hotair--2020-10-09--Report: Three days after ending negotiations until after the election, Trump now wants a big stimulu

Report: Three days after ending negotiations until after the election, Trump now wants a big stimulus deal; Update: "Go big!"

This is obviously good policy and good politics but that was also true in June , when this deal could have and should have been done .
And it was certainly true three days ago when Trump announced that he was done negotiating until after the election , to the mystification of everyone .
Someone appears to have finally convinced him over the past 72 hours , very belatedly , that a deal would be the best thing he can do for struggling Americans and therefore the best thing he can do to boost his reelection chances .
His decision @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will inevitably be spun today as a genius leverage move — except that he doesn ’ t have leverage .
For electoral reasons , Pelosi would doubtless love to have no deal by Election Day ; and because Senate Republicans are ( bizarrely ) reluctant to approve a big package before November 3 , Trump may still have no choice but to try to negotiate her downward .
That means Dems can continue to reject every White House offer on grounds that it ’ s not “ generous ” enough to the American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for a big deal is probably the best PR move Trump can make at this point .
If he can convince voters that he wants to be as “ generous ” as Pelosi does , that ’ ll complicate the blame equation between them if there ’ s no agreement .
Within a day of tweeting that he was calling off bipartisan talks for a coronavirus stimulus deal , President Trump phoned House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy and indicated he was worried by the stock market reaction and wanted a “ big deal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two sources familiar with the call .
What we ’ re hearing : Trump was spooked after seeing the instant drop in the stock market and intense backlash to his tweet , and he has since directed Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin to push for a more comprehensive relief bill before the election… Few people on Capitol Hill thought a large-scale stimulus deal would be reached before Election Day , and it ’ s still very unlikely both sides can compromise by then .
However , Republicans did not expect Trump to be the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and they were even more stunned he did so in such a public way .
Washington leaders were even more baffled when , shortly after Trump said he wanted his team to abandon negotiations , he contradicted himself by responding to a headline citing Federal Reserve chair Jerome Powell calling for more fiscal stimulus and saying Congress has a low risk of “ overdoing it.
” Trump ’ s response : “ True !
” A source who spoke to him yesterday told Axios they “ got the strong impression that Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by pulling the plug on negotiations .
It is … troubling that it took a stock-market dive plus various people on his own side shouting “ What the hell are you doing ?
” to convince him that ending stimulus talks and publicly taking responsibility for it wasn ’ t a shrewd move .
It perhaps also wasn ’ t shrewd of him to take a dig at Pelosi ’ s looks on Twitter this week if he was still interested in reaching a deal with her .
“ [ T ] he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , attack your negotiating partner with personal slurs , then come racing back to the table desperate for an agreement ’ play , ” says NYT reporter Alex Burns , summing up the “ strategy ” of the past few days .
Populist media is awash in conspiracy theories as we approach Election Day but here ’ s one that hasn ’ t gotten nearly enough attention even though it ’ s easily the theory that ’ s most likely to be true .
Do Senate Republicans want Trump to lose ?
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for denying him the one policy victory left on the table that might give him a fighting chance on Election Day ?
Pelosi ’ s probably not his main obstacle to getting a deal done — although , uh , the fact that she ’ s holding a press conference today about the 25th Amendment implies that she ’ s not enthusiastic about it either .
His main obstacle is getting to 60 in the Senate for a big stimulus package when Republicans there have been reluctant to approve even a skinny one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the chamber still sufficiently loyal to , or cowed by , Trump to rubber-stamp this for him ?
Is he so weak right now politically , trailing by upwards of 10 points in the polls with less than a month to Election Day , that the Ted Cruzes and Ben Sasses of the world would rather pre-position themselves as the fiscally conservative opposition to President Biden than give Trump one last chance to win ?
Maybe he needs to go nuclear , highlighting their unwillingness to approve a deal during his upcoming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of damage as an ex-president to 2024 presidential aspirants in the Senate by blaming them preemptively if he ends up losing to Biden .
Cruz , Josh Hawley , Tom Cotton , and others would be reluctant to cross him if they thought GOP primary voters might hold a grudge .
But even if they stood fast , surely there are still enough members of the party ’ s centrist and Trump-sycophantic wings to hand him 13 votes to go along with 47 from the Dems .
Probably every Senate Republican on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as would retirees like Lamar Alexander and Pat Roberts .
Is Trump afraid to muscle them publicly because he thinks they might resist anyway , proving that his influence over the party has already begun to fade ?
He ’ d be underestimating his own strength in that case , which isn ’ t like him .
In lieu of an exit question , read this Slate piece arguing that Pelosi should take the White House ’ s offer of $ 1.6 trillion in stimulus .
Yes , it ’ s smaller than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ll help Trump out politically , but leaving millions of laid-off Americans to figure out a way to pay rent for four months until Biden is sworn in is too grim an alternative .
Trump should come up a little , she should come down , and then he can twist Senate Republicans ’ arms in the final few weeks to rubber-stamp it .
Even if they refuse , he ’ ll have proved to voters that he was willing to try .
Update : I ’ m 90 percent convinced that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ today was done for the purpose of pissing Trump off in the expectation that that ’ ll make him quit stimulus talks again .
Update : Here he is confirming the reports that he ’ s decided to “ go big ” 25 days from the election .
His problem , again , is Cruz and fiscal cons more so than Pelosi .

This is obviously good policy and good politics but that was also true in June, when this deal could have and should have been done. And it was certainly true three days ago when Trump announced that he was done negotiating until after the election, to the mystification of everyone.
Someone appears to have finally convinced him over the past 72 hours, very belatedly, that a deal would be the best thing he can do for struggling Americans and therefore the best thing he can do to boost his reelection chances. His decision on Tuesday to leave the bargaining table will inevitably be spun today as a genius leverage move — except that he doesn’t have leverage. For electoral reasons, Pelosi would doubtless love to have no deal by Election Day; and because Senate Republicans are (bizarrely) reluctant to approve a big package before November 3, Trump may still have no choice but to try to negotiate her downward. That means Dems can continue to reject every White House offer on grounds that it’s not “generous” enough to the American people.
As such, pushing publicly for a big deal is probably the best PR move Trump can make at this point. If he can convince voters that he wants to be as “generous” as Pelosi does, that’ll complicate the blame equation between them if there’s no agreement.
🚨NEW … WHITE HOUSE is now completely set on striking a Covid stimulus deal with @SpeakerPelosi. They expect working all wk next week on getting a deal No guarantees it goes anywhere in senate. Trump wants. Badly. More in playbook pm. We’ll have everything you need to know. — Jake Sherman (@JakeSherman) October 9, 2020
More from Axios:
Within a day of tweeting that he was calling off bipartisan talks for a coronavirus stimulus deal, President Trump phoned House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy and indicated he was worried by the stock market reaction and wanted a “big deal” with Speaker Nancy Pelosi, per two sources familiar with the call. What we’re hearing: Trump was spooked after seeing the instant drop in the stock market and intense backlash to his tweet, and he has since directed Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin to push for a more comprehensive relief bill before the election… Few people on Capitol Hill thought a large-scale stimulus deal would be reached before Election Day, and it’s still very unlikely both sides can compromise by then. However, Republicans did not expect Trump to be the one to walk away from the table, and they were even more stunned he did so in such a public way. Washington leaders were even more baffled when, shortly after Trump said he wanted his team to abandon negotiations, he contradicted himself by responding to a headline citing Federal Reserve chair Jerome Powell calling for more fiscal stimulus and saying Congress has a low risk of “overdoing it.” Trump’s response: “True!”
A source who spoke to him yesterday told Axios they “got the strong impression that Trump realized he had messed up tactically” by pulling the plug on negotiations. It is … troubling that it took a stock-market dive plus various people on his own side shouting “What the hell are you doing?” to convince him that ending stimulus talks and publicly taking responsibility for it wasn’t a shrewd move. It perhaps also wasn’t shrewd of him to take a dig at Pelosi’s looks on Twitter this week if he was still interested in reaching a deal with her. “[T]he ol’ ‘publicly break off talks, attack your negotiating partner with personal slurs, then come racing back to the table desperate for an agreement’ play,” says NYT reporter Alex Burns, summing up the “strategy” of the past few days.
Populist media is awash in conspiracy theories as we approach Election Day but here’s one that hasn’t gotten nearly enough attention even though it’s easily the theory that’s most likely to be true. Do Senate Republicans want Trump to lose? If not, what’s the explanation for denying him the one policy victory left on the table that might give him a fighting chance on Election Day?
New stimulus deal "unlikely in the next three weeks" McConnell saying in event in KY — Erica Werner (@ericawerner) October 9, 2020
Pelosi’s probably not his main obstacle to getting a deal done — although, uh, the fact that she’s holding a press conference today about the 25th Amendment implies that she’s not enthusiastic about it either. His main obstacle is getting to 60 in the Senate for a big stimulus package when Republicans there have been reluctant to approve even a skinny one. Are there really not 13 GOPers in the chamber still sufficiently loyal to, or cowed by, Trump to rubber-stamp this for him?
Is he so weak right now politically, trailing by upwards of 10 points in the polls with less than a month to Election Day, that the Ted Cruzes and Ben Sasses of the world would rather pre-position themselves as the fiscally conservative opposition to President Biden than give Trump one last chance to win?
Maybe he needs to go nuclear, highlighting their unwillingness to approve a deal during his upcoming rallies. He can still do plenty of damage as an ex-president to 2024 presidential aspirants in the Senate by blaming them preemptively if he ends up losing to Biden. Cruz, Josh Hawley, Tom Cotton, and others would be reluctant to cross him if they thought GOP primary voters might hold a grudge. But even if they stood fast, surely there are still enough members of the party’s centrist and Trump-sycophantic wings to hand him 13 votes to go along with 47 from the Dems. Probably every Senate Republican on the ballot this fall would go along, as would retirees like Lamar Alexander and Pat Roberts.
Is Trump afraid to muscle them publicly because he thinks they might resist anyway, proving that his influence over the party has already begun to fade? He’d be underestimating his own strength in that case, which isn’t like him.
In lieu of an exit question, read this Slate piece arguing that Pelosi should take the White House’s offer of $1.6 trillion in stimulus. Yes, it’s smaller than Democrats want, and yes, it’ll help Trump out politically, but leaving millions of laid-off Americans to figure out a way to pay rent for four months until Biden is sworn in is too grim an alternative. Trump should come up a little, she should come down, and then he can twist Senate Republicans’ arms in the final few weeks to rubber-stamp it. Even if they refuse, he’ll have proved to voters that he was willing to try.
Update: I’m 90 percent convinced that Pelosi’s dumb 25th Amendment stunt today was done for the purpose of pissing Trump off in the expectation that that’ll make him quit stimulus talks again.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1314591877765660675
Update: Here he is confirming the reports that he’s decided to “go big” 25 days from the election. His problem, again, is Cruz and fiscal cons more so than Pelosi.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1314593632733847552


hotair--2020-10-09--Mediaite: Trump's Fox interview tonight will include on-air "medical evaluation"; <span class='red'>

Mediaite: Trump's Fox interview tonight will include on-air "medical evaluation"; Update: Fox News reports Trump canceling weekend events

Can ’ t wait to see what happens when Dr. Marc Siegel asks the president of the United States to “ turn his head and cough.
” Actually , coughing is part of the issue , according to Mediaite , as questions raised in two phone interviews yesterday about Donald Trump ’ s voice and cough left the impression he might still be symptomatic .
That might have prompted the push for an on-camera exclusive for Tucker Carlson tonight , with an extra added twist : President Trump is scheduled to make his first on-camera interview appearance on Friday since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ positive for the novel coronavirus .
The interview will take place on “ Tucker Carlson Tonight ” at 8 p.m .
ET .
Dr. Marc Siegel will conduct a medical evaluation and interview during the program .
The public has largely received information about the president ’ s condition from his daily tweets and updates from his medical team .
Yes , and this has not exactly proven entirely successful in settling concerns about whether they ’ re being honest and frank about the president ’ s condition and illness .
It doesn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ won ’ t fully answer questions about results of Trump ’ s tests , both before and after his diagnosis , or when precisely he became symptomatic .
A detailed , independent evaluation by doctors not operating under a non-disclosure agreement might restore some public confidence in the status reports on Trump ’ s condition .
But , er … would a medical evaluation conducted during a Tucker Carlson spot on Fox News Channel be viewed as either detailed or independent ?
Not likely .
Perhaps if Trump got a full exam on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , for example .
Or MSNBC !
( Bad idea , actually ; instead of “ turn your head and cough , ” we ’ d hear “ bend over and relax ” on MSNBC . )
Anyway , apparently the coughing created more issues than the White House anticipated , according to Colby Hall .
But more than that , it still sounded like Trump was being less than transparent about his status : Since being released from Walter Reed hospital Monday evening , Trump has done two phone interviews , first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ morning , then with Fox News Sean Hannity Thursday night .
Viewers of Trump ’ s interview with Hannity heard a raspier voice , with the President pausing to cough or clear his throat a few times .
Coughing or clearing one ’ s throat is not uncommon for anyone , but there is very little public information about President Trump ’ s health .
When pressed repeatedly by Hannity on when he was last tested for the coronavirus , the commander in chief obfuscated and only said that he would probably undergo @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t think that coughing or clearing a throat so soon after a respiratory infection is all that worrisome .
It ’ s normal for that impulse to linger past the infectious and contagious stages a bit , and it ’ s hardly unusual to have a need to clear one ’ s throat or hydrate in an interview either .
If people had more trust in the White House , few would think twice about these issues .
That ’ s the real problem here , and it ’ s not the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ White House about it .
Trump has been insisting that Saturday would be the last day necessary for isolation , and that he could go back on the trail that evening .
What changed ?
Will this cause Trump ’ s “ medical evaluation ” to be postponed as well ?

Can’t wait to see what happens when Dr. Marc Siegel asks the president of the United States to “turn his head and cough.” Actually, coughing is part of the issue, according to Mediaite, as questions raised in two phone interviews yesterday about Donald Trump’s voice and cough left the impression he might still be symptomatic. That might have prompted the push for an on-camera exclusive for Tucker Carlson tonight, with an extra added twist:
President Trump is scheduled to make his first on-camera interview appearance on Friday since he announced last week that he tested positive for the novel coronavirus. The interview will take place on “Tucker Carlson Tonight” at 8 p.m. ET. Dr. Marc Siegel will conduct a medical evaluation and interview during the program. The public has largely received information about the president’s condition from his daily tweets and updates from his medical team.
Yes, and this has not exactly proven entirely successful in settling concerns about whether they’re being honest and frank about the president’s condition and illness. It doesn’t help that the White House won’t fully answer questions about results of Trump’s tests, both before and after his diagnosis, or when precisely he became symptomatic. A detailed, independent evaluation by doctors not operating under a non-disclosure agreement might restore some public confidence in the status reports on Trump’s condition.
But, er … would a medical evaluation conducted during a Tucker Carlson spot on Fox News Channel be viewed as either detailed or independent? Not likely. Perhaps if Trump got a full exam on a less-friendly platform, such as CNN, for example. Or MSNBC! (Bad idea, actually; instead of “turn your head and cough,” we’d hear “bend over and relax” on MSNBC.)
Anyway, apparently the coughing created more issues than the White House anticipated, according to Colby Hall. But more than that, it still sounded like Trump was being less than transparent about his status:
Since being released from Walter Reed hospital Monday evening, Trump has done two phone interviews, first with Fox Business’ Maria Bartiromo Thursday morning, then with Fox News Sean Hannity Thursday night. Viewers of Trump’s interview with Hannity heard a raspier voice, with the President pausing to cough or clear his throat a few times. Coughing or clearing one’s throat is not uncommon for anyone, but there is very little public information about President Trump’s health. When pressed repeatedly by Hannity on when he was last tested for the coronavirus, the commander in chief obfuscated and only said that he would probably undergo a test “tomorrow.”
I don’t think that coughing or clearing a throat so soon after a respiratory infection is all that worrisome. It’s normal for that impulse to linger past the infectious and contagious stages a bit, and it’s hardly unusual to have a need to clear one’s throat or hydrate in an interview either. If people had more trust in the White House, few would think twice about these issues. That’s the real problem here, and it’s not the Tucker Carlson audience that should worry the White House about it.
Update: This seems pretty odd:
.@FoxNews is told @realDonaldTrump will likely not have campaign events this weekend, but is planning to be back on the trail on Monday. — John Roberts (@johnrobertsFox) October 9, 2020
Trump has been insisting that Saturday would be the last day necessary for isolation, and that he could go back on the trail that evening. What changed? Will this cause Trump’s “medical evaluation” to be postponed as well?


hotair--2020-10-09--New Dem attack on Barrett: She failed to disclose a health-care private-sector case from twenty year

New Dem attack on Barrett: She failed to disclose a health-care private-sector case from twenty years ago

Maybe Rich Lowry ’ s right after all , and Democrats really don ’ t have much more to throw at Amy Coney Barrett .
Or , perhaps they ’ re just tossing out the cheap stuff now in anticipation of bigger attacks later .
If this nugget from NBC News is any indication , though , Senate Democrats might just be proving that they can adequately vet a Supreme Court nominee in a short period of time .
How else to describe this supposed violation of disclosure as anything but esoteric ?
And guess who tipped off NBC to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Amy Coney Barrett did not include on her Senate Judiciary disclosure forms a notable case in which she was one of two lead attorneys : defending a Pittsburgh steel magnate accused of helping drive a major Pennsylvania Hospital System into bankruptcy .
Coney Barrett , whose experience as a practicing attorney is limited to about two years beginning in 2000 , worked on the case for at least six months beginning in June of 2000 , according to court documents in Pacer , a database of electronic court records .
Barrett was required @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nominees , to list the “ 10 most significant litigated matters which you personally handled , whether or not you were the attorney of record ” and to “ describe in detail the nature of your participation.
” Barrett lists just three cases .
The omission was caught by American Bridge 21st Century and passed along to NBC .
AB21C is one of David Brock ’ s archipelago of organizations , a super-PAC that does oppo research for Democrats .
AB21C has already spent over $ 41 million this cycle on efforts against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Susan Collins , amusingly , as their only other expenditure ) .
How does NBC describe AB21C ?
“ A Democratic research group.
” Ahem .
That on its own makes complaints about the time line hard to sustain .
Democrats put David Brock on the case , and the millions of dollars flowing into his orgs are at their apparent disposal .
After two weeks of digging , Brock found out an undisclosed case where , er , Barrett didn ’ t actually do much and there ’ s no hint of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Barrett ’ s work history said her client had “ filed only two even arguably substantive filings after she appeared as counsel , ” so the work “ is not a significant level of involvement.
” Still , in two of the three cases Barrett lists , she cites her contribution as having been supporting roles such as assisting with research and briefing materials .
The case was ultimately settled as part of a separate civil suit in which she was not listed .
Yet it involves one of the largest nonprofit bankruptcies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ billion , which prompted numerous investigations including a criminal probe .
Oh no !
An attorney with a client caught up in civil and criminal probes ?
The deuce you say .
This whole objection is meaningless ; it reveals no wrongdoing , conflict of interest , or indeed anything about judicial temperament or philosophy .
If Barrett didn ’ t recall this from twenty years ago , it probably speaks to her limited involvement in the case .
It ’ s an oversight on an immaterial point , not an impediment to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an appellate jurist at any level .
Another court-related story from NBC reminds us why AB21C wants to make Mount Everests out of molehills , though : The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday declined to lift a nationwide injunction that prevents the Trump administration from enforcing a rule that would regulate a pill commonly used in medication abortions .
So for now , the rule remains on hold .
But the court also gave the judge who imposed the ban a chance to consider modifying it to make it less restrictive .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on abortion since the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg last month .
Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said the court should have lifted the ban and allowed the government to enforce the rule .
The judge who imposed it , they said , “ apparently was not troubled by the fact that those responsible for public health in Maryland thought it safe for women ( and men ) to leave the house and engage in numerous activities that present at least as much risk as visiting a clinic.
” This order @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but it did have a dissent from Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas .
The point here is that this is a punt for the time being ; the case is being sent back for further consideration , and will undoubtedly find its way back to the Supreme Court at some point .
Barrett ’ s seat on the court could make the difference in the outcome of this case and many others on abortion that don ’ t necessarily touch on Roe or Casey directly .
Or Barrett may not make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Alito and Thomas were the only two objecting to a punt this time around .
Nevertheless , the Left is taking no chances .
And that ’ s why it ’ s unlikely that we ’ ve seen the worst from Barrett ’ s political opponents .

Maybe Rich Lowry’s right after all, and Democrats really don’t have much more to throw at Amy Coney Barrett. Or, perhaps they’re just tossing out the cheap stuff now in anticipation of bigger attacks later. If this nugget from NBC News is any indication, though, Senate Democrats might just be proving that they can adequately vet a Supreme Court nominee in a short period of time.
How else to describe this supposed violation of disclosure as anything but esoteric? And guess who tipped off NBC to the issue:
U.S. Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett did not include on her Senate Judiciary disclosure forms a notable case in which she was one of two lead attorneys: defending a Pittsburgh steel magnate accused of helping drive a major Pennsylvania Hospital System into bankruptcy. Coney Barrett, whose experience as a practicing attorney is limited to about two years beginning in 2000, worked on the case for at least six months beginning in June of 2000, according to court documents in Pacer, a database of electronic court records. Barrett was required, per the questionnaire given to court nominees, to list the “10 most significant litigated matters which you personally handled, whether or not you were the attorney of record” and to “describe in detail the nature of your participation.” Barrett lists just three cases.
The omission was caught by American Bridge 21st Century and passed along to NBC. AB21C is one of David Brock’s archipelago of organizations, a super-PAC that does oppo research for Democrats. AB21C has already spent over $41 million this cycle on efforts against Donald Trump (and fifty dollars against Susan Collins, amusingly, as their only other expenditure). How does NBC describe AB21C? “A Democratic research group.” Ahem.
That on its own makes complaints about the time line hard to sustain. Democrats put David Brock on the case, and the millions of dollars flowing into his orgs are at their apparent disposal. After two weeks of digging, Brock found out an undisclosed case where, er, Barrett didn’t actually do much and there’s no hint of impropriety whatsoever:
A source familiar with Barrett’s work history said her client had “filed only two even arguably substantive filings after she appeared as counsel,” so the work “is not a significant level of involvement.” Still, in two of the three cases Barrett lists, she cites her contribution as having been supporting roles such as assisting with research and briefing materials. The case was ultimately settled as part of a separate civil suit in which she was not listed. Yet it involves one of the largest nonprofit bankruptcies in U.S. history, at $1.5 billion, which prompted numerous investigations including a criminal probe.
Oh no! An attorney with a client caught up in civil and criminal probes? The deuce you say. This whole objection is meaningless; it reveals no wrongdoing, conflict of interest, or indeed anything about judicial temperament or philosophy. If Barrett didn’t recall this from twenty years ago, it probably speaks to her limited involvement in the case. It’s an oversight on an immaterial point, not an impediment to Barrett’s ability to work as an appellate jurist at any level.
Another court-related story from NBC reminds us why AB21C wants to make Mount Everests out of molehills, though:
The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday declined to lift a nationwide injunction that prevents the Trump administration from enforcing a rule that would regulate a pill commonly used in medication abortions. So for now, the rule remains on hold. But the court also gave the judge who imposed the ban a chance to consider modifying it to make it less restrictive. It was the court’s first action on abortion since the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg last month. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said the court should have lifted the ban and allowed the government to enforce the rule. The judge who imposed it, they said, “apparently was not troubled by the fact that those responsible for public health in Maryland thought it safe for women (and men) to leave the house and engage in numerous activities that present at least as much risk as visiting a clinic.”
This order didn’t have a controlling opinion, but it did have a dissent from Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas. The point here is that this is a punt for the time being; the case is being sent back for further consideration, and will undoubtedly find its way back to the Supreme Court at some point. Barrett’s seat on the court could make the difference in the outcome of this case and many others on abortion that don’t necessarily touch on Roe or Casey directly. Or Barrett may not make much difference at all, since apparently Alito and Thomas were the only two objecting to a punt this time around.
Nevertheless, the Left is taking no chances. And that’s why it’s unlikely that we’ve seen the worst from Barrett’s political opponents.


hotair--2020-10-09--Axios: Durham-mas will come after the election, if ever

By this stage , everyone should already have grasped this , right ?
It would be difficult to imagine any prosecutor dropping indictments on significant political figures within a month of a presidential election .
Unless the prosecutor ’ s named Lawrence Walsh , that is .
Axios reports that William Barr has begun delivering the bad news that John Durham is no Lawrence Walsh .
That ’ s actually not bad news at all , except in one small way : Attorney General Bill Barr has begun telling top Republicans that the Justice Department ’ s sweeping review into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not be released before the election , a senior White House official and a congressional aide briefed on the conversations tell Axios .
Why it matters : Republicans had long hoped the report , led by U.S. Attorney John Durham , would be a bombshell containing revelations about what they allege were serious abuses by the Obama administration and intelligence community probing for connections between President Trump and Russia .
• “ This is the nightmare scenario .
Essentially , the year and a half of arguably the number one issue for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doesn ’ t happen before the election , ” a GOP congressional aide told Axios .
• Barr has made clear that they should not expect any further indictments or a comprehensive report before Nov. 3 , our sources say .
After Labor Day came and went without a peep from Durham , we should have checked those expectations anyway .
For all the hyperbolic attacks on Barr by Democrats and the media , he ’ s much less of a political actor than it would take to push indictments in the middle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t forget that Barr was AG at the time that Walsh dropped his stinky Iran-Contra biscuit on Cap Weinberger and George H.W .
Bush four days before the 1992 presidential election .
Any Republicans relying on a Durham Hail Mary at this point were only deluding themselves .
So when will we see some work product from Durham ?
Axios also reports that Barr ’ s telling Republicans that Durham ’ s working on building solid prosecutions before unveiling indictments .
Everyone just needs to be patient , Barr is emphasizing , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ noted for having an unending spring of forbearance on such matters .
( As Jeff Sessions could testify ad nauseam . )
In fact , Trump ’ s already starting some throat-clearing about Barr that might bring strange new respect from his detractors : FBI ’ s been slowly getting stuff out and you ’ re seeing it .
Rick Grenell has done a phenomenal job , John Ratcliffe has done a phenomenal job .
And , you know , to be honest , Bill Barr ’ s going to go down either @ @ @ @ @ @ @ history of the country or he ’ s going to go down as a very sad — sad situation .
I mean , I ’ ll be honest with you , he ’ s got all the information he needs .
They want to get more , more , more , they keep getting more .
I said , you don ’ t need any more .
You ’ ve got more stuff than anybody ’ s ever had .
Now , it — you know — with Durham , I don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but we ’ re going to find out what happened to Durham , but he ’ s got so much stuff .
Look , Mr. Horowitz was appointed by Obama .
He wrote approximately 78 pages on Comey that was scathing , scathing and they didn ’ t go after Comey .
In order for these indictments to hold up — assuming any get issued at all — they ’ ll have to look as apolitical and independent as possible .
That ’ s why Barr assigned the task to Durham in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kept a lower profile than some cloistered monks ever since .
It doesn ’ t help to have Trump publicly demanding indictments and hinting that Barr ’ s job hinges on meeting that demand .
Nor does it help to have Republicans basing their electoral strategy around Durham-mas .
Everyone should have taken the hint from Durham ’ s strategy and satisfied themselves with the use of Horowitz ’ report and other investigative documents in this election cycle .

By this stage, everyone should already have grasped this, right? It would be difficult to imagine any prosecutor dropping indictments on significant political figures within a month of a presidential election. Unless the prosecutor’s named Lawrence Walsh, that is.
Axios reports that William Barr has begun delivering the bad news that John Durham is no Lawrence Walsh. That’s actually not bad news at all, except in one small way:
Attorney General Bill Barr has begun telling top Republicans that the Justice Department’s sweeping review into the origins of the Russia investigation will not be released before the election, a senior White House official and a congressional aide briefed on the conversations tell Axios. Why it matters: Republicans had long hoped the report, led by U.S. Attorney John Durham, would be a bombshell containing revelations about what they allege were serious abuses by the Obama administration and intelligence community probing for connections between President Trump and Russia. “This is the nightmare scenario. Essentially, the year and a half of arguably the number one issue for the Republican base is virtually meaningless if this doesn’t happen before the election,” a GOP congressional aide told Axios.
Barr has made clear that they should not expect any further indictments or a comprehensive report before Nov. 3, our sources say.
After Labor Day came and went without a peep from Durham, we should have checked those expectations anyway. For all the hyperbolic attacks on Barr by Democrats and the media, he’s much less of a political actor than it would take to push indictments in the middle of a general election campaign. Don’t forget that Barr was AG at the time that Walsh dropped his stinky Iran-Contra biscuit on Cap Weinberger and George H.W. Bush four days before the 1992 presidential election. Any Republicans relying on a Durham Hail Mary at this point were only deluding themselves.
So when will we see some work product from Durham? Axios also reports that Barr’s telling Republicans that Durham’s working on building solid prosecutions before unveiling indictments. Everyone just needs to be patient, Barr is emphasizing, including Donald Trump, who is not noted for having an unending spring of forbearance on such matters. (As Jeff Sessions could testify ad nauseam.) In fact, Trump’s already starting some throat-clearing about Barr that might bring strange new respect from his detractors:
FBI’s been slowly getting stuff out and you’re seeing it. Rick Grenell has done a phenomenal job, John Ratcliffe has done a phenomenal job. And, you know, to be honest, Bill Barr’s going to go down either as the greatest Attorney General in the history of the country or he’s going to go down as a very sad — sad situation. I mean, I’ll be honest with you, he’s got all the information he needs. They want to get more, more, more, they keep getting more. I said, you don’t need any more. You’ve got more stuff than anybody’s ever had. Now, it — you know — with Durham, I don’t know what happened to Durham, but we’re going to find out what happened to Durham, but he’s got so much stuff. Look, Mr. Horowitz was appointed by Obama. He wrote approximately 78 pages on Comey that was scathing, scathing and they didn’t go after Comey.
In order for these indictments to hold up — assuming any get issued at all — they’ll have to look as apolitical and independent as possible. That’s why Barr assigned the task to Durham in the first place, and why Durham has kept a lower profile than some cloistered monks ever since. It doesn’t help to have Trump publicly demanding indictments and hinting that Barr’s job hinges on meeting that demand. Nor does it help to have Republicans basing their electoral strategy around Durham-mas. Everyone should have taken the hint from Durham’s strategy and satisfied themselves with the use of Horowitz’ report and other investigative documents in this election cycle.


hotair--2020-10-10--NY Times columnist Bret Stephens criticizes 1619 Project

If nothing else you have to admire Bret Stephens bravery for speaking up .
Plenty of people have done so before now but I don ’ t think any of them were employed by the NY Times .
Stephens is effectively bringing the controversy home and we ’ ve seen recently what can happen when the woke reporters at the Times decide they are offended by your work .
Simply put , you can be fired for crossing certain lines at the Times and criticizing the 1619 Project is probably one of them .
At the end of his piece @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the risk .
He owes his fellow writers at the Times some collegiality but he also owes readers to write about current controversies and 1619 has definitely become one of those .
Stephens opens his piece by praising some of the goals and elements of the 1619 Project .
But he concludes that , on balance , the project failed .
He then looks into one of the major sub-controversies of the Project , the issue of whether or not the Times and Nikole Hannah-Jones had presented the date as our “ true @ @ @ @ @ @ @ responded to Magness and other critics by insisting that “ the text of the project ” remained “ unchanged , ” while maintaining that the case for making 1619 the country ’ s “ true ” birth year was “ always a metaphoric argument.
” I emailed her to ask if she could point to any instances before this controversy in which she had acknowledged that her claims about 1619 as “ our true founding ” had been merely metaphorical .
Her answer was that the idea of treating the 1619 date metaphorically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ went without saying .
She then challenged me to find any instance in which the project stated that “ using 1776 as our country ’ s birth date is wrong , ” that it “ should not be taught to schoolchildren , ” and that the only one “ that should be taught ” was 1619 .
“ Good luck unearthing any of us arguing that , ” she added .
Here is an excerpt from the introductory essay to the project by The New York Times Magazine ’ s editor , Jake @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in August 2019 ( italics added ) : “ 1619 .
It is not a year that most Americans know as a notable date in our country ’ s history .
Those who do are at most a tiny fraction of those who can tell you that 1776 is the year of our nation ’ s birth .
What if , however , we were to tell you that this fact , which is taught in our schools and unanimously celebrated every Fourth of July , is wrong , and that the country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moment that its defining contradictions first came into the world , was in late August of 1619 ?
” This is exactly what Hannah-Jones claimed couldn ’ t be found , i.e .
a statement that the wrong date was being taught to school children .
If you look at the 1619 Project now , you ’ ll find that language ( everything in italics ) has been removed .
The times did this without alerting readers that a change had been made .
Jake Silverstein told Stephens these changes weren ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make them at all ?
The true founding controversy is significant because it shows that the NY Times has been quietly backing away from what was a commonly used shorthand for the entire project early on .
Hannah-Jones herself said , “ it ’ s a simplification of the project , but it ’ s a powerful simplification of the project.
” Stephens then recounts some of the other problems with the Project pointed out by various historians : An early sign that the project was in trouble came in an interview last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Prize-winning author of “ Battle Cry of Freedom ” and a past president of the American Historical Association .
He was withering : “ Almost from the outset , ” McPherson told the World Socialist Web Site , “ I was disturbed by what seemed like a very unbalanced , one-sided account , which lacked context and perspective.
” In particular , McPherson objected to Hannah-Jones ’ s suggestion that the struggle against slavery and racism and for civil rights and democracy was , if not exclusively then mostly , a Black one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : “ The truth is that as much democracy as this nation has today , it has been borne on the backs of Black resistance.
” McPherson demurs : “ From the Quakers in the 18th century , on through the abolitionists in the antebellum , to the Radical Republicans in the Civil War and Reconstruction , to the N.A.A.C.P.
, which was an interracial organization founded in 1909 , down through the civil rights movements of the 1950s and 1960s , there have been a lot of whites who have fought against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ racism , ” he said .
“ And that ’ s what ’ s missing from this perspective.
” Stephens also makes reference to the claim that the preservation of slavery was the major motivation for the Revolutionary War .
That ’ s the one area where , after intially refusing to make any correction , the Times eventually relented , though the corrected version remains somewhat dubious .
Stephens argues that the problem here isn ’ t just in the details , it ’ s in the overall concept .
Journalists and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they wanted to present a discussion among experts about changing views of American history , that would be one thing .
What they actually did was present one side of an argument as if it were true .
And then when challenged by actual experts they largely ignored the criticism on the grounds that some historians agreed with them .
Who are those other historians and are they qualified to opine on subjects like the causes of the Revolutionary War ?
In his response to a letter from a group of historians criticizing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the historians consulted .
Only one of those specialized in pre-1900 history : Jake Silverstein , editor-in-chief of the Times Magazine , admitted that the paper “ did not assemble a formal panel for this project , ” but he did identify five “ scholars of African-American history and related fields ” with whom the Project consulted .
Only one , Tiya Miles , specializes in pre-1900 events ; another , Desmond , is a sociologist whose most recent book focused on the aftermath of the 2008 economic crisis .
Neither Silverstein @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chose not to consult with any of the letter ’ s signatories , all leading scholars of eighteenth- or nineteenth-century America and specialists in the issues that the Project addressed .
If the Project ’ s editors and Hannah-Jones are ignorant about the work of the Bynum letter ’ s signatories , their historical competence is deeply suspect .
More likely , they understood that figures like Wood or Oakes would challenge the Project ’ s preconceived notions of the American past , and so they deliberately ignored their work because it would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hannah-Jones ’ s dismissive tweet about McPherson ’ s criticism of her work strengthens these suspicions : she mockingly asserted that only “ white historians have produced truly objective history ” before asserting that “ there is no such thing as objective history.
” ) While the project may lack the support of genuine experts it certainly doesn ’ t lack for zealous defenders eager to accuse critics ( including professional historians ) of various crimes against social justice .
Victoria Bynum , one of the historians who signed the letter critical of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she got for daring to do so : “ White privilege , ” “ wealthy elites , ” “ mansplainers , ” “ old white people , ” “ ivory tower elites.
” These are just a few of the epithets hurled at me and the four historians I joined in protesting the flawed and inaccurate history presented in the New York Times ’ s 1619 Project .
A quick pass through Twitter reveals that some historians are “ ashamed of , ” even “ heartbroken by , ” our letter to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for criticizing the 1619 Project at a time when our “ republic ” is so dangerously divided !
Really , historians ?
Is it no longer our right or responsibility to critique works of history , at least not when they ’ re about a long , ugly episode of our nation ’ s history ?
Does history not have to be accurate if the subjects were truly victims , as enslaved Americans surely were ?
Bynum put her finger on the real problem with the Project , i.e .
narratives about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the present in mind : The 1619 Project is wrong about our true founding but it certainly captured the true zeitgeist and that ’ s why it will continue to be hailed as a great success despite all of the criticism from genuine experts in the field .

If nothing else you have to admire Bret Stephens bravery for speaking up. Plenty of people have done so before now but I don’t think any of them were employed by the NY Times. Stephens is effectively bringing the controversy home and we’ve seen recently what can happen when the woke reporters at the Times decide they are offended by your work. Simply put, you can be fired for crossing certain lines at the Times and criticizing the 1619 Project is probably one of them.
At the end of his piece Stephens explains why he’s taking the risk. He owes his fellow writers at the Times some collegiality but he also owes readers to write about current controversies and 1619 has definitely become one of those.
Stephens opens his piece by praising some of the goals and elements of the 1619 Project. But he concludes that, on balance, the project failed. He then looks into one of the major sub-controversies of the Project, the issue of whether or not the Times and Nikole Hannah-Jones had presented the date as our “true founding.”
In a tweet, Hannah-Jones responded to Magness and other critics by insisting that “the text of the project” remained “unchanged,” while maintaining that the case for making 1619 the country’s “true” birth year was “always a metaphoric argument.” I emailed her to ask if she could point to any instances before this controversy in which she had acknowledged that her claims about 1619 as “our true founding” had been merely metaphorical. Her answer was that the idea of treating the 1619 date metaphorically should have been so obvious that it went without saying. She then challenged me to find any instance in which the project stated that “using 1776 as our country’s birth date is wrong,” that it “should not be taught to schoolchildren,” and that the only one “that should be taught” was 1619. “Good luck unearthing any of us arguing that,” she added. Here is an excerpt from the introductory essay to the project by The New York Times Magazine’s editor, Jake Silverstein, as it appeared in print in August 2019 (italics added): “1619. It is not a year that most Americans know as a notable date in our country’s history. Those who do are at most a tiny fraction of those who can tell you that 1776 is the year of our nation’s birth. What if, however, we were to tell you that this fact, which is taught in our schools and unanimously celebrated every Fourth of July, is wrong, and that the country’s true birth date, the moment that its defining contradictions first came into the world, was in late August of 1619?”
This is exactly what Hannah-Jones claimed couldn’t be found, i.e. a statement that the wrong date was being taught to school children. If you look at the 1619 Project now, you’ll find that language (everything in italics) has been removed. The times did this without alerting readers that a change had been made. Jake Silverstein told Stephens these changes weren’t significant. If not, then why make them at all?
The true founding controversy is significant because it shows that the NY Times has been quietly backing away from what was a commonly used shorthand for the entire project early on. Hannah-Jones herself said, “it’s a simplification of the project, but it’s a powerful simplification of the project.”
Stephens then recounts some of the other problems with the Project pointed out by various historians:
An early sign that the project was in trouble came in an interview last November with James McPherson, the Pulitzer Prize-winning author of “Battle Cry of Freedom” and a past president of the American Historical Association. He was withering: “Almost from the outset,” McPherson told the World Socialist Web Site, “I was disturbed by what seemed like a very unbalanced, one-sided account, which lacked context and perspective.” In particular, McPherson objected to Hannah-Jones’s suggestion that the struggle against slavery and racism and for civil rights and democracy was, if not exclusively then mostly, a Black one. As she wrote in her essay: “The truth is that as much democracy as this nation has today, it has been borne on the backs of Black resistance.” McPherson demurs: “From the Quakers in the 18th century, on through the abolitionists in the antebellum, to the Radical Republicans in the Civil War and Reconstruction, to the N.A.A.C.P., which was an interracial organization founded in 1909, down through the civil rights movements of the 1950s and 1960s, there have been a lot of whites who have fought against slavery and racial discrimination, and against racism,” he said. “And that’s what’s missing from this perspective.”
Stephens also makes reference to the claim that the preservation of slavery was the major motivation for the Revolutionary War. That’s the one area where, after intially refusing to make any correction, the Times eventually relented, though the corrected version remains somewhat dubious.
Stephens argues that the problem here isn’t just in the details, it’s in the overall concept. Journalists and newspaper editors are not historians. If they wanted to present a discussion among experts about changing views of American history, that would be one thing. What they actually did was present one side of an argument as if it were true. And then when challenged by actual experts they largely ignored the criticism on the grounds that some historians agreed with them. Who are those other historians and are they qualified to opine on subjects like the causes of the Revolutionary War? In his response to a letter from a group of historians criticizing the Project, Jake Silverstein named five of the historians consulted. Only one of those specialized in pre-1900 history:
Jake Silverstein, editor-in-chief of the Times Magazine, admitted that the paper “did not assemble a formal panel for this project,” but he did identify five “scholars of African-American history and related fields” with whom the Project consulted. Only one, Tiya Miles, specializes in pre-1900 events; another, Desmond, is a sociologist whose most recent book focused on the aftermath of the 2008 economic crisis. Neither Silverstein nor Hannah-Jones has explained why the Times chose not to consult with any of the letter’s signatories, all leading scholars of eighteenth- or nineteenth-century America and specialists in the issues that the Project addressed. If the Project’s editors and Hannah-Jones are ignorant about the work of the Bynum letter’s signatories, their historical competence is deeply suspect. More likely, they understood that figures like Wood or Oakes would challenge the Project’s preconceived notions of the American past, and so they deliberately ignored their work because it would undercut their own preordained conclusions. (Hannah-Jones’s dismissive tweet about McPherson’s criticism of her work strengthens these suspicions: she mockingly asserted that only “white historians have produced truly objective history” before asserting that “there is no such thing as objective history.”)
While the project may lack the support of genuine experts it certainly doesn’t lack for zealous defenders eager to accuse critics (including professional historians) of various crimes against social justice. Victoria Bynum, one of the historians who signed the letter critical of the Project, pointed out the response she got for daring to do so:
“White privilege,” “wealthy elites,” “mansplainers,” “old white people,” “ivory tower elites.” These are just a few of the epithets hurled at me and the four historians I joined in protesting the flawed and inaccurate history presented in the New York Times’s 1619 Project. A quick pass through Twitter reveals that some historians are “ashamed of,” even “heartbroken by,” our letter to the Times editor. One historian chastised us for criticizing the 1619 Project at a time when our “republic” is so dangerously divided! Really, historians? Is it no longer our right or responsibility to critique works of history, at least not when they’re about a long, ugly episode of our nation’s history? Does history not have to be accurate if the subjects were truly victims, as enslaved Americans surely were?
Bynum put her finger on the real problem with the Project, i.e. narratives about the past being written with political agendas of the present in mind:
History is a profession that takes years of training. In his response to our letter to the New York Times, editor Jake Silverstein admits that, although the Times consulted with scholars, and although Nikole Hannah-Jones “has consistently used history to inform her journalism.” . . . . the newspaper “did not assemble a formal panel [of historians] for this project.” Perhaps this explains why a number of 1619 Project defenders, including Hannah-Jones, implicitly deny the need for training by claiming there is no such thing as objective history anyway. Too often, the assumption that journalists make good historians leaves us fighting over dueling narratives about the past based on political agendas of the present.
The 1619 Project is wrong about our true founding but it certainly captured the true zeitgeist and that’s why it will continue to be hailed as a great success despite all of the criticism from genuine experts in the field.


hotair--2020-10-10--Federal judge stops Governor Abbott's order on drop-off ballot boxes in Texas

An Obama-appointed federal judge issued a temporary block on Governor Abbott ’ s order to remove all but one drop-off ballot box in each county in Texas .
This is just the latest in maneuvers by the Democrats in Texas to continue to create chaos during the 2020 presidential election cycle .
Early voting for all registered voters begins October 13 .
For voters using mail-in ballots , those ballots have been sent out and many ballots have already been filled out and returned .
Yet , last-minute shenanigans continue .
On October 2 I wrote about Governor Abbott ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be limited to one drop-off ballot box .
He did this in order to try to eliminate excess opportunities for voter fraud in counties with multiple locations for voters to drop off their mail-in ballots .
Texas Democrats who lost their legal battle to turn Texas into a universal mail-in ballot state reacted to the governor ’ s order by taking their case for keeping the ballot box locations in place to a federal judge .
U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman ruled in favor of the Democrats , citing that mail-in ballots were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too close to the election to change up the process .
Austin District Judge Robert Pitman said Abbott ’ s Oct. 1 proclamation came too late , after officials already started mailing absentee ballots and some , like Harris and Travis counties , had planned for multiple dropoff sites .
In the 46-page order , Pitman cited Supreme Court precedent that says election law should not be changed too near an election to eliminate voter confusion and complications for election officials .
“ Even without declaratory evidence , it is apparent that closing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would cause confusion , especially when those centers were deemed safe , authorized , and , in fact , advertised as a convenient option just months ago , ” Pitman wrote .
This means that two Democratically-controlled counties , Harris County ( Houston ) and Travis County ( Austin ) , can re-open drop off locations .
This affects eleven additional locations in Harris County and three in Travis County .
Harris County Clerk Chris Hollins , the rookie County Clerk who has only been in the position since June , is pleased @ @ @ @ @ @ @ order as proof of voter suppression in Texas .
It should be noted that he was hell-bent to send every registered voter in Harris County a mail-in ballot application .
This week , after a prolonged legal battle , the Texas Supreme Court ruled against Hollins ’ plan .
He is not allowed to send out mail-in ballot applications unsolicited by registered voters .
There are about 2.4 million registered voters in Harris County .
“ The governor ’ s suppressive tactics should not be tolerated , and tonight ’ s ruling shows @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Texas voters , ” Hollins said .
“ Seniors and voters with disabilities across Harris County need these drop-off locations to deliver their mail ballots safely and conveniently during the global pandemic .
We shouldn ’ t be playing politics with voters ’ lives.
” Travis County Clerk Dana DeBeauvoir said Friday that she was “ grateful the court recognized what was best for voters.
” “ Travis County elections will do everything possible to make further court rulings easily understood by voters , ” DeBeauvoir said .
The Texas Democrat Party @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
If Democrats don ’ t win elections , it isn ’ t their fault .
It ’ s voter suppression , you know .
“ Governor Abbott ’ s attempt to suppress Texas voters has been thwarted .
Judge Pitman ’ s common sense order followed well-established law and stopped the governor from making up election rules after the election started .
Frankly , it ought to be a shock to all of us that such a ruling is even required .
“ This important ruling stands up not just for voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This isn ’ t the first time Abbott and Texas Republicans have tried to suppress the vote , and it won ’ t be the last .
The only way to stop these voter suppression attempts is to vote for Democrats up and down the ballot in November.
” This election cycle , Texas is a battleground state .
Democrats are pulling out all the stops to turn the state into a blue one , as it was before 1994 .
Texas has gone for the Republican presidential nominee since 1976 .
Joe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that streak this year .
There are two separate federal lawsuits over Abbott ’ s executive order to limit drop-off ballot boxes to one per county .
I think former Harris County Judge Ed Emmett said it best .
Mail-in ballot drop-off boxes are everywhere .
Just put the ballot in your own mailbox , if you like , as it is always done .
This is all a ridiculous waste of time .
Democrats tried to have the whole state vote by mail and now suddenly they can only safely use drop-off @ @ @ @

An Obama-appointed federal judge issued a temporary block on Governor Abbott’s order to remove all but one drop-off ballot box in each county in Texas. This is just the latest in maneuvers by the Democrats in Texas to continue to create chaos during the 2020 presidential election cycle. Early voting for all registered voters begins October 13. For voters using mail-in ballots, those ballots have been sent out and many ballots have already been filled out and returned. Yet, last-minute shenanigans continue.
On October 2 I wrote about Governor Abbott’s order that each county in Texas be limited to one drop-off ballot box. He did this in order to try to eliminate excess opportunities for voter fraud in counties with multiple locations for voters to drop off their mail-in ballots. Texas Democrats who lost their legal battle to turn Texas into a universal mail-in ballot state reacted to the governor’s order by taking their case for keeping the ballot box locations in place to a federal judge. U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman ruled in favor of the Democrats, citing that mail-in ballots were already being sent out and it is too close to the election to change up the process.
Austin District Judge Robert Pitman said Abbott’s Oct. 1 proclamation came too late, after officials already started mailing absentee ballots and some, like Harris and Travis counties, had planned for multiple dropoff sites. In the 46-page order, Pitman cited Supreme Court precedent that says election law should not be changed too near an election to eliminate voter confusion and complications for election officials. “Even without declaratory evidence, it is apparent that closing ballot return centers at the last minute would cause confusion, especially when those centers were deemed safe, authorized, and, in fact, advertised as a convenient option just months ago,” Pitman wrote.
This means that two Democratically-controlled counties, Harris County (Houston) and Travis County (Austin), can re-open drop off locations. This affects eleven additional locations in Harris County and three in Travis County. Harris County Clerk Chris Hollins, the rookie County Clerk who has only been in the position since June, is pleased. He referenced Governor Abbott’s order as proof of voter suppression in Texas. It should be noted that he was hell-bent to send every registered voter in Harris County a mail-in ballot application. This week, after a prolonged legal battle, the Texas Supreme Court ruled against Hollins’ plan. He is not allowed to send out mail-in ballot applications unsolicited by registered voters. There are about 2.4 million registered voters in Harris County.
“The governor’s suppressive tactics should not be tolerated, and tonight’s ruling shows that the law is on the side of Texas voters,” Hollins said. “Seniors and voters with disabilities across Harris County need these drop-off locations to deliver their mail ballots safely and conveniently during the global pandemic. We shouldn’t be playing politics with voters’ lives.” Travis County Clerk Dana DeBeauvoir said Friday that she was “grateful the court recognized what was best for voters.” “Travis County elections will do everything possible to make further court rulings easily understood by voters,” DeBeauvoir said.
The Texas Democrat Party is also pushing the voter suppression narrative. If Democrats don’t win elections, it isn’t their fault. It’s voter suppression, you know.
“Governor Abbott’s attempt to suppress Texas voters has been thwarted. Judge Pitman’s common sense order followed well-established law and stopped the governor from making up election rules after the election started. Frankly, it ought to be a shock to all of us that such a ruling is even required. “This important ruling stands up not just for voters but for the Rule of Law. This isn’t the first time Abbott and Texas Republicans have tried to suppress the vote, and it won’t be the last. The only way to stop these voter suppression attempts is to vote for Democrats up and down the ballot in November.”
This election cycle, Texas is a battleground state. Democrats are pulling out all the stops to turn the state into a blue one, as it was before 1994. Texas has gone for the Republican presidential nominee since 1976. Joe Biden isn’t going to break that streak this year. There are two separate federal lawsuits over Abbott’s executive order to limit drop-off ballot boxes to one per county.
In a complaint filed late Thursday against Abbott’s order, the Campaign Legal Center sued on behalf of the League of United Latin American Citizens, its Texas chapter, the League of Women Voters of Texas, and two individuals, alleging that the last-minute change will cause confusion for voters. The complaint argues that the governor’s order forces Texas absentee voters — older voters, and voters with disabilities — to risk exposure to Covid-19, travel farther distances, and face longer waits.
I think former Harris County Judge Ed Emmett said it best. Mail-in ballot drop-off boxes are everywhere. Just put the ballot in your own mailbox, if you like, as it is always done. This is all a ridiculous waste of time. Democrats tried to have the whole state vote by mail and now suddenly they can only safely use drop-off boxes? Malarkey.


hotair--2020-10-10--Has the third wave of COVID begun?

Has the third wave of COVID begun?

A reader pinged me on Twitter last night to say that it ’ s time to start paying attention to this .
They ’ re right , but I ’ m not sure if what ’ s happening now qualifies as a third wave or a second wave or even the tail end of the first wave .
The U.S. hasn ’ t yet had a true national wave of COVID ; what it ’ s had are regional waves staggered in time .
The northeast got crushed in the spring , the south and California were hit hard over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s the midwest that ’ s being pummeled , especially Wisconsin .
What that region is experiencing is a true wave .
What most of the rest of the country is experiencing is more of a worrisome trend .
Cases aren ’ t exploding , but they ’ re headed in the wrong direction just as the weather ’ s starting to cool down .
The state of the play as of Wednesday : Yesterday the COVID Tracking Project reported 58,000 positive tests nationwide , the highest number in more than two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ came from the White House .
No , no , just kidding .
Black humor . )
On Tuesday , South Dakota recorded the highest number of cases per capita that any state has seen since the start of the pandemic .
The trend in hospitalizations is ominous too : “ In 41 states , the number of people requiring hospitalization increased this week—only nine states saw declines in this crucial figure… Hospitalizations grew not only across the Midwest , but in states in every region of the country.
” Mercifully , deaths @ @ @ @ @ @ @ usually takes a few weeks before daily deaths begin to track a rise in cases and hospitalizations .
We ’ ll see where things stand on November 1 .
Here ’ s what I mean about America suffering a series of regional waves rather than one , two , or three national ones : You can read that graph as encouraging or discouraging as you see fit .
The optimistic view is that , as bad as the midwest looks right now , things are basically stable everywhere else .
The pessimistic view @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , all four regions have seen an increase in cases since September 1 or so .
The west and south have plateaued at their slightly higher “ new normal ” and the northeast is tracking upward less aggressively than the midwest is currently , but everyone looks worse than they did a few weeks ago .
Maybe that was inevitable as schools reopened , but early data suggests that schools don ’ t spread the virus much .
It may be mom and dad rather than the kids who are getting infected now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ job .
Or it may be college kids returning to campus who are spreading it around .
Either way , the forecast is stormy .
It ’ s been awhile since we looked at Kinsa ’ s “ Health Weather Map , ” which aggregates temperature data from people around the country who use Kinsa ’ s smart thermometers .
They recently updated their map to indicate which states they believe will experience a further increase in cases over the next four weeks based on the data the company is collecting right now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ math that goes into that prediction , but Kinsa ’ s confident in its ability to foresee spikes .
Here , for instance , is their data on Wisconsin dating back to March : Assuming they ’ re being honest about when they predicted an uptick , they were correct in all three of their predictions .
There was a slight increase in cases in May , a steeper one in July , and then an ugly one in September .
With all of that as introduction , here ’ s what the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Each little “ bullseye ” represents a state where cases are expected to rise this month : That ’ s 23 states in all , including most of the northeast and midwest .
New England , New York , and New Jersey look like they ’ re set to become the first region to experience a true second wave , which is what we ’ d expect given that the first wave arrived there sooner than anywhere else .
And yet , and yet , in spite of all the bad signs , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rate looks like right now : It ’ s trended ever so slightly upward over the last two weeks but it ’ s still a hair below five percent and it ’ s lower now than it was during much of September .
Maybe the answer to that is “ Who cares ?
It doesn ’ t help the midwest any , does it ?
” If America ’ s pandemic is really just a sequence of regional pandemics then the “ national picture ” doesn ’ t tell us much .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be excused for thinking that the “ wave ” we ’ re supposedly experiencing right now isn ’ t much of one yet .
Part of the reason why we ’ re seeing more cases lately may simply be that we ’ re testing more people now than we used to .
And the true surge in the midwest may be offset by declines in cases elsewhere .
Besides , it could be worse .
We could be Europe : Daily deaths in western Europe are still lower than they are in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that has more to do with the baseline state of health in America ( e.g.
, more obese people ) than anything specific to COVID or treatment .
I ’ ll leave you with this new ad from the Trump campaign , which celebrates the president for his handling of the pandemic and features an endorsement from populist hate object Anthony Fauci ( !
! )
.
The Fauci cameo is outdated , though , as it comes from an interview he did back in March .
Given that he was telling reporters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for a superspreader event , and in light of how the administration has reportedly tried to stifle useful CDC guidance on masks , I ’ m guessing Fauci ’ s opinion of how Trump has handled COVID is more … nuanced than the ad suggests .
But oh well .
That ’ s politics .

A reader pinged me on Twitter last night to say that it’s time to start paying attention to this. They’re right, but I’m not sure if what’s happening now qualifies as a third wave or a second wave or even the tail end of the first wave. The U.S. hasn’t yet had a true national wave of COVID; what it’s had are regional waves staggered in time. The northeast got crushed in the spring, the south and California were hit hard over the summer, and right now it’s the midwest that’s being pummeled, especially Wisconsin.
What that region is experiencing is a true wave. What most of the rest of the country is experiencing is more of a worrisome trend. Cases aren’t exploding, but they’re headed in the wrong direction just as the weather’s starting to cool down.
The state of the play as of Wednesday:
U.S. coronavirus cases surpassed 7.5 million on Wednesday with most states seeing a rise in cases – nine months into the pandemic – and a startling nine states setting ominous, seven-day records for infections. A USA TODAY analysis of Johns Hopkins data through late Tuesday shows Alaska, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, Utah and Wyoming all set state records in the seven-day period. In all, 39 states reported more coronavirus cases in the last week than they had in the week before.
Yesterday the COVID Tracking Project reported 58,000 positive tests nationwide, the highest number in more than two months. (Some 55,000 of those came from the White House. No, no, just kidding. Black humor.) On Tuesday, South Dakota recorded the highest number of cases per capita that any state has seen since the start of the pandemic. The trend in hospitalizations is ominous too: “In 41 states, the number of people requiring hospitalization increased this week—only nine states saw declines in this crucial figure… Hospitalizations grew not only across the Midwest, but in states in every region of the country.” Mercifully, deaths continue to trend downward, but it usually takes a few weeks before daily deaths begin to track a rise in cases and hospitalizations. We’ll see where things stand on November 1.
Here’s what I mean about America suffering a series of regional waves rather than one, two, or three national ones:
You can read that graph as encouraging or discouraging as you see fit. The optimistic view is that, as bad as the midwest looks right now, things are basically stable everywhere else. The pessimistic view is that, if you look closely, all four regions have seen an increase in cases since September 1 or so. The west and south have plateaued at their slightly higher “new normal” and the northeast is tracking upward less aggressively than the midwest is currently, but everyone looks worse than they did a few weeks ago. Maybe that was inevitable as schools reopened, but early data suggests that schools don’t spread the virus much. It may be mom and dad rather than the kids who are getting infected now that they’re back on the job. Or it may be college kids returning to campus who are spreading it around.
Either way, the forecast is stormy. It’s been awhile since we looked at Kinsa’s “Health Weather Map,” which aggregates temperature data from people around the country who use Kinsa’s smart thermometers. They recently updated their map to indicate which states they believe will experience a further increase in cases over the next four weeks based on the data the company is collecting right now. There’s a lot of math that goes into that prediction, but Kinsa’s confident in its ability to foresee spikes. Here, for instance, is their data on Wisconsin dating back to March:
Assuming they’re being honest about when they predicted an uptick, they were correct in all three of their predictions. There was a slight increase in cases in May, a steeper one in July, and then an ugly one in September. With all of that as introduction, here’s what the national map looks like right now. Each little “bullseye” represents a state where cases are expected to rise this month:
That’s 23 states in all, including most of the northeast and midwest. New England, New York, and New Jersey look like they’re set to become the first region to experience a true second wave, which is what we’d expect given that the first wave arrived there sooner than anywhere else.
And yet, and yet, in spite of all the bad signs, here’s what the national positivity rate looks like right now:
It’s trended ever so slightly upward over the last two weeks but it’s still a hair below five percent and it’s lower now than it was during much of September. Maybe the answer to that is “Who cares? It doesn’t help the midwest any, does it?” If America’s pandemic is really just a sequence of regional pandemics then the “national picture” doesn’t tell us much. But looking at this graph, you could be excused for thinking that the “wave” we’re supposedly experiencing right now isn’t much of one yet. Part of the reason why we’re seeing more cases lately may simply be that we’re testing more people now than we used to. And the true surge in the midwest may be offset by declines in cases elsewhere.
Besides, it could be worse. We could be Europe:
This summer, it was obvious that America's COVID response had fallen behind tragically, incomprehensibly behind western Europe. [left] That is no longer the case. Spain, France, and the UK all have more daily cases per capita now than the US. [right] pic.twitter.com/FSvl7ftOM1 — Derek Thompson (@DKThomp) October 8, 2020
Daily deaths in western Europe are still lower than they are in the U.S., although I’d guess that has more to do with the baseline state of health in America (e.g., more obese people) than anything specific to COVID or treatment.
I’ll leave you with this new ad from the Trump campaign, which celebrates the president for his handling of the pandemic and features an endorsement from populist hate object Anthony Fauci(!!). The Fauci cameo is outdated, though, as it comes from an interview he did back in March. Given that he was telling reporters yesterday that the White House is responsible for a superspreader event, and in light of how the administration has reportedly tried to stifle useful CDC guidance on masks, I’m guessing Fauci’s opinion of how Trump has handled COVID is more … nuanced than the ad suggests. But oh well. That’s politics.


hotair--2020-10-10--British MOD buries UFO dossier for another 50 years

Back in 1990 , two British men were out for a hike in a remote area near Calvine , Scottland , when they stumbled into what would go on to be described as one of the most remarkable and well-documented UFO encounters on record .
They observed a large , diamond-shaped flying saucer ( for lack of a better term ) hovering above them , just hanging there soundlessly in the sky .
It remained there for approximately ten minutes and military fighter jets arrived and appeared to be circling the area before the craft suddenly shot up into the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made this encounter so truly remarkable was that the hikers didn ’ t just have “ a story ” to tell .
One of them had a camera with him and he managed to take six , high-definition color pictures , capturing not only the unknown craft but the fighter jets as well .
The British Ministry of Defense ( MoD ) launched an investigation after the photos and the shocking story wound up on the front page of a Scottish newspaper .
They eventually concluded that the original film had not been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But the results of their investigation were somehow sealed up , along with the pictures .
They placed a 30-year hold on the files before they could be made available to the public .
That period was set to expire on January 1st of 2021 .
But this week , the MoD extended the ban… for another fifty years .
A lot of people want to know why .
UFO experts hit out when it emerged a dossier into Britain ’ s most significant sighting is to be kept secret for another @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to contain astonishing colour photographs of a 100ft craft hovering over the village of Calvine in the Scottish Highlands in 1990 .
A 30-year rule meant it was due to be declassified on January 1 — but the Ministry of Defence has now blocked release until 2072 without explanation .
Photographs were taken by two Perthshire hikers who watched the “ diamond-shaped metallic craft ” for ten minutes before it shot up vertically out of sight .
This news obviously isn ’ t sitting well with people in the ufology community or anyone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the truth .
The original photos are lost except to the MoD , but a blurry , poorer quality version of one of them has been enhanced and colorized with the help of Nick Pope .
He ran the MoD ’ s UFO investigative group for a while in the 90s and he ’ s seen the photos himself and read the secret reports .
( We interviewed Nick Pope here earlier this year . )
One investigative journalist reacted with the correct question upon hearing the news .
“ By the time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the two witnesses will be dead .
It is crazy .
What are the authorities trying to hide ?
” That ’ s the pertinent question now , isn ’ t it ?
What is the British government trying to hide and why ?
Nick Pope knows the answers .
He ’ s held the photos in his hands and he knows what conclusions the MoD reached when the investigation was closed .
But as he explained in an article he published this morning for The Sun , the British Official Secrets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he can ’ t reveal the information without the government first declassifying it , though he is positive there has been a deliberate coverup going on .
So we are left to speculate .
Nick indicates that there was an internal dispute taking place as to the true origins of the craft in the pictures .
One side was sure that it was a top-secret American vehicle .
( Our government denied this vehemently . )
The other side , including Nick ’ s military intelligence briefer , said there was only one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the words , he simply pointed up into the sky .
This decision to bury the file still doesn ’ t make sense , however .
If it was American , Russian , Chinese or even British tech , then sure .
There would be valid national security reasons to keep it secret .
But that tech would have to be at least thirty years old at this point .
More likely much older since you don ’ t go from the drawing board to a workable prototype in a single day .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ craft that have been sighted , this one had no wings , rotors , flight surfaces , exhaust ports or anything else that should have allowed it to remain aloft .
And if it ’ s from “ up there , ” then what security considerations would apply ?
And what about the fighter jets that were seen and photographed around it ?
Nick hints that the government claims the origin of the planes could not be determined .
Seriously ?
There were military fighters in the air in British airspace and nobody @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what they were doing there ?
Excuse me , but I ’ m not buying it .
They ’ re covering something up .
Those jets didn ’ t just happen to be flying over the Scottish Highlands in the middle of the day at an altitude of only a few hundred feet and somehow fail to notice the 100-foot diameter flying saucer hovering in close proximity to them .
They were either there to investigate it or they knew it would be there and they had some business associated with it .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ States that similarly locks away some records for many decades .
But I ’ m not the first to speculate that it ’ s rarely if ever done for real reasons of national security .
It ’ s generally done to make sure that all of the guilty parties have time to die so they won ’ t be held accountable for whatever it was that they were up to .
Until somebody decides to provide some transparency and release those files , that ’ s the answer I ’ m going with @

Back in 1990, two British men were out for a hike in a remote area near Calvine, Scottland, when they stumbled into what would go on to be described as one of the most remarkable and well-documented UFO encounters on record. They observed a large, diamond-shaped flying saucer (for lack of a better term) hovering above them, just hanging there soundlessly in the sky. It remained there for approximately ten minutes and military fighter jets arrived and appeared to be circling the area before the craft suddenly shot up into the sky and out of sight. What made this encounter so truly remarkable was that the hikers didn’t just have “a story” to tell. One of them had a camera with him and he managed to take six, high-definition color pictures, capturing not only the unknown craft but the fighter jets as well.
The British Ministry of Defense (MoD) launched an investigation after the photos and the shocking story wound up on the front page of a Scottish newspaper. They eventually concluded that the original film had not been tampered with and the photos were real. But the results of their investigation were somehow sealed up, along with the pictures. They placed a 30-year hold on the files before they could be made available to the public. That period was set to expire on January 1st of 2021. But this week, the MoD extended the ban… for another fifty years. A lot of people want to know why.
UFO experts hit out when it emerged a dossier into Britain’s most significant sighting is to be kept secret for another 50 years. The file is said to contain astonishing colour photographs of a 100ft craft hovering over the village of Calvine in the Scottish Highlands in 1990. A 30-year rule meant it was due to be declassified on January 1 — but the Ministry of Defence has now blocked release until 2072 without explanation. Photographs were taken by two Perthshire hikers who watched the “diamond-shaped metallic craft” for ten minutes before it shot up vertically out of sight.
This news obviously isn’t sitting well with people in the ufology community or anyone else with even a passing interest in the truth. The original photos are lost except to the MoD, but a blurry, poorer quality version of one of them has been enhanced and colorized with the help of Nick Pope. He ran the MoD’s UFO investigative group for a while in the 90s and he’s seen the photos himself and read the secret reports. (We interviewed Nick Pope here earlier this year.)
Calvine UFO 1990
Please note: the colour picture is a recreation of the event. The black and white is a photo copy of one of the photographs. pic.twitter.com/NWBPL9or8d — UFO CHRONICLES PODCAST🎙 (@UFOchronpodcast) October 10, 2020
One investigative journalist reacted with the correct question upon hearing the news. “By the time the world gets to see the file, the two witnesses will be dead. It is crazy. What are the authorities trying to hide?”
That’s the pertinent question now, isn’t it? What is the British government trying to hide and why? Nick Pope knows the answers. He’s held the photos in his hands and he knows what conclusions the MoD reached when the investigation was closed. But as he explained in an article he published this morning for The Sun, the British Official Secrets Act applies to him for life and he can’t reveal the information without the government first declassifying it, though he is positive there has been a deliberate coverup going on. So we are left to speculate.
Nick indicates that there was an internal dispute taking place as to the true origins of the craft in the pictures. One side was sure that it was a top-secret American vehicle. (Our government denied this vehemently.) The other side, including Nick’s military intelligence briefer, said there was only one other source for it. Without saying the words, he simply pointed up into the sky.
This decision to bury the file still doesn’t make sense, however. If it was American, Russian, Chinese or even British tech, then sure. There would be valid national security reasons to keep it secret. But that tech would have to be at least thirty years old at this point. More likely much older since you don’t go from the drawing board to a workable prototype in a single day. And like the Tic Tacs and other craft that have been sighted, this one had no wings, rotors, flight surfaces, exhaust ports or anything else that should have allowed it to remain aloft. And if it’s from “up there,” then what security considerations would apply?
And what about the fighter jets that were seen and photographed around it? Nick hints that the government claims the origin of the planes could not be determined. Seriously? There were military fighters in the air in British airspace and nobody can figure out whose they were and what they were doing there? Excuse me, but I’m not buying it. They’re covering something up. Those jets didn’t just happen to be flying over the Scottish Highlands in the middle of the day at an altitude of only a few hundred feet and somehow fail to notice the 100-foot diameter flying saucer hovering in close proximity to them. They were either there to investigate it or they knew it would be there and they had some business associated with it.
We have a system in the United States that similarly locks away some records for many decades. But I’m not the first to speculate that it’s rarely if ever done for real reasons of national security. It’s generally done to make sure that all of the guilty parties have time to die so they won’t be held accountable for whatever it was that they were up to. Until somebody decides to provide some transparency and release those files, that’s the answer I’m going with.


hotair--2020-10-10--Biden to voters: You "don't deserve" to know my position on court-packing

It ’ s not quite the equivalent of the apocryphal “ Uncle Don ” moment , but Joe Biden ’ s dismissal of voters might be as close as it gets .
A reporter in Nevada pressed Biden over his refusal to give an answer as to whether he supports calls by fellow Democrats to add seats to the Supreme Court in retaliation for the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett .
“ Don ’ t the voters deserve to know ?
” the reporter asked .
“ No , they don ’ t deserve to know , ” Biden responded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where he began wagging his finger at the reporter ( via Twitchy ) : We “ don ’ t deserve ” to know Biden ’ s position on an issue his own party is pushing ?
Spoken like a true establishmentarian .
Right now , Team Biden must be taking a record amount of Excedrin , and Team Trump doing a record amount of video editing to package that moment into a last-weeks ad blitz .
No matter how many times Biden fidgets with his face mask in this video ( like Pelosi @ @ @ @ @ @ @ touching the outside of it ) , his campaign mask clearly slipped off here .
It ’ s not the first time that Biden has gotten provoked by questions into letting loose his inner elitist , but it ’ s surprising that it ’ s taken this long into the general election for it to happen .
When challenged in his career , Biden has at times threatened to start a fistfight or demand an IQ-test comparison .
His anger management issues had Democrats worried before the first debate , and apparently intrigued @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bringing up Biden ’ s lies about his educational record in that debate .
Biden didn ’ t take the bait , but don ’ t be surprised if Trump doesn ’ t try again after this .
Maybe Biden just wasn ’ t prepared , or perhaps he ’ s just too used to getting media softballs pitched at him to have his shields raised .
Whatever the reason , Biden loses that discipline and tells the reporter what he really thinks about the voters and what they “ deserve.
” This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the climactic scene in A Face in the Crowd , which was based on the “ Uncle Don ” urban legend , but it ’ s just as clear as to the underlying character of the person involved .

It’s not quite the equivalent of the apocryphal “Uncle Don” moment, but Joe Biden’s dismissal of voters might be as close as it gets. A reporter in Nevada pressed Biden over his refusal to give an answer as to whether he supports calls by fellow Democrats to add seats to the Supreme Court in retaliation for the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett. “Don’t the voters deserve to know?” the reporter asked.
“No, they don’t deserve to know,” Biden responded, losing his cool to the point where he began wagging his finger at the reporter (via Twitchy):
“Well sir, don’t the voters deserve to know—“ “No, they don’t deserve” to know. So not only is the Left not answering whether they will pack the courts, their standard-bearer thinks you *don’t deserve* to know whether they will. pic.twitter.com/cEj0dV5p6I — John Cooper (@thejcoop) October 10, 2020
We “don’t deserve” to know Biden’s position on an issue his own party is pushing? Spoken like a true establishmentarian. Right now, Team Biden must be taking a record amount of Excedrin, and Team Trump doing a record amount of video editing to package that moment into a last-weeks ad blitz.
No matter how many times Biden fidgets with his face mask in this video (like Pelosi, he’s violating protocols by touching the outside of it), his campaign mask clearly slipped off here. It’s not the first time that Biden has gotten provoked by questions into letting loose his inner elitist, but it’s surprising that it’s taken this long into the general election for it to happen. When challenged in his career, Biden has at times threatened to start a fistfight or demand an IQ-test comparison. His anger management issues had Democrats worried before the first debate, and apparently intrigued Donald Trump enough to goad Biden by bringing up Biden’s lies about his educational record in that debate. Biden didn’t take the bait, but don’t be surprised if Trump doesn’t try again after this.
Maybe Biden just wasn’t prepared, or perhaps he’s just too used to getting media softballs pitched at him to have his shields raised. Whatever the reason, Biden loses that discipline and tells the reporter what he really thinks about the voters and what they “deserve.” This might not be quite as dramatic as the climactic scene in A Face in the Crowd, which was based on the “Uncle Don” urban legend, but it’s just as clear as to the underlying character of the person involved.