hotair--2020-04-22--Head of federal vaccine office: I was demoted because I resisted approving Trump's miracle cure, hyd

Head of federal vaccine office: I was demoted because I resisted approving Trump's miracle cure, hydroxychloroquine

Vindictive behavior towards a subordinate who went off-message ?
That doesn ’ t sound like the Trump White House I know .
Reading about this , I ’ m struggling with two conflicting impulses .
On the one hand , it ’ s absolutely the sort of thing Trump or an overzealous toady eager to impress him might do to punish someone for crimes against MAGA .
If the president says he has a “ good feeling ” about hydroxychloroquine and you work for him , you keep your mouth shut even if science says otherwise .
On the other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the sort of thing a disgruntled official might falsely claim if he were demoted for good cause and wanted to retaliate by giving Trump a PR black eye .
A choice footnote from the Times ’ s article : “ Dr .
Bright has hired the lawyers Debra Katz and Lisa Banks , who have a whistle-blower practice and are known in part for representing Christine Blasey Ford ” during the Kavanaugh trial .
Interesting that this guy went running to people with expertise in organizing an anti-Trump media circus based on dubious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from Rick Bright , until yesterday the head of the U.S. Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority ( BARDA ) .
Key bit : Unfortunately , this resulted in clashes with H.H.S .
political leadership , including criticism for my proactive efforts to invest early into vaccines and supplies critical to saving American lives .
I also resisted efforts to fund potentially dangerous drugs promoted by those with political connections .
Specifically , and contrary to misguided directives , I limited the broad use of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine , promoted by the administration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lack scientific merit .
While I am prepared to look at all options and to think ‘ outside the box ’ for effective treatments , I rightly resisted efforts to provide an unproven drug on demand to the American public .
I insisted that these drugs be provided only to hospitalized patients with confirmed COVID-19 while under the supervision of a physician .
These drugs have potentially serious risks associated with them , including increased mortality observed in some recent studies in patients with COVID-19 .
He wants an investigation by the inspector @ @ @ @ @ @ @ already has a beef because the IG dared to report accurately that hundreds of hospitals didn ’ t have the personal protective equipment they needed earlier this month .
To hear Bright tell it , this is cut and dried : Why else would the White House take the extraordinary step of demoting a vaccine expert in the middle of a once-in-a-lifetime pandemic if not for petty vindictive reasons , because he undercut the president ’ s latest hobbyhorse , hydroxychloroquine ?
It ’ s inexplicable .
Except maybe it isn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ longstanding grievances against Bright within the administration unrelated to hydroxychloroquine .
Maybe the reason for the unusual timing of his demotion is that HHS knows how urgently important BARDA ’ s work is right now and wants to make it runs as smoothly as possible .
Sounds like that wouldn ’ t have been easy with Bright in charge : The move was more than a year in the making — Bright had clashed with department leaders about his decisions and the scope of his authority — but came abruptly , said five @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Bright ’ s ouster is being positioned as a way to improve a crucial disease-fighting arm at a time of national crisis , amid some officials ’ complaints that BARDA moved too slowly , focused on the wrong investments and took too long to award its contracts .
“ BARDA was not as responsive during the crisis ” as it could have been , said one former official .
“ Rather than prioritizing therapeutics that could be available in weeks , Bright focused on products that would take weeks or months.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make what ’ s known as a broad agency announcement to solicit potential investments in diagnostics , vaccines or treatments until March , five weeks after HHS Secretary Alex Azar declared a public health emergency over the Covid-19 outbreak .
Bright reportedly clashed with his boss at HHS over his “ leadership style ” but also over meatier issues like whether BARDA was too involved in procuring drugs instead of research and development .
It ’ s possible that he ’ s the victim of coordinated character assassination by Trump officials in anticipation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but “ five current and former HHS officials ” would be a lot of coordination .
And it ’ s not just people inside the administration who had a problem with him .
“ Outsiders ” confirmed to Politico that there were problems with BARDA ’ s “ pace and strategy ” under Bright , such as duplicative investments in companies researching particular types of drugs to inhibit coronavirus .
Another official familiar with HHS ’ s recent acquisition of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine claims that Bright “ had supported those acquisitions in internal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that in his statement , though .
He says he agreed that the drugs should be provided to patients in the hospital .
His objection , it seems , was to the idea of use by the general public of a drug with no proven efficacy for treating COVID-19 and which was known for causing serious small effects in a small number of users .
And the feds ended up adopting his position , didn ’ t they ?
I don ’ t believe the FDA has authorized HCQ for anything except compassionate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s eager to involve the IG makes me suspect there ’ s some merit to his claim , although whether his position on hydroxychloroquine was the catalyst in his demotion or just one of many reasons will remain to be seen .
I mean , it ’ s not like the president is above wanting to fire a public health official for insisting on uttering a scientific truth that displeases him : Messonier pissed him off in late February when she tanked the stock market by telling reporters that community spread of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that “ Disruption to everyday life might be severe.
” How ’ d that prediction work out ?
There ’ s one more possibility for Bright ’ s demotion .
Could it have been driven by HHS chief Alex Azar , in search of a way to re-ingratiate himself to the president ?
I ask only because there are two separate splashy stories out today absolutely annihilating him for his performance in January and February , as the government scrambled to try to head off a major outbreak .
Sample quote : “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public health experience to lead the agency ’ s day-to-day response to COVID-19 .
The aide , Brian Harrison , had joined the department after running a dog-breeding business for six years .
Five sources say some officials in the White House derisively called him ‘ the dog breeder . '
” Maybe Azar thought kicking Bright over hydroxychloroquine would get him back in Trump ’ s good graces .

Vindictive behavior towards a subordinate who went off-message?
That doesn’t sound like the Trump White House I know.
Reading about this, I’m struggling with two conflicting impulses. On the one hand, it’s absolutely the sort of thing Trump or an overzealous toady eager to impress him might do to punish someone for crimes against MAGA. If the president says he has a “good feeling” about hydroxychloroquine and you work for him, you keep your mouth shut even if science says otherwise. On the other hand, it’s also absolutely the sort of thing a disgruntled official might falsely claim if he were demoted for good cause and wanted to retaliate by giving Trump a PR black eye. A choice footnote from the Times’s article: “Dr. Bright has hired the lawyers Debra Katz and Lisa Banks, who have a whistle-blower practice and are known in part for representing Christine Blasey Ford” during the Kavanaugh trial. Interesting that this guy went running to people with expertise in organizing an anti-Trump media circus based on dubious allegations.
Axios has the full statement from Rick Bright, until yesterday the head of the U.S. Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA). Key bit:
Unfortunately, this resulted in clashes with H.H.S. political leadership, including criticism for my proactive efforts to invest early into vaccines and supplies critical to saving American lives. I also resisted efforts to fund potentially dangerous drugs promoted by those with political connections. Specifically, and contrary to misguided directives, I limited the broad use of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine, promoted by the administration as a panacea, but which clearly lack scientific merit. While I am prepared to look at all options and to think ‘outside the box’ for effective treatments, I rightly resisted efforts to provide an unproven drug on demand to the American public. I insisted that these drugs be provided only to hospitalized patients with confirmed COVID-19 while under the supervision of a physician. These drugs have potentially serious risks associated with them, including increased mortality observed in some recent studies in patients with COVID-19.
He wants an investigation by the inspector general of HHS, with whom Trump already has a beef because the IG dared to report accurately that hundreds of hospitals didn’t have the personal protective equipment they needed earlier this month. To hear Bright tell it, this is cut and dried: Why else would the White House take the extraordinary step of demoting a vaccine expert in the middle of a once-in-a-lifetime pandemic if not for petty vindictive reasons, because he undercut the president’s latest hobbyhorse, hydroxychloroquine? It’s inexplicable.
Except maybe it isn’t. Politico sniffed around and found some longstanding grievances against Bright within the administration unrelated to hydroxychloroquine. Maybe the reason for the unusual timing of his demotion is that HHS knows how urgently important BARDA’s work is right now and wants to make it runs as smoothly as possible. Sounds like that wouldn’t have been easy with Bright in charge:
The move was more than a year in the making — Bright had clashed with department leaders about his decisions and the scope of his authority — but came abruptly, said five current and former HHS officials… Inside HHS, Bright’s ouster is being positioned as a way to improve a crucial disease-fighting arm at a time of national crisis, amid some officials’ complaints that BARDA moved too slowly, focused on the wrong investments and took too long to award its contracts. “BARDA was not as responsive during the crisis” as it could have been, said one former official. “Rather than prioritizing therapeutics that could be available in weeks, Bright focused on products that would take weeks or months.” For instance, BARDA didn’t make what’s known as a broad agency announcement to solicit potential investments in diagnostics, vaccines or treatments until March, five weeks after HHS Secretary Alex Azar declared a public health emergency over the Covid-19 outbreak.
Bright reportedly clashed with his boss at HHS over his “leadership style” but also over meatier issues like whether BARDA was too involved in procuring drugs instead of research and development. It’s possible that he’s the victim of coordinated character assassination by Trump officials in anticipation of him going public about hydroxychloroquine, but “five current and former HHS officials” would be a lot of coordination. And it’s not just people inside the administration who had a problem with him. “Outsiders” confirmed to Politico that there were problems with BARDA’s “pace and strategy” under Bright, such as duplicative investments in companies researching particular types of drugs to inhibit coronavirus.
Another official familiar with HHS’s recent acquisition of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine claims that Bright “had supported those acquisitions in internal communications.” Bright doesn’t dispute that in his statement, though. He says he agreed that the drugs should be provided to patients in the hospital. His objection, it seems, was to the idea of use by the general public of a drug with no proven efficacy for treating COVID-19 and which was known for causing serious small effects in a small number of users. And the feds ended up adopting his position, didn’t they? I don’t believe the FDA has authorized HCQ for anything except compassionate use.
The fact that Bright’s eager to involve the IG makes me suspect there’s some merit to his claim, although whether his position on hydroxychloroquine was the catalyst in his demotion or just one of many reasons will remain to be seen. I mean, it’s not like the president is above wanting to fire a public health official for insisting on uttering a scientific truth that displeases him:
WSJ reports that in late February, Trump threatened to fire Nancy Messonnier, CDC's chief of respiratory diseases, after she told reporters the truth about the spread of the virus. https://t.co/pMkatgunPi pic.twitter.com/NlSI8Nn62m — Will Saletan (@saletan) April 22, 2020
Messonier pissed him off in late February when she tanked the stock market by telling reporters that community spread of the virus was likely in the U.S. and that “Disruption to everyday life might be severe.” How’d that prediction work out?
There’s one more possibility for Bright’s demotion. Could it have been driven by HHS chief Alex Azar, in search of a way to re-ingratiate himself to the president? I ask only because there are two separate splashy stories out today absolutely annihilating him for his performance in January and February, as the government scrambled to try to head off a major outbreak. Sample quote: “Azar tapped a trusted aide with minimal public health experience to lead the agency’s day-to-day response to COVID-19. The aide, Brian Harrison, had joined the department after running a dog-breeding business for six years. Five sources say some officials in the White House derisively called him ‘the dog breeder.'” Maybe Azar thought kicking Bright over hydroxychloroquine would get him back in Trump’s good graces.


hotair--2020-04-22--McConnell: Passing a Phase 4 with state, local pension bailouts or "revenue replacement"? <i>Fuhgedd

McConnell: Passing a Phase 4 with state, local pension bailouts or "revenue replacement"? <i>Fuhgeddaboudit</i>

In other words , Phase 4 of the coronavirus relief bill won ’ t be Barack Obama ’ s stimulus .
Mitch McConnell called into Fox News to emphasize that the federal government has an obligation to help state and local governments with their COVID-19 efforts , not “ rescuing them from bad decisions they ’ ve made in the past.
” Rather than bloc-grant aid to states , McConnell hinted that the aid will specifically target pandemic-related tasks .
The best relief , McConnell told Bill Hemmer , will be getting economic activity restarted as soon as possible : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now demanding $ 7.4 billion in relief for New York City alone .
McConnell doesn ’ t provide a direct response to that , but let ’ s just say … prospects aren ’ t good : MCCONNELL : What I ’ m saying is we ’ re going to take a pause here .
We ’ re going to wait until at least May the 4th , which is the time we ’ re going to have everybody back in the Senate , and clearly weigh before we provide assistance to state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us to borrow money from future generations to make sure they have no revenue losses .
Before we make that decision , we ’ re going to weigh the impact of what we ’ ve already added to the national debt , and make certain that if we provide additional assistance for state and local governments , it ’ s only for corona-related — coronavirus-related matters .
We ’ re not interested in solving their pension problems for them .
We ’ re not interested in rescuing them from bad decisions they ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re not going to let them take advantage of this pandemic to solve a lot of problems that they created for themselves from bad decisions in the past .
HEMMER : I know we ’ re pressed for time here .
Let me try to squeeze in a few more .
May 4th is about twelve days away .
Do you see the Senate coming back to work on the 4th of May now ?
HEMMER : Okay .
With regard to the pause you mentioned , what do you see or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the next bill , or the next tranche of hundreds of billions of dollars ?
MCCONNELL : Well , the first thing is to decide whether there needs to be another tranche .
I mean , the ultimate solution to this is to get the economy back up and running .
I ’ m encouraging our governor , for example , and he ’ s already doing it , is to begin to make steps in the direction of opening up the economy .
The solution to the hospital problem is elective @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they ’ re making any money .
That ’ s a state decision .
So all of us are going to be encouraging our states to begin to move in the direction of getting back to normal — bearing in mind the advice of Dr. Fauci and Dr. Birx , social distancing , the de-stigmatization of wearing a mask .
No one should be embarrassed to wear a mask .
And let ’ s ease back in and solve the problem by getting growth back in our economy .
McConnell emphasized earlier today @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states a “ blank check ” to cover their budget shortfalls .
If things are that bad , McConnell told Hugh Hewitt , then they could “ use the bankruptcy route ” and get their own houses in order : Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Wednesday he would rather let state governments file for bankruptcy than give them a federal “ blank check ” amid the coronavirus pandemic .
Speaking to radio host Hugh Hewitt , McConnell said he is not going to be in favor of allowing the federal government “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ send it down ” to the states .
“ I would certainly be in favor of allowing states to use the bankruptcy route , ” McConnell said .
“ It saves some cities .
And there ’ s no good reason for it not to be available.
” If McConnell can stick to his guns on this , then it will demonstrate just how little Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi actually won over the last two weeks in the fight to replenish the Paycheck Protection Program .
There ’ s not much risk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its next tranche in place .
He threw in money for hospitals and testing under pressure from Pelosi and Schumer , but that was basically a briar-patch move .
With that out of the way , all that ’ s left in Phase 4 are funding programs for state and local governments , which are almost entirely Democrat constituencies .
For the last two weeks , Pelosi tried ultimatums to get those constituencies funding , and failed .
If Pelosi insists on the bloc-grant approach that would allow states to use money to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as the 2009 stimulus bill did , McConnell can simply refuse to let it proceed .
Unless the PPP runs out of cash again and McConnell needs to fund it , he can wait out Pelosi and Schumer until they agree to restrict the funds specifically to COVID-19-related activities .
As well he should .
This massive amount of borrowing has to get targeted as closely as possible to the actual economic damage of the pandemic , not the damage done by bad policies over several decades in the states .
Taxpayers in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bailing out Massachusetts and Oregon , or the other way around for that matter .
If states are in trouble in other ways than the pandemic , they can start making the necessary changes to address them rather than have bad policies subsidized by Congress .

In other words, Phase 4 of the coronavirus relief bill won’t be Barack Obama’s stimulus. Mitch McConnell called into Fox News to emphasize that the federal government has an obligation to help state and local governments with their COVID-19 efforts, not “rescuing them from bad decisions they’ve made in the past.” Rather than bloc-grant aid to states, McConnell hinted that the aid will specifically target pandemic-related tasks.
The best relief, McConnell told Bill Hemmer, will be getting economic activity restarted as soon as possible:
Hemmer notes that Bill de Blasio is now demanding $7.4 billion in relief for New York City alone. McConnell doesn’t provide a direct response to that, but let’s just say … prospects aren’t good:
MCCONNELL: What I’m saying is we’re going to take a pause here. We’re going to wait until at least May the 4th, which is the time we’re going to have everybody back in the Senate, and clearly weigh before we provide assistance to state and local governments who would love for us to borrow money from future generations to make sure they have no revenue losses. Before we make that decision, we’re going to weigh the impact of what we’ve already added to the national debt, and make certain that if we provide additional assistance for state and local governments, it’s only for corona-related — coronavirus-related matters. We’re not interested in solving their pension problems for them. We’re not interested in rescuing them from bad decisions they’ve made in the past. We’re not going to let them take advantage of this pandemic to solve a lot of problems that they created for themselves from bad decisions in the past. HEMMER: I know we’re pressed for time here. Let me try to squeeze in a few more. May 4th is about twelve days away. Do you see the Senate coming back to work on the 4th of May now? MCCONNELL: That’s our current plan, yes. HEMMER: Okay. With regard to the pause you mentioned, what do you see or how do you forecast what could be in the next bill, or the next tranche of hundreds of billions of dollars? MCCONNELL: Well, the first thing is to decide whether there needs to be another tranche. I mean, the ultimate solution to this is to get the economy back up and running. I’m encouraging our governor, for example, and he’s already doing it, is to begin to make steps in the direction of opening up the economy. The solution to the hospital problem is elective surgery, which is the only place they’re making any money. That’s a state decision. So all of us are going to be encouraging our states to begin to move in the direction of getting back to normal — bearing in mind the advice of Dr. Fauci and Dr. Birx, social distancing, the de-stigmatization of wearing a mask. No one should be embarrassed to wear a mask. And let’s ease back in and solve the problem by getting growth back in our economy.
McConnell emphasized earlier today that he had no intention of giving states a “blank check” to cover their budget shortfalls. If things are that bad, McConnell told Hugh Hewitt, then they could “use the bankruptcy route” and get their own houses in order:
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Wednesday he would rather let state governments file for bankruptcy than give them a federal “blank check” amid the coronavirus pandemic. Speaking to radio host Hugh Hewitt, McConnell said he is not going to be in favor of allowing the federal government “to borrow money from future generations to send it down” to the states. “I would certainly be in favor of allowing states to use the bankruptcy route,” McConnell said. “It saves some cities. And there’s no good reason for it not to be available.”
If McConnell can stick to his guns on this, then it will demonstrate just how little Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi actually won over the last two weeks in the fight to replenish the Paycheck Protection Program. There’s not much risk for McConnell now that the PPP has its next tranche in place. He threw in money for hospitals and testing under pressure from Pelosi and Schumer, but that was basically a briar-patch move. With that out of the way, all that’s left in Phase 4 are funding programs for state and local governments, which are almost entirely Democrat constituencies.
For the last two weeks, Pelosi tried ultimatums to get those constituencies funding, and failed. If Pelosi insists on the bloc-grant approach that would allow states to use money to paper over their normal budget holes, as the 2009 stimulus bill did, McConnell can simply refuse to let it proceed. Unless the PPP runs out of cash again and McConnell needs to fund it, he can wait out Pelosi and Schumer until they agree to restrict the funds specifically to COVID-19-related activities.
As well he should. This massive amount of borrowing has to get targeted as closely as possible to the actual economic damage of the pandemic, not the damage done by bad policies over several decades in the states. Taxpayers in Minnesota and Texas shouldn’t be bailing out Massachusetts and Oregon, or the other way around for that matter. If states are in trouble in other ways than the pandemic, they can start making the necessary changes to address them rather than have bad policies subsidized by Congress.


hotair--2020-04-22--Trump: I "disagree strongly" with the governor of Georgia in reopening certain businesses so early;

Trump: I "disagree strongly" with the governor of Georgia in reopening certain businesses so early; Update: Kemp responds

I ’ m at a complete loss .
How the hell did we go from “ LIBERATE MINNESOTA !
” last week to him gently scolding a Republican southern governor for allowing some select businesses to reopen a few days before May 1 ?
What he says is sensible .
I ’ ve pointed out myself that some of the businesses greenlit by Georgia Gov .
Brian Kemp , like hair salons , can ’ t possibly comply with the federal “ phase one ” guidelines to maintain social distancing .
Deborah Birx hinted at that too at yesterday ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spent the past month insisting that May 1 is his target date .
The “ LIBERATE MINNESOTA ” and “ LIBERATE MICHIGAN ” garbage came after the guidelines were issued .
Why is he suddenly so gun-shy about even a partial reopening in Georgia , which has seen some improvement lately in terms of containing its epidemic ?
I can think of only two explanations .
One : His advisors convinced him that Georgia is at high risk of a second wave if it follows through with Kemp ’ s plan and he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from Democrats if he cheers it on .
He ’ s covering his ass here , just as he did during his recent conference call with the governors when he dropped his claims “ total authority ” over the reopening and told them that they ’ ll call their own shots .
Having become the public face of the “ reopen now ” push , he ’ s backing away at the very moment that it might actually have adverse consequences .
Two : He ’ s paying Kemp back for crossing him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Georgia Senate seat instead of MAGA favorite Doug Collins .
Trump went to bat for Collins , lobbying Kemp to name him instead .
In the end Kemp went his own way , defying the president .
The president doesn ’ t like to be defied .
So here he is pulling the rug out from under Kemp 36 hours before his new reopening policy takes effect in Georgia .
I lean towards the first theory .
There ’ s a post coming up later about a new Quinnipiac poll out of Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ showing him not just trailing Joe Biden but trailing him by 10 points among senior citizens , normally a Republican group .
Other questions in the poll make clear that Floridians generally and seniors in particular are nervous about seeing their state reopen before public health officials say it ’ s safe .
And it ’ s not just Florida .
This new AP data comes from a national poll : Even most Republicans think the current restrictions in their city or county are appropriate , with some wanting even more restrictions .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ convinced him that the “ reopen ASAP ” push is highly unpopular politically and is beginning to cost him with groups he absolutely has to win in order to get reelected .
So here ’ s the president suddenly insisting that he wants to go slow on reopening as well .
The other notable moment from today ’ s briefing came when Trump had CDC chief Robert Redfield take the podium and halfheartedly clarify the comments he made to the Washington Post yesterday about the second wave of the disease .
Trump clearly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the next round of the disease might be worse than this round ; his reelection chances will depend largely on the public ’ s perception that he got the epidemic under control by fall , after all .
So Redfield had to go up there and make clear that all he meant is that controlling COVID this fall could be more challenging because we ’ ll be trying to manage the annual flu epidemic alongside it .
Watch Trump himself in the second and third clips below step up to try to make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , much better in the fall .
( He got some welcome support from Anthony Fauci later in the briefing . )
You would think he ’ d have learned by now that there ’ s no way to pre-spin the reality of this .
He ’ s getting killed by Democrats for his many statements in February that the epidemic was under control , that the virus will be going away soon , etc etc etc .
They ’ re going to hang those statements around his neck from now until November @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than expected , they ’ re going to hang *these* statements around his neck too , especially where he speculates that it might not come back at all .
( Fauci contradicted him on that . )
He ’ s going to be judged on the hard number of deaths and confirmed cases on Election Day no matter what he does ; the least he could do is not make his problem worse by offering rosy scenarios that might not be borne out .
He ’ d be better off saying something blandly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ We ’ ll move mountains to try to prevent even one more American from having to endure this terrible illness.
” But he ’ s a salesman by nature so he can ’ t resist overpromising .
Big mistake .
Update : As he was in the Loeffler/Collins matter , the governor is polite but firm .
He ’ s sticking with his decision .

I’m at a complete loss. How the hell did we go from “LIBERATE MINNESOTA!” last week to him gently scolding a Republican southern governor for allowing some select businesses to reopen a few days before May 1?
Trump says he told Georgia Gov. Kemp that he disagrees with his move to reopen businesses as soon as this Friday, but adds that “he must do what he thinks is right.” pic.twitter.com/n1YMBo7Ajb — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) April 22, 2020
What he says is sensible. I’ve pointed out myself that some of the businesses greenlit by Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp, like hair salons, can’t possibly comply with the federal “phase one” guidelines to maintain social distancing. Deborah Birx hinted at that too at yesterday’s briefing. But Trump’s spent the past month insisting that May 1 is his target date. The “LIBERATE MINNESOTA” and “LIBERATE MICHIGAN” garbage came after the guidelines were issued. Why is he suddenly so gun-shy about even a partial reopening in Georgia, which has seen some improvement lately in terms of containing its epidemic?
I can think of only two explanations. One: His advisors convinced him that Georgia is at high risk of a second wave if it follows through with Kemp’s plan and he’ll end up taking the blame from Democrats if he cheers it on. He’s covering his ass here, just as he did during his recent conference call with the governors when he dropped his claims “total authority” over the reopening and told them that they’ll call their own shots. Having become the public face of the “reopen now” push, he’s backing away at the very moment that it might actually have adverse consequences.
Two: He’s paying Kemp back for crossing him by appointing Kelly Loeffler to the vacant Georgia Senate seat instead of MAGA favorite Doug Collins. Trump went to bat for Collins, lobbying Kemp to name him instead. In the end Kemp went his own way, defying the president. The president doesn’t like to be defied. So here he is pulling the rug out from under Kemp 36 hours before his new reopening policy takes effect in Georgia.
I lean towards the first theory. There’s a post coming up later about a new Quinnipiac poll out of Trump’s must-win home state of Florida showing him not just trailing Joe Biden but trailing him by 10 points among senior citizens, normally a Republican group. Other questions in the poll make clear that Floridians generally and seniors in particular are nervous about seeing their state reopen before public health officials say it’s safe. And it’s not just Florida. This new AP data comes from a national poll:
Even most Republicans think the current restrictions in their city or county are appropriate, with some wanting even more restrictions. Maybe Trump’s political advisors finally convinced him that the “reopen ASAP” push is highly unpopular politically and is beginning to cost him with groups he absolutely has to win in order to get reelected. So here’s the president suddenly insisting that he wants to go slow on reopening as well.
The other notable moment from today’s briefing came when Trump had CDC chief Robert Redfield take the podium and halfheartedly clarify the comments he made to the Washington Post yesterday about the second wave of the disease. Trump clearly didn’t like the idea that the next round of the disease might be worse than this round; his reelection chances will depend largely on the public’s perception that he got the epidemic under control by fall, after all. So Redfield had to go up there and make clear that all he meant is that controlling COVID this fall could be more challenging because we’ll be trying to manage the annual flu epidemic alongside it. Watch Trump himself in the second and third clips below step up to try to make the case that things will be much, much better in the fall. (He got some welcome support from Anthony Fauci later in the briefing.)
You would think he’d have learned by now that there’s no way to pre-spin the reality of this. He’s getting killed by Democrats for his many statements in February that the epidemic was under control, that the virus will be going away soon, etc etc etc. They’re going to hang those statements around his neck from now until November. If the second wave is worse than expected, they’re going to hang *these* statements around his neck too, especially where he speculates that it might not come back at all. (Fauci contradicted him on that.) He’s going to be judged on the hard number of deaths and confirmed cases on Election Day no matter what he does; the least he could do is not make his problem worse by offering rosy scenarios that might not be borne out. He’d be better off saying something blandly reassuring about the effort, i.e. “We’ll move mountains to try to prevent even one more American from having to endure this terrible illness.” But he’s a salesman by nature so he can’t resist overpromising. Big mistake.
Here’s CDC Director Redfield trying to make a painstaking distinction between “worse” and “complicated” in an effort to walk back comments he made on the record indicating that a second wave of coronavirus this fall could be really bad pic.twitter.com/q9eClOqxkz — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) April 22, 2020
All this talk from Trump of the the virus “coming back” this fall seems to assume it’s gone away, which it hasn’t pic.twitter.com/KSq7wt9I5P — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) April 22, 2020
Question: How can you say that you know it won’t come back at the same level that it has today? Trump: It might not come back at all. It may not come back at all. pic.twitter.com/TQCEA2WP2Q — Acyn Torabi (@Acyn) April 22, 2020
Update: As he was in the Loeffler/Collins matter, the governor is polite but firm. He’s sticking with his decision.
Earlier today, I discussed Georgia's plan to reopen shuttered businesses for limited operations with @POTUS. I appreciate his bold leadership and insight during these difficult times and the framework provided by the White House to safely move states forward. (1/3) #gapol — Governor Brian P. Kemp (@GovKemp) April 22, 2020


hotair--2020-04-22--AOC: After the crisis passes, maybe people shouldn't go back to work

There has already been reason to suspect that Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is daydreaming more than usual about creating a socialist utopia in the midst of this crisis .
The other day she said on Twitter that the collapse of oil prices was wonderful to see , ignoring the fact that it could mean hundreds of thousands of people will be out of work soon .
AOC quickly pulled down the tweet in question and never really tried to defend the idea massive job losses were good news .
But today there ’ s a preview of an interview she did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ maybe , once the crisis is over , people just shouldn ’ t go back to work .
“ When we talk about this idea of reopening society , you know only in America does the President , when the President tweets about liberation , does he mean go back to work , ” she said .
She added , “ When we , you know , have this discussion about going back or reopening , I think a lot people should just say ‘ no , we ’ re not going back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going back to working 70-hour weeks just so that we could put food on the table and not even feel any sort of semblance of security in our lives.
” The first thing to note here is that AOC is falling back on an old trope that has gotten her in trouble with fact-checkers in the past .
Back in 2018 she have an interview to Margaret Hoover on PBS in which she said , “ Unemployment is low because everyone has two jobs .
Unemployment is low because people are working 60 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and can barely feed their family.
” If you look at her statement in the Vice interview ( which you can watch below ) it ’ s very similar .
This time she didn ’ t make the claim about working two jobs but the rest of her claim was false as well .
Here ’ s Politifact which gave her claim a “ Pants on Fire ” rating at the time : …the people who might be working 70 or 80 hours a week amount to a tiny percentage of a tiny @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a pool of employed Americans totaling more than 150 million .
It ’ s also worth noting that on average , Americans aren ’ t working more today than they have been in the recent past .
The average number of hours worked in the private sector has hugged tightly to about 34.5 hours a week since 2006 , except for a dip during the Great Recession .
So the first thing to note is that AOC is once again talking out of her rear end .
The other thing is that it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ call for an impromptu general strike when she ’ s still pulling down $ 174,000 a year and no one is talking about cutting her salary or laying her off ( though it would be great if they did ) .
Seriously , I know she sees herself as a socialist ‘ woman of the people ’ but does she not get how tone deaf this sounds to people who just lost jobs and may be wondering what to do next .
And we ’ ve only been under this lockdown for about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if this drags on for another three months or longer and we have unemployment above 25 percent ?
Telling people not to return to work as some kind of general strike against the system when they are already desperate is delusional .
In a few months we may have people with PhDs eager to work for DoorDash if we don ’ t have some already .
The clip below is just a teaser for the full interview which I think is set to air tonight .
I ’ m sure the conversation goes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be interested to see what alternative AOC propses to going back to work .
Are people just supposed to hold out for $ 15 an hour or should they demand universal basic income for life ?
If the former , how will business owners afford that when the economy is in shambles ?
If the latter , how will the government finance that with so many millions fewer people paying income taxes ?
I think we all know the real answer is that she has no idea how any of this is supposed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a career out of just saying things that resonate with a socialist fringe and that ’ s good enough for television .

There has already been reason to suspect that Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is daydreaming more than usual about creating a socialist utopia in the midst of this crisis. The other day she said on Twitter that the collapse of oil prices was wonderful to see, ignoring the fact that it could mean hundreds of thousands of people will be out of work soon.
AOC quickly pulled down the tweet in question and never really tried to defend the idea massive job losses were good news. But today there’s a preview of an interview she did with Vice in which she suggests that maybe, once the crisis is over, people just shouldn’t go back to work.
“When we talk about this idea of reopening society, you know only in America does the President, when the President tweets about liberation, does he mean go back to work,” she said. She added, “When we, you know, have this discussion about going back or reopening, I think a lot people should just say ‘no, we’re not going back to that.’ We’re not going back to working 70-hour weeks just so that we could put food on the table and not even feel any sort of semblance of security in our lives.”
The first thing to note here is that AOC is falling back on an old trope that has gotten her in trouble with fact-checkers in the past. Back in 2018 she have an interview to Margaret Hoover on PBS in which she said, “Unemployment is low because everyone has two jobs. Unemployment is low because people are working 60, 70, 80 hours a week and can barely feed their family.”
If you look at her statement in the Vice interview (which you can watch below) it’s very similar. This time she didn’t make the claim about working two jobs but the rest of her claim was false as well. Here’s Politifact which gave her claim a “Pants on Fire” rating at the time:
…the people who might be working 70 or 80 hours a week amount to a tiny percentage of a tiny percentage — 310,000 people at most in a pool of employed Americans totaling more than 150 million. It’s also worth noting that on average, Americans aren’t working more today than they have been in the recent past. The average number of hours worked in the private sector has hugged tightly to about 34.5 hours a week since 2006, except for a dip during the Great Recession.
So the first thing to note is that AOC is once again talking out of her rear end. The other thing is that it’s pretty easy for her to call for an impromptu general strike when she’s still pulling down $174,000 a year and no one is talking about cutting her salary or laying her off (though it would be great if they did). Seriously, I know she sees herself as a socialist ‘woman of the people’ but does she not get how tone deaf this sounds to people who just lost jobs and may be wondering what to do next.
And we’ve only been under this lockdown for about a month so far. What happens if this drags on for another three months or longer and we have unemployment above 25 percent? Telling people not to return to work as some kind of general strike against the system when they are already desperate is delusional. In a few months we may have people with PhDs eager to work for DoorDash if we don’t have some already.
The clip below is just a teaser for the full interview which I think is set to air tonight. I’m sure the conversation goes on from here and I’ll be interested to see what alternative AOC propses to going back to work. Are people just supposed to hold out for $15 an hour or should they demand universal basic income for life? If the former, how will business owners afford that when the economy is in shambles? If the latter, how will the government finance that with so many millions fewer people paying income taxes?
I think we all know the real answer is that she has no idea how any of this is supposed to actually work. She has made a career out of just saying things that resonate with a socialist fringe and that’s good enough for television.


hotair--2020-04-22--WaPo: No, Trump didn't send American PPE to China

Consider this one of the dumber tropes to emerge from Democrats over the last few weeks of coronavirus theater , and — as Glenn Kessler demonstrates — one of the more easily refuted .
The Democratic super-PAC supporting Joe Biden amplified an accusation bouncing around on social media of late , which is that Donald Trump so miscalculated the COVID-19 pandemic that he robbed the US of its personal protective equipment in order to assist China .
That , they hint , is why America faces a PPE shortage now : Feel free to follow the above links to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ?
Did Trump send masks and other PPE to China just when we needed it the most ?
No , Kessler says in his fact check at the Washington Post .
All Trump did was supply the transport for private donations of PPE on the front part of the effort to evacuate Americans from China : The ad says that “ Trump … shipped 17 tons of American masks and medical supplies .
Our masks and supplies.
” The impression left by the ad is that these were U.S. government goods , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But these were actually donations by private charities and public companies for Project HOPE , an international health-care organization that has been operating in Wuhan for a quarter-century and helped establish a nursing school there .
Usually , donors to Project HOPE arrange for charter aircraft to take their donations overseas .
For instance , as these shipments arrived in Wuhan , another shipment — 2 million respirator masks , 11,000 protective suits and 280,000 pairs of nitrile gloves donated by MAP International and MedShare — was sent to Project HOPE via UPS @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in-kind donation .
In the case highlighted in the ad , the State Department ’ s role was providing the aircraft .
The department sent charted planes to Wuhan to pick up some 800 consulate workers , their families and other Americans .
The planes otherwise were going to be empty on the way to China , so officials decided to fill the jets with goods donated by Samaritan ’ s Purse , the Boeing Company , the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Intermountain Healthcare .
In fact , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shipping the goods , although that doesn ’ t apply to the State Department ’ s evacuation effort : How difficult was this to determine ?
Kessler did his own research , talking with Project HOPE ’ s CEO , but he also notes that the major donors involved all put out press releases at the time to highlight their charitable efforts .
Those include Boeing , which chipped in 250K medical masks , as well as the Mormon Church , which added 220,000 more .
Kessler also notes that the World Health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from around the world in an effort to contain the outbreak to China — which by February 7 was already a lost cause , thanks in large part to WHO ’ s parroting of China ’ s propaganda : In other words , the same people who are hyperventilating over Trump ’ s snubs of WHO are now trying to blame him for something Trump didn ’ t do in the first place — and for actions that WHO demanded at the time .
Only Democrats and demagogues could possibly square that circle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ never did belong to the US government , and Trump didn ’ t have any authority to seize it , either .
If he had seized it in early February , the same people pushing this nonsense would have hyperventilated over that , likely calling Trump a racist and xenophobe for not helping Chinese victims of the Wuhan plague .
Kessler gives American Bridge 21st Century two Pinocchios for this false attack : That seems a bit generous to me , but kudos to Kessler for debunking it at all .

Consider this one of the dumber tropes to emerge from Democrats over the last few weeks of coronavirus theater, and — as Glenn Kessler demonstrates — one of the more easily refuted. The Democratic super-PAC supporting Joe Biden amplified an accusation bouncing around on social media of late, which is that Donald Trump so miscalculated the COVID-19 pandemic that he robbed the US of its personal protective equipment in order to assist China. That, they hint, is why America faces a PPE shortage now:
“Trump gave China more than praise. He shipped China 17 tons of American masks and medical supplies. Our masks and supplies. Supplies we need now.” — voice-over of ad via American Bridge 21st Century, a Democratic super PAC, released April 17, 2020
Feel free to follow the above links to the ad itself, but is it worth it? Did Trump send masks and other PPE to China just when we needed it the most? No, Kessler says in his fact check at the Washington Post. All Trump did was supply the transport for private donations of PPE on the front part of the effort to evacuate Americans from China:
The ad says that “Trump … shipped 17 tons of American masks and medical supplies. Our masks and supplies.” The impression left by the ad is that these were U.S. government goods, shipped on Trump’s order. But these were actually donations by private charities and public companies for Project HOPE, an international health-care organization that has been operating in Wuhan for a quarter-century and helped establish a nursing school there. Usually, donors to Project HOPE arrange for charter aircraft to take their donations overseas. For instance, as these shipments arrived in Wuhan, another shipment — 2 million respirator masks, 11,000 protective suits and 280,000 pairs of nitrile gloves donated by MAP International and MedShare — was sent to Project HOPE via UPS, which provided the transportation as an in-kind donation. In the case highlighted in the ad, the State Department’s role was providing the aircraft. The department sent charted planes to Wuhan to pick up some 800 consulate workers, their families and other Americans. The planes otherwise were going to be empty on the way to China, so officials decided to fill the jets with goods donated by Samaritan’s Purse, the Boeing Company, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Intermountain Healthcare.
In fact, it didn’t cost taxpayers anything for shipping the goods, although that doesn’t apply to the State Department’s evacuation effort:
Money to help underwrite the effort was provided by Kenneth Griffin, a hedge fund manager who is chief executive of the investment firm Citadel.
How difficult was this to determine? Kessler did his own research, talking with Project HOPE’s CEO, but he also notes that the major donors involved all put out press releases at the time to highlight their charitable efforts. Those include Boeing, which chipped in 250K medical masks, as well as the Mormon Church, which added 220,000 more. Kessler also notes that the World Health Organization was pleading for donations of PPE from around the world in an effort to contain the outbreak to China — which by February 7 was already a lost cause, thanks in large part to WHO’s parroting of China’s propaganda:
“There is limited stock of PPE and we need to make sure we get it to the people who need it most in the places that need it most. … WHO discourages stockpiling of PPE in countries and areas where transmission is low.”
In other words, the same people who are hyperventilating over Trump’s snubs of WHO are now trying to blame him for something Trump didn’t do in the first place — and for actions that WHO demanded at the time. Only Democrats and demagogues could possibly square that circle.
At any rate, the PPE never did belong to the US government, and Trump didn’t have any authority to seize it, either. If he had seized it in early February, the same people pushing this nonsense would have hyperventilated over that, likely calling Trump a racist and xenophobe for not helping Chinese victims of the Wuhan plague. Kessler gives American Bridge 21st Century two Pinocchios for this false attack:
The line in the ad is carefully, even cleverly, worded, keeping it just shy of the Three Pinocchio mark. But it’s misleading enough to earn Two Pinocchios.
That seems a bit generous to me, but kudos to Kessler for debunking it at all.


hotair--2020-04-22--Las Vegas mayor shocks CNN: I offered our city as a "control group" to see what happens if we opened

Las Vegas mayor shocks CNN: I offered our city as a "control group" to see what happens if we opened everything up; Update: Culinary union slams

And I do mean “ shocks.
” As contentious as cable news interviews tend to be , you don ’ t often see the host call an elected official “ ignorant.
” Not to overhype it , but the most famous political writer in Nevada , Jon Ralston , watched it live on CNN and reacted this way : Carolyn Goodman , the mayor of Vegas , is one of the country ’ s loudest voices in the “ reopen now ” camp .
Yesterday she told NBC that it ’ s “ total insanity ” that the city is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
CNN had her on today to tease that out .
What would she like to see happen ?
Vegas is at a special disadvantage from the pandemic relative to most American cities because so much of its economy depends on hospitality .
It ’ s a city that runs on crowds : Crowds in the casinos , crowds at shows , crowds at bars and restaurants , crowds in hotel lobbies .
Remember that story about how a single soccer match in northern Italy in mid-February is suspected of seeding the outbreak @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Imagine that in Vegas every night .
And in Italy , most soccer fans were local .
Vegas attracts tourists from everywhere .
Not only is it a perfect incubator for the disease , it ’ s positioned to spread it to all four corners of the country as visitors arrive , get infected , and return home .
You ’ d think the mayor would be more cautious under the circumstances .
In reality , she ’ s so gung ho to reopen that she claims to have asked her deputies whether @ @ @ @ @ @ @ group for … something .
It ’ s not clear if she means a control group for doing away with lockdown orders while leaving informal social distancing in place or if she means a control group for ending the lockdowns and ending social distancing .
Her position on that seemed to shift during the interview .
Every time Anderson Cooper accused her of being reckless in not insisting on keeping people apart , she tut-tutted him and said of course she believes in social distancing .
But watch this .
Sure sounds to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s necessary .
Elsewhere in the clip he asked her what her plan is for casinos and restaurants after they reopen .
Once the lockdown orders are lifted , how does she propose to make it safe for people to congregate in confined spaces like casino floors ?
To which Goodman counters : I ’ m not a casino owner .
Let the businesses worry about it .
Which is a fine laissez faire attitude , and not in conflict with better-informed skeptics who point to data showing that lockdowns don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is that those same skeptics do endorse various other social distancing measures , including and especially school closings because of the potential for schools to become incubators of the virus .
Places that host mass gatherings are obviously a special threat in an epidemic .
Schools are one of those places .
As , of course , are … casinos and theaters .
Even so , I ’ d be all for letting her run her “ control group ” with willing participants *if* they could all be contained in Vegas for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the United States .
The wrinkle in her laissez faire approach to an infectious disease is that , in this case , if you want to party on the Strip you ’ re not just risking your own health .
Potentially you ’ re risking mine and the health of thousands of other people in your chain of contacts after you ’ re infected and contagious .
Goodman never addresses that point , that in this case what happens in Vegas emphatically does not stay in Vegas .
Instead she ’ s left @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it out during typhoid outbreaks , West Nile , and so on , without lockdowns or mass social distancing .
In which case why can ’ t we do that in this case , with a novel virus for which we have no treatments , no vaccine , and no natural immunity , and which has already killed 40,000 people in six weeks ?
At one point Cooper asks her if she ’ ll head down to the casino once the COVID crew is in there gambling .
She doesn ’ t sound @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presidential material .
Update : One of the engines of Vegas ’ s hospitality industry is not eager to be part of the “ control group .
”

And I do mean “shocks.” As contentious as cable news interviews tend to be, you don’t often see the host call an elected official “ignorant.”
Not to overhype it, but the most famous political writer in Nevada, Jon Ralston, watched it live on CNN and reacted this way:
I have seen many Nevada officials stumble on national TV. But that was the single most embarrassing thing i have seen by a NV pol in 35 years here. The mayor just showed the country she is unfit for office, and the commentary and shock and disgust here bears that out. My God. — Jon Ralston (@RalstonReports) April 22, 2020
Carolyn Goodman, the mayor of Vegas, is one of the country’s loudest voices in the “reopen now” camp. Yesterday she told NBC that it’s “total insanity” that the city is locked down by order of the governor. CNN had her on today to tease that out. What would she like to see happen? Vegas is at a special disadvantage from the pandemic relative to most American cities because so much of its economy depends on hospitality. It’s a city that runs on crowds: Crowds in the casinos, crowds at shows, crowds at bars and restaurants, crowds in hotel lobbies. Remember that story about how a single soccer match in northern Italy in mid-February is suspected of seeding the outbreak that brought Lombardy to its knees? Imagine that in Vegas every night. And in Italy, most soccer fans were local. Vegas attracts tourists from everywhere. Not only is it a perfect incubator for the disease, it’s positioned to spread it to all four corners of the country as visitors arrive, get infected, and return home.
You’d think the mayor would be more cautious under the circumstances. In reality, she’s so gung ho to reopen that she claims to have asked her deputies whether the city might serve as a control group for … something. It’s not clear if she means a control group for doing away with lockdown orders while leaving informal social distancing in place or if she means a control group for ending the lockdowns and ending social distancing. Her position on that seemed to shift during the interview. Every time Anderson Cooper accused her of being reckless in not insisting on keeping people apart, she tut-tutted him and said of course she believes in social distancing. But watch this. Sure sounds to me like she’s questioning whether it’s necessary.
The Mayor of Las Vegas offering up her citizens as “a control group” to see if social distancing actually works is pic.twitter.com/7zfFQfmtmS — Blair McDougall (@blairmcdougall) April 22, 2020
Elsewhere in the clip he asked her what her plan is for casinos and restaurants after they reopen. Once the lockdown orders are lifted, how does she propose to make it safe for people to congregate in confined spaces like casino floors? To which Goodman counters: I’m not a casino owner. Let the businesses worry about it.
Which is a fine laissez faire attitude, and not in conflict with better-informed skeptics who point to data showing that lockdowns don’t work. But the catch is that those same skeptics do endorse various other social distancing measures, including and especially school closings because of the potential for schools to become incubators of the virus. Places that host mass gatherings are obviously a special threat in an epidemic. Schools are one of those places. As, of course, are … casinos and theaters.
Even so, I’d be all for letting her run her “control group” with willing participants *if* they could all be contained in Vegas for a month afterward instead of seeding outbreaks around the United States. The wrinkle in her laissez faire approach to an infectious disease is that, in this case, if you want to party on the Strip you’re not just risking your own health. Potentially you’re risking mine and the health of thousands of other people in your chain of contacts after you’re infected and contagious. Goodman never addresses that point, that in this case what happens in Vegas emphatically does not stay in Vegas. Instead she’s left babbling at times about how people toughed it out during typhoid outbreaks, West Nile, and so on, without lockdowns or mass social distancing. In which case why can’t we do that in this case, with a novel virus for which we have no treatments, no vaccine, and no natural immunity, and which has already killed 40,000 people in six weeks?
At one point Cooper asks her if she’ll head down to the casino once the COVID crew is in there gambling. She doesn’t sound eager. I think she’s presidential material.
Las Vegas Mayor Carolyn Goodman clashes with CNN's Anderson Cooper over her push to reopen casinos and hotels. "It sounds like you're being an alarmist." pic.twitter.com/NOtAtaJ9tr — The First (@TheFirstonTV) April 22, 2020
“Wow, that’s really ignorant.”@AndersonCooper clashes with Las Vegas Mayor Goodman after she justified her wish to quickly reopen casinos saying, “this isn’t China, this is Las Vegas,” after he showed her a graphic of how coronavirus could spread in a restaurant in China. pic.twitter.com/w3QscYmiIH — Anderson Cooper 360° (@AC360) April 22, 2020
Update: One of the engines of Vegas’s hospitality industry is not eager to be part of the “control group.”


hotair--2020-04-22--Stacey Abrams: Joe Biden really ought to pick a woman of color as his VP (hint, hint)

Stacey Abrams has issued quite a few hints in the past few weeks that she is tan , rested and ready to be Joe Biden ’ s VP .
The tan part is a bit of a joke only not really .
Today Abrams made her pitch on The View where co-host Sunny Hostin asked if Biden should commit to not only selecting a woman VP but a woman of color .
Abrams tried to be diplomatic but her answer basically came down to agreeing that he needed to do that .
Here ’ s how it went : “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concerning to me , ” Hostin said .
She continued , “ Biden has committed to a woman as vice-president but has stopped short of committing to a woman of color .
How important is it , do you think , for Biden to make that commitment ?
Do you think that not choosing a woman of color , a black woman actually , is a slap in the face to the black female voters who are credited with really reviving his candidacy ?
” “ I think Vice-President Biden is going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ replied .
She added , “ I would share your concerns about not picking a woman of color because women of color , particularly black women , are the strongest part of the Democratic party.
” Again , she ’ s being diplomatic here but there ’ s no doubt she ’ s basically agreeing with the premise of the question .
If Biden doesn ’ t pick a woman of color , particularly a black woman , he ’ s making a mistake .
Abrams has really been on a campaign lately @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in an Elle magazine interview in which she came right out and said she ’ s an ideal pick : Experienced politicians know there is a right way to answer questions about pursuing higher office .
Be demure .
Redirect .
Convey vague interest while insisting never to have given it serious consideration .
But Stacey Abrams does not give the expected answer when I ask if she would accept an offer from former vice president Joe Biden to serve as his 2020 running mate .
“ Yes .
I would be honored @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would be an excellent running mate .
I have the capacity to attract voters by motivating typically ignored communities .
I have a strong history of executive and management experience in the private , public , and nonprofit sectors .
I ’ ve spent 25 years in independent study of foreign policy .
I am ready to help advance an agenda of restoring America ’ s place in the world .
If I am selected , I am prepared and excited to serve.
” Abrams was asked about her direct approach to seeking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Joy Behar who called it “ refreshing.
” “ I try to be straight forward because while we hope the work speaks for itself sometimes the work needs a hype man .
I learned early on that if I didn ’ t speak for myself , I couldn ’ t tell the story.
” I think there ’ s a real chance this campaign is going to work for exactly the reasons Sunny Hostin outlined .
Biden ’ s campaign arguably owes black voters something .
If his pick doesn ’ t reflect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But who knows .
The old advice about not looking too eager might still prove to be right .
There really is something off-putting about Abrams suggesting any other choice would be a slap in the face .
Again , that may even be true , but saying it ’ s true when you ’ re hoping to personally benefit from the insight might be a step beyond confidence toward hubris .
Some went even further and said it sounded like a threat .
If she ’ s not the pick , she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the person who is .
That ’ s worked out pretty well for her in the past .
Here ’ s the clip from the View :

Stacey Abrams has issued quite a few hints in the past few weeks that she is tan, rested and ready to be Joe Biden’s VP. The tan part is a bit of a joke only not really. Today Abrams made her pitch on The View where co-host Sunny Hostin asked if Biden should commit to not only selecting a woman VP but a woman of color. Abrams tried to be diplomatic but her answer basically came down to agreeing that he needed to do that. Here’s how it went:
“Stacey, this is something that is concerning to me,” Hostin said. She continued, “Biden has committed to a woman as vice-president but has stopped short of committing to a woman of color. How important is it, do you think, for Biden to make that commitment? Do you think that not choosing a woman of color, a black woman actually, is a slap in the face to the black female voters who are credited with really reviving his candidacy?”
“I think Vice-President Biden is going to make a smart choice,” Abrams replied. She added, “I would share your concerns about not picking a woman of color because women of color, particularly black women, are the strongest part of the Democratic party.”
Again, she’s being diplomatic here but there’s no doubt she’s basically agreeing with the premise of the question. If Biden doesn’t pick a woman of color, particularly a black woman, he’s making a mistake.
Abrams has really been on a campaign lately. Just last week she was featured in an Elle magazine interview in which she came right out and said she’s an ideal pick:
Experienced politicians know there is a right way to answer questions about pursuing higher office. Be demure. Redirect. Convey vague interest while insisting never to have given it serious consideration. But Stacey Abrams does not give the expected answer when I ask if she would accept an offer from former vice president Joe Biden to serve as his 2020 running mate. “Yes. I would be honored,” Abrams says. “I would be an excellent running mate. I have the capacity to attract voters by motivating typically ignored communities. I have a strong history of executive and management experience in the private, public, and nonprofit sectors. I’ve spent 25 years in independent study of foreign policy. I am ready to help advance an agenda of restoring America’s place in the world. If I am selected, I am prepared and excited to serve.”
Abrams was asked about her direct approach to seeking a spot on the ticket by co-host Joy Behar who called it “refreshing.” “I try to be straight forward because while we hope the work speaks for itself sometimes the work needs a hype man. I learned early on that if I didn’t speak for myself, I couldn’t tell the story.”
I think there’s a real chance this campaign is going to work for exactly the reasons Sunny Hostin outlined. Biden’s campaign arguably owes black voters something. If his pick doesn’t reflect that, it could cost him.
But who knows. The old advice about not looking too eager might still prove to be right. There really is something off-putting about Abrams suggesting any other choice would be a slap in the face. Again, that may even be true, but saying it’s true when you’re hoping to personally benefit from the insight might be a step beyond confidence toward hubris. Some went even further and said it sounded like a threat.
Not-so-veiled threat/warning from Stacey Abrams, to Biden. Very skeptical that this is the way to win the veepstakes. https://t.co/UVRsRw8he5 — Josh Kraushaar (@HotlineJosh) April 22, 2020
If she’s not the pick, she could always just refuse to concede to the person who is. That’s worked out pretty well for her in the past. Here’s the clip from the View:


hotair--2020-04-22--New York's frightening new "do-not-resuscitate" guidelines for cardiac patients

If you ’ re one of the people who are crazy enough to venture out onto the streets of New York City this week ( or simply can ’ t avoid it for professional reasons ) and you ’ re unlucky enough to collapse on the sidewalk from a heart attack , I suppose all we can say is it ’ s been nice knowing you .
Under new guidelines issued by the state Health Department , paramedics finding people in a state of cardiac arrest without a heartbeat are not supposed to go through the usual routines of attempting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and respiration .
In other words , assuming you are seen by an EMT who is following this guideline , once you ’ re dead you ’ re supposed to politely remain on your trip to the afterlife .
While paramedics were previously told to spend up to 20 minutes trying to revive people found in cardiac arrest , the change is “ necessary during the COVID-19 response to protect the health and safety of EMS providers by limiting their exposure , conserve resources , and ensure optimal use of equipment to save @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ according to a state Health Department memo issued last week .
First responders were outraged over the move .
“ They ’ re not giving people a second chance to live anymore , ’ ’ Oren Barzilay , head of the city union whose members include uniformed EMTs and paramedics , fumed of state officials .
Particularly in New York City , this isn ’ t the first such policy change to be issued .
The Regional Emergency Services Council of New York ( which is responsible for overseeing ambulance services in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more stern directive .
Cardiac patients whose hearts could not be restarted on the scene are no longer supposed to be taken to a hospital “ for further life-saving attempts.
” But under those guidelines , you at least still could get twenty minutes of effort to restart your ticker where they found you .
If you combine these two directives together , you ’ re pretty much out of luck .
If your heart stops , you ’ re a casualty of the war against the novel coronavirus .
But you may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The FDNY responded by issuing a statement saying that they would continue to offer the same levels of medical response service that they have in the past .
There ’ s a part of me that almost understands a move like this , at least in theory .
On the one hand , the first responders are already overwhelmed .
And as tough as their jobs already are , now they have to worry if the guy collapsed on the street is contagious with the virus .
A desire by the state to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in that regard .
Also , while New York was never as fully overwhelmed as some originally feared , the number of ICU beds available at some of the hospitals is still down near zero on some days , primarily because of COVID-19 patients .
But if you ’ ve ever listened to any of the near-death experiencers ( NDE ) out there , you know that ’ s it ’ s not a minor matter for them .
Those few people who have shuffled off this mortal coil only to be dragged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ generally come away from the experience with profound , life-altering views .
And we ’ re still not entirely sure where that line between life and death is drawn anyway .
If you can revive someone who has flatlined for several minutes , what was their condition during that time ?
Were they really , technically “ dead ?
” If we ’ re to accept that , we must suggest that they were then resurrected , and that raises all sorts of philosophical and religious issues .
We should probably leave these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are out there on the front lines .
If they can save a life , you just know that they ’ re going to want to try .
Otherwise , why would they be in that profession to begin with ?

If you’re one of the people who are crazy enough to venture out onto the streets of New York City this week (or simply can’t avoid it for professional reasons) and you’re unlucky enough to collapse on the sidewalk from a heart attack, I suppose all we can say is it’s been nice knowing you. Under new guidelines issued by the state Health Department, paramedics finding people in a state of cardiac arrest without a heartbeat are not supposed to go through the usual routines of attempting to restart the patient’s heart and respiration. In other words, assuming you are seen by an EMT who is following this guideline, once you’re dead you’re supposed to politely remain on your trip to the afterlife.
While paramedics were previously told to spend up to 20 minutes trying to revive people found in cardiac arrest, the change is “necessary during the COVID-19 response to protect the health and safety of EMS providers by limiting their exposure, conserve resources, and ensure optimal use of equipment to save the greatest number of lives,’’ according to a state Health Department memo issued last week. First responders were outraged over the move. “They’re not giving people a second chance to live anymore,’’ Oren Barzilay, head of the city union whose members include uniformed EMTs and paramedics, fumed of state officials.
Particularly in New York City, this isn’t the first such policy change to be issued. The Regional Emergency Services Council of New York (which is responsible for overseeing ambulance services in the Big Apple) issued an even more stern directive. Cardiac patients whose hearts could not be restarted on the scene are no longer supposed to be taken to a hospital “for further life-saving attempts.”
But under those guidelines, you at least still could get twenty minutes of effort to restart your ticker where they found you. If you combine these two directives together, you’re pretty much out of luck. If your heart stops, you’re a casualty of the war against the novel coronavirus. But you may not have to worry about it. The FDNY responded by issuing a statement saying that they would continue to offer the same levels of medical response service that they have in the past.
There’s a part of me that almost understands a move like this, at least in theory. On the one hand, the first responders are already overwhelmed. And as tough as their jobs already are, now they have to worry if the guy collapsed on the street is contagious with the virus. A desire by the state to keep them safe is at least laudable in that regard. Also, while New York was never as fully overwhelmed as some originally feared, the number of ICU beds available at some of the hospitals is still down near zero on some days, primarily because of COVID-19 patients.
But if you’ve ever listened to any of the near-death experiencers (NDE) out there, you know that’s it’s not a minor matter for them. Those few people who have shuffled off this mortal coil only to be dragged back to the world of the living generally come away from the experience with profound, life-altering views. And we’re still not entirely sure where that line between life and death is drawn anyway. If you can revive someone who has flatlined for several minutes, what was their condition during that time? Were they really, technically “dead?” If we’re to accept that, we must suggest that they were then resurrected, and that raises all sorts of philosophical and religious issues.
We should probably leave these decisions up to the individual paramedics who are out there on the front lines. If they can save a life, you just know that they’re going to want to try. Otherwise, why would they be in that profession to begin with?


hotair--2020-04-22--GOP to Pelosi: Forget remote voting -- get back to work

So much for working from home .
House Democrats ’ plans to vote on a proxy system for casting votes in Congress ran aground earlier today after House Republicans pledged to object to the rules change .
The options for remote operation will instead go to a bipartisan committee , but Republicans want it to be an academic exercise .
Instead , they demanded that Pelosi call the House back into session normally to deal with the national emergency : House Speaker Nancy Pelosi abruptly postponed plans Wednesday to change the House rules this week to allow a form of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the chamber ’ s 230-year history after Republicans raised objections to a plan meant to reconcile the need for legislative action with the ongoing coronavirus pandemic .
Instead , Pelosi told fellow House Democratic leaders on a Wednesday morning conference call , the issue would be closely studied by a bipartisan group led by Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer ( D-Md . )
and Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy ( R-Calif. ) .
Pelosi ’ s decision , described by two Democratic aides familiar with the call Wednesday , comes as GOP lawmakers in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ called for Congress to return to Washington and begin plotting a return to business as usual — echoing calls from conservative activists and some Republican governors who have advocated loosening the stay-at-home guidelines supported by public health officials .
If this smells like a “ Republicans pounce ” narrative , you ’ re not far off , although this might be the slowest-motion pounce yet .
For more than two weeks , Republican leaders in both the House and Senate let Pelosi off the hook for refusing to get Congress in session in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , first responders , many executive-branch workers , and even grocery store and restaurant staff went to work , but Congress sat idle even though legislative action has been badly needed all along .
Pelosi instead used the recess to leverage her power through unanimous consent , sidelining all of the other 434 members of her chamber who might have pushed harder for earlier action .
Yesterday , however , House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy finally called on Pelosi to get the House back in action .
Today , Mitch McConnell stepped up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Senate ahead of her .
McConnell also flexed his own muscle by refusing to allow any progress on the Phase 4 bill for state and local government bailouts until Congress got back into session for the negotiations : Pelosi hasn ’ t yet capitulated on that score , but her retreat from proxy voting probably signals that she plans to remain in session .
Even an attempted rescue by Politifact didn ’ t cause Pelosi to rethink the issue : President Donald Trump recently said that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi needs to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ blaming her for a stalemate over a deal to add funds to the exhausted small business loan program , which ran out of money on April 16 .
Posts on Facebook take the vacation claim further and suggest that all Democrats are on vacation until May 4 and “ refuse to come back ” to sign a bill to replenish the program .
This is misleading .
All of Congress , which includes House and Senate Republicans , are in recess to avoid spreading the coronavirus .
That ’ s true … as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in recess , hence Trump ’ s use of the word “ vacation , ” which is usually what a recess is .
None of them are working and , unlike other Americans who aren ’ t working , they ’ re still drawing their paychecks .
That sure sounds like vacation in any reasonable use of the word .
Let ’ s not forget how Pelosi is spending her recess , too : And here ’ s one fun fact that PolitiFact overlooked in its “ false ” rating — the House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decided to recess the chamber .
Nancy Pelosi could just as easily end the recess , which she did yesterday in order to hold the vote tomorrow on the bill replenishing the Paycheck Protection Program .
That is precisely what Trump demanded she do , and Pelosi ’ s presence in the capitol today is a confirmation that she had the power to return the House to business at any time .
This “ fact check ” is an embarrassment , but then so too is this Brave Sir Robin Congress .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a “ non-essential business , ” and their recess has been a dereliction of duty .
Shame on them , Democrats and Republicans alike , and shame on their apologists , too .

So much for working from home. House Democrats’ plans to vote on a proxy system for casting votes in Congress ran aground earlier today after House Republicans pledged to object to the rules change. The options for remote operation will instead go to a bipartisan committee, but Republicans want it to be an academic exercise. Instead, they demanded that Pelosi call the House back into session normally to deal with the national emergency:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi abruptly postponed plans Wednesday to change the House rules this week to allow a form of remote voting for the first time in the chamber’s 230-year history after Republicans raised objections to a plan meant to reconcile the need for legislative action with the ongoing coronavirus pandemic. Instead, Pelosi told fellow House Democratic leaders on a Wednesday morning conference call, the issue would be closely studied by a bipartisan group led by Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) and Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.). Pelosi’s decision, described by two Democratic aides familiar with the call Wednesday, comes as GOP lawmakers in both the House and Senate have increasingly called for Congress to return to Washington and begin plotting a return to business as usual — echoing calls from conservative activists and some Republican governors who have advocated loosening the stay-at-home guidelines supported by public health officials.
If this smells like a “Republicans pounce” narrative, you’re not far off, although this might be the slowest-motion pounce yet. For more than two weeks, Republican leaders in both the House and Senate let Pelosi off the hook for refusing to get Congress in session in the national emergency. Doctors, nurses, first responders, many executive-branch workers, and even grocery store and restaurant staff went to work, but Congress sat idle even though legislative action has been badly needed all along. Pelosi instead used the recess to leverage her power through unanimous consent, sidelining all of the other 434 members of her chamber who might have pushed harder for earlier action.
Yesterday, however, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy finally called on Pelosi to get the House back in action. Today, Mitch McConnell stepped up pressure on Pelosi by threatening to recall the Senate ahead of her. McConnell also flexed his own muscle by refusing to allow any progress on the Phase 4 bill for state and local government bailouts until Congress got back into session for the negotiations:
The Republican lawmakers include Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.), who said in several interviews Tuesday that he would not push another coronavirus-related emergency relief bill until Congress was back in session. And in a radio interview Wednesday, McConnell signaled he was ready to reconvene the full Senate early next month despite the stay-at-home order now in effect in Washington through May 15.
Pelosi hasn’t yet capitulated on that score, but her retreat from proxy voting probably signals that she plans to remain in session. Even an attempted rescue by Politifact didn’t cause Pelosi to rethink the issue:
President Donald Trump recently said that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi needs to come back from “vacation,” blaming her for a stalemate over a deal to add funds to the exhausted small business loan program, which ran out of money on April 16. Posts on Facebook take the vacation claim further and suggest that all Democrats are on vacation until May 4 and “refuse to come back” to sign a bill to replenish the program. This is misleading. All of Congress, which includes House and Senate Republicans, are in recess to avoid spreading the coronavirus.
That’s true … as far as it goes. Congress is in recess, hence Trump’s use of the word “vacation,” which is usually what a recess is. None of them are working and, unlike other Americans who aren’t working, they’re still drawing their paychecks. That sure sounds like vacation in any reasonable use of the word. Let’s not forget how Pelosi is spending her recess, too:
And here’s one fun fact that PolitiFact overlooked in its “false” rating — the House is in recess only because Nancy Pelosi decided to recess the chamber. Nancy Pelosi could just as easily end the recess, which she did yesterday in order to hold the vote tomorrow on the bill replenishing the Paycheck Protection Program. That is precisely what Trump demanded she do, and Pelosi’s presence in the capitol today is a confirmation that she had the power to return the House to business at any time.
This “fact check” is an embarrassment, but then so too is this Brave Sir Robin Congress. In a national emergency, Congress is not a “non-essential business,” and their recess has been a dereliction of duty. Shame on them, Democrats and Republicans alike, and shame on their apologists, too.


hotair--2020-04-22--The obligatory "New York guy unhappy with federal relief program" clip

To cleanse the palate , via Mediaite , watching this makes me feel like I ’ m witnessing the birth of the tea party 2.0 .
Well , 3.0 .
Those anti-lockdown pox parties at the state capitols count as 2.0 , I suppose .
Here ’ s comedian Vic Dibitetto venting about the new CARES Act in a rant that ’ s gone viral today .
Two quibbles with what he says .
First , it ’ s true that the $ 1,200 stimulus checks most people are getting aren ’ t enough to pay their bills , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ per adult , not per family .
A couple gets $ 2,400 plus $ 500 for each child they have .
On top of that , beefed-up federal unemployment benefits means an adult who ’ s been laid off will receive $ 600 per week plus whatever his state ’ s unemployment benefits may be .
Some lower-earning workers are actually taking in more by staying home right now than they would be on the job , which is good for social distancing efforts but not so good long-term for the national debt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mortgage holders being shafted is , ah , unfortunately true .
At least in some cases .
When Morgan Davis , a furloughed clothing designer , called Wells Fargo to ask for help with her FHA loan about two weeks ago , she was offered to suspend three payments without penalty – three months of forbearance .
“ But at the end of those three months , all my mortgage payments would be due at once , ” Davis said .
“ I told [ the bank representative ] that didn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had only called to see if there was a way for me to hold onto more of my cash while I wasn ’ t getting paid… “ I contacted Bank of America BAC for forbearance and they granted me a 3-month program ; at its completion July 1 , I will have to pay them $ 12,000 [ or the ] equivalent of [ four ] mortgage payments , ” a person wrote on the social media platform .
“ If I can ’ t pay it now , where am I going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ m glad [ you are ] looking out for us.
” A 90-day reprieve in which all owed money is due at the end of the 90 days doesn ’ t help someone who ’ s staring at months of unemployment .
Fortunately , per Forbes , there may be alternatives to forbearance available under a particular mortgage .
Payments could be deferred , which would add them to the back end of the loan ; the term of the mortgage could be extended from 30 years to 40 years , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ small second mortgage could be taken out in the amount of the missed payments , which would payable after the first mortgage is paid off .
But that ’ s Dibitetto ’ s point .
Those options should have been added to all mortgages by statute , via the CARES Act , instead of a not very helpful 90-day forbearance .
Fair warning before you hit “ play ” : He curses here like Joe Pesci during an especially salty Scorsese movie monologue .
F-bombs aplenty , although that ’ s part of @ @ @

To cleanse the palate, via Mediaite, watching this makes me feel like I’m witnessing the birth of the tea party 2.0.
Well, 3.0. Those anti-lockdown pox parties at the state capitols count as 2.0, I suppose.
Here’s comedian Vic Dibitetto venting about the new CARES Act in a rant that’s gone viral today. Two quibbles with what he says. First, it’s true that the $1,200 stimulus checks most people are getting aren’t enough to pay their bills, but remember that it’s $1,200 per adult, not per family. A couple gets $2,400 plus $500 for each child they have. On top of that, beefed-up federal unemployment benefits means an adult who’s been laid off will receive $600 per week plus whatever his state’s unemployment benefits may be. Some lower-earning workers are actually taking in more by staying home right now than they would be on the job, which is good for social distancing efforts but not so good long-term for the national debt.
Second, what he says about mortgage holders being shafted is, ah, unfortunately true. At least in some cases.
When Morgan Davis, a furloughed clothing designer, called Wells Fargo to ask for help with her FHA loan about two weeks ago, she was offered to suspend three payments without penalty – three months of forbearance. “But at the end of those three months, all my mortgage payments would be due at once,” Davis said. “I told [the bank representative] that didn’t sound very helpful. I explained I had only called to see if there was a way for me to hold onto more of my cash while I wasn’t getting paid… “I contacted Bank of America BAC for forbearance and they granted me a 3-month program; at its completion July 1, I will have to pay them $12,000 [or the] equivalent of [four] mortgage payments,” a person wrote on the social media platform. “If I can’t pay it now, where am I going to get 4 months’ worth. I’m glad [you are] looking out for us.”
A 90-day reprieve in which all owed money is due at the end of the 90 days doesn’t help someone who’s staring at months of unemployment. Fortunately, per Forbes, there may be alternatives to forbearance available under a particular mortgage. Payments could be deferred, which would add them to the back end of the loan; the term of the mortgage could be extended from 30 years to 40 years, to reduce current payments; or a small second mortgage could be taken out in the amount of the missed payments, which would payable after the first mortgage is paid off. But that’s Dibitetto’s point. Those options should have been added to all mortgages by statute, via the CARES Act, instead of a not very helpful 90-day forbearance.
Fair warning before you hit “play”: He curses here like Joe Pesci during an especially salty Scorsese movie monologue. F-bombs aplenty, although that’s part of the fun.