hotair--2020-02-11--More Bloomberg, 2013: We're stopping white people too much, you know

Do tell .
Jazz wrote earlier about video clips emerging from Michael Bloomberg ’ s stop-and-frisk policy defenses while serving as mayor of New York , comments that threaten to derail his effort to buy the Democratic Party presidential nomination .
This juicy tidbit from 2013 dropped late last night as well , in which he argued not just that racial profiling was justified in stopping crime but that his administration needed to step it up .
Specifically , Bloomberg says here , police are wasting too much time stopping white people : Ooof .
Bloomberg has since disavowed stop-and-frisk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in putting it forward .
And perhaps he didn ’ t , but comments like this make a case against Bloomberg for promoting racist policing policies a lot easier to make .
That matters much more in the Democratic primary than it will in a general election , since Donald Trump also supported stop-and-frisk at that time , but apparently had the good sense not to say something like “ we disproportionately stop whites too much and minorities too little.
” So let ’ s play a game of Clue .
Who ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now ?
Is it Mr. Green in the Oval Office with the Twitter app ?
Or is it Colonel Bluster in the Malarkey Express with the lead weight ?
Or could it be Professor Glum in the streets with the guillotines ?
Not enough cards have been played to know for sure , but this might be one to consider : One clear winner has emerged so far from the Democratic presidential contest , according to strategists aligned with the president : Donald Trump .
That ’ s the thinking among Republican strategists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have declined in New Hampshire and a two-way race between Bernie Sanders and Pete Buttigieg appeared to emerge ahead of Tuesday ’ s Democratic primary here , yielding what they see as a best-case scenario for Trump .
… One unknown variable : former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg .
Trump advisers noted that there has been limited head-to-head polling on Trump vs. Bloomberg since Bloomberg began his national ad spending blitz .
But an advantage Trump advisers see to Bloomberg ’ s emergence is the potential for a far longer Democratic primary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ further division in the party — setting up the scenario of the socialist vs. the billionaire should Sanders remain in the race , as well .
Don ’ t forget that Trump had a ringside seat during Bloomberg ’ s mayoral terms and has a long memory for slights .
Now that Bloomberg appears to be splitting the centrist-y lane that Biden was occupying by himself ( as is Buttigieg and now Amy Klobuchar ) , Trump needs to make sure Bloomberg doesn ’ t dominate it in order to extend the fight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The longer the Democratic primaries go , the more resources and internal goodwill Democrats burn .
And this is just getting started .
Oppo researchers have a long and very public record to parse .
In the end , this might be more of a Murder on the Orient Express than a game of Clue .

Do tell. Jazz wrote earlier about video clips emerging from Michael Bloomberg’s stop-and-frisk policy defenses while serving as mayor of New York, comments that threaten to derail his effort to buy the Democratic Party presidential nomination. This juicy tidbit from 2013 dropped late last night as well, in which he argued not just that racial profiling was justified in stopping crime but that his administration needed to step it up.
Specifically, Bloomberg says here, police are wasting too much time stopping white people:
https://twitter.com/upmtn/status/1227087712634724352
Ooof. Bloomberg has since disavowed stop-and-frisk but claims he had no racial animus in putting it forward. And perhaps he didn’t, but comments like this make a case against Bloomberg for promoting racist policing policies a lot easier to make. That matters much more in the Democratic primary than it will in a general election, since Donald Trump also supported stop-and-frisk at that time, but apparently had the good sense not to say something like “we disproportionately stop whites too much and minorities too little.”
So let’s play a game of Clue. Who’s releasing the oppo research on Bloomberg now? Is it Mr. Green in the Oval Office with the Twitter app? Or is it Colonel Bluster in the Malarkey Express with the lead weight? Or could it be Professor Glum in the streets with the guillotines? Not enough cards have been played to know for sure, but this might be one to consider:
One clear winner has emerged so far from the Democratic presidential contest, according to strategists aligned with the president: Donald Trump. That’s the thinking among Republican strategists as Joe Biden’s poll numbers have declined in New Hampshire and a two-way race between Bernie Sanders and Pete Buttigieg appeared to emerge ahead of Tuesday’s Democratic primary here, yielding what they see as a best-case scenario for Trump. … One unknown variable: former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg. Trump advisers noted that there has been limited head-to-head polling on Trump vs. Bloomberg since Bloomberg began his national ad spending blitz. But an advantage Trump advisers see to Bloomberg’s emergence is the potential for a far longer Democratic primary season that provides ample opportunity to sow further division in the party — setting up the scenario of the socialist vs. the billionaire should Sanders remain in the race, as well.
Don’t forget that Trump had a ringside seat during Bloomberg’s mayoral terms and has a long memory for slights. Now that Bloomberg appears to be splitting the centrist-y lane that Biden was occupying by himself (as is Buttigieg and now Amy Klobuchar), Trump needs to make sure Bloomberg doesn’t dominate it in order to extend the fight for the nomination as long as possible. The longer the Democratic primaries go, the more resources and internal goodwill Democrats burn.
And this is just getting started. Oppo researchers have a long and very public record to parse. In the end, this might be more of a Murder on the Orient Express than a game of Clue.


hotair--2020-02-11--Brutal: Biden now trails Sanders by 10 in latest national poll

Last month he was at 30 percent .
This month , says Monmouth , he ’ s at 16 .
Nearly half his support , up in smoke .
That ’ s what happens when you ’ re an “ electability ” candidate who turns out to be not so electable .
Shhhh .
It ’ ll all be over soon .
Buttigieg is the clearest beneficiary of Biden ’ s collapse but you can see a few Joe voters bleeding off to Bernie ( they each appeal to working-class voters , albeit in different ways ) and to Mike @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to ignore a result like this one and that terrible Quinnipiac result yesterday if Biden were up six points in New Hampshire and set to rebound with a win , but as it is he ’ s staring at a fifth-place finish tonight .
Where will some of his more diehard supporters go in the next round of polling after the electability argument for him takes another devastating hit ?
This number is interesting too : You might not think that a politician ’ s favorable rating would suffer just because he lost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is , after all , win or lose .
But everyone loves a winner and Joe is no longer a ( presumptive ) winner .
The only time he ’ s been under 70 percent in favorability among Democrats was last summer , not long after Kamala Harris wobbled him with their exchange on busing at the first debate .
Now , post-Iowa , he ’ s down to 64/26 , good for a +38 net rating .
He led the field in that category as recently as last month , when voting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he ’ s third behind Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren .
Pete Buttigieg , at +36 , is right behind him and Klobuchar isn ’ t far behind either at +31 .
If both of those candidates do well tonight , as is now expected , Biden could be fifth in favorability next month .
There ’ s another national poll out today to complement Monmouth and Quinnipiac .
The good news for Joe is that he ’ s a closer second here .
The bad news is that he ’ s still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hardly ever occupied in national polling since entering the race last April .
New from Morning Consult : The story here is the same as in Monmouth ’ s poll .
Biden has lost a meaningful number of points since last month ( six in this case ) while Biden , Bloomberg , and especially Buttigieg have gained .
Combine this result with the Monmouth and Quinnipiac polls and it ’ s only the second time since he entered the race last April that he ’ s trailed in three straight national surveys @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spell , he never came anywhere near the depths to which he ’ s sunk right now in the poll average .
The green line says it all : Note the yellow line too .
That ’ s Bloomberg , who ’ s now up to fourth nationally and is knocking on the door of third .
Bloomberg ’ s been in double digits in five of the last six polls and trails Biden by an average of just four points in the three national polls taken since Iowa .
If Warren and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hampshire as the data suggests they will , it ’ s entirely possible — maybe likely — that Bloomberg will move up to second place nationally as the “ Stop Bernie ” contingent in the party panics and starts looking around desperately for a viable candidate .
One more data point from Monmouth : Fully 66 percent of Americans now believe Trump will definitely or probably be reelected this fall .
Among Republicans , 59 percent think their guy will definitely win ; among Democrats , just 11 percent think their nominee definitely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ function of incumbency , of course , but it must also be that Biden ’ s sudden decline has shaken Democrats ’ faith in producing an “ electable ” alternative to Trump .
They ’ re getting demoralized .
And there ’ s no obvious viable option right now who ’ s going to turn that around for the entire party .

Last month he was at 30 percent. This month, says Monmouth, he’s at 16. Nearly half his support, up in smoke.
That’s what happens when you’re an “electability” candidate who turns out to be not so electable.
Shhhh. It’ll all be over soon.
Buttigieg is the clearest beneficiary of Biden’s collapse but you can see a few Joe voters bleeding off to Bernie (they each appeal to working-class voters, albeit in different ways) and to Mike Bloomberg. It’d be easy to ignore a result like this one and that terrible Quinnipiac result yesterday if Biden were up six points in New Hampshire and set to rebound with a win, but as it is he’s staring at a fifth-place finish tonight. Where will some of his more diehard supporters go in the next round of polling after the electability argument for him takes another devastating hit?
This number is interesting too:
You might not think that a politician’s favorable rating would suffer just because he lost an election. He is who he is, after all, win or lose. But everyone loves a winner and Joe is no longer a (presumptive) winner. The only time he’s been under 70 percent in favorability among Democrats was last summer, not long after Kamala Harris wobbled him with their exchange on busing at the first debate. Now, post-Iowa, he’s down to 64/26, good for a +38 net rating. He led the field in that category as recently as last month, when voting was finally set to begin. Now he’s third behind Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. Pete Buttigieg, at +36, is right behind him and Klobuchar isn’t far behind either at +31. If both of those candidates do well tonight, as is now expected, Biden could be fifth in favorability next month.
There’s another national poll out today to complement Monmouth and Quinnipiac. The good news for Joe is that he’s a closer second here. The bad news is that he’s still second, a position he’s hardly ever occupied in national polling since entering the race last April. New from Morning Consult:
The story here is the same as in Monmouth’s poll. Biden has lost a meaningful number of points since last month (six in this case) while Biden, Bloomberg, and especially Buttigieg have gained. Combine this result with the Monmouth and Quinnipiac polls and it’s only the second time since he entered the race last April that he’s trailed in three straight national surveys. And even during that previous dry spell, he never came anywhere near the depths to which he’s sunk right now in the poll average. The green line says it all:
Note the yellow line too. That’s Bloomberg, who’s now up to fourth nationally and is knocking on the door of third. Bloomberg’s been in double digits in five of the last six polls and trails Biden by an average of just four points in the three national polls taken since Iowa. If Warren and Biden do as badly tonight in New Hampshire as the data suggests they will, it’s entirely possible — maybe likely — that Bloomberg will move up to second place nationally as the “Stop Bernie” contingent in the party panics and starts looking around desperately for a viable candidate.
One more data point from Monmouth: Fully 66 percent of Americans now believe Trump will definitely or probably be reelected this fall. Among Republicans, 59 percent think their guy will definitely win; among Democrats, just 11 percent think their nominee definitely will. That difference is partly a function of incumbency, of course, but it must also be that Biden’s sudden decline has shaken Democrats’ faith in producing an “electable” alternative to Trump. They’re getting demoralized. And there’s no obvious viable option right now who’s going to turn that around for the entire party.


hotair--2020-02-11--France's pedophile author is hiding out in Italy (and feeling sorry for himself)

Last month Ed wrote about Gabriel Matzneff , a celebrated French author who spent decades writing about sex with underage girls and boys .
For most of his life Matzneff was celebrated for this transgressive literature , but that changed recently when one of his former victims , Vanessa Springora , wrote a book of her own titled “ Le Consentement ” or Consent .
In the wake of this sudden turn in his public fortunes , Matzneff has fled France .
The New York Times found him hiding out in Italy : Mr. Matzneff disappeared in late December , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s memoir .
As the scandal exploded in Paris , I pored through his diaries and books .
When a brief interview he gave to a French television network hinted at his whereabouts , I went to the Italian Riviera and found Mr. Matzneff — a creature of habit , his diaries made clear — in his favorite cafe .
Initially startled , defensive and angry , the writer admitted that he was “ very , very lonely ” and began to open up .
Asking that his exact location not be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and a half hours .
He expressed bewilderment at the sudden cultural shift in France and his precipitous downfall .
He showed no remorse for his past actions and did not renounce any of his writings .
But the focus of the Times ’ story isn ’ t just Matzneff ’ s current whereabouts , it ’ s how he managed to escape scrutiny for so long .
The answer involves the unique culture in France which celebrates authors ( and artists ) above all others .
In this culture , Matzneff was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ powerful friends including President Francois Mitterrand who was a fan of his first book .
When Matzneff was briefly investigated by police in the 1980s ( he was then living with 14-year-old Ms. Springora ) he showed the police an essay President Mitterrand had written praising his work and they decided not to pursue the investigation .
But it wasn ’ t just a few powerful people that defended him .
Matzneff was defended by the elite culture of intelligentsia in France .
I found this vignette particularly telling : The most public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ literary television show “ Apostrophes , ” as the host and guests discussed Mr. Matzneff ’ s latest diary , “ Mes Amours Décomposés , ” ( “ My Decomposed Loves.
” ) In it , he boasted about having sex with countless minors , including 11- and 12-year-old Filipino boys he describes as “ a rare spice.
” The single foreigner present , Denise Bombardier , a journalist from Quebec , denounced his pedophilia .
The reaction from France ’ s intelligentsia was swift .
Josyane Savigneau , who was editor of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Le Monde from 1991 to 2005 , publicly chided Ms. Bombardier and defended Mr. Matzneff ’ s work .
In a recent interview , Ms. Savigneau recalled being revolted by some of Mr. Matzneff ’ s writings , but said his books were superior to others that landed on her desk .
“ I saw him as a man who liked young women , ” she said .
“ In France , he was never seen with boys.
” This would have happened just a few years before Bill Clinton aka Slick Willie @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And a few years later , Clinton would be impeached and the story of his sexual involvement with an intern in the Oval Office would become international news .
I remember one of the arguments used to defend Clinton at the time was that the rest of the world was mocking America ’ s puritanism .
In a 2017 piece for Vox , Matt Yglesias wrote of his own view of Clinton ’ s impeachment at the time which leaned heavily on France ’ s view of such relationships .
Unfortunately for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too old to get away with claiming to have had no opinion on this at the time .
My version of a sophisticated high schooler ’ s take on the matter was that the American media should get over its bourgeois morality hang-ups and be more like the French , where François Mitterrand ’ s wife and his longtime mistress grieved together at his funeral .
As a married 30-something father , I ’ ve come around to a less “ worldly ” view of infidelity .
As a co-founder of Vox , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years want us to be the kind of place where men in senior roles can get away with the kind of misconduct that we ’ ve seen is all too common in our industry and in so many others .
There ’ s a connection here that hasn ’ t been made ( at least not that I ’ ve seen ) .
The culture that long defended Matzneff ’ s books and behavior was also used to defend Clinton ’ s behavior .
Those criticizing Clinton at the time were shamed in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for criticizing Matzneff .
Looking back from the era of # MeToo , with Harvey Weinsten on trial and Jeffrey Epstein dead , you wonder how anyone ever got away with it .

Last month Ed wrote about Gabriel Matzneff, a celebrated French author who spent decades writing about sex with underage girls and boys. For most of his life Matzneff was celebrated for this transgressive literature, but that changed recently when one of his former victims, Vanessa Springora, wrote a book of her own titled “Le Consentement” or Consent. In the wake of this sudden turn in his public fortunes, Matzneff has fled France. The New York Times found him hiding out in Italy:
Mr. Matzneff disappeared in late December, just before the publication of Ms. Springora’s memoir. As the scandal exploded in Paris, I pored through his diaries and books. When a brief interview he gave to a French television network hinted at his whereabouts, I went to the Italian Riviera and found Mr. Matzneff — a creature of habit, his diaries made clear — in his favorite cafe. Initially startled, defensive and angry, the writer admitted that he was “very, very lonely” and began to open up. Asking that his exact location not be revealed, Mr. Matzneff spoke for three and a half hours. He expressed bewilderment at the sudden cultural shift in France and his precipitous downfall. He showed no remorse for his past actions and did not renounce any of his writings.
But the focus of the Times’ story isn’t just Matzneff’s current whereabouts, it’s how he managed to escape scrutiny for so long. The answer involves the unique culture in France which celebrates authors (and artists) above all others. In this culture, Matzneff was untouchable for many decades because he had powerful friends including President Francois Mitterrand who was a fan of his first book.
When Matzneff was briefly investigated by police in the 1980s (he was then living with 14-year-old Ms. Springora) he showed the police an essay President Mitterrand had written praising his work and they decided not to pursue the investigation.
But it wasn’t just a few powerful people that defended him. Matzneff was defended by the elite culture of intelligentsia in France. I found this vignette particularly telling:
The most public criticism came in 1990, on the literary television show “Apostrophes,” as the host and guests discussed Mr. Matzneff’s latest diary, “Mes Amours Décomposés,” (“My Decomposed Loves.”) In it, he boasted about having sex with countless minors, including 11- and 12-year-old Filipino boys he describes as “a rare spice.” The single foreigner present, Denise Bombardier, a journalist from Quebec, denounced his pedophilia. The reaction from France’s intelligentsia was swift. Josyane Savigneau, who was editor of a literary supplement of the French newspaper Le Monde from 1991 to 2005, publicly chided Ms. Bombardier and defended Mr. Matzneff’s work. In a recent interview, Ms. Savigneau recalled being revolted by some of Mr. Matzneff’s writings, but said his books were superior to others that landed on her desk. “I saw him as a man who liked young women,” she said. “In France, he was never seen with boys.”
This would have happened just a few years before Bill Clinton aka Slick Willie became the nominee for the Democratic Party. And a few years later, Clinton would be impeached and the story of his sexual involvement with an intern in the Oval Office would become international news. I remember one of the arguments used to defend Clinton at the time was that the rest of the world was mocking America’s puritanism. In a 2017 piece for Vox, Matt Yglesias wrote of his own view of Clinton’s impeachment at the time which leaned heavily on France’s view of such relationships.
Unfortunately for me, I’m a little too old to get away with claiming to have had no opinion on this at the time. My version of a sophisticated high schooler’s take on the matter was that the American media should get over its bourgeois morality hang-ups and be more like the French, where François Mitterrand’s wife and his longtime mistress grieved together at his funeral. As a married 30-something father, I’ve come around to a less “worldly” view of infidelity. As a co-founder of Vox, I’d never in a million years want us to be the kind of place where men in senior roles can get away with the kind of misconduct that we’ve seen is all too common in our industry and in so many others.
There’s a connection here that hasn’t been made (at least not that I’ve seen). The culture that long defended Matzneff’s books and behavior was also used to defend Clinton’s behavior. Those criticizing Clinton at the time were shamed in the same way Denise Bombardier was shamed for criticizing Matzneff. Looking back from the era of #MeToo, with Harvey Weinsten on trial and Jeffrey Epstein dead, you wonder how anyone ever got away with it.


hotair--2020-02-11--Chicago using "controversial" facial recognition software to catch criminals

The Chicago PD recently upped their facial recognition game with the introduction of new software and , as always , people are up in arms about it .
This report from CBS Chicago is rife with complaints about possible invasions of privacy , racism and all the usual kvetching .
But the fact is , the technology is working .
The big sticking point here is that the police are using Clearview Ai , which we ’ ve covered here before .
The fact that they use a massive database containing images scraped from various social media sites has some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coming for us all .
The department has used some form of facial recognition tech since at least 2013 .
They say it ’ s used within the law , and never used alone to make an arrest , but there are still privacy concerns .
The controversial new facial recognition software relies on billions of photos scraped from social media and websites .
These are photos the company grabs without permission .
Both the police and City Hall have done their best to allay the concerns of Chicago residents , not that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ machine .
They ’ ve covered most of the common complaints about facial recognition software that crop up in public debate .
First of all , they ’ re not using Clearview AI in “ real-time ” to just randomly scan crowds and identify people .
The system is only employed after an actual crime is reported or suspected and there is a video or still photograph available showing the suspect ’ s face .
Even then , noting the high rate of misidentifications produced by most of this type of software , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the match generated by the system .
A human investigator always has to confirm the match .
While the software makes mistakes , a trained law enforcement official can almost always quickly eliminate false positives .
The payoff is significant in terms of effectiveness .
In the bad old days , a witness to a crime would need to sit for hours or days pouring through books full of mugshots and relying only on their memory .
This system takes an image and compares it to a massive database of mugshots and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ possible matches in a matter of seconds .
That can make a huge difference between catching a criminal near the scene of the crime or losing them in the crowd , perhaps permanently .
It ’ s not as if Chicago doesn ’ t need more help in solving crimes .
While nowhere near as bad as Baltimore , Chicago has suffered from a surge of shootings and murders in recent years that only began to level off in 2019 .
On average , 74 % of these murders go unsolved .
Between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Chicago and just 26 % of them resulted in a conviction .
There has yet to be a single report of a case where someone was incorrectly identified as a suspect by facial recognition in Chicago who was subsequently convicted or even charged .
So if this software gives the cops a leg up on the bad guys and isn ’ t leading to hundreds of innocent people being rounded up , why not let them at least give it a try ?
Everyone values their privacy , but sometimes these sorts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

The Chicago PD recently upped their facial recognition game with the introduction of new software and, as always, people are up in arms about it. This report from CBS Chicago is rife with complaints about possible invasions of privacy, racism and all the usual kvetching. But the fact is, the technology is working. The big sticking point here is that the police are using Clearview Ai, which we’ve covered here before. The fact that they use a massive database containing images scraped from various social media sites has some people worried that the Police State is coming for us all.
The department has used some form of facial recognition tech since at least 2013. They say it’s used within the law, and never used alone to make an arrest, but there are still privacy concerns. The technology is called Clearview Ai. The controversial new facial recognition software relies on billions of photos scraped from social media and websites. These are photos the company grabs without permission.
Both the police and City Hall have done their best to allay the concerns of Chicago residents, not that it’s winding down the outrage machine. They’ve covered most of the common complaints about facial recognition software that crop up in public debate.
First of all, they’re not using Clearview AI in “real-time” to just randomly scan crowds and identify people. The system is only employed after an actual crime is reported or suspected and there is a video or still photograph available showing the suspect’s face. Even then, noting the high rate of misidentifications produced by most of this type of software, they never issue a warrant based only on the match generated by the system. A human investigator always has to confirm the match. While the software makes mistakes, a trained law enforcement official can almost always quickly eliminate false positives.
The payoff is significant in terms of effectiveness. In the bad old days, a witness to a crime would need to sit for hours or days pouring through books full of mugshots and relying only on their memory. This system takes an image and compares it to a massive database of mugshots and other image sources, coming up with possible matches in a matter of seconds. That can make a huge difference between catching a criminal near the scene of the crime or losing them in the crowd, perhaps permanently.
It’s not as if Chicago doesn’t need more help in solving crimes. While nowhere near as bad as Baltimore, Chicago has suffered from a surge of shootings and murders in recent years that only began to level off in 2019. On average, 74% of these murders go unsolved. Between 2007 and 2017 there were 5,534 homicides in Chicago and just 26% of them resulted in a conviction.
There has yet to be a single report of a case where someone was incorrectly identified as a suspect by facial recognition in Chicago who was subsequently convicted or even charged. So if this software gives the cops a leg up on the bad guys and isn’t leading to hundreds of innocent people being rounded up, why not let them at least give it a try? Everyone values their privacy, but sometimes these sorts of protests can be taken too far.


hotair--2020-02-11--EOL for AOC? Former CNBC reporter files primary challenge to Ocasio-Cortez

Alternate headline : Conservative media expects recession in 2021 .
CNBC reported just a few minutes ago that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez will face a Democratic primary challenge this year , and not by some faceless novice to national politics .
Former CNBC reporter Michelle Caruso-Cabrera has already filed her paperwork and set up a campaign website to take aim at the celebrity leader of Democratic Socialists .
I ’ m so torn on this … Former longtime CNBC correspondent and anchor Michelle Caruso-Cabrera has launched a challenge in the Democratic primary against freshman firebrand Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ when she left the network in September 2018 , serves as a member of the board of directors for financial services firm Beneficient .
She will take a leave from her role as CNBC contributor for the duration of the campaign , a CNBC spokesperson said .
At least we ’ ll have lots of AOC content this year , if not afterward .
Caruso-Cabrera has been a registered Democrat “ for several years , ” CNBC notes , but let ’ s just say that her politics are slightly to the right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s been reading Milton Keenes .
Or Karl Burke .
Or Salma Hayek .
Whatevs !
According to a filing late Monday , she will run as a Democrat in that party ’ s primary in the 14th District .
Caruso-Cabrera is known to be a skeptic of government and a proponent of free markets .
In 2010 , she published a book called “ You Know I ’ m Right : More Prosperity , Less Government.
” She has been a registered Democrat for several years .
“ I am the daughter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cuban immigrants , ” Caruso-Cabrera said in a statement .
“ I am so lucky to have had such a wonderful career and I want everybody to have the opportunity that I ’ ve had .
That ’ s why I ’ m running.
” Caruso-Cabrera has her campaign website already up and running , and she ’ s making no bones about her purpose .
This will be a showdown between “ MCC vs AOC ” for the Democratic title in NY-14 : Thus far , the website has nothing of substance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which emphasizes her life experience as an implied contrast to the bartender-turned-Representative : For over 20 years Michelle Caruso-Cabrera was a lead reporter and anchor at CNBC .
She held the title of Chief International Correspondent and traveled the world reporting live from Cuba , Iran , Ukraine , Iraq , Italy , Russia , Venezuela , and Latin America .
She reported live from many major global events including the Greek debt crisis , the Brexit vote , the 2008 US financial crisis , not to mention the US elections .
She @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Most Influential Hispanics ” in the country by Hispanic Business Magazine , and Broadcaster of the Year from the National Association of Hispanic Journalists .
There ’ s all sorts of irony in this , as Ocasio-Cortez barely took office before endorsing primary challenges against her fellow Democrats .
Not too many of them will be happy to see Caruso-Cabrera in the race , but more than a few of them won ’ t get the sadz enough to bail AOC out of a two-way challenge , either .
Can Caruso-Cabrera pull this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ celebrity factor in her favor , plus the endless stream of nonsense that flows out of the mouth of the incumbent , too .
In a D+29 district , it ’ s unclear whether someone as free-market oriented as Caruso-Cabrera can compete against the siren song of socialism , though .
And if more Democrats launch serious primary bids against Ocasio-Cortez , that might tend to split the I ’ m-so-embarrassed-AOC-represents-us vote in a primary .
Right now , AOC already has four other challengers in the June 23rd primary , all relative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ relation ) is on the city council , but James Dillon , Badrun Khan , and Jose Velasquez are apparently all novices .
Caruso-Cabrera ’ s star quality might force them all out , and her ability to raise funds off of her celebrity status ( and AOC opposition ) will likely swamp them out as well .
Unless someone of greater stature gets into the primary , Caruso-Cabrera is likely to get her “ MCC vs AOC ” narrative in June .
At the very least , it should be good for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wins , though , the popcorn industry might also be in line for a recession .
It ’ s a small price to pay to make Ocasio-Cortez a one-and-done politician .

Alternate headline: Conservative media expects recession in 2021. CNBC reported just a few minutes ago that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez will face a Democratic primary challenge this year, and not by some faceless novice to national politics. Former CNBC reporter Michelle Caruso-Cabrera has already filed her paperwork and set up a campaign website to take aim at the celebrity leader of Democratic Socialists.
I’m so torn on this …
Former longtime CNBC correspondent and anchor Michelle Caruso-Cabrera has launched a challenge in the Democratic primary against freshman firebrand Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York. Caruso-Cabrera, who became a CNBC contributor when she left the network in September 2018, serves as a member of the board of directors for financial services firm Beneficient. She will take a leave from her role as CNBC contributor for the duration of the campaign, a CNBC spokesperson said.
At least we’ll have lots of AOC content this year, if not afterward. Caruso-Cabrera has been a registered Democrat “for several years,” CNBC notes, but let’s just say that her politics are slightly to the right of Ocasio-Cortez’.
Maybe she’s been reading Milton Keenes. Or Karl Burke. Or Salma Hayek. Whatevs!
According to a filing late Monday, she will run as a Democrat in that party’s primary in the 14th District. Caruso-Cabrera is known to be a skeptic of government and a proponent of free markets. In 2010, she published a book called “You Know I’m Right: More Prosperity, Less Government.” She has been a registered Democrat for several years. “I am the daughter and granddaughter of working class Italian and Cuban immigrants,” Caruso-Cabrera said in a statement. “I am so lucky to have had such a wonderful career and I want everybody to have the opportunity that I’ve had. That’s why I’m running.”
Caruso-Cabrera has her campaign website already up and running, and she’s making no bones about her purpose. This will be a showdown between “MCC vs AOC” for the Democratic title in NY-14:
Thus far, the website has nothing of substance up except Caruso-Cabrera’s biography, which emphasizes her life experience as an implied contrast to the bartender-turned-Representative:
For over 20 years Michelle Caruso-Cabrera was a lead reporter and anchor at CNBC. She held the title of Chief International Correspondent and traveled the world reporting live from Cuba, Iran, Ukraine, Iraq, Italy, Russia, Venezuela, and Latin America. She reported live from many major global events including the Greek debt crisis, the Brexit vote, the 2008 US financial crisis, not to mention the US elections. She was named one of the “100 Most Influential Hispanics” in the country by Hispanic Business Magazine, and Broadcaster of the Year from the National Association of Hispanic Journalists.
There’s all sorts of irony in this, as Ocasio-Cortez barely took office before endorsing primary challenges against her fellow Democrats. Not too many of them will be happy to see Caruso-Cabrera in the race, but more than a few of them won’t get the sadz enough to bail AOC out of a two-way challenge, either.
Can Caruso-Cabrera pull this off? She’s got the celebrity factor in her favor, plus the endless stream of nonsense that flows out of the mouth of the incumbent, too. In a D+29 district, it’s unclear whether someone as free-market oriented as Caruso-Cabrera can compete against the siren song of socialism, though. And if more Democrats launch serious primary bids against Ocasio-Cortez, that might tend to split the I’m-so-embarrassed-AOC-represents-us vote in a primary.
Right now, AOC already has four other challengers in the June 23rd primary, all relative unknowns. Fernando Cabrera (presumably no relation) is on the city council, but James Dillon, Badrun Khan, and Jose Velasquez are apparently all novices. Caruso-Cabrera’s star quality might force them all out, and her ability to raise funds off of her celebrity status (and AOC opposition) will likely swamp them out as well. Unless someone of greater stature gets into the primary, Caruso-Cabrera is likely to get her “MCC vs AOC” narrative in June.
At the very least, it should be good for some popcorn-passin’ fun. If Caruso-Cabrera wins, though, the popcorn industry might also be in line for a recession. It’s a small price to pay to make Ocasio-Cortez a one-and-done politician.


hotair--2020-02-11--Joe "Mr. Electable" Biden: Actually, I think every Democrat running is electable

I don ’ t know , man .
I just don ’ t know .
This shtick is fine for August , six months out from the start of the race , but it ’ s baffling on the morning of the New Hampshire primary when Biden desperately needs a good showing to preserve his plausibility as a nominee .
Didn ’ t we see a poll just yesterday showing that his edge in electability is eroding , and with it the entire case for nominating him ?
My new theory is that he ’ s tired , he knows @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and he ’ s decided to be a good soldier for his party in defeat .
He ’ s not even throwing roundhouses at Buttigieg anymore after uppercutting him this past weekend .
In fairness to him , he ’ s not claiming that every Democrat running is *equally* electable .
He ranted a bit on Sunday about the baggage that the “ democratic socialist ” label would impose on Democrats downballot if the party nominates Sanders .
But asking him to declare that Bernie flatly can ’ t win ?
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the polls now open in New Hampshire .
His Super PAC is being more aggressive on electability : “ Donors hedging their bets on Biden because of Bloomberg could be creating a doomsday scenario for Democrats everywhere , ” the group ’ s treasurer , Larry Rasky , wrote [ in a memo to donors ] .
“ The Sanders-Warren wing of the Party is ready for the Bloomberg fight .
Democrats can not afford a split Convention .
“ If Bernie has more delegates , do you really think the Bros will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it added , referring to the hard-core Sanders supporters known as “ Bernie Bros. ” “ Not to mention that the legacy of the Sanders campaign ( such as the Squad ) will ravage any chance Center-Left Democrats have of maintaining hard won victories in states from Pennsylvania to California.
” Biden ’ s now tied with Elizabeth Warren for fourth place in New Hampshire in the RCP average , dead even at 11.0 percent apiece .
Amy Klobuchar has moved slightly ahead of them thanks to her debate performance on Friday night @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tonight , who ’ s donating to him — or to his Super PAC — next week ?
Right , right , there ’ s always South Carolina .
But his SC strategy increasingly feels like the 2020 version of Rudy Giuliani ’ s much-derided Florida strategy in 2008 .
In both cases the candidate was eyeing a specific demographic in the state that supposedly made it a stronghold for him : In Biden ’ s case it ’ s black voters , in Rudy ’ s case it was Florida ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ What Giuliani discovered , and what Biden ’ s likely to discover , is that your potential base won ’ t stick with you if you ’ re a nonfactor in the early states .
Plus , as a Twitter pal pointed out yesterday , the calendar isn ’ t Biden ’ s friend .
Even if he wins big in South Carolina , there ’ s scarcely any time for him to reap the benefits in a tangible way .
He ’ ll get some good buzz for a change but there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to monetize it .
South Carolina votes on February 29 ; Super Tuesday is just three days later , on March 3 .
How many ads and how much travel will Biden be able to afford to book in advance for Super Tuesday if he looks dead until 72 hours before polls open ?
I think he ’ s done and he knows it , especially with Bloomberg about to intrude on the centrist lane of the race .
By the end of the month he could end up as a zombie candidate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and Nevada handily and having won South Carolina weakly , with a narrow margin .
That victory , however unimpressive , will force him to hang around the race for a few more days until Super Tuesday even though he ’ ll have little chance at the sort of sweeping wins that would revive his candidacy .
All he ’ ll accomplish by competing that day will be to hoard votes from more viable centrists like Buttigieg , Bloomberg , and possibly Klobuchar .
Some establishment Dems are going to start pushing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their chances of stopping Bernie .
If Biden can ’ t do that , and increasingly it seems that he can ’ t , he ’ s a pure liability in the race .
By the way , this news is breaking as I ’ m writing : Note well : He ’ s going to South Carolina even though Nevada is next on the calendar .
He ’ s all but giving up on that state , it seems .
And , for God knows what reason , he ’ s announcing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the results tonight *before* most Democrats in New Hampshire have voted today , effectively giving up on that state too while voters are still going to the polls .
What incentive does any moderate Dem in New Hampshire who ’ s on the fence between Joe , Buttigieg , and Klobuchar have to give him their vote now ?
Biden ’ s all but declaring that it ’ s a lost cause .
Might as well go with Pete or Amy .
Which means the odds of a disastrous fifth-place finish for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ question : He ’ s giving up , isn ’ t he ?
He ’ s going to make a half-hearted effort in South Carolina for the sake of his staff but he ’ s done .

I don’t know, man. I just don’t know.
This shtick is fine for August, six months out from the start of the race, but it’s baffling on the morning of the New Hampshire primary when Biden desperately needs a good showing to preserve his plausibility as a nominee. Didn’t we see a poll just yesterday showing that his edge in electability is eroding, and with it the entire case for nominating him?
My new theory is that he’s tired, he knows the writing’s on the wall, and he’s decided to be a good soldier for his party in defeat. He’s not even throwing roundhouses at Buttigieg anymore after uppercutting him this past weekend.
"I refuse to suggest any Democrat can lose. I think we could run Mickey Mouse against this president and have a shot." —@JoeBiden pic.twitter.com/91dJpO5zCf — Morning Joe (@Morning_Joe) February 11, 2020
In fairness to him, he’s not claiming that every Democrat running is *equally* electable. He ranted a bit on Sunday about the baggage that the “democratic socialist” label would impose on Democrats downballot if the party nominates Sanders. But asking him to declare that Bernie flatly can’t win?
He won’t say that even with the polls now open in New Hampshire.
His Super PAC is being more aggressive on electability:
“Donors hedging their bets on Biden because of Bloomberg could be creating a doomsday scenario for Democrats everywhere,” the group’s treasurer, Larry Rasky, wrote [in a memo to donors]. “The Sanders-Warren wing of the Party is ready for the Bloomberg fight. Democrats cannot afford a split Convention. “If Bernie has more delegates, do you really think the Bros will make way for Mike?,” it added, referring to the hard-core Sanders supporters known as “Bernie Bros.” “Not to mention that the legacy of the Sanders campaign (such as the Squad) will ravage any chance Center-Left Democrats have of maintaining hard won victories in states from Pennsylvania to California.”
Biden’s now tied with Elizabeth Warren for fourth place in New Hampshire in the RCP average, dead even at 11.0 percent apiece. Amy Klobuchar has moved slightly ahead of them thanks to her debate performance on Friday night. If Biden ends up in fifth tonight, who’s donating to him — or to his Super PAC — next week?
Right, right, there’s always South Carolina. But his SC strategy increasingly feels like the 2020 version of Rudy Giuliani’s much-derided Florida strategy in 2008. In both cases the candidate was eyeing a specific demographic in the state that supposedly made it a stronghold for him: In Biden’s case it’s black voters, in Rudy’s case it was Florida’s sizable population of former New Yorkers. What Giuliani discovered, and what Biden’s likely to discover, is that your potential base won’t stick with you if you’re a nonfactor in the early states.
Plus, as a Twitter pal pointed out yesterday, the calendar isn’t Biden’s friend. Even if he wins big in South Carolina, there’s scarcely any time for him to reap the benefits in a tangible way. He’ll get some good buzz for a change but there’ll be little opportunity for him to monetize it. South Carolina votes on February 29; Super Tuesday is just three days later, on March 3. How many ads and how much travel will Biden be able to afford to book in advance for Super Tuesday if he looks dead until 72 hours before polls open?
I think he’s done and he knows it, especially with Bloomberg about to intrude on the centrist lane of the race. By the end of the month he could end up as a zombie candidate, having lost Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada handily and having won South Carolina weakly, with a narrow margin. That victory, however unimpressive, will force him to hang around the race for a few more days until Super Tuesday even though he’ll have little chance at the sort of sweeping wins that would revive his candidacy. All he’ll accomplish by competing that day will be to hoard votes from more viable centrists like Buttigieg, Bloomberg, and possibly Klobuchar.
Some establishment Dems are going to start pushing him to get out, to maximize their chances of stopping Bernie. If Biden can’t do that, and increasingly it seems that he can’t, he’s a pure liability in the race.
By the way, this news is breaking as I’m writing:
Joe Biden is blowing off his election night party in NH and going to SC tonight instead — Matt Viser (@mviser) February 11, 2020
Note well: He’s going to South Carolina even though Nevada is next on the calendar. He’s all but giving up on that state, it seems. And, for God knows what reason, he’s announcing that he won’t stick around for the results tonight *before* most Democrats in New Hampshire have voted today, effectively giving up on that state too while voters are still going to the polls. What incentive does any moderate Dem in New Hampshire who’s on the fence between Joe, Buttigieg, and Klobuchar have to give him their vote now? Biden’s all but declaring that it’s a lost cause. Might as well go with Pete or Amy. Which means the odds of a disastrous fifth-place finish for Biden have just risen considerably.
Exit question: He’s giving up, isn’t he? He’s going to make a half-hearted effort in South Carolina for the sake of his staff but he’s done.


hotair--2020-02-11--Bloomberg pays social media influencers to make him look cool

When you think of Michael Bloomberg , chances are the first thought that pops into your mind probably isn ’ t “ yeah , that guy is cool.
” He ’ s a wealthy , successful businessman but he ’ s not the cool candidate .
Bloomberg is out to change that .
It looks like Bloomberg ’ s campaign has breached a new frontier in the advertising war – he ’ s paying social media influencers .
A social media influencer is a user on social media who has established credibility in a specific industry .
Influencers are chosen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ audience – their followers – on social media .
The idea is for the influencer to establish a following that trusts his or her opinions – whether in reviews of products or services or as in this case , of other people .
Paying social media influencers isn ’ t anything new .
Brands do it all the time .
People can make a decent living as an influencer , some become quite successful in doing so .
The Kardashians , for example , come to mind .
The next level down from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Loughlin ’ s daughter , Olivia Jade , who reportedly made hundreds of thousands of dollars as an influencer before her parents ’ involvement in the college admissions fraud scandal made headlines .
There are thousands of social media users who monetize YouTube channels or Instagram accounts to make money off of their influence over their followers .
It is a market made for Millennials , the generation that has never known a world without the internet .
Mike Bloomberg is no dummy .
He ’ s a savvy businessman .
So it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that he has tapped into this market with his presidential campaign .
His campaign is the only one using influencers so far .
I have no doubt that others will do the same in the future if the Bloomberg campaign sees decent results .
It is a new frontier in advertising that can end up with as much influence as Facebook or Twitter .
Instagram and YouTube are extremely popular with younger social media users .
The Bloomberg campaign is using Tribe , a “ branded content marketplace ” that connects social media @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advertise to their followers .
The campaign is reaching out to influencers to create content highlighting why they love Bloomberg .
And , of course , he ’ s happy to pay for that creative content .
The campaign has a fixed price to compensate the influencers – $ 150.00 if a submission is approved .
A clever twist in this strategy is that the campaign is specifically seeking out micro-influencers – those social media content makers who have 1,000 to 100,000 followers , as opposed to celebrities and established influencers , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ search could open up a whole new market for politicians looking to inspire grassroots support .
That ’ s basic enough .
It ’ s like when candidates round up people who their campaign think are a good representation of their supporters and film a campaign ad that humanizes the candidate .
Neighbors , work colleagues , family members , you get the picture .
Now , though , especially with Millennials , social media replaces real-life friendships and day to day interaction .
So , instead of having lunch with friends or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to social media and interact .
Bloomberg has shown himself to be a micro-manager during this campaign .
Remember the idea he put forth of an open floor plan in the White House if he ’ s elected ?
That is a horrible idea but it tells volumes on his management style .
He ’ ll be looking over shoulders .
It ’ s also a cheap way for the Bloomberg campaign to advertise to a bigger audience .
Tribe , which works with nearly 70,000 aspiring influencers , offers brands—and , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ solicit custom-made content from aspiring influencers , who create custom social within the brand ’ s parameters for submission .
If the brand accepts the content , the influencer is paid in exchange for the ability of the brand to license the content and place it on their own social channels—or , if the campaign prefers , the influencers post the # sponcon to their own feeds , targeting followers that the brand might not otherwise reach .
The campaign post , reviewed by The Daily Beast , encourages submissions to be well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ we need a change in Government , ” and for the creator to “ be honest , passionate and be yourself !
” Influencers are asked not to use profanity , nudity , or “ overtly negative content , ” as well as be U.S. residents to participate .
To be honest , the first thought I had when I read about all this was , “ Oh , no , not more Bloomberg advertising.
” There is no escaping Bloomberg campaign ads unless you have the luxury of shutting out the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a good book .
Most of us don ’ t .
For people like me who have the television on during waking hours , Bloomberg is bombarding us with ads each and every day .
Billionaires can do that .
What ’ s a little more to him ?
He ’ s paid his way into third place in some polls and makes no apologies about buying the presidency .
Bloomberg is breaking new ground here .
Expect other campaigns to do the same if his campaign sees results from entering this @ @ @ @

When you think of Michael Bloomberg, chances are the first thought that pops into your mind probably isn’t “yeah, that guy is cool.” He’s a wealthy, successful businessman but he’s not the cool candidate. Bloomberg is out to change that.
It looks like Bloomberg’s campaign has breached a new frontier in the advertising war – he’s paying social media influencers. A social media influencer is a user on social media who has established credibility in a specific industry. Influencers are chosen for their ability to reach a large audience – their followers – on social media. The idea is for the influencer to establish a following that trusts his or her opinions – whether in reviews of products or services or as in this case, of other people.
Paying social media influencers isn’t anything new. Brands do it all the time. People can make a decent living as an influencer, some become quite successful in doing so. The Kardashians, for example, come to mind. The next level down from them would be young people like Lori Loughlin’s daughter, Olivia Jade, who reportedly made hundreds of thousands of dollars as an influencer before her parents’ involvement in the college admissions fraud scandal made headlines. There are thousands of social media users who monetize YouTube channels or Instagram accounts to make money off of their influence over their followers. It is a market made for Millennials, the generation that has never known a world without the internet.
Mike Bloomberg is no dummy. He’s a savvy businessman. So it probably shouldn’t be a shock that he has tapped into this market with his presidential campaign. His campaign is the only one using influencers so far. I have no doubt that others will do the same in the future if the Bloomberg campaign sees decent results. It is a new frontier in advertising that can end up with as much influence as Facebook or Twitter. Instagram and YouTube are extremely popular with younger social media users.
The Bloomberg campaign is using Tribe, a “branded content marketplace” that connects social media influencers with the brands that want to advertise to their followers. The campaign is reaching out to influencers to create content highlighting why they love Bloomberg. And, of course, he’s happy to pay for that creative content. The campaign has a fixed price to compensate the influencers – $150.00 if a submission is approved. A clever twist in this strategy is that the campaign is specifically seeking out micro-influencers – those social media content makers who have 1,000 to 100,000 followers, as opposed to celebrities and established influencers, who can have millions of followers. This search could open up a whole new market for politicians looking to inspire grassroots support.
“Are you sick of the chaos & infighting overshadowing the issues that matter most to us? Please express your thoughts verbally or for still image posts please overlay text about why you support Mike,” the campaign copy tells would-be Bloomberg stans under the heading “Content We’d Love From You,” asking influencers to “Show+Tell why Mike is the candidate who can change our country for the better, state why YOU think he’s a great candidate.”
That’s basic enough. It’s like when candidates round up people who their campaign think are a good representation of their supporters and film a campaign ad that humanizes the candidate. Neighbors, work colleagues, family members, you get the picture. Now, though, especially with Millennials, social media replaces real-life friendships and day to day interaction. So, instead of having lunch with friends or coffee with a neighbor, they go to social media and interact. Bloomberg has shown himself to be a micro-manager during this campaign. Remember the idea he put forth of an open floor plan in the White House if he’s elected? That is a horrible idea but it tells volumes on his management style. He’ll be looking over shoulders. It’s also a cheap way for the Bloomberg campaign to advertise to a bigger audience.
Tribe, which works with nearly 70,000 aspiring influencers, offers brands—and, in this case, presidential campaigns—the ability to solicit custom-made content from aspiring influencers, who create custom social within the brand’s parameters for submission. If the brand accepts the content, the influencer is paid in exchange for the ability of the brand to license the content and place it on their own social channels—or, if the campaign prefers, the influencers post the #sponcon to their own feeds, targeting followers that the brand might not otherwise reach. The campaign post, reviewed by The Daily Beast, encourages submissions to be well lit, mention why the influencer thinks “we need a change in Government,” and for the creator to “be honest, passionate and be yourself!” Influencers are asked not to use profanity, nudity, or “overtly negative content,” as well as be U.S. residents to participate.
To be honest, the first thought I had when I read about all this was, “Oh, no, not more Bloomberg advertising.” There is no escaping Bloomberg campaign ads unless you have the luxury of shutting out the world and sitting in a comfortable chair with a good book. Most of us don’t. For people like me who have the television on during waking hours, Bloomberg is bombarding us with ads each and every day. Billionaires can do that. What’s a little more to him? He’s paid his way into third place in some polls and makes no apologies about buying the presidency.
Bloomberg is breaking new ground here. Expect other campaigns to do the same if his campaign sees results from entering this realm of advertising.


hotair--2020-02-11--Gabbard: Let's decriminalize sex work

Gabbard: Let's decriminalize sex work

This primary season has been marked by repeated calls from the various candidates to decriminalize lots of things .
Most of the hopefuls are on board with legalizing marijuana use , though only Mayor Pete decided to up the ante and call for decriminalizing heroin and every other drug on the streets .
Most of them are up for decriminalizing “ quality of life ” crimes frequently associated with the homeless .
But in the decriminalization game , only Tulsi Gabbard has decided to dip a toe into the realm of prostitution and other sex work .
Reason got her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ subject .
“ If a consenting adult wants to engage in sex work , that is their right , and it should not be a crime , ” Gabbard said in a statement this weekend to Reason .
“ All people should have autonomy over their bodies and their labor.
” Gabbard is the only one to get a good grade on a recent report card put out by the group Decriminalize Sex Work ( DSW ) .
“ Gabbard supports the full decriminalization of sex work , which removes criminal and civil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of prostitution , ” the group reports .
DSW gave Gabbard an A- .
She didn ’ t get a perfect score because she voted for FOSTA , which made hosting content that facilitates prostitution a federal crime .
This is a subject that ’ s seen a noticeable shift in public support over the years , though it still gets very little attention on the campaign trail for some reason .
Recent polling shows broad support for decriminalizing both prostitution and the soliciting of same by prospective clients , though the idea @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republicans .
As regular readers likely know , this is another of those topics where my inner libertarian overtakes other , more conventional conservative leanings .
I ’ ve long felt pretty much the same as Gabbard on this issue .
I have no problem with people having personal or moral objections to prostitution , but it just doesn ’ t seem to fall under the category of things that the government should be regulating .
This , of course , assumes that the activity is fully consensual on the part of both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trafficking and the sexual enslavement of children are very real problems and I still support harsh penalties for such crimes .
But if an adult woman ( because it ’ s almost always women ) makes the choice to use her own body in that fashion to earn money , the government shouldn ’ t tell her how to manage her own affairs .
I understand that the issue isn ’ t entirely cut and dried .
As many critics have pointed out , I have no doubt that many of the women @ @ @ @ @ @ @ since that ’ s apparently a phrase now ) are not doing it because they want to .
Poverty , drug addiction and other social woes likely force some women into prostitution so it ’ s perhaps fair to say that it ’ s not entirely “ consensual ” if it comes down to a choice between resorting to that or starving .
But even in such cases , arresting the woman isn ’ t making the situation any better for them .
Public assistance programs and other strategies to lift them out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ preferable .
So this is one of those rare cases where I ’ ll give a thumbs up to one of the Democratic candidates , at least on this particular issue .
Aside from this , Gabbard doesn ’ t have much going on that separates her from the rest of the field .
( Well , unless you count being the only person currently suing Hillary Clinton . )
Perhaps a public conversation on this subject might spur one of the moderators at the next debates to bring it up and get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ record .

This primary season has been marked by repeated calls from the various candidates to decriminalize lots of things. Most of the hopefuls are on board with legalizing marijuana use, though only Mayor Pete decided to up the ante and call for decriminalizing heroin and every other drug on the streets. Most of them are up for decriminalizing “quality of life” crimes frequently associated with the homeless. But in the decriminalization game, only Tulsi Gabbard has decided to dip a toe into the realm of prostitution and other sex work. Reason got her on the record this weekend on this subject.
“If a consenting adult wants to engage in sex work, that is their right, and it should not be a crime,” Gabbard said in a statement this weekend to Reason. “All people should have autonomy over their bodies and their labor.” Gabbard is the only one to get a good grade on a recent report card put out by the group Decriminalize Sex Work (DSW). “Gabbard supports the full decriminalization of sex work, which removes criminal and civil penalties from adults engaged in consensual acts of prostitution,” the group reports. DSW gave Gabbard an A-. She didn’t get a perfect score because she voted for FOSTA, which made hosting content that facilitates prostitution a federal crime.
This is a subject that’s seen a noticeable shift in public support over the years, though it still gets very little attention on the campaign trail for some reason. Recent polling shows broad support for decriminalizing both prostitution and the soliciting of same by prospective clients, though the idea is still more popular among Democrats than Republicans.
As regular readers likely know, this is another of those topics where my inner libertarian overtakes other, more conventional conservative leanings. I’ve long felt pretty much the same as Gabbard on this issue. I have no problem with people having personal or moral objections to prostitution, but it just doesn’t seem to fall under the category of things that the government should be regulating.
This, of course, assumes that the activity is fully consensual on the part of both parties and they are adults. Human trafficking and the sexual enslavement of children are very real problems and I still support harsh penalties for such crimes. But if an adult woman (because it’s almost always women) makes the choice to use her own body in that fashion to earn money, the government shouldn’t tell her how to manage her own affairs.
I understand that the issue isn’t entirely cut and dried. As many critics have pointed out, I have no doubt that many of the women engaging in “sex work” (since that’s apparently a phrase now) are not doing it because they want to. Poverty, drug addiction and other social woes likely force some women into prostitution so it’s perhaps fair to say that it’s not entirely “consensual” if it comes down to a choice between resorting to that or starving. But even in such cases, arresting the woman isn’t making the situation any better for them. Public assistance programs and other strategies to lift them out of poverty and/or addiction would be far preferable.
So this is one of those rare cases where I’ll give a thumbs up to one of the Democratic candidates, at least on this particular issue. Aside from this, Gabbard doesn’t have much going on that separates her from the rest of the field. (Well, unless you count being the only person currently suing Hillary Clinton.) Perhaps a public conversation on this subject might spur one of the moderators at the next debates to bring it up and get the rest of the candidates on the record.


hotair--2020-02-11--Come on, the ERA deadline has long since expired, says ... Notorious RBG?

When the history of the Equal Rights Amendment gets written ( finally ) , who will get the credit for killing it off , at least in its initial incarnation ?
Could it be the greatest living feminist icon — the woman who inspired not just one but two major Hollywood films in the last two years ?
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg might find herself notorious in a different way after remarks she made last night at a Georgetown Law event .
The ERA is dead , Ginsburg remarked , while also hailing a new ERA effort if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bader Ginsburg , a long-time supporter of the Equal Rights Amendment , suggested Monday night that the deadline to ratify the measure as a constitutional amendment has expired and that the decades long effort must start anew .
“ I would like to see a new beginning , ” Ginsburg told an audience at Georgetown University Law Center .
“ I ’ d like it to start over , ” she added .
… Nodding in response to the question about the dispute , Ginsburg said “ there is too much controversy about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Virginia ’ s move came “ long after the deadline passed.
” This came up because the new Democrat-controlled legislature in Virginia ratified the ERA in January .
That made them the 38th state to ratify the proposed amendment , which normally would succeed in adding it to the Constitution .
However , when Congress sent the amendment to the states in 1972 , they added a seven-year deadline , which they extended later to ten years .
That deadline passed without getting the necessary three-quarters of states to ratify it , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Or did it ?
States have argued that the deadline was not constitutional in the first place and have slowly added themselves to its ratification .
Some states de-ratified it in the meantime , which set up new legal fights .
Until last month , however , the case for challenging the deadline wasn ’ t ripe for a court challenge .
And that brings us to this month .
A lawsuit has been filed by Virginia to force the issue , described briefly by Josh Blackman at the Volokh Conspiracy : The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now pending in several courts .
Alabama , joined by Louisiana and South Dakota , filed suit in the Northern District of Alabama .
They argued that the ratification deadline has already passed .
The Office of Legal Counsel has weighed in , and also concluded that the deadline has already passed .
Another suit was filed in the District of Massachusetts , arguing that the ratification is proper .
And Virginia , joined by several other states , sued in the District for the District of Columbia to order the Archivist of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Amendment .
The five states that voted to rescind their earlier ratifications will likely sue as well , if they haven ’ t already .
That will create a legal mess that will almost certainly come before the Supreme Court .
So why is Ginsburg talking about the case at all , especially with the states fighting each other in multiple federal courts ?
It turns out that it ’ s not the first time she ’ s weighed in on this topic in public .
She urged its advocates to start from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Even at that time , that was a remarkably indiscreet comment for a Supreme Court justice to make on a potential case .
This time , she ’ s speaking about her position on an actual federal case that will almost certainly get heard before the court .
Will Ginsburg recuse herself ?
Probably not , and it probably won ’ t matter anyway .
The simple fact is that Congress did attach a deadline to the amendment , and Congress has the authority to do that .
When this gets to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be if Virginia and its allies get even one vote on the court to argue against Congress ’ constitutional authority .
Ginsburg sounds pretty clearly that she won ’ t be that vote , which makes recusal a moot point anyway .
If ERA advocates want to push their amendment , they ’ ll either need Congress to send it to the states again ( with two-thirds votes in both chambers ) or convene an Article V convention of the states to generate it .
Why not just take one of those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because the states aren ’ t all that interested in the topic , and advocates know they won ’ t get 2/3rds of either chamber to go along .
Why ?
Because conservatives believe this attempt to resuscitate the ERA is about getting all limits removed on abortion , as is an attempt to get Congress to rescind the 1972 deadline on the ERA : Though the bill is expected to pass the House , it has little to no chance of winning support from the GOP-controlled Senate or President Donald Trump .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in federal courts — but the battle for public opinion is already in full swing , and influential and well-funded anti-abortion groups and their allies in Congress don ’ t want to take any chances .
“ Everyone knows this renewed effort isn ’ t about women ’ s rights , ” the office of House Republican Whip Steve Scalise said , summarizing the message being relayed to the GOP caucus .
“ It ’ s about eliminating federal and state life protections and ushering in an era of taxpayer funding of abortion.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ can have abortions , any restrictions on the procedure could be deemed unconstitutional under the ERA — and they ’ re excoriating progressive supporters of the amendment for dancing around this open legal question .
ERA proponents , in turn , accuse conservatives of harping on the abortion issue because most of the dire consequences they predicted in the 1970s have already come to pass .
“ A lot of the arguments that they had in opposition against the ERA are no longer relevant , ” said Rep. Carolyn Maloney , a lead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a separate bill that would propose a new ERA .
“ One of them is that we would have co-ed bathrooms .
Wake up .
Have you been on a plane ?
Have you been in a private home ?
And women are already in the military , on the front lines , they ’ re admirals , they ’ re generals .
As for gay rights — gay rights have passed .
So that is no longer an issue.
” That ’ s actually the point conservatives are making .
Everything @ @ @ @ @ @ @ already been accomplished through other means — Title IX and other federal and state legislation prohibiting sex discrimination as well as other forms ( sexual orientation , etc ) .
So why the push for the ERA now ?
The only reason is abortion , and even Planned Parenthood agrees : Consider the ERA the back-up plan if Roe v Wade is overturned .
And at the moment , it ’ s not looking like Notorious RBG is cooperating with it .
Hmmm .

When the history of the Equal Rights Amendment gets written (finally), who will get the credit for killing it off, at least in its initial incarnation? Could it be the greatest living feminist icon — the woman who inspired not just one but two major Hollywood films in the last two years? Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg might find herself notorious in a different way after remarks she made last night at a Georgetown Law event. The ERA is dead, Ginsburg remarked, while also hailing a new ERA effort if and when it materializes:
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a long-time supporter of the Equal Rights Amendment, suggested Monday night that the deadline to ratify the measure as a constitutional amendment has expired and that the decades long effort must start anew. “I would like to see a new beginning,” Ginsburg told an audience at Georgetown University Law Center. “I’d like it to start over,” she added. … Nodding in response to the question about the dispute, Ginsburg said “there is too much controversy about late comers,” and she added that Virginia’s move came “long after the deadline passed.”
This came up because the new Democrat-controlled legislature in Virginia ratified the ERA in January. That made them the 38th state to ratify the proposed amendment, which normally would succeed in adding it to the Constitution. However, when Congress sent the amendment to the states in 1972, they added a seven-year deadline, which they extended later to ten years. That deadline passed without getting the necessary three-quarters of states to ratify it, which meant that the proposal died.
Or did it? States have argued that the deadline was not constitutional in the first place and have slowly added themselves to its ratification. Some states de-ratified it in the meantime, which set up new legal fights. Until last month, however, the case for challenging the deadline wasn’t ripe for a court challenge.
And that brings us to this month. A lawsuit has been filed by Virginia to force the issue, described briefly by Josh Blackman at the Volokh Conspiracy:
The status of Virginia’s ratification is now pending in several courts. Alabama, joined by Louisiana and South Dakota, filed suit in the Northern District of Alabama. They argued that the ratification deadline has already passed. The Office of Legal Counsel has weighed in, and also concluded that the deadline has already passed. Another suit was filed in the District of Massachusetts, arguing that the ratification is proper. And Virginia, joined by several other states, sued in the District for the District of Columbia to order the Archivist of the United States to certify the 28th Amendment.
The five states that voted to rescind their earlier ratifications will likely sue as well, if they haven’t already. That will create a legal mess that will almost certainly come before the Supreme Court. So why is Ginsburg talking about the case at all, especially with the states fighting each other in multiple federal courts? It turns out that it’s not the first time she’s weighed in on this topic in public. She urged its advocates to start from scratch last year in the same venue:
“I hope someday it will be put back in the political hopper, starting over again, collecting the necessary number of states to ratify it, ” she said last year at a separate event at Georgetown.
Even at that time, that was a remarkably indiscreet comment for a Supreme Court justice to make on a potential case. This time, she’s speaking about her position on an actual federal case that will almost certainly get heard before the court. Will Ginsburg recuse herself?
Probably not, and it probably won’t matter anyway. The simple fact is that Congress did attach a deadline to the amendment, and Congress has the authority to do that. When this gets to the Supreme Court, the biggest mystery will be if Virginia and its allies get even one vote on the court to argue against Congress’ constitutional authority. Ginsburg sounds pretty clearly that she won’t be that vote, which makes recusal a moot point anyway.
If ERA advocates want to push their amendment, they’ll either need Congress to send it to the states again (with two-thirds votes in both chambers) or convene an Article V convention of the states to generate it. Why not just take one of those two courses? It’s likely because the states aren’t all that interested in the topic, and advocates know they won’t get 2/3rds of either chamber to go along. Why? Because conservatives believe this attempt to resuscitate the ERA is about getting all limits removed on abortion, as is an attempt to get Congress to rescind the 1972 deadline on the ERA:
Though the bill is expected to pass the House, it has little to no chance of winning support from the GOP-controlled Senate or President Donald Trump. The real fight will likely take place in federal courts — but the battle for public opinion is already in full swing, and influential and well-funded anti-abortion groups and their allies in Congress don’t want to take any chances. “Everyone knows this renewed effort isn’t about women’s rights,” the office of House Republican Whip Steve Scalise said, summarizing the message being relayed to the GOP caucus. “It’s about eliminating federal and state life protections and ushering in an era of taxpayer funding of abortion.” Conservatives argue that because only women can have abortions, any restrictions on the procedure could be deemed unconstitutional under the ERA — and they’re excoriating progressive supporters of the amendment for dancing around this open legal question. ERA proponents, in turn, accuse conservatives of harping on the abortion issue because most of the dire consequences they predicted in the 1970s have already come to pass. “A lot of the arguments that they had in opposition against the ERA are no longer relevant,” said Rep. Carolyn Maloney, a lead sponsor of the House bill and author of a separate bill that would propose a new ERA. “One of them is that we would have co-ed bathrooms. Wake up. Have you been on a plane? Have you been in a private home? And women are already in the military, on the front lines, they’re admirals, they’re generals. As for gay rights — gay rights have passed. So that is no longer an issue.”
That’s actually the point conservatives are making. Everything that ERA advocates demanded in 1972 has already been accomplished through other means — Title IX and other federal and state legislation prohibiting sex discrimination as well as other forms (sexual orientation, etc). So why the push for the ERA now? The only reason is abortion, and even Planned Parenthood agrees:
“There are no equal rights for women without access to abortion, plain and simple,” said Alexis McGill Johnson, acting president and CEO of Planned Parenthood.
Consider the ERA the back-up plan if Roe v Wade is overturned. And at the moment, it’s not looking like Notorious RBG is cooperating with it. Hmmm.


hotair--2020-02-11--Look out, Senator Cornyn - Alec Baldwin is coming for you

Alec Baldwin portrays President Trump on SNL .
We ’ ve all seen him do it .
His latest role is that of a political consultant for the campaign of a Democrat challenger in Senator Cornyn ’ s bid for re-election .
Because there is nothing Texans like better than an actor from New York telling them who they should vote for in an election , amirite ?
Cristina Tzintzún Ramirez is running in the Texas Democrat primary .
The Texas Tribune is running a series of stories on all of Senator John Cornyn ’ s challengers on the Democrat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tzintzun Ramirez entered the race with the encouragement of Baldwin , who is acting as a mentor , as it turns out .
He convinced her to run against Cornyn though she was hesitating about the timing in her personal life as she has a young son .
She called Baldwin and he told her she had to do it .
“ She ’ s one of a handful of people I ’ ve repeatedly told , ‘ You ’ ve got to run .
You have no choice , ’ ” Baldwin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interview.
” Between Baldwin and some former staffers of Beto O ’ Rourke , along with other Democrat operatives , she decided to run .
Cornyn is running for his fourth term in the U.S. Senate .
Tzintzun Ramirez is a newcomer .
She began as a grassroots organizer and went on to co-found the Workers Defense Project , an Austin-based initiative that serves the immigrant worker community .
She became the organization ’ s executive director and went on from there to Jolt , a nonprofit that works to increase the civic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is 38 years old .
She and her supporters are counting on Baldwin ’ s star power and resources to push her into the winner ’ s circle on primary election day .
Baldwin , 61 , has been urging her to run for office — perhaps governor or U.S. Senate — since the two first met in 2013 , she said .
A New York Times article at the time spotlighted her work as then-executive director of the Workers Defense Project , an Austin-based group that fights for labor laws with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and student activists .
The piece impressed Baldwin , who called to say he wanted to meet her .
Tzintzún Ramirez was floored when the movie star first reached out .
“ Literally when I met him , my mom said , ‘ Oh , señor Alec , he ’ s going to be someone very important in your life , ” she raved .
The two hit it off , and he later invited her to be a guest on his short-lived MSNBC show .
Since then , she ’ s visited @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to her son .
The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is supporting Mary Jennings ( MJ ) Hegar .
Hegar has her own support from entertainment elites .
Senator Cornyn calls her “ Hollywood Hegar ” for her support from Patton Oswalt , Lin-Manuel Miranda and actress Alyssa Milano .
Though none of the Democrats running against Cornyn pose a real challenge , Hegar is probably the strongest of the pack .
She previously ran against U.S. Rep. John Carter in 2018 and lost by 2.9 percentage points .
She is a decorated Air @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Afghanistan and earned a Purple Heart .
She also sued the Air Force to remove the Combat Exclusion Policy .
Tzintzun Ramirez is more in line with the far-left and Robert Francis O ’ Rouke , which is why his former staffers encouraged her to run .
Baldwin is optimistic for his friend , though .
“ Texas has certainly become more racially diversified , and if you get all those people to the polls , she has a real chance to win , ” Baldwin said .
“ I think she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has said he will support the Democratic nominee against Cornyn — he ’ s even offering to host events for that candidate in Texas , if he or she wants — regardless of who wins .
Most Texas voters don ’ t much care about celebrity endorsements .
Often they backfire .
It ’ s fine by me if Baldwin wants to test that opinion , though .
I ’ m sure Senator Cornyn can have fun with that in some political ads .
Trump will carry Texas on Election Day in November @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leader in The Resistance against him likely won ’ t play very well with most voters .
Cornyn does have some Republican challengers on the ballot but none are serious contenders .
Early voting begins February 18 , with the primary on March 3 , Super Tuesday .

Alec Baldwin portrays President Trump on SNL. We’ve all seen him do it. His latest role is that of a political consultant for the campaign of a Democrat challenger in Senator Cornyn’s bid for re-election. Because there is nothing Texans like better than an actor from New York telling them who they should vote for in an election, amirite?
Cristina Tzintzún Ramirez is running in the Texas Democrat primary. The Texas Tribune is running a series of stories on all of Senator John Cornyn’s challengers on the Democrat side – all twelve of them. Tzintzun Ramirez entered the race with the encouragement of Baldwin, who is acting as a mentor, as it turns out. He convinced her to run against Cornyn though she was hesitating about the timing in her personal life as she has a young son. She called Baldwin and he told her she had to do it. “She’s one of a handful of people I’ve repeatedly told, ‘You’ve got to run. You have no choice,’” Baldwin told The Texas Tribune in a phone interview.” Between Baldwin and some former staffers of Beto O’Rourke, along with other Democrat operatives, she decided to run.
Cornyn is running for his fourth term in the U.S. Senate. Tzintzun Ramirez is a newcomer. She began as a grassroots organizer and went on to co-found the Workers Defense Project, an Austin-based initiative that serves the immigrant worker community. She became the organization’s executive director and went on from there to Jolt, a nonprofit that works to increase the civic participation of Latinos in Texas. She is 38 years old. She and her supporters are counting on Baldwin’s star power and resources to push her into the winner’s circle on primary election day.
Baldwin, 61, has been urging her to run for office — perhaps governor or U.S. Senate — since the two first met in 2013, she said. A New York Times article at the time spotlighted her work as then-executive director of the Workers Defense Project, an Austin-based group that fights for labor laws with the help of businesses, unions, churches and student activists. The piece impressed Baldwin, who called to say he wanted to meet her. Tzintzún Ramirez was floored when the movie star first reached out. “Literally when I met him, my mom said, ‘Oh, señor Alec, he’s going to be someone very important in your life,” she raved. The two hit it off, and he later invited her to be a guest on his short-lived MSNBC show. Since then, she’s visited him in New York and introduced him to her son.
Here is the future of Texas! Please donate to the US Senate campaign of my friend, Cristina Tzintzun.@cristinafortx pic.twitter.com/Zff7VXR1cF — AlecBaldwin(HABF) (@AlecBaldwin) December 29, 2019
The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is supporting Mary Jennings (MJ) Hegar. Hegar has her own support from entertainment elites. Senator Cornyn calls her “Hollywood Hegar” for her support from Patton Oswalt, Lin-Manuel Miranda and actress Alyssa Milano. Though none of the Democrats running against Cornyn pose a real challenge, Hegar is probably the strongest of the pack. She previously ran against U.S. Rep. John Carter in 2018 and lost by 2.9 percentage points. She is a decorated Air Force veteran, having served three tours in Afghanistan and earned a Purple Heart. She also sued the Air Force to remove the Combat Exclusion Policy.
Tzintzun Ramirez is more in line with the far-left and Robert Francis O’Rouke, which is why his former staffers encouraged her to run. Baldwin is optimistic for his friend, though.
“Texas has certainly become more racially diversified, and if you get all those people to the polls, she has a real chance to win,” Baldwin said. “I think she’ll win the primary.” Baldwin has said he will support the Democratic nominee against Cornyn — he’s even offering to host events for that candidate in Texas, if he or she wants — regardless of who wins.
Most Texas voters don’t much care about celebrity endorsements. Often they backfire. It’s fine by me if Baldwin wants to test that opinion, though. I’m sure Senator Cornyn can have fun with that in some political ads. Trump will carry Texas on Election Day in November and the New Yorker who is a leader in The Resistance against him likely won’t play very well with most voters.
Cornyn does have some Republican challengers on the ballot but none are serious contenders. Early voting begins February 18, with the primary on March 3, Super Tuesday.


Trump’s unserious budget

President Donald Trump ’ s new budget proposal is nothing but red meat for his Republican base .
The $ 4.8T spending plan is chock full of buzz words aimed at soothing the worries of budget hawks including “ eliminating duplicative programs ” and “ eliminating programs with no proper federal role.
” It also contains lofty assurances of changes to food stamps , massive cuts to the EPA , and block grants within the Education Department .
The missive vows a balanced budget in only 15 years while promoting increased funding for the Defense Department and Department of Homeland @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forget the wall and rebuilding America ’ s crumbling infrastructure .
Oh , and Mars .
Trump ’ s administration admitted the proposal is essentially for votes in 2020 due to criticism over his failure to even attempt to rein in Washington ’ s spending addiction .
“ We ’ re trying to make the case that the president cares about spending and has cared about spending , ” a senior administration official told The Washington Times the day before the budget became public .
“ He ’ s been doing this since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now the fourth budget .
Many of these [ spending ] reforms have been in each and every one of them .
We do need Congress .
Congress has not been there.
” Similar comments were made by Acting OMB Director Russ Vought on Monday .
“ [ Congress has ] certainly ignored this President ’ s savings proposals for the first three years , ” Vought told reporters while noting it would be unfortunate if Congress ignored the budget request .
“ But this budget continues to be a statement from this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with families and businesses across the country who have to balance their budgets .
Washington , D.C. , does not stand with them , and for too long has operated under a different principle of recklessly spending other people ’ s money .
That has to change , and hopefully , this budget leads to it.
” It ’ s nice rhetoric and certainly , Congress deserves an enormous amount of blame for its lack of budget sanity .
Yet , it would be unwise to let Trump skate .
He is , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vowed in 2018 to never sign another omnibus spending measure only to sign an even larger bill last December .
Trump ’ s major focus in the 2019 pact was crowing about tax cuts , essentially doing his best Jerry Jones who famously asked an irked Cowboys fan in 2001 , “ Did you like those three Super Bowls ?
Did you enjoy those ?
I hope you did .
I hope you did very much.
” The tax cuts are nice , but so are legitimate spending cuts which aren ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s budget won ’ t go anywhere in Congress .
They have already set spending limits for Fiscal Year 2021 , despite the sequestration order from the White House .
Wyoming Senator Mike Enzi said to colleagues on Monday he ’ s not planning a hearing on the budget because “ Nobody has listened to the president in the 23 years that I ’ ve been here .
Congress doesn ’ t pay attention to the president ’ s budget exercise.
” The reason for ignoring any president ’ s budget request is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the purse so any appropriation suggestion by the president has about as much weight as a single feather .
There can be negotiations between the legislative and the executive , but it seems both branches are perfectly fine with either a continuing resolution or a budget agreement that spends more money .
Some changes are possible if Congress alters its horrendous budget process .
The House and Senate are perfectly willing to put off as much work as possible before ramming through some sort of humongous spending bill .
Oklahoma U.S .
Senator @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suggestions on solving the budgetary process including restructuring some committees and making budget resolutions a binding law , so debates happen sooner .
“ At the end of the day , Congress must make the difficult choices of deciding where our priorities lie and our ability to fund them , ” the Republican wrote last year in his Federal Fumbles Volume 5 paper highlighting insane government spending .
“ There are no quick answers , but these solutions are great steps in the right direction .
It is not too late to make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the tradeoffs we face and choosing first to fund our needs instead of our wants.
” These aren ’ t bad suggestions , but no one should hold their breath in hopes of Congress suddenly becoming sensible .
They must enjoy the late-night votes and emergency declarations on cable news despite their proclamations of otherwise .
Perhaps it ’ s because they know any budget vote earlier in the year increases the albeit remote possibility of a possible presidential veto due to fiscal insanity and the potential of legitimate cuts to government .

President Donald Trump’s new budget proposal is nothing but red meat for his Republican base.
The $4.8T spending plan is chock full of buzz words aimed at soothing the worries of budget hawks including “eliminating duplicative programs” and “eliminating programs with no proper federal role.” It also contains lofty assurances of changes to food stamps, massive cuts to the EPA, and block grants within the Education Department. The missive vows a balanced budget in only 15 years while promoting increased funding for the Defense Department and Department of Homeland Security. Let’s also not forget the wall and rebuilding America’s crumbling infrastructure. Oh, and Mars.
Trump’s administration admitted the proposal is essentially for votes in 2020 due to criticism over his failure to even attempt to rein in Washington’s spending addiction.
“We’re trying to make the case that the president cares about spending and has cared about spending,” a senior administration official told The Washington Times the day before the budget became public. “He’s been doing this since his very first budget. This is now the fourth budget. Many of these [spending] reforms have been in each and every one of them. We do need Congress. Congress has not been there.”
Similar comments were made by Acting OMB Director Russ Vought on Monday.
“[Congress has] certainly ignored this President’s savings proposals for the first three years,” Vought told reporters while noting it would be unfortunate if Congress ignored the budget request. “But this budget continues to be a statement from this President and his administration that we stand with families and businesses across the country who have to balance their budgets. Washington, D.C., does not stand with them, and for too long has operated under a different principle of recklessly spending other people’s money. That has to change, and hopefully, this budget leads to it.”
It’s nice rhetoric and certainly, Congress deserves an enormous amount of blame for its lack of budget sanity.
Yet, it would be unwise to let Trump skate. He is, after all, the same president who vowed in 2018 to never sign another omnibus spending measure only to sign an even larger bill last December. Trump’s major focus in the 2019 pact was crowing about tax cuts, essentially doing his best Jerry Jones who famously asked an irked Cowboys fan in 2001, “Did you like those three Super Bowls? Did you enjoy those? I hope you did. I hope you did very much.” The tax cuts are nice, but so are legitimate spending cuts which aren’t virtue signaling for votes.
Trump’s budget won’t go anywhere in Congress. They have already set spending limits for Fiscal Year 2021, despite the sequestration order from the White House. Wyoming Senator Mike Enzi said to colleagues on Monday he’s not planning a hearing on the budget because “Nobody has listened to the president in the 23 years that I’ve been here. Congress doesn’t pay attention to the president’s budget exercise.”
The reason for ignoring any president’s budget request is simple: Congress has the power of the purse so any appropriation suggestion by the president has about as much weight as a single feather. There can be negotiations between the legislative and the executive, but it seems both branches are perfectly fine with either a continuing resolution or a budget agreement that spends more money.
Some changes are possible if Congress alters its horrendous budget process. The House and Senate are perfectly willing to put off as much work as possible before ramming through some sort of humongous spending bill.
Oklahoma U.S. Senator James Lankford has more than a few suggestions on solving the budgetary process including restructuring some committees and making budget resolutions a binding law, so debates happen sooner.
“At the end of the day, Congress must make the difficult choices of deciding where our priorities lie and our ability to fund them,” the Republican wrote last year in his Federal Fumbles Volume 5 paper highlighting insane government spending. “There are no quick answers, but these solutions are great steps in the right direction. It is not too late to make the tough but responsible choice between acknowledging the tradeoffs we face and choosing first to fund our needs instead of our wants.”
These aren’t bad suggestions, but no one should hold their breath in hopes of Congress suddenly becoming sensible. They must enjoy the late-night votes and emergency declarations on cable news despite their proclamations of otherwise. Perhaps it’s because they know any budget vote earlier in the year increases the albeit remote possibility of a possible presidential veto due to fiscal insanity and the potential of legitimate cuts to government.