hotair--2020-02-06--Operation Chaos moves to... Germany?

Operation Chaos moves to... Germany?

Yesterday we looked at the possibility of a new Operation Chaos brewing in South Carolina , where Republicans plan to ask their voters to show up for the state ’ s open primary and vote for Bernie Sanders .
But there may have been a similar operation already underway in the western German state of Thuringia… at least briefly .
The democratic socialists of the far-left Die Linke party had been in control of the government but in a surprise move yesterday , Thomas Kemmerich of the center-left Free Democratic party was elected Premier ( or Minister President ) .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ AfD ( Alternative for Germany ) party supported him .
Chancellor Angela Merkel was , to put it mildly , not pleased .
( BBC ) German Chancellor Angela Merkel says the election of a liberal leader in eastern Germany with help from the far-right AfD party is “ unforgivable ” and must be reversed .
Thomas Kemmerich of the liberal FDP became premier of Thuringia after the AfD , in a surprise move , voted for him .
The situation is being described as a political earthquake , as the mainstream parties @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Alternative for Germany ( AfD ) .
The AfD has broad support in Thuringia .
This move appeared to take nearly everyone by surprise .
It didn ’ t last long , however .
By this morning , amid a flurry of outrage from around Germany , Kemmerich announced that he would be stepping aside to clear the way for new elections .
He described his resignation as “ unavoidable.
” A German state premier elected on Wednesday with the help of the far-right AfD has said he will stand down to pave @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Resignation is unavoidable , ” he said… Mr Kemmerich told reporters on Thursday that his liberal FDP party had decided to request the dissolution of the state parliament in Erfurt .
Wednesday ’ s vote has been described as a political earthquake for Germany .
This may have been a temporary situation , but it could still pave the way for future growth by AfD .
Germany ’ s traditional , liberal parties have all been dismayed at the rapid rise of AfD over the past several years .
While the right-wing organization @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assemble a majority , their platform of calling for restrictions on mass immigration has been popular and they ’ ve attracted considerable support .
The major parties had , up until now , seemed to all agree that nobody would align with AfD to give them more power .
But now that the Free Democratic Party has aligned with them , all bets are off .
Having gotten their foot in the door in Thuringia , can they replicate that success in other parts of the country ?
Keep in mind that Angela @ @ @ @ @ @ @ She ’ s already confirmed that she won ’ t seek reelection next year .
Her disastrous , open-door immigration policies led to the collapse of her popular support and the weakening of her party .
The door appears to be open for a gradual shift to more conservative policies in Germany , and yesterday ’ s events in Thuringia may turn out to be a sign of things to come .

Yesterday we looked at the possibility of a new Operation Chaos brewing in South Carolina, where Republicans plan to ask their voters to show up for the state’s open primary and vote for Bernie Sanders. But there may have been a similar operation already underway in the western German state of Thuringia… at least briefly. The democratic socialists of the far-left Die Linke party had been in control of the government but in a surprise move yesterday, Thomas Kemmerich of the center-left Free Democratic party was elected Premier (or Minister President). And that only happened because the right-wing AfD (Alternative for Germany) party supported him. Chancellor Angela Merkel was, to put it mildly, not pleased. (BBC)
German Chancellor Angela Merkel says the election of a liberal leader in eastern Germany with help from the far-right AfD party is “unforgivable” and must be reversed. Thomas Kemmerich of the liberal FDP became premier of Thuringia after the AfD, in a surprise move, voted for him. The situation is being described as a political earthquake, as the mainstream parties have always refused to do deals with Alternative for Germany (AfD). The AfD has broad support in Thuringia.
This move appeared to take nearly everyone by surprise. It didn’t last long, however. By this morning, amid a flurry of outrage from around Germany, Kemmerich announced that he would be stepping aside to clear the way for new elections. He described his resignation as “unavoidable.”
A German state premier elected on Wednesday with the help of the far-right AfD has said he will stand down to pave the way for fresh elections. “Resignation is unavoidable,” he said… Mr Kemmerich told reporters on Thursday that his liberal FDP party had decided to request the dissolution of the state parliament in Erfurt. Wednesday’s vote has been described as a political earthquake for Germany.
This may have been a temporary situation, but it could still pave the way for future growth by AfD. Germany’s traditional, liberal parties have all been dismayed at the rapid rise of AfD over the past several years. While the right-wing organization hasn’t gained enough ground to assemble a majority, their platform of calling for restrictions on mass immigration has been popular and they’ve attracted considerable support.
The major parties had, up until now, seemed to all agree that nobody would align with AfD to give them more power. But now that the Free Democratic Party has aligned with them, all bets are off. Having gotten their foot in the door in Thuringia, can they replicate that success in other parts of the country?
Keep in mind that Angela Merkel is on the way out. She’s already confirmed that she won’t seek reelection next year. Her disastrous, open-door immigration policies led to the collapse of her popular support and the weakening of her party. The door appears to be open for a gradual shift to more conservative policies in Germany, and yesterday’s events in Thuringia may turn out to be a sign of things to come.


hotair--2020-02-06--NYC residents noticing that crime is up, not down

CBS New York has a good review of some recent interviews with residents of Gotham who have been living with the reality of life in the Big Apple under the leadership of Mayor Bill de Blasio .
And that new reality is nothing to write home about .
It ’ s true that the NYPD has managed to keep crime statistics down in two of the biggest categories – murder and rape – but aside from that , crime rates have been rising nearly across the board .
Robberies , shootings , muggings and assaults have all been on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ noticing .
Mayor Bill de Blasio is defending his policies in the face of skyrocketing crime in New York City .
It ’ s a dramatic example of why some New Yorkers say they don ’ t feel safe on the streets of New York City : one day last week , just before noon , a 28-year-old woman was stopped in her tracks by a man with a box cutter on West 51st Street in Hell ’ s Kitchen .
He threatened to slash her , then reached into her jacket and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s no wonder why a neighbor , a mother of two young children , says she ’ s thinking of moving .
“ I grew up here my whole life .
It ’ s definitely changed .
I do not feel safe anymore .
Honestly , I felt safer in the ’ 80s , ” she said .
“ I just feel like crime is up more .
I mean they say it isn ’ t , but that ’ s BS.
” This trend actually has some New Yorkers feeling nostalgic for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the article is quoted as saying , “ Since Bloomberg left office , the city has changed.
” Thefts of cell phones and other “ snatch and grab ” larcenies are up nearly 40 % .
Both shootings and assaults in the transit system have risen by nearly 30 % .
And car thefts shot up by a staggering 72 % .
For his part , Bill de Blasio stuck to the same tune he always sings .
He told the CBS reporter that “ some people are fearmongers who are trying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also repeated that the Big Apple is “ the safest big city in America.
” That may still be true , but it ’ s also undeniable that the numbers are heading in the wrong direction and that status may be in danger .
The head of the police union called the current situation “ a public safety emergency caused by the mayor.
” Between the recent bail reform law , the Mayor ’ s rocky history with the NYPD and a weak approach to lawlessness , the city is now acting as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arrested and usually put back out on the streets within 24 hours .
Many of them go on to commit the same crimes over and over again .
And why wouldn ’ t they ?
Criminals are aware that the consequences of their actions won ’ t be nearly as bad as in previous years .
Sad as it may be to say , the majority of the people doing the complaining really have nobody to blame but themselves .
None of these actions ( or lack thereof ) by Bill de Blasio @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his approach from day one .
And yet he managed to win reelection in 2017 by a whopping 65-27 margin over a Republican who ran on a promise to support the police and get the crime problem under control .
In other words , New York , you ’ re getting exactly what you voted for .
Escape from New York shouldn ’ t just be a movie title .
They should make it the city motto .

CBS New York has a good review of some recent interviews with residents of Gotham who have been living with the reality of life in the Big Apple under the leadership of Mayor Bill de Blasio. And that new reality is nothing to write home about. It’s true that the NYPD has managed to keep crime statistics down in two of the biggest categories – murder and rape – but aside from that, crime rates have been rising nearly across the board. Robberies, shootings, muggings and assaults have all been on the rise. And people have already been noticing.
Mayor Bill de Blasio is defending his policies in the face of skyrocketing crime in New York City. It’s a dramatic example of why some New Yorkers say they don’t feel safe on the streets of New York City: one day last week, just before noon, a 28-year-old woman was stopped in her tracks by a man with a box cutter on West 51st Street in Hell’s Kitchen. He threatened to slash her, then reached into her jacket and grabbed her cell phone. It’s no wonder why a neighbor, a mother of two young children, says she’s thinking of moving. “I grew up here my whole life. It’s definitely changed. I do not feel safe anymore. Honestly, I felt safer in the ’80s,” she said. “I just feel like crime is up more. I mean they say it isn’t, but that’s BS.”
This trend actually has some New Yorkers feeling nostalgic for the old mayor. One woman interviewed for the article is quoted as saying, “Since Bloomberg left office, the city has changed.”
Thefts of cell phones and other “snatch and grab” larcenies are up nearly 40%. Both shootings and assaults in the transit system have risen by nearly 30%. And car thefts shot up by a staggering 72%.
For his part, Bill de Blasio stuck to the same tune he always sings. He told the CBS reporter that “some people are fearmongers who are trying to denigrate” the city. He also repeated that the Big Apple is “the safest big city in America.”
That may still be true, but it’s also undeniable that the numbers are heading in the wrong direction and that status may be in danger. The head of the police union called the current situation “a public safety emergency caused by the mayor.”
Between the recent bail reform law, the Mayor’s rocky history with the NYPD and a weak approach to lawlessness, the city is now acting as a revolving door for criminals who are arrested and usually put back out on the streets within 24 hours. Many of them go on to commit the same crimes over and over again. And why wouldn’t they? Criminals are aware that the consequences of their actions won’t be nearly as bad as in previous years.
Sad as it may be to say, the majority of the people doing the complaining really have nobody to blame but themselves. None of these actions (or lack thereof) by Bill de Blasio are really new. This has been his approach from day one. And yet he managed to win reelection in 2017 by a whopping 65-27 margin over a Republican who ran on a promise to support the police and get the crime problem under control. In other words, New York, you’re getting exactly what you voted for.
Escape from New York shouldn’t just be a movie title. They should make it the city motto.


hotair--2020-02-06--Behaving badly: Parkland's Fred Guttenberg kicked out of SOTU address

The fall-out from this year ’ s State of the Union address continues .
Divisions are deep and entrenched , to understate the atmosphere on Capitol Hill .
Traditions and decorum are long gone .
One incident from Tuesday night ’ s event that has not made many headlines is that one of Speaker Pelosi ’ s guests was escorted out of the room because of his behavior .
Longtime Democrat activist Fred Guttenberg , the father of Jaime Guttenberg who was murdered in the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in February 2018 , yelled at President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as Trump spoke about protecting the Second Amendment and gun rights .
He was escorted out of the Speaker ’ s Box by a plainclothes police officer .
Guttenberg has now apologized on Twitter .
He first explained his excuses for the outburst and then apologized for the bad behavior .
He ’ s right – he didn ’ t conduct himself with dignity but this outburst was just more of the same bad behavior that was on display that night .
It remains to be seen if a lack of decorum is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pendulum will slowly swing back .
The Republicans chanted “ Four more years ” , and Democrats chanted about prescription drug prices or something .
The Democrat women dressed in white because the bad Orange Man is a sexist pig and a couple of The Squad sisters gloated on Twitter that they got up and walked out .
Apparently , they are too delicate to do their jobs , which that night was to go and represent their districts as the president delivered the State of the Union address .
What is lost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ events are not about one particular politician .
They are about the American people and our country .
The State of the Union is a political event , but it ’ s gotten much worse during the Trump administration .
In the case of Guttenberg , he was sitting in a special spot .
He was the invited guest of the Speaker of the House .
He is well-known to her ( and all Democrats ) and she had to have known of his past behavior .
Remember when he caused a stir @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Judge Kavanaugh refused to shake his extended hand during a break , yet the truth was that Kavanaugh had not seen him do that .
Guttenberg looks to create headlines and does .
The State of the Union is not the place for aggressive activism , that is better left for campaign rallies and town hall meetings .
Speaker Pelosi is dealing with the fall-out of the address , now on her second day of talking after the event .
She is still answering for her behavior during the event .
She @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made faces , she sat on her hands even while good news for all Americans was delivered , and she ripped up her copy of the address at the end of President Trump ’ s presentation .
She is now overreaching again as she trashes President Trump ’ s speech .
She criticized some of the guests that were presented during the speech , which is odd enough , but she also is upset that Trump presented Rush Limbaugh with the Medal of Freedom during the address .
“ Do it in your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a press conference on Thursday morning .
Wow .
Imagine being so Trump-deranged that the Speaker of the House complains about awarding a man with such an honor during the State of the Union , simply as it was an unprecedented move .
Did she complain when Obama left a seat unoccupied to represent gun violence ?
How about when Obama chastised the Supreme Court Justices sitting in front of him ?
No , she did not .
Pelosi ’ s behavior is devolving right along with everyone ’ s .
She , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ holds herself out as a bridge-builder .
She even used the term “ manifesto of mistruths ” to describe the State of the Union address .
And , she tossed in a mention of Charlottesville for good measure .
It ’ s a bit much for her to hold herself out as an example of good behavior as she tries to own President Trump and Republicans .
She trashes Trump for holding up a newspaper headline about his acquittal yet she then says “ You are impeached forever .
You will always carry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t bother to mention that the other side of that coin is that acquittal is forever , too .
This is why so many people just tune out .
It is also why President Trump will be re-elected .
Speaker Pelosi has come to that realization and is not handling it well .
If everything – especially the economy – holds as it is today , it is hard to imagine a different scenario on Election Day .
Pelosi ’ s bitterness had gotten the better of her .
She invited an activist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of bad behavior .
She knows that Trump is a straight-shooter .
Trump didn ’ t mention the impeachment yet he didn ’ t need to do that – he ’ s able to induce Democrats to behave just as badly as they accuse Trump of doing .
All the polling shows that Trump won the impeachment battle with the American public .
That ’ s his best revenge of all – until Election Day 2020 .
I ’ ll end with a tweet from Stephanie Grisham , the White House Press Secretary @

The fall-out from this year’s State of the Union address continues. Divisions are deep and entrenched, to understate the atmosphere on Capitol Hill. Traditions and decorum are long gone.
One incident from Tuesday night’s event that has not made many headlines is that one of Speaker Pelosi’s guests was escorted out of the room because of his behavior. Longtime Democrat activist Fred Guttenberg, the father of Jaime Guttenberg who was murdered in the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in February 2018, yelled at President Trump during his address. This happened as Trump spoke about protecting the Second Amendment and gun rights. He was escorted out of the Speaker’s Box by a plainclothes police officer.
Guttenberg has now apologized on Twitter. He first explained his excuses for the outburst and then apologized for the bad behavior.
(1,2) Tonight was a rough night. I disrupted the State Of The Union and was detained because I let my emotions get the best of me. I simply want to be able to deal with the reality of gun violence and not have to listen to the lies about the 2A as happened tonight. — Fred Guttenberg (@fred_guttenberg) February 5, 2020
(2,2) That said, I should not have yelled out. I am thankful for the overwhelming support that I am receiving. However, I do owe my family and friends an apology. I have tried to conduct myself with dignity throughout this process and I will do better as I pursue gun safety. — Fred Guttenberg (@fred_guttenberg) February 5, 2020
He’s right – he didn’t conduct himself with dignity but this outburst was just more of the same bad behavior that was on display that night. It remains to be seen if a lack of decorum is now the new normal or if the pendulum will slowly swing back. The Republicans chanted “Four more years”, and Democrats chanted about prescription drug prices or something. The Democrat women dressed in white because the bad Orange Man is a sexist pig and a couple of The Squad sisters gloated on Twitter that they got up and walked out. Apparently, they are too delicate to do their jobs, which that night was to go and represent their districts as the president delivered the State of the Union address. What is lost in all of this is that these events are not about one particular politician. They are about the American people and our country.
The State of the Union is a political event, but it’s gotten much worse during the Trump administration. In the case of Guttenberg, he was sitting in a special spot. He was the invited guest of the Speaker of the House. He is well-known to her (and all Democrats) and she had to have known of his past behavior. Remember when he caused a stir during the Kavanaugh hearings? He complained that Judge Kavanaugh refused to shake his extended hand during a break, yet the truth was that Kavanaugh had not seen him do that. Guttenberg looks to create headlines and does. The State of the Union is not the place for aggressive activism, that is better left for campaign rallies and town hall meetings.
Speaker Pelosi is dealing with the fall-out of the address, now on her second day of talking after the event. She is still answering for her behavior during the event. She muttered to herself out loud, she made faces, she sat on her hands even while good news for all Americans was delivered, and she ripped up her copy of the address at the end of President Trump’s presentation. She is now overreaching again as she trashes President Trump’s speech. She criticized some of the guests that were presented during the speech, which is odd enough, but she also is upset that Trump presented Rush Limbaugh with the Medal of Freedom during the address. “Do it in your own office,” she said during a press conference on Thursday morning. Wow. Imagine being so Trump-deranged that the Speaker of the House complains about awarding a man with such an honor during the State of the Union, simply as it was an unprecedented move. Did she complain when Obama left a seat unoccupied to represent gun violence? How about when Obama chastised the Supreme Court Justices sitting in front of him? No, she did not.
Pelosi’s behavior is devolving right along with everyone’s. She, however, is failing miserably when she holds herself out as a bridge-builder. She even used the term “manifesto of mistruths” to describe the State of the Union address. And, she tossed in a mention of Charlottesville for good measure. It’s a bit much for her to hold herself out as an example of good behavior as she tries to own President Trump and Republicans. She trashes Trump for holding up a newspaper headline about his acquittal yet she then says “You are impeached forever. You will always carry around that scar.” She didn’t bother to mention that the other side of that coin is that acquittal is forever, too.
This is why so many people just tune out. It is also why President Trump will be re-elected. Speaker Pelosi has come to that realization and is not handling it well. If everything – especially the economy – holds as it is today, it is hard to imagine a different scenario on Election Day. Pelosi’s bitterness had gotten the better of her. She invited an activist to the event knowing of his history of bad behavior. She knows that Trump is a straight-shooter. Trump didn’t mention the impeachment yet he didn’t need to do that – he’s able to induce Democrats to behave just as badly as they accuse Trump of doing. All the polling shows that Trump won the impeachment battle with the American public. That’s his best revenge of all – until Election Day 2020.
I’ll end with a tweet from Stephanie Grisham, the White House Press Secretary.


hotair--2020-02-06--Oh yes: NYT finds another apparent error in Iowa counting

Oh yes: NYT finds another apparent error in Iowa counting -- which may affect the outcome

Who could have guessed that the most enjoyable news story of the decade would materialize within the first five weeks of 2020 ?
Each new iteration of incompetence feels like a thick new patch of grass to run barefoot through .
I frolic in their shame .
And in the joy of knowing that we as a people really are done with caucuses , and with Iowa , after this disaster .
I feel like this can only end now with the Iowa Democratic Party admitting that they can ’ t stand by whichever outcome they finally arrive at .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ about how the votes were counted and the delegates calculated to give them confidence that they got it right .
The 2020 Democratic result in Iowa will pass into history as an unsolved mystery , like where Jimmy Hoffa is buried .
There are theories about the truth , but we must make peace with the hard reality that we ’ ll never know .
Nate Cohn ’ s NYT outfit , The Upshot , published the bombshell story this morning that there are lots of basic errors in the precinct data published @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should read that post now , and read it all the way through because the stuff at the end about Bernie Sanders closing in on Pete Buttigieg thanks to “ satellite caucuses ” is crucial to understanding Cohn ’ s latest critique .
Buttigieg led Sanders by two full points in delegates on Wednesday , when the IDP released partial results , but Bernie has since closed the gap thanks to a huge advantage in those “ satellite caucuses ” — one of which has yet to be tabulated .
The delegate margin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , with Sanders poised to nose into the lead after that last satellite is counted .
There ’ s just one wrinkle , says Cohn .
Iowa Democrats appear to be calculating the delegate numbers from the satellite caucuses incorrectly per their own rulebook .
You should read his piece in full to see why , as it ’ s complicated .
( One can ’ t fault Iowa Dems for being confused by the rulebook .
One can fault whoever wrote and adopted the rulebook . )
It comes down to ambiguity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are to be awarded proportionally between the various satellite caucuses .
The Iowa Democratic Party appears to be doing it by looking at raw turnout .
If 1,000 people show at one caucus and 10 people show at another , the first caucus gets 100 times the “ state delegate equivalents ” as the second .
Pretty straightforward , as naturally you ’ d want to reward a candidate for winning among a larger number of people .
However , the rulebook appears to tie the “ state delegate equivalents ” at each @ @ @ @ @ @ @ county delegate equivalents.
” ( See how this is confusing ? )
And here ’ s the important part : County delegate equivalents are capped .
So , as Cohn says : Under this framework , the caucus with 10 people in my previous example gets four “ county delegate equivalents.
” The caucus with 1,000 people gets … nine .
Little different from that 100-to-one ratio we imagined .
Cohn crunched the numbers and determined that using the two different systems of calculations with the numbers available for Sanders and Buttigieg would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ results .
That ’ s the good news for Dems .
The bad news ?
The current gap in “ state delegate equivalents ” between Sanders and Buttigieg is even tinier .
Buttigieg currently leads by 3.42 ; weighing the satellite caucuses the way the IDP has been doing produces a net gain for Bernie of 3.8 , pushing him ever so slightly into the lead .
So yes , technically , the ambiguity in this rule matters a lot if we want to know who “ won ” ( i.e .
won @ @ @ @ @ @ @ How could it be otherwise in this caucus of the damned ?
Of course this clusterfark had to get worse somehow .
Of course Bernie ’ s or Pete ’ s vote shares couldn ’ t be one or two points different in either direction , mooting this entire problem .
A nervous , sweaty Tom Perez called for a recanvassing earlier today , which would involve rechecking the math on all 1,756 precinct work sheets .
Honestly , bro , at this point I feel like that would be tantamount to reading @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a portal to another dimension in which all rules of math and logic no longer apply .
The best play right now is to declare Bernie the winner on raw votes and a de facto tie between him and Pete on delegates , which is how this will shake out in practice even if Cohn invents a new branch of statistics that can finally tell us the actual results from Iowa .
In lieu of an exit question , and in keeping with the spirit of amusement of this post , go read @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that it ’ s officially time to panic over the state of the Democratic race .
I wrote a post myself making a similar point before I saw his , that we seem very much headed towards a Bernie/Buttigieg/Bloomberg race next month that does *not* look promising for moderates .
That post will be available to VIP readers later this evening .

Who could have guessed that the most enjoyable news story of the decade would materialize within the first five weeks of 2020?
Each new iteration of incompetence feels like a thick new patch of grass to run barefoot through. I frolic in their shame. And in the joy of knowing that we as a people really are done with caucuses, and with Iowa, after this disaster.
I feel like this can only end now with the Iowa Democratic Party admitting that they can’t stand by whichever outcome they finally arrive at. There’s just too much uncertainty about how the votes were counted and the delegates calculated to give them confidence that they got it right. The 2020 Democratic result in Iowa will pass into history as an unsolved mystery, like where Jimmy Hoffa is buried. There are theories about the truth, but we must make peace with the hard reality that we’ll never know.
I mean, really:
BREAKING: The Associated Press is unable to declare a winner of Iowa’s Democratic caucuses because of irregularities in this year's process and the tight margin between Pete Buttigieg and Bernie Sanders. https://t.co/FX25oUDFaV — AP Politics (@AP_Politics) February 6, 2020
Nate Cohn’s NYT outfit, The Upshot, published the bombshell story this morning that there are lots of basic errors in the precinct data published by the Iowa Democratic Party. You should read that post now, and read it all the way through because the stuff at the end about Bernie Sanders closing in on Pete Buttigieg thanks to “satellite caucuses” is crucial to understanding Cohn’s latest critique. Buttigieg led Sanders by two full points in delegates on Wednesday, when the IDP released partial results, but Bernie has since closed the gap thanks to a huge advantage in those “satellite caucuses” — one of which has yet to be tabulated. The delegate margin between them is whisper-thin at the moment, with Sanders poised to nose into the lead after that last satellite is counted.
There’s just one wrinkle, says Cohn. Iowa Democrats appear to be calculating the delegate numbers from the satellite caucuses incorrectly per their own rulebook.
You should read his piece in full to see why, as it’s complicated. (One can’t fault Iowa Dems for being confused by the rulebook. One can fault whoever wrote and adopted the rulebook.) It comes down to ambiguity over how “state delegate equivalents” are to be awarded proportionally between the various satellite caucuses. The Iowa Democratic Party appears to be doing it by looking at raw turnout. If 1,000 people show at one caucus and 10 people show at another, the first caucus gets 100 times the “state delegate equivalents” as the second. Pretty straightforward, as naturally you’d want to reward a candidate for winning among a larger number of people. However, the rulebook appears to tie the “state delegate equivalents” at each caucus to a corresponding number of “county delegate equivalents.” (See how this is confusing?) And here’s the important part: County delegate equivalents are capped. So, as Cohn says:
[W]hile the number of county convention delegates at each satellite caucus is based on the turnout, it is not directly proportionate. For instance, a satellite precinct with 1 to 20 people gets four delegates, while a caucus with 21 to 40 caucusgoers gets five delegates. Most important, it limits the influence of any one precinct: A caucus can’t get more than nine county delegates, regardless of how many caucusgoers attend.
Under this framework, the caucus with 10 people in my previous example gets four “county delegate equivalents.” The caucus with 1,000 people gets … nine. Little different from that 100-to-one ratio we imagined.
Cohn crunched the numbers and determined that using the two different systems of calculations with the numbers available for Sanders and Buttigieg would produce only a tiny discrepancy between the results. That’s the good news for Dems. The bad news? The current gap in “state delegate equivalents” between Sanders and Buttigieg is even tinier. Buttigieg currently leads by 3.42; weighing the satellite caucuses the way the IDP has been doing produces a net gain for Bernie of 3.8, pushing him ever so slightly into the lead.
So yes, technically, the ambiguity in this rule matters a lot if we want to know who “won” (i.e. won the most delegates) in Iowa. How could it be otherwise in this caucus of the damned? Of course this clusterfark had to get worse somehow. Of course Bernie’s or Pete’s vote shares couldn’t be one or two points different in either direction, mooting this entire problem.
A nervous, sweaty Tom Perez called for a recanvassing earlier today, which would involve rechecking the math on all 1,756 precinct work sheets. Honestly, bro, at this point I feel like that would be tantamount to reading from the Necronomicon. It might open a portal to another dimension in which all rules of math and logic no longer apply. The best play right now is to declare Bernie the winner on raw votes and a de facto tie between him and Pete on delegates, which is how this will shake out in practice even if Cohn invents a new branch of statistics that can finally tell us the actual results from Iowa.
In lieu of an exit question, and in keeping with the spirit of amusement of this post, go read Jonathan Chait warning his fellow centrist liberals that it’s officially time to panic over the state of the Democratic race. I wrote a post myself making a similar point before I saw his, that we seem very much headed towards a Bernie/Buttigieg/Bloomberg race next month that does *not* look promising for moderates. That post will be available to VIP readers later this evening.


hotair--2020-02-06--Six minority women staffers quit Warren's Nevada campaign, some complaining of "toxic" environment

I ’ m chagrined to learned that an organization run by a pretend Native American wouldn ’ t be responsive to minority concerns .
This Politico story is noteworthy not just for the off-the-charts schadenfreude involved in watching an ostentatiously woke campaign called out for insensitivity but because Nevada looks to be Warren ’ s last chance to resuscitate her campaign .
The polling this week in New Hampshire has not been kind to her , placing her fourth consistently .
If she tanks there , Berniebros will begin screaming for her to get out and help Sanders unite progressives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden , and Bloomberg .
She ’ ll insist on taking one more shot in Nevada , I think , but if she tanks there too she ’ s in truly dire straits .
No one expects her to do anything meaningful in South Carolina except hoard a few votes from Bernie that he could badly use .
She ’ s in fourth in the polling average there right now but seems destined to slip to fifth after Buttigieg does well in New Hampshire and bounces past her .
I think she ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ save her .
This story will not be useful in convincing them to save her .
A half-dozen women of color have departed Elizabeth Warren ’ s Nevada campaign in the run-up to the state ’ s caucuses with complaints of a toxic work environment in which minorities felt tokenized and senior leadership was at loggerheads… “ During the time I was employed with Nevada for Warren , there was definitely something wrong with the culture , ” said Megan Lewis , a field organizer who joined the campaign in May and departed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ complaint with HR , but the follow-up I received left me feeling as though I needed to make myself smaller or change who I was to fit into the office culture.
” … [ Another former staffer ] added : “ We all were routinely silenced and not given a meaningful chance on the campaign .
Complaints , comments , advice , and grievances were met with an earnest shake of the head and progressive buzzwords but not much else.
” A third former field organizer who was also granted anonymity said those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did Politico get in touch with these women ?
Did one reach out to the paper with her story and provide the names of others ?
Or did some of these women migrate to Team Bernie , with the Sanders campaign helpfully putting them in touch with the media ?
Either way , two of the three who spoke to Politico say they ’ re now unsure whether they ’ ll even caucus for Warren .
Hoo boy .
There ’ s bigger news buried later in the piece .
Months ago Warren @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up to be lethal , a “ monster ” praised as the most impressive of any candidate ’ s .
( Second place went to , er , Kamala Harris . )
Politico reports today that Warren has spent just 12 days total in the state and that her ad spending there has declined recently .
They ’ ve been understaffed with Spanish-speaking organizers and under-sourced with Spanish-language literature — Latinos are a huge component of Nevada ’ s electorate — and there ’ s reportedly confusion about which of two staffers is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
( Harris ’ s campaign was also notorious for its leadership muddle , coincidentally . )
Now , on top of all that , she has bad press in the state related to minority staffers .
Serious question : Is she going to make it to Nevada ?
There ’ s a serious possibility that she finishes fifth in New Hampshire next Tuesday .
Amy Klobuchar was tied for fourth with her in one poll there taken within the past week and trailed by a point in another .
Meanwhile , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there and then rides the momentum to an upset in Nevada too .
If Iowa taught us anything apart from the fact that Democratic leaders there don ’ t know how to count votes , it taught us that Mayor Pete ’ s organization is good at caucusing .
Nevada ’ s another shot for him to do that .
On the other hand , the greater racial diversity and union strength within Nevada ’ s Democratic electorate gives Biden a fighting chance at a comeback , especially if some Democratic power-brokers like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and endorse him beforehand in the name of holding off Bernie .
Putting all of that together , if she crashes and burns in New Hampshire , what would be the best thing Elizabeth Warren could do to serve the progressive cause she believes in so ardently ?
Fight it out in Nevada and take 10-12 percent of an electorate that might otherwise have made the difference for Bernie Sanders ?
Or bow out early , endorse Bernie , and hit the trail for him ?
Seems obvious , no ?
Maybe she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deal with him .
If he agrees to make her VP , she ’ ll drop out right away and get behind him .
Would he take it ?
Cabinet meetings in the next administration are going to be amazing .

I’m chagrined to learned that an organization run by a pretend Native American wouldn’t be responsive to minority concerns.
This Politico story is noteworthy not just for the off-the-charts schadenfreude involved in watching an ostentatiously woke campaign called out for insensitivity but because Nevada looks to be Warren’s last chance to resuscitate her campaign. The polling this week in New Hampshire has not been kind to her, placing her fourth consistently. If she tanks there, Berniebros will begin screaming for her to get out and help Sanders unite progressives as the centrists splinter among Buttigieg, Biden, and Bloomberg. She’ll insist on taking one more shot in Nevada, I think, but if she tanks there too she’s in truly dire straits. No one expects her to do anything meaningful in South Carolina except hoard a few votes from Bernie that he could badly use. She’s in fourth in the polling average there right now but seems destined to slip to fifth after Buttigieg does well in New Hampshire and bounces past her.
I think she’s done after Nevada unless voters there save her. This story will not be useful in convincing them to save her.
A half-dozen women of color have departed Elizabeth Warren’s Nevada campaign in the run-up to the state’s caucuses with complaints of a toxic work environment in which minorities felt tokenized and senior leadership was at loggerheads… “During the time I was employed with Nevada for Warren, there was definitely something wrong with the culture,” said Megan Lewis, a field organizer who joined the campaign in May and departed in December. “I filed a complaint with HR, but the follow-up I received left me feeling as though I needed to make myself smaller or change who I was to fit into the office culture.”… [Another former staffer] added: “We all were routinely silenced and not given a meaningful chance on the campaign. Complaints, comments, advice, and grievances were met with an earnest shake of the head and progressive buzzwords but not much else.” A third former field organizer who was also granted anonymity said those descriptions matched her own experience.
How did Politico get in touch with these women? Did one reach out to the paper with her story and provide the names of others? Or did some of these women migrate to Team Bernie, with the Sanders campaign helpfully putting them in touch with the media?
Either way, two of the three who spoke to Politico say they’re now unsure whether they’ll even caucus for Warren. Hoo boy.
There’s bigger news buried later in the piece. Months ago Warren’s organization in Nevada was cracked up to be lethal, a “monster” praised as the most impressive of any candidate’s. (Second place went to, er, Kamala Harris.) Politico reports today that Warren has spent just 12 days total in the state and that her ad spending there has declined recently. They’ve been understaffed with Spanish-speaking organizers and under-sourced with Spanish-language literature — Latinos are a huge component of Nevada’s electorate — and there’s reportedly confusion about which of two staffers is actually in charge of the state campaign. (Harris’s campaign was also notorious for its leadership muddle, coincidentally.) Now, on top of all that, she has bad press in the state related to minority staffers.
Serious question: Is she going to make it to Nevada?
There’s a serious possibility that she finishes fifth in New Hampshire next Tuesday. Amy Klobuchar was tied for fourth with her in one poll there taken within the past week and trailed by a point in another. Meanwhile, it’s possible that Buttigieg upsets Bernie there and then rides the momentum to an upset in Nevada too. If Iowa taught us anything apart from the fact that Democratic leaders there don’t know how to count votes, it taught us that Mayor Pete’s organization is good at caucusing. Nevada’s another shot for him to do that. On the other hand, the greater racial diversity and union strength within Nevada’s Democratic electorate gives Biden a fighting chance at a comeback, especially if some Democratic power-brokers like Obama decide to ride to his rescue and endorse him beforehand in the name of holding off Bernie.
Putting all of that together, if she crashes and burns in New Hampshire, what would be the best thing Elizabeth Warren could do to serve the progressive cause she believes in so ardently? Fight it out in Nevada and take 10-12 percent of an electorate that might otherwise have made the difference for Bernie Sanders? Or bow out early, endorse Bernie, and hit the trail for him? Seems obvious, no?
Maybe she’ll even try to swing a deal with him. If he agrees to make her VP, she’ll drop out right away and get behind him. Would he take it?
Cabinet meetings in the next administration are going to be amazing.


hotair--2020-02-06--AOC: 'It's a physical impossibility to lift yourself up by your bootstrap' (Update)

The Oversight Committee held a hearing Wednesday to discuss proposed changes to poverty line calculations made by the Trump administration .
During the hearing , Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez argued that , contrary to Trump ’ s claim in the State of the Union , Americans hadn ’ t been “ lifted ” off of food stamps , they had been “ kicked ” off .
“ Seven million people have not been lifted off of food stamps in this country , they were kicked off food stamps in this country !
” Ocasio-Cortez said .
“ And people are going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we like to use the word lift instead of the truth , which was kicked .
And we are booting millions of Americans into the streets because we want to believe and dupe ourselves into thinking that we ’ re doing better .
We are not .
We ’ re not.
” … Ocasio-Cortez has sponsored a bill , known as The Recognizing Poverty Act , that would have Congress determine a new , updated poverty line that takes into account factors such as family size and geography… Ocasio-Cortez ’ s bill does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but in September she floated the number of $ 38,000 a year .
Current poverty guidelines , which went into effect Jan. 15 , 2020 , list $ 12,760 as the mark for an individual .
As she is wont to do , AOC got a little carried away with herself in the midst of discussing all of this and went off on a strange tangent about…a familiar idiom : She literally said this was a metaphor and then immediately pointed out it isn ’ t psychically possible , which makes you wonder @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what other metaphors she might find problematic .
There ’ s also the fact that AOC is , to some degree , exactly what most people have in mind when they say “ pulling yourself up by your bootstraps.
” She went from working for tips to a six figure salary .
If she can do it , other people can too .
That ’ s really all most people mean by the phrase , i.e .
apply yourself with effort and your circumstances can improve .
Is it true , as AOC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a different meaning , i.e .
something that is absurd and can ’ t be done ?
According to a pair of linguists who looked into it , that is true : So it ’ s probably true that this whole thing was a joke nearly 200 years ago ( or longer ) .
However , along the way the meaning of the phrase changed from one of ridicule to self-improvement .
And another linguist points out that sort of change over time is completely normal [ emphasis added ] While it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the shifting meaning of the phrase , does this apparent contradiction actually matter ?
Not really , according to Grant Barrett , a lexicographer and co-host of the public radio show , “ A Way with Words.
” After all , idioms simply mean what they mean .
“ The saying does its new job as well as it did its old job , ” said Barrett .
“ There ’ s something called the ‘ etymological fallacy , ’ which is when people incorrectly believe that the original or older meaning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more correct one .
It just isn ’ t the case : Lexical items often change their meanings ; they often have more than one meaning .
Those meanings often co-exist , and we learn to manage those possible conflicts through context , clarification , and restatement , which are normal parts of human language.
” By this logic , the modern use of “ pull yourself up by your bootstraps ” is just as valid as the early version .
Barrett noted that the English language is full of hyperbolic and figurative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
So there you go .
Everyone knows what the idiom means .
No one thinks it ’ s meant literally and the fact that it used to mean something different 200 years ago doesn ’ t make the current meaning invalid .
Finally , as pointed out above , AOC has to some degree proven it can be done .
She ’ d be better off pointing to herself as an example than dismissing the possibility that others could follow it .
Here ’ s her full statement at the hearing .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ minutes into this : You can see some of the reactions to this at Twitchy .

The Oversight Committee held a hearing Wednesday to discuss proposed changes to poverty line calculations made by the Trump administration. During the hearing, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez argued that, contrary to Trump’s claim in the State of the Union, Americans hadn’t been “lifted” off of food stamps, they had been “kicked” off.
“Seven million people have not been lifted off of food stamps in this country, they were kicked off food stamps in this country!” Ocasio-Cortez said. “And people are going hungry. They are going hungry because we like to use the word lift instead of the truth, which was kicked. And we are booting millions of Americans into the streets because we want to believe and dupe ourselves into thinking that we’re doing better. We are not. We’re not.”… Ocasio-Cortez has sponsored a bill, known as The Recognizing Poverty Act, that would have Congress determine a new, updated poverty line that takes into account factors such as family size and geography… Ocasio-Cortez’s bill does not specify a proposed poverty line, but in September she floated the number of $38,000 a year. Current poverty guidelines, which went into effect Jan. 15, 2020, list $12,760 as the mark for an individual.
As she is wont to do, AOC got a little carried away with herself in the midst of discussing all of this and went off on a strange tangent about…a familiar idiom:
.@AOC on America’s rags-to-riches ideal: “It’s a physical impossibility to lift yourself up by a bootstrap, by your shoelaces? It’s physically impossible. The whole thing is a joke.” pic.twitter.com/9WNf8UE06T — Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) February 6, 2020
She literally said this was a metaphor and then immediately pointed out it isn’t psychically possible, which makes you wonder if she understands how metaphors work and what other metaphors she might find problematic.
“A ‘cake walk?’ Have you ever tried to walk on cake? Do you know how slippery icing is?" https://t.co/qVh1Ao03VN — Mattphilbin (@Mattphilbin) February 6, 2020
“My friend said they made a killing in the stock market, so I called the police to report them.” — Razor (@hale_razor) February 6, 2020
In other news, cats don't actually have people's tongues, nor do pots have the ability to call kettles black https://t.co/XN6pA1OsNV — Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) February 6, 2020
There’s also the fact that AOC is, to some degree, exactly what most people have in mind when they say “pulling yourself up by your bootstraps.”
Not sure what's funnier: >AOC taking metaphors literally >AOC, a former bartender who is now a congressman, dismissing the idea of pulling yourself up by the bootstraps https://t.co/VuMYnlEmtR — Lauren Chen (@TheLaurenChen) February 6, 2020
Former Bartender-now-Congresswoman and national political star lectures us that people can't possibly rise above the level of their birth.@AOC https://t.co/eMJlBzC4Nu — Pradheep J. Shanker (@Neoavatara) February 6, 2020
She went from working for tips to a six figure salary. If she can do it, other people can too. That’s really all most people mean by the phrase, i.e. apply yourself with effort and your circumstances can improve.
Is it true, as AOC claims, that this metaphor started out with a different meaning, i.e. something that is absurd and can’t be done? According to a pair of linguists who looked into it, that is true:
Etymologist Barry Popik and linguist and lexicographer Ben Zimmer have cited an American newspaper snippet from Sept. 30, 1834 as the earliest published reference to lifting oneself up by one’s bootstraps. A month earlier, a man named Nimrod Murphree announced in the Nashville Banner that he had “discovered perpetual motion.” The Mobile Advertiser picked up this tidbit and published it with a snarky response ridiculing his claim: “Probably Mr. Murphree has succeeded in handing himself over the Cumberland river, or a barn yard fence, by the straps of his boots.”
So it’s probably true that this whole thing was a joke nearly 200 years ago (or longer). However, along the way the meaning of the phrase changed from one of ridicule to self-improvement. And another linguist points out that sort of change over time is completely normal [emphasis added]
While it’s certainly interesting to look back on the shifting meaning of the phrase, does this apparent contradiction actually matter? Not really, according to Grant Barrett, a lexicographer and co-host of the public radio show, “A Way with Words.” After all, idioms simply mean what they mean. “The saying does its new job as well as it did its old job,” said Barrett. “There’s something called the ‘etymological fallacy,’ which is when people incorrectly believe that the original or older meaning of a word or expression is the more correct one. It just isn’t the case: Lexical items often change their meanings; they often have more than one meaning. Those meanings often co-exist, and we learn to manage those possible conflicts through context, clarification, and restatement, which are normal parts of human language.” By this logic, the modern use of “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” is just as valid as the early version. Barrett noted that the English language is full of hyperbolic and figurative expressions that should not be interpreted literally.
So there you go. Everyone knows what the idiom means. No one thinks it’s meant literally and the fact that it used to mean something different 200 years ago doesn’t make the current meaning invalid. Finally, as pointed out above, AOC has to some degree proven it can be done. She’d be better off pointing to herself as an example than dismissing the possibility that others could follow it.
Here’s her full statement at the hearing. The bootstrap portion comes up about 4 minutes into this:
Update: AOC isn’t done.
I see that the right is worked up that we pointed out the myth of bootstrapping when 60% of the wealth in this country is *inherited.* But hey, if you think I’m hopelessly dumb, try listening to MLK talk about “bootstrapping” & the racial wealth gap, too: pic.twitter.com/RHdSfzaJzH — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) February 6, 2020
You can see some of the reactions to this at Twitchy.


hotair--2020-02-07--Venezuela rounded up 'CITGO 6' hours after Juan Guaido met with President Trump

A few hours after Juan Guaido met with President Trump at the White House this week , Venezuela ’ s intelligence service arrested five American citizens ( and one permanent resident ) who were oil executives with CITGO .
The executives have been detained in the country for two years : The “ CITGO 6 ” — Tomeu Vadell , Gustavo Cardenas , Jorge Toledo , Alirio Zambrano , Jose Luis Zambrano and Jose Angel Pereira — were taken by the Maduro regime ’ s intelligence services from their separate house arrest locations , according to several family members , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the State Department .
According to the legal team , they were removed “ without warnings or judicial order ” and are being held together in the same cell at El Heliocoide prison , even though “ the house arrest has not been revoked by the appropriate court.
” “ Lawyers and relatives were not informed , and the only information shared by the SEBIN officials on duty was that [ they were taken away ] ‘ for medical checks , ' ” the lawyers ’ statement said referring to the Venezuelan intelligence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said they are concerned about the safety and well-being of the CITGO 6 .
“ We ’ re just really stressed out , ” Jorge Toledo ’ s son Carlos Gustavo said Thursday .
“ We have no idea how my dad ’ s doing , if he has access to food or water.
” The six men all worked for CITGO , the US arm of Venezuela ’ s PDVSA oil company .
They were arrested at a corporate meeting in November 2017 and denounced as “ traitors ” by President Maduro @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wednesday that Venezuelan-American executives at refiner Citgo who were arrested in a corruption sweep this week would be tried as “ corrupt , thieving traitors ” despite a request by the United States to free them… The six executives included acting Citgo President Jose Pereira , who has Venezuelan citizenship and U.S. permanent residency , the source said .
Citgo did not respond to requests for comment .
Late on Wednesday , Maduro tapped Asdrubal Chavez , a former oil minister and cousin of the late president Hugo Chavez , to replace Pereira @ @ @ @ @ @ @ military prison until last December when they were suddenly released and put under house arrest .
The decision to re-arrest them hours after Maduro ’ s rival met with President Trump seems like a message though there ’ s no official connection at this point .
U.S. Special Representative for Venezuela Elliott Abrams called the timing of the arrests “ suspicious.
” None of the men have had a trial yet .

A few hours after Juan Guaido met with President Trump at the White House this week, Venezuela’s intelligence service arrested five American citizens (and one permanent resident) who were oil executives with CITGO. The executives have been detained in the country for two years:
The “CITGO 6” — Tomeu Vadell, Gustavo Cardenas, Jorge Toledo, Alirio Zambrano, Jose Luis Zambrano and Jose Angel Pereira — were taken by the Maduro regime’s intelligence services from their separate house arrest locations, according to several family members, Vadell’s legal team, and the State Department. According to the legal team, they were removed “without warnings or judicial order” and are being held together in the same cell at El Heliocoide prison, even though “the house arrest has not been revoked by the appropriate court.” “Lawyers and relatives were not informed, and the only information shared by the SEBIN officials on duty was that [they were taken away] ‘for medical checks,'” the lawyers’ statement said referring to the Venezuelan intelligence service… Family members who spoke with CNN said they are concerned about the safety and well-being of the CITGO 6. “We’re just really stressed out,” Jorge Toledo’s son Carlos Gustavo said Thursday. “We have no idea how my dad’s doing, if he has access to food or water.”
The six men all worked for CITGO, the US arm of Venezuela’s PDVSA oil company. They were arrested at a corporate meeting in November 2017 and denounced as “traitors” by President Maduro:
Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro said on Wednesday that Venezuelan-American executives at refiner Citgo who were arrested in a corruption sweep this week would be tried as “corrupt, thieving traitors” despite a request by the United States to free them… The six executives included acting Citgo President Jose Pereira, who has Venezuelan citizenship and U.S. permanent residency, the source said. Citgo did not respond to requests for comment. Late on Wednesday, Maduro tapped Asdrubal Chavez, a former oil minister and cousin of the late president Hugo Chavez, to replace Pereira.
All six men remained in a military prison until last December when they were suddenly released and put under house arrest. The decision to re-arrest them hours after Maduro’s rival met with President Trump seems like a message though there’s no official connection at this point. U.S. Special Representative for Venezuela Elliott Abrams called the timing of the arrests “suspicious.”
None of the men have had a trial yet.


hotair--2020-02-07--Pelosi's daughter: Ripping up SOTU address was 'Italian grandma move'

Christine Pelosi , daughter of Speaker Nancy Pelosi , was interviewed by FNC ’ s Martha MacCallum on , The Story Thursday .
Christine offered up an excuse for her mother ’ s unprecedentedly bad behavior during the State of the Union address .
This wasn ’ t Christine ’ s first appearance on the show .
She was a guest recently and promoted a book she ’ s written about her mother titled “ The Nancy Pelosi Way : Advice on Success , Leadership , and Politics From America ’ s Most Powerful Woman ” .
The point is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her political mother .
She did that again as she spoke about her mother ripping up her copy of the State of the Union address .
Pelosi said that the speech was full of things she “ knew to be untrue ” , you see .
Martha rightfully pointed out that the opposition party is always against parts of the State of the Union address but that doesn ’ t make the Speaker ’ s behavior ok. Christine described her mother ’ s action as an “ Italian grandma move ” and went @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own grandmother .
She said she had no idea her mother would do that as she stood behind President Trump that night .
Well , the Pelosi family may have a history of reacting to expressions of free speech in a dramatically volatile way but that doesn ’ t justify an elected official – “ the most powerful woman ” in America – letting her emotions get the best of her .
The Speaker was essentially having a temper tantrum in front of millions of people .
She succumbed to something that professional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is to keep emotional reactions out of the workplace .
Pelosi can not criticize President Trump as a thin-skinned , childish man if she is acting the same .
She is supposed to represent all of the House , not just the progressive bomb-throwers .
Peggy Noonan wrote in the Wall Street Journal that if President Trump wins re-election , we may point to this week as the time his re-election was justifiably predicted .
( WSJ ) Speaker Nancy Pelosi shattered tradition , making faces , muttering , shaking her head as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Union address .
At the end she famously stood , tore the speech up and threw down the pieces .
“ But he didn ’ t shake her hand.
” So what ?
Her great calling card is she ’ s the sane one .
She introduced him rudely , without the usual encomiums .
Oh , snap .
The classy lady was not classy .
She forgot she has a higher responsibility than to her base , but—yes , how corny—to her country , the institution , the young who are watching @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to behave in the world .
If she was compelled to show symbolic fealty to the “ resistance ” she should have taken it outside the chamber .
That place is where Daniel Webster debated ; she occupies the chair of Henry Clay and “ Mr .
Sam.
” Noonan correctly mentions that going forward , a new template has been set .
“ Now in the future , all House Speakers who face presidents from the opposing party at the State of the Union will have to be rude fools.
” It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That is not leadership .
Pelosi runs a tight Democrat caucus .
The women of The Resistance donned white garments as they have done in past years to protest President Trump and the GOP for being sexist pigs .
They and their collaegues couldn ’ t find it within themselves to applaud or stand for people being honored during the address – including a 100-year-old Tuskegee airman , a young girl wishing for better education , a military family , and Rush Limbaugh .
They sat and scowled .
Is that really the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Democrats are looking tone-deaf and out of touch with average American voters , President Trump is having a very good week , especially with the excellent jobs report released Friday .
Also , a federal appeals court has dismissed an emoluments clause lawsuit against President Trump filed by over 200 Democrat lawmakers on his overseas business dealings .
This tweet sums Trump ’ s week up nicely : None of those items are “ untrue ” , whether Christine Pelosi or her mother want to acknowledge that fact .
It is exactly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her emotions .
She is normally seen as stoic and now that ’ s gone .
Justifying temper tantrums by calling the president a liar isn ’ t going to do anything for anyone outside of the Democrat base .
It won ’ t sway Independents that both parties need to win an election , either .
The fact that the sham impeachment backfired badly on Democrats in the eyes of the public – as seen in recent polls – is behind all of this .
Democrats failed with the Mueller report and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump .
They ’ ve dragged Americans through almost four years of turmoil and Trump is still president .
Acquittal is forever , too .

Christine Pelosi, daughter of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, was interviewed by FNC’s Martha MacCallum on, The Story Thursday. Christine offered up an excuse for her mother’s unprecedentedly bad behavior during the State of the Union address.
This wasn’t Christine’s first appearance on the show. She was a guest recently and promoted a book she’s written about her mother titled “The Nancy Pelosi Way: Advice on Success, Leadership, and Politics From America’s Most Powerful Woman”. The point is that she makes an effort to humanize her political mother. She did that again as she spoke about her mother ripping up her copy of the State of the Union address. Pelosi said that the speech was full of things she “knew to be untrue”, you see. Martha rightfully pointed out that the opposition party is always against parts of the State of the Union address but that doesn’t make the Speaker’s behavior ok.
“There’s always presidents that stand up there and talk about their policies, always people in the audience, including Speakers of the House of the opposite party, that don’t agree … they have different views on the way to fix healthcare in this country. Doesn’t mean that you rip up the speech.,” MacCallum said.
Christine described her mother’s action as an “Italian grandma move” and went on to tell a story about her own grandmother. She said she had no idea her mother would do that as she stood behind President Trump that night.
“In watching that, her reaction to that speech, I thought to myself, that’s an ‘Italian grandma move,'” Pelosi continued. “I saw my grandmother do that years ago in her kitchen when there was a guest at my grandfather’s house … who was rude. She picked up the person’s plate without comment, we heard a crashing sound. She threw the plate away, sat down and didn’t say another word.”
Well, the Pelosi family may have a history of reacting to expressions of free speech in a dramatically volatile way but that doesn’t justify an elected official – “the most powerful woman” in America – letting her emotions get the best of her. The Speaker was essentially having a temper tantrum in front of millions of people. She succumbed to something that professional women have dealt with forever, which is to keep emotional reactions out of the workplace. Pelosi cannot criticize President Trump as a thin-skinned, childish man if she is acting the same. She is supposed to represent all of the House, not just the progressive bomb-throwers.
Peggy Noonan wrote in the Wall Street Journal that if President Trump wins re-election, we may point to this week as the time his re-election was justifiably predicted. (WSJ)
Speaker Nancy Pelosi shattered tradition, making faces, muttering, shaking her head as the president delivered his State of the Union address. At the end she famously stood, tore the speech up and threw down the pieces. “But he didn’t shake her hand.” So what? Her great calling card is she’s the sane one. She introduced him rudely, without the usual encomiums. Oh, snap. The classy lady was not classy. She forgot she has a higher responsibility than to her base, but—yes, how corny—to her country, the institution, the young who are watching and just getting a sense of how to behave in the world. If she was compelled to show symbolic fealty to the “resistance” she should have taken it outside the chamber. That place is where Daniel Webster debated; she occupies the chair of Henry Clay and “Mr. Sam.”
Noonan correctly mentions that going forward, a new template has been set. “Now in the future, all House Speakers who face presidents from the opposing party at the State of the Union will have to be rude fools.” It makes the Speaker just another hack. That is not leadership. Pelosi runs a tight Democrat caucus. The women of The Resistance donned white garments as they have done in past years to protest President Trump and the GOP for being sexist pigs. They and their collaegues couldn’t find it within themselves to applaud or stand for people being honored during the address – including a 100-year-old Tuskegee airman, a young girl wishing for better education, a military family, and Rush Limbaugh. They sat and scowled. Is that really the message they wanted to send?
While the Democrats are looking tone-deaf and out of touch with average American voters, President Trump is having a very good week, especially with the excellent jobs report released Friday. Also, a federal appeals court has dismissed an emoluments clause lawsuit against President Trump filed by over 200 Democrat lawmakers on his overseas business dealings. This tweet sums Trump’s week up nicely:
https://twitter.com/EWErickson/status/1225790740854444032
None of those items are “untrue”, whether Christine Pelosi or her mother want to acknowledge that fact. It is exactly why Speaker Pelosi has lost control of her emotions. She is normally seen as stoic and now that’s gone. Justifying temper tantrums by calling the president a liar isn’t going to do anything for anyone outside of the Democrat base. It won’t sway Independents that both parties need to win an election, either. The fact that the sham impeachment backfired badly on Democrats in the eyes of the public – as seen in recent polls – is behind all of this. Democrats failed with the Mueller report and they have failed with the impeachment of Trump. They’ve dragged Americans through almost four years of turmoil and Trump is still president. Acquittal is forever, too.


hotair--2020-02-07--Alex Vindman removed from NSC post, escorted out of White House; <span class='red'>Update: Sondland

Alex Vindman removed from NSC post, escorted out of White House; Update: Sondland out too

We ’ ll probably see the usual two-step about this news on the Hill .
Step one : Republicans in Congress say , “ We shouldn ’ t assume the worst about the president ’ s motives .
Maybe he removed Vindman for reasons other than retaliation.
” Step two : Trump turns around this afternoon or tomorrow and flatly admits to reporters that it was retaliation .
“ The son of a bitch testified against me .
He had to go.
” Then there ’ ll be some sort of halting step three .
A sheepish “ it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” from the now-burned Susan Collins crowd , an enthusiastic “ the son of a bitch had to go ” from the Matt Gaetz chorus .
Why don ’ t they just skip steps one and two ?
You ’ d think they would have learned by now .
Go straight to three .
Collins , in fact , was asked this asked this morning about the rumors that Trump would soon oust Vindman and replied , carefully , that she was “ not in favor of any kind of retribution.
” Weirdly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deterred , telling reporters this morning of Vindman , “ I ’ m not happy with him .
You think I ’ m supposed to be happy with him ?
I ’ m not.
” And now : Click on the images in the tweet for a more readable version of Vindman ’ s lawyer ’ s statement .
I ’ m curious to know if he was escorted out as a matter of routine , because that ’ s S.O.P .
when an employee at the White House is dismissed , or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ indignity , as if he couldn ’ t be trusted to comport himself appropriately .
I ’ d guess it ’ s S.O.P .
but Mike McFaul served as an ambassador under Obama and seems surprised by it : A fair question to ask is when , precisely , would have been an optimal time to reassign Vindman .
He ’ s not guaranteed a job in the White House forever in the name of protecting him from presidential retaliation , and the working relationship between him and his boss had obviously turned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ National Security Advisor Robert O ’ Brien has been looking to streamline the National Security Council by reducing its size gradually over time .
That ’ d be a legit reason to send Vindman elsewhere eventually instead of keeping him on indefinitely .
It turns out there ’ s an answer to the question , though , per WaPo .
Vindman was on his way out already — imminently , by his own request .
He was fired today , it seems , simply so that Trump could give him a kick on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said Vindman will return to work at the Defense Department until he reports to the Army War College in July .
Vindman , who testified during House Democrats ’ impeachment hearings , had already informed senior officials at the NSC that he intended to leave his post early — by the end of the month , according to people familiar with his decision .
But Trump was eager to make a symbol of the Army officer soon after the Senate acquitted him of the impeachment charges .
Trump has complained about Vindman in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , wore his uniform and conducted himself during the impeachment inquiry , according to people familiar with his remarks .
He has also discussed with aides removing other national security officials who testified or cooperated with House Democrats , calling them disloyal .
If it wasn ’ t clear enough from yesterday ’ s press conference that Trump intends to exact revenge on the “ evil ” people responsible for his impeachment , this Vanity Fair piece from a few days ago will do the trick .
Vindman wasn ’ t named there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Romney , and House Democrats are the main preoccupation — but Vindman was an easy first target since he ’ s a direct subordinate .
He was a key witness to the substance of Trump ’ s phone call with Zelensky on July 25 of last year , complaining about it to superiors and eventually triggering many months of “ no quid pro quo ” talking points in response .
Which continued until Ted Cruz finally pulled Trump ’ s lawyers aside two weeks ago and told them to knock it off since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to realize that there obviously was a quid pro quo .
Schumer posted a letter on Twitter that he received from the deputy Secretary of Defense in December reassuring him that “ the Department will not tolerate any act of retaliation or reprisal ” against Vindman , among others .
I would have guessed that they don ’ t consider a new assignment “ retaliation , ” especially since Vindman had requested to leave by the end of the month .
Soldiers are reassigned all the time .
If Trump tried to have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his rank without reason , that would be something more closely resembling retaliation for Pentagon purposes .
But my assumption is wrong , per natsec lawyer Bradley Moss , who claims reassignments qualify as retaliation under laws protecting whistleblowers .
His brother , who also works for the NSC , was also fired today , of course .
Update : I ’ d forgotten the day of fake outrage a few weeks ago over the “ heads on pikes ” quote .
Update : A red-letter day for Senate Republicans like Collins and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chastened somehow by the impeachment process .
I shouldn ’ t say they “ thought ” he ’ d be chastened .
They just pretended to think that in order to justify their vote to acquit .
Anyway , I ’ m glad he ’ s making fools of them by proving how disingenuous their excuse was .

We’ll probably see the usual two-step about this news on the Hill. Step one: Republicans in Congress say, “We shouldn’t assume the worst about the president’s motives. Maybe he removed Vindman for reasons other than retaliation.” Step two: Trump turns around this afternoon or tomorrow and flatly admits to reporters that it was retaliation. “The son of a bitch testified against me. He had to go.”
Then there’ll be some sort of halting step three. A sheepish “it’s not what I would have done” from the now-burned Susan Collins crowd, an enthusiastic “the son of a bitch had to go” from the Matt Gaetz chorus.
Why don’t they just skip steps one and two? You’d think they would have learned by now. Go straight to three.
Collins, in fact, was asked this asked this morning about the rumors that Trump would soon oust Vindman and replied, carefully, that she was “not in favor of any kind of retribution.” Weirdly enough, the president wasn’t deterred, telling reporters this morning of Vindman, “I’m not happy with him. You think I’m supposed to be happy with him? I’m not.” And now:
Here’s the full statement from Lt. Col. Vindman’s attorney saying he was escorted out of the White House today pic.twitter.com/s9vzZJ7wof — Katherine Faulders (@KFaulders) February 7, 2020
Click on the images in the tweet for a more readable version of Vindman’s lawyer’s statement. I’m curious to know if he was escorted out as a matter of routine, because that’s S.O.P. when an employee at the White House is dismissed, or if it was added as a special indignity, as if he couldn’t be trusted to comport himself appropriately. I’d guess it’s S.O.P. but Mike McFaul served as an ambassador under Obama and seems surprised by it:
Escorted out of the White House? What the hell ! NSA O'Brien should be throwing Lt. Col. Vindman a farewell party. That's what we did for departing NSC directors, who had served their country honorably, when I worked at the White House/NSC. Such a disgrace. https://t.co/LDNQtopcf2 — Michael McFaul (@McFaul) February 7, 2020
A fair question to ask is when, precisely, would have been an optimal time to reassign Vindman. He’s not guaranteed a job in the White House forever in the name of protecting him from presidential retaliation, and the working relationship between him and his boss had obviously turned toxic and mistrustful. Plus, new National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien has been looking to streamline the National Security Council by reducing its size gradually over time. That’d be a legit reason to send Vindman elsewhere eventually instead of keeping him on indefinitely.
It turns out there’s an answer to the question, though, per WaPo. Vindman was on his way out already — imminently, by his own request. He was fired today, it seems, simply so that Trump could give him a kick on his way out the door.
Pressman said Vindman will return to work at the Defense Department until he reports to the Army War College in July. Vindman, who testified during House Democrats’ impeachment hearings, had already informed senior officials at the NSC that he intended to leave his post early — by the end of the month, according to people familiar with his decision. But Trump was eager to make a symbol of the Army officer soon after the Senate acquitted him of the impeachment charges. Trump has complained about Vindman in private, mocking the way he spoke, wore his uniform and conducted himself during the impeachment inquiry, according to people familiar with his remarks. He has also discussed with aides removing other national security officials who testified or cooperated with House Democrats, calling them disloyal.
If it wasn’t clear enough from yesterday’s press conference that Trump intends to exact revenge on the “evil” people responsible for his impeachment, this Vanity Fair piece from a few days ago will do the trick. Vindman wasn’t named there as a potential target — Bolton, Romney, and House Democrats are the main preoccupation — but Vindman was an easy first target since he’s a direct subordinate. He was a key witness to the substance of Trump’s phone call with Zelensky on July 25 of last year, complaining about it to superiors and eventually triggering many months of “no quid pro quo” talking points in response.
Which continued until Ted Cruz finally pulled Trump’s lawyers aside two weeks ago and told them to knock it off since literally everyone in the Senate had come to realize that there obviously was a quid pro quo.
Schumer posted a letter on Twitter that he received from the deputy Secretary of Defense in December reassuring him that “the Department will not tolerate any act of retaliation or reprisal” against Vindman, among others. I would have guessed that they don’t consider a new assignment “retaliation,” especially since Vindman had requested to leave by the end of the month. Soldiers are reassigned all the time. If Trump tried to have him court-martialed or to strip him of his rank without reason, that would be something more closely resembling retaliation for Pentagon purposes. But my assumption is wrong, per natsec lawyer Bradley Moss, who claims reassignments qualify as retaliation under laws protecting whistleblowers.
His brother, who also works for the NSC, was also fired today, of course.
Update: I’d forgotten the day of fake outrage a few weeks ago over the “heads on pikes” quote.
Which offends GOP Senators more? Schiff quoting a Trump confidant who told CBS News "Republican senators have been warned: Vote against the president and your head will be on a pike.” Or the WH putting heads on pikes? Romney, Vindman… — Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) February 7, 2020
Update: A red-letter day for Senate Republicans like Collins and Lamar Alexander who thought Trump would be chastened somehow by the impeachment process.
Emboldened by his victory and determined to strike back, Mr. Trump fired Gordon D. Sondland, the ambassador to the European Union, within hours of the White House dismissing Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman, a decorated Iraq war veteran who was a Ukraine expert on the National Security Council. Both officials testified to a House committee about the president’s efforts to pressure Ukraine to help him against his domestic political rivals. “I was advised today that the president intends to recall me effective immediately as United States Ambassador to the European Union,” Mr. Sondland said in a statement just hours after Colonel Vindman’s dismissal. He expressed gratitude to Mr. Trump “for having given me the opportunity to serve.”
I shouldn’t say they “thought” he’d be chastened. They just pretended to think that in order to justify their vote to acquit. Anyway, I’m glad he’s making fools of them by proving how disingenuous their excuse was.


hotair--2020-02-07--Jorge Ramos: "Mexico is now the wall"

Jorge Ramos: "Mexico is now the wall"

Jorge Ramos has an opinion piece in the NY Times today in which he argues that Mexico ’ s president Obrador is making a terrible mistake by , essentially , becoming Trump ’ s border wall : Mexico is now the wall .
President Trump got his wish .
The heart-wrenching images documenting a recent confrontation in the state of Chiapas , near the border with Guatemala , are evidence of this .
Dozens of Mexican National Guard troops equipped with helmets , batons and transparent shields coalesced on the highway connecting the Mexican cities of Ciudad Hidalgo and Tapachula @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the United States from Central America .
The guardsmen used pepper spray on the caravan , which as of mid-January included about 4,000 people , many of them women and children .
In the end , hundreds were detained , sent back to Guatemala or deported to Honduras .
A spokeswoman for the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights condemned the actions of the National Guard , saying that the use of force to stop and disperse immigrants should be avoided .
I wrote about the confrontation on Mexico ’ s southern @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ramos doesn ’ t tell readers is that Mexico closed the bridge the caravan attempted to cross and , when that failed , hundreds of migrants crossed the river and attempted to enter Mexico illegally .
Because the Mexican national guard was waiting on the other side of the river , the migrants began throwing stones and bottles at them .
That ’ s why the guardsmen were wearing helmets and carrying riot shields .
Some members of the caravan regrouped , moved downriver before the sun rose , and crossed the border @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stop them .
They were allowed to walk a few miles north and eventually stopped by the national guard .
As I pointed out at the time , the migrants tried to push through the guard ’ s lines and when that failed , they were rounded up and taken to a detention center .
Most were deported within a few days .
But as far as Ramos is concerned , Mexico should simply allow these migrants to pass through as if the borders of Mexico didn ’ t exist : What should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ America ?
Just let them go through and protect them as they do so , instead of repressing them .
They are fleeing extreme poverty and gang violence .
Their only hope is to get to the United States .
The Trump administration , not the López Obrador administration , should be receiving them and deciding whether they should be granted political asylum .
Ramos is an intelligent guy .
He knows that most of the Central American migrants he ’ s talking about are economic migrants ( he even admits as much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the United States .
In the past , they would claim asylum and then be released in the US , many never to be seen again .
That ’ s not asylum it ’ s gaming the system .
If Mexico goes back to letting these people pass through unhindered , that means the US border goes back to the chaos of last spring and summer when the entire border system was overwhelmed by the number of daily arrivals .
You may recall Democrats were screaming about people being held in bad @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Why would anyone in the US want a return to that ?
Instead , we ’ ve had eight straight months of declining border apprehensions .
If this keeps up , our immigration courts may eventually catch up with the backlog that often stretches more than a year to hear asylum cases .
Again , that ’ s a good thing and much better than the chaos at the border that following Ramos ’ advice would soon create .

Jorge Ramos has an opinion piece in the NY Times today in which he argues that Mexico’s president Obrador is making a terrible mistake by, essentially, becoming Trump’s border wall:
Mexico is now the wall. President Trump got his wish. The heart-wrenching images documenting a recent confrontation in the state of Chiapas, near the border with Guatemala, are evidence of this. Dozens of Mexican National Guard troops equipped with helmets, batons and transparent shields coalesced on the highway connecting the Mexican cities of Ciudad Hidalgo and Tapachula to stop a caravan of migrants heading to the United States from Central America. The guardsmen used pepper spray on the caravan, which as of mid-January included about 4,000 people, many of them women and children. In the end, hundreds were detained, sent back to Guatemala or deported to Honduras. A spokeswoman for the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights condemned the actions of the National Guard, saying that the use of force to stop and disperse immigrants should be avoided.
I wrote about the confrontation on Mexico’s southern border as it was happening. What Ramos doesn’t tell readers is that Mexico closed the bridge the caravan attempted to cross and, when that failed, hundreds of migrants crossed the river and attempted to enter Mexico illegally. Because the Mexican national guard was waiting on the other side of the river, the migrants began throwing stones and bottles at them. That’s why the guardsmen were wearing helmets and carrying riot shields.
Some members of the caravan regrouped, moved downriver before the sun rose, and crossed the border illegally where there were no guardsmen to stop them. They were allowed to walk a few miles north and eventually stopped by the national guard. As I pointed out at the time, the migrants tried to push through the guard’s lines and when that failed, they were rounded up and taken to a detention center. Most were deported within a few days.
But as far as Ramos is concerned, Mexico should simply allow these migrants to pass through as if the borders of Mexico didn’t exist:
What should Mexico be doing with migrants from Central America? Just let them go through and protect them as they do so, instead of repressing them. They are fleeing extreme poverty and gang violence. Their only hope is to get to the United States. The Trump administration, not the López Obrador administration, should be receiving them and deciding whether they should be granted political asylum.
Ramos is an intelligent guy. He knows that most of the Central American migrants he’s talking about are economic migrants (he even admits as much) who are not eligible for asylum in the United States. In the past, they would claim asylum and then be released in the US, many never to be seen again. That’s not asylum it’s gaming the system.
If Mexico goes back to letting these people pass through unhindered, that means the US border goes back to the chaos of last spring and summer when the entire border system was overwhelmed by the number of daily arrivals. You may recall Democrats were screaming about people being held in bad conditions in overcrowded “concentration camps.” Why would anyone in the US want a return to that?
Instead, we’ve had eight straight months of declining border apprehensions. If this keeps up, our immigration courts may eventually catch up with the backlog that often stretches more than a year to hear asylum cases. Again, that’s a good thing and much better than the chaos at the border that following Ramos’ advice would soon create.