hotair--2020-02-27--Atlantic: 'Venezuela is the endgame of ideological Marxism'

The Atlantic published a piece today by Anne Applebaum about the dire situation in Venezuela .
The piece is noteworthy for its eloquence in describing the current situation in both human and historical terms .
Applebaum says Venezuela isn ’ t just a symbol in an ideological war but a real place .
That ’ s admirable but her own writing makes a convincing case that Venezuela ’ s significance as a symbol has a lot to do with socialist daydreaming : Venezuela—especially when it was run by Maduro ’ s predecessor , the late Hugo Chávez—has long been a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well .
More than a decade ago , Hans Modrow , one of the last East German Communist Party leaders and now an elder statesman of the far-left Die Linke party , told me that Chávez ’ s “ Bolivarian socialism ” represented his greatest hope : that Marxist ideas—which had driven East Germany into bankruptcy—might succeed , finally , in Latin America .
Jeremy Corbyn , the far-left leader of the British Labour Party , was photographed with Chávez and has described his regime in Venezuela as an “ inspiration to all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ neoliberal economics.
” Chávez ’ s rhetoric also helped inspire the Spanish Marxist Pablo Iglesias to create Podemos , Spain ’ s far-left party .
Iglesias has long been suspected of taking Venezuelan money , though he denies it .
Even now , the idea of Venezuela inspires defensiveness and anger wherever dedicated Marxists still gather , whether they are Code Pink activists vowing to “ protect ” the Venezuelan embassy in Washington from the Venezuelan opposition or French Marxists who refuse to call Maduro a dictator… Upon Chávez ’ s death in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for “ showing that the poor matter and wealth can be shared.
” But neither Chávez nor Maduro has ever shown anything of the sort .
Whatever progress the country made against poverty in the past was due to high oil prices , which have since slumped .
Now Maduro presides over a disaster that is devastating the poor above all .
Raffalli told me that the food-production system began to break down nearly a decade ago , thanks to the expropriation of land and the destruction of small agricultural companies , though @ @ @ @ @ @ @ malnutrition began a few years later .
The Catholic charity Caritas believes that 78 percent of Venezuelans eat less than they used to , and 41 percent go whole days without eating… Applebaum argues the destruction of Venezuela had another , separate source besides Marxism .
It was also beset by attempts to degrade its political culture and plunder its resources .
But here again , the chief culprit she cites is Chavez : Democracy became weaker in the 1990s , thanks to widespread corruption linked to the oil industry .
Chávez broke @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first attempt to take power was via a coup d ’ état , in 1992 .
He won a legitimate election in 1998 , but once in power he slowly changed the rules , eventually making it almost impossible for anyone to beat him .
In 2004 , he packed the Supreme Court ; in 2009 , he altered the electoral system .
Just like other illiberal governments , the Venezuelan regime also sought to undermine abstract ideas of justice—which might have protected ordinary people from the authoritarian state—by dismissing them as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ activist who runs PROVEA ( the Venezuelan Education-Action Program on Human Rights ) , told me that the country ’ s rulers had tried to redefine the problem : “ They said everything that we understood as human rights was a ‘ liberal hegemonic imposition.
’ ” … Having gained full control of his nation ’ s legal and judicial institutions , Chávez did not use it to benefit poor Venezuelans , contrary to the mythology spread by far-left admirers .
Instead , Chávez began to transfer the wealth of the country to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lot more to the piece , all of which is worth reading but something about it bothers me .
It ’ s very clear from Applebaum ’ s writing who is to blame for the terrible situation in Venezuela which makes her attempts to create some kind of odd equivalence to the Trump administration ( she compares Chavez ’ weekly TV show to Trump ’ s tweets ) seem like a real stretch .
Here ’ s a bit of her conclusion : I guess every piece published in the Trump era has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he is a world-historical villain .
But the bulk of what she describes in Venezuela is the result of a socialist strongman who died a dictator and his successor who has made clear he will hang on to power by any means necessary .
If you must compare that horrible situation to what is happening in America , maybe point out that Bernie Sanders also indicated some support for socialist Venezuela and also refused to call Maduro a dictator .
You could also point out that Sanders has defended the kind of bread @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Venezuela in the past five years .
You could point out that it is people on the far left in this country who are recommending Democrats pack the courts and create new states to consolidate power .
You could point to the racial and gender polarization being pushed by the identity politics left , like the Black Lives Matter movement .
You could point to the adoption of political violence as a tactic by Antifa and similar groups on the left ( reminiscent of the colectivos ) .
You could even go back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lot of socialist ideology and anti-capitalist slogans into the body politic .
Because I was covering it extensively at the time , I remember that European newspapers routinely referred to the Occupy protesters as “ anti-capitalists.
” It wasn ’ t a secret what they believed .
But the same protesters chanting the same things were rarely described that way in the American media .
All of that to say , if you want to worry people about the dangerous mix of political polarization and Marxism and suggest that could lead to a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ path , I ’ m all for it .
But Trump is not the politician who obviously fits the bill , Bernie Sanders is .
It wouldn ’ t hurt to mention that .

The Atlantic published a piece today by Anne Applebaum about the dire situation in Venezuela. The piece is noteworthy for its eloquence in describing the current situation in both human and historical terms. Applebaum says Venezuela isn’t just a symbol in an ideological war but a real place. That’s admirable but her own writing makes a convincing case that Venezuela’s significance as a symbol has a lot to do with socialist daydreaming:
Venezuela—especially when it was run by Maduro’s predecessor, the late Hugo Chávez—has long been a symbolic cause for the Marxist left as well. More than a decade ago, Hans Modrow, one of the last East German Communist Party leaders and now an elder statesman of the far-left Die Linke party, told me that Chávez’s “Bolivarian socialism” represented his greatest hope: that Marxist ideas—which had driven East Germany into bankruptcy—might succeed, finally, in Latin America. Jeremy Corbyn, the far-left leader of the British Labour Party, was photographed with Chávez and has described his regime in Venezuela as an “inspiration to all of us fighting back against austerity and neoliberal economics.” Chávez’s rhetoric also helped inspire the Spanish Marxist Pablo Iglesias to create Podemos, Spain’s far-left party. Iglesias has long been suspected of taking Venezuelan money, though he denies it. Even now, the idea of Venezuela inspires defensiveness and anger wherever dedicated Marxists still gather, whether they are Code Pink activists vowing to “protect” the Venezuelan embassy in Washington from the Venezuelan opposition or French Marxists who refuse to call Maduro a dictator… Upon Chávez’s death in 2013, Corbyn thanked him on Twitter for “showing that the poor matter and wealth can be shared.” But neither Chávez nor Maduro has ever shown anything of the sort. Whatever progress the country made against poverty in the past was due to high oil prices, which have since slumped. Now Maduro presides over a disaster that is devastating the poor above all. Raffalli told me that the food-production system began to break down nearly a decade ago, thanks to the expropriation of land and the destruction of small agricultural companies, though a few big ones survive. Widespread malnutrition began a few years later. The Catholic charity Caritas believes that 78 percent of Venezuelans eat less than they used to, and 41 percent go whole days without eating…
Applebaum argues the destruction of Venezuela had another, separate source besides Marxism. It was also beset by attempts to degrade its political culture and plunder its resources. But here again, the chief culprit she cites is Chavez:
Democracy became weaker in the 1990s, thanks to widespread corruption linked to the oil industry. Chávez broke the rule of law completely. His first attempt to take power was via a coup d’état, in 1992. He won a legitimate election in 1998, but once in power he slowly changed the rules, eventually making it almost impossible for anyone to beat him. In 2004, he packed the Supreme Court; in 2009, he altered the electoral system. Just like other illiberal governments, the Venezuelan regime also sought to undermine abstract ideas of justice—which might have protected ordinary people from the authoritarian state—by dismissing them as a Western plot. Rafael Uzcátegui, an activist who runs PROVEA (the Venezuelan Education-Action Program on Human Rights), told me that the country’s rulers had tried to redefine the problem: “They said everything that we understood as human rights was a ‘liberal hegemonic imposition.’”… Having gained full control of his nation’s legal and judicial institutions, Chávez did not use it to benefit poor Venezuelans, contrary to the mythology spread by far-left admirers. Instead, Chávez began to transfer the wealth of the country to his cronies.
There’s a lot more to the piece, all of which is worth reading but something about it bothers me. It’s very clear from Applebaum’s writing who is to blame for the terrible situation in Venezuela which makes her attempts to create some kind of odd equivalence to the Trump administration (she compares Chavez’ weekly TV show to Trump’s tweets) seem like a real stretch. Here’s a bit of her conclusion:
I am tempted to end here with a warning, because Venezuela does represent the conclusion to a lot of processes we see in the world today. Venezuela is the endgame of ideological Marxism; the culmination of the assault on democracy, courts, and the press now unfolding in so many countries; and the outer limit of the politics of polarization.
I guess every piece published in the Trump era has to ground itself to the idea that he is a world-historical villain. But the bulk of what she describes in Venezuela is the result of a socialist strongman who died a dictator and his successor who has made clear he will hang on to power by any means necessary. If you must compare that horrible situation to what is happening in America, maybe point out that Bernie Sanders also indicated some support for socialist Venezuela and also refused to call Maduro a dictator. You could also point out that Sanders has defended the kind of bread lines that have become the norm in Venezuela in the past five years.
You could point out that it is people on the far left in this country who are recommending Democrats pack the courts and create new states to consolidate power. You could point to the racial and gender polarization being pushed by the identity politics left, like the Black Lives Matter movement. You could point to the adoption of political violence as a tactic by Antifa and similar groups on the left (reminiscent of the colectivos).
You could even go back to the Occupy movement which injected a lot of socialist ideology and anti-capitalist slogans into the body politic. Because I was covering it extensively at the time, I remember that European newspapers routinely referred to the Occupy protesters as “anti-capitalists.” It wasn’t a secret what they believed. But the same protesters chanting the same things were rarely described that way in the American media.
All of that to say, if you want to worry people about the dangerous mix of political polarization and Marxism and suggest that could lead to a Venezuela-like disaster for nations who follow that path, I’m all for it. But Trump is not the politician who obviously fits the bill, Bernie Sanders is. It wouldn’t hurt to mention that.


hotair--2020-02-27--What are Trump's reelection prospects?

What are Trump's reelection prospects?

Anyone in the business of making predictions about American politics these days shouldn ’ t be .
But an examination of some current data and observations as of today can at least provide a general sense of direction for the 2020 presidential election in just 35 weeks and the prospects for President Donald Trump ’ s reelection .
Historically , they are good .
Most presidents seeking reelection win .
In the modern era , only two elected presidents were denied a second term — Jimmy Carter and George H.W .
Bush .
A major hurdle for both of them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ It ’ s the economy , stupid ” ?
Trump does not have that problem — at the moment .
After eight years of stagnation under the previous president , the number of employed Americans is at an historic high .
Unemployment hasn ’ t been this low in a half-century .
Among sectors of chronically high joblessness , like African Americans , the rate is now at an historic low .
Democrats may not get around to mentioning that .
But the president does at every one of his numerous rallies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much of this success to his administration ’ s tax cuts and slashing of expansion-inhibiting regulations .
The markets have set record after record , until recent days .
And therein lies the danger .
There are no guarantees that such strong markets and prosperity will continue to prevail throughout the 6,000 hours between now and Nov. 3 .
They took a hit Thursday .
The primary threat now is the coronavirus and its far-reaching economic implications , which have spooked global markets in recent days .
The spread of the virus — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fear of the virus ’ spread — threaten China ’ s economy and its important supply chains fueling many economies , especially the United States .
Even if a vaccine could be rapidly developed , which it can ’ t , it could not achieve any health impacts before 2021 , not in time for the election .
Already , leading Trump opponents seek to blame him for not taking a pandemic ’ s threat seriously .
On Wednesday , he appointed Vice President Mike Pence to oversee and coordinate the federal government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Perhaps most important though , in all these indicators is a new poll by the folks at Gallup .
They found that as of this month a whopping 86 percent of Americans are satisfied with the way things are going in their personal lives .
That is not an atmosphere or prescription for revolution .
Now , within that poll , personal satisfaction has plummeted 17 points since 2017 among young adults .
They form , not by coincidence , a significant part of the political base supporting Bernie Sanders ’ call @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lead Democrats .
Trump ’ s outlook will , of course , depend in part on who Democrats select as their standard-bearer , his or her campaign organization and abilities and the financial resources assembled to combat the Trump campaign ’ s full treasure chest .
Yes , polls are mere snapshots of a moment in time .
And this snapshot could change by fall .
But there is a convincing pattern to such preceding moments in time .
Reported personal satisfaction dropped in 1979 when Carter was unsuccessfully seeking reelection and in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the same .
In the last 40 years , Americans reported their highest satisfaction rates of 88 and 87 percent with their personal lives in 1988 , when Bush was elected to succeed Ronald Reagan , in 2004 when George W. Bush won reelection and in 2017 when Trump took office .
All three were Republicans .
But perhaps those are just coincidental .

Anyone in the business of making predictions about American politics these days shouldn’t be.
But an examination of some current data and observations as of today can at least provide a general sense of direction for the 2020 presidential election in just 35 weeks and the prospects for President Donald Trump’s reelection.
Historically, they are good. Most presidents seeking reelection win. In the modern era, only two elected presidents were denied a second term — Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush.
A major hurdle for both of them was a troubled economy. Remember, “It’s the economy, stupid”?
Trump does not have that problem — at the moment. After eight years of stagnation under the previous president, the number of employed Americans is at an historic high.
Unemployment hasn’t been this low in a half-century. Among sectors of chronically high joblessness, like African Americans, the rate is now at an historic low. Democrats may not get around to mentioning that. But the president does at every one of his numerous rallies.
He also makes time to attribute much of this success to his administration’s tax cuts and slashing of expansion-inhibiting regulations.
The markets have set record after record, until recent days. And therein lies the danger. There are no guarantees that such strong markets and prosperity will continue to prevail throughout the 6,000 hours between now and Nov. 3. They took a hit Thursday.
The primary threat now is the coronavirus and its far-reaching economic implications, which have spooked global markets in recent days. The spread of the virus — along with the sometimes even worse anticipated fear of the virus’ spread — threaten China’s economy and its important supply chains fueling many economies, especially the United States.
Even if a vaccine could be rapidly developed, which it can’t, it could not achieve any health impacts before 2021, not in time for the election.
Already, leading Trump opponents seek to blame him for not taking a pandemic’s threat seriously. On Wednesday, he appointed Vice President Mike Pence to oversee and coordinate the federal government’s efforts to combat the spread.
Perhaps most important though, in all these indicators is a new poll by the folks at Gallup. They found that as of this month a whopping 86 percent of Americans are satisfied with the way things are going in their personal lives. That is not an atmosphere or prescription for revolution.
Now, within that poll, personal satisfaction has plummeted 17 points since 2017 among young adults. They form, not by coincidence, a significant part of the political base supporting Bernie Sanders’ call for revolution — and his nomination to lead Democrats.
Trump’s outlook will, of course, depend in part on who Democrats select as their standard-bearer, his or her campaign organization and abilities and the financial resources assembled to combat the Trump campaign’s full treasure chest.
Yes, polls are mere snapshots of a moment in time. And this snapshot could change by fall. But there is a convincing pattern to such preceding moments in time. Reported personal satisfaction dropped in 1979 when Carter was unsuccessfully seeking reelection and in 1992 when Bush I was failing at the same.
In the last 40 years, Americans reported their highest satisfaction rates of 88 and 87 percent with their personal lives in 1988, when Bush was elected to succeed Ronald Reagan, in 2004 when George W. Bush won reelection and in 2017 when Trump took office. All three were Republicans.
But perhaps those are just coincidental.


hotair--2020-02-27--Bernie supporters held late night protests at Democratic Party figures' homes using bullhorns

Politico reported last night that a small group of Sanders supporters showed up at the home of Nevada ’ s Democratic Party chairman at 11 o ’ clock at night and began shouting into bullhorns .
Police were called : “ I want assurances that there isn ’ t going to be any shenanigans going on tomorrow .
The Democratic Party does not control what happens , ” Maria Estrada , a self-described “ Berner ” from Los Angeles , said into the bullhorn , according to a Facebook Live video she streamed on her personal page .
She repeatedly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see a repeat of the 2016 election , which she insinuated was rigged against Sanders… William McCurdy , the Nevada party chair and a member of the state Assembly , confronted Estrada and the other Sanders supporters outside his home nearly an hour after they arrived .
He told them they had “ crossed a line.
” Estrada shot back : “ If any bullshit happens tomorrow the only person who crossed the line is you.
” McCurdy called the police to report the disturbance but Estrada and the others were gone by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ matter was closed , according to the North Las Vegas police department .
Here ’ s video of the protest at McCurdy ’ s house : The next night , around 9 pm , the same group of protesters went to the home of California Secretary of State Alex Padilla .
Here ’ s video of the protest at his house ( 2nd clip ) : In all , this has apparently happened four separate times , each time the target was a Democratic official .
Police were called “ at least twice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jeff Weaver denounced the behavior saying , “ No one who behaves like this is part of our movement .
People who support this campaign do so by civilly mobilizing other voters to come to the polls .
We have zero tolerance for these activities and condemn them in the strongest terms.
” That ’ s lovely but it ’ s not very believable .
The “ Bernie Bros ” have a well-earned reputation at this point as a group willing to swarm and harass anyone who dings their candidate .
We saw @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Nevada Culinary Union were doxed and threatened after the group put out a flyer saying Sanders would take away their existing health insurance .
Just a few days ago the Independent published a story suggesting Sanders ’ worst supporters were taking their cues from his own top staffers and that Sanders was well aware of it .
Sanders certainly isn ’ t the first socialist to have a cadre of thugs around him who intimidate and punish his enemies .
In fact , it ’ s a little bit on the nose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the followers who behave like this .
He is definitely attracting a fringe of far left people who see extremism as a virtue .
And looking at Sanders ’ own rhetoric over the last 40 years , it ’ s not hard to imagine why they think he agrees with them .
The author of the Politico piece notes that the woman leading these protests justified them on the basis of a quote from Mexican revolutionary Emiliano Zapata .
Just one problem .
The quote is apparently apocryphal .

Politico reported last night that a small group of Sanders supporters showed up at the home of Nevada’s Democratic Party chairman at 11 o’clock at night and began shouting into bullhorns. Police were called:
“I want assurances that there isn’t going to be any shenanigans going on tomorrow. The Democratic Party does not control what happens,” Maria Estrada, a self-described “Berner” from Los Angeles, said into the bullhorn, according to a Facebook Live video she streamed on her personal page. She repeatedly said she didn’t want to see a repeat of the 2016 election, which she insinuated was rigged against Sanders… William McCurdy, the Nevada party chair and a member of the state Assembly, confronted Estrada and the other Sanders supporters outside his home nearly an hour after they arrived. He told them they had “crossed a line.” Estrada shot back: “If any bullshit happens tomorrow the only person who crossed the line is you.” McCurdy called the police to report the disturbance but Estrada and the others were gone by the time the authorities arrived and the matter was closed, according to the North Las Vegas police department.
Here’s video of the protest at McCurdy’s house:
Scoop w/ @hollyotterbein
NV Dem party chair & CA SoS called the police this wknd after svrl Bernie supporters came to their homes w/ bullhorns late at night to warn abt elections/2016
They FB live’d it
Jeff Weaver condemned the tacticshttps://t.co/BxJPlm9Zn2 pic.twitter.com/xAnyVcKzO7 — Alex Thompson (@AlexThomp) February 27, 2020
The next night, around 9 pm, the same group of protesters went to the home of California Secretary of State Alex Padilla. Here’s video of the protest at his house (2nd clip):
Maria Estrada, a self-described "Berner" from CA who went to NV and helped lead the actions (NV at after 11pm), defended them: “Protesting is our right — whether they called the police or not is irrelevant.”
1st video was from NV. This is from Padilla's home in LA after 9pm pic.twitter.com/P5QY32geez — Alex Thompson (@AlexThomp) February 27, 2020
In all, this has apparently happened four separate times, each time the target was a Democratic official. Police were called “at least twice” according to Politico.
Sanders adviser Jeff Weaver denounced the behavior saying, “No one who behaves like this is part of our movement. People who support this campaign do so by civilly mobilizing other voters to come to the polls. We have zero tolerance for these activities and condemn them in the strongest terms.”
That’s lovely but it’s not very believable. The “Bernie Bros” have a well-earned reputation at this point as a group willing to swarm and harass anyone who dings their candidate. We saw it earlier this month when leaders of the Nevada Culinary Union were doxed and threatened after the group put out a flyer saying Sanders would take away their existing health insurance.
Just a few days ago the Independent published a story suggesting Sanders’ worst supporters were taking their cues from his own top staffers and that Sanders was well aware of it.
Sanders certainly isn’t the first socialist to have a cadre of thugs around him who intimidate and punish his enemies. In fact, it’s a little bit on the nose that the socialist candidate is the one with the followers who behave like this. He is definitely attracting a fringe of far left people who see extremism as a virtue. And looking at Sanders’ own rhetoric over the last 40 years, it’s not hard to imagine why they think he agrees with them. The author of the Politico piece notes that the woman leading these protests justified them on the basis of a quote from Mexican revolutionary Emiliano Zapata. Just one problem. The quote is apparently apocryphal.


hotair--2020-02-27--Voters sick and tired of Congress, except when they're not

Oh , how Americans love to hate hypocrisy !
Find someone touting strict environmental plans who flies around touting in a private jet .
And they ’ re publicly pounded for ‘ Do as I say , not as I do.
’ A most frequent target for hypocrisy , naturally , is members of Congress , who as a group routinely earn low job approval ratings from Americans , often in the teens .
Now , come to find out , Americans are hypocritical about hypocrisy .
Gallup ’ s just done a new survey .
It found that voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those clowns on Capitol Hill are doing , really like the job their own congressman is doing .
Fifty-nine percent say their own individual member of Congress definitely deserves reelection come November .
However , only about a third say members of Congress as a whole deserve another two-year lease on their office .
So , you know how angry and divided the country is said to be during these tumultuous political times ?
Well , it turns out , both the satisfaction rates with individual members and the overall group are the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pattern helps explain both the ever-fierce demands for congressional term limits and the perpetual failure of this idea .
First of all , how likely do you think it is that denizens of Capitol Hill making 174-grand a year are going to limit their future employment options ?
Second , setting congressional term limits would require a constitutional amendment which would require ratification by three-quarters of the states .
Three-quarters of the states these days could not agree on a national pie , let alone overturning a basic tenet of the U.S. Constitution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ term limits already exist in the collective power of voters every two years , if they just paid attention .
Gallup polls have found Americans to be fairly consistent in this pattern of hypocrisy with approval of Congress generally running around half of the approval of their own district member , which has jumped around from 48 to 60 percent .
Numbers show that when Democrats control the House of Representatives , as they do now , Democrats profess that members deserve reelection .
Republicans not so much .
And vice versa .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of course , but generally run in the 80 to 90 percent success range .
So , those members quickly learn , term after term , that while voters whine and complain about them and their job much of the time , in the end , they come home and send the same person back to do the same stuff in the same place .

Oh, how Americans love to hate hypocrisy!
Find someone touting strict environmental plans who flies around touting in a private jet. And they’re publicly pounded for ‘Do as I say, not as I do.’
A most frequent target for hypocrisy, naturally, is members of Congress, who as a group routinely earn low job approval ratings from Americans, often in the teens.
Now, come to find out, Americans are hypocritical about hypocrisy.
Gallup’s just done a new survey. It found that voters, who routinely disapprove of the job those clowns on Capitol Hill are doing, really like the job their own congressman is doing.
Fifty-nine percent say their own individual member of Congress definitely deserves reelection come November. However, only about a third say members of Congress as a whole deserve another two-year lease on their office.
So, you know how angry and divided the country is said to be during these tumultuous political times? Well, it turns out, both the satisfaction rates with individual members and the overall group are the highest in nearly a decade.
This pattern helps explain both the ever-fierce demands for congressional term limits and the perpetual failure of this idea. First of all, how likely do you think it is that denizens of Capitol Hill making 174-grand a year are going to limit their future employment options?
Second, setting congressional term limits would require a constitutional amendment which would require ratification by three-quarters of the states. Three-quarters of the states these days could not agree on a national pie, let alone overturning a basic tenet of the U.S. Constitution.
And, by the way, term limits already exist in the collective power of voters every two years, if they just paid attention.
Gallup polls have found Americans to be fairly consistent in this pattern of hypocrisy with approval of Congress generally running around half of the approval of their own district member, which has jumped around from 48 to 60 percent.
Numbers show that when Democrats control the House of Representatives, as they do now, Democrats profess that members deserve reelection. Republicans not so much. And vice versa.
Reelection rates vary by individual races, of course, but generally run in the 80 to 90 percent success range.
So, those members quickly learn, term after term, that while voters whine and complain about them and their job much of the time, in the end, they come home and send the same person back to do the same stuff in the same place.
Imagine that.


hotair--2020-02-27--Joementum: Polls show a Biden blowout in South Carolina, new lead in Florida

I don ’ t know if there ’ s anything to say in this post that wasn ’ t said in yesterday ’ s post .
Second verse , same as the first : It suuuuuure looks like the Biden comeback in South Carolina is real .
Which is the opposite of what I would have expected after Bernie ran the table in the first three states .
In particular , his surprising blowout in Nevada had every indication of Democrats nationally beginning to warm up to him and accept him as a viable nominee .
South Carolina would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and that would be that .
Instead Biden ’ s gone from an average of 23.3 percent in SC on February 22nd to 34.3 percent today — 10 points in five days , all amid hype that Bernie had at last solved his problems with black voters by performing well among that group in Nevada .
Unless there ’ s a massive polling error here , clearly late-deciders are coming home to Joe .
So South Carolina really does look like it ’ ll be a firewall for him , for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Monmouth : Among South Carolina voters who are likely to participate in the Democratic primary on Saturday , support currently stands at 36 % for Biden , 16 % for Sanders , and 15 % for Steyer .
Candidates who currently fall below the statewide delegate viability threshold include Elizabeth Warren ( 8 % ) , Pete Buttigieg ( 6 % ) , Amy Klobuchar ( 4 % ) , and Tulsi Gabbard ( 1 % ) .
Another 15 % of likely primary voters remain undecided and do not lean toward any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ key metric for Biden in this make-or-break state is that his support appears to be firm .
There is still a large chunk of the electorate who are undecided , but they are mainly moderate black voters .
That ’ s a group that tends to like Biden , ” said Murray .
He ’ s sitting on a 20-point lead with reason to believe that lead will grow once the remaining undecideds make up their minds .
Forty percent suddenly isn ’ t out of the question , exactly the sort of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Super Tuesday .
Meanwhile , Bernie ’ s sitting right at the brink of the 15-percent viability threshold for delegates .
If he ’ s going to lose badly in SC , he ’ d at least like to get a delegate haul out of it .
Might not happen .
In fact… It ’ s not just South Carolina that ’ s seeing a Biden resurgence either .
New from St. Pete Polls ’ s latest survey of Florida : It ’ s surprising what a nonfactor Sanders has been there .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ past few weeks from his bad showings in Iowa and New Hampshire , with Bloomberg benefiting , but it looks like Bloomy ’ s evisceration by Elizabeth Warren at the first debate hurt him badly .
A YouGov national poll today finds that Bloomberg ’ s favorable rating among Democrats went from 53/38 before the debate to 41/53 now .
Sources “ close to and involved with ” his campaign are whispering to Politico that they ’ re “ concerned ” about his recent internal polling in Super Tuesday states .
The public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Bloomberg third in North Carolina , sixth in Minnesota , way behind in Texas , and largely irrelevant in California despite having spent $ 60 million in that state alone to try to nuke Sanders .
He can and will still hurt Biden by siphoning off moderate votes next week ; in fact , Monmouth found that 25 percent of South Carolina voters would be at least “ somewhat likely ” to vote for Bloomy if he were on the ballot there .
But the Bloomberg moment may have passed already .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nate Silver looks ahead and wonders what a Joe landslide on Saturday might mean for the rest of the primaries : Bernie ’ s still going to win California , which is the big prize , but Silver notes that because CA takes so long to count its votes there may not be as much buzz on the evening of Super Tuesday for him as there is for Biden if Joe sweeps the southern states .
It ’ s also possible , if not likely , that a Biden landslide on Saturday will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hopeless at this point and might accelerate Pete Buttigieg ’ s eventual exit from the race , both of which are important to Biden in trying to consolidate the centrist vote .
He ’ s already leaning on them to take a hint : “ They would have to consider dropping out , not because I want them to or anybody else does , but because the victories and losses are going to dictate it… How do you stay in if you have demonstrated you can ’ t get any African American support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a reason to be skeptical of Biden ’ s chances in Super Tuesday states : Namely , he hasn ’ t made much of an effort .
( “ Yet a number of Democratic state chairmen and other party leaders said in the last week that outreach from Mr. Biden continued to be light .
Some said they had not heard from Mr. Biden personally… ” ) He doesn ’ t have Bernie ’ s or Bloomberg ’ s cash or organization , which is why he ’ s so dependent on an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ needs the media to be his advertisers by spending the 72 hours between Saturday and Tuesday buzzing about him .
Maybe that ’ ll be enough to fulfill Silver ’ s prediction , but I keep thinking of Newt Gingrich ’ s victory in South Carolina back in 2012 .
Remember that ?
Romney and Santorum essentially tied in Iowa , then Romney won comfortably in New Hampshire .
He was poised to wrap up the nomination in South Carolina but Newt , from neighboring Georgia , came storming back thanks to a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
For a moment it looked like we were headed for a long primary , with Romney consolidating business-class Republicans while Gingrich consolidated Romney-skeptical grassroots conservatives .
Then Romney won Florida by 15 points and that was that .
Between Sanders ’ s strength and Bloomberg ’ s cash , I ’ m not sure we ’ re not headed for something similar this year .
Joe gets his big “ momentum-generating ” win in South Carolina and suddenly finds that … it just doesn ’ t carry over to other states .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ s strength with black voters should translate into strong showings across the south , especially with Bloomberg beginning to fade .
But it ’ s easy to imagine him and Bloomy splitting black voters and white moderates ( especially with lots of ballots banked for Bloomberg via early voting ) while Bernie ’ s GOTV effort pushes him to surprisingly higher numbers across the board .
It ’ s hard , intuitively , to imagine a candidate like Joe who ’ s been underwhelming on the trail , who ’ s underfunded , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ operation , somehow roaring back to beat the Bloomberg machine and the Sanders movement .
It ’ s hard .
But maybe it ’ s possible ?

I don’t know if there’s anything to say in this post that wasn’t said in yesterday’s post. Second verse, same as the first: It suuuuuure looks like the Biden comeback in South Carolina is real.
Which is the opposite of what I would have expected after Bernie ran the table in the first three states. In particular, his surprising blowout in Nevada had every indication of Democrats nationally beginning to warm up to him and accept him as a viable nominee. South Carolina would be the fourth and final domino to fall, and that would be that. Instead Biden’s gone from an average of 23.3 percent in SC on February 22nd to 34.3 percent today — 10 points in five days, all amid hype that Bernie had at last solved his problems with black voters by performing well among that group in Nevada. Unless there’s a massive polling error here, clearly late-deciders are coming home to Joe.
So South Carolina really does look like it’ll be a firewall for him, for a brief moment at least. New from Monmouth:
Among South Carolina voters who are likely to participate in the Democratic primary on Saturday, support currently stands at 36% for Biden, 16% for Sanders, and 15% for Steyer. Candidates who currently fall below the statewide delegate viability threshold include Elizabeth Warren (8%), Pete Buttigieg (6%), Amy Klobuchar (4%), and Tulsi Gabbard (1%). Another 15% of likely primary voters remain undecided and do not lean toward any candidate at this time. “A key metric for Biden in this make-or-break state is that his support appears to be firm. There is still a large chunk of the electorate who are undecided, but they are mainly moderate black voters. That’s a group that tends to like Biden,” said Murray.
He’s sitting on a 20-point lead with reason to believe that lead will grow once the remaining undecideds make up their minds. Forty percent suddenly isn’t out of the question, exactly the sort of dunk he needs to build hype before Super Tuesday. Meanwhile, Bernie’s sitting right at the brink of the 15-percent viability threshold for delegates. If he’s going to lose badly in SC, he’d at least like to get a delegate haul out of it. Might not happen. In fact…
New #SC2020 poll from SC-based political firm Starboard Communications (1,102 likely Dem primary voters; Feb 26; MoE +/- 2.82%)
Biden – 40%
Steyer – 12%
Sanders – 11%
Warren – 9%
Buttigieg – 9%
Klobuchar – 6%
Gabbard – 2%
Undecided – 12%
(54% watched the #DemDebate in Charleston) — Andy Shain (@AndyShain) February 27, 2020
It’s not just South Carolina that’s seeing a Biden resurgence either. New from St. Pete Polls’s latest survey of Florida:
It’s surprising what a nonfactor Sanders has been there. Obviously Biden took a hit over the past few weeks from his bad showings in Iowa and New Hampshire, with Bloomberg benefiting, but it looks like Bloomy’s evisceration by Elizabeth Warren at the first debate hurt him badly. A YouGov national poll today finds that Bloomberg’s favorable rating among Democrats went from 53/38 before the debate to 41/53 now. Sources “close to and involved with” his campaign are whispering to Politico that they’re “concerned” about his recent internal polling in Super Tuesday states. The public polling isn’t great either, with Bloomberg third in North Carolina, sixth in Minnesota, way behind in Texas, and largely irrelevant in California despite having spent $60 million in that state alone to try to nuke Sanders. He can and will still hurt Biden by siphoning off moderate votes next week; in fact, Monmouth found that 25 percent of South Carolina voters would be at least “somewhat likely” to vote for Bloomy if he were on the ballot there. But the Bloomberg moment may have passed already.
Biden’s the obvious beneficiary. Nate Silver looks ahead and wonders what a Joe landslide on Saturday might mean for the rest of the primaries:
In the scenario above — after a big South Carolina win — Biden would be the plurality favorite in every Southern state on Super Tuesday, namely: Texas, North Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee, Alabama, Oklahoma and Arkansas… Moreover, in this scenario, commentators could rightly point out that Biden and Bloomberg had more combined delegates (630) than Sanders (578). Furthermore, the broader moderate lane — Biden, Bloomberg, Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar — would have more combined delegates (766) than Sanders and Warren (726). That could give credence to the theory that the majority of Democrats did not want a nominee as progressive as Sanders.
Bernie’s still going to win California, which is the big prize, but Silver notes that because CA takes so long to count its votes there may not be as much buzz on the evening of Super Tuesday for him as there is for Biden if Joe sweeps the southern states. It’s also possible, if not likely, that a Biden landslide on Saturday will convince Amy Klobuchar that it’s hopeless at this point and might accelerate Pete Buttigieg’s eventual exit from the race, both of which are important to Biden in trying to consolidate the centrist vote. He’s already leaning on them to take a hint: “They would have to consider dropping out, not because I want them to or anybody else does, but because the victories and losses are going to dictate it… How do you stay in if you have demonstrated you can’t get any African American support?”
But there’s also a reason to be skeptical of Biden’s chances in Super Tuesday states: Namely, he hasn’t made much of an effort. (“Yet a number of Democratic state chairmen and other party leaders said in the last week that outreach from Mr. Biden continued to be light. Some said they had not heard from Mr. Biden personally…”) He doesn’t have Bernie’s or Bloomberg’s cash or organization, which is why he’s so dependent on an impressive win in South Carolina. He needs the media to be his advertisers by spending the 72 hours between Saturday and Tuesday buzzing about him. Maybe that’ll be enough to fulfill Silver’s prediction, but I keep thinking of Newt Gingrich’s victory in South Carolina back in 2012. Remember that? Romney and Santorum essentially tied in Iowa, then Romney won comfortably in New Hampshire. He was poised to wrap up the nomination in South Carolina but Newt, from neighboring Georgia, came storming back thanks to a strong debate and won by double digits. For a moment it looked like we were headed for a long primary, with Romney consolidating business-class Republicans while Gingrich consolidated Romney-skeptical grassroots conservatives.
Then Romney won Florida by 15 points and that was that. Between Sanders’s strength and Bloomberg’s cash, I’m not sure we’re not headed for something similar this year. Joe gets his big “momentum-generating” win in South Carolina and suddenly finds that … it just doesn’t carry over to other states. It should carry over: Biden’s strength with black voters should translate into strong showings across the south, especially with Bloomberg beginning to fade. But it’s easy to imagine him and Bloomy splitting black voters and white moderates (especially with lots of ballots banked for Bloomberg via early voting) while Bernie’s GOTV effort pushes him to surprisingly higher numbers across the board. It’s hard, intuitively, to imagine a candidate like Joe who’s been underwhelming on the trail, who’s underfunded, who’s not running a first-class operation, somehow roaring back to beat the Bloomberg machine and the Sanders movement. It’s hard. But maybe it’s possible?


hotair--2020-02-27--Canadian protesters set fires on tracks to extend rail blockade

Last Friday , Prime Minister Trudeau abruptly reversed himself and demanded that the blockades of rail lines , which have sprung up in various places this month , be cleared .
Monday , police in Ontario cleared out one of the larger protest camps , arresting 10 people and clearing the way for trains to resume service .
But the protesters weren ’ t done .
Later that night they began throwing burning tires onto the tracks : Tuesday protesters were standing on the rails ( at night no less ) and chanting in solidarity with the Wet ’ suwet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trying to block construction of a new natural gas pipeline .
As you can see , police aren ’ t removing the protesters from the tracks .
They almost appear to be standing guard .
Some protesters also set fires on the tracks or near moving trains : There ’ s no audio with this clip but you can see some of the protesters setting fires on the tracks .
Police come up with fire extinguishers and put the fires out but don ’ t remove the protesters : You can see another @ @ @ @ @ @ @ police watch from an overpass : Here ’ s the same incident from an angle on the ground : Some protesters were also playing chicken with the trains and throwing rocks : Meanwhile , the president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture held a press conference this week to warn that the rail blockades were “ grinding our entire industry to a halt.
” Finally , it has to be pointed out that the main reason the government and the police haven ’ t been more aggressive in dealing with the blockades is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This is a very sensitive issue in Canada and one Justin Trudeau has to be especially careful about .
Remember the big scandal last year when Trudeau was accused of asking for political favors on behalf of a large engineering firm called SNC-Lavalin .
The woman who broke that scandal open was Trudeau ’ s then-Attorney General Jody Wilson-Raybould .
She testified about the pressure campaign she endured to offer a non-prosecution agreement to the company .
Wilson-Raybould was eventually demoted from her job as AG and later resigned .
Wilson-Raybould was the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Trudeau ’ s shoddy treatment of her ( for telling the truth it turned out ) didn ’ t look too good at the time .
All that to say , there are both historical and relatively recent political reasons why Trudeau has been taking a kid gloves approach to this crisis .
But as this report from Global News points out , not all of the groups that have participated in these protests are indigenous people .
In fact , some of the organizers aren ’ t even Canadian :

Last Friday, Prime Minister Trudeau abruptly reversed himself and demanded that the blockades of rail lines, which have sprung up in various places this month, be cleared. Monday, police in Ontario cleared out one of the larger protest camps, arresting 10 people and clearing the way for trains to resume service. But the protesters weren’t done. Later that night they began throwing burning tires onto the tracks:
This was the scene Monday night on the rail lines near Tyendinaga Mohawk Territory. Police arrested 10 people earlier in the day and cleared out the camp that was set up Feb. 6. Protest erupted across the country last night in reaction to that raid. Stay tuned to @APTNNews pic.twitter.com/DcZ3mxLkrp — APTN News (@APTNNews) February 25, 2020
Tuesday protesters were standing on the rails (at night no less) and chanting in solidarity with the Wet’suwet’en chiefs who’ve been trying to block construction of a new natural gas pipeline.
As you can see, police aren’t removing the protesters from the tracks. They almost appear to be standing guard.
Last night at the Toronto rail blockade. Indigenous women on the rails lead the singing, while others sing back from behind a row of dozens of police. It lasted into the morning in support of #Tyendinaga & #Wetsuweten Follow @RisingTideTor & @CJusticeTO #ShutDownCanada pic.twitter.com/9703Eo3zop — Rana Nazzal رنا نزال (@rananazzalh) February 26, 2020
Some protesters also set fires on the tracks or near moving trains:
Televised images, meanwhile, showed defiant Mohawk members throwing burning tires near their dismantled protest camp in Tyendinaga, Ontario. A few kilometers away, others poured gasoline on train tracks, and threw rocks, wooden planks and debris at passing trains. Transport Minister Marc Garneau called these acts “extremely reckless.” “Lighting a fire under a moving train,” he said, is especially dangerous if trains are transporting flammable materials. “It could have ignited.”
There’s no audio with this clip but you can see some of the protesters setting fires on the tracks. Police come up with fire extinguishers and put the fires out but don’t remove the protesters:
#BREAKING: Protesters at rail blockade near Hamilton that disrupted Go Transit service between Aldershot and Niagara Falls leave site, officials move in to extinguish fires. https://t.co/VJfodIOIRw pic.twitter.com/QmhRQpZ3Wv — 680 NEWS Toronto (@680NEWS) February 25, 2020
You can see another fire being set in this clip while police watch from an overpass:
Intense standoff at #Tyendinaga , Mohawk Territory, #Ontario, fires set on the tracks. Protestors on the left, RCMP on the right, as a 2nd train goes through. #Canada | 📺 cbc radiopic.twitter.com/zZNYgntCdG — ToryNow (@torynowdotcom) February 26, 2020
Here’s the same incident from an angle on the ground:
https://twitter.com/CanAditude/status/1232748053674840068
Some protesters were also playing chicken with the trains and throwing rocks:
https://twitter.com/CanAditude/status/1232739489749049346
Wednesday, Justin Trudeau gave a brief statement calling the fires “extremely concerning.”
Meanwhile, the president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture held a press conference this week to warn that the rail blockades were “grinding our entire industry to a halt.”
Finally, it has to be pointed out that the main reason the government and the police haven’t been more aggressive in dealing with the blockades is that the protesters are indigenous people. This is a very sensitive issue in Canada and one Justin Trudeau has to be especially careful about.
Remember the big scandal last year when Trudeau was accused of asking for political favors on behalf of a large engineering firm called SNC-Lavalin. The woman who broke that scandal open was Trudeau’s then-Attorney General Jody Wilson-Raybould. She testified about the pressure campaign she endured to offer a non-prosecution agreement to the company. Wilson-Raybould was eventually demoted from her job as AG and later resigned. Wilson-Raybould was the first indigenous person to serve as AG and Trudeau’s shoddy treatment of her (for telling the truth it turned out) didn’t look too good at the time. All that to say, there are both historical and relatively recent political reasons why Trudeau has been taking a kid gloves approach to this crisis.
But as this report from Global News points out, not all of the groups that have participated in these protests are indigenous people. In fact, some of the organizers aren’t even Canadian:


hotair--2020-02-27--First female set to qualify as an Army Green Beret

The U.S. military is about to experience another first : Barring injury in the next few weeks , an enlisted soldier is about to become the first female Green Beret in Army history .
That comes seven years after the Pentagon lifted its longtime ban on women serving in combat roles .
As with all special operators , the military does not release names or identification .
But the woman is expected to graduate soon from the rugged , roughly year-long qualification course and become a Special Forces engineer sergeant .
Another woman is also making her way through the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the course depends on the operator ’ s specialty from engineer to medical , communications , weapons and operations .
All are considered combat roles .
But even before that endurance training , there comes another nearly month-long qualification course to enter the yearlong course .
The preliminary test involves complicated land navigation exercises , day and night , all lugging the standard assortment of military gear and weapons weighing well over 100 pounds .
Most candidates wash out at that point .
The Green Berets became a legendary group especially during the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Special Forces units created considerable controversy , now largely muted , at least publicly .
These have been close-knit units of alpha males whose individual survival depends entirely on teammates .
These guys are not spindly bookkeepers .
Their workout sessions look more like pro football weight-lifting classes .
Each operator must be capable of carrying another over rugged terrain under fire and doubts persisted that even an extremely capable and fit female would be able to save a wounded colleague .
The entrance into such active duty roles of a qualified woman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ acceptance .
Of the approximate 65,000 women now in the Army , about 700 have been accepted into once-restricted combat roles .

The U.S. military is about to experience another first:
Barring injury in the next few weeks, an enlisted soldier is about to become the first female Green Beret in Army history.
That comes seven years after the Pentagon lifted its longtime ban on women serving in combat roles.
As with all special operators, the military does not release names or identification. But the woman is expected to graduate soon from the rugged, roughly year-long qualification course and become a Special Forces engineer sergeant. Another woman is also making her way through the demanding yearlong course.
The length of the course depends on the operator’s specialty from engineer to medical, communications, weapons and operations. All are considered combat roles.
But even before that endurance training, there comes another nearly month-long qualification course to enter the yearlong course.
The preliminary test involves complicated land navigation exercises, day and night, all lugging the standard assortment of military gear and weapons weighing well over 100 pounds. Most candidates wash out at that point.
The Green Berets became a legendary group especially during the Vietnam War.
Entry of women into Special Forces units created considerable controversy, now largely muted, at least publicly. These have been close-knit units of alpha males whose individual survival depends entirely on teammates.
These guys are not spindly bookkeepers. Their workout sessions look more like pro football weight-lifting classes. Each operator must be capable of carrying another over rugged terrain under fire and doubts persisted that even an extremely capable and fit female would be able to save a wounded colleague.
The entrance into such active duty roles of a qualified woman will be the ultimate test of unit acceptance. Of the approximate 65,000 women now in the Army, about 700 have been accepted into once-restricted combat roles.


hotair--2020-02-27--NYT: Dem establishment will burn down the party to stop The Bern

Bernie Sanders had better find a way to get a majority of first-ballot delegates for the Democratic convention .
If he doesn ’ t , his plurality won ’ t suffice — if the party establishment has anything to say about it .
And as the New York Times discovers , they do — quite a bit , in fact , and they may be past the point of caring about splitting the party .
They will do anything to prevent a socialist takeover of the party , if it comes to that : Dozens of interviews with Democratic establishment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not just worried about Mr. Sanders ’ s candidacy , but are also willing to risk intraparty damage to stop his nomination at the national convention in July if they get the chance .
Since Mr. Sanders ’ s victory in Nevada ’ s caucuses on Saturday , The Times has interviewed 93 party officials — all of them superdelegates , who could have a say on the nominee at the convention — and found overwhelming opposition to handing the Vermont senator the nomination if he arrived with the most delegates but fell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ situation may result in a brokered convention , a messy political battle the likes of which Democrats have not seen since 1952 , when the nominee was Adlai Stevenson .
“ We ’ re way , way , way past the day where party leaders can determine an outcome here , but I think there ’ s a vibrant conversation about whether there is anything that can be done , ” said Jim Himes , a Connecticut congressman and superdelegate , who believed the nominee should have a majority of delegates .
From @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dakota to Ohio , the party leaders say they worry that Mr. Sanders , a democratic socialist with passionate but limited support so far , will lose to President Trump , and drag down moderate House and Senate candidates in swing states with his left-wing agenda of “ Medicare for all ” and free four-year public college .
Consider carefully what this means — and what they know this means .
If Sanders rolls into Milwaukee with a plurality of delegates , which appears to be the most likely scenario , he and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the basis of that win .
If the superdelegates ( almost 800 of them ) decide to go with someone Sanders bested in the primaries , all hell will break loose on the convention floor , and that might not even be a figurative prediction .
Sanders ’ campaign workers talk about guillotines and burning down Milwaukee and other cities even if Sanders wins .
Imagine what they will do in this scenario .
At the very least , however , Democrats will end up losing the entire progressive wing of the party @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not just for the presidential election either , but all the down-ballot races , plus field organizing , volunteer campaigners — all the way down the scale .
That kind of break might cripple the Democrats for years , with the alternative being a transformation into the Democratic Socialist Party that drives everyone else into the waiting arms of Republicans .
It ’ s a disaster either way .
The only way to avoid that is to keep Sanders from amassing any kind of significant delegate lead .
One megadonor wants Nancy Pelosi @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now to prevent Sanders from progressing , as Allahpundit wrote last night , but thus far they seem reluctant to intervene .
Both have demurred from doing so ( be sure to read AP ’ s argument on why that is futile ) , but this NYT report is a response to that inaction .
The superdelegates and other party officials are warning Pelosi and Schumer that vacillation will cost them their party , one way or the other .
It ’ s not just the megadonors who see Sanders as a disaster @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re willing to risk utter ruination to stop it .
If the party leaders won ’ t lead , these same establishment figures will start looking for replacements who can .
When people claim that Sanders ’ rise is not really that big of a deal and that he ’ s not as extreme as he ’ s being painted , they should read this NYT report carefully .
Democrats aren ’ t making these kinds of plans over someone who ’ s just a skosh off their center .
They know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re outright scared of putting him within voting range of the White House , enough to burn the party to the ground to stop it .
That tells us all we need to know about Sanders .

Bernie Sanders had better find a way to get a majority of first-ballot delegates for the Democratic convention. If he doesn’t, his plurality won’t suffice — if the party establishment has anything to say about it. And as the New York Times discovers, they do — quite a bit, in fact, and they may be past the point of caring about splitting the party. They will do anything to prevent a socialist takeover of the party, if it comes to that:
Dozens of interviews with Democratic establishment leaders this week show that they are not just worried about Mr. Sanders’s candidacy, but are also willing to risk intraparty damage to stop his nomination at the national convention in July if they get the chance. Since Mr. Sanders’s victory in Nevada’s caucuses on Saturday, The Times has interviewed 93 party officials — all of them superdelegates, who could have a say on the nominee at the convention — and found overwhelming opposition to handing the Vermont senator the nomination if he arrived with the most delegates but fell short of a majority. Such a situation may result in a brokered convention, a messy political battle the likes of which Democrats have not seen since 1952, when the nominee was Adlai Stevenson. “We’re way, way, way past the day where party leaders can determine an outcome here, but I think there’s a vibrant conversation about whether there is anything that can be done,” said Jim Himes, a Connecticut congressman and superdelegate, who believed the nominee should have a majority of delegates. From California to the Carolinas, and North Dakota to Ohio, the party leaders say they worry that Mr. Sanders, a democratic socialist with passionate but limited support so far, will lose to President Trump, and drag down moderate House and Senate candidates in swing states with his left-wing agenda of “Medicare for all” and free four-year public college.
Consider carefully what this means — and what they know this means. If Sanders rolls into Milwaukee with a plurality of delegates, which appears to be the most likely scenario, he and his followers will demand the nomination on the basis of that win. If the superdelegates (almost 800 of them) decide to go with someone Sanders bested in the primaries, all hell will break loose on the convention floor, and that might not even be a figurative prediction. Sanders’ campaign workers talk about guillotines and burning down Milwaukee and other cities even if Sanders wins. Imagine what they will do in this scenario.
At the very least, however, Democrats will end up losing the entire progressive wing of the party over the snub. That’s not just for the presidential election either, but all the down-ballot races, plus field organizing, volunteer campaigners — all the way down the scale. That kind of break might cripple the Democrats for years, with the alternative being a transformation into the Democratic Socialist Party that drives everyone else into the waiting arms of Republicans. It’s a disaster either way.
The only way to avoid that is to keep Sanders from amassing any kind of significant delegate lead. One megadonor wants Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer to make an endorsement now to prevent Sanders from progressing, as Allahpundit wrote last night, but thus far they seem reluctant to intervene. Both have demurred from doing so (be sure to read AP’s argument on why that is futile), but this NYT report is a response to that inaction. The superdelegates and other party officials are warning Pelosi and Schumer that vacillation will cost them their party, one way or the other. It’s not just the megadonors who see Sanders as a disaster on a grand enough scale that they’re willing to risk utter ruination to stop it. If the party leaders won’t lead, these same establishment figures will start looking for replacements who can.
When people claim that Sanders’ rise is not really that big of a deal and that he’s not as extreme as he’s being painted, they should read this NYT report carefully. Democrats aren’t making these kinds of plans over someone who’s just a skosh off their center. They know Sanders better than most, and they’re outright scared of putting him within voting range of the White House, enough to burn the party to the ground to stop it. That tells us all we need to know about Sanders.


hotair--2020-02-27--CDC didn't immediately test new California coronavirus patient despite local request to do so

Why would they conceivably deny a request from local doctors to test a patient whose symptoms were suspicious ?
It can ’ t be that they ’ re overburdened , I hope .
The United States had tested a grand total of … 445 people as of Tuesday , fewer than a single Canadian province has .
But it also doesn ’ t make sense to me that they ’ d ignore possible transmission at this point purely because the patient himself hadn ’ t traveled to China recently or knowingly been in contact with another coronavirus patient .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ yesterday ’ s White House press conference , is that doctors expect “ community spread ” of COVID-19 to begin within the United States soon , if it hasn ’ t already .
That is , we ’ re probably already at the point where the genie is out of the bottle and being transmitted between people who have no direct contact with Wuhan or anyone who ’ s been in contact with someone who ’ s been overseas recently .
So why would the CDC have declined to test someone who was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ single oversight risks further transmission from that patient to those around them ?
Doctors at the University of California , Davis Medical Center considered the novel pathogen a possible diagnosis when the patient was first admitted last week… The C.D.C .
has restricted testing to patients who either traveled to China recently or who know they had contact with someone infected with the coronavirus… “ Upon admission , our team asked public health officials if this case could be Covid-19 , ” the letter said .
The medical center requested testing from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not fit the existing C.D.C .
criteria for Covid-19 , a test was not immediately administered .
U.C .
Davis Health does not control the testing process.
” The patient was already on a ventilator upon arrival , after being transferred from another hospital in northern California .
According to an email sent by UC-Davis officials , he was admitted last Tuesday and went untested until Sunday .
Hospital staff took precautions against “ droplet contact , ” suspecting that the patient had a viral condition , which was hopefully that was sufficient @ @ @ @ @ @ @ latest CDC guidelines about transmission .
As for what precautions were taken by staff at the original hospital , before the patient was transferred , God only knows .
You may be wondering , “ Why did the UC-Davis doctors need to wait for the CDC to run this test instead of farming it out to a local lab sooner ?
” The answer is that the initial test kit that the CDC sent out to U.S. labs had some sort of unspecified defect involving one of the compounds used to detect COVID-19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ half the labs that used it .
That ’ s why testing here has been so slow .
They ’ re working on an updated test but in the meantime local health officials are desperate : The nation ’ s public health laboratories , exasperated by the malfunctioning tests in the face of a global public health emergency , have taken the unusual step of appealing to the Food and Drug Administration for permission to develop and use their own tests .
In Hawaii , authorities are so alarmed about the lack of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the CDC to use tests from Japan .
A medical director at a hospital laboratory in Boston is developing an in-house test , but is frustrated that his laboratory won ’ t be able to use it without going through an onerous and time-consuming review process , even if demand surges .
I wonder what the death toll from red tape will be when this is over .
It remains possible that the UC-Davis patient *isn ’ t* a victim of “ community spread ” : Solano County , where the patient is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Travis AFB , which is where Americans who were traveling in China and on the Diamond Princess cruise ship are being kept in quarantine .
Quite a coincidence .
Some of those Americans have since been released .
Maybe they were let go too early , when they were asymptomatic but not yet truly cured , and then had glancing contact with the UC-Davis patient among the general population .
( Or maybe community spread is happening right now but , for the moment , is still very localized . )
There @ @ @ @ @ @ @ patient in Japan had exactly this problem : She experienced symptoms , was diagnosed with the illness , was treated and “ cured , ” and then … got sick again .
The fact that asymptomatic patients can spread the disease is frightening enough ; imagine if “ cured ” patients aren ’ t truly cured , or enjoy no immunity boost after recovery that reduces their chances of being reinfected .
How long should patients be quarantined if we can ’ t tell when someone is genuinely cured ?
In a totalitarian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ already be on lockdown as a precaution to limit community spread .
How will the United States handle a situation in which the disease is momentarily spreading in a small-ish but highly populated region ?
But maybe that ’ s silly to ask .
If we ’ re hardly even testing for the disease yet , it ’ s possible that community spread has already been going on for several weeks “ disguised ” as flu cases .
The good news is that , as of 12 days ago , cases of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
If there were an as-yet undetected spread in coronavirus here , we ’ d expect to see “ flu ” numbers surprisingly beginning to rise , I assume .
According to a Chinese study , more than 80 percent of coronavirus cases aren ’ t severe , which is good news in the sense that this isn ’ t the apocalypse but not so good in that it means more asymptomatic carriers , which means a wider spread .
Even a “ mild ” disease will generate a giant body count if @ @ @ @ @

Why would they conceivably deny a request from local doctors to test a patient whose symptoms were suspicious? It can’t be that they’re overburdened, I hope. The United States had tested a grand total of … 445 people as of Tuesday, fewer than a single Canadian province has.
But it also doesn’t make sense to me that they’d ignore possible transmission at this point purely because the patient himself hadn’t traveled to China recently or knowingly been in contact with another coronavirus patient. The great fear, the entire reason for yesterday’s White House press conference, is that doctors expect “community spread” of COVID-19 to begin within the United States soon, if it hasn’t already. That is, we’re probably already at the point where the genie is out of the bottle and being transmitted between people who have no direct contact with Wuhan or anyone who’s been in contact with someone who’s been overseas recently.
So why would the CDC have declined to test someone who was showing symptoms, knowing that even a single oversight risks further transmission from that patient to those around them?
Doctors at the University of California, Davis Medical Center considered the novel pathogen a possible diagnosis when the patient was first admitted last week… The C.D.C. has restricted testing to patients who either traveled to China recently or who know they had contact with someone infected with the coronavirus… “Upon admission, our team asked public health officials if this case could be Covid-19,” the letter said. The medical center requested testing from the C.D.C. “Since the patient did not fit the existing C.D.C. criteria for Covid-19, a test was not immediately administered. U.C. Davis Health does not control the testing process.”
The patient was already on a ventilator upon arrival, after being transferred from another hospital in northern California. According to an email sent by UC-Davis officials, he was admitted last Tuesday and went untested until Sunday. Hospital staff took precautions against “droplet contact,” suspecting that the patient had a viral condition, which was hopefully that was sufficient to protect them from coronavirus per the latest CDC guidelines about transmission. As for what precautions were taken by staff at the original hospital, before the patient was transferred, God only knows.
You may be wondering, “Why did the UC-Davis doctors need to wait for the CDC to run this test instead of farming it out to a local lab sooner?” The answer is that the initial test kit that the CDC sent out to U.S. labs had some sort of unspecified defect involving one of the compounds used to detect COVID-19, leading to inconclusive results in around half the labs that used it. That’s why testing here has been so slow. They’re working on an updated test but in the meantime local health officials are desperate:
The nation’s public health laboratories, exasperated by the malfunctioning tests in the face of a global public health emergency, have taken the unusual step of appealing to the Food and Drug Administration for permission to develop and use their own tests. In Hawaii, authorities are so alarmed about the lack of testing ability that they requested permission from the CDC to use tests from Japan. A medical director at a hospital laboratory in Boston is developing an in-house test, but is frustrated that his laboratory won’t be able to use it without going through an onerous and time-consuming review process, even if demand surges.
I wonder what the death toll from red tape will be when this is over.
It remains possible that the UC-Davis patient *isn’t* a victim of “community spread”: Solano County, where the patient is from, also happens to be home to Travis AFB, which is where Americans who were traveling in China and on the Diamond Princess cruise ship are being kept in quarantine. Quite a coincidence. Some of those Americans have since been released. Maybe they were let go too early, when they were asymptomatic but not yet truly cured, and then had glancing contact with the UC-Davis patient among the general population. (Or maybe community spread is happening right now but, for the moment, is still very localized.) There are reports this morning that a coronavirus patient in Japan had exactly this problem: She experienced symptoms, was diagnosed with the illness, was treated and “cured,” and then … got sick again. The fact that asymptomatic patients can spread the disease is frightening enough; imagine if “cured” patients aren’t truly cured, or enjoy no immunity boost after recovery that reduces their chances of being reinfected.
How long should patients be quarantined if we can’t tell when someone is genuinely cured? In a totalitarian state like China, northern California might already be on lockdown as a precaution to limit community spread. How will the United States handle a situation in which the disease is momentarily spreading in a small-ish but highly populated region?
But maybe that’s silly to ask. If we’re hardly even testing for the disease yet, it’s possible that community spread has already been going on for several weeks “disguised” as flu cases. The good news is that, as of 12 days ago, cases of the “flu” weren’t surging. If there were an as-yet undetected spread in coronavirus here, we’d expect to see “flu” numbers surprisingly beginning to rise, I assume. According to a Chinese study, more than 80 percent of coronavirus cases aren’t severe, which is good news in the sense that this isn’t the apocalypse but not so good in that it means more asymptomatic carriers, which means a wider spread. Even a “mild” disease will generate a giant body count if it’s super-infectious.


hotair--2020-02-27--FISA reform delayed over alleged poison pills

The House Judiciary Committee was supposed to vote today on a bill making changes to the Patriot Act and Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act , portions of which are set to expire next month .
It looks like things are on hold , however , following a disagreement involving Congressmen Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler , and Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren .
Via POLITICO : Rep. Zoe Lofgren ( D-Calif. ) is preparing Wednesday to offer five amendments that would reform the Watergate-era law , known as FISA , that senior House Democrats see as “ poison pills ” that would doom @ @ @ @ @ @ @ push is already rankling top Democrats , who say her proposals would upend months of delicate negotiations that resulted in a bill backed by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler ( D-N.Y. ) and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff ( D-Calif. ) .
It ’ s disappointing because the USA FREEDOM Reauthorization Act of 2020 ’ s main reform repeals the call detail records program that the NSA was using to collect cell phone call data .
There are still questions about whether this reform goes far enough .
The uncertainty brought @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ad buy targeting multiple Senate and House members on the need to go further on reform efforts : “ The proposal does not go far enough , ” said the ACLU ’ s Guliani on the newly-introduced legislation .
“ Congress must require additional notice and disclosure for individuals targeted or prosecuted using information obtained from FISA surveillance , limit the types of records that can be obtained by the government under the Patriot Act , and reform the FISA court process to enhance accountability , oversight , and transparency.
” “ Congress @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it were to reauthorize these surveillance authorities without substantial reforms to protect Americans ’ rights to due process , ” said Josh Withrow , Senior Policy Advisor at FreedomWorks .
The White House is interested in reform but their push appears different from the bill currently in Congress .
Attorney General Bill Barr discussed the issue with Senate Republicans yesterday ; a meeting POLITICO reported showed a divide between the party on what reforms are necessary .
Attorney General William Barr told Senate Republicans on Tuesday that the Trump administration could support a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to expire next month .
And Barr said he could make changes on his own to satisfy President Donald Trump and his allies who have railed against the use of the law to monitor his 2016 campaign , according to senators at a party briefing… But Barr also sparred with skeptics , primarily libertarian-leaning Sens .
Mike Lee of Utah and Rand Paul of Kentucky , according to two people familiar with the meeting .
Barr told Lee his criticisms of surveillance law are dangerous , while Paul said Americans shouldn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one of the people said .
The internal change suggestion by Barr bothers me because it gives more power to the executive branch .
I realize people will argue he ’ s the attorney general and should be able to define Justice Department policy , however , it could allow any future modifications to stay in the dark without ever becoming public .
It ’ s not worth putting more power in the hands of bureaucrats , regardless of who ’ s in office .
An even bigger debate is whether Congress should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sort of re-authorization .
It ’ s a perplexing issue .
One can ’ t help but wonder if having rules on the books presents some sort of legislative barrier preventing abuse by government agencies .
The Fourth and Fifth Amendments are supposed to protect Americans from illegal search and seizures , secretive warrants , and the security of documents ( ie emails ) , but U.S. Supreme Court rulings occasionally say otherwise .
It seems judicial review only goes so far when the rulings aren ’ t exactly constitutional .
The FISA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 15th .

The House Judiciary Committee was supposed to vote today on a bill making changes to the Patriot Act and Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, portions of which are set to expire next month. It looks like things are on hold, however, following a disagreement involving Congressmen Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler, and Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren. Via POLITICO:
Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) is preparing Wednesday to offer five amendments that would reform the Watergate-era law, known as FISA, that senior House Democrats see as “poison pills” that would doom the bill in the House. Her push is already rankling top Democrats, who say her proposals would upend months of delicate negotiations that resulted in a bill backed by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.).
Due Process Institute confirmed the hearing was scuttled.
Just confirmed that the House Judiciary Committee has postponed this markup without any indication of when it will be rescheduled for consideration in the future. Our coalition will continue to seek reforms that end these egregious violations of our Constitutional rights. — DueProcessInstitute (@iDueProcess) February 26, 2020
It’s disappointing because the USA FREEDOM Reauthorization Act of 2020’s main reform repeals the call detail records program that the NSA was using to collect cell phone call data. There are still questions about whether this reform goes far enough. The uncertainty brought the ACLU and FreedomWorks together for an ad buy targeting multiple Senate and House members on the need to go further on reform efforts:
“The proposal does not go far enough,” said the ACLU’s Guliani on the newly-introduced legislation. “Congress must require additional notice and disclosure for individuals targeted or prosecuted using information obtained from FISA surveillance, limit the types of records that can be obtained by the government under the Patriot Act, and reform the FISA court process to enhance accountability, oversight, and transparency.” … “Congress would be derelict in its duty if it were to reauthorize these surveillance authorities without substantial reforms to protect Americans’ rights to due process,” said Josh Withrow, Senior Policy Advisor at FreedomWorks.
The White House is interested in reform but their push appears different from the bill currently in Congress. Attorney General Bill Barr discussed the issue with Senate Republicans yesterday; a meeting POLITICO reported showed a divide between the party on what reforms are necessary.
Attorney General William Barr told Senate Republicans on Tuesday that the Trump administration could support a clean extension of contentious surveillance laws set to expire next month. And Barr said he could make changes on his own to satisfy President Donald Trump and his allies who have railed against the use of the law to monitor his 2016 campaign, according to senators at a party briefing… But Barr also sparred with skeptics, primarily libertarian-leaning Sens. Mike Lee of Utah and Rand Paul of Kentucky, according to two people familiar with the meeting. Barr told Lee his criticisms of surveillance law are dangerous, while Paul said Americans shouldn’t be subject to secret FISA courts, one of the people said.
The internal change suggestion by Barr bothers me because it gives more power to the executive branch. I realize people will argue he’s the attorney general and should be able to define Justice Department policy, however, it could allow any future modifications to stay in the dark without ever becoming public. It’s not worth putting more power in the hands of bureaucrats, regardless of who’s in office.
An even bigger debate is whether Congress should let the programs all expire without any sort of re-authorization. It’s a perplexing issue. One can’t help but wonder if having rules on the books presents some sort of legislative barrier preventing abuse by government agencies. The Fourth and Fifth Amendments are supposed to protect Americans from illegal search and seizures, secretive warrants, and the security of documents (ie emails), but U.S. Supreme Court rulings occasionally say otherwise. It seems judicial review only goes so far when the rulings aren’t exactly constitutional.
The FISA items are set to expire on March 15th.


hotair--2020-02-27--Will CPAC's most inspirational figure be ...

NATIONAL HARBOR , MD , IN A INTERNET-FREE ZONE : For the first time in a couple of years , Hot Air has returned to CPAC — and CPAC may have returned to the Cold War .
Organizers expect a historic turnout for the 47th annual conference for conservative activists , and “ historic ” might end up being its theme .
Not since Ronald Reagan himself spoke at CPAC has the fight against socialism become so relevant .
In my CPAC curtain-raiser for The Week , I run through the agenda and fight very tight message discipline .
Even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the focus that will begin with Mike Pence ’ s speech today , although Trump won ’ t be overlooked either : Eight of the presentations at the conference are specifically dedicated to socialism , such as Thursday morning ’ s session on “ Socialism : Wrecker of Nations and Destroyer of Societies , ” emceed by former Trump administration national-security official KT McFarland .
Half of those events are main-stage sessions as opposed to breakout sessions , showing the heightened focus on this mission .
By contrast , only three general-session events @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the conference has Trump as its explicit focus .
Two of those are main-stage discussions with Trump family members ( Lara Trump , Ivanka Trump ) , and the other an address by Trump campaign booster ( and Donald Trump Jr. girlfriend ) Kimberly Guilfoyle .
… The agenda has its own message to activists — emphasize “ socialism.
” The words “ liberal ” and “ progressive ” are entirely absent from this agenda .
In any other cycle , that would be seen as either hyperbole or an anachronism .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ has made it both timely and at least within reach of Sanders ’ own rhetoric , especially after his remarks about Castro and the communist regime in China this week .
Make no mistake about it — Sanders will be the indispensable man at CPAC .
And he might just end up as its most unifying figure since Ronald Reagan .
According to a source connected to the planning , this focus is no mistake .
The Trump campaign wants to make the 2020 choice as stark as it could possibly be — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or Sanders and Fidel-style socialism .
That ’ s not to say that CPAC hasn ’ t always had that kind of focus — it has , but usually the messaging has been about “ liberals ” or “ progressives ” rather than socialists .
This time around , there won ’ t be much mention of the softer terms , thanks to Sanders ’ rise in the presidential contest .
That also largely absolves CPAC of debating Trump ’ s performance as the banner-carrier for American enterprise , too .
Would CPAC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had taken the lead ?
( They disinvited Mitt Romney over his impeachment vote , so it ’ s not as though they were inclined toward it anyway . )
Probably not if it had been Elizabeth Warren , Kamala Harris , or even Pete Buttigieg , all of whom favor the progressive agenda , but it would have at least been slightly more difficult to avoid .
If the runaway candidate had been Joe Biden , the focus here might have been more on Barack Obama ’ s administration and track record @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , perhaps more on granular policy , but either would have created more pressure ( from the outside , anyway ) to address Trump ’ s track record from the perspective of traditional conservative principles and agenda .
Thanks to the rise of The Bern , though , CPAC ’ s off the hook .
No matter what flavor of conservative shows up here , no matter what they think of Trump ’ s comportment and self-focus , nothing compares to the dangers of electing an avowed socialist to the presidency .
Conservatives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Democrats did CPAC a huge favor this year by not only providing a unifying figure , but also a unifying battle cry for 2020 .
Jazz Shaw and I will be prowling the hallways and doing media hits for the next two days , so our own posting will be sparse .
We will try to get our own interviews with newsmakers as well , but the Internet connections at CPAC have not improved much since the heady days of Blogger Row in the Omni Shoreham hotel ’ s largely unheated garage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at our Facebook page , and for fun clips from Allahpundit and John Sexton as they emerge .

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD, IN A INTERNET-FREE ZONE: For the first time in a couple of years, Hot Air has returned to CPAC — and CPAC may have returned to the Cold War. Organizers expect a historic turnout for the 47th annual conference for conservative activists, and “historic” might end up being its theme. Not since Ronald Reagan himself spoke at CPAC has the fight against socialism become so relevant.
In my CPAC curtain-raiser for The Week, I run through the agenda and fight very tight message discipline. Even Donald Trump takes a back seat to the focus that will begin with Mike Pence’s speech today, although Trump won’t be overlooked either:
Eight of the presentations at the conference are specifically dedicated to socialism, such as Thursday morning’s session on “Socialism: Wrecker of Nations and Destroyer of Societies,” emceed by former Trump administration national-security official KT McFarland. Half of those events are main-stage sessions as opposed to breakout sessions, showing the heightened focus on this mission. By contrast, only three general-session events other than Trump’s Saturday address to the conference has Trump as its explicit focus. Two of those are main-stage discussions with Trump family members (Lara Trump, Ivanka Trump), and the other an address by Trump campaign booster (and Donald Trump Jr. girlfriend) Kimberly Guilfoyle. … The agenda has its own message to activists — emphasize “socialism.” The words “liberal” and “progressive” are entirely absent from this agenda. In any other cycle, that would be seen as either hyperbole or an anachronism. Sanders’ rise in the Democratic primary has made it both timely and at least within reach of Sanders’ own rhetoric, especially after his remarks about Castro and the communist regime in China this week. Make no mistake about it — Sanders will be the indispensable man at CPAC. And he might just end up as its most unifying figure since Ronald Reagan.
According to a source connected to the planning, this focus is no mistake. The Trump campaign wants to make the 2020 choice as stark as it could possibly be — either choose Trump and American enterprise, or Sanders and Fidel-style socialism. That’s not to say that CPAC hasn’t always had that kind of focus — it has, but usually the messaging has been about “liberals” or “progressives” rather than socialists. This time around, there won’t be much mention of the softer terms, thanks to Sanders’ rise in the presidential contest.
That also largely absolves CPAC of debating Trump’s performance as the banner-carrier for American enterprise, too. Would CPAC have had that debate if another Democrat had taken the lead? (They disinvited Mitt Romney over his impeachment vote, so it’s not as though they were inclined toward it anyway.) Probably not if it had been Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, or even Pete Buttigieg, all of whom favor the progressive agenda, but it would have at least been slightly more difficult to avoid. If the runaway candidate had been Joe Biden, the focus here might have been more on Barack Obama’s administration and track record, or if it was Amy Klobuchar, perhaps more on granular policy, but either would have created more pressure (from the outside, anyway) to address Trump’s track record from the perspective of traditional conservative principles and agenda.
Thanks to the rise of The Bern, though, CPAC’s off the hook. No matter what flavor of conservative shows up here, no matter what they think of Trump’s comportment and self-focus, nothing compares to the dangers of electing an avowed socialist to the presidency. Conservatives here will find that a uniting message. Democrats did CPAC a huge favor this year by not only providing a unifying figure, but also a unifying battle cry for 2020.
Jazz Shaw and I will be prowling the hallways and doing media hits for the next two days, so our own posting will be sparse. We will try to get our own interviews with newsmakers as well, but the Internet connections at CPAC have not improved much since the heady days of Blogger Row in the Omni Shoreham hotel’s largely unheated garage in 2005. Stay tuned for news at our Facebook page, and for fun clips from Allahpundit and John Sexton as they emerge.