hotair--2020-10-13--Biden: Look, Jack, I'm not a fan of Court-packing

The best thing that can be said at this point about his weeks of dodging on this subject is that it ’ s not quite as dishonest as Obama lying bald-faced to voters in 2008 about whether he supported legalizing gay marriage .
Remember that ?
Gay marriage was still a few years away from going mainstream in American politics back then , but even at the time it was popular among the liberal intelligentsia .
Surely an Ivory Tower law professor turned Democratic presidential nominee agreed with his educational/ideological cohort that the Constitution should protect same-sex unions .
Nope @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ m a Christian .
I believe marriage is between a man and a woman .
Hardly anyone believed he didn ’ t support gay marriage privately , but the left happily tolerated the charade in the name of making Obama more palatable to swing voters .
It worked .
O got elected twice , finally endorsed gay marriage in 2012 when it was politically safer to do so , and same-sex unions were legalized by SCOTUS before his second term was up .
Unlike his former boss vis-a-vis SSM , Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Court-packing .
No one will be able to say that he lied to them when he finally makes his view clear after the election .
But I do wonder if some lefties think this is a redux of 2008 , where the nominee pretends to be more moderate than he is , only to reveal the truth once he ’ s in office .
I think they ’ re setting themselves up for disappointment .
He sincerely does seem to look skeptically at Court-packing , as he said more than once during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a senator decades ago ) , and it ’ s highly unlikely that he ’ ll have 50 Democratic votes in the Senate to nuke the filibuster *and* pack the Court , which is what he ’ d need to get this done .
That is to say , there *is* a 2008-style charade going on here but this time it ’ s at the expense of the left , not socially conservative swing voters .
Biden ’ s trying to hint to them here that they shouldn ’ t get their hopes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s not going to give them a flat “ no ” before Election Day , knowing that some of them might stay home in protest .
“ I ’ m not a fan of court packing , but I don ’ t want to get off on that whole issue .
I want to keep focused , ” Biden told WKRC , a Cincinnati-area CBS/CW affiliate .
“ The president would like nothing better than to fight about whether or not I would in fact pack the court or not pack the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is , why is he doing what he ’ s doing now ?
” The former vice president also described Republicans ’ push to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court before November ’ s election as a form of court packing .
“ Court packing ’ s going on now .
Never before , when an election has already begun and millions of votes already cast , has it ever been that a Supreme Court nominee was put forward , ” Biden said .
“ And one of the reasons @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get to determine who will be on a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court or federal court is when they pick their senator or their president.
” Court-packing isn ’ t “ going on now.
” That ’ s a silly argument Democrats are using to try to change the subject from what Biden would do with the Court if their party reclaims total control of government , but the fact that so many of Dem politicians are pushing this talking point makes me wonder what their polling is showing them about how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The GOP isn ’ t packing the Court by filling a vacancy , of course — that ’ s S.O.P .
for the Senate , whereas expanding the Court to let the new president add like-minded justices would be a radical departure .
But obviously there ’ s a glaring asymmetry in Republicans holding open a seat to ensure an eight-person Court in 2016 , then turning around and ramming Barrett through in 2020 after voting in the presidential race has already begun on the theory that the Court must be fully staffed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Court-packing ” is inaccurate but it may be effective shorthand for voters in capturing the sense that what the GOP ’ s doing is hypocritical and illicit .
( See , e.g.
, the many , many polls finding that majorities believe the next president should fill Ginsburg ’ s seat . )
They ’ re not packing the Court but they *have* played with the size of the Court ( and federal appellate courts ) over the past five years to ensure their own partisan advantage , which is precisely what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That ’ s what Biden ’ s getting at with his tu quoque .
And even if that argument doesn ’ t satisfy swing voters , it might do something to placate lefties who want to pack the Court but are slowly coming to grips with the fact that it ’ s unlikely to happen .
Biden going around telling reporters “ I don ’ t like Court-packing but these Republican hypocrites suck ” will help soften the blow for progressives by appealing to their partisan animosity towards the right .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his “ not a fan ” comments but you can watch them here .
I ’ ll leave you instead with this clip of Biden trying to clean up another bit of dicey messaging from over the weekend .
He had warned about “ chicanery ” at the polls , which sounded a lot like Trump forever screeching about a rigged election .
Joe ’ s supposed to be the guy who ’ ll restore civic “ norms , ” right ?
And yet here he was joining Trump in claiming that if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been due to cheating .
Here he is trying to clarify that afterward and not fully succeeding .

The best thing that can be said at this point about his weeks of dodging on this subject is that it’s not quite as dishonest as Obama lying bald-faced to voters in 2008 about whether he supported legalizing gay marriage. Remember that? Gay marriage was still a few years away from going mainstream in American politics back then, but even at the time it was popular among the liberal intelligentsia. Surely an Ivory Tower law professor turned Democratic presidential nominee agreed with his educational/ideological cohort that the Constitution should protect same-sex unions.
Nope, not me, said Obama. I’m a Christian. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. Hardly anyone believed he didn’t support gay marriage privately, but the left happily tolerated the charade in the name of making Obama more palatable to swing voters. It worked. O got elected twice, finally endorsed gay marriage in 2012 when it was politically safer to do so, and same-sex unions were legalized by SCOTUS before his second term was up.
Unlike his former boss vis-a-vis SSM, Biden’s not taking a clear position on Court-packing. No one will be able to say that he lied to them when he finally makes his view clear after the election. But I do wonder if some lefties think this is a redux of 2008, where the nominee pretends to be more moderate than he is, only to reveal the truth once he’s in office. I think they’re setting themselves up for disappointment. He sincerely does seem to look skeptically at Court-packing, as he said more than once during the primaries (and made clear as a senator decades ago), and it’s highly unlikely that he’ll have 50 Democratic votes in the Senate to nuke the filibuster *and* pack the Court, which is what he’d need to get this done.
That is to say, there *is* a 2008-style charade going on here but this time it’s at the expense of the left, not socially conservative swing voters. Biden’s trying to hint to them here that they shouldn’t get their hopes up about adding justices but clearly he’s not going to give them a flat “no” before Election Day, knowing that some of them might stay home in protest.
“I’m not a fan of court packing, but I don’t want to get off on that whole issue. I want to keep focused,” Biden told WKRC, a Cincinnati-area CBS/CW affiliate. “The president would like nothing better than to fight about whether or not I would in fact pack the court or not pack the court, et cetera. The focus is, why is he doing what he’s doing now?” The former vice president also described Republicans’ push to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court before November’s election as a form of court packing. “Court packing’s going on now. Never before, when an election has already begun and millions of votes already cast, has it ever been that a Supreme Court nominee was put forward,” Biden said. “And one of the reasons is the only shot the American people get to determine who will be on a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court or federal court is when they pick their senator or their president.”
Court-packing isn’t “going on now.” That’s a silly argument Democrats are using to try to change the subject from what Biden would do with the Court if their party reclaims total control of government, but the fact that so many of Dem politicians are pushing this talking point makes me wonder what their polling is showing them about how receptive voters might be to it. The GOP isn’t packing the Court by filling a vacancy, of course — that’s S.O.P. for the Senate, whereas expanding the Court to let the new president add like-minded justices would be a radical departure. But obviously there’s a glaring asymmetry in Republicans holding open a seat to ensure an eight-person Court in 2016, then turning around and ramming Barrett through in 2020 after voting in the presidential race has already begun on the theory that the Court must be fully staffed to decide election controversies. Calling that “Court-packing” is inaccurate but it may be effective shorthand for voters in capturing the sense that what the GOP’s doing is hypocritical and illicit. (See, e.g., the many, many polls finding that majorities believe the next president should fill Ginsburg’s seat.) They’re not packing the Court but they *have* played with the size of the Court (and federal appellate courts) over the past five years to ensure their own partisan advantage, which is precisely what some Dems want to do next year. That’s what Biden’s getting at with his tu quoque.
And even if that argument doesn’t satisfy swing voters, it might do something to placate lefties who want to pack the Court but are slowly coming to grips with the fact that it’s unlikely to happen. Biden going around telling reporters “I don’t like Court-packing but these Republican hypocrites suck” will help soften the blow for progressives by appealing to their partisan animosity towards the right.
I can’t find embeddable video of his “not a fan” comments but you can watch them here. I’ll leave you instead with this clip of Biden trying to clean up another bit of dicey messaging from over the weekend. He had warned about “chicanery” at the polls, which sounded a lot like Trump forever screeching about a rigged election. Joe’s supposed to be the guy who’ll restore civic “norms,” right? And yet here he was joining Trump in claiming that if he ends up losing it can only have been due to cheating. Here he is trying to clarify that afterward and not fully succeeding.


hotair--2020-10-13--"Hop, hop, hop": Whitehouse's attack on Cornyn during Amy Coney Barrett's hearing was... very odd

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse blasted his fellow Judiciary Committee member , Senator John Cornyn , with a bizarre rebuke .
He criticized Cornyn ’ s opposition to Obamacare during his opening statement Monday .
Instead of delivering a rational statement about Amy Coney Barrett ’ s nomination to the Supreme Court , he lodged a surprise attack on Cornyn .
It comes as no surprise that any Republican senator is opposed to many parts of Obamacare .
The hearing was performance theatre for Senate Democrats as they tried to paint a dismal future for American health care and health insurance based @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against ACA now in the Supreme Court .
Since the Democrats rammed through Obamacare on a strictly partisan vote , Republicans have run on a promise to scrap the legislation .
Senator Whitehouse chose to focus an attack on Senator Cornyn because Cornyn is from Texas , apparently .
And , Whitehouse included David Koch in his rant , because , of course , he did .
He references the district judge who ruled against Obamacare in Texas .
There ’ s a promise to big donors that must be kept .
When @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he campaigned on getting rid of Medicare and Medicaid .
Imagine his fury when Obamacare passed .
His groups are spending millions right now on this nomination .
Republicans in Congress tried and failed to repeal the ACA more than 70 times .
It ’ s in the Republican party platform for justices to reverse the ACA decision .
Trump has over and over said this is his reason .
And now we ’ re in this mad rush to meet the November 10th argument deadline .
And colleagues pretend this isn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The travel of the ACA case leads to one senator ’ s doorstep .
In a Politico article yesterday , the senior senator from Texas tried to say that this rushed process isn ’ t targeting the ACA .
Look at the record .
The district judge in Texas who struck down the ACA in the case now headed for the Court is a former aide to the senator , who ’ s become what the Texas Tribune called “ the favorite ” for Texas Republicans seeking big judicial wins , like torpedoing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Texas introduced in committee a circuit court judge who wrote the decision on appeals striking down the ACA .
Senator Cornyn has filed brief after brief arguing for striking down the ACA .
He led the failed Senate charge to repeal the ACA in 2017 .
He said , “ I ’ ve introduced and co-sponsored 27 bills to repeal or defund Obamacare , and voted to do so at every opportunity , ” and now , talking about socialized medicine , the old Republican battle cry against Medicare , Senator Cornyn and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are pushing to get this nominee on by November 10th , the time needed to strike down the Affordable Care Act .
Please don ’ t tell us this isn ’ t about the Affordable Care Act .
From Cornyn judge to Cornyn judge to this nominee , hop , hop , hop .
When Texans lose their ACA health care protections , hop , hop , to see whose doorstep that sits on .
“ Cornyn judge ” is an odd term .
And , what is up with the “ hop @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Remember during the Kavanaugh hearings when Whitehouse was obsessed with his high school and college social calendars ?
He obsessed about the teenage slang used by Kavanaugh ’ s circle of friends .
Does the word “ boof ” ring a bell from back then ?
Good heavens .
Whitehouse oddly tries to shred Cornyn with bunny rabbit language now .
Senator Cornyn had a distinguished career in Texas before becoming a U.S .
Senator .
He was the Texas Attorney General and Judge of the Texas 37th Judicial District Court .
As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ corruption by investigating fraudulent Medicare and Medicaid claims – perhaps that part of his legacy in Texas is what Whitehouse is angry about .
It makes no sense to be outraged that a former state attorney general and judge introduced a circuit court judge to the committee .
The dots Whitehouse tries to connect ( hop , hop , hop ) that somehow Cornyn is corrupt and beholden to big donors ( Koch ) is no more relevant than the contributions of , say , George Soros , to Democrat politicians .
A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now on the SCOTUS docket arrived there : U.S. District Judge Reed O ’ Connor of Fort Worth struck down the law in 2018 , but his ruling was put on hold while appeals continued .
O ’ Connor was a staffer on the Senate Judiciary Committee , before being named a judge by President George W. Bush in 2007 .
Late last year , the 5th U.S .
Circuit Court of Appeals backed O ’ Connor , ruling that the law was unconstitutional without the tax-backed mandate serving as its backbone .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jennifer Elrod , returned the case to O ’ Connor to determine if the tax penalty for those to do not purchase insurance , eliminated by Congress in 2017 , could be severed from the law , preserving the rest of the Affordable Care Act .
Is that the best Whitehouse had to offer during such an important hearing ?
Apparently so .
He says that Republicans are “ rushing ” ACB ’ s nomination to pay back wealthy donors who want Obamacare repealed .
Too bad he couldn ’ t find a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s school career .
It is hardly earth-shattering news that Cornyn has professional relationships with judges who may rule against Obamacare , especially in Texas .
Boof !
Cornyn ’ s spokeswoman cites the hypocrisy of Whitehouse ’ s unhinged rant .
He has acknowledged Cornyn ’ s ability to work on bipartisan issues in the past .
The odd personal attack on Cornyn points to the Democrats ’ hopes of turning the Senate back to Democrat control .
Senator Cornyn is up for re-election .
His Democrat challenger is not a good @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down about 8 points according to the latest average at Real Clear Politics .

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse blasted his fellow Judiciary Committee member, Senator John Cornyn, with a bizarre rebuke. He criticized Cornyn’s opposition to Obamacare during his opening statement Monday. Instead of delivering a rational statement about Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination to the Supreme Court, he lodged a surprise attack on Cornyn.
It comes as no surprise that any Republican senator is opposed to many parts of Obamacare. The hearing was performance theatre for Senate Democrats as they tried to paint a dismal future for American health care and health insurance based on the Trump administration’s lawsuit against ACA now in the Supreme Court. Since the Democrats rammed through Obamacare on a strictly partisan vote, Republicans have run on a promise to scrap the legislation. Senator Whitehouse chose to focus an attack on Senator Cornyn because Cornyn is from Texas, apparently. And, Whitehouse included David Koch in his rant, because, of course, he did. He references the district judge who ruled against Obamacare in Texas.
There’s a promise to big donors that must be kept. When David Koch ran for vice president, he campaigned on getting rid of Medicare and Medicaid. Imagine his fury when Obamacare passed. His groups are spending millions right now on this nomination. Republicans in Congress tried and failed to repeal the ACA more than 70 times. It’s in the Republican party platform for justices to reverse the ACA decision. Trump has over and over said this is his reason. And now we’re in this mad rush to meet the November 10th argument deadline. And colleagues pretend this isn’t about the ACA. Right. The travel of the ACA case leads to one senator’s doorstep. In a Politico article yesterday, the senior senator from Texas tried to say that this rushed process isn’t targeting the ACA. Look at the record. The district judge in Texas who struck down the ACA in the case now headed for the Court is a former aide to the senator, who’s become what the Texas Tribune called “the favorite” for Texas Republicans seeking big judicial wins, like torpedoing the ACA. The senior senator from Texas introduced in committee a circuit court judge who wrote the decision on appeals striking down the ACA. Senator Cornyn has filed brief after brief arguing for striking down the ACA. He led the failed Senate charge to repeal the ACA in 2017. He said, “I’ve introduced and co-sponsored 27 bills to repeal or defund Obamacare, and voted to do so at every opportunity,” and now, talking about socialized medicine, the old Republican battle cry against Medicare, Senator Cornyn and all of our colleagues on this committee are pushing to get this nominee on by November 10th, the time needed to strike down the Affordable Care Act. Please don’t tell us this isn’t about the Affordable Care Act. From Cornyn judge to Cornyn judge to this nominee, hop, hop, hop. When Texans lose their ACA health care protections, hop, hop, to see whose doorstep that sits on.
“Cornyn judge” is an odd term. And, what is up with the “hop, hop, hop” silliness? Remember during the Kavanaugh hearings when Whitehouse was obsessed with his high school and college social calendars? He obsessed about the teenage slang used by Kavanaugh’s circle of friends. Does the word “boof” ring a bell from back then? Good heavens. Whitehouse oddly tries to shred Cornyn with bunny rabbit language now.
Senator Cornyn had a distinguished career in Texas before becoming a U.S. Senator. He was the Texas Attorney General and Judge of the Texas 37th Judicial District Court. As an attorney Cornyn fought government waste and corruption by investigating fraudulent Medicare and Medicaid claims – perhaps that part of his legacy in Texas is what Whitehouse is angry about. It makes no sense to be outraged that a former state attorney general and judge introduced a circuit court judge to the committee. The dots Whitehouse tries to connect (hop, hop, hop) that somehow Cornyn is corrupt and beholden to big donors (Koch) is no more relevant than the contributions of, say, George Soros, to Democrat politicians.
A brief history of how the ACA lawsuit now on the SCOTUS docket arrived there:
U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor of Fort Worth struck down the law in 2018, but his ruling was put on hold while appeals continued. O’Connor was a staffer on the Senate Judiciary Committee, before being named a judge by President George W. Bush in 2007. Late last year, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals backed O’Connor, ruling that the law was unconstitutional without the tax-backed mandate serving as its backbone. The 2-1 ruling, written by Judge Jennifer Elrod, returned the case to O’Connor to determine if the tax penalty for those to do not purchase insurance, eliminated by Congress in 2017, could be severed from the law, preserving the rest of the Affordable Care Act.
Liberals enjoyed Whitehouse’s weird attack on Cornyn.
Sheldon Whitehouse is now explaining the big money (think Koch Brothers) behind these nominees like Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh and that the mad rush to push Barrett through is really about overturning the ACA for big money interests. He is completely correct. — Amee Vanderpool (@girlsreallyrule) October 12, 2020
A liberal woman employed by NBC enjoyed the “hop, hop, hop” wording.
hop, hop, hop it looks like some senators weren't anticipating the opposition using this in ways that be painful just before the election…. — Heidi Przybyla (@HeidiNBC) October 12, 2020
Is that the best Whitehouse had to offer during such an important hearing? Apparently so. He says that Republicans are “rushing” ACB’s nomination to pay back wealthy donors who want Obamacare repealed. Too bad he couldn’t find a high school yearbook from David Koch’s school career. It is hardly earth-shattering news that Cornyn has professional relationships with judges who may rule against Obamacare, especially in Texas. Boof!
Cornyn’s spokeswoman cites the hypocrisy of Whitehouse’s unhinged rant. He has acknowledged Cornyn’s ability to work on bipartisan issues in the past.
Asked for comment, Cornyn spokeswoman Libby Sharp said, “Sen. Whitehouse has called Sen. Cornyn a ‘bridge’ on bipartisan policy issues, including their signature criminal justice reform law. This bizarre spectacle makes pretty clear how far D.C. Democrats are willing to go just to win an election.”
The odd personal attack on Cornyn points to the Democrats’ hopes of turning the Senate back to Democrat control. Senator Cornyn is up for re-election. His Democrat challenger is not a good candidate, though, and she is down about 8 points according to the latest average at Real Clear Politics.


hotair--2020-10-13--WHO: Herd immunity is "immoral"

WHO: Herd immunity is "immoral"

Who is in charge at the World Health Organization these days and do they really have any science to back up their various guidelines for how we ’ re supposed to behave during the pandemic ?
Their latest decree , coming from Tedros Ghebreyesus , states that the concept of herd immunity is not only ineffective but “ immoral ” and “ ethically problematic.
” While I ’ m happy to look into any research that ’ s available on the subject of viral transmission , one would hope that the information would be presented in a scientific fashion rather @ @ @ @ @ @ @ subject of morality .
But since this guy is in charge of one of the largest health organizations in the world I suppose we ’ d better see what he ’ s going on about this time .
( BBC ) The head of the World Health Organization has ruled out a herd immunity response to the pandemic .
Herd immunity occurs when a large portion of a community becomes immune to a disease through vaccinations or through the mass spread of a disease .
Some have argued that coronavirus should be allowed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a vaccine .
But WHO chief Tedros Ghebreyesus said such an approach was “ scientifically and ethically problematic ” .
While I would agree from a layman ’ s point of view that there are certainly risks involved in the herd immunity approach , the rationale this man is citing seems equally problematic .
He ’ s quoted as saying “ Herd immunity is achieved by protecting people from a virus , not by exposing them to it.
” Stopping people from being exposed to the virus is clearly an admirable goal , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of herd immunity .
People are protected from the virus by having antibodies in their system that will be able to fight it off .
One of the ways to achieve that goal absent a viable vaccine is to survive being infected , or at least we ’ re hoping that ’ s the case with the novel coronavirus .
( The jury is still out on that one because a couple of people may have caught it twice . )
Ghebreyesus goes on in a dramatic fashion to exclaim , “ Never @ @ @ @ @ @ @ herd immunity been used as a strategy for responding to an outbreak , let alone a pandemic.
” Repeating the caveat that I ’ m not a doctor , is that statement really true ?
I still recall how people handled measles and chickenpox back in the sixties .
When one child came down with one of those diseases , aunts and uncles would intentionally bring all the cousins over to play with them so they could catch it and get it over with .
Isn ’ t that a form of herd @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might want to have a word with the people of Sweden .
As you may recall , less than a month ago , while COVID was spiking across almost all of Europe , Sweden had a grand total of fourteen people in ICU beds across the entire country .
And they never locked anyone down except for the residents of nursing homes .
Granted , they paid a heavy price for it initially with more than 5,000 deaths from the virus , but it ’ s been looking more and more as if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In any event , we ’ ve heard enough conflicting data from the WHO lately to leave our collective heads spinning .
Speaking of the lockdown situation , the WHO was supporting lockdowns for most of the summer .
But now they ’ re saying that lockdowns are a bad idea in most cases .
Similarly , the organization is telling most people to wear masks .
But back in March , they told us that people should avoid wearing masks unless they were actively infected and symptomatic .
We ’ re talking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ difference between life and death for some people .
Can you make up your minds ?
I was discussing this with a friend the other day and began doing some digging online .
Has anyone actually done a test to determine the efficacy of cloth masks in either preventing the virus from escaping an infected person or blocking it from reaching the respiratory system of a healthy person ?
There are figures out there for surgical masks , but I couldn ’ t find a single case of anyone having tested cloth masks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tests that were done and I just couldn ’ t find them , but if that ’ s the case it would be nice if he could point to that data for us .
As things stand now , the WHO , much like most of the United Nations , is looking like a confused , disorganized mess , issuing all manner of judgments and advisories without being able to explain to us how they reached their conclusions .

Who is in charge at the World Health Organization these days and do they really have any science to back up their various guidelines for how we’re supposed to behave during the pandemic? Their latest decree, coming from Tedros Ghebreyesus, states that the concept of herd immunity is not only ineffective but “immoral” and “ethically problematic.” While I’m happy to look into any research that’s available on the subject of viral transmission, one would hope that the information would be presented in a scientific fashion rather than some sort of scolding on the subject of morality. But since this guy is in charge of one of the largest health organizations in the world I suppose we’d better see what he’s going on about this time. (BBC)
The head of the World Health Organization has ruled out a herd immunity response to the pandemic. Herd immunity occurs when a large portion of a community becomes immune to a disease through vaccinations or through the mass spread of a disease. Some have argued that coronavirus should be allowed to spread naturally in the absence of a vaccine. But WHO chief Tedros Ghebreyesus said such an approach was “scientifically and ethically problematic”.
While I would agree from a layman’s point of view that there are certainly risks involved in the herd immunity approach, the rationale this man is citing seems equally problematic. He’s quoted as saying “Herd immunity is achieved by protecting people from a virus, not by exposing them to it.” Stopping people from being exposed to the virus is clearly an admirable goal, but that’s not the definition of herd immunity. People are protected from the virus by having antibodies in their system that will be able to fight it off. One of the ways to achieve that goal absent a viable vaccine is to survive being infected, or at least we’re hoping that’s the case with the novel coronavirus. (The jury is still out on that one because a couple of people may have caught it twice.)
Ghebreyesus goes on in a dramatic fashion to exclaim, “Never in the history of public health has herd immunity been used as a strategy for responding to an outbreak, let alone a pandemic.” Repeating the caveat that I’m not a doctor, is that statement really true? I still recall how people handled measles and chickenpox back in the sixties. When one child came down with one of those diseases, aunts and uncles would intentionally bring all the cousins over to play with them so they could catch it and get it over with. Isn’t that a form of herd immunity?
Also, the good Doctor might want to have a word with the people of Sweden. As you may recall, less than a month ago, while COVID was spiking across almost all of Europe, Sweden had a grand total of fourteen people in ICU beds across the entire country. And they never locked anyone down except for the residents of nursing homes. Granted, they paid a heavy price for it initially with more than 5,000 deaths from the virus, but it’s been looking more and more as if their plan might have actually worked.
In any event, we’ve heard enough conflicting data from the WHO lately to leave our collective heads spinning. Speaking of the lockdown situation, the WHO was supporting lockdowns for most of the summer. But now they’re saying that lockdowns are a bad idea in most cases. Similarly, the organization is telling most people to wear masks. But back in March, they told us that people should avoid wearing masks unless they were actively infected and symptomatic. We’re talking about questions that may literally be the difference between life and death for some people. Can you make up your minds?
I was discussing this with a friend the other day and began doing some digging online. Has anyone actually done a test to determine the efficacy of cloth masks in either preventing the virus from escaping an infected person or blocking it from reaching the respiratory system of a healthy person? There are figures out there for surgical masks, but I couldn’t find a single case of anyone having tested cloth masks. Perhaps Dr. Ghebreyesus knows of some tests that were done and I just couldn’t find them, but if that’s the case it would be nice if he could point to that data for us. As things stand now, the WHO, much like most of the United Nations, is looking like a confused, disorganized mess, issuing all manner of judgments and advisories without being able to explain to us how they reached their conclusions.


hotair--2020-10-13--Media taking "Mean Girls" approach to Coney Barrett

While there have been unpleasant exceptions , most of the Democrats in the Senate have taken a less confrontational approach to the confirmation hearing for Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett thus far .
For example , Kamala Harris primarily spent her time excoriating President Trump during her opening remarks , giving the impression of being a bit more subtle in her direct attacks on the nominee herself .
But the media is busy finding other ways to try to sully Barrett ’ s name .
The Guardian managed to dredge up a woman who went to the same high @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pen an op-ed about how she “ hopes ” that Barrett won ’ t be confirmed .
The title really says it all .
Amy Coney Barrett went to my all-girls high school .
I hope she ’ s not confirmed .
If she gets a thumbs down from an old high school chum , that ’ s a compelling argument against her , right ?
Not so fast .
We ’ ll see why in a moment .
Amy Coney Barrett , Donald Trump ’ s nominee for the US supreme court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ school .
We wore the same black-and-white plaid skirts and saddle oxfords and roamed the same halls , although nearly a decade apart .
As students at St Mary ’ s Dominican High School , along with an education rooted in the Catholic faith , we were encouraged to be strong , independent women , future leaders of the world .
I would be proud to see a fellow alum serve on our highest court if that person ’ s presence didn ’ t threaten to irrevocably harm the lives of millions of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a mascot at Dominican , only an emblem : Veritas .
In Latin , truth .
But the truth is not monolithic – it is informed by our belief systems .
How we define the truth matters , especially for someone serving on the supreme court .
The implication one might draw from the title of the piece is that the author , Lisa M O ’ Neill , went to school with Barrett and would therefore have some sort of personal insight into her character .
She might even know of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ closet .
But look closely at the final phrase in the second sentence of her screed .
After pointing out how they wore the same school uniform and walked the same halls , she slips in the words “ although nearly a decade apart.
” O ’ Neill didn ’ t go to school with the nominee .
In fact , there ’ s no indication that the two of them ever even met .
They simply attended the same Catholic school .
That doesn ’ t give her any more insight into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the country .
Further , as Alexandra DeSanctis points out at National Review , the author clearly has an agenda .
O ’ Neill boasts upfront about having attended an all-girls Catholic school , but she has since parted ways with her Catholic faith and become an advocate for abortion rights and the rest of the feminist agenda that she believes Barrett ’ s presence on the court will endanger .
Among O ’ Neill ’ s specific concerns are “ the lives of women and all those with uteruses when Barrett @ @ @ @ @ @ @ immoral ’ ” and “ the lives of LGBTQ+ families when Barrett defended supreme court dissenters on the landmark marriage equality case Obergefell v Hodges.
” Wielding her “ I was once a Catholic ” card , O ’ Neill criticizes Barrett for her involvement in the lay Christian group People of Praise , implying that her membership proves she has an authoritarian worldview and wants women to “ play subservient roles ” — an especially ludicrous assertion considering that Barrett is only in the public eye at the moment because she ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ court in the land .
Even if they had managed to find a woman who actually did attend school with Barrett and knew her during that period of their lives , I wouldn ’ t have been shocked to see such an attack .
I have it on good authority from my wife ( who graduated from an all-girls college ) that you can pick any such woman in the country , go interview their fellow students from the past and find some “ mean girls ” who are willing to trash-talk them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the defining differences between the genders in their teenage years .
But this op-ed is even worse .
Playing the “ I went to the same school ” card purchases you no special status as an expert on the history and character of the nominee .
This pointless op-ed is nothing more than a boilerplate feminist screed against someone the author knows nothing about beyond what ’ s she ’ s read in liberal media outlets .
And since she ’ s clearly decided to go to war with the Catholic church , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pure bias .

While there have been unpleasant exceptions, most of the Democrats in the Senate have taken a less confrontational approach to the confirmation hearing for Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett thus far. For example, Kamala Harris primarily spent her time excoriating President Trump during her opening remarks, giving the impression of being a bit more subtle in her direct attacks on the nominee herself. But the media is busy finding other ways to try to sully Barrett’s name. The Guardian managed to dredge up a woman who went to the same high school as her and was willing to pen an op-ed about how she “hopes” that Barrett won’t be confirmed. The title really says it all. Amy Coney Barrett went to my all-girls high school. I hope she’s not confirmed. If she gets a thumbs down from an old high school chum, that’s a compelling argument against her, right? Not so fast. We’ll see why in a moment.
Amy Coney Barrett, Donald Trump’s nominee for the US supreme court, went to my all-girls Catholic high school. We wore the same black-and-white plaid skirts and saddle oxfords and roamed the same halls, although nearly a decade apart. As students at St Mary’s Dominican High School, along with an education rooted in the Catholic faith, we were encouraged to be strong, independent women, future leaders of the world. I would be proud to see a fellow alum serve on our highest court if that person’s presence didn’t threaten to irrevocably harm the lives of millions of Americans. We didn’t have a mascot at Dominican, only an emblem: Veritas. In Latin, truth. But the truth is not monolithic – it is informed by our belief systems. How we define the truth matters, especially for someone serving on the supreme court.
The implication one might draw from the title of the piece is that the author, Lisa M O’Neill, went to school with Barrett and would therefore have some sort of personal insight into her character. She might even know of a few skeletons in the candidate’s closet. But look closely at the final phrase in the second sentence of her screed. After pointing out how they wore the same school uniform and walked the same halls, she slips in the words “although nearly a decade apart.”
O’Neill didn’t go to school with the nominee. In fact, there’s no indication that the two of them ever even met. They simply attended the same Catholic school. That doesn’t give her any more insight into the character of Barrett than anyone else in the country.
Further, as Alexandra DeSanctis points out at National Review, the author clearly has an agenda. O’Neill boasts upfront about having attended an all-girls Catholic school, but she has since parted ways with her Catholic faith and become an advocate for abortion rights and the rest of the feminist agenda that she believes Barrett’s presence on the court will endanger.
Among O’Neill’s specific concerns are “the lives of women and all those with uteruses when Barrett has referred to abortion as ‘always immoral’” and “the lives of LGBTQ+ families when Barrett defended supreme court dissenters on the landmark marriage equality case Obergefell v Hodges.” Wielding her “I was once a Catholic” card, O’Neill criticizes Barrett for her involvement in the lay Christian group People of Praise, implying that her membership proves she has an authoritarian worldview and wants women to “play subservient roles” — an especially ludicrous assertion considering that Barrett is only in the public eye at the moment because she’s accepted a nomination to the highest court in the land.
Even if they had managed to find a woman who actually did attend school with Barrett and knew her during that period of their lives, I wouldn’t have been shocked to see such an attack. I have it on good authority from my wife (who graduated from an all-girls college) that you can pick any such woman in the country, go interview their fellow students from the past and find some “mean girls” who are willing to trash-talk them. It seems to be one of the defining differences between the genders in their teenage years.
But this op-ed is even worse. Playing the “I went to the same school” card purchases you no special status as an expert on the history and character of the nominee. This pointless op-ed is nothing more than a boilerplate feminist screed against someone the author knows nothing about beyond what’s she’s read in liberal media outlets. And since she’s clearly decided to go to war with the Catholic church, her opinions can be safely disregarded as pure bias.


hotair--2020-10-14--SCOTUS: We're done with the census

SCOTUS: We're done with the census

Even while they are short one justice , the Supreme Court has been getting plenty of emergency requests to act on since returning to work .
The latest of these involved a decision to halt the census count on October 31st .
( Trick or treat ? )
In a ruling handed down last night , the Supremes overruled a lower court that allowed the process to drag on further and agreed with the government that we need to get things wrapped up by the end of the month .
A number of media outlets have been playing the usual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of skullduggery engineered by Donald Trump , but that ’ s simply fake news .
The people asking to finish up the process on schedule were actually the heads of the Census Bureau .
The Supreme Court on Tuesday granted the Trump administration ’ s request to stop the 2020 census from continuing through the end of October .
The administration had asked the nation ’ s highest court to suspend an order from a federal judge in California last month that allowed the once-a-decade head count of every US resident to continue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ argued that it wanted to halt the count so that it could begin crunching the numbers to meet a Dec. 31 deadline for turning in the results , used for deciding how many congressional seats each state gets .
The Bureau needs to get started on the job of crunching the numbers if they want to complete the task by the end of the year .
That ’ s important for a couple of reasons .
Having the numbers , no matter how accurate they might be ( more on that in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the Constitution and federal law , but they ’ re needed to determine the allocation of representatives for the states and determine federal funding levels for the next budget .
The usual suspects are already up in arms , claiming that stopping early will result in an undercount of the poor , minorities and illegal immigrants .
That may be so , but we should all acknowledge one of our government ’ s dirty little secrets .
The census isn ’ t perfectly accurate and it ’ s never been perfectly accurate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The homeless are notoriously hard to count and illegal aliens frequently don ’ t want to give their personal information to anyone from the government for obvious reasons .
Other people simply refuse to comply or may forget to do it , and we don ’ t have the resources to track every one of them down .
Yes , there ’ s a law on the books making it illegal to not complete the census , but we ’ ve prosecuted only a handful of people for that in living memory .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ everyone that they have a good count every ten years .
If they don ’ t claim to have counted everyone we ’ re in violation of the Constitution .
But that doesn ’ t mean we ’ re actually going to deliver a reliable product in the end .
One Columbia University professor who oversaw the 2000 census told the New York Times recently that he “ does not expect a census of the quality that the Census Bureau will even want to release the data.
” Another government contractor working on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ census described the current situation as being “ truly , truly , hair-on-fire awful.
” But it ’ s not as if 2020 will be some sort of historical outlier .
We know that the census has been more inaccurate than the government could ever admit in the past .
We had one census where all of the records for the entire San Francisco region were lost in a fire .
Did they go back and count everyone there again ?
Nope .
The clock had already run out and the wheels of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ everyone simply looked the other way and got on with their business .
That ’ s just how the process works .
So before you begin to panic , you should probably maintain a bit of perspective .
The 2020 census won ’ t be perfect and it might not even be as accurate as the last few .
But it will still be a generally good representation of how many people are in the country and where they live .
When you ’ re talking about roughly 350 million people , you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and still come in under a reasonable margin of error .

Even while they are short one justice, the Supreme Court has been getting plenty of emergency requests to act on since returning to work. The latest of these involved a decision to halt the census count on October 31st. (Trick or treat?) In a ruling handed down last night, the Supremes overruled a lower court that allowed the process to drag on further and agreed with the government that we need to get things wrapped up by the end of the month. A number of media outlets have been playing the usual game of describing this as some sort of skullduggery engineered by Donald Trump, but that’s simply fake news. The people asking to finish up the process on schedule were actually the heads of the Census Bureau.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday granted the Trump administration’s request to stop the 2020 census from continuing through the end of October. The administration had asked the nation’s highest court to suspend an order from a federal judge in California last month that allowed the once-a-decade head count of every US resident to continue until Oct. 31. The Census Bureau argued that it wanted to halt the count so that it could begin crunching the numbers to meet a Dec. 31 deadline for turning in the results, used for deciding how many congressional seats each state gets.
The Bureau needs to get started on the job of crunching the numbers if they want to complete the task by the end of the year. That’s important for a couple of reasons. Having the numbers, no matter how accurate they might be (more on that in a moment), is not only required by the Constitution and federal law, but they’re needed to determine the allocation of representatives for the states and determine federal funding levels for the next budget.
The usual suspects are already up in arms, claiming that stopping early will result in an undercount of the poor, minorities and illegal immigrants. That may be so, but we should all acknowledge one of our government’s dirty little secrets. The census isn’t perfectly accurate and it’s never been perfectly accurate in the history of our country. The homeless are notoriously hard to count and illegal aliens frequently don’t want to give their personal information to anyone from the government for obvious reasons. Other people simply refuse to comply or may forget to do it, and we don’t have the resources to track every one of them down. Yes, there’s a law on the books making it illegal to not complete the census, but we’ve prosecuted only a handful of people for that in living memory.
The Census Bureau is forced to tell everyone that they have a good count every ten years. If they don’t claim to have counted everyone we’re in violation of the Constitution. But that doesn’t mean we’re actually going to deliver a reliable product in the end. One Columbia University professor who oversaw the 2000 census told the New York Times recently that he “does not expect a census of the quality that the Census Bureau will even want to release the data.” Another government contractor working on the statistics for this year’s census described the current situation as being “truly, truly, hair-on-fire awful.”
But it’s not as if 2020 will be some sort of historical outlier. We know that the census has been more inaccurate than the government could ever admit in the past. We had one census where all of the records for the entire San Francisco region were lost in a fire. Did they go back and count everyone there again? Nope. The clock had already run out and the wheels of government needed to continue turning. So everyone simply looked the other way and got on with their business. That’s just how the process works.
So before you begin to panic, you should probably maintain a bit of perspective. The 2020 census won’t be perfect and it might not even be as accurate as the last few. But it will still be a generally good representation of how many people are in the country and where they live. When you’re talking about roughly 350 million people, you can miss by a fairly significant number and still come in under a reasonable margin of error.


hotair--2020-10-14--VIP Gold chat: Post-ACB hearing breakdown with Cam Edwards, Ed Morrissey -- and you!

Get ready for another tremendous live , interactive VIP Gold chat with Bearing Arms ’ Cam Edwards and HotAir ’ s Ed Morrissey !
The duo will take VIP Gold members ’ questions and comments and give an in-depth analysis of the top topics of the day .
The live podcast starts at 1:30 pm ET .
If you are not a VIP Gold member , join below so you can watch today and participate in future chats !
Use LOYALTY for 25 % off !
While Cam brings his A-game on 2nd Amendment and liberty issues and makes sure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Ed has kept pace with developments abroad , at home and at the local level as well .
We ’ ll plenty to discuss and lots of time to take your questions .
The hot topics so far are : • What did we learn from Amy Coney Barrett ’ s confirmation hearing testimony ?
• Developments in the Breonna Taylor and McCluskey cases • Nancy Pelosi ’ s meltdown with Wolf Blitzer and other relief-bill developments With all the fast-moving developments , our VIP Gold members can get the latest as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Ed .

Get ready for another tremendous live, interactive VIP Gold chat with Bearing Arms’ Cam Edwards and HotAir’s Ed Morrissey! The duo will take VIP Gold members’ questions and comments and give an in-depth analysis of the top topics of the day. The live podcast starts at 1:30 pm ET.
If you are not a VIP Gold member, join below so you can watch today and participate in future chats! Use LOYALTY for 25% off!
While Cam brings his A-game on 2nd Amendment and liberty issues and makes sure to keep it real along the way, Ed has kept pace with developments abroad, at home and at the local level as well.
We’ll plenty to discuss and lots of time to take your questions. The hot topics so far are:
What did we learn from Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation hearing testimony?
Developments in the Breonna Taylor and McCluskey cases
Nancy Pelosi’s meltdown with Wolf Blitzer and other relief-bill developments
COVID-19 developments, and economic meltdown
The 2020 national election
With all the fast-moving developments, our VIP Gold members can get the latest as it happens from Cam, Julio, and Ed.
Thank you to those who participated in this week’s live chat! Tune in next week to ask more questions about the latest news of the day!


hotair--2020-10-13--Video: New bipartisan PAC claims Trump "used Christianity for his own purposes"

A new political action committee ( PAC ) began airing an ad against President Trump today .
The bipartisan group who call themselves Not Our Faith is hoping to convince Christian voters to not re-elect President Trump .
It is a last-minute attempt to sway any persuadable Christian voters who may be out there .
The PAC ’ s brand new Twitter account has the ad pinned to the top of its page .
Check it out : As you can see , there are quick shots of Trump and Stormy Daniels , of Jerry Falwell , Jr. , Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ course , the photo of Trump holding up a Bible in front of St. John ’ s Episcopal Church in Lafayette Square .
The implication is that the Christians in the anti-Trump PAC are better Christians than those who support Trump .
There is really no other way to look at it .
It ’ s your right to disagree with the prosperity gospel leaders in megachurches or tele-evangelicals but who are any of these political people to judge others for supporting Trump ?
The ad and last-minute effort just a couple of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ desperation .
I ’ m not quite sure why the ‘ bipartisan ’ coalition is wasting its time and money , to be honest .
The president has enjoyed strong support from religious voters and still does .
Recent polling shows his support from white evangelical protestants has slipped a bit from 2016 levels but he still is at 78 % support with that demographic .
According to Pew , the latest polls show that Biden leads with other religious groups , including black protestants .
President Donald Trump continues to be White @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election , but support among voters in three major traditions – White Catholics , White Protestants who are not evangelical and even White evangelical Protestants – has slipped since August , according to a new Pew Research Center poll .
Among White Catholic voters , Trump is ahead of Biden by 8 percentage points : 52 % in this group say they would vote for Trump ( or lean that way ) if the election were held today , while 44 % favor Biden .
This gap has narrowed significantly – Trump was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ % to 40 % ) the last time this question was asked in a poll conducted in late July and early August .
Support from White Protestants who do not consider themselves to be evangelical or born-again has dropped at a similar pace : 53 % say they would vote for Trump if the election were today , down from 59 % who said this in the summer poll .
Even White evangelical Protestants have softened slightly in their support for Trump , though they overwhelmingly remain on his side : 78 % @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Trump , compared with 83 % who said this in August .
So , Trump looks pretty solid so far with the evangelicals .
The PAC is headed by an Obama guy , Michael Wear , and Autumn VandeHei , an aide to former GOP Rep. Tom DeLay .
If the name VandeHei sounds familiar it is because she is married to Jim VandeHei .
He is the co-founder and CEO of Axios and the former executive editor and co-founder of Politico .
Before that , he was a national political reporter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a White House correspondent .
In other words , these aren ’ t just some grassroots Christians but well-connected political activists who are doing what they accuse Trump of doing – exploiting Christianity for their own benefit .
In this case , it is to defeat Trump as they are Never-Trumpers .
Those who identify as Christians have protested Trump many times , this is just the latest example of their efforts .
The group ’ s advisory council includes onetime Obama administration faith adviser Michael Wear and Autumn VandeHei , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Majority Leader Tom DeLay ( R-Texas ) .
Other members include former Catholic Relief Services CEO Carolyn Y .
Woo as well as the Rev .
Alvin Love , who serves as the National Baptist Convention ’ s chairman of faith-based initiatives .
“ Trump eked out 2016 with unprecedented support from white evangelicals and , important to note , a really strong showing among Catholics .
We ’ re going after all of it , ” Wear told the AP .
“ We think Christian support is on the table in this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ PAC aims “ to reach and appeal to a diverse coalition of Christians … just as we anticipate a diverse coalition of Christians will oppose Donald Trump ’ s reelection.
” The PAC purchased a six-figure ad buy targeting evangelical and Catholic voters in Pennsylvania and Michigan .
Trump won both states in 2016 .
The irony is that Trump is often referred to as the most religion-friendly president in recent years .
He was the first president to speak at the annual national pro-life rally in D.C. and has been a strong @ @ @ @ @ @ @ community refers to him as their greatest ally .
The ad states that Christians “ don ’ t need Trump to save them .
The truth is that Trump needs Christians to save his flailing campaign.
” Today Trump ’ s faith adviser and personal pastor , Paula White , appeared in Ohio at an event for the campaign ’ s evangelical outreach project .

A new political action committee (PAC) began airing an ad against President Trump today. The bipartisan group who call themselves Not Our Faith is hoping to convince Christian voters to not re-elect President Trump. It is a last-minute attempt to sway any persuadable Christian voters who may be out there.
The PAC’s brand new Twitter account has the ad pinned to the top of its page. Check it out:
https://twitter.com/NotOurFaith/status/1316031039651733509
As you can see, there are quick shots of Trump and Stormy Daniels, of Jerry Falwell, Jr., Trump and Christians praying together, and of course, the photo of Trump holding up a Bible in front of St. John’s Episcopal Church in Lafayette Square. The implication is that the Christians in the anti-Trump PAC are better Christians than those who support Trump. There is really no other way to look at it. It’s your right to disagree with the prosperity gospel leaders in megachurches or tele-evangelicals but who are any of these political people to judge others for supporting Trump?
The ad and last-minute effort just a couple of weeks out from Election Day smack of desperation. I’m not quite sure why the ‘bipartisan’ coalition is wasting its time and money, to be honest. The president has enjoyed strong support from religious voters and still does. Recent polling shows his support from white evangelical protestants has slipped a bit from 2016 levels but he still is at 78% support with that demographic. According to Pew, the latest polls show that Biden leads with other religious groups, including black protestants.
President Donald Trump continues to be White Christians’ preferred candidate for the November election, but support among voters in three major traditions – White Catholics, White Protestants who are not evangelical and even White evangelical Protestants – has slipped since August, according to a new Pew Research Center poll. Among White Catholic voters, Trump is ahead of Biden by 8 percentage points: 52% in this group say they would vote for Trump (or lean that way) if the election were held today, while 44% favor Biden. This gap has narrowed significantly – Trump was 19 points ahead of Biden (59% to 40%) the last time this question was asked in a poll conducted in late July and early August. Support from White Protestants who do not consider themselves to be evangelical or born-again has dropped at a similar pace: 53% say they would vote for Trump if the election were today, down from 59% who said this in the summer poll. Even White evangelical Protestants have softened slightly in their support for Trump, though they overwhelmingly remain on his side: 78% of White evangelicals intend to cast ballots for Trump, compared with 83% who said this in August.
So, Trump looks pretty solid so far with the evangelicals. The PAC is headed by an Obama guy, Michael Wear, and Autumn VandeHei, an aide to former GOP Rep. Tom DeLay. If the name VandeHei sounds familiar it is because she is married to Jim VandeHei. He is the co-founder and CEO of Axios and the former executive editor and co-founder of Politico. Before that, he was a national political reporter at The Washington Post, and worked as a White House correspondent. In other words, these aren’t just some grassroots Christians but well-connected political activists who are doing what they accuse Trump of doing – exploiting Christianity for their own benefit. In this case, it is to defeat Trump as they are Never-Trumpers. Those who identify as Christians have protested Trump many times, this is just the latest example of their efforts.
The group’s advisory council includes onetime Obama administration faith adviser Michael Wear and Autumn VandeHei, who worked as an aide to former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas). Other members include former Catholic Relief Services CEO Carolyn Y. Woo as well as the Rev. Alvin Love, who serves as the National Baptist Convention’s chairman of faith-based initiatives. “Trump eked out 2016 with unprecedented support from white evangelicals and, important to note, a really strong showing among Catholics. We’re going after all of it,” Wear told the AP. “We think Christian support is on the table in this election.”
Wear says that the super PAC aims “to reach and appeal to a diverse coalition of Christians … just as we anticipate a diverse coalition of Christians will oppose Donald Trump’s reelection.” The PAC purchased a six-figure ad buy targeting evangelical and Catholic voters in Pennsylvania and Michigan. Trump won both states in 2016.
The irony is that Trump is often referred to as the most religion-friendly president in recent years. He was the first president to speak at the annual national pro-life rally in D.C. and has been a strong supporter of religious freedom. The pro-life community refers to him as their greatest ally. The ad states that Christians “don’t need Trump to save them. The truth is that Trump needs Christians to save his flailing campaign.”
Today Trump’s faith adviser and personal pastor, Paula White, appeared in Ohio at an event for the campaign’s evangelical outreach project.


hotair--2020-10-14--"I'm not happy": Trump won't commit to bringing back Bill Barr in second term

Of all the people to put on the chopping block .
Bill farking Barr .
If there were any member of Trump ’ s cabinet whom we might reasonably assume had earned his merit badge as a loyal crony , it ’ s the AG .
Who was it who cleared Trump of obstruction of justice in the Mueller investigation ?
Who was it who published his own summaries of Mueller ’ s findings rather than use Mueller ’ s in order to put the best possible spin on the findings for Trump ?
Who was it who cut Mike @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for federal criminal defendants seemingly due to their relationship with the president ?
Who was it who tried to push out the U.S. Attorney in Manhattan in order to try to install Trump ’ s golf buddy in the job instead ?
Who was it who apparently gave the order to clear Lafayette Park by force , paving the way for Trump ’ s most demagogic photo op as president ?
Who was it who backed Trump up in interviews on the alleged massive fraud threat posed by mail-in voting , even briefing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ irregularities to feed him campaign talking points ?
Who was it who just relaxed the DOJ ’ s rules governing ballot investigations to make it easier for his department to influence the election ahead of Trump ’ s moment of truth at the polls ?
There ’ s no one in the administration with a view of presidential power as expansive as William Barr , and probably no one who ’ s been more aggressive in advancing the president ’ s interests .
It ’ s hard to imagine an Attorney General better @ @ @ @ @ @ @ politics , unless we ’ re imagining a hypothetical replacement so brazenly , corruptly authoritarian that he ’ d start charging the president ’ s political enemies with crimes even without evidence to support the charges .
Which appears to be why Trump is mad at him .
Barr dutifully ordered an investigation into the “ unmasking ” of certain Trump campaign officials by the Obama administration , no doubt hoping against hope that it would bear fruit .
But it didn ’ t .
He ordered the Durham investigation into whether the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ FBI and other DOJ employees , again doubtless hoping that charges would be brought before the election to suit his boss ’ s political interests .
But they won ’ t be .
Durham is a professional , it seems , and doesn ’ t want his work reduced to a political football .
Barr ’ s willing to do everything he can to please his boss within the bounds of the law , even when his actions leave other federal prosecutors retching .
But he won ’ t manufacture evidence of criminality @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adversaries , and he evidently won ’ t ( or can ’ t ) force Durham to cut corners on his investigation just because it might suit Trump ’ s campaign talking points .
There are ethical lines he won ’ t cross .
What the president wants , it seems , is an AG who will cross those lines .
“ Where ’ s my Roy Cohn ?
” he once reportedly asked during Russiagate , complaining about Jeff Sessions ’ s failure to shield him from scrutiny .
That ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Justice Department .
That ’ s what ’ s on the ballot next month .
In an exclusive interview with Newsmax TV that airs Wednesday night on “ Greg Kelly Reports , ” Trump said it ’ s “ too early ” to determine whether he would ask Barr to come back or if he would tap someone else for the job .
Earlier Wednesday , it was reported that an investigation into the Obama administration “ unmasking ” the names of Trump campaign members caught up in surveillance as part of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I have no comment .
Can ’ t comment on that .
It ’ s too early , ” Trump said .
“ I ’ m not happy with all of the evidence I have , I can tell you that .
I ’ m not happy.
” … “ Personally , I think it ’ s ridiculous .
It ’ s ridiculous .
It ’ s a disgrace , ” Trump told Kelly .
“ I think it ’ s really a horrible thing that they ’ re allowed to get away @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they actually said no indictments before the election .
“ I had to go through elections with all those clouds over my head .
But they don ’ t because the Republicans are so nice .
Personally , I think it ’ s too bad .
I think it ’ s too bad , they ’ re guilty as hell.
” Hillary had to go through the last election with a cloud over head too , one that may have swung the race to Trump in the final days .
Biden ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ probe hanging out there and the Senate GOP ’ s Burisma investigation hanging over his head , with some new ammunition provided as recently as this morning .
But never mind that .
What outcome does Trump want from Barr here , specifically ?
John Bash investigated the unmasking issue and found nothing criminal .
What should Barr do in that circumstance , according to the president ?
What should Durham do with his incomplete inquiry , bearing in mind that criminal prosecutors aren ’ t supposed to issue any sort of “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — on their investigations ?
There ’ s either probable cause to charge someone , in which case you explain why after charges or filed , or there isn ’ t , in which case you say nothing .
( It was Clinton , not Trump , who was the victim of rulebreaking in that regard in 2016 when James Comey declined to charge her but then made a public show of stating his reasons and the evidence against her . )
Does he want Durham to hold a press conference to say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enough to indict yet but rest assured that the president ’ s antagonists are bad people ” ?
I think he wants Rudy Giuliani as AG .
Rudy would do anything for him , ethical or otherwise , and that ’ s the only sort of person who ’ ll satisfy Trump as the head of the federal government ’ s justice arm .
But he ’ s not going to get Rudy , because Rudy couldn ’ t even be confirmed by a Republican Senate .
And if Democrats retake the Senate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s not going to confirm *anyone* that would suit Trump as Attorney General .
Either Trump will be forced to keep Barr on at the DOJ or he ’ ll fire him and then start playing the same sort of games with “ acting ” officials in lead roles that he ’ s played for the past three years .
But Schumer and Pelosi aren ’ t going to stand for that either .
If Trump thinks he ’ s going to install Giuliani or some other mega-crony as “ acting ” AG @ @ @ @ @ @ @ come under intense pressure to play hardball with him .
They might start choking off funding for various executive-branch activities until he nominates someone semi-respectable for the job instead .
Unless Republicans retain a majority in the Senate , Trump is stuck with Barr for as long as he wants to serve .
And even then , depending on its composition , a diminished Republican Senate ( e.g.
, 51/49 ) would make things harder for him in filling an AG vacancy .
If Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski are still there , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dependable .
Now we wait to see how Barr reacts to this .
The last person in his administration whom Trump should want feeling disgruntled right now , one would think , is his Attorney General .
Barr ’ s department will be in charge of investigating ballot irregularities next month ; he ’ ll be Trump ’ s single most important ally in making the case that the president didn ’ t really lose the election , he ’ s the rightful winner who was cheated via Democratic chicanery .
At a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump would be careful not to alienate Barr by hinting that he ’ s lost confidence in him because he ’ s not corrupt enough .
Maybe I ’ m wrong — maybe Trump figures that expressing his disappointment publicly will incentivize Barr to make it up to him by being even more aggressive in the ballot battles to come .
But if I were Barr , staring at the possibility of Trump losing fairly decisively and remembering how Jeff Sessions was treated , I ’ d wonder why I should sacrifice any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ingrate .
Stay tuned .

Of all the people to put on the chopping block. Bill farking Barr.
If there were any member of Trump’s cabinet whom we might reasonably assume had earned his merit badge as a loyal crony, it’s the AG. Who was it who cleared Trump of obstruction of justice in the Mueller investigation? Who was it who published his own summaries of Mueller’s findings rather than use Mueller’s in order to put the best possible spin on the findings for Trump? Who was it who cut Mike Flynn and Roger Stone an unheard-of break for federal criminal defendants seemingly due to their relationship with the president? Who was it who tried to push out the U.S. Attorney in Manhattan in order to try to install Trump’s golf buddy in the job instead? Who was it who apparently gave the order to clear Lafayette Park by force, paving the way for Trump’s most demagogic photo op as president? Who was it who backed Trump up in interviews on the alleged massive fraud threat posed by mail-in voting, even briefing the president on penny-ante cases of ballot irregularities to feed him campaign talking points? Who was it who just relaxed the DOJ’s rules governing ballot investigations to make it easier for his department to influence the election ahead of Trump’s moment of truth at the polls?
There’s no one in the administration with a view of presidential power as expansive as William Barr, and probably no one who’s been more aggressive in advancing the president’s interests. It’s hard to imagine an Attorney General better suited to Trump’s brand of politics, unless we’re imagining a hypothetical replacement so brazenly, corruptly authoritarian that he’d start charging the president’s political enemies with crimes even without evidence to support the charges.
Which appears to be why Trump is mad at him. Barr dutifully ordered an investigation into the “unmasking” of certain Trump campaign officials by the Obama administration, no doubt hoping against hope that it would bear fruit. But it didn’t. He ordered the Durham investigation into whether the Russiagate probe involved criminal activity by the FBI and other DOJ employees, again doubtless hoping that charges would be brought before the election to suit his boss’s political interests. But they won’t be. Durham is a professional, it seems, and doesn’t want his work reduced to a political football.
Barr’s willing to do everything he can to please his boss within the bounds of the law, even when his actions leave other federal prosecutors retching. But he won’t manufacture evidence of criminality to pin on Trump’s Democratic adversaries, and he evidently won’t (or can’t) force Durham to cut corners on his investigation just because it might suit Trump’s campaign talking points. There are ethical lines he won’t cross.
What the president wants, it seems, is an AG who will cross those lines. “Where’s my Roy Cohn?” he once reportedly asked during Russiagate, complaining about Jeff Sessions’s failure to shield him from scrutiny. That’s who he wants in charge of the Justice Department. That’s what’s on the ballot next month.
In an exclusive interview with Newsmax TV that airs Wednesday night on “Greg Kelly Reports,” Trump said it’s “too early” to determine whether he would ask Barr to come back or if he would tap someone else for the job. Earlier Wednesday, it was reported that an investigation into the Obama administration “unmasking” the names of Trump campaign members caught up in surveillance as part of the Russia probe found no wrongdoing. “I have no comment. Can’t comment on that. It’s too early,” Trump said. “I’m not happy with all of the evidence I have, I can tell you that. I’m not happy.”… “Personally, I think it’s ridiculous. It’s ridiculous. It’s a disgrace,” Trump told Kelly. “I think it’s really a horrible thing that they’re allowed to get away — when they say no indictments, they actually said no indictments before the election. “I had to go through elections with all those clouds over my head. But they don’t because the Republicans are so nice. Personally, I think it’s too bad. I think it’s too bad, they’re guilty as hell.”
Hillary had to go through the last election with a cloud over head too, one that may have swung the race to Trump in the final days. Biden’s going through this one with the Durham probe hanging out there and the Senate GOP’s Burisma investigation hanging over his head, with some new ammunition provided as recently as this morning.
But never mind that. What outcome does Trump want from Barr here, specifically? John Bash investigated the unmasking issue and found nothing criminal. What should Barr do in that circumstance, according to the president?
What should Durham do with his incomplete inquiry, bearing in mind that criminal prosecutors aren’t supposed to issue any sort of “report” — especially an interim report — on their investigations? There’s either probable cause to charge someone, in which case you explain why after charges or filed, or there isn’t, in which case you say nothing. (It was Clinton, not Trump, who was the victim of rulebreaking in that regard in 2016 when James Comey declined to charge her but then made a public show of stating his reasons and the evidence against her.) Does he want Durham to hold a press conference to say, “I don’t have enough to indict yet but rest assured that the president’s antagonists are bad people”?
I think he wants Rudy Giuliani as AG. Rudy would do anything for him, ethical or otherwise, and that’s the only sort of person who’ll satisfy Trump as the head of the federal government’s justice arm. But he’s not going to get Rudy, because Rudy couldn’t even be confirmed by a Republican Senate. And if Democrats retake the Senate and Trump wins reelection, Schumer’s not going to confirm *anyone* that would suit Trump as Attorney General. Either Trump will be forced to keep Barr on at the DOJ or he’ll fire him and then start playing the same sort of games with “acting” officials in lead roles that he’s played for the past three years.
But Schumer and Pelosi aren’t going to stand for that either. If Trump thinks he’s going to install Giuliani or some other mega-crony as “acting” AG via complex procedural chicanery, Democrats will come under intense pressure to play hardball with him. They might start choking off funding for various executive-branch activities until he nominates someone semi-respectable for the job instead. Unless Republicans retain a majority in the Senate, Trump is stuck with Barr for as long as he wants to serve. And even then, depending on its composition, a diminished Republican Senate (e.g., 51/49) would make things harder for him in filling an AG vacancy. If Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski are still there, that slim majority may not be very dependable.
Now we wait to see how Barr reacts to this. The last person in his administration whom Trump should want feeling disgruntled right now, one would think, is his Attorney General. Barr’s department will be in charge of investigating ballot irregularities next month; he’ll be Trump’s single most important ally in making the case that the president didn’t really lose the election, he’s the rightful winner who was cheated via Democratic chicanery. At a moment like that, one would think Trump would be careful not to alienate Barr by hinting that he’s lost confidence in him because he’s not corrupt enough. Maybe I’m wrong — maybe Trump figures that expressing his disappointment publicly will incentivize Barr to make it up to him by being even more aggressive in the ballot battles to come. But if I were Barr, staring at the possibility of Trump losing fairly decisively and remembering how Jeff Sessions was treated, I’d wonder why I should sacrifice any more of my reputation for such an ingrate. Stay tuned.


hotair--2020-10-14--Graham: We're breaking the "reinforced concrete barrier" for conservative women with Barrett's confi

Graham: We're breaking the "reinforced concrete barrier" for conservative women with Barrett's confirmation

“ This is history being made here folks , ” Lindsey Graham declared at Day 3 of the thus-far anticlimactic confirmation hearing for Amy Coney Barrett .
The hearing has gone so smoothly for Barrett that the Judiciary chair apparently felt the need to heighten its historical profile to keep up interest in the proceedings .
Barrett ’ s confirmation would “ punch through … a reinforced concrete barrier around conservative women , ” he told Barrett .
“ This won ’ t be celebrated in most places.
” Certainly not in the media : Is there a “ reinforced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ though ?
Barrett and other women got nominated for earlier judicial positions by Trump .
In the Bush administration , one of his biggest fights over judges was for Janice Rogers Brown , a black woman with conservative judicial temperament who appeared to also be on Bush ’ s shortlist for future Supreme Court nominations .
Bush named several women to the appellate circuit too besides Brown .
Barrett has enjoyed a moderately meteoric rise over the last three years .
One can even question whether it ’ s accurate to claim that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the Supreme Court ; when Ronald Reagan nominated Sandra Day O ’ Connor , the impression was that she was fairly conservative at the time ( not pro-life , however ) , although in certain ways she “ grew in office.
” It ’ s probably more accurate to say that there is significant cultural hostility toward conservative women rather than a barrier .
But that ’ s true of conservative blacks , as my friend Larry Elder laid out in his documentary Uncle Tom .
It ’ s true of conservative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and lesbians , and any conservatives that come from what liberals consider their protected-classes fiefdoms .
It ’ s the conservative part that ’ s the sticking point , and conservatives can get past that by winning elections rather than falling back into victimology .
As Barrett ’ s confirmation will attest , in fact .
However , it is sorely tempting to play this card when the Left is hyperventilating its hypocrisy on identity-politics betrayal and their own bigotry .
Alexandra De Sanctis points out how Barrett has made them lose their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , she ’ s the mother of a large family , she ’ s anti-abortion in her personal life , and her constitutional originalism likely makes her at least skeptical of the anti-constitutional machinations underpinning Roe .
It is for that reason that we ’ re being treated not only to an onslaught of reports criticizing Barrett ’ s involvement in a lay Christian group , but also to columns such as this one by Sarah Jones in New York magazine .
Entirely eliding Barrett ’ s stellar legal career , Jones labels @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Christian right , ” suggesting that her sole value is as a martyr for conservatives to pretend that their values are under attack while advancing a radical agenda through the court .
Along the way , Jones reveals herself to be either illiterate in or unconcerned with the facts , insisting for example that the Christian owners of Hobby Lobby were wrong to argue that emergency contraception can cause abortions .
In fact , the Obama administration itself has conceded the point .
Jones also offers the laughable proposition that Justice Antonin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Amendment was aimed at creating “ one law for conservative Christians and another , more restrictive standard of law applied to everyone else.
” Her article is the latest evidence that progressive feminists wish to promote and celebrate successful women only insofar as they toe the progressive line .
If they don ’ t , they ’ ll find themselves dismissed as , at best , useful victims .
Looks like the Left wants to play victim cards in its own way with Barrett ’ s nomination .
With that in mind , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for dunking on this point , even if the concrete barriers are mainly imaginary .

“This is history being made here folks,” Lindsey Graham declared at Day 3 of the thus-far anticlimactic confirmation hearing for Amy Coney Barrett. The hearing has gone so smoothly for Barrett that the Judiciary chair apparently felt the need to heighten its historical profile to keep up interest in the proceedings. Barrett’s confirmation would “punch through … a reinforced concrete barrier around conservative women,” he told Barrett.
“This won’t be celebrated in most places.” Certainly not in the media:
Sen. @LindseyGrahamSC: "This hearing to me is an opportunity to not punch through a glass ceiling, but a reinforced concrete barrier around conservative women. You're going to shatter that barrier. I've never been more proud of a nominee than I am of you." pic.twitter.com/3rJeAYZQiD — Townhall.com (@townhallcom) October 14, 2020
Is there a “reinforced concrete barrier” around conservative women, though? Barrett and other women got nominated for earlier judicial positions by Trump. In the Bush administration, one of his biggest fights over judges was for Janice Rogers Brown, a black woman with conservative judicial temperament who appeared to also be on Bush’s shortlist for future Supreme Court nominations. Bush named several women to the appellate circuit too besides Brown. Barrett has enjoyed a moderately meteoric rise over the last three years. One can even question whether it’s accurate to claim that Barrett’s the first conservative woman on the Supreme Court; when Ronald Reagan nominated Sandra Day O’Connor, the impression was that she was fairly conservative at the time (not pro-life, however), although in certain ways she “grew in office.”
It’s probably more accurate to say that there is significant cultural hostility toward conservative women rather than a barrier. But that’s true of conservative blacks, as my friend Larry Elder laid out in his documentary Uncle Tom. It’s true of conservative Hispanics, conservative Asians, conservative gays and lesbians, and any conservatives that come from what liberals consider their protected-classes fiefdoms. It’s the conservative part that’s the sticking point, and conservatives can get past that by winning elections rather than falling back into victimology. As Barrett’s confirmation will attest, in fact.
However, it is sorely tempting to play this card when the Left is hyperventilating its hypocrisy on identity-politics betrayal and their own bigotry. Alexandra De Sanctis points out how Barrett has made them lose their minds:
Barrett is a conservative Catholic, she’s the mother of a large family, she’s anti-abortion in her personal life, and her constitutional originalism likely makes her at least skeptical of the anti-constitutional machinations underpinning Roe. It is for that reason that we’re being treated not only to an onslaught of reports criticizing Barrett’s involvement in a lay Christian group, but also to columns such as this one by Sarah Jones in New York magazine. Entirely eliding Barrett’s stellar legal career, Jones labels her a “the perfect victim for the Christian right,” suggesting that her sole value is as a martyr for conservatives to pretend that their values are under attack while advancing a radical agenda through the court. Along the way, Jones reveals herself to be either illiterate in or unconcerned with the facts, insisting for example that the Christian owners of Hobby Lobby were wrong to argue that emergency contraception can cause abortions. In fact, the Obama administration itself has conceded the point. Jones also offers the laughable proposition that Justice Antonin Scalia’s view of the First Amendment was aimed at creating “one law for conservative Christians and another, more restrictive standard of law applied to everyone else.” Her article is the latest evidence that progressive feminists wish to promote and celebrate successful women only insofar as they toe the progressive line. If they don’t, they’ll find themselves dismissed as, at best, useful victims.
Looks like the Left wants to play victim cards in its own way with Barrett’s nomination. With that in mind, it’s tough to chide Graham for dunking on this point, even if the concrete barriers are mainly imaginary.


hotair--2020-10-14--"Everyone is upset": NBC staffers see "collusion" in network scheduling Trump's town hall head to he

"Everyone is upset": NBC staffers see "collusion" in network scheduling Trump's town hall head to head with Biden's

Ed noted in his post earlier that some NBC staffers , along with many , many reporters outside the network , were irritated by the decision to counterprogram Biden ’ s ABC townhall tomorrow night with Trump ’ s .
But unless you ’ ve been on social media today , you can ’ t imagine the extent of the whining .
NBC had very little leverage about the timing , I suspect .
Trump ’ s campaign probably made it a condition of agreeing to the townhall that the event be scheduled opposite Biden ’ s , to deny @ @ @ @ @ @ @ NBC had said no , CBS probably would have said yes .
Or CNN .
Or CSPAN .
Or , if Trump wanted to go the traditional route , Fox certainly would have accommodated him .
Was NBC supposed to turn down a one-hour townhall with the president less than three weeks out from an election ?
I know the media is all-in on Biden but some opportunities simply can ’ t be refused .
The network ’ s own staffers are mad about it , CNN reports , to the point that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Some staffers inside NBC News and MSNBC are also perturbed by the decision , with some likening it to collusion between the Trump campaign and the network , sources said.
” The Daily Beast is also hearing of disgruntlement , not just from inside the network but from inside Biden ’ s campaign too .
But then , I repeat myself : “ It ’ s an irresponsible and selfish move by NBC , ” a source close to the Biden campaign texted The Daily Beast .
“ If they ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of air time to spread disinformation about COVID and repeat his greatest hits of lies and conspiracy theories , they ought to at least do it an hour later and let voters hear from both candidates .
Broadcast networks have a role in our Democratic process , and NBC doesn ’ t seem to be taking theirs very seriously today.
” … Ultimately , in 2020 , NBC News ’ decision to host a Trump town hall directly opposite the Biden event has not sat well with staff at the news network and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is upset , ” one network employee said .
Trump ’ s motives are obvious .
The campaign may be thinking strategically with the scheduling , to try to keep voters from watching Biden , but for the president it ’ s probably a pure dong-measuring contest .
Everything is .
Why should this be an exception ?
That ’ s the same logic that makes him think it ’ s a sick burn when he points out how much bigger his campaign rallies are than Biden ’ s .
There ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about .
And that one doesn ’ t measure crowd attendance or TV ratings .
For all the heat NBC is taking for accommodating Trump , though , it seems like ABC is the party that ’ s more at fault .
They did a townhall with Trump a month ago in the 9 p.m. hour .
( And didn ’ t do great ratings either , as Brian Stelter points out .
They drew less for that than Tucker Carlson draws for his evening Fox show on a good night . )
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden is scheduled for 8 p.m. , with an extra half-hour of analysis tacked on once it ends at 9:30 .
Why didn ’ t ABC treat Biden the same way it did Trump , with a 9 p.m. start time ?
Then viewers could have watcjed both townhalls back to back .
Executives at NBC expected that ABC would schedule Biden at 9 p.m. , since ABC ’ s Trump town hall had started at 9 , and it seemed logical .
NBC ’ s planners were eyeing the 8 p.m. time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden event took place .
But ABC announced on Sunday morning that Biden would be on from 8 to 9:30 p.m. on Thursday .
ABC ’ s reasoning : It was planning on an hour of pre-debate coverage at 8 p.m. that night .
So the news division already had blocked off the time… One source at the network put some of the blame for the overlap on its rival , ABC , asking why it wouldn ’ t won ’ t move their Biden event from 8 to 9 , in line @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Seems like the obvious solution would be for ABC to move Biden to 9 p.m. tomorrow and find something else for the 8 p.m. hour .
I doubt NBC would accede to a last-second Trump request to move his townhall to 9 p.m. too to counterprogram Biden again , especially with all the heat they ’ ve taken today for having done it once already .
You know and I know that the real point of the whining today is simply to work the refs , specifically host Savannah Guthrie .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for being tough on Hillary and then getting stong-armed by Trump at an event where he interviewed the two of them back-to-back .
Between that , the complaints today about the scheduling , and the glaringly obvious favoritism being shown towards Biden throughout the campaign , Guthrie will be under intense pressure to make Trump squirm a little .
As Stelter noted , she ’ ll be the first “ real ” interview he ’ s done since overcoming COVID .
She ’ ll need to grill him on the timeline of when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ positive before being admitted to Walter Reed , at the very least .
I ’ ll leave you with the tweet below , with which I agree .
A bad performance by Trump tomorrow would be worth more to Biden than a good performance of his own would .
And since the audience for each event is likely to be a small fraction of what a debate would draw — something on the order of five to 10 percent , I ’ d guess — it probably won ’ t matter much anyway @ @ @ @ @ @ @ townhall event was a reason to say that he couldn ’ t attend the second debate just in case Team Trump changed its mind after canceling on that .
( Which it did . )
Viewed that way , the ABC thing is already a success for him .

Ed noted in his post earlier that some NBC staffers, along with many, many reporters outside the network, were irritated by the decision to counterprogram Biden’s ABC townhall tomorrow night with Trump’s.
But unless you’ve been on social media today, you can’t imagine the extent of the whining.
My God. The whining:
Having dueling town halls is bad for democracy-voters should be able to watch both and I don’t think many will. This will be good for Trump because people like to watch his unpredictability. This is a bad decision. #vote — Katie Couric (@katiecouric) October 14, 2020
The point of a news organization is to serve the public. This is the opposite. @NBCNews could literally run this any other day, or any other time. Shameful. (Disclosure: I am a former NBC News exec) https://t.co/I1CrBq3Y3H — Vivian Schiller (@vivian) October 14, 2020
This is a bad result for American voters, who should not be forced to choose which to watch. So much is still going wrong with how TV journalism copes, or still fails to cope, with @realDonaldTrump. https://t.co/eRylzIuIBO — Mark Lukasiewicz (@DeanLuk) October 14, 2020
I’m reminded of Chris Wallace bemoaning the fact that Trump’s shouting meant the American people didn’t get the benefit of hearing from both candidates. @NBCNews apparently has no such view. This is a craven ratings stunt, caving to the Trumpian impulses the network helped hone. — Kyle Pope (@kylepope) October 14, 2020
The combination of @nbc platforms guarantees that Trump will crush Biden in total viewers tomorrow. And use that “victory” as a rallying cry for days. @MSNBC viewers boycotting will not change that reality. https://t.co/6gEVhItIDg — Frank Rich (@frankrichny) October 14, 2020
My problem isn't that NBC decided to air a town hall (even though Trump in no way deserves it), it's that they deliberately counter programmed. https://t.co/dxrZkJIY4x — marymcnamara (@marymcnamara) October 14, 2020
NBC had very little leverage about the timing, I suspect. Trump’s campaign probably made it a condition of agreeing to the townhall that the event be scheduled opposite Biden’s, to deny the Democrat a big audience. If NBC had said no, CBS probably would have said yes. Or CNN. Or CSPAN. Or, if Trump wanted to go the traditional route, Fox certainly would have accommodated him.
Was NBC supposed to turn down a one-hour townhall with the president less than three weeks out from an election? I know the media is all-in on Biden but some opportunities simply can’t be refused.
The network’s own staffers are mad about it, CNN reports, to the point that the C-word is being thrown around: “Some staffers inside NBC News and MSNBC are also perturbed by the decision, with some likening it to collusion between the Trump campaign and the network, sources said.” The Daily Beast is also hearing of disgruntlement, not just from inside the network but from inside Biden’s campaign too. But then, I repeat myself:
“It’s an irresponsible and selfish move by NBC,” a source close to the Biden campaign texted The Daily Beast. “If they’re going to allow Donald Trump an hour of air time to spread disinformation about COVID and repeat his greatest hits of lies and conspiracy theories, they ought to at least do it an hour later and let voters hear from both candidates. Broadcast networks have a role in our Democratic process, and NBC doesn’t seem to be taking theirs very seriously today.”… Ultimately, in 2020, NBC News’ decision to host a Trump town hall directly opposite the Biden event has not sat well with staff at the news network and its cable-news sister MSNBC. “Everyone is upset,” one network employee said.
Trump’s motives are obvious. The campaign may be thinking strategically with the scheduling, to try to keep voters from watching Biden, but for the president it’s probably a pure dong-measuring contest. Everything is. Why should this be an exception?
EXCLUSIVE: According to multiple sources familiar with the president's thinking, Trump has told close associates that he wishes to counter-program the Biden town hall and score higher TV viewership numbers, and then use such a contrast to humiliate Biden — The Daily Beast (@thedailybeast) October 14, 2020
That’s the same logic that makes him think it’s a sick burn when he points out how much bigger his campaign rallies are than Biden’s. There’s only one scoreboard Sleepy Joe is worried about. And that one doesn’t measure crowd attendance or TV ratings.
For all the heat NBC is taking for accommodating Trump, though, it seems like ABC is the party that’s more at fault. They did a townhall with Trump a month ago in the 9 p.m. hour. (And didn’t do great ratings either, as Brian Stelter points out. They drew less for that than Tucker Carlson draws for his evening Fox show on a good night.) But tomorrow night’s townhall with Biden is scheduled for 8 p.m., with an extra half-hour of analysis tacked on once it ends at 9:30. Why didn’t ABC treat Biden the same way it did Trump, with a 9 p.m. start time? Then viewers could have watcjed both townhalls back to back.
Executives at NBC expected that ABC would schedule Biden at 9 p.m., since ABC’s Trump town hall had started at 9, and it seemed logical. NBC’s planners were eyeing the 8 p.m. time slot since that’s when their Biden event took place. But ABC announced on Sunday morning that Biden would be on from 8 to 9:30 p.m. on Thursday. ABC’s reasoning: It was planning on an hour of pre-debate coverage at 8 p.m. that night. So the news division already had blocked off the time… One source at the network put some of the blame for the overlap on its rival, ABC, asking why it wouldn’t won’t move their Biden event from 8 to 9, in line with ABC’s previous town hall.
Seems like the obvious solution would be for ABC to move Biden to 9 p.m. tomorrow and find something else for the 8 p.m. hour. I doubt NBC would accede to a last-second Trump request to move his townhall to 9 p.m. too to counterprogram Biden again, especially with all the heat they’ve taken today for having done it once already.
You know and I know that the real point of the whining today is simply to work the refs, specifically host Savannah Guthrie. The left pilloried Matt Lauer four years ago for being tough on Hillary and then getting stong-armed by Trump at an event where he interviewed the two of them back-to-back. Between that, the complaints today about the scheduling, and the glaringly obvious favoritism being shown towards Biden throughout the campaign, Guthrie will be under intense pressure to make Trump squirm a little. As Stelter noted, she’ll be the first “real” interview he’s done since overcoming COVID. She’ll need to grill him on the timeline of when he stopped testing negative and started testing positive before being admitted to Walter Reed, at the very least.
I’ll leave you with the tweet below, with which I agree. A bad performance by Trump tomorrow would be worth more to Biden than a good performance of his own would. And since the audience for each event is likely to be a small fraction of what a debate would draw — something on the order of five to 10 percent, I’d guess — it probably won’t matter much anyway. All Biden wanted out of this townhall event was a reason to say that he couldn’t attend the second debate just in case Team Trump changed its mind after canceling on that. (Which it did.) Viewed that way, the ABC thing is already a success for him.