hotair--2020-10-15--"He's flirted with white supremacists": Ben Sasse rips Trump in "private" call with constituents

The last time he and Trump had a public spat , he politely complained to the president — publicly — that he ’ d prefer to keep their disagreements private .
This was after he had released a statement calling Trump ’ s attempt to defer payroll taxes via an executive order “ constitutional slop.
” This doesn ’ t sound very “ private ” to me .
And it probably wasn ’ t intended to be .
A common read this afternoon on why this not very “ private ” phone call leaked is that Sasse wanted it out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ era , which seems to be approaching rapidly .
He got elected as a small-government conservative in 2014 , very much within the party ’ s mainstream .
He turned around two years later to find that his base didn ’ t care much about small government after all , just culture war and own-the-libs “ dominance ” politics .
So … he shut up .
From 2017 through the middle of this year , Sasse was a mostly silent figure in the caucus , popping up occasionally to remind voters that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a threat to the free world or that abortion is wrong ( all true , by the way ) but otherwise keeping a low profile and trying to ride out the Trumpy storm .
And the president appreciated his silence .
Sasse had been a harsh critic of Trump in 2016 but his subsequent good-soldier approach , culminating in a vote for acquittal at Trump ’ s impeachment trial in February , earned him enough goodwill to receive Trump ’ s endorsement in his Senate race this year .
Sasse won his primary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ criticizing Trump publicly again , not just on things like “ constitutional slop ” but on his flirtation with QAnon .
Trump noticed that too .
Now here we are , less than three weeks from an election the president ’ s likely to lose , and suddenly a sustained critique of Trump by Sasse is trickling into the press .
Sure sounds to me like a guy who ’ s very eager for the tea-party era to return — to the point that he ’ s been lobbying publicly against Steve Mnuchin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — is laying the groundwork early to blame Trump and Trumpism if the bottom falls out of the GOP on November 3 .
And then he added : “ But the reality is that he careened from curb to curb .
First , he ignored COVID .
And then he went into full economic shutdown mode .
He was the one who said 10 to 14 days of shutdown would fix this .
And that was always wrong .
I mean , and so I don ’ t think the way he ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or responsible , or right.
” Sasse also explored Trump ’ s foreign policy and other issues .
“ The way he kisses dictators ’ butts .
I mean , the way he ignores the Uighurs , our literal concentration camps in Xinjiang .
Right now , he hasn ’ t lifted a finger on behalf of the Hong-Kongers , ” he said .
“ The United States now regularly sells out our allies under his leadership , the way he treats women , spends like a drunken sailor .
The ways I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spending ; I ’ ve criticized President Trump for as well .
He mocks evangelicals behind closed doors .
His family has treated the presidency like a business opportunity .
He ’ s flirted with white supremacists.
” Sasse fretted that Trump and his “ stupid political obsessions ” could drive the country further to the Left .
“ If young people become permanent Democrats because they ’ ve just been repulsed by the obsessive nature of our politics , or if women who were willing to still vote with the Republican Party @ @ @ @ @ @ @ turn away from this party permanently in the future , ” Sasse said .
“ I ’ ve spent lots of the of the last year on a campaign bus , and when you listen to Nebraskans , they don ’ t really want more rage tweeting as a new form of entertainment , ” he said .
“ I think the overwhelming reason that President Trump won in 2016 was simply because Hillary Clinton was literally the most unpopular candidate in the history of polling.
” All true ( except for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to help Hong Kong ) , but the line that will cut the deepest with you-know-who is the last one .
It ’ s one thing to say he ’ s soft on racists and that his family is full of opportunistic grifters who would put Hunter Biden to shame .
But to say that he owes his glorious victory to his opponent ’ s weakness , not his own strength ?
Unforgivable .
There ’ s been no presidential rage-tweeting about this yet as I write this at 5 p.m .
ET @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in front of the parade away from Trumpism is a curious move by Sasse for the simple reason that it ’ s not clear that there *will* be a parade away from Trumpism within the party , even if he ’ s clobbered by Biden next month .
Certainly , righties who ’ ve bitten their tongues or even slavishly praised Trump for the past four years will find themselves more willing to admit his faults in the aftermath .
But they ’ ll need to be tactful .
Trump himself will remain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ media .
His son and namesake may run for some office or another , with plenty of populist support .
Figures like Ted Cruz , Josh Hawley , and Tom Cotton are clearly positioning themselves as pitchmen for “ Trumpism without Trump , ” believing that what Republican voters really want is Trump policies without all the outrageous lib-owning antics .
( I think they ’ re wrong — the base is agnostic on most policy fights but relishes the lib-owning — but that ’ s a post for another day . )
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to old-school conservatism will be a renewed focus on curbing spending , but that ’ ll be cynical and opportunistic .
Just as tea partiers stopped pretending to care about deficits once a Republican president was incurring them , they ’ ll go back to pretending to care once a Democrat is incurring them again .
No one believes that sham anymore but it ’ ll do as a rallying point for the party to unify against Biden .
In any case , it ’ s not clear how many other Republican pols @ @ @ @ @ @ @ parade instead of continuing the Trumpist drift in the party with a bit more lip service paid to shrinking government .
Disgraces like this one , for instance , won ’ t cease happening the moment Trump has helicoptered away from the White House : Marjorie Taylor Greene is the Republican House candidate in Georgia who became famous a few months ago when her interest in QAnon was exposed by the press .
Greene has since backed away from that under heavy pressure from Republican leadership , but she ’ s chased plenty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the years .
Kelly Loeffler and Doug Collins have been aggressively competing for her endorsement , with Loeffler emerging today as the winner .
Why ?
It ’ s not despite her affiliation with QAnon ; it ’ s because of her affiliation with QAnon .
Her “ prior ” role as a Q-bot lends her a patina of authentic cultish right-wing populism which Loeffler and Collins both covet as they jockey to finish ahead of each other in Georgia ’ a Senate “ jungle primary ” next month .
We ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ GOP , it seems , and into the “ pro ” era .
That ’ s what the party is now .
Does Ben Sasse know it ?
Does he not grasp that his many perfectly apt criticisms of Trump in today ’ s call will make him more enemies than friends , even if Trump is drubbed by Biden ?
Maybe he ’ s gambling that that drubbing will be so severe that righties will recoil from Trump in the aftermath , hoping for a new direction that ’ ll lead to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he forgets two things .
No matter what the margin of defeat is , Trump will claim he was cheated and many Republicans will believe him .
There ’ ll be no honest reckoning by some with the reasons for defeat because the “ defeat ” won ’ t have happened .
And beyond that , grassroots politics in modern America operates more like a religious cult than a movement organized to effectuate particular policies .
People who are interested in enacting a policy agenda can be persuaded that there ’ s a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want .
People who are in a cult can ’ t be , because their beliefs aren ’ t about particular results .
It ’ s about who they are , how they order the world .
Here ’ s the audio of the call if you want to hear it from the horse ’ s mouth .
The most important thing Sasse might have said in his rant for the party ’ s near-term prospects was him dinging Trump for “ stupid political obsessions , ” a problem the president ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to remedy .
Trump is all over the map in his daily message , and often the subjects he obsesses about are sure to seem esoteric to the average voter .
How many people if asked in a man-on-the-street interview could cogently explain what Trump ’ s interest in “ unmasking ” is about ?
How many know what Section 230 is , or care , or understand why he ’ s tweeting about it today ?
How many can even name Hunter Biden ?
Trump has some strong electoral assets he can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , no new wars , hopes for peace in the Middle East brokered by his team — and instead he obsesses about Fox-bait garbage and media bias .
Remember that if/when we get President Biden .
Trump had a case for reelection but he preferred to ride talk-radio hobbyhorses .

The last time he and Trump had a public spat, he politely complained to the president — publicly — that he’d prefer to keep their disagreements private. This was after he had released a statement calling Trump’s attempt to defer payroll taxes via an executive order “constitutional slop.”
This doesn’t sound very “private” to me.
And it probably wasn’t intended to be. A common read this afternoon on why this not very “private” phone call leaked is that Sasse wanted it out there to pre-position himself for the post-Trump era, which seems to be approaching rapidly. He got elected as a small-government conservative in 2014, very much within the party’s mainstream. He turned around two years later to find that his base didn’t care much about small government after all, just culture war and own-the-libs “dominance” politics. So … he shut up. From 2017 through the middle of this year, Sasse was a mostly silent figure in the caucus, popping up occasionally to remind voters that the Senate was broken or that China is a threat to the free world or that abortion is wrong (all true, by the way) but otherwise keeping a low profile and trying to ride out the Trumpy storm.
And the president appreciated his silence. Sasse had been a harsh critic of Trump in 2016 but his subsequent good-soldier approach, culminating in a vote for acquittal at Trump’s impeachment trial in February, earned him enough goodwill to receive Trump’s endorsement in his Senate race this year. Sasse won his primary easily — and then immediately took to criticizing Trump publicly again, not just on things like “constitutional slop” but on his flirtation with QAnon. Trump noticed that too.
Now here we are, less than three weeks from an election the president’s likely to lose, and suddenly a sustained critique of Trump by Sasse is trickling into the press. Sure sounds to me like a guy who’s very eager for the tea-party era to return — to the point that he’s been lobbying publicly against Steve Mnuchin’s big-ticket stimulus spending since July — is laying the groundwork early to blame Trump and Trumpism if the bottom falls out of the GOP on November 3.
And then he added: “But the reality is that he careened from curb to curb. First, he ignored COVID. And then he went into full economic shutdown mode. He was the one who said 10 to 14 days of shutdown would fix this. And that was always wrong. I mean, and so I don’t think the way he’s lead through COVID has been reasonable or responsible, or right.” Sasse also explored Trump’s foreign policy and other issues. “The way he kisses dictators’ butts. I mean, the way he ignores the Uighurs, our literal concentration camps in Xinjiang. Right now, he hasn’t lifted a finger on behalf of the Hong-Kongers,” he said. “The United States now regularly sells out our allies under his leadership, the way he treats women, spends like a drunken sailor. The ways I criticize President Obama for that kind of spending; I’ve criticized President Trump for as well. He mocks evangelicals behind closed doors. His family has treated the presidency like a business opportunity. He’s flirted with white supremacists.” Sasse fretted that Trump and his “stupid political obsessions” could drive the country further to the Left. “If young people become permanent Democrats because they’ve just been repulsed by the obsessive nature of our politics, or if women who were willing to still vote with the Republican Party in 2016 decide that they need to turn away from this party permanently in the future,” Sasse said. “I’ve spent lots of the of the last year on a campaign bus, and when you listen to Nebraskans, they don’t really want more rage tweeting as a new form of entertainment,” he said. “I think the overwhelming reason that President Trump won in 2016 was simply because Hillary Clinton was literally the most unpopular candidate in the history of polling.”
All true (except for the part about Trump not lifting a finger to help Hong Kong), but the line that will cut the deepest with you-know-who is the last one. It’s one thing to say he’s soft on racists and that his family is full of opportunistic grifters who would put Hunter Biden to shame. But to say that he owes his glorious victory to his opponent’s weakness, not his own strength? Unforgivable. There’s been no presidential rage-tweeting about this yet as I write this at 5 p.m. ET, but just wait.
Getting out in front of the parade away from Trumpism is a curious move by Sasse for the simple reason that it’s not clear that there *will* be a parade away from Trumpism within the party, even if he’s clobbered by Biden next month. Certainly, righties who’ve bitten their tongues or even slavishly praised Trump for the past four years will find themselves more willing to admit his faults in the aftermath. But they’ll need to be tactful. Trump himself will remain a major player in right-wing politics and media. His son and namesake may run for some office or another, with plenty of populist support. Figures like Ted Cruz, Josh Hawley, and Tom Cotton are clearly positioning themselves as pitchmen for “Trumpism without Trump,” believing that what Republican voters really want is Trump policies without all the outrageous lib-owning antics. (I think they’re wrong — the base is agnostic on most policy fights but relishes the lib-owning — but that’s a post for another day.) The one concession that will be made to old-school conservatism will be a renewed focus on curbing spending, but that’ll be cynical and opportunistic. Just as tea partiers stopped pretending to care about deficits once a Republican president was incurring them, they’ll go back to pretending to care once a Democrat is incurring them again. No one believes that sham anymore but it’ll do as a rallying point for the party to unify against Biden.
In any case, it’s not clear how many other Republican pols are ready to join Sasse’s parade instead of continuing the Trumpist drift in the party with a bit more lip service paid to shrinking government. Disgraces like this one, for instance, won’t cease happening the moment Trump has helicoptered away from the White House:
🚨🚨 NEW ENDORSEMENT 🚨🚨@mtgreenee has officially endorsed our campaign! I’m so proud to have this strong, conservative fighter on Team Kelly! #gasen #gapol pic.twitter.com/N0qC2x5Yhj — Kelly Loeffler (@KLoeffler) October 15, 2020
Marjorie Taylor Greene is the Republican House candidate in Georgia who became famous a few months ago when her interest in QAnon was exposed by the press. Greene has since backed away from that under heavy pressure from Republican leadership, but she’s chased plenty of other rabbits chased by cranks over the years. Kelly Loeffler and Doug Collins have been aggressively competing for her endorsement, with Loeffler emerging today as the winner. Why? It’s not despite her affiliation with QAnon; it’s because of her affiliation with QAnon. Her “prior” role as a Q-bot lends her a patina of authentic cultish right-wing populism which Loeffler and Collins both covet as they jockey to finish ahead of each other in Georgia’a Senate “jungle primary” next month. We’re already past the anti-anti-QAnon phase of the GOP, it seems, and into the “pro” era.
That’s what the party is now. Does Ben Sasse know it? Does he not grasp that his many perfectly apt criticisms of Trump in today’s call will make him more enemies than friends, even if Trump is drubbed by Biden?
Maybe he’s gambling that that drubbing will be so severe that righties will recoil from Trump in the aftermath, hoping for a new direction that’ll lead to a better outcome in 2024. But he forgets two things. No matter what the margin of defeat is, Trump will claim he was cheated and many Republicans will believe him. There’ll be no honest reckoning by some with the reasons for defeat because the “defeat” won’t have happened. And beyond that, grassroots politics in modern America operates more like a religious cult than a movement organized to effectuate particular policies. People who are interested in enacting a policy agenda can be persuaded that there’s a better way to get the results they want. People who are in a cult can’t be, because their beliefs aren’t about particular results. It’s about who they are, how they order the world.
Here’s the audio of the call if you want to hear it from the horse’s mouth. The most important thing Sasse might have said in his rant for the party’s near-term prospects was him dinging Trump for “stupid political obsessions,” a problem the president’s inner circle recognizes and has been trying to remedy. Trump is all over the map in his daily message, and often the subjects he obsesses about are sure to seem esoteric to the average voter. How many people if asked in a man-on-the-street interview could cogently explain what Trump’s interest in “unmasking” is about? How many know what Section 230 is, or care, or understand why he’s tweeting about it today? How many can even name Hunter Biden? Trump has some strong electoral assets he can boast of — a great pre-pandemic economy, no new wars, hopes for peace in the Middle East brokered by his team — and instead he obsesses about Fox-bait garbage and media bias. Remember that if/when we get President Biden. Trump had a case for reelection but he preferred to ride talk-radio hobbyhorses.


hotair--2020-10-15--Trafalgar pollster: I predict a Trump win in the mid-270s

A change of pace for you from all the polling doom and gloom lately .
Most readers know the name “ Trafalgar ” at this point , but for the few who don ’ t : They ’ re the firm that called Trump ’ s wins in Michigan and Pennsylvania four years ago when nearly every other pollster was predicting Clinton victories , some by blowout margins .
( Trafalgar was the only outfit to find Trump ahead in Michigan in any survey taken that year . )
Two years later , with the rest of the field polling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Florida , Trafalgar ’ s final poll found Ron DeSantis ahead .
Again , they were right , everyone else was wrong .
Their secret is that they try to adjust for “ social desirability bias , ” the reluctance of some people to tell pollsters the truth about their preferences for fear of being judged disapprovingly .
Robert Cahaly , Trafalgar ’ s lead pollster , is of the belief that that effect is especially prevalent among Trump voters .
If in fact there are a ton of “ shy Trumpers ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pollsters — which many experts doubt — then the polls this year are way off .
Except Trafalgar ’ s , perhaps .
If in fact Trump performs much better on Election Day than the competition expects , and especially if he does well enough to win another term , Cahaly will instantly be the most renowned pollster in America .
The rest of the polling industry will never recover its reputation .
That ’ s what ’ s on the line on November 3 , in addition to control of the White @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is an introduction for you to the conversation below between Cahaly and Mike Pesca of Slate .
If you can spare 18 minutes to listen to the whole thing , please do .
Cahaly takes the listener through his approach to polling and explains the importance of social desirability bias , which he believes is even *more* pronounced this year than it was when Trump first ran for president .
That ’ s borne out in some of his numbers over the past month , which reliably show Trump scoring five points higher @ @ @ @ @ @ @ average .
Skim through the latest numbers from Michigan , the site of Cahaly ’ s most celebrated success in 2016 .
Of the last 11 surveys there , Biden leads by eight points or better in nine of them .
In the 10th poll he leads by six .
In the 11th , from Trafalgar , he … trails Trump by one .
That ’ s an eight-point difference between Cahaly ’ s result and the current average of 7.2 points .
But Cahaly isn ’ t cowed .
He tells Pesca @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the likeliest of the Rust Belt swing states to stay red this year , which completely contradicts the conventional wisdom that Michigan is actually Trump ’ s toughest “ hold ” in the region .
In fact , Trump had been off the air in the state from late July until a few days ago , when he began running ads again .
I ’ d been wondering lately if he was going to give up on the state altogether and focus his efforts on Pennsylvania , treating MI as a lost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cahaly .
Expect another win in Michigan .
It ’ s hard to overstate just how far off the beaten path his numbers are relative to everyone else ’ s , including pollsters that tend to be friendlier to Biden .
Trafalgar isn ’ t just expecting “ shy Trump voters ” to be a factor .
They ’ re expecting them to be a massive factor : Via RCP , here are the latest Trafalgar numbers from battlegrounds ( although bear in mind that some of these are close to a month @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two Pennsylvania : Biden by two Wisconsin : Biden by three North Carolina : Trump by two Michigan : Trump by one Ohio : Trump by four Arizona : Trump by four If all of those results held on Election Day , assuming no unlikely Biden victories elsewhere , Trump would win 276-262 .
That ’ s right in line with Cahaly ’ s forecast for the election , which he delivers to Pesca at 26:00 of the clip below — Trump in the mid-270 range .
Which is the most encouraging polling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But don ’ t get too cocky .
Look back again at the numbers above and notice how tight the margins are .
A polling miss of two or three points would be perfectly ordinary for any pollster , yet Cahaly ’ s prediction depends upon him missing nowhere .
If Biden fares just two points better in Michigan than Trafalgar expects , he ’ ll be president .
If he ’ s three points better in Florida and North Carolina , he ’ ll be president comfortably .
And as impressive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , he *did* overshoot the mark on Trump in Michigan , predicting a two-point victory in a state the president won by just three-tenths of a point .
If Trafalgar ’ s current Michigan numbers are off by the same margin , Biden would win the White House by the skin of his teeth .
There ’ s no margin for error .
The interview with Pesca starts at 10:30 below .

A change of pace for you from all the polling doom and gloom lately. Most readers know the name “Trafalgar” at this point, but for the few who don’t: They’re the firm that called Trump’s wins in Michigan and Pennsylvania four years ago when nearly every other pollster was predicting Clinton victories, some by blowout margins. (Trafalgar was the only outfit to find Trump ahead in Michigan in any survey taken that year.) Two years later, with the rest of the field polling field expecting an Andrew Gillum victory in Florida, Trafalgar’s final poll found Ron DeSantis ahead. Again, they were right, everyone else was wrong.
Their secret is that they try to adjust for “social desirability bias,” the reluctance of some people to tell pollsters the truth about their preferences for fear of being judged disapprovingly. Robert Cahaly, Trafalgar’s lead pollster, is of the belief that that effect is especially prevalent among Trump voters. If in fact there are a ton of “shy Trumpers” still out there who are lying to pollsters — which many experts doubt — then the polls this year are way off.
Except Trafalgar’s, perhaps. If in fact Trump performs much better on Election Day than the competition expects, and especially if he does well enough to win another term, Cahaly will instantly be the most renowned pollster in America. The rest of the polling industry will never recover its reputation. That’s what’s on the line on November 3, in addition to control of the White House and Senate.
All of that is an introduction for you to the conversation below between Cahaly and Mike Pesca of Slate. If you can spare 18 minutes to listen to the whole thing, please do. Cahaly takes the listener through his approach to polling and explains the importance of social desirability bias, which he believes is even *more* pronounced this year than it was when Trump first ran for president. That’s borne out in some of his numbers over the past month, which reliably show Trump scoring five points higher — or more — than the polling average. Skim through the latest numbers from Michigan, the site of Cahaly’s most celebrated success in 2016. Of the last 11 surveys there, Biden leads by eight points or better in nine of them. In the 10th poll he leads by six.
In the 11th, from Trafalgar, he … trails Trump by one. That’s an eight-point difference between Cahaly’s result and the current average of 7.2 points. But Cahaly isn’t cowed. He tells Pesca in their chat that he thinks Michigan is the likeliest of the Rust Belt swing states to stay red this year, which completely contradicts the conventional wisdom that Michigan is actually Trump’s toughest “hold” in the region. In fact, Trump had been off the air in the state from late July until a few days ago, when he began running ads again. I’d been wondering lately if he was going to give up on the state altogether and focus his efforts on Pennsylvania, treating MI as a lost cause. On the contrary, says Cahaly. Expect another win in Michigan.
It’s hard to overstate just how far off the beaten path his numbers are relative to everyone else’s, including pollsters that tend to be friendlier to Biden. Trafalgar isn’t just expecting “shy Trump voters” to be a factor. They’re expecting them to be a massive factor:
What's also interesting about Trafalgar is that they're always biased toward Trump by about the same amount, unlike Quinnipiac where they do have a handful of polls that are better than the average for Trump. https://t.co/KxJa7WMQJv — Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) October 15, 2020
Via RCP, here are the latest Trafalgar numbers from battlegrounds (although bear in mind that some of these are close to a month old):
Florida: Trump by two
Pennsylvania: Biden by two
Wisconsin: Biden by three
North Carolina: Trump by two
Michigan: Trump by one
Ohio: Trump by four
Arizona: Trump by four
If all of those results held on Election Day, assuming no unlikely Biden victories elsewhere, Trump would win 276-262. That’s right in line with Cahaly’s forecast for the election, which he delivers to Pesca at 26:00 of the clip below — Trump in the mid-270 range. Which is the most encouraging polling news Team MAGA has had in months.
But don’t get too cocky. Look back again at the numbers above and notice how tight the margins are. A polling miss of two or three points would be perfectly ordinary for any pollster, yet Cahaly’s prediction depends upon him missing nowhere. If Biden fares just two points better in Michigan than Trafalgar expects, he’ll be president. If he’s three points better in Florida and North Carolina, he’ll be president comfortably. And as impressive as Cahaly’s 2016 polling was, he *did* overshoot the mark on Trump in Michigan, predicting a two-point victory in a state the president won by just three-tenths of a point. If Trafalgar’s current Michigan numbers are off by the same margin, Biden would win the White House by the skin of his teeth.
There’s no margin for error. The interview with Pesca starts at 10:30 below.


hotair--2020-10-15--Live thread: The Trump and Biden dueling townhalls

An evening dilemma : Watch Biden on ABC at 8 p.m. or Trump on NBC at 8 p.m. ?
The case for watching Biden is that he ’ s likely , at least in theory , to be pressed on the Hunter Biden allegations published yesterday by the New York Post and the ensuing blackout of the story by Facebook and Twitter .
I say “ at least in theory ” because the moderator this evening is former Clinton apparatchik George Stephanopoulos .
How hard is George going to try to corner his own guy candidate when they ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than three weeks to Election Day ?
There *might* be some tension during the Biden townhall .
There *will* be some tension during the Trump townhall .
And maybe not a small amount either : There is indeed some pressure on NBC to turn this into a sh*tshow for the president , not just for the usual partisan reasons but because of the outrage at NBC for scheduling Trump opposite Biden tonight .
That outrage has now taken the form of a petition signed by more than a hundred “ top Hollywood players @ @ @ @ @ @ @ NBC , complaining about the timing .
This is not a partisan issue .
This is about the political health of our democracy .
President Trump refused to participate in the virtual debate scheduled for Thursday night by the Presidential Debate Commission .
By agreeing to air his town hall as counterprogramming opposite Vice President Biden ’ s town hall on ABC , you are enabling the President ’ s bad behavior while undercutting the Presidential Debate Commission and doing a disservice to the American public .
We believe this kind of indifference @ @ @ @ @ @ @ democracy are what have brought our country to this perilous state .
Their goal isn ’ t really to get NBC to move the townhall to 9 p.m .
The goal is to work the refs and , as Smith said , force the network to make it up to them by turning this evening into a costly one for Trump .
Sounds like he ’ s already in the spirit : Should be a zesty evening , worth watching if only to relish Savannah Guthrie ’ s no-win predicament .
Either she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be shredded by righties on social media later or she ’ s easy on Trump and will be shredded by lefties .
Townhall Media editors will be watching and tweeting throughout the proceedings .
The window below will update automatically as they do .
Comments are open .

An evening dilemma: Watch Biden on ABC at 8 p.m. or Trump on NBC at 8 p.m.? The case for watching Biden is that he’s likely, at least in theory, to be pressed on the Hunter Biden allegations published yesterday by the New York Post and the ensuing blackout of the story by Facebook and Twitter. I say “at least in theory” because the moderator this evening is former Clinton apparatchik George Stephanopoulos. How hard is George going to try to corner his own guy candidate when they’re sitting on a big lead with less than three weeks to Election Day?
There *might* be some tension during the Biden townhall. There *will* be some tension during the Trump townhall.
And maybe not a small amount either:
Enormous pressure on NBC now to make this thing a nightmare for Trump. — Ben Smith (@benyt) October 15, 2020
There is indeed some pressure on NBC to turn this into a sh*tshow for the president, not just for the usual partisan reasons but because of the outrage at NBC for scheduling Trump opposite Biden tonight. That outrage has now taken the form of a petition signed by more than a hundred “top Hollywood players,” some of whom work for NBC, complaining about the timing.
This is not a partisan issue. This is about the political health of our democracy. President Trump refused to participate in the virtual debate scheduled for Thursday night by the Presidential Debate Commission. By agreeing to air his town hall as counterprogramming opposite Vice President Biden’s town hall on ABC, you are enabling the President’s bad behavior while undercutting the Presidential Debate Commission and doing a disservice to the American public. We believe this kind of indifference to the norms and rules of our democracy are what have brought our country to this perilous state.
Their goal isn’t really to get NBC to move the townhall to 9 p.m. The goal is to work the refs and, as Smith said, force the network to make it up to them by turning this evening into a costly one for Trump.
Sounds like he’s already in the spirit:
Trump shits on NBC at length and Chuck Todd and Savannah Guthrie in particular just ahead of his town hall on the network tonight pic.twitter.com/6Sjl3ttsX3 — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) October 15, 2020
Should be a zesty evening, worth watching if only to relish Savannah Guthrie’s no-win predicament. Either she’s tough on Trump and will be shredded by righties on social media later or she’s easy on Trump and will be shredded by lefties.
Townhall Media editors will be watching and tweeting throughout the proceedings. The window below will update automatically as they do. Comments are open.
A Twitter List by allahpundit


hotair--2020-10-15--With vote on Barrett set for next week, Democrats warn of consequences...for Dianne Feinstein

The wind hasn ’ t completely gone out of their sails quite yet but Democrats ’ last ditch efforts to derail Amy Coney Barrett ’ s nomination seem pretty tepid .
Today they rallied around a CNN report published this week which found additional speaking engagements Judge Barrett had apparently left out of her nomination paperwork : [ Sen. ] Blumenthal pointed to the new reporting surfaced by CNN ’ s KFile on Wednesday that public calendars from the University of Notre Dame ’ s law school , where Barrett was a law professor , show at least seven additional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one with the law school ’ s anti-abortion group , were not listed on her paperwork submitted to the committee .
CNN ’ s KFile could not independently confirm Barrett ’ s participation in the events , only that they were listed on Notre Dame ’ s public calendars .
“ The consequence of this rushed process is that we have given inadequate scrutiny to this nominee .
I move to delay these proceedings so that we can do our job and ask , again , for all the documents , ” Blumenthal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also referred to CNN ’ s reporting in his argument for Barrett ’ s nomination to be delayed , saying that “ records of her undisclosed speeches and materials continue to pour in.
” What ’ s the point of pounding the table over this when Democrats have already announced they won ’ t vote to confirm Barrett ?
Meanwhile , Republicans have set the vote for one week from today .
But as it sinks in with Democrats that this is over , some have turned to hinting of future consequences for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ because we can , ’ which is the rule that is being applied today , is one that leads away from a lot of the traditions and commitments and values that the Senate has long embodied , ” Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse , D-R.I. , said .
“ Don ’ t think that when you have established the rule of ‘ because we can ’ that should the shoe be on the other foot that you will have any credibility to come to us and say , yeah , I know you can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because of X , Y , Z , ” he said .
“ Your credibility to make that argument in the future will die in this room and on that Senate floor if you continue to proceed in this way.
” But as much as they may have some plans for retribution against the GOP in mind , Democrats are also turning their fire on their own party .
Earlier today Allahpundit wrote about bubbling frustration over Sen. Dianne Feinstein ’ s hot-mic comments about Judge Barrett ’ s religious faith .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that set off the left .
What really set them off was this moment at the end of the hearings when Sen. Feinstein thanked Sen. Graham for his “ fairness.
” And if that wasn ’ t enough to make people on the left tear their hair out , the hug that followed was the last straw : In response a progressive group called Demand Justice launched a petition to demand her ouster from the committee : Sen. Feinstein has undercut Democrats ’ position at every step of this process , from undermining @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through to thanking Republicans for the most egregious partisan power grab in the modern history of the Supreme Court .
It is time for her to step down from her leadership position on the Senate Judiciary Committee .
Justice Democrats and Brian Fallon were quick to promote it : Plenty of others echoed the sentiment : Progressive Democrats are angry about this looming loss and it looks like Sen. Feinstein is going to be the first to feel the full force of that anger .

The wind hasn’t completely gone out of their sails quite yet but Democrats’ last ditch efforts to derail Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination seem pretty tepid. Today they rallied around a CNN report published this week which found additional speaking engagements Judge Barrett had apparently left out of her nomination paperwork:
[Sen.] Blumenthal pointed to the new reporting surfaced by CNN’s KFile on Wednesday that public calendars from the University of Notre Dame’s law school, where Barrett was a law professor, show at least seven additional talks from 2004 to 2013, including one with the law school’s anti-abortion group, were not listed on her paperwork submitted to the committee. CNN’s KFile could not independently confirm Barrett’s participation in the events, only that they were listed on Notre Dame’s public calendars. “The consequence of this rushed process is that we have given inadequate scrutiny to this nominee. I move to delay these proceedings so that we can do our job and ask, again, for all the documents,” Blumenthal said Thursday… Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont also referred to CNN’s reporting in his argument for Barrett’s nomination to be delayed, saying that “records of her undisclosed speeches and materials continue to pour in.”
What’s the point of pounding the table over this when Democrats have already announced they won’t vote to confirm Barrett? Meanwhile, Republicans have set the vote for one week from today. But as it sinks in with Democrats that this is over, some have turned to hinting of future consequences for the GOP:
“The rule of ‘because we can,’ which is the rule that is being applied today, is one that leads away from a lot of the traditions and commitments and values that the Senate has long embodied,” Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., said. “Don’t think that when you have established the rule of ‘because we can’ that should the shoe be on the other foot that you will have any credibility to come to us and say, yeah, I know you can do that but you shouldn’t because of X, Y, Z,” he said. “Your credibility to make that argument in the future will die in this room and on that Senate floor if you continue to proceed in this way.”
But as much as they may have some plans for retribution against the GOP in mind, Democrats are also turning their fire on their own party. Earlier today Allahpundit wrote about bubbling frustration over Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s hot-mic comments about Judge Barrett’s religious faith. But that wasn’t the only thing that set off the left. What really set them off was this moment at the end of the hearings when Sen. Feinstein thanked Sen. Graham for his “fairness.”
Democratic @SenFeinstein to GOP Senator Graham: “I just want to thank you. This has been one of the best set of hearings that I've participated in…Thank you so much for your leadership.” Feinstein needs to retire. Or be retired via the primary process.pic.twitter.com/7Bh2VzzeiH — Leah McElrath 🏳🌈 (@leahmcelrath) October 15, 2020
And if that wasn’t enough to make people on the left tear their hair out, the hug that followed was the last straw:
https://twitter.com/FirenzeMike/status/1316820625365889024
In response a progressive group called Demand Justice launched a petition to demand her ouster from the committee:
Sen. Feinstein has undercut Democrats’ position at every step of this process, from undermining calls for filibuster and Court reform straight through to thanking Republicans for the most egregious partisan power grab in the modern history of the Supreme Court. It is time for her to step down from her leadership position on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Justice Democrats and Brian Fallon were quick to promote it:
Dianne Feinstein must step down.https://t.co/vWp2w7BRr8 — Justice Democrats (@justicedems) October 15, 2020
As did Sunrise movement:
Once again, with the Amy Coney Barrett hearing, Senator Feinstein reveals herself to be an utter disappointment: one of the most unimaginative centrists in the Senate hailing from one of the most progressive states in the country. https://t.co/L0CVWMmhX8 — Sunrise Movement 🌅 (@sunrisemvmt) October 15, 2020
Plenty of others echoed the sentiment:
Diane Feinstein praising Barrett, and then inexplicably praising Graham, is a clear sign that she should not remain as the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee. — Norman Ornstein (@NormOrnstein) October 15, 2020
I’m afraid I agree, much as I like Senator Feinstein personally and admired her work years ago . . . https://t.co/6IvX9rO7J0 — Laurence Tribe (@tribelaw) October 15, 2020
Someone like Feinstein who is so out of step with the rest of the party should not be the lead Democrat on the Judiciary Committee. — Ben Rhodes (@brhodes) October 15, 2020
Dianne Feinstein is the epitome of Democratic Party weakness. You don’t thank someone for robbing you. https://t.co/CGQdoJu8kd — Adam Best (@adamcbest) October 15, 2020
Californians need to call Feinstein’s office NOW: 202-224-3841 https://t.co/67Bc1mlJ4f — Travis Helwig (@travishelwig) October 15, 2020
I really can't get over what a betrayal this moment was to the thousands (millions?) of progressive activists who have worked their asses off fighting Barrett's confirmation tooth and nail. Feinstein should be ashamed, and she should step down immediately. https://t.co/uPVDeQgrlC — Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) October 15, 2020
Progressive Democrats are angry about this looming loss and it looks like Sen. Feinstein is going to be the first to feel the full force of that anger.


hotair--2020-10-15--NBC News chief: We have no choice but to counterprogram ABC for tonight's debate, you know

Come on , man .
There ’ s a defense of NBC News ’ decision to run their town-hall forum with Donald Trump in direct opposition to ABC News ’ previously announced town-hall forum with Joe Biden .
It seems clear that Trump wouldn ’ t accept any other schedule slot except the counter-programming maneuver that NBC News has facilitated tonight , and that Trump would have gone elsewhere to get it — likely Fox , but perhaps CNN too .
They wanted the event on Trump ’ s terms — so why not just embrace it ?
In a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ share in the frustration that our event will initially air alongside the first half of ABC ’ s broadcast with Vice President Biden .
Our decision is motivated only by fairness , not business considerations.
” He noted that NBC scheduled Mr. Trump at 8 p.m. because it had given the same slot to Mr. Biden in a previous town hall and it wanted to keep all things equal between the two candidates .
Also , starting at 9 p.m. would still have conflicted with the ABC broadcast , which lasts for 90 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hourlong event , he added .
“ We hope voters will watch both discussions—ours will be available at any time , free and on-demand on YouTube , Peacock and all our digital news platforms , ” Mr. Conde said .
New York Times TV critic skewered Conde for this explanation , and rightly so : Amazingly , this wasn ’ t even the worst part of NBC ’ s defense .
The Wall Street Journal ’ s sources tried passing some of the blame off to ABC for not demanding a schedule change @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more pathetic .
They were so afraid to say “ no ” to Trump that they tried to get ABC to tell Biden “ no ” instead .
Whoever got that call at ABC must still be banging his/her forehead into the desk .
Or was it on Trump ’ s terms ?
The Daily Beast reported yesterday that Conde ’ s the one who decided on the date and time , not Trump : A network source insisted that NBC ’ s news division , led by Cesar Conde , chairman of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the format , duration and time slot ” of the town hall .
The source added that “ it follows the exact same format , duration and time slot Joe Biden had on NBC primetime just one week ago.
” “ The president did not dictate the time slot , ” the NBC source added .
“ That was determined by the network along with the format , audience and moderator .
When ABC announced a two-hour time slot for Biden , it really tied our hands in what we could do programming-wise.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ believe , actually .
Conde clearly could have foreseen the blowback that NBC would get for counter-programming in this manner , and opted to give Trump a slot last night or on Friday night instead .
This looks like spin to make Conde look firm , when it ’ s much more likely that he rolled under Trump ’ s demand .
Just ask this : would Trump prefer to go on separately from Biden , or to step on Biden ’ s time ?
You didn ’ t need to see their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that question .
Anyway , everyone can vote tonight for their favorite candidate … or maybe just the most promising candidate for entertainment value .
Some folks are already casting those ballots in the form of a call to boycott NBC over this decision .
When that call comes from one of the stars of one of the network ’ s most storied and popular series of all times , you know you have a public-relations headache on your hands .
It ’ s real , and it ’ s spectacular , Cesar @

Come on, man. There’s a defense of NBC News’ decision to run their town-hall forum with Donald Trump in direct opposition to ABC News’ previously announced town-hall forum with Joe Biden. It seems clear that Trump wouldn’t accept any other schedule slot except the counter-programming maneuver that NBC News has facilitated tonight, and that Trump would have gone elsewhere to get it — likely Fox, but perhaps CNN too. They wanted the event on Trump’s terms — so why not just embrace it?
This weak-sauce, passive-voice response ain’t cutting it:
In a statement Mr. Conde said, “we share in the frustration that our event will initially air alongside the first half of ABC’s broadcast with Vice President Biden. Our decision is motivated only by fairness, not business considerations.” He noted that NBC scheduled Mr. Trump at 8 p.m. because it had given the same slot to Mr. Biden in a previous town hall and it wanted to keep all things equal between the two candidates. Also, starting at 9 p.m. would still have conflicted with the ABC broadcast, which lasts for 90 minutes while NBC’s is an hourlong event, he added. “We hope voters will watch both discussions—ours will be available at any time, free and on-demand on YouTube, Peacock and all our digital news platforms,” Mr. Conde said.
New York Times TV critic skewered Conde for this explanation, and rightly so:
The procedure has been policy at NBC since the days of Fred Silverman, who credited the machine with his run of success at ABC in the mid-1970s. "Tell it to the claw!" he told perplexed associates as he implemented the game's command that he produce and schedule "Supertrain." — James Poniewozik (@poniewozik) October 15, 2020
Amazingly, this wasn’t even the worst part of NBC’s defense. The Wall Street Journal’s sources tried passing some of the blame off to ABC for not demanding a schedule change from Biden:
NBC News tried to persuade ABC News to move its event to later in the evening, but the request was rebuffed, two people familiar with the matter said.
That’s even more pathetic. They were so afraid to say “no” to Trump that they tried to get ABC to tell Biden “no” instead. Whoever got that call at ABC must still be banging his/her forehead into the desk.
Or was it on Trump’s terms? The Daily Beast reported yesterday that Conde’s the one who decided on the date and time, not Trump:
A network source insisted that NBC’s news division, led by Cesar Conde, chairman of the NBCUniversal News Group, “determined the format, duration and time slot” of the town hall. The source added that “it follows the exact same format, duration and time slot Joe Biden had on NBC primetime just one week ago.” “The president did not dictate the time slot,” the NBC source added. “That was determined by the network along with the format, audience and moderator. When ABC announced a two-hour time slot for Biden, it really tied our hands in what we could do programming-wise.”
That’s … difficult to believe, actually. Conde clearly could have foreseen the blowback that NBC would get for counter-programming in this manner, and opted to give Trump a slot last night or on Friday night instead. This looks like spin to make Conde look firm, when it’s much more likely that he rolled under Trump’s demand. Just ask this: would Trump prefer to go on separately from Biden, or to step on Biden’s time? You didn’t need to see their first debate to know the answer to that question.
Anyway, everyone can vote tonight for their favorite candidate … or maybe just the most promising candidate for entertainment value. Some folks are already casting those ballots in the form of a call to boycott NBC over this decision. When that call comes from one of the stars of one of the network’s most storied and popular series of all times, you know you have a public-relations headache on your hands. It’s real, and it’s spectacular, Cesar.


hotair--2020-10-15--Studies suggest people with certain blood types are less likely to get COVID-19, have less severe in

Studies suggest people with certain blood types are less likely to get COVID-19, have less severe infections

Two studies published Wednesday suggest that people with blood type O may have a reduced chance of catching the coronavirus and may have less severe infections thereafter .
The reasons why this may be so is still unknown : A Danish study found that among 7,422 people who tested positive for Covid-19 , only 38.4 % were blood type O — even though , among a group of 2.2 million people who were not tested , that blood type made up 41.7 % of the population .
By contrast , 44.4 % of group A tested positive , while in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ makes up 42.4 % … They found that blood group wasn ’ t a risk factor for hospitalization or death from Covid-19 .
Dr. Roy Silverstein from the Medical College of Wisconsin told NBC News the difference isn ’ t that large : “ The study suggests if you have type O , you have a slightly lower risk , ” Dr. Roy Silverstein , chair of medicine at the Medical College of Wisconsin , said .
“ But it ’ s a small decrease , ” he said , adding that blood @ @ @ @ @ @ @ risk .
Silverstein , who is also a former president of the American Society of Hematology , was not involved with the new studies .
What ’ s more , Silverstein pointed out , the new research will not alter how doctors treat Covid-19 patients .
“ They ’ re not going to treat someone who comes into the hospital with type O differently than type A , ” he said .
“ The differences are just not that large.
” A second , smaller study out of Canada looked at the severity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with blood type : Researchers in Canada found that among 95 patients critically ill with Covid-19 , a higher proportion with blood type A or AB — 84 % — required mechanical ventilation compared with patients with blood group O or B , which was 61 % .
The Canadian study also found those with blood type A or AB had a longer stay in the intensive care unit , a median of 13.5 days , compared with those with blood group O or B , who had a median of nine days @ @ @ @ @ @ @ type was not a factor in hospitalization or death but the smaller study found it was a factor in severity of the infection for those in the hospital .
Those two findings seem to be at odds since people who go on a ventilator or remain in the ICU longer seem more likely to die .
This is one of those situations where we ’ ll probably have to wait for a few more studies to be sure .
Dr. Mypinder Sekhon , the author of the Canadian study , told CNN “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other risk factors of severity like age and co-morbities and so forth .
If one is blood group A , you don ’ t need to start panicking .
And if you ’ re blood group O , you ’ re not free to go to the pubs and bars .
”

Two studies published Wednesday suggest that people with blood type O may have a reduced chance of catching the coronavirus and may have less severe infections thereafter. The reasons why this may be so is still unknown:
A Danish study found that among 7,422 people who tested positive for Covid-19, only 38.4% were blood type O — even though, among a group of 2.2 million people who were not tested, that blood type made up 41.7% of the population. By contrast, 44.4% of group A tested positive, while in the wider Danish population that blood type makes up 42.4%… They found that blood group wasn’t a risk factor for hospitalization or death from Covid-19.
Dr. Roy Silverstein from the Medical College of Wisconsin told NBC News the difference isn’t that large:
“The study suggests if you have type O, you have a slightly lower risk,” Dr. Roy Silverstein, chair of medicine at the Medical College of Wisconsin, said. “But it’s a small decrease,” he said, adding that blood type does not equate to zero percent risk. Silverstein, who is also a former president of the American Society of Hematology, was not involved with the new studies. What’s more, Silverstein pointed out, the new research will not alter how doctors treat Covid-19 patients. “They’re not going to treat someone who comes into the hospital with type O differently than type A,” he said. “The differences are just not that large.”
A second, smaller study out of Canada looked at the severity of the infection and how that correlated with blood type:
Researchers in Canada found that among 95 patients critically ill with Covid-19, a higher proportion with blood type A or AB — 84% — required mechanical ventilation compared with patients with blood group O or B, which was 61%. The Canadian study also found those with blood type A or AB had a longer stay in the intensive care unit, a median of 13.5 days, compared with those with blood group O or B, who had a median of nine days.
So the larger study found blood type was not a factor in hospitalization or death but the smaller study found it was a factor in severity of the infection for those in the hospital. Those two findings seem to be at odds since people who go on a ventilator or remain in the ICU longer seem more likely to die. This is one of those situations where we’ll probably have to wait for a few more studies to be sure.
Dr. Mypinder Sekhon, the author of the Canadian study, told CNN “I don’t think this supersedes other risk factors of severity like age and co-morbities and so forth. If one is blood group A, you don’t need to start panicking. And if you’re blood group O, you’re not free to go to the pubs and bars.”


hotair--2020-10-15--Today's hot topics on #TEMS: Debate duels, Barrett schools, Section 230 rules, Biden fools, Scully c

Today's hot topics on #TEMS: Debate duels, Barrett schools, Section 230 rules, Biden fools, Scully cooled (indefinitely), and more

Today on The Ed Morrissey Show ( 4 pm ET ) , we have another great lineup for the news of the day !
The show will be streamed on Hot Air ’ s Facebook page and embedded here and on the show page for those who are not on Facebook .
Join us as we welcome : • Duane “ Generalissimo ” Patterson brings us up to date on the week ’ s top stories and gives us a preview of tomorrow ’ s Hugh Hewitt show .
• We ’ ll preview tonight ’ s dueling-forums showdown , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tonight • Just how much should we believe from the NY Post ’ s scoop on Hunter Biden ’ s alleged hard drive ?
• Twitter locked out the Trump campaign .
What does this portend from Congress ?
• Plus we ’ ll look at what ’ s next from the Amy Coney Barrett confirmation , and more !
And then there ’ s this … The Ed Morrissey Show and its dynamic chatroom can be seen on the permanent TEMS page .
Be sure to join us , and don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ debate on my Facebook page , too !
How can Republicans and conservatives keep winning after 2016 ?
Find out in GOING RED , published in April from Crown Forum !

Today on The Ed Morrissey Show (4 pm ET), we have another great lineup for the news of the day! The show will be streamed on Hot Air’s Facebook page and embedded here and on the show page for those who are not on Facebook.
Join us as we welcome:
Duane “Generalissimo” Patterson brings us up to date on the week’s top stories and gives us a preview of tomorrow’s Hugh Hewitt show.
We’ll preview tonight’s dueling-forums showdown, and what each candidate has to do tonight
Just how much should we believe from the NY Post’s scoop on Hunter Biden’s alleged hard drive?
Twitter locked out the Trump campaign. What does this portend from Congress?
Plus we’ll look at what’s next from the Amy Coney Barrett confirmation, and more! And then there’s this …
APNEWSALERT: NEW YORK (AP) — C-SPAN suspends political editor Steve Scully indefinitely after he admits he lied about his Twitter feed being hacked — David Mack (@davidmackau) October 15, 2020
The Ed Morrissey Show and its dynamic chatroom can be seen on the permanent TEMS page. Be sure to join us, and don’t forget to keep up with the debate on my Facebook page, too!
How can Republicans and conservatives keep winning after 2016? Find out in GOING RED, published in April from Crown Forum!


hotair--2020-10-15--"A boundless font of energy and a radical sense of love": Laura Wolk's powerful character witness te

"A boundless font of energy and a radical sense of love": Laura Wolk's powerful character witness testimony in Barrett hearing

We knew this was coming , and more importantly , Democrats knew this was coming .
Appellate attorney Laura Wolk credits Amy Coney Barrett with helping her succeed in law school , not just because of her skills as a teacher but because of her character as a human being .
Wolk , who is blind , requires special adaptive technology to study and work , and while at Notre Dame , her equipment failed and the university ’ s promised support didn ’ t materialize , putting her education and prospective career at risk .
John wrote about Wolk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Barrett earlier , but this five-minute appearance deserves to be seen for itself again as Wolk testified in the confirmation hearing : “ Overnight , I found myself struggling to keep up in class , following increasingly behind with each passing hour .
I needed help and I needed it fast , ” Wolk said .
“ I had been Judge Barrett ’ s student only for a few weeks , but her graciousness and warmth gave me hope that she could provide me with that assistance.
” And Wolk was right , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ incredibly compassionate listener in her teacher .
She felt the unusual sense of disarming that even allowed her to ask for assistance , something she said as a disabled person , she rarely did .
“ When I finished , Judge Barrett looked at me intently , ‘ Laura , ’ she said , with the same measured conviction we have seen her display through her nomination process , ‘ this is no longer your problem .
It is my problem . '
” “ I can not capture adequately the relief that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Wolk said .
Though through her experience in life , she still remained skeptical of Barrett ’ s generous offer .
She had been let down before after similar offers .
“ Not so with Judge Barrett , ” Wolk said .
“ Anyone who has interacted with her knows that she is a woman of her word .
She means what she says , and she says what she means.
” Wolk pointed out , as a testament to Barrett ’ s humility , she still doesn ’ t know what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the needed technology promptly found its way to her .
First , let me just note that I relate to this in a personal way .
My wife is also blind , and has been for forty years .
She uses adaptive technology to do the many tasks the rest of us take for granted — e-mail , web surfing , messaging , and so on .
When those systems fail or don ’ t keep up , the burden on her is tremendous .
Equipment and software hiccups are mainly annoyances for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ technology for the blind are sidelining events , and even worse isolating events .
Wolk ’ s success is a powerful testament to her own determination and character in overcoming those issues to excel in an objectively difficult field under any circumstances , which makes her endorsement of Barrett even more powerful .
My wife does that in her own way every single day , too .
From the perspective of political strategy , one has to wonder whether Wolk ’ s appearance on the witness list had an impact on Senate Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ refrained from character attacks on Barrett of the type used against Brett Kavanaugh , likely for multiple reasons , not the least of which was that it ended up backfiring in that instance in the end .
For the most part , Senate Democrats avoided trying to paint Barrett as an extremist or focus on her religion , instead choosing mainly to attack the process and paint her as evasive on issues .
That will prove to be the safest and smartest course in the long run regardless of motivation , especially given @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the confirmation at this point .
I ’ ll have more than that in an upcoming post .
Put all that aside for a moment , though .
This was a shining moment in a process that has become degraded over the last three decades , and a reminder that character matters more than ideology , party identification , and identity issues .
It ’ s not out of the question that we might see Laura Wolk , Appellate Attorney return to a future Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation process , not as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ position herself .
That would be a fine day indeed as a testament to the nation and to the people .

We knew this was coming, and more importantly, Democrats knew this was coming. Appellate attorney Laura Wolk credits Amy Coney Barrett with helping her succeed in law school, not just because of her skills as a teacher but because of her character as a human being. Wolk, who is blind, requires special adaptive technology to study and work, and while at Notre Dame, her equipment failed and the university’s promised support didn’t materialize, putting her education and prospective career at risk.
John wrote about Wolk’s story and her support of Barrett earlier, but this five-minute appearance deserves to be seen for itself again as Wolk testified in the confirmation hearing:
“Overnight, I found myself struggling to keep up in class, following increasingly behind with each passing hour. I needed help and I needed it fast,” Wolk said. “I had been Judge Barrett’s student only for a few weeks, but her graciousness and warmth gave me hope that she could provide me with that assistance.” And Wolk was right, she said, as she found an incredibly compassionate listener in her teacher. She felt the unusual sense of disarming that even allowed her to ask for assistance, something she said as a disabled person, she rarely did. “When I finished, Judge Barrett looked at me intently, ‘Laura,’ she said, with the same measured conviction we have seen her display through her nomination process, ‘this is no longer your problem. It is my problem.'” “I cannot capture adequately the relief that washed over me at her words,” Wolk said. Though through her experience in life, she still remained skeptical of Barrett’s generous offer. She had been let down before after similar offers. “Not so with Judge Barrett,” Wolk said. “Anyone who has interacted with her knows that she is a woman of her word. She means what she says, and she says what she means.” Wolk pointed out, as a testament to Barrett’s humility, she still doesn’t know what her teacher did to make sure that the needed technology promptly found its way to her.
First, let me just note that I relate to this in a personal way. My wife is also blind, and has been for forty years. She uses adaptive technology to do the many tasks the rest of us take for granted — e-mail, web surfing, messaging, and so on. When those systems fail or don’t keep up, the burden on her is tremendous. Equipment and software hiccups are mainly annoyances for the sighted, but issues with adaptive technology for the blind are sidelining events, and even worse isolating events. Wolk’s success is a powerful testament to her own determination and character in overcoming those issues to excel in an objectively difficult field under any circumstances, which makes her endorsement of Barrett even more powerful. My wife does that in her own way every single day, too.
From the perspective of political strategy, one has to wonder whether Wolk’s appearance on the witness list had an impact on Senate Democrats’ strategy this week. They have refrained from character attacks on Barrett of the type used against Brett Kavanaugh, likely for multiple reasons, not the least of which was that it ended up backfiring in that instance in the end. For the most part, Senate Democrats avoided trying to paint Barrett as an extremist or focus on her religion, instead choosing mainly to attack the process and paint her as evasive on issues. That will prove to be the safest and smartest course in the long run regardless of motivation, especially given the futility of any efforts to stop the confirmation at this point. I’ll have more than that in an upcoming post.
Put all that aside for a moment, though. This was a shining moment in a process that has become degraded over the last three decades, and a reminder that character matters more than ideology, party identification, and identity issues. It’s not out of the question that we might see Laura Wolk, Appellate Attorney return to a future Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation process, not as a witness but as a nominee for a position herself. That would be a fine day indeed as a testament to the nation and to the people.


hotair--2020-10-15--Daryl Morey stepping down as Rockets General Manager

Well , it took a year but it looks like Rockets GM Daryl Morey is finally paying the price for his comments in support of Hong Kong .
…Morey approached owner Tilman Fertitta with the idea of leaving the job , and the sides quietly worked through an exit agreement to conclude his 13 seasons running the franchise ’ s basketball operations , sources said .
There had been leaguewide uncertainty about Morey ’ s job security since his tweet affected the NBA ’ s and Rockets ’ business relationships with China , costing Fertitta millions of dollars in sponsorship @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s run as GM was nothing short of a tremendous success : Under Morey , the Rockets have the league ’ s longest consecutive playoff appearance streak with eight — advancing in the Western Conference playoffs in each of the past four years… The team has the league ’ s second-best regular-season record over his 13 years as general manager and 14 years with the franchise .
He signed a five-year contract extension in March 2019 .
In short , Morey ’ s departure has nothing to do with his performance .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the NBA making up with China ?
A seven word tweet Morey posted last October , “ Fight for Freedom .
Stand with Hong Kong ” created a firestorm .
China instantly condemned the statement .
Morey issued an apology of sorts saying he was learning to appreciate “ other perspectives.
” But it was too late .
China pulled the NBA off the air .
Speculation at the time was that Morey was in danger of losing his job .
Meanwhile , the NBA ’ s top players rushed forward to apologize @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Russel Westbrook were in Tokyo when the story broke : Coach Steve Kerr who often has something to say on social issues suddenly didn ’ t want to comment .
Woke superstar LeBron James finally spoke about the issue a week later saying Morey wasn ’ t “ educated ” about the situation in Hong Kong .
LeBron also suggested that maybe Morey deserved to be punished for having cost the league millions of dollars .
In July of this year we learned that the NBA had actually created training camps in Xinjiang @ @ @ @ @ @ @ beaten by Chinese coaches .
The NBA knew about this even before Daryl Morey ’ s tweet but only after the tweet , with more eyes upon the NBA , did they pull down the training center ’ s website .
We all know how things worked out in Hong Kong .
This year China passed a new security law which effectively ends Hong Kong ’ s independence and makes it a major crime to voice support for Hong Kong ’ s freedom .
A crackdown on democracy activists soon followed .
Daryl @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he did .
The NBA should take some time to think about the degree to which their willingness to look the other way may have actually encouraged China to believe it could curtail the freedoms of millions of people without facing much of a backlash .
China ’ s ability to instantly erase the entire NBA ’ s presence in China over one general manager ’ s speech on a platform that isn ’ t even allowed in China ought to have been a warning to the league about who it was doing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ experience prompting some second thoughts about China ’ s willingness to crush dissent the NBA simply fell in line .
To this day , outspoken figures in the NBA like Mark Cuban still won ’ t directly criticize China ’ s abuse of human rights in Xinjiang or Hong Kong because “ They are a customer of ours.
” It ’ s a disgusting display of hypocrisy from an organization which had spoken out on any number of social issues in the recent past .

Well, it took a year but it looks like Rockets GM Daryl Morey is finally paying the price for his comments in support of Hong Kong.
Houston Rockets general manager Daryl Morey is stepping down, sources told ESPN. …Morey approached owner Tilman Fertitta with the idea of leaving the job, and the sides quietly worked through an exit agreement to conclude his 13 seasons running the franchise’s basketball operations, sources said. There had been leaguewide uncertainty about Morey’s job security since his tweet affected the NBA’s and Rockets’ business relationships with China, costing Fertitta millions of dollars in sponsorship money.
ESPN makes clear that Morey’s run as GM was nothing short of a tremendous success:
Under Morey, the Rockets have the league’s longest consecutive playoff appearance streak with eight — advancing in the Western Conference playoffs in each of the past four years… The team has the league’s second-best regular-season record over his 13 years as general manager and 14 years with the franchise. He signed a five-year contract extension in March 2019.
In short, Morey’s departure has nothing to do with his performance. Does it have something to do with the NBA making up with China?
October 2019 – Rockets GM Daryl Morey supports Hong Kong. October 9, 2020 – The NBA mends its relationship with China, Games return to state TV. October 15, 2020 – Morey is out of the league. He's out six days after the NBA and China come back together. Something seems off. — David Hookstead (@dhookstead) October 15, 2020
A seven word tweet Morey posted last October, “Fight for Freedom. Stand with Hong Kong” created a firestorm. China instantly condemned the statement. Morey issued an apology of sorts saying he was learning to appreciate “other perspectives.”
2/ I have always appreciated the significant support our Chinese fans and sponsors have provided and I would hope that those who are upset will know that offending or misunderstanding them was not my intention. My tweets are my own and in no way represent the Rockets or the NBA. — Daryl Morey (@dmorey) October 7, 2019
But it was too late. China pulled the NBA off the air. Speculation at the time was that Morey was in danger of losing his job. Meanwhile, the NBA’s top players rushed forward to apologize for his statement. James Harden and Russel Westbrook were in Tokyo when the story broke:
“We apologize. You know, we love China. We love playing there,” Harden said. “For both of us individually, we go there once or twice a year. They show us the most important love.”
Coach Steve Kerr who often has something to say on social issues suddenly didn’t want to comment. Woke superstar LeBron James finally spoke about the issue a week later saying Morey wasn’t “educated” about the situation in Hong Kong. LeBron also suggested that maybe Morey deserved to be punished for having cost the league millions of dollars.
In July of this year we learned that the NBA had actually created training camps in Xinjiang at which prospective young players were physically beaten by Chinese coaches. The NBA knew about this even before Daryl Morey’s tweet but only after the tweet, with more eyes upon the NBA, did they pull down the training center’s website.
We all know how things worked out in Hong Kong. This year China passed a new security law which effectively ends Hong Kong’s independence and makes it a major crime to voice support for Hong Kong’s freedom. A crackdown on democracy activists soon followed.
Daryl Morey was right to speak out when he did. The NBA should take some time to think about the degree to which their willingness to look the other way may have actually encouraged China to believe it could curtail the freedoms of millions of people without facing much of a backlash.
China’s ability to instantly erase the entire NBA’s presence in China over one general manager’s speech on a platform that isn’t even allowed in China ought to have been a warning to the league about who it was doing business with. But instead of this experience prompting some second thoughts about China’s willingness to crush dissent the NBA simply fell in line.
To this day, outspoken figures in the NBA like Mark Cuban still won’t directly criticize China’s abuse of human rights in Xinjiang or Hong Kong because “They are a customer of ours.” It’s a disgusting display of hypocrisy from an organization which had spoken out on any number of social issues in the recent past.


hotair--2020-10-15--The Bard of Lake Wobegon says Roe v. Wade isn't worth fighting for anymore.

It ’ s not often that a liberal Democrat comes out and says that it ’ s time to end the culture war over Roe v. Wade , especially one that is a public figure .
If you listened to the Senate Judiciary Committee ’ s hearings for Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett you heard the Democrat members accuse ACB of making a deal with President Trump to reverse Roe v Wade and end Obamacare , too .
It is not a secret that ACB is a pro-life Catholic .
There is no guarantee , however , that she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if a time comes that she must do so once she is a member of the highest court in the land .
She , like other nominees before her , did not answer questions on how she will vote in the future .
ACB took advantage of The Ginsburg Rule .
This is the rule established by RBG 27 years ago during her own confirmation hearings .
“ A judge sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecasts , no hints for that would show not only disregard for the specifics of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the entire judicial process.
” There was not any doubt , though , on which side of the argument RBG came down on over abortion .
She was an extremely liberal pro-abortion justice .
On Tuesday , MPR ’ s Garrison Keillor spoke with writer Hannah Jones about a Facebook post he published .
He came out and said that it ’ s time to let individual states make the decision if abortion is legal or not .
Since when are liberals big fans of states ’ rights ?
It seems Keillor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the battle just isn ’ t worth it anymore .
He posted some thoughts and then quickly took the post down when the blowback began .
“ It seems clear that Judge Barrett will sit on the Supreme Court and this will mean the reversal of Roe v. Wade and some deep dents in the Affordable Care Act , ” he began .
“ I don ’ t think Roe v. Wade is worth fighting for anymore.
” Keillor thinks guaranteeing the right to a safe abortion has “ torn the country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to what good ?
” “ We can accept a system of states ’ rights , whereby abortion is legal in some states , illegal in others , same as you have a death penalty in some states , not in others , ” Keillor wrote .
“ …Let South Dakota be South Dakota and if they wish to criminalize LBGTQ , then they can deal with the consequences .
Let ’ s give the cultural war a rest and focus on the economy and tax policy and environment.
” After taking down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ post which tried to explain the first one .
He took a shot at President Trump so as to keep his cred among his liberal followers and then tried to explain how it is better for states to make the decision about the legality of abortion .
He says if a woman is in an anti-abortion state , she could just go to another state .
This , by the way , was how it was done before Roe v. Wade so he is advocating going back to the past .
For example @ @ @ @ @ @ @ woman could not get a legal abortion in Louisiana but she could travel to New York if she had the means to do so and get an abortion there .
He accused politicians of publicly opposing abortion but not so much in private life .
Apparently , he is saying that pro-life politicians are hypocrites .
He inadvertently makes the case that Roe v Wade is an unconstitutional ruling from the Supreme Court , which is what pro-life people have said all along .
He goes off on tangents , though , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the interview .
He assumes all states have laws that would allow abortion , and he assumes women can just pick up and move to another state if necessary .
Then when all else fails , he says his Facebook account was hacked .
It ’ s his wife that is the political person , you see , not him .
And , his wife doesn ’ t like ACB .
He says abortion is a religious issue of which people will not compromise .
That ’ s not true , though .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Catholics and support abortion up until the time of delivery .
Ted Kennedy was the same way .
Keillor supports abortions but says the subject has led to some “ terrible , terrible things over the last 40 years.
” He doesn ’ t , however , address the “ terrible thing ” that is ending the life of an unborn child .
He means woke ideas on topics like climate change ( hurricanes ) , homelessness , hunger , and wildfires .
No , really .
I had no idea that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for hurricanes or any of those other things .
When Keillor was asked what a person should do if they live in a small town and found themself without the availability of abortion or if the townspeople are anti-LGBTQ people , he says that is why people have been moving to big cities for hundreds of years .
Silly me .
I thought people left small towns for economic opportunities when jobs weren ’ t available .
The irony of Keillor ’ s contempt for small-town populations – that he assumes they are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he has made a career of the small-town life of Lake Wobegon – is not lost on the interviewer .
So , Keillor hasn ’ t had a change of heart about abortion .
He supports it .
For some reason , he weighed in on the topic because of the ACB hearings .
Roe v Wade is the law of the land , as every Supreme Court nominee says , conservative and liberal , so as not to cause controversy .
ACB was not willing to announce how she would vote .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ controversy was just a way to inject himself into a big story in the news – the filling of a Supreme Court seat by a Republican president .
We keep hearing conservative politicians talk about overturning Roe v Wade but decades later , it remains in place .
It remains a litmus test in judicial nomination hearings .
Keillor would have been better off just sitting this one out .

It’s not often that a liberal Democrat comes out and says that it’s time to end the culture war over Roe v. Wade, especially one that is a public figure. If you listened to the Senate Judiciary Committee’s hearings for Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett you heard the Democrat members accuse ACB of making a deal with President Trump to reverse Roe v Wade and end Obamacare, too.
It is not a secret that ACB is a pro-life Catholic. There is no guarantee, however, that she will vote one way or the other if a time comes that she must do so once she is a member of the highest court in the land. She, like other nominees before her, did not answer questions on how she will vote in the future. ACB took advantage of The Ginsburg Rule. This is the rule established by RBG 27 years ago during her own confirmation hearings. “A judge sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecasts, no hints for that would show not only disregard for the specifics of the particular case, it would display disdain for the entire judicial process.” There was not any doubt, though, on which side of the argument RBG came down on over abortion. She was an extremely liberal pro-abortion justice.
Here’s Ginsburg on abortion in 1993, shortly before the Senate voted 96-3 to confirm her: “The decision whether or not to bear a child is central to a woman’s life, to her well-being and dignity. It is a decision she must make for herself. When Government controls that decision for her, she is being treated as less than a fully adult human responsible for her own choices.”
On Tuesday, MPR’s Garrison Keillor spoke with writer Hannah Jones about a Facebook post he published. He came out and said that it’s time to let individual states make the decision if abortion is legal or not. Since when are liberals big fans of states’ rights? It seems Keillor’s surrender comes from the weariness that the battle just isn’t worth it anymore. He posted some thoughts and then quickly took the post down when the blowback began.
“It seems clear that Judge Barrett will sit on the Supreme Court and this will mean the reversal of Roe v. Wade and some deep dents in the Affordable Care Act,” he began. “I don’t think Roe v. Wade is worth fighting for anymore.” Keillor thinks guaranteeing the right to a safe abortion has “torn the country asunder,” and wondered,“to what good?” “We can accept a system of states’ rights, whereby abortion is legal in some states, illegal in others, same as you have a death penalty in some states, not in others,” Keillor wrote. “…Let South Dakota be South Dakota and if they wish to criminalize LBGTQ, then they can deal with the consequences. Let’s give the cultural war a rest and focus on the economy and tax policy and environment.”
After taking down the first post he published a second post which tried to explain the first one. He took a shot at President Trump so as to keep his cred among his liberal followers and then tried to explain how it is better for states to make the decision about the legality of abortion. He says if a woman is in an anti-abortion state, she could just go to another state. This, by the way, was how it was done before Roe v. Wade so he is advocating going back to the past. For example, pre-Roe v Wade, a pregnant woman could not get a legal abortion in Louisiana but she could travel to New York if she had the means to do so and get an abortion there. He accused politicians of publicly opposing abortion but not so much in private life. Apparently, he is saying that pro-life politicians are hypocrites. He inadvertently makes the case that Roe v Wade is an unconstitutional ruling from the Supreme Court, which is what pro-life people have said all along.
“But the Court is not able to make abortion illegal, only states can do that,” Keillor wrote. “So abortion will be legal most places and not others. Meanwhile, we need to focus on providing health care and support for women, that will lessen the number of women who feel forced to abort… Meanwhile, R v W is a toxic issue that has poisoned our politics for almost 50 years and succeeded in electing a great many cynical and corrupt men to public office who oppose abortion publicly but would provide it for their daughters without question.”
He goes off on tangents, though, which makes his line of reasoning confusing during the interview. He assumes all states have laws that would allow abortion, and he assumes women can just pick up and move to another state if necessary. Then when all else fails, he says his Facebook account was hacked. It’s his wife that is the political person, you see, not him. And, his wife doesn’t like ACB.
https://www.facebook.com/garrison.keillor.14/posts/10157848813173892
He says abortion is a religious issue of which people will not compromise. That’s not true, though. Democrats like Joe Biden call themselves practicing Catholics and support abortion up until the time of delivery. Ted Kennedy was the same way. Keillor supports abortions but says the subject has led to some “terrible, terrible things over the last 40 years.” He doesn’t, however, address the “terrible thing” that is ending the life of an unborn child. He means woke ideas on topics like climate change (hurricanes), homelessness, hunger, and wildfires. No, really. I had no idea that the battle to protect the unborn was responsible for hurricanes or any of those other things.
When Keillor was asked what a person should do if they live in a small town and found themself without the availability of abortion or if the townspeople are anti-LGBTQ people, he says that is why people have been moving to big cities for hundreds of years. Silly me. I thought people left small towns for economic opportunities when jobs weren’t available. The irony of Keillor’s contempt for small-town populations – that he assumes they are some kind of religious extremists – when he has made a career of the small-town life of Lake Wobegon – is not lost on the interviewer.
So, Keillor hasn’t had a change of heart about abortion. He supports it. For some reason, he weighed in on the topic because of the ACB hearings. Roe v Wade is the law of the land, as every Supreme Court nominee says, conservative and liberal, so as not to cause controversy. ACB was not willing to announce how she would vote. It seems that Keillor’s self-inflicted controversy was just a way to inject himself into a big story in the news – the filling of a Supreme Court seat by a Republican president. We keep hearing conservative politicians talk about overturning Roe v Wade but decades later, it remains in place. It remains a litmus test in judicial nomination hearings. Keillor would have been better off just sitting this one out.


hotair--2020-10-15--Feinstein hot mic: I suspect Barrett's pro-life position is deeply personal and comes with her relig

Feinstein hot mic: I suspect Barrett's pro-life position is deeply personal and comes with her religion

It ’ s amusing to me that the first person on social media whom I saw ding Feinstein for this was a lefty , with various other lefties groaning in the replies that she ’ s the worst .
I think they ’ re in earnest , sort of .
Feinstein infamously complained to Barrett at her last confirmation hearing a few years ago that “ the dogma lives loudly within you , ” an ugly objection to seating her on the bench because of her faith .
Liberals feared she ’ d do the same thing , or worse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hearing , gift-wrapping a talking point for Republicans three weeks out from an election that the Democratic leadership is anti-Christian .
So they ’ ve been whispering to reporters that Feinstein has “ lost a step , ” even that she maybe shouldn ’ t even be allowed to retain her position as ranking member on the Judiciary Committee for fear that she ’ d blunder again .
But there ’ s also history here between Feinstein and the left .
They ’ ve complained for ages that she ’ s too centrist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s establishment , especially since she represents a deep blue state where a progressive could win easily .
She was challenged for her seat two years ago by lefty Kevin de Leon and only managed to win by single digits .
The AOC wing of the party wants her out and someone more radical in ASAP , especially as she approaches the age of 90 and her 30th year in the Senate .
So the left has been on alert for screw-ups by Feinstein at the hearing as much as the right has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her by amplifying Republican complaints that she ’ s bad for the country and therefore for their party , so be it .
Feinstein managed to get through the first two days of questioning Barrett without saying anything dubious about “ dogma.
” But then… Is that an insult to the nominee ?
“ Of course , ” one might say .
Feinstein ’ s hinting again that Barrett can ’ t or won ’ t rule fairly on the legal merits of Roe , as any other judge might , because she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s faith , not reason , that ’ s allegedly led her to the pro-life view .
At bottom it ’ s an accusation of bias aimed at the judge because she ’ s Catholic .
It ’ s phrased more delicately than suggesting she ’ s unfit because “ the dogma ” lives loudly within her , but it ’ s the same objection .
On the other hand .
If we ’ re being real , Barrett ’ s reputation for religious devotion is one of the reasons righties are so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the crass sense that she ’ ll follow Catholic doctrine rather than the Constitution in her rulings — of course that ’ s not true — but in the sense that casting the deciding vote to overturn Roe would take great moral courage given the sort of political and personal backlash that would follow .
Maybe Anthony Kennedy , Sandra Day O ’ Connor , and David Souter voted to uphold Roe in 1992 strictly on the merits , because stare decisis was that important to them , but the assurance that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a certain sort of upheaval must have made it easier for them to follow through .
The hype for Barrett is that she won ’ t bend under pressure .
Her faith won ’ t dictate to her how to decide a challenge to Roe but her faith might help give her the strength to stand by that decision .
To cast that vote will require real moral fortitude .
Her religious devotion suggests that she has it .
Viewed that way , Feinstein ’ s comment is both true and false .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ t “ come with her religion , ” but her religion may lend her a certain resolve in defending that view that another nominee might lack .
Feinstein ’ s not the only Democrat thinking about Barrett ’ s faith today , by the way : In an interview with the Shawnee Mission Post , Democratic Senate candidate Barbara Bollier said Judge Amy Coney Barrett ought to be asked about her faith before being confirmed to the Supreme Court… “ Most people in America have a faith and are influenced by it .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ by her faith , ” Bollier told the interviewer after he asked whether Democrats should ask Barrett about how her faith might influence her public role .
Bollier continued : The question is : Is she wanting to put her faith in play as a faith for all and will that affect our law ?
And I think that is a question that needs to be asked of her , how she intersects her faith with the law .
That is important , but bottom line is , it ’ s about does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That ’ s the kind of tough question I would ask her .
But to act as if she isn ’ t influenced by her faith– everyone is .
So I think it is important to discuss how it does .
“ Does she follow the Constitution , and how ” ?
It ’ s one thing to say that all religious people are influenced by their faith , it ’ s another to muse that they might have difficulty applying the Constitution because of it .
That *does* sound a bit like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ?
I ’ ll leave you with this from Dick Durbin , a rare example of a Democrat making a good point about the Barrett hearing today .
It ’ s a bipartisan point too , as Rich Lowry made the same argument in a piece published this morning .
Why do we have confirmation hearings anymore when the nominee won ’ t answer legal questions or even basic civic questions like whether a defeated president should peacefully transfer power to the rightful winner ?
It ’ d be one thing to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we still lived in an era where senators from the opposing party were willing to vote for a nominee if he or she performed well at the hearing , but we ’ ve degenerated to a state of strict ( or almost strict ) party-line votes .
Why keep up the charade ?

It’s amusing to me that the first person on social media whom I saw ding Feinstein for this was a lefty, with various other lefties groaning in the replies that she’s the worst. I think they’re in earnest, sort of. Feinstein infamously complained to Barrett at her last confirmation hearing a few years ago that “the dogma lives loudly within you,” an ugly objection to seating her on the bench because of her faith. Liberals feared she’d do the same thing, or worse, at Barrett’s SCOTUS confirmation hearing, gift-wrapping a talking point for Republicans three weeks out from an election that the Democratic leadership is anti-Christian. So they’ve been whispering to reporters that Feinstein has “lost a step,” even that she maybe shouldn’t even be allowed to retain her position as ranking member on the Judiciary Committee for fear that she’d blunder again.
But there’s also history here between Feinstein and the left. They’ve complained for ages that she’s too centrist and far too cozy with Washington’s establishment, especially since she represents a deep blue state where a progressive could win easily. She was challenged for her seat two years ago by lefty Kevin de Leon and only managed to win by single digits. The AOC wing of the party wants her out and someone more radical in ASAP, especially as she approaches the age of 90 and her 30th year in the Senate. So the left has been on alert for screw-ups by Feinstein at the hearing as much as the right has. If they can get rid of her by amplifying Republican complaints that she’s bad for the country and therefore for their party, so be it.
Feinstein managed to get through the first two days of questioning Barrett without saying anything dubious about “dogma.” But then…
📽 Sen. Feinstein hot mic talking about Judge Amy Coney Barrett: “She’s been pro-life for a long time. So I suspect with her, it is deeply personal and comes with her religion.” pic.twitter.com/5dUBhHLQsn — Tré Goins-Phillips (@tregp) October 15, 2020
Is that an insult to the nominee? “Of course,” one might say. Feinstein’s hinting again that Barrett can’t or won’t rule fairly on the legal merits of Roe, as any other judge might, because she’s too religious. It’s faith, not reason, that’s allegedly led her to the pro-life view. At bottom it’s an accusation of bias aimed at the judge because she’s Catholic. It’s phrased more delicately than suggesting she’s unfit because “the dogma” lives loudly within her, but it’s the same objection.
On the other hand. If we’re being real, Barrett’s reputation for religious devotion is one of the reasons righties are so enthusiastic about her, no? Not in the crass sense that she’ll follow Catholic doctrine rather than the Constitution in her rulings — of course that’s not true — but in the sense that casting the deciding vote to overturn Roe would take great moral courage given the sort of political and personal backlash that would follow. Maybe Anthony Kennedy, Sandra Day O’Connor, and David Souter voted to uphold Roe in 1992 strictly on the merits, because stare decisis was that important to them, but the assurance that their ruling would spare the country from a certain sort of upheaval must have made it easier for them to follow through.
The hype for Barrett is that she won’t bend under pressure. Her faith won’t dictate to her how to decide a challenge to Roe but her faith might help give her the strength to stand by that decision. To cast that vote will require real moral fortitude. Her religious devotion suggests that she has it.
Viewed that way, Feinstein’s comment is both true and false. Barrett’s pro-life view doesn’t “come with her religion,” but her religion may lend her a certain resolve in defending that view that another nominee might lack.
Feinstein’s not the only Democrat thinking about Barrett’s faith today, by the way:
In an interview with the Shawnee Mission Post, Democratic Senate candidate Barbara Bollier said Judge Amy Coney Barrett ought to be asked about her faith before being confirmed to the Supreme Court… “Most people in America have a faith and are influenced by it. So, of course she is influenced by her faith,” Bollier told the interviewer after he asked whether Democrats should ask Barrett about how her faith might influence her public role. Bollier continued: The question is: Is she wanting to put her faith in play as a faith for all and will that affect our law? And I think that is a question that needs to be asked of her, how she intersects her faith with the law. That is important, but bottom line is, it’s about does she follow the Constitution and how? That’s the kind of tough question I would ask her. But to act as if she isn’t influenced by her faith– everyone is. So I think it is important to discuss how it does.
“Does she follow the Constitution, and how”? It’s one thing to say that all religious people are influenced by their faith, it’s another to muse that they might have difficulty applying the Constitution because of it. That *does* sound a bit like a religious test, doesn’t it?
I’ll leave you with this from Dick Durbin, a rare example of a Democrat making a good point about the Barrett hearing today. It’s a bipartisan point too, as Rich Lowry made the same argument in a piece published this morning. Why do we have confirmation hearings anymore when the nominee won’t answer legal questions or even basic civic questions like whether a defeated president should peacefully transfer power to the rightful winner? It’d be one thing to go through this song and dance if we still lived in an era where senators from the opposing party were willing to vote for a nominee if he or she performed well at the hearing, but we’ve degenerated to a state of strict (or almost strict) party-line votes. Why keep up the charade?