hotair--2020-12-21--Tennessee governor signs order to limit public gatherings during Christmas holiday

Tennessee Governor Bill Lee announced on Sunday evening that he signed an executive order limiting public gatherings to a maximum of ten people , with some exceptions .
He made the announcement during a statewide address .
Governor Lee ’ s executive order went into effect at 11:59 p.m. Sunday and remains in place until Jan. 19 .
There are some exceptions – places of worship or for weddings or funerals .
There is not a statewide face mask mandate and that didn ’ t change in this executive order , though many expected he would order that , too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ place .
Instead , he asked Tennesseans to wear a face mask and not get caught up in the politics that some wish to inflict on the issue .
He noted that opinions are split on whether or not a face mask mandate would work .
“ Masks work .
And I want every Tennessee to wear one.
” About 70 % of Tennesseans live in areas with a mask mandate in place by local authorities while 80 % say they wear a mask most or all of the time .
Lee announced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a live video address Sunday night .
He also urged Tennesseans to gather with people only within their household for Christmas and asked employers to allow employees to work from home for the next 30 days .
The gathering restrictions , enacted by an executive order expiring Jan. 19 , will not apply to at-home events or churches .
“ We tried to be as targeted and specific to what we think the actual problem is and not go beyond that , ” Lee said on a call with Republican members of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lee points to the spike in coronavirus cases after the Thanksgiving holiday .
He is concerned about hospital resources being overwhelmed .
The governor ’ s wife Maria tested positive for the coronavirus on Saturday and is experiencing mild symptoms .
The governor and first lady are in quarantine .
Tennessee has the highest average of daily cases per 100,000 people in the past seven days , according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention .
The state surpassed more than 6,000 COVID-19 deaths over the weekend .
The Tennessee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the percent of positive tests Saturday was a record 30.46 % .
TDOH officials announced earlier Sunday that a Christmas surge of COVID-19 cases could “ break ” the state ’ s hospital system .
“ We want to preserve access to hospital resources , ” Health Commissioner Dr. Lisa Piercey said .
“ If we have another surge over Christmas , it will break our hospitals .
Don ’ t gather with those outside of your households .
We have to change our behavior over the next several weeks.
” The state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ northeast Tennessee and Shelby County to work in hospitals because of staff shortages .
“ We are running out of options , ” Piercey said .
“ All of the money in the world can ’ t buy more staff .
That money will only go so far .
We have spent all the money we can spend on staff .
There are no more staff to spend money on.
” Tennessee health officials say that the state has the highest infection rate of any state in the country .
Dr. Lisa Piercey @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Health , said Tennessee ’ s rate is 40 % higher than the national average .
This stretches hospitals past their limits and there are staffing issues .
Some hospital equipment is in short supply .
The fear expressed by health care officials is that a superspreader event could push the hospital system over the edge .
Mask mandates remain a hot button issue among doctors in Tennessee .
They are expressing their disappointment that Governor Lee remains committed to allowing county officials to have the last word on face mask mandates .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Lee .
He used his emergency authority last summer to allow counties to remain in control and shows no inclination to change his decision .
On Dec. 13 , the White House called for a statewide mask mandate .
The state has spent millions of dollars on state marketing campaigns to encourage mask use .
Four of the twenty counties with the highest positivity rates are under mask mandates .
Tennessee is one of the states that lifted business restrictions in late spring .
Lee promised to not implement such widespread lockdowns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emphasizes personal responsibility instead of sweeping government control .
“ One thing this vaccine will not solve , or will not cure , is selfishness or indifference to our neighbors around us , ” Lee said Thursday .
“ This vaccine will not cure foolish decisions about how we gather .
It won ’ t cure an attitude of a refusal to wear a mask.
” Church attendance is exempted from the 10-person maximum limit .
I assume this is to allow congregations to exercise their right to religious freedom .
How does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on family celebrations during the Christmas holiday ?
On the one hand , the governor ’ s order mandates that only people within households gather together but when that household goes to church for Christmas services , the potential is there for exposure from others .
At some point , people have to venture out and take the risk .
It ’ s confusing to ask families and friends to limit contact when a church service will expose people from all over the area .
That ’ s the contradiction public officials have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the states with the most stringent orders are still dealing with spikes in coronavirus cases – look at California .
Leaving weddings and funerals unaffected by the executive order allows the decision of the size of the gathering to be made by individuals involved .
That seems best , and that is where personal responsibility comes in .

Tennessee Governor Bill Lee announced on Sunday evening that he signed an executive order limiting public gatherings to a maximum of ten people, with some exceptions. He made the announcement during a statewide address.
Governor Lee’s executive order went into effect at 11:59 p.m. Sunday and remains in place until Jan. 19. There are some exceptions – places of worship or for weddings or funerals. There is not a statewide face mask mandate and that didn’t change in this executive order, though many expected he would order that, too. Some counties have mask mandates in place. Instead, he asked Tennesseans to wear a face mask and not get caught up in the politics that some wish to inflict on the issue. He noted that opinions are split on whether or not a face mask mandate would work. “Masks work. And I want every Tennessee to wear one.” About 70% of Tennesseans live in areas with a mask mandate in place by local authorities while 80% say they wear a mask most or all of the time.
Lee announced a new 10-person public gathering restriction in a live video address Sunday night. He also urged Tennesseans to gather with people only within their household for Christmas and asked employers to allow employees to work from home for the next 30 days. The gathering restrictions, enacted by an executive order expiring Jan. 19, will not apply to at-home events or churches. “We tried to be as targeted and specific to what we think the actual problem is and not go beyond that,” Lee said on a call with Republican members of the General Assembly ahead of the speech.
Executive Order 70 pic.twitter.com/ly2CuE8X1Z — Gov. Bill Lee (@GovBillLee) December 21, 2020
Lee points to the spike in coronavirus cases after the Thanksgiving holiday. He is concerned about hospital resources being overwhelmed. The governor’s wife Maria tested positive for the coronavirus on Saturday and is experiencing mild symptoms. The governor and first lady are in quarantine.
Tennessee has the highest average of daily cases per 100,000 people in the past seven days, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The state surpassed more than 6,000 COVID-19 deaths over the weekend. The Tennessee Department of Health (TDOH) reported the percent of positive tests Saturday was a record 30.46%. TDOH officials announced earlier Sunday that a Christmas surge of COVID-19 cases could “break” the state’s hospital system. “We want to preserve access to hospital resources,” Health Commissioner Dr. Lisa Piercey said. “If we have another surge over Christmas, it will break our hospitals. Don’t gather with those outside of your households. We have to change our behavior over the next several weeks.” The state has deployed National Guard medical staff to northeast Tennessee and Shelby County to work in hospitals because of staff shortages. “We are running out of options,” Piercey said. “All of the money in the world can’t buy more staff. That money will only go so far. We have spent all the money we can spend on staff. There are no more staff to spend money on.”
Tennessee health officials say that the state has the highest infection rate of any state in the country. Dr. Lisa Piercey, Tennessee Commissioner for the Department of Health, said Tennessee’s rate is 40% higher than the national average. This stretches hospitals past their limits and there are staffing issues. Some hospital equipment is in short supply. The fear expressed by health care officials is that a superspreader event could push the hospital system over the edge.
The state reports two hospitals ran out of ventilators. She says they've had 2 requests for emergency ventilator supplies. She says they sent ventilators to one hospital. The other received rentals. Both of these hospitals were in West Tennessee. — Bliss ZechmanNC9 (@BlissZechman) December 20, 2020
Mask mandates remain a hot button issue among doctors in Tennessee. They are expressing their disappointment that Governor Lee remains committed to allowing county officials to have the last word on face mask mandates. The medical community is keeping the pressure on Lee. He used his emergency authority last summer to allow counties to remain in control and shows no inclination to change his decision. On Dec. 13, the White House called for a statewide mask mandate. The state has spent millions of dollars on state marketing campaigns to encourage mask use. Four of the twenty counties with the highest positivity rates are under mask mandates.
Tennessee is one of the states that lifted business restrictions in late spring. Lee promised to not implement such widespread lockdowns again. Like many conservatives, he emphasizes personal responsibility instead of sweeping government control. “One thing this vaccine will not solve, or will not cure, is selfishness or indifference to our neighbors around us,” Lee said Thursday. “This vaccine will not cure foolish decisions about how we gather. It won’t cure an attitude of a refusal to wear a mask.”
Church attendance is exempted from the 10-person maximum limit. I assume this is to allow congregations to exercise their right to religious freedom. How does this square, though, with restrictions on family celebrations during the Christmas holiday? On the one hand, the governor’s order mandates that only people within households gather together but when that household goes to church for Christmas services, the potential is there for exposure from others. At some point, people have to venture out and take the risk. It’s confusing to ask families and friends to limit contact when a church service will expose people from all over the area. That’s the contradiction public officials have to measure when issuing mandates. Some of the states with the most stringent orders are still dealing with spikes in coronavirus cases – look at California.
Leaving weddings and funerals unaffected by the executive order allows the decision of the size of the gathering to be made by individuals involved. That seems best, and that is where personal responsibility comes in.


hotair--2020-12-21--KOMO News special: The fight for the soul of Seattle

Nearly two years ago KOMO News in Seattle produced a special titled “ Seattle is dying ” which spent an hour looking at the problems of drug-abuse and homelessness and the impact they were having on the city .
That special was a big hit .
It was shown on television in the city and since March of 2019 it has been viewed more than 8 million times on YouTube .
Naturally , the special was controversial and a number of people came forward to argue that Seattle was not dying and that the special was misguided .
But think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then .
Crime is up with the murder rate higher than it has been in at least 10 years .
This summer an armed group of protesters set up an autonomous zone in the city , driving police out of one of their precincts .
The City Council and the Mayor applauded this , at least until 5 people were shot in the area .
Dozens of police officers resigned or retired .
A number of officers were seriously injured in battles with protesters .
The City Council pushed to defund the police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the Council cut her salary .
Best resigned and Mayor Durkan announced she wouldn ’ t be seeking another term soon after .
In short , things have gotten much worse since Seattle is Dying .
So reporter Eric Johnson and KOMO News have produced a sequel of sorts titled “ The Fight for the Soul of Seattle.
” One of the things Johnson said after the release of the first special in 2019 was that he wanted to remain as neutral as possible .
He didn ’ t want the special @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said at the time that this was a mistake because it was obvious that political ideology was driving most of the problems he was talking about .
That lesson seems to have sunk in .
This new special doesn ’ t shy away from blaming the Mayor , the City Council , the City Attorney and others for what has gone wrong .
The special doesn ’ t get into party affiliation but it ’ s clear the people being criticized share a progressive view of social justice .
Johnson argues that what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that quickly devolves into violence and chaos , is an analogy for what his happening to the entire city .
He labels it “ a sloppy revolution without a blueprint.
” The special devotes time to telling the story of Judge McKenna , who stood up to City Attorney Pete Holmes and refused to release a homeless man who ’ d assaulted someone and been convicted 72 previous times .
For refusing to go along with the catch and release police Judge McKenna was targeted and smeared with a bogus claim that he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a stunt .
Like Chief Best and Mayor Durkan , he wound up retiring early .
“ It doesn ’ t take a scientist to see that the experiment is rapidly failing , ” McKenna said .
He added , “ I think the overriding goal is to impose social justice rather than criminal justice.
” There ’ s a lot more in this special .
The story of Travis Berge aka Travel Tron is both horrifying and heartbreaking .
There ’ s another Oscar waiting for Matthew McConaughey for telling his life @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wonder how anyone thinks the status quo in Seattle , allowing the drug-addicted homeless to pass through the system without consequences , is a good idea .
Here ’ s the full special .
It ’ s 90 minutes long so you ’ ll need to set aside some time for this but it ’ s worth it .

Nearly two years ago KOMO News in Seattle produced a special titled “Seattle is dying” which spent an hour looking at the problems of drug-abuse and homelessness and the impact they were having on the city. That special was a big hit. It was shown on television in the city and since March of 2019 it has been viewed more than 8 million times on YouTube.
Naturally, the special was controversial and a number of people came forward to argue that Seattle was not dying and that the special was misguided. But think about some of what has happened since then. Crime is up with the murder rate higher than it has been in at least 10 years. This summer an armed group of protesters set up an autonomous zone in the city, driving police out of one of their precincts. The City Council and the Mayor applauded this, at least until 5 people were shot in the area. Dozens of police officers resigned or retired. A number of officers were seriously injured in battles with protesters. The City Council pushed to defund the police and when Police Chief Carmen Best disagreed, the Council cut her salary. Best resigned and Mayor Durkan announced she wouldn’t be seeking another term soon after.
In short, things have gotten much worse since Seattle is Dying. So reporter Eric Johnson and KOMO News have produced a sequel of sorts titled “The Fight for the Soul of Seattle.”
One of the things Johnson said after the release of the first special in 2019 was that he wanted to remain as neutral as possible. He didn’t want the special to be seen as political. I said at the time that this was a mistake because it was obvious that political ideology was driving most of the problems he was talking about. That lesson seems to have sunk in. This new special doesn’t shy away from blaming the Mayor, the City Council, the City Attorney and others for what has gone wrong. The special doesn’t get into party affiliation but it’s clear the people being criticized share a progressive view of social justice.
Johnson argues that what happened at CHOP, an anti-police revolution that quickly devolves into violence and chaos, is an analogy for what his happening to the entire city. He labels it “a sloppy revolution without a blueprint.”
The special devotes time to telling the story of Judge McKenna, who stood up to City Attorney Pete Holmes and refused to release a homeless man who’d assaulted someone and been convicted 72 previous times. For refusing to go along with the catch and release police Judge McKenna was targeted and smeared with a bogus claim that he’d concocted the whole thing as a stunt. Like Chief Best and Mayor Durkan, he wound up retiring early. “It doesn’t take a scientist to see that the experiment is rapidly failing,” McKenna said. He added, “I think the overriding goal is to impose social justice rather than criminal justice.”
There’s a lot more in this special. The story of Travis Berge aka Travel Tron is both horrifying and heartbreaking. There’s another Oscar waiting for Matthew McConaughey for telling his life story. It really does make you wonder how anyone thinks the status quo in Seattle, allowing the drug-addicted homeless to pass through the system without consequences, is a good idea.
Here’s the full special. It’s 90 minutes long so you’ll need to set aside some time for this but it’s worth it.


hotair--2020-12-21--Chris Christie: I'm not ruling out running against Trump in 2024

HH : Speaking of which , if President Trump decides to run in 2024 , are you ruling out running against him ?
HH : All right .
You would not rule out ?
Or you would not run ?
CC : I would not rule it out , Hugh .
HH : Well , that would be interesting .
CC : Yeah .
That would be a no .
That last line is pretty emphatic .
My assumption whenever some former presidential candidate declines to rule out running is that they ’ re doing it for attention , to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them by .
Christie has added incentive to do that because he ’ s a media figure now .
He ’ s been a contributor to ABC News for the past few years and might be angling to land his own talk show — which , actually , I think he ’ d be really good at .
He ’ s colorful , obviously tapped in , and occupies an almost singular niche in politics in that he ’ s friendly-ish with Trump but willing to criticize him bluntly on television .
Is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the moment ?
Political figures tend to be either strident toadies or vehement critics of Trump , with no in-between .
Christie ’ s the exception , chummy enough with the president to have helped him with debate prep this year but also candid enough to go on CNN and say stuff like this : The only person like him that I can think of is Geraldo Rivera , and Geraldo ’ s not a figure within the Republican Party in any meaningful sense .
Christie ’ s no latecomer to attacking Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fraud either .
He was skeptical of it as early as three days after the election and called it a national embarrassment before Thanksgiving .
It ’ s a strange turn for him , especially paired with his unusual come-to-Jesus moment on wearing masks after he recovered from COVID .
What ’ s he up to ?
Is he trying to get his own cable show somewhere or is this some “ moment of conscience ” spurred by his brush with death ?
Or … is he actually thinking of primarying Trump in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ come up with a scenario in which that ’ s worth Christie ’ s while , I can ’ t do it .
Just the idea that he ’ d consider running against Trump is apt to piss off the president , ensuring that Christie won ’ t get his endorsement in 2024 even if Trump ends up not running .
The safe play for a Republican when asked if you ’ re willing to challenge him is to say , “ Of course not , he ’ s a uniquely popular figure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he chooses not to run… ” That ’ s what virtually all Republican 2024 hopefuls have said when asked about this .
They ’ re staying on his good side , just in case he decides he ’ s done with presidential campaigns .
Which , by the way , he might : The president has spent days calling a dozen or more allies to ask what they think he needs to do over the next two years to “ stay part of the conversation , ” according to two people , including @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And while Trump has told allies he plans to run for president again , he has also indicated he could back out in two years if he determines he ’ ll have a tough time winning , said three people familiar with the discussions… Formally running for president would mean a lot of things aides say Trump doesn ’ t want to deal with : financial disclosure forms , building campaign infrastructure , the possibility of losing again .
But simply teasing a presidential run — without actually filing the paperwork or erecting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he needs for the next two years… “ Trump has probably no idea if he will actually run , but because he only cares about himself and his association with the party has only been about his ambitions rather than what it stands for , he will try to freeze the field and keep as many people on the sidelines , ” said a former White House aide .
“ Just for the sake of keeping his options open and , yes , keeping the attention all for himself.
” The chatter as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump would announce his 2024 campaign sometime during the lame-duck session or even on January 20 , at a rally to counterprogram Biden ’ s inauguration .
But the latest is that he ’ s putting that off as he sinks deeper into denial about having lost the election , realizing that launching a 2024 campaign would necessarily amount to admitting that he won ’ t be able to overturn the results on November 3 .
A Trump/Christie primary would be interesting even if the outcome were foreordained .
It ’ s not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to slash effectively when he wants to .
( Right , Marco ? )
It ’ s that they ’ re both less ideologically orthodox than traditional Republicans .
Trump ’ s 2016 primary victory was the triumph of a nationalist over various shades of Reaganism .
That being so , Christie would have to decide whether to position himself as the heir to the Reagan tradition against the usurper Trump , hoping to pick up dogmatic conservatives , or whether to try to sell himself as a smarter , less erratic version @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s more potential in the latter .
As Liam Donovan said : That ’ s Christie ’ s argument against Trump .
Trump understood intuitively that many voters had tired of the GOP ’ s zombie Reaganism and wanted a more nationalist program .
He just didn ’ t do a very good job achieving it .
Christie might sell himself as a younger , smarter Trump with the self-discipline to make an infrastructure deal happen and to wage a trade war with China that doesn ’ t go nowhere and to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make people think he ’ s half nuts .
Trumpism without Trump !
He ’ s even got the New York ( well , New Jersey ) pedigree .
His problem is that primary voters don ’ t want Trumpism without Trump .
They want Trump .
They want culture war , and no one does culture war like the president does .
He ’ s a walking , talking license to hate one ’ s political enemies and assume the worst about them .
No one can match him in that regard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him .
In fact , Christie ’ s willingness to acknowledge that Biden won on November 3 is itself essentially disqualifying in future primaries : Given the chance to stick with the team and spin Trump ’ s defeat as illegitimate and sinister , he told the truth instead .
He failed the ultimate culture-war test .
He ’ ll never be forgiven .
And he must realize it , which is why I think this “ 2024 ” talk is nothing more than him auditioning for cable news .
Here ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the prospects for traditional Republicans like him and Christie within the party in the short and medium terms .

Er, what?
HH: Speaking of which, if President Trump decides to run in 2024, are you ruling out running against him? CC: I would not. No. HH: All right. You would not rule out? Or you would not run? CC: I would not rule it out, Hugh. HH: Well, that would be interesting. CC: Yeah. That would be a no.
That last line is pretty emphatic. My assumption whenever some former presidential candidate declines to rule out running is that they’re doing it for attention, to keep themselves current lest American politics pass them by. Christie has added incentive to do that because he’s a media figure now. He’s been a contributor to ABC News for the past few years and might be angling to land his own talk show — which, actually, I think he’d be really good at. He’s colorful, obviously tapped in, and occupies an almost singular niche in politics in that he’s friendly-ish with Trump but willing to criticize him bluntly on television.
Is there any other figure like him at the moment? Political figures tend to be either strident toadies or vehement critics of Trump, with no in-between. Christie’s the exception, chummy enough with the president to have helped him with debate prep this year but also candid enough to go on CNN and say stuff like this:
Chris Christie: "Elections have consequences — and this one was clearly won by President-elect Biden." pic.twitter.com/Tv93FqF5bv — The Hill (@thehill) December 18, 2020
The only person like him that I can think of is Geraldo Rivera, and Geraldo’s not a figure within the Republican Party in any meaningful sense. Christie’s no latecomer to attacking Trump’s post-election effort to prove voter fraud either. He was skeptical of it as early as three days after the election and called it a national embarrassment before Thanksgiving. It’s a strange turn for him, especially paired with his unusual come-to-Jesus moment on wearing masks after he recovered from COVID.
What’s he up to? Is he trying to get his own cable show somewhere or is this some “moment of conscience” spurred by his brush with death?
Or … is he actually thinking of primarying Trump in 2024?
Try as I might to come up with a scenario in which that’s worth Christie’s while, I can’t do it. Just the idea that he’d consider running against Trump is apt to piss off the president, ensuring that Christie won’t get his endorsement in 2024 even if Trump ends up not running. The safe play for a Republican when asked if you’re willing to challenge him is to say, “Of course not, he’s a uniquely popular figure and would win easily. But if he chooses not to run…” That’s what virtually all Republican 2024 hopefuls have said when asked about this. They’re staying on his good side, just in case he decides he’s done with presidential campaigns. Which, by the way, he might:
The president has spent days calling a dozen or more allies to ask what they think he needs to do over the next two years to “stay part of the conversation,” according to two people, including one who spoke to the president. And while Trump has told allies he plans to run for president again, he has also indicated he could back out in two years if he determines he’ll have a tough time winning, said three people familiar with the discussions… Formally running for president would mean a lot of things aides say Trump doesn’t want to deal with: financial disclosure forms, building campaign infrastructure, the possibility of losing again. But simply teasing a presidential run — without actually filing the paperwork or erecting a campaign — gets Trump the attention he needs for the next two years… “Trump has probably no idea if he will actually run, but because he only cares about himself and his association with the party has only been about his ambitions rather than what it stands for, he will try to freeze the field and keep as many people on the sidelines,” said a former White House aide. “Just for the sake of keeping his options open and, yes, keeping the attention all for himself.”
The chatter as of a few weeks ago was that Trump would announce his 2024 campaign sometime during the lame-duck session or even on January 20, at a rally to counterprogram Biden’s inauguration. But the latest is that he’s putting that off as he sinks deeper into denial about having lost the election, realizing that launching a 2024 campaign would necessarily amount to admitting that he won’t be able to overturn the results on November 3.
A Trump/Christie primary would be interesting even if the outcome were foreordained. It’s not just that Christie is willing and able to slash effectively when he wants to. (Right, Marco?) It’s that they’re both less ideologically orthodox than traditional Republicans. Trump’s 2016 primary victory was the triumph of a nationalist over various shades of Reaganism. That being so, Christie would have to decide whether to position himself as the heir to the Reagan tradition against the usurper Trump, hoping to pick up dogmatic conservatives, or whether to try to sell himself as a smarter, less erratic version of Trump himself. I think there’s more potential in the latter. As Liam Donovan said:
I obviously have a jaundiced perspective on the guy, but my god, even I can see what a wasted opportunity this (all of this) was. Genuinely interesting and productive things were possible and instead you just got the most surreal yet bizarrely predictable goat rodeo imaginable. — Liam Donovan (@LPDonovan) December 21, 2020
That’s Christie’s argument against Trump. Trump understood intuitively that many voters had tired of the GOP’s zombie Reaganism and wanted a more nationalist program. He just didn’t do a very good job achieving it. Christie might sell himself as a younger, smarter Trump with the self-discipline to make an infrastructure deal happen and to wage a trade war with China that doesn’t go nowhere and to do it without 10,000 moronic tweets that make people think he’s half nuts. Trumpism without Trump! He’s even got the New York (well, New Jersey) pedigree.
His problem is that primary voters don’t want Trumpism without Trump. They want Trump. They want culture war, and no one does culture war like the president does. He’s a walking, talking license to hate one’s political enemies and assume the worst about them. No one can match him in that regard so no one stands a chance against him. In fact, Christie’s willingness to acknowledge that Biden won on November 3 is itself essentially disqualifying in future primaries: Given the chance to stick with the team and spin Trump’s defeat as illegitimate and sinister, he told the truth instead. He failed the ultimate culture-war test. He’ll never be forgiven.
And he must realize it, which is why I think this “2024” talk is nothing more than him auditioning for cable news.
Here’s Mitt Romney yesterday on CNN, clear-eyed about the prospects for traditional Republicans like him and Christie within the party in the short and medium terms.


hotair--2020-12-21--Birx ignored own advice in traveling with family after Thanksgiving. Or did she?

Say what you will about the likes of Gavin Newsom breaking his own social-distancing rules to dine with lobbyist buddies at a chichi restaurant , just don ’ t say you ’ re surprised .
Politics is a profession that selects for self-important tools with dubious ethics .
The surprise isn ’ t that Newsom and London Breed and other pols across various states have been caught ignoring the regulations laid down for the hoi polloi .
The surprise is that more haven ’ t .
It ’ s out of character !
But this is genuinely surprising .
Shocking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Birx , a professional scientist and now one of the two most famous doctors in America , to conclude that she had no obligation to avoid unnecessary travel while she was begging the rest of the country to do so ?
It ’ s a reputation-wrecker .
Newsom can always apologize and say that he had a “ lapse , ” that he ’ s just an average joe like you and me at heart , but no one has spent more time over the past nine months evangelizing about social distancing than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like the Pope getting caught doing something he shouldn ’ t have .
Sure , he ’ s a human being , and human beings sin .
But c ’ mon .
He ’ s the Pope .
The question is : Are we sure Birx actually broke the “ rules ” here ?
The day after Thanksgiving , she traveled to one of her vacation properties on Fenwick Island in Delaware .
She was accompanied by three generations of her family from two households .
Birx , her husband Paige Reffe , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grandchildren were present… She insisted the purpose of the roughly 50-hour visit was to deal with the winterization of the property before a potential sale — something she says she previously hadn ’ t had time to do because of her busy schedule .
“ I did not go to Delaware for the purpose of celebrating Thanksgiving , ” Birx said in her statement , adding that her family shared a meal together while in Delaware .
Birx said that everyone on her Delaware trip belongs to her “ immediate household , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two different homes .
Birx has three homes .
She lives with her husband in one in Washington .
The second is the Delaware vacation home mentioned above .
And the third is a home in Potomac , Maryland , where her parents *and* her daughter *and* her grandchildren live , and where Birx occasionally comes and goes .
It sounds to me like they ’ re all in a so-called “ quarantine bubble ” together — that is , they ’ ve been interacting since the start of the pandemic and are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
If that ’ s true , and if they ’ re being diligent about isolating , then they ’ re not doing anything differently from the standpoint of infection risk than any family that ’ s quarantining in the same household .
They ’ re just doing it in two different structures , the Washington house and the Potomac house .
In which case , Birx ’ s trip didn ’ t actually put anyone at risk .
Her husband , daughter , son-in-law , and grandkids are all part of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in different buildings .
What ’ s the difference between that and a single building where the family all sleeps under the same roof ?
But wait .
There ’ s actually *another* household that ’ s intersecting with the Potomac household where Birx ’ s parents , daughter , and grandkids live : “ Margaret Flynn , the children ’ s other grandmother comes to the Potomac home to provide child care , then returns to her husband [ in Baltimore ] , who has health complications .
Birx said that she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ since the beginning of the pandemic and does not know how frequently she visits the Potomac house.
” Flynn is 77 and her husband is 92 .
Are they in the “ bubble ” with Birx ’ s family too ?
Because if not , it sure seems dangerous for Birx to risk bringing COVID into the Potomac house where Flynn could get it and carry it back home to her elderly , ailing husband in Baltimore .
Or vice versa : Hypothetically Flynn could bring it into the Potomac house where Birx @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into the White House .
( Although the flaw in that theory is that the White House is already a pit of disease and infestation where nearly everyone ’ s been infected already . )
The Flynns ’ daughter told the AP that she ’ s worried her parents or Birx ’ s aged parents could be at risk from the comings and goings in the Potomac house , which makes me think they ’ re *not* all in a “ bubble ” together .
The worst-case scenario here , in other words @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the rules by occasionally inhabiting the same indoor space as members of another household .
The best-case scenario is that they ’ re all technically within the rules but that Birx now has to explain a complicated situation to a skeptical , pandemic-fatigued public .
Seems like something Joe Biden might not want to saddle himself with .
Remember that Birx is reportedly looking to stay on after January 20 to help manage the end of the pandemic but Team Joe is iffy about her .
She ’ s acquired a base of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them but she ’ s also provided soundbites like this to the public that have led Trump skeptics to scoff at her : Birx also famously declined to correct Trump after his musings at a press briefing earlier this year about using some sort of disinfectant to clean the body internally of COVID .
She just doesn ’ t have the same credibility across both sides of the aisle that Anthony Fauci has , so if she stays on it ’ ll probably be in a less visible role .
But after this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ urging others not to do so , why would Biden even want the headache of keeping her on staff ?
“ To me this disqualifies her from any future government health position , ” said a Georgetown virologist to the AP .
“ It ’ s a terrible message for someone in public health to be sending to the American people.
” I for one am very excited for the Debbie Birx tell-all to come in which she finally says what she really thinks about Trump , Scott Atlas , Alex Azar , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the past year .
Or , if not a tell-all , at least her testimony : There ’ s lots of chatter in Democratic circles about forming a commission to investigate the myriad failures of America ’ s pandemic response and few people are better positioned to shed light on what went on at the White House than Birx .
She could be quite damaging to Trump ’ s legacy potentially — assuming she doesn ’ t end up becoming the fall guy herself .

Say what you will about the likes of Gavin Newsom breaking his own social-distancing rules to dine with lobbyist buddies at a chichi restaurant, just don’t say you’re surprised. Politics is a profession that selects for self-important tools with dubious ethics. The surprise isn’t that Newsom and London Breed and other pols across various states have been caught ignoring the regulations laid down for the hoi polloi. The surprise is that more haven’t. It’s out of character!
But this is genuinely surprising. Shocking, even.
What would possess Deborah Birx, a professional scientist and now one of the two most famous doctors in America, to conclude that she had no obligation to avoid unnecessary travel while she was begging the rest of the country to do so?
It’s a reputation-wrecker. Newsom can always apologize and say that he had a “lapse,” that he’s just an average joe like you and me at heart, but no one has spent more time over the past nine months evangelizing about social distancing than Birx has. It feels a bit like the Pope getting caught doing something he shouldn’t have. Sure, he’s a human being, and human beings sin. But c’mon. He’s the Pope.
The question is: Are we sure Birx actually broke the “rules” here?
The day after Thanksgiving, she traveled to one of her vacation properties on Fenwick Island in Delaware. She was accompanied by three generations of her family from two households. Birx, her husband Paige Reffe, a daughter, son-in-law and two young grandchildren were present… She insisted the purpose of the roughly 50-hour visit was to deal with the winterization of the property before a potential sale — something she says she previously hadn’t had time to do because of her busy schedule. “I did not go to Delaware for the purpose of celebrating Thanksgiving,” Birx said in her statement, adding that her family shared a meal together while in Delaware. Birx said that everyone on her Delaware trip belongs to her “immediate household,” even as she acknowledged they live in two different homes.
Birx has three homes. She lives with her husband in one in Washington. The second is the Delaware vacation home mentioned above. And the third is a home in Potomac, Maryland, where her parents *and* her daughter *and* her grandchildren live, and where Birx occasionally comes and goes. It sounds to me like they’re all in a so-called “quarantine bubble” together — that is, they’ve been interacting since the start of the pandemic and are isolating from the rest of the world. If that’s true, and if they’re being diligent about isolating, then they’re not doing anything differently from the standpoint of infection risk than any family that’s quarantining in the same household. They’re just doing it in two different structures, the Washington house and the Potomac house.
In which case, Birx’s trip didn’t actually put anyone at risk. Her husband, daughter, son-in-law, and grandkids are all part of the same “household.” They just live in different buildings. What’s the difference between that and a single building where the family all sleeps under the same roof?
But wait. There’s actually *another* household that’s intersecting with the Potomac household where Birx’s parents, daughter, and grandkids live: “Margaret Flynn, the children’s other grandmother comes to the Potomac home to provide child care, then returns to her husband [in Baltimore], who has health complications. Birx said that she hasn’t seen the other grandmother since the beginning of the pandemic and does not know how frequently she visits the Potomac house.” Flynn is 77 and her husband is 92.
Are they in the “bubble” with Birx’s family too? Because if not, it sure seems dangerous for Birx to risk bringing COVID into the Potomac house where Flynn could get it and carry it back home to her elderly, ailing husband in Baltimore. Or vice versa: Hypothetically Flynn could bring it into the Potomac house where Birx could pick it up and bring it into the White House. (Although the flaw in that theory is that the White House is already a pit of disease and infestation where nearly everyone’s been infected already.) The Flynns’ daughter told the AP that she’s worried her parents or Birx’s aged parents could be at risk from the comings and goings in the Potomac house, which makes me think they’re *not* all in a “bubble” together.
The worst-case scenario here, in other words, is that Birx really is breaking the rules by occasionally inhabiting the same indoor space as members of another household. The best-case scenario is that they’re all technically within the rules but that Birx now has to explain a complicated situation to a skeptical, pandemic-fatigued public.
Seems like something Joe Biden might not want to saddle himself with. Remember that Birx is reportedly looking to stay on after January 20 to help manage the end of the pandemic but Team Joe is iffy about her. She’s acquired a base of knowledge that’s potentially useful to them but she’s also provided soundbites like this to the public that have led Trump skeptics to scoff at her:
"[Trump is] so attentive to the scientific literature & the details & the data. I think his ability to analyze & integrate data that comes out of his long history in business has really been a real benefit” — this is shocking, hackish stuff from Dr. Birx. pic.twitter.com/c2phsRYaJs — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) March 27, 2020
Birx also famously declined to correct Trump after his musings at a press briefing earlier this year about using some sort of disinfectant to clean the body internally of COVID. She just doesn’t have the same credibility across both sides of the aisle that Anthony Fauci has, so if she stays on it’ll probably be in a less visible role.
But after this revelation about her traveling while she was urging others not to do so, why would Biden even want the headache of keeping her on staff? “To me this disqualifies her from any future government health position,” said a Georgetown virologist to the AP. “It’s a terrible message for someone in public health to be sending to the American people.”
I for one am very excited for the Debbie Birx tell-all to come in which she finally says what she really thinks about Trump, Scott Atlas, Alex Azar, and the CDC’s performance over the past year. Or, if not a tell-all, at least her testimony: There’s lots of chatter in Democratic circles about forming a commission to investigate the myriad failures of America’s pandemic response and few people are better positioned to shed light on what went on at the White House than Birx. She could be quite damaging to Trump’s legacy potentially — assuming she doesn’t end up becoming the fall guy herself.


hotair--2020-12-21--Barr: There's no reason to appoint a special counsel to investigate Hunter Biden --- or to seize ele

Barr: There's no reason to appoint a special counsel to investigate Hunter Biden --- or to seize election machines

Officially , William Barr can ’ t do anything to stop the appointment of a special counsel to investigate Hunter Biden after Wednesday , his last day on the job .
For all practical purposes , though , the outgoing Attorney General just stuck a wooden stake through the heart of the idea .
In a press conference announcing new charges in the 1988 Pan Am-Lockerbie bombing , a reporter asked whether Barr would appoint an independent investigator to probe the president-elect ’ s son .
Nope , Barr said bluntly .
The investigation is being handled “ professionally ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any change : Barr added that “ I would have appointed one ” if he saw a need for outside counsel .
That doesn ’ t necessarily prevent his successor , current deputy AG Jeffrey Rosen , from making that appointment himself .
It does , however , cut out the legs from making it look like anything but a political power play by Trump .
Barr has actually been rather independent of Trump but is perceived more as on the team by outsiders , especially in Congress .
His opposition to a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ probe would ruin Rosen ’ s reputation if Rosen proceeded with such an appointment … and Rosen ’ s unlikely to make that kind of move for a president with thirty days left in office .
Furthermore , that may be exactly what Barr has in mind today .
One has to wonder whether Barr would have left at all if he wasn ’ t convinced that Rosen would hold the line .
He ’ s making it much easier for Rosen by bluntly rejecting Trump ’ s demands on his way out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the only Trump team demand that Barr explicitly rejected , either : That idea has been percolating among Trump and his advisers , according to the New York Times , as a way of “ proving ” fraud .
That would be an extraordinary move , not least because the Department of Justice doesn ’ t really have jurisdiction .
States run their own elections , not the federal government , and the states cooperate with the Department of Homeland Security to the extent they choose .
Before a court would allow the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would have to show evidence of an interstate crime — evidence that Team Trump has yet to demonstrate in any of its court cases .
Nonetheless , Trump has thirty days to put a lot of pressure on Rosen to do something to back up Trump ’ s claims of a stolen election .
Barr just made it a lot more difficult to use the DoJ for those purposes … .
and it ’ s tough to think he did so by accident .

Officially, William Barr can’t do anything to stop the appointment of a special counsel to investigate Hunter Biden after Wednesday, his last day on the job. For all practical purposes, though, the outgoing Attorney General just stuck a wooden stake through the heart of the idea. In a press conference announcing new charges in the 1988 Pan Am-Lockerbie bombing, a reporter asked whether Barr would appoint an independent investigator to probe the president-elect’s son.
Nope, Barr said bluntly. The investigation is being handled “professionally” and there’s no need for any change:
Attorney General William Barr says he has "not seen a reason to appoint a special counsel" to investigate Hunter Biden, and has "no plan to do so" before he steps down https://t.co/Nj065CIsxp pic.twitter.com/My7WnkdTTq — CBS News (@CBSNews) December 21, 2020
Barr added that “I would have appointed one” if he saw a need for outside counsel. That doesn’t necessarily prevent his successor, current deputy AG Jeffrey Rosen, from making that appointment himself. It does, however, cut out the legs from making it look like anything but a political power play by Trump. Barr has actually been rather independent of Trump but is perceived more as on the team by outsiders, especially in Congress. His opposition to a special counsel appointment in the Hunter Biden probe would ruin Rosen’s reputation if Rosen proceeded with such an appointment … and Rosen’s unlikely to make that kind of move for a president with thirty days left in office.
Furthermore, that may be exactly what Barr has in mind today. One has to wonder whether Barr would have left at all if he wasn’t convinced that Rosen would hold the line. He’s making it much easier for Rosen by bluntly rejecting Trump’s demands on his way out the door.
That wasn’t the only Trump team demand that Barr explicitly rejected, either:
NEW: "I see no basis now for seizing machines by the federal government," AG Barr tells @alex_mallin. A group that met at the White House Friday night pondered an executive order to seize voting machines across the country, a source told @ABC News. https://t.co/jH7kJfioMa pic.twitter.com/A9W205Z7F9 — ABC News (@ABC) December 21, 2020
AG Barr: I see no basis for seizing election machines. — Shimon Prokupecz (@ShimonPro) December 21, 2020
That idea has been percolating among Trump and his advisers, according to the New York Times, as a way of “proving” fraud. That would be an extraordinary move, not least because the Department of Justice doesn’t really have jurisdiction. States run their own elections, not the federal government, and the states cooperate with the Department of Homeland Security to the extent they choose. Before a court would allow the DoJ to seize those machines, they would have to show evidence of an interstate crime — evidence that Team Trump has yet to demonstrate in any of its court cases.
Nonetheless, Trump has thirty days to put a lot of pressure on Rosen to do something to back up Trump’s claims of a stolen election. Barr just made it a lot more difficult to use the DoJ for those purposes …. and it’s tough to think he did so by accident.


hotair--2020-12-21--Top Warp Speed scientist: "Very unlikely" new COVID-19 variant will defeat vaccine

Has a new mutation of COVID-19 just mooted the multi-billion-dollar effort to find vaccines ?
“ Very unlikely , ” Operation Warp Speed ’ s top scientist told CNN ’ s Jake Tapper yesterday .
While nations shut down travel to the UK to keep the new and much more contagious variant from spreading past its borders , Dr. Moncef Slaoui told the State of the Union audience that the vaccines now approved would almost certainly defeat it anyway .
It ’ s not impossible that it could get around the vaccine , but the targeting of the spike protein @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all but impossible , Slaoui said : TAPPER : Absolutely .
There ’ s a light at the end of the tunnel , thanks to the efforts of you and the scientists for Operation Warp Speed .
I want to ask you .
British Prime Minister Boris Johnson says he ’ s now imposing stricter guidelines because there ’ s this new variant of COVID-19 spreading in the U.K. that — quote — “ may be up to 70 percent more transmissible than the earlier strain.
” Do you think that variant is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you tell us about it ?
SLAOUI : So , we don ’ t know yet .
We are , of course , particularly the NIH and the CDC , looking very carefully into this .
Many , many strains of the virus are sequenced all the time .
This is virus is what is called RNA virus .
This is an approach to being a virus that is prone to more mistakes in the way RNA is made than when it ’ s a DNA virus .
And , therefore , there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the spike protein requires really very , very specific three-dimensional structure that makes it hard for it to mutate too much .
So , up to now , I don ’ t think there has been a single variant that would be resistant to the virus — to the vaccine .
We can ’ t exclude it , but it ’ s not there now .
And this particular variant in the U.K. , I think , is very unlikely to have escaped the vaccine immunity .
TAPPER : OK , so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have , Pfizer and Moderna , will also protect against any of these new variants that we ’ re hearing about , whether in the U.K. or South Africa ?
SLAOUI : Well , you can never say never in science , so there could be at some point something that comes up that helps the virus escape .
But , because the vaccines are inducing antibodies against many different parts of the spike protein , the chances that all of them change , I think , are low , but they are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Slaoui ’ s right — and he almost certainly is .
We ’ re used to the flu vaccine , which has limited effect because of the significant mutations that the virus makes each year .
Those vaccines rely on whole-virus exposures , in which manufacturers have to guess which strains might be most prevalent ahead of the season .
Even a wrong guess can help boost antibodies in general , which is why the vaccine is worthwhile either way .
The mechanism behind the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines — messenger RNA sequences @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It teaches the body how to stop the process by which the virus replicates , which should be relatively stable regardless of variant .
The UK certainly hopes that ’ s the case .
Travel bans will keep British travelers at home altogether , and health officials worry that another countrywide lockdown might be necessary : The new mutation , or variant , was first detected in southeast England in September and is quickly becoming the dominant strain in London and other regions in Britain .
Experts said it does not appear more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a news conference from 10 Downing Street , British Prime Minister Boris Johnson said the new variant “ may be up to 70 percent more transmissible ” than previous versions of the virus here .
“ This is spreading very fast , ” he said , announcing local and international travel bans and other extreme measures for about 18 million people in England beginning Sunday .
Wales and Scotland followed with their own tightened restrictions , including banning all but essential movement around the isle .
Many countries have reimposed tough social distancing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ second and third waves .
Britain , however , appears to be the first to point to a specific coronavirus variant for a surge in infections and the need to bring back the toughest measures .
The UK has already begun rolling out the Pfizer vaccinations , and will shortly do the same for Moderna if they haven ’ t yet already .
That will hopefully stanch the transmission spike in the new variant within the next few weeks .
If left unchecked , the variant ’ s rapid transmission could spark more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which could threaten to escalate the virus ’ resistance to the vaccines .
In other words , we should be very happy that the vaccines have arrived when they did for even more reasons now .
This is good news … if we can vaccinate enough people quickly .

Has a new mutation of COVID-19 just mooted the multi-billion-dollar effort to find vaccines? “Very unlikely,” Operation Warp Speed’s top scientist told CNN’s Jake Tapper yesterday. While nations shut down travel to the UK to keep the new and much more contagious variant from spreading past its borders, Dr. Moncef Slaoui told the State of the Union audience that the vaccines now approved would almost certainly defeat it anyway.
It’s not impossible that it could get around the vaccine, but the targeting of the spike protein is so efficient that it’s all but impossible, Slaoui said:
TAPPER: Absolutely. There’s a light at the end of the tunnel, thanks to the efforts of you and the scientists for Operation Warp Speed. I want to ask you. British Prime Minister Boris Johnson says he’s now imposing stricter guidelines because there’s this new variant of COVID-19 spreading in the U.K. that — quote — “may be up to 70 percent more transmissible than the earlier strain.” Do you think that variant is here in the U.S.? What can you tell us about it? SLAOUI: So, we don’t know yet. We are, of course, particularly the NIH and the CDC, looking very carefully into this. Many, many strains of the virus are sequenced all the time. This is virus is what is called RNA virus. This is an approach to being a virus that is prone to more mistakes in the way RNA is made than when it’s a DNA virus. And, therefore, there will be variance. The key is that the spike protein requires really very, very specific three-dimensional structure that makes it hard for it to mutate too much. So, up to now, I don’t think there has been a single variant that would be resistant to the virus — to the vaccine. We can’t exclude it, but it’s not there now. And this particular variant in the U.K., I think, is very unlikely to have escaped the vaccine immunity. TAPPER: OK, so you are confident that the vaccines we have, Pfizer and Moderna, will also protect against any of these new variants that we’re hearing about, whether in the U.K. or South Africa? SLAOUI: Well, you can never say never in science, so there could be at some point something that comes up that helps the virus escape. But, because the vaccines are inducing antibodies against many different parts of the spike protein, the chances that all of them change, I think, are low, but they are not inexistent.
Let’s hope Slaoui’s right — and he almost certainly is. We’re used to the flu vaccine, which has limited effect because of the significant mutations that the virus makes each year. Those vaccines rely on whole-virus exposures, in which manufacturers have to guess which strains might be most prevalent ahead of the season. Even a wrong guess can help boost antibodies in general, which is why the vaccine is worthwhile either way. The mechanism behind the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines — messenger RNA sequences or mRNA — is entirely different. It teaches the body how to stop the process by which the virus replicates, which should be relatively stable regardless of variant.
The UK certainly hopes that’s the case. Travel bans will keep British travelers at home altogether, and health officials worry that another countrywide lockdown might be necessary:
The new mutation, or variant, was first detected in southeast England in September and is quickly becoming the dominant strain in London and other regions in Britain. Experts said it does not appear more deadly or resistant to vaccines. At a news conference from 10 Downing Street, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson said the new variant “may be up to 70 percent more transmissible” than previous versions of the virus here. “This is spreading very fast,” he said, announcing local and international travel bans and other extreme measures for about 18 million people in England beginning Sunday. Wales and Scotland followed with their own tightened restrictions, including banning all but essential movement around the isle. Many countries have reimposed tough social distancing measures as coronavirus cases roared back in second and third waves. Britain, however, appears to be the first to point to a specific coronavirus variant for a surge in infections and the need to bring back the toughest measures.
The UK has already begun rolling out the Pfizer vaccinations, and will shortly do the same for Moderna if they haven’t yet already. That will hopefully stanch the transmission spike in the new variant within the next few weeks. If left unchecked, the variant’s rapid transmission could spark more variations and perhaps even some significant mutations, which could threaten to escalate the virus’ resistance to the vaccines.
In other words, we should be very happy that the vaccines have arrived when they did for even more reasons now. This is good news … if we can vaccinate enough people quickly.


hotair--2020-12-21--COVID lawsuit immunity for businesses should have been a no-brainer

Most of the “ immunity ” showing up in the news these days has to do with vaccines .
But there ’ s another sort of immunity on the minds of business owners across America , and that ’ s legal immunity .
The family that owns the Big Moose Inn in Millinocket , Maine is keenly aware of this debate .
They are currently facing some serious legal jeopardy that may put them out of business permanently .
But it ’ s not the state coming after them this time .
The families of several people who died from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ August are suing the business for wrongful death and a number of other complaints .
And they aren ’ t alone in this mess .
There are already thousands of lawsuits making their way through the courts as people rush to cash in on what is essentially a natural disaster and an act of God .
( Associated Press ) Plans for a lawsuit against a Maine venue that hosted what became a “ superspreader ” wedding reception underscore the liability risks to small businesses amid the coronavirus pandemic and an uphill push @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outfits legal immunity .
Behemoths like Walmart and Tyson Foods , which have been the target of COVID-19-related lawsuits , can largely absorb any losses .
But hundreds of negligence lawsuits have been filed across the country , with mom-and-pops most fearing the prospect of litigation that could put them under .
“ They can end up losing even if they win a lawsuit , ” said David Clough , of the National Federation of Independent Businesses , because costly litigation can bankrupt small businesses that don ’ t have deep pockets .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ all sympathize with families who have lost loved ones to this plague , this mountain of lawsuits shouldn ’ t hold up under legal scrutiny if we lived in anything resembling a sane world .
There are a couple of reasons for this , but common sense is far too often in short supply in our nation ’ s courts .
Also , the explosion of government mandates on freedom of travel during the pandemic has left us in some uncharted waters in terms of liability cases .
The case of the Big @ @ @ @ @ @ @ example to go by .
The plaintiffs are arguing that the reception had too many people in attendance to safely operate under Maine ’ s prohibition against gatherings of a certain size .
The limit was fifty people at the time , but the owners divided the reception up into two different halls with less than fifty people each so they claim they were in compliance .
There were also many people at the reception not wearing masks .
There were clearly posted signs telling everyone that masks were required , but they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enforce that rule when people began taking off their masks inside , particularly when eating or drinking .
If any business is operating in accordance with state guidelines and people wind up becoming infected with a disease that some of the attendees clearly brought into the hall with them , how is the business at fault ?
And even if they broke the rules and exceeded the maximum capacity , we ’ re talking about a virus here that was not created by or even transmitted by the owners or their employees .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the flu each year in America and the vast majority of them contract the disease out in public , either at work or in some other setting .
Yet I don ’ t see any lawsuits blaming the places they visited for those deaths .
We ’ re talking about a force of nature here .
If you want to sue someone over it , try suing the Chinese Communist Party .
Even if we accept that the new rules of engagement covering the novel coronavirus allow for localized “ responsibility ” for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who showed up for that reception could obviously see the number of people in attendance and the fact that many of them were abandoning their masks .
They had the choice to turn around and simply walk away , but they decided to stay .
Where is their responsibility in all of this ?
The only way to prevent this outbreak short of refusing to host the event would be for the owners of the inn to slam the door in the guests ’ faces when they arrived or strongarm them out of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And if that had happened , they would probably have been sued over that behavior as well .
None of these questions touch on the issue of contact tracing .
As the owners point out , there were several other large events held on the same day as the reception and a surge in case numbers around their county was already underway .
Even if we assume that the owners of a business are somehow responsible for the transmission of a virus , how are the attorneys for the plaintiffs going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ family member contracted the virus at the reception and not at the gas station on the way there or from a family member who came down with it elsewhere ?
The final fly in the ointment here comes with the fact that some of the people who wound up dying weren ’ t even at the reception .
They allegedly contracted the virus from someone else who attended .
Even under this crackpot legal theory , how is the inn responsible for those deaths ?
If that charge is allowed to stand , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ every death that took place in the county after the date of the event .
None of this makes any sense .
Congress needs to enact some sort of blanket immunity for employers and other businesses related to this pandemic .
We live in a nation that has long since grown far too litigious and there ’ s an army of lawyers out there just waiting to sing up clients to go after anyone with sufficiently deep pockets .
At this rate , businesses who somehow manage to survive the government shutdowns may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ series of class-action lawsuits and disappearing anyway .

Most of the “immunity” showing up in the news these days has to do with vaccines. But there’s another sort of immunity on the minds of business owners across America, and that’s legal immunity. The family that owns the Big Moose Inn in Millinocket, Maine is keenly aware of this debate. They are currently facing some serious legal jeopardy that may put them out of business permanently. But it’s not the state coming after them this time. The families of several people who died from COVID-19 after attending a wedding reception in August are suing the business for wrongful death and a number of other complaints. And they aren’t alone in this mess. There are already thousands of lawsuits making their way through the courts as people rush to cash in on what is essentially a natural disaster and an act of God. (Associated Press)
Plans for a lawsuit against a Maine venue that hosted what became a “superspreader” wedding reception underscore the liability risks to small businesses amid the coronavirus pandemic and an uphill push by Republicans in Congress to give such outfits legal immunity. Behemoths like Walmart and Tyson Foods, which have been the target of COVID-19-related lawsuits, can largely absorb any losses. But hundreds of negligence lawsuits have been filed across the country, with mom-and-pops most fearing the prospect of litigation that could put them under. “They can end up losing even if they win a lawsuit,” said David Clough, of the National Federation of Independent Businesses, because costly litigation can bankrupt small businesses that don’t have deep pockets.
While I’m sure we can all sympathize with families who have lost loved ones to this plague, this mountain of lawsuits shouldn’t hold up under legal scrutiny if we lived in anything resembling a sane world. There are a couple of reasons for this, but common sense is far too often in short supply in our nation’s courts. Also, the explosion of government mandates on freedom of travel during the pandemic has left us in some uncharted waters in terms of liability cases.
The case of the Big Moose Inn lawsuit should provide a good example to go by. The plaintiffs are arguing that the reception had too many people in attendance to safely operate under Maine’s prohibition against gatherings of a certain size. The limit was fifty people at the time, but the owners divided the reception up into two different halls with less than fifty people each so they claim they were in compliance. There were also many people at the reception not wearing masks. There were clearly posted signs telling everyone that masks were required, but they didn’t have a way to enforce that rule when people began taking off their masks inside, particularly when eating or drinking.
If any business is operating in accordance with state guidelines and people wind up becoming infected with a disease that some of the attendees clearly brought into the hall with them, how is the business at fault? And even if they broke the rules and exceeded the maximum capacity, we’re talking about a virus here that was not created by or even transmitted by the owners or their employees. Up to sixty thousand people die from the flu each year in America and the vast majority of them contract the disease out in public, either at work or in some other setting. Yet I don’t see any lawsuits blaming the places they visited for those deaths. We’re talking about a force of nature here. If you want to sue someone over it, try suing the Chinese Communist Party.
Even if we accept that the new rules of engagement covering the novel coronavirus allow for localized “responsibility” for transmission of the virus, every person who showed up for that reception could obviously see the number of people in attendance and the fact that many of them were abandoning their masks. They had the choice to turn around and simply walk away, but they decided to stay. Where is their responsibility in all of this? The only way to prevent this outbreak short of refusing to host the event would be for the owners of the inn to slam the door in the guests’ faces when they arrived or strongarm them out of there once they took off their masks. And if that had happened, they would probably have been sued over that behavior as well.
None of these questions touch on the issue of contact tracing. As the owners point out, there were several other large events held on the same day as the reception and a surge in case numbers around their county was already underway. Even if we assume that the owners of a business are somehow responsible for the transmission of a virus, how are the attorneys for the plaintiffs going to prove that their specific client’s family member contracted the virus at the reception and not at the gas station on the way there or from a family member who came down with it elsewhere?
The final fly in the ointment here comes with the fact that some of the people who wound up dying weren’t even at the reception. They allegedly contracted the virus from someone else who attended. Even under this crackpot legal theory, how is the inn responsible for those deaths? If that charge is allowed to stand, the inn could be held responsible for every death that took place in the county after the date of the event.
None of this makes any sense. Congress needs to enact some sort of blanket immunity for employers and other businesses related to this pandemic. We live in a nation that has long since grown far too litigious and there’s an army of lawyers out there just waiting to sing up clients to go after anyone with sufficiently deep pockets. At this rate, businesses who somehow manage to survive the government shutdowns may wind up being taken out in a series of class-action lawsuits and disappearing anyway.


hotair--2020-12-22--How the COVID relief bill turned into a climate change bill

So they did it .
Working late into the night before scurrying out of town for Christmas , the House and Senate both managed to pass the gargantuan COVID relief bill .
The President is expected to sign it .
And when I say “ gargantuan , ” I ’ m not just talking about the massive pile of debt that the nation just accumulated .
The final bill was roughly 5,000 pages long and it was festooned with a seemingly endless laundry list of items having absolutely nothing to do with the pandemic .
I found myself in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democratic New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez , who took to Twitter with a very justifiable complaint .
Chief among some of the massive bits of hot garbage that are completely unrelated to the pandemic were a raft of provisions dealing with climate change .
Yes… I know .
The Associated Press highlights some of these new laws that were never mentioned in public while the bill was being negotiated but were somehow crammed down everyone ’ s throats in the interest of looking like they were doing something about pandemic relief .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lawmakers from both parties , were hailed as the most significant climate change law in at least a decade .
“ Republicans and Democrats are working together to protect the environment through innovation , ” said Sen. John Barrasso , R-Wyo.
, chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee .
“ This historic agreement includes three separate pieces of legislation that will significantly reduce greenhouse gases , ″ Barrasso said , citing measures that promote technologies to “ capture ” and store carbon dioxide produced by power and manufacturing plants ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vehicles ; and authorize a 15-year reduction of hydrofluorocarbons , or HFCs , that are used in everything from cars to air conditioners .
HFCs are considered a major driver of global warming and are being targeted worldwide .
You ’ re going to see the phrases “ promoting technologies ” and “ creating jobs ” quite often in that portion of the bill .
The technologies in question involve carbon capture , emission reduction and replacements for the hydrofluorocarbons ( HFCs ) used as coolants in air conditioning and refrigeration systems , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that ’ s how they like to describe such “ initiatives ” to put a pleasant spin on them .
A better translation of those passages would be to say that taxpayer money will be shoveled into “ green energy ” and carbon reduction companies who will ostensibly be working to achieve those goals while ( just coincidentally ) making a ton of money for a small number of people .
A closer look into how those people donate to political campaigns and focus their job creation on the states represented by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be very instructive .
To be clear , there was a great deal more than just climate change jammed into this massive bill that almost nobody in Congress or the media had a chance to read before it was passed .
Our colleague Beth Baumann from Townhall has already put together a collection of the other greatest hits ( to your collective wallets ) that wound up in the bill .
They include money for invasive species mitigation , water management on the Tibetan Plateau , “ gender programs ” in Pakistan , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tibet , and other nations .
Dig in at the link if you have the stomach for it .
All of this time we were told that a pandemic relief bill was going to include direct payments to taxpayers , federal enhancements to unemployment benefits , money for more PPE and loans for businesses and municipalities to get them through the shutdowns .
All they were haggling over was the amount of money in each initiative .
That would have required , what… a couple of hundred pages at most if they were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it could have been copied and pasted from the first relief bill with a few of the dollar amounts changed .
Instead , they wheeled out a bill that ’ s ten times longer than Moby Dick and one hundred times more tedious to read .
Nearly a trillion dollars just went up in smoke in the name of “ Battling The Pandemic And Saving Everyone ’ s Lives , ” with a huge amount of that legislation doing nothing of the sort .
Merry freaking Christmas , everyone .
This is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

So they did it. Working late into the night before scurrying out of town for Christmas, the House and Senate both managed to pass the gargantuan COVID relief bill. The President is expected to sign it. And when I say “gargantuan,” I’m not just talking about the massive pile of debt that the nation just accumulated. The final bill was roughly 5,000 pages long and it was festooned with a seemingly endless laundry list of items having absolutely nothing to do with the pandemic. I found myself in the unusual position of having to agree with Democratic New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who took to Twitter with a very justifiable complaint.
This is why Congress needs time to actually read this package before voting on it. Members of Congress have not read this bill. It’s over 5000 pages, arrived at 2pm today, and we are told to expect a vote on it in 2 hours. This isn’t governance. It’s hostage-taking. https://t.co/JpBbEHHkVG — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) December 21, 2020
Chief among some of the massive bits of hot garbage that are completely unrelated to the pandemic were a raft of provisions dealing with climate change. Yes… I know. The Associated Press highlights some of these new laws that were never mentioned in public while the bill was being negotiated but were somehow crammed down everyone’s throats in the interest of looking like they were doing something about pandemic relief.
The energy and climate provisions, supported by lawmakers from both parties, were hailed as the most significant climate change law in at least a decade. “Republicans and Democrats are working together to protect the environment through innovation,” said Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. “This historic agreement includes three separate pieces of legislation that will significantly reduce greenhouse gases,″ Barrasso said, citing measures that promote technologies to “capture” and store carbon dioxide produced by power and manufacturing plants; reduce diesel emissions in buses and other vehicles; and authorize a 15-year reduction of hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs, that are used in everything from cars to air conditioners. HFCs are considered a major driver of global warming and are being targeted worldwide.
You’re going to see the phrases “promoting technologies” and “creating jobs” quite often in that portion of the bill. The technologies in question involve carbon capture, emission reduction and replacements for the hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) used as coolants in air conditioning and refrigeration systems, among other things.
You see, that’s how they like to describe such “initiatives” to put a pleasant spin on them. A better translation of those passages would be to say that taxpayer money will be shoveled into “green energy” and carbon reduction companies who will ostensibly be working to achieve those goals while (just coincidentally) making a ton of money for a small number of people. A closer look into how those people donate to political campaigns and focus their job creation on the states represented by the politicians pushing these plans will no doubt be very instructive.
To be clear, there was a great deal more than just climate change jammed into this massive bill that almost nobody in Congress or the media had a chance to read before it was passed. Our colleague Beth Baumann from Townhall has already put together a collection of the other greatest hits (to your collective wallets) that wound up in the bill. They include money for invasive species mitigation, water management on the Tibetan Plateau, “gender programs” in Pakistan, and piles of money for India, Tibet, and other nations. Dig in at the link if you have the stomach for it.
All of this time we were told that a pandemic relief bill was going to include direct payments to taxpayers, federal enhancements to unemployment benefits, money for more PPE and loans for businesses and municipalities to get them through the shutdowns. All they were haggling over was the amount of money in each initiative. That would have required, what… a couple of hundred pages at most if they were feeling particularly verbose? And most of it could have been copied and pasted from the first relief bill with a few of the dollar amounts changed.
Instead, they wheeled out a bill that’s ten times longer than Moby Dick and one hundred times more tedious to read. Nearly a trillion dollars just went up in smoke in the name of “Battling The Pandemic And Saving Everyone’s Lives,” with a huge amount of that legislation doing nothing of the sort. Merry freaking Christmas, everyone. This is the swamp doing what the swamp always does.


hotair--2020-12-23--Breaking: HHS announces purchase of 100 million more Pfizer vaccine doses

One of the few missteps by HHS on the vaccine front has effectively been reversed .
The Trump administration has reached an agreement with Pfizer and its partner BioNTech to supply an additional 100 million doses by the end of July , with most of those delivered by the end of the second quarter .
The move comes after criticism of an earlier decision not to exercise a purchase option that would have secured the doses up front : The Trump administration has reached an agreement with Pfizer and BioNTech to purchase 100 million additional doses of its coronavirus vaccine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ later July 31 , 2021 , the Department of Health and Human Services announced Wednesday .
Why it matters : The deal will allow millions more Americans to be vaccinated at zero cost by next fall .
Under the terms of the agreement , 70 million of the 100 million doses purchased will be delivered by June 30 , 2021 .
That now puts the commitment from Pfizer to the US at 200 million doses , enough to inoculate about a third of the country in the two-dose regimen .
This time , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ million doses , which if exercised would cover most of the rest of the population .
How likely are we to need those options ?
As Axios notes , HHS has already purchased hundreds of millions of doses from other manufacturers through Operation Warp Speed .
Moderna alone has 200 million committed by the end of June .
AstraZeneca , which is finishing its Phase 3 trial soon , has 100 million set aside for the US , as does Johnson & Johnson , Novavax , and Sanofi/GlaxoSmithKline .
Obviously , the US @ @ @ @ @ @ @ backup in case one or more of the vaccine candidates failed .
If they all succeed , we won ’ t need the Pfizer options at all .
That might have been why HHS declined the earlier options , too : The administration ’ s new agreement comes as hundreds of millions of people in the U.S. wait to be vaccinated .
Earlier this month , Dr. Scott Gottlieb , a former FDA commissioner and a member of Pfizer ’ s board of directors , said that the White House declined “ multiple @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a deal on more vaccine doses for the second quarter of 2021 .
Better to be safe than sorry , especially since Pfizer and Moderna represent the bird in the hand rather than two in the bush .
If we end up with extra , we can redirect some of our supply to other countries with resource gaps .
At the moment , though , this deal guarantees that the US will have enough supply to get most of the country vaccinated by the end of the second quarter at the latest .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ — and both AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson are said to be getting close to the end of their Phase 3 trials — it might be much sooner than that .

One of the few missteps by HHS on the vaccine front has effectively been reversed. The Trump administration has reached an agreement with Pfizer and its partner BioNTech to supply an additional 100 million doses by the end of July, with most of those delivered by the end of the second quarter. The move comes after criticism of an earlier decision not to exercise a purchase option that would have secured the doses up front:
The Trump administration has reached an agreement with Pfizer and BioNTech to purchase 100 million additional doses of its coronavirus vaccine, which will be fully delivered no later July 31, 2021, the Department of Health and Human Services announced Wednesday. Why it matters: The deal will allow millions more Americans to be vaccinated at zero cost by next fall. Under the terms of the agreement, 70 million of the 100 million doses purchased will be delivered by June 30, 2021.
That now puts the commitment from Pfizer to the US at 200 million doses, enough to inoculate about a third of the country in the two-dose regimen. This time, HHS also negotiated options for another 400 million doses, which if exercised would cover most of the rest of the population.
How likely are we to need those options? As Axios notes, HHS has already purchased hundreds of millions of doses from other manufacturers through Operation Warp Speed. Moderna alone has 200 million committed by the end of June. AstraZeneca, which is finishing its Phase 3 trial soon, has 100 million set aside for the US, as does Johnson & Johnson, Novavax, and Sanofi/GlaxoSmithKline. Obviously, the US bought those doses up front as a backup in case one or more of the vaccine candidates failed. If they all succeed, we won’t need the Pfizer options at all.
That might have been why HHS declined the earlier options, too:
The administration’s new agreement comes as hundreds of millions of people in the U.S. wait to be vaccinated. Earlier this month, Dr. Scott Gottlieb, a former FDA commissioner and a member of Pfizer’s board of directors, said that the White House declined “multiple” offers from the company to strike a deal on more vaccine doses for the second quarter of 2021.
Better to be safe than sorry, especially since Pfizer and Moderna represent the bird in the hand rather than two in the bush. If we end up with extra, we can redirect some of our supply to other countries with resource gaps. At the moment, though, this deal guarantees that the US will have enough supply to get most of the country vaccinated by the end of the second quarter at the latest. If the other manufacturers win approval soon — and both AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson are said to be getting close to the end of their Phase 3 trials — it might be much sooner than that.


hotair--2020-12-23--Would Trump really veto the relief bill?

When I wrote yesterday morning about the mountain of hot garbage that wound up in the relief/spending bill passed on Monday night , I was already resigned to the fate of the nation and simply assumed that it was going to be signed into law .
Last night , however , the President posted a video on Twitter suggesting – while not explicitly threatening a veto – that he was quite unhappy with the pork festival heading for his desk and demanding changes .
The two biggest demands he ’ s making are to significantly increase the amount of direct @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overall cost by eliminating extraneous items like foreign aid .
Let ’ s start with the video .
The Associated Press provides a look at Trump ’ s demands , along with a projection of what will happen if he refuses to sign it or even vetoes it .
Trump assailed the bipartisan $ 900 billion package in a video he tweeted out Tuesday night and suggested he may not sign the legislation .
He called on lawmakers to increase direct payments for most Americans from $ 600 to $ 2,000 for individuals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against a range of provisions in the bill , including for foreign aid , he told lawmakers to “ get rid of the wasteful and unnecessary items from this legislation and to send me a suitable bill.
” Trump did not specifically vow to veto the bill , and there may be enough support for the legislation in Congress to override him if he does .
But if Trump were to upend the sprawling legislation , the consequences would be severe , including no federal aid to struggling Americans and small businesses , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vaccine distribution .
The major downsides to a veto of the bill ( assuming you see them as “ downsides ” ) would be that the government would effectively shut down on December 29th , nobody would get any relief checks , and funding would not be put in place to expedite more vaccine shipments .
So a veto would essentially throw the entire country into chaos , and Trump wouldn ’ t actually do that , right ?
If that ’ s your instant take on the situation , I would suggest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attention over the past four years .
Donald Trump has thrived on chaos and disruption , taking every opportunity to stir up the waters of the swamp .
I would argue that it ’ s one of the primary attributes that keep his base so firmly loyal to him .
Trump is a businessman by nature , but when it comes to politics , he ’ s not terribly interested in business as usual .
Even a veto , however , doesn ’ t mean that President Trump is about to get his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both chambers of Congress are on standby to return to work right after Christmas .
The original purpose of the plan was to prepare to override the President ’ s threatened veto of the NDAA ( the military and intelligence spending bill ) .
But if they ’ re working during their vacation anyway and are in a bipartisan mood to overturn the President ’ s decisions , overriding a veto of this massive , pork-laden spending bill probably wouldn ’ t present much of a challenge either .
Seeing Nancy Pelosi and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ glass of eggnog and singing Kumbaya in front of the fireplace together may be one of the weirdest elements of 2020 that we ’ ve encountered to date , but here we are .
I ’ m not expecting to see the Senate GOP cave on the President ’ s first and biggest demand – an increase in the direct COVID relief payments from $ 600 to $ 2,000 .
That was one of the biggest sticking points in the stalled negotiations for months .
The Democrats were willing to stick with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it to the level that Trump is asking for .
( Although Nancy Pelosi was quick to jump on Trump ’ s side for a moment and endorse the idea of $ 2,000 checks . )
That would be an awfully large chunk of crow for them to swallow at this point .
I don ’ t know if Trump would actually go through with a veto , however .
He tends to say what he means and if he was considering vetoing the bill , it seems like he would have said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that he could be staring at two overrides in his final weeks in office if he does it .
That ’ s not a good look in the final days of an administration , but McConnell is clearly playing his own agenda at this point and probably isn ’ t terribly worried about drawing Trump ’ s wrath for the final few weeks .

When I wrote yesterday morning about the mountain of hot garbage that wound up in the relief/spending bill passed on Monday night, I was already resigned to the fate of the nation and simply assumed that it was going to be signed into law. Last night, however, the President posted a video on Twitter suggesting – while not explicitly threatening a veto – that he was quite unhappy with the pork festival heading for his desk and demanding changes. The two biggest demands he’s making are to significantly increase the amount of direct aid going to taxpayers while reducing the overall cost by eliminating extraneous items like foreign aid. Let’s start with the video.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1341537886315950080
The Associated Press provides a look at Trump’s demands, along with a projection of what will happen if he refuses to sign it or even vetoes it.
Trump assailed the bipartisan $900 billion package in a video he tweeted out Tuesday night and suggested he may not sign the legislation. He called on lawmakers to increase direct payments for most Americans from $600 to $2,000 for individuals and $4,000 for couples. Railing against a range of provisions in the bill, including for foreign aid, he told lawmakers to “get rid of the wasteful and unnecessary items from this legislation and to send me a suitable bill.” Trump did not specifically vow to veto the bill, and there may be enough support for the legislation in Congress to override him if he does. But if Trump were to upend the sprawling legislation, the consequences would be severe, including no federal aid to struggling Americans and small businesses, and no additional resources to help with vaccine distribution.
The major downsides to a veto of the bill (assuming you see them as “downsides”) would be that the government would effectively shut down on December 29th, nobody would get any relief checks, and funding would not be put in place to expedite more vaccine shipments. So a veto would essentially throw the entire country into chaos, and Trump wouldn’t actually do that, right? If that’s your instant take on the situation, I would suggest you haven’t been paying much attention over the past four years.
Donald Trump has thrived on chaos and disruption, taking every opportunity to stir up the waters of the swamp. I would argue that it’s one of the primary attributes that keep his base so firmly loyal to him. Trump is a businessman by nature, but when it comes to politics, he’s not terribly interested in business as usual.
Even a veto, however, doesn’t mean that President Trump is about to get his way. As we discussed yesterday, both chambers of Congress are on standby to return to work right after Christmas. The original purpose of the plan was to prepare to override the President’s threatened veto of the NDAA (the military and intelligence spending bill). But if they’re working during their vacation anyway and are in a bipartisan mood to overturn the President’s decisions, overriding a veto of this massive, pork-laden spending bill probably wouldn’t present much of a challenge either. Seeing Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell suddenly hanging out with a glass of eggnog and singing Kumbaya in front of the fireplace together may be one of the weirdest elements of 2020 that we’ve encountered to date, but here we are.
I’m not expecting to see the Senate GOP cave on the President’s first and biggest demand – an increase in the direct COVID relief payments from $600 to $2,000. That was one of the biggest sticking points in the stalled negotiations for months. The Democrats were willing to stick with the former level of $1,200 without upping it to the level that Trump is asking for. (Although Nancy Pelosi was quick to jump on Trump’s side for a moment and endorse the idea of $2,000 checks.) That would be an awfully large chunk of crow for them to swallow at this point.
I don’t know if Trump would actually go through with a veto, however. He tends to say what he means and if he was considering vetoing the bill, it seems like he would have said it last night. He also knows that he could be staring at two overrides in his final weeks in office if he does it. That’s not a good look in the final days of an administration, but McConnell is clearly playing his own agenda at this point and probably isn’t terribly worried about drawing Trump’s wrath for the final few weeks.