hotair--2020-11-30--Report: Deborah Birx, Alex Azar want senior citizens to be first in line for COVID vaccines

This is a defensible , even noble position to take on the thorny question of how to prioritize recipients of the first limited batch of vaccines , but I think it ’ s a mistake .
Imagine if you had 25 doses of the vaccine and had to decide how to dole it out at a nursing home with 25 staffers and 200 residents .
Who gets the shots ?
I ’ d say the staffers should get it even though they ’ re at lower risk of death than the residents for the simple reason that staffers are the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the first place .
If , as scientists hope , people who are vaccinated will be less likely to transmit the disease to others then vaccinating those 25 employees could protect all 200 residents by preventing the virus from entering the premises .
With supplies limited , we should focus on maximizing how many lives can be saved with each dose .
Vaccinate one nursing-home resident and you ’ ve saved one life .
Vaccinate one nursing-home staffer and you may have saved dozens .
For the same reason , I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first when the national vaccination program begins .
Immunizing them saves lives in two ways : It keeps them on the job so that they can save others and it breaks an unusually high number of chains of transmission relative to the general population .
There are few workers in the United States who encounter the virus more often than doctors and nurses ; inevitably , despite taking precautions , some of them are going to bring the virus out of the hospital and into the community .
( Here ’ s the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ infected his family , including his infant daughter . )
Meanwhile , at the Cleveland Clinic , no fewer than 970 caregivers as of last week were either infected or in quarantine after being exposed to someone who ’ s infected .
Get those people immunity ASAP and the benefits to the entire city will be outsized .
All of this is a preface to this report from Stat about a very important emergency meeting being held tomorrow by an obscure department of the CDC .
The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should get the vaccine first and has been weighing its decision for months .
They ’ re huddling on Tuesday to vote .
But according to Stat , their preferences and the preferences of top Trump officials don ’ t match up .
Who wins in that power struggle ?
STAT has learned that senior leaders in the Trump administration ’ s coronavirus response are pressing for adults 65 years old and older to be given first access to the vaccine .
That approach contradicts the position of a committee that advises the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vaccine policy ; the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices has signaled for months that it will recommend health care providers be at the front of the vaccination line… The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices is meeting in an emergency session Tuesday to vote on a recommendation that would enshrine its position on health care providers — and add residents of long-term care facilities to “ Phase 1a ” of the vaccination priority schedule .
Though some members of the committee have expressed concerns about putting long-term care residents in the first group , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first access to health workers… HHS Secretary Alex Azar and White House coronavirus task force coordinator Deborah Birx are pushing to have seniors precede health workers in the vaccine rollout schedule , because of the high death rate among older and elderly adults , according to the senior government official .
Vaccinating medical personnel and residents of LTC facilities seems like a wise compromise to me given the numbers .
Per Stat , there are 21 million health-care workers in the U.S. and three million residents of long-term care facilities .
Right now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in December and another 25 million in January .
That total of 45 million is less than the total population of senior citizens in the United States , which is on the order of 55 million .
That is , you could reserve all existing supplies exclusively for seniors and still not get the entire group immunized before February — even if not a single doctor or nurse got the vaccine during that period .
ACIP ’ s plan seems smarter .
Eliminate the risk to medical pros and nursing-home residents , then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 65 and over .
( Presumably the military will be need to be vaccinated quickly as well as a matter of basic readiness . )
If we can get most seniors vaccinated by the end of February , we could have the rest of the country starting to roll before spring has even begun : A potential snag , though : In our federalist country , where you end up in line for the vaccine may depend on which state you live in .
ACIP ’ s recommendations won ’ t be binding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And the Trump administration reportedly doesn ’ t plan to lay down hard rules on who should be given priority .
Whether you get the vaccine in December or March may depend on whether your governor is Andrew Cuomo or Ron DeSantis .
The Trump administration has told states that they have ultimate authority for determining who gets vaccinated first .
It has also decided to allocate scarce early doses based on states ’ total populations , forcing hard choices in states with a greater proportion of residents at high risk — including @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have suffered disproportionate rates of hospitalization and death from Covid-19… Moncef Slaoui , the former GlaxoSmithKline executive who leads Operation Warp Speed , the government ’ s vaccine accelerator , said there are no easy choices .
“ I don ’ t expect the states to make uniform decisions , ” he told POLITICO .
“ Some may prefer long-term care facilities or the elderly , while others may prioritize their health care workers .
It would be wrong to immunize 18-year-olds first .
I hope no one does that .
But otherwise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The politics will get messy , especially for governors of states with diverse populations like Florida .
If you ’ re DeSantis , what do you do ?
You have an enormous number of senior citizens among your constituents — but you also have a large Latino minority , and Latinos have been hit unusually hard by COVID .
Who goes first ?
Latino seniors ?
Here ’ s Scott Gottlieb making the case that , between the insane number of infections happening in the U.S. right now and the ( hopefully ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may reach a degree of herd immunity much sooner than everyone hopes .
The virus won ’ t stop spreading once half the country has either had the disease or gotten the vaccine but the days of huge and rising case counts will be over .

This is a defensible, even noble position to take on the thorny question of how to prioritize recipients of the first limited batch of vaccines, but I think it’s a mistake.
Imagine if you had 25 doses of the vaccine and had to decide how to dole it out at a nursing home with 25 staffers and 200 residents. Who gets the shots? I’d say the staffers should get it even though they’re at lower risk of death than the residents for the simple reason that staffers are the ones bringing it into the nursing home in the first place. If, as scientists hope, people who are vaccinated will be less likely to transmit the disease to others then vaccinating those 25 employees could protect all 200 residents by preventing the virus from entering the premises. With supplies limited, we should focus on maximizing how many lives can be saved with each dose. Vaccinate one nursing-home resident and you’ve saved one life. Vaccinate one nursing-home staffer and you may have saved dozens.
For the same reason, I’d think medical personnel have to be first when the national vaccination program begins. Immunizing them saves lives in two ways: It keeps them on the job so that they can save others and it breaks an unusually high number of chains of transmission relative to the general population. There are few workers in the United States who encounter the virus more often than doctors and nurses; inevitably, despite taking precautions, some of them are going to bring the virus out of the hospital and into the community. (Here’s the story of one doctor in Texas who infected his family, including his infant daughter.) Meanwhile, at the Cleveland Clinic, no fewer than 970 caregivers as of last week were either infected or in quarantine after being exposed to someone who’s infected. Get those people immunity ASAP and the benefits to the entire city will be outsized.
All of this is a preface to this report from Stat about a very important emergency meeting being held tomorrow by an obscure department of the CDC. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices is in charge of setting recommendation on who should get the vaccine first and has been weighing its decision for months. They’re huddling on Tuesday to vote. But according to Stat, their preferences and the preferences of top Trump officials don’t match up. Who wins in that power struggle?
STAT has learned that senior leaders in the Trump administration’s coronavirus response are pressing for adults 65 years old and older to be given first access to the vaccine. That approach contradicts the position of a committee that advises the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on vaccine policy; the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices has signaled for months that it will recommend health care providers be at the front of the vaccination line… The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices is meeting in an emergency session Tuesday to vote on a recommendation that would enshrine its position on health care providers — and add residents of long-term care facilities to “Phase 1a” of the vaccination priority schedule. Though some members of the committee have expressed concerns about putting long-term care residents in the first group, none has voiced an objection to giving first access to health workers… HHS Secretary Alex Azar and White House coronavirus task force coordinator Deborah Birx are pushing to have seniors precede health workers in the vaccine rollout schedule, because of the high death rate among older and elderly adults, according to the senior government official.
Vaccinating medical personnel and residents of LTC facilities seems like a wise compromise to me given the numbers. Per Stat, there are 21 million health-care workers in the U.S. and three million residents of long-term care facilities. Right now the feds estimate vaccinating 20 million people in December and another 25 million in January. That total of 45 million is less than the total population of senior citizens in the United States, which is on the order of 55 million. That is, you could reserve all existing supplies exclusively for seniors and still not get the entire group immunized before February — even if not a single doctor or nurse got the vaccine during that period.
ACIP’s plan seems smarter. Eliminate the risk to medical pros and nursing-home residents, then expand to the general population of people 65 and over. (Presumably the military will be need to be vaccinated quickly as well as a matter of basic readiness.) If we can get most seniors vaccinated by the end of February, we could have the rest of the country starting to roll before spring has even begun:
On @MeetThePress Dr. Fauci tells @chucktodd that large portion of first responders will be vaccinated by end of December. One toxicologist told me he expects almost all front line folks will be vaccinated by year end and almost everyone who wants vaccination will have one by 3/31 — Hugh Hewitt (@hughhewitt) November 29, 2020
A potential snag, though: In our federalist country, where you end up in line for the vaccine may depend on which state you live in. ACIP’s recommendations won’t be binding on state governments, I believe. And the Trump administration reportedly doesn’t plan to lay down hard rules on who should be given priority. Whether you get the vaccine in December or March may depend on whether your governor is Andrew Cuomo or Ron DeSantis.
The Trump administration has told states that they have ultimate authority for determining who gets vaccinated first. It has also decided to allocate scarce early doses based on states’ total populations, forcing hard choices in states with a greater proportion of residents at high risk — including Black, Indigenous and Latino communities that have suffered disproportionate rates of hospitalization and death from Covid-19… Moncef Slaoui, the former GlaxoSmithKline executive who leads Operation Warp Speed, the government’s vaccine accelerator, said there are no easy choices. “I don’t expect the states to make uniform decisions,” he told POLITICO. “Some may prefer long-term care facilities or the elderly, while others may prioritize their health care workers. It would be wrong to immunize 18-year-olds first. I hope no one does that. But otherwise it’s shades of gray.”
The politics will get messy, especially for governors of states with diverse populations like Florida. If you’re DeSantis, what do you do? You have an enormous number of senior citizens among your constituents — but you also have a large Latino minority, and Latinos have been hit unusually hard by COVID. Who goes first? Latino seniors?
Here’s Scott Gottlieb making the case that, between the insane number of infections happening in the U.S. right now and the (hopefully) quick rollout of the vaccine, we may reach a degree of herd immunity much sooner than everyone hopes. The virus won’t stop spreading once half the country has either had the disease or gotten the vaccine but the days of huge and rising case counts will be over.


hotair--2020-11-30--Biden fractured his foot over the weekend and the media is already praising him for it

Joe Biden somehow managed to fracture bones in his foot while playing with his dog on Saturday .
He apparently thought he ’ d just sprained his ankle and went to see a doctor Sunday to have it checked : Biden was injured Saturday and visited an orthopedist at Delaware Orthopaedic Specialists in Newark , Del.
, for an examination Sunday afternoon , according to a pool report .
Earlier in the afternoon , doctors said they found “ no obvious fracture , ” but a follow-up CT scan confirmed hairline fractures of Biden ’ s “ lateral and intermediate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mid-foot , ” according to a statement from his doctor , Kevin O ’ Connor .
“ It is anticipated that he will likely require a walking boot for several weeks , ” O ’ Connor was quoted as saying .
These kind of things happen to everyone once in a while but the media has already found ways to praise Biden .
The Washington Post Chris Cillizza compared it to Trump ’ s COVID-19 diagnosis : Within two hours , there was a statement from Dr. Kevin O ’ Connor noting that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and it appeared as though he had a sprain .
A CT scan was going to be conducted just to confirm the diagnosis , however .
Then , 90 minutes after that , came this , again from O ’ Connor… The point is this : Transparency in matters of health and , well , everything else , is fundamental to a functioning democracy .
And we have had the opposite of that for these last four years .
Turning Biden stumbling over his dog into a sign that normalcy has returned to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but there you go .
And that ’ s still not as embarrassing as this Slate story headlined “ Biden Breaks Foot Engaging in Tried-and-True Expression of Presidential Vigor.
” I guess playing with your dog is a presidential tradition but probably if Biden wasn ’ t 78-years-old he wouldn ’ t have sprained his ankle and and fractured his foot doing it .
I mean , isn ’ t the point of “ performative vigor ” that you don ’ t hurt yourself in the process ?
It ’ s not really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down and wind up in a walking boot .
My worry is that this incident really does turn out to be symbolic .
It could symbolize how the left-leaning media is going to bend over backwards to praise Biden for every single thing he does in the next four years .
If hurting yourself during your time off is grounds for praise , there ’ s probably not much he can do that won ’ t earn him kudos from the media .
Finally , there was video of Biden leaving the doctor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump quote-tweeted it and wished him a quick recovery :

Joe Biden somehow managed to fracture bones in his foot while playing with his dog on Saturday. He apparently thought he’d just sprained his ankle and went to see a doctor Sunday to have it checked:
Biden was injured Saturday and visited an orthopedist at Delaware Orthopaedic Specialists in Newark, Del., for an examination Sunday afternoon, according to a pool report. Earlier in the afternoon, doctors said they found “no obvious fracture,” but a follow-up CT scan confirmed hairline fractures of Biden’s “lateral and intermediate cuneiform bones, which are in the mid-foot,” according to a statement from his doctor, Kevin O’Connor. “It is anticipated that he will likely require a walking boot for several weeks,” O’Connor was quoted as saying.
These kind of things happen to everyone once in a while but the media has already found ways to praise Biden. The Washington Post Chris Cillizza compared it to Trump’s COVID-19 diagnosis:
Within two hours, there was a statement from Dr. Kevin O’Connor noting that Biden’s foot had been X-rayed and it appeared as though he had a sprain. A CT scan was going to be conducted just to confirm the diagnosis, however. Then, 90 minutes after that, came this, again from O’Connor… The point is this: Transparency in matters of health and, well, everything else, is fundamental to a functioning democracy. And we have had the opposite of that for these last four years.
Turning Biden stumbling over his dog into a sign that normalcy has returned to America is a bit of a stretch but there you go. And that’s still not as embarrassing as this Slate story headlined “Biden Breaks Foot Engaging in Tried-and-True Expression of Presidential Vigor.”
President-elect Joe Biden suffered a hairline fracture of his foot Saturday while engaging in one of the most presidential acts of performative vigor: playing around with his dog. The 78-year-old apparently slipped and twisted his ankle horsing around with the family German shepherd, Major, during the post-Thanksgiving holiday weekend.
I guess playing with your dog is a presidential tradition but probably if Biden wasn’t 78-years-old he wouldn’t have sprained his ankle and and fractured his foot doing it. I mean, isn’t the point of “performative vigor” that you don’t hurt yourself in the process? It’s not really a sign of personal vigor to fall down and wind up in a walking boot.
My worry is that this incident really does turn out to be symbolic. It could symbolize how the left-leaning media is going to bend over backwards to praise Biden for every single thing he does in the next four years. If hurting yourself during your time off is grounds for praise, there’s probably not much he can do that won’t earn him kudos from the media.
Finally, there was video of Biden leaving the doctor’s office yesterday. And President Trump quote-tweeted it and wished him a quick recovery:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1333217873758654464


hotair--2020-11-30--Ossoff's Georgia pitch: You know who I admire? Bernie Sanders

Alternate headline : Blogger suddenly feels more optimistic about Georgia runoffs .
All Jon Ossoff had to do is restrain from linking himself to the extremes of his own party while Donald Trump suppressed the MAGA vote with his amplification of corruption conspiracy theories about the voting system .
Instead , Ossoff practically endorsed the campaign messaging from the GOP that paints Ossoff as a Trojan horse for hard-Left .
To be fair , CNN ’ s Dana Bash painted him into that corner on yesterday ’ s State of the Union : BASH : Before I let you go @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He is vying to be labor secretary in the Biden administration .
So , he backed you .
Do you support him in that endeavor ?
OSSOFF : I ’ m not making recommendations to the administration on Cabinet picks .
But I appreciate the senator ’ s support and look forward to working with him to fight for a $ 15 minimum wage , to put the interests of working families ahead of corporate lobbyists in Washington , to address this climate crisis , invest in clean energy , and look @ @ @ @ @ @ @ change , instead of people who have bought access and power in Washington .
BASH : OK , so you ’ re not pushing to endorse a Cabinet pick .
I understand that .
Do you want Senator Sanders to come down and campaign with you ?
OSSOFF : We will see .
I haven ’ t had that kind of discussion with him , but I welcome his support .
And , again , look , I think that he advocacy for ensuring that health care is a human right in this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ working families over corporate interests is welcome , is necessary , is appreciated , and so is his support .
What makes this doubly amusing is that Ossoff basically botched this in three key ways .
First , all he really needed to say is that he was his own man , and would consider Georgia voters over Washington thought leaders .
Instead , Ossoff ’ s instinct is to cite Vermont ’ s socialist senator as one of his guiding lights .
Strike one .
But just as bad is Ossoff ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ question that Bash asked .
If elected , the first votes Ossoff would cast would be on confirmations of Joe Biden ’ s Cabinet picks .
With Bernie Sanders ’ endorsement , opposing his nomination would be awkward ( and why did Sanders inject himself into the Georgia runoff anyway ? )
, but Ossoff could have said that voters seem to have sent a message about moderation and compromise , not ideology and confrontation .
That could have assuaged concerns over Ossoff ’ s impact on the Senate .
Instead , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ praises on health care , where Sanders ’ radical plan to put all care under the direction of the federal government in Medicare for All is practically the embodiment of American neo-socialist extremism .
Strike two .
As bad as this is tactically , it ’ s even worse from a strategic perspective .
Republicans have unloaded on Raphael Warnock with all sorts of oppo-research hits that paint him as a radical leftist , and probably have more coming .
The only hope for Democrats is to have Ossoff succeed in running to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his coattails pull Warnock along to victory .
Instead , Ossoff can ’ t get out of the hard-Left lane , not even when it ’ s relatively easy to do so .
Strike three .
If Republicans can just get out of their own way , this should be a relatively easy runoff election to win .
Democrats hardly put their best and brightest on the ticket here .

Alternate headline: Blogger suddenly feels more optimistic about Georgia runoffs. All Jon Ossoff had to do is restrain from linking himself to the extremes of his own party while Donald Trump suppressed the MAGA vote with his amplification of corruption conspiracy theories about the voting system. Instead, Ossoff practically endorsed the campaign messaging from the GOP that paints Ossoff as a Trojan horse for hard-Left.
To be fair, CNN’s Dana Bash painted him into that corner on yesterday’s State of the Union:
BASH: Before I let you go, Senator Bernie Sanders endorsed you yesterday. He is vying to be labor secretary in the Biden administration. So, he backed you. Do you support him in that endeavor? OSSOFF: I’m not making recommendations to the administration on Cabinet picks. But I appreciate the senator’s support and look forward to working with him to fight for a $15 minimum wage, to put the interests of working families ahead of corporate lobbyists in Washington, to address this climate crisis, invest in clean energy, and look out for ordinary working people for a change, instead of people who have bought access and power in Washington. BASH: OK, so you’re not pushing to endorse a Cabinet pick. I understand that. Do you want Senator Sanders to come down and campaign with you? OSSOFF: We will see. I haven’t had that kind of discussion with him, but I welcome his support. And, again, look, I think that he advocacy for ensuring that health care is a human right in this country, for putting the interests of working families over corporate interests is welcome, is necessary, is appreciated, and so is his support.
What makes this doubly amusing is that Ossoff basically botched this in three key ways. First, all he really needed to say is that he was his own man, and would consider Georgia voters over Washington thought leaders. Instead, Ossoff’s instinct is to cite Vermont’s socialist senator as one of his guiding lights. Strike one.
But just as bad is Ossoff’s attempt to dodge the very legitimate question that Bash asked. If elected, the first votes Ossoff would cast would be on confirmations of Joe Biden’s Cabinet picks. With Bernie Sanders’ endorsement, opposing his nomination would be awkward (and why did Sanders inject himself into the Georgia runoff anyway?), but Ossoff could have said that voters seem to have sent a message about moderation and compromise, not ideology and confrontation. That could have assuaged concerns over Ossoff’s impact on the Senate. Instead, he dodged the question while singing Sanders’ praises on health care, where Sanders’ radical plan to put all care under the direction of the federal government in Medicare for All is practically the embodiment of American neo-socialist extremism. Strike two.
As bad as this is tactically, it’s even worse from a strategic perspective. Republicans have unloaded on Raphael Warnock with all sorts of oppo-research hits that paint him as a radical leftist, and probably have more coming. The only hope for Democrats is to have Ossoff succeed in running to the center against David Perdue and hope his coattails pull Warnock along to victory. Instead, Ossoff can’t get out of the hard-Left lane, not even when it’s relatively easy to do so. Strike three.
If Republicans can just get out of their own way, this should be a relatively easy runoff election to win. Democrats hardly put their best and brightest on the ticket here.


hotair--2020-11-30--Fox News blacklisting guests who also appear on Newsmax? Update: Fox denies

So says CNN , so take it with a grain of salt .
Obviously a brawl between the top conservative network and a fringier populist alternative is a narrative that Fox ’ s competitors are eager to encourage .
Fox will deny the claim for the same reason .
Never , ever would they publicly admit to feeling any anxiety about another right-wing outlet .
Producers on some Fox programs have been told to monitor Newsmax ’ s guest bookings and throw some sand in Newsmax ’ s gears by encouraging guests who appear on both channels to stop saying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fox sources , producers were told to avoid some regular guests if they kept showing up on Newsmax after being encouraged to stop .
Management ’ s goal : to remind guests who ’ s boss in the right-wing media world… When asked about the apparent booking drama between Fox and Newsmax , Chris Ruddy , the CEO of Newsmax , said Fox is committing an “ anti-competitive violation ” by trying to block guests .
Two of the Fox sources shrugged at that suggestion .
“ Welcome to the big leagues , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from Brian Stelter , who claims that when he spoke to sources at Fox earlier this year they cracked jokes about Newsmax .
Now they ’ re checking daily ratings to see how many more viewers might have migrated over to Greg Kelly ’ s show in order to find a safe space in which the outcome of the election remains in doubt .
( “ Our audience has absolutely been radicalized , ” said one Fox staffer to Stelter . )
I wrote about Newsmax ’ s — and CNN ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at Fox ’ s expense last week , but it ’ s showing up in online metrics too : According to data from analytics platform Social Blade , which tracks the daily shifts of profiles , “ likes ” on the Newsmax Facebook page have spiked by over 1.4 million in the past 30 days , with a daily average rise of 47,241 .
On Saturday , when the channel was talked about by Trump , its Facebook page attracted over 30,000 new likes .
The pattern was echoed on Twitter , where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the past 30 days , a daily average of 18,791 .
It amassed 27,105 new fans Saturday .
On YouTube , Newsmax brought in 1.18 million new subscribers over the past 30 days , a daily average rise of nearly 40,000 .
It gained 20,000 new subscribers on Saturday .
Video views on the platform rose by 108 million in the past 30 days , according to Social Blade .
Allegedly Fox has taken to trying to appease viewers by re-airing bits from Tucker Carlson ’ s show during the day , to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ channel if they have to watch so much as one more Fox reporter call Biden the president-elect .
Meanwhile , Trump continues to take potshots at Fox… …while also undermining those potshots by giving special privileges to Fox networks , like when he granted Maria Bartiromo an extended interview yesterday morning .
If he wants to punish FNC for whatever it did to betray him , why didn ’ t he grant that interview to Kelly instead ?
With respect to the Newsmax boomlet , tell me how it ends .
The “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them rolling for the next seven weeks until Biden is sworn in , but at that point their advantage over Fox will end .
Both networks will shift full-time to adversarial programming aimed at the new administration and Fox has far more money , personnel , and high-end talent than Newsmax does .
Maybe Kelly can hang in there at 7 p.m. against Martha MacCallum , giving Fox viewers a dose of polemics early in the evening at an hour when Fox is trying to give them news , but who ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Hannity , and Ingraham will be waging all-out war on Biden with A-list guests over on FNC ?
Even if Fox isn ’ t high-octane enough for you , why isn ’ t Fox Business the preferred “ radical ” alternative for Fox viewers over Newsmax ?
Lou Dobbs has interviewed Sidney Powell with every bit as much credulity as a Newsmax host like Kelly could muster .
Maria Bartiromo nowadays sounds like an especially febrile Trump campaign spokesman more so than a cable news host .
What sort of itch is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Maybe Fox should bite the bullet and do what corporations tend to do when threatened by a hungry young competitor and either buy Newsmax itself or fart out its own knock-off version .
They could approach their problem the way a distillery would , producing a new label to meet the demand from consumers seeking something more potent than the usual fare .
Fox News will remain the main product , the 40-percent ABV version of conservative news .
But for viewers who want to get f***ed up on populism , they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” or whatever , the 60-percent ABV alternative in which the outcome of the 2020 election is , and shall forever remain , in doubt .
Fox ’ s problem isn ’ t that their opinion hosts aren ’ t as punchy as Newsmax ’ s .
They are .
Their problem is that they have a respected news bureau staffed by credible reporters and continue to give those reporters airtime to say things that puncture the fantasies about a stolen election .
I ’ ll leave you with this segment from Eric @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of cheating more doggedly than any other journalist on the network .
Trump must have flipped his lid when he saw this .
Update : Indeed , Fox is denying Stelter ’ s report : “ A Fox spokesperson said there was no directive about guest bookings .
”

So says CNN, so take it with a grain of salt. Obviously a brawl between the top conservative network and a fringier populist alternative is a narrative that Fox’s competitors are eager to encourage. Fox will deny the claim for the same reason. Never, ever would they publicly admit to feeling any anxiety about another right-wing outlet.
Producers on some Fox programs have been told to monitor Newsmax’s guest bookings and throw some sand in Newsmax’s gears by encouraging guests who appear on both channels to stop saying yes to the upstart. According to Fox sources, producers were told to avoid some regular guests if they kept showing up on Newsmax after being encouraged to stop. Management’s goal: to remind guests who’s boss in the right-wing media world… When asked about the apparent booking drama between Fox and Newsmax, Chris Ruddy, the CEO of Newsmax, said Fox is committing an “anti-competitive violation” by trying to block guests. Two of the Fox sources shrugged at that suggestion. “Welcome to the big leagues,” one said.
That’s from Brian Stelter, who claims that when he spoke to sources at Fox earlier this year they cracked jokes about Newsmax. Now they’re checking daily ratings to see how many more viewers might have migrated over to Greg Kelly’s show in order to find a safe space in which the outcome of the election remains in doubt. (“Our audience has absolutely been radicalized,” said one Fox staffer to Stelter.) I wrote about Newsmax’s — and CNN’s and MSNBC’s — ratings gains at Fox’s expense last week, but it’s showing up in online metrics too:
According to data from analytics platform Social Blade, which tracks the daily shifts of profiles, “likes” on the Newsmax Facebook page have spiked by over 1.4 million in the past 30 days, with a daily average rise of 47,241. On Saturday, when the channel was talked about by Trump, its Facebook page attracted over 30,000 new likes. The pattern was echoed on Twitter, where its account gained 563,735 new followers in the past 30 days, a daily average of 18,791. It amassed 27,105 new fans Saturday. On YouTube, Newsmax brought in 1.18 million new subscribers over the past 30 days, a daily average rise of nearly 40,000. It gained 20,000 new subscribers on Saturday. Video views on the platform rose by 108 million in the past 30 days, according to Social Blade.
Allegedly Fox has taken to trying to appease viewers by re-airing bits from Tucker Carlson’s show during the day, to soothe viewers who might otherwise change the channel if they have to watch so much as one more Fox reporter call Biden the president-elect. Meanwhile, Trump continues to take potshots at Fox…
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1332773351018942465
…while also undermining those potshots by giving special privileges to Fox networks, like when he granted Maria Bartiromo an extended interview yesterday morning. If he wants to punish FNC for whatever it did to betray him, why didn’t he grant that interview to Kelly instead?
With respect to the Newsmax boomlet, tell me how it ends. The “Trump was cheated” fantasy will keep them rolling for the next seven weeks until Biden is sworn in, but at that point their advantage over Fox will end. Both networks will shift full-time to adversarial programming aimed at the new administration and Fox has far more money, personnel, and high-end talent than Newsmax does. Maybe Kelly can hang in there at 7 p.m. against Martha MacCallum, giving Fox viewers a dose of polemics early in the evening at an hour when Fox is trying to give them news, but who’s sticking with Newsmax during primetime when Tucker, Hannity, and Ingraham will be waging all-out war on Biden with A-list guests over on FNC?
Even if Fox isn’t high-octane enough for you, why isn’t Fox Business the preferred “radical” alternative for Fox viewers over Newsmax? Lou Dobbs has interviewed Sidney Powell with every bit as much credulity as a Newsmax host like Kelly could muster. Maria Bartiromo nowadays sounds like an especially febrile Trump campaign spokesman more so than a cable news host. What sort of itch is Newmax scratching that they aren’t?
Maybe Fox should bite the bullet and do what corporations tend to do when threatened by a hungry young competitor and either buy Newsmax itself or fart out its own knock-off version. They could approach their problem the way a distillery would, producing a new label to meet the demand from consumers seeking something more potent than the usual fare. Fox News will remain the main product, the 40-percent ABV version of conservative news. But for viewers who want to get f***ed up on populism, they could start airing “Fox Black Label” or whatever, the 60-percent ABV alternative in which the outcome of the 2020 election is, and shall forever remain, in doubt.
Fox’s problem isn’t that their opinion hosts aren’t as punchy as Newsmax’s. They are. Their problem is that they have a respected news bureau staffed by credible reporters and continue to give those reporters airtime to say things that puncture the fantasies about a stolen election. I’ll leave you with this segment from Eric Shawn, who’s debunked allegations of cheating more doggedly than any other journalist on the network. Trump must have flipped his lid when he saw this.
Update: Indeed, Fox is denying Stelter’s report: “A Fox spokesperson said there was no directive about guest bookings.”


hotair--2020-11-30--GOP expected to narrowly pickup another House seat as vote in Iowa-2 is certified today (Update: Win

GOP expected to narrowly pickup another House seat as vote in Iowa-2 is certified today (Update: Win certified)

This has been the closest race in the country since election day and will probably be the closest House race in 36 years when it is certified today .
The final tally has Republicans Mariannette Miller-Meeks holding a 6-vote lead over Democrat Rita Hart .
The seat was vacated by retiring Democrat David Loebsack , making this a GOP pickup .
When I wrote about this race last Friday , Miller-Meeks had an 8-vote lead with one county left to complete a recount .
The recount was completed Saturday and cut into the lead by two more votes .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in U.S. congressional history : I wanted to know if this was the tightest House race in a century and according to this Wikipedia listing of close races there was actually a race in Indiana which separated by just four votes back in 1984 .
Before that you have to go back to 1918 ( more than a century ) to another race in Iowa which was also separated by just 4 votes .
So this race isn ’ t the closest in the past hundred years but there ’ s only one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the race is extraordinarily close , I am proud to have won this contest and look forward to being certified as the winner by the state ’ s Executive Council on Monday , ” Miller-Meeks said in a statement .
“ It is the honor of a lifetime to be elected to serve the people of eastern and southern Iowa .
Iowans are tenacious , optimistic and hard-working , and I will take those same attributes to Washington , D.C. , on their behalf .
From 24 years of service to our country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to my several decades of protecting the health of Iowans as a medical professional , I will bring that same Iowa grit to Congress by working to strengthen our health care system , combat the COVID pandemic and get Iowans safely back to work and school.
” But a statement from Democrat Rita Hart suggested she could file an additional legal challenge to the results : “ Unfortunately , as this process continues , the Miller-Meeks campaign has sought to keep legitimate votes from being counted — pushing to disqualify and limit the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Rita Hart for Iowa campaign manager Zach Meunier said in a statement .
“ We have said from the beginning of this recount process that the most important thing is that Iowans ’ voices are heard and their votes are counted fairly .
Moreover , under Iowa law , the recount was limited to the universe of ballots initially counted after Election Day .
We will closely review what the county and state boards do on Monday with an eye toward making sure all Iowa voices are fully and fairly heard.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ maybe it won ’ t be .
Miller-Meeks had previously complained about the vote counting process in Scott county where machines were used to identify overvotes which were then counted by hand .
Miller-Meeks argued last week that this hybrid process was not allowed under Iowa law which stipulates either a machine recount or a hand recount , not a combination of the two .
But having narrowly won the race , she has dropped that complaint .
Hart could potentially revive that complaint as there are still several thousand undervotes in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hand during the recount .
We ’ ll have to wait a few more hours for the race to be certified today and perhaps then we ’ ll know whether Hart will continue her legal challenge to the results .
But for now it looks like a narrow GOP win and another pickup in Iowa-2 .
Update : The Associated Press reports that the 6-vote win has been certified .
Miller-Meeks will be heading to the House .
The state Board of Canvass voted 5-0 Monday afternoon to certify Miller-Meeks as the winner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to 196,958 .
The board , which includes Gov .
Kim Reynolds and four other state elected officials , also certified President Donald Trump as the winner of the state ’ s six electoral votes .
The board is made up of three Republicans and two Democrats… Hart ’ s campaign has signaled that it will likely take legal action to challenge the outcome , and must do so within two days of the certification under Iowa law .
Such a filing would trigger the formation of a contest court consisting of Iowa @ @ @ @ @ @ @ judges who will be appointed… If the court ruled in favor of Miller-Meeks , Hart could file a final appeal with the Democratic-controlled U.S. House , which has the power to judge its members ’ elections and has intervened in the past on rare occasions .
I don ’ t think the Democrats will get involved , not with the special Senate elections in Georgia still to come .
It would be bad PR for the party and it wouldn ’ t ultimately help them much .
The GOP is now +11 in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still to be decided .

This has been the closest race in the country since election day and will probably be the closest House race in 36 years when it is certified today. The final tally has Republicans Mariannette Miller-Meeks holding a 6-vote lead over Democrat Rita Hart. The seat was vacated by retiring Democrat David Loebsack, making this a GOP pickup.
When I wrote about this race last Friday, Miller-Meeks had an 8-vote lead with one county left to complete a recount. The recount was completed Saturday and cut into the lead by two more votes. This is now one of the tightest races in U.S. congressional history:
Clinton County completed its recount of the 2nd Congressional District on Saturday, the last of the 24 counties in the district to do so, narrowing the tightest race in the country and one of the closest federal races in a century.
I wanted to know if this was the tightest House race in a century and according to this Wikipedia listing of close races there was actually a race in Indiana which separated by just four votes back in 1984. Before that you have to go back to 1918 (more than a century) to another race in Iowa which was also separated by just 4 votes. So this race isn’t the closest in the past hundred years but there’s only one race that was closer.
Miller-Meeks issued a statement about her pending win:
“While the race is extraordinarily close, I am proud to have won this contest and look forward to being certified as the winner by the state’s Executive Council on Monday,” Miller-Meeks said in a statement. “It is the honor of a lifetime to be elected to serve the people of eastern and southern Iowa. Iowans are tenacious, optimistic and hard-working, and I will take those same attributes to Washington, D.C., on their behalf. From 24 years of service to our country in the U.S. Army and Army Reserves to my several decades of protecting the health of Iowans as a medical professional, I will bring that same Iowa grit to Congress by working to strengthen our health care system, combat the COVID pandemic and get Iowans safely back to work and school.”
But a statement from Democrat Rita Hart suggested she could file an additional legal challenge to the results:
“Unfortunately, as this process continues, the Miller-Meeks campaign has sought to keep legitimate votes from being counted — pushing to disqualify and limit the number of Iowans whose votes are counted,” Rita Hart for Iowa campaign manager Zach Meunier said in a statement. “We have said from the beginning of this recount process that the most important thing is that Iowans’ voices are heard and their votes are counted fairly. Moreover, under Iowa law, the recount was limited to the universe of ballots initially counted after Election Day. We will closely review what the county and state boards do on Monday with an eye toward making sure all Iowa voices are fully and fairly heard.”
This race should be over but maybe it won’t be. Miller-Meeks had previously complained about the vote counting process in Scott county where machines were used to identify overvotes which were then counted by hand. Miller-Meeks argued last week that this hybrid process was not allowed under Iowa law which stipulates either a machine recount or a hand recount, not a combination of the two. But having narrowly won the race, she has dropped that complaint. Hart could potentially revive that complaint as there are still several thousand undervotes in the county which were not looked at by hand during the recount.
We’ll have to wait a few more hours for the race to be certified today and perhaps then we’ll know whether Hart will continue her legal challenge to the results. But for now it looks like a narrow GOP win and another pickup in Iowa-2.
Update: The Associated Press reports that the 6-vote win has been certified. Miller-Meeks will be heading to the House.
The state Board of Canvass voted 5-0 Monday afternoon to certify Miller-Meeks as the winner over Hart by a count of 196,964 to 196,958. The board, which includes Gov. Kim Reynolds and four other state elected officials, also certified President Donald Trump as the winner of the state’s six electoral votes. The board is made up of three Republicans and two Democrats… Hart’s campaign has signaled that it will likely take legal action to challenge the outcome, and must do so within two days of the certification under Iowa law. Such a filing would trigger the formation of a contest court consisting of Iowa Chief Justice Susan Christensen and four district judges who will be appointed… If the court ruled in favor of Miller-Meeks, Hart could file a final appeal with the Democratic-controlled U.S. House, which has the power to judge its members’ elections and has intervened in the past on rare occasions.
I don’t think the Democrats will get involved, not with the special Senate elections in Georgia still to come. It would be bad PR for the party and it wouldn’t ultimately help them much.
The GOP is now +11 in the House with the Claudia Tenney race still to be decided.


hotair--2020-11-30--Report: Nike, Coke, other companies lobbying against bill that would ban goods made with slave labor

Report: Nike, Coke, other companies lobbying against bill that would ban goods made with slave labor of Uighurs in Xinjiang

The Times opted for the term “ forced labor ” in this story for reasons I don ’ t understand .
The oppression of Uighurs by China isn ’ t limited to telling them which jobs they need to work .
The infringement on their liberties is total .
Their existence is at the sufferance of Beijing .
It ’ s a full-spectrum slave regime , replete with concentration camps .
And it ’ s getting worse , not better , as time goes on .
One might think corporate America , normally so quick to flash its woke consciousness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , would draw the line at honest-to-goodness slavery being practiced by the government of its manufacturing base .
After all , some of these companies have devised whole advertising campaigns around the idea that sometimes you need to do what ’ s right even if it hurts your bottom line : So why are they on the wrong side of a federal bill that would ban imported goods made by American companies that use Uighur slave labor ?
[ T ] he legislation , called the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act , has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Apple whose supply chains touch the far western Xinjiang region , as well as of business groups including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce .
Lobbyists have fought to water down some of its provisions , arguing that while they strongly condemn forced labor and current atrocities in Xinjiang , the act ’ s ambitious requirements could wreak havoc on supply chains that are deeply embedded in China .
Xinjiang produces vast amounts of raw materials like cotton , coal , sugar , tomatoes and polysilicon , and supplies workers for China ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ groups and news reports have linked many multinational companies to suppliers there , including tying Coca-Cola to sugar sourced from Xinjiang , and documenting Uighur workers in a factory in Qingdao that makes Nike shoes… [ F ] or many companies , fully investigating and eliminating any potential ties to forced labor there has been difficult , given the opacity of Chinese supply chains and the limited access of auditors to a region where the Chinese government tightly restricts people ’ s movements .
Some companies , like Nike , have already issued @ @ @ @ @ @ @ source products from Xinjiang and have found no use of slave labor in their supply chains after conducting audits .
The problem is that so many Uighurs are enslaved , with so much obfuscation of their enslavement by Beijing , that they simply can ’ t be sure if that ’ s true or not .
Reportedly China has moved some Uighurs around the country to work in factories outside Xinjiang in order to solve the problem of a corporate “ boycott ” of that particular region .
The issue , in other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that American companies are knowingly using slave labor , it ’ s that there ’ s *so much* slave labor in China that they can ’ t be sure that there isn ’ t any somewhere in their supply chain .
If the bill passes they might find themselves in violation of federal law at a moment ’ s notice after some international agency or major newspaper uncovers Uighur slaves working at a plant somewhere that provides materials to them .
“ Firms were already responding [ to the bill ] by trying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” the Times notes , citing a lawyer .
The real point of this legislation , I think , is not just to pressure companies to quit Xinjiang but to pressure them into quitting China altogether .
That ’ s the only way they can have full confidence that they ’ re not using slave labor .
I wonder , though , if to some extent the corporate lobbying efforts are also a matter of PR designed to impress the Chinese government .
We saw from the Daryl Morey episode last year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of solidarity with the victims of Chinese human-rights violations by American companies .
They were willing to punish the NBA for one tweet by one GM .
If Nike and Coke and whoever else got on board with a U.S. pressure campaign to end the enslavement of Uighurs , that might cost them their access to Chinese markets .
“ Believe in something , even if it means sacrificing everything ” was never more than a slogan designed to sell sneakers .
Hopefully the Biden administration will make human rights in China more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did .
As for corporate America , David French is right .
If there were a scrap of doubt left that their wokeness is largely a marketing gimmick , this episode should erase it .

The Times opted for the term “forced labor” in this story for reasons I don’t understand. The oppression of Uighurs by China isn’t limited to telling them which jobs they need to work. The infringement on their liberties is total. Their existence is at the sufferance of Beijing. It’s a full-spectrum slave regime, replete with concentration camps.
And it’s getting worse, not better, as time goes on.
One might think corporate America, normally so quick to flash its woke consciousness during cultural disputes in the United States, would draw the line at honest-to-goodness slavery being practiced by the government of its manufacturing base. After all, some of these companies have devised whole advertising campaigns around the idea that sometimes you need to do what’s right even if it hurts your bottom line:
Believe in something, even if it means sacrificing everything. #JustDoIt pic.twitter.com/SRWkMIDdaO — Colin Kaepernick (@Kaepernick7) September 3, 2018
So why are they on the wrong side of a federal bill that would ban imported goods made by American companies that use Uighur slave labor?
[T]he legislation, called the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, has become the target of multinational companies including Apple whose supply chains touch the far western Xinjiang region, as well as of business groups including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Lobbyists have fought to water down some of its provisions, arguing that while they strongly condemn forced labor and current atrocities in Xinjiang, the act’s ambitious requirements could wreak havoc on supply chains that are deeply embedded in China. Xinjiang produces vast amounts of raw materials like cotton, coal, sugar, tomatoes and polysilicon, and supplies workers for China’s apparel and footwear factories. Human rights groups and news reports have linked many multinational companies to suppliers there, including tying Coca-Cola to sugar sourced from Xinjiang, and documenting Uighur workers in a factory in Qingdao that makes Nike shoes… [F]or many companies, fully investigating and eliminating any potential ties to forced labor there has been difficult, given the opacity of Chinese supply chains and the limited access of auditors to a region where the Chinese government tightly restricts people’s movements.
Some companies, like Nike, have already issued statements insisting that they don’t source products from Xinjiang and have found no use of slave labor in their supply chains after conducting audits. The problem is that so many Uighurs are enslaved, with so much obfuscation of their enslavement by Beijing, that they simply can’t be sure if that’s true or not. Reportedly China has moved some Uighurs around the country to work in factories outside Xinjiang in order to solve the problem of a corporate “boycott” of that particular region. The issue, in other words, isn’t so much that American companies are knowingly using slave labor, it’s that there’s *so much* slave labor in China that they can’t be sure that there isn’t any somewhere in their supply chain. If the bill passes they might find themselves in violation of federal law at a moment’s notice after some international agency or major newspaper uncovers Uighur slaves working at a plant somewhere that provides materials to them.
“Firms were already responding [to the bill] by trying to find sources for products outside Xinjiang,” the Times notes, citing a lawyer. The real point of this legislation, I think, is not just to pressure companies to quit Xinjiang but to pressure them into quitting China altogether. That’s the only way they can have full confidence that they’re not using slave labor.
I wonder, though, if to some extent the corporate lobbying efforts are also a matter of PR designed to impress the Chinese government. We saw from the Daryl Morey episode last year that Beijing takes great exception to statements of solidarity with the victims of Chinese human-rights violations by American companies. They were willing to punish the NBA for one tweet by one GM. If Nike and Coke and whoever else got on board with a U.S. pressure campaign to end the enslavement of Uighurs, that might cost them their access to Chinese markets. “Believe in something, even if it means sacrificing everything” was never more than a slogan designed to sell sneakers.
Hopefully the Biden administration will make human rights in China more of a priority than the Trump administration did. As for corporate America, David French is right. If there were a scrap of doubt left that their wokeness is largely a marketing gimmick, this episode should erase it.


hotair--2020-11-30--NYT: Say, it sure seems as though Biden's team has some potential ethics issues

Say , it ’ s certainly interesting timing for this observation , too , and in more ways than one .
The New York Times did a deep dive on Joe Biden ’ s advisers and their corporate ties on Saturday , three weeks after the election and on the slowest news day of the week .
Their motto may as well be All the News That ’ s Fit to Print … Long After You Need It .
It ’ s not anything we haven ’ t seen for decades in “ the swamp , ” but that ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Biden : One firm helps companies navigate global risks and the political and procedural ins and outs of Washington .
The other is an investment fund with a particular interest in military contractors .
But the consulting firm , WestExec Advisors , and the investment fund , Pine Island Capital Partners , call themselves strategic partners and have featured an overlapping roster of politically connected officials — including some of the most prominent names on President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. ’ s team and others under consideration for high-ranking posts .
Now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these entities are presenting the incoming administration with its first test of transparency and ethics .
The two firms are examples of how former officials leverage their expertise , connections and access on behalf of corporations and other interests , without in some cases disclosing details about their work , including the names of the clients or what they are paid .
And when those officials cycle back into government positions , as Democrats affiliated with WestExec and Pine Island are now , they bring with them questions about whether they might favor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they had worked with in the private sector .
Those questions do not go away , ethics experts say , just because the officials cut their ties to their firms and clients , as the Biden transition team says its nominees will do .
Jake Tapper pointed out on Twitter that WestExec ’ s website pitch is “ Bringing the Situation Room to the Board Room.
” And vice-versa !
That ’ s got ta make progressives pleased as punch , right ?
Frankly , this wasn ’ t entirely a non-issue in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the problem with finding the “ best and brightest ” is that they are highly unlikely to be unemployed or inexperienced .
It takes time and upward movement through either the public or private sectors to get noticed by governors and presidents-elect for open positions in Cabinets and even lower-level positions .
It ’ s not a surprise , then , that board rooms and the Situation Room have such affinities .
The bigger problem in Biden ’ s case is the cast of characters coming out of WestExec and Pine Island .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ same old establishment caste , and in many cases are the old establishment caste : WestExec ’ s founders include Antony J. Blinken , Mr. Biden ’ s choice to be his secretary of state , and Michèle A. Flournoy , one of the leading candidates to be his defense secretary .
Among others to come out of WestExec are Avril Haines , Mr. Biden ’ s pick to be director of national intelligence ; Christina Killingsworth , who is helping the president-elect organize his White House budget office ; Ely Ratner , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the Pentagon ; and Jennifer Psaki , an adviser on Mr. Biden ’ s transition team .
… Also working with Pine Island are Richard A. Gephardt , the former House majority leader , and Tom Daschle , the former Senate majority leader , both Democrats , as well as Don Nickles , a Republican , who was chairman of the Senate Budget Committee and is now the chief executive of a lobbying firm with dozens of major corporate clients .
Abraham Lincoln had a “ team of rivals ” ; Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ team of retreads .
He ’ s even pulling former senator and secretary of state John Kerry into his administration as a “ climate czar , ” a description that suits Kerry ’ s style to a T. Even if Kerry wasn ’ t a retread ( which he most certainly is ) , his whole Brahmin demeanor practically screams elitism .
And , for that matter , it screams ignorant elitism of the kind that produces populist reactions .
Recall his pontificating about the impossibility of normalizing relations between Israel and Arab @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That ’ s the exciting new and fresh thinking that Biden ’ s putting into his new administration .
Of course , one can argue — and I believe correctly — that this might be Biden ’ s only real mandate in the 2020 election .
He got 80 million votes while his party took a down-ballot pounding .
The only possible mandate Biden has with those election results is a return to normalcy to the point of being boring .
Recycling old officeholders in a game of musical chairs is one way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t accomplish much else .
And it could add more fuel to the populism in both parties that will end up flipping the House in two years and the White House in four when Biden either exceeds his mandate or produces depressing results from the establishment caste that paved the road for Donald Trump .

Say, it’s certainly interesting timing for this observation, too, and in more ways than one. The New York Times did a deep dive on Joe Biden’s advisers and their corporate ties on Saturday, three weeks after the election and on the slowest news day of the week. Their motto may as well be All the News That’s Fit to Print … Long After You Need It.
It’s not anything we haven’t seen for decades in “the swamp,” but that’s part of the problem, especially for Biden:
One firm helps companies navigate global risks and the political and procedural ins and outs of Washington. The other is an investment fund with a particular interest in military contractors. But the consulting firm, WestExec Advisors, and the investment fund, Pine Island Capital Partners, call themselves strategic partners and have featured an overlapping roster of politically connected officials — including some of the most prominent names on President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s team and others under consideration for high-ranking posts. Now the Biden team’s links to these entities are presenting the incoming administration with its first test of transparency and ethics. The two firms are examples of how former officials leverage their expertise, connections and access on behalf of corporations and other interests, without in some cases disclosing details about their work, including the names of the clients or what they are paid. And when those officials cycle back into government positions, as Democrats affiliated with WestExec and Pine Island are now, they bring with them questions about whether they might favor or give special access to the companies they had worked with in the private sector. Those questions do not go away, ethics experts say, just because the officials cut their ties to their firms and clients, as the Biden transition team says its nominees will do.
Jake Tapper pointed out on Twitter that WestExec’s website pitch is “Bringing the Situation Room to the Board Room.” And vice-versa! That’s gotta make progressives pleased as punch, right?
Frankly, this wasn’t entirely a non-issue in the Trump administration either. Part of the problem with finding the “best and brightest” is that they are highly unlikely to be unemployed or inexperienced. It takes time and upward movement through either the public or private sectors to get noticed by governors and presidents-elect for open positions in Cabinets and even lower-level positions. It’s not a surprise, then, that board rooms and the Situation Room have such affinities.
The bigger problem in Biden’s case is the cast of characters coming out of WestExec and Pine Island. They’re straight out of the same old establishment caste, and in many cases are the old establishment caste:
WestExec’s founders include Antony J. Blinken, Mr. Biden’s choice to be his secretary of state, and Michèle A. Flournoy, one of the leading candidates to be his defense secretary. Among others to come out of WestExec are Avril Haines, Mr. Biden’s pick to be director of national intelligence; Christina Killingsworth, who is helping the president-elect organize his White House budget office; Ely Ratner, who is helping organize the Biden transition at the Pentagon; and Jennifer Psaki, an adviser on Mr. Biden’s transition team. … Also working with Pine Island are Richard A. Gephardt, the former House majority leader, and Tom Daschle, the former Senate majority leader, both Democrats, as well as Don Nickles, a Republican, who was chairman of the Senate Budget Committee and is now the chief executive of a lobbying firm with dozens of major corporate clients.
Abraham Lincoln had a “team of rivals”; Biden’s apparently aiming for a “team of retreads. He’s even pulling former senator and secretary of state John Kerry into his administration as a “climate czar,” a description that suits Kerry’s style to a T. Even if Kerry wasn’t a retread (which he most certainly is), his whole Brahmin demeanor practically screams elitism. And, for that matter, it screams ignorant elitism of the kind that produces populist reactions. Recall his pontificating about the impossibility of normalizing relations between Israel and Arab nations without settling the Palestinian question? That’s the exciting new and fresh thinking that Biden’s putting into his new administration.
Of course, one can argue — and I believe correctly — that this might be Biden’s only real mandate in the 2020 election. He got 80 million votes while his party took a down-ballot pounding. The only possible mandate Biden has with those election results is a return to normalcy to the point of being boring. Recycling old officeholders in a game of musical chairs is one way to accomplish that, but it won’t accomplish much else. And it could add more fuel to the populism in both parties that will end up flipping the House in two years and the White House in four when Biden either exceeds his mandate or produces depressing results from the establishment caste that paved the road for Donald Trump.


hotair--2020-11-30--Cornyn spokesman: Biden's pick for OMB "stands zero chance of being confirmed"

The first shot at Joe Biden ’ s choice to head the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB ) was fired Sunday night .
It was reported by the Wall Street Journal and other news outlets that Biden will nominate Neera Tanden to lead the OMB .
The position requires Senate confirmation and it looks like there will be a battle over this nomination .
Senator John Cornyn ’ s spokesman posted a tweet in response to Tanden – she “ stands zero chance of being confirmed.
” Tanden has been in charge of the Center for American Progress @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2010 .
She frequently appears on political panels for both network and cable news shows .
Tanden is not a unifying choice , to put it mildly .
She ’ s a very vocal leftist who regularly rails against Republicans .
Drew Brandewie , Cornyn ’ s spokesman , noted that Tanden will need Republican votes in order to be confirmed if the GOP maintains control of the Senate .
In a tweet , Cornyn spokesman Drew Brandewie said that Center for American Progress head Neera Tanden ’ s past history of “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whose votes she ’ ll need ” made her confirmation highly unlikely .
Tanden would need 51 votes in the Senate to become head of the OMB ; Democrats currently control 48 seats in the Senate , though they are hoping to pick up two more in Georgia as the state ’ s Senate elections head to runoffs in January .
Joe Biden is busy naming women and minorities to fill prominent positions in his administration .
Yesterday the press was busy making a big deal about Biden ’ s all-female communications team @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Biden administration , it will be important to be female , especially females of color .
Tanden is Indian-American .
Team Biden will say her nomination is historic as the first Indian-American to lead the OMB .
She ticks both the female and the minority boxes .
Tanden is a Clinton loyalist who was a surrogate for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential race .
It was assumed she would have a place in Hillary ’ s administration but fortunately , she lost that race to President Trump .
Biden is choosing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Economic Advisers if reports are correct .
She is African-American and will be touted as the first black woman to chair the council .
Rouse is a Princeton University labor economist .
Biden has already named Janet Yellen as treasury secretary .
Joe Biden continues to say he is all about unifying the country and choosing a cabinet that looks like America .
His diversity hires , though , are not exactly moderates who will bring Republicans and Democrats together .
Neera trashes Republicans but she also sometimes trashes Democrats , specifically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
She was particularly vocal against the socialists when Sanders was running against Hillary in 2016 .
Tanden was all in with supporting the Democrats ’ bogus Russian dossier against President Trump .
She is a proud member of The Resistance .
There is one theory about the appointment of Tanden that may pan out .
What if she has been chosen to be a sacrifice during Senate confirmation hearings ?
With her prominence in television , she ’ s a familiar face and her ugly remarks are well-known .
Perhaps Biden will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an easy rejection so that other nominees may be spared .
Republicans will want to appear to hold Biden ’ s nominees accountable for their records and she ’ s an easy one to discredit on her public statements alone .
In the meantime , Tanden is keeping herself busy deleting past tweets that will prove to be awkward under scrutiny .
There is even a tweet about Russians interfering in American elections – the 2016 election .
Tanden ’ s hearing should be interesting .
Get the popcorn ready .

The first shot at Joe Biden’s choice to head the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) was fired Sunday night. It was reported by the Wall Street Journal and other news outlets that Biden will nominate Neera Tanden to lead the OMB. The position requires Senate confirmation and it looks like there will be a battle over this nomination.
Senator John Cornyn’s spokesman posted a tweet in response to Tanden – she “stands zero chance of being confirmed.” Tanden has been in charge of the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, since 2010. She frequently appears on political panels for both network and cable news shows. Tanden is not a unifying choice, to put it mildly. She’s a very vocal leftist who regularly rails against Republicans. Drew Brandewie, Cornyn’s spokesman, noted that Tanden will need Republican votes in order to be confirmed if the GOP maintains control of the Senate.
Neera Tanden, who has an endless stream of disparaging comments about the Republican Senators’ whose votes she’ll need, stands zero chance of being confirmed. https://t.co/f6Ewi6OMQR — Drew Brandewie (@DBrandewie) November 30, 2020
In a tweet, Cornyn spokesman Drew Brandewie said that Center for American Progress head Neera Tanden’s past history of “disparaging comments about the Republican Senators’ whose votes she’ll need” made her confirmation highly unlikely. Tanden would need 51 votes in the Senate to become head of the OMB; Democrats currently control 48 seats in the Senate, though they are hoping to pick up two more in Georgia as the state’s Senate elections head to runoffs in January.
Joe Biden is busy naming women and minorities to fill prominent positions in his administration. Yesterday the press was busy making a big deal about Biden’s all-female communications team and his economic team choices. In the Biden administration, it will be important to be female, especially females of color. Tanden is Indian-American. Team Biden will say her nomination is historic as the first Indian-American to lead the OMB. She ticks both the female and the minority boxes.
Tanden is a Clinton loyalist who was a surrogate for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential race. It was assumed she would have a place in Hillary’s administration but fortunately, she lost that race to President Trump. Biden is choosing Cecilia Rouse as chair of the Council of Economic Advisers if reports are correct. She is African-American and will be touted as the first black woman to chair the council. Rouse is a Princeton University labor economist. Biden has already named Janet Yellen as treasury secretary.
Joe Biden continues to say he is all about unifying the country and choosing a cabinet that looks like America. His diversity hires, though, are not exactly moderates who will bring Republicans and Democrats together. Neera trashes Republicans but she also sometimes trashes Democrats, specifically the Bernie Sanders wing of the party. She was particularly vocal against the socialists when Sanders was running against Hillary in 2016. Tanden was all in with supporting the Democrats’ bogus Russian dossier against President Trump. She is a proud member of The Resistance.
There is one theory about the appointment of Tanden that may pan out. What if she has been chosen to be a sacrifice during Senate confirmation hearings? With her prominence in television, she’s a familiar face and her ugly remarks are well-known. Perhaps Biden will nominate her to give the Senate Republicans an easy rejection so that other nominees may be spared. Republicans will want to appear to hold Biden’s nominees accountable for their records and she’s an easy one to discredit on her public statements alone.
And there’s the sacrifice to the confirmation gods…. https://t.co/esK3W1ektM — Josh Holmes (@HolmesJosh) November 29, 2020
In the meantime, Tanden is keeping herself busy deleting past tweets that will prove to be awkward under scrutiny.
.@neeratanden appears to have deleted her tweets about Susan Collins, whose vote she'll likely need for confirmation.
h/t @varadmehta pic.twitter.com/atwonFCaMb — KC Johnson (@kcjohnson9) November 30, 2020
Watching @neeratanden delete all her negative tweets about Republican Senators is hilarious. Her nomination is already a funeral. — Garrett Ventry (@GarrettVentry) November 30, 2020
There is even a tweet about Russians interfering in American elections – the 2016 election.
Hey wait a minute… https://t.co/oo0m2ghpU5 — Josh Holmes (@HolmesJosh) November 30, 2020
Tanden’s hearing should be interesting. Get the popcorn ready.


hotair--2020-11-30--Trump: Why won't Kemp order ballot-signature matches with his emergency powers?

Quick — get that super-PAC on the air fast !
This is precisely why the counter-messaging designed to get Donald Trump ’ s supporters to vote in the runoffs is going to fail , and fail big league .
While Trump Jr cuts ads urging MAGA-land voters to turn out for David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler on January 5th , Trump himself is messaging this over their heads : In the first place , how would any emergency relate to ballot procedures ?
We set rules in advance for elections precisely to prevent ad-hoc handling of elections .
There is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ process , and the process itself is set by legislation which Kemp has no authority to change .
The idea of using “ emergency powers ” to override statute on elections is absurd on its face , and more reminiscent of banana republics than American governance .
Next , the ballot signatures have already been checked — twice — in this process .
Kemp can ’ t order another signature match against the ballots because the ballots get separated from the signatures when they get counted .
We have secret ballots in this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get checked on intake ( after a previous check on the absentee application ) , the envelopes are separated out .
Even if you find a mismatch , you can ’ t point it to a specific ballot .
Basically , you request an absentee ballot , and you sign an oath affirming you are who you say you are on the envelope you put that ballot in , and then you send it to the county election office .
The worker there takes it , checks your signature to verify you are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then sends it along to be counted .
That ’ s how signature matching happens in Georgia in its most basic form .
Now , the Georgia Secretary of State ’ s Office actually added a signature matching step this year : When you requested an absentee ballot , they required a signature on your absentee ballot request form ( or , if you requested it online , made you submit your driver ’ s license number when you made the request through the Secretary of State ’ s online portal ) .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ sending you a ballot , and then checked it again when they received your ballot .
When President Trump says something like “ Georgia won ’ t let us look at the all important signature match , ” what he is asking for – to look at the signatures again – is literally impossible .
The reason for that lies inside the Georgia state constitution itself : It clearly stipulates that , “ Elections by the people shall be by secret ballot and shall be conducted in accordance with procedures provided by law.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ s why the ballots get separated from those envelopes , which makes an audit of signature matching academic at best .
To invalidate ballots , challenges have to be specific and substantive to each ballot , not conjecture based on data analysis spread broadly to an entire class of ballots .
Atlanta ’ s 11Alive news station pointed this problem out two weeks ago , too , which makes this argument even stranger today .
Either no one pointed it out to Donald Trump , or he just doesn ’ t care .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the state GOP and Don Jr face in trying to message for a big voter turnout in the runoffs .
The very people they want to reach are the people who are listening to Trump Sr ’ s messaging that the whole system they will have to use is corrupt , and so is the leadership that ’ s pushing the voting .
Every one of these tweets undermine the whole point of the super-PAC .
They ’ d be better off sending Don Jr to the Oval Office rather than Georgia @

Quick — get that super-PAC on the air fast! This is precisely why the counter-messaging designed to get Donald Trump’s supporters to vote in the runoffs is going to fail, and fail big league. While Trump Jr cuts ads urging MAGA-land voters to turn out for David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler on January 5th, Trump himself is messaging this over their heads:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1333410419554344964
In the first place, how would any emergency relate to ballot procedures? We set rules in advance for elections precisely to prevent ad-hoc handling of elections. There is no emergency declaration that would touch this process, and the process itself is set by legislation which Kemp has no authority to change. The idea of using “emergency powers” to override statute on elections is absurd on its face, and more reminiscent of banana republics than American governance.
Next, the ballot signatures have already been checked — twice — in this process. Kemp can’t order another signature match against the ballots because the ballots get separated from the signatures when they get counted. We have secret ballots in this country, remember? Once the signatures get checked on intake (after a previous check on the absentee application), the envelopes are separated out. Even if you find a mismatch, you can’t point it to a specific ballot.
Business Insider’s Grace Panetta pointed out the obvious:
It's impossible to do signature matching *again* because the ballots have already been separated from the envelopes with the voter's name and signature on them. You just can't trace back a ballot to a specific voter's envelope after that separation https://t.co/EYmyMa7hXn — Grace Panetta (@grace_panetta) November 30, 2020
Basically, you request an absentee ballot, and you sign an oath affirming you are who you say you are on the envelope you put that ballot in, and then you send it to the county election office. The worker there takes it, checks your signature to verify you are who you say you are, and then sends it along to be counted. That’s how signature matching happens in Georgia in its most basic form. Now, the Georgia Secretary of State’s Office actually added a signature matching step this year: When you requested an absentee ballot, they required a signature on your absentee ballot request form (or, if you requested it online, made you submit your driver’s license number when you made the request through the Secretary of State’s online portal). So they checked your signature before even sending you a ballot, and then checked it again when they received your ballot. When President Trump says something like “Georgia won’t let us look at the all important signature match,” what he is asking for – to look at the signatures again – is literally impossible. The reason for that lies inside the Georgia state constitution itself: It clearly stipulates that, “Elections by the people shall be by secret ballot and shall be conducted in accordance with procedures provided by law.” (emphasis added)
That’s why the ballots get separated from those envelopes, which makes an audit of signature matching academic at best. To invalidate ballots, challenges have to be specific and substantive to each ballot, not conjecture based on data analysis spread broadly to an entire class of ballots. Atlanta’s 11Alive news station pointed this problem out two weeks ago, too, which makes this argument even stranger today. Either no one pointed it out to Donald Trump, or he just doesn’t care.
Either way, this is the headwind that the state GOP and Don Jr face in trying to message for a big voter turnout in the runoffs. The very people they want to reach are the people who are listening to Trump Sr’s messaging that the whole system they will have to use is corrupt, and so is the leadership that’s pushing the voting. Every one of these tweets undermine the whole point of the super-PAC. They’d be better off sending Don Jr to the Oval Office rather than Georgia.


hotair--2020-11-30--Super-PAC to reassure Georgia GOP voters on election integrity launched by ... Trump advisors

Which message will resonate more in Georgia over the next few weeks , and which messenger will eclipse the other ?
On one hand , we have Donald Trump Jr fronting a GOTV messaging operation for the two Senate runoffs , exhorting Republicans to come out because every vote counts for David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler .
On the other , we have Donald Trump Sr telling Georgia voters that Republicans rigged the presidential election against him while supporting a lawsuit that claims communists controlled the election apparatus .
Loeffler and Perdue might end up getting hoist by Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Donald Trump Jr. are launching a super PAC to prod the president ’ s supporters to vote in the upcoming Georgia Senate runoffs , as Republicans grow concerned that Trump ’ s backers will boycott the elections .
The group , Save the U.S. Senate PAC , will this week start airing commercials featuring Trump Jr. that are aimed at mobilizing Trump backers across Georgia .
A person familiar with the plans said it would be the first in a series of commercials spotlighting Donald Trump Jr. ahead of the of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ control of the Senate .
… “ There is a critical role that must be played in both Georgia Senate runoffs : turning out the Trump vote .
We know from past midterms and special elections that the Trump voter is not guaranteed to every Republican candidate , which is why it ’ s vital to directly engage these voters and not take them for granted , ” said Andy Surabian , a Donald Trump Jr. adviser who is helping to steer the new super PAC .
“ To that end , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the two Republican candidates , focused on energizing and turning out Trump supporters , using television , radio and digital ads featuring Donald Trump Jr. , ” Surabian added .
The purpose of this is to stamp out a boycott movement in Georgia that ’ s being egged on by Trump Sr ’ s high-profile supporters , including attorney Lin Wood .
At least that has the dubious virtue of intellectual consistency , if no other virtue whatsoever .
If you really think that Brian Kemp and Brad Raffensperger took part in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hundreds of thousands of votes away from a Republican presidential candidate via a corrupt Dominion system , why would you participate a second time under the exact same conditions ?
To his credit , Trump Jr has been pushing back hard against the boycott message , and now Trump ’ s advisers are organizing to get him on the air in Georgia to amplify that message .
That ’ s all well and good , but until someone in this super-PAC comes out and says that the idea of a communist-Dominion-Kemp-Raffensperger plot is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ count , the message isn ’ t going to sell .
The voter bloc they need to reach responds primarily to Trump Sr , and this is the message he ’ s sending : Actually , this turned out to be another embarrassing moment for the Sidney Powell team .
Judge Batten reversed his order when the state explained to him that it has no authority over voting machines .
Those are owned and operated by the counties in Georgia , and Powell didn ’ t sue the counties : D ’ oh @ @ @ @ @ @ @ competent lawyers would have spent five minutes researching that point .
Besides , there may be a good reason for the counties to start resetting and prepping the machines — the runoffs .
They have to prepare for another two elections in about five weeks , which means certifying their proper operation and the reset of their counts back to zero .
Perhaps that can wait another week , but after watching the wild conspiracy theories emerge from the election four weeks ago , one can ’ t blame the counties for being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ become fodder for another hung election in January .
The best way for the GOP to get Trump voters to turn out in the runoffs is to stop undermining confidence in Georgia ’ s voting system .
Trump can ’ t eat his cake while allowing Georgia Republicans to have it , too .
This is a game effort but it ’ s never going to counter the messaging that ’ s coming from the top of MAGA-land .

Which message will resonate more in Georgia over the next few weeks, and which messenger will eclipse the other? On one hand, we have Donald Trump Jr fronting a GOTV messaging operation for the two Senate runoffs, exhorting Republicans to come out because every vote counts for David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler. On the other, we have Donald Trump Sr telling Georgia voters that Republicans rigged the presidential election against him while supporting a lawsuit that claims communists controlled the election apparatus.
Loeffler and Perdue might end up getting hoist by Trump’s petard on January 5th:
Advisers to Donald Trump Jr. are launching a super PAC to prod the president’s supporters to vote in the upcoming Georgia Senate runoffs, as Republicans grow concerned that Trump’s backers will boycott the elections. The group, Save the U.S. Senate PAC, will this week start airing commercials featuring Trump Jr. that are aimed at mobilizing Trump backers across Georgia. A person familiar with the plans said it would be the first in a series of commercials spotlighting Donald Trump Jr. ahead of the of the Jan. 5 vote, which will decide control of the Senate. … “There is a critical role that must be played in both Georgia Senate runoffs: turning out the Trump vote. We know from past midterms and special elections that the Trump voter is not guaranteed to every Republican candidate, which is why it’s vital to directly engage these voters and not take them for granted,” said Andy Surabian, a Donald Trump Jr. adviser who is helping to steer the new super PAC. “To that end, we are launching an aggressive campaign in support of the two Republican candidates, focused on energizing and turning out Trump supporters, using television, radio and digital ads featuring Donald Trump Jr.,” Surabian added.
The purpose of this is to stamp out a boycott movement in Georgia that’s being egged on by Trump Sr’s high-profile supporters, including attorney Lin Wood. At least that has the dubious virtue of intellectual consistency, if no other virtue whatsoever. If you really think that Brian Kemp and Brad Raffensperger took part in a conspiracy to allow communists to flip hundreds of thousands of votes away from a Republican presidential candidate via a corrupt Dominion system, why would you participate a second time under the exact same conditions?
To his credit, Trump Jr has been pushing back hard against the boycott message, and now Trump’s advisers are organizing to get him on the air in Georgia to amplify that message. That’s all well and good, but until someone in this super-PAC comes out and says that the idea of a communist-Dominion-Kemp-Raffensperger plot is utter nonsense and that every vote will count, the message isn’t going to sell. The voter bloc they need to reach responds primarily to Trump Sr, and this is the message he’s sending:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1333245684011642881
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1333220661670580228
Actually, this turned out to be another embarrassing moment for the Sidney Powell team. Judge Batten reversed his order when the state explained to him that it has no authority over voting machines. Those are owned and operated by the counties in Georgia, and Powell didn’t sue the counties:
Here's the key paragraph from the new version of the order. The Kraken only sued the state, not any of the counties. But the counties, not the state control the machines. And the counties aren't before the court, so the court can't order them to do anything. pic.twitter.com/QDPuxKdyvI — Mike Dunford (@questauthority) November 29, 2020
D’oh! One might think a team of competent lawyers would have spent five minutes researching that point. Besides, there may be a good reason for the counties to start resetting and prepping the machines — the runoffs. They have to prepare for another two elections in about five weeks, which means certifying their proper operation and the reset of their counts back to zero. Perhaps that can wait another week, but after watching the wild conspiracy theories emerge from the election four weeks ago, one can’t blame the counties for being worried that any irregularities in certification will become fodder for another hung election in January.
The best way for the GOP to get Trump voters to turn out in the runoffs is to stop undermining confidence in Georgia’s voting system. Trump can’t eat his cake while allowing Georgia Republicans to have it, too. This is a game effort but it’s never going to counter the messaging that’s coming from the top of MAGA-land.


hotair--2020-12-01--CNN: Hey, guess what? China wasn't honest about its COVID-19 response after all

A tyrannical regime not being honest about its own performance ?
The deuce you say .
The next thing they ’ ll tell us is that Xi Jinping runs brutal concentration camps and that Beijing lied about that , too .
After spending most of the year hearing the media lecture its audience on China ’ s superior response to the plague it unleashed on the world , CNN ’ s big scoop is only surprising in its timing : A group of frontline medical workers , likely exhausted , stand huddled together on a video-conference call as China ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in greeting .
It is February 10 in Beijing and President Xi Jinping , who for weeks has been absent from public view , is addressing hospital staff in the city of Wuhan as they battle to contain the spread of a still officially unnamed novel coronavirus .
From a secure room about 1,200 kilometers ( 745 miles ) from the epicenter , Xi expressed his condolences to those who have died in the outbreak .
He urged greater public communication , as around the world concerns mounted about the potential threat posed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ day , Chinese authorities reported 2,478 new confirmed cases — raising the total global number to more than 40,000 , with fewer than 400 cases occurring outside of mainland China .
Yet CNN can now reveal how official documents circulated internally show that this was only part of the picture .
In a report marked “ internal document , please keep confidential , ” local health authorities in the province of Hubei , where the virus was first detected , list a total of 5,918 newly detected cases on February 10 , more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ confirmed cases , breaking down the total into a variety of subcategories .
This larger figure was never fully revealed at that time , as China ’ s accounting system seemed , in the tumult of the early weeks of the pandemic , to downplay the severity of the outbreak .
Oh , it only “ seemed ” to downplay the severity !
Nick Paton Walsh ’ s video report takes a tougher tone , but it still focuses more on China ’ s fumbles rather than the fact that none of this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ place .
Paton Walsh notes that China keeps insisting that it has been “ as transparent as possible ” about COVID-19 , but the documents in CNN ’ s hands demonstrate that claim is a flat-out lie .
The motive for this COVID cover-up is very clear , too .
Xi Jinping ’ s regime only survives for as long as he can project an image of strength and competence .
Beijing manipulated the World Health Organization and beyond that the media by reporting false numbers and lies about its superior performance against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ laughable , since even by February the US could test and determine for COVID-19 in a far quicker time frame than 23 days .
And we ’ d barely gotten an exposure at that point .
The US media played along for its own purposes .
They were more invested in attacking Donald Trump over the outbreak than digging into its origins and China ’ s claims .
It ’ s not as if China ’ s lies weren ’ t apparent , either .
Remember China ’ s city-wide and then province-wide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ world to the outbreak ?
Of course Beijing knew what was really happening and that community spread was off the charts — the 2000 % spike in December of “ flu ” cases Wuhan would have made that instantly obvious to Beijing , hence the lockdowns the next month .
However , the media was more concerned about Trump ’ s supposedly xenophobic response in shutting down travel with China .
And then later they blamed Trump for the New York outbreak for not shutting down travel with Europe quickly enough , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ silence is what allowed this to spread on an earlier timeline than they acknowledged .
And of course , it ’ s convenient to report on this now .
Trump lost the election , so it ’ s safe to start scrutinizing China again .
But will they ?
Now we have a smoking gun , even if CNN ’ s not quite portraying it that way .
Will media outlets stop using China ’ s numbers now to scold Western nations on their COVID-19 response ?
We ’ ve been warning for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ propaganda .
Let ’ s see if our media elites finally stop cheerleading for Xi and start reporting honestly about his malevolence .

A tyrannical regime not being honest about its own performance? The deuce you say. The next thing they’ll tell us is that Xi Jinping runs brutal concentration camps and that Beijing lied about that, too.
After spending most of the year hearing the media lecture its audience on China’s superior response to the plague it unleashed on the world, CNN’s big scoop is only surprising in its timing:
CNN exclusive: Vast trove of leaked documents shows China underreported Covid-19 numbers, took weeks to diagnose new cases and didn’t disclose a December flu spike in Hubei. https://t.co/IZ3yS6qyJB pic.twitter.com/ETotJ4YHrQ — CNN (@CNN) December 1, 2020
A group of frontline medical workers, likely exhausted, stand huddled together on a video-conference call as China’s most powerful man raises his hand in greeting. It is February 10 in Beijing and President Xi Jinping, who for weeks has been absent from public view, is addressing hospital staff in the city of Wuhan as they battle to contain the spread of a still officially unnamed novel coronavirus. From a secure room about 1,200 kilometers (745 miles) from the epicenter, Xi expressed his condolences to those who have died in the outbreak. He urged greater public communication, as around the world concerns mounted about the potential threat posed by the new disease. That same day, Chinese authorities reported 2,478 new confirmed cases — raising the total global number to more than 40,000, with fewer than 400 cases occurring outside of mainland China. Yet CNN can now reveal how official documents circulated internally show that this was only part of the picture. In a report marked “internal document, please keep confidential,” local health authorities in the province of Hubei, where the virus was first detected, list a total of 5,918 newly detected cases on February 10, more than double the official public number of confirmed cases, breaking down the total into a variety of subcategories. This larger figure was never fully revealed at that time, as China’s accounting system seemed, in the tumult of the early weeks of the pandemic, to downplay the severity of the outbreak.
Oh, it only “seemed” to downplay the severity! Nick Paton Walsh’s video report takes a tougher tone, but it still focuses more on China’s fumbles rather than the fact that none of this information was properly shared in the first place. Paton Walsh notes that China keeps insisting that it has been “as transparent as possible” about COVID-19, but the documents in CNN’s hands demonstrate that claim is a flat-out lie.
The motive for this COVID cover-up is very clear, too. Xi Jinping’s regime only survives for as long as he can project an image of strength and competence. Beijing manipulated the World Health Organization and beyond that the media by reporting false numbers and lies about its superior performance against the virus. The latter is especially laughable, since even by February the US could test and determine for COVID-19 in a far quicker time frame than 23 days. And we’d barely gotten an exposure at that point.
The US media played along for its own purposes. They were more invested in attacking Donald Trump over the outbreak than digging into its origins and China’s claims. It’s not as if China’s lies weren’t apparent, either. Remember China’s city-wide and then province-wide lockdowns in January that first alerted the world to the outbreak? Of course Beijing knew what was really happening and that community spread was off the charts — the 2000% spike in December of “flu” cases Wuhan would have made that instantly obvious to Beijing, hence the lockdowns the next month. However, the media was more concerned about Trump’s supposedly xenophobic response in shutting down travel with China. And then later they blamed Trump for the New York outbreak for not shutting down travel with Europe quickly enough, but now we know that China’s silence is what allowed this to spread on an earlier timeline than they acknowledged.
And of course, it’s convenient to report on this now. Trump lost the election, so it’s safe to start scrutinizing China again.
But will they? Now we have a smoking gun, even if CNN’s not quite portraying it that way. Will media outlets stop using China’s numbers now to scold Western nations on their COVID-19 response? We’ve been warning for months that those numbers are nothing but propaganda. Let’s see if our media elites finally stop cheerleading for Xi and start reporting honestly about his malevolence.