hotair--2020-10-09--Lindsey Graham's opponent: I'm boycotting tonight's debate -- unless he takes a COVID test beforehan

Lindsey Graham's opponent: I'm boycotting tonight's debate -- unless he takes a COVID test beforehand; Update: Debate canceled

I can ’ t decide if this is nutty or actually clever .
The case for “ nutty ” : Normally the only time a politician is eager to skip a debate is if he ’ s up big and afraid of letting his opponent back into the race .
( See , e.g.
, Biden vs .
Trump . )
Jaime Harrison isn ’ t up big and probably isn ’ t ahead at all .
The race in South Carolina is a toss-up , with the public now paying close attention , yet here he is prepared to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to voters for ousting a longtime incumbent .
Some might see that and feel annoyed that Harrison doesn ’ t think he has to work to earn their votes .
Others might find it suspicious , believing that he ’ s looking for an excuse to dodge Graham because he fears he ’ ll lose the debate .
( They ’ ve already debated once and Harrison did fine . )
You don ’ t walk off the field with two minutes left in the fourth quarter and the score tied .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It looks *really* shady that Graham won ’ t just comply with Harrison ’ s request to take a farking test tonight before the debate .
Apparently both men did so before their first contest .
Then Lindsey went back to Washington and attended a Judiciary Committee hearing with Mike Lee shortly before Lee tested positive for COVID .
If Graham was willing to get tested before the first debate , why not tonight ?
What ’ s changed ?
Harrison said CDC guidelines says a person should quarantine for 14 days if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ someone who has tested positive for COVID .
Graham and Lee were seated three seats apart at a Judiciary Committee hearing not wearing masks , but they were in a large room and senators were spread out in order to socially distance… Graham ’ s campaign on Thursday night provided a letter from Congressional Attending Physician Brian Monahan , who wrote Graham did not meet the criteria of being a “ close contact ” during the Oct. 1 Judiciary hearing .
Monahan added Graham did not need to self-quarantine or have a COVID-19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take a coronavirus test , I can not responsibly debate in person tomorrow night and allow politics to put my family , my campaign staff , Sen. Graham ’ s staff , and members of the media at unnecessary risk , ” Harrison said .
They ’ ve been bickering about this on Twitter , where all the best political fights take place nowadays : I ’ m not sure how persuasive Graham ’ s reasoning is there that because millions of South Carolinians have to live with the risk of being infected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would be elitist for Graham and Harrison to do what they can to mitigate the risk to themselves .
He came back at Harrison again this afternoon : This is the second debate in a row where Harrison has made a big show of precautions against COVID .
At the first one , he brought his own six-foot-high plexiglass divider and set it up between him and Graham to try to block any viral particles that might be coming his way from across the stage .
Tonight he ’ s ready to walk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tested .
The polls on the GOP ’ s handling of coronavirus must be abysmal even in solid-red South Carolina , especially in the aftermath of the outbreak at the White House .
But I ’ d never have guessed that they might be so bad that Harrison would deem *skipping a debate* to be a political winner for him because of the attention his absence would call to Republicans ’ problem with COVID .
Which leaves us with the question of why Graham won ’ t just get tested .
A simple @ @ @ @ @ @ @ making an unforced error by threatening to skip the debate and wants to call his bluff to see if he really will boycott .
That is , maybe Graham ’ s negative but agrees with the “ nutty ” interpretation of what Harrison ’ s doing .
There ’ s another possibility , of course .
A positive test for Graham would be all kinds of bad news .
Most basically , it would implicate him in the Democratic narrative that Trump and congressional Republicans have been unforgivably reckless in not doing more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ within their own ranks , which feeds into the broader narrative that the White House has never taken the threat from COVID seriously enough .
In a race as tight as the one between Graham and Harrison , maybe that matters .
Maybe it ’ s even decisive .
But Graham ’ s role in the Barrett process is a special risk .
He ’ s the chairman of the Judiciary Committee , responsible for keeping the confirmation process moving so that a final vote can be held before the election .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have to quarantine .
How that might slow down the process is unclear , but obviously it could potentially mean that Republicans won ’ t have the votes to advance Barrett ’ s nomination when the committee votes , as currently scheduled , on October 22 .
And of course it would force Graham to cancel tonight ’ s debate with Harrison and remain off the campaign trail for a spell in the home stretch towards Election Day .
If Graham were to test positive , try keep it a secret , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign business without telling anyone , any leak revealing that he had knowingly exposed others to the virus would end his political career .
If instead he were to avoid being tested , he could go about that business and remain blissfully ignorant as to whether he ’ s infected and is infecting others .
Willful blindness is inexcusable , but not quite as grotesque as being out and about while knowing that you ’ re positive .
So that ’ s where we are right now .
Is Graham merely reckless in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he actually received a positive test and is prepared to put Harrison at risk by sharing a stage with him rather than submit to a pre-debate test that would make his diagnosis public ?
I ’ m leaning towards “ clever ” on what Harrison is up to by threatening a boycott under those circumstances , but I ’ d also bet that he ends up dropping his bluff and debating Graham tonight regardless .
He ’ ll make a point of noting Graham ’ s refusal to get tested during their back-and-forth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more than a boycott would .
I ’ ll leave you with this .
Democrats had better hope Harrison pulls the upset next month because the Senate seat across the border that they thought was in their pocket may be slipping away… I guess the next round of polls will answer the question of whether this was nutty or clever .

I can’t decide if this is nutty or actually clever.
The case for “nutty”: Normally the only time a politician is eager to skip a debate is if he’s up big and afraid of letting his opponent back into the race. (See, e.g., Biden vs. Trump.) Jaime Harrison isn’t up big and probably isn’t ahead at all. The race in South Carolina is a toss-up, with the public now paying close attention, yet here he is prepared to miss an opportunity to make the case to voters for ousting a longtime incumbent. Some might see that and feel annoyed that Harrison doesn’t think he has to work to earn their votes. Others might find it suspicious, believing that he’s looking for an excuse to dodge Graham because he fears he’ll lose the debate. (They’ve already debated once and Harrison did fine.) You don’t walk off the field with two minutes left in the fourth quarter and the score tied.
The case for “actually clever”: It looks *really* shady that Graham won’t just comply with Harrison’s request to take a farking test tonight before the debate. Apparently both men did so before their first contest. Then Lindsey went back to Washington and attended a Judiciary Committee hearing with Mike Lee shortly before Lee tested positive for COVID.
If Graham was willing to get tested before the first debate, why not tonight? What’s changed?
Harrison said CDC guidelines says a person should quarantine for 14 days if someone has been in close contact with someone who has tested positive for COVID. Graham and Lee were seated three seats apart at a Judiciary Committee hearing not wearing masks, but they were in a large room and senators were spread out in order to socially distance… Graham’s campaign on Thursday night provided a letter from Congressional Attending Physician Brian Monahan, who wrote Graham did not meet the criteria of being a “close contact” during the Oct. 1 Judiciary hearing. Monahan added Graham did not need to self-quarantine or have a COVID-19 test… “If Sen. Graham will not take a coronavirus test, I cannot responsibly debate in person tomorrow night and allow politics to put my family, my campaign staff, Sen. Graham’s staff, and members of the media at unnecessary risk,” Harrison said.
They’ve been bickering about this on Twitter, where all the best political fights take place nowadays:
I'm excited for tomorrow's debate with @LindseyGrahamSC, but we need real leadership in this pandemic. The debate moderators and I have agreed to take a COVID test prior to debating. I've scheduled my test, and I am calling on Sen. Graham to do the same. — Jaime Harrison, DNC Chair (@harrisonjaime) October 8, 2020
Whether Mr. Harrison attends tomorrow’s debate is his decision, not mine. I will be there. 7pm in Spartanburg. #CantWait #SCSen pic.twitter.com/IZjJDEQqYJ — Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) October 8, 2020
Why won't you take the test, Lindsey? https://t.co/dEVXUuBWqA — Jaime Harrison, DNC Chair (@harrisonjaime) October 9, 2020
I’m not sure how persuasive Graham’s reasoning is there that because millions of South Carolinians have to live with the risk of being infected with a deadly disease every day it would be elitist for Graham and Harrison to do what they can to mitigate the risk to themselves. He came back at Harrison again this afternoon:
Mr. Harrison is demanding special treatment. Other than Mr. Harrison, is any other South Carolinian demanding every person they come in contact with be tested before they meet? — Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) October 9, 2020
South Carolinians do not appreciate Harrison putting himself above others. If Mr. Harrison is not able to interact with South Carolinians on the same terms they live their lives, he should not be their senator. — Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) October 9, 2020
This is the second debate in a row where Harrison has made a big show of precautions against COVID. At the first one, he brought his own six-foot-high plexiglass divider and set it up between him and Graham to try to block any viral particles that might be coming his way from across the stage. Tonight he’s ready to walk altogether because Graham won’t get tested. The polls on the GOP’s handling of coronavirus must be abysmal even in solid-red South Carolina, especially in the aftermath of the outbreak at the White House. But I’d never have guessed that they might be so bad that Harrison would deem *skipping a debate* to be a political winner for him because of the attention his absence would call to Republicans’ problem with COVID.
Which leaves us with the question of why Graham won’t just get tested. A simple possibility: He thinks Harrison’s making an unforced error by threatening to skip the debate and wants to call his bluff to see if he really will boycott. That is, maybe Graham’s negative but agrees with the “nutty” interpretation of what Harrison’s doing.
There’s another possibility, of course.
Hmmm, strange. Someone might think he's trying not to take a COVID test before the Amy Coney Barrett hearing because he's worried it'll be positive. https://t.co/E4TNqpD7YX — Amanda Hoey (@amandahoey) October 9, 2020
A positive test for Graham would be all kinds of bad news. Most basically, it would implicate him in the Democratic narrative that Trump and congressional Republicans have been unforgivably reckless in not doing more to prevent the spread of the disease within their own ranks, which feeds into the broader narrative that the White House has never taken the threat from COVID seriously enough. In a race as tight as the one between Graham and Harrison, maybe that matters. Maybe it’s even decisive.
But Graham’s role in the Barrett process is a special risk. He’s the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, responsible for keeping the confirmation process moving so that a final vote can be held before the election. If he tests positive, he’ll have to quarantine. How that might slow down the process is unclear, but obviously it could potentially mean that Republicans won’t have the votes to advance Barrett’s nomination when the committee votes, as currently scheduled, on October 22. And of course it would force Graham to cancel tonight’s debate with Harrison and remain off the campaign trail for a spell in the home stretch towards Election Day.
If Graham were to test positive, try keep it a secret, and then go about attending to Senate and campaign business without telling anyone, any leak revealing that he had knowingly exposed others to the virus would end his political career. If instead he were to avoid being tested, he could go about that business and remain blissfully ignorant as to whether he’s infected and is infecting others. Willful blindness is inexcusable, but not quite as grotesque as being out and about while knowing that you’re positive.
So that’s where we are right now. Is Graham merely reckless in declining to be tested? Or has he actually received a positive test and is prepared to put Harrison at risk by sharing a stage with him rather than submit to a pre-debate test that would make his diagnosis public? I’m leaning towards “clever” on what Harrison is up to by threatening a boycott under those circumstances, but I’d also bet that he ends up dropping his bluff and debating Graham tonight regardless. He’ll make a point of noting Graham’s refusal to get tested during their back-and-forth. That’ll probably help him more than a boycott would.
I’ll leave you with this. Democrats had better hope Harrison pulls the upset next month because the Senate seat across the border that they thought was in their pocket may be slipping away…
MUST WATCH: Cal refused not ONCE, not TWICE, not THREE TIMES, but FOUR TIMES to answer how many affairs he’s had. How many mistresses are there, @CalforNC? #NCSen #ncpol pic.twitter.com/rf7I51wbuz — Senate Republicans (@NRSC) October 9, 2020
Update: I’m shocked. Harrison wasn’t bluffing.
The 2nd #SCSen debate tonight has officially been scrapped hours before it was scheduled to begin after @harrisonjaime insisted that @LindseyGrahamSC get a coronavirus test and Graham refused. It will be replaced by separate interviews hosted by WSPA.https://t.co/loH4MQQ1jG — Jamie Lovegrove (@jslovegrove) October 9, 2020
I guess the next round of polls will answer the question of whether this was nutty or clever.


hotair--2020-10-09--Trump to Rush Limbaugh: If Iran decides to f**k around, they'll find out

President Trump called in to Rush Limbaugh ’ s show today .
I haven ’ t heard the entire interview but this highlight appeared on Twitter .
The Free Beacon gave this the “ Beast Mode ” treatment : “ We never had it like we have it now and Iran knows that and they ’ ve been put on notice .
If you f**k around with us , if you do something bad to us we are going to do things to you that have never been done before.
” Naturally there are plenty of progressives who , having @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , are now very upset by this use of language .
Okay , I agree that I don ’ t want a president who is routinely using four-letter words in interviews , but in this case we ’ re talking about Iran so he gets a complete pass from me .
For several years under the Obama administration , Iran was treated with kid gloves .
Obama ’ s great 2nd term foreign policy accomplishment was the Iran deal which handed a bunch of lying , America-hating , US-troop-killing , theocratic nutjobs billions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the US government in exchange for putting off their nuclear ambitions for a decade or so .
Trump has had a different approach , exemplified by his decision to withdraw from the Iran deal and target and take out Gen. Soleimani , the single person most responsible for Iran ’ s regional reign of terror .
Iran responded to that with threats and an airstrike that did injure some American soldiers .
While Iran was waiting nervously for a response to that strike it shot down a jet full of passengers leaving from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iran lied about its responsibility until it couldn ’ t any more .
This summer , there were a series of unexplained explosions and fires at various Iranian nuclear sites .
Once again , Iran downplayed or outright lied about what had happened .
A group calling itself “ Cheetahs of the Homeland ” claimed responsibility for those attacks but some observers said it looked like the work of Israel .
And if it was Israel , those attacks probably had at least a tacit go-ahead from the U.S. All of that to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ point in flattering Iran with pleasantries .
They hate us almost as much as they hate Israel .
They are responsible for killing and maiming hundreds of U.S. soldiers in Iraq a little more than a decade ago .
So Trump ’ s language seems perfectly apt .
If they want to chant “ Death to America ” at prayers every week that ’ s fine but if they try to actually do something to the U.S. beyond running their mouths , it should be clear there will be a heavy price to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the reasons I dread the possibility of a Biden administration .
With Biden we would see an influx of Iran deal supporters eager to bring us back to the days of sucking up to Javad Zarif and whoever else they send .
Ben “ echo chamber ” Rhodes is already daydreaming about getting the band back together :

President Trump called in to Rush Limbaugh’s show today. I haven’t heard the entire interview but this highlight appeared on Twitter. The Free Beacon gave this the “Beast Mode” treatment: “We never had it like we have it now and Iran knows that and they’ve been put on notice. If you f**k around with us, if you do something bad to us we are going to do things to you that have never been done before.”
BEASTMODE: Trump had a message for the Iranian regime on the Rush Limbaugh Show, and he didn't mince words.https://t.co/jCbW0vYGJ4 pic.twitter.com/oHrfsQCktT — Free Beacon (@FreeBeacon) October 9, 2020
Naturally there are plenty of progressives who, having spent the morning comparing Trump to Hitler, are now very upset by this use of language. Okay, I agree that I don’t want a president who is routinely using four-letter words in interviews, but in this case we’re talking about Iran so he gets a complete pass from me.
For several years under the Obama administration, Iran was treated with kid gloves. Obama’s great 2nd term foreign policy accomplishment was the Iran deal which handed a bunch of lying, America-hating, US-troop-killing, theocratic nutjobs billions of dollars and plenty of praise from the US government in exchange for putting off their nuclear ambitions for a decade or so.
Trump has had a different approach, exemplified by his decision to withdraw from the Iran deal and target and take out Gen. Soleimani, the single person most responsible for Iran’s regional reign of terror. Iran responded to that with threats and an airstrike that did injure some American soldiers.
While Iran was waiting nervously for a response to that strike it shot down a jet full of passengers leaving from its own airport. As usual, Iran lied about its responsibility until it couldn’t any more.
This summer, there were a series of unexplained explosions and fires at various Iranian nuclear sites. Once again, Iran downplayed or outright lied about what had happened. A group calling itself “Cheetahs of the Homeland” claimed responsibility for those attacks but some observers said it looked like the work of Israel. And if it was Israel, those attacks probably had at least a tacit go-ahead from the U.S.
All of that to say, there’s really no point in flattering Iran with pleasantries. They hate us almost as much as they hate Israel. They are responsible for killing and maiming hundreds of U.S. soldiers in Iraq a little more than a decade ago. So Trump’s language seems perfectly apt. If they want to chant “Death to America” at prayers every week that’s fine but if they try to actually do something to the U.S. beyond running their mouths, it should be clear there will be a heavy price to pay.
This is frankly one of the reasons I dread the possibility of a Biden administration. With Biden we would see an influx of Iran deal supporters eager to bring us back to the days of sucking up to Javad Zarif and whoever else they send. Ben “echo chamber” Rhodes is already daydreaming about getting the band back together:


hotair--2020-10-09--Great news: Yelp will only rely on "resounding evidence" for labeling businesses as racist

And where will Yelp get this “ resounding evidence ” ?
Why , only from a “ credible news outlet , ” of course !
The New York Times reports that the popular business-review site now feels that it ’ s their business to announce which businesses are racist .
One has to wonder what Yelp ’ s lawyers think of this idea , but I ’ d bet a lot of other trial attorneys will be licking their chops at the thought : Yelp , the local search and review site , said it would post alerts on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have reported incidents of racism , the latest attempt by a U.S. company to introduce a tougher response system to confront discrimination after the police killing of George Floyd in May .
The company , which offers a platform for users to rate places like restaurants , small businesses and popular tourist sites , said in a statement Thursday that it would use a “ business accused of racist behavior ” alert when there was “ resounding evidence ” that a business owner or employee had taken racist actions , including the use @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alert will always link to a news article from a “ credible media outlet , ” Yelp said , without elaborating on which news organizations they considered to be credible or how it defined “ resounding evidence.
” Yelp ’ s announcement raised questions about how the company will enforce the initiative — and how it will ensure that businesses were not falsely associated with racism or the target of defamatory reviews , which can significantly damage a business .
Companies like Google and Facebook have also grappled with the difficult issues of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This raises all sorts of questions , the first of which is — does Yelp need to label itself as racist ?
Business Insider could be considered a “ credible media outlet , ” and they reported last month ( behind a paywall ) that Yelp had been accused of both racist and sexist behavior .
That qualifies for the “ racist ” label , no ?
Obviously , Yelp would dispute these allegations , which is the point .
Just because accusations show up in “ credible media outlets ” doesn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , given the media ’ s track record on credulously reporting what later turn out to be hate-crime hoaxes , it would be reckless and negligent to make that assumption .
That makes it idiotic to publicly label businesses as racist based on news stories without seeking out evidence independently before publishing what may well be libel .
It ’ s doubly idiotic to leave potential libel published for 90 days until someone demonstrates that the businesses have mended their ways , presumably by finding a way to prove a negative .
What @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is deliberately leaving the safe harbor of Section 230 to pull this stunt .
If Yelp ’ s commenters post accusations of racist behavior without foundation and even with malicious false intent , Yelp isn ’ t legally liable for that commentary .
Their users can access those comments easily without Yelp doing anything to negate its Section 230 immunity .
Now , however , Yelp itself will be publishing these allegations as part of their business operations .
And since they aren ’ t a “ credible media outlet ” and these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Sullivan sense , their liability for libel is going to be enormous .
This is a very foolish example of corporate pandering to a social panic .
Racism exists , of course , but it ’ s not going to get fixed by amplifying accusations without proof or reason , especially by social-media platforms like Yelp .
The phase “ get woke , go broke ” might end up applying in a very real way if Yelp actually follows through on this plan .

And where will Yelp get this “resounding evidence”? Why, only from a “credible news outlet,” of course! The New York Times reports that the popular business-review site now feels that it’s their business to announce which businesses are racist.
One has to wonder what Yelp’s lawyers think of this idea, but I’d bet a lot of other trial attorneys will be licking their chops at the thought:
Yelp, the local search and review site, said it would post alerts on the pages of businesses where customers or employees have reported incidents of racism, the latest attempt by a U.S. company to introduce a tougher response system to confront discrimination after the police killing of George Floyd in May. The company, which offers a platform for users to rate places like restaurants, small businesses and popular tourist sites, said in a statement Thursday that it would use a “business accused of racist behavior” alert when there was “resounding evidence” that a business owner or employee had taken racist actions, including the use of racist slurs or symbols. This alert will always link to a news article from a “credible media outlet,” Yelp said, without elaborating on which news organizations they considered to be credible or how it defined “resounding evidence.” Yelp’s announcement raised questions about how the company will enforce the initiative — and how it will ensure that businesses were not falsely associated with racism or the target of defamatory reviews, which can significantly damage a business. Companies like Google and Facebook have also grappled with the difficult issues of moderating users on their online platforms.
This raises all sorts of questions, the first of which is — does Yelp need to label itself as racist? Business Insider could be considered a “credible media outlet,” and they reported last month (behind a paywall) that Yelp had been accused of both racist and sexist behavior. That qualifies for the “racist” label, no?
https://twitter.com/percychow/status/1314440175506792449?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1314440175506792449%7Ctwgr%5Eshare_3&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitchy.com%2Fsarahd-313035%2F2020%2F10%2F09%2Fuh-oh-does-yelp-have-an-extra-business-accused-of-racist-behavior-alert-to-put-on-their-own-page%2F
Obviously, Yelp would dispute these allegations, which is the point. Just because accusations show up in “credible media outlets” doesn’t make them true. In fact, given the media’s track record on credulously reporting what later turn out to be hate-crime hoaxes, it would be reckless and negligent to make that assumption. That makes it idiotic to publicly label businesses as racist based on news stories without seeking out evidence independently before publishing what may well be libel. It’s doubly idiotic to leave potential libel published for 90 days until someone demonstrates that the businesses have mended their ways, presumably by finding a way to prove a negative.
What makes this doubly amazing is that Yelp is deliberately leaving the safe harbor of Section 230 to pull this stunt. If Yelp’s commenters post accusations of racist behavior without foundation and even with malicious false intent, Yelp isn’t legally liable for that commentary. Their users can access those comments easily without Yelp doing anything to negate its Section 230 immunity. Now, however, Yelp itself will be publishing these allegations as part of their business operations. And since they aren’t a “credible media outlet” and these businesses aren’t public entities in the Sullivan sense, their liability for libel is going to be enormous.
This is a very foolish example of corporate pandering to a social panic. Racism exists, of course, but it’s not going to get fixed by amplifying accusations without proof or reason, especially by social-media platforms like Yelp. The phase “get woke, go broke” might end up applying in a very real way if Yelp actually follows through on this plan.


hotair--2020-10-09--Ted Cruz: This election could be a bloodbath of post-Watergate proportions

Don ’ t worry , he ’ s careful to blame Democrats ’ obstruction of a stimulus deal for any blue tsunami that may arise .
You-know-who remains faultless .
The wrinkle in Cruz ’ s logic is that , deal or no deal , Americans strongly believe that they ’ re better off now than they were four years ago .
It ’ s mind-bending that an incumbent in a political climate like that would be staring at a landslide defeat rather than a landslide victory .
Which means , if the GOP is wiped out , it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it has nothing to do with a stimulus .
The irony of this comment is that Cruz , as much as anyone , has been an impediment to the sort of big-ticket stimulus agreement that might have helped Trump meaningfully in the polls .
Watch , then read on .
Let me take you back to WaPo ’ s story from July 22 on stimulus deliberations within the Senate Republican caucus .
Yes , they really have been chewing on this issue for that long on Capitol Hill .
Longer , actually .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ warned GOP colleagues and White House emissaries during a private lunch on Tuesday that conservative voters could revolt in November if Republicans spend too much on the next phase of coronavirus relief efforts .
After voting for $ 3 trillion in new spending and revenue reductions to combat the contagion and its economic consequences , some lawmakers are saying they can not support a new package if its price tag exceeds $ 1 trillion .
Cruz asked Senate Republicans , “ What in the hell are we doing ?
” Meanwhile , Sen. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the lunch that the GOP needs to be willing to keep racking up debt to maintain power .
He argued that the full conference needs to focus on protecting their most vulnerable members .
Cotton postulated that Democrats would spend more money if they win the Senate majority in November and , therefore , it is cheaper in the long run to allow the size of the spending package to grow with more goodies to benefit incumbents who are up for reelection .
The idea that Republican voters would stay home because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much — during a national emergency , no less — is so ludicrous that I can almost hear the laughter in the conference room from his colleagues when he said it .
The GOP base doesn ’ t give a wet fart how much the government spends .
The tea-party movement ended long ago , with fiscal responsibility replaced by culture war as the GOP ’ s ideological north star .
Trump was running trillion-dollar deficits even before coronavirus arrived and no one said a word .
To the extent that righty voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would easily convince themselves to overlook a blockbuster stimulus endorsed by the president using the same logic Cotton used , namely , that a reelected Trump would spend less in a second term than Biden would .
Can ’ t lay it all on Cruz , though .
I ’ m pretty sure I can guess who said this : Ben Sasse said something very similar publicly about Pelosi and Mnuchin in late July .
He ’ s also part of the cohort of Senate GOPers who are sticking to their fiscal-conservative guns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and yet very difficult to understand in the current economic — and electoral — circumstances .
News is breaking this afternoon that the White House has come up from its offer of $ 1.6 trillion to $ 1.8 trillion in hopes of luring Pelosi into a deal .
If she agrees , will Cruz and Sasse vote for that deal when it reaches the Senate ?
If only to try to prevent the “ bloodbath ” on November 3 that might otherwise occur ?
Cruz insisted to CNBC that he thinks Pelosi and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump proposes .
That ’ s possible .
Certainly they ’ d love to have the president take the blame for the failure of the two sides to make a deal before Election Day .
But Liam Donovan has a point here : Pelosi could call the Senate GOP ’ s bluff .
All she has to do is agree to Trump ’ s offer , pass it through the House , and then tell McConnell to choke on it .
That would be a gamble , as Senate Republicans could turn around @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from Trump .
If he gets a pre-election bounce from it , that could be the difference between victory and defeat .
Still , the gamble might be worth it for Pelosi on the theory that ( a ) Trump looks to be trailing so badly at the moment that even a last-minute stimulus deal won ’ t be enough to rescue him and ( b ) Senate Republicans probably *won ’ t* pass it , infuriating Trump and dividing the party in the waning days of the campaign .
Two sources close @ @ @ @ @ @ @ desperate , has zero leverage to push them to support a bill crafted by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and congressional Republicans aren ’ t inclined to wrap themselves any tighter to a sinking ship .
What they ’ re saying : “ You ’ re never going to get a deal out of Pelosi that Republicans can support .
So do you really want to divide your party within days of an election ?
” said a source close to Senate leadership about McConnell ’ s calculations .
“ This entire exercise from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Senate in the midst of a Supreme Court confirmation .
They know that from a procedural standpoint McConnell can drive this train to conclusion , so what they ’ re trying do is throw as many roadblocks in the way as possible — and the best way to do that is get the president focused on some extraneous issue.
” Left unmentioned there is the effect that a stimulus deal might have on downballot races .
Trump may be too far behind to be rescued by an agreement now but I don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lindsey Graham are .
Anyway , the bit above about Trump being a sinking ship with zero leverage over the caucus raises another possibility that I mentioned elsewhere this morning .
Do Senate Republicans … want Trump to lose ?
If you ’ re serious about restoring fiscal conservatism as some cardinal Republican value — which seems not-so-smart electorally — then purging Trumpism is the first move .
Is that what Cruz and Sasse are after in refusing to go big on a stimulus ?
By the way , here ’ s where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s standards , it ’ s crazily erratic to go from ending stimulus negotiations on Tuesday to endorsing a big stimulus on Thursday to endorsing a bigger-than-Pelosi-wants stimulus on Friday .
There ’ s zero chance the Senate GOP will bid House Democrats *up* on providing coronavirus relief , so at this point Trump is just doing PR .
He ’ s signaling to voters that if no deal is reached , they should blame McConnell ’ s caucus , not him .
We ’ ll see how that works out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the party is now negotiating among itself in public feels … discouraging .
One last point .
Cruz says in the clip that he thinks the election is “ highly volatile ” right now , but that ’ s not true .
The news cycle is highly volatile — never a dull moment — but the polling has been remarkably stable since the start of this cursed , miserable , endlessly rancorous year .
Any “ volatility ” at the moment has to do with whether Biden will win somewhat narrowly or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thought depresses you , read this Sean Trende piece on two encouraging indicators for Trump .
Yes , the polls are terrible , but historically the outcome of a national election has lined up surprisingly well with the results of recent special elections and , weirdly enough , the results of primaries in Washington state .
Both of those indicators this year suggest far less of an advantage for Dems than the polling would have us believe .

Don’t worry, he’s careful to blame Democrats’ obstruction of a stimulus deal for any blue tsunami that may arise. You-know-who remains faultless.
The wrinkle in Cruz’s logic is that, deal or no deal, Americans strongly believe that they’re better off now than they were four years ago. It’s mind-bending that an incumbent in a political climate like that would be staring at a landslide defeat rather than a landslide victory. Which means, if the GOP is wiped out, it’ll be perfectly clear why. And it has nothing to do with a stimulus.
The irony of this comment is that Cruz, as much as anyone, has been an impediment to the sort of big-ticket stimulus agreement that might have helped Trump meaningfully in the polls. Watch, then read on.
"If on election day people are angry, and they've given up hope and are depressed which is what Pelosi and Schumer want them to be I think it could be a terrible election," says @SenTedCruz. "It could be a bloodbath of Watergate proportions." pic.twitter.com/swhGzdDrb4 — Squawk Box (@SquawkCNBC) October 9, 2020
Let me take you back to WaPo’s story from July 22 on stimulus deliberations within the Senate Republican caucus. Yes, they really have been chewing on this issue for that long on Capitol Hill. Longer, actually.
Sen. Ted Cruz (Tex.) warned GOP colleagues and White House emissaries during a private lunch on Tuesday that conservative voters could revolt in November if Republicans spend too much on the next phase of coronavirus relief efforts. After voting for $3 trillion in new spending and revenue reductions to combat the contagion and its economic consequences, some lawmakers are saying they cannot support a new package if its price tag exceeds $1 trillion. Cruz asked Senate Republicans, “What in the hell are we doing?” Meanwhile, Sen. Tom Cotton (Ark.) suggested at the lunch that the GOP needs to be willing to keep racking up debt to maintain power. He argued that the full conference needs to focus on protecting their most vulnerable members. Cotton postulated that Democrats would spend more money if they win the Senate majority in November and, therefore, it is cheaper in the long run to allow the size of the spending package to grow with more goodies to benefit incumbents who are up for reelection.
The idea that Republican voters would stay home because Trump’s government is spending too much — during a national emergency, no less — is so ludicrous that I can almost hear the laughter in the conference room from his colleagues when he said it. The GOP base doesn’t give a wet fart how much the government spends. The tea-party movement ended long ago, with fiscal responsibility replaced by culture war as the GOP’s ideological north star. Trump was running trillion-dollar deficits even before coronavirus arrived and no one said a word. To the extent that righty voters still care about shrinking government, they would easily convince themselves to overlook a blockbuster stimulus endorsed by the president using the same logic Cotton used, namely, that a reelected Trump would spend less in a second term than Biden would.
Can’t lay it all on Cruz, though. I’m pretty sure I can guess who said this:
“We’re not going to be a part of any bill negotiated by Steve Mnuchin & Nancy Pelosi,” a GOP senator told me all the way back in LATE APRIL. “When they sit down at table to talk spending, they are not counter-parties negotiating. They are allies strategizing.” => https://t.co/1yg7ZwcYra — David M. Drucker (@DavidMDrucker) October 9, 2020
Ben Sasse said something very similar publicly about Pelosi and Mnuchin in late July. He’s also part of the cohort of Senate GOPers who are sticking to their fiscal-conservative guns, which is admirable in the abstract and yet very difficult to understand in the current economic — and electoral — circumstances. News is breaking this afternoon that the White House has come up from its offer of $1.6 trillion to $1.8 trillion in hopes of luring Pelosi into a deal. If she agrees, will Cruz and Sasse vote for that deal when it reaches the Senate? If only to try to prevent the “bloodbath” on November 3 that might otherwise occur?
Cruz insisted to CNBC that he thinks Pelosi and Schumer won’t agree to anything Trump proposes. That’s possible. Certainly they’d love to have the president take the blame for the failure of the two sides to make a deal before Election Day. But Liam Donovan has a point here:
If you’re Pelosi, you might carry them another round, but why not cut the deal with the WH and let Rs squabble among themselves? Heads you win, tails he drags them down with him. — Liam Donovan (@LPDonovan) October 9, 2020
Pelosi could call the Senate GOP’s bluff. All she has to do is agree to Trump’s offer, pass it through the House, and then tell McConnell to choke on it. That would be a gamble, as Senate Republicans could turn around and pass the bill under immense pressure from Trump. If he gets a pre-election bounce from it, that could be the difference between victory and defeat. Still, the gamble might be worth it for Pelosi on the theory that (a) Trump looks to be trailing so badly at the moment that even a last-minute stimulus deal won’t be enough to rescue him and (b) Senate Republicans probably *won’t* pass it, infuriating Trump and dividing the party in the waning days of the campaign.
Two sources close to Senate leadership said President Trump is desperate, has zero leverage to push them to support a bill crafted by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and congressional Republicans aren’t inclined to wrap themselves any tighter to a sinking ship. What they’re saying: “You’re never going to get a deal out of Pelosi that Republicans can support. So do you really want to divide your party within days of an election?” said a source close to Senate leadership about McConnell’s calculations. “This entire exercise from Pelosi is basically trying to jam up the Senate in the midst of a Supreme Court confirmation. They know that from a procedural standpoint McConnell can drive this train to conclusion, so what they’re trying do is throw as many roadblocks in the way as possible — and the best way to do that is get the president focused on some extraneous issue.”
Left unmentioned there is the effect that a stimulus deal might have on downballot races. Trump may be too far behind to be rescued by an agreement now but I don’t know that Susan Collins and Lindsey Graham are.
Anyway, the bit above about Trump being a sinking ship with zero leverage over the caucus raises another possibility that I mentioned elsewhere this morning. Do Senate Republicans … want Trump to lose?
What some Republicans are starting to say, though not on the record just yet: flush the system. in other words: It will be easier to eradicate Trumpism and reset for ‘22 in a landslide rather than a close loss. — Jonathan Martin (@jmartNYT) October 9, 2020
If you’re serious about restoring fiscal conservatism as some cardinal Republican value — which seems not-so-smart electorally — then purging Trumpism is the first move. Is that what Cruz and Sasse are after in refusing to go big on a stimulus?
By the way, here’s where things stand this afternoon:
TRUMP on Rush Limbaugh show: "I would like to see a bigger stimulus package frankly than either the Democrats or Republicans are offering." Trump said he's going "the exact opposite now," reversing himself on what he said in recent days on virus relief spending negotiations. — Jennifer Jacobs (@JenniferJJacobs) October 9, 2020
Even by Trump’s standards, it’s crazily erratic to go from ending stimulus negotiations on Tuesday to endorsing a big stimulus on Thursday to endorsing a bigger-than-Pelosi-wants stimulus on Friday. There’s zero chance the Senate GOP will bid House Democrats *up* on providing coronavirus relief, so at this point Trump is just doing PR. He’s signaling to voters that if no deal is reached, they should blame McConnell’s caucus, not him. We’ll see how that works out for all of them. The fact that the party is now negotiating among itself in public feels … discouraging.
One last point. Cruz says in the clip that he thinks the election is “highly volatile” right now, but that’s not true. The news cycle is highly volatile — never a dull moment — but the polling has been remarkably stable since the start of this cursed, miserable, endlessly rancorous year. Any “volatility” at the moment has to do with whether Biden will win somewhat narrowly or much more comfortably. But if that thought depresses you, read this Sean Trende piece on two encouraging indicators for Trump. Yes, the polls are terrible, but historically the outcome of a national election has lined up surprisingly well with the results of recent special elections and, weirdly enough, the results of primaries in Washington state. Both of those indicators this year suggest far less of an advantage for Dems than the polling would have us believe.


hotair--2020-10-09--Portland Mayoral candidate Sarah Iannarone once again stands with Antifa <span class='red'>(Update:

Portland Mayoral candidate Sarah Iannarone once again stands with Antifa (Update: She's a fan of Stalin and Mao too)

There was a debate in Portland last night between the two remaining candidates in the race , Mayor Ted Wheeler and challenger Sarah Iannarone .
After some preliminary questions from the moderators , they turned the questioning over to a Portland resident who had submitted the following question for both candidates to answer : “ When do peaceful protests under our First Amendment become unlawful , dangerous and violent ?
And when would you put a stop to this making sure that we do go back to peaceful protests and not allowing our city to burn night after night ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ began attacking the police .
“ I know how upsetting it is when there is unrest in your neighborhoods , especially when night after night we ’ re seeing that protests about police brutality are met with increased police brutality , ” she said .
She continued , “ And how [ un ] comfortable it can be when things like teargas are administered and leak into the homes of residents in neighborhoods across this city.
” Not mentioned in this response was the reason police are using teargas in the first place @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on a nightly basis .
Iannarone went on to say that the solution to this was to side with the protesters : “ The answer to the issue that ’ s happening in our streets is standing alongside these young Black Lives Matter leaders , meeting with them , talking with them , working with them on these issues and making progress toward real reform.
” Give them what they want and they ’ ll stop rioting .
Iannarone added that she “ condemns violence in all forms ” but then came back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the protests with “ police brutality.
” The KGW anchor jumped in and pointed out that the original question seemed to be about where to draw the line “ between peaceful protests and when they and when they become criminal activity.
” Iannarone once again gave a revealing non-answer .
“ We need equal enforcement of the law , regardless of who is engaging in criminal activity.
” Is she saying the police are engage in criminal activity ?
She continued , “ As Portland mayor , I will not be able to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the streets .
My job will be making sure that the police do their jobs , making sure that they ’ re held accountable when they break procedure and even the law.
” We understand she can ’ t control individual protesters but she can denounce their violence after the fact .
She didn ’ t do that .
She just resorted to suggesting police were the problem again .
This isn ’ t the first time it has been unclear whether she is against Antifa ’ s violence .
In fact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it with the same KGW anchor last month .
The KGW anchor asked another follow up question , trying to pin Iannarone down .
“ Are you Antifa ?
” she asked .
“ I love that Joe Biden answered this question before me , ” Iannarone said , referring to Biden ’ s claim that Antifa is an idea .
“ Being opposed to fascism in 2020 is not something to be embarrassed about , ” she said .
So here Iannarone is playing with the idea that Antifa are just normal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that only makes sense if the group they are protesting/rioting over every night are fascists .
Who are they protesting every night ?
For the most part it has been the Portland PD .
That ’ s whose precincts they attack and whose officers they berate and injure and whose buildings they try to burn down ( with officers inside ) .
Does Iannarone think the Portland PD are fascists ?
That ’ s pretty clearly what she ’ s implying .
She was asked one more time directly , “ Is being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Are you Antifa ?
” “ Antifa is not anything more than an idea .
That is what Vice President Biden explained to us , ” Iannarone said .
She then went on a rant about Trump , but again , the nightly protests haven ’ t been about federal officers for months .
The protests are aimed at Portland PD and state police .
In any case , I think you can see how Biden ’ s debate response is going to be used as a shield by Antifa supporters from now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ debate the portion about Antifa starts around 11 minutes in to this clip .
It ’ s a sad state of affairs when Ted Wheeler , one of America ’ s worst mayors , sounds like the voice of reason .
Update : She ’ s really not hiding where she ’ s coming from .
I don ’ t know what the date of the photo below is but she ’ s wearing a skirt with Che Guevera , Stalin and Chairman Mao on it .
If you admire communist autocrats like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even mass murder wouldn ’ t sway her opinion of Antifa .

There was a debate in Portland last night between the two remaining candidates in the race, Mayor Ted Wheeler and challenger Sarah Iannarone. After some preliminary questions from the moderators, they turned the questioning over to a Portland resident who had submitted the following question for both candidates to answer: “When do peaceful protests under our First Amendment become unlawful, dangerous and violent? And when would you put a stop to this making sure that we do go back to peaceful protests and not allowing our city to burn night after night?”
Sarah Iannarone responded first and immediately began attacking the police. “I know how upsetting it is when there is unrest in your neighborhoods, especially when night after night we’re seeing that protests about police brutality are met with increased police brutality,” she said. She continued, “And how [un]comfortable it can be when things like teargas are administered and leak into the homes of residents in neighborhoods across this city.”
Not mentioned in this response was the reason police are using teargas in the first place, i.e. violent and destructive behavior on a nightly basis. Iannarone went on to say that the solution to this was to side with the protesters: “The answer to the issue that’s happening in our streets is standing alongside these young Black Lives Matter leaders, meeting with them, talking with them, working with them on these issues and making progress toward real reform.”
Give them what they want and they’ll stop rioting.
Iannarone added that she “condemns violence in all forms” but then came back to saying the police were responding to the protests with “police brutality.”
The KGW anchor jumped in and pointed out that the original question seemed to be about where to draw the line “between peaceful protests and when they and when they become criminal activity.”
Iannarone once again gave a revealing non-answer. “We need equal enforcement of the law, regardless of who is engaging in criminal activity.” Is she saying the police are engage in criminal activity? She continued, “As Portland mayor, I will not be able to control what any individual protester is doing in the streets. My job will be making sure that the police do their jobs, making sure that they’re held accountable when they break procedure and even the law.”
We understand she can’t control individual protesters but she can denounce their violence after the fact. She didn’t do that. She just resorted to suggesting police were the problem again. This isn’t the first time it has been unclear whether she is against Antifa’s violence. In fact, she had an awkward discussion about it with the same KGW anchor last month.
The KGW anchor asked another follow up question, trying to pin Iannarone down. “Are you Antifa?” she asked.
“I love that Joe Biden answered this question before me,” Iannarone said, referring to Biden’s claim that Antifa is an idea. “Being opposed to fascism in 2020 is not something to be embarrassed about,” she said.
So here Iannarone is playing with the idea that Antifa are just normal folks against fascism. But of course that only makes sense if the group they are protesting/rioting over every night are fascists. Who are they protesting every night? For the most part it has been the Portland PD. That’s whose precincts they attack and whose officers they berate and injure and whose buildings they try to burn down (with officers inside).
Does Iannarone think the Portland PD are fascists? That’s pretty clearly what she’s implying.
She was asked one more time directly, “Is being anti-fascist the same as being Antifa? Are you Antifa?”
“Antifa is not anything more than an idea. That is what Vice President Biden explained to us,” Iannarone said. She then went on a rant about Trump, but again, the nightly protests haven’t been about federal officers for months. The protests are aimed at Portland PD and state police. In any case, I think you can see how Biden’s debate response is going to be used as a shield by Antifa supporters from now on.
Here’s the full debate the portion about Antifa starts around 11 minutes in to this clip. It’s a sad state of affairs when Ted Wheeler, one of America’s worst mayors, sounds like the voice of reason.
Update: She’s really not hiding where she’s coming from. I don’t know what the date of the photo below is but she’s wearing a skirt with Che Guevera, Stalin and Chairman Mao on it. If you admire communist autocrats like these you can pretty much guarantee that even mass murder wouldn’t sway her opinion of Antifa.


hotair--2020-10-09--Trump campaign: Why can't we do an in-person debate on the 15th as scheduled?

This should have been their position from the start after the debate commission announced yesterday that the October 15th townhall debate would move to a virtual format .
We don ’ t need to go virtual , the campaign could have said , because Trump will have cleared the virus from his system by then .
But in this case , as in the case of stimulus negotiations , his temper seems to have overridden strategic considerations .
Upon hearing the news from the commission , he immediately growled that he wouldn ’ t do a virtual debate , period @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Let ’ s do the in-person townhall on the 22nd — the night of the third debate — instead .
Whereupon they immediately scheduled an ABC townhall with George Stephanopoulos for the 15th , giving them an excuse to say that they couldn ’ t do the second debate at this point even if Trump changed his mind later .
The president realized belatedly that he had handed Biden an excuse on a silver platter to skip the second debate , denying himself a precious opportunity to make something happen on a big @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
So here ’ s his campaign last night insisting that the second debate should go on as scheduled , in person : Does that explain why Sean Conley put out that curious statement yesterday afternoon pre-clearing Trump to return to public engagements by Saturday ?
That seemed inexplicable in hindsight if you watched Trump ’ s phone interview with Hannity last night , where he was coughing and sounded raspy .
Even if he ’ s past the worst of COVID by tomorrow and technically fit to hold a rally , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at a mic in front of thousands of people with visible symptoms of the disease .
Which I guess explains this news : Why was Conley so eager to pre-clear him for campaign activities ?
The answer , presumably , is that the campaign was freaking out about the second debate being canceled and thought a letter from Trump ’ s doctor insisting that he was okay to be in public again might make Biden and the commission reconsider .
And you know what ?
If the White House had been above board @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s health , including daily vitals , details about his regimen , and candor about when he last tested negative , they ’ d have a good case .
If Conley and Trump ’ s political advisors , like Mark Meadows , had spent the last week building trust , Biden would be under pressure to accept their assurances that Trump is fine and thus the October 15th debate should proceed as scheduled .
Instead , Conley ’ s been deceptive about Trump ’ s treatment .
His memo last night clearing Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political motives today in light of the fact that the president is still experiencing symptoms .
Meadows has personally contradicted the doctors ’ public evaluations of Trump ’ s condition at times and neither he nor anyone else is willing to answer the question of when POTUS last tested negative .
Trump could have been infectious at the last debate with Biden but the White House won ’ t give us any info that would help us try to assess that .
They wouldn ’ t even bring in the CDC early to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about their PR problem than they do the health problem they ’ ve created .
So why should Biden get on a stage with Trump again in the near term ?
Whose assurances is he supposed to accept that Trump is fine and non-contagious when even experts can ’ t promise that ?
I suppose the president could submit to a PCR test immediately before the debate conducted by an independent authority like the Cleveland Clinic , but that ’ s not his style .
He ’ s so paranoid about people not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him that he made some of his doctors at Walter Reed sign NDAs as a condition of treating him when he visited last year ( for still unexplained reasons ) .
One Trump spokesman who was on MSNBC just this morning refused to answer questions about whether Trump had complied with all of the Cleveland Clinic ’ s guidelines for testing before the first debate , which sounds like a tacit admission that the president wasn ’ t tested beforehand to ensure that he was negative .
All of that being so , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ infected by him *again .
* If there ’ s no chance that Trump will submit to an independent test for fear that it ’ ll show he ’ s still positive then there ’ s no reason for Biden to take the risk of being in his presence .
Either do the debate virtually or don ’ t do it .
Anthony Fauci was asked this week when it ’ ll be safe to be around Trump again and said , “ So , if the president goes 10 days without symptoms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we were talking about , then you could make the assumption , based on good science , that he is not infected.
” Well , he still had symptoms as of last night , October 8 , per the Hannity interview .
If he ’ s symptom-free for the next 10 days then the earliest it ’ d be safe for Biden to debate him in person again would be the 19th , not the 15th .
That ’ s all there is to it .
Doesn ’ t sound like it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Frankly , it may be to Trump ’ s own benefit that he ’ s not in a gigantic TV spotlight right now .
Even if he ’ s not addled by COVID , he may be addled by other things : Covid-19 , an unpredictable disease , can suddenly and unexpectedly worsen during a patient ’ s second week of illness .
Based on the information provided , “ No , I would not clear him to start public engagements on Saturday , ” said Dr. Phyllis Tien , an infectious disease @ @ @ @ @ @ @ San Francisco , where she conducts and advises on Covid-19 clinical trials .
White House aides privately expressed concern about whether the president ’ s animated mood in recent days stemmed from the dexamethasone .
Doctors not involved with the president ’ s care said it could have a significant effect on a patient ’ s behavior .
Dr. Negin Hajizadeh , a pulmonary/critical care physician at Northwell Health , noted that the majority of Covid patients receiving dexamethasone are on mechanical ventilation and in a state of induced coma , so they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But , she said , large studies show that generally 28 to 30 percent of patients will exhibit mild to moderate psychiatric side effects like anxiety , insomnia , mania or delirium after receiving steroid treatments , and about 6 percent may develop psychosis .
I ’ ll leave you with Chris Wallace , making the conventional-wisdom case that the second debate would have been to Trump ’ s advantage .
After the first debate , I ’ m not sure that ’ s true .
But I understand his logic .

This should have been their position from the start after the debate commission announced yesterday that the October 15th townhall debate would move to a virtual format. We don’t need to go virtual, the campaign could have said, because Trump will have cleared the virus from his system by then.
But in this case, as in the case of stimulus negotiations, his temper seems to have overridden strategic considerations. Upon hearing the news from the commission, he immediately growled that he wouldn’t do a virtual debate, period. Great, said Team Biden! Let’s do the in-person townhall on the 22nd — the night of the third debate — instead. Whereupon they immediately scheduled an ABC townhall with George Stephanopoulos for the 15th, giving them an excuse to say that they couldn’t do the second debate at this point even if Trump changed his mind later.
The president realized belatedly that he had handed Biden an excuse on a silver platter to skip the second debate, denying himself a precious opportunity to make something happen on a big stage that might shake up the race. So here’s his campaign last night insisting that the second debate should go on as scheduled, in person:
all of this is so, so strange pic.twitter.com/FcOpqulXNs — j.d. durkin (@jiveDurkey) October 8, 2020
Does that explain why Sean Conley put out that curious statement yesterday afternoon pre-clearing Trump to return to public engagements by Saturday? That seemed inexplicable in hindsight if you watched Trump’s phone interview with Hannity last night, where he was coughing and sounded raspy. Even if he’s past the worst of COVID by tomorrow and technically fit to hold a rally, it would look terrible for him to be at a mic in front of thousands of people with visible symptoms of the disease. Which I guess explains this news:
.@FoxNews is told @realDonaldTrump will likely not have campaign events this weekend, but is planning to be back on the trail on Monday. — John Roberts (@johnrobertsFox) October 9, 2020
Why was Conley so eager to pre-clear him for campaign activities? The answer, presumably, is that the campaign was freaking out about the second debate being canceled and thought a letter from Trump’s doctor insisting that he was okay to be in public again might make Biden and the commission reconsider.
And you know what? If the White House had been above board thus far with information about Trump’s health, including daily vitals, details about his regimen, and candor about when he last tested negative, they’d have a good case. If Conley and Trump’s political advisors, like Mark Meadows, had spent the last week building trust, Biden would be under pressure to accept their assurances that Trump is fine and thus the October 15th debate should proceed as scheduled. Instead, Conley’s been deceptive about Trump’s treatment. His memo last night clearing Trump to return to the trail reeks of political motives today in light of the fact that the president is still experiencing symptoms. Meadows has personally contradicted the doctors’ public evaluations of Trump’s condition at times and neither he nor anyone else is willing to answer the question of when POTUS last tested negative. Trump could have been infectious at the last debate with Biden but the White House won’t give us any info that would help us try to assess that. They wouldn’t even bring in the CDC early to help do contact-tracing because they care more about their PR problem than they do the health problem they’ve created.
So why should Biden get on a stage with Trump again in the near term? Whose assurances is he supposed to accept that Trump is fine and non-contagious when even experts can’t promise that? I suppose the president could submit to a PCR test immediately before the debate conducted by an independent authority like the Cleveland Clinic, but that’s not his style. He’s so paranoid about people not under his control having medical information about him that he made some of his doctors at Walter Reed sign NDAs as a condition of treating him when he visited last year (for still unexplained reasons). One Trump spokesman who was on MSNBC just this morning refused to answer questions about whether Trump had complied with all of the Cleveland Clinic’s guidelines for testing before the first debate, which sounds like a tacit admission that the president wasn’t tested beforehand to ensure that he was negative.
All of that being so, Biden would be nuts to risk being infected by him *again.* If there’s no chance that Trump will submit to an independent test for fear that it’ll show he’s still positive then there’s no reason for Biden to take the risk of being in his presence. Either do the debate virtually or don’t do it. Anthony Fauci was asked this week when it’ll be safe to be around Trump again and said, “So, if the president goes 10 days without symptoms, and they do the tests that we were talking about, then you could make the assumption, based on good science, that he is not infected.” Well, he still had symptoms as of last night, October 8, per the Hannity interview. If he’s symptom-free for the next 10 days then the earliest it’d be safe for Biden to debate him in person again would be the 19th, not the 15th. That’s all there is to it.
Doesn’t sound like it’s going to happen either way:
In a response to Trump’s late Thursday demand for the in-person debate to occur next week, Fahrenkopf said the commission would only consider the request if Biden agreed and the Cleveland Clinic said it passed “medical muster.” “I don’t think they’re interested,” he said of the Biden team.
Frankly, it may be to Trump’s own benefit that he’s not in a gigantic TV spotlight right now. Even if he’s not addled by COVID, he may be addled by other things:
Covid-19, an unpredictable disease, can suddenly and unexpectedly worsen during a patient’s second week of illness. Based on the information provided, “No, I would not clear him to start public engagements on Saturday,” said Dr. Phyllis Tien, an infectious disease physician at the University of California, San Francisco, where she conducts and advises on Covid-19 clinical trials. White House aides privately expressed concern about whether the president’s animated mood in recent days stemmed from the dexamethasone. Doctors not involved with the president’s care said it could have a significant effect on a patient’s behavior. Dr. Negin Hajizadeh, a pulmonary/critical care physician at Northwell Health, noted that the majority of Covid patients receiving dexamethasone are on mechanical ventilation and in a state of induced coma, so they do not exhibit any behavioral side effects. But, she said, large studies show that generally 28 to 30 percent of patients will exhibit mild to moderate psychiatric side effects like anxiety, insomnia, mania or delirium after receiving steroid treatments, and about 6 percent may develop psychosis.
I’ll leave you with Chris Wallace, making the conventional-wisdom case that the second debate would have been to Trump’s advantage. After the first debate, I’m not sure that’s true. But I understand his logic.


hotair--2020-10-09--Debate moderator Steve Scully had an odd exchange with Anthony Scaramucci and now claims he was hack

Debate moderator Steve Scully had an odd exchange with Anthony Scaramucci and now claims he was hacked (Update: Account deleted?)

At this point we don ’ t know if there ’ s going to be a second presidential debate .
Allahpundit will have more on that situation shortly , but yesterday something odd happened which called into question the impartiality of planned debate moderator Steve Scully .
Scully tweeted this brief message to Anthony Scaramucci : That really is interesting .
Why is the debate moderator asking a vocal Trump opponent for advice ?
Scully ’ s tweet has since been deleted but Scaramucci ’ s response is still up : You probably noticed immediately that this doesn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for public consumption .
It sounds like there was an ongoing private conversation between the two of them and at some point Scully accidentally sent a public tweet instead of a private DM .
The fact that Scully later deleted the tweet only adds to the suggestion that this wasn ’ t supposed to be public in the first place .
Scaramucci ’ s answer hints at future political hits , i.e .
more things that are circulating privately but aren ’ t known publicly yet .
He ’ s basically saying , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Trump because the resistance is going to hit him with something .
Again , none of this sound like something you say to someone in public , out of the blue .
It sounds like part of an ongoing private conversation .
Was there more to this either before or after Scully ’ s tweet ?
We don ’ t know but it raises plenty of questions .
And today the story took another twist .
Scully is apparently now claiming that he was hacked .
That ’ s what Commission on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people : No direct knowledge .
So what is this claim based on then ?
C-Span is also repeating this now : Forgive me for being very skeptical but I ’ ve heard this excuse before from progressives who get in trouble online .
Remember when Anthony Weiner claimed his Facebook account was hacked ?
We all know how this story ended : In 2018 , Joy Reid claimed her blog was hacked by some unknown person who inserted comments critical of gays into her blog .
She even reported the hack to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That excuse was good enough for MSNBC obviously , since they recently promoted her , but I didn ’ t buy it then and still don ’ t .
For his part , the Mooch is fully satisfied with Scully ’ s explanation and considers him an “ objective journalist.
” One person who is not taking Scully at his word is President Trump : Again , the fate of the 2nd presidential debate remains uncertain at this point but I don ’ t see how you can go forward with Steve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way I ’ ll believe he was hacked is if Twitter publishes documentation proving it happened and specifically identifying who did it .
It could happen .
If he was genuinely hacked it should be easy for Twitter to provide documentation .
Short of that , Scully just blew up his credibility and needs to step aside .
Update : He ’ s made this claim at least twice before .
“ …darn those hackers.
” Update : Does anyone on the debate commission actually support Trump ?
Update : Something is happening…Maybe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Or maybe this is just panic ?
This has been referred to the FBI by the commission on debates .
But don ’ t forget the co-chair already said he has no direct knowledge .
So Scully reported to them and they reported to the FBI and now everyone is looking into it .
Maybe that has something to do with the account going down .
Update : Well , I guess that ’ s the end of it .
Scully ’ s account is still down .
I wonder if we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on this alleged hacking now .

At this point we don’t know if there’s going to be a second presidential debate. Allahpundit will have more on that situation shortly, but yesterday something odd happened which called into question the impartiality of planned debate moderator Steve Scully. Scully tweeted this brief message to Anthony Scaramucci:
Interesting tweet from debate moderator Steve Scully to Anthony Scaramucci. https://t.co/3iRN9lidR6 pic.twitter.com/gImyfTCz9C — Mollie (@MZHemingway) October 9, 2020
That really is interesting. Why is the debate moderator asking a vocal Trump opponent for advice? Scully’s tweet has since been deleted but Scaramucci’s response is still up:
Ignore. He is having a hard enough time. Some more bad stuff about to go down. https://t.co/cMphfQJELL — Anthony Scaramucci (@Scaramucci) October 9, 2020
You probably noticed immediately that this doesn’t sound like a conversation that was intended for public consumption. It sounds like there was an ongoing private conversation between the two of them and at some point Scully accidentally sent a public tweet instead of a private DM. The fact that Scully later deleted the tweet only adds to the suggestion that this wasn’t supposed to be public in the first place.
Scaramucci’s answer hints at future political hits, i.e. more things that are circulating privately but aren’t known publicly yet. He’s basically saying, you don’t need to respond to Trump because the resistance is going to hit him with something. Again, none of this sound like something you say to someone in public, out of the blue. It sounds like part of an ongoing private conversation.
Was there more to this either before or after Scully’s tweet? We don’t know but it raises plenty of questions. And today the story took another twist. Scully is apparently now claiming that he was hacked. That’s what Commission on Presidential Debates co-chair Frank Fahrenkopf is telling people:
Just in- @debates co-chair Frank Fahrenkopf says debate #2 moderator Steve Scully's twitter account was hacked: "Apparently something now that's being on television and on the radio saying that… he's been talking to #Scaramucci. He was hacked. It didn't happen" — Rocco Aloe (@Rocco__News) October 9, 2020
Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) co-chair Frank Fahrenkopf tells me that he was told debate moderator Steve Scully's Twitter account was hacked but adds he has no direct knowledge. — Joe Concha (@JoeConchaTV) October 9, 2020
No direct knowledge. So what is this claim based on then? C-Span is also repeating this now:
CSPAN is saying Steve Scully's Twitter was hacked and that he never sent the tweet to Scaramucci. This is not going to go well. If he was indeed hacked, it should be very easy to prove. https://t.co/qVlou4mHt3 — Yashar Ali 🐘 (@yashar) October 9, 2020
Scully “believes” his account was hacked.
Forgive me for being very skeptical but I’ve heard this excuse before from progressives who get in trouble online. Remember when Anthony Weiner claimed his Facebook account was hacked? We all know how this story ended:
Tivo shot. FB hacked. Is my blender gonna attack me next? #TheToasterIsVeryLoyal — Anthony Weiner (@repweiner) May 28, 2011
In 2018, Joy Reid claimed her blog was hacked by some unknown person who inserted comments critical of gays into her blog. She even reported the hack to the FBI (so she claimed). That excuse was good enough for MSNBC obviously, since they recently promoted her, but I didn’t buy it then and still don’t.
For his part, the Mooch is fully satisfied with Scully’s explanation and considers him an “objective journalist.”
I accept @SteveScully at his word. Let’s not cancel anymore people from our culture for absolutely something like this. It’s insignificant. He is an objective journalist. — Anthony Scaramucci (@Scaramucci) October 9, 2020
Sean Spicer is also backing Scully’s hacking claim:
I spoke w @SteveScully Only interactions w Scaramucci he has had are a June 2018 tv & 2019 radio @cspan interview. He did not send the tweet. Steve is good man & will make an excellent @debates moderator. CSPAN does an amazing job of giving people unfiltered access #Debates2020 — Sean Spicer (@seanspicer) October 9, 2020
One person who is not taking Scully at his word is President Trump:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1314589397388529664
Again, the fate of the 2nd presidential debate remains uncertain at this point but I don’t see how you can go forward with Steve Scully as the moderator. The only way I’ll believe he was hacked is if Twitter publishes documentation proving it happened and specifically identifying who did it. It could happen. If he was genuinely hacked it should be easy for Twitter to provide documentation. Short of that, Scully just blew up his credibility and needs to step aside.
Update: He’s made this claim at least twice before. “…darn those hackers.”
Tweets from 2012 and 2013 pic.twitter.com/jdeKqq7UEW — Yashar Ali 🐘 (@yashar) October 9, 2020
Update: Does anyone on the debate commission actually support Trump?
The Commission on Presidential Debates is supposedly bipartisan w/ an equal number of Rs and Ds. I know all of the Republicans and most are friends of mine. I am concerned that none of them support @realDonaldTrump. A biased Debate Commission is unfair. — Senator Bob Dole (@SenatorDole) October 9, 2020
Update: Something is happening…Maybe this is part of a Twitter investigation? Or maybe this is just panic?
This has been referred to the FBI by the commission on debates. But don’t forget the co-chair already said he has no direct knowledge. So Scully reported to them and they reported to the FBI and now everyone is looking into it. Maybe that has something to do with the account going down.
Steve Scully notified us that his Twitter account was hacked. CPD reported the apparent hack to the FBI and Twitter, and we understand that the federal authorities and Twitter are looking into the issue. — CPD (@debates) October 9, 2020
Update: Well, I guess that’s the end of it.
JUST IN: The second presidential debate between former Vice President Joe Biden and Pres. Trump was canceled. The second debate had been scheduled for Oct. 15, in a virtual format. https://t.co/1oTKt8mwdy — ABC News (@ABC) October 9, 2020
Scully’s account is still down. I wonder if we’ll ever get a definitive answer on this alleged hacking now.


hotair--2020-10-09--Palm Beach County school board re-hires Holocaust denying former principal

The Holocaust really isn ’ t a subject in which a person can remain noncommital and expect to not be questioned , especially if the person is a high school principal .
A high school principal in Palm Beach County , Florida found that out the hard way in July 2019 .
He was fired but now finds himself re-hired , thanks to a vote by the local school board .
In July 2019 I wrote about William Latson , principal of Spanish River High .
He found himself in hot water with a student ’ s mother when he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her question about the importance of educating students on the history of the Holocaust .
It turned out that he was not willing to say that the Holocaust is a real historical event , he wanted to remain neutral on the subject .
The absurdity of that forced the mother to demand he be removed from his position .
Throughout all the fall-out he received , he refused to admit he is wrong about his Holocaust-denying stance .
Not only did he refuse to call the Holocaust a historical event , but he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ questions about the education of her child .
Last October , the school board voted 5-2 to fire him .
His refusal to answer questions about his comments on the Holocaust was a part of their decision to do so .
Latson at the time clearly refused to state the reality of the Holocaust and offered an odd excuse that he had to remain “ politically neutral ” .
It is an absurd statement .
Latson wrote to the parent in April 2018 that Spanish River High students could opt out of Holocaust @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Holocaust happened ” and that as an educator he had “ the role to be politically neutral.
” When the parent insisted the Holocaust was a historical fact , he responded that “ I can ’ t say the Holocaust is a factual , historical event because I am not in a position to do so as a school district employee.
” This was the principal of the high school , not just some random history teacher .
His attorney now says that Latson , still unapologetic , was simply trying to avoid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That ’ s ridiculous because all the mother was asking about was the curriculum .
She wanted him to clarify his remarks that the Holocaust was a belief , not a historical fact .
She didn ’ t ask him to bring other parents into their discussion .
Thomas Elfers , Latson ’ s attorney , argued Wednesday that acknowledging the Holocaust happened would have required Latson to confront Holocaust-denying parents on his campus .
“ Two or three parents were Holocaust deniers ; Dr. Latson was pressured by one mother to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Elfers said .
“ Confronting parents about their beliefs was outside the scope of his duties.
” “ After a century of contention between creationists and evolutionists , most educators have learned to teach the curriculum and to stay neutral , ” Elfers continued .
The claim that Latson had been asked to “ confront ” Holocaust-denying parents appeared to be another distortion , the latest in a string of misrepresentations by Latson and his attorney about the case .
Last summer the school district released a statement of apology for Latson @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not him , who wrote the statement .
Though Latson was removed from the high school , he remained an employee of the school district .
He appealed his termination in state administrative court .
He continued to insist he acted properly and that the parent was wrong to press him for clarification .
In August a judge concluded that he should have been reprimanded but not fired .
Latson , the parents have been assured , will not return to the high school .
He will be assigned to the district ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ condemned his re-hiring to school board members Wednesday before the vote .
“ If we rehire Dr. Latson .
it is going to be a stain on this school district that will never go away , ” board member Karen Brill said .
“ And it ’ s not just a local stain in Palm Beach County , it ’ s a national stain.
” Board member Debra Robinson said she did not believe his poorly worded email merited ending his career .
A year ago she voted against firing him in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should be required to publicly apologize .
“ I think that is the least he can do , ” she said .
“ Good luck with that though , ” she said , “ because I think that there is a level of arrogance that will prohibit that ever happening.
” The school board ’ s only Jewish member voted against Latson ’ s re-hiring .
The board voted in favor of the move by 4-3 rather than to continue a long and costly legal battle .
He will receive $ 152,000 in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a very large Jewish population and there are many Jewish students at Spanish River High School .
Anti-semitism shouldn ’ t be tolerated anywhere , certainly not in an American public high school .
The Holocaust is not a concept , it ’ s historical fact .
There is no neutral position to be taken here .

The Holocaust really isn’t a subject in which a person can remain noncommital and expect to not be questioned, especially if the person is a high school principal. A high school principal in Palm Beach County, Florida found that out the hard way in July 2019. He was fired but now finds himself re-hired, thanks to a vote by the local school board.
In July 2019 I wrote about William Latson, principal of Spanish River High. He found himself in hot water with a student’s mother when he offered less than a satisfactory answer to her question about the importance of educating students on the history of the Holocaust. It turned out that he was not willing to say that the Holocaust is a real historical event, he wanted to remain neutral on the subject. The absurdity of that forced the mother to demand he be removed from his position. Throughout all the fall-out he received, he refused to admit he is wrong about his Holocaust-denying stance. Not only did he refuse to call the Holocaust a historical event, but he also blamed the mom for even asking questions about the education of her child. Last October, the school board voted 5-2 to fire him. His refusal to answer questions about his comments on the Holocaust was a part of their decision to do so.
Latson at the time clearly refused to state the reality of the Holocaust and offered an odd excuse that he had to remain “politically neutral”. It is an absurd statement.
Latson wrote to the parent in April 2018 that Spanish River High students could opt out of Holocaust lessons because “not everyone believes the Holocaust happened” and that as an educator he had “the role to be politically neutral.” When the parent insisted the Holocaust was a historical fact, he responded that “I can’t say the Holocaust is a factual, historical event because I am not in a position to do so as a school district employee.”
This was the principal of the high school, not just some random history teacher. His attorney now says that Latson, still unapologetic, was simply trying to avoid confrontations with a couple of Holocaust-denying parents. That’s ridiculous because all the mother was asking about was the curriculum. She wanted him to clarify his remarks that the Holocaust was a belief, not a historical fact. She didn’t ask him to bring other parents into their discussion.
Thomas Elfers, Latson’s attorney, argued Wednesday that acknowledging the Holocaust happened would have required Latson to confront Holocaust-denying parents on his campus. “Two or three parents were Holocaust deniers; Dr. Latson was pressured by one mother to confront them, and he declined,” Elfers said. “Confronting parents about their beliefs was outside the scope of his duties.” “After a century of contention between creationists and evolutionists, most educators have learned to teach the curriculum and to stay neutral,” Elfers continued. The claim that Latson had been asked to “confront” Holocaust-denying parents appeared to be another distortion, the latest in a string of misrepresentations by Latson and his attorney about the case.
Last summer the school district released a statement of apology for Latson but he admits it was them, not him, who wrote the statement. Though Latson was removed from the high school, he remained an employee of the school district. He appealed his termination in state administrative court. He continued to insist he acted properly and that the parent was wrong to press him for clarification. In August a judge concluded that he should have been reprimanded but not fired.
Latson, the parents have been assured, will not return to the high school. He will be assigned to the district’s assessment department. Jewish residents strongly condemned his re-hiring to school board members Wednesday before the vote.
“If we rehire Dr. Latson. it is going to be a stain on this school district that will never go away,” board member Karen Brill said. “And it’s not just a local stain in Palm Beach County, it’s a national stain.” Board member Debra Robinson said she did not believe his poorly worded email merited ending his career. A year ago she voted against firing him in the first place. But she suggested Latson should be required to publicly apologize. “I think that is the least he can do,” she said. Brill ruefully dismissed that prospect. “Good luck with that though,” she said, “because I think that there is a level of arrogance that will prohibit that ever happening.”
The school board’s only Jewish member voted against Latson’s re-hiring. The board voted in favor of the move by 4-3 rather than to continue a long and costly legal battle. He will receive $152,000 in back pay. Palm Beach County has a very large Jewish population and there are many Jewish students at Spanish River High School. Anti-semitism shouldn’t be tolerated anywhere, certainly not in an American public high school. The Holocaust is not a concept, it’s historical fact. There is no neutral position to be taken here.


hotair--2020-10-09--Pelosi: No really, my sudden interest in the 25th Amendment isn't about Trump ... yet

Want to bet it ’ s about Trump if he wins re-election , though ?
As expected , Nancy Pelosi rolled out a new bill to establish a “ Commission on Presidential Capacity , ” a rehash of an effort made by Rep. Jamie Raskin ( D-MD ) at the beginning of Trump ’ s first term .
Nonetheless , Pelosi tried arguing that Trump is only presenting the need for better congressional checks on presidential capacity , but that Trump “ will face the judgment of the voters ” rather than Congress .
For now , anyway .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Trump ’ s incapacitated before they go to the polls : House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Friday unveiled her plan to create a commission aimed at stripping President Trump of his presidential powers under the 25th Amendment .
“ This legislation applies to future presidents but we are reminded of the necessity of action by the health of the current president , ” Pelosi ( D. Calif ) said .
The bill would establish a Commission on Presidential Capacity to Discharge the Powers and Duties of Office that would “ enable Congress @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the highest office in the Executive Branch of government .
After yesterday ’ s trial balloon on this idea , the New York Post editorial board called it “ coup coup nonsense.
” That ’ s not quite accurate , but as they point out , neither is Pelosi ’ s insistence that it has nothing to do with Trump either : House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says her team is “ going to be talking about the 25th Amendment ” on Friday — the latest in a long line of nutty Democratic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Pelosi , who hasn ’ t actually talked to the prez in months , claims to think he ’ s mentally off thanks to his COVID-19 treatments ( or something ) .
Yet she ’ s only exposing ( again ) Democrats ’ own Trump Derangement Syndrome , because this potential coup is an obvious non-starter .
Trump ’ s “ disassociation from reality would be funny if it weren ’ t so deadly , ” she claimed — just because he ’ s made his usual fast-changing threats and offers over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Congress .
Technically , Congress does have this authority , or could , assuming they can pass a bill to set up a “ body ” for that purpose .
The 25th Amendment makes that authority explicit in Section 4 , emphasis mine : Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide , transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the powers and duties of his office , the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President .
That body would have to be created by statute , though , and that requires agreement between the House , Senate , and the president .
Even with that , though , the body would only be able to refer the matter to the two chambers of Congress , not execute a transfer of authority on its own .
It still would require two-thirds majorities in both chambers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could be forced to repeatedly vote on this if the president and/or the VP and Cabinet insist that the president is capable of handling his duties .
As a “ coup ” instrument , impeachment and removal is a lot more reliable and final .
In theory , Congress should have more oversight over presidential capacity than it currently does .
The example of Woodrow Wilson is one reason for having this clause in the Constitution , although it didn ’ t get added until John F. Kennedy ’ s assassination raised questions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In practice , it looks pretty fishy that this is coming up less than four weeks before a presidential election ; why not just wait until the next session of Congress , regardless of who wins ?
Especially since there ’ s no legislative time available until after the election to even address this , let alone pass it .
This is clearly just an electoral stunt by Pelosi , and nothing much more .
Everyone assumes this is all about Trump , of course , but what if it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a handy tool for a Democrat-controlled Congress to use to push a slowed-down presidential nominee to the sidelines and install his younger and more progressive running mate into the White House .
Donald Trump floated the same idea while I was finishing this post , in fact : Naah — no one doubts that Kamala Harris will be running things in the next administration anyway .
Better to have Biden as the figurehead for as long as he can hold out .
By the way , try to count how many times Pelosi @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a three-minute video .
By now , she should know that ’ s a bad practice , and that a mask should fit over the nose … right ?
That also has been “ determined by science and fact , ” as is the lack of necessity for the mask while at the lectern in this instance .

Want to bet it’s about Trump if he wins re-election, though? As expected, Nancy Pelosi rolled out a new bill to establish a “Commission on Presidential Capacity,” a rehash of an effort made by Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) at the beginning of Trump’s first term. Nonetheless, Pelosi tried arguing that Trump is only presenting the need for better congressional checks on presidential capacity, but that Trump “will face the judgment of the voters” rather than Congress.
For now, anyway. But Pelosi sure doesn’t mind suggesting that Trump’s incapacitated before they go to the polls:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Friday unveiled her plan to create a commission aimed at stripping President Trump of his presidential powers under the 25th Amendment. “This legislation applies to future presidents but we are reminded of the necessity of action by the health of the current president,” Pelosi (D. Calif) said. The bill would establish a Commission on Presidential Capacity to Discharge the Powers and Duties of Office that would “enable Congress to help ensure effective and uninterrupted leadership in the highest office in the Executive Branch of government.
After yesterday’s trial balloon on this idea, the New York Post editorial board called it “coup coup nonsense.” That’s not quite accurate, but as they point out, neither is Pelosi’s insistence that it has nothing to do with Trump either:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says her team is “going to be talking about the 25th Amendment” on Friday — the latest in a long line of nutty Democratic fantasies of getting rid of President Trump. Pelosi, who hasn’t actually talked to the prez in months, claims to think he’s mentally off thanks to his COVID-19 treatments (or something). Yet she’s only exposing (again) Democrats’ own Trump Derangement Syndrome, because this potential coup is an obvious non-starter. Trump’s “disassociation from reality would be funny if it weren’t so deadly,” she claimed — just because he’s made his usual fast-changing threats and offers over the relief bill that Democrats have stalled in Congress.
Technically, Congress does have this authority, or could, assuming they can pass a bill to set up a “body” for that purpose. The 25th Amendment makes that authority explicit in Section 4, emphasis mine:
Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
That body would have to be created by statute, though, and that requires agreement between the House, Senate, and the president. Even with that, though, the body would only be able to refer the matter to the two chambers of Congress, not execute a transfer of authority on its own. It still would require two-thirds majorities in both chambers to accomplish this transfer, and it could be forced to repeatedly vote on this if the president and/or the VP and Cabinet insist that the president is capable of handling his duties. As a “coup” instrument, impeachment and removal is a lot more reliable and final.
In theory, Congress should have more oversight over presidential capacity than it currently does. The example of Woodrow Wilson is one reason for having this clause in the Constitution, although it didn’t get added until John F. Kennedy’s assassination raised questions about precise qualifications on transfers of authority. In practice, it looks pretty fishy that this is coming up less than four weeks before a presidential election; why not just wait until the next session of Congress, regardless of who wins? Especially since there’s no legislative time available until after the election to even address this, let alone pass it. This is clearly just an electoral stunt by Pelosi, and nothing much more.
Everyone assumes this is all about Trump, of course, but what if it’s also about Biden? This looks like a handy tool for a Democrat-controlled Congress to use to push a slowed-down presidential nominee to the sidelines and install his younger and more progressive running mate into the White House. Donald Trump floated the same idea while I was finishing this post, in fact:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1314591877765660675
Naah — no one doubts that Kamala Harris will be running things in the next administration anyway. Better to have Biden as the figurehead for as long as he can hold out.
By the way, try to count how many times Pelosi touches the outside of her mask in a three-minute video. By now, she should know that’s a bad practice, and that a mask should fit over the nose … right? That also has been “determined by science and fact,” as is the lack of necessity for the mask while at the lectern in this instance.