hotair--2020-12-29--Spain will keep a "registry" of people without immunity passports. Is America next?

Over the weekend , I discussed the prospect of a two-tier system of freedoms in the United States .
One privileged class would be comprised of citizens who have either survived the plague and developed antibodies or dutifully gone and rolled up their sleeves for a vaccination .
They would be free to travel , go to restaurants and bars , and otherwise go about their business in whatever passes for a “ normal ” fashion in 2021 and beyond .
Children in this category would be free to return to school for in-person learning .
These lucky citizens would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ passports ” granting them all of these luxuries .
The other tier would consist of people who refused to take the vaccine .
They would be looked upon with suspicion as potential carriers of the plague and remain under various government lockdowns and travel restrictions .
That ’ s still mostly a hypothetical situation here in the United States , at least for now .
But if you want to see what this scenario looks like in real life , look no further than Spain .
They aren ’ t wasting any time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that claptrap .
They ’ re already moving to create a government registry of people who refuse to take the vaccine .
And that ’ s one “ naughty list ” you don ’ t want to find yourself on if you know what ’ s good for you .
( Straights Times ) Spain will set up a registry of people who refuse to be vaccinated against the new coronavirus and share it with other European Union member states , although it will not be made public , Health Minister Salvador Illa @ @ @ @ @ @ @ During an interview with La Sexta television , Illa reiterated that vaccination against the virus – which as in most EU nations began in Spain over the weekend – would not be mandatory .
“ What will be done is a registry , which will be shared with our European partners… of those people who have been offered it and have simply rejected it , ” he said .
You can tell by the way that Spain ’ s Health Minister carefully parses his words that he knows precisely how ugly this policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bends over backward to assure everyone that the registry ( where your name will be entered without your consent ) “ will not be made public.
” He also reiterates that receiving the vaccine “ is not mandatory.
” Perhaps both of those things are accurate on paper , but the underlying reality should be obvious to everyone in Spain .
Sure , you don ’ t have to take the vaccine if you don ’ t want to .
But if you don ’ t , you can forget about ever leaving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ banned from getting on a plane or crossing a border .
As to your freedom of movement inside of the country , that ’ s not at all assured either .
The Spanish are already issuing their own version of immunity passports , allowing citizens to show that they ’ ve been vaccinated and are presumed to be immune and not carriers of the virus .
If you don ’ t have one when you go to the airport , it will be a simple matter for the government ’ s “ partners @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you are non-compliant .
I suppose it ’ s possible that business owners won ’ t be allowed to access the registry to check on the immunity status of hopeful customers or employees .
But the lack of an immunity passport will serve the same purpose .
You probably won ’ t even be able to hold a job .
As far as the registry not being made public goes , it ’ s going to exist in some database inside the government and they are opening it up to officials from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ long do you really think it ’ s going to be before somebody hacks it ?
Further , once the registry exists , the entire thing may not be opened to the public , but the rules could easily be amended so that various employers and business owners , along with lower-level public officials , could request immunity status information on people as a new form of a background investigation .
The Spanish government has a lot more leeway to get away with something like this than the United States because the people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same breadth of rights and freedoms that are enshrined in the American Constitution and Bill of Rights .
The same is true for nearly all of the countries in the EU .
But the courts in America have , as we ’ ve already seen , been rather generous toward the autonomous powers of executive elected officials during a declared state of emergency .
While I hope it ’ s less likely , it ’ s simply not entirely out of the question that we might wind up with a similar , if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ United States .
And that would open up the possibility of a “ post-pandemic ” future that ’ s not nearly as bright and promising as many are probably hoping .

Over the weekend, I discussed the prospect of a two-tier system of freedoms in the United States. One privileged class would be comprised of citizens who have either survived the plague and developed antibodies or dutifully gone and rolled up their sleeves for a vaccination. They would be free to travel, go to restaurants and bars, and otherwise go about their business in whatever passes for a “normal” fashion in 2021 and beyond. Children in this category would be free to return to school for in-person learning. These lucky citizens would be the proud owners of “immunity passports” granting them all of these luxuries. The other tier would consist of people who refused to take the vaccine. They would be looked upon with suspicion as potential carriers of the plague and remain under various government lockdowns and travel restrictions.
That’s still mostly a hypothetical situation here in the United States, at least for now. But if you want to see what this scenario looks like in real life, look no further than Spain. They aren’t wasting any time worrying about individual liberties or any of that claptrap. They’re already moving to create a government registry of people who refuse to take the vaccine. And that’s one “naughty list” you don’t want to find yourself on if you know what’s good for you. (Straights Times)
Spain will set up a registry of people who refuse to be vaccinated against the new coronavirus and share it with other European Union member states, although it will not be made public, Health Minister Salvador Illa said Monday (Dec 28). During an interview with La Sexta television, Illa reiterated that vaccination against the virus – which as in most EU nations began in Spain over the weekend – would not be mandatory. “What will be done is a registry, which will be shared with our European partners… of those people who have been offered it and have simply rejected it,” he said.
You can tell by the way that Spain’s Health Minister carefully parses his words that he knows precisely how ugly this policy is going to be. Salvador Illa bends over backward to assure everyone that the registry (where your name will be entered without your consent) “will not be made public.” He also reiterates that receiving the vaccine “is not mandatory.”
Perhaps both of those things are accurate on paper, but the underlying reality should be obvious to everyone in Spain. Sure, you don’t have to take the vaccine if you don’t want to. But if you don’t, you can forget about ever leaving the country again because you will be banned from getting on a plane or crossing a border. As to your freedom of movement inside of the country, that’s not at all assured either.
The Spanish are already issuing their own version of immunity passports, allowing citizens to show that they’ve been vaccinated and are presumed to be immune and not carriers of the virus. If you don’t have one when you go to the airport, it will be a simple matter for the government’s “partners” to check this registry and discover you are non-compliant. I suppose it’s possible that business owners won’t be allowed to access the registry to check on the immunity status of hopeful customers or employees. But the lack of an immunity passport will serve the same purpose. You probably won’t even be able to hold a job.
As far as the registry not being made public goes, it’s going to exist in some database inside the government and they are opening it up to officials from the rest of the European Union. How long do you really think it’s going to be before somebody hacks it? Further, once the registry exists, the entire thing may not be opened to the public, but the rules could easily be amended so that various employers and business owners, along with lower-level public officials, could request immunity status information on people as a new form of a background investigation.
The Spanish government has a lot more leeway to get away with something like this than the United States because the people of Spain don’t enjoy the same breadth of rights and freedoms that are enshrined in the American Constitution and Bill of Rights. The same is true for nearly all of the countries in the EU. But the courts in America have, as we’ve already seen, been rather generous toward the autonomous powers of executive elected officials during a declared state of emergency. While I hope it’s less likely, it’s simply not entirely out of the question that we might wind up with a similar, if not identical registry system here in the United States. And that would open up the possibility of a “post-pandemic” future that’s not nearly as bright and promising as many are probably hoping.


hotair--2020-12-29--Gallup: Trump ends Obama's winning streak as Most Admired Man in 2020

Gallup ’ s annual ranking of Most Admired Man and Most Admired Woman is out .
The winners for 2020 are President Trump and Michelle Obama .
Trump ’ s top ranking is notable because he beat out Barack Obama , putting a halt to Obama ’ s twelve-year run as Most Admired Man .
Last year , Trump and Obama tied for the top spot .
Obama ’ s twelve-year record ties that of Dwight Eisenhower as the most ever to receive a first-place ranking .
The most admired person doesn ’ t have to be from America , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the world .
It ’ s good to know that Americans choose other Americans , though .
The incumbent president usually wins , though not always .
The incumbent president is usually top of mind when Gallup asks Americans to name , without prompting , which man living anywhere in the world they admire most .
In the 74 times Gallup has asked the open-ended most admired man question since 1946 , the incumbent president has topped the list 60 times .
Harry Truman ( 1946-1947 and 1950-1952 ) , Lyndon Johnson @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1973 ) , Gerald Ford ( 1974-1975 ) , Jimmy Carter ( 1980 ) , George W. Bush ( 2008 ) and Trump ( 2017-2018 ) are the incumbent presidents who did not finish first in past years .
When the sitting president is not the top choice , it is usually because he is unpopular politically .
That was the case in 2017 and 2018 when Trump had 36 % and 40 % approval ratings , respectively , and finished second to Obama as most admired man .
During Trump ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fairly consistent .
Unlike other presidents , his approval ratings don ’ t fluctuate up and down .
His current approval rating of 39 % is pretty much where he ’ s been for four years .
Gallup found Trump ’ s approval rating peaked at 46 % before the election from October 16 to 27 .
That number has slipped back down since the election , now at 39 % .
Trump remains a highly popular choice with Republicans while the Democrats split their votes among many public figures .
Obama ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden is way down in his percentage of public admiration .
Dr. Fauci made the list , with more support from Democrats ( 5 % ) than Republicans ( 1 % ) .
The rest of the top ten list is a mix of a variety of men , from Pope Francis to Bernie Sanders .
Forty-eight percent of Republicans name Trump this year , with no other public figure receiving more than 2 % of Republicans ’ votes .
Obama is the top choice among Democrats , at 32 % , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year .
President-elect Joe Biden ( 13 % ) is also commonly named by Democrats .
Additionally , Dr. Anthony Fauci , the nation ’ s top infectious disease expert , is named by 5 % of Democrats but only 1 % of Republicans , further contributing to Democrats ’ relative dispersion of choices .
Independents are evenly split between Trump ( 11 % ) and Obama ( 11 % ) , with another 3 % naming Biden and 2 % Fauci .
Overall , 18 % of Americans name Trump , 15 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and 3 % Fauci .
The remaining top 10 men include Pope Francis , businessman Elon Musk , Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders , Microsoft co-founder and philanthropist Bill Gates , basketball player LeBron James , and the Dalai Lama , the spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhists .
One nice observation of the poll shows that 11 % of Americans named a male relative or friend as their Most Admired Man .
I imagine that the coronavirus pandemic has something to do with that this year .
First responders and health care workers are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ friends and family .
Twenty-one percent didn ’ t have a response to the question of which man they most admired , which may be the most 2020 answer of all .
There is an interesting breakdown of how many times people have made the list .
This is Trump ’ s 10th time , Obama has made the list 15 times .
It ’ s the first time for Fauci and LeBron James .
It is Biden ’ s second time .
The Rev .
Billy Graham , now deceased , holds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the top ten list – 61 times in his life .
The all-time top three are rounded out by Ronald Reagan ( 31 ) and Jimmy Carter ( 29 ) .
The Most Admired Woman for 2020 is Michelle Obama .
I know , I ’ ve never understood her appeal , either .
First ladies usually top the list , as presidents do .
Of the 71 times this poll has been taken , a first lady , current or past , has won the top spot 57 times .
This is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a row .
Before her , Hillary Clinton mostly won from 1997 until 2018 , with one exception – Laura Bush in 2001 .
Kamala Harris finished in second place this year .
This year , 10 % of Americans name Obama as most admired woman , 6 % name Harris , and 4 % name current first lady Melania Trump .
Trump has been in the top 10 each of the past four years but has never finished first , joining Bess Truman and Lady Bird Johnson as former or current first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The remainder of the top 10 most admired women this year include television personality Oprah Winfrey , German Chancellor Angela Merkel , Clinton , New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez , Queen Elizabeth II , Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett and climate change activist Greta Thunberg .
Several other women were named by 1 % of Americans , including singer Dolly Parton , former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice , Nobel Peace Prize laureate Malala Yousafzai , former U.N .
Ambassador Nikki Haley , Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren , New Zealand Prime @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Michigan Gov .
Gretchen Whitmer .
These women did not make the top 10 because they had fewer total mentions than Barrett and Thunberg .
I ’ ve written in support of Melania Trump ’ s time as the first lady and it ’ s a shame she won ’ t receive the recognition she deserves because of her last name .
Typically , conservative women don ’ t make the list .
Melania has shown grace and dignity under four very stressful years in the White House .
Along the same @ @ @ @ @ @ @ % named a relative or friend , while 19 % offered no opinion .
Partisan politics plays a role .
Participants in the poll tend to name people in their own political party .
Melania Trump lead with Republicans at 8 % .
Amy Coney Barrett and Nikki Haley tied with 4 % .
Democrats chose Obama ( 17 % ) and Harris ( 16 % ) , with Ocasio-Cortez coming in with 5 % support .
With Independents , Obama led with 11 % over Melania ’ s 4 % .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in larger numbers for Biden in the November election .
Jill Biden , by the way , doesn ’ t make the top ten list .
Perhaps that will change in 2021 .
Queen Elizabeth ’ s record is intact as the woman who has made the list the most times .
This is her 52nd appearance on the top ten list .
Margaret Thatcher is second on the list with 34 top 10 appearances .
Oprah ( 33 ) and Hillary Clinton ( 29 ) are in third and fourth place .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ important in the grand scheme of things but it ’ s interesting to see the results , to see what this group of participants thought about public figures and others who might deserve recognition .
This year has been an odd one , to put it mildly , but these results look to be fairly typical – a little bit of normal .

Gallup’s annual ranking of Most Admired Man and Most Admired Woman is out. The winners for 2020 are President Trump and Michelle Obama. Trump’s top ranking is notable because he beat out Barack Obama, putting a halt to Obama’s twelve-year run as Most Admired Man. Last year, Trump and Obama tied for the top spot.
Obama’s twelve-year record ties that of Dwight Eisenhower as the most ever to receive a first-place ranking. The most admired person doesn’t have to be from America, he or she can be from anywhere in the world. It’s good to know that Americans choose other Americans, though. The incumbent president usually wins, though not always.
The incumbent president is usually top of mind when Gallup asks Americans to name, without prompting, which man living anywhere in the world they admire most. In the 74 times Gallup has asked the open-ended most admired man question since 1946, the incumbent president has topped the list 60 times. Harry Truman (1946-1947 and 1950-1952), Lyndon Johnson (1967-1968), Richard Nixon (1973), Gerald Ford (1974-1975), Jimmy Carter (1980), George W. Bush (2008) and Trump (2017-2018) are the incumbent presidents who did not finish first in past years. When the sitting president is not the top choice, it is usually because he is unpopular politically. That was the case in 2017 and 2018 when Trump had 36% and 40% approval ratings, respectively, and finished second to Obama as most admired man.
During Trump’s presidency, his favorable ratings have remained fairly consistent. Unlike other presidents, his approval ratings don’t fluctuate up and down. His current approval rating of 39% is pretty much where he’s been for four years. Gallup found Trump’s approval rating peaked at 46% before the election from October 16 to 27. That number has slipped back down since the election, now at 39%.
Trump remains a highly popular choice with Republicans while the Democrats split their votes among many public figures. Obama’s number dipped this year and Joe Biden is way down in his percentage of public admiration. Dr. Fauci made the list, with more support from Democrats (5%) than Republicans (1%). The rest of the top ten list is a mix of a variety of men, from Pope Francis to Bernie Sanders.
Forty-eight percent of Republicans name Trump this year, with no other public figure receiving more than 2% of Republicans’ votes. Obama is the top choice among Democrats, at 32%, but that is down from 41% last year. President-elect Joe Biden (13%) is also commonly named by Democrats. Additionally, Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation’s top infectious disease expert, is named by 5% of Democrats but only 1% of Republicans, further contributing to Democrats’ relative dispersion of choices. Independents are evenly split between Trump (11%) and Obama (11%), with another 3% naming Biden and 2% Fauci. Overall, 18% of Americans name Trump, 15% name Obama, 6% Biden and 3% Fauci. The remaining top 10 men include Pope Francis, businessman Elon Musk, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, Microsoft co-founder and philanthropist Bill Gates, basketball player LeBron James, and the Dalai Lama, the spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhists.
One nice observation of the poll shows that 11% of Americans named a male relative or friend as their Most Admired Man. I imagine that the coronavirus pandemic has something to do with that this year. First responders and health care workers are frequently recognized for their extraordinary efforts by friends and family. Twenty-one percent didn’t have a response to the question of which man they most admired, which may be the most 2020 answer of all.
There is an interesting breakdown of how many times people have made the list. This is Trump’s 10th time, Obama has made the list 15 times. It’s the first time for Fauci and LeBron James. It is Biden’s second time. The Rev. Billy Graham, now deceased, holds the record for the most times on the top ten list – 61 times in his life. The all-time top three are rounded out by Ronald Reagan (31) and Jimmy Carter (29).
The Most Admired Woman for 2020 is Michelle Obama. I know, I’ve never understood her appeal, either. First ladies usually top the list, as presidents do. Of the 71 times this poll has been taken, a first lady, current or past, has won the top spot 57 times. This is Michelle Obama’s third year in a row. Before her, Hillary Clinton mostly won from 1997 until 2018, with one exception – Laura Bush in 2001. Kamala Harris finished in second place this year.
This year, 10% of Americans name Obama as most admired woman, 6% name Harris, and 4% name current first lady Melania Trump. Trump has been in the top 10 each of the past four years but has never finished first, joining Bess Truman and Lady Bird Johnson as former or current first ladies not to have received the distinction. The remainder of the top 10 most admired women this year include television personality Oprah Winfrey, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Clinton, New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Queen Elizabeth II, Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett and climate change activist Greta Thunberg. Several other women were named by 1% of Americans, including singer Dolly Parton, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Nobel Peace Prize laureate Malala Yousafzai, former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, actress Betty White and Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer. These women did not make the top 10 because they had fewer total mentions than Barrett and Thunberg.
I’ve written in support of Melania Trump’s time as the first lady and it’s a shame she won’t receive the recognition she deserves because of her last name. Typically, conservative women don’t make the list. Melania has shown grace and dignity under four very stressful years in the White House. Along the same lines as the male category, 16% named a relative or friend, while 19% offered no opinion.
Partisan politics plays a role. Participants in the poll tend to name people in their own political party. Melania Trump lead with Republicans at 8%. Amy Coney Barrett and Nikki Haley tied with 4%. Democrats chose Obama (17%) and Harris (16%), with Ocasio-Cortez coming in with 5% support. With Independents, Obama led with 11% over Melania’s 4%. That makes sense, given that Independents voted in larger numbers for Biden in the November election. Jill Biden, by the way, doesn’t make the top ten list. Perhaps that will change in 2021.
Queen Elizabeth’s record is intact as the woman who has made the list the most times. This is her 52nd appearance on the top ten list. Margaret Thatcher is second on the list with 34 top 10 appearances. Oprah (33) and Hillary Clinton (29) are in third and fourth place.
This annual poll isn’t particularly important in the grand scheme of things but it’s interesting to see the results, to see what this group of participants thought about public figures and others who might deserve recognition. This year has been an odd one, to put it mildly, but these results look to be fairly typical – a little bit of normal.


hotair--2020-12-29--The increase in the murder rate nationwide could set a record this year

2020 has been a uniquely bad year .
That ’ s not just because of the deadly pandemic and the devastation of the economy that came with it .
Whatever big city you live in or near you ’ ve probably seen a lot of headlines lately about the increase in violent crime this year .
Specifically the murder rate is up sharply around the county .
For example , in Washington , DC : Data from the District ’ s government and police shows almost 200 people have died from gun violence in the Nation ’ s Capital in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a higher murder rate was 16 years ago , according to the Metropolitan Police Department .
Similar increases are happening all around the country , including Tacoma , Washington , where the number of murders is the highest it has been since 1994 .
In Houston , the city has seen 400 murders this year , the highest murder rate seen in 13 or 14 years .
The pattern is similar in America ’ s other large cities , Los Angeles , New York , San Francisco , Chicago .
Murder rates are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the founder of a data analytics company posted his own spreadsheet showing the murder rate was up in 51 of the 57 cities for which data was available .
And in most cases the change wasn ’ t a slight increase .
In about 2/3 of those cities , the rate was up more than 30 percent over 2019 : Asher suggests we are now on track for the largest increase in murder rate ever reported ( since 1960 ) : The broad trend in the murder rate has been a peak around @ @ @ @ @ @ @ next several decades .
But this year we ’ re effectively jumping backwards more than a decade .
We ’ re still not near the peak of the murder rate but we ’ ve erased a lot of progress in one year .
What no one knows at this point is why this is happening .
Various experts disagree about that .
The pandemic and the downturn probably play a role but the death of George Floyd was the moment when there was the largest spike of violence nationwide : To be sure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the U.S. since the late 1990s .
But the 2020 homicide rate “ now exceeds the rates of the late ’ 80s and ’ 90s , before the big drop , ” says Richard Rosenfeld , lead author of “ Pandemic , Social Unrest and Crime in US Cities , ” a new report .
“ This round of crime increase is unprecedented.
” … The biggest spike in gun violence , notes Mr. Rosenfeld , came in the weeks of social unrest in late spring and summer after George Floyd was killed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ society ’ s norms and values are in flux or have disappeared or disintegrated , people don ’ t know how to behave , ” says Ms. Davies , a sociologist who studies the dynamics of violent crime .
“ It ’ s a kind of normlessness that gives way to ‘ Nothing matters.
’ [ The murder increase ] is similar to spikes in suicide when we ’ ve had economic depressions .
But nothing like this has ever happened.
” So it ’ s probably a mix of things .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of anger which led to a lot of protests , many of which turned violent .
And if that had happened in a normal year , maybe things would have settled down quickly .
Instead , it happened in the midst of pre-existing chaos caused by the pandemic and the lockdowns .
The big question now is whether or not this is a blip or the new normal .
If we have a successful vaccine rollout by April-May of 2021 and things gradually begin to return to normal for the rest of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recede to 2019 levels or is the new spate of violence going to be with us for a while ?

2020 has been a uniquely bad year. That’s not just because of the deadly pandemic and the devastation of the economy that came with it. Whatever big city you live in or near you’ve probably seen a lot of headlines lately about the increase in violent crime this year. Specifically the murder rate is up sharply around the county. For example, in Washington, DC:
Data from the District’s government and police shows almost 200 people have died from gun violence in the Nation’s Capital in 2020. The last time D.C. experienced a higher murder rate was 16 years ago, according to the Metropolitan Police Department.
Similar increases are happening all around the country, including Tacoma, Washington, where the number of murders is the highest it has been since 1994. In Houston, the city has seen 400 murders this year, the highest murder rate seen in 13 or 14 years. The pattern is similar in America’s other large cities, Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco, Chicago. Murder rates are breaking recent records almost everywhere.
Today the founder of a data analytics company posted his own spreadsheet showing the murder rate was up in 51 of the 57 cities for which data was available. And in most cases the change wasn’t a slight increase. In about 2/3 of those cities, the rate was up more than 30 percent over 2019:
Final national murder update of 2020: Murder up 36.7% in 57 agencies with data through at least September (though most have data through November). Murder up in 51 of 57, 37 of 58 agencies reporting murder up more than 30%. Spreadsheet here: https://t.co/vEhKHuFNrY pic.twitter.com/5HgVmwGmDS — Jeff Asher (@Crimealytics) December 29, 2020
Asher suggests we are now on track for the largest increase in murder rate ever reported (since 1960):
The largest national % increase ever reported (data since 1960) was 12.7% in 1968 and the largest # increase was 1,938 in 1990. A 15% increase this year (and I think it'll be much larger) would mean 2,400 more murders & be the worst one year increase in murder ever recorded. — Jeff Asher (@Crimealytics) December 29, 2020
The broad trend in the murder rate has been a peak around 1992 followed by a decline for the next several decades. But this year we’re effectively jumping backwards more than a decade. We’re still not near the peak of the murder rate but we’ve erased a lot of progress in one year.
Finally, this is what the national murder rate trend looks like with a 20 or 25% increase in 2020. Roughly where it was in the late 1990s, down 35-40% from where it was in 1993. pic.twitter.com/Rqbm7uZSup — Jeff Asher (@Crimealytics) December 29, 2020
What no one knows at this point is why this is happening. Various experts disagree about that. The pandemic and the downturn probably play a role but the death of George Floyd was the moment when there was the largest spike of violence nationwide:
To be sure, overall crime has dropped dramatically in the U.S. since the late 1990s. But the 2020 homicide rate “now exceeds the rates of the late ’80s and ’90s, before the big drop,” says Richard Rosenfeld, lead author of “Pandemic, Social Unrest and Crime in US Cities,” a new report. “This round of crime increase is unprecedented.”… The biggest spike in gun violence, notes Mr. Rosenfeld, came in the weeks of social unrest in late spring and summer after George Floyd was killed by police in Minneapolis…. “When society’s norms and values are in flux or have disappeared or disintegrated, people don’t know how to behave,” says Ms. Davies, a sociologist who studies the dynamics of violent crime. “It’s a kind of normlessness that gives way to ‘Nothing matters.’ [The murder increase] is similar to spikes in suicide when we’ve had economic depressions. But nothing like this has ever happened.”
So it’s probably a mix of things. The death of George Floyd provided a spark of anger which led to a lot of protests, many of which turned violent. And if that had happened in a normal year, maybe things would have settled down quickly. Instead, it happened in the midst of pre-existing chaos caused by the pandemic and the lockdowns.
The big question now is whether or not this is a blip or the new normal. If we have a successful vaccine rollout by April-May of 2021 and things gradually begin to return to normal for the rest of the year, will the murder rate also recede to 2019 levels or is the new spate of violence going to be with us for a while?


hotair--2020-12-29--Enthusiasm gap? Warnock, Ossoff raising tons of money -- but not in Georgia

Maybe the third — and fourth — times will be a charm for Senate Democrats .
In Kentucky and South Carolina , they poured hundreds of millions in outside cash into challenges against Republican incumbents , only to see Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham easily defeat Amy McGrath and Jaime Harrison .
Graham mocked “ all the liberals in California and New York ” in his victory speech last month .
Looks like Graham might get another chance to mock them again , if the New York Post ’ s reporting is accurate — but only if the two Republicans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hauls made by Georgia Democratic Senate hopefuls Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock are being driven by out-of-state donors in liberal cities like New York , Los Angeles and San Francisco , campaign filings show .
As Democrats try to claw back control of the Senate in enormously consequential run-off races on Jan. 5 , Ossoff , an investigative journalist , and Warnock , a senior pastor of Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta , each raised a stunning $ 100 million in the last two months , becoming the best-funded Senate candidates in history @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is coming from outside of the Peach State , records show .
According to a Post review of Federal Election Commission data , Ossoff and Warnock ’ s biggest financial backers are from the Democratic strongholds of New York City , Los Angeles , San Francisco and Seattle .
How much have Ossoff and Warnock raised in Georgia ?
Just $ 2.5 million and $ 2.6 million , respectively , out of the combined $ 200 million in direct donations .
It ’ s worth asking just which constituencies Ossoff and Warnock plan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Georgia voters once in the Senate , or will they dance with the Angelenos and New Yorkers that brung ’ em ?
That ’ s one question Georgia voters should be asking themselves .
At the very least , that disparity in fundraising makes the two of them look pretty unspectacular in terms of local support .
Another question , though , might be where David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler ’ s direct fundraising originates .
The two have combined for about $ 130 million in direct donations , but the Post doesn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for any comparisons between in-state and out-of-state origins .
Unfortunately , the FEC doesn ’ t yet have contribution records handy for any donations made after mid-October on its website ; the Post must have been working off of internal FEC submissions to get that data on Ossoff and Warnock .
Of course , both parties have nationalized these runoffs , and both parties and their PAC and super-PAC allies have scoured the nation looking for loose cash .
Georgia voters might rightly resent big-pocketed outsiders interfering in their political choices , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the economic boost it should provide the state .
That makes it tougher to point at this report and scoff at Ossoff and Warnock for getting so much out-of-state cash , even if much of it comes from the progressive power centers while both candidates make pretenses of moderation .
Still … how do they explain only getting 5 % of their direct contributions from in-state voters ?
More importantly , what does that portend in next week ’ s runoff votes ?
Money matters , but it ’ s usually a measure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ best the two Democrats can do in their own state is a combined $ 5.1 million , then maybe we might see a repeat of McGrath and Harrison all over again — and Graham can take another shot at big-city liberals and their spending habits .

Maybe the third — and fourth — times will be a charm for Senate Democrats. In Kentucky and South Carolina, they poured hundreds of millions in outside cash into challenges against Republican incumbents, only to see Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham easily defeat Amy McGrath and Jaime Harrison. Graham mocked “all the liberals in California and New York” in his victory speech last month.
Looks like Graham might get another chance to mock them again, if the New York Post’s reporting is accurate — but only if the two Republicans prevail in Georgia:
The record-shattering fundraising hauls made by Georgia Democratic Senate hopefuls Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock are being driven by out-of-state donors in liberal cities like New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco, campaign filings show. As Democrats try to claw back control of the Senate in enormously consequential run-off races on Jan. 5, Ossoff, an investigative journalist, and Warnock, a senior pastor of Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, each raised a stunning $100 million in the last two months, becoming the best-funded Senate candidates in history. But 95 percent of that money is coming from outside of the Peach State, records show. According to a Post review of Federal Election Commission data, Ossoff and Warnock’s biggest financial backers are from the Democratic strongholds of New York City, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Seattle.
How much have Ossoff and Warnock raised in Georgia? Just $2.5 million and $2.6 million, respectively, out of the combined $200 million in direct donations. It’s worth asking just which constituencies Ossoff and Warnock plan to represent; do they stick with Georgia voters once in the Senate, or will they dance with the Angelenos and New Yorkers that brung ’em? That’s one question Georgia voters should be asking themselves. At the very least, that disparity in fundraising makes the two of them look pretty unspectacular in terms of local support.
Another question, though, might be where David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler’s direct fundraising originates. The two have combined for about $130 million in direct donations, but the Post doesn’t drill down in their records for any comparisons between in-state and out-of-state origins. Unfortunately, the FEC doesn’t yet have contribution records handy for any donations made after mid-October on its website; the Post must have been working off of internal FEC submissions to get that data on Ossoff and Warnock.
Of course, both parties have nationalized these runoffs, and both parties and their PAC and super-PAC allies have scoured the nation looking for loose cash. Georgia voters might rightly resent big-pocketed outsiders interfering in their political choices, but they can’t help but loooove the economic boost it should provide the state. That makes it tougher to point at this report and scoff at Ossoff and Warnock for getting so much out-of-state cash, even if much of it comes from the progressive power centers while both candidates make pretenses of moderation.
Still … how do they explain only getting 5% of their direct contributions from in-state voters? More importantly, what does that portend in next week’s runoff votes? Money matters, but it’s usually a measure of enthusiasm and support. If the best the two Democrats can do in their own state is a combined $5.1 million, then maybe we might see a repeat of McGrath and Harrison all over again — and Graham can take another shot at big-city liberals and their spending habits.


hotair--2020-12-29--Loeffler says she'll support $2,000 checks as Senate GOP shifts towards Trump's position

Six days ago she said she was open to boosting COVID relief checks to $ 2,000 per adult if that spending was offset by cuts to some of the porkier elements in the omnibus spending bill .
Trump has now signed that bill .
And no cuts will be forthcoming , needless to say .
Now here she is seemingly embracing $ 2,000 checks anyway .
I ’ m used to watching Republican senators cave on new spending while getting nothing in return but it ’ s strange watching them cave on new spending that ’ ll directly benefit average @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the end ?
She was being pressured from both sides , by the president himself on the right and by Raphael Warnock on the left .
The obvious play was for her to support boosting the checks and take the issue off the table with her runoff election now just one week away .
There was never any suspense that Loeffler would cave on $ 2,000 checks .
There *is* some suspense this morning whether another 11 Republicans in the Senate might join her .
That ’ s how many Schumer needs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he might have a chance of getting them : A couple of days ago , it looked impossible that $ 2,000 COVID relief checks — up from the $ 600 checks for individuals in the package President Trump signed Sunday — could pass the Senate .
That has changed with Trump ’ s final-hours advocacy for bigger checks , Republican sources tell Axios .
It ’ s still an uphill battle .
But Republican senators are feeling more pressure from constituents — pumped by Trump — to do more .
It could be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to vote “ no.
” If Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell “ brings it to the floor , it might get 60 .
Then Trump can claim victory , ” said a Republican source who provided a breakdown of how the vote could go .
Loeffler ’ s in .
Josh Hawley , who partnered with Bernie Sanders on boosting payments even before the COVID package was passed , is also on board .
Same for Lindsey Graham , who probably feels obliged to support Trump ’ s demand after he convinced the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ COVID relief bill as is .
Marco Rubio , another Republican looking for ways to polish his Trumpy populist cred before his next primary in 2022 , is in favor as well .
“ I share many of my colleagues ’ concern about the long-term effects of additional spending , but we can not ignore the fact that millions of working class families across the nation are still in dire need of relief , ” he said in a statement yesterday .
“ Congress should quickly pass legislation to increase direct payments to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eight more .
It ’ s a cinch that David Perdue will come around , as he has all the same incentives right now that Loeffler does .
And Tom Cotton will probably join the effort , not wanting to be outflanked by Hawley ahead of the 2024 primaries .
Can he get another six ?
Is McConnell even *trying* to stop him from getting those six , or has he thrown in the towel on resisting this extra spending now that Trump has tried to start a party civil war over it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cocaine Mitch ’ s next move .
Now that several Republicans have broken ranks , he may feel obliged to put the House bill on the floor and let his caucus have a formal say on it .
A vote for $ 2,000 checks could also boost Perdue and Loeffler in their races if they voted for it .
The provision is popular .
And , even if the measure didn ’ t pass , putting it on the floor would demonstrate to the President that McConnell tried , but the votes just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as usual , has been seeking the input of his members .
It ’ s also possible , and some Democratic aides CNN has spoken with are fearful that McConnell could tie a vote on $ 2,000 checks to a less popular provision making it tougher for Democrats to vote for .
Remember , that Trump argued he ’ d gotten assurances that the Senate would also take up a repeal of Section 230 , which protects web companies from liability for what third party users post on their sites .
That would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on $ 2,000 checks much harder for Democrats to swallow .
Would McConnell really want to gamble on a poison pill involving Section 230 repeal , though ?
It might pass !
Some Senate Republicans who are wary of spending more on beefier checks might be seduced by including a culture-war pander to their base in the bill .
And some Dems who are all-in on boosting checks might not mind paying the price of jettisoning Section 230 to do so .
Joe Biden has called for repealing Section 230 , remember , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it , believing that doing so would force Big Tech companies to get serious about eliminating disinformation from their platforms .
This bill could pass the Senate — and then the House , as the same coalition could form there between anti-230 Republicans and pro- $ 2,000 Dems .
Nuking Section 230 and upending the Internet as we know it is something that should only be done after careful legislative deliberation about the consequences , not as a mindless populist afterthought to a bill aimed at helping Americans through a pressing economic crisis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ serious about policy so anything might happen here .
I ’ d rather see McConnell offer a clean vote on boosting checks without the Section 230 poison pill , as we just can ’ t trust our legislators to have the good sense not to swallow that pill if given the chance .
I ’ m recycling our exit question from last week : Why on earth didn ’ t Trump demand $ 2,000 checks before the election , when doing so might have propelled him to victory ?
The excuse at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in on pretend fiscal conservatism in anticipation of Biden taking power next year and wouldn ’ t dream of supporting another round of big checks , but the movement in the Senate today towards $ 2,000 puts the lie to that .
Trump is a lame duck with 22 days left in his presidency and he still has enough juice among the base to create meaningful momentum among McConnell ’ s caucus towards making this happen .
Imagine if he ’ d made this demand instead on , say , October 15 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Let ’ s take care of our people and have another four years to continue making America great again !
” It really might have worked .
Update : Annnnnnd there it is .

Six days ago she said she was open to boosting COVID relief checks to $2,000 per adult if that spending was offset by cuts to some of the porkier elements in the omnibus spending bill.
Trump has now signed that bill. And no cuts will be forthcoming, needless to say.
Now here she is seemingly embracing $2,000 checks anyway. I’m used to watching Republican senators cave on new spending while getting nothing in return but it’s strange watching them cave on new spending that’ll directly benefit average people.
Kelly Loeffler says she'll support $2,000 stimulus checks in the Senate because Trump does pic.twitter.com/guedzZzRfO — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) December 29, 2020
What choice did she have in the end? She was being pressured from both sides, by the president himself on the right and by Raphael Warnock on the left. The obvious play was for her to support boosting the checks and take the issue off the table with her runoff election now just one week away.
There was never any suspense that Loeffler would cave on $2,000 checks. There *is* some suspense this morning whether another 11 Republicans in the Senate might join her. That’s how many Schumer needs to beat a filibuster. Axios thinks he might have a chance of getting them:
A couple of days ago, it looked impossible that $2,000 COVID relief checks — up from the $600 checks for individuals in the package President Trump signed Sunday — could pass the Senate. That has changed with Trump’s final-hours advocacy for bigger checks, Republican sources tell Axios. It’s still an uphill battle. But Republican senators are feeling more pressure from constituents — pumped by Trump — to do more. It could be too politically risky for some Republican senators to vote “no.” If Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell “brings it to the floor, it might get 60. Then Trump can claim victory,” said a Republican source who provided a breakdown of how the vote could go.
Loeffler’s in. Josh Hawley, who partnered with Bernie Sanders on boosting payments even before the COVID package was passed, is also on board. Same for Lindsey Graham, who probably feels obliged to support Trump’s demand after he convinced the president to avert disaster by signing the COVID relief bill as is. Marco Rubio, another Republican looking for ways to polish his Trumpy populist cred before his next primary in 2022, is in favor as well. “I share many of my colleagues’ concern about the long-term effects of additional spending, but we cannot ignore the fact that millions of working class families across the nation are still in dire need of relief,” he said in a statement yesterday. “Congress should quickly pass legislation to increase direct payments to Americans to $2,000.”
Schumer needs eight more. It’s a cinch that David Perdue will come around, as he has all the same incentives right now that Loeffler does. And Tom Cotton will probably join the effort, not wanting to be outflanked by Hawley ahead of the 2024 primaries. Can he get another six? Is McConnell even *trying* to stop him from getting those six, or has he thrown in the towel on resisting this extra spending now that Trump has tried to start a party civil war over it?
CNN is trying to game out Cocaine Mitch’s next move. Now that several Republicans have broken ranks, he may feel obliged to put the House bill on the floor and let his caucus have a formal say on it.
A vote for $2,000 checks could also boost Perdue and Loeffler in their races if they voted for it. The provision is popular. And, even if the measure didn’t pass, putting it on the floor would demonstrate to the President that McConnell tried, but the votes just weren’t there. McConnell, as usual, has been seeking the input of his members. It’s also possible, and some Democratic aides CNN has spoken with are fearful that McConnell could tie a vote on $2,000 checks to a less popular provision making it tougher for Democrats to vote for. Remember, that Trump argued he’d gotten assurances that the Senate would also take up a repeal of Section 230, which protects web companies from liability for what third party users post on their sites. That would scramble party lines and make a vote on $2,000 checks much harder for Democrats to swallow.
Would McConnell really want to gamble on a poison pill involving Section 230 repeal, though? It might pass! Some Senate Republicans who are wary of spending more on beefier checks might be seduced by including a culture-war pander to their base in the bill. And some Dems who are all-in on boosting checks might not mind paying the price of jettisoning Section 230 to do so. Joe Biden has called for repealing Section 230, remember, and Elizabeth Warren has called for reforming it, believing that doing so would force Big Tech companies to get serious about eliminating disinformation from their platforms. This bill could pass the Senate — and then the House, as the same coalition could form there between anti-230 Republicans and pro-$2,000 Dems.
Nuking Section 230 and upending the Internet as we know it is something that should only be done after careful legislative deliberation about the consequences, not as a mindless populist afterthought to a bill aimed at helping Americans through a pressing economic crisis. But our government is no longer serious about policy so anything might happen here. I’d rather see McConnell offer a clean vote on boosting checks without the Section 230 poison pill, as we just can’t trust our legislators to have the good sense not to swallow that pill if given the chance.
I’m recycling our exit question from last week: Why on earth didn’t Trump demand $2,000 checks before the election, when doing so might have propelled him to victory? The excuse at the time was that Senate Republicans were dug in on pretend fiscal conservatism in anticipation of Biden taking power next year and wouldn’t dream of supporting another round of big checks, but the movement in the Senate today towards $2,000 puts the lie to that. Trump is a lame duck with 22 days left in his presidency and he still has enough juice among the base to create meaningful momentum among McConnell’s caucus towards making this happen. Imagine if he’d made this demand instead on, say, October 15. “Americans are desperate, Mitch! Let’s take care of our people and have another four years to continue making America great again!” It really might have worked.
Update: Annnnnnd there it is.


hotair--2020-12-29--Worst governor in America prioritizes drug addicts over seniors for vaccines

The latest news about COVID vaccine distribution in New York State didn ’ t reach me via cable news or the major papers .
Instead , I first saw Congresswoman Elise Stefanik ( R NY-21 ) tweeting about it last night .
To say the least , she really wasn ’ t being very subtle about it .
Don ’ t hold back and beat around the bush , Congresswoman .
Tell us how you really feel .
I suppose we should get the details of the story out of the way .
The New York Post covered this curious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ yesterday .
Recovering addicts in residential rehab facilities will be among those vaccinated against the coronavirus this week , Gov .
Andrew Cuomo obliquely revealed Monday .
During a virtual news conference in Albany , Cuomo said the state was expecting to receive a combined 259,000 doses of Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines .
In addition to urgent care center employees and “ individuals who are administering the COVID-19 vaccines , for obvious reasons , ” Cuomo said that shots would be given to residents of “ OASAS ” — the state Office of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s reasoning for this decision makes sense on the surface if you ’ re only looking at it from a progressive , political point of view .
Addicts tend to be economically disadvantaged for the most part ( though there are obvious exceptions , particularly among celebrities ) and these issues disproportionately affect persons of color .
That makes for a great talking point in Democratic circles .
But at the same time , Stefanik is pointing out something that should have been blindingly obvious .
Many people were expecting the next round @ @ @ @ @ @ @ residents of the state who are not currently in nursing homes .
( The nursing homes were covered in the first round . )
Prioritizing recovering drug addicts over seniors suddenly makes a lot less sense when you remember that this is Andrew Cuomo we ’ re talking about .
When you ’ re the governor who probably killed more senior citizens than all of the serial killers in American history combined by forcing nursing homes to take in potential COVID carriers without requiring testing , let ’ s just say this isn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ got off to a good start by putting nursing homes at the top of the list for vaccines , but that was already part of the CDC guidance and pretty much every state in the country was doing it .
The New York Governor could have upped his game a bit by extending vaccinations to all seniors over the age of 65 or at least the ones whose doctors indicate that they have ongoing medical issues .
Instead , Cuomo decided to make those seniors wait and polish his woke credentials .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state called him out on it in a very public way .
But why should Cuomo care ?
He ’ s the Teflon Don , after all .
Nothing seems to ever lay a glove on his political fortunes in the Empire State .

The latest news about COVID vaccine distribution in New York State didn’t reach me via cable news or the major papers. Instead, I first saw Congresswoman Elise Stefanik (R NY-21) tweeting about it last night. To say the least, she really wasn’t being very subtle about it.
The Worst Governor in America streak continues … This time prioritizing vaccines for drug addicts over tens of thousands of seniors who have been home bound since the start of the pandemic. An absolute disgrace👇 https://t.co/jwBvpv3Yec — Elise Stefanik (@EliseStefanik) December 28, 2020
The Worst Governor in America streak continues … This time prioritizing vaccines for drug addicts over tens of thousands of seniors who have been home bound since the start of the pandemic. An absolute disgrace
Don’t hold back and beat around the bush, Congresswoman. Tell us how you really feel.
I suppose we should get the details of the story out of the way. The New York Post covered this curious decision from the Worst Governor in America yesterday.
Recovering addicts in residential rehab facilities will be among those vaccinated against the coronavirus this week, Gov. Andrew Cuomo obliquely revealed Monday. During a virtual news conference in Albany, Cuomo said the state was expecting to receive a combined 259,000 doses of Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines. In addition to urgent care center employees and “individuals who are administering the COVID-19 vaccines, for obvious reasons,” Cuomo said that shots would be given to residents of “OASAS” — the state Office of Addiction Services and Supports.
Cuomo’s reasoning for this decision makes sense on the surface if you’re only looking at it from a progressive, political point of view. Addicts tend to be economically disadvantaged for the most part (though there are obvious exceptions, particularly among celebrities) and these issues disproportionately affect persons of color. That makes for a great talking point in Democratic circles.
But at the same time, Stefanik is pointing out something that should have been blindingly obvious. Many people were expecting the next round of vaccines to go to the oldest residents of the state who are not currently in nursing homes. (The nursing homes were covered in the first round.) Prioritizing recovering drug addicts over seniors suddenly makes a lot less sense when you remember that this is Andrew Cuomo we’re talking about.
When you’re the governor who probably killed more senior citizens than all of the serial killers in American history combined by forcing nursing homes to take in potential COVID carriers without requiring testing, let’s just say this isn’t a good look. Cuomo got off to a good start by putting nursing homes at the top of the list for vaccines, but that was already part of the CDC guidance and pretty much every state in the country was doing it. The New York Governor could have upped his game a bit by extending vaccinations to all seniors over the age of 65 or at least the ones whose doctors indicate that they have ongoing medical issues.
Instead, Cuomo decided to make those seniors wait and polish his woke credentials. And one of the congresswomen from his own state called him out on it in a very public way. But why should Cuomo care? He’s the Teflon Don, after all. Nothing seems to ever lay a glove on his political fortunes in the Empire State.


hotair--2020-12-29--Sanders to McConnell: Give me a real floor vote on expanded COVID-19 relief -- or else

Or else what ?
Let ’ s just say that House passage of the expanded COVID-19 relief bill and the override of Donald Trump ’ s veto of the defense bill has given Mitch McConnell not one but two big headaches .
And they ’ re both named Bernie Sanders , as Jazz mentioned in his quick update to the previous post : Sen. Bernie Sanders will filibuster an override of President Donald Trump ’ s defense bill veto unless the Senate holds a vote on providing $ 2,000 direct payments to Americans .
“ McConnell and the Senate want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ understand that .
But I ’ m not going to allow that to happen unless there is a vote , no matter how long that takes , on the $ 2,000 direct payment , ” Sanders said in an interview on Monday night .
The Vermont independent can ’ t ultimately stop the veto override vote , but he can delay it until New Year ’ s Day and make things more difficult for the GOP .
That ’ s the first headache , but at least it ’ s manageable .
McConnell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s veto of the NDAA before the end of this session of Congress , which will come no later than early on January 4 , when the next session formally begins at noon ET .
If not , the bill dies in the old session and must be passed from scratch by the incoming Congress .
Sanders can ’ t postpone a final floor vote that long , at least not all by himself , but his objections can push it off long enough to force the other 99 senators to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mitch McConnell ’ s second headache : Under Senate rules , Sanders has the ability to keep the chamber in during the holiday week and likely mess with the campaign schedules of Sens .
David Perdue ( R-Ga. ) and Kelly Loeffler ( R-Ga. ) .
Those two face Jan. 5 runoff races for control of the Senate against Democrats Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock , who are both campaigning on the $ 2,000 checks .
A source close to Sanders said the Senate races were a factor in his decision — part @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Loeffler in D.C. and focus the campaign on their position regarding the $ 2,000 checks .
Sanders also threatened to shut down the government earlier this month if the coronavirus relief bill did not include direct payments ; ultimately it included checks of up to $ 600 and the government stayed open , though now Trump wants to go much higher .
This makes for a much tougher decision for McConnell .
The runoffs in Georgia appear to still be excruciatingly close , which means the GOP needs all hands on deck until @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s tough enough that they ’ re still drafting Donald Trump to make a final pitch at a rally on January 4th .
If Sanders can sideline Perdue and Loeffler even for a couple of days — and especially if he can tie them to Republicans ’ opposition to more relief aid — Sanders could conceivably tip the election enough to give Chuck Schumer control of the Senate next week .
Ironically , McConnell probably doesn ’ t need Perdue or Loeffler for the veto override anyway .
That should pass easily @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the NDAA .
McConnell will need both Perdue and Loeffler around to oppose the relief bill more than he needs them to override Trump ’ s veto on the NDAA — but both of those positions put Loeffler and Perdue in opposition to the president who ’ ll host a rally for them , too .
In fact , that might be a third headache for McConnell .
His first plan was to offer a quick unanimous-consent floor action on the House relief bonus bill , sure in the knowledge that any number @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the bill .
If Sanders forces McConnell into having a floor vote on HR 9051 , suddenly that puts Purdue and Loeffler on the spot just days ahead of the election .
The two of them will get roasted by Democrats and the media if they vote against the House ’ s expanded COVID-19 relief , a point on which Sanders is counting .
If they flip to support it — and Marco Rubio ’ s already announced his support — suddenly Democrats have at least 50 votes for the bill , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stop the spending if one more Republican flips .
That ’ ll be an embarrassment for McConnell .
If so , let ’ s just remember that it ’ s his embarrassment .
McConnell wouldn ’ t have been in this position if he ’ d allowed for a simple repeat of April ’ s $ 1200/person direct stimulus payments in Phase 4 , as the Problem Solvers Caucus proposed in August and people on both sides of the aisle demanded .
There wouldn ’ t have been any demand for the larger @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to result in this standoff .
Trump deserves some blame for waiting until almost the 13th hour to make his demand rather than get more involved in those negotiations , but Trump had made it known for months that he wanted bigger direct payments .
Trump seems to be one of only a few Republicans in Washington to grasp the optics of shorting taxpayers while dumping cash into businesses and corporations , no matter how well-tailored and effective those aid programs are .
McConnell doesn ’ t miss much on Capitol Hill , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in this position for not seeing past the Beltway .
Now McConnell is left with a choice over whether he wants to make a belated stand for fiscal discipline immediately after passing the bloated porkfest that was the omnibus spending bill , or wants to be Majority Leader after January 6th .
He might get both , but Bernie Sanders is making it tough for McConnell to eat his pork and have it , too .

Or else what? Let’s just say that House passage of the expanded COVID-19 relief bill and the override of Donald Trump’s veto of the defense bill has given Mitch McConnell not one but two big headaches. And they’re both named Bernie Sanders, as Jazz mentioned in his quick update to the previous post:
Sen. Bernie Sanders will filibuster an override of President Donald Trump’s defense bill veto unless the Senate holds a vote on providing $2,000 direct payments to Americans. “McConnell and the Senate want to expedite the override vote and I understand that. But I’m not going to allow that to happen unless there is a vote, no matter how long that takes, on the $2,000 direct payment,” Sanders said in an interview on Monday night. The Vermont independent can’t ultimately stop the veto override vote, but he can delay it until New Year’s Day and make things more difficult for the GOP.
That’s the first headache, but at least it’s manageable. McConnell needs to get the Senate to override Trump’s veto of the NDAA before the end of this session of Congress, which will come no later than early on January 4, when the next session formally begins at noon ET. If not, the bill dies in the old session and must be passed from scratch by the incoming Congress. Sanders can’t postpone a final floor vote that long, at least not all by himself, but his objections can push it off long enough to force the other 99 senators to work over the weekend.
Which is Mitch McConnell’s second headache:
Under Senate rules, Sanders has the ability to keep the chamber in during the holiday week and likely mess with the campaign schedules of Sens. David Perdue (R-Ga.) and Kelly Loeffler (R-Ga.). Those two face Jan. 5 runoff races for control of the Senate against Democrats Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock, who are both campaigning on the $2,000 checks. A source close to Sanders said the Senate races were a factor in his decision — part of a bid to keep Perdue and Loeffler in D.C. and focus the campaign on their position regarding the $2,000 checks. Sanders also threatened to shut down the government earlier this month if the coronavirus relief bill did not include direct payments; ultimately it included checks of up to $600 and the government stayed open, though now Trump wants to go much higher.
This makes for a much tougher decision for McConnell. The runoffs in Georgia appear to still be excruciatingly close, which means the GOP needs all hands on deck until voting end on January 5th. It’s tough enough that they’re still drafting Donald Trump to make a final pitch at a rally on January 4th. If Sanders can sideline Perdue and Loeffler even for a couple of days — and especially if he can tie them to Republicans’ opposition to more relief aid — Sanders could conceivably tip the election enough to give Chuck Schumer control of the Senate next week.
Ironically, McConnell probably doesn’t need Perdue or Loeffler for the veto override anyway. That should pass easily, with only a handful opposed to the NDAA. McConnell will need both Perdue and Loeffler around to oppose the relief bill more than he needs them to override Trump’s veto on the NDAA — but both of those positions put Loeffler and Perdue in opposition to the president who’ll host a rally for them, too.
In fact, that might be a third headache for McConnell. His first plan was to offer a quick unanimous-consent floor action on the House relief bonus bill, sure in the knowledge that any number of Senate Republicans would object and derail the bill. If Sanders forces McConnell into having a floor vote on HR 9051, suddenly that puts Purdue and Loeffler on the spot just days ahead of the election. The two of them will get roasted by Democrats and the media if they vote against the House’s expanded COVID-19 relief, a point on which Sanders is counting. If they flip to support it — and Marco Rubio’s already announced his support — suddenly Democrats have at least 50 votes for the bill, and Republicans might have to filibuster it to stop the spending if one more Republican flips. That’ll be an embarrassment for McConnell.
If so, let’s just remember that it’s his embarrassment. McConnell wouldn’t have been in this position if he’d allowed for a simple repeat of April’s $1200/person direct stimulus payments in Phase 4, as the Problem Solvers Caucus proposed in August and people on both sides of the aisle demanded. There wouldn’t have been any demand for the larger amount, or at least not enough to result in this standoff. Trump deserves some blame for waiting until almost the 13th hour to make his demand rather than get more involved in those negotiations, but Trump had made it known for months that he wanted bigger direct payments. Trump seems to be one of only a few Republicans in Washington to grasp the optics of shorting taxpayers while dumping cash into businesses and corporations, no matter how well-tailored and effective those aid programs are. McConnell doesn’t miss much on Capitol Hill, but he and his advisers put themselves in this position for not seeing past the Beltway.
Now McConnell is left with a choice over whether he wants to make a belated stand for fiscal discipline immediately after passing the bloated porkfest that was the omnibus spending bill, or wants to be Majority Leader after January 6th. He might get both, but Bernie Sanders is making it tough for McConnell to eat his pork and have it, too.


hotair--2020-12-30--Mitch McConnell is running out of options

The Alpha Predator of Politics may be turning into the prey .
And in this case , the replacement predators will turn out to be Bernie Sanders and Chuck Schumer at the rate things are going .
Ed Morrissey gave us a preview of the briar patch that the Senate Majority Leader finds himself in this morning and at least so far , his predictions are playing out according to the script .
As anticipated , after blocking a unanimous consent vote on $ 2,000 relief checks , Mitch McConnell “ began the process ” last night by introducing his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ business in the upper chamber .
The proposed legislation would increase the payments to $ 2,000 as the House already moved to do with the President ’ s support .
But it includes the two other contentious issues that the president wanted .
The bill would repeal Section 230 and establish a commission to investigate the results of the 2020 election .
Both of these will receive pushback from the Democrats and could bog down the process .
( Associated Press ) Saying little , McConnell signaled an alternative approach to Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ party so badly , but may result in no action at all .
The GOP leader filed new legislation late Tuesday linking the president ’ s demand for bigger checks with two other Trump priorities — repealing protections for tech companies like Facebook or Twitter that the president complained are unfair to conservatives as well the establishment of a bipartisan commission to review the 2020 presidential election he lost to President-elect Joe Biden .
“ The Senate will begin a process , ” the GOP leader said .
He said little more , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s demand for the $ 2,000 checks and other remaining issues “ into focus.
” Even if the votes exist to pass McConnell ’ s bill ( which is far from certain ) , if it has to go through all of the normal committee reviews and debate prior to a full vote on the floor , that ’ s going to take up time that the Senate simply doesn ’ t have .
Tomorrow is the end of the year .
On Monday , at noon , everything turns into a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ end and the new class will be seated .
Any legislation that ’ s still in the pipeline will expire and new bills will have to be submitted , with the process starting all over again .
Meanwhile , Bernie Sanders and Chuck Schumer are still holding the NDAA veto override hostage until the $ 2,000 check issue is rammed through .
They ’ re not showing any signs of backing down , so that means both the pandemic relief checks issue and the entire defense spending bill will have to go back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can still keep Loeffler and Perdue off the campaign trail and , as Ed pointed out , the voters of Georgia might decide to take it out on them if no action is taken .
It ’ s tough to understate how badly McConnell and the Senate GOP have been outmaneuvered by Sanders and Schumer here .
And the worst part is that Sanders was telegraphing his punches from the beginning .
He gave an interview before he brought up the filibuster idea , flatly admitting that he was doing this , at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Republicans ’ prospects in Georgia .
There are really only two ways this horror show ends at this point .
Even in a “ best case ” scenario , McConnell ’ s bill goes through , but he winds up backing down to the President and the Democrats on key items he had firmly opposed .
( The larger relief checks and Section 230 . )
Alternatively , the bill dies and no action is taken on any of those issues and they fail to override the NDAA veto so the military @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the possibility that both Loeffler and Perdue could wind up losing their seats , in which case any “ fresh start ” for all of this legislation will take place with the Democrats holding the majority and calling the shots in both chambers .
I ’ d love to propose an easy out for McConnell but there doesn ’ t seem to be one at the moment .
The best he could probably do is swallow his pride and go back to unanimous consent on only the $ 2,000 checks , allowing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the same day .
He can put the Section 230 language and the election investigation committee into a separate bill , knowing that it ’ s not going to go anywhere .
Sometimes you have to recognize that discretion is the better part of valor and just take what ’ s on the table .
That appears to be where Cocaine Mitch is this morning .

The Alpha Predator of Politics may be turning into the prey. And in this case, the replacement predators will turn out to be Bernie Sanders and Chuck Schumer at the rate things are going.
Ed Morrissey gave us a preview of the briar patch that the Senate Majority Leader finds himself in this morning and at least so far, his predictions are playing out according to the script. As anticipated, after blocking a unanimous consent vote on $2,000 relief checks, Mitch McConnell “began the process” last night by introducing his own bill into the regular order of business in the upper chamber. The proposed legislation would increase the payments to $2,000 as the House already moved to do with the President’s support. But it includes the two other contentious issues that the president wanted. The bill would repeal Section 230 and establish a commission to investigate the results of the 2020 election. Both of these will receive pushback from the Democrats and could bog down the process. (Associated Press)
Saying little, McConnell signaled an alternative approach to Trump’s checks that may not divide his party so badly, but may result in no action at all. The GOP leader filed new legislation late Tuesday linking the president’s demand for bigger checks with two other Trump priorities — repealing protections for tech companies like Facebook or Twitter that the president complained are unfair to conservatives as well the establishment of a bipartisan commission to review the 2020 presidential election he lost to President-elect Joe Biden. “The Senate will begin a process,” the GOP leader said. He said little more, only that he would bring the president’s demand for the $2,000 checks and other remaining issues “into focus.”
Even if the votes exist to pass McConnell’s bill (which is far from certain), if it has to go through all of the normal committee reviews and debate prior to a full vote on the floor, that’s going to take up time that the Senate simply doesn’t have. Tomorrow is the end of the year. On Monday, at noon, everything turns into a pumpkin. This session of Congress will end and the new class will be seated. Any legislation that’s still in the pipeline will expire and new bills will have to be submitted, with the process starting all over again.
Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders and Chuck Schumer are still holding the NDAA veto override hostage until the $2,000 check issue is rammed through. They’re not showing any signs of backing down, so that means both the pandemic relief checks issue and the entire defense spending bill will have to go back to the drawing board. These details can still keep Loeffler and Perdue off the campaign trail and, as Ed pointed out, the voters of Georgia might decide to take it out on them if no action is taken.
It’s tough to understate how badly McConnell and the Senate GOP have been outmaneuvered by Sanders and Schumer here. And the worst part is that Sanders was telegraphing his punches from the beginning. He gave an interview before he brought up the filibuster idea, flatly admitting that he was doing this, at least in part, to mess with the Republicans’ prospects in Georgia.
There are really only two ways this horror show ends at this point. Even in a “best case” scenario, McConnell’s bill goes through, but he winds up backing down to the President and the Democrats on key items he had firmly opposed. (The larger relief checks and Section 230.) Alternatively, the bill dies and no action is taken on any of those issues and they fail to override the NDAA veto so the military isn’t funded. Add to that the possibility that both Loeffler and Perdue could wind up losing their seats, in which case any “fresh start” for all of this legislation will take place with the Democrats holding the majority and calling the shots in both chambers.
I’d love to propose an easy out for McConnell but there doesn’t seem to be one at the moment. The best he could probably do is swallow his pride and go back to unanimous consent on only the $2,000 checks, allowing him to then override the veto on the same day. He can put the Section 230 language and the election investigation committee into a separate bill, knowing that it’s not going to go anywhere. Sometimes you have to recognize that discretion is the better part of valor and just take what’s on the table. That appears to be where Cocaine Mitch is this morning.


hotair--2020-12-30--VIP Gold chat: Columbus shooting, Congress booting, vaccination rooting, NYE celebration muting, and

VIP Gold chat: Columbus shooting, Congress booting, vaccination rooting, NYE celebration muting, and viewer saluting!

If you are not a VIP Gold member , join below so you can watch and participate today — and in future chats !
Use LOYALTY for 25 % off !
Don ’ t miss today ’ s tremendous live , interactive VIP Gold chat at 1:30 pm ET with Bearing Arms ’ Cam Edwards and HotAir ’ s Ed Morrissey !
The duo will take VIP Gold members ’ questions and comments and give an in-depth analysis of the top topics of the day .
While Cam brings his A-game on 2nd Amendment and liberty issues and makes sure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Ed keeps pace with developments abroad , at home , and at the local level as well .
We ’ ll have plenty to discuss and lots of time to take your questions .
The hot topics include : • Where are we at with COVID-19 vaccinations ?
• The latest on the runoffs in Georgia • The latest on the Columbus police shooting • Is it a good idea to celebrate New Year ’ s Eve by firing bullets in the air ?
( Spoiler alert : NO ) With all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ members can get the latest as it happens from Cam and Ed .

If you are not a VIP Gold member, join below so you can watch and participate today — and in future chats! Use LOYALTY for 25% off!
Don’t miss today’s tremendous live, interactive VIP Gold chat at 1:30 pm ET with Bearing Arms’ Cam Edwards and HotAir’s Ed Morrissey! The duo will take VIP Gold members’ questions and comments and give an in-depth analysis of the top topics of the day.


hotair--2020-12-30--The new normal? Joe and Jill Biden to offer New Year's Eve message with Ryan Seacrest

Get excited , people !
Joe and Jill Biden are going to deliver an “ inspiring ” message to welcome in the new year tomorrow night .
The word is out that they will appear on ‘ ” Dick Clark ’ s New Year ’ s Rockin ’ Eve with Ryan Seacrest 2021″ .
Seacrest is hosting for his 16th year in New York while another host will broadcast from Los Angeles .
There won ’ t be the usual crowds in Times Square and the ball drop will be virtual this year because of coronavirus restrictions .
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will physically be with Seacrest in New York or if they will be delivering a virtual New Year ’ s Eve message .
Maybe they can do it from a car on the street and honk afterward like his supporters do during his rallies .
Will Joe Biden even be awake for a closing message ?
The broadcast is scheduled to continue until 2:00 a.m. Eastern time .
No one thinks Joe is awake at that hour unless he ’ s up to go to the bathroom .
I ’ m guessing he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for a larger audience .
As cautious as his staff has been with him , it is surprising to consider Biden out in the cold night air .
The man already coughs and wheezes as he speaks , allegedly from a cold , he said .
The event is closed to the public but Jennifer Lopez will perform live before the ball drop .
The rest of the performers will mostly perform virtually , some in Los Angeles .
I guarantee that Joe Biden has no idea who any of the singers are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sure would be entertaining , though , if someone questioned him about the lyrics in some of their songs .
Cindy Lauper will be in New York , he probably knows of her .
Ryan Seacrest obediently refers to the incoming first lady as “ Dr. ” Jill Biden .
Get ready for four years of that malarkey .
Here ’ s my question – when did it become normal for the president-elect to be plastered on our televisions every day leading up to the inauguration ?
What has happened to the concept @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Joe Biden has said over and over again that he is the ticket to a trip back to normal , right ?
He ran on that promise .
He ’ s a forty year resident of The Swamp and he ’ s ready to get back to business as usual .
It looks like normal is whatever he says it is .
I noted the fact that Biden is given time on television , at least on FNC and CNN , during the daytime programming to deliver his rambling remarks .
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rarely does he take any questions .
If he does the reporters are already hand-picked by staff and he has a list of their names to call on .
Sometimes Kamala joins him but she doesn ’ t speak .
( Kinda misogynistic , Joe ! )
.
No one acts like it is unusual for the president-elect to hold almost daily press briefings .
Yesterday he chose to criticize the current administration and president , as though it was a campaign speech .
You won , Joe , knock it off .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ current administration as Status Quo Joe waits in the wings to be inaugurated ?
He announces some new hires sometimes and yesterday it was some people for the coronavirus task force .
He took that opportunity to criticize the distribution efforts for the vaccines .
The speech was billed as Biden ’ s plan for the coronavirus .
The problem for Joe is that his plan is Trump ’ s plan .
Biden isn ’ t going to be doing anything differently .
The heavy lifting is done .
The vaccines have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the public .
Remember when Joe and Kamala sounded like anti-vaxxers before the vaccines were ready ?
They didn ’ t want to trust the scientists who worked on Operation Warp Speed because it is during the Trump administration .
They questioned if corners were cut in the haste of finding a vaccine .
Now , Biden criticizes the speed of distribution .
He just wants something to complain about for partisan purposes .
I ’ ve also noticed that Joe Biden doesn ’ t wear a face mask as he speaks , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allowed to attend the briefing .
This is the guy who wants to keep everyone in a face mask for the first 100 days of his administration .
He and his supporters complain about the Trump administration ’ s inability to lead by example on face masks .
Shouldn ’ t he have one on his face all the time he ’ s around others ?
I ’ m sure that given the opportunity , President Trump would appear on a televised New Year ’ s Eve program .
He ’ s the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guy elbowing his way into the spotlight .
The difference is that Trump isn ’ t given that opportunity , he is shunned by the broadcast networks .
The Biden administration will be treated with kid gloves and given a hero ’ s welcome by the press corps .
They can all go back to taking it easy and turning a blind eye to anything questionable , as they did during the eight years of Obama/Biden .
I expect Peter Doocy to be the only reporter to actually ask Joe Biden some uncomfortable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Eve message from Joe Biden , huh ?
He has been busy being the buzzkill talking doom and gloom .
He talks about a very dark winter , not that our best days are ahead of us .
It ’ s not morning in America , it ’ s night and the nightmares are coming .
That ’ s how we ’ ll be getting back to normal with Joe and Kamala , with schoolmarm Jill speaking into Joe ’ s ear .

Get excited, people! Joe and Jill Biden are going to deliver an “inspiring” message to welcome in the new year tomorrow night. The word is out that they will appear on ‘”Dick Clark’s New Year’s Rockin’ Eve with Ryan Seacrest 2021″. Seacrest is hosting for his 16th year in New York while another host will broadcast from Los Angeles.
There won’t be the usual crowds in Times Square and the ball drop will be virtual this year because of coronavirus restrictions. It’s not clear if Joe and Jill will physically be with Seacrest in New York or if they will be delivering a virtual New Year’s Eve message. Maybe they can do it from a car on the street and honk afterward like his supporters do during his rallies. Will Joe Biden even be awake for a closing message? The broadcast is scheduled to continue until 2:00 a.m. Eastern time. No one thinks Joe is awake at that hour unless he’s up to go to the bathroom. I’m guessing he’ll speak during the earlier hours for a larger audience.
The Bidens will “share an inspiring message as we come together to close out 2020 and look ahead with hope to 2021,” according to a statement by the producers.
As cautious as his staff has been with him, it is surprising to consider Biden out in the cold night air. The man already coughs and wheezes as he speaks, allegedly from a cold, he said. The event is closed to the public but Jennifer Lopez will perform live before the ball drop. The rest of the performers will mostly perform virtually, some in Los Angeles. I guarantee that Joe Biden has no idea who any of the singers are, except maybe Miley Cyrus. It sure would be entertaining, though, if someone questioned him about the lyrics in some of their songs. Cindy Lauper will be in New York, he probably knows of her.
Ryan Seacrest obediently refers to the incoming first lady as “Dr.” Jill Biden. Get ready for four years of that malarkey.
Closing out 2020 with President-elect @JoeBiden and future First Lady @DrBiden for their last interview of the year. Tune-in to @NYRE tomorrow at 8/7c on @ABCNetwork! #RockinEve https://t.co/TMKxGvrWf6 — Ryan Seacrest (@RyanSeacrest) December 30, 2020
Here’s my question – when did it become normal for the president-elect to be plastered on our televisions every day leading up to the inauguration? What has happened to the concept of one president at a time? Joe Biden has said over and over again that he is the ticket to a trip back to normal, right? He ran on that promise. He’s a forty year resident of The Swamp and he’s ready to get back to business as usual. It looks like normal is whatever he says it is.
I noted the fact that Biden is given time on television, at least on FNC and CNN, during the daytime programming to deliver his rambling remarks. It’s become almost a daily exercise. Rarely does he take any questions. If he does the reporters are already hand-picked by staff and he has a list of their names to call on. Sometimes Kamala joins him but she doesn’t speak. (Kinda misogynistic, Joe!). No one acts like it is unusual for the president-elect to hold almost daily press briefings.
I don't understand the daily addresses by Biden. One president at a time. Isn't he supposed to be all about "normal"? — Karen Townsend (@penguinponders) December 29, 2020
Yesterday he chose to criticize the current administration and president, as though it was a campaign speech. You won, Joe, knock it off. How is it unifying to trash the current administration as Status Quo Joe waits in the wings to be inaugurated? He announces some new hires sometimes and yesterday it was some people for the coronavirus task force. He took that opportunity to criticize the distribution efforts for the vaccines. The speech was billed as Biden’s plan for the coronavirus. The problem for Joe is that his plan is Trump’s plan. Biden isn’t going to be doing anything differently. The heavy lifting is done. The vaccines have been developed and are not becoming available to the public.
No one is fooled. Biden's plan is the same as Trump's. It's the only plan. — Karen Townsend (@penguinponders) December 29, 2020
Remember when Joe and Kamala sounded like anti-vaxxers before the vaccines were ready? They didn’t want to trust the scientists who worked on Operation Warp Speed because it is during the Trump administration. They questioned if corners were cut in the haste of finding a vaccine. Now, Biden criticizes the speed of distribution. He just wants something to complain about for partisan purposes. I’ve also noticed that Joe Biden doesn’t wear a face mask as he speaks, nor do the limited amount of reporters allowed to attend the briefing. This is the guy who wants to keep everyone in a face mask for the first 100 days of his administration. He and his supporters complain about the Trump administration’s inability to lead by example on face masks. Shouldn’t he have one on his face all the time he’s around others?
I’m sure that given the opportunity, President Trump would appear on a televised New Year’s Eve program. He’s the president, though, not the new guy elbowing his way into the spotlight. The difference is that Trump isn’t given that opportunity, he is shunned by the broadcast networks. The Biden administration will be treated with kid gloves and given a hero’s welcome by the press corps. They can all go back to taking it easy and turning a blind eye to anything questionable, as they did during the eight years of Obama/Biden. I expect Peter Doocy to be the only reporter to actually ask Joe Biden some uncomfortable questions.
A New Year’s Eve message from Joe Biden, huh? He has been busy being the buzzkill talking doom and gloom. He talks about a very dark winter, not that our best days are ahead of us. It’s not morning in America, it’s night and the nightmares are coming. That’s how we’ll be getting back to normal with Joe and Kamala, with schoolmarm Jill speaking into Joe’s ear.