hotair--2020-02-08--Graphic feminine products ad rejected by the Oscars committee

It ’ s Oscars time again .
This year the biggest Hollywood awards ceremony has successfully sold out the advertising inventory , thanks to a lack of controversy leading up to the big night .
The usual complaints of the nominees being too white and male is present this year but at least there isn ’ t a scandal over the choice of host – there is no host .
Not only did the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences take the easy way out and just eliminate a host , but it is also continuing down the safe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ceremony .
It ’ s Hollywood ’ s biggest night , you know , and they are hoping that millions of movie lovers will tune in to see who won the awards .
Last year ’ s ceremony drew an audience of 29.6 million viewers but recent years have shown shrinking numbers .
The number of viewers topped 40 million in 2014 and has slid downwards ever since .
There is controversy in the selection of ads this year – or more accurately , an ad that was rejected .
A company @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for their line of postpartum products for new moms .
The ad is graphic in nature , though , and it is easy to see why the committee rejected it .
The graphic part is that a new mom is shown using the bathroom .
Though only part of her belly is exposed , she goes through a routine to comfortably do what she needs to do .
Each step is shown and it ’ s a lot .
If you want to see the ad , you can do that HERE .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ because I don ’ t imagine that most of the male readers are interested in seeing it .
I think this is the conclusion that the Oscars committee came to , too , and took a pass on it .
Frankly , a lot of women would be squeamish about watching it , too .
It is really not appropriate for the Oscars audience .
It has a natural audience on female-oriented networks .
That is not a sexist opinion , it ’ s reality .
The woke crowd in Hollywood has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they do .
Everything is sexist and they are here to fight the patriarchy .
For example , actress and activist Busy Philipps posted the ad on her Instagram account and delivered her hot take .
Elizabeth Banks gave her a high five in response .
“ I legit teared up when I just watched it , ” she wrote on Instagram .
“ I DO believe so strongly that the more we can NORMALIZE A WOMAN ’ S BODILY EXPERIENCE IN MEDIA , the better off our culture and society will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Philipps called out double standards on-air , noting that many viewers “ probably don ’ t even flinch when an Erectile Disfunction ad comes on but THIS AD IS REJECTED ?
!
” “ I think this is an incredible piece of advertising that accurately represents something millions of women know intimately , ” she added .
“ And I ’ m so ( expletive ) sick of living in a society where the act of simply BEING A WOMAN is rejected by the gatekeepers of media .
Well .
Shame on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being human women.
” Here ’ s the problem with Busy ’ s argument – an ad about erectile dysfunction doesn ’ t include such graphic scenes .
Men aren ’ t shown sitting on toilets and they are fully clothed , except for that one where the man and woman are in side-by-side bathtubs but the viewer doesn ’ t see his body .
This isn ’ t a problem because of sexism .
It ’ s a problem because of the audience in general .
The Oscars are supposed to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in formalwear and bejeweled .
The ads reflect that , for the most part .
This year four “ proud sponsors ” each have category exclusivity during the Oscars – Google , Verizon , Rolex , and Cadillac .
The broadcast will air on ABC , a broadcast network , not a cable channel .
The audience will be everyone from senior citizens to elementary school kids .
Every broadcast has guidelines .
While the woke among us think this ad should be seen by anyone and everyone , it falls into the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and a time for everything .
The Oscars isn ’ t that for this ad .
Call me old and out-of-touch .
The Hollywood movers and shakers who made this decision will no doubt receive blowback by our betters who have evolved past worrying about others ’ reactions , but they know that theirs is the right decision .
The products , by the way , look useful .
The company probably does well if they can afford to advertise during the Oscars , given how much advertising time costs during the Oscars @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to $ 2.8 million .
There was no such company advertising their goods to help postpartum women during the days after I gave birth to my now grown adult son .
It ’ s painful and it ’ s disgusting if I ’ m to be honest here .
I fully support any help today ’ s moms can get .
In contrast to all this , M & M ’ s is advertising during this year ’ s ceremony after taking a break for the last five years .
The ads promise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the M & M characters are taking part in the evening ’ s festivities , both on the pre-Oscars red carpet broadcast and during the awards show .
“ We ’ re developing creative with M & M ’ s and with the Academy to feel as if M & M ’ s is reacting in real-time to what ’ s happening in the awards , ” said Jerry Daniello , senior VP of entertainment brand solutions at Disney Advertising Sales .
The push by the Mars Wrigley brand is the latest example @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to stand out during an event with a large audience that is expected to watch live .
Last year , nearly 30 million Americans tuned into the Academy Awards .
The campaign highlights the limited-edition “ messages ” packaging M & M ’ s began rolling out to stores in late January featuring comments meant to be from the spokescandies .
Ahead of the 92nd Academy Awards , M & M ’ s sold 92 kits online meant to be used while watching the show .
The boxes , which featured an applause @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of M & M ’ s and a red carpet-like table runner to use during an Oscars party .
All six of the spokescandies , which go by names based on their colors , such as Mrs. Green , will be featured in the animated spots , Miazga-Bedrick said .
M & M ’ s will also play off of the ideas in the commercials on Twitter during the broadcast and plans to replay some of the spots on YouTube during its digital push after the Oscars .
But Sunday night is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ run on TV .
The ad by Frida Mom isn ’ t appropriate for the Oscars .
It ’ s ok to say that .
A person sitting on the toilet doesn ’ t fit in .
This event won ’ t be the opening of Shameless , you know .
Time and place .

It’s Oscars time again. This year the biggest Hollywood awards ceremony has successfully sold out the advertising inventory, thanks to a lack of controversy leading up to the big night. The usual complaints of the nominees being too white and male is present this year but at least there isn’t a scandal over the choice of host – there is no host.
Not only did the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences take the easy way out and just eliminate a host, but it is also continuing down the safe path in making decisions on advertisers during the ceremony. It’s Hollywood’s biggest night, you know, and they are hoping that millions of movie lovers will tune in to see who won the awards. Last year’s ceremony drew an audience of 29.6 million viewers but recent years have shown shrinking numbers. The number of viewers topped 40 million in 2014 and has slid downwards ever since.
There is controversy in the selection of ads this year – or more accurately, an ad that was rejected. A company called Frida Mom made a 60-second ad for their line of postpartum products for new moms. The ad is graphic in nature, though, and it is easy to see why the committee rejected it. The graphic part is that a new mom is shown using the bathroom. Though only part of her belly is exposed, she goes through a routine to comfortably do what she needs to do. Each step is shown and it’s a lot.
If you want to see the ad, you can do that HERE.
The ad isn’t embedded here because I don’t imagine that most of the male readers are interested in seeing it. I think this is the conclusion that the Oscars committee came to, too, and took a pass on it. Frankly, a lot of women would be squeamish about watching it, too. It is really not appropriate for the Oscars audience. It has a natural audience on female-oriented networks. That is not a sexist opinion, it’s reality.
The woke crowd in Hollywood has been weighing in on social media, as they do. Everything is sexist and they are here to fight the patriarchy. For example, actress and activist Busy Philipps posted the ad on her Instagram account and delivered her hot take. Elizabeth Banks gave her a high five in response.
“I legit teared up when I just watched it,” she wrote on Instagram. “I DO believe so strongly that the more we can NORMALIZE A WOMAN’S BODILY EXPERIENCE IN MEDIA, the better off our culture and society will be. AND YES THAT MEANS ADS TOO.” Philipps called out double standards on-air, noting that many viewers “probably don’t even flinch when an Erectile Disfunction ad comes on but THIS AD IS REJECTED?!” “I think this is an incredible piece of advertising that accurately represents something millions of women know intimately,” she added. “And I’m so (expletive) sick of living in a society where the act of simply BEING A WOMAN is rejected by the gatekeepers of media. Well. Shame on them and NOT on us for simply being human women.” Elizabeth Banks added, “Bravo Busy.”
Here’s the problem with Busy’s argument – an ad about erectile dysfunction doesn’t include such graphic scenes. Men aren’t shown sitting on toilets and they are fully clothed, except for that one where the man and woman are in side-by-side bathtubs but the viewer doesn’t see his body. This isn’t a problem because of sexism. It’s a problem because of the audience in general.
The Oscars are supposed to be a fancy affair. Everyone is dressed in formalwear and bejeweled. The ads reflect that, for the most part. This year four “proud sponsors” each have category exclusivity during the Oscars – Google, Verizon, Rolex, and Cadillac. The broadcast will air on ABC, a broadcast network, not a cable channel. The audience will be everyone from senior citizens to elementary school kids.
Every broadcast has guidelines. While the woke among us think this ad should be seen by anyone and everyone, it falls into the category of there’s a place and a time for everything. The Oscars isn’t that for this ad. Call me old and out-of-touch. The Hollywood movers and shakers who made this decision will no doubt receive blowback by our betters who have evolved past worrying about others’ reactions, but they know that theirs is the right decision.
The products, by the way, look useful. The company probably does well if they can afford to advertise during the Oscars, given how much advertising time costs during the Oscars. Thirty-second spots are going for up to $2.8 million. There was no such company advertising their goods to help postpartum women during the days after I gave birth to my now grown adult son. It’s painful and it’s disgusting if I’m to be honest here. I fully support any help today’s moms can get.
In contrast to all this, M&M’s is advertising during this year’s ceremony after taking a break for the last five years. The ads promise to be innovative with the appearance that the M&M characters are taking part in the evening’s festivities, both on the pre-Oscars red carpet broadcast and during the awards show.
“We’re developing creative with M&M’s and with the Academy to feel as if M&M’s is reacting in real-time to what’s happening in the awards,” said Jerry Daniello, senior VP of entertainment brand solutions at Disney Advertising Sales. The push by the Mars Wrigley brand is the latest example of an advertiser looking for a way to stand out during an event with a large audience that is expected to watch live. Last year, nearly 30 million Americans tuned into the Academy Awards. The campaign highlights the limited-edition “messages” packaging M&M’s began rolling out to stores in late January featuring comments meant to be from the spokescandies. Ahead of the 92nd Academy Awards, M&M’s sold 92 kits online meant to be used while watching the show. The boxes, which featured an applause noise when opened, included 12 packs of M&M’s and a red carpet-like table runner to use during an Oscars party. All six of the spokescandies, which go by names based on their colors, such as Mrs. Green, will be featured in the animated spots, Miazga-Bedrick said. M&M’s will also play off of the ideas in the commercials on Twitter during the broadcast and plans to replay some of the spots on YouTube during its digital push after the Oscars. But Sunday night is the only time the ads are set to run on TV.
They may have been nominated for everything, but we love them anyway. Who are you hoping wins at the #Oscars? Keep an eye out for us too! 😉Pick up your M&M’S Messages in stores or here: https://t.co/n3xDVspBSI pic.twitter.com/efP5Dh6MDR — M&M'S (@mmschocolate) February 7, 2020
Guys… we're a little nervous for our big moment on Sunday. #Oscars pic.twitter.com/LmsQcmWIs3 — M&M'S (@mmschocolate) February 7, 2020
The ad by Frida Mom isn’t appropriate for the Oscars. It’s ok to say that. A person sitting on the toilet doesn’t fit in. This event won’t be the opening of Shameless, you know. Time and place.


hotair--2020-02-08--Chris Matthews: Listen, people, socialism doesn't frickin' work

Via the Daily Wire , I ’ ve seen some weird things during the Trump era and expect to see many more but “ Chris Matthews delivers a red scare on MSNBC after a Democratic debate ” is out of left field even by the new standards .
It ’ d be like a Fox News primetime host attacking the GOP ’ s leadership as a bunch of warmongering crazies .
Wait , what am I saying ?
That happens all the time now .
Anyway .
Matthews is right to worry about socialism , of course , but his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very much Republican-flavored .
That ’ s what ’ s so surprising .
If a Democrat is going to fret about Bernie on MSNBC , you ’ d expect him to do so in terms of the party ’ s bottom line .
Is Sanders electable ?
Can he win a national race with the GOP ’ s messaging machine flaying him for his long embrace of socialism ?
What effect will the sticker price of his programs have on all of those well-heeled suburbanites who turned blue in the 2018 midterms ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ s not what Matthews is worried about .
He ’ s worried about … being executed in Central Park : “ I have my views on the word ‘ socialist , ’ and I ’ ll be glad to share them with you in private and they go back to the early 1950s .
I have an attitude about them , I remember the Cold War , I have an attitude toward Castro , ” Matthews contined .
“ I believe if Castro and the reds had won the Cold War there would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I might have been one of the ones getting executed and certain other people would be there cheering , OK ?
” “ So I have a problem with people who took the other side , ” Matthews continued .
“ I don ’ t know who Bernie supports over these years .
I don ’ t know what he means by ‘ socialism.
’ ” Chris Hayes jumps in to reassure him that Bernie-style socialism is the cuddly Scandinavian kind , not the red-in-tooth-and-claw Cuban variety .
But it wasn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
His progressive allies went to bat for Maduro last year when Trump stood by Juan Guaido , whom Venezuela ’ s legislature had named acting president after a dubious election .
Bernie ’ s DSA fan base treated Jeremy Corbyn as a hero even after multiple Labour MPs quit the party last year to protest his weakness in confronting anti-semitism .
A core left-wing critique of Trump is that he ’ s not merely bad in his own right but that he empowers obnoxious elements in American politics like alt-righters .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — e.g.
, Israel — but he ’ s emboldened them and given them a foothold in mainstream politics that they didn ’ t have recently .
Matthews is turning that around here .
What sort of elements might be emboldened by Bernie ’ s rise to power ?
Stipulate that Sanders himself wouldn ’ t condone violence against opponents for the sake of The Cause .
( Although Matthews might not give him that benefit of the doubt ! )
One of his fans would , and did , three years ago @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to roll the dice on adherents of a notoriously imperious movement like socialism being sticklers about “ norms ” once they get their hands on the controls ?
That ’ s the GOP ’ s argument if Bernie is the nominee .
Like I say , I didn ’ t expect to hear it on MSNBC .
Matthews might have to get used to feeling the Bern , though .
Two new polls out of New Hampshire today show Sanders ahead , one by four points and a second by a more comfortable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has Buttigieg nosing into the lead by a point . )
That second one is especially ominous since it has Bernie inching up to 28 percent and Warren dipping to just nine .
That suggests that progressives who preferred her are writing her off and consolidating behind him ; if the bottom drops out for her , it may convince her to quit the race before Nevada , which would free Sanders to consolidate the lefty vote there too .
If he wins Nevada , suddenly he ’ ll be very hard to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we ’ ve seen anything in the Trump era as weird as “ Mike Bloomberg is the last best hope of saving America from socialism ” but we may be at that point three weeks from now .
Two clips here from last night .

Via the Daily Wire, I’ve seen some weird things during the Trump era and expect to see many more but “Chris Matthews delivers a red scare on MSNBC after a Democratic debate” is out of left field even by the new standards.
It’d be like a Fox News primetime host attacking the GOP’s leadership as a bunch of warmongering crazies.
Wait, what am I saying? That happens all the time now.
Anyway. Matthews is right to worry about socialism, of course, but his critique in the two clips below is very much Republican-flavored. That’s what’s so surprising. If a Democrat is going to fret about Bernie on MSNBC, you’d expect him to do so in terms of the party’s bottom line. Is Sanders electable? Can he win a national race with the GOP’s messaging machine flaying him for his long embrace of socialism? What effect will the sticker price of his programs have on all of those well-heeled suburbanites who turned blue in the 2018 midterms? That sort of thing. That’s not what Matthews is worried about. He’s worried about … being executed in Central Park:
“I have my views on the word ‘socialist,’ and I’ll be glad to share them with you in private and they go back to the early 1950s. I have an attitude about them, I remember the Cold War, I have an attitude toward Castro,” Matthews contined. “I believe if Castro and the reds had won the Cold War there would have been executions in Central Park and I might have been one of the ones getting executed and certain other people would be there cheering, OK?” “So I have a problem with people who took the other side,” Matthews continued. “I don’t know who Bernie supports over these years. I don’t know what he means by ‘socialism.’”
Chris Hayes jumps in to reassure him that Bernie-style socialism is the cuddly Scandinavian kind, not the red-in-tooth-and-claw Cuban variety. But it wasn’t Denmark where Sanders famously chose to honeymoon. His progressive allies went to bat for Maduro last year when Trump stood by Juan Guaido, whom Venezuela’s legislature had named acting president after a dubious election. Bernie’s DSA fan base treated Jeremy Corbyn as a hero even after multiple Labour MPs quit the party last year to protest his weakness in confronting anti-semitism. A core left-wing critique of Trump is that he’s not merely bad in his own right but that he empowers obnoxious elements in American politics like alt-righters. He may disagree with them on discrete issues — e.g., Israel — but he’s emboldened them and given them a foothold in mainstream politics that they didn’t have recently.
Matthews is turning that around here. What sort of elements might be emboldened by Bernie’s rise to power? Stipulate that Sanders himself wouldn’t condone violence against opponents for the sake of The Cause. (Although Matthews might not give him that benefit of the doubt!) One of his fans would, and did, three years ago in an historic way. Who wants to roll the dice on adherents of a notoriously imperious movement like socialism being sticklers about “norms” once they get their hands on the controls?
That’s the GOP’s argument if Bernie is the nominee. Like I say, I didn’t expect to hear it on MSNBC.
Matthews might have to get used to feeling the Bern, though. Two new polls out of New Hampshire today show Sanders ahead, one by four points and a second by a more comfortable seven points. (A third poll has Buttigieg nosing into the lead by a point.) That second one is especially ominous since it has Bernie inching up to 28 percent and Warren dipping to just nine. That suggests that progressives who preferred her are writing her off and consolidating behind him; if the bottom drops out for her, it may convince her to quit the race before Nevada, which would free Sanders to consolidate the lefty vote there too. If he wins Nevada, suddenly he’ll be very hard to stop. I’m not sure we’ve seen anything in the Trump era as weird as “Mike Bloomberg is the last best hope of saving America from socialism” but we may be at that point three weeks from now.
Two clips here from last night.
Video: Watch Chris Matthews GO OFF like a boss (no, I'm not joking) about the dangers of socialism re; Bernie, the pure evil of communism, the legitimate fears of a Red Scare in the Cold War, and how "there would have been executions in Central Park" if they won pic.twitter.com/2XxmZbsJTc — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) February 8, 2020


hotair--2020-02-08--Ilhan Omar would like the GI Bill to apply to everyone

As with so many things these days , it all started with a tweet , this time coming from Minnesota Congresswoman Ilhan Omar .
She was quoting a recent article written by a veteran who favors canceling all student debt and generally handing out all the benefits veterans receive from the GI Bill to everyone in the country .
The responses to this suggestion came in fast and furious , with many objections being offered by other veterans .
The Washington Times runs down the specifics .
Rep. Ilhan Omar caused a social-media stir this week by promoting an article @ @ @ @ @ @ @ original G.I .
Bill ” was applied to legislation for all Americans .
The Minnesota Democrat elicited the ire of veterans and free-market supporters after sharing an AlterNet piece by Will Fischer — a Marine veteran — titled “ A veteran explains why we need a new version of the G.I .
Bill — for everyone.
” … Critics pointed out that underlying costs will always be paid by individuals despite public officials offering “ free ” resources .
After the responses started coming in ( see Twitchy for a more complete list @ @ @ @ @ @ @ media platform to complain that it wasn ’ t her saying this .
She was quoting the author of the article .
Not for nothing , but that ’ s a rather weak excuse at best .
She was obviously endorsing the idea by promoting the article with a quote and a link .
If you look at her Twitter profile , Omar doesn ’ t even bother including the default “ RT does not = endorsement ” disclaimer .
But that ’ s not really the point here .
What we ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s author ’ s idea about applying the GI Bill to everyone .
As it happens , I received the benefits of the old – old GI Bill .
I enlisted shortly after turning 17 on the Delayed Enlistment Program in 1976 , partly because the original GI Bill was being trimmed down considerably the following year .
( It was thankfully given significant improvements again in 2011 . )
It provided not only college tuition assistance , but mortgage guarantees for your first home and a variety of other bonuses .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ big help after leaving the service .
It ’ s also important to note that these benefits aren ’ t cheap .
The government spends a fair amount to provide these benefits .
Now imagine doing that for all 350 million-plus people in the country .
The great fallacy in the “ generosity ” in many of the plans being proposed by Democrats today is the idea that anything is ever actually “ free.
” Someone always has to pay the bills , and that winds up being the taxpayers .
There is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ money to operate a college .
“ Canceled ” loan debt doesn ’ t simply disappear .
The ledgers have to be balanced somewhere , and yet again , it ’ s the taxpayers that will foot the bill .
But most importantly , as many attempted to point out to Ilhan Omar , benefits offered by the GI Bill aren ’ t “ free ” to those receiving them .
They are offered in recognition of those who wore the uniform and put their lives on the line for their country .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ money or other material rewards .
( The starting pay for an E-1 when I enlisted was $ 397 per month . )
Nobody is “ giving ” these men and women anything .
They earned it .
And it disregards that service to suggest that everyone in the country is somehow entitled to the same rewards .

As with so many things these days, it all started with a tweet, this time coming from Minnesota Congresswoman Ilhan Omar. She was quoting a recent article written by a veteran who favors canceling all student debt and generally handing out all the benefits veterans receive from the GI Bill to everyone in the country.
“Imagine what it would do for our country and those who live here if we were to take the ethos behind the original G.I. Bill and apply it to everybody—canceling all student debt and making public colleges, universities, and vocational schools tuition-free.” 💪🏽 https://t.co/P6LNRv6h9w — Ilhan Omar (@IlhanMN) February 7, 2020
The responses to this suggestion came in fast and furious, with many objections being offered by other veterans. The Washington Times runs down the specifics.
Rep. Ilhan Omar caused a social-media stir this week by promoting an article in which “the ethos behind the original G.I. Bill” was applied to legislation for all Americans. The Minnesota Democrat elicited the ire of veterans and free-market supporters after sharing an AlterNet piece by Will Fischer — a Marine veteran — titled “A veteran explains why we need a new version of the G.I. Bill — for everyone.” … Critics pointed out that underlying costs will always be paid by individuals despite public officials offering “free” resources.
After the responses started coming in (see Twitchy for a more complete list), Omar returned to the social media platform to complain that it wasn’t her saying this. She was quoting the author of the article.
🤔 The number of people in my mentions and writers for rightwing blogs who don’t understand what quotations marks mean is astonishing. These are the words of the veteran who inked this op-ed , not mine. Don’t deny him the opportunity to have his voice amplified. https://t.co/nk92A26mcr — Ilhan Omar (@IlhanMN) February 7, 2020
Not for nothing, but that’s a rather weak excuse at best. She was obviously endorsing the idea by promoting the article with a quote and a link. If you look at her Twitter profile, Omar doesn’t even bother including the default “RT does not = endorsement” disclaimer. But that’s not really the point here. What we’re talking about is the article’s author’s idea about applying the GI Bill to everyone.
As it happens, I received the benefits of the old – old GI Bill. I enlisted shortly after turning 17 on the Delayed Enlistment Program in 1976, partly because the original GI Bill was being trimmed down considerably the following year. (It was thankfully given significant improvements again in 2011.) It provided not only college tuition assistance, but mortgage guarantees for your first home and a variety of other bonuses. I’ll freely admit it was a big help after leaving the service.
It’s also important to note that these benefits aren’t cheap. The government spends a fair amount to provide these benefits. Now imagine doing that for all 350 million-plus people in the country. The great fallacy in the “generosity” in many of the plans being proposed by Democrats today is the idea that anything is ever actually “free.” Someone always has to pay the bills, and that winds up being the taxpayers. There is no free college tuition because it costs money to operate a college. “Canceled” loan debt doesn’t simply disappear. The ledgers have to be balanced somewhere, and yet again, it’s the taxpayers that will foot the bill.
But most importantly, as many attempted to point out to Ilhan Omar, benefits offered by the GI Bill aren’t “free” to those receiving them. They are offered in recognition of those who wore the uniform and put their lives on the line for their country. And they did it for very little money or other material rewards. (The starting pay for an E-1 when I enlisted was $397 per month.) Nobody is “giving” these men and women anything. They earned it. And it disregards that service to suggest that everyone in the country is somehow entitled to the same rewards.


hotair--2020-02-08--MSNBC host: We need to stop gerrymandering Senate elections, or something

Too easy ?
Naaah , because this faceplant goes further than the truly obvious gaffe .
This conversation between MSNBC ’ s Katy Tur and Washington Post reporter Philip Bump uncovers a far deeper problem than the civic ignorance displayed in attempting to blame gerrymandering for an outcome in the Senate — where House districts don ’ t play a role at all .
It gets to the heart of a fundamental misunderstanding about the Senate ’ s role , and why conviction on impeachment is one place where “ the majority doesn ’ t always rule ” by design @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bump ’ s article in the Post that helpfully points out the entirely irrelevant voting statistics behind the final vote on impeachment : In case you missed it ?
The supermajority requirement for conviction is explicitly stated in the Constitution , so the only way to miss that is to not read the text .
We ’ ll get back to that at the end , but let ’ s take a look at the other argument in Tur ’ s statement , one which Bump made on Wednesday .
The argument goes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Trump , but 69 million voted for the Senators who voted to convict .
Those 63 million people , the people who backed Trump in the 2016 presidential contest , were presented as being at risk of having their presidential vote thrown out .
For the Senate to vote to convict Trump on the charges presented by the House would be nothing short of an undoing of the election that brought Trump to power , his attorneys argued .
What that calculus ignores , of course , is that Trump is not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mandate of voters .
In 2018 , voters handed Democrats a majority in the House , providing enough votes for the party to impeach Trump for his efforts to pressure Ukraine .
The members of the House who supported the first article of impeachment received about 38.5 million votes in 2018 — over 6 million more votes than were cast for members who opposed the article .
In the Senate , the difference was even more stark .
Nearly 69 million votes were cast for senators who supported removing Trump from office based @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about 12 million more votes than were received by senators who opposed his removal .
No one ’ s disputing the fact that Democrats won the House and the power of impeachment , which is constitutionally set for a simple majority in the lower chamber .
One could argue — although Democrats claimed not to be running on this issue at the time — that the 2018 midterm was some sort of referendum on impeachment to justify the House ’ s actions .
( It ’ s more likely that 2020 will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s still an arguable point . )
Ascribing that kind of referendum to the Senate , however , is just nutty .
All 435 House seats were up for election in 2018 , but only roughly a third of the current Senate won an election in which Trump was president .
Two-thirds of them won their last election in either 2014 or 2016 , well before Trump took any presidential action at all .
Voters cast those votes , even in the 2016 election , well before anyone knew Trump would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate seats in the 2018 midterms as more red states had Democratic incumbents losing their offices .
Plus , Bump makes the data classification error of assuming that every voter in each state supports or opposes removal based on the outcome of the Senate election .
The reality is more nuanced than that — much more nuanced .
But even if we credit that idea to the current composition of the Senate and the idea that Senators are supposed to reflect direct popular will ( another fallacy ) , 69 million only accounts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last election , and for that matter about 30 % or less of all Americans .
The Constitution requires a two-thirds supermajority to remove a president from office , a requirement added precisely to counter the very pressure Tur and Bump are citing .
The removal by the legislature of a duly and directly elected president by the people is so grave and so potentially dangerous that the founders wanted to make sure that it never happened without a broad , cross-partisan consensus .
To do otherwise would create an unstable , quasi-parliamentary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ negate any credibility for presidential elections .
The founders were more concerned about populist anger over presidential policies and geographical interests aligning against the executive more than one party of an entrenched two-party system , of course .
The dangers of partisan removals based on brute-force majoritarianism remain the same regardless of the point of division , however , and so does the high bar for removal , for very good reason .
Even using Bump ’ s 55 % calculation and Tur ’ s argument , there was no such consensus .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ on which both rest their case explicitly relies on partisan affiliation to argue that the vote should have gone to removal , in effect proving why the two-thirds bar exists in the first place .
This brings us back to the embarrassing moment when Tur wonders whether gerrymandering has anything to do with the Senate ’ s purported failure to directly represent the overall popular sentiment : TUR : So what ’ s the resolution to that ?
Is gerrymandering something that would help improve the situation ?
Is – how does that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate or even in the House ?
BUMP : Well , I mean , the only resolution – gerrymandering is not going to do anything because in the Senate we ’ re talking about states , right ?
BUMP : You can ’ t gerrymander states .
The only solution is for Democrats to appeal to voters in those states , right ?
Go figure .
Besides , the Senate was not supposed to represent overall popular will in the first place , but the interests of the states as balanced against ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the House .
That springs from the sovereignty of the states recognized in the constitutional framework and the restrictions on federal power included in the Constitution .
The 17th Amendment blurred that distinction , but it still exists and still works to allow smaller states some protection against being steamrollered by more populous states .
Finally , Bump ’ s point at the end is the real question .
Just how much appeal will Democrats ’ obsession with impeachment have for voters in the next election ?
And when will media outlets start @ @ @ @ @ @ @ talent ?

Too easy? Naaah, because this faceplant goes further than the truly obvious gaffe. This conversation between MSNBC’s Katy Tur and Washington Post reporter Philip Bump uncovers a far deeper problem than the civic ignorance displayed in attempting to blame gerrymandering for an outcome in the Senate — where House districts don’t play a role at all. It gets to the heart of a fundamental misunderstanding about the Senate’s role, and why conviction on impeachment is one place where “the majority doesn’t always rule” by design.
Via Newsbusters, Tur launches off Bump’s article in the Post that helpfully points out the entirely irrelevant voting statistics behind the final vote on impeachment:
TUR: In case you missed it, majority doesn’t always rule in this country. Forty-eight senators voted to remove the President from office. Fifty-two voted to acquit. But the 48 actually represent 12 million more voters than the senators who decided to keep Donald Trump in the White House.
In case you missed it? The supermajority requirement for conviction is explicitly stated in the Constitution, so the only way to miss that is to not read the text. We’ll get back to that at the end, but let’s take a look at the other argument in Tur’s statement, one which Bump made on Wednesday. The argument goes like this: 63 million people voted for Trump, but 69 million voted for the Senators who voted to convict.
And … so?
Those 63 million people, the people who backed Trump in the 2016 presidential contest, were presented as being at risk of having their presidential vote thrown out. For the Senate to vote to convict Trump on the charges presented by the House would be nothing short of an undoing of the election that brought Trump to power, his attorneys argued. What that calculus ignores, of course, is that Trump is not the only person who serves with a mandate of voters. In 2018, voters handed Democrats a majority in the House, providing enough votes for the party to impeach Trump for his efforts to pressure Ukraine. The members of the House who supported the first article of impeachment received about 38.5 million votes in 2018 — over 6 million more votes than were cast for members who opposed the article. In the Senate, the difference was even more stark. Nearly 69 million votes were cast for senators who supported removing Trump from office based on that first article of impeachment, about 12 million more votes than were received by senators who opposed his removal.
No one’s disputing the fact that Democrats won the House and the power of impeachment, which is constitutionally set for a simple majority in the lower chamber. One could argue — although Democrats claimed not to be running on this issue at the time — that the 2018 midterm was some sort of referendum on impeachment to justify the House’s actions. (It’s more likely that 2020 will be a referendum on it, but it’s still an arguable point.)
Ascribing that kind of referendum to the Senate, however, is just nutty. All 435 House seats were up for election in 2018, but only roughly a third of the current Senate won an election in which Trump was president. Two-thirds of them won their last election in either 2014 or 2016, well before Trump took any presidential action at all. Voters cast those votes, even in the 2016 election, well before anyone knew Trump would be president.
Furthermore, Republicans actually gained Senate seats in the 2018 midterms as more red states had Democratic incumbents losing their offices. Plus, Bump makes the data classification error of assuming that every voter in each state supports or opposes removal based on the outcome of the Senate election. The reality is more nuanced than that — much more nuanced.
But even if we credit that idea to the current composition of the Senate and the idea that Senators are supposed to reflect direct popular will (another fallacy), 69 million only accounts for 55% of voters in the last election, and for that matter about 30% or less of all Americans. The Constitution requires a two-thirds supermajority to remove a president from office, a requirement added precisely to counter the very pressure Tur and Bump are citing.
The removal by the legislature of a duly and directly elected president by the people is so grave and so potentially dangerous that the founders wanted to make sure that it never happened without a broad, cross-partisan consensus. To do otherwise would create an unstable, quasi-parliamentary system in which immediate populist passions would negate any credibility for presidential elections. The founders were more concerned about populist anger over presidential policies and geographical interests aligning against the executive more than one party of an entrenched two-party system, of course. The dangers of partisan removals based on brute-force majoritarianism remain the same regardless of the point of division, however, and so does the high bar for removal, for very good reason.
Even using Bump’s 55% calculation and Tur’s argument, there was no such consensus. In fact, the 55% calculation on which both rest their case explicitly relies on partisan affiliation to argue that the vote should have gone to removal, in effect proving why the two-thirds bar exists in the first place.
This brings us back to the embarrassing moment when Tur wonders whether gerrymandering has anything to do with the Senate’s purported failure to directly represent the overall popular sentiment:
TUR: So what’s the resolution to that? Is gerrymandering something that would help improve the situation? Is – how does that sort of divide promote consensus in the Senate or even in the House? BUMP: Well, I mean, the only resolution – gerrymandering is not going to do anything because in the Senate we’re talking about states, right? TUR: Yeah. BUMP: You can’t gerrymander states. The only solution is for Democrats to appeal to voters in those states, right?
Go figure. Besides, the Senate was not supposed to represent overall popular will in the first place, but the interests of the states as balanced against (if necessary) the popular will in the House. That springs from the sovereignty of the states recognized in the constitutional framework and the restrictions on federal power included in the Constitution. The 17th Amendment blurred that distinction, but it still exists and still works to allow smaller states some protection against being steamrollered by more populous states.
Finally, Bump’s point at the end is the real question. Just how much appeal will Democrats’ obsession with impeachment have for voters in the next election? And when will media outlets start providing remedial civics courses for their on-air talent?


hotair--2020-02-08--College admissions scandal: Former Pimco CEO is going to prison

On Friday Douglas Hodge , former CEO of Pacific Investment Management Co. ( Pimco ) , faced U.S. District Judge Nathaniel Gorton in court in Boston .
It did not go well for him .
He received a prison sentence of nine months , the longest sentence handed down so far in the Operation Varsity Blues scandal .
Hodge is a serial abuser of the college admissions process .
Mr. Hodge paid $ 850,000 to William “ Rick ” Singer to get four of his children accepted into Georgetown and USC and was in the process of doing the same @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 36 parents charged in this scandal , he shelled out the most money to cheat the college admissions system .
His fine of $ 750,000 is less than the amount he spent to participate in Singer ’ s scheme .
Hodge also was sentenced to two years of supervised release and 500 hours of community service .
Last October Hodges pleaded guilty to charges of fraud conspiracy and money-laundering conspiracy .
He also admitted to working with Mr. Singer for over ten years .
Apparently he didn ’ t go the way of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ falsify a standardized test result for his kid ( like actress Felicity Huffman did ) – he went the route of phony athletic scholarships , though none of them are athletic students .
He was working on getting his fifth child into Loyola Marymount University .
The judge was so disgusted with him that he couldn ’ t even find a word strong enough to use in English and turned to Yiddish .
Hodge threw himself at the mercy of the court by apologizing and accepting blame while his attorney , Brien O @ @ @ @ @ @ @ end of the sentencing guidelines requested by the prosecution .
Prosecutors asked for two years in prison , three years of supervised release , a $ 200,000 fine and 300 hours of community service .
O ’ Connor spoke about Hodge ’ s charitable work in education and over $ 30 million in contributions to various organizations between 2007 and 2018 .
Mr. Hodge gave a tearful apology in court and , after the judge imposed his sentence , hugged a friend who had come with him .
“ I know my actions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be in this world , ” he told the judge .
“ I know that I unfairly , and ultimately illegally , tipped the scales in favor of my children over others , over the hopes and dreams of other parents , who had the same aspirations for their children as I did for mine , ” Mr. Hodge said in court Friday .
He said he wasn ’ t driven by ego , but rather sought to give his own children a transformative educational experience like he had received .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ saying they “ did nothing to deserve the consequences they have suffered as a result of my actions.
” That may be important further down the line if prosecutors choose to punish the students involved .
It has been mentioned that if they were actively a part of the scheme then they may be held accountable , too .
I don ’ t think that will happen .
Noting the disconnect of Hodge ’ s request for leniency because he used his wealth for good works , besides buying access for his kids @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Connell acknowledged those good works .
Then he argued that while that is all well and good , Hodge ’ s behavior when it came to his own kids was arrogant and indicating he lived as though the rules don ’ t apply to him .
Hodge hurt students who may have been qualified to take the slots his children took .
So , the judge gave Hodge a 9-month sentence in prison instead of a one year sentence as a nod to his past philanthropic works .
It is the longest sentence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ admissions fraud scandal .
He called Hodge a “ common thief.
” And , he denied the request by Hodge ’ s attorney to split his sentence and home confinement .
Hodge lives in a mansion in Laguna Beach , California so home confinement is no punishment at all .
To add insult to injury , one year Hodge even took a tax deduction for some of his bribes .
That seems like a sloppy mistake if he was trying to keep his actions under the radar .
Why open himself up to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ six more parents who have pleaded guilty and await sentencing .
Fifteen parents , like actress Lori Loughlin and Mossimo Giannulli , pleaded not guilty and await trial .

On Friday Douglas Hodge, former CEO of Pacific Investment Management Co. (Pimco), faced U.S. District Judge Nathaniel Gorton in court in Boston. It did not go well for him. He received a prison sentence of nine months, the longest sentence handed down so far in the Operation Varsity Blues scandal.
Hodge is a serial abuser of the college admissions process. Mr. Hodge paid $850,000 to William “Rick” Singer to get four of his children accepted into Georgetown and USC and was in the process of doing the same for his fifth child. Of the 36 parents charged in this scandal, he shelled out the most money to cheat the college admissions system. His fine of $750,000 is less than the amount he spent to participate in Singer’s scheme. Hodge also was sentenced to two years of supervised release and 500 hours of community service.
Last October Hodges pleaded guilty to charges of fraud conspiracy and money-laundering conspiracy. He also admitted to working with Mr. Singer for over ten years. Apparently he didn’t go the way of some parents by just hiring someone to falsify a standardized test result for his kid (like actress Felicity Huffman did) – he went the route of phony athletic scholarships, though none of them are athletic students. He was working on getting his fifth child into Loyola Marymount University.
The judge was so disgusted with him that he couldn’t even find a word strong enough to use in English and turned to Yiddish.
“Mr. Hodge, your conduct in this whole sordid affair is appalling and mind-boggling,” U.S. District Judge Nathaniel Gorton told the father in front of a packed courtroom. “There is no term in the English language that describes your conduct as well as the Yiddish term of chutzpah.”
Hodge threw himself at the mercy of the court by apologizing and accepting blame while his attorney, Brien O’Connor, argued for the lower end of the sentencing guidelines requested by the prosecution. Prosecutors asked for two years in prison, three years of supervised release, a $200,000 fine and 300 hours of community service. O’Connor spoke about Hodge’s charitable work in education and over $30 million in contributions to various organizations between 2007 and 2018.
Mr. Hodge gave a tearful apology in court and, after the judge imposed his sentence, hugged a friend who had come with him. “I know my actions were inconsistent with the person I tried to be in this world,” he told the judge. “I know that I unfairly, and ultimately illegally, tipped the scales in favor of my children over others, over the hopes and dreams of other parents, who had the same aspirations for their children as I did for mine,” Mr. Hodge said in court Friday. He said he wasn’t driven by ego, but rather sought to give his own children a transformative educational experience like he had received.
He also tried to protect his children by saying they “did nothing to deserve the consequences they have suffered as a result of my actions.” That may be important further down the line if prosecutors choose to punish the students involved. It has been mentioned that if they were actively a part of the scheme then they may be held accountable, too. I don’t think that will happen.
Noting the disconnect of Hodge’s request for leniency because he used his wealth for good works, besides buying access for his kids, Assistant U.S. Attorney Justin O’Connell acknowledged those good works. Then he argued that while that is all well and good, Hodge’s behavior when it came to his own kids was arrogant and indicating he lived as though the rules don’t apply to him. Hodge hurt students who may have been qualified to take the slots his children took.
So, the judge gave Hodge a 9-month sentence in prison instead of a one year sentence as a nod to his past philanthropic works. It is the longest sentence delivered so far in the national college admissions fraud scandal. He called Hodge a “common thief.” And, he denied the request by Hodge’s attorney to split his sentence and home confinement. Hodge lives in a mansion in Laguna Beach, California so home confinement is no punishment at all.
To add insult to injury, one year Hodge even took a tax deduction for some of his bribes. That seems like a sloppy mistake if he was trying to keep his actions under the radar. Why open himself up to the feds like that?
O’Connell also noted that one year, during which Hodge reported $26 million in income, “he took a tax deduction off for his $200,000 bribe.” “Hodge couldn’t even be bothered to pay his full bribe, passing off part of that bill to the American taxpayer,” O’Connell said.
There are six more parents who have pleaded guilty and await sentencing. Fifteen parents, like actress Lori Loughlin and Mossimo Giannulli, pleaded not guilty and await trial.


hotair--2020-02-08--Clyburn: Maybe Perez isn't the right guy to run the DNC

For some reason , the recent debacle at the Iowa caucuses has brought renewed focus on Tom Perez ’ s leadership at the DNC .
One of the people raising questions ( though not yet calling for the chairman ’ s ouster ) is Congressman James Clyburn ( SC ) .
In addition to the chaos in Iowa , Clyburn also expressed his concerns over the apparent rejection of all the candidates of color from the Democratic primary field , leaving only a small group of white men and one elderly white woman as the frontrunners .
He described some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Congressional Black Caucus after Harris and Booker dropped out .
( Associated Press ) A top Democrat in Congress said Friday the party ’ s future under Tom Perez is under scrutiny amid fallout from the Iowa caucuses and the winnowing of the presidential primary field to the exclusion of candidates of color .
Rep. Jim Clyburn of South Carolina , the third-ranking House Democrat , stopped short of saying Perez must go as leader of the Democratic National Committee .
“ There are some serious discussions taking place here on Capitol Hill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the DNC , ” Clyburn said in the interview .
Clyburn goes on to bring up how the debate qualification guidelines were structured as part of the “ serious discussions ” going on about the DNC in Congress .
It ’ s a rare day when you ’ ll find me coming out and defending Tom Perez , but I can ’ t help feeling like Clyburn is off base here in his criticisms .
The problems he ’ s talking about are all valid points for Democrats to discuss , I suppose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of these things on Perez ’ s leadership seems off the mark .
For example , the Iowa caucuses were , without a doubt , a complete clusterfork once again .
But the DNC had been offering to help them all through the process .
The Iowa state Democratic Party made the decision to go their own way when setting the rules and using that failure of a phone app .
Unless Clyburn is suggesting that the national party should just run roughshod over the state parties to structure the caucuses and primary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and impossible ) , there wasn ’ t much more Perez could have done .
As far as the lack of candidates of color among the remaining frontrunners , Perez only gets one vote in the primary and he has no control over how people respond when the pollsters come calling or who they donate their money to .
Most of the candidates who have dropped out thus far just didn ’ t seem very good at running a campaign ( Harris ) or simply weren ’ t making a splash with primary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Clyburn is trying to imply that there ’ s some sort of underlying racism to blame for the lack of support they received , he needs to take a long hard look at his own party .
It was Democrats responding to all of those polls and voting in Iowa .
If he wants to claim they ’ re a bunch of racists , so be it .
But , again , that ’ s not under the control of Tom Perez .
I suppose an argument could be made that the debates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would rest of the DNC chair ’ s shoulders .
But someone will have to explain how they could have been handled better or more “ fairly.
” As you ’ ll recall , the early debates included so many people that they had to be split over two nights , with as many as twenty people in total up on the stage .
Those qualification requirements weren ’ t exactly steep for anyone with a bit of name recognition and the ability to put together a competent campaign staff .
And that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ diversity ” in terms of what Clyburn is talking about .
Making the debates even larger would have been a disaster .
Some of the candidates barely got to speak for five minutes out of a full hour .
Making them smaller would likely have eliminated at least some of the candidates Clyburn is mourning .
Harris was the only one that was ever up near the top of the polling stack .
And once everyone had a chance to make their pitch , it was the Democrats responding to polling calls who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hopefuls , not Tom Perez .
It seems as if the bar has been lowered quite a ways in terms of how many people can mount a successful primary bid these days .
And that ’ s probably more due to the rise of social media than anything else .
In the bad old days , you needed a massive fundraising network and a lot of experience and national exposure to even dip a toe into the pool .
But now , with enough clever work on Twitter , Facebook , and YouTube @ @ @ @ @ @ @ relatively small city can catch fire and have a chance .
That ’ s gives us larger crowds seeking the nomination and more chaotic debates .
But , again , none of this can really be pinned on Tom Perez .

For some reason, the recent debacle at the Iowa caucuses has brought renewed focus on Tom Perez’s leadership at the DNC. One of the people raising questions (though not yet calling for the chairman’s ouster) is Congressman James Clyburn (SC). In addition to the chaos in Iowa, Clyburn also expressed his concerns over the apparent rejection of all the candidates of color from the Democratic primary field, leaving only a small group of white men and one elderly white woman as the frontrunners. He described some “very raw feelings” in the Congressional Black Caucus after Harris and Booker dropped out. (Associated Press)
A top Democrat in Congress said Friday the party’s future under Tom Perez is under scrutiny amid fallout from the Iowa caucuses and the winnowing of the presidential primary field to the exclusion of candidates of color. Rep. Jim Clyburn of South Carolina, the third-ranking House Democrat, stopped short of saying Perez must go as leader of the Democratic National Committee. “That’s a decision for him,” he said… “There are some serious discussions taking place here on Capitol Hill as to what ought to happen at the DNC,” Clyburn said in the interview.
Clyburn goes on to bring up how the debate qualification guidelines were structured as part of the “serious discussions” going on about the DNC in Congress.
It’s a rare day when you’ll find me coming out and defending Tom Perez, but I can’t help feeling like Clyburn is off base here in his criticisms. The problems he’s talking about are all valid points for Democrats to discuss, I suppose, but pinning the blame for all of these things on Perez’s leadership seems off the mark. For example, the Iowa caucuses were, without a doubt, a complete clusterfork once again. But the DNC had been offering to help them all through the process. The Iowa state Democratic Party made the decision to go their own way when setting the rules and using that failure of a phone app. Unless Clyburn is suggesting that the national party should just run roughshod over the state parties to structure the caucuses and primary elections (which is likely both illegal and impossible), there wasn’t much more Perez could have done.
As far as the lack of candidates of color among the remaining frontrunners, Perez only gets one vote in the primary and he has no control over how people respond when the pollsters come calling or who they donate their money to. Most of the candidates who have dropped out thus far just didn’t seem very good at running a campaign (Harris) or simply weren’t making a splash with primary voters (Booker). If James Clyburn is trying to imply that there’s some sort of underlying racism to blame for the lack of support they received, he needs to take a long hard look at his own party. It was Democrats responding to all of those polls and voting in Iowa. If he wants to claim they’re a bunch of racists, so be it. But, again, that’s not under the control of Tom Perez.
I suppose an argument could be made that the debates could have been handled better and that would rest of the DNC chair’s shoulders. But someone will have to explain how they could have been handled better or more “fairly.” As you’ll recall, the early debates included so many people that they had to be split over two nights, with as many as twenty people in total up on the stage. Those qualification requirements weren’t exactly steep for anyone with a bit of name recognition and the ability to put together a competent campaign staff. And that initial field did have plenty of “diversity” in terms of what Clyburn is talking about.
Making the debates even larger would have been a disaster. Some of the candidates barely got to speak for five minutes out of a full hour. Making them smaller would likely have eliminated at least some of the candidates Clyburn is mourning. Harris was the only one that was ever up near the top of the polling stack. And once everyone had a chance to make their pitch, it was the Democrats responding to polling calls who sealed the fate of the bottom tier hopefuls, not Tom Perez.
It seems as if the bar has been lowered quite a ways in terms of how many people can mount a successful primary bid these days. And that’s probably more due to the rise of social media than anything else. In the bad old days, you needed a massive fundraising network and a lot of experience and national exposure to even dip a toe into the pool. But now, with enough clever work on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube, somebody like the mayor of a relatively small city can catch fire and have a chance. That’s gives us larger crowds seeking the nomination and more chaotic debates. But, again, none of this can really be pinned on Tom Perez.


hotair--2020-02-08--Not ONE Dem candidate would have taken out Soleimani

Of the many topics covered at last night ’ s debate in New Hampshire , one of the more jarring moments came when the subject of taking out terrorist kingpin Qassem Soleimani was brought up .
The responses of the various Democrats on stage offer a peek at what you can expect in terms of foreign policy and military matters if one of this crew winds up taking a seat in the Oval Office and the situation room .
Not one of them would have made the call to help Soleimani shuffle off this mortal coil .
Mayor Pete at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Soleimani was “ a bad guy.
” But he then claimed that “ taking out a bad guy is a bad idea if you do not know what you ’ re doing.
” Oh , really ?
Seems to me that our military knew precisely what they were doing .
They knew where Soleimani was , where he was heading and took him out with a single drone shot .
And the collateral damage was minimal .
He also referenced learning lessons from Iraq in that context .
Was he implying that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Is he aware that Hussein was executed by his own people , not the Americans ?
Next , we get to Joe Biden .
Biden simply says he wouldn ’ t have ordered the strike because “ there ’ s no evidence yet of an imminent threat that was going to come from [ Soleimani ] .
” Two points about that response should have been obvious .
First of all , Biden has been out of office for more than three years .
He ’ s not getting the daily intelligence briefings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Soleimani couldn ’ t be released to the public because it could have exposed sources and methods .
So Joe Biden has no way of knowing conclusively about any imminent threats .
And second , the President can and should make the argument that an imminent threat wasn ’ t even required .
The amount of blood on the hands of Soleimani and the Quds Force could be used to paint a mural the size of Texas .
At some point , you run out of second chances .
We ’ d been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ since the Bush 43 administration .
The opportunity came to take him out and Trump took it .
You ’ ll also recall that Joe Biden disagreed with Barack Obama about the raid to take out Osama bin Laden .
Sounds like bad guys around the world should sleep well at night if Joe Biden is elected .
Let ’ s also get Bernie Sanders ’ take on the question .
Bernie believes you can ’ t “ go around saying you ’ re a bad guy and we ’ re going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , would lead to “ international anarchy.
” He would also prefer that such matters be handled through stronger diplomacy at the State Department .
Perhaps he ’ s pining for the good old days of the Obama administration and thinks Iran will behave better if we go back to sending them pallets of cash .
We all saw how that worked out during the previous administration .
Notice how Sanders , along with many other Democrats , chooses to use the word “ assassination ” when referring to the death of Soleimani @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of public figure deserving of respect .
The General wasn ’ t assassinated .
He was a battlefield casualty in the war on terror and a very high-value target .
This crew has demonstrated that they ’ re basically carbon copies of each other on many key issues .
As for the current topic of discussion , they are soft on crime domestically ( with calls for criminal justice reform and emptying the prisons ) and soft on terror both at home and abroad .
And if voters want to pick one of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the whirlwind we ’ ll reap from that decision .

Of the many topics covered at last night’s debate in New Hampshire, one of the more jarring moments came when the subject of taking out terrorist kingpin Qassem Soleimani was brought up. The responses of the various Democrats on stage offer a peek at what you can expect in terms of foreign policy and military matters if one of this crew winds up taking a seat in the Oval Office and the situation room. Not one of them would have made the call to help Soleimani shuffle off this mortal coil.
Here’s Pete Buttigieg.
Pete Buttigieg says if he was president, terrorist leader Soleimani would still be alivehttps://t.co/xVJmOgtiEV pic.twitter.com/FE3YFyYExs — RNC Research (@RNCResearch) February 8, 2020
Mayor Pete at least went so far as to say that Soleimani was “a bad guy.” But he then claimed that “taking out a bad guy is a bad idea if you do not know what you’re doing.” Oh, really? Seems to me that our military knew precisely what they were doing. They knew where Soleimani was, where he was heading and took him out with a single drone shot. And the collateral damage was minimal. He also referenced learning lessons from Iraq in that context. Was he implying that Saddam Hussein should still be alive? Is he aware that Hussein was executed by his own people, not the Americans?
Next, we get to Joe Biden.
Joe Biden, who opposed the raid on Osama bin Laden, says he would not have ordered the strike on terrorist leader Soleimanihttps://t.co/5noRYCqs6w pic.twitter.com/PKHHGXSCWR — RNC Research (@RNCResearch) February 8, 2020
Biden simply says he wouldn’t have ordered the strike because “there’s no evidence yet of an imminent threat that was going to come from [Soleimani].” Two points about that response should have been obvious. First of all, Biden has been out of office for more than three years. He’s not getting the daily intelligence briefings anymore. Much of the intelligence about Soleimani couldn’t be released to the public because it could have exposed sources and methods. So Joe Biden has no way of knowing conclusively about any imminent threats.
And second, the President can and should make the argument that an imminent threat wasn’t even required. The amount of blood on the hands of Soleimani and the Quds Force could be used to paint a mural the size of Texas. At some point, you run out of second chances. We’d been trying to track Soleimani’s movements since the Bush 43 administration. The opportunity came to take him out and Trump took it. You’ll also recall that Joe Biden disagreed with Barack Obama about the raid to take out Osama bin Laden. Sounds like bad guys around the world should sleep well at night if Joe Biden is elected.
Let’s also get Bernie Sanders’ take on the question.
Bernie Sanders claims killing a terrorist leader plotting to kill Americans creates "international anarchy"https://t.co/supAISr8pn pic.twitter.com/CynsTF7O4C — RNC Research (@RNCResearch) February 8, 2020
Bernie believes you can’t “go around saying you’re a bad guy and we’re going to assassinate you.” That, he believes, would lead to “international anarchy.” He would also prefer that such matters be handled through stronger diplomacy at the State Department. Perhaps he’s pining for the good old days of the Obama administration and thinks Iran will behave better if we go back to sending them pallets of cash. We all saw how that worked out during the previous administration.
Notice how Sanders, along with many other Democrats, chooses to use the word “assassination” when referring to the death of Soleimani, as if he was some sort of public figure deserving of respect. The General wasn’t assassinated. He was a battlefield casualty in the war on terror and a very high-value target.
This crew has demonstrated that they’re basically carbon copies of each other on many key issues. As for the current topic of discussion, they are soft on crime domestically (with calls for criminal justice reform and emptying the prisons) and soft on terror both at home and abroad. And if voters want to pick one of them this November they will fully deserve the whirlwind we’ll reap from that decision.


hotair--2020-02-07--Live at 8 p.m. ET: The "everyone get Pete" debate

No one ’ s watching tonight to see an argument about policy .
Those differences , minor as they are between candidates , have already been hashed and rehashed in the umpteen previous debates .
The only reason to watch is drama .
We might get some drama .
The reason , of course , is that no fewer than three credible big-name candidates are on the brink of being taken off the board 38-year-old ex-mayor Alfred E. Neuman of South Bend , a guy who ’ s never won statewide nor federal office , whom no one outside of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to late 2018 .
Buttigieg seemed to have had his moment in the sun in primary polling back in December , when he led in Iowa , but then began to decline in January as Bernie Sanders surged .
He ’ d finish a respectable third or fourth there , I figured , then again in New Hampshire and then bow out having successfully introduced himself to the national Democratic electorate ahead of a more serious run for something down the road .
Instead he tied Sanders for first on Monday ( more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ point behind him in New Hampshire in the latest Suffolk poll , having gained 12 points ( ! )
in the past three days .
He may very well lead the field in the next poll and win the farking primary on Tuesday night , upsetting Bernie and establishing himself as the clear center-left alternative to Sanders-style socialism .
And if he does , he ’ ll utterly destroy Joe Biden ’ s , Elizabeth Warren ’ s , and Amy Klobuchar ’ s campaigns .
Between them those three have 55+ years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s eight years as VP .
And none of them might survive the month as candidates thanks to Pete “ Who ?
” Buttigieg .
In fact , he doesn ’ t actually need to win on Tuesday to destroy them .
A strong second behind Bernie with the rest far behind should suffice to solidify Democratic perceptions of them as also-rans , with Klobuchar likely to drop out immediately and Warren and Biden needing a miracle in Nevada .
Precisely for that reason , all three should come at him tonight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him back in the polls and force moderate voters to take a second look at their other options .
Biden and Warren will throw roundhouses because they have to but Klobuchar may throw them because she wants to .
As far back as November , reporters were nothing how much she resents Buttigieg for occupying “ her ” niche in the race as the low-key electable moderate from the midwest .
It ’ s an annoyance that has been building slowly since the summer .
Asked in June about Mr. Buttigieg ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ female candidates in the race , Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota was unsparing in her assessment .
“ Could we be running with less experience than we had ?
I don ’ t think so , ” she said .
“ I don ’ t think people would take us seriously.
” … Over the summer , a simple mention of Mr. Buttigieg ’ s name during a conversation in the Senate chamber between Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey and Ms. Klobuchar was enough to make Ms. Klobuchar extremely agitated , according @ @ @ @ @ @ @ extreme then , imagine what it ’ s like three months later after watching him rocket to the top of the field .
Does Pete have any idea what ’ s in store for him if Klobuchar hulks out ?
Only one of Buttigieg ’ s four rivals has reason to go easy on him tonight , and ironically it ’ s the guy whom Mayor Pete is battling for first in New Hampshire .
Bernie has to be looking at Buttigieg ’ s rise as a stroke of great good luck , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an alternative to Sanders than any of the other three contenders .
If Bernie is too old , Pete is too young .
If Bernie is too radical , Pete is too inexperienced .
If Bernie has a problem winning over black voters , Pete has a bigger one .
If Bernie is apt to scare suburban voters , Pete might scare socially conservative and/or blue-collar ones .
As much as Sanders wants to win New Hampshire , the price of doing so by damaging Buttigieg tonight might be too steep .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden , Warren , or Klobuchar resurgence .
Better to lay off Pete and hope that he terminates the moderates , then take him on one-on-one later .
Or one-on-two , once Mike Bloomberg joins the fun and complicates Buttigieg ’ s bid to consolidate the centrist vote .
Which will also be helpful to Bernie .
The debate starts at 8 p.m .
ET on ABC .
If Pete performs well tonight — and he tends to do well at these things , as his poise and obvious intelligence are 98 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then it may cement his momentum in New Hampshire and deliver him a victory .
And if it does , this ’ ll be the last debate at which Sanders has the luxury of ducking a fight with him .
By the way , as I write this at 1 p.m .
ET , Nate Silver ’ s model has the likelihood of Sanders winning the nomination up to 46 percent .
Next is … no one , at 24 percent .
That ’ s how muddled the centrist picture is right now @

No one’s watching tonight to see an argument about policy. Those differences, minor as they are between candidates, have already been hashed and rehashed in the umpteen previous debates. The only reason to watch is drama.
We might get some drama.
The reason, of course, is that no fewer than three credible big-name candidates are on the brink of being taken off the board 38-year-old ex-mayor Alfred E. Neuman of South Bend, a guy who’s never won statewide nor federal office, whom no one outside of Democratic podcast hosts had heard of prior to late 2018. Buttigieg seemed to have had his moment in the sun in primary polling back in December, when he led in Iowa, but then began to decline in January as Bernie Sanders surged. He’d finish a respectable third or fourth there, I figured, then again in New Hampshire and then bow out having successfully introduced himself to the national Democratic electorate ahead of a more serious run for something down the road.
Instead he tied Sanders for first on Monday (more or less) and sits one slim point behind him in New Hampshire in the latest Suffolk poll, having gained 12 points(!) in the past three days. He may very well lead the field in the next poll and win the farking primary on Tuesday night, upsetting Bernie and establishing himself as the clear center-left alternative to Sanders-style socialism.
And if he does, he’ll utterly destroy Joe Biden’s, Elizabeth Warren’s, and Amy Klobuchar’s campaigns. Between them those three have 55+ years of service in the Senate plus Joe’s eight years as VP. And none of them might survive the month as candidates thanks to Pete “Who?” Buttigieg.
In fact, he doesn’t actually need to win on Tuesday to destroy them. A strong second behind Bernie with the rest far behind should suffice to solidify Democratic perceptions of them as also-rans, with Klobuchar likely to drop out immediately and Warren and Biden needing a miracle in Nevada. Precisely for that reason, all three should come at him tonight with battle axes, hoping to knock him back in the polls and force moderate voters to take a second look at their other options. Biden and Warren will throw roundhouses because they have to but Klobuchar may throw them because she wants to. As far back as November, reporters were nothing how much she resents Buttigieg for occupying “her” niche in the race as the low-key electable moderate from the midwest.
It’s an annoyance that has been building slowly since the summer. Asked in June about Mr. Buttigieg’s qualifications to be president relative to the female candidates in the race, Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota was unsparing in her assessment. “Could we be running with less experience than we had? I don’t think so,” she said. “I don’t think people would take us seriously.”… Over the summer, a simple mention of Mr. Buttigieg’s name during a conversation in the Senate chamber between Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey and Ms. Klobuchar was enough to make Ms. Klobuchar extremely agitated, according to witnesses.
If the agitation was extreme then, imagine what it’s like three months later after watching him rocket to the top of the field. Does Pete have any idea what’s in store for him if Klobuchar hulks out?
Only one of Buttigieg’s four rivals has reason to go easy on him tonight, and ironically it’s the guy whom Mayor Pete is battling for first in New Hampshire. Bernie has to be looking at Buttigieg’s rise as a stroke of great good luck, believing that he has more liabilities as an alternative to Sanders than any of the other three contenders. If Bernie is too old, Pete is too young. If Bernie is too radical, Pete is too inexperienced. If Bernie has a problem winning over black voters, Pete has a bigger one. If Bernie is apt to scare suburban voters, Pete might scare socially conservative and/or blue-collar ones. As much as Sanders wants to win New Hampshire, the price of doing so by damaging Buttigieg tonight might be too steep. He could inadvertently clear the way for a Biden, Warren, or Klobuchar resurgence. Better to lay off Pete and hope that he terminates the moderates, then take him on one-on-one later.
Or one-on-two, once Mike Bloomberg joins the fun and complicates Buttigieg’s bid to consolidate the centrist vote. Which will also be helpful to Bernie.
The debate starts at 8 p.m. ET on ABC. If Pete performs well tonight — and he tends to do well at these things, as his poise and obvious intelligence are 98 percent of the reason people support him — then it may cement his momentum in New Hampshire and deliver him a victory. And if it does, this’ll be the last debate at which Sanders has the luxury of ducking a fight with him. By the way, as I write this at 1 p.m. ET, Nate Silver’s model has the likelihood of Sanders winning the nomination up to 46 percent. Next is … no one, at 24 percent. That’s how muddled the centrist picture is right now.


hotair--2020-02-09--WaPo, trying to tank Sanders: Let's face it. None of these Democrats are "centrists"

The Washington Post editorial board is fed up with all of you people talking about the Democratic primary as some sort of internecine civil war between the far left and centrists .
This week they point out that it ’ s simply not accurate to describe either Pete Buttigieg or Joe Biden as “ centrists.
” In fact , the entire field is chock full of socialists .
Okay… they didn ’ t actually say “ socialists ” but that ’ s the general feeling they ’ re trying to get across .
Everyone ’ s policies are way to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bit more left than others .
IT HAS become an unchecked assumption about the Democratic presidential race : The candidates are fighting an ideological war between “ left ” and “ center.
” This narrative is false , and it is hardly benign .
It minimizes the bold policy ambitions of those in the mislabeled “ centrist ” lane and falsely characterizes those on the left flank as braver or more committed to reform .
Yes , some candidates in the race are to the left of others .
Sens .
Bernie Sanders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mass . )
not only want to make sure that all Americans have access to health care , as do all the Democrats , but they want maximum government control in achieving that goal… Then there are the policy moves that practically all Democrats agree on : giving legal safe harbor to the young immigrants known as “ dreamers ” ; reviving and expanding President Barack Obama ’ s climate regulations ; reengaging with Iran ; raising the minimum wage ; keeping abortion legal ; cracking down on guns .
In fact , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an agenda to the left of Mr. Obama ’ s .
First , allow me to rise to my feet and offer a protracted golf clap to the WaPo editorial board .
This is one of those rare occasions when I find myself in complete agreement with them .
There isn ’ t an actual centrist in that entire crowd you saw up on the stage at the last debate in New Hampshire .
They ’ re all socialists to one degree or another , but Bernie Sanders is the only one honest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s get to the real reason I wanted to highlight this editorial for our readers .
It takes a bit of reading between the lines , but what ’ s really going on here is a thinly disguised effort to toss a lifeline to either Joe Biden or Pete Buttigieg ( primary voters are left to pick whichever white male they like better ) while simultaneously tossing an anchor to Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren .
Allow me to offer some examples .
While appearing to flatter all the candidates for their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in some seemingly harmless observations that damn both Warren and Sanders with faint praise .
They first point out that all of the candidates want to make sure that all Americans have access to health care .
The only difference , they claim , is that Warren and Sanders have endorsed a Medicare-for-all plan that “ would cost some $ 60 trillion to $ 90 trillion over 10 years , an astonishing number that would imply doubling the size of the federal government.
” Um… are we supposed to believe that they thought @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be thrilled about ?
They next drop in this little gem , drawing a distinction between Bernie ’ s healthcare plans and the ones being put forth by the rest of the crew .
( All emphasis added ) Translation : Sanders ’ proposals are the stuff of fantasy and not desirable .
Biden and Buttigieg are more grounded in reality .
Toward the end of the editorial , we find the editors favorably quoting Pete Buttigieg saying ( about Bernie ) that he “ makes it feel like you ’ re either @ @ @ @ @ @ @ got to be for the status quo , and there ’ s nothing in between.
” This is a simply blatant declaration that Bernie Sanders is too radical to get any of his objectives accomplished and that sensible Democrats can push for progressive reform without following him off a cliff .
On top of all that , the editors remain careful not to tick off the far-left battalion of the Democratic base too much .
There are no “ centrists ” here .
We ’ re all progressives !
It ’ s just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the correct amounts of progressive , you see ?
So assuming I ’ m reading the tea leaves correctly here , why would the sainted Washington Post editorial board be trying to stick a decorative knife in Bernie Sanders ’ back ?
The answer seems nearly as obvious as the sweetly scented poison in this op-ed .
As usual , the want the Democratic nominee to win in November .
Oh , and they still hate Donald Trump with the white-hot rage of a star that ’ s about to go supernova .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ looks like if the Democrats actually go through with nominating Sanders and it ’ s smelling an awful lot like four more years of Trump .
So Bernie has to go ( and Warren as well if she starts to make another comeback ) and one of the “ not at all centrist ” centrists needs to be the nominee .
Well played , WaPo .
I ’ m assured by reliable sources that Brutus and the other Senators were also all smiles when they approached Ceasar in the Theatre of Pompey .

The Washington Post editorial board is fed up with all of you people talking about the Democratic primary as some sort of internecine civil war between the far left and centrists. This week they point out that it’s simply not accurate to describe either Pete Buttigieg or Joe Biden as “centrists.” In fact, the entire field is chock full of socialists.
Okay… they didn’t actually say “socialists” but that’s the general feeling they’re trying to get across. Everyone’s policies are way to the left, though some are a bit more left than others.
IT HAS become an unchecked assumption about the Democratic presidential race: The candidates are fighting an ideological war between “left” and “center.” This narrative is false, and it is hardly benign. It minimizes the bold policy ambitions of those in the mislabeled “centrist” lane and falsely characterizes those on the left flank as braver or more committed to reform. Yes, some candidates in the race are to the left of others. Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) not only want to make sure that all Americans have access to health care, as do all the Democrats, but they want maximum government control in achieving that goal… Then there are the policy moves that practically all Democrats agree on: giving legal safe harbor to the young immigrants known as “dreamers”; reviving and expanding President Barack Obama’s climate regulations; reengaging with Iran; raising the minimum wage; keeping abortion legal; cracking down on guns. In fact, every major Democratic candidate is running on an agenda to the left of Mr. Obama’s.
First, allow me to rise to my feet and offer a protracted golf clap to the WaPo editorial board. This is one of those rare occasions when I find myself in complete agreement with them. There isn’t an actual centrist in that entire crowd you saw up on the stage at the last debate in New Hampshire. They’re all socialists to one degree or another, but Bernie Sanders is the only one honest enough to admit it.
Now let’s get to the real reason I wanted to highlight this editorial for our readers. It takes a bit of reading between the lines, but what’s really going on here is a thinly disguised effort to toss a lifeline to either Joe Biden or Pete Buttigieg (primary voters are left to pick whichever white male they like better) while simultaneously tossing an anchor to Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. Allow me to offer some examples.
While appearing to flatter all the candidates for their admirably progressive views, the editorial tosses in some seemingly harmless observations that damn both Warren and Sanders with faint praise. They first point out that all of the candidates want to make sure that all Americans have access to health care. The only difference, they claim, is that Warren and Sanders have endorsed a Medicare-for-all plan that “would cost some $60 trillion to $90 trillion over 10 years, an astonishing number that would imply doubling the size of the federal government.”
Um… are we supposed to believe that they thought this was something the primary voters would be thrilled about? They next drop in this little gem, drawing a distinction between Bernie’s healthcare plans and the ones being put forth by the rest of the crew. (All emphasis added)
Mr. Sanders acknowledges that his ambitions are unlikely to be achieved without a “political revolution,” which is fanciful even if it were desirable. His competitors think more realistically about how change is accomplished in a diverse democracy.
Translation: Sanders’ proposals are the stuff of fantasy and not desirable. Biden and Buttigieg are more grounded in reality.
Toward the end of the editorial, we find the editors favorably quoting Pete Buttigieg saying (about Bernie) that he “makes it feel like you’re either for a revolution or you’ve got to be for the status quo, and there’s nothing in between.” This is a simply blatant declaration that Bernie Sanders is too radical to get any of his objectives accomplished and that sensible Democrats can push for progressive reform without following him off a cliff.
On top of all that, the editors remain careful not to tick off the far-left battalion of the Democratic base too much. There are no “centrists” here. We’re all progressives! It’s just that Mayor Pete and Uncle Joe are the correct amounts of progressive, you see?
So assuming I’m reading the tea leaves correctly here, why would the sainted Washington Post editorial board be trying to stick a decorative knife in Bernie Sanders’ back? The answer seems nearly as obvious as the sweetly scented poison in this op-ed. As usual, the want the Democratic nominee to win in November. Oh, and they still hate Donald Trump with the white-hot rage of a star that’s about to go supernova. They’re seeing what the future looks like if the Democrats actually go through with nominating Sanders and it’s smelling an awful lot like four more years of Trump. So Bernie has to go (and Warren as well if she starts to make another comeback) and one of the “not at all centrist” centrists needs to be the nominee.
Well played, WaPo. I’m assured by reliable sources that Brutus and the other Senators were also all smiles when they approached Ceasar in the Theatre of Pompey.


hotair--2020-02-09--NYC Mayor finally admits bail reform linked to spike in crime

Something rather remarkable happened in New York City on Friday , though it largely flew under the media radar .
Ever since New York ’ s new bail reform and criminal justice reform laws went into effect at the beginning of the year , crime rates have been rising steadily in all but two categories of major crimes .
( Murder and rape remain at their previous levels , at least for now . )
Beyond that , it ’ s possible , though not definitively established , that the criminal justice reform law led to a victim/witness in an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Long Island .
But through it all , Big Apple Mayor Bill de Blasio has steadfastly claimed that the new laws were not to blame and that while some minor “ adjustments ” to the laws might be required , they were going to stay in place .
Finally , on Friday , with the weight of evidence mounting , Hizzoner responded to a reporter ’ s questions by admitting that these laws were likely a major factor in the rising crime rates .
( NY Post ) Mayor Bill de Blasio linked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Apple to the state ’ s controversial overhaul of bail laws Friday , after spending a week dancing around the matter .
“ We had , for six years , steady decreases in crime across the board .
There ’ s not a whole lot of other environmental things that have changed recently , ” Hizzoner told WNYC ’ s Brian Lehrer on new CompStat data that shows crime has soared since the new laws took effect at the start of 2020 .
“ It sort of stands out like a sore thumb @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thing in the equation and we saw an extraordinary jump.
” “ Of course there ’ s always a possibility this is plain statistical variation , that happens sometimes , ” he added .
“ But I think it ’ s pretty clear that there ’ s only one new major piece in the equation.
” Gee , ya think ?
De Blasio made sure to get in his usual line about ensuring that guidelines for judges eliminated “ even any inkling of bias.
” That ’ s one talking point he can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ entire basis for the bail reform law originally was based on the idea that bail impacts communities of color disproportionately .
But during the interview , Big Bill went on to say that judicial discretion should allow room to recognize that “ there are some individuals who are just consistently… creat [ ing ] a threat to their neighbors.
” That ’ s a refreshing bit of common sense coming from de Blasio , particularly considering how he ’ s been in denial of this new reality for weeks now .
I still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will agree to scrap the bail reform law entirely , but this sort of public pressure should at least pave the way for a significant overhaul of the legislation .
And to be clear , I ’ m not writing off the idea entirely .
We ’ ve certainly learned of cases where people with either no previous criminal record or only very minor infractions wound up sitting in jail for days or even weeks on shoplifting charges simply because they couldn ’ t come up with five hundred dollars for bail .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ happen in the most economically disadvantaged communities of the city , which also happen to be populated largely by minorities .
So with that said , new guidelines to do away with or greatly reduce bail for first offenses of low-level property crime could certainly be in order .
But by the same token , armed robbery is not a minor crime even if nobody winds up being injured during the caper .
And we already saw one guy be released multiple times on no bail after robbing as many as six banks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Orthodox Jews and punching them in the head in broad daylight is not a minor crime .
Grand theft auto is not a minor crime .
If you ’ re pursuing a career as a criminal and you decide you want to play in the big leagues , you ’ re going to face the possibility of not only being arrested but potentially having to put up significant bail if you want to stay out on the streets until your trial .
Or at least that ’ s how the system has traditionally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sane world .
In their efforts to look sufficiently woke and not offend any politically favored demographic groups , the New York State legislature , the Governor and the Mayor of Gotham have thrown the public safety baby out with the bathwater .
And somebody needs to step in and stop this train before it goes any further off the rails .

Something rather remarkable happened in New York City on Friday, though it largely flew under the media radar. Ever since New York’s new bail reform and criminal justice reform laws went into effect at the beginning of the year, crime rates have been rising steadily in all but two categories of major crimes. (Murder and rape remain at their previous levels, at least for now.) Beyond that, it’s possible, though not definitively established, that the criminal justice reform law led to a victim/witness in an upcoming gang violence trial being murdered on Long Island.
But through it all, Big Apple Mayor Bill de Blasio has steadfastly claimed that the new laws were not to blame and that while some minor “adjustments” to the laws might be required, they were going to stay in place. Finally, on Friday, with the weight of evidence mounting, Hizzoner responded to a reporter’s questions by admitting that these laws were likely a major factor in the rising crime rates. (NY Post)
Mayor Bill de Blasio linked a recent crime surge in the Big Apple to the state’s controversial overhaul of bail laws Friday, after spending a week dancing around the matter. “We had, for six years, steady decreases in crime across the board. There’s not a whole lot of other environmental things that have changed recently,” Hizzoner told WNYC’s Brian Lehrer on new CompStat data that shows crime has soared since the new laws took effect at the start of 2020. “It sort of stands out like a sore thumb that this is the single biggest new thing in the equation and we saw an extraordinary jump.” “Of course there’s always a possibility this is plain statistical variation, that happens sometimes,” he added. “But I think it’s pretty clear that there’s only one new major piece in the equation.”
Gee, ya think? De Blasio made sure to get in his usual line about ensuring that guidelines for judges eliminated “even any inkling of bias.” That’s one talking point he can’t afford to abandon because the entire basis for the bail reform law originally was based on the idea that bail impacts communities of color disproportionately.
But during the interview, Big Bill went on to say that judicial discretion should allow room to recognize that “there are some individuals who are just consistently… creat[ing] a threat to their neighbors.” That’s a refreshing bit of common sense coming from de Blasio, particularly considering how he’s been in denial of this new reality for weeks now.
I still doubt that the state legislature in Albany will agree to scrap the bail reform law entirely, but this sort of public pressure should at least pave the way for a significant overhaul of the legislation. And to be clear, I’m not writing off the idea entirely. We’ve certainly learned of cases where people with either no previous criminal record or only very minor infractions wound up sitting in jail for days or even weeks on shoplifting charges simply because they couldn’t come up with five hundred dollars for bail. And such things were more likely to happen in the most economically disadvantaged communities of the city, which also happen to be populated largely by minorities.
So with that said, new guidelines to do away with or greatly reduce bail for first offenses of low-level property crime could certainly be in order. But by the same token, armed robbery is not a minor crime even if nobody winds up being injured during the caper. And we already saw one guy be released multiple times on no bail after robbing as many as six banks in a single week. Chasing down Orthodox Jews and punching them in the head in broad daylight is not a minor crime. Grand theft auto is not a minor crime.
If you’re pursuing a career as a criminal and you decide you want to play in the big leagues, you’re going to face the possibility of not only being arrested but potentially having to put up significant bail if you want to stay out on the streets until your trial. Or at least that’s how the system has traditionally worked and should still work in a sane world. In their efforts to look sufficiently woke and not offend any politically favored demographic groups, the New York State legislature, the Governor and the Mayor of Gotham have thrown the public safety baby out with the bathwater. And somebody needs to step in and stop this train before it goes any further off the rails.