing on Twitter and in front of the cameras for months, and spent most of the speech thanking his allies. It was far more rally than retribution, and Trump barely even mentioned Romney at all. If he’s planning on continuing to fight back, it’s entirely focused outwardly, if this speech is any indication.
1:24 —Thanks family, finished speech, and exits to “God Bless America.”
1:22 — Impeachment was “a phony, rotten deal by some very evil and sick people.”
1:20 — Now criticizing Nancy Pelosi for hypocrisy over starting impeachment in the first place. Quotes her earlier insistence that it shouldn’t be started without bipartisan support. Laments a wasted year in Congress.
1:18 — Goes after Robert Mueller, too, calling him part of the “top scum” at the FBI.
1:15 — Back to Russia-collusion, this time hitting at Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, and Lisa Page. “They were going to try to overthrow the government,” Trump says, and said they would have succeeded had he not fired “sleazebag” Comey. Promises that they will pursue the investigation into the situation.
1:07 — It’s been a while since impeachment even came up. He’s doing a great recap of the attack on Steve Scalise and other congressmen at the moment.
1:02 — Still running down the thank-yous, not making any comments on the case at the moment. Tweaks Mark Meadows for supporting another candidate in the 2016 cycle at first.
12:54 — Mentions Iowa fiasco, repeats the GOP criticism that Democrats want to run health care but can’t count votes, and notes his own 97% win in the GOP caucuses.
12:52 — Still notable that Trump is not putting forth a specific and detailed rebuttal, but rather just noting the same arguments he’s made during the impeachment process. He’s having fun.
12:51 — Trump pledges to work hard to make Kevin McCarthy the next Speaker because of impeachment. Says he will stump in “Trump districts” to get Republicans elected to the House.
12:47 — Rips Hunter Biden for being corrupt, having been kicked out of the military, and getting hired by Burisma when he was broke and getting showered in cash.
12:46 — Casually says Mike Pompeo was on the Zelensky call, which Pompeo had at one time avoided acknowledging.
12:44 — The victory lap is continuing, calling both Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi both “horrible person[s].” Democrats “stick together like glue,” and says they’d impeach anyone if they saw a political advantage in it. “They’ll probably come back for more,” Trump says, unless they start paying attention to the polls. Cites his own numbers, but jokes, “It’s no way to get your poll numbers up.”
12:42 — First allusion to Mitt Romney, but to contrast him with Mike Lee. And then adds at the end, “Tell the people of Utah: I’m sorry about Mitt Romney.”
12:37 — Alludes to potentially stepping on these remarks at the prayer breakfast this morning, and says that these remarks will eclipse those. Perhaps that’s an acknowledgment that he might have misjudged that moment, but if so, it’s only by implication. Proceeding with more thanks to others in the room.
12:36 — What’s clear, after the initial start to this, is that Trump is enjoying himself. This is a kind of rally speech, and Trump himself called it a “celebration” rather than a speech.
12:35 — High praise for Mitch McConnell, while noting that he’s very difficult to read. Lots of laughter in the room for those comments.
12:32 — Calls Adam Schiff a “corrupt politician” and a “failed screenwriter.” Makes a quick reference to the Vindmans but doesn’t go any further.
12:31 — Is focusing all of his criticism thus far on the Russia-collusion investigation. No specific mention yet of the Ukraine-Gate allegations, but he’s clearly making a case that Democrats were trying to manufacture an impeachment to undo the election.
12:29 — Says Russia-collusion allegations were “bullshit.”
12:28 — Holds up his acquittal headline and jokes, “This is the only good headline I’ve gotten from the Washington Post,” to laughs around the room.
12:27 — “I did nothing wrong, nothing wrong,” Trump insists.
12:24 — James Comey was among the “dirty cops” who created the impeachment process, and says if he hadn’t fired Comey he might not be standing there. That was also the argument for obstruction on that point from Democrats, too, but Trump accused Comey of trying to cook a case against him.
12:23 — “It was evil, it was corrupt…”
12:21 — Finally starting with “Hail to the Chief,” which is clearly intended to send its own message.
12:19 — Here’s something to consider as the delay drags on — it allows the news channels to fill the time with whatever context and framing they prefer. It might be smarter to get these events under way as close to the announced time as possible in the future. Just sayin’.
12:13 — My pal and colleague Katie Pavlich is in the room, too. Cameras still turned off:
In attendance at the White House today for President Trump’s address: Mitch McConnell (in the front row), a number of other Senators and House members, cabinet members, White House counsel, House Republican counsel etc. pic.twitter.com/zBcVGQ8zag — Katie Pavlich (@KatiePavlich) February 6, 2020
Update, 12:03 pm ET — Looks like they’re running a bit late, as is usual for White House events. The stream is running but they haven’t turned the cameras on, although people are apparently being seated in the East Room. Standing by.
Guests at WH event include key members of Congress including @senatemajldr and @GOPLeader and members of the Cabinet including @stevenmnuchin1 and Atty Gen Barr. pic.twitter.com/CdzHR1u6HH — Mark Knoller (@markknoller) February 6, 2020
Original post follows …
Originally, the White House scheduled this noon speech as Donald Trump’s first remarks after his Senate acquittal on impeachment. Trump threw a wrench into the works by, er, previewing his thoughts at the National Prayer Breakfast this morning. He didn’t sound interested in the Gospel exhortation of turning the other cheek and loving one’s enemies this morning, and Stephanie Grisham warned that he won’t sound any more interested in either this afternoon.
He’ll show some “humility,” Grisham told Fox News, but also about how to make people “pay for that.” Hmmmmm.
Stephanie Grisham previews Trump's post-impeachment trial speech: "I think he's gonna also talk about how just horribly he was treated and that maybe people should pay for that." 😳 pic.twitter.com/DL6LWD4KdY — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) February 6, 2020
Aaron Blake wonders if the “heads on a pike” moment has arrived:
Shortly after the vote, Trump and his team were clearly out for revenge against those he believed had wronged him. And that’s especially the case with Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah), who on Wednesday became the first member of a president’s own party to vote to remove him from office. The White House said in a statement after Trump’s acquittal that “only the President’s political opponents — all Democrats, and one failed Republican presidential candidate — voted for the manufactured impeachment articles.” … The Post also reported in July 2017 that at a lunch with GOP senators Trump “threatened electoral consequences for senators who oppose him, suggesting that Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.) could lose his reelection bid next year if he does not back the effort. The president also invited conservative opposition against anyone else who stands in the way.” The pattern is obvious, and however direct the threat was in this case, there’s no mistaking what awaited any senator like Romney who voted against Trump. Trump has used retribution as perhaps his most effective political tool, keeping GOP lawmakers mostly in line and keeping himself relevant, even at the depths of his popularity.
Eh … meh. Point me to the president who hasn’t used his influence in the same manner to enforce party discipline, and I’ll show you the president who doesn’t get anything passed in Congress. Let’s just say, though, that Trump didn’t sound interested in letting bygones be bygones this morning, in what Grisham called a “preview” of what’s coming up next. That certainly fits his pugnacious, hit-back-twice-as-hard instincts, but it might be a bit of a gamble. Right now Trump’s peaking in the polls, his State of the Union speech reset the public narrative of his presidency, and his political opponents are melting down in Iowa. Trump’s having the best week of his presidency right now, Guy Benson writes:
It feels both counter-intuitive and a bit surreal to render this analysis within the context of a just-concluded, acrimonious impeachment trial, but there’s a serious case to be made that this week’s Sunday-through-Wednesday stretch represented the most politically-advantageous four-day period of Donald Trump’s presidency to date. … All in all, not a bad run of 96 hours, coinciding with the opposition party’s shambolic, formal start to 2020 voting. I’ll leave you with this question — which may seem snarky, but it’s absolutely apt, given Trump’s penchant for self-destructive nonsense: Fox News host Chris Wallace asking, can Trump handle success? Good question. — David Rutz (@DavidRutz) February 5, 2020 Perhaps the president’s smart restraint in declining to mention impeachment during the State of the Union was a positive omen for at least a relative modicum of election season discipline.
This might be a first test of message discipline, or it might just be seen as a victory lap in which Trump is owed at least one last opportunity to let his id off its leash for a brief run around the room. Nancy Pelosi might have been the Tore Loser, as the New York Post put it, but will Trump be a sore winner — or offer another look at a let’s get down to business presidency?
You can watch the speech live below on the White House’s YouTube channel. I’ll live-blog the speech and offer my own analysis with reverse-chronological updates at the top.


hotair--2020-02-06--Fiasco: The official Iowa results are littered with errors, says NYT analysis; <span class='red'>Upd

Fiasco: The official Iowa results are littered with errors, says NYT analysis; Update: DNC chair calls for recanvass

Nah , just kidding .
Joe 2020 will be effectively dead within a few weeks , it appears .
And at this point , the exact vote totals from Iowa don ’ t matter much .
Sanders and Buttigieg will finish a close one-two , in whatever order , followed by Warren in third and Biden a distant fourth .
The reason this Upshot analysis matters is that it ’ s surely the end of Iowa ’ s reign as the first election on the calendar each presidential cycle , in case there was any remaining doubt that that change @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ d make a hash of the results on caucus night only to dribble them out later over the course of days .
But to screw up the official results once they ’ ve finally been tallied incinerates whatever faith was left in the process .
Presumably Bernie will claim victory anyway on grounds that he pretty clearly won the first alignment and final alignment of actual votes — as best we can tell — regardless of what that might mean in delegates .
But New Hampshire now will function as the first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ national race .
As you read stories today about Iowa Dems scapegoating Trump fans for clogging their phone lines on caucus night , bear in mind that some of them couldn ’ t even follow their own rules on counting votes .
According to a New York Times analysis , more than 100 precincts reported results that were internally inconsistent , that were missing data or that were not possible under the complex rules of the Iowa caucuses .
In some cases , vote tallies do not add up .
In others , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of delegates to certain candidates .
And in at least a few cases , the Iowa Democratic Party ’ s reported results do not match those reported by the precincts .
Some of these inconsistencies may prove to be innocuous , and the irregularities do not indicate an intentional effort to compromise or rig the result .
There is no apparent bias in favor of the leaders Pete Buttigieg or Bernie Sanders , meaning the overall effect on the winner ’ s margin may be small… The errors suggest that many Iowa caucus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their party ’ s caucuses , or to adopt the additional reporting requirements introduced since 2016 .
They show that the Iowa Democratic Party , despite the long delays , failed to validate all of the results fully before releasing them to the public .
What sort of errors are we talking about ?
Basic stuff , says the Times , like some precincts improperly applying the rules about the 15 percent threshold for viability .
You know how it works by now , or how it ’ s supposed to work .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ see which candidates are pulling 15 percent or better , followed by an opportunity for supporters of candidates who fell short of that mark to realign themselves with the viable candidates .
Then a second vote is taken , the so-called final alignment .
That ’ s the official result in each precinct , with delegates awarded proportionally based on that outcome .
Under the rules , only supporters of nonviable candidates are allowed to realign between the first and second ballot , which means no candidate who cleared 15 percent on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lower number on the second ballot .
But in several precincts that did happen somehow .
Nor should the total number of voters at a precinct change between the first and second ballot .
But somehow that happened too .
And that ’ s not all .
Some precincts awarded more delegates to the candidates than they were allotted under party rules .
Other precincts mysteriously gave fewer delegates to the winner than they did to candidates who finished behind him .
It ’ s possible for the candidate who finished second in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than the winner — that ’ s the position Pete Buttigieg is in right now , in fact — because rural precincts are weighted a bit more heavily than urban ones .
But it shouldn ’ t be possible at individual precincts .
And yet that ’ s what the numbers at some of them show , the Times says .
So what ’ s left of this sh*tshow election ?
And , ominously , what are we to make of the results from caucuses past ?
The only reason the Times is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s math is because pressure from Berniebros after the 2016 caucuses convinced them to release all of the data on the first and final alignments this time .
In case anyone still cares and/or feels inclined to trust the numbers , news broke last night that Bernie has almost overtaken Buttigieg for the lead in Iowa delegates as the vote-counting winds down .
The reason has to do with the “ satellite caucuses ” that were held on Monday around the state for voters who couldn ’ t make it out on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Team Sanders organized the hell out of those while Team Buttigieg overlooked them .
Result : Bernie utterly crushed Pete at the latest one to be counted , narrowing Buttigieg ’ s lead in “ state delegate equivalents ” to … four .
Buttigieg led Sanders by two full points in SDEs on Tuesday , when the first partial results were reported .
If Sanders overtakes him in the last little bit of counting still to be done , as he ’ s now favored to do , he ’ ll be the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ least until the party starts recounting all the precinct totals and correcting the various errors in the math .
Who knows what that ’ ll do to the final figures .
Anyway , let ’ s sweep all of this ( and the entire state of Iowa ) aside and focus on the basics .
Bernie and Pete each did very well whereas Biden ’ s results were a “ clusterf**k , ” “ a sh*tshow , ” and a “ f**king disaster , ” according to , er , Biden ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ set of data this morning from New Hampshire via the Boston Globe tracker , which had already shown a post-Iowa bounce for Buttigieg this week .
He ’ s still gaining , it turns out .
This looks to be a two-man race : Biden ’ s in a lot of trouble .
He can continue to mutter “ South Carolina ” but if he gets wiped here and then again in Nevada the following week no one will have any confidence that he ’ ll finish the campaign with more delegates than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that this is something of a perfect storm for Bernie : Three different centrist candidates ( Biden , Buttigieg , and Bloomberg ) are likely to be competing on Super Tuesday whereas Warren is probably cooked if she finishes far back in New Hampshire , Nevada , and South Carolina .
Even if Bernie can ’ t win a majority of delegates before the convention , he ’ s well positioned to win a plurality with the centrist vote splintering .
Establishment Dems will be under heavy pressure to try to force one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ race , but they can ’ t ask Buttigieg to quit given that he ’ s performing well and they probably can ’ t ask Bloomberg since they ’ re depending on him for big money this fall .
Guess who they ’ re going to ask .
This is a good point too : If you ’ re an anti-Bernie Democrat , without Bloomberg in the race you ’ re probably rallying around Biden right now as the de facto only option since America ’ s not going to elect a 38-year-old @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reason to keep your powder dry until Super Tuesday .
That ’ s possibly fatal to Joe , who needs signs of support desperately before the “ Biden bust ” narrative is unstoppable .
Here he is yesterday finally going after Buttigieg .
What choice does he have at this point ?
Update : What ’ s an order of magnitude beyond a “ fiasco ” ?

Turns out Biden won!
Nah, just kidding. Joe 2020 will be effectively dead within a few weeks, it appears. And at this point, the exact vote totals from Iowa don’t matter much. Sanders and Buttigieg will finish a close one-two, in whatever order, followed by Warren in third and Biden a distant fourth. The reason this Upshot analysis matters is that it’s surely the end of Iowa’s reign as the first election on the calendar each presidential cycle, in case there was any remaining doubt that that change was coming.
Bad enough that they’d make a hash of the results on caucus night only to dribble them out later over the course of days. But to screw up the official results once they’ve finally been tallied incinerates whatever faith was left in the process. Presumably Bernie will claim victory anyway on grounds that he pretty clearly won the first alignment and final alignment of actual votes — as best we can tell — regardless of what that might mean in delegates. But New Hampshire now will function as the first reliable barometer of the state of the national race.
As you read stories today about Iowa Dems scapegoating Trump fans for clogging their phone lines on caucus night, bear in mind that some of them couldn’t even follow their own rules on counting votes.
According to a New York Times analysis, more than 100 precincts reported results that were internally inconsistent, that were missing data or that were not possible under the complex rules of the Iowa caucuses. In some cases, vote tallies do not add up. In others, precincts are shown allotting the wrong number of delegates to certain candidates. And in at least a few cases, the Iowa Democratic Party’s reported results do not match those reported by the precincts. Some of these inconsistencies may prove to be innocuous, and the irregularities do not indicate an intentional effort to compromise or rig the result. There is no apparent bias in favor of the leaders Pete Buttigieg or Bernie Sanders, meaning the overall effect on the winner’s margin may be small… The errors suggest that many Iowa caucus leaders struggled to follow the rules of their party’s caucuses, or to adopt the additional reporting requirements introduced since 2016. They show that the Iowa Democratic Party, despite the long delays, failed to validate all of the results fully before releasing them to the public.
What sort of errors are we talking about? Basic stuff, says the Times, like some precincts improperly applying the rules about the 15 percent threshold for viability. You know how it works by now, or how it’s supposed to work. There’s an initial vote to see which candidates are pulling 15 percent or better, followed by an opportunity for supporters of candidates who fell short of that mark to realign themselves with the viable candidates. Then a second vote is taken, the so-called final alignment. That’s the official result in each precinct, with delegates awarded proportionally based on that outcome. Under the rules, only supporters of nonviable candidates are allowed to realign between the first and second ballot, which means no candidate who cleared 15 percent on the first vote should find themselves with a lower number on the second ballot. But in several precincts that did happen somehow. Nor should the total number of voters at a precinct change between the first and second ballot. But somehow that happened too.
And that’s not all. Some precincts awarded more delegates to the candidates than they were allotted under party rules. Other precincts mysteriously gave fewer delegates to the winner than they did to candidates who finished behind him. It’s possible for the candidate who finished second in total votes statewide to earn more delegates than the winner — that’s the position Pete Buttigieg is in right now, in fact — because rural precincts are weighted a bit more heavily than urban ones. But it shouldn’t be possible at individual precincts. And yet that’s what the numbers at some of them show, the Times says.
So what’s left of this sh*tshow election? And, ominously, what are we to make of the results from caucuses past?
Errors revealed as dozens of people on here checked each SDE result against final vote counts, making sure math works. This is 1st time IDP has released vote totals. Before, no such basic verifications possible, & predictable errors stood. Past results at margins unknowable. https://t.co/QArW5qyr6q — Taniel (@Taniel) February 6, 2020
The only reason the Times is able to check the Iowa Democratic Party’s math is because pressure from Berniebros after the 2016 caucuses convinced them to release all of the data on the first and final alignments this time.
In case anyone still cares and/or feels inclined to trust the numbers, news broke last night that Bernie has almost overtaken Buttigieg for the lead in Iowa delegates as the vote-counting winds down. The reason has to do with the “satellite caucuses” that were held on Monday around the state for voters who couldn’t make it out on caucus night for whatever reason. Evidently Team Sanders organized the hell out of those while Team Buttigieg overlooked them. Result: Bernie utterly crushed Pete at the latest one to be counted, narrowing Buttigieg’s lead in “state delegate equivalents” to … four.
So with that update, there is now 96.8% reporting and:
– Sanders leads the first preference vote by 5,954 (3.4%)
– Sanders leads the reallocated preference vote by 2,518 (1.5%)
– Buttigieg leads the SDE tally by 4 (0.2%) — Steve Kornacki (@SteveKornacki) February 6, 2020
The scope of this is INSANE. Buttigieg had 133 first-round supporters across the in-state satellites reporting so far. Sanders had 1586. That’s netted Sanders 21.1 SDEs. — Taniel (@Taniel) February 6, 2020
Buttigieg led Sanders by two full points in SDEs on Tuesday, when the first partial results were reported. If Sanders overtakes him in the last little bit of counting still to be done, as he’s now favored to do, he’ll be the official winner of the caucuses.
At least until the party starts recounting all the precinct totals and correcting the various errors in the math. Who knows what that’ll do to the final figures.
Anyway, let’s sweep all of this (and the entire state of Iowa) aside and focus on the basics. Bernie and Pete each did very well whereas Biden’s results were a “clusterf**k,” “a sh*tshow,” and a “f**king disaster,” according to, er, Biden’s own aides. We have a new set of data this morning from New Hampshire via the Boston Globe tracker, which had already shown a post-Iowa bounce for Buttigieg this week. He’s still gaining, it turns out. This looks to be a two-man race:
Bernie Sanders continues to lead the field with 25%, but Buttigieg is closing in with a 19% showing, his best yet in our poll. Joe Biden dropped three points from last night to 12%, and Elizabeth Warren is holding steady at 11%. Looking deeper into the crosstabs, Buttigieg appears to be siphoning voters away from Biden in a couple of key areas. He’s up by four among women while Biden is down by four, with a similar scenario among registered Democrats, a crucial demo for Biden… And Biden’s woes are highlighted by a startling six point drop among one of the core elements of his base, voters over age 65.
Biden’s in a lot of trouble. He can continue to mutter “South Carolina” but if he gets wiped here and then again in Nevada the following week no one will have any confidence that he’ll finish the campaign with more delegates than Sanders. Benjy Sarlin’s right that this is something of a perfect storm for Bernie: Three different centrist candidates (Biden, Buttigieg, and Bloomberg) are likely to be competing on Super Tuesday whereas Warren is probably cooked if she finishes far back in New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina. Even if Bernie can’t win a majority of delegates before the convention, he’s well positioned to win a plurality with the centrist vote splintering. Establishment Dems will be under heavy pressure to try to force one or two of those centrists from the race, but they can’t ask Buttigieg to quit given that he’s performing well and they probably can’t ask Bloomberg since they’re depending on him for big money this fall. Guess who they’re going to ask.
This is a good point too:
It’s amazing to me how much Bloomberg’s presence in the race is hurting Biden and helping Sanders. Bloomberg exists as this theoretical white knight for a certain group of Dem donors/moderates that gives them an escape valve from do-or-die Biden support. — Chris Hayes (@chrislhayes) February 6, 2020
If you’re an anti-Bernie Democrat, without Bloomberg in the race you’re probably rallying around Biden right now as the de facto only option since America’s not going to elect a 38-year-old ex-mayor president. Bloomberg gives you a reason to keep your powder dry until Super Tuesday. That’s possibly fatal to Joe, who needs signs of support desperately before the “Biden bust” narrative is unstoppable.
Here he is yesterday finally going after Buttigieg. What choice does he have at this point?
WATCH: "I have great respect for Mayor Pete and his service to this nation, but I do believe it's a risk — to be just straight up with you — for this party to nominate someone who's never held an office higher than mayor of a town of 100,000 people," Joe Biden says at NH event. pic.twitter.com/Fl1ZQurhxh — NBC Politics (@NBCPolitics) February 5, 2020
Update: What’s an order of magnitude beyond a “fiasco”?


hotair--2020-02-06--Bloomberg ramps up his ground game in Texas, endorsements announced

We ’ re approaching rodeo season in Texas and it looks like Democrat candidate Michael Bloomberg is taking his best shot at lassoing the support of moderate-leaning voters in the state .
Can he take advantage of Joe Biden ’ s less than stellar performance in Iowa by striking while the iron is hot ?
Yes , of course , he can .
Michael Bloomberg has already pledged to spend whatever amount of money is needed to win the Democrat primary and then go on to do the same running against President Trump .
His campaign playbook is a non-traditional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ early state contests and targeting the states who vote on Super Tuesday .
The two big prizes in the delegate count on that day will come from Texas and California .
It looks like Bernie is poised to win big in California if everything holds as it is now , so it ’ s sensible that Bloomberg is focusing on Texas .
Texas is a better fit for Bloomberg anyway , with more moderate Democrats than in California .
Bloomberg makes Texas a regular stop on his campaign schedule and trust me when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ airwaves with ads .
For moderate Democrats looking for a candidate to support , I have to think that by Super Tuesday Bloomberg will be under consideration by many of the potential Biden voters .
It will depend on if Sleepy Joe can reignite his base but if he flames out , Bloomberg is ready to welcome them .
Bloomberg ’ s ground game is the best of any Democrat candidate .
He makes his visits to the state newsworthy , including bringing along celebrities like Judge Judy to increase interest .
Wednesday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ open 20 more campaign offices across the state and offered up a list of endorsements .
Bloomberg ’ s campaign unveiled an endorsement list that includes three state representatives , several former mayors and some city council members .
His campaign also said it plans to open 11 additional field offices throughout the state this weekend , pressing forward on plans to expand the campaign ’ s footprint into the largest operation of any Democratic presidential candidate in Texas .
Bloomberg ’ s latest endorsers include some who ’ ve announced their support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ known for the first time Wednesday — including state Rep. Julie Johnson , D-Carrollton , who ’ ll serve as a state co-chair for the campaign .
One of the state lawmakers on the list , state Rep. Cesár Blanco , D-El Paso , previously supported the failed presidential bids of both Beto O ’ Rourke and Julián Castro .
State Rep. Joe Deshotel , D-Beaumont , also announced his support for Bloomberg on Wednesday .
Some already-announced names on the list include former Houston Mayor Bill White , former El Paso Mayor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Travillion — all Democrats .
Bill White served as Houston ’ s mayor from 2004-2010 and ran as a business-friendly pragmatist .
It is not surprising that he supports Bloomberg in light of Biden ’ s lackluster performance to date .
He was U.S. Deputy Secretary of Energy under President Bill Clinton in the 90s .
He ’ s not looking to support a candidate from the socialist wing of the party .
Bloomberg has visited Texas four times since he launched his campaign ten weeks ago .
( It seems like so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ? )
Those following the Democrat primary say his is the strongest ground game of any of the Democrats – his very deep pockets given him that advantage .
He is unapologetically trying to buy the nomination .
Texas sends 228 pledged delegates to the national convention , joined by 34 unpledged PLEO delegates ( 21 members of the Democratic National Committee and 13 members of Congress , of which all are U.S .
Representatives ) .
I think that those are the total numbers , I ’ m not an expert on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think the Super Delegate system is crazy .
The point is , whoever wins Texas will bank a tidy amount of delegates on the way to the national convention .
Since Bloomberg is relying on Super Tuesday states , it makes sense for him to concentrate on Texas and spend the resources necessary to challenge Biden .
Biden is the frontrunner right now but that can change .
Polling has been scarce but I expect that to ramp up as we get closer to March 3 .
He ’ s showing up for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be a guest speaker for the Johnson Rayburn Richards awards dinner , an annual event hosted by the Harris County Democratic Party , on Feb. 13 .
There ’ s no doubt that he knows whoever wins Harris County , wins the state .
This morning on Fox and Friends , I heard Don Peebles , a former Obama National Finance Committee member say , “ Biden is teetering right now , he ’ s holding on for dear life.
” He thinks that Bloomberg will do well even in New Hampshire @ @ @ @ @ @ @ apple cart.
” That remains to be seen .
Peebles also said he doesn ’ t think that either Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren “ even believe all that they say.
” He says they just “ focus on talking points and narratives.
” I disagree about Bernie , though .
He ’ s a true believer and has remained consistent with his messaging for decades .
We ’ re about to see just how much traction a couple of billion dollars can buy in the Democrat primaries .
I even got a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And , no , Mr. Bloomberg , you can not count on my support .

We’re approaching rodeo season in Texas and it looks like Democrat candidate Michael Bloomberg is taking his best shot at lassoing the support of moderate-leaning voters in the state. Can he take advantage of Joe Biden’s less than stellar performance in Iowa by striking while the iron is hot?
Yes, of course, he can. Michael Bloomberg has already pledged to spend whatever amount of money is needed to win the Democrat primary and then go on to do the same running against President Trump. His campaign playbook is a non-traditional one – he’s skipping the early state contests and targeting the states who vote on Super Tuesday. The two big prizes in the delegate count on that day will come from Texas and California.
It looks like Bernie is poised to win big in California if everything holds as it is now, so it’s sensible that Bloomberg is focusing on Texas. Texas is a better fit for Bloomberg anyway, with more moderate Democrats than in California. Bloomberg makes Texas a regular stop on his campaign schedule and trust me when I tell you he is flooding the airwaves with ads. For moderate Democrats looking for a candidate to support, I have to think that by Super Tuesday Bloomberg will be under consideration by many of the potential Biden voters. It will depend on if Sleepy Joe can reignite his base but if he flames out, Bloomberg is ready to welcome them.
Bloomberg’s ground game is the best of any Democrat candidate. He makes his visits to the state newsworthy, including bringing along celebrities like Judge Judy to increase interest. Wednesday Bloomberg’s campaign announced plans to open 20 more campaign offices across the state and offered up a list of endorsements.
Bloomberg’s campaign unveiled an endorsement list that includes three state representatives, several former mayors and some city council members. His campaign also said it plans to open 11 additional field offices throughout the state this weekend, pressing forward on plans to expand the campaign’s footprint into the largest operation of any Democratic presidential candidate in Texas. Bloomberg’s latest endorsers include some who’ve announced their support in recent days and some making it known for the first time Wednesday — including state Rep. Julie Johnson, D-Carrollton, who’ll serve as a state co-chair for the campaign. One of the state lawmakers on the list, state Rep. Cesár Blanco, D-El Paso, previously supported the failed presidential bids of both Beto O’Rourke and Julián Castro. State Rep. Joe Deshotel, D-Beaumont, also announced his support for Bloomberg on Wednesday. Some already-announced names on the list include former Houston Mayor Bill White, former El Paso Mayor John Cook and Travis County Commissioner Jeff Travillion — all Democrats.
Bill White served as Houston’s mayor from 2004-2010 and ran as a business-friendly pragmatist. It is not surprising that he supports Bloomberg in light of Biden’s lackluster performance to date. He was U.S. Deputy Secretary of Energy under President Bill Clinton in the 90s. He’s not looking to support a candidate from the socialist wing of the party.
Bloomberg has visited Texas four times since he launched his campaign ten weeks ago. (It seems like so much longer, doesn’t it?) Those following the Democrat primary say his is the strongest ground game of any of the Democrats – his very deep pockets given him that advantage. He is unapologetically trying to buy the nomination.
Bloomberg has already built an unmatched ground game in Texas. A spokeswoman for Bloomberg’s campaign said it currently has 72 staff members on the ground and will have 150 staffers in the state by Super Tuesday. Elizabeth Warren, the U.S. senator from Massachusetts, until recently led the way in building a formal Texas organization, making over two dozen hires spread across San Antonio, Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston, Austin and the Rio Grande Valley.
Texas sends 228 pledged delegates to the national convention, joined by 34 unpledged PLEO delegates (21 members of the Democratic National Committee and 13 members of Congress, of which all are U.S. Representatives). I think that those are the total numbers, I’m not an expert on the Democrats’ delegate system and I think the Super Delegate system is crazy. The point is, whoever wins Texas will bank a tidy amount of delegates on the way to the national convention. Since Bloomberg is relying on Super Tuesday states, it makes sense for him to concentrate on Texas and spend the resources necessary to challenge Biden. Biden is the frontrunner right now but that can change. Polling has been scarce but I expect that to ramp up as we get closer to March 3.
He’s showing up for the right events. Bloomberg is slated to be a guest speaker for the Johnson Rayburn Richards awards dinner, an annual event hosted by the Harris County Democratic Party, on Feb. 13. There’s no doubt that he knows whoever wins Harris County, wins the state. This morning on Fox and Friends, I heard Don Peebles, a former Obama National Finance Committee member say, “Biden is teetering right now, he’s holding on for dear life.” He thinks that Bloomberg will do well even in New Hampshire and South Carolina and “upset the apple cart.” That remains to be seen. Peebles also said he doesn’t think that either Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren “even believe all that they say.” He says they just “focus on talking points and narratives.” I disagree about Bernie, though. He’s a true believer and has remained consistent with his messaging for decades.
We’re about to see just how much traction a couple of billion dollars can buy in the Democrat primaries. I even got a text message from Team Bloomberg last night. And, no, Mr. Bloomberg, you can not count on my support.


hotair--2020-02-06--House to vote on bill designed to nullify right to work laws

House Democrats are preparing to force a vote on what ’ s known as the PRO Act ( Protecting the Right to Organize ) today .
This giveaway to labor unions contains all manner of goodies on the Democrats ’ wish list , including some that appear to be blatantly in defiance of previous Supreme Court rulings .
The Competitive Enterprise Institute has published a summary of the major provisions and what it would mean to workers , particularly those in right to work states .
Here are a couple of the worst parts of the bill .
Essentially nullifies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In these states , workers at a unionized workplace may choose whether or not they want the union to represent them .
The PRO Act would require non-union workers to pay union dues as a condition of employment , even when they opt out of union representation .
Force employers to provide unions with employees ’ personal information , including home addresses , working hours , phone numbers , and email addresses .
Unions have already used such information before to pressure workers to support unionization campaigns .
As Kovacs writes : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Workers of America Local 1103 used a workers ’ personal data to sign her up for unwanted magazine subscriptions and consumer products .
She was billed thousands of dollars and had to spend hours each day unsubscribing herself.
” The first item on the list dealing with the collection of dues from workers who opt out of union membership appears to directly fly in the face of the Supreme Court ’ s ruling in Janus v AFSCME , at least in spirit .
Workers around the country have been winning one battle after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their union dues and fees refunded to them .
Yet somehow the Democrats appear to believe they can just turn back the clock on all of this .
As for mandating that employers turn over the personal contact information of their workers to union representatives , the risk there should be obvious .
That ’ s just an invitation for union thugs to dox or otherwise harass people who don ’ t go along with unionization schemes .
On top of that , the bill would also change the definition of “ joint @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unions to force themselves on franchise operations like the majority of McDonald ’ s restaurants .
This has been on the wishlist of Democrats for a long time .
Heather Greenaway of the Workforce Fairness Institute sent a letter to the leadership of both parties in the House this week , informing them that they will be scoring this bill for their Congressional Labor Scorecard in the runup to this year ’ s elections .
Here ’ s the introductory passage .
On behalf of the Workforce Fairness Institute ( WFI ) , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s vehement opposition to H.R .
2474 , the Protecting the Right to Organize Act ( PRO Act ) .
WFI has serious concerns with the broad , overreaching nature of this legislation and the many ways in which it would undermine worker freedom and privacy , while simultaneously threatening businesses and entire industries that keep America ’ s economy thriving .
The good news , if there is any , is that the Senate is unlikely to even consider this legislation as long as Cocaine Mitch is in charge .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President Trump would veto it in a heartbeat .
But the simple fact that the Democrats are pushing through a vote gives you a look at what may be in store for all of us if they manage to sweep the elections in November .
And the future looks pretty bleak for right to work advocates in that scenario .

House Democrats are preparing to force a vote on what’s known as the PRO Act (Protecting the Right to Organize) today. This giveaway to labor unions contains all manner of goodies on the Democrats’ wish list, including some that appear to be blatantly in defiance of previous Supreme Court rulings. The Competitive Enterprise Institute has published a summary of the major provisions and what it would mean to workers, particularly those in right to work states. Here are a couple of the worst parts of the bill.
Essentially nullifies 28 states’ right to work laws. In these states, workers at a unionized workplace may choose whether or not they want the union to represent them. The PRO Act would require non-union workers to pay union dues as a condition of employment, even when they opt out of union representation. Force employers to provide unions with employees’ personal information, including home addresses, working hours, phone numbers, and email addresses. Unions have already used such information before to pressure workers to support unionization campaigns. As Kovacs writes: “In one example, the Communication Workers of America Local 1103 used a workers’ personal data to sign her up for unwanted magazine subscriptions and consumer products. She was billed thousands of dollars and had to spend hours each day unsubscribing herself.”
The first item on the list dealing with the collection of dues from workers who opt out of union membership appears to directly fly in the face of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Janus v AFSCME, at least in spirit. Workers around the country have been winning one battle after another in court when seeking to have their union dues and fees refunded to them. Yet somehow the Democrats appear to believe they can just turn back the clock on all of this.
As for mandating that employers turn over the personal contact information of their workers to union representatives, the risk there should be obvious. That’s just an invitation for union thugs to dox or otherwise harass people who don’t go along with unionization schemes.
On top of that, the bill would also change the definition of “joint employer” to make it easier for unions to force themselves on franchise operations like the majority of McDonald’s restaurants. This has been on the wishlist of Democrats for a long time.
Heather Greenaway of the Workforce Fairness Institute sent a letter to the leadership of both parties in the House this week, informing them that they will be scoring this bill for their Congressional Labor Scorecard in the runup to this year’s elections. Here’s the introductory passage.
On behalf of the Workforce Fairness Institute (WFI), I am writing to share our organization’s vehement opposition to H.R. 2474, the Protecting the Right to Organize Act (PRO Act). WFI has serious concerns with the broad, overreaching nature of this legislation and the many ways in which it would undermine worker freedom and privacy, while simultaneously threatening businesses and entire industries that keep America’s economy thriving.
The good news, if there is any, is that the Senate is unlikely to even consider this legislation as long as Cocaine Mitch is in charge. And even if it was somehow passed, President Trump would veto it in a heartbeat. But the simple fact that the Democrats are pushing through a vote gives you a look at what may be in store for all of us if they manage to sweep the elections in November. And the future looks pretty bleak for right to work advocates in that scenario.


hotair--2020-02-06--"Done everything possible to destroy us": Trump takes on Pelosi, Romney at prayer breakfast

The White House had announced that the president would speak at noon today about his acquittal , but Donald Trump decided to offer a preview at the National Prayer Breakfast this morning .
After avoiding a handshake opportunity with Nancy Pelosi , Trump held up two newspapers with banner headlines on his acquittal yesterday .
Taking the podium , Trump accused House and Senate Democrats of trying to “ destroy us ” and damaging the nation in their partisan zeal : So much for a bagel and shmear .
Without naming names , Trump took a couple of shots at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ faith to explain their actions .
This captures the heart of Trump ’ s remarks on his impeachment , and note how the C-SPAN cameraman pulls back to include a stone-faced Pelosi in the shot as Trump made her an obvious target : The President thanked “ courageous Republican politicians and leaders ( who ) had the wisdom , fortitude and strength to do what everyone knows was right.
” He then obliquely referenced Romney and Pelosi .
“ I don ’ t like people who use their faith as justification for doing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I like people who say , ‘ I pray for you , ’ when they know that ’ s not so .
So many people have been hurt and we can ’ t let that go on , ” Trump said .
Pelosi has previously said she prays for the President daily .
Trump wrapped up his remarks by telling the prayer gathering that he finds it difficult to love his enemies .
“ When they impeach you for nothing , ” Trump said , “ then it ’ s not easy to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” he concluded , “ but it ’ s not easy.
” Clearly , but it ’ s not supposed to be easy , either .
If it was easy , then everyone would be doing that rather than blowing off handshakes , ripping up speeches , and obsessing over each others ’ faults while ignoring their own .
If this seems like strange fodder for a speech at a faith gathering , Trump did touch on a couple of other matters , but mostly within the realm of politics .
Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Union speech that the world has increased respect for the US after three years of his policies , and also turned to abortion and the pro-life cause , at least obliquely : Trump certainly has a right to his opinions and a rebuttal , but this wasn ’ t the place or time for either .
The National Prayer Breakfast has its own purpose — it ’ s political to a point , but it ’ s also intended to promote bipartisanship and fellowship in faith .
Do his remarks on impeachment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in his response to the acquittal ?
If that ’ s what Trump has to say at a prayer breakfast , get ready for the paint to peel , I suppose .

The White House had announced that the president would speak at noon today about his acquittal, but Donald Trump decided to offer a preview at the National Prayer Breakfast this morning. After avoiding a handshake opportunity with Nancy Pelosi, Trump held up two newspapers with banner headlines on his acquittal yesterday. Taking the podium, Trump accused House and Senate Democrats of trying to “destroy us” and damaging the nation in their partisan zeal:
Trump on end of impeachment trial: "They have done everything possible to destroy us and by so doing, very badly hurt our nation." https://t.co/Zugwa7V50u pic.twitter.com/3b7iDYezP1 — CBS News (@CBSNews) February 6, 2020
So much for a bagel and shmear. Without naming names, Trump took a couple of shots at Pelosi and Mitt Romney for using their faith to explain their actions. This captures the heart of Trump’s remarks on his impeachment, and note how the C-SPAN cameraman pulls back to include a stone-faced Pelosi in the shot as Trump made her an obvious target:
President Trump: "I don't like people who use their faith as justification for doing what they know is wrong. Nor do I like people who say 'I pray for you' when they know that that's not so. So many people have been hurt and we can't let that go on."#NationalPrayerBreakfast pic.twitter.com/79XCLpD7GP — CSPAN (@cspan) February 6, 2020
The President thanked “courageous Republican politicians and leaders (who) had the wisdom, fortitude and strength to do what everyone knows was right.” He then obliquely referenced Romney and Pelosi. “I don’t like people who use their faith as justification for doing what they know is wrong nor do I like people who say, ‘I pray for you,’ when they know that’s not so. So many people have been hurt and we can’t let that go on,” Trump said. Pelosi has previously said she prays for the President daily.
Trump wrapped up his remarks by telling the prayer gathering that he finds it difficult to love his enemies. “When they impeach you for nothing,” Trump said, “then it’s not easy to like them. I do my best,” he concluded, “but it’s not easy.” Clearly, but it’s not supposed to be easy, either. If it was easy, then everyone would be doing that rather than blowing off handshakes, ripping up speeches, and obsessing over each others’ faults while ignoring their own.
If this seems like strange fodder for a speech at a faith gathering, Trump did touch on a couple of other matters, but mostly within the realm of politics. Trump repeated his claim from the State of the Union speech that the world has increased respect for the US after three years of his policies, and also turned to abortion and the pro-life cause, at least obliquely:
At National Prayer Breakfast, President Trump says, "We are pursuing medical breakthroughs to save premature babies because every child is a sacred gift from God." https://t.co/Zugwa7V50u pic.twitter.com/LqaGE4nzqD — CBS News (@CBSNews) February 6, 2020
Trump certainly has a right to his opinions and a rebuttal, but this wasn’t the place or time for either. The National Prayer Breakfast has its own purpose — it’s political to a point, but it’s also intended to promote bipartisanship and fellowship in faith. Do his remarks on impeachment preview what will be coming at noon in his response to the acquittal? If that’s what Trump has to say at a prayer breakfast, get ready for the paint to peel, I suppose.