hotair--2020-02-14--Politico: Open season on A-Klo from the Left?

Guess what happens when a presidential candidate gets into the top tier ?
Amy Klobuchar is starting to find out , as Politico ’ s David Siders reports today .
When the Minnesota senator polled in the low single digits in the Democratic presidential primary , few people bothered to vet her or her record .
Now that she ’ s taken third place in New Hampshire and displaced two previous front-runners — Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren — suddenly the vetting has gotten more serious : Days after her surprising third-place finish in the New Hampshire primary , Klobuchar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her record get more scrutiny in the presidential campaign .
… There was the withering interview on “ The View ” this week , in which the Minnesota senator was asked why she “ failed to prosecute a single killing by the police ” during her time as a county prosecutor .
That one caught Roland Martin ’ s attention , who bookended the clip from The View with his own commentary .
Sonny Hostin accused Klobuchar of pushing policies as Hennepin County district attorney that “ harmed black and brown people , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ didn ’ t take a more aggressive approach to investigating police shootings .
Note well how Klobuchar slowly changes the subject , and how Hostin changes it right back : That … doesn ’ t instill much confidence in Klobuchar , either as a candidate or as a prosecutor .
She never even makes a coherent defense of her case despite the fact that , as Hostin notes , Klobuchar has used the case to show how she fights for African-American crime victims .
Now , all she can say is that “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Speaking of “ brown people , ” to use Hostin ’ s phrase , oppo researchers didn ’ t take long to dig up Klobuchar ’ s support for a “ fence ” at the southern border .
That will make for a tasty debate point in Nevada , where Latinos comprise a considerable segment of Democratic caucusgoers : Then came the circulation of video in which Klobuchar called for a fence along the U.S.-Mexico border during a Senate campaign debate in 2006 .
And touching down in Nevada late Thursday , Klobuchar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presidential campaign forum before a question about her record on race arose .
… For Klobuchar , the hostile questioning is a sign of her arrival as a serious contender .
But it also comes at a precarious time , as she scrambles to make inroads in Nevada and South Carolina — two racially diverse states in which she has little demonstrated support .
Is it really a sign of Klobuchar ’ s “ arrival as a serious contender ” ?
Or is it , as Washington Post columnist Monica Hesse alleges , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the American political system ?
It ’ s an exhausting Mobius strip of election cycles that we like women when they ’ re in office but find them unlikable when they ’ re running for a higher office .
Studies have shown that voters exhibit gender bias in presidential elections more than in senatorial or congressional contests .
Studies have shown that while likability is optional for male candidates — we ’ ll elect crusty curmudgeons if we believe in their policies — it is a requirement for female candidates .
Studies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ll vote for a woman but are still influenced by gender stereotypes even when they think they ’ re not .
It ’ s possible , of course , that Amy Klobuchar is just not your candidate , for reasons that have nothing to do with gender .
You find her too moderate , or you have a phobia of the Midwestern hot dish .
But there is also a possibility that sometime in the future , if she appears more on your television screen , if she continues to gain in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ negatively about her , in the ways we specifically think negatively about female candidates .
For reasons you can not explain , Amy Klobuchar will suddenly remind you of your mother-in-law or your ex-wife .
It will feel like she ’ s lecturing to you .
It will feel like she ’ s talking too much .
You ’ ll think it has nothing to do with her being a woman .
It will have everything to do with her being a woman .
Actually , it will feel as though she ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and hasn ’ t been asked any tough questions until now on the national stage .
Hesse argues that this misogyny is why Hillary Clinton suddenly became unlikable in 2016 when in truth she ’ s always been unlikable as a candidate , at least in national polling .
( Hesse ’ s colleague Philip Bump did some good analytical work on that in 2015 . )
She also assumes the same about Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris , ignoring clearly poor performances from both and their previously sheltered status as deep-blue-state senators @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those conditions also apply to Klobuchar .
As Roland Martin says after the first clip , “ none of these people have challenged Amy Klobuchar ” before now .
They didn ’ t have to challenge her before now , either .
After snagging a finish in the delegate money in New Hampshire , Klobuchar ’ s getting her vetting late in the process .
And as I wrote earlier this week , she ’ s not likely to stand up to the scrutiny for reasons that have nothing to do with her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Klobuchar still has multiple challengers for the Not Bernie position .
Buttigieg finished ahead of her in both Iowa and New Hampshire , which seems even more improbable for a South Bend mayor than it does for a senator from Minnesota .
Joe Biden still has strength in South Carolina , where Klobuchar has barely registered in polling .
She ’ s far behind in Super Tuesday states like California , Texas , and Massachusetts , where Warren will likely do well even if she ’ s all but faded out of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New Hampshire will likely produce improvements in some of those races , but the number of people ahead of her limits her dynamic potential , especially since most of those states will be rewarding progressives rather than moderates .
One third-place finish in an independent-heavy state does not a consolidation make .
Speaking of dynamic potential , Klobuchar has a problem with her general election argument as well .
Like most politicians in Minnesota and the upper Midwest in general , Klobuchar succeeds by projecting an image of calm affability .
Based on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I ’ d argue that it ’ s a fairly genuine image rather than an affectation .
That would create a strong contrast on the stump between her version of Moderate Minnesota Nice and Trump ’ s Outer Borough Tough Guy , which might have provided Democrats an advantage if Trump was running for his first term in office .
… Klobuchar ’ s appeal in a campaign against Trump would be a return to status quo ante normalcy .
If voters become anxiety-ridden about the present state of affairs , they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Bernie Sanders sense , but a nostalgic turn toward a pre-Trump technocracy to rescue the country from chaos .
Under those circumstances , Trump ’ s chaos-agent qualities would play against him , and Democrats would be well advised to nominate an establishment figure who can soothe panic .
That only works if the status quo ante is far more appealing than the status quo , however .
And frankly , that kind of crisis suits Joe Biden better than Amy Klobuchar too , as Biden has the eight years of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has no real executive experience to tout , in either the private or public sector .
Absent an economic crisis , though , voters are much less likely to care about Trump ’ s comportment or his Twitter habits .
If the good times are rolling and they expect them to keep going , then voters will not want a return to technocratic/bureaucratic governance .
In these populist times , they will be reluctant to trust the institutions while an entertaining iconoclast is delivering for them , and especially while an earnest but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policy .
Klobuchar ’ s not getting a critical look at this point because of her sex .
She ’ s getting a critical look because she finally became competitive , and Democrats now need to test her mettle .
If her performance on The View is an indication of how Klobuchar responds , expect her time in the hot seat to be a short one .

Guess what happens when a presidential candidate gets into the top tier? Amy Klobuchar is starting to find out, as Politico’s David Siders reports today. When the Minnesota senator polled in the low single digits in the Democratic presidential primary, few people bothered to vet her or her record. Now that she’s taken third place in New Hampshire and displaced two previous front-runners — Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren — suddenly the vetting has gotten more serious:
Days after her surprising third-place finish in the New Hampshire primary, Klobuchar is facing a storm as aspects of her record get more scrutiny in the presidential campaign. … There was the withering interview on “The View” this week, in which the Minnesota senator was asked why she “failed to prosecute a single killing by the police” during her time as a county prosecutor.
That one caught Roland Martin’s attention, who bookended the clip from The View with his own commentary. Sonny Hostin accused Klobuchar of pushing policies as Hennepin County district attorney that “harmed black and brown people,” and demanded to know why she didn’t take a more aggressive approach to investigating police shootings. Note well how Klobuchar slowly changes the subject, and how Hostin changes it right back:
That … doesn’t instill much confidence in Klobuchar, either as a candidate or as a prosecutor. She never even makes a coherent defense of her case despite the fact that, as Hostin notes, Klobuchar has used the case to show how she fights for African-American crime victims. Now, all she can say is that “the case must be reviewed”?
Speaking of “brown people,” to use Hostin’s phrase, oppo researchers didn’t take long to dig up Klobuchar’s support for a “fence” at the southern border. That will make for a tasty debate point in Nevada, where Latinos comprise a considerable segment of Democratic caucusgoers:
Then came the circulation of video in which Klobuchar called for a fence along the U.S.-Mexico border during a Senate campaign debate in 2006. And touching down in Nevada late Thursday, Klobuchar wasn’t 20 minutes into a presidential campaign forum before a question about her record on race arose. … For Klobuchar, the hostile questioning is a sign of her arrival as a serious contender. But it also comes at a precarious time, as she scrambles to make inroads in Nevada and South Carolina — two racially diverse states in which she has little demonstrated support.
Is it really a sign of Klobuchar’s “arrival as a serious contender”? Or is it, as Washington Post columnist Monica Hesse alleges, a sign of the patriarchal misogyny inherent in the American political system?
It’s an exhausting Mobius strip of election cycles that we like women when they’re in office but find them unlikable when they’re running for a higher office. Studies have shown that voters exhibit gender bias in presidential elections more than in senatorial or congressional contests. Studies have shown that while likability is optional for male candidates — we’ll elect crusty curmudgeons if we believe in their policies — it is a requirement for female candidates. Studies have shown that Americans say they’ll vote for a woman but are still influenced by gender stereotypes even when they think they’re not. It’s possible, of course, that Amy Klobuchar is just not your candidate, for reasons that have nothing to do with gender. You find her too moderate, or you have a phobia of the Midwestern hot dish. But there is also a possibility that sometime in the future, if she appears more on your television screen, if she continues to gain in the polls, you might find yourself thinking negatively about her, in the ways we specifically think negatively about female candidates. For reasons you cannot explain, Amy Klobuchar will suddenly remind you of your mother-in-law or your ex-wife. It will feel like she’s lecturing to you. It will feel like she’s talking too much. You’ll think it has nothing to do with her being a woman. It will have everything to do with her being a woman.
Actually, it will feel as though she’s never run for president before, and hasn’t been asked any tough questions until now on the national stage. Hesse argues that this misogyny is why Hillary Clinton suddenly became unlikable in 2016 when in truth she’s always been unlikable as a candidate, at least in national polling. (Hesse’s colleague Philip Bump did some good analytical work on that in 2015.) She also assumes the same about Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris, ignoring clearly poor performances from both and their previously sheltered status as deep-blue-state senators with little significant competition. Both of those conditions also apply to Klobuchar.
As Roland Martin says after the first clip, “none of these people have challenged Amy Klobuchar” before now. They didn’t have to challenge her before now, either. After snagging a finish in the delegate money in New Hampshire, Klobuchar’s getting her vetting late in the process. And as I wrote earlier this week, she’s not likely to stand up to the scrutiny for reasons that have nothing to do with her chromosomal composition:
Within the Democratic primary, Klobuchar still has multiple challengers for the Not Bernie position. Buttigieg finished ahead of her in both Iowa and New Hampshire, which seems even more improbable for a South Bend mayor than it does for a senator from Minnesota. Joe Biden still has strength in South Carolina, where Klobuchar has barely registered in polling. She’s far behind in Super Tuesday states like California, Texas, and Massachusetts, where Warren will likely do well even if she’s all but faded out of the national picture. Her finish in New Hampshire will likely produce improvements in some of those races, but the number of people ahead of her limits her dynamic potential, especially since most of those states will be rewarding progressives rather than moderates. One third-place finish in an independent-heavy state does not a consolidation make. Speaking of dynamic potential, Klobuchar has a problem with her general election argument as well. Like most politicians in Minnesota and the upper Midwest in general, Klobuchar succeeds by projecting an image of calm affability. Based on a couple of personal interactions with her, I’d argue that it’s a fairly genuine image rather than an affectation. That would create a strong contrast on the stump between her version of Moderate Minnesota Nice and Trump’s Outer Borough Tough Guy, which might have provided Democrats an advantage if Trump was running for his first term in office. … Klobuchar’s appeal in a campaign against Trump would be a return to status quo ante normalcy. If voters become anxiety-ridden about the present state of affairs, they won’t want a revolution in the Bernie Sanders sense, but a nostalgic turn toward a pre-Trump technocracy to rescue the country from chaos. Under those circumstances, Trump’s chaos-agent qualities would play against him, and Democrats would be well advised to nominate an establishment figure who can soothe panic. That only works if the status quo ante is far more appealing than the status quo, however. And frankly, that kind of crisis suits Joe Biden better than Amy Klobuchar too, as Biden has the eight years of the Obama administration on his resumé while Klobuchar has no real executive experience to tout, in either the private or public sector. Absent an economic crisis, though, voters are much less likely to care about Trump’s comportment or his Twitter habits. If the good times are rolling and they expect them to keep going, then voters will not want a return to technocratic/bureaucratic governance. In these populist times, they will be reluctant to trust the institutions while an entertaining iconoclast is delivering for them, and especially while an earnest but uninspiring establishmentarian proposes a sea change in policy.
Klobuchar’s not getting a critical look at this point because of her sex. She’s getting a critical look because she finally became competitive, and Democrats now need to test her mettle. If her performance on The View is an indication of how Klobuchar responds, expect her time in the hot seat to be a short one.


hotair--2020-02-14--Chris Wallace: It's "insane, just insane" that Dems like Eric Swalwell are talking about maybe impea

Chris Wallace: It's "insane, just insane" that Dems like Eric Swalwell are talking about maybe impeaching Trump again

What ’ s “ insane , ” Chris , is that investigative journalists still haven ’ t solved the mystery of who farted during that Swalwell appearance on MSNBC last fall .
But yes , wanting to impeach Trump again this year is insane too .
Like I said on Wednesday , you only get one shot at it .
Among their endless list of complaints about Trump , the Ukraine quid pro quo is the one Democrats chose to elevate as uniquely troubling , worthy of the highest sanction the House can deliver .
There ’ s an argument @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , especially knowing that they ’ d never get 20 Republican votes to remove in the Senate no matter what grounds for impeachment they offered .
By going to the mat on Ukraine and framing Trump ’ s interest in Burisma as a form of illicit interference in the election , Dems may have made the public more sensitive to further attempts to invite foreign meddling .
Byron York ’ s right that impeachment probably won ’ t matter in November — unless there ’ s another Ukraine-style incident and Democrats get to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He ’ s using the leverage of his office to play dirty tricks with the election.
” Then maybe impeachment , specifically the GOP ’ s refusal to take the Ukraine charges more seriously , has more legs .
Or maybe not .
Either way , the point is that whatever ends up happening with the Barr/DOJ/Roger Stone fiasco , impeachment of the president isn ’ t on the menu .
Someone tell Swalwell : “ We ’ re not going to take our options off the table .
We don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to impeach him , you know , ” Swalwell said .
“ We want to work with him on prescription drugs , background checks , and infrastructure , but we are not going to let him just torch this democracy because he thinks that he ’ s been let off once and we ’ re not going to do something about it.
” Yeah , you are , said Wallace today on Fox Radio : “ When you ’ re hearing people like Eric Swalwell say , ‘ Well , maybe we ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s ] Insane , just insane , ” Wallace told host Chris Foster .
“ You know , both sides need to focus on actually helping people deal with the problems … that they face in this country .
Whether it ’ s the economy or jobs or education or health care or foreign policy , whatever .
They need to be focusing on that and not , you know , staying in this kind of politics of personal destruction.
” … “ It seems to me that most people in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want to do is go down this road again , ” Wallace said .
“ And we seem to be headed , not necessarily to impeachment , but down this road of the president doing things that are very questionable .
I think weighing in on the sentencing — it wasn ’ t a guideline — it was a recommendation by prosecutors .
And then the recommendation gets changed and now he ’ s attacking the judge .
I think that ’ s all really misguided on his part.
” That ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and what she was afraid of even before impeachment over Ukraine got traction in the House last fall .
Trump ’ s already dubbed her party the “ do-nothing Democrats ” ; they ’ ve passed a raft of lefty legislation but all of it ’ s obviously DOA in the Senate .
They have little to show for their House majority thus far except for one thing , and that one thing was never popular outside their own party .
Imagine them doubling down on it as the Democratic nominee is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about health care .
It is , indeed , “ insane.
” And other Democrats know it , even if Swalwell doesn ’ t .
Hakeem Jeffries , one of the impeachment managers and a rising star in the caucus , was asked by GQ if a second impeachment was on the table .
“ In my view , no , ” he said .
“ It ’ s in the hands of the American people at this point to decide the fate of Donald Trump.
” I ’ m sure Madam Speaker @ @ @ @ @ @ @ degree , they ’ re at the mercy of events .
Probably nothing could force their hands on a second impeachment but if they haul in the four prosecutors who withdrew from the Roger Stone case in protest and those four offer evidence of political meddling by Barr to protect Trump ’ s buddy , that ’ s a sticky political problem .
They can ’ t just ignore those witnesses either and decline to investigate ; they ’ ll have to do some basic oversight of the matter as the media howls @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if the probe turns up evidence of wrongdoing ?
Impeach Barr ?
I think they ’ d run into the same “ do-nothing Democrats ” problem there even though it wouldn ’ t be Trump in their crosshairs .
I think they ’ d censure Barr and/or Trump in the hope/expectation that taking that action might force the Senate to consider censure too .
That ’ d be a tough vote for Susan Collins , Lisa Murkowski , Martha McSally and the rest of the crew from the Ukraine trial who voted to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he did was inappropriate and that they hoped he learned from it .
The stakes with censure are much lower than they are with impeachment , making it easier for centrist Republicans to vote yes , but Trump and his fans would still bitterly resent being formally reprimanded .
What would Collins et al .
do ?
Here ’ s Wallace on Swalwell ’ s insanity , at around the 22:30 mark .

What’s “insane,” Chris, is that investigative journalists still haven’t solved the mystery of who farted during that Swalwell appearance on MSNBC last fall.
But yes, wanting to impeach Trump again this year is insane too. Like I said on Wednesday, you only get one shot at it. Among their endless list of complaints about Trump, the Ukraine quid pro quo is the one Democrats chose to elevate as uniquely troubling, worthy of the highest sanction the House can deliver. There’s an argument that that was a shrewd choice politically, especially knowing that they’d never get 20 Republican votes to remove in the Senate no matter what grounds for impeachment they offered. By going to the mat on Ukraine and framing Trump’s interest in Burisma as a form of illicit interference in the election, Dems may have made the public more sensitive to further attempts to invite foreign meddling. Byron York’s right that impeachment probably won’t matter in November — unless there’s another Ukraine-style incident and Democrats get to say, “We told you so. He’s using the leverage of his office to play dirty tricks with the election.” Then maybe impeachment, specifically the GOP’s refusal to take the Ukraine charges more seriously, has more legs.
Or maybe not. Either way, the point is that whatever ends up happening with the Barr/DOJ/Roger Stone fiasco, impeachment of the president isn’t on the menu. Someone tell Swalwell:
“We’re not going to take our options off the table. We don’t wake up in the morning wanting to impeach him, you know,” Swalwell said. “We want to work with him on prescription drugs, background checks, and infrastructure, but we are not going to let him just torch this democracy because he thinks that he’s been let off once and we’re not going to do something about it.”
Yeah, you are, said Wallace today on Fox Radio:
“When you’re hearing people like Eric Swalwell say, ‘Well, maybe we’re going to impeach again.’ [It’s] Insane, just insane,” Wallace told host Chris Foster. “You know, both sides need to focus on actually helping people deal with the problems … that they face in this country. Whether it’s the economy or jobs or education or health care or foreign policy, whatever. They need to be focusing on that and not, you know, staying in this kind of politics of personal destruction.”… “It seems to me that most people in this country, the last thing they want to do is go down this road again,” Wallace said. “And we seem to be headed, not necessarily to impeachment, but down this road of the president doing things that are very questionable. I think weighing in on the sentencing — it wasn’t a guideline — it was a recommendation by prosecutors. And then the recommendation gets changed and now he’s attacking the judge. I think that’s all really misguided on his part.”
That’s exactly what Pelosi’s afraid of, and what she was afraid of even before impeachment over Ukraine got traction in the House last fall. Trump’s already dubbed her party the “do-nothing Democrats”; they’ve passed a raft of lefty legislation but all of it’s obviously DOA in the Senate. They have little to show for their House majority thus far except for one thing, and that one thing was never popular outside their own party. Imagine them doubling down on it as the Democratic nominee is trying to get screen time to talk about health care. It is, indeed, “insane.”
And other Democrats know it, even if Swalwell doesn’t. Hakeem Jeffries, one of the impeachment managers and a rising star in the caucus, was asked by GQ if a second impeachment was on the table. “In my view, no,” he said. “It’s in the hands of the American people at this point to decide the fate of Donald Trump.” I’m sure Madam Speaker agrees.
Except that, to some degree, they’re at the mercy of events. Probably nothing could force their hands on a second impeachment but if they haul in the four prosecutors who withdrew from the Roger Stone case in protest and those four offer evidence of political meddling by Barr to protect Trump’s buddy, that’s a sticky political problem. They can’t just ignore those witnesses either and decline to investigate; they’ll have to do some basic oversight of the matter as the media howls about it. What would they do if the probe turns up evidence of wrongdoing? Impeach Barr? I think they’d run into the same “do-nothing Democrats” problem there even though it wouldn’t be Trump in their crosshairs.
I think they’d censure Barr and/or Trump in the hope/expectation that taking that action might force the Senate to consider censure too. That’d be a tough vote for Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Martha McSally and the rest of the crew from the Ukraine trial who voted to acquit Trump but said belatedly that what he did was inappropriate and that they hoped he learned from it. The stakes with censure are much lower than they are with impeachment, making it easier for centrist Republicans to vote yes, but Trump and his fans would still bitterly resent being formally reprimanded. What would Collins et al. do?
Here’s Wallace on Swalwell’s insanity, at around the 22:30 mark.


hotair--2020-02-14--San Francisco middle school descends into 'Lord of the Flies' environment

Aptos Middle School is located in San Francisco and , from the outside , appears like an ordinary school .
But today the San Francisco Chronicle reports a small group of disruptive students , somewhere between 5 and 20 , have turned it into something reminiscent of the Lord of the Flies .
And , at least so far , school authorities seem unable to do much about it : One of the scariest incidents at Aptos this school year occurred in September , when two girls attacked a sixth-grade girl on the schoolyard .
The girls pulled the sixth-grader @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pulled a chunk of it out of her skull and kicked her in the face and the back of her head… School administrators held a “ restorative justice ” meeting with the families of each girl .
That ’ s the school district ’ s preferred way of resolving disputes , and it centers on mediation and acknowledging harm .
“ There were no apologies , ” [ the victim ’ s mother ] said .
“ When asked specifically what they would do differently , the girl said , ‘ Well , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kicked her in the face.
’ … Those girls have approached her multiple times since then and said , ‘ You better keep your mouth shut , you little bitch.
’ ” … “ It ’ s kind of ‘ Lord of the Flies ’ around here , ” [ the mother ] said .
The schools previous principal and assistant principal left recently and the new principal seems to have a different view of school discipline .
It has become normal for kids ( ages 11 to 14 ) to wander through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not in , and direct bad language at other students and teachers .
The reporter who wrote the story encounter two girls at the school ’ s entrance during classes on one of her visits .
One of the girls stared at her and called her a “ Bitch.
” Teachers at the school have been complaining about the situation since the fall : Since then , not much has changed .
It sounds like the new principal is simply not up to the job of maintaining order .
Unless that changes , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And that ’ s serious because bullying and fights can be deadly at this age if not dealt with .
Last year , Aptos was judged a low-performing school ( though not one of the lowest ) in San Francisco .
That ’ s also not going to change so long as the school can ’ t maintain order .
Hopefully this news story will produce some change .

Aptos Middle School is located in San Francisco and, from the outside, appears like an ordinary school. But today the San Francisco Chronicle reports a small group of disruptive students, somewhere between 5 and 20, have turned it into something reminiscent of the Lord of the Flies. And, at least so far, school authorities seem unable to do much about it:
One of the scariest incidents at Aptos this school year occurred in September, when two girls attacked a sixth-grade girl on the schoolyard. The girls pulled the sixth-grader to the ground by her hair, pulled a chunk of it out of her skull and kicked her in the face and the back of her head… School administrators held a “restorative justice” meeting with the families of each girl. That’s the school district’s preferred way of resolving disputes, and it centers on mediation and acknowledging harm. “There were no apologies,” [the victim’s mother] said. “When asked specifically what they would do differently, the girl said, ‘Well, I guess I wouldn’t have kicked her in the face.’… Those girls have approached her multiple times since then and said, ‘You better keep your mouth shut, you little bitch.’”… “It’s kind of ‘Lord of the Flies’ around here,” [the mother] said.
The schools previous principal and assistant principal left recently and the new principal seems to have a different view of school discipline. It has become normal for kids (ages 11 to 14) to wander through the halls, enter classes they are not in, and direct bad language at other students and teachers.
The language tolerated at school is horrific, students said. Kids use homophobic slurs, call girls “ho’s,” and a mother said she heard a student tell a teacher, “F— you, you motherf—ing n—” in front of other adults, and none of them did anything.
The reporter who wrote the story encounter two girls at the school’s entrance during classes on one of her visits. One of the girls stared at her and called her a “Bitch.” Teachers at the school have been complaining about the situation since the fall:
“I didn’t sign up to be physically threatened and verbally abused on a daily basis, and I am fed up,” one teacher wrote to the entire staff last fall in an email describing the unbearable situation.
Since then, not much has changed. It sounds like the new principal is simply not up to the job of maintaining order. Unless that changes, things could continue to get worse. And that’s serious because bullying and fights can be deadly at this age if not dealt with.
Last year, Aptos was judged a low-performing school (though not one of the lowest) in San Francisco. That’s also not going to change so long as the school can’t maintain order. Hopefully this news story will produce some change.


hotair--2020-02-14--Whoa: DOJ won't charge Andrew McCabe

Whoa: DOJ won't charge Andrew McCabe

“ Remember kids , ” said Drew McCoy in reaction to this news , “ if you want to lie to the FBI it ’ s important you work for the FBI .
Otherwise you ’ ll get in big trouble.
” Somewhere Mike Flynn and Roger Stone are nodding .
Two points up front in light of this post a few hours ago .
One : The president ’ s going to have a fit , to put it mildly .
WaPo reported yesterday that the new DOJ recommendations of light sentences for Mike Flynn and Roger Stone aren @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as seeing political enemies like James Comey and Andrew McCabe prosecuted .
He was irate when no charges were filed against Comey ; he ’ ll be climbing the walls watching McCabe skate too .
But like I said in the earlier post , there ’ s only so much Bill Barr can do with the evidence he has .
No doubt he ’ s willing , maybe even eager , to haul Trump ’ s antagonists into court .
( He ’ s the patron saint of the Durham investigation , isn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he doesn ’ t think a conviction ’ s possible , he ’ s stuck .
Which brings us to the other point .
Does this explain Barr ’ s sudden eagerness to intervene in the sentencing of Flynn and Stone ?
He must have had some inkling over the past few weeks that McCabe wouldn ’ t be charged before today ’ s announcement made it official .
He knew what Trump ’ s reaction would be .
He may have feared , not incorrectly , that his job would suddenly be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Trump lambasting him on Twitter a la Jeff Sessions as an AG who just couldn ’ t deliver what the president wanted of him .
Maybe he tried to get out in front of his problem by wading into the Flynn and Stone cases , hoping that a turn towards leniency for them by the DOJ would soften the blow to Trump once he heard the news about McCabe getting off .
I don ’ t think it ’ s going to soften it much .
What happened here , exactly ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the now-departed former U.S. Attorney of the D.C. office that investigated McCabe , was somehow in his corner ?
No , not according to the NYT : They reported back in September that she and her deputies all recommended charges against McCabe , even after his lawyers met with them and pleaded their case for why none should be filed .
Another wrinkle is the fact that a grand jury was called in this case and convened more than once , although there was an odd months-long gap between sessions last year .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ last fall that he should expect to be charged , something prosecutors usually say right before an indictment is issued .
But … no indictment followed this time .
Legal observers were left scratching their heads at the time at reports that the grand jury had met again and nothing had happened .
McCabe ’ s lawyers heard through the grapevine that they had refused to hand down an indictment — an all but unhead-of occurrence — and wrote to Liu in September asking for confirmation : They got no reply .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sandwich if the prosecutor asks it to , ” goes the old legal adage .
If the DOJ couldn ’ t meet the “ ham sandwich ” threshold in this case , even with the D.C. office willing to go forward with charges , what might be the reason ?
Did the grand jury cut McCabe a break because of his FBI service ?
Or were they sticklers about the law in this case , which isn ’ t normally applied to the circumstances in which McCabe lied ?
Hints of the case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prosecutor assigned to the case recently left , an unusual step so close to a potential indictment .
Another departed for a private law firm and has expressed reservations about how the case was handled .
A key witness testified that Mr. McCabe had no motive to lie because he was authorized as the F.B.I.
’ s deputy director to speak to the media , so he would not have had to hide any discussions with reporters .
Another important witness testified he could not immediately remember how the leak unfolded .
Both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Additionally , people who are charged with lying to the F.B.I .
are typically accused of committing the offense in the course of a criminal investigation , not an administrative inquiry .
For example , Mr. Horowitz determined last year that a senior Justice Department official committed wrongdoing by viewing pornography on his work computers and then providing false statements to investigators , but prosecutors declined to bring charges .
Right , right , but still .
What about the “ ham sandwich ” standard ?
This is a moment when we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through the wall and violate half a dozen different DOJ norms by telling us exactly what happened in the secret grand jury proceedings .
Without him , we ’ re left to wonder .
There ’ s another interesting line in the Times report : “ The president ’ s relentless criticism of the Justice Department likely complicated the prosecution of Mr. McCabe.
” No doubt Trump ’ s endless tweeting about McCabe would have been exploited at trial by the defense , citing it as proof that McCabe ’ s prosecution was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ carried out by his deputies at the DOJ .
That couldn ’ t have influenced the grand jury , though , since the defense ’ s attorneys aren ’ t in the room for those proceedings .
Is it possible that , instead of the grand jury declining to indict McCabe , the DOJ quietly abandoned the prosecution in the expectation that Trump ’ s public grudge might make McCabe unconvictable at trial ?
I ’ m thinking of Bill Barr telling ABC yesterday that Trump ’ s tweets are making it impossible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Maybe there was more to that sentiment than we realized at the time .
One more question .
If , per the rumors , the grand jury declined to indict McCabe last September , why is he only hearing today that he ’ s in the clear ?
Maybe the DOJ went back to the drawing board afterward and looked for a different path towards obtaining an indictment , only finally abandoning it now .
According to Lawfare , prosecutors are free to take a shot with a second grand jury at indicting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to indict so long as the U.S. Attorney approves .
That would have been tricky in a politically charged case like this , though ; if news leaked that the first grand jury had refused to indict and then Barr and the D.C. office pressed ahead with a second try at indictment , critics would have savaged him for pursuing a political grudge on Trump ’ s behalf .
It could be that the timing is a byproduct of the Stone sentencing fiasco .
Possibly the DOJ was planning to inform McCabe soon-ish @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and then all hell broke loose over Stone , with Barr attacked as a political hack .
Barr needed something quickly that would prove that he ’ s not doing Trump ’ s bidding .
Voila — the news that McCabe was free was hurried up and released .
Here ’ s McCabe taking a subdued victory lap on ( where else ? )
CNN .
Update : This news is also breaking this afternoon .
A make-up call by the AG for the president ?
Once again , Barr has much more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ friends don ’ t spend a long stretch ( or any stretch ) in prison than he does to put his enemies in there .

“Remember kids,” said Drew McCoy in reaction to this news, “if you want to lie to the FBI it’s important you work for the FBI. Otherwise you’ll get in big trouble.” Somewhere Mike Flynn and Roger Stone are nodding.
Two points up front in light of this post a few hours ago. One: The president’s going to have a fit, to put it mildly. WaPo reported yesterday that the new DOJ recommendations of light sentences for Mike Flynn and Roger Stone aren’t nearly as important to him as seeing political enemies like James Comey and Andrew McCabe prosecuted. He was irate when no charges were filed against Comey; he’ll be climbing the walls watching McCabe skate too. But like I said in the earlier post, there’s only so much Bill Barr can do with the evidence he has. No doubt he’s willing, maybe even eager, to haul Trump’s antagonists into court. (He’s the patron saint of the Durham investigation, isn’t he?) But if he doesn’t think a conviction’s possible, he’s stuck.
Which brings us to the other point. Does this explain Barr’s sudden eagerness to intervene in the sentencing of Flynn and Stone? He must have had some inkling over the past few weeks that McCabe wouldn’t be charged before today’s announcement made it official. He knew what Trump’s reaction would be. He may have feared, not incorrectly, that his job would suddenly be in peril when the news broke, with Trump lambasting him on Twitter a la Jeff Sessions as an AG who just couldn’t deliver what the president wanted of him. Maybe he tried to get out in front of his problem by wading into the Flynn and Stone cases, hoping that a turn towards leniency for them by the DOJ would soften the blow to Trump once he heard the news about McCabe getting off.
I don’t think it’s going to soften it much.
DOJ tells former Acting Director of the FBI Andrew McCabe that it will not pursue charges against him. pic.twitter.com/imAyjZs9Nq — Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) February 14, 2020
What happened here, exactly? Could it be that Jessie Liu, the now-departed former U.S. Attorney of the D.C. office that investigated McCabe, was somehow in his corner? No, not according to the NYT: They reported back in September that she and her deputies all recommended charges against McCabe, even after his lawyers met with them and pleaded their case for why none should be filed. Another wrinkle is the fact that a grand jury was called in this case and convened more than once, although there was an odd months-long gap between sessions last year. DOJ lawyers informed McCabe’s attorneys last fall that he should expect to be charged, something prosecutors usually say right before an indictment is issued. But … no indictment followed this time. Legal observers were left scratching their heads at the time at reports that the grand jury had met again and nothing had happened. McCabe’s lawyers heard through the grapevine that they had refused to hand down an indictment — an all but unhead-of occurrence — and wrote to Liu in September asking for confirmation:
Just in: Andrew McCabe’s legal team says in a new letter to Jesse Liu that based on their conversations with the US Attorney’s office in DC yesterday, “it is clear that no indictment has been returned” against McCabe by the grand jury. pic.twitter.com/XtMTelYqEv — Natasha Bertrand (@NatashaBertrand) September 13, 2019
They got no reply. “A grand jury will indict a ham sandwich if the prosecutor asks it to,” goes the old legal adage. If the DOJ couldn’t meet the “ham sandwich” threshold in this case, even with the D.C. office willing to go forward with charges, what might be the reason? Did the grand jury cut McCabe a break because of his FBI service? Or were they sticklers about the law in this case, which isn’t normally applied to the circumstances in which McCabe lied?
Hints of the case’s weakness had emerged. One prosecutor assigned to the case recently left, an unusual step so close to a potential indictment. Another departed for a private law firm and has expressed reservations about how the case was handled. A key witness testified that Mr. McCabe had no motive to lie because he was authorized as the F.B.I.’s deputy director to speak to the media, so he would not have had to hide any discussions with reporters. Another important witness testified he could not immediately remember how the leak unfolded. Both would have been crucial to any prosecution. Additionally, people who are charged with lying to the F.B.I. are typically accused of committing the offense in the course of a criminal investigation, not an administrative inquiry. For example, Mr. Horowitz determined last year that a senior Justice Department official committed wrongdoing by viewing pornography on his work computers and then providing false statements to investigators, but prosecutors declined to bring charges.
Right, right, but still. What about the “ham sandwich” standard? This is a moment when we need FBI director James Comey to burst through the wall and violate half a dozen different DOJ norms by telling us exactly what happened in the secret grand jury proceedings. Without him, we’re left to wonder.
There’s another interesting line in the Times report: “The president’s relentless criticism of the Justice Department likely complicated the prosecution of Mr. McCabe.” No doubt Trump’s endless tweeting about McCabe would have been exploited at trial by the defense, citing it as proof that McCabe’s prosecution was a political vendetta by the president being carried out by his deputies at the DOJ. That couldn’t have influenced the grand jury, though, since the defense’s attorneys aren’t in the room for those proceedings. Is it possible that, instead of the grand jury declining to indict McCabe, the DOJ quietly abandoned the prosecution in the expectation that Trump’s public grudge might make McCabe unconvictable at trial? I’m thinking of Bill Barr telling ABC yesterday that Trump’s tweets are making it impossible for him to do his job. Maybe there was more to that sentiment than we realized at the time.
One more question. If, per the rumors, the grand jury declined to indict McCabe last September, why is he only hearing today that he’s in the clear? Maybe the DOJ went back to the drawing board afterward and looked for a different path towards obtaining an indictment, only finally abandoning it now. According to Lawfare, prosecutors are free to take a shot with a second grand jury at indicting someone whom the first grand jury refused to indict so long as the U.S. Attorney approves. That would have been tricky in a politically charged case like this, though; if news leaked that the first grand jury had refused to indict and then Barr and the D.C. office pressed ahead with a second try at indictment, critics would have savaged him for pursuing a political grudge on Trump’s behalf.
It could be that the timing is a byproduct of the Stone sentencing fiasco. Possibly the DOJ was planning to inform McCabe soon-ish that he wouldn’t be charged and then all hell broke loose over Stone, with Barr attacked as a political hack. Barr needed something quickly that would prove that he’s not doing Trump’s bidding. Voila — the news that McCabe was free was hurried up and released.
Here’s McCabe taking a subdued victory lap on (where else?) CNN.
Andrew McCabe: “As glad as I am that the DoJ and the DC attorney’s office finally decided to do the right thing today, it’s an absolute disgrace that they took 2 years and put my family through this experience for two years before they finally drew the obvious conclusion." pic.twitter.com/T8x7drbukU — Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) February 14, 2020
Update: This news is also breaking this afternoon. A make-up call by the AG for the president?
Attorney General William P. Barr has assigned an outside prosecutor to scrutinize the criminal case against President Trump’s former national security adviser Michael T. Flynn, according to people familiar with the matter. The review is highly unusual and could trigger more accusations of political interference by top Justice Department officials into the work of career prosecutors. Mr. Barr has also installed a handful of outside prosecutors to broadly review the handling of other politically sensitive national-security cases in the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington, the people said.
Once again, Barr has much more power to make sure Trump’s friends don’t spend a long stretch (or any stretch) in prison than he does to put his enemies in there.


hotair--2020-02-14--Krugman: Relax, Bernie Sanders isn't a socialist (Update)

Krugman ’ s argument can be boiled down to a response he wrote to a commenter : ” [ Bernie ] calls himself a socialist .
I wish he wouldn ’ t. ” He wishes Bernie wouldn ’ t because it sets him up for an attack Krugman knows is coming from Republicans .
The problem for Krugman is that in Sanders ’ case the attack a ) is true and b ) will stick .
Given those givens , Krugman does his best to minimize Sanders ’ views , suggesting they barely count as socialism at all : Sanders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ social democrat .
Denmark is more of a social democracy , i.e .
a capitalist state with high taxes and a big safety net .
So is Bernie just calling himself the wrong thing ?
And if so why ?
Krugman speculates about that : That ’ s one way to look at this , i.e .
Sanders isn ’ t really that extreme , he just enjoys shocking people with his “ personal branding.
” But Krugman fails to point out is that there is lots of evidence a younger Sanders ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Democratic Socialist .
Back in the 1970s , he did want to nationalize industries , including the banks .
Has he moderated those opinions ?
Maybe , but it ’ s not fair to say he has no interest in nationalize major industries anymore because his top issue as a candidate is Medicare for All , which is essentially nationalizing the health care system .
Krugman is being extremely dishonest when he writes “ he has expressed admiration , not for Venezuela , but for Denmark.
” In fact , Sanders has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2011 his website posted a piece from the Valley News Editorial Board which read in part , “ These days , the American dream is more apt to be realized in South America , in places such as Ecuador , Venezuela and Argentina , where incomes are actually more equal today than they are in the land of Horatio Alger .
Who ’ s the banana republic now ?
” Those aren ’ t Sanders words and his spokesperson said last year he doesn ’ t agree with them but they were posted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ point , even if Sanders ’ record on Venezuela is a bit thin , we know he has praised other socialist nations including the USSR and Nicaragua under Daniel Ortega .
Granted that was in the 1980s but Sanders said last year he doesn ’ t regret his support for Ortega .
So the idea that a ) he never really was a socialist and b ) even if he was he isn ’ t now doesn ’ t hold up to much scrutiny .
It seems far more likely Sanders is doing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it won ’ t sell very well beyond college students .
In a previous column , Krugman wrote dismissively that , even if Sanders were a socialist it would hardly matter : Since we ’ re talking about Venezuela , let ’ s take a look at the article Krugman linked to prove his point that Venezuela didn ’ t take the road to serfdom : As I ’ ve noted before , in 2008 Chavez promised that Venezuela would not make the mistakes made in the Soviet Union .
His would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on behalf of the people .
A few years later everyone , except Bernie Sanders , admits Maduro is a dictator with his own death squads .
Finally , it ’ s worth noting that Sanders ’ top surrogate is Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez .
She also calls herself a Democratic Socialist and she has repeatedly suggested she is not a fan of capitalism .
Is she just trying to shock the bourgeoisie too ?
Update : James Freeman , writing in the Wall Street Journal , notes that back in 2003 Reuters reported @ @ @ @ @ @ @ letter of support for Hugo Chavez : Was Hugo Chavez not a real socialist either ?
We need a ruling from Krugman .

Krugman’s argument can be boiled down to a response he wrote to a commenter: ” [Bernie] calls himself a socialist. I wish he wouldn’t.” He wishes Bernie wouldn’t because it sets him up for an attack Krugman knows is coming from Republicans. The problem for Krugman is that in Sanders’ case the attack a) is true and b) will stick. Given those givens, Krugman does his best to minimize Sanders’ views, suggesting they barely count as socialism at all:
Bernie Sanders isn’t actually a socialist in any normal sense of the term. He doesn’t want to nationalize our major industries and replace markets with central planning; he has expressed admiration, not for Venezuela, but for Denmark. He’s basically what Europeans would call a social democrat — and social democracies like Denmark are, in fact, quite nice places to live, with societies that are, if anything, freer than our own.
Sanders calls himself a Democratic Socialist not a social democrat. Denmark is more of a social democracy, i.e. a capitalist state with high taxes and a big safety net. So is Bernie just calling himself the wrong thing? And if so why? Krugman speculates about that:
So why does Sanders call himself a socialist? I’d say that it’s mainly about personal branding, with a dash of glee at shocking the bourgeoisie. And this self-indulgence did no harm as long as he was just a senator from a very liberal state.
That’s one way to look at this, i.e. Sanders isn’t really that extreme, he just enjoys shocking people with his “personal branding.” But Krugman fails to point out is that there is lots of evidence a younger Sanders (in his early 30s) really was a Democratic Socialist. Back in the 1970s, he did want to nationalize industries, including the banks.
Has he moderated those opinions? Maybe, but it’s not fair to say he has no interest in nationalize major industries anymore because his top issue as a candidate is Medicare for All, which is essentially nationalizing the health care system.
Krugman is being extremely dishonest when he writes “he has expressed admiration, not for Venezuela, but for Denmark.” In fact, Sanders has expressed admiration for both. Back in 2011 his website posted a piece from the Valley News Editorial Board which read in part, “These days, the American dream is more apt to be realized in South America, in places such as Ecuador, Venezuela and Argentina, where incomes are actually more equal today than they are in the land of Horatio Alger. Who’s the banana republic now?” Those aren’t Sanders words and his spokesperson said last year he doesn’t agree with them but they were posted on his website.
More to the point, even if Sanders’ record on Venezuela is a bit thin, we know he has praised other socialist nations including the USSR and Nicaragua under Daniel Ortega. Granted that was in the 1980s but Sanders said last year he doesn’t regret his support for Ortega. So the idea that a) he never really was a socialist and b) even if he was he isn’t now doesn’t hold up to much scrutiny. It seems far more likely Sanders is doing his best to moderate his position knowing it won’t sell very well beyond college students.
In a previous column, Krugman wrote dismissively that, even if Sanders were a socialist it would hardly matter:
What about the slippery slope from liberalism to totalitarianism? There’s absolutely no evidence that it exists. Medicare didn’t destroy freedom. Stalinist Russia and Maoist China didn’t evolve out of social democracies. Venezuela was a corrupt petrostate long before Hugo Chávez came along. If there’s a road to serfdom, I can’t think of any nation that took it.
Since we’re talking about Venezuela, let’s take a look at the article Krugman linked to prove his point that Venezuela didn’t take the road to serfdom:
Chavez also harnessed his popularity among the working class to expand the powers of the presidency and edged the country toward authoritarianism: he ended term limits, effectively took control of the Supreme Court, harassed the press and closed independent outlets, and nationalized hundreds of private businesses and foreign-owned assets, such as oil projects run by ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips. The reforms paved the way for Maduro to establish a dictatorship years after Chavez’s death.
As I’ve noted before, in 2008 Chavez promised that Venezuela would not make the mistakes made in the Soviet Union. His would be a kinder, gentler 21st century socialism on behalf of the people. A few years later everyone, except Bernie Sanders, admits Maduro is a dictator with his own death squads.
Finally, it’s worth noting that Sanders’ top surrogate is Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. She also calls herself a Democratic Socialist and she has repeatedly suggested she is not a fan of capitalism. Is she just trying to shock the bourgeoisie too?
Update: James Freeman, writing in the Wall Street Journal, notes that back in 2003 Reuters reported Sanders and other Democrats had written a letter of support for Hugo Chavez:
Chavez on Sunday read out a Jan 9 letter of support sent by 19 U.S. Congress members recognizing him as the legitimately elected president of Venezuela. “If Abraham Lincoln or George Washington were alive and here today, they would be on our side,” he said. In their letter, the 19 members of the U.S. House of Representatives – 18 Democrats and one independent – told Chavez they strongly opposed attempts to remove him from office and condemned Bush administration officials who appeared to support the short-lived coup against him in April. The authors of the letter included Reps. John Conyers of Michigan, Jesse Jackson Jr. of Illinois, Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas and independent Rep. Bernie Sanders of Vermont.
Was Hugo Chavez not a real socialist either? We need a ruling from Krugman.


hotair--2020-02-14--MAGA hat-wearing teen assaulted at polling place, police make an arrest

A 34-year-old New Hampshire man has been arrested for assaulting a 15-year-old boy at a polling location during the New Hampshire primary held on Tuesday .
It is reported he will be arraigned Friday .
The boy was excited to be experiencing the primary voting scene .
He was wearing a MAGA hat and holding a sign at a Trump campaign tent outside of Windham High School with other supporters and workers .
Patrick Bradley is accused of slapping the boy across his face as he left the polling place .
Two adult men stepped in and Bradley assaulted them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign signs and attempted to knock over the tent .
Bradley was arrested Thursday and charged with three counts of simple assault , a Class A misdemeanor , and one count of violation level disorderly conduct , according to the Windham Police Department .
He is being held on a $ 5000 cash bail .
He is being held on administrative hold for a probation violation .
This is the latest story of violence towards Trump supporters by angry anti-Trump adults .
Slapping a teenager across his face , though , takes Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It conjures up the case of Nick Sandmann and the Covington kids , doesn ’ t it ?
In that particular case , though , the *ahem* adult invading Sandmann ’ s space didn ’ t physically assault him as he tried to intimidate the kid .
Now this fifteen-year-old in New Hampshire is traumatized , according to his mom .
Cathy Campbell , the boy ’ s mom , asked for her son to remain anonymous as she described the incident .
“ My son stayed home from school on Tuesday for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drove by the high school to go vote .
When we got there , we saw Donald Trump Jr. and Kimberly Guilfoyle , and my son was over the moon , ” Campbell told Fox News .
“ My son is the most patriotic kid you ’ d ever meet in your life .
I was apprehensive about him wearing the MAGA hat , because we know it can provoke and we know people don ’ t like Trump .
But he wore the hat because he ’ s a proud 15-year-old and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are going to be like.
” The Trump campaign confirmed to Fox News that both Trump Jr. and Guilfoyle were at the polling location Tuesday afternoon .
Donald Trump , Jr. updated his original tweet on Friday morning , complaining that major news outlets are not covering the story .
Corey Lewandowski was also at this polling place and told Fox News , “ My 8-year-old was holding a sign an hour before that.
” “ It ’ s appalling and disgusting that someone is attacked physically for supporting the president of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” The New Hampshire Republican Party tweeted that it is “ a despicable and unacceptable act ” along with their appreciation that law enforcement acted quickly .
A twist to this story is that the teen ’ s father is a first responder and he was called to the scene after the attack .
He says his son is okay , but the father is worried about his son ’ s safety after Bradley is released from jail .
It ’ s a legitimate concern these days .
It ’ s hard to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of themselves so quickly over the mere sight of a red MAGA cap or a Trump campaign sign .
It ’ s bad enough when immature college students behave badly and try to destroy a table of Trump campaign literature during a voter registration drive or when someone drives into a tent set up by the Republican Party but slapping a kid learning to take part in the political process is beyond the pale .
That is not the civics lesson any child needs .

A 34-year-old New Hampshire man has been arrested for assaulting a 15-year-old boy at a polling location during the New Hampshire primary held on Tuesday. It is reported he will be arraigned Friday.
The boy was excited to be experiencing the primary voting scene. He was wearing a MAGA hat and holding a sign at a Trump campaign tent outside of Windham High School with other supporters and workers. Patrick Bradley is accused of slapping the boy across his face as he left the polling place. Two adult men stepped in and Bradley assaulted them, too. Bradley also threw Trump campaign signs and attempted to knock over the tent.
Bradley was arrested Thursday and charged with three counts of simple assault, a Class A misdemeanor, and one count of violation level disorderly conduct, according to the Windham Police Department. He is being held on a $5000 cash bail. He is being held on administrative hold for a probation violation.
This is the latest story of violence towards Trump supporters by angry anti-Trump adults. Slapping a teenager across his face, though, takes Trump Derangement Syndrome to a new level. It conjures up the case of Nick Sandmann and the Covington kids, doesn’t it? In that particular case, though, the *ahem* adult invading Sandmann’s space didn’t physically assault him as he tried to intimidate the kid. Now this fifteen-year-old in New Hampshire is traumatized, according to his mom. Cathy Campbell, the boy’s mom, asked for her son to remain anonymous as she described the incident.
“My son stayed home from school on Tuesday for a doctor’s appointment and we drove by the high school to go vote. When we got there, we saw Donald Trump Jr. and Kimberly Guilfoyle, and my son was over the moon,” Campbell told Fox News. “My son is the most patriotic kid you’d ever meet in your life. I was apprehensive about him wearing the MAGA hat, because we know it can provoke and we know people don’t like Trump. But he wore the hat because he’s a proud 15-year-old and he doesn’t know what people are going to be like.” The Trump campaign confirmed to Fox News that both Trump Jr. and Guilfoyle were at the polling location Tuesday afternoon.
Donald Trump, Jr. updated his original tweet on Friday morning, complaining that major news outlets are not covering the story.
So this week alone a violent leftist attacked a 15 year old kid Trump supporter in NH and another ran a car through some others. Still virtually no coverage from media MSM outlets? At this point it’s as if you condone it! Reversed, this would be the biggest story of the month. https://t.co/pPI6PgTQbY — Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) February 14, 2020
Corey Lewandowski was also at this polling place and told Fox News, “My 8-year-old was holding a sign an hour before that.” “It’s appalling and disgusting that someone is attacked physically for supporting the president of the United States, let alone a child.”
The New Hampshire Republican Party tweeted that it is “a despicable and unacceptable act” along with their appreciation that law enforcement acted quickly.
A twist to this story is that the teen’s father is a first responder and he was called to the scene after the attack. He says his son is okay, but the father is worried about his son’s safety after Bradley is released from jail. It’s a legitimate concern these days. It’s hard to believe that grown adults can lose control of themselves so quickly over the mere sight of a red MAGA cap or a Trump campaign sign. It’s bad enough when immature college students behave badly and try to destroy a table of Trump campaign literature during a voter registration drive or when someone drives into a tent set up by the Republican Party but slapping a kid learning to take part in the political process is beyond the pale. That is not the civics lesson any child needs.


hotair--2020-02-14--<span class='red'>Breaking: US, Taliban agree on truce, AP reports; Update: ABC confirms; Update: NY

Has America ’ s longest war come to an end ?
The Associated Press reports that the US and the Taliban have reached a formal truce agreement that will use the seven-day “ reduction in violence ” framework .
The deal includes commitment to an “ all-Afghan ” peace conference to begin within the next two weeks after the cease-ish fire period : A senior U.S.official said Friday the United States and the Taliban have reached a truce agreement that will take effect “ very soon ” and could lead to withdrawals of American troops from Afghanistan .
The official @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reduction in violence ” to be followed by the start of all-Afghan peace talks within 10 days is “ very specific ” and covers the entire country including Afghan forces .
One indication of how serious this is could be an earlier meeting in Munich : No official announcement has been made yet , but it ’ s not really going to be a surprise .
The portents have been in the air for months , only getting derailed last fall after the Taliban continued to target American personnel .
Esper ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sufficient ” for a dial-down in kinetic operations gave a huge hint that this was the front end of an already-constructed larger agreement : The final details were hammered out in recent days by U.S. special envoy for Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad and Taliban representatives in Doha , Qatar .
Khalilzad was in Munich and attended Pompeo and Esper ’ s meeting as did Gen. Scott Miller , the commander of the U.S.-led international force in Afghanistan .
People familiar with the plan ’ s outlines say it calls for the successful conclusion of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 10 days by the start of all-Afghan negotiations to set the road map for the country ’ s political future .
Thus far , the only reporting on this is coming from the AP .
If it ’ s true , our longest war may be over before spring arrives .
We ’ ll update as more reporting comes in .
For now , though , it looks like we might have finally put an end to our Afghan adventure , for better or worse .
Update , 11:49 am ET : Still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we wait for confirmation , consider what this might mean politically at home .
If Trump gets his withdrawal from Afghanistan , or at least an end to all combat operations , that ’ s a major campaign promise fulfilled .
The benefit of that will likely cross party lines , too … assuming it doesn ’ t cause an eruption of terrorist activity .
The potential here is not all to the upside .
Update , 11:56 : Axios notes the political appeal , at least in the short term : “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wanted out , President Trump wants out , ” says Michael Morell , who held top roles at the CIA under both Bush and Obama .
“ Nobody can see a path to this ending , and the American people are getting tired of it .
What ’ s held them back is a belief that once we leave , the Taliban ’ s going to take over … and offer al-Qaeda safe haven again.
” “ That is a risk that President Bush wasn ’ t willing to take , President Obama @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and President Trump earlier in his term wasn ’ t willing to take , ” says Morell , who hosts the Intelligence Matters podcast .
What to watch : For now , Trump may be satisfied with a partial deal and a partial troop reduction .
Ultimately , he clearly wants out .
So do all of the leading 2020 Democrats , and many Americans .
And in the end , we probably could stay there another 50 years and still face the same end game .
That ’ s the problem .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but ABC News confirms it independently : But first , the Taliban must follow through on this seven-day reduction in violence .
While it ’ s not a full ceasefire , the senior State Dept .
official said it is nationwide , including Afghan government forces .
The agreement is “ very specific ” – down to roadside bombs , suicide bombs and rocket attacks .
“ Should the Talibs implement what they ’ ve committed to doing , we ’ ll go forward with the agreement , ” the official said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t pop the champagne just yet .
Update , 12:45 : The New York Times has more details about the agreement , including a five-month timetable for a significant US drawdown , but a full withdrawal no sooner than 2023 : The deal would lay out a 135-day timetable for drawing down American troop strength in Afghanistan from about 13,000 to 8,600 ; United States officials had indicated that they planned to make the reduction with or without an agreement in place .
It calls for a complete withdrawal within three to five @ @ @ @ @ @ @ start of negotiations between the government in Kabul and the Taliban — something the Taliban has long refused — on a long-term power-sharing settlement .
Afghan leaders have been frustrated by the United States ’ acceding to the Taliban ’ s demand that negotiations , held over the past year in Doha , Qatar , exclude the government , even as deadly violence continued .
… A weeklong decline in hostilities would be an abrupt shift , coming off one of the most violent years in the long conflict .
In 2019 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ per day , the United States dropped more than 7,000 bombs and missiles , and the Taliban and smaller armed insurgent groups carried out about 25,000 attacks .
The Taliban signed off on a three-year withdrawal at minimum ?
I ’ d be surprised to see that succeed .

Breaking: US, Taliban agree on truce, AP reports; Update: ABC confirms; Update: NYT says US withdrawal would be no sooner than 2023?
Has America’s longest war come to an end? The Associated Press reports that the US and the Taliban have reached a formal truce agreement that will use the seven-day “reduction in violence” framework. The deal includes commitment to an “all-Afghan” peace conference to begin within the next two weeks after the cease-ish fire period:
A senior U.S.official said Friday the United States and the Taliban have reached a truce agreement that will take effect “very soon” and could lead to withdrawals of American troops from Afghanistan. The official said the agreement for a seven-day “reduction in violence” to be followed by the start of all-Afghan peace talks within 10 days is “very specific” and covers the entire country including Afghan forces.
One indication of how serious this is could be an earlier meeting in Munich:
The developments come as U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Defense Secretary Mark Esper met Friday in Munich with Afghanistan’s President Ashraf Ghani. They spoke on the sidelines of an international security forum in Munich.
No official announcement has been made yet, but it’s not really going to be a surprise. The portents have been in the air for months, only getting derailed last fall after the Taliban continued to target American personnel. Esper’s statement yesterday about seven days being “sufficient” for a dial-down in kinetic operations gave a huge hint that this was the front end of an already-constructed larger agreement:
The final details were hammered out in recent days by U.S. special envoy for Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad and Taliban representatives in Doha, Qatar. Khalilzad was in Munich and attended Pompeo and Esper’s meeting as did Gen. Scott Miller, the commander of the U.S.-led international force in Afghanistan. People familiar with the plan’s outlines say it calls for the successful conclusion of the weeklong truce to be followed within 10 days by the start of all-Afghan negotiations to set the road map for the country’s political future.
Thus far, the only reporting on this is coming from the AP. If it’s true, our longest war may be over before spring arrives. We’ll update as more reporting comes in. For now, though, it looks like we might have finally put an end to our Afghan adventure, for better or worse.
Update, 11:49 am ET: Still nothing from other news sources. While we wait for confirmation, consider what this might mean politically at home. If Trump gets his withdrawal from Afghanistan, or at least an end to all combat operations, that’s a major campaign promise fulfilled. The benefit of that will likely cross party lines, too … assuming it doesn’t cause an eruption of terrorist activity. The potential here is not all to the upside.
Update, 11:56: Axios notes the political appeal, at least in the short term:
“President Bush wanted out, President Obama wanted out, President Trump wants out,” says Michael Morell, who held top roles at the CIA under both Bush and Obama. “Nobody can see a path to this ending, and the American people are getting tired of it. What’s held them back is a belief that once we leave, the Taliban’s going to take over … and offer al-Qaeda safe haven again.” “That is a risk that President Bush wasn’t willing to take, President Obama wasn’t willing to take, and President Trump earlier in his term wasn’t willing to take,” says Morell, who hosts the Intelligence Matters podcast. What to watch: For now, Trump may be satisfied with a partial deal and a partial troop reduction. Ultimately, he clearly wants out. So do all of the leading 2020 Democrats, and many Americans.
And in the end, we probably could stay there another 50 years and still face the same end game. That’s the problem.
Update, 12:13: Took a while, but ABC News confirms it independently:
But first, the Taliban must follow through on this seven-day reduction in violence. While it’s not a full ceasefire, the senior State Dept. official said it is nationwide, including Afghan government forces. The agreement is “very specific”– down to roadside bombs, suicide bombs and rocket attacks. “Should the Talibs implement what they’ve committed to doing, we’ll go forward with the agreement,” the official said.
In other words, don’t pop the champagne just yet.
Update, 12:45: The New York Times has more details about the agreement, including a five-month timetable for a significant US drawdown, but a full withdrawal no sooner than 2023:
The deal would lay out a 135-day timetable for drawing down American troop strength in Afghanistan from about 13,000 to 8,600; United States officials had indicated that they planned to make the reduction with or without an agreement in place. It calls for a complete withdrawal within three to five years. It also calls for the start of negotiations between the government in Kabul and the Taliban — something the Taliban has long refused — on a long-term power-sharing settlement. Afghan leaders have been frustrated by the United States’ acceding to the Taliban’s demand that negotiations, held over the past year in Doha, Qatar, exclude the government, even as deadly violence continued. … A weeklong decline in hostilities would be an abrupt shift, coming off one of the most violent years in the long conflict. In 2019, the civilian death rate averaged almost seven per day, the United States dropped more than 7,000 bombs and missiles, and the Taliban and smaller armed insurgent groups carried out about 25,000 attacks.
The Taliban signed off on a three-year withdrawal at minimum? I’d be surprised to see that succeed.


hotair--2020-02-14--Lou Dobbs: I'm so disappointed in Bill Barr for rebuking Trump on the Roger Stone case

I can ’ t decide if he ’ s in on the kabuki being performed by Barr and Trump and just playing his part with this commentary or if he really doesn ’ t see that it ’ s kabuki .
I lean towards believing that he ’ s being sincere .
For Dobbs , the daily mandate is straightforward : Attack the president ’ s critics , whoever they may be and without regard for what the substance of the criticism is .
Barr criticized Trump yesterday , ergo Barr is the target even though his DOJ just intervened @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two weeks to request leniency for already-convicted cronies Mike Flynn and Roger Stone .
In MAGAland , your standing is only as secure as what you ’ ve done for the president that day .
Last night the White House put out this uncharacteristically serene take on Barr ’ s interview with ABC , deepening the suspicions that Barr ’ s “ rebuke ” of Trump was done with the president ’ s knowledge or consent in order to restore plausible deniability to the idea that Barr fixed Stone ’ s and Flynn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Trump .
Trump himself chimed in this morning , sounding slightly more peevish but still subdued : That ’ s not inconsistent with plausible deniability either : “ I could have intervened — but didn ’ t. ” I believe him , though , when he says that he didn ’ t order Barr to wade into the Flynn and Stone cases .
He shouldn ’ t need to .
The only reason Barr is Attorney General to begin with is because Jeff Sessions refused to protect the president politically from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ riding herd on it .
From the beginning — even before he was AG — Barr has aligned himself with Trump ’ s interests in Russiagate , writing a memo to the DOJ as a lawyer in private practice arguing that Trump couldn ’ t be guilty of obstruction of justice as president , then accusing the FBI of “ spying ” on the Trump campaign during testimony long before the Horowitz report was finished , then becoming unusually hands-on in assisting John Durham ’ s investigation of the Russiagate process .
Barr @ @ @ @ @ @ @ instructed at this point that Trump pals convicted in the Russiagate matter should be given a break .
He knows what his job is .
Having said that , he also can ’ t oversee a Department whose employees are resigning left and right in protest over political interference by the AG on the White House ’ s behalf .
WaPo says Barr has found Trump ’ s tweeting about open criminal cases unhelpful for some time now : People close to Barr said that in recent months he has become increasingly frustrated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Justice Department .
The president , they said , seemed not only to be undercutting his own political momentum but also to be fostering doubts about the department ’ s independence .
Trump ’ s tweet complaining that he believed his friend was being treated unfairly proved something of a last straw , they said , because it was so damaging to morale at the department .
Barr was comfortable not being universally loved by career employees , but he felt the tweet Tuesday raised a bigger problem , giving people reason to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by political influence and decided he could no longer remain silent about the president ’ s public denunciations , these people said .
The real point of contention between them , though , is allegedly the fact that Trump ’ s enemies — including and especially James Comey — haven ’ t been criminally charged with anything .
Durham may end up having something to say about that eventually but WaPo claims Trump went ballistic when the DOJ refused to charge Comey for leaking ( “ lawyers quickly determined it was not a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ build a case ” ) and that his anger grew after the Huber investigation found nothing indictable when investigating Hillary Clinton for corruption .
What Trump really wants , supposedly , is to see his antagonists punished more so than his allies given leniency .
Barr ’ s problem is that there ’ s only so much he can do to prosecute Comey , McCabe , etc .
He can throw his weight around to aid Durham in gathering evidence but in the end the evidence is either there or it isn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be mollified either if the DOJ gives it the ol ’ college try by charging Comey and then a jury deliberates for an hour before acquitting him .
And Barr would be in great ethical peril if his deputies looked at the evidence , saw nothing that would justify a conviction , and he insisted that they charge Comey anyway .
All it would take is one deputy to talk and we ’ d have a scandal that dwarfed the Ukraine business .
So Barr ’ s hands are tied on prosecutions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but what he can certainly do for the president in the meantime is make sure that Flynn and Stone get light sentences .
It ’ d be easier for him if the president would shut up about it , though .
“ [ E ] ven the Trump Justice Department needs the expensive drapery of the pretense of legal reasoning , ” as David Frum put it .
“ When the president insists on yanking that drapery aside day after day on Twitter and television , the reality of what is going on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ endure.
” Exit question : Are House Democrats about to subpoena the four prosecutors on the Stone case who just withdrew in protest ?
Greg Sargent of WaPo says Democratic staffers are talking about it .
They ’ d better get cracking , as the White House is destined to claim executive privilege in blocking that testimony and forcing the matter into court .

I can’t decide if he’s in on the kabuki being performed by Barr and Trump and just playing his part with this commentary or if he really doesn’t see that it’s kabuki.
I lean towards believing that he’s being sincere. For Dobbs, the daily mandate is straightforward: Attack the president’s critics, whoever they may be and without regard for what the substance of the criticism is. Barr criticized Trump yesterday, ergo Barr is the target even though his DOJ just intervened not once but twice in the past two weeks to request leniency for already-convicted cronies Mike Flynn and Roger Stone.
In MAGAland, your standing is only as secure as what you’ve done for the president that day.
Lou Dobbs attacks Bill Barr, suggests he's part of the "deep state," calls the Justice Department "rancid, corrupt" pic.twitter.com/PzjnieGrlK — Andrew Lawrence (@ndrew_lawrence) February 14, 2020
Last night the White House put out this uncharacteristically serene take on Barr’s interview with ABC, deepening the suspicions that Barr’s “rebuke” of Trump was done with the president’s knowledge or consent in order to restore plausible deniability to the idea that Barr fixed Stone’s and Flynn’s sentences as a political favor to Trump.
JUST IN: WH reax to Barr interview 👀 pic.twitter.com/vURAvPscBq — Paula Reid (@PaulaReidCBS) February 13, 2020
Trump himself chimed in this morning, sounding slightly more peevish but still subdued:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1228311415192215553
That’s not inconsistent with plausible deniability either: “I could have intervened — but didn’t.” I believe him, though, when he says that he didn’t order Barr to wade into the Flynn and Stone cases. He shouldn’t need to. The only reason Barr is Attorney General to begin with is because Jeff Sessions refused to protect the president politically from the Russiagate probe, recusing himself instead of riding herd on it. From the beginning — even before he was AG — Barr has aligned himself with Trump’s interests in Russiagate, writing a memo to the DOJ as a lawyer in private practice arguing that Trump couldn’t be guilty of obstruction of justice as president, then accusing the FBI of “spying” on the Trump campaign during testimony long before the Horowitz report was finished, then becoming unusually hands-on in assisting John Durham’s investigation of the Russiagate process. Barr doesn’t have to be formally instructed at this point that Trump pals convicted in the Russiagate matter should be given a break. He knows what his job is.
Having said that, he also can’t oversee a Department whose employees are resigning left and right in protest over political interference by the AG on the White House’s behalf. WaPo says Barr has found Trump’s tweeting about open criminal cases unhelpful for some time now:
People close to Barr said that in recent months he has become increasingly frustrated with Trump’s tweets about the Justice Department. The president, they said, seemed not only to be undercutting his own political momentum but also to be fostering doubts about the department’s independence. Trump’s tweet complaining that he believed his friend was being treated unfairly proved something of a last straw, they said, because it was so damaging to morale at the department. Barr was comfortable not being universally loved by career employees, but he felt the tweet Tuesday raised a bigger problem, giving people reason to wonder whether the department had been corrupted by political influence and decided he could no longer remain silent about the president’s public denunciations, these people said.
The real point of contention between them, though, is allegedly the fact that Trump’s enemies — including and especially James Comey — haven’t been criminally charged with anything. Durham may end up having something to say about that eventually but WaPo claims Trump went ballistic when the DOJ refused to charge Comey for leaking (“lawyers quickly determined it was not a close call and did not seek to build a case”) and that his anger grew after the Huber investigation found nothing indictable when investigating Hillary Clinton for corruption. What Trump really wants, supposedly, is to see his antagonists punished more so than his allies given leniency. Barr’s problem is that there’s only so much he can do to prosecute Comey, McCabe, etc. He can throw his weight around to aid Durham in gathering evidence but in the end the evidence is either there or it isn’t. Trump’s not going to be mollified either if the DOJ gives it the ol’ college try by charging Comey and then a jury deliberates for an hour before acquitting him. And Barr would be in great ethical peril if his deputies looked at the evidence, saw nothing that would justify a conviction, and he insisted that they charge Comey anyway. All it would take is one deputy to talk and we’d have a scandal that dwarfed the Ukraine business.
So Barr’s hands are tied on prosecutions, pending Durham’s conclusions — but what he can certainly do for the president in the meantime is make sure that Flynn and Stone get light sentences. It’d be easier for him if the president would shut up about it, though. “[E]ven the Trump Justice Department needs the expensive drapery of the pretense of legal reasoning,” as David Frum put it. “When the president insists on yanking that drapery aside day after day on Twitter and television, the reality of what is going on becomes too embarrassing even for Barr to endure.”
Exit question: Are House Democrats about to subpoena the four prosecutors on the Stone case who just withdrew in protest? Greg Sargent of WaPo says Democratic staffers are talking about it. They’d better get cracking, as the White House is destined to claim executive privilege in blocking that testimony and forcing the matter into court.


hotair--2020-02-14--AOC: President Bernie probably can't deliver Medicare for All, you know

You don ’ t say .
Actually , she does say it to HuffPost , even though Bernie Sanders claims just the opposite .
“ A president can ’ t wave a magic wand and pass any legislation they want , ” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez says in dismissing chances for getting Medicare for All through Congress .
It ’ s basically a bargaining chip to restore the public option to ObamaCare : Ocasio-Cortez ― one of the most outspoken advocates for Medicare for All ― said she thought voters understood there was an “ inherent check ” on the president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like our health care system .
And she argued that the realities of governing were actually an argument for someone like Sanders , as he ’ d be able to push Democrats and resulting changes further left .
But Ocasio-Cortez is also realistic about how far even a President Sanders could actually move Congress .
“ The worst-case scenario ?
We compromise deeply and we end up getting a public option .
Is that a nightmare ?
I don ’ t think so , ” she said .
Ocasio-Cortez stressed that just getting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t the left ’ s ultimate goal .
But she also said she wasn ’ t here to railroad other members with differing viewpoints on health care ― she just thinks it helps to have a president who has a more ambitious platform than Congress so that Democrats could stretch what ’ s possible .
So … Bernie ’ s demanding an end to insurance coverage for more than 150 million Americans just to get back to 2009 ’ s original ObamaCare structure ?
That doesn ’ t sound at all like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
If the public option is sufficient , then why not just get behind Joe Biden , who ’ s been arguing for that position all along ?
Sanders , AOC , and other allies ridiculed any structure that retained private insurance as a sellout .
For someone who ’ s selling The Revolution on the stump for Sanders , this sounds like a mighty big retreat by AOC on the central plank in his platform , and almost certainly an unauthorized walkback .
Sanders has other issues in his platform , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agenda .
His economic policies don ’ t work without it — well , they don ’ t work at all actually , but especially not without a complete switch to socialized medicine .
Furthermore , Sanders has had plenty of opportunities to offer compromises , such as Pete Buttigieg ’ s idea ( also promoted by others ) of optional Medicare buy-ins .
Sanders has steadfastly refused to water down his vision by a single inch .
Don ’ t be so sure that Sanders agrees with Ocasio-Cortez he can ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Axios reports this morning that Team Bernie plans to expand the reconciliation process in the Senate to turn Congress into a complete rubber stamp by having the vice-president usurp the parliamentarian : The Sanders team knows the Senate will be a problem , thanks to ( what ’ s left of ) the filibuster .
They ’ re planning to get around that by using budget reconciliation rules to pass most of his major plans — channeling progressive Democrats ’ frustrations over the Senate ’ s track record of killing big plans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be passed with just a majority vote , but only under strict conditions .
Anything that doesn ’ t have an impact on spending or revenues can be knocked out , and some problems can ’ t be fixed , as Democrats found when they used it to finish passing the Affordable Care Act in 2010 .
Sanders plans to get around that problem by directing his vice president to rule that Medicare for All , the Green New Deal and other big proposals can be passed that way — overruling any procedural @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that be done ?
It ’ s how Harry Reid got the final version of ObamaCare through the Senate after Ted Kennedy ’ s death ended his filibuster-proof supermajority .
It ’ s also how Republicans passed their big tax-cut package two-plus years ago .
It can be done with a united Senate majority caucus , but that may be the rub for President Bernie : • That would be an extreme challenge given that virtually all of his most ambitious proposal have divided Democrats on the campaign trail and would be sure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ • Even if he managed to do that , there would be fallout within the Senate from repeated use of the vice president ’ s powers to overrule any procedural objections — and not just among the senators .
• The vice president would have to repeatedly overrule the Senate parliamentarian , a non-political officer whose job is to interpret the rules .
If that happens again and again , the parliamentarian could just step aside and stop offering advice on the next procedural challenges — basically telling the vice president : You @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both of the previous two cases , reconciliation got pushed by Senate majority leaders , not the vice president , on policies that united their caucuses .
Will Senate Democrats go all-in for Bernie ’ s socialist agenda ?
Probably not , but this possibility might make for a very good election argument … from Republican candidates and incumbents in Senate races .

You don’t say. Actually, she does say it to HuffPost, even though Bernie Sanders claims just the opposite. “A president can’t wave a magic wand and pass any legislation they want,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez says in dismissing chances for getting Medicare for All through Congress. It’s basically a bargaining chip to restore the public option to ObamaCare:
Ocasio-Cortez ― one of the most outspoken advocates for Medicare for All ― said she thought voters understood there was an “inherent check” on the president’s ability to actually change things like our health care system. And she argued that the realities of governing were actually an argument for someone like Sanders, as he’d be able to push Democrats and resulting changes further left. But Ocasio-Cortez is also realistic about how far even a President Sanders could actually move Congress. “The worst-case scenario? We compromise deeply and we end up getting a public option. Is that a nightmare? I don’t think so,” she said. Ocasio-Cortez stressed that just getting a public option for health care wasn’t the left’s ultimate goal. But she also said she wasn’t here to railroad other members with differing viewpoints on health care ― she just thinks it helps to have a president who has a more ambitious platform than Congress so that Democrats could stretch what’s possible.
So … Bernie’s demanding an end to insurance coverage for more than 150 million Americans just to get back to 2009’s original ObamaCare structure? That doesn’t sound at all like what Sanders is saying on the road. If the public option is sufficient, then why not just get behind Joe Biden, who’s been arguing for that position all along? Sanders, AOC, and other allies ridiculed any structure that retained private insurance as a sellout.
For someone who’s selling The Revolution on the stump for Sanders, this sounds like a mighty big retreat by AOC on the central plank in his platform, and almost certainly an unauthorized walkback. Sanders has other issues in his platform, but Medicare for All is central to his agenda. His economic policies don’t work without it — well, they don’t work at all actually, but especially not without a complete switch to socialized medicine. Furthermore, Sanders has had plenty of opportunities to offer compromises, such as Pete Buttigieg’s idea (also promoted by others) of optional Medicare buy-ins. Sanders has steadfastly refused to water down his vision by a single inch.
Don’t be so sure that Sanders agrees with Ocasio-Cortez he can’t get his agenda through Congress, either. Axios reports this morning that Team Bernie plans to expand the reconciliation process in the Senate to turn Congress into a complete rubber stamp by having the vice-president usurp the parliamentarian:
The Sanders team knows the Senate will be a problem, thanks to (what’s left of) the filibuster. They’re planning to get around that by using budget reconciliation rules to pass most of his major plans — channeling progressive Democrats’ frustrations over the Senate’s track record of killing big plans. Those rules can allow proposals to be passed with just a majority vote, but only under strict conditions. Anything that doesn’t have an impact on spending or revenues can be knocked out, and some problems can’t be fixed, as Democrats found when they used it to finish passing the Affordable Care Act in 2010. Sanders plans to get around that problem by directing his vice president to rule that Medicare for All, the Green New Deal and other big proposals can be passed that way — overruling any procedural challenges that might come up.
Can that be done? It’s how Harry Reid got the final version of ObamaCare through the Senate after Ted Kennedy’s death ended his filibuster-proof supermajority. It’s also how Republicans passed their big tax-cut package two-plus years ago. It can be done with a united Senate majority caucus, but that may be the rub for President Bernie:
That would be an extreme challenge given that virtually all of his most ambitious proposal have divided Democrats on the campaign trail and would be sure to divide them in the Senate.
Even if he managed to do that, there would be fallout within the Senate from repeated use of the vice president’s powers to overrule any procedural objections — and not just among the senators.
The vice president would have to repeatedly overrule the Senate parliamentarian, a non-political officer whose job is to interpret the rules. If that happens again and again, the parliamentarian could just step aside and stop offering advice on the next procedural challenges — basically telling the vice president: You’re on your own.
In both of the previous two cases, reconciliation got pushed by Senate majority leaders, not the vice president, on policies that united their caucuses. Will Senate Democrats go all-in for Bernie’s socialist agenda? Probably not, but this possibility might make for a very good election argument … from Republican candidates and incumbents in Senate races.