hotair--2020-12-28--Source claims Sen. Schumer 'pessimistic' about Ossoff and Warnock's chances

The Georgia special elections are a week from tomorrow and officially Democrats are enthusiastic about the chances for Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock to win their elections and hand Democrats control of the Senate .
But according to NBC News , Democrat are struggling with fundraising for the two races and behind the scenes Sen. Schumer is pessimistic about the Democrats ’ chances : Outside Democrat groups and high-dollar donors spent big to try and help Democrats regain control of the Senate in the last election — pouring in hundreds of millions of dollars in the weeks leading up to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ party performed poorly in down-ballot races , Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer , D-N.Y. , is no longer meeting with donors , a source familiar with the matter told NBC News .
Schumer is “ pessimistic ” about Warnock and Ossoff ’ s chances in Georgia next week and doesn ’ t want to ruin donor relationships , the source adds .
“ This is absolutely not true and this anonymous ‘ source ’ has no idea what they ’ re talking about , and it ’ s really sad NBC published it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fundraised for both Georgia candidates and is optimistic about their chances in January , ” said Justin Goodman , a spokesperson for Schumer .
Give the strong pushback from Schumer ’ s office , NBC News must have had a lot of confidence in the source to publish this anyway .
So with the outside money spigot turned off ( or at least turned down ) Ossoff and Warnock are warning they need more donations .
There ’ s no doubt about that part of the story because NBC News got hold of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from both camps which stated , “ To win this election in 8 days , we need to continue our historic efforts to turn out every single voter — but we won ’ t be able to do that if our fundraising revenue continues to fall.
” Both Warnock and Ossoff have raised big money , significantly more than their GOP rivals .
Here are the totals published by Politico this morning : Ossoff led the pack in fundraising , raking in $ 106.8 million from Oct. 15 through Dec. 16 .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time period .
( Here ’ s Ossoff ’ s filing . )
Warnock , who is running in the special election , followed him at $ 103.4 million and spent $ 86.1 million ( Warnock ’ s filing ) .
The Republicans were massively outraised by their Democratic challengers : Sen. David Perdue brought in $ 68.1 million , spending $ 57.9 million ( Perdue ’ s filing ) and appointed Sen. Kelly Loeffler raised $ 64 million , with almost none of that coming from self-funding , with $ 48.6 million @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which was submitted on Wednesday ) .
Despite this glut of money , both campaigns are now crying poverty .
According to Sen. Chris Murphy , he got a call saying the campaigns yesterday saying they need $ 5 million for the final get-out-the-vote effort .
Crooked Media ’ s Jon Favreau is also saying the two campaigns need money to stay on TV in the last week : Overall it sounds like the Democrats are worried about their chances which is good news for those of us who would like to @ @ @ @ @ @ @

The Georgia special elections are a week from tomorrow and officially Democrats are enthusiastic about the chances for Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock to win their elections and hand Democrats control of the Senate. But according to NBC News, Democrat are struggling with fundraising for the two races and behind the scenes Sen. Schumer is pessimistic about the Democrats’ chances:
Outside Democrat groups and high-dollar donors spent big to try and help Democrats regain control of the Senate in the last election — pouring in hundreds of millions of dollars in the weeks leading up to November 3rd. Now, after the party performed poorly in down-ballot races, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., is no longer meeting with donors, a source familiar with the matter told NBC News. Schumer is “pessimistic” about Warnock and Ossoff’s chances in Georgia next week and doesn’t want to ruin donor relationships, the source adds. “This is absolutely not true and this anonymous ‘source’ has no idea what they’re talking about, and it’s really sad NBC published it. Schumer has diligently made calls and fundraised for both Georgia candidates and is optimistic about their chances in January,” said Justin Goodman, a spokesperson for Schumer.
Give the strong pushback from Schumer’s office, NBC News must have had a lot of confidence in the source to publish this anyway.
So with the outside money spigot turned off (or at least turned down) Ossoff and Warnock are warning they need more donations. There’s no doubt about that part of the story because NBC News got hold of a memo written by the campaign managers from both camps which stated, “To win this election in 8 days, we need to continue our historic efforts to turn out every single voter — but we won’t be able to do that if our fundraising revenue continues to fall.”
Both Warnock and Ossoff have raised big money, significantly more than their GOP rivals. Here are the totals published by Politico this morning:
Ossoff led the pack in fundraising, raking in $106.8 million from Oct. 15 through Dec. 16. He spent $93.5 million in that same time period. (Here’s Ossoff’s filing.) Warnock, who is running in the special election, followed him at $103.4 million and spent $86.1 million (Warnock’s filing). The Republicans were massively outraised by their Democratic challengers: Sen. David Perdue brought in $68.1 million, spending $57.9 million (Perdue’s filing) and appointed Sen. Kelly Loeffler raised $64 million, with almost none of that coming from self-funding, with $48.6 million in expenditures (Loeffler’s filing, which was submitted on Wednesday).
Despite this glut of money, both campaigns are now crying poverty. According to Sen. Chris Murphy, he got a call saying the campaigns yesterday saying they need $5 million for the final get-out-the-vote effort.
Hey @brianschatz and @CoryBooker – got a call from the Ossoff/Warnock campaigns yesterday. They are about $5 million short on meeting their final week GOTV budget. Can we do one last, final final 2020 fundraising drive tomorrow? — Chris Murphy (@ChrisMurphyCT) December 28, 2020
Crooked Media’s Jon Favreau is also saying the two campaigns need money to stay on TV in the last week:
Yes, Ossoff and Warnock have raised a lot. But the GOP dark money is pouring in this last week, just like it did right before the general, and we need to make sure these guys can stay on TV everywhere in Georgia for the final days. Chip in if you can: https://t.co/bUL4mo56zd — Jon Favreau (@jonfavs) December 28, 2020
Overall it sounds like the Democrats are worried about their chances which is good news for those of us who would like to see both Warnock and Ossoff lose.


hotair--2020-12-28--Hilaria Baldwin posts a video response to critics of her life story - Alec responds, too

This is a weird story by all accounts .
Actor Alec Baldwin ’ s wife , Hilaria , is in the spotlight with a clarification about her personal background .
Her alleged identification as Spanish is being called into question .
As with many controversial stories , this one began with a tweet .
Let me begin by saying I had no idea this story was a thing until this morning .
I don ’ t pay much attention to Alec Baldwin or his family unless I ’ m covering a television show in which he ’ s performing because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well .
The only thing I ’ ve read about his wife is that she ’ s much younger , a yoga instructor and Instagram influencer , and she is a mother of five very young children .
By coincidence , yesterday I remember looking at a cute family Christmas photo of them on social media and noting that all five children have Spanish names , which I thought was odd .
But , whatever .
Today it makes sense .
Hilaria identifies as a Spanish and American person .
After reading several @ @ @ @ @ @ @ beginning with the one by the Daily Beast , it looks like Hilaria was born Hillary Hayward-Thomas in Boston .
She attended the private Cambridge School of Weston , in Massachusetts and her senior yearbook lists her with that name .
However , as she pursued a professional career , her life story changed , at least on paper .
Hilaria Baldwin ’ s CAA speaker page claims that she was born in Mallorca , Spain , as does her IMDb bio and Wikipedia page .
She said on a podcast earlier this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to America ] when I was 19 to go to NYU from… my family lives in Spain , they live in Mallorca , ” adding , “ I knew no pop culture.
” She has graced the cover of Hola !
magazine , a Spanish-language publication based out of Madrid , where she was identified as a Spanish person in both the interview and its press release .
Alec Baldwin has repeatedly referred to her as “ Spanish ” online .
And she ’ s made a number of appearances in Latina magazine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( Spain is not a part of Latin America , by the way ) , and has referred to Spain as her “ home.
” If that weren ’ t enough , her five young children with Baldwin all have Spanish names .
A Nexis search disclosed that her New York voter registration is under both the names “ Hilaria L. Baldwin ” and “ Hillary Hayward-Thomas.
” An article in Vanity Fair tells a similar story .
She ’ s an American .
However , in response to the viral tweet calling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ number of people claiming to be Hilaria ’ s former high school classmates came forward to clarify that her name is , in fact , Hillary Hayword-Thomas , she grew up in Massachusetts , and while she ’ s a very nice girl , she is not Spanish .
Hilaria told the podcast “ Motherhood , Marriage & Miscarriages ” in April that she moved to New York from Spain when she was 19 to attend NYU .
However , she is also listed as a notable alumnus on the Wikipedia page for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Massachusetts .
Both her parents , Dr. Kathryn Hayword and David Thomas , do currently reside in Mallorca after moving there in 2011 .
One Twitter user , who describes herself as a professional genealogist , claimed that after doing a “ quick and dirty tree ” of Baldwin ’ s maternal ancestry , she “ found English , Irish , French Canadian , German , and Slovak .
Some deep New England roots .
No Spain in sight.
” The obituary for Hilaria ’ s paternal grandfather , David Thomas Sr. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presence in that part of Vermont pre-dated the American Revolution.
” Her parents both worked in the Boston area their entire professional careers .
Her mother practiced medicine in Massachusetts .
She served as “ an associate physician at Massachusetts General Hospital and assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School ” .
Then they retired to Spain .
Clearly , there is a family connection to Spain .
Maybe Hilaria did spend a lot of time there growing up .
Families travel .
Her American classmates , though , say she didn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t Spanish .
If Hilaria was “ grifting ” on her alleged Spanish heritage , as the Twitter user describes it , for ten years , why haven ’ t any of her former friends and classmates in Boston spoken up until now ?
Surely they kept an eye on what she was up to , especially after she married Alec Baldwin .
The Twitter user claimed Hilaria perpetrated “ a decade long grift where she impersonates a Spanish person.
” So , Alec Baldwin posted an eight-minute-long video on Instagram .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ media outlets like Facebook and Twitter and Instagram .
He mentioned he likes Instagram , which I ’ m sure he does , given his wife makes money as an influencer .
He describes Facebook , which owns Instagram , as a dark and bad operation , though .
He said he defends those he loves but didn ’ t actually name his wife .
His message was that when something is on social media , it is imperative to consider the source .
He called out TMZ and the New York Post @ @ @ @ @ @ @ treatment plants ” , so there ’ s that .
Hilaria posted her own video on Instagram and it ’ s a plea to her followers to show she ’ s being transparent about her life story .
She says she a white girl from Boston .
She explains changing her name and being of two cultures .
On Sunday , Hilaria addressed the speculation over her ancestry on Instagram , posting a video in which she explains , “ I spent some of my childhood in Boston , some of my childhood @ @ @ @ @ @ @ brother , my parents , my nephew , everybody is over there in Spain now , I ’ m here.
” She added that she grew up speaking both English and Spanish in the home and her changing accent is because “ I am that person , if I ’ ve been speaking a lot of Spanish , I tend to mix them or if I ’ m speaking a lot of English , I mix that , it ’ s one of those things I ’ ve always been a bit insecure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ When I was growing up , in this country I would use the name Hillary , and in Spain I would use Hilaria and my family , my parents , call me Hilaria , ” she says .
After meeting her husband , she decided to “ consolidate ” things under the name Hilaria .
“ Yes I am a white girl , my family is white…Europe has a lot of white people in them .
Ethnically I am a mix of many , many things.
” She added , “ I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ authentic and then if people say I ’ m not being authentic , it hurts my feelings…I don ’ t really understand why it ’ s turning into such a big thing…I ’ m getting attacked for being who I am…people wanting to label me Spanish or America , can ’ t it be both ?
It ’ s frustrating that is my story.
” It ’ s hard to understand what she is really doing .
Is it cultural appropriation like the Rachel Dolezal story that the woke left rails against ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ up a life story that may seem more interesting than being a white girl from Boston ?
It is not at all unusual for social media influencers to present themselves and their lives as perfect .
It looks like Alec goes along with her story .
He ’ s an actor who works in an imaginary world so he obviously doesn ’ t mind playing along and even defending her publicly .
Maybe she really thinks she ’ s Spanish now , having presented a Spanish background for so long .
What a @ @

This is a weird story by all accounts. Actor Alec Baldwin’s wife, Hilaria, is in the spotlight with a clarification about her personal background. Her alleged identification as Spanish is being called into question.
As with many controversial stories, this one began with a tweet.
The user, who goes by the handle @lenibriscoe, shared a number of damning videos of “Hilaria,” from a Good Morning America appearance where she employed a Spanish accent to a Today show stop in which she supposedly could not remember the English word for “cucumber.”
Let me begin by saying I had no idea this story was a thing until this morning. I don’t pay much attention to Alec Baldwin or his family unless I’m covering a television show in which he’s performing because he usually doesn’t come off well. The only thing I’ve read about his wife is that she’s much younger, a yoga instructor and Instagram influencer, and she is a mother of five very young children. By coincidence, yesterday I remember looking at a cute family Christmas photo of them on social media and noting that all five children have Spanish names, which I thought was odd. But, whatever. Today it makes sense. Hilaria identifies as a Spanish and American person.
After reading several articles about Hilaria and her story, beginning with the one by the Daily Beast, it looks like Hilaria was born Hillary Hayward-Thomas in Boston. She attended the private Cambridge School of Weston, in Massachusetts and her senior yearbook lists her with that name. However, as she pursued a professional career, her life story changed, at least on paper.
Hilaria Baldwin’s CAA speaker page claims that she was born in Mallorca, Spain, as does her IMDb bio and Wikipedia page. She said on a podcast earlier this year: “I moved here [to America] when I was 19 to go to NYU from… my family lives in Spain, they live in Mallorca,” adding, “I knew no pop culture.” She has graced the cover of Hola! magazine, a Spanish-language publication based out of Madrid, where she was identified as a Spanish person in both the interview and its press release. Alec Baldwin has repeatedly referred to her as “Spanish” online. And she’s made a number of appearances in Latina magazine, which she’s enthusiastically promoted (Spain is not a part of Latin America, by the way), and has referred to Spain as her “home.” If that weren’t enough, her five young children with Baldwin all have Spanish names. A Nexis search disclosed that her New York voter registration is under both the names “Hilaria L. Baldwin” and “Hillary Hayward-Thomas.”
An article in Vanity Fair tells a similar story. She’s an American.
However, in response to the viral tweet calling her Spanish ancestry into questions, a number of people claiming to be Hilaria’s former high school classmates came forward to clarify that her name is, in fact, Hillary Hayword-Thomas, she grew up in Massachusetts, and while she’s a very nice girl, she is not Spanish. Hilaria told the podcast “Motherhood, Marriage & Miscarriages” in April that she moved to New York from Spain when she was 19 to attend NYU. However, she is also listed as a notable alumnus on the Wikipedia page for the Cambridge School of Weston in Weston, Massachusetts. Both her parents, Dr. Kathryn Hayword and David Thomas, do currently reside in Mallorca after moving there in 2011. One Twitter user, who describes herself as a professional genealogist, claimed that after doing a “quick and dirty tree” of Baldwin’s maternal ancestry, she “found English, Irish, French Canadian, German, and Slovak. Some deep New England roots. No Spain in sight.” The obituary for Hilaria’s paternal grandfather, David Thomas Sr., also states that his “family presence in that part of Vermont pre-dated the American Revolution.”
Her parents both worked in the Boston area their entire professional careers. Her mother practiced medicine in Massachusetts. She served as “an associate physician at Massachusetts General Hospital and assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School”. Then they retired to Spain. Clearly, there is a family connection to Spain. Maybe Hilaria did spend a lot of time there growing up. Families travel. Her American classmates, though, say she didn’t have an accent and wasn’t Spanish. If Hilaria was “grifting” on her alleged Spanish heritage, as the Twitter user describes it, for ten years, why haven’t any of her former friends and classmates in Boston spoken up until now? Surely they kept an eye on what she was up to, especially after she married Alec Baldwin. The Twitter user claimed Hilaria perpetrated “a decade long grift where she impersonates a Spanish person.”
You have to admire Hilaria Baldwin’s commitment to her decade long grift where she impersonates a Spanish person — elena ilana alana alina elana (@lenibriscoe) December 21, 2020
So, Alec Baldwin posted an eight-minute-long video on Instagram. It was a long ramble about social media outlets like Facebook and Twitter and Instagram. He mentioned he likes Instagram, which I’m sure he does, given his wife makes money as an influencer. He describes Facebook, which owns Instagram, as a dark and bad operation, though. He said he defends those he loves but didn’t actually name his wife. His message was that when something is on social media, it is imperative to consider the source. He called out TMZ and the New York Post, specifically, as “giant sewage treatment plants”, so there’s that.
Hilaria posted her own video on Instagram and it’s a plea to her followers to show she’s being transparent about her life story. She says she a white girl from Boston. She explains changing her name and being of two cultures.
On Sunday, Hilaria addressed the speculation over her ancestry on Instagram, posting a video in which she explains, “I spent some of my childhood in Boston, some of my childhood in Spain, my family, my brother, my parents, my nephew, everybody is over there in Spain now, I’m here.” She added that she grew up speaking both English and Spanish in the home and her changing accent is because “I am that person, if I’ve been speaking a lot of Spanish, I tend to mix them or if I’m speaking a lot of English, I mix that, it’s one of those things I’ve always been a bit insecure about.” As for her name, “When I was growing up, in this country I would use the name Hillary, and in Spain I would use Hilaria and my family, my parents, call me Hilaria,” she says. After meeting her husband, she decided to “consolidate” things under the name Hilaria. “Yes I am a white girl, my family is white…Europe has a lot of white people in them. Ethnically I am a mix of many, many things.” She added, “I care because my thing is about being authentic and then if people say I’m not being authentic, it hurts my feelings…I don’t really understand why it’s turning into such a big thing…I’m getting attacked for being who I am…people wanting to label me Spanish or America, can’t it be both? It’s frustrating that is my story.”
It’s hard to understand what she is really doing. Is it cultural appropriation like the Rachel Dolezal story that the woke left rails against? Is it a social media influencer making up a life story that may seem more interesting than being a white girl from Boston? It is not at all unusual for social media influencers to present themselves and their lives as perfect. It looks like Alec goes along with her story. He’s an actor who works in an imaginary world so he obviously doesn’t mind playing along and even defending her publicly. Maybe she really thinks she’s Spanish now, having presented a Spanish background for so long. What a mess.


hotair--2020-12-28--Fauci: I didn't really mislead people about herd immunity

Marco Rubio ’ s getting beat up for the tweet below , which I half-understand because beating up on Rubio is one of the great pleasures of political commentary .
It ’ s one of the few things lefties , MAGA , and Never Trumpers have in common .
But he ’ s not wrong here .
I think people are annoyed at him because it ’ s obviously another heavy-handed attempt by Rubio to refashion himself as a populist , which he *sort of* is ( on economic policy , at least ) but not in the ways that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s going to take more than some light Fauci-bashing to steer hardcore Trumpers away from thinking about primarying him in 2022 .
Some people got on him for that because it was only a few days ago that Rubio , who ’ s not yet 50 years old , cut to the front of the line to get the COVID vaccine as a privileged member of Congress .
Now here he was criticizing Fauci for deceiving the public .
How dare he ?
But those two things aren ’ t contradictory .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and hasn ’ t said anything critical about Fauci ’ s comments on vaccinations .
Liberals took offense anyway because , I guess , they consider Fauci the de facto pope of the COVID response and it seemed ungracious of Marco to criticize his holiness so soon after receiving the sacrament from Pfizer .
As I say , Rubio was correct on the merits .
Fauci *has* misled the public at least twice since the pandemic began for “ virtuous ” reasons , first with masks and more recently on what percentage will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to stop the spread of the virus .
The impetus for both lies appears to have been his belief that Americans can ’ t consume information responsibly anymore and therefore need to be manipulated for their own good .
Which is 50 percent true , in fairness .
Americans don ’ t consume information responsibly .
But part of the reason is that they no longer trust authority figures , and will be even less apt to trust them once they discover that the lead expert in an unprecedented public health catastrophe has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a desired outcome .
Fauci was asked about this yesterday on CNN and tried to spin it by saying that the lie ( we need 60-70 percent vaccinated for herd immunity ) and the truth ( it ’ s more like 85 percent ) aren ’ t that far apart and are all based on guesstimates anyway , so what ’ s the big deal ?
But when Dana Bash pressed him , he admitted that public opinion polling also shapes his message a “ bit.
” Which it should not .
Watch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one can say in his defense is that political leadership on COVID has been so relentlessly terrible , from Trump to the Cuomo catastrophe in New York to hypocrisy by the likes of Gavin Newsom , that he felt obliged to try to fill that vacuum himself .
Instead of telling people frankly from the start that we ’ d need 85 percent immunity and leave it to politicians to rally the public towards that goal , he may have decided that claiming the threshold was 60 percent might be more likely to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if so , that was a terrible decision .
It doesn ’ t just damage his credibility when he cops to shading the truth .
It confirms the public ’ s suspicions that they ’ re never getting the straight dope from “ neutral ” scientific bureaucrats , which encourages suspicion about the vaccine , masks , and all the rest of it .
I find myself wondering now if Fauci ’ s also been shading the truth about when the general public can expect to have access to the vaccine .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I said March-April , February-March , it ’ s going to be a close call on that , ” he told the “ Today ” show 10 days ago .
But watch Brett Giroir , Trump ’ s testing czar , when he was asked the same question yesterday in the clip below .
Big difference between March and June .
*Maybe* Giroir means that any American who wants the shot will have already received it by June whereas Fauci simply means that the vaccine will initially become available to everyone by March @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say .
Maybe Fauci ’ s been pushing an unrealistic timeline on vaccine distribution to encourage the public to be patient .
Why would we assume that he isn ’ t at this point ?

Marco Rubio’s getting beat up for the tweet below, which I half-understand because beating up on Rubio is one of the great pleasures of political commentary. It’s one of the few things lefties, MAGA, and Never Trumpers have in common.
But he’s not wrong here.
I think people are annoyed at him because it’s obviously another heavy-handed attempt by Rubio to refashion himself as a populist, which he *sort of* is (on economic policy, at least) but not in the ways that define right-wing populism in 2020. It’s going to take more than some light Fauci-bashing to steer hardcore Trumpers away from thinking about primarying him in 2022.
Dr. Fauci lied about masks in March Dr. Fauci has been distorting the level of vaccination needed for herd immunity It isn’t just him Many in elite bubbles believe the American public doesn’t know “what’s good for them” so they need to be tricked into “doing the right thing” — Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) December 27, 2020
Some people got on him for that because it was only a few days ago that Rubio, who’s not yet 50 years old, cut to the front of the line to get the COVID vaccine as a privileged member of Congress. Now here he was criticizing Fauci for deceiving the public. How dare he?
But those two things aren’t contradictory. Rubio’s not a vaccine skeptic and hasn’t said anything critical about Fauci’s comments on vaccinations. Liberals took offense anyway because, I guess, they consider Fauci the de facto pope of the COVID response and it seemed ungracious of Marco to criticize his holiness so soon after receiving the sacrament from Pfizer.
As I say, Rubio was correct on the merits. Fauci *has* misled the public at least twice since the pandemic began for “virtuous” reasons, first with masks and more recently on what percentage will need to be vaccinated for herd immunity to stop the spread of the virus. The impetus for both lies appears to have been his belief that Americans can’t consume information responsibly anymore and therefore need to be manipulated for their own good.
Which is 50 percent true, in fairness. Americans don’t consume information responsibly. But part of the reason is that they no longer trust authority figures, and will be even less apt to trust them once they discover that the lead expert in an unprecedented public health catastrophe has deceived them more than once to achieve a desired outcome.
Fauci was asked about this yesterday on CNN and tried to spin it by saying that the lie (we need 60-70 percent vaccinated for herd immunity) and the truth (it’s more like 85 percent) aren’t that far apart and are all based on guesstimates anyway, so what’s the big deal? But when Dana Bash pressed him, he admitted that public opinion polling also shapes his message a “bit.” Which it should not. Watch, then read on.
"It's a bit of that": Fauci admits polling affected his comments on herd immunity; "I want to encourage the people of the United States & globally to get vaccinated … The bottom line is it’s a guesstimate and I gave a range." pic.twitter.com/YplDxRyKhz — Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) December 27, 2020
The most one can say in his defense is that political leadership on COVID has been so relentlessly terrible, from Trump to the Cuomo catastrophe in New York to hypocrisy by the likes of Gavin Newsom, that he felt obliged to try to fill that vacuum himself. Instead of telling people frankly from the start that we’d need 85 percent immunity and leave it to politicians to rally the public towards that goal, he may have decided that claiming the threshold was 60 percent might be more likely to steel everyone’s resolve.
But if so, that was a terrible decision. It doesn’t just damage his credibility when he cops to shading the truth. It confirms the public’s suspicions that they’re never getting the straight dope from “neutral” scientific bureaucrats, which encourages suspicion about the vaccine, masks, and all the rest of it.
I find myself wondering now if Fauci’s also been shading the truth about when the general public can expect to have access to the vaccine. “That likely will be somewhere March-ish. I said March-April, February-March, it’s going to be a close call on that,” he told the “Today” show 10 days ago. But watch Brett Giroir, Trump’s testing czar, when he was asked the same question yesterday in the clip below. Big difference between March and June. *Maybe* Giroir means that any American who wants the shot will have already received it by June whereas Fauci simply means that the vaccine will initially become available to everyone by March, but it’s hard to say. Maybe Fauci’s been pushing an unrealistic timeline on vaccine distribution to encourage the public to be patient. Why would we assume that he isn’t at this point?


hotair--2020-12-28--Black market vaccine prosecutions are already a thing

Well , perhaps not “ prosecutions ” technically , but certainly investigations that might lead in that direction .
The New York Post recently began looking into ParCare , a healthcare company with clinics in several New York City neighborhoods .
They had been promoting the availability of the new Moderna COVID vaccine at their clinics and inviting people to sign up to get one .
The problem was that ParCare wasn ’ t on the list of caregivers slated to receive the vaccines and they didn ’ t seem to be following the guidelines for who was to receive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ describing these proceedings as a “ criminal investigation ” at this point , but that may prove to be rather complicated if things move toward an actual prosecution .
A health-care network with clinics in Boro Park , Bensonhurst and Williamsburg is under a criminal investigation for giving unauthorized COVID-19 vaccines , officials said Saturday .
ParCare Community Health Network “ may have fraudulently obtained COVID-19 vaccine , transferred it to facilities in other parts of the state in violation of state guidelines and diverted it to members of the public , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a news release .
The statement came hours after The Post questioned a state health department spokesman about ParCare giving the coveted inoculations .
ParCare obviously wasn ’ t trying to hide the fact that they had the vaccine and were making it available .
In fact , they were broadcasting the news on Twitter .
The two questions currently being asked ( without much in the way of definitive answers ) are how ParCare got their hands on the vaccine doses and who they were allowing to receive them .
As to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t seem to be any suggestion that the vaccines were stolen or somehow bootlegged .
Is it really such a stretch of the imagination to think that ParCare simply submitted an order to Moderna and the company processed the order ?
Everyone is trying to move at “ warp speed ” to get these doses out all over the country .
It doesn ’ t seem unlikely that Moderna would have seen an order from a known healthcare network and simply assumed that they were eligible to begin inoculating people .
I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be framed as some sort of crime in a court of law unless it can be shown that ParCare knew they were ineligible and engaged in some sort of fraud by placing the order .
But even then , can Moderna refuse a valid order from a licensed healthcare network ?
And if so , under what law would this be covered ?
Then there ’ s the question of violating the rules about who was to receive the vaccinations first .
They were all supposed to be going to frontline healthcare workers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when ParCare was promoting their ability to vaccinate people on social media , they said applicants would need to be “ a healthcare worker , are over 60 , or have underlying conditions.
” Adding in eligibility for everyone over 60 and with unspecified “ underlying conditions ” obviously goes far beyond the state guidelines .
But yet again , has ParCare broken any laws ?
As far as I can tell , the New York State legislature never passed a law about vaccine distribution orders and even the Governor ’ s executive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
All everyone seems to be going by are the guidelines handed down from the CDC and the state Health Department .
Can someone be prosecuted for not following a “ guideline ?
” The other point of contention is that the vaccine is supposed to be “ free ” for everyone .
( Well , Congress just loaded up more taxpayer dollars to pay for the doses , so you ’ re paying for it anyway , but you know how the swamp-dwellers love to talk about “ free ” stuff .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ their insurance information , suggesting that they would be billing people and/or their insurance companies for the injections .
They clearly seem to be coloring outside the lines in terms of stated government policy on that point , but the same question remains .
Just because Congress appropriated money to cover the cost of the vaccines , was there any law passed making it illegal for healthcare clinics to charge patients anyway ?
Not that I can tell .
So if you ’ re the prosecutor in this case , what are you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ penalty will they face if they are found guilty ?
It seems to me that there is no basis in law to go after them .
It feels as if the government ( at both the state and federal levels ) and the pharmaceutical industry just made some pronouncements about the best way to handle this and they simply expected everyone to go along with the plan .
ParCare either didn ’ t understand the plan or flaunted it .
But that ’ s not the same as violating the law .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ facing yet another situation where executive power during a declared state of emergency is potentially being expanded far too broadly and in a rushed fashion .

Well, perhaps not “prosecutions” technically, but certainly investigations that might lead in that direction. The New York Post recently began looking into ParCare, a healthcare company with clinics in several New York City neighborhoods. They had been promoting the availability of the new Moderna COVID vaccine at their clinics and inviting people to sign up to get one. The problem was that ParCare wasn’t on the list of caregivers slated to receive the vaccines and they didn’t seem to be following the guidelines for who was to receive the vaccinations first. The media is describing these proceedings as a “criminal investigation” at this point, but that may prove to be rather complicated if things move toward an actual prosecution.
A health-care network with clinics in Boro Park, Bensonhurst and Williamsburg is under a criminal investigation for giving unauthorized COVID-19 vaccines, officials said Saturday. ParCare Community Health Network “may have fraudulently obtained COVID-19 vaccine, transferred it to facilities in other parts of the state in violation of state guidelines and diverted it to members of the public,” state Health Commissioner Howard Zucker said in a news release. The statement came hours after The Post questioned a state health department spokesman about ParCare giving the coveted inoculations.
ParCare obviously wasn’t trying to hide the fact that they had the vaccine and were making it available. In fact, they were broadcasting the news on Twitter.
ONE SMALL INJECTION CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE FOR THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY! our @ParCare Centers received thousands of #COVID19 #Moderna #vaccines this morning. Thanks to @UPS and our dedicated staff who woke up early to receive this lifesaving shipment #healthcareheroes pic.twitter.com/LVq0TKROKf — ParCare Medical Cntr (@ParCare) December 21, 2020
The two questions currently being asked (without much in the way of definitive answers) are how ParCare got their hands on the vaccine doses and who they were allowing to receive them. As to the first issue, there doesn’t seem to be any suggestion that the vaccines were stolen or somehow bootlegged. Is it really such a stretch of the imagination to think that ParCare simply submitted an order to Moderna and the company processed the order? Everyone is trying to move at “warp speed” to get these doses out all over the country. It doesn’t seem unlikely that Moderna would have seen an order from a known healthcare network and simply assumed that they were eligible to begin inoculating people.
I’m having trouble seeing how that could be framed as some sort of crime in a court of law unless it can be shown that ParCare knew they were ineligible and engaged in some sort of fraud by placing the order. But even then, can Moderna refuse a valid order from a licensed healthcare network? And if so, under what law would this be covered?
Then there’s the question of violating the rules about who was to receive the vaccinations first. They were all supposed to be going to frontline healthcare workers and/or people in nursing homes. But when ParCare was promoting their ability to vaccinate people on social media, they said applicants would need to be “a healthcare worker, are over 60, or have underlying conditions.” Adding in eligibility for everyone over 60 and with unspecified “underlying conditions” obviously goes far beyond the state guidelines.
But yet again, has ParCare broken any laws? As far as I can tell, the New York State legislature never passed a law about vaccine distribution orders and even the Governor’s executive orders are rather vague on the subject. All everyone seems to be going by are the guidelines handed down from the CDC and the state Health Department. Can someone be prosecuted for not following a “guideline?”
The other point of contention is that the vaccine is supposed to be “free” for everyone. (Well, Congress just loaded up more taxpayer dollars to pay for the doses, so you’re paying for it anyway, but you know how the swamp-dwellers love to talk about “free” stuff.) But ParCare was asking patients for their insurance information, suggesting that they would be billing people and/or their insurance companies for the injections. They clearly seem to be coloring outside the lines in terms of stated government policy on that point, but the same question remains. Just because Congress appropriated money to cover the cost of the vaccines, was there any law passed making it illegal for healthcare clinics to charge patients anyway? Not that I can tell. So if you’re the prosecutor in this case, what are you going to charge ParCare with and what penalty will they face if they are found guilty?
It seems to me that there is no basis in law to go after them. It feels as if the government (at both the state and federal levels) and the pharmaceutical industry just made some pronouncements about the best way to handle this and they simply expected everyone to go along with the plan. ParCare either didn’t understand the plan or flaunted it. But that’s not the same as violating the law. It’s sounding like we’re facing yet another situation where executive power during a declared state of emergency is potentially being expanded far too broadly and in a rushed fashion.


hotair--2020-12-28--"Real messed up": Former Warnock camper details abuse, neglect

Democrats in Georgia have eight days left to regret their lack of vetting that produced runoff Senate nominee Raphael Warnock .
When challenged earlier on his arrest in a Maryland child-abuse case , Warnock insisted that he had only intervened in the police investigation to protect the rights of his camp ’ s employees and attendees .
Now , however , former camper Anthony Washington tells the Washington Free Beacon about the abuse and neglect at Camp Farthest Out that led to a financial settlement with his family — including having urine thrown at him and being locked out of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ camp was his first extended trip away from his parents as a child , and his first time in such a rural environment .
His mother sent the two children because they had recently moved from California to Baltimore and she hoped they would make friends in the area , according to Washington .
Counselors were young , in their late teens or early 20s , and showed little interest in taking care of the campers , Washington said .
As a punishment for wetting his bed , he said a counselor forced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outside by himself on the basketball court .
“ I ’ m like , ‘ Hell no I ’ m not , it ’ s cold out there , ’ ” he said .
“ [ The counselors ] wouldn ’ t let me in the house , not at all .
… Shut the door to the cabin , locked it , ” he said .
“ It was dark .
There wasn ’ t nothing out there but the basketball court .
I ain ’ t never experienced nothing like that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a tent , you ’ re not in nothing .
You ’ re just out , God knows where.
” Counselors also threw urine on him from a bucket they used when there wasn ’ t a bathroom nearby , he added .
“ I went through that experience myself .
I don ’ t even like talking about this shit .
That shit happened .
… It was like in a bucket .
They would keep that shit in a bucket , ” he said .
WFB reporter Alana Goodman got @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dominique ( who also attended the camp that same time ) , another source linked to the family , as well as court records of the lawsuit brought by Washington ’ s mother against Camp Farthest Out .
No one would speak on the record about the nature of the 2005 settlement , but it was apparently substantial .
Washington told Goodman that he could only speak to his own abuse , but added that he saw counselors “ grab kids ” at times .
Moreover , the neglect also appears in government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inspection report from the Maryland Department of Health that notes a long list of violations at the camp .
It notes that “ staff are not supervising campers , ” which inspectors saw for themselves and got confirmation from “ medical staff & pool staff ” that this is “ routine among the counselors.
” The camp had failed to get a permit from the state fire marshal — a failure that would have closed down any other business — nor approvals for its plumbing and electrical systems .
The inspection report prompted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chief of the Department of Health ’ s division of community services for an “ informal conference ” to discuss the “ repeat ” and “ numerous ” violations .
That notice got cc ’ d to the “ Reverend Mark Andre Wainwright ” and “ Reverend Raphael Gamaliel Warnock , ” the two ministers who got arrested for obstruction when police attempted to interview counselors and campers three months earlier .
It appears that police responded immediately after the July 31 , 2002 inspection report , which is when Warnock and Wainwright @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ministers interrupted a police interview of a counselor Wednesday in a room at the camp and , after investigators moved the interview to a nearby picnic area , interfered again and subsequently tried to prevent a camper from directing police to another potential witness , according to charging documents .
“ I ’ ve never encountered resistance like that at all , ” said Trooper Diane Barry of the state police Child and Sexual Assault Unit in Westminster .
Barry said the counselors consented to the interviews after being told they were free @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not obligated to answer her questions .
When this first came to light , Warnock claimed he was only concerned about protecting the rights of the campers and counselors .
This looks much more like Warnock ’ s concern was for his own potential legal issues , perhaps especially given the abuse allegations from Washington family .
Just how aware was Warnock of those abusive practices , anyway ?
Democrats didn ’ t put much effort into vetting Warnock ’ s past .
As for Warnock ’ s future , Anthony Washington has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats can at some point answer why Warnock got in position to compete for the seat in the first place .
Georgia Democrats shouldn ’ t take all of the blame over this lack of vetting .
When will the Atlanta Journal-Constitution finally start digging into Warnock ?
Over/under : nine days , and take the over .

Democrats in Georgia have eight days left to regret their lack of vetting that produced runoff Senate nominee Raphael Warnock. When challenged earlier on his arrest in a Maryland child-abuse case, Warnock insisted that he had only intervened in the police investigation to protect the rights of his camp’s employees and attendees.
Now, however, former camper Anthony Washington tells the Washington Free Beacon about the abuse and neglect at Camp Farthest Out that led to a financial settlement with his family — including having urine thrown at him and being locked out of the cabin overnight:
Washington said the camp was his first extended trip away from his parents as a child, and his first time in such a rural environment. His mother sent the two children because they had recently moved from California to Baltimore and she hoped they would make friends in the area, according to Washington. Counselors were young, in their late teens or early 20s, and showed little interest in taking care of the campers, Washington said. As a punishment for wetting his bed, he said a counselor forced him to spend the next night sleeping outside by himself on the basketball court. “I’m like, ‘Hell no I’m not, it’s cold out there,’” he said. “[The counselors] wouldn’t let me in the house, not at all. … Shut the door to the cabin, locked it,” he said. “It was dark. There wasn’t nothing out there but the basketball court. I ain’t never experienced nothing like that. Like, you’re not in a tent, you’re not in nothing. You’re just out, God knows where.” Counselors also threw urine on him from a bucket they used when there wasn’t a bathroom nearby, he added. “I went through that experience myself. I don’t even like talking about this shit. That shit happened. … It was like in a bucket. They would keep that shit in a bucket,” he said.
WFB reporter Alana Goodman got corroborating information from Washington’s sister Dominique (who also attended the camp that same time), another source linked to the family, as well as court records of the lawsuit brought by Washington’s mother against Camp Farthest Out. No one would speak on the record about the nature of the 2005 settlement, but it was apparently substantial. Washington told Goodman that he could only speak to his own abuse, but added that he saw counselors “grab kids” at times.
Moreover, the neglect also appears in government records. Goodman links to a 2002 inspection report from the Maryland Department of Health that notes a long list of violations at the camp. It notes that “staff are not supervising campers,” which inspectors saw for themselves and got confirmation from “medical staff & pool staff” that this is “routine among the counselors.” The camp had failed to get a permit from the state fire marshal — a failure that would have closed down any other business — nor approvals for its plumbing and electrical systems.
The inspection report prompted a November 2002 demand from the then-acting chief of the Department of Health’s division of community services for an “informal conference” to discuss the “repeat” and “numerous” violations. That notice got cc’d to the “Reverend Mark Andre Wainwright” and “Reverend Raphael Gamaliel Warnock,” the two ministers who got arrested for obstruction when police attempted to interview counselors and campers three months earlier. It appears that police responded immediately after the July 31, 2002 inspection report, which is when Warnock and Wainwright allegedly interfered with police questioning:
The ministers interrupted a police interview of a counselor Wednesday in a room at the camp and, after investigators moved the interview to a nearby picnic area, interfered again and subsequently tried to prevent a camper from directing police to another potential witness, according to charging documents. “I’ve never encountered resistance like that at all,” said Trooper Diane Barry of the state police Child and Sexual Assault Unit in Westminster. Barry said the counselors consented to the interviews after being told they were free to go at any time and were not obligated to answer her questions.
When this first came to light, Warnock claimed he was only concerned about protecting the rights of the campers and counselors. This looks much more like Warnock’s concern was for his own potential legal issues, perhaps especially given the abuse allegations from Washington family. Just how aware was Warnock of those abusive practices, anyway?
Democrats didn’t put much effort into vetting Warnock’s past. As for Warnock’s future, Anthony Washington has this advice for Georgia voters:
Washington expressed surprise when he was told Warnock is currently running for U.S. Senate in Georgia. “I don’t think nobody like [Warnock] should be running for damn Senate nowhere, running a camp like that,” he told the Free Beacon. “He should not be running for government.”
Maybe Democrats can at some point answer why Warnock got in position to compete for the seat in the first place.
Georgia Democrats shouldn’t take all of the blame over this lack of vetting. When will the Atlanta Journal-Constitution finally start digging into Warnock? Over/under: nine days, and take the over.


hotair--2020-12-28--Kim Gardner appeals judge's decision disqualifying her from Mark McCloskey's case

Earlier this month , a judge sided with Mark McCloskey and disqualified prosecutor Kim Gardner and everyone in her office from his case .
Just before Christmas , Gardner appealed that decision claiming the judge abused his discretion .
Should Judge Thomas Clark II ’ s order disqualifying Circuit Attorney Kimberly Gardner from the Mark McCloskey case stand , it will set “ an extremely low standard , ” by which a judge can remove an elected prosecutor from a case , according to an appeal Gardner filed Tuesday .
Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District Judge Robin Ransom gave @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gardner ’ s appeal , which could delay the appointment of a special prosecutor to the case .
… ” If respondent ’ s order is allowed , it sends a clear message to defendants that an acceptable pre-trial strategy is to drum up coverage in the media in order to paint the picture that a prosecutor has an improper interest in a case.
” You may recall that the issue that got Gardner kicked off the case was a pair of fundraising emails she sent out just before and just after filing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ July the McCloskeys filed a motion arguing that the fundraising solicitations gave Gardner and improper “ interest ” in the case .
Gardner responded to that motion in August claiming the McCloskeys were turning the case into “ political theater.
” However , as I pointed out at the time , her response also made some clearly false claims about her own fundraising solicitations .
For instance , she claimed the emails were really responses to criticism from President Trump and other elected officials and that the McCloskeys were only mentioned once in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were mentioned at least twice , arguably three times , in the solicitation email .
Gardner ’ s arguments obviously didn ’ t fly with Judge Clark who wrote , “ This email language extends beyond campaign rhetoric .
Rather , it seeks to seemingly energize supporters to contribute by referencing defendant , his conduct and even his social status…The twin fundraising solicitations paint defendant as a wealthy elitist and perhaps worse.
” Now Gardner is arguing that allowing her to be kicked off the case would set a bad precedent .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this as a “ pre-trial strategy ” is nonsense .
Gardner wasn ’ t removed from the case because it garnered media attention .
She was removed because she used the McCloskeys to raise money for her re-election in an email that clearly suggested they were villains , despite having not even been charged much less convicted .
In other words , it was Gardner ’ s behavior that created the improper interest , not anything the McCloskey ’ s did .
The McCloskey ’ s attorney was not impressed : So far @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s case .
There is a separate case against his wife which has some additional wrinkles .
The gun Patricia McCloskey was holding that day was later turned over to prosecutors by the McCloskey ’ s attorney .
It was not operational at the time .
The McCloskey ’ s claimed the same gun had been used as a prop in a previous lawsuit and therefore had been rendered non-operational for use in court .
When a prosecutor found that the gun wasn ’ t operational , he ordered the crime lab @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the prosecutors then charged Patricia McCloskey with evidence tampering , claiming she had modified the gun after the incident to make it appear harmless .
It ’ s not clear what evidence prosecutors have to support this claim .

Earlier this month, a judge sided with Mark McCloskey and disqualified prosecutor Kim Gardner and everyone in her office from his case. Just before Christmas, Gardner appealed that decision claiming the judge abused his discretion.
Should Judge Thomas Clark II’s order disqualifying Circuit Attorney Kimberly Gardner from the Mark McCloskey case stand, it will set “an extremely low standard,” by which a judge can remove an elected prosecutor from a case, according to an appeal Gardner filed Tuesday. Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District Judge Robin Ransom gave Clark until Jan. 4 to respond to Gardner’s appeal, which could delay the appointment of a special prosecutor to the case. …”If respondent’s order is allowed, it sends a clear message to defendants that an acceptable pre-trial strategy is to drum up coverage in the media in order to paint the picture that a prosecutor has an improper interest in a case.”
You may recall that the issue that got Gardner kicked off the case was a pair of fundraising emails she sent out just before and just after filing charges against the McCloskeys. Back in July the McCloskeys filed a motion arguing that the fundraising solicitations gave Gardner and improper “interest” in the case.
Gardner responded to that motion in August claiming the McCloskeys were turning the case into “political theater.” However, as I pointed out at the time, her response also made some clearly false claims about her own fundraising solicitations. For instance, she claimed the emails were really responses to criticism from President Trump and other elected officials and that the McCloskeys were only mentioned once in passing. That was false as they were mentioned at least twice, arguably three times, in the solicitation email.
Gardner’s arguments obviously didn’t fly with Judge Clark who wrote, “This email language extends beyond campaign rhetoric. Rather, it seeks to seemingly energize supporters to contribute by referencing defendant, his conduct and even his social status…The twin fundraising solicitations paint defendant as a wealthy elitist and perhaps worse.”
Now Gardner is arguing that allowing her to be kicked off the case would set a bad precedent. But her suggestion that any defendant could use this as a “pre-trial strategy” is nonsense. Gardner wasn’t removed from the case because it garnered media attention. She was removed because she used the McCloskeys to raise money for her re-election in an email that clearly suggested they were villains, despite having not even been charged much less convicted. In other words, it was Gardner’s behavior that created the improper interest, not anything the McCloskey’s did. The McCloskey’s attorney was not impressed:
McCloskey’s attorney, Joel Schwartz, said: “Judge Clark’s ruling was thorough and well-reasoned and we expect his ruling to be upheld by the Court of Appeals.”
So far the disqualification only applies to Mark McCloskey’s case. There is a separate case against his wife which has some additional wrinkles. The gun Patricia McCloskey was holding that day was later turned over to prosecutors by the McCloskey’s attorney. It was not operational at the time. The McCloskey’s claimed the same gun had been used as a prop in a previous lawsuit and therefore had been rendered non-operational for use in court.
When a prosecutor found that the gun wasn’t operational, he ordered the crime lab to reassemble it so that it worked and the prosecutors then charged Patricia McCloskey with evidence tampering, claiming she had modified the gun after the incident to make it appear harmless. It’s not clear what evidence prosecutors have to support this claim.


hotair--2020-12-28--Hmmm: Why did two new House Dems refuse to endorse Pelosi's bid for speaker?

Now that Donald Trump has signed the omnibus/relief bill , this is all that remains for suspense outside of Georgia .
Even then , how much suspense could there be in an election with only one candidate ?
Nancy Pelosi wrapped up the caucus endorsement for speaker last month without any opponent , mostly because no one else really wanted the job when it came along with an impossible-to-corral nine-seat majority .
Not only did no Democrat challenge Pelosi , no one challenged Majority Leader Steny Hoyer or Majority Whip James Clyburn , either .
So why are these two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nominee for speaker ?
CNN ’ s Dana Bash asked progressive newcomers Cori Bush and Jamaal Bowman whether they plan to support Pelosi ’ s bid .
They provided almost identical versions of authentic Beltway gibberish while refusing to answer : ASH : And real quick , before I let you both go , something looking ahead at that you ’ re both going to have to vote on , which is the speaker of the House .
Congresswoman-elect Bush , will you vote for Nancy Pelosi as speaker ?
BUSH : ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do is make sure that the voices of the people of Saint Louis are heard and that we have what we need .
And so you will find out then .
BUSH : I ’ m working with my community .
I ’ m working with my community .
BASH : OK. And , congressman-elect Bowman , will you vote for Nancy Pelosi as speaker ?
BOWMAN : So , you will find out when my vote is tallied , and , again , organizing with our community to figure out what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my community ” is Washington double-speak for “ I don ’ t really want to answer this question.
” But why ?
Yes , yes , hard-Left progressives might not be totally happy with Pelosi , but she beats the theoretical alternative , especially after what happened in 2020 ’ s House races .
Pelosi became the only speaker in decades , or perhaps ever , to lose House seats in an election in which her party ’ s nominee won a first term as president .
Why ?
Voters — in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats — rejected the party ’ s sharp turn to the Left all the way down the ballot .
Had they not nominated a comfortable old shoe for the presidency , they ’ d be looking at a second Trump term as well .
If the House Democratic caucus had any sense at all , they ’ d have rallied behind a middle-America suburban Democrat like Tim Ryan for the next speakership .
Anyway , the only alternative is theoretical .
So why not just admit that they will have little choice but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bush , and the rest of the progressive caucus wants to use that narrow majority to pressure Pelosi , Hoyer , and Clyburn to adopt the hard-Left agenda in 2021-22 .
If Pelosi loses more than nine Democrats — or if five flip to vote for Kevin McCarthy on the floor — Pelosi will end up getting humiliated , perhaps badly enough to force her resignation .
If they can organize well enough to push the election to a second ballot on the House floor , Pelosi and her leadership slate might be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for a harder-Left replacement .
It ’ s not a likely outcome , but by playing coy now , the two can take advantage of whatever leverage they have .
What do Bowman and Bush want ?
Bash gets Bowman to cough it up at the end : The chances of any of those proposals getting through Congress are entirely nil , regardless of who gets elected speaker .
Senate Republicans can and will easily bottle it up regardless of whether they end up controlling the upper chamber , especially with Joe Manchin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the legislative filibuster .
The Biden administration will run for the hills , hoping instead to reposition their party back to the center after watching all of the opportunities progressives squandered in 2020 .
It would set a torch to all of their plans to partner with moderates in the GOP for some low-hanging policy fruit before the midterms .
And House Democrats will set the stage for endless GOP attacks on their radical agenda in the midterm elections .
The only mystery will be whether Democrats can contain their losses to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bowman , Bush , and other progressives stick to their guns , though , Pelosi will end up stuck in an impossible situation .
Because she can ’ t possibly advance that agenda next year , Peloso might end up getting left short of a majority in her speaker election after all .
If Bowman and Bush are bluffing , they ’ re going to look ridiculous next week for this pussyfooting with Bash .
Either way , Republicans need only do one thing … pass the popcorn .

Now that Donald Trump has signed the omnibus/relief bill, this is all that remains for suspense outside of Georgia. Even then, how much suspense could there be in an election with only one candidate? Nancy Pelosi wrapped up the caucus endorsement for speaker last month without any opponent, mostly because no one else really wanted the job when it came along with an impossible-to-corral nine-seat majority. Not only did no Democrat challenge Pelosi, no one challenged Majority Leader Steny Hoyer or Majority Whip James Clyburn, either.
So why are these two incoming House Democrats balking at endorsing their nominee for speaker? CNN’s Dana Bash asked progressive newcomers Cori Bush and Jamaal Bowman whether they plan to support Pelosi’s bid. They provided almost identical versions of authentic Beltway gibberish while refusing to answer:
Incoming Democratic lawmakers Cori Bush and Jamaal Bowman decline to say whether they will vote in support of Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House #CNNSOTU pic.twitter.com/H4ijvUdtXd — CNN Politics (@CNNPolitics) December 27, 2020
ASH: And real quick, before I let you both go, something looking ahead at that you’re both going to have to vote on, which is the speaker of the House. Congresswoman-elect Bush, will you vote for Nancy Pelosi as speaker? BUSH: (LAUGHTER) What I’m going to do is make sure that the voices of the people of Saint Louis are heard and that we have what we need. And so you will find out then. BASH: That’s not a yes. BUSH: I’m working with my community. I’m working with my community. BASH: OK. And, congressman-elect Bowman, will you vote for Nancy Pelosi as speaker? BOWMAN: So, you will find out when my vote is tallied, and, again, organizing with our community to figure out what’s best.
“Working with my community” is Washington double-speak for “I don’t really want to answer this question.” But why? Yes, yes, hard-Left progressives might not be totally happy with Pelosi, but she beats the theoretical alternative, especially after what happened in 2020’s House races. Pelosi became the only speaker in decades, or perhaps ever, to lose House seats in an election in which her party’s nominee won a first term as president. Why? Voters — in the kind of high-turnout election that normally favors Democrats — rejected the party’s sharp turn to the Left all the way down the ballot. Had they not nominated a comfortable old shoe for the presidency, they’d be looking at a second Trump term as well. If the House Democratic caucus had any sense at all, they’d have rallied behind a middle-America suburban Democrat like Tim Ryan for the next speakership.
Anyway, the only alternative is theoretical. So why not just admit that they will have little choice but to vote for Pelosi? Bowman, Bush, and the rest of the progressive caucus wants to use that narrow majority to pressure Pelosi, Hoyer, and Clyburn to adopt the hard-Left agenda in 2021-22. If Pelosi loses more than nine Democrats — or if five flip to vote for Kevin McCarthy on the floor — Pelosi will end up getting humiliated, perhaps badly enough to force her resignation. If they can organize well enough to push the election to a second ballot on the House floor, Pelosi and her leadership slate might be forced to withdraw and progressives can push for a harder-Left replacement. It’s not a likely outcome, but by playing coy now, the two can take advantage of whatever leverage they have.
What do Bowman and Bush want? Bash gets Bowman to cough it up at the end:
BOWMAN: We got to bring HR-40 to the floor for a vote. We need reparations for the African-American community. BASH: OK. BOWMAN: We need a federal jobs guarantee. We need Medicare for all.
The chances of any of those proposals getting through Congress are entirely nil, regardless of who gets elected speaker. Senate Republicans can and will easily bottle it up regardless of whether they end up controlling the upper chamber, especially with Joe Manchin opposing both radical proposals and an end to the legislative filibuster. The Biden administration will run for the hills, hoping instead to reposition their party back to the center after watching all of the opportunities progressives squandered in 2020. It would set a torch to all of their plans to partner with moderates in the GOP for some low-hanging policy fruit before the midterms. And House Democrats will set the stage for endless GOP attacks on their radical agenda in the midterm elections. The only mystery will be whether Democrats can contain their losses to just 40 seats or less.
If Bowman, Bush, and other progressives stick to their guns, though, Pelosi will end up stuck in an impossible situation. Because she can’t possibly advance that agenda next year, Peloso might end up getting left short of a majority in her speaker election after all. If Bowman and Bush are bluffing, they’re going to look ridiculous next week for this pussyfooting with Bash. Either way, Republicans need only do one thing … pass the popcorn.


hotair--2020-12-28--Did Trump get anything for agreeing to sign the COVID relief bill?

I was thinking yesterday that maybe he ’ d try to use his leverage over the must-pass-immediately COVID bill to try to wrangle GOP support for his position on the must-pass-but-maybe-not-for-a-few-weeks defense bill .
He vetoed that one , remember , partly because it didn ’ t include Section 230 repeal and partly because it authorized the Pentagon to rename bases named after Confederates .
The House is voting today to override his veto and the Senate will vote this week .
If both votes succeed with two-thirds majorities , as is likely ( but not certain ) , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a kick in the pants to Trump on his way out the door .
That made me think he might swing a deal with McConnell and McCarthy .
“ I ’ ll sign the COVID bill if you block the veto override on the defense bill .
Then you can pass it when Biden takes office .
I don ’ t care.
” That would have let him save face on the defense bill , although it ’ d be weird watching a Republican president and a Republican congressional caucus go to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the military .
Especially knowing that that funding was destined to pass next month anyway .
In the end , it seems Jazz was right last night .
In return for signing the COVID bill , the president got … nothing .
WHAT A BIZARRE , embarrassing episode for the president .
He opposed a bill his administration negotiated .
He had no discernible strategy and no hand to play — and it showed .
He folded , and got nothing besides a few days of attention and chaos .
People waiting for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ uncertainty… IN A STATEMENT , TRUMP said Congress will review Section 230 , the statute governing social media companies ?
Pretty sure they ’ ve been reviewing it for a while .
A “ redlined ” bill ?
Huh ?
He ’ ll never get the spending rescissions he ’ s asking for — like , zero chance , so don ’ t focus on this .
They will review voter fraud ?
Sure thing , boss .
And the Senate will begin the process of voting on $ 2,000 checks ?
Great @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the way out the door .
( Will it get 60 votes ?
Will senators even show up for this ? )
In his Sunday evening statement , Senate Majority Leader MITCH MCCONNELL didn ’ t even mention anything that TRUMP got in return for signing this bill .
THIS IS PROBABLY THE MOST FITTING coda to TRUMP ’ S presidency , and a neat encapsulation of his relationship with Congress .
He never cared to understand the place and was disengaged from its work .
“ I will send back to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ item , accompanied by the formal rescission request to Congress insisting that those funds be removed from the bill , ” he said in his signing statement , referring to the foreign aid provisions of the omnibus bill .
But if I ’ m reading the relevant statute correctly , it doesn ’ t require Congress to do anything with his rescission request .
It ’ s not a line-item veto , which would be unconstitutional .
Essentially it ’ s just a list of recommended spending cuts from the president asking for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chooses to ignore him , those cuts don ’ t happen .
The whole “ redlined ” thing in his statement , in other words , seems to be a way to save face by making it sound like he ’ s done something meaningful unilaterally when really all he ’ s doing is inviting Congress to act .
What ultimately moved him was that he got a bunch of panicked phone calls from Republican allies over the holiday asking , “ You ’ re not really going to refuse to sign this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be that he didn ’ t realize all of the consequences that would flow if he refused , especially if he executed a “ pocket veto ” that ran out the clock on this session of Congress .
It would mean millions losing their unemployment benefits and a government shutdown and a looming disaster in the Georgia runoffs and Congress having to start from scratch on the bill on January 3 when the new term began , which could have meant weeks of new negotiations while laid-off Americans starved .
Press coverage of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too , brimming with quotes from average people about how quickly their lives will deteriorate if they don ’ t get help right now .
“ It ’ s a chess game and we are pawns , ” said one single mother to the AP about the standoff in D.C. over the bill .
Another woman said she had “ One more month , if that .
Then , I run out of everything.
” I think Trump realized there was no good outcome at this point .
If he signed the bill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ demanding $ 2,000 checks and stripping out the foreign aid parts , it ’ d stink of capitulation .
If he vetoed it , Congress would immediately turn around and embarrass him by overriding his veto .
If instead of vetoing it he ran out the clock on Congress ’ s session , forcing them to start over on January 3 , he ’ d be savaged by all sides for an act of petulance that left millions of working-class people in ruins .
The least bad option at this point was to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work by the many Republicans who spent the last few days successfully convincing him of that : The deal was closed on a Sunday afternoon phone call with Trump , Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy .
“ This is good , ” Trump finally said , an official familiar with the call told me .
“ I should sign this.
” How it happened : Over many days , Mnuchin and McCarthy — aided by Sen. Lindsey Graham ( R-S.C. ) , who golfed with Trump in West @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president ’ s rants , told him there was great stuff in the bill , and gave him “ wins ” he could announce , even though they didn ’ t change the bill .
Playing to his vanity , they invoked his legacy , and reminded him he didn ’ t want to hurt people .
They convinced the author of “ The Art of the Deal ” that he had shown himself to be a fighter , and that he had gotten all there was to get .
David Perdue also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impressing upon him that he and Kelly Loeffler were DOA on January 5 if the president held up life-saving relief for people due to a spat with his own party over the size of individual payments .
One notable figure who apparently did *not* speak to Trump was the second most powerful Republican in government , Mitch McConnell , which was wise on his part .
McConnell doubtless understands that the reason Trump refused to sign the bill right away is because he ’ s pissed at Cocaine Mitch and John Thune for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election anymore .
If McConnell had dialed him up right now and said , “ What are you doing ?
!
” , it might have backfired and deepened Trump ’ s resolve not to sign .
Having people like McCarthy and Graham whom he considers allies nudging him was the smart play .
Lindsey ’ s four years of sycophancy may have paid off big in the end for a lot of desperate unemployed people .
I don ’ t think the president had a strategy when he posted that video last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hoped , perhaps , that throwing down the gauntlet in such a public way might spook reluctant Senate Republicans to buckle and approve his idea , which would have been a big ( but verrrry belated ) win for him .
But he just didn ’ t have the juice left to make that happen .
Maybe it ’ d have been different if he ’ d won reelection , but with Trump just 23 days from leaving office , Senate GOPers are back in “ deficit hawk ” mode .
“ If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the additional borrowing would be up to almost $ 500 billion , “ Mitt Romney said to a Utah business group last Wednesday .
“ Someone ’ s got to pay for that .
We can ’ t just have free money.
” It turns out that most of his Senate colleagues agree with him more so than Trump on that point .
And because they do , the president was forced to either eat it on the bill or stick it to the American public by digging in on opposing it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the end , thankfully .

I was thinking yesterday that maybe he’d try to use his leverage over the must-pass-immediately COVID bill to try to wrangle GOP support for his position on the must-pass-but-maybe-not-for-a-few-weeks defense bill. He vetoed that one, remember, partly because it didn’t include Section 230 repeal and partly because it authorized the Pentagon to rename bases named after Confederates. The House is voting today to override his veto and the Senate will vote this week. If both votes succeed with two-thirds majorities, as is likely (but not certain), it’ll be the legislative equivalent of a kick in the pants to Trump on his way out the door.
That made me think he might swing a deal with McConnell and McCarthy. “I’ll sign the COVID bill if you block the veto override on the defense bill. Then you can pass it when Biden takes office. I don’t care.” That would have let him save face on the defense bill, although it’d be weird watching a Republican president and a Republican congressional caucus go to the mat trying to block funding for … the military. Especially knowing that that funding was destined to pass next month anyway.
In the end, it seems Jazz was right last night. In return for signing the COVID bill, the president got … nothing.
WHAT A BIZARRE, embarrassing episode for the president. He opposed a bill his administration negotiated. He had no discernible strategy and no hand to play — and it showed. He folded, and got nothing besides a few days of attention and chaos. People waiting for aid got a few days of frightening uncertainty… IN A STATEMENT, TRUMP said Congress will review Section 230, the statute governing social media companies? Pretty sure they’ve been reviewing it for a while. A “redlined” bill? Huh? He’ll never get the spending rescissions he’s asking for — like, zero chance, so don’t focus on this. They will review voter fraud? Sure thing, boss. And the Senate will begin the process of voting on $2,000 checks? Great. He will split the Republican Party on the way out the door. (Will it get 60 votes? Will senators even show up for this?) In his Sunday evening statement, Senate Majority Leader MITCH MCCONNELL didn’t even mention anything that TRUMP got in return for signing this bill. THIS IS PROBABLY THE MOST FITTING coda to TRUMP’S presidency, and a neat encapsulation of his relationship with Congress. He never cared to understand the place and was disengaged from its work.
“I will send back to Congress a redlined version, item by item, accompanied by the formal rescission request to Congress insisting that those funds be removed from the bill,” he said in his signing statement, referring to the foreign aid provisions of the omnibus bill. But if I’m reading the relevant statute correctly, it doesn’t require Congress to do anything with his rescission request. It’s not a line-item veto, which would be unconstitutional. Essentially it’s just a list of recommended spending cuts from the president asking for expeditious attention from Congress. If Congress chooses to ignore him, those cuts don’t happen. The whole “redlined” thing in his statement, in other words, seems to be a way to save face by making it sound like he’s done something meaningful unilaterally when really all he’s doing is inviting Congress to act.
What ultimately moved him was that he got a bunch of panicked phone calls from Republican allies over the holiday asking, “You’re not really going to refuse to sign this, are you?” It may be that he didn’t realize all of the consequences that would flow if he refused, especially if he executed a “pocket veto” that ran out the clock on this session of Congress. It would mean millions losing their unemployment benefits and a government shutdown and a looming disaster in the Georgia runoffs and Congress having to start from scratch on the bill on January 3 when the new term began, which could have meant weeks of new negotiations while laid-off Americans starved. Press coverage of the potential consequences has been appropriately brutal too, brimming with quotes from average people about how quickly their lives will deteriorate if they don’t get help right now. “It’s a chess game and we are pawns,” said one single mother to the AP about the standoff in D.C. over the bill. Another woman said she had “One more month, if that. Then, I run out of everything.”
I think Trump realized there was no good outcome at this point. If he signed the bill after posting that dramatic video last Tuesday demanding $2,000 checks and stripping out the foreign aid parts, it’d stink of capitulation. If he vetoed it, Congress would immediately turn around and embarrass him by overriding his veto. If instead of vetoing it he ran out the clock on Congress’s session, forcing them to start over on January 3, he’d be savaged by all sides for an act of petulance that left millions of working-class people in ruins. The least bad option at this point was to eat sh*t and sign it. Good work by the many Republicans who spent the last few days successfully convincing him of that:
The deal was closed on a Sunday afternoon phone call with Trump, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy. “This is good,” Trump finally said, an official familiar with the call told me. “I should sign this.” How it happened: Over many days, Mnuchin and McCarthy — aided by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who golfed with Trump in West Palm Beach on Friday — indulged the president’s rants, told him there was great stuff in the bill, and gave him “wins” he could announce, even though they didn’t change the bill. Playing to his vanity, they invoked his legacy, and reminded him he didn’t want to hurt people. They convinced the author of “The Art of the Deal” that he had shown himself to be a fighter, and that he had gotten all there was to get.
David Perdue also reportedly chatted with him, no doubt impressing upon him that he and Kelly Loeffler were DOA on January 5 if the president held up life-saving relief for people due to a spat with his own party over the size of individual payments. One notable figure who apparently did *not* speak to Trump was the second most powerful Republican in government, Mitch McConnell, which was wise on his part. McConnell doubtless understands that the reason Trump refused to sign the bill right away is because he’s pissed at Cocaine Mitch and John Thune for not supporting his effort to overturn the election anymore. If McConnell had dialed him up right now and said, “What are you doing?!”, it might have backfired and deepened Trump’s resolve not to sign. Having people like McCarthy and Graham whom he considers allies nudging him was the smart play. Lindsey’s four years of sycophancy may have paid off big in the end for a lot of desperate unemployed people.
I don’t think the president had a strategy when he posted that video last Tuesday demanding $2,000 checks. He hoped, perhaps, that throwing down the gauntlet in such a public way might spook reluctant Senate Republicans to buckle and approve his idea, which would have been a big (but verrrry belated) win for him. But he just didn’t have the juice left to make that happen. Maybe it’d have been different if he’d won reelection, but with Trump just 23 days from leaving office, Senate GOPers are back in “deficit hawk” mode. “If we went to $2,000 per person, the additional borrowing would be up to almost $500 billion,“ Mitt Romney said to a Utah business group last Wednesday. “Someone’s got to pay for that. We can’t just have free money.” It turns out that most of his Senate colleagues agree with him more so than Trump on that point. And because they do, the president was forced to either eat it on the bill or stick it to the American public by digging in on opposing it. He did the right thing in the end, thankfully.


hotair--2020-12-28--Civil war: Is AOC looking to take out Chuck Schumer?

The rumor mill in New York politics isn ’ t always the most reliable , but this item has attracted enough attention from senior Democratic Party officials that there ’ s probably some basis to it .
Word on the street is that Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has put out some feelers and is exploring the possibility of mounting a primary challenge against New York Senator Chuck Schumer .
The former waitress , now preparing to start her second term in the House , would certainly have a large hill to climb if she wants to knock out the Senate Minority @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how she got into her current position .
She took out Joe Crowley in the 2018 primary .
He was considered untouchable at the time , with a huge amount of seniority .
Perhaps she ’ s been letting all of her headlines go to her head and thinks she can just smack down anyone who stands in her way ?
In any event , the Chairman of the state Democratic Committee is taking the rumor seriously enough to send a very public message to AOC .
Don ’ t do it .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the warning New York ’ s Democratic party boss has for the sophomore Congresswoman , who is rumored to be mulling a primary challenge to US Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer .
“ I think it would be a primary driven by ambition more than by need , ” Jay Jacobs told The Post .
“ Chuck Schumer has been a progressive force in the state for decades , ” added the chairman of the state Democratic committee .
“ She has a constituency that admires her and supports her , and they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I think it would be a loss for them if she were to do that.
” Jacobs went on to add a dire prediction to his warning .
If you try this , you ’ re going to lose .
AOC ’ s stunning upset in the 2018 primary was certainly impressive , but keep in mind that she ’ s representing New York ’ s 14th district , residing primarily in the Bronx and part of Queens .
That district so dense and compact that you can walk the entire thing in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ custom made for retail politicking and grassroots campaigning , particularly if you ’ re operating on a shoestring budget .
Also , the demographics of the 14th are a custom fit for AOC , with 50 % of the residents being Hispanic as compared to less than 20 % being White .
Her fundraising abilities have certainly improved a great deal since then , but she would need a serious buttload of money to run a campaign across all of New York State .
Schumer was sitting on more than ten million dollars @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quarter and he has a proven record of being able to raise far more than that when the need arises .
AOC ’ s district obviously leans heavily to the progressive/socialist side so the voters there clearly don ’ t object to her antics and wackier ideas , such as defunding the police .
But to take Chuck Schumer ’ s Senate seat away , she will have to not only win over the rest of the Big Apple but the 40 percent of the population that resides in the considerably more rural @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s considerably more moderate positions ( at least in terms of today ’ s Democratic Party standards ) have allowed him to do well in both parts of the state .
Also , Chuck Schumer has worked his way up the seniority ladder for a very long time and he has plenty of influence to wield on behalf of the state ’ s voters .
AOC would be asking the members of her own party to give that up in favor of someone who would wind up being toward the rear of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assignments enjoyed by the incumbent .
A couple of considerations make this scenario more complicated , however .
First of all , Chuck Schumer is 70 years old .
He seems in fine health for a man of his age , but is he going to want to sign on for six more years at 72 ?
He hasn ’ t said anything about retiring that I could find , but if he decided that he ’ s had his fill , AOC ’ s chances might go up significantly running in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she ’ s doing is “ considering ” the prospect thus far .
I ’ m reminded of an interview she did a few months ago when she said she didn ’ t know if she was going to stay in the House “ forever.
” I thought at the time that she might be suggesting she could leave politics and move on to some other activist role .
But maybe she was already mulling a move to the upper chamber ?

The rumor mill in New York politics isn’t always the most reliable, but this item has attracted enough attention from senior Democratic Party officials that there’s probably some basis to it. Word on the street is that Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has put out some feelers and is exploring the possibility of mounting a primary challenge against New York Senator Chuck Schumer. The former waitress, now preparing to start her second term in the House, would certainly have a large hill to climb if she wants to knock out the Senate Minority Leader. But then again, consider how she got into her current position. She took out Joe Crowley in the 2018 primary. He was considered untouchable at the time, with a huge amount of seniority. Perhaps she’s been letting all of her headlines go to her head and thinks she can just smack down anyone who stands in her way? In any event, the Chairman of the state Democratic Committee is taking the rumor seriously enough to send a very public message to AOC. Don’t do it. (NY Post)
Don’t do it AOC! That’s the warning New York’s Democratic party boss has for the sophomore Congresswoman, who is rumored to be mulling a primary challenge to US Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer. “I think it would be a primary driven by ambition more than by need,” Jay Jacobs told The Post. “Chuck Schumer has been a progressive force in the state for decades,” added the chairman of the state Democratic committee. “She has a constituency that admires her and supports her, and they’re in her community, and I think it would be a loss for them if she were to do that.”
Jacobs went on to add a dire prediction to his warning. If you try this, you’re going to lose.
AOC’s stunning upset in the 2018 primary was certainly impressive, but keep in mind that she’s representing New York’s 14th district, residing primarily in the Bronx and part of Queens. That district so dense and compact that you can walk the entire thing in a single day. It’s custom made for retail politicking and grassroots campaigning, particularly if you’re operating on a shoestring budget. Also, the demographics of the 14th are a custom fit for AOC, with 50% of the residents being Hispanic as compared to less than 20% being White.
Her fundraising abilities have certainly improved a great deal since then, but she would need a serious buttload of money to run a campaign across all of New York State. Schumer was sitting on more than ten million dollars as of the end of the third quarter and he has a proven record of being able to raise far more than that when the need arises.
AOC’s district obviously leans heavily to the progressive/socialist side so the voters there clearly don’t object to her antics and wackier ideas, such as defunding the police. But to take Chuck Schumer’s Senate seat away, she will have to not only win over the rest of the Big Apple but the 40 percent of the population that resides in the considerably more rural and conservative upstate regions. Schumer’s considerably more moderate positions (at least in terms of today’s Democratic Party standards) have allowed him to do well in both parts of the state.
Also, Chuck Schumer has worked his way up the seniority ladder for a very long time and he has plenty of influence to wield on behalf of the state’s voters. AOC would be asking the members of her own party to give that up in favor of someone who would wind up being toward the rear of the backbench, with very few influential committee assignments enjoyed by the incumbent.
A couple of considerations make this scenario more complicated, however. First of all, Chuck Schumer is 70 years old. He seems in fine health for a man of his age, but is he going to want to sign on for six more years at 72? He hasn’t said anything about retiring that I could find, but if he decided that he’s had his fill, AOC’s chances might go up significantly running in the primary for an open seat. All she’s doing is “considering” the prospect thus far. I’m reminded of an interview she did a few months ago when she said she didn’t know if she was going to stay in the House “forever.” I thought at the time that she might be suggesting she could leave politics and move on to some other activist role. But maybe she was already mulling a move to the upper chamber?
Time will tell.