hotair--2020-09-19--Will RBG's passing impact the election all that much?

For everyone waking up this morning who may not have been online or near a TV last night , you ’ ve no doubt already heard that Supreme Court Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg ( aka the Notorious RBG ) lost her ongoing battle with cancer last night and passed away .
She clearly left her mark on the bench and became a liberal icon spanning generations .
Others have already begun publishing digital epitaphs covering her life and work , so I ’ ll just send my condolences to her friends , family , and admirers and simply say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it ’ s impossible to ignore the question of what happens next in terms of the nation ’ s highest court and what , if any impact this will have on the upcoming election .
Since we should all own up to our mistakes , I ’ ll confess to having tossed out a ( far too optimistic ) prediction on social media last night that couldn ’ t have been more wrong .
For whatever reason , I assumed that both sides ( including the President and the Senate GOP ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reflection and hold off on moving toward filling her seat on the bench for a while , possibly until after the election .
That bit of divination lasted all of thirty minutes .
President Donald Trump is expected to put forth a nominee to fill Ruth Bader Ginsburg ’ s seat on the Supreme Court in the coming days , multiple sources close to the president and with direct knowledge of the situation told ABC News .
The sources describe the list of potential nominees as very short and including at least one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Coney Barrett is seen as a leading contender , two sources tell ABC News .
Trump was asked about Ginsburg ’ s death after leaving his Friday night campaign rally in Minnesota and said he was not aware of her passing .
The 87-year-old justice died Friday after a battle with pancreatic cancer , the court announced .
Though it ’ s no excuse , I ’ ll note that my wife and I were in the midst of a “ virtual cocktail party ” with some friends when I tweeted that and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ beings more than normal .
So now that we know that Donald Trump will move quickly to nominate a replacement and Midnight Mitch will bring the nomination to a floor vote ( if he can herd enough of the GOP cats successfully ) , where do we go from here ?
Filling the judicial benches with conservatives has been a hallmark of the Trump presidency , if not its defining characteristic .
He ’ s already appointed two members to SCOTUS ( Gorsuch and Kavanaugh ) , but perhaps even more importantly , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lower courts at a literally record-breaking pace .
It was probably one of the driving factors in Trump ’ s consistent support from the conservative base .
It ’ s also worth noting that few Presidents get the chance to place three justices on the Supreme Court in a single term .
( The record for total confirmations for a single presidency in the modern era is held by FDR with nine , but he was in office for a very long time .
George Washington placed 14 for obvious reasons . )
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , will this move the needle in terms of the election in November ?
You can ask any number of analysts on both sides of the question and probably find whichever answer you prefer .
The Associated Press was out of the gate within an hour of the announcement of RBG ’ s passing and quoted Republican strategist Alex Conant .
He said that it ’ s hard to see “ how this doesn ’ t help Trump , ” noting that Biden wanted to make the election a referendum on Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now it will be a referendum on his SCOTUS nominee .
Meanwhile , the liberals and never-Trumpers at the Bulwark were busy prognosticating in the opposite direction , as you would expect .
They start by saying that if Trump and the Senate GOP move forward and replace Ginsburg it will “ destroy the remaining public legitimacy of the Supreme Court .
Full stop.
” ( I ’ m glad they ’ re not getting overly dramatic . )
They go on to say that if Ginsburg is replaced before the election on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ next year , they will almost certainly attempt to pack the court by adding more seats .
And if she is replaced after November 3rd ( in a scenario where Biden wins the election ) , then “ the powder keg would explode.
” The only “ safe ” course of action they posit is to go for the “ Garland solution , ” where they simply wait and let the next President and Senate Majority Leader ( be that Trump and McConnell or Biden and Schumer ) seat Ginsburg ’ s replacement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ himself as some sort of fantasyland tribute to his political foes .
I have my doubts about both of those views .
Having had the night and the morning to consider it , I ’ m just not seeing how this really changes the calculus of the 2020 elections significantly .
Everyone knew that Ginsburg ’ s health issues would catch up with her sooner or later , so this day was always lurking around the corner .
Similarly , it ’ s widely accepted that both Stephen Breyer ( 82 ) and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or later either face age-related health issues or simply decided that it ’ s time to retire , perhaps cruising around the country in an RV in Thomas ’ case .
Openings on the court happen and Presidents and Senators are tasked with replacing them .
Trump failing to replace Ginsburg would potentially cause his base of supporters to throw up their hands in despair and depress the conservative turnout .
( As I said , placing conservative judges is one of Trump ’ s strongest cards to play with his base .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ t want Donald Trump to have this opportunity are almost entirely the people who wouldn ’ t vote for him under any conceivable circumstances anyway .
As for the increasingly tiny percentage of “ persuadable voters ” who might go either way , I don ’ t see this shifting the tide much either .
If they were at least open to the idea of a second Trump term , that means they are either supportive of or neutral about his SCOTUS picks .
Sure , they might think that a nomination this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ brash ( or rash ) choice , but we ’ re talking about Donald J. Trump here .
That ’ s pretty much his brand and they ’ ve all had nearly four years to come to terms with that .
I ’ m not trying to be some sort of Debby Downer here and I realize that the political mill always needs fresh grist , but I will truly be startled if we see a significant shift in the polls in either direction after the President nominates a new Associate Justice .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ nomination over the finish line and seat them ?
That ’ s a subject for another column .

For everyone waking up this morning who may not have been online or near a TV last night, you’ve no doubt already heard that Supreme Court Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (aka the Notorious RBG) lost her ongoing battle with cancer last night and passed away. She clearly left her mark on the bench and became a liberal icon spanning generations. Others have already begun publishing digital epitaphs covering her life and work, so I’ll just send my condolences to her friends, family, and admirers and simply say Rest in Peace.
Given the timing, it’s impossible to ignore the question of what happens next in terms of the nation’s highest court and what, if any impact this will have on the upcoming election. Since we should all own up to our mistakes, I’ll confess to having tossed out a (far too optimistic) prediction on social media last night that couldn’t have been more wrong. For whatever reason, I assumed that both sides (including the President and the Senate GOP) would take this time to pause for reflection and hold off on moving toward filling her seat on the bench for a while, possibly until after the election. That bit of divination lasted all of thirty minutes.
President Donald Trump is expected to put forth a nominee to fill Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat on the Supreme Court in the coming days, multiple sources close to the president and with direct knowledge of the situation told ABC News. The sources describe the list of potential nominees as very short and including at least one woman. U.S. Circuit Judge Amy Coney Barrett is seen as a leading contender, two sources tell ABC News. Trump was asked about Ginsburg’s death after leaving his Friday night campaign rally in Minnesota and said he was not aware of her passing. The 87-year-old justice died Friday after a battle with pancreatic cancer, the court announced.
Though it’s no excuse, I’ll note that my wife and I were in the midst of a “virtual cocktail party” with some friends when I tweeted that and I was probably venerating my fellow human beings more than normal.
So now that we know that Donald Trump will move quickly to nominate a replacement and Midnight Mitch will bring the nomination to a floor vote (if he can herd enough of the GOP cats successfully), where do we go from here? Filling the judicial benches with conservatives has been a hallmark of the Trump presidency, if not its defining characteristic. He’s already appointed two members to SCOTUS (Gorsuch and Kavanaugh), but perhaps even more importantly, he and McConnell have been refilling the lower courts at a literally record-breaking pace. It was probably one of the driving factors in Trump’s consistent support from the conservative base.
It’s also worth noting that few Presidents get the chance to place three justices on the Supreme Court in a single term. (The record for total confirmations for a single presidency in the modern era is held by FDR with nine, but he was in office for a very long time. George Washington placed 14 for obvious reasons.)
Assuming Trump and McConnell move forward briskly, will this move the needle in terms of the election in November? You can ask any number of analysts on both sides of the question and probably find whichever answer you prefer. The Associated Press was out of the gate within an hour of the announcement of RBG’s passing and quoted Republican strategist Alex Conant. He said that it’s hard to see “how this doesn’t help Trump,” noting that Biden wanted to make the election a referendum on Trump’s handling of the pandemic, but now it will be a referendum on his SCOTUS nominee.
Meanwhile, the liberals and never-Trumpers at the Bulwark were busy prognosticating in the opposite direction, as you would expect. They start by saying that if Trump and the Senate GOP move forward and replace Ginsburg it will “destroy the remaining public legitimacy of the Supreme Court. Full stop.” (I’m glad they’re not getting overly dramatic.) They go on to say that if Ginsburg is replaced before the election on November 3rd and the Democrats take power next year, they will almost certainly attempt to pack the court by adding more seats. And if she is replaced after November 3rd (in a scenario where Biden wins the election), then “the powder keg would explode.” The only “safe” course of action they posit is to go for the “Garland solution,” where they simply wait and let the next President and Senate Majority Leader (be that Trump and McConnell or Biden and Schumer) seat Ginsburg’s replacement. Or Trump could just nominate Garland himself as some sort of fantasyland tribute to his political foes.
I have my doubts about both of those views. Having had the night and the morning to consider it, I’m just not seeing how this really changes the calculus of the 2020 elections significantly. Everyone knew that Ginsburg’s health issues would catch up with her sooner or later, so this day was always lurking around the corner. Similarly, it’s widely accepted that both Stephen Breyer (82) and Clarence Thomas (72) will sooner or later either face age-related health issues or simply decided that it’s time to retire, perhaps cruising around the country in an RV in Thomas’ case. Openings on the court happen and Presidents and Senators are tasked with replacing them.
Trump failing to replace Ginsburg would potentially cause his base of supporters to throw up their hands in despair and depress the conservative turnout. (As I said, placing conservative judges is one of Trump’s strongest cards to play with his base.) But the people who don’t want Donald Trump to have this opportunity are almost entirely the people who wouldn’t vote for him under any conceivable circumstances anyway. As for the increasingly tiny percentage of “persuadable voters” who might go either way, I don’t see this shifting the tide much either. If they were at least open to the idea of a second Trump term, that means they are either supportive of or neutral about his SCOTUS picks. Sure, they might think that a nomination this close to the election would be a brash (or rash) choice, but we’re talking about Donald J. Trump here. That’s pretty much his brand and they’ve all had nearly four years to come to terms with that.
I’m not trying to be some sort of Debby Downer here and I realize that the political mill always needs fresh grist, but I will truly be startled if we see a significant shift in the polls in either direction after the President nominates a new Associate Justice. Will he be able to drive that nomination over the finish line and seat them? That’s a subject for another column.


hotair--2020-09-20--Sunday morning talking heads

Sunday morning talking heads

As of early Friday evening the Sunday shows were set to tackle an array of topics this morning .
The prospects of a second wave of COVID ; the state of the presidential election ; the Abraham Accords ; political interference with the CDC ; and the stalled coronavirus stimulus relief negotiations .
It ’ s all noise now .
The guests relevant to those other issues remain booked but there ’ s only one subject of conversation in America this morning .
All five shows will devote themselves to the passing of Ruth Bader Ginsburg , the brutal Supreme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whether the vacancy is more likely to benefit Republicans or Democrats on Election Day .
No top political aides to Trump were scheduled to appear today before the news about RBG exploded but Pence aide Marc Short was set for “ Fox News Sunday ” to discuss other matters .
We ’ ll see if the White House wrangles someone higher up to appear or whether Mitch McConnell makes a cameo somewhere .
As for Democrats , Nancy Pelosi was booked for “ This Week ” to chat about the stimulus battle .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ say about the Ginsburg fallout even though she ’ s not *directly* relevant to the confirmation process .
I stress “ directly ” because Congress needs to pass a spending bill soon to avert a government shutdown .
Would Democrats dare block that bill as a way to pressure Trump and McConnell not to confirm anyone before the election ?
Might depend on what the polling says next week about whether Americans want the seat filled ASAP or not .
The few minutes of airtime this morning not devoted to Ginsburg will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in particular the public meltdown by spokesman Michael Caputo and the political pressure brought to bear on the CDC to tweak its guidelines on testing people without symptoms .
Defending the administration will be HHS Secretary Alex Azar on “ Meet the Press ” and Trump testing “ czar ” Brett Giroir on “ This Week ” and “ State of the Union.
” Critics will include former CDC director Tom Frieden and Bill Gates , both of whom are set for “ Fox News Sunday.
” Oh , and Bob Woodward @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” to continue flogging Trump for what Trump told him in interviews .
The full line-up is at the AP .

As of early Friday evening the Sunday shows were set to tackle an array of topics this morning. The prospects of a second wave of COVID; the state of the presidential election; the Abraham Accords; political interference with the CDC; and the stalled coronavirus stimulus relief negotiations.
It’s all noise now. The guests relevant to those other issues remain booked but there’s only one subject of conversation in America this morning.
All five shows will devote themselves to the passing of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the brutal Supreme Court confirmation battle to come, and whether the vacancy is more likely to benefit Republicans or Democrats on Election Day. No top political aides to Trump were scheduled to appear today before the news about RBG exploded but Pence aide Marc Short was set for “Fox News Sunday” to discuss other matters. We’ll see if the White House wrangles someone higher up to appear or whether Mitch McConnell makes a cameo somewhere. As for Democrats, Nancy Pelosi was booked for “This Week” to chat about the stimulus battle. She’ll now have plenty to say about the Ginsburg fallout even though she’s not *directly* relevant to the confirmation process. I stress “directly” because Congress needs to pass a spending bill soon to avert a government shutdown. Would Democrats dare block that bill as a way to pressure Trump and McConnell not to confirm anyone before the election?
Might depend on what the polling says next week about whether Americans want the seat filled ASAP or not.
The few minutes of airtime this morning not devoted to Ginsburg will be spent exploring the ongoing travesty at HHS, in particular the public meltdown by spokesman Michael Caputo and the political pressure brought to bear on the CDC to tweak its guidelines on testing people without symptoms. Defending the administration will be HHS Secretary Alex Azar on “Meet the Press” and Trump testing “czar” Brett Giroir on “This Week” and “State of the Union.” Critics will include former CDC director Tom Frieden and Bill Gates, both of whom are set for “Fox News Sunday.”
Oh, and Bob Woodward will be on “Meet the Press” to continue flogging Trump for what Trump told him in interviews. The full line-up is at the AP.


hotair--2020-09-21--Trump rally crowd boos Ohio lieutenant governor for promoting masks

You can interpret this reaction as libertarian or as nihilistic as you see fit .
The libertarian read on it is that these people aren ’ t booing masks per se , they ’ re booing the mask mandate that Ohio Gov .
Mike DeWine issued back in late July .
DeWine had held off on a mandate for months , reasoning that political opposition to it would quickly become a distraction from the fight to contain the virus .
But Ohio ’ s positivity rate had crept up to around six percent at the time ; two months after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s down to three percent .
All told , Ohio today has one of the lowest numbers of cases per capita of the 50 states , far below the national average .
It ’ s also far below the average in deaths per capita even though neighboring Michigan and Pennsylvania are above that average .
A performance like that by government officials would , one might think , warrant some applause or at least polite silence from libertarian-minded critics of mandates .
Which makes me think maybe this isn ’ t a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would you expect to find normally at a Trump rally ? )
Maybe this is just pure partisan nihilism .
It ’ s the leftist enemy that ’ s four-square behind masks , it ’ s the leftist enemy that believes COVID is a lethal threat rather than a “ hoax , ” therefore DeWine and Husted deserve to be booed for having sided with the enemy .
Simple as that .
They let Husted have it .
It ’ s especially clear in the second clip .
Trump saluted DeWine from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drew another earful : This panning shot of the crowd suggests that many people there were in violation of the mask mandate , which requires face coverings at any indoor location ( besides your own residence ) as well as outdoors if you ’ re “ unable to maintain six-foot social distance from people who are not household members.
” The response to that will be the same response that ’ s always given : Those rules didn ’ t stop BLM protesters from gathering outdoors this summer .
Right , but many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And the idea that we should behave only as responsibly as the least responsible members of the other side , even when lives might be saved by doing otherwise , is , well , nihilistic .
Here ’ s Biden with an attack on Trump today that I don ’ t think I ’ ve heard from him before .
He zeroes in specifically on the risk of infection at Trump ’ s rallies — but focuses on the president ’ s behavior more so than the crowd ’ s .
I know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Trump was asked last week by a newspaper after his indoor rally in Nevada whether he worries about COVID at his events and answered , “ I ’ m on a stage and it ’ s very far away .
And so I ’ m not at all concerned.
” I ’ m not sure what specifically Biden is aiming for in highlighting that — an “ empathy gap ” between him and Trump , or a way to maybe pry some of Trump ’ s warier blue-collar white voters away from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t care about the little guy after all .
But it ’ s a visceral pitch , something I think we might hear at the debate next week .

You can interpret this reaction as libertarian or as nihilistic as you see fit. The libertarian read on it is that these people aren’t booing masks per se, they’re booing the mask mandate that Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine issued back in late July. DeWine had held off on a mandate for months, reasoning that political opposition to it would quickly become a distraction from the fight to contain the virus. But Ohio’s positivity rate had crept up to around six percent at the time; two months after the mandate went into effect, it’s down to three percent. All told, Ohio today has one of the lowest numbers of cases per capita of the 50 states, far below the national average. It’s also far below the average in deaths per capita even though neighboring Michigan and Pennsylvania are above that average.
A performance like that by government officials would, one might think, warrant some applause or at least polite silence from libertarian-minded critics of mandates. Which makes me think maybe this isn’t a libertarian crowd. (How many libertarians would you expect to find normally at a Trump rally?) Maybe this is just pure partisan nihilism. It’s the leftist enemy that’s four-square behind masks, it’s the leftist enemy that believes COVID is a lethal threat rather than a “hoax,” therefore DeWine and Husted deserve to be booed for having sided with the enemy. Simple as that.
They let Husted have it. It’s especially clear in the second clip.
Lt. Governor Jon Husted (R-OH) tries to promote pro-Trump masks at today's rally … and is met with a huge chorus of boos. pic.twitter.com/1rR1bAwF89 — The Recount (@therecount) September 21, 2020
The campaign has thrown @LtGovHusted into the awkward role of promoting masks. Shouts of “Tyrant!” “Not gonna work!” & plenty of booing. DeWine/Husted have pushed masks for months. Husted: “you’ve made your point,” “hang on, I get it” and trying to pivot to pro-Trump rhetoric. pic.twitter.com/FVKKSnsHYP — Geoff Redick (@GeoffWSYX6) September 21, 2020
Trump saluted DeWine from the podium and the mention of his name drew another earful:
Whoa. Trump introduces Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine — and the crowd boos him! “He’s opening up,” Trump says, to try to placate the audience. pic.twitter.com/3G9AN8897b — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) September 21, 2020
This panning shot of the crowd suggests that many people there were in violation of the mask mandate, which requires face coverings at any indoor location (besides your own residence) as well as outdoors if you’re “unable to maintain six-foot social distance from people who are not household members.” The response to that will be the same response that’s always given: Those rules didn’t stop BLM protesters from gathering outdoors this summer. Right, but many of those protesters did mask up. And the idea that we should behave only as responsibly as the least responsible members of the other side, even when lives might be saved by doing otherwise, is, well, nihilistic.
Here’s Biden with an attack on Trump today that I don’t think I’ve heard from him before. He zeroes in specifically on the risk of infection at Trump’s rallies — but focuses on the president’s behavior more so than the crowd’s. I know where he got the idea for it: Trump was asked last week by a newspaper after his indoor rally in Nevada whether he worries about COVID at his events and answered, “I’m on a stage and it’s very far away. And so I’m not at all concerned.” I’m not sure what specifically Biden is aiming for in highlighting that — an “empathy gap” between him and Trump, or a way to maybe pry some of Trump’s warier blue-collar white voters away from him by convincing them that he doesn’t care about the little guy after all. But it’s a visceral pitch, something I think we might hear at the debate next week.
Update: Ah, my mistake. As of last week, masks aren’t absolutely required at outdoor political rallies (and religious gatherings) in Ohio, just strongly recommended.


hotair--2020-09-21--New RNC ad: Democrats endorsing election-year SCOTUS confirmation ... in 2016, natch

A great , effective ad … but .
The RNC takes us on a trip down Memory Lane to 2016 , when Senate Democrats along with Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi lectured America on the necessity — nay , the constitutional mandate — to immediately fill Supreme Court vacancies .
Can ’ t wait for the DNC ’ s response video about what Republicans were saying at the same time , though : The double inclusion of the same Joe Biden clip , declaring in 2016 that “ the American people deserve a fully staffed court of nine , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the more recent clip of Kamala Harris . )
The Trump campaign and the RNC plan to shove those words down the throats of Democrats and the media , probably every day .
Here ’ s Kayleigh McEnany , telling CBS This Morning host Gayle King earlier today that she should ask Biden about his principles on filling Supreme Court vacancies : King volleys back at McEnany that there are plenty of clips from 2016 of Republicans justifying leaving a SCOTUS seat vacant , too .
Isn ’ t this just “ power @ @ @ @ @ @ @ denies that , but then goes on to explain exactly how this is power politics — that Republicans had the power to hold up a confirmation in 2016 , and now they have the power to press forward on one in 2020 .
That ’ s all the “ divided government ” argument means in the end , after all .
With that in mind , this ad won ’ t convince many that Republicans have a superior principled argument for plowing ahead .
At best , it will impress upon viewers the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sanctimonious hypocrite when it comes to the decades-long judiciary wars in the Beltway .
That might help Republicans look a little less self-serving , but it ’ s still a power play .
Why not just embrace it and deal with it honestly ?
That , at least , might be persuasive on the basis of novelty alone .
Anyway , enjoy the ad while it lasts .
Will the RNC put this on air , where it might have a broader impact ?

A great, effective ad … but. The RNC takes us on a trip down Memory Lane to 2016, when Senate Democrats along with Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi lectured America on the necessity — nay, the constitutional mandate — to immediately fill Supreme Court vacancies. Can’t wait for the DNC’s response video about what Republicans were saying at the same time, though:
Not long ago, Joe Biden said that “the American people deserve a fully-staffed court of nine.” We agree. Fill the seat! pic.twitter.com/K8GpnAMEly — Ronna McDaniel (@GOPChairwoman) September 21, 2020
The double inclusion of the same Joe Biden clip, declaring in 2016 that “the American people deserve a fully staffed court of nine,” is no accident. (Neither is the more recent clip of Kamala Harris.) The Trump campaign and the RNC plan to shove those words down the throats of Democrats and the media, probably every day. Here’s Kayleigh McEnany, telling CBS This Morning host Gayle King earlier today that she should ask Biden about his principles on filling Supreme Court vacancies:
President Trump says he will soon nominate a justice to replace the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court. White House @PressSec @KayleighMcEnany joins us with details on the president's timeline, and what she says the president is looking for in a nominee. pic.twitter.com/3nPk4tCJez — CBS This Morning (@CBSThisMorning) September 21, 2020
King volleys back at McEnany that there are plenty of clips from 2016 of Republicans justifying leaving a SCOTUS seat vacant, too. Isn’t this just “power politics,” King wonders? McEnany denies that, but then goes on to explain exactly how this is power politics — that Republicans had the power to hold up a confirmation in 2016, and now they have the power to press forward on one in 2020. That’s all the “divided government” argument means in the end, after all.
With that in mind, this ad won’t convince many that Republicans have a superior principled argument for plowing ahead. At best, it will impress upon viewers the fact that everyone in Washington is a sanctimonious hypocrite when it comes to the decades-long judiciary wars in the Beltway. That might help Republicans look a little less self-serving, but it’s still a power play. Why not just embrace it and deal with it honestly? That, at least, might be persuasive on the basis of novelty alone.
Anyway, enjoy the ad while it lasts. Will the RNC put this on air, where it might have a broader impact?


hotair--2020-09-21--Power grab? HHS chief bars agencies from issuing new rules without his approval, including rules on

Power grab? HHS chief bars agencies from issuing new rules without his approval, including rules on vaccines

It ’ s impossible to read this story and not assume it ’ s yet another attempt by the White House or one of its arms , in this case HHS chief Alex Azar , to politicize the scientific process as we inch closer to a COVID vaccine and Election Day .
They ’ ve been strong-arming the CDC on things like guidance for testing of possible asymptomatic patients ; Trump himself has personally and publicly strong-armed both the head of the FDA and the head of the CDC .
Now , six weeks out from the election , with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the vaccine ’ s supposedly imminent arrival , one of his political appointees has suddenly pulls a “ stunning ” surprise on the federal government ’ s scientific arms .
Normally agencies like the FDA enjoy a delegation of authority from HHS to issue rules on food and drugs without approval from higher-up .
That ’ s now changed : Azar , who answers directly to Trump , has to sign off on everything personally , effective immediately .
But here ’ s the wrinkle .
If this is all about giving Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the vaccine ( or therapeutic treatments like monoclonal antibody drugs ) , *how* does the new rule do that , exactly ?
Trump ’ s priority right now is speed .
He wants to be able to report new breakthroughs on COVID to the public as soon as possible , but in any event no later than November 2 .
All Azar ’ s rule does is inject him as a new layer of bureaucracy into the approval process , which … slows things down .
Granted , it slows things down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of an FDA decision approving a vaccine would presumably last no longer than five seconds lest the boss be mad at him — but if the White House were playing games with the FDA , you wouldn ’ t expect them to be adding new hoops for the agency to jump through en route to setting rules .
You ’ d expect them to be removing them .
Cutting corners is what people are afraid of in developing the vaccine , not adding extra layers of scrutiny .
What ’ s the play @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doing this now ?
Many rules issued by federal health agencies are signed by lawyers or by the heads of agencies , including the F.D.A.
, under the umbrella of H.H.S .
The new memo requires the secretary to sign them , which Dr. Lurie said could lead to delays in the regulatory process .
“ It will introduce an element of inefficiency within government operations that is wholly unnecessary and likely to gum things up , ” he said… [ F ] ormer senior officials with the F.D.A .
and H.H.S .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ rule-making power from Dr. Stephen Hahn , the F.D.A .
commissioner and to send a signal to President Trump that no surprises would come from the agency in the weeks before the election .
“ I can only conclude that this memorandum shows a lack of trust in the F.D.A .
commissioner and other H.H.S .
leaders , ” said William B. Schultz , a former general counsel with H.H.S .
and a partner at Zuckerman Spaeder , a law firm .
Right , but which surprises ?
The Times admits candidly that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how the memo would change the vetting and approval process for coronavirus vaccines.
” I think it ’ d require an expert on administrative law to comment intelligently on the implications of Azar ’ s move but I can imagine three scenarios in which it might conceivably help Trump achieve some of his political goals .
1 .
Maybe it gives Azar more power over the CDC , specifically more power to bottle up new CDC pronouncements that conflict with Trump ’ s political message .
The guidance on testing of asymptomatics was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that our case counts are higher than the rest of the world ’ s because we test so much ; go figure , then , that HHS would revamp the guidance to downplay testing of people with no symptoms .
The whole reason Trump appointed loyal crony Michael Caputo to be HHS ’ s press secretary was , apparently , because he didn ’ t trust Azar to look out for his political interests in the scientific arm of the federal government the way he trusted Caputo .
Now that Caputo ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Azar ’ s stepping in to fill the breach .
From now on , perhaps CDC has to run their new pronouncements on COVID through him first — which may explain why their admission that aerosols are the main way the virus is transmitted was strangely yanked off the website today .
But as I say , we ’ d need a lawyer here .
Does the CDC ’ s guidance on aerosols and asymptomatic patients even count as a new “ rule ” for purposes of Azar ’ s memo ?
2 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now directly in the chain of approval when a new rule is issued gives him greater access to internal deliberations at the FDA and CDC , which could be politically useful to Trump .
Again , we ’ d need someone who knows the regs to opine on that .
But it could be that the fact that Azar ’ s signature is now required before a new vaccine is approved means that he can request documents , etc , as the approval process is ongoing in order to get a sense of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ approval might be granted , who ’ s an impediment to approval , and so forth .
Then he could relay that information to Trump so that Trump can boast about progress on the campaign trail .
Or Azar could relay it to reporters , leaking the news of how far along a vaccine candidate is in order to generate good headlines for the boss .
That is , maybe this is a sort of intelligence operation .
Azar realizes that a vaccine probably won ’ t be authorized for emergency use before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to use his authority over the FDA to find out what he can before that .
Obvious question , though : Didn ’ t he already have that power as the head of HHS ?
If he called up Hahn last week , before the new policy was issued , and said , “ I need an update on the vaccine , Steve , ” was Hahn really going to say no ?
3 .
Maybe Azar ’ s worried about the FDA rejecting a vaccine before Election Day .
I wrote yesterday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in AstraZeneca ’ s UK trial .
If Oxford sought authorization by the FDA for its vaccine and the agency decided “ nope , too risky , ” that would be a terrible pre-election headline for Trump .
It would shake public faith temporarily that an effective vaccine will ever be developed .
Voters might blame him for the vaccine ’ s failure .
And Trump would unquestionably make things worse by trying to browbeat the FDA about its decision publicly .
Azar might be calculating that if there ’ s a chance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before November 3 , he could bottle that decision up by refusing to sign off on it until after the vote , thus sparing his boss from real political trouble .
But wouldn ’ t the decision leak ?
Why would FDA scientists show loyalty to Trump after he ’ s tried to bully them , especially now that they have reason to resent Azar for micromanaging them ?
Here ’ s where these endless political machinations involving the FDA and CDC have gotten us , by the way : Sixty-nine percent is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ basic presidential credibility .
Normally you can count on 42 percent of the country to give the most Trump-friendly answer to any poll question you ask them .
He ’ s handled COVID so badly that he ’ s even lost a meaningful chunk of his base on an issue as important as whether you ’ d trust him on a drug designed to protect you from a killer disease .
Scott Gottlieb , a former head of the FDA , was asked yesterday on “ Face the Nation ” what he makes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ To do this now just makes no sense , ” he complained , adding , “ This does create an implication that … the independence of that agency is being eroded or influenced.
” ( The agency ’ s independence *is* being eroded , my man .
Quite openly . )
Another former FDA chief , Mark McClellan , criticized Azar ’ s move as well , telling the Times , “ We ’ re in the midst of a pandemic , when trust in the public health agency is needed more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s game here ?

It’s impossible to read this story and not assume it’s yet another attempt by the White House or one of its arms, in this case HHS chief Alex Azar, to politicize the scientific process as we inch closer to a COVID vaccine and Election Day. They’ve been strong-arming the CDC on things like guidance for testing of possible asymptomatic patients; Trump himself has personally and publicly strong-armed both the head of the FDA and the head of the CDC. Now, six weeks out from the election, with Trump making Trumpy promises every day about the vaccine’s supposedly imminent arrival, one of his political appointees has suddenly pulls a “stunning” surprise on the federal government’s scientific arms. Normally agencies like the FDA enjoy a delegation of authority from HHS to issue rules on food and drugs without approval from higher-up. That’s now changed: Azar, who answers directly to Trump, has to sign off on everything personally, effective immediately.
But here’s the wrinkle. If this is all about giving Trump more direct control of any forthcoming announcements about the vaccine (or therapeutic treatments like monoclonal antibody drugs), *how* does the new rule do that, exactly? Trump’s priority right now is speed. He wants to be able to report new breakthroughs on COVID to the public as soon as possible, but in any event no later than November 2. All Azar’s rule does is inject him as a new layer of bureaucracy into the approval process, which … slows things down. Granted, it slows things down only negligibly — Azar’s review of an FDA decision approving a vaccine would presumably last no longer than five seconds lest the boss be mad at him — but if the White House were playing games with the FDA, you wouldn’t expect them to be adding new hoops for the agency to jump through en route to setting rules. You’d expect them to be removing them. Cutting corners is what people are afraid of in developing the vaccine, not adding extra layers of scrutiny.
What’s the play here, then? Why are they doing this now?
Many rules issued by federal health agencies are signed by lawyers or by the heads of agencies, including the F.D.A., under the umbrella of H.H.S. The new memo requires the secretary to sign them, which Dr. Lurie said could lead to delays in the regulatory process. “It will introduce an element of inefficiency within government operations that is wholly unnecessary and likely to gum things up,” he said… [F] ormer senior officials with the F.D.A. and H.H.S. speculated that the intent was to remove rule-making power from Dr. Stephen Hahn, the F.D.A. commissioner and to send a signal to President Trump that no surprises would come from the agency in the weeks before the election. “I can only conclude that this memorandum shows a lack of trust in the F.D.A. commissioner and other H.H.S. leaders,” said William B. Schultz, a former general counsel with H.H.S. and a partner at Zuckerman Spaeder, a law firm.
Right, but which surprises? The Times admits candidly that it’s “unclear if or how the memo would change the vetting and approval process for coronavirus vaccines.”
I think it’d require an expert on administrative law to comment intelligently on the implications of Azar’s move but I can imagine three scenarios in which it might conceivably help Trump achieve some of his political goals.
1. Maybe it gives Azar more power over the CDC, specifically more power to bottle up new CDC pronouncements that conflict with Trump’s political message. The guidance on testing of asymptomatics was a classic example. Trump has complained that our case counts are higher than the rest of the world’s because we test so much; go figure, then, that HHS would revamp the guidance to downplay testing of people with no symptoms. The whole reason Trump appointed loyal crony Michael Caputo to be HHS’s press secretary was, apparently, because he didn’t trust Azar to look out for his political interests in the scientific arm of the federal government the way he trusted Caputo. Now that Caputo’s on a leave of absence, maybe Azar’s stepping in to fill the breach. From now on, perhaps CDC has to run their new pronouncements on COVID through him first — which may explain why their admission that aerosols are the main way the virus is transmitted was strangely yanked off the website today.
But as I say, we’d need a lawyer here. Does the CDC’s guidance on aerosols and asymptomatic patients even count as a new “rule” for purposes of Azar’s memo?
2. Maybe the fact that Azar is now directly in the chain of approval when a new rule is issued gives him greater access to internal deliberations at the FDA and CDC, which could be politically useful to Trump. Again, we’d need someone who knows the regs to opine on that. But it could be that the fact that Azar’s signature is now required before a new vaccine is approved means that he can request documents, etc, as the approval process is ongoing in order to get a sense of whether the vaccine looks promising, when approval might be granted, who’s an impediment to approval, and so forth. Then he could relay that information to Trump so that Trump can boast about progress on the campaign trail. Or Azar could relay it to reporters, leaking the news of how far along a vaccine candidate is in order to generate good headlines for the boss.
That is, maybe this is a sort of intelligence operation. Azar realizes that a vaccine probably won’t be authorized for emergency use before Election Day so he’s going to use his authority over the FDA to find out what he can before that. Obvious question, though: Didn’t he already have that power as the head of HHS? If he called up Hahn last week, before the new policy was issued, and said, “I need an update on the vaccine, Steve,” was Hahn really going to say no?
3. Maybe Azar’s worried about the FDA rejecting a vaccine before Election Day. I wrote yesterday about potential problems with the Oxford vaccine in AstraZeneca’s UK trial. If Oxford sought authorization by the FDA for its vaccine and the agency decided “nope, too risky,” that would be a terrible pre-election headline for Trump. It would shake public faith temporarily that an effective vaccine will ever be developed. Voters might blame him for the vaccine’s failure. And Trump would unquestionably make things worse by trying to browbeat the FDA about its decision publicly. Azar might be calculating that if there’s a chance that the FDA might nuke a vaccine before November 3, he could bottle that decision up by refusing to sign off on it until after the vote, thus sparing his boss from real political trouble.
But wouldn’t the decision leak? Why would FDA scientists show loyalty to Trump after he’s tried to bully them, especially now that they have reason to resent Azar for micromanaging them?
Here’s where these endless political machinations involving the FDA and CDC have gotten us, by the way:
Fewer than 1 in 10 (9%) Americans have a great deal of confidence in Trump to confirm vaccine effectiveness with another 18% reporting only a “good amount” of confidence in the poll conducted by Ipsos in partnership with ABC News using Ipsos’ Knowledge Panel. In contrast, 69% don’t have confidence in the president vouching for a vaccine, including 16% saying “not so much” and 53% saying “none at all.”
Sixty-nine percent is a mind-boggling number on a question about basic presidential credibility. Normally you can count on 42 percent of the country to give the most Trump-friendly answer to any poll question you ask them. He’s handled COVID so badly that he’s even lost a meaningful chunk of his base on an issue as important as whether you’d trust him on a drug designed to protect you from a killer disease.
Scott Gottlieb, a former head of the FDA, was asked yesterday on “Face the Nation” what he makes of Azar’s new rule. “To do this now just makes no sense,” he complained, adding, “This does create an implication that … the independence of that agency is being eroded or influenced.” (The agency’s independence *is* being eroded, my man. Quite openly.) Another former FDA chief, Mark McClellan, criticized Azar’s move as well, telling the Times, “We’re in the midst of a pandemic, when trust in the public health agency is needed more than ever.” What’s Azar’s game here?


hotair--2020-09-21--NY Times: BLM protesters in Portland are divided over aggressive tactics such as...killing police

Is there a line that Black Lives Matter protesters should be hesitant to cross ?
Today the NY Times reports that there ’ s an ongoing debate about that question in places like Portland where protests/riots have increasingly moved away from federal buildings downtown and into the suburbs .
The story opens with a group of protesters who got angry with a homeowner who was flying an American flag .
Terrance Moses , a veteran who was marching with the protesters at the time , didn ’ t appreciate that very much : “ It went from a peaceful march @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all of a sudden , bang , ‘ How dare you fly the American flag ?
’ ” said Mr. Moses , who is Black and runs a nonprofit group in the Portland , Ore. , area .
“ They said take it down .
They wouldn ’ t leave .
They said they ’ re going to come back and burn the house down.
” Mr. Moses and others blocked the demonstrators and told them to leave .
“ We don ’ t go around terrorizing folks to try and force them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want to do , ” said Mr. Moses , whose nonprofit group provides support for local homeless people .
“ I ’ m a veteran .
I ’ m for these liberties.
” But for every person like Moses who thinks the protets/riots are loosing focus , there is someone like Stephen Green who said watching a protest without participating is tantamount to racism .
“ We don ’ t need allies anymore .
We need accomplices , ” Green told the Times .
And the significance of that comes into stark relief @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reports that one night this month two marches were scheduled an explicity “ nonviolent ” protest in the city center one and one promising “ direct action.
” No one appeared to be at the city center protest .
But around 200 people were at the other event… A small free literature selection was set up on the grass and overseen by three people in ski masks .
It was a popular offering , and people crowded around , craning to see the pamphlets .
Titles included “ Why Break Windows ” ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ m Dead ” ; “ Piece Now , Peace Later : An Anarchist Introduction to Firearms ” ; “ In Defense of Smashing Cameras ” ; and “ Three-Way Fight : Revolutionary Anti-Fascism and Armed Self Defense.
” The energy was something like a carnival in the dark .
Wow !
How the hell does the Times go from reporting a pamphlet about killing cops to describing this as a “ carnival in the dark ” as if it were all good fun ?
I didn ’ t see the pamphlet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the anarchist library by this same name so I ’ d bet this is the content of that pamphlet .
It promotes not just killing police but their families as well ( no link for anarchists ) : To begin , we wish to address a simple yet potentially contentious issue which will form the basis of our appeal here .
Police Officers must be killed , the families of Police Officers must be killed , the children of Police Officers must be killed , the friends and supporters of Police Officers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both materially and immaterially ( though both meanings do not necessarily apply to all of the above examples [ 2 ] ) ; in undoing the murderous reign of terror inflicted upon us by the guardians of ‘ civilization ’ , it is required not only to wipe them from the face of the earth ; but further that we act in such extremity that the reemergence of any ‘ police style ’ force inside the reality proceeding policings ’ annihilation is not only discouraged , but is in fact impossible… Moving to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we want to present a definition of what it means to kill beyond the limits of a purely material approach .
We wish to split killing into both its material ( e.g .
gunning down a uniformed officer ) , and immaterial ( killing the voice that tells us not to throw the Molotov ) components , to dissect there meanings and advocate for there proliferation .
We believe in the necessity of both the material and immaterial killing of police in order to fully annihilate them ( which as earlier stated is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with three suggestions for potentially killing police including cutting the brake cables on police vehicles .
It ’ s hard to believe that if the Times had seen a similar pamphlet at a right wing gathering , i.e .
let ’ s annihilate this group of people , it wouldn ’ t be taken as far more threatening and obviously symbolic of the movement itself , not brushed aside as part of a “ carnival ” atmosphere .
That ’ s especially the case given that two LA Sheriff ’ s Deputies were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seems like an obvious connection but it never gets mentioned in the piece .
Nellie Bowles , the tech reporter who wrote this for the Times , is the same person who wrote a really terrible profile of Jordan Peterson back in 2018 .
Not only does her current piece not mention the LA shooting , she also doesn ’ t ask anyone who supports the confrontational tactics to defend or explain the brochure .
So Stephen Green , who is quoted twice in the piece ( “ We need accomplices.
” ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about it .
Why not ?
The question at the center of this entire piece is this : What , if anything , counts as going too far for BLM .
And yet evidence the group is recommending the murder of police officers barely rates a blip .
The Times could be a much better paper if all of its writers weren ’ t knee-jerk leftists .

Is there a line that Black Lives Matter protesters should be hesitant to cross? Today the NY Times reports that there’s an ongoing debate about that question in places like Portland where protests/riots have increasingly moved away from federal buildings downtown and into the suburbs. The story opens with a group of protesters who got angry with a homeowner who was flying an American flag. Terrance Moses, a veteran who was marching with the protesters at the time, didn’t appreciate that very much:
“It went from a peaceful march, calling out the names, to all of a sudden, bang, ‘How dare you fly the American flag?’” said Mr. Moses, who is Black and runs a nonprofit group in the Portland, Ore., area. “They said take it down. They wouldn’t leave. They said they’re going to come back and burn the house down.” Mr. Moses and others blocked the demonstrators and told them to leave. “We don’t go around terrorizing folks to try and force them to do something they don’t want to do,” said Mr. Moses, whose nonprofit group provides support for local homeless people. “I’m a veteran. I’m for these liberties.”
But for every person like Moses who thinks the protests/riots are losing focus, there is someone like Stephen Green who said watching a protest without participating is tantamount to racism. “We don’t need allies anymore. We need accomplices,” Green told the Times. And the significance of that comes into stark relief later in the piece when the Times reports that one night this month two marches were scheduled an explicitly “nonviolent” protest in the city center one and one promising “direct action.”
No one appeared to be at the city center protest. But around 200 people were at the other event… A small free literature selection was set up on the grass and overseen by three people in ski masks. It was a popular offering, and people crowded around, craning to see the pamphlets. Titles included “Why Break Windows”; “I Want To Kill Cops Until I’m Dead”; “Piece Now, Peace Later: An Anarchist Introduction to Firearms”; “In Defense of Smashing Cameras”; and “Three-Way Fight: Revolutionary Anti-Fascism and Armed Self Defense.” The energy was something like a carnival in the dark.
Wow! How the hell does the Times go from reporting a pamphlet about killing cops to describing this as a “carnival in the dark” as if it were all good fun? I didn’t see the pamphlet in question but there is a piece in the anarchist library by this same name so I’d bet this is the content of that pamphlet. It promotes not just killing police but their families as well (no link for anarchists):
To begin, we wish to address a simple yet potentially contentious issue which will form the basis of our appeal here. Police Officers must be killed, the families of Police Officers must be killed, the children of Police Officers must be killed, the friends and supporters of Police Officers must be killed. We mean this both materially and immaterially (though both meanings do not necessarily apply to all of the above examples[2]); in undoing the murderous reign of terror inflicted upon us by the guardians of ‘civilization’, it is required not only to wipe them from the face of the earth; but further that we act in such extremity that the reemergence of any ‘police style’ force inside the reality proceeding policings’ annihilation is not only discouraged, but is in fact impossible… Moving to our understanding of ‘killing’ then we want to present a definition of what it means to kill beyond the limits of a purely material approach. We wish to split killing into both its material (e.g. gunning down a uniformed officer), and immaterial (killing the voice that tells us not to throw the Molotov) components, to dissect there meanings and advocate for there proliferation. We believe in the necessity of both the material and immaterial killing of police in order to fully annihilate them (which as earlier stated is our goal).
The essay ends with three suggestions for potentially killing police including cutting the brake cables on police vehicles.
It’s hard to believe that if the Times had seen a similar pamphlet at a right wing gathering, i.e. let’s annihilate this group of people, it wouldn’t be taken as far more threatening and obviously symbolic of the movement itself, not brushed aside as part of a “carnival” atmosphere. That’s especially the case given that two LA Sheriff’s Deputies were ambushed just a week ago. It seems like an obvious connection but it never gets mentioned in the piece.
Nellie Bowles, the tech reporter who wrote this for the Times, is the same person who wrote a really terrible profile of Jordan Peterson back in 2018. Not only does her current piece not mention the LA shooting, she also doesn’t ask anyone who supports the confrontational tactics to defend or explain the brochure. So Stephen Green, who is quoted twice in the piece (“We need accomplices.”), is never asked what he thinks about it. Why not?
The question at the center of this entire piece is this: What, if anything, counts as going too far for BLM. And yet evidence the group is recommending the murder of police officers barely rates a blip. The Times could be a much better paper if all of its writers weren’t knee-jerk leftists.


hotair--2020-09-21--New Kelly Loeffler ad: I'm more conservative than Attila the Hun

The least convincing profession of right-wing bona fides since Mitt Romney cringily described himself as “ severely conservative ” in 2012 .
Still , it made me smile .
Not because it ’ s ha-ha funny but because Loeffler clearly isn ’ t a hardcore right-winger deep down .
That ’ s why she was selected for Georgia ’ s open Senate seat instead of Trumpy populist Doug Collins , in fact .
Gov .
Brian Kemp thought that naming an upper-crust country-club Republican woman to the seat would give the GOP a better chance of holding it in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feel more comfortable with Loeffler than with Collins .
Suburbanites , especially women , are the cohort that ’ s been drifting away from the party in a state that ’ s been growing more competitive .
The Loeffler appointment was Kemp ’ s way of trying to reverse that trend .
But then Collins spoiled the plan .
If he had stayed on the sidelines , I have no doubt that Loeffler would be running as business-savvy center-right executive in the special election .
Once Collins jumped in and threatened to zoom @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the pro-Trump vote on the right , though , she had no choice but to protect her right flank .
She ’ s been pandering to righties with lowest-common-denominator political plays ever since , attacking Mitt Romney , fighting with the WNBA over Black Lives Matter and the flag , and now running an ad half-jokingly presenting her as somewhere to the right of one of history ’ s most famous barbarians .
My theory of how this ad came about is that Loeffler and her well-paid team of consultants were sitting around @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ad pitch that might appeal to a rural populist Trump voter who ’ s very much *not* part of the educational or economic class to which they belong .
“ These damned Trumpers wouldn ’ t be happy with anyone to the left of Attila the Hun !
” says one .
To which another says , “ Hey , wait a minute… ” As much as I ’ d like to tell you that Georgia Republicans completely see through this “ Trumpier than Trump !
” charade that Loeffler is pushing at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for her .
A party that ’ s willing to accept a billionaire New York playboy as a tribune of “ real America ” turns out to have little difficulty accepting a fatcat Wall Street CEO as the populist choice head to head with Collins .
Loeffler has led the last two public polls of Georgia ’ s “ jungle primary ” and also led in two polls released over the weekend : Loeffler needs to finish in the top two in November to advance to a Senate runoff on January 5 of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strategy right now is simple : Just finish ahead of Collins .
That would all but guarantee her a spot in the runoff , where she ’ ll be well positioned no matter who her opponent is .
If it ’ s a Democrat , Loeffler will move towards the center believing that the GOP will unite behind her , a safe bet knowing that the Senate is likely to be bluer next year .
( There ’ s a chance the outcome of this race will decide the majority , and Georgians @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the incoming Senate . )
If she ends up facing Collins in the runoff because she and he finished first and second in the jungle primary , that ’ s okay too .
Then she ’ ll run as more of a centrist and hope that Democrats will reluctantly support her as the less Trumpy of their two choices .
Keep an eye on Warnock , though .
He had been trailing Collins for second place but has begun to creep up lately as Georgia Dems start paying more attention to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this internal poll today for what it ’ s worth : A Loeffler/Warnock January runoff could be armageddon , with control of the Senate and the fate of the new president ’ s agenda on the line .
If , on the other hand , Democrats were to unite behind Warnock and he were to win the jungle primary outright in November by claiming 50 percent of the vote ( a longshot but not a no-shot ) , that could complicate any lame-duck confirmation vote on the new SCOTUS nominee .
Because this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be sworn in and seated sometime in November or December , not in January .
He ’ s already looking to use the Court vacancy as a ticket to victory : Even if the vacancy issue is resolved by the time Warnock is seated , an extra Democratic vote in the Senate is potentially hugely important for Biden and Schumer .
Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema have already said that they won ’ t agree to nuke the filibuster for legislation , which means Schumer would need a minimum of 52 seats to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Warnock is potentially the 52nd .
He ’ d have a strong electoral incentive in a purple state like Georgia not to go nuclear , but maybe he ’ s willing to do it to enable a progressive agenda .
This is an important race .
And neither Collins nor “ Attila ” is so strong that the risk of a Democratic upset should be discounted .

The least convincing profession of right-wing bona fides since Mitt Romney cringily described himself as “severely conservative” in 2012.
Still, it made me smile. Not because it’s ha-ha funny but because Loeffler clearly isn’t a hardcore right-winger deep down. That’s why she was selected for Georgia’s open Senate seat instead of Trumpy populist Doug Collins, in fact. Gov. Brian Kemp thought that naming an upper-crust country-club Republican woman to the seat would give the GOP a better chance of holding it in a special election because white suburban women would feel more comfortable with Loeffler than with Collins. Suburbanites, especially women, are the cohort that’s been drifting away from the party in a state that’s been growing more competitive. The Loeffler appointment was Kemp’s way of trying to reverse that trend.
But then Collins spoiled the plan. If he had stayed on the sidelines, I have no doubt that Loeffler would be running as business-savvy center-right executive in the special election. Once Collins jumped in and threatened to zoom past her in the polls by consolidating the pro-Trump vote on the right, though, she had no choice but to protect her right flank. She’s been pandering to righties with lowest-common-denominator political plays ever since, attacking Mitt Romney, fighting with the WNBA over Black Lives Matter and the flag, and now running an ad half-jokingly presenting her as somewhere to the right of one of history’s most famous barbarians.
My theory of how this ad came about is that Loeffler and her well-paid team of consultants were sitting around brainstorming, joking about the sort of ad pitch that might appeal to a rural populist Trump voter who’s very much *not* part of the educational or economic class to which they belong. “These damned Trumpers wouldn’t be happy with anyone to the left of Attila the Hun!” says one. To which another says, “Hey, wait a minute…”
Watch, then read on.
As much as I’d like to tell you that Georgia Republicans completely see through this “Trumpier than Trump!” charade that Loeffler is pushing at them, it’s actually working for her. A party that’s willing to accept a billionaire New York playboy as a tribune of “real America” turns out to have little difficulty accepting a fatcat Wall Street CEO as the populist choice head to head with Collins. Loeffler has led the last two public polls of Georgia’s “jungle primary” and also led in two polls released over the weekend:
One released over the weekend by Redfield & Wilton Strategies pegged Loeffler with a slight plurality at 26%, followed by [Democrat] Warnock (21%), Collins (19%) and [Matt] Lieberman (15%). Another from Fabrizio Ward/Hart Research Associates, a respected Republican-aligned firm, had Loeffler at 24%, followed by Warnock and Collins at around one-fifth of the vote. Lieberman, a former educator, trailed with 10% and Tarver was at 7%.
Loeffler needs to finish in the top two in November to advance to a Senate runoff on January 5 of next year. As such, her strategy right now is simple: Just finish ahead of Collins. That would all but guarantee her a spot in the runoff, where she’ll be well positioned no matter who her opponent is. If it’s a Democrat, Loeffler will move towards the center believing that the GOP will unite behind her, a safe bet knowing that the Senate is likely to be bluer next year. (There’s a chance the outcome of this race will decide the majority, and Georgians will vote in January knowing the balance of the incoming Senate.) If she ends up facing Collins in the runoff because she and he finished first and second in the jungle primary, that’s okay too. Then she’ll run as more of a centrist and hope that Democrats will reluctantly support her as the less Trumpy of their two choices.
Keep an eye on Warnock, though. He had been trailing Collins for second place but has begun to creep up lately as Georgia Dems start paying more attention to the race. A Dem firm put out this internal poll today for what it’s worth:
A Loeffler/Warnock January runoff could be armageddon, with control of the Senate and the fate of the new president’s agenda on the line. If, on the other hand, Democrats were to unite behind Warnock and he were to win the jungle primary outright in November by claiming 50 percent of the vote (a longshot but not a no-shot), that could complicate any lame-duck confirmation vote on the new SCOTUS nominee. Because this is a special election, Warnock would be sworn in and seated sometime in November or December, not in January. He’s already looking to use the Court vacancy as a ticket to victory:
I’m a pro-choice pastor fighting for reproductive justice. My opponents want to see Roe v. Wade overturned. Georgia women can’t afford to have Sen. @Kloeffler or Rep. @CollinsforGA picking the next Supreme Court Justice. — Senator Reverend Raphael Warnock (@ReverendWarnock) September 20, 2020
Even if the vacancy issue is resolved by the time Warnock is seated, an extra Democratic vote in the Senate is potentially hugely important for Biden and Schumer. Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema have already said that they won’t agree to nuke the filibuster for legislation, which means Schumer would need a minimum of 52 seats to have a chance at making it happen. Warnock is potentially the 52nd. He’d have a strong electoral incentive in a purple state like Georgia not to go nuclear, but maybe he’s willing to do it to enable a progressive agenda. This is an important race. And neither Collins nor “Attila” is so strong that the risk of a Democratic upset should be discounted.


hotair--2020-09-21--One of Mueller's top deputies turns on him, says he let the American people down

One of Robert Mueller ’ s top deputies is about to publish a book about the inner workings of the special counsel investigation .
In a piece about the book , Andrew Weissman told the Atlantic that he was “ frustrated ” he Mueller report hadn ’ t gone harder after the president : Weissmann offers a damning indictment of a “ lawless ” president and his knowing accomplices—Attorney General William Barr ( portrayed as a cynical liar ) , congressional Republicans , criminal flunkies , Fox News .
Donald Trump , he writes , is “ like an animal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concept of right and wrong.
” But in telling the story of the investigation and its fallout , Weissmann reserves his most painful words for the Special Counsel ’ s Office itself .
Where Law Ends portrays a group of talented , dedicated professionals beset with internal divisions and led by a man whose code of integrity allowed their target to defy them and escape accountability .
“ There ’ s no question I was frustrated at the time , ” Weissmann told me in a recent interview .
“ There was more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t do.
” Weissmann blames a number of people for this failure including another top deputy to Mueller , AG Barr , and ultimately Mueller himself who he agreed had let the country down .
By abdicating the role of prosecutor , Mueller cleared the way for Barr to take it on himself .
Mueller and Barr were old friends .
Several weeks before submitting the report , Weissmann writes , Mueller informed Barr of his intent to omit any legal recommendation .
Barr didn ’ t object .
Without telling Mueller @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the report into an exoneration of the president and thereby make its damning truths disappear .
“ Barr , ” Weissmann writes , “ had betrayed both friend and country.
” … In our interview , I asked Weissmann if Mueller had let the American people down .
“ Absolutely , yep , ” Weissmann said , before quickly adding : “ I wouldn ’ t phrase it as just Mueller .
I would say ‘ the office.
’ There are a lot of things we did well , and a lot of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be diplomatic about it.
” It ’ s incredible that Democrats are still whining about Barr ’ s summary of the report so long after the report itself has been released .
It couldn ’ t be any clearer that what mattered most to them wasn ’ t the report but the Democratic PR effort surrounding it which never recovered .
There ’ s another way to look at this of course .
What ’ s largely left out of the Atlantic piece and presumably the book it ’ s based on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump campaign ’ s alleged collusion with Russia as the thing that would force the president out of office .
When Mueller couldn ’ t substantiate that , the people who ’ d pushed collusion the hardest had a choice .
They could admit they got carried away with this in advance of the facts or they could find someone else to blame for their own failure .
Ultimately , the best person to blame is Mueller himself .
He not only put out a disappointing report , he failed to impress when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before congress .
So clearly , the problem isn ’ t that Democrats were wrong all along , the problem is that Mueller wasn ’ t up to the task .
Glenn Greenwald compares this to a conspiracy theory which can never be proven wrong .
With each new failure the conspiracy theory just gets deeper as people refuse to acknowledge the truth : Weissmann is just one more person looking to cash in on all the people who bought into the collusion hype .

One of Robert Mueller’s top deputies is about to publish a book about the inner workings of the special counsel investigation. In a piece about the book, Andrew Weissman told the Atlantic that he was “frustrated” he Mueller report hadn’t gone harder after the president:
Weissmann offers a damning indictment of a “lawless” president and his knowing accomplices—Attorney General William Barr (portrayed as a cynical liar), congressional Republicans, criminal flunkies, Fox News. Donald Trump, he writes, is “like an animal, clawing at the world with no concept of right and wrong.” But in telling the story of the investigation and its fallout, Weissmann reserves his most painful words for the Special Counsel’s Office itself. Where Law Ends portrays a group of talented, dedicated professionals beset with internal divisions and led by a man whose code of integrity allowed their target to defy them and escape accountability. “There’s no question I was frustrated at the time,” Weissmann told me in a recent interview. “There was more that could be done that we didn’t do.”
Weissmann blames a number of people for this failure including another top deputy to Mueller, AG Barr, and ultimately Mueller himself who he agreed had let the country down.
By abdicating the role of prosecutor, Mueller cleared the way for Barr to take it on himself. Mueller and Barr were old friends. Several weeks before submitting the report, Weissmann writes, Mueller informed Barr of his intent to omit any legal recommendation. Barr didn’t object. Without telling Mueller, he saw a chance to disfigure the report into an exoneration of the president and thereby make its damning truths disappear. “Barr,” Weissmann writes, “had betrayed both friend and country.”… In our interview, I asked Weissmann if Mueller had let the American people down. “Absolutely, yep,” Weissmann said, before quickly adding: “I wouldn’t phrase it as just Mueller. I would say ‘the office.’ There are a lot of things we did well, and a lot of things we could have done better, to be diplomatic about it.”
It’s incredible that Democrats are still whining about Barr’s summary of the report so long after the report itself has been released. It couldn’t be any clearer that what mattered most to them wasn’t the report but the Democratic PR effort surrounding it which never recovered.
There’s another way to look at this of course. What’s largely left out of the Atlantic piece and presumably the book it’s based on is that Democrats spent years hyping the Trump campaign’s alleged collusion with Russia as the thing that would force the president out of office. When Mueller couldn’t substantiate that, the people who’d pushed collusion the hardest had a choice. They could admit they got carried away with this in advance of the facts or they could find someone else to blame for their own failure.
Ultimately, the best person to blame is Mueller himself. He not only put out a disappointing report, he failed to impress when given a chance to make the case before congress. So clearly, the problem isn’t that Democrats were wrong all along, the problem is that Mueller wasn’t up to the task.
Glenn Greenwald compares this to a conspiracy theory which can never be proven wrong. With each new failure the conspiracy theory just gets deeper as people refuse to acknowledge the truth:
LOL. For 3 years, we were told Bob "WMD" Mueller was a man of such integrity, probity & courage that it was unpatriotic to criticize him & he would reveal All Truth. Then he failed to deliver what liberal stars had promised, so now it's open season: he's a weakling & a coward: https://t.co/UOfRcUZE1O — Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) September 21, 2020
This is what establishment media stars were feeding people for years, profiting off of with ratings & books, and showering themselves with Pulitzers for saying. What else can they do to salvage their humiliation other than blame Mueller, not themselves?pic.twitter.com/nPlaq5YVxf — Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) September 21, 2020
Organizing TikTok parties to burn these: pic.twitter.com/trEmbyCawl — Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) September 21, 2020
Amazing to watch: They didn't get the results they wanted for their dark conspiracy theory they feed on, profited off of, and disseminated for years, so now they shift on a dime from "you're not allowed to criticize Mueller" to "Mueller is a coward": https://t.co/aJpETb1eeD — Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) September 21, 2020
Weissmann is just one more person looking to cash in on all the people who bought into the collusion hype.


hotair--2020-09-21--A liberal desperately tries to make the case for packing the Supreme Court

In terms of “ telegraphing ” your punches , it hardly gets any more obvious than what the Democrats have been up to lately .
Despite having recently used the filibuster to stop the next round of COVID relief from going through , Chuck Schumer and his friends have clearly indicated that they plan on ending the filibuster for normal legislative questions if they retake control of the Senate next year .
But that ’ s just step one .
If they control both chambers and the White House ( *shiver* ) they ’ re going to move forward with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ justices .
It ’ s being claimed that this will be in revenge for Donald Trump replacing Ruth Bader Ginsburg , but you can look forward to them doing this even if that doesn ’ t happen .
Rushing to their defense this week is former Obama adviser Dan Pfeiffer .
In a recently published essay , Pfeiffer attempts to make the case as to why Democrats shouldn ’ t be afraid to add as many justices to the Supreme Court as are necessary to push through and protect the liberal agenda .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ world , it should be the most natural thing in the world to do and easy as pie to boot .
So they might as well start putting their plans in place now .
It is critical that Democrats keep expansion as a credible threat in the coming fight over the Ginsburg seat .
It ’ s some of our only leverage .
We can only do that if we win the message war with the Republicans over expansion .
I have been a supporter of court expansion since the Republicans jammed Brett @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the last several months working with Take Back the Court — the leading advocate for court expansion .
So , I have spent a lot of time thinking about the issue and arguing with people about the merits for expansion .
Based on that experience , here is some message guidance for the fight to come : Demystify Expansion : There has been little to no discussion of changing the makeup of the court for eighty years , so most people in American politics know nothing of the history or the law .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ found to be very persuasive with skeptics : You can read the rest at your leisure if you wish , but there ’ s nothing revolutionary or remarkable in there .
Pfeiffer points out that the number of justices on the court is not set in stone in the Constitution and could be changed by a simple act of Congress just as with any other law .
He also notes that the number of justices on the bench has changed in the past .
Both of these things are true , but it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whitewashes the reality of this history .
It ’ s true that the court grew in size as the nation grew , from five justices to seven to nine in 1837 .
The only other changes came in the period around 1863 when Congress was messing around with Andrew Johnson after his failed impeachment .
It ’ s stayed at nine for this long because there was never any pressing need for the court to be larger .
The turnover rate for Supreme Court justices is low and slow , and that ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t have sudden upheavals in the makeup of the court on a regular basis to avoid the chaos of constitutional principles and precedents that switch back and forth like laundry going from the washer and the dryer based on shifting political winds .
But that ’ s precisely what Pfeiffer and his friends are looking to do .
Unsatisfied with their efforts at winning enough presidential elections to control appointments to the court under the regular rules of order , they ’ re looking to cheat .
Instead of determining to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ broad enough swath of the country to give them those opportunities , they ’ re hoping to use one fortuitous election as a special pass allowing them to stack the deck… literally .
The rationale behind Pfeiffer ’ s “ explanation ” is easy to translate .
Why should the country accept a sudden , significant expansion of the court ?
Because it ’ s what Democrats want in this particular moment and their wishes should all come true .
There ’ s no other reason .
It ’ s a case of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ serving us well since far further back in history than the oldest living Americans can remember .
These are the sniveling cries of spoiled children who weren ’ t given a treat after dinner and now want to use that as an excuse to go rob the candy store .
This can ’ t be allowed .
What you ’ re seeing here is what lies behind the mask of the current Democratic Party and it ’ s not pretty .

In terms of “telegraphing” your punches, it hardly gets any more obvious than what the Democrats have been up to lately. Despite having recently used the filibuster to stop the next round of COVID relief from going through, Chuck Schumer and his friends have clearly indicated that they plan on ending the filibuster for normal legislative questions if they retake control of the Senate next year. But that’s just step one. If they control both chambers and the White House (*shiver*) they’re going to move forward with packing the Supreme Court with more liberal justices. It’s being claimed that this will be in revenge for Donald Trump replacing Ruth Bader Ginsburg, but you can look forward to them doing this even if that doesn’t happen.
Rushing to their defense this week is former Obama adviser Dan Pfeiffer. In a recently published essay, Pfeiffer attempts to make the case as to why Democrats shouldn’t be afraid to add as many justices to the Supreme Court as are necessary to push through and protect the liberal agenda. In fact, in Pfeiffer’s world, it should be the most natural thing in the world to do and easy as pie to boot. So they might as well start putting their plans in place now.
It is critical that Democrats keep expansion as a credible threat in the coming fight over the Ginsburg seat. It’s some of our only leverage. We can only do that if we win the message war with the Republicans over expansion. I have been a supporter of court expansion since the Republicans jammed Brett Kavanaugh on the court and have spent the last several months working with Take Back the Court — the leading advocate for court expansion. So, I have spent a lot of time thinking about the issue and arguing with people about the merits for expansion. Based on that experience, here is some message guidance for the fight to come: Demystify Expansion: There has been little to no discussion of changing the makeup of the court for eighty years, so most people in American politics know nothing of the history or the law. Here are some facts that I have found to be very persuasive with skeptics:
You can read the rest at your leisure if you wish, but there’s nothing revolutionary or remarkable in there. Pfeiffer points out that the number of justices on the court is not set in stone in the Constitution and could be changed by a simple act of Congress just as with any other law. He also notes that the number of justices on the bench has changed in the past. Both of these things are true, but it’s an approach that very much whitewashes the reality of this history.
It’s true that the court grew in size as the nation grew, from five justices to seven to nine in 1837. The only other changes came in the period around 1863 when Congress was messing around with Andrew Johnson after his failed impeachment. It’s stayed at nine for this long because there was never any pressing need for the court to be larger.
The turnover rate for Supreme Court justices is low and slow, and that’s also for a reason. We don’t have sudden upheavals in the makeup of the court on a regular basis to avoid the chaos of constitutional principles and precedents that switch back and forth like laundry going from the washer and the dryer based on shifting political winds. But that’s precisely what Pfeiffer and his friends are looking to do. Unsatisfied with their efforts at winning enough presidential elections to control appointments to the court under the regular rules of order, they’re looking to cheat. Instead of determining to adopt policies that are acceptable to a broad enough swath of the country to give them those opportunities, they’re hoping to use one fortuitous election as a special pass allowing them to stack the deck… literally.
The rationale behind Pfeiffer’s “explanation” is easy to translate. Why should the country accept a sudden, significant expansion of the court? Because it’s what Democrats want in this particular moment and their wishes should all come true. There’s no other reason. It’s a case of impatience with a system that has been serving us well since far further back in history than the oldest living Americans can remember. These are the sniveling cries of spoiled children who weren’t given a treat after dinner and now want to use that as an excuse to go rob the candy store.
This can’t be allowed. What you’re seeing here is what lies behind the mask of the current Democratic Party and it’s not pretty.


hotair--2020-09-21--Memory Hole II, NYT Boogaloo: "Our true founding" claim disappears from 1619 Project

It ’ s one thing to see intellectual dishonesty from radical activist groups like Black Lives Matter .
Their primary purpose , both ostensibly and actually , is to campaign for their agenda , not to act as keepers of a public record .
If they decide that their publicly declared agenda hampers that purpose , then discarding it may not be a terribly honest approach , but it ’ s not exactly surprising either .
When a media outlet that styles itself as America ’ s Paper of Record starts altering that record to cover its tracks , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ After a year of hailing Nikole Hannah-Jones ’ “ 1619 Project ” as a necessary step to understanding slavery as “ our true founding , ” both the New York Times and Hannah-Jones tried to send that claim down the memory hole — despite the fact that both promoted it as the basic message of their historical revisionism , and criticism of the “ 1619 Project ” focused on that claim from the start .
The entire point of Hannah-Jones ’ essays were to recast the American Revolution as an attempt to cling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in self-governing democracy .
The term “ memory hole ” comes from George Orwell ’ s 1984 , and it fits , writes Phillip Magness at Quillette : The history of the American Revolution isn ’ t the only thing the New York Times is revising through its 1619 Project .
The “ paper of record ” has also taken to quietly altering the published text of the project itself after one of its claims came under intense criticism .
When the 1619 Project went to print in August 2019 as a special @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the newspaper put up an interactive version on its website .
The original opening text stated : The 1619 project is a major initiative from The New York Times observing the 400th anniversary of the beginning of American slavery .
It aims to reframe the country ’ s history , understanding 1619 as our true founding , and placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of our national narrative .
[ emphasis added ] … For several months after the 1619 Project first launched @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doubled down on the claim .
“ I argue that 1619 is our true founding , ” she tweeted the week after the project launched .
“ Also , look at the banner pic in my profile ” —a reference to the graphic of the date 1776 crossed out with a line .
It ’ s a claim she repeated many times over .
Until now , anyway : Rather than address this controversy directly , the Times—it now appears—decided to send it down the memory hole—the euphemized term for selectively editing inconvenient @ @ @ @ @ @ @ George Orwell ’ s dystopian novel 1984 .
Without announcement or correction , the newspaper quietly edited out the offending passage such that it now reads : The 1619 Project is an ongoing initiative from The New York Times Magazine that began in August 2019 , the 400th anniversary of the beginning of American slavery .
It aims to reframe the country ’ s history by placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of our national narrative .
Discovery of this edit came about earlier @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CNN to deny that she had ever sought to displace 1776 with a new founding date of 1619 .
She repeated the point in a now-deleted tweet : “ The # 1619Project does not argue that 1619 was our true founding .
We know this nation marks its founding at 1776.
” It was not the first time that Hannah-Jones had tried to alter her self-depiction of the project ’ s aims on account of the controversial line .
She attempted a similar revision a few months ago during an online spat with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Magness supported his argument with a lengthy Twitter thread ( via Twitchy ) : Magness reproduces said banner pic in his Quillette essay : That ’ s game , set , and match to Magness , but he has more on this deception from Hannah-Jones .
Be sure to read it all .
The issue here , though , isn ’ t Hannah-Jones .
She ’ s hardly the first activist to give a slanted analysis of history in which good points get drowned in a sea of bias and hyperbole , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last .
Hannah-Jones also isn ’ t the first to react dishonestly to that criticism and flat-out lie to avoid it , either , although we ’ d hope she ’ ll be the last .
In the Internet age , there are just too many receipts created for that strategy to succeed — as Hannah-Jones is currently discovering .
The big issue here is the New York Times , which is supposed to be a gatekeeper against this kind of dishonesty .
Instead , they apparently decided to become an active participant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Paper of Record , they altered the record and tried to pretend that nothing at all changed .
The fundamental errors in the “ 1619 Project ” got repeatedly pointed out by critics across the political spectrum , with the most substantial and withering coming from the World Socialist Web Site , of all places .
When confronted by refutations from actual historians , the New York Times refused to issue corrections , which was bad enough .
Now we find out that the Paper of Record clandestinely edited the record to give @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the credibility of the “ 1619 Project ” and the NYT ’ s ambitions to repackage it as academic curriculum , but also to the overall credibility of the entire NYT enterprise .
The Oceania of Orwell ’ s imagination could hardly have had a more compliant newspaper than the Winston Smith-edited New York Times .

It’s one thing to see intellectual dishonesty from radical activist groups like Black Lives Matter. Their primary purpose, both ostensibly and actually, is to campaign for their agenda, not to act as keepers of a public record. If they decide that their publicly declared agenda hampers that purpose, then discarding it may not be a terribly honest approach, but it’s not exactly surprising either.
When a media outlet that styles itself as America’s Paper of Record starts altering that record to cover its tracks, that’s an entirely different matter. After a year of hailing Nikole Hannah-Jones’ “1619 Project” as a necessary step to understanding slavery as “our true founding,” both the New York Times and Hannah-Jones tried to send that claim down the memory hole — despite the fact that both promoted it as the basic message of their historical revisionism, and criticism of the “1619 Project” focused on that claim from the start. The entire point of Hannah-Jones’ essays were to recast the American Revolution as an attempt to cling to slavery rather than launch an experiment in self-governing democracy.
The term “memory hole” comes from George Orwell’s 1984, and it fits, writes Phillip Magness at Quillette:
The history of the American Revolution isn’t the only thing the New York Times is revising through its 1619 Project. The “paper of record” has also taken to quietly altering the published text of the project itself after one of its claims came under intense criticism. When the 1619 Project went to print in August 2019 as a special edition of the New York Times Magazine, the newspaper put up an interactive version on its website. The original opening text stated: The 1619 project is a major initiative from The New York Times observing the 400th anniversary of the beginning of American slavery. It aims to reframe the country’s history, understanding 1619 as our true founding, and placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of our national narrative. [emphasis added] … For several months after the 1619 Project first launched, its creator and organizer Nikole Hannah-Jones doubled down on the claim. “I argue that 1619 is our true founding,” she tweeted the week after the project launched. “Also, look at the banner pic in my profile”—a reference to the graphic of the date 1776 crossed out with a line. It’s a claim she repeated many times over.
Until now, anyway:
Rather than address this controversy directly, the Times—it now appears—decided to send it down the memory hole—the euphemized term for selectively editing inconvenient passages out of old newspaper reports in George Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984. Without announcement or correction, the newspaper quietly edited out the offending passage such that it now reads: The 1619 Project is an ongoing initiative from The New York Times Magazine that began in August 2019, the 400th anniversary of the beginning of American slavery. It aims to reframe the country’s history by placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of our national narrative. Discovery of this edit came about earlier this week when Nikole Hannah-Jones went on CNN to deny that she had ever sought to displace 1776 with a new founding date of 1619. She repeated the point in a now-deleted tweet: “The #1619Project does not argue that 1619 was our true founding. We know this nation marks its founding at 1776.” It was not the first time that Hannah-Jones had tried to alter her self-depiction of the project’s aims on account of the controversial line. She attempted a similar revision a few months ago during an online spat with conservative commentator Ben Shapiro.
Last night, Magness supported his argument with a lengthy Twitter thread (via Twitchy):
THREAD: The 1619 Project's creator is now claiming that the text they deleted from their website was not part of the "official" project, and was only "promotional material." Let's take a closer look… pic.twitter.com/2S1WhleDpL — Phil Magness (@PhilWMagness) September 21, 2020
This passage had clear and explicit support from project creator Nikole Hannah-Jones. How do we know? Because she tweeted the same thing the week that the 1619 Project came out in August 2019. pic.twitter.com/e6gKlWoypR — Phil Magness (@PhilWMagness) September 21, 2020
Magness reproduces said banner pic in his Quillette essay:
That’s game, set, and match to Magness, but he has more on this deception from Hannah-Jones. Be sure to read it all.
The issue here, though, isn’t Hannah-Jones. She’s hardly the first activist to give a slanted analysis of history in which good points get drowned in a sea of bias and hyperbole, and she won’t be the last. Hannah-Jones also isn’t the first to react dishonestly to that criticism and flat-out lie to avoid it, either, although we’d hope she’ll be the last. In the Internet age, there are just too many receipts created for that strategy to succeed — as Hannah-Jones is currently discovering.
The big issue here is the New York Times, which is supposed to be a gatekeeper against this kind of dishonesty. Instead, they apparently decided to become an active participant in it. Rather than being the Paper of Record, they altered the record and tried to pretend that nothing at all changed. The fundamental errors in the “1619 Project” got repeatedly pointed out by critics across the political spectrum, with the most substantial and withering coming from the World Socialist Web Site, of all places.
When confronted by refutations from actual historians, the New York Times refused to issue corrections, which was bad enough. Now we find out that the Paper of Record clandestinely edited the record to give its activist cover. That speaks volumes about the credibility of the “1619 Project” and the NYT’s ambitions to repackage it as academic curriculum, but also to the overall credibility of the entire NYT enterprise. The Oceania of Orwell’s imagination could hardly have had a more compliant newspaper than the Winston Smith-edited New York Times.