hotair--2020-02-19--Chris Matthews: Dems lost 49 states with McGovern and it could happen again with Bernie

Via Newsbusters , between this clip and his other recent tirades I ’ d put the odds that this guy votes Trump in November if Bernie is the nominee at about 20 percent .
By next week ?
Maybe 30 percent if , as expected , Sanders wins Nevada and jumps out to a lead in South Carolina .
I don ’ t think he really believes Bernie might lose 49 states , though .
When he says “ it could happen again , ” he means that Democrats might lose in a landslide like McGovern did in 1972 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ nominate Trump buddy Rod Blagojevich and still be sure of winning California , New York , New Jersey , Illinois ( ! )
, Massachusetts , Vermont , Connecticut , Rhode Island , Maryland , Washington , and ( probably ) Delaware and Oregon .
Twelve states at worst , 175 electoral votes in the bag .
But that last 95 he ’ d need to actually win the White House would be tough .
Especially since a high-turnout election , which is what Sanders keeps promising in insisting that he ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than the Democrats : As part of its “ 100 Million Project , ” the Knight Foundation surveyed thousands of nonvoters ( defined as those who are eligible but not registered , or registered but have cast no more than one ballot in the last six national elections ) in 10 of the most competitive states to better understand what could be the most pivotal portion of the electorate , especially as 2020 may be on track to have a record-shattering turnout .
Whereas nationally more nonvoters say they would rather vote this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vote for Trump , in Arizona , Florida , Pennsylvania and Virginia , more nonvoters say they would vote for Trump than a Democrat .
In Georgia , which Trump won in 2016 , more nonvoters say they would support the Democratic nominee than Trump , and in the other battleground states polled , neither Trump nor the Democratic nominee had an advantage—or the advantage was below the margin of error .
In Michigan , Wisconsin , New Hampshire , and Nevada , Trump and the generic Dem are statistically tied , potentially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fans would interject here that their guy is the opposite of a generic Democrat ( why , he ’ s barely a Democrat at all ) .
He can compete for white working-class votes more formidably than most of his Democratic rivals and he ’ s uniquely appealing to young voters , who might be unmoved by a different nominee .
But that argument cuts both ways : Casual voters who lean right might also be more powerfully motivated to turn out in the name of defeating socialism than they would be if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ticket instead .
Trump was hugely unpopular in 2016 nationally but won the presidency because his opponent also had special liabilities .
Bernie has a special liability .
Don ’ t underestimate the power of negative partisanship .
The most notable part of Matthews ’ s spiel below is his exasperation that Sanders is on the cusp of putting this race away and he still hasn ’ t taken any hard shots from his competitors ( although that may change tonight once Bloomberg joins the fray ) .
Ben Shapiro marveled yesterday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on life support and yet she still continues to target candidates on her right instead of the progressive who ’ s depleted her potential base of leftist support : Harry Reid is also quietly exasperated , urging Bernie ’ s opponents to “ speak up ” about him before Nevada votes if they think he ’ s unelectable — while refusing to do so himself despite his huge influence in Nevada .
( Reid even made a point of telling reporters that he voted “ uncommitted ” on his ballot this year instead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ electable Democrat . )
I think punches are being pulled against Sanders for a simple reason : Like Trump in 2016 , the most hardcore elements of his base are cultish about him and the party can ’ t afford to alienate them ahead of a potentially tight general election .
Biden or Warren might get some votes grudgingly from Berniebros in the fall on pure “ Anyone but Trump ” grounds if they win the nomination while playing nice with the Great Man .
But if they disparage him or sneer at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defections .
Where do they make up those votes against Trump ?
What ’ s to be gained by nuking Bernie in the primary if it amounts to nuking yourself in the general ?
Such is the theory .
But remember that Republicans did eventually start hitting Trump hard four years ago as his lead in the primary began to look more daunting .
Rubio went after him before flaming out on Super Tuesday .
Ted Cruz hugged him for months , believing that Trump would fade on his own accord and leave @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his own base , but once he realized that wasn ’ t happening he started throwing roundhouses .
In the end , enough disgruntled Rubio and Cruz fans turned out for Trump against Clinton that fall despite the bad blood in the primary to hand him the White House .
Why Warren doesn ’ t let it all hang out against Bernie and hope for time to heal all wounds , I don ’ t know ; why the likes of Klobuchar don ’ t swing hard at him beyond sniffing that he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Maybe they just … sympathize with Sanders ’ s ideology too much to really attack it ?
( Cruz ’ s and Rubio ’ s attacks on Trump , and vice versa , were personal as much as ideological , if not more so . )
Or maybe they ’ re all caught up in the muddle in the middle and under the impression that they need to nuke each other first before nuking Bernie .
Big mistake .
It ’ s probably already too late to undo it , although Bloomberg ’ @ @ @ @ @

Via Newsbusters, between this clip and his other recent tirades I’d put the odds that this guy votes Trump in November if Bernie is the nominee at about 20 percent.
By next week? Maybe 30 percent if, as expected, Sanders wins Nevada and jumps out to a lead in South Carolina.
I don’t think he really believes Bernie might lose 49 states, though. When he says “it could happen again,” he means that Democrats might lose in a landslide like McGovern did in 1972. In our hyperpartisan age, Dems could nominate Trump buddy Rod Blagojevich and still be sure of winning California, New York, New Jersey, Illinois(!), Massachusetts, Vermont, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Maryland, Washington, and (probably) Delaware and Oregon. Twelve states at worst, 175 electoral votes in the bag.
But that last 95 he’d need to actually win the White House would be tough. Especially since a high-turnout election, which is what Sanders keeps promising in insisting that he’s electable, may well favor Trump rather than the Democrats:
As part of its “100 Million Project,” the Knight Foundation surveyed thousands of nonvoters (defined as those who are eligible but not registered, or registered but have cast no more than one ballot in the last six national elections) in 10 of the most competitive states to better understand what could be the most pivotal portion of the electorate, especially as 2020 may be on track to have a record-shattering turnout. Whereas nationally more nonvoters say they would rather vote this November for a generic Democratic nominee than vote for Trump, in Arizona, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia, more nonvoters say they would vote for Trump than a Democrat. In Georgia, which Trump won in 2016, more nonvoters say they would support the Democratic nominee than Trump, and in the other battleground states polled, neither Trump nor the Democratic nominee had an advantage—or the advantage was below the margin of error.
In Michigan, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, and Nevada, Trump and the generic Dem are statistically tied, potentially making the turnout battle a wash. Bernie fans would interject here that their guy is the opposite of a generic Democrat (why, he’s barely a Democrat at all). He can compete for white working-class votes more formidably than most of his Democratic rivals and he’s uniquely appealing to young voters, who might be unmoved by a different nominee. But that argument cuts both ways: Casual voters who lean right might also be more powerfully motivated to turn out in the name of defeating socialism than they would be if, say, Amy Klobuchar were on the ticket instead. Trump was hugely unpopular in 2016 nationally but won the presidency because his opponent also had special liabilities. Bernie has a special liability. Don’t underestimate the power of negative partisanship.
The most notable part of Matthews’s spiel below is his exasperation that Sanders is on the cusp of putting this race away and he still hasn’t taken any hard shots from his competitors (although that may change tonight once Bloomberg joins the fray). Ben Shapiro marveled yesterday that Elizabeth Warren’s campaign is on life support and yet she still continues to target candidates on her right instead of the progressive who’s depleted her potential base of leftist support:
They're going to just hand Bernie the nomination. It's unbelievable. Bloomberg isn't the frontrunner. https://t.co/zOikTTowzR — Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) February 18, 2020
Harry Reid is also quietly exasperated, urging Bernie’s opponents to “speak up” about him before Nevada votes if they think he’s unelectable — while refusing to do so himself despite his huge influence in Nevada. (Reid even made a point of telling reporters that he voted “uncommitted” on his ballot this year instead of making a pitch for a more electable Democrat.) I think punches are being pulled against Sanders for a simple reason: Like Trump in 2016, the most hardcore elements of his base are cultish about him and the party can’t afford to alienate them ahead of a potentially tight general election. Biden or Warren might get some votes grudgingly from Berniebros in the fall on pure “Anyone but Trump” grounds if they win the nomination while playing nice with the Great Man. But if they disparage him or sneer at socialism, they’re risking mass defections. Where do they make up those votes against Trump? What’s to be gained by nuking Bernie in the primary if it amounts to nuking yourself in the general?
Such is the theory. But remember that Republicans did eventually start hitting Trump hard four years ago as his lead in the primary began to look more daunting. Rubio went after him before flaming out on Super Tuesday. Ted Cruz hugged him for months, believing that Trump would fade on his own accord and leave Cruz to incorporate the Trump cult into his own base, but once he realized that wasn’t happening he started throwing roundhouses. In the end, enough disgruntled Rubio and Cruz fans turned out for Trump against Clinton that fall despite the bad blood in the primary to hand him the White House. Why Warren doesn’t let it all hang out against Bernie and hope for time to heal all wounds, I don’t know; why the likes of Klobuchar don’t swing hard at him beyond sniffing that he’s probably unelectable is unclear. Maybe they just … sympathize with Sanders’s ideology too much to really attack it? (Cruz’s and Rubio’s attacks on Trump, and vice versa, were personal as much as ideological, if not more so.) Or maybe they’re all caught up in the muddle in the middle and under the impression that they need to nuke each other first before nuking Bernie. Big mistake. It’s probably already too late to undo it, although Bloomberg’s going to try.


hotair--2020-02-19--Dartmouth College Republicans cancel event, cite threat of violence

An event was scheduled for Tuesday by the Dartmouth College Republicans featuring Republican U.S. Senate candidate Bryant “ Corky ” Messner .
The topic of discussion , a policy talk , was to be on border security and the opioid crisis .
The event was canceled due to threats of violence from left-wing activists on campus .
Stop me if you ’ ve heard this type of story before – a conservative Republican is invited to speak on a college campus .
The student leftists on campus are triggered by the mere title of a speech and decide to shut @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a spirited debate of ideas .
It happened at Dartmouth before Messner could even come and present his ideas to the student body .
The topic for the scheduled Tuesday afternoon speech was “ Building a Wall Against Drugs : The Need for Border Security to End the Opioid Crisis.
” The problem is no doubt the use of words like – “ wall ” and “ border security ” , which the open-borders crowd wants no part of .
Dartmouth College is in Hanover , New Hampshire .
Hanover is considering @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cities have signed on to .
New Hampshire is experiencing the opioid crisis as many other states are so it is a timely topic , especially with young people .
This would have been a way to communicate the value of border security , not only for the sovereignty of the United States but because of the flow of drugs coming over the border .
A “ significant ” number of Dartmouth students support the recent vote by the Hanover Selectboard to consider a resolution to make Hanover a sanctuary city .
Messner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ higher learning violating freedom of speech .
“ I ’ ve visited college campuses across the Granite State during my U.S. Senate campaign , and while I welcome these opportunities , too often I ’ ve encountered situations where the healthy exchange of ideas is discouraged by those who apparently feel threatened by even the existence of opposing viewpoints , ” Messner told NHJournal .
“ The situation at Dartmouth College is the most egregious example I ’ ve encountered of this intellectual intolerance .
Thanks to the efforts of those agitators who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the mere topic itself , mind you — we are denied the right to assemble , the right to listen to others ’ viewpoints — to even express ourselves , ” he said .
“ Ironically , freedom of speech is demonized at an institution of higher learning , where expression and exploration of ideas should be exalted , not stamped out.
” What is unclear is how much of a threat the College Democrats and others presented in their protesting of the event .
The Chairman of the College Republicans , Daniel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at its members .
The “ security risk has outpaced our capacity to handle the potential protests.
” There ’ s a large contingent of radical leftists on campus who have descended on events in the past in order to shut down speech they don ’ t agree with .
They pound on doors , rush the podium and harass the speakers .
… The backlash has been so great , we ’ re not prepared to say we will have the necessary security .
… It ’ s not just a single @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s the wider situation and the threat of radical , intense protests .
Were there numerous threats , one big threat , or just an atmosphere of uncertainty brought about in an abundance of caution due to past experiences on campus ?
It would certainly be understandable to cancel an event on today ’ s college campus , most of whom are dominated by left-leaning students unable to cope with a differing point of view .
The problem is that the college years are when a student is supposed to be exposed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of subjects .
The ability to learn the art of listening to others and to articulate a differing point of view is a part of the maturing process .
Freedom of speech and the right to assemble deserve defending , especially in higher education .
A focus was placed on a tweet ( of course ) that sounds as though it was made to incite violence .
The tweet said the community should “ band together and jump the college republicans.
” A keyboard warrior posted the tweet and then deleted it later @ @ @ @ @ @ @ student at Dartmouth who goes by the Twitter handle of “ lopsided afro boy ” .
The College Democrats ’ statement , denounced the “ xenophobia and racism ” of the event .
They used the standard Democrat talking points of calling a border wall “ racist ” and anti-immigrant .
That ’ s what the open borders crowd does – they conflate legal immigration and illegal immigration .
Any support of the rule of law is racist and xenophobic in their minds .
A statement was issued by the New Hampshire Federation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ threats “ an insult to the First Amendment ” .
As I said , it is unclear exactly how serious any threat really was but it is understandable that erring on the side of caution is the best action to take .
Today ’ s college campuses are too volatile to put students in harm ’ s way yet it ’ s a fine line to balance standing up for freedom while protecting innocent bystanders .
Messner ’ s policy talk has been canceled indefinitely .
The angry mob wins again .

An event was scheduled for Tuesday by the Dartmouth College Republicans featuring Republican U.S. Senate candidate Bryant “Corky” Messner. The topic of discussion, a policy talk, was to be on border security and the opioid crisis. The event was canceled due to threats of violence from left-wing activists on campus.
Stop me if you’ve heard this type of story before – a conservative Republican is invited to speak on a college campus. The student leftists on campus are triggered by the mere title of a speech and decide to shut the event down rather than to engage in a spirited debate of ideas. It happened at Dartmouth before Messner could even come and present his ideas to the student body.
The topic for the scheduled Tuesday afternoon speech was “Building a Wall Against Drugs: The Need for Border Security to End the Opioid Crisis.” The problem is no doubt the use of words like – “wall” and “border security”, which the open-borders crowd wants no part of. Dartmouth College is in Hanover, New Hampshire. Hanover is considering going the sanctuary city route that other cities have signed on to. New Hampshire is experiencing the opioid crisis as many other states are so it is a timely topic, especially with young people. This would have been a way to communicate the value of border security, not only for the sovereignty of the United States but because of the flow of drugs coming over the border. A “significant” number of Dartmouth students support the recent vote by the Hanover Selectboard to consider a resolution to make Hanover a sanctuary city. Messner noted the irony of an institution of higher learning violating freedom of speech.
“I’ve visited college campuses across the Granite State during my U.S. Senate campaign, and while I welcome these opportunities, too often I’ve encountered situations where the healthy exchange of ideas is discouraged by those who apparently feel threatened by even the existence of opposing viewpoints,” Messner told NHJournal. “The situation at Dartmouth College is the most egregious example I’ve encountered of this intellectual intolerance. Thanks to the efforts of those agitators who disagree with the planned event topic — the mere topic itself, mind you — we are denied the right to assemble, the right to listen to others’ viewpoints — to even express ourselves,” he said. “Ironically, freedom of speech is demonized at an institution of higher learning, where expression and exploration of ideas should be exalted, not stamped out.”
https://twitter.com/DartRepublicans/status/1229328182530191361
What is unclear is how much of a threat the College Democrats and others presented in their protesting of the event. The Chairman of the College Republicans, Daniel Bring, said that threats were directed at its members. The “security risk has outpaced our capacity to handle the potential protests.”
There’s a large contingent of radical leftists on campus who have descended on events in the past in order to shut down speech they don’t agree with. They pound on doors, rush the podium and harass the speakers. … The backlash has been so great, we’re not prepared to say we will have the necessary security. … It’s not just a single comment here or there, it’s the wider situation and the threat of radical, intense protests.
Were there numerous threats, one big threat, or just an atmosphere of uncertainty brought about in an abundance of caution due to past experiences on campus? It would certainly be understandable to cancel an event on today’s college campus, most of whom are dominated by left-leaning students unable to cope with a differing point of view. The problem is that the college years are when a student is supposed to be exposed to ideas across the board on all kinds of subjects. The ability to learn the art of listening to others and to articulate a differing point of view is a part of the maturing process. Freedom of speech and the right to assemble deserve defending, especially in higher education.
A focus was placed on a tweet (of course) that sounds as though it was made to incite violence. The tweet said the community should “band together and jump the college republicans.” A keyboard warrior posted the tweet and then deleted it later. He is alleged to be a student at Dartmouth who goes by the Twitter handle of “lopsided afro boy”.
The member provided only one example, however: a deleted tweet by a user named “lopsided afro boy” that said “dartmouth twitter should band together and jump the college republicans for that email/event. im sure none of them can fight so [sic].” The member said the user discussed being a Dartmouth student in other tweets.
The College Democrats’ statement, denounced the “xenophobia and racism” of the event. They used the standard Democrat talking points of calling a border wall “racist” and anti-immigrant. That’s what the open borders crowd does – they conflate legal immigration and illegal immigration. Any support of the rule of law is racist and xenophobic in their minds.
A statement was issued by the New Hampshire Federation of College Republicans. It calls the threats “an insult to the First Amendment”.
“The right to freedom of speech and thought is a unique value in our society that is increasingly under attack from the far left, especially on our college campuses. This type of behavior should not be tolerated by Dartmouth College or its administration — it’s time for colleges and universities to stand up and denounce this type of egregious behavior by their extreme left students.”
As I said, it is unclear exactly how serious any threat really was but it is understandable that erring on the side of caution is the best action to take. Today’s college campuses are too volatile to put students in harm’s way yet it’s a fine line to balance standing up for freedom while protecting innocent bystanders.
Griffin Mackey, secretary of Dartmouth College Republicans, told NHJournal that members had heard threats directed at both the College Republicans and at Messner. “We don’t know if they were serious or not, but our first priority has to be an event that’s safe and where people who want to hear our speaker feel welcome.”
Messner’s policy talk has been canceled indefinitely. The angry mob wins again.


hotair--2020-02-20--Poll: Trump leads all Democrats in Wisconsin

Poll: Trump leads all Democrats in Wisconsin -- and trails all in Michigan and Pennsylvania

He won 306 electoral votes four years ago ( officially 304 since two faithless electors broke ranks ) .
Twenty of those came from Pennsylvania , 16 came from Michigan .
If you flip those two states and only those two states from red to blue this fall , you end up with… 270-268 .
A Trump victory by the thinnest possible margin .
But wait .
Maine and Nebraska award a single electoral vote to the winner in each of their two congressional districts .
Steve Kornacki remembered that Trump barely held on in Nebraska ’ s second district @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , taking it 47/45 .
If Dems were to flip that too , we ’ d have a 269-269 clusterfark to end all clusterfarks .
The odds of that happening in the actual universe must be hundreds or thousands to one .
The odds of it happening in the funhouse-mirror virtual reality we all live in now ?
One hundred percent .
There ’ s no doubt that this garbage simulation is hurtling us towards the cartoon political drama of a tie for the presidency .
Quinnipiac ’ s just the first see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out today .
The good news ?
Wisconsin is basically a red state now .
The bad news ?
It ’ s the only one of the three that appears to be so .
In Wisconsin Trump leads each of the top six Democratic contenders by no less than seven points and enjoys a double-digit lead against Warren and Klobuchar .
Different story in Michigan , where he trails Biden by four and Sanders and Bloomberg by five .
And he ’ s got work to do in Pennsylvania , where he ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ points behind native son Joe Biden .
What explains the difference between Wisconsin and the other two in terms of Trump appreciation ?
One possibility is race : Wisconsin is 87 percent white and just seven percent black , noticeably different from Michigan ( 79/14 ) and Pennsylvania ( 82/12 ) .
Democrats are holding their convention in Milwaukee this year to make amends for Hillary ’ s infamous absence from the state in 2016 but the irony is that it may be off the board for them .
They ’ re better @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to flip some other red state , possibly North Carolina or elusive Florida .
What about electability , though ?
How does the current Democratic frontrunner , whose socialist dogmatism supposedly makes this race unwinnable for him , stack up against the rest of the field ?
Not bad , actually : Bernie does as well as Biden does in Wisconsin , with each trailing Trump by seven , and a point better than Biden in Michigan , leading Trump by five .
But in Pennsylvania he leads Trump by just four points @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and worse than Klobuchar and Bloomberg .
Even Pete Buttigieg is as competitive with Trump in PA as Bernie is .
And none of those candidates will provide Republicans with as much attack-ad material this fall as Sanders will .
Well … maybe Bloomberg .
But who would notice Trump ’ s ads against him when Bloomy will be running anti-Trump ads at a clip of 20 to one or whatever ?
Speaking of Democrats and electability , here ’ s what the RCP poll of polls looks like right now in South @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be Biden ’ s firewall , the state where he ’ ll win big and prove his strength with black voters , but … hoo boy .
At the moment it looks more like Biden ’ s Alamo .
The last two polls taken there have showed Sanders within two of the lead or tied for it with Biden .
Any guesses what ’ ll happen in next week ’ s polls if/when Bernie wins Nevada convincingly on Saturday ?
At least Bloomberg will still be around on Super Tuesday , ready to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been , if he hadn ’ t been fileted on national television last night at a debate a *lot* of Democrats watched .
Exit quotation :

He won 306 electoral votes four years ago (officially 304 since two faithless electors broke ranks). Twenty of those came from Pennsylvania, 16 came from Michigan. If you flip those two states and only those two states from red to blue this fall, you end up with…
270-268. A Trump victory by the thinnest possible margin.
But wait. Maine and Nebraska award a single electoral vote to the winner in each of their two congressional districts. Steve Kornacki remembered that Trump barely held on in Nebraska’s second district (which encompasses Omaha) in 2016, taking it 47/45. If Dems were to flip that too, we’d have a 269-269 clusterfark to end all clusterfarks.
The odds of that happening in the actual universe must be hundreds or thousands to one. The odds of it happening in the funhouse-mirror virtual reality we all live in now? One hundred percent. There’s no doubt that this garbage simulation is hurtling us towards the cartoon political drama of a tie for the presidency. Quinnipiac’s just the first see to it coming in its new polling out today.
The good news? Wisconsin is basically a red state now. The bad news? It’s the only one of the three that appears to be so.
In Wisconsin Trump leads each of the top six Democratic contenders by no less than seven points and enjoys a double-digit lead against Warren and Klobuchar. Different story in Michigan, where he trails Biden by four and Sanders and Bloomberg by five. And he’s got work to do in Pennsylvania, where he’s six points behind Bloomy and eight points behind native son Joe Biden. What explains the difference between Wisconsin and the other two in terms of Trump appreciation? One possibility is race: Wisconsin is 87 percent white and just seven percent black, noticeably different from Michigan (79/14) and Pennsylvania (82/12). Democrats are holding their convention in Milwaukee this year to make amends for Hillary’s infamous absence from the state in 2016 but the irony is that it may be off the board for them. They’re better off targeting MI and PA and trying to flip some other red state, possibly North Carolina or elusive Florida.
What about electability, though? How does the current Democratic frontrunner, whose socialist dogmatism supposedly makes this race unwinnable for him, stack up against the rest of the field? Not bad, actually: Bernie does as well as Biden does in Wisconsin, with each trailing Trump by seven, and a point better than Biden in Michigan, leading Trump by five. But in Pennsylvania he leads Trump by just four points, half of Biden’s margin and worse than Klobuchar and Bloomberg. Even Pete Buttigieg is as competitive with Trump in PA as Bernie is. And none of those candidates will provide Republicans with as much attack-ad material this fall as Sanders will.
Well … maybe Bloomberg. But who would notice Trump’s ads against him when Bloomy will be running anti-Trump ads at a clip of 20 to one or whatever?
Speaking of Democrats and electability, here’s what the RCP poll of polls looks like right now in South Carolina. That’s supposed to be Biden’s firewall, the state where he’ll win big and prove his strength with black voters, but … hoo boy. At the moment it looks more like Biden’s Alamo.
The last two polls taken there have showed Sanders within two of the lead or tied for it with Biden. Any guesses what’ll happen in next week’s polls if/when Bernie wins Nevada convincingly on Saturday?
At least Bloomberg will still be around on Super Tuesday, ready to stop Sanders cold. Or he would have been, if he hadn’t been fileted on national television last night at a debate a *lot* of Democrats watched. Exit quotation:


hotair--2020-02-20--Filthy streets: LA has 16 porta potties for 36,000 homeless people

NBC LA published a story this week focused on the problem of human feces on the streets of Los Angeles .
There are an estimated 36,000 homeless in the city ( 60,000 in LA County ) but the city only has 16 portable toilets and those are removed at night .
The result is people using streets , sidewalks , and even businesses as bathrooms : In one act caught on camera , a homeless man is seen waking up on South Hope Street .
He unbuckles his belt , walks over to the front door of a business , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right on the door mat in broad daylight .
“ We are not in a third world country , ” said Maria Janossy , who works in the building where the incident happened .
Next to a West Los Angeles homeless encampment , a man urinated on a cop car… “ My car has been defecated on , not once but twice , ” said Mar Vista resident Roman Samiley .
Samiley and his family live a half a block from an encampment .
“ I ’ m scared of the public health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ story notes that a hepatitis A outbreak in the city last year was partly blamed on a lack of public bathrooms for the homeless .
NBC LA asked Mayor Garcetti why the city isn ’ t doing more to keep the city ’ s streets from becoming bathrooms and he says the city can ’ t afford to do more .
“ We simultaneously have to clean up streets , clean up this crap , and build housing , ” Garcetti said .
LA isn ’ t alone in this problem .
A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ week found that homelessness is now their number one concern .
The annual City Beat Poll From San Francisco ’ s Chamber of Commerce shows that housing costs are still a major concern for San Franciscans , but now homelessness and street behavior is the number one concern .
It ’ s an issue that ’ s hard to miss on San Francisco ’ s streets , homelessness has crept into every corner of the city , and according to the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce is now the top issue that needs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ San Franciscans say it ’ s their number one concern .
Also this week California Governor Gavin Newsom said the situation was a “ disgrace ” and promised to do more to address it : “ Let ’ s call it what it is , a disgrace , that the richest state in the richest nation , succeeding across so many sectors , is failing to properly house , heal and humanely treat so many of its own people , ” Newsom said .
“ Every day , the California Dream is dimmed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ children and seniors living unfed on a concrete bed.
” … California is home to roughly 140,000 people living on the streets — about a quarter of the nation ’ s homeless population .
For Newsom , 52 , homelessness is fast emerging as a critical crucible , one that threatens to potentially derail his re-election hopes in 2022 if tangible solutions are not found .
To date , Newsom ’ s administration has allocated $ 1.5 billion to help local governments tackle homelessness , but evidence of big changes remain elusive .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ so this isn ’ t an issue of partisan gridlock .
This is a problem of Democrats who are unwilling to admit that the cost of providing housing and services to California ’ s estimate 140,000 homeless ( more than 1/4 of the nation ’ s total ) would be extraordinary and would require a serious bump in taxes .
In addition , homeless activists don ’ t want to admit that a substantial portion of this problem is driven by addiction and mental illness , neither of which can be solved with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ So for the meantime we have an increasingly bad situation playing out on the streets .

NBC LA published a story this week focused on the problem of human feces on the streets of Los Angeles. There are an estimated 36,000 homeless in the city (60,000 in LA County) but the city only has 16 portable toilets and those are removed at night. The result is people using streets, sidewalks, and even businesses as bathrooms:
In one act caught on camera, a homeless man is seen waking up on South Hope Street. He unbuckles his belt, walks over to the front door of a business, pulls down his pants, and defecates right on the door mat in broad daylight. “We are not in a third world country,” said Maria Janossy, who works in the building where the incident happened. Next to a West Los Angeles homeless encampment, a man urinated on a cop car… “My car has been defecated on, not once but twice,” said Mar Vista resident Roman Samiley. Samiley and his family live a half a block from an encampment. “I’m scared of the public health hazards,” he said.
The story notes that a hepatitis A outbreak in the city last year was partly blamed on a lack of public bathrooms for the homeless.
NBC LA asked Mayor Garcetti why the city isn’t doing more to keep the city’s streets from becoming bathrooms and he says the city can’t afford to do more. “We simultaneously have to clean up streets, clean up this crap, and build housing,” Garcetti said.
LA isn’t alone in this problem. A survey of San Francisco residents published this week found that homelessness is now their number one concern.
The annual City Beat Poll From San Francisco’s Chamber of Commerce shows that housing costs are still a major concern for San Franciscans, but now homelessness and street behavior is the number one concern. It’s an issue that’s hard to miss on San Francisco’s streets, homelessness has crept into every corner of the city, and according to the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce is now the top issue that needs to be tackled. 71% of San Franciscans say it’s their number one concern.
Also this week California Governor Gavin Newsom said the situation was a “disgrace” and promised to do more to address it:
“Let’s call it what it is, a disgrace, that the richest state in the richest nation, succeeding across so many sectors, is failing to properly house, heal and humanely treat so many of its own people,” Newsom said. “Every day, the California Dream is dimmed by the wrenching reality of families, children and seniors living unfed on a concrete bed.”… California is home to roughly 140,000 people living on the streets — about a quarter of the nation’s homeless population. For Newsom, 52, homelessness is fast emerging as a critical crucible, one that threatens to potentially derail his re-election hopes in 2022 if tangible solutions are not found. To date, Newsom’s administration has allocated $1.5 billion to help local governments tackle homelessness, but evidence of big changes remain elusive.
Democrats have complete control of the state so this isn’t an issue of partisan gridlock. This is a problem of Democrats who are unwilling to admit that the cost of providing housing and services to California’s estimate 140,000 homeless (more than 1/4 of the nation’s total) would be extraordinary and would require a serious bump in taxes.
In addition, homeless activists don’t want to admit that a substantial portion of this problem is driven by addiction and mental illness, neither of which can be solved with higher density housing or cheaper rent. So for the meantime we have an increasingly bad situation playing out on the streets.


hotair--2020-02-20--Report: Trump dumped acting DNI because he mistakenly thought deputy had secretly briefed Adam Schif

Report: Trump dumped acting DNI because he mistakenly thought deputy had secretly briefed Adam Schiff; Update: About Russia trying to help Trump in the election?

A weird story even by the exceptionally weird standards of the Trump era .
If WaPo ’ s reporting is correct , someone misled the president into believing that a special secret briefing for his archenemy , Adam Schiff , had been arranged by his own administration .
Or , alternately , WaPo ’ s sources are in the dark about that secret briefing but Trump ’ s sources are not .
Let ’ s back up .
Supposedly Trump freaked out last week when he heard that an aide to his acting director of national intelligence , Joseph Maguire @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election security .
That was the end of Maguire ’ s chances at being nominated to take over the role permanently , clearing the way for Ric Grenell to be shuffled over into the acting director ’ s slot instead .
Just one wrinkle : That individual meeting with Schiff supposedly didn ’ t happen .
Maguire had been considered a leading candidate to be nominated for the DNI post , White House aides had said .
But Trump ’ s opinion shifted last week , after he heard from a GOP ally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election security , who works for Maguire , gave a classified briefing last Thursday to the House Intelligence Committee on 2020 election security .
It ’ s unclear what the official , Shelby Pierson , specifically said at the briefing that angered Trump , But the president erroneously believed that she had given information exclusively to Rep. Adam Schiff ( D-Calif. ) , the committee chairman , and it would be helpful to Democrats if released publicly , the people familiar with the matter said… Pierson , who coordinates the intelligence community ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ threats to U.S. elections , spoke at a briefing held for the full committee on “ election security and foreign interference in the run-up to the 2020 election , ” said a committee official , who spoke on condition of anonymity to detail closed-door proceedings .
There was no special briefing for any individual member , said the source .
And yes , Republicans were present for the full committee briefing , including Devin Nunes .
Which raises the question : Er , what sort of information about election security does Trump think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if released publicly ” that he ’ d throw a fit and immediately appoint a new acting DNI because he feared it had leaked to Schiff ?
One possibility , as I say , is that WaPo has bad information .
Maybe someone close to Trump on the committee like Nunes has reason to believe that Schiff did get some type of special briefing even if the paper ’ s sources don ’ t .
The other possibility is that … the president is being lied to by his own trusted confidants for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had a grudge against Maguire and/or Pierson and knew exactly what to say to Trump to get them nuked .
Or conceivably that person wanted Maguire out of the job and Grenell in .
Accusing Maguire of disloyalty and packaging it with a recommendation that Grenell could be trusted might result in the latter replacing the former .
The extreme Machiavellian scenario is that Trump knew there was no secret briefing for Schiff but leveled the accusation anyway as a reason to rotate Maguire out and Grenell in .
Trump may have a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as Maguire was the official who ultimately forwarded the whistleblower complaint in the Ukraine matter to Congress after holding it back for a few weeks in September .
Schiff had excoriated Maguire for the delay at the time ; Maguire ultimately relented .
Trump might have regarded that as “ weak ” or scapegoated Maguire for his subsequent political ordeal and used this incident as a pretext to bring in a loyalist like Grenell .
My suspicion yesterday was that he wanted Grenell in the role because he knew Grenell could be counted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vendetta for him against intel personnel who ’ d made his life difficult during impeachment ( and before ) .
Trump loves having acting directors in leadership roles because they don ’ t have to pass Senate scrutiny and they may be more obedient to the president in the hope of being nominated to the position permanently .
But WaPo cites a source who claims that he ’ s planning to nominate someone permanently to the DNI position before March 11 .
And Grenell himself suggested today that he ’ s in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a different person destined to be the nominee : I don ’ t know if Grenell could get confirmed anyway .
Federal law states that “ Any individual nominated for appointment as Director of National Intelligence shall have extensive national security expertise.
” No doubt Trump would prefer to nominate Nunes , whose time on the Intel Committee probably does give him sufficient “ expertise ” for the position .
But he ’ s a political crony of the president ’ s .
Are there four Republicans in the Senate who ’ d @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in charge of intel ?
Update : Aha .
So that ’ s the information Trump didn ’ t want Schiff to have .
Intelligence officials warned House lawmakers last week that Russia was interfering in the 2020 campaign to try to get President Trump re-elected , five people familiar with the matter said , in a disclosure that angered Mr. Trump , who complained that Democrats would use it against him .
The day after the Feb. 13 briefing to lawmakers , Mr. Trump berated Joseph Maguire , the outgoing acting director @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to take place , people familiar with the exchange said .
Mr. Trump cited the presence in the briefing of Representative Adam B. Schiff , the California Democrat who led the impeachment proceedings against him , as a particular irritant .
During the briefing to the House Intelligence Committee , Mr. Trump ’ s allies challenged the conclusions , arguing that Mr. Trump has been tough on Russia and strengthened European security .
Some intelligence officials viewed the briefing as a tactical error , saying that had official who delivered the conclusion spoken @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they would have avoided angering the Republicans .
Sounds to me like it wasn ’ t the thought of Schiff hearing this *privately* that freaked out Trump , it was the thought of him or any other Democrat hearing it at all .
The Times ’ s sources say that Grenell was already in talks to take over as acting DNI and that the blow-up with Maguire was coincidental .
Maybe .
But if you ’ re a president who ’ s eager to bottle up some very unhelpful information about Russia trying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for you this fall , you ’ d feel better with Trumpist loyalist Ric Grenell riding herd than Maguire .
As for whether Russia truly would prefer Trump as president , it probably depends on the Democratic primary .
Prefer him to Joe Biden or Mike Bloomberg ?
Sure .
They ’ re both neoliberal hawks and internationalists , the sort of people who ’ d recommit to NATO .
Prefer him to Bernie Sanders , though ?
Eh .
That ’ s tougher .
If it ’ s true that Putin aims @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the U.S. more so than he craves a particular outcome then he might try to double down on Trump purely as a way of delegitimizing him if he ’ s reelected .
But I ’ ve always assumed that Trump will be much bolder in his Trumpy initiatives in a second term than he ’ s been in his first , encouraged by winning reelection and no longer having to worry about facing voters .
He might very well withdraw from NATO , the Korean peninsula , and/or the Middle East in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would go that far , less because he ’ s opposed in principle than because his party loathes Russia now for its 2016 meddling and won ’ t want him to surrender entire regions to Putin .
So yeah , although Trump has been harder on Russia in many ways ( arming Ukraine , withdrawing from the INF Treaty ) than one might have assumed when he was reelected , it ’ s at least arguable that he ’ s a better bet for the Kremlin than the Democrat would be .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interfering is to encourage exactly that sort of calculus among Americans , isn ’ t it ?

A weird story even by the exceptionally weird standards of the Trump era.
If WaPo’s reporting is correct, someone misled the president into believing that a special secret briefing for his archenemy, Adam Schiff, had been arranged by his own administration.
Or, alternately, WaPo’s sources are in the dark about that secret briefing but Trump’s sources are not.
Let’s back up. Supposedly Trump freaked out last week when he heard that an aide to his acting director of national intelligence, Joseph Maguire, had met individually with Schiff about election security. That was the end of Maguire’s chances at being nominated to take over the role permanently, clearing the way for Ric Grenell to be shuffled over into the acting director’s slot instead. Just one wrinkle: That individual meeting with Schiff supposedly didn’t happen.
Maguire had been considered a leading candidate to be nominated for the DNI post, White House aides had said. But Trump’s opinion shifted last week, after he heard from a GOP ally that the intelligence official in charge of election security, who works for Maguire, gave a classified briefing last Thursday to the House Intelligence Committee on 2020 election security. It’s unclear what the official, Shelby Pierson, specifically said at the briefing that angered Trump, But the president erroneously believed that she had given information exclusively to Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the committee chairman, and it would be helpful to Democrats if released publicly, the people familiar with the matter said… Pierson, who coordinates the intelligence community’s efforts to gather information on foreign threats to U.S. elections, spoke at a briefing held for the full committee on “election security and foreign interference in the run-up to the 2020 election,” said a committee official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to detail closed-door proceedings.
There was no special briefing for any individual member, said the source. And yes, Republicans were present for the full committee briefing, including Devin Nunes.
Which raises the question: Er, what sort of information about election security does Trump think would be so “helpful to Democrats if released publicly” that he’d throw a fit and immediately appoint a new acting DNI because he feared it had leaked to Schiff?
One possibility, as I say, is that WaPo has bad information. Maybe someone close to Trump on the committee like Nunes has reason to believe that Schiff did get some type of special briefing even if the paper’s sources don’t. The other possibility is that … the president is being lied to by his own trusted confidants for reasons that are unclear. Conceivably someone had a grudge against Maguire and/or Pierson and knew exactly what to say to Trump to get them nuked. Or conceivably that person wanted Maguire out of the job and Grenell in. Accusing Maguire of disloyalty and packaging it with a recommendation that Grenell could be trusted might result in the latter replacing the former.
The extreme Machiavellian scenario is that Trump knew there was no secret briefing for Schiff but leveled the accusation anyway as a reason to rotate Maguire out and Grenell in. Trump may have a grudge of his own against Maguire, as Maguire was the official who ultimately forwarded the whistleblower complaint in the Ukraine matter to Congress after holding it back for a few weeks in September. Schiff had excoriated Maguire for the delay at the time; Maguire ultimately relented. Trump might have regarded that as “weak” or scapegoated Maguire for his subsequent political ordeal and used this incident as a pretext to bring in a loyalist like Grenell.
My suspicion yesterday was that he wanted Grenell in the role because he knew Grenell could be counted on to carry out some sort of vendetta for him against intel personnel who’d made his life difficult during impeachment (and before). Trump loves having acting directors in leadership roles because they don’t have to pass Senate scrutiny and they may be more obedient to the president in the hope of being nominated to the position permanently. But WaPo cites a source who claims that he’s planning to nominate someone permanently to the DNI position before March 11. And Grenell himself suggested today that he’s in a seat-warmer role as acting director, with a different person destined to be the nominee:
Correct. Acting. The President will announce the Nominee (not me) sometime soon. https://t.co/9ShqB2eXea — Richard Grenell (@RichardGrenell) February 20, 2020
I don’t know if Grenell could get confirmed anyway. Federal law states that “Any individual nominated for appointment as Director of National Intelligence shall have extensive national security expertise.” No doubt Trump would prefer to nominate Nunes, whose time on the Intel Committee probably does give him sufficient “expertise” for the position. But he’s a political crony of the president’s. Are there four Republicans in the Senate who’d object to having a person like that in charge of intel?
Update: Aha. So that’s the information Trump didn’t want Schiff to have.
Intelligence officials warned House lawmakers last week that Russia was interfering in the 2020 campaign to try to get President Trump re-elected, five people familiar with the matter said, in a disclosure that angered Mr. Trump, who complained that Democrats would use it against him. The day after the Feb. 13 briefing to lawmakers, Mr. Trump berated Joseph Maguire, the outgoing acting director of national intelligence, for allowing it to take place, people familiar with the exchange said. Mr. Trump cited the presence in the briefing of Representative Adam B. Schiff, the California Democrat who led the impeachment proceedings against him, as a particular irritant. During the briefing to the House Intelligence Committee, Mr. Trump’s allies challenged the conclusions, arguing that Mr. Trump has been tough on Russia and strengthened European security. Some intelligence officials viewed the briefing as a tactical error, saying that had official who delivered the conclusion spoken less pointedly or left it out, they would have avoided angering the Republicans.
Sounds to me like it wasn’t the thought of Schiff hearing this *privately* that freaked out Trump, it was the thought of him or any other Democrat hearing it at all.
The Times’s sources say that Grenell was already in talks to take over as acting DNI and that the blow-up with Maguire was coincidental. Maybe. But if you’re a president who’s eager to bottle up some very unhelpful information about Russia trying to put a thumb on the scale for you this fall, you’d feel better with Trumpist loyalist Ric Grenell riding herd than Maguire.
As for whether Russia truly would prefer Trump as president, it probably depends on the Democratic primary. Prefer him to Joe Biden or Mike Bloomberg? Sure. They’re both neoliberal hawks and internationalists, the sort of people who’d recommit to NATO. Prefer him to Bernie Sanders, though? Eh. That’s tougher. If it’s true that Putin aims to foster suspicion and discord around elections in the U.S. more so than he craves a particular outcome then he might try to double down on Trump purely as a way of delegitimizing him if he’s reelected. But I’ve always assumed that Trump will be much bolder in his Trumpy initiatives in a second term than he’s been in his first, encouraged by winning reelection and no longer having to worry about facing voters. He might very well withdraw from NATO, the Korean peninsula, and/or the Middle East in a second term. Not even Bernie would go that far, less because he’s opposed in principle than because his party loathes Russia now for its 2016 meddling and won’t want him to surrender entire regions to Putin.
So yeah, although Trump has been harder on Russia in many ways (arming Ukraine, withdrawing from the INF Treaty) than one might have assumed when he was reelected, it’s at least arguable that he’s a better bet for the Kremlin than the Democrat would be. But then, part of their goal in interfering is to encourage exactly that sort of calculus among Americans, isn’t it?


hotair--2020-02-20--Grenell to ODNI: Breakthrough appointment or ideological takeover?

Or both ?
Probably both , but at least one of these isn ’ t unprecedented .
Donald Trump appointed US Ambassador Richard Grenell to take over as acting director of national intelligence , replacing currently-acting ODNI Joseph Maguire .
That makes Grenell the first openly-gay Cabinet member in US history , a point that — not surprisingly — isn ’ t getting a lot of credit from the media coverage .
Grenell ’ s track record of political support for Trump is , however : President Donald Trump announced that Richard Grenell , the U.S. ambassador to Germany , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a move that puts a staunch Trump ally in charge of the nation ’ s 17 spy agencies , which the president has only tepidly embraced .
“ Rick has represented our Country exceedingly well and I look forward to working with him , ” Trump tweeted on Wednesday.A White House statement Thursday said Grenell “ is committed to a nonpolitical , nonpartisan approach″ to the job .
Grenell follows Joseph Maguire , who has been acting national intelligence director since August .
It was unclear if Maguire would return to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like to thank Joe Maguire for the wonderful job he has done , ” Trump tweeted , “ and we look forward to working with him closely , perhaps in another capacity within the Administration !
” Grenell , a loyal and outspoken Trump supporter , becomes the first openly gay member of Trump ’ s Cabinet .
He has been the U.S. ambassador to Germany since 2018 .
He previously served as U.S. spokesman at the United Nations in the George W. Bush administration , including under then-Ambassador John Bolton .
Actually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first openly gay Cabinet member of any administration .
Perhaps the impact of that is lower these days as these “ firsts ” become more ubiquitous and less notable .
Or perhaps it ’ s just that the media isn ’ t as interested in them when they take place in Republican administrations .
Back to the substance of the appointment — whatever Grenell ’ s approach , it will only last seven months .
The Federal Vacancies Act only allows that long for an “ acting ” appointment without a follow-up formal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only hold this job until the middle of September at the longest .
Grenell himself announced that he will not be the nominee for a permanent replacement for Dan Coats , whose resignation put Maguire in charge until now : That ’ s too long for Grenell ’ s critics , who claim his lack of experience is unprecedented for this position .
Even the New York Times notes that ’ s not quite true , although he might be the most openly partisan selection : While intelligence directors have tried to serve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Grenell ’ s experience as an ideological advocate prompted some former officials to express concern that he could color the intelligence he presents to Mr. Trump rather than present an objective assessment .
“ This is a job requiring leadership , management , substance and secrecy , ” said John Sipher , a former C.I.A .
officer .
“ He doesn ’ t have the kind of background and experience we would expect for such a critical position.
” … He would be the latest in a line of intelligence directors who have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ military backgrounds rather than stints in the intelligence world .
But Mr. Grenell is also an acerbic combatant who throws regular punches at “ fake news ” reporters and Mr. Trump ’ s opponents online .
The ODNI position only has a sixteen-year history , and the position has generally gone to former command officers in the military — Mike McConnell , Dennis Blair , and James Clapper , for instance .
The first ODNI , John Negroponte , also came out of the ambassadorial ranks , but he spent decades in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ However , political appointments are more common for the CIA , including former Reps. Porter Goss and Mike Pompeo , and Clinton political adviser Leon Panetta — who actually did a credible job in the position .
Panetta ’ s appointment also raised questions about a lack of experience in intelligence and in running large bureaucracies ( other than being Clinton ’ s chief of staff for two and a half years ) .
The fulminating over a political appointment at ODNI is therefore quite a bit overblown , especially given its temporary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as Grenell will remain US Ambassador to Germany ) .
The real problem for the intel community will come if/when Trump picks a military command officer ally for the post with the requisite credentials to sail through a confirmation hearing .
People have laughed up their sleeve about the intel community pushing back against Trump , but to the extent they ’ ve been doing that , they have left themselves open for presidential pushback , too .
That ’ s the risk of playing politics — you don ’ t always @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , congratulations to Ambassador Grenell for his new groundbreaking appointment .
Let ’ s hope everyone rises to the occasion and gets back to business .

Or both? Probably both, but at least one of these isn’t unprecedented. Donald Trump appointed US Ambassador Richard Grenell to take over as acting director of national intelligence, replacing currently-acting ODNI Joseph Maguire. That makes Grenell the first openly-gay Cabinet member in US history, a point that — not surprisingly — isn’t getting a lot of credit from the media coverage.
Grenell’s track record of political support for Trump is, however:
President Donald Trump announced that Richard Grenell, the U.S. ambassador to Germany, will become acting director of national intelligence, a move that puts a staunch Trump ally in charge of the nation’s 17 spy agencies, which the president has only tepidly embraced. “Rick has represented our Country exceedingly well and I look forward to working with him,” Trump tweeted on Wednesday.A White House statement Thursday said Grenell “is committed to a nonpolitical, nonpartisan approach″ to the job. Grenell follows Joseph Maguire, who has been acting national intelligence director since August. It was unclear if Maguire would return to the National Counterterrorism Center. “I would like to thank Joe Maguire for the wonderful job he has done,” Trump tweeted, “and we look forward to working with him closely, perhaps in another capacity within the Administration!” Grenell, a loyal and outspoken Trump supporter, becomes the first openly gay member of Trump’s Cabinet. He has been the U.S. ambassador to Germany since 2018. He previously served as U.S. spokesman at the United Nations in the George W. Bush administration, including under then-Ambassador John Bolton.
Actually, it appears that Grenell is the first openly gay Cabinet member of any administration. Perhaps the impact of that is lower these days as these “firsts” become more ubiquitous and less notable. Or perhaps it’s just that the media isn’t as interested in them when they take place in Republican administrations.
Back to the substance of the appointment — whatever Grenell’s approach, it will only last seven months. The Federal Vacancies Act only allows that long for an “acting” appointment without a follow-up formal nomination, which means that Grenell can only hold this job until the middle of September at the longest. Grenell himself announced that he will not be the nominee for a permanent replacement for Dan Coats, whose resignation put Maguire in charge until now:
Correct. Acting. The President will announce the Nominee (not me) sometime soon. https://t.co/9ShqB2eXea — Richard Grenell (@RichardGrenell) February 20, 2020
That’s too long for Grenell’s critics, who claim his lack of experience is unprecedented for this position. Even the New York Times notes that’s not quite true, although he might be the most openly partisan selection:
While intelligence directors have tried to serve as neutral arbiters of facts, Mr. Grenell’s experience as an ideological advocate prompted some former officials to express concern that he could color the intelligence he presents to Mr. Trump rather than present an objective assessment. “This is a job requiring leadership, management, substance and secrecy,” said John Sipher, a former C.I.A. officer. “He doesn’t have the kind of background and experience we would expect for such a critical position.” … He would be the latest in a line of intelligence directors who have had varied policy experience including diplomatic or military backgrounds rather than stints in the intelligence world. But Mr. Grenell is also an acerbic combatant who throws regular punches at “fake news” reporters and Mr. Trump’s opponents online.
The ODNI position only has a sixteen-year history, and the position has generally gone to former command officers in the military — Mike McConnell, Dennis Blair, and James Clapper, for instance. The first ODNI, John Negroponte, also came out of the ambassadorial ranks, but he spent decades in the State Department before getting the appointment. However, political appointments are more common for the CIA, including former Reps. Porter Goss and Mike Pompeo, and Clinton political adviser Leon Panetta — who actually did a credible job in the position. Panetta’s appointment also raised questions about a lack of experience in intelligence and in running large bureaucracies (other than being Clinton’s chief of staff for two and a half years).
The fulminating over a political appointment at ODNI is therefore quite a bit overblown, especially given its temporary nature (and part-time nature, too, as Grenell will remain US Ambassador to Germany). The real problem for the intel community will come if/when Trump picks a military command officer ally for the post with the requisite credentials to sail through a confirmation hearing. People have laughed up their sleeve about the intel community pushing back against Trump, but to the extent they’ve been doing that, they have left themselves open for presidential pushback, too. That’s the risk of playing politics — you don’t always get to win.
At any rate, congratulations to Ambassador Grenell for his new groundbreaking appointment. Let’s hope everyone rises to the occasion and gets back to business.


hotair--2020-02-20--Daily Mail: Named source claims Ilhan Omar admitted to marrying her brother (Update)

Questions about Rep. Ilhan Omar ’ s odd marriage history have been circulating for quite a while now .
Today , the Daily Mail reports that a blogger named Abdihakim Osman has come forward to confirm the most explosive allegation about Omar , i.e .
that her second husband Ahmed Elmi was in fact her brother : Abdihakim Osman is the first person to go on record to speak of how Omar said she wanted to get her brother papers so he could stay in the United States , at a time when she was married to her first husband @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had been a wedding until the media turned up the marriage certificate years later , ’ Osman , 40 , exclusively told DailyMail.com .
Osman knew Ilhan Omar and her first husband Ahmed Abdisalan Hirsi who had married in a religious ceremony in 2002 .
Years later , Osman said a man named Elmi began hanging around with the couple , starting in the late 2000s .
Both Omar and Hirsi identified him as Omar ’ s brother : ‘ He was very feminine in the way he dressed — he would wear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , very , short shorts in the summer .
People started whispering about him .
‘ [ Hirsi ] and Ilhan both told me it was Ilhan ’ s brother and he had been living in London but he was mixing with what were seen as bad influences that the family did not like .
‘ So they sent him to Minneapolis as ” rehab ” .
’ It sounds to me like Osman is suggesting there ’ s some sort of gay subplot to this story .
In any case , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2009 ( in a legal ceremony as opposed to her religious marriage to Hirsi ) no one in the community knew about it .
In fact , the person who married Omar and Elmi is a Christian minister .
Why would Omar choose to be married by a Christian ?
Osman suggests this was an attempt to get outside the Somali Muslim community and find someone who wouldn ’ t already know the two were related .
‘ She said she needed to get papers for her brother to go to school .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ papers together to allow him to stay in this country .
‘ Once she had the papers they could apply for student loans .
Omar and Elmi both moved to Fargo and attended North Dakota State University .
Omar would eventually divorce Elmi in 2017 and marry Hirsi in a civil ceremony .
But Osman says he doesn ’ t believe Omar and Hirsi were ever really apart .
Omar did eventually divorce Hirsi in 2019 .
Omar ’ s office refused to give a statement on the Daily Mail ’ s story @ @ @ @ @ @ @ personal life .
Last month we learned that reporter David Steinberg had turned over previously unreported information on Omar ’ s marriage to the FBI and the FBI was said to be looking into it .
No doubt the FBI will be eager to talk to Abdihakim Osman about his recollections of what Omar told him about Elmi .
Update : Ilhan Omar responds…sort of .
She ’ s shaming Meghan McCain for sharing the story on Twitter .

Questions about Rep. Ilhan Omar’s odd marriage history have been circulating for quite a while now. Today, the Daily Mail reports that a blogger named Abdihakim Osman has come forward to confirm the most explosive allegation about Omar, i.e. that her second husband Ahmed Elmi was in fact her brother:
Abdihakim Osman is the first person to go on record to speak of how Omar said she wanted to get her brother papers so he could stay in the United States, at a time when she was married to her first husband Ahmed Hirsi… ‘No one knew there had been a wedding until the media turned up the marriage certificate years later,’ Osman, 40, exclusively told DailyMail.com.
Osman knew Ilhan Omar and her first husband Ahmed Abdisalan Hirsi who had married in a religious ceremony in 2002. Years later, Osman said a man named Elmi began hanging around with the couple, starting in the late 2000s. Both Omar and Hirsi identified him as Omar’s brother:
‘He was very feminine in the way he dressed — he would wear light lipstick and pink clothes and very, very, short shorts in the summer. People started whispering about him. ‘[Hirsi] and Ilhan both told me it was Ilhan’s brother and he had been living in London but he was mixing with what were seen as bad influences that the family did not like. ‘So they sent him to Minneapolis as ”rehab”.’
It sounds to me like Osman is suggesting there’s some sort of gay subplot to this story. In any case, he claims that when Omar married him in 2009 (in a legal ceremony as opposed to her religious marriage to Hirsi) no one in the community knew about it. In fact, the person who married Omar and Elmi is a Christian minister. Why would Omar choose to be married by a Christian? Osman suggests this was an attempt to get outside the Somali Muslim community and find someone who wouldn’t already know the two were related.
‘She said she needed to get papers for her brother to go to school. We all thought she was just getting papers together to allow him to stay in this country. ‘Once she had the papers they could apply for student loans.
Omar and Elmi both moved to Fargo and attended North Dakota State University. Omar would eventually divorce Elmi in 2017 and marry Hirsi in a civil ceremony. But Osman says he doesn’t believe Omar and Hirsi were ever really apart. Omar did eventually divorce Hirsi in 2019.
Omar’s office refused to give a statement on the Daily Mail’s story saying she does not comment on her personal life.
Last month we learned that reporter David Steinberg had turned over previously unreported information on Omar’s marriage to the FBI and the FBI was said to be looking into it. No doubt the FBI will be eager to talk to Abdihakim Osman about his recollections of what Omar told him about Elmi.
Update: Ilhan Omar responds…sort of. She’s shaming Meghan McCain for sharing the story on Twitter.


hotair--2020-02-20--Roger Stone spokesman: Please, Mr. President, it's time for a pardon

Everyone ’ s understood for many months that Stone will ultimately be pardoned but not until the last few weeks has the conventional wisdom shifted to him being pardoned soon .
Real soon .
Soon enough that I rescheduled some stuff to get this post up at 4 p.m. just in case the royal decree is handed down this afternoon , rendering this thread stale .
Why the shift from the longstanding CW that Trump would wait until after the election to do it , when he no longer faces consequences from voters ?
It ’ s a combination of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s acquittal on the Ukraine quid pro quo in the Senate , which taught him that he can do any shady thing he wants as president and will never face consequences from his party .
2 .
The DOJ ’ s decision not to charge Andrew McCabe , which reportedly infuriated a president who craves legal revenge on his enemies and isn ’ t getting much of it from “ his ” Justice Department .
That may have convinced him to take direct action in criminal matters of interest to him .
3 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ago , embodied in the repulsive person of Rod Blagojevich , which proved that Trump now feels sufficiently confident about reelection that he ’ s willing to gross everyone out with dubious shows of mercy towards cronies even before the big vote .
My prediction is that he ’ ll wait to issue the pardon until Judge Jackson rules on Stone ’ s motion for a new trial due to partisan bias by the jury foreperson .
No sense doing it before then , just in case the motion is granted .
Then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the court agrees with them that the prosecution was flawed before the pardon is duly issued .
Until then , though , Team Stone is going to beg : “ It ’ s not a question of if , ” said one former senior official to Politico this morning before the sentencing about the prospects of a pardon .
“ It ’ s when.
” Trump aides in the White House and circling around his 2020 reelection campaign say the president is just being cautious and heeding advice to at least wait @ @ @ @ @ @ @ court process plays out a little bit more .
And among people close to Stone , there ’ s high confidence that the president will remember the 35-plus year relationship the two men share and ultimately spare him from going to prison… Stone and Trump have a history unlike anyone else around the president .
They ’ ve known each other since Ronald Reagan ’ s 1980 White House campaign and maintained a rapport that includes Stone counseling Trump during four potential presidential runs and Trump hiring Stone as a lobbyist to represent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In his most recent book , Stone boasted that he knew about Trump ’ s 2016 plans more than two years before the formal campaign announcement .
And even after Trump and Stone officially parted ways not long after the campaign launch , the two continued speaking , with Stone serving as the campaign ’ s unofficial conduit to WikiLeaks , the controversial Julian Assange-led outfit that published scores of stolen emails embarrassing to Hillary Clinton during key moments of the presidential race .
I wonder how many Democrats , starting with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ d skipped impeachment over Ukraine and had it available to them for when Trump starts pardoning his buddies .
Stone “ was not prosecuted for standing up for the president ; he was prosecuted for covering up for the president , ” said Jackson in court today .
House Dems could have seized on that and impeached him for using the pardon power corruptly by extending it to a crony who ’ d “ covered up for the president ” himself .
Maybe that impeachment would have been more popular than the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it have been *less* popular ? )
It certainly would have been more straightforward .
And it would have forced Senate Republicans to defend the idea that there ’ s nothing wrong with the president freeing his own deputies from criminal convictions stemming from an investigation of his own campaign .
No doubt they would have ended up defending it vigorously — I can easily picture Ted Cruz or Lindsey Graham chanting “ the pardon power is plenary ” over and over in response to questions — but the politics might have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were for the convoluted Ukraine saga .
But you only get one shot at impeachment .
And Trump knows it better than anyone .
So House Dems will have to grin and bear it when the pardon comes , and nervously assure themselves that our country ’ s gradual civic collapse isn ’ t so far gone yet that swing voters will just shrug off Trump pardoning one of his buddies after he was convicted by Bill Barr ’ s own Justice Department .
Which brings me to the real mystery in this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do when Trump pardons Stone ?
In all likelihood he ’ ll roll over and start chanting about plenary powers too .
He ’ s an ardent defender of executive prerogatives , after all , and Politico remembered that he strongly supported Bush 41 pardoning political cronies in the Iran-Contra affair .
He ’ ll probably just shrug and say “ It ’ s the president ’ s call.
” But he ’ s been noisy lately about how Trump ’ s meddling in criminal cases has made his job harder , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thought Stone ’ s prosecution and conviction was “ righteous.
” A pardon issuing without Stone serving a day in prison would make a joke of the Justice Department , signaling the president ’ s belief that Barr and his deputies had prosecuted him unjustly .
How much more time and money should the DOJ waste in the future on investigating Trump favorites like Rudy Giuliani or Erik Prince , not knowing if Trump will step in at some point and undo all of their work with one pen stroke ?
Barr ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ investigate Trump ’ s enemies ( see , e.g.
, the Durham probe ) and to seek leniency for Trump ’ s allies ( see , e.g.
, the revised sentencing recommendations for Stone and Mike Flynn ) but he understandably resents Trump making him look like a schmuck in front of his own deputies with tweets that seem to imply that he ’ s doing POTUS ’ s bidding .
Pardoning Stone would make him look like an even bigger schmuck , wiping away a successful conviction for reasons of presidential friendship @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dress it up in the language of “ unfairness.
” In fact , to the extent that he defends the pardon on grounds that the prosecution was unfair rather than him just doing a solid for a buddy , he makes Barr look even worse .
Why is his AG being so “ unfair ” to people ?
Maybe he should resign in disgrace .
But then we ’ d get someone worse .
Everyone understands that too .
Here he is talking about pardoning Stone today .
He ’ s going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ says — which I think is an allusion to waiting on Jackson to rule on his motion for a new trial , as I expected .
Whether he ’ d also let the “ process ” play out if Stone loses the motion and has to go to prison while his appeals are pending is a different matter .

Everyone’s understood for many months that Stone will ultimately be pardoned but not until the last few weeks has the conventional wisdom shifted to him being pardoned soon. Real soon. Soon enough that I rescheduled some stuff to get this post up at 4 p.m. just in case the royal decree is handed down this afternoon, rendering this thread stale. Why the shift from the longstanding CW that Trump would wait until after the election to do it, when he no longer faces consequences from voters? It’s a combination of three things:
1. Trump’s acquittal on the Ukraine quid pro quo in the Senate, which taught him that he can do any shady thing he wants as president and will never face consequences from his party.
2. The DOJ’s decision not to charge Andrew McCabe, which reportedly infuriated a president who craves legal revenge on his enemies and isn’t getting much of it from “his” Justice Department. That may have convinced him to take direct action in criminal matters of interest to him.
3. The clemency spree a few days ago, embodied in the repulsive person of Rod Blagojevich, which proved that Trump now feels sufficiently confident about reelection that he’s willing to gross everyone out with dubious shows of mercy towards cronies even before the big vote.
My prediction is that he’ll wait to issue the pardon until Judge Jackson rules on Stone’s motion for a new trial due to partisan bias by the jury foreperson. No sense doing it before then, just in case the motion is granted. Then he and Stone can cite the fact that the court agrees with them that the prosecution was flawed before the pardon is duly issued. Until then, though, Team Stone is going to beg:
NEW: Roger Stone’s spokesperson calls on Trump to pardon Stone: “It falls on President Trump to use the power of a pardon as the final means of checks and balances to right this horrible wrong.” pic.twitter.com/09klIw4cTm — Peter Alexander (@PeterAlexander) February 20, 2020
“It’s not a question of if,” said one former senior official to Politico this morning before the sentencing about the prospects of a pardon. “It’s when.”
Trump aides in the White House and circling around his 2020 reelection campaign say the president is just being cautious and heeding advice to at least wait to move on Stone until after the court process plays out a little bit more. And among people close to Stone, there’s high confidence that the president will remember the 35-plus year relationship the two men share and ultimately spare him from going to prison… Stone and Trump have a history unlike anyone else around the president. They’ve known each other since Ronald Reagan’s 1980 White House campaign and maintained a rapport that includes Stone counseling Trump during four potential presidential runs and Trump hiring Stone as a lobbyist to represent his gambling, airline and hotel businesses. In his most recent book, Stone boasted that he knew about Trump’s 2016 plans more than two years before the formal campaign announcement. And even after Trump and Stone officially parted ways not long after the campaign launch, the two continued speaking, with Stone serving as the campaign’s unofficial conduit to WikiLeaks, the controversial Julian Assange-led outfit that published scores of stolen emails embarrassing to Hillary Clinton during key moments of the presidential race.
I wonder how many Democrats, starting with Pelosi, wish in hindsight that they’d skipped impeachment over Ukraine and had it available to them for when Trump starts pardoning his buddies. Stone “was not prosecuted for standing up for the president; he was prosecuted for covering up for the president,” said Jackson in court today. House Dems could have seized on that and impeached him for using the pardon power corruptly by extending it to a crony who’d “covered up for the president” himself. Maybe that impeachment would have been more popular than the Ukraine impeachment. (Realistically, could it have been *less* popular?) It certainly would have been more straightforward. And it would have forced Senate Republicans to defend the idea that there’s nothing wrong with the president freeing his own deputies from criminal convictions stemming from an investigation of his own campaign. No doubt they would have ended up defending it vigorously — I can easily picture Ted Cruz or Lindsey Graham chanting “the pardon power is plenary” over and over in response to questions — but the politics might have been less forgiving for the GOP than they were for the convoluted Ukraine saga.
But you only get one shot at impeachment. And Trump knows it better than anyone.
So House Dems will have to grin and bear it when the pardon comes, and nervously assure themselves that our country’s gradual civic collapse isn’t so far gone yet that swing voters will just shrug off Trump pardoning one of his buddies after he was convicted by Bill Barr’s own Justice Department. Which brings me to the real mystery in this matter: What’s Barr going to do when Trump pardons Stone? In all likelihood he’ll roll over and start chanting about plenary powers too. He’s an ardent defender of executive prerogatives, after all, and Politico remembered that he strongly supported Bush 41 pardoning political cronies in the Iran-Contra affair. He’ll probably just shrug and say “It’s the president’s call.”
But he’s been noisy lately about how Trump’s meddling in criminal cases has made his job harder, and he said last week that he thought Stone’s prosecution and conviction was “righteous.” A pardon issuing without Stone serving a day in prison would make a joke of the Justice Department, signaling the president’s belief that Barr and his deputies had prosecuted him unjustly. How much more time and money should the DOJ waste in the future on investigating Trump favorites like Rudy Giuliani or Erik Prince, not knowing if Trump will step in at some point and undo all of their work with one pen stroke? Barr’s willing to do his best to investigate Trump’s enemies (see, e.g., the Durham probe) and to seek leniency for Trump’s allies (see, e.g., the revised sentencing recommendations for Stone and Mike Flynn) but he understandably resents Trump making him look like a schmuck in front of his own deputies with tweets that seem to imply that he’s doing POTUS’s bidding. Pardoning Stone would make him look like an even bigger schmuck, wiping away a successful conviction for reasons of presidential friendship no matter how much Trump wants to dress it up in the language of “unfairness.” In fact, to the extent that he defends the pardon on grounds that the prosecution was unfair rather than him just doing a solid for a buddy, he makes Barr look even worse. Why is his AG being so “unfair” to people? Maybe he should resign in disgrace.
But then we’d get someone worse. Everyone understands that too.
Here he is talking about pardoning Stone today. He’s going to let the process play out, he says — which I think is an allusion to waiting on Jackson to rule on his motion for a new trial, as I expected. Whether he’d also let the “process” play out if Stone loses the motion and has to go to prison while his appeals are pending is a different matter.


hotair--2020-02-20--Today's hot topics on #TEMS: Dems' dumpster fire, Bloomberg backfire, Ilhan a liar, immigration hayw

Today's hot topics on #TEMS: Dems' dumpster fire, Bloomberg backfire, Ilhan a liar, immigration haywire, and more

Today on The Ed Morrissey Show ( 4 pm ET ) , we have another great lineup for the news of the day !
The show will be streamed on Hot Air ’ s Facebook page and embedded here and on the show page for those who are not on Facebook .
Join us as we welcome Duane “ Generalissimo ” Patterson brings us up to date on the week ’ s top stories and gives us a preview of tomorrow ’ s Hugh Hewitt show .
Duane and I will walk through the debacle in Nevada last night , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Plus : • Is the White House about to expand immigration ?
• New testimonial evidence that Ilhan Omar lied about her marriage • Roger Stone gets 40 months .
Will he serve a day ?
The Ed Morrissey Show and its dynamic chatroom can be seen on the permanent TEMS page .
Be sure to join us , and don ’ t forget to keep up with the debate on my Facebook page , too !
How can Republicans and conservatives keep winning after 2016 ?
Find out in GOING RED , @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Today on The Ed Morrissey Show (4 pm ET), we have another great lineup for the news of the day! The show will be streamed on Hot Air’s Facebook page and embedded here and on the show page for those who are not on Facebook.
Join us as we welcome Duane “Generalissimo” Patterson brings us up to date on the week’s top stories and gives us a preview of tomorrow’s Hugh Hewitt show. Duane and I will walk through the debacle in Nevada last night, and debate whether anyone survived it. Plus:
Is the White House about to expand immigration?
New testimonial evidence that Ilhan Omar lied about her marriage
Roger Stone gets 40 months. Will he serve a day?
The Ed Morrissey Show and its dynamic chatroom can be seen on the permanent TEMS page. Be sure to join us, and don’t forget to keep up with the debate on my Facebook page, too!
How can Republicans and conservatives keep winning after 2016? Find out in GOING RED, published in April from Crown Forum!


hotair--2020-02-20--Three out of three billionaires agree: Last night's debate winner was ...

It ’ s not exactly a surprise when Donald Trump pronounces himself the winner of a Democratic presidential debate .
It ’ s a wee bit more surprising when two of the Democratic contenders fit him for the crown , too .
Fellow billionaire Michael Bloomberg has self-interested reasons for calling Trump “ the real winner , ” as he tries to shake off a very bad night with a little humor — and a lot of blamethrowing .
“ So how was your night last night ?
” Bloomberg joked at his Salt Lake City rally today , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would lose the race by attacking him instead of stopping Bernie Sanders : “ Look , the real winner in the debate last night was Donald Trump because I worry that we may be on the way to nominating somebody who can not win in November , ” the former New York City mayor said .
“ If we choose a candidate who appeals to a small base like Senator Sanders , it will be a fatal error .
“ We need Democrats , and Independents , and Republicans to win , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the coalition that propelled Democrats to success in the midterms and its the coalition that we need to win in November.
” It ’ s a good argument , but it comes from a flawed messenger — and everyone saw just how flawed Bloomberg is last night .
After spending a reported $ 409 million of his own money to finally arrive on the debate stage , Bloomberg discovered that having the right political strategy doesn ’ t mean one is the right candidate for the job .
It also doesn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what were obvious attack strategies for his opponents .
Chiming in for the billionaire hat trick is Tom Steyer , who didn ’ t qualify for the Nevada debate despite — unlike Bloomberg — actually being on the caucus ballot .
The main takeaway for Steyer , he tells CNN , is that Trump benefited the most from the debacle that unfolded on stage : “ Because I saw so much bickering between Democratic candidates tearing each other down and going after each other and forgetting the fact that what really counts is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Steyer said .
“ I saw people going after each other ’ s personality and records instead of remembering that , in fact , the Democratic Party needs to win in November , ” he added .
“ Personality and records “ ?
Shouldn ’ t one ’ s record be part of any rational political debate for an election ?
Personal attacks are unhelpful , of course , but that ’ s much different than discussing how each candidate used their offices to implement policy .
If all they do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ why bother having debates at all ?
If Donald Trump won last night ’ s debate , by the way , he picked the right time to do so .
Thanks to the fully-realized anticipation of a full-on fight with Bloomberg ’ s inclusion , the ratings for last night ’ s debate were the best since the first installment in June .
That ’ s not going to make Democrats feel any cheerier .

It’s not exactly a surprise when Donald Trump pronounces himself the winner of a Democratic presidential debate. It’s a wee bit more surprising when two of the Democratic contenders fit him for the crown, too. Fellow billionaire Michael Bloomberg has self-interested reasons for calling Trump “the real winner,” as he tries to shake off a very bad night with a little humor — and a lot of blamethrowing.
“So how was your night last night?” Bloomberg joked at his Salt Lake City rally today, but followed up by basically arguing that Democrats would lose the race by attacking him instead of stopping Bernie Sanders:
"So how was your night last night?" Michael Bloomberg jokes after contentious #DemDebate that saw multiple candidates attacks him. "The real winner in the debate last night was Donald Trump," Bloomberg adds. https://t.co/S8vS2EbJQT pic.twitter.com/apSqZcSbM8 — ABC News (@ABC) February 20, 2020
“Look, the real winner in the debate last night was Donald Trump because I worry that we may be on the way to nominating somebody who cannot win in November,” the former New York City mayor said. “If we choose a candidate who appeals to a small base like Senator Sanders, it will be a fatal error. “We need Democrats, and Independents, and Republicans to win,” he continued, “and that was the coalition that propelled Democrats to success in the midterms and its the coalition that we need to win in November.”
It’s a good argument, but it comes from a flawed messenger — and everyone saw just how flawed Bloomberg is last night. After spending a reported $409 million of his own money to finally arrive on the debate stage, Bloomberg discovered that having the right political strategy doesn’t mean one is the right candidate for the job. It also doesn’t absolve a candidate from preparing better for what were obvious attack strategies for his opponents.
Chiming in for the billionaire hat trick is Tom Steyer, who didn’t qualify for the Nevada debate despite — unlike Bloomberg — actually being on the caucus ballot. The main takeaway for Steyer, he tells CNN, is that Trump benefited the most from the debacle that unfolded on stage:
“Because I saw so much bickering between Democratic candidates tearing each other down and going after each other and forgetting the fact that what really counts is beating Donald Trump in November of 2020,” Steyer said. “I saw people going after each other’s personality and records instead of remembering that, in fact, the Democratic Party needs to win in November,” he added.
“Personality and records“? Shouldn’t one’s record be part of any rational political debate for an election? Personal attacks are unhelpful, of course, but that’s much different than discussing how each candidate used their offices to implement policy. If all they do is talk about Orange Man Bad, why bother having debates at all?
If Donald Trump won last night’s debate, by the way, he picked the right time to do so. Thanks to the fully-realized anticipation of a full-on fight with Bloomberg’s inclusion, the ratings for last night’s debate were the best since the first installment in June. That’s not going to make Democrats feel any cheerier.


hotair--2020-02-20--RCMP removes officers from Wet’suwet’en land in hopes of satisfying rail blockaders

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police ( RCMP ) agreed to one of the demands made by protesters who have shut down much of Canada ’ s rail system for the past two weeks .
The RCMP is willing to pull back from indigenous land in the hopes that protesters elsewhere in the country will end the rail blockade : On Thursday , Minister of Public Safety Bill Blair announced that RCMP will be offering to leave unceded lands in northern British Columbia , trying to meet the conditions of those holding rail protests that have appeared across the country for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s initial occupation of Wet ’ suwet ’ en land — following an injunction granted by the B.C .
Supreme Court allowing them to move onto the property to make way for the Coastal GasLink pipeline construction — that launched the series of protest blockades .
Representatives of the Wet ’ suwet ’ en are flying in to speak with the Mohawk rail blockaders tomorrow morning , though it ’ s not clear what they intend to say : Now , a meeting with the Wet ’ suwet ’ en hereditary chiefs is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 10 a.m. at the Mohawk community centre on Tyendinaga Mohawk Territory .
Media will not be allowed to attend , but all Mohawk are invited , according to a news release published to Real Peoples Media .
“ The gathering is being held to welcome the Wet ’ suwet ’ en hereditary chiefs and to discuss related political issues , ” the release said .
“ This is a gathering to celebrate friendship , healing , peace and optimism .
Disrupters and provocateurs will be removed from the meeting.
” Although it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ discuss , it is safe to assume the news of RCMP leaving Wet ’ suwet ’ en land in B.C .
will colour those discussion .
If all of this sounds a bit confusing it ’ s probably because you ’ ve missed the backstory .
The Wet ’ suwet ’ en are an indigenous group in Candada who have been defying a court order and refusing to allow construction workers access to the site where a natural gas pipeline is being built .
Specifically , a group of activists set up roadblocks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ construction area and have refused to allow the workers to pass .
The RCMP responded by entering the Wet ’ suwet ’ en land , clearing the roadblocks and arresting a handful of protesters .
That ’ s what set off the rail blockades which were meant to show solidarity with the road blockades .
As of yesterday , more than 1,400 rail workers have been laid off and business leaders are warning that if the rail blockades continue the effect on the Canadian economy could be severe .
Perhaps we ’ ll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the two indigenous groups meet , but I ’ m not convinced it will be that simple .
Some of the people blockadiing the rail lines have also demanded that the construction workers also stay out of Wet ’ suwet ’ en land .
But that ’ s not the plan according to the what Bill Blair said today .
He said the RCMP had agreed to station its officers in a nearby town rather than in a shack along the road where the roadblocks had been set up .
However , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now cleared roadway leading to the construction site to remain open .
In other words , if the Wet ’ suwet ’ en attempt to set up more blockades to keep construction workers out , the RCMP will return , albeit from a slightly greater distance .
So it sounds to me like the rail blockaders will need to accept that they ’ ve lost this battle over the pipeline at least for now and it ’ s not clear they are prepared to do that .
Here ’ s Minister of Public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to pull back : Finally , here ’ s a report showing some of the pressure indigenous chiefs are feeling not to compromise .
The latter half of this report focuses on the economic consequences of the blockade .

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) agreed to one of the demands made by protesters who have shut down much of Canada’s rail system for the past two weeks. The RCMP is willing to pull back from indigenous land in the hopes that protesters elsewhere in the country will end the rail blockade:
On Thursday, Minister of Public Safety Bill Blair announced that RCMP will be offering to leave unceded lands in northern British Columbia, trying to meet the conditions of those holding rail protests that have appeared across the country for two weeks. It was RCMP’s initial occupation of Wet’suwet’en land — following an injunction granted by the B.C. Supreme Court allowing them to move onto the property to make way for the Coastal GasLink pipeline construction — that launched the series of protest blockades.
Representatives of the Wet’suwet’en are flying in to speak with the Mohawk rail blockaders tomorrow morning, though it’s not clear what they intend to say:
Now, a meeting with the Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs is meant to take place Friday morning at 10 a.m. at the Mohawk community centre on Tyendinaga Mohawk Territory. Media will not be allowed to attend, but all Mohawk are invited, according to a news release published to Real Peoples Media. “The gathering is being held to welcome the Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs and to discuss related political issues,” the release said. “This is a gathering to celebrate friendship, healing, peace and optimism. Disrupters and provocateurs will be removed from the meeting.” Although it’s unclear exactly what the meeting will discuss, it is safe to assume the news of RCMP leaving Wet’suwet’en land in B.C. will colour those discussion.
If all of this sounds a bit confusing it’s probably because you’ve missed the backstory. The Wet’suwet’en are an indigenous group in Candada who have been defying a court order and refusing to allow construction workers access to the site where a natural gas pipeline is being built. Specifically, a group of activists set up roadblocks on the road that leads to the construction area and have refused to allow the workers to pass. The RCMP responded by entering the Wet’suwet’en land, clearing the roadblocks and arresting a handful of protesters. That’s what set off the rail blockades which were meant to show solidarity with the road blockades.
As of yesterday, more than 1,400 rail workers have been laid off and business leaders are warning that if the rail blockades continue the effect on the Canadian economy could be severe. Perhaps we’ll see an end to this tomorrow when the two indigenous groups meet, but I’m not convinced it will be that simple.
Some of the people blockadiing the rail lines have also demanded that the construction workers also stay out of Wet’suwet’en land. But that’s not the plan according to the what Bill Blair said today. He said the RCMP had agreed to station its officers in a nearby town rather than in a shack along the road where the roadblocks had been set up. However, he made clear that the RCMP expects the now cleared roadway leading to the construction site to remain open. In other words, if the Wet’suwet’en attempt to set up more blockades to keep construction workers out, the RCMP will return, albeit from a slightly greater distance. So it sounds to me like the rail blockaders will need to accept that they’ve lost this battle over the pipeline at least for now and it’s not clear they are prepared to do that.
Here’s Minister of Public Safety Bill Blair describing the RCMP decision to pull back:
Finally, here’s a report showing some of the pressure indigenous chiefs are feeling not to compromise. The latter half of this report focuses on the economic consequences of the blockade.