hotair--2020-02-02--Maher: What Democrats need is a fighter like... Avenatti

Democrats can ’ t beat President Trump in the general election in November 2020 if they are not willing to go low , to play dirty , says HBO show host Bill Maher .
To hear Maher talk , you ’ d think the Democrats are not already doing just that .
Maher spent some time laying out his case to the Democrats by insisting that they stop talking about getting tough and actually doing it .
He wants them to stop abiding by Michelle Obama ’ s mantra of “ When they go low , we go high.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I never saw them actually doing that , but maybe that ’ s just me .
He said Democrats have been bringing “ a notion to a gunfight.
” “ Ever since Democrats lost the 2016 election there ’ s been a backlash to the ‘ when they go low , we go high ’ approach , ” Maher said on Friday ’ s “ Real Time.
” “ But they never say what exactly it is we should do , just , ‘ We got ta fight dirty.
’ OK .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ some reptilian scumbags of our own ” to match the efforts of Republican “ dirty tricksters on their payroll ” — like Roger Stone , Karl Rove and Rudy Giuliani , Maher said — he then suggested focusing on Trump ’ s mental state .
Maher goes on to say Democrats need Michael Avenatti as their designated reptilian scumbag but he ’ s not available right now , being in jail and all .
So , to encourage Democrats , Maher created a campaign-style ad as a template for them .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump as an example of what Democrats should do .
He particularly is interested in running a fake pee tape , because , of course , he is .
It ’ s a crude and obnoxious segment of the show but it is standard stuff .
I ’ ll note that the King of Never Trumpers , Rick Wilson , was a panel guest .
He found it hilarious , if his laughter was genuine .
The focus on Trump as a “ neurological mess ” played out with a montage of video @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and using incomplete sentences .
But wait , who does that sound like to at least half of the country ?
That ’ s right – good old Uncle Joe .
No one can compete with Joe Biden in that category .
The ad showed the president mumbling and stumbling over his words , recalling how those who ’ ve known Trump in the past have said he ’ s “ not the same person he was ” and another saying he “ may be having small strokes.
” It ends with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ One with toilet paper stuck on his shoe .
“ No one wishes ill health on the president , but a country needs a leader to be there… a leader who is ALL there , ” the ad concluded .
Maher added , “ Make that go viral , would ya , because Democrats should really be running that for real.
” The easiest argument to be made against Maher ’ s accusation that Democrats aren ’ t fighting dirty is that little matter of impeachment .
Where has Maher been ?
From @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before that day , there have been Democrats crying out for his impeachment .
This circus has been playing out for over three years .
It ’ s still not over .
Impeachment is a political exercise , not a legal one , and it is the ultimate political action .
The impeachment process has been seen as a sham because it is being done on strictly partisan lines .
Democrats hung their hats on impeaching and removing Trump from office in order to gain revenge over the 2016 election results .
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It is backfiring on them , though .
Throughout all this time , all the years of Trump ’ s first term in office , his record is solid and he can legitimately claim historic victories .
One of his biggest victories to date was done on a bipartisan basis – the USMCA trade agreement .
That is a bitter pill for Democrats to swallow .
Maher admits that Trump has a loyal army of supporters that will likely carry him to re-election .
Bernie , not the moderates running in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ began the show ’ s panel segment by saying he ’ s gone “ back and forth ” between progressives Sanders and Sen. Elizabeth Warren , D-Mass.
, but argued that moderates like former South Bend , Ind.
, Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Sen. Amy Klobuchar , D-Minn. , can “ win more easily.
” “ I ’ ll tell you why Bernie Sanders is attractive to me now because he ’ s the only Democrat who , like Trump , has an army , who when it gets to this other level @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of bad— motherf—–s who will get in the streets , ” Maher said .
He ’ s right about that and the BernieBros are still angry over the raw deal Bernie got in 2016 from the DNC .
However , Trump will get the undecided Independent voters in a potential Trump – Sanders match-up in the general election .
I don ’ t see Independents going to a far-left socialist over a populist on the right who is overseeing a strong economy .
Bernie ’ s policies would be an economic disaster .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ around .
There always is in politics , especially in national politics and presidential elections .
To say that Democrats are playing nice is absurd , though .
And , what scares Democrats most is that Trump is the biggest streetfighter of anyone .

Democrats can’t beat President Trump in the general election in November 2020 if they are not willing to go low, to play dirty, says HBO show host Bill Maher. To hear Maher talk, you’d think the Democrats are not already doing just that.
Maher spent some time laying out his case to the Democrats by insisting that they stop talking about getting tough and actually doing it. He wants them to stop abiding by Michelle Obama’s mantra of “When they go low, we go high.” That’s amusing to me since I never saw them actually doing that, but maybe that’s just me. He said Democrats have been bringing “a notion to a gunfight.”
“Ever since Democrats lost the 2016 election there’s been a backlash to the ‘when they go low, we go high’ approach,” Maher said on Friday’s “Real Time.” “But they never say what exactly it is we should do, just, ‘We gotta fight dirty.’ OK. But how?” After recommending Democrats enlist “some reptilian scumbags of our own” to match the efforts of Republican “dirty tricksters on their payroll” — like Roger Stone, Karl Rove and Rudy Giuliani, Maher said — he then suggested focusing on Trump’s mental state.
Maher goes on to say Democrats need Michael Avenatti as their designated reptilian scumbag but he’s not available right now, being in jail and all. So, to encourage Democrats, Maher created a campaign-style ad as a template for them. He uses alleged Deep Fake ads from Team Trump as an example of what Democrats should do. He particularly is interested in running a fake pee tape, because, of course, he is.
It’s a crude and obnoxious segment of the show but it is standard stuff. I’ll note that the King of Never Trumpers, Rick Wilson, was a panel guest. He found it hilarious, if his laughter was genuine.
The focus on Trump as a “neurological mess” played out with a montage of video clips of Trump mumbling, slurring words, and using incomplete sentences. But wait, who does that sound like to at least half of the country? That’s right – good old Uncle Joe. No one can compete with Joe Biden in that category.
The ad showed the president mumbling and stumbling over his words, recalling how those who’ve known Trump in the past have said he’s “not the same person he was” and another saying he “may be having small strokes.” It ends with footage of the POTUS boarding Air Force One with toilet paper stuck on his shoe. “No one wishes ill health on the president, but a country needs a leader to be there… a leader who is ALL there,” the ad concluded. Maher added, “Make that go viral, would ya, because Democrats should really be running that for real.”
The easiest argument to be made against Maher’s accusation that Democrats aren’t fighting dirty is that little matter of impeachment. Where has Maher been? From the day Trump was inaugurated, even before that day, there have been Democrats crying out for his impeachment. This circus has been playing out for over three years. It’s still not over. Impeachment is a political exercise, not a legal one, and it is the ultimate political action. The impeachment process has been seen as a sham because it is being done on strictly partisan lines. Democrats hung their hats on impeaching and removing Trump from office in order to gain revenge over the 2016 election results. They are determined that Trump not win re-election. It is backfiring on them, though. Throughout all this time, all the years of Trump’s first term in office, his record is solid and he can legitimately claim historic victories. One of his biggest victories to date was done on a bipartisan basis – the USMCA trade agreement. That is a bitter pill for Democrats to swallow.
Maher admits that Trump has a loyal army of supporters that will likely carry him to re-election. Bernie, not the moderates running in the primary, has the same.
Maher began the show’s panel segment by saying he’s gone “back and forth” between progressives Sanders and Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., but argued that moderates like former South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., can “win more easily.” “I’ll tell you why Bernie Sanders is attractive to me now because he’s the only Democrat who, like Trump, has an army, who when it gets to this other level, he’s got a bunch of bad— motherf—–s who will get in the streets,” Maher said.
He’s right about that and the BernieBros are still angry over the raw deal Bernie got in 2016 from the DNC. However, Trump will get the undecided Independent voters in a potential Trump – Sanders match-up in the general election. I don’t see Independents going to a far-left socialist over a populist on the right who is overseeing a strong economy. Bernie’s policies would be an economic disaster.
There is plenty of mud to go around. There always is in politics, especially in national politics and presidential elections. To say that Democrats are playing nice is absurd, though. And, what scares Democrats most is that Trump is the biggest streetfighter of anyone.


hotair--2020-02-02--FCC to punish carriers for selling your location data

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai dropped a bit of a bombshell on Friday , announcing that the commission would be going after some of the major wireless carriers , potentially including T-Mobile , Sprint , and AT & T .
The reason is that one or more of these carriers are still selling your location data , and potentially not just to advertisers .
Since most people ’ s cell phones constantly track their location , this news has clearly alarmed quite a few folks .
This revelation comes despite nearly all of the carriers having previously promised to end the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ network operators who sold their customers ’ real-time location data violated US law and the Federal Communications Commission will try to punish carriers that did so , FCC Chairman Ajit Pai wrote today .
“ [ T ] he FCC ’ s Enforcement Bureau has completed its extensive investigation and… it has concluded that one or more wireless carriers apparently violated federal law , ” Pai wrote in a letter today to Democratic members of Congress who asked for an update on the probe .
“ I am committed to ensuring that all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Communications Act and the FCC ’ s rules , including those that protect consumers ’ sensitive information , such as real-time location data , ” Pai ’ s letter continued .
By this point , I ’ m pretty sure that most of us know that our cell phones track our movements .
As I ’ ve mentioned here in the past , I basically surrendered to the Googleplex years ago , for better or worse .
I still get monthly updates offering to “ review ” my travel over the past @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I travelled in a vehicle or on foot and a list of businesses or other places I ’ ve visited .
( And would you care to write a review or upload a photo of any of these places ? )
Yes , it ’ s kind of creepy , but I eventually just started ignoring it .
I ’ d long assumed that the carriers were collecting the data to sell to companies that want to more efficiently target advertising toward us .
But after a data breach in 2018 , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ information to third-party data brokers who then shopped it around to bounty hunters and others not authorized to receive it .
At some point , even the more lackadaisical people like myself have to become concerned .
Also , as mentioned above , Verizon , AT & T , T-Mobile , and Sprint pledged to stop selling this information to those types of data brokers , but a 2019 investigation revealed that at least some of them were still doing it .
That brings us to the FCC showdown that ’ s now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I ’ ve never managed to get all that upset about the idea of the carriers selling data to other businesses for advertising purposes .
But knowing that real-time tracking of everyone ’ s movements is being pawned off to shadowy data brokers of dubious integrity is obviously alarming .
We should also keep in mind , however , that beefed up data privacy may come at a price .
The only reason that so much content on the web is “ free ” for most of us was best summed up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Stelter when he said , “ If something ’ s free , that means you ’ re the product.
” The big tech platforms and major carriers have to make a profit somehow .
And if they can ’ t sell your data , they ’ ll find another way to pass the costs down to you .
As with most things in the world of Big Tech… it ’ s complicated .

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai dropped a bit of a bombshell on Friday, announcing that the commission would be going after some of the major wireless carriers, potentially including T-Mobile, Sprint, and AT&T. The reason is that one or more of these carriers are still selling your location data, and potentially not just to advertisers. Since most people’s cell phones constantly track their location, this news has clearly alarmed quite a few folks. This revelation comes despite nearly all of the carriers having previously promised to end the practice. (Ars Technica)
Mobile network operators who sold their customers’ real-time location data violated US law and the Federal Communications Commission will try to punish carriers that did so, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai wrote today. “[T]he FCC’s Enforcement Bureau has completed its extensive investigation and… it has concluded that one or more wireless carriers apparently violated federal law,” Pai wrote in a letter today to Democratic members of Congress who asked for an update on the probe. “I am committed to ensuring that all entities subject to our jurisdiction comply with the Communications Act and the FCC’s rules, including those that protect consumers’ sensitive information, such as real-time location data,” Pai’s letter continued.
By this point, I’m pretty sure that most of us know that our cell phones track our movements. As I’ve mentioned here in the past, I basically surrendered to the Googleplex years ago, for better or worse. I still get monthly updates offering to “review” my travel over the past thirty days, including how many miles I travelled in a vehicle or on foot and a list of businesses or other places I’ve visited. (And would you care to write a review or upload a photo of any of these places?) Yes, it’s kind of creepy, but I eventually just started ignoring it.
I’d long assumed that the carriers were collecting the data to sell to companies that want to more efficiently target advertising toward us. But after a data breach in 2018, it was revealed that they were selling the information to third-party data brokers who then shopped it around to bounty hunters and others not authorized to receive it. At some point, even the more lackadaisical people like myself have to become concerned.
Also, as mentioned above, Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile, and Sprint pledged to stop selling this information to those types of data brokers, but a 2019 investigation revealed that at least some of them were still doing it. That brings us to the FCC showdown that’s now shaping up.
For the most part, I’ve never managed to get all that upset about the idea of the carriers selling data to other businesses for advertising purposes. But knowing that real-time tracking of everyone’s movements is being pawned off to shadowy data brokers of dubious integrity is obviously alarming. We should also keep in mind, however, that beefed up data privacy may come at a price. The only reason that so much content on the web is “free” for most of us was best summed up by (of all people) Brian Stelter when he said, “If something’s free, that means you’re the product.”
The big tech platforms and major carriers have to make a profit somehow. And if they can’t sell your data, they’ll find another way to pass the costs down to you. As with most things in the world of Big Tech… it’s complicated.


hotair--2020-02-02--Liberation from our own chains: Sunday reflection

When the days were completed for their purification according to the law of Moses , Mary and Joseph took Jesus up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord , just as it is written in the law of the Lord , Every male that opens the womb shall be consecrated to the Lord , and to offer the sacrifice of a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons , in accordance with the dictate in the law of the Lord .
Now there was a man in Jerusalem whose name was Simeon .
This man was righteous and devout @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the Holy Spirit was upon him .
It had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he should not see death before he had seen the Christ of the Lord .
He came in the Spirit into the temple ; and when the parents brought in the child Jesus to perform the custom of the law in regard to him , he took him into his arms and blessed God , saying : “ Now , Master , you may let your servant go in peace , according to your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ your salvation , which you prepared in sight of all the peoples : a light for revelation to the Gentiles , and glory for your people Israel.
” The child ’ s father and mother were amazed at what was said about him ; and Simeon blessed them and said to Mary his mother , “ Behold , this child is destined for the fall and rise of many in Israel , and to be a sign that will be contradicted —and you yourself a sword will pierce— so that the thoughts of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was also a prophetess , Anna , the daughter of Phanuel , of the tribe of Asher .
She was advanced in years , having lived seven years with her husband after her marriage , and then as a widow until she was eighty-four .
She never left the temple , but worshiped night and day with fasting and prayer .
And coming forward at that very time , she gave thanks to God and spoke about the child to all who were awaiting the redemption of Jerusalem .
When they had fulfilled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Lord , they returned to Galilee , to their own town of Nazareth .
The child grew and became strong , filled with wisdom ; and the favor of God was upon him .
A very long time ago , I read the remarkable novel Watership Down by Richard Adams , a sort of Odyssey set in the English countryside , with rabbits as characters .
Adams wrote it in a highly accessible prose that allowed younger readers to enjoy the book , but the themes of the novel still resonate with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ follows several rabbits who break free of an autocratic warren and look for a new home , coming into contact with other societies along the way and often barely escaping with their lives .
One of Adams ’ characters haunts me in particular , a rabbit named Silverweed , who writes poetry for a warren which at first glance seems prosperous and peaceful .
Silverweed ’ s poetry is all about surrender and fatalism , with talk of a shining wire .
This greatly disturbs the visionary of the adventurers , who prophesies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ around them .
The warren is in fact a rabbit farm , and the residents have welcomed the wanderers to sacrifice them to the farmer to turn them into meat rather than themselves .
Silverweed ’ s poetry and this warren in particular demonstrated what happens to us when we obsess over death and allow fear of it to paralyze us .
We end up surrendering to despair , and imagine that it is all that we will have in the end .
If that ’ s the case , then nothing really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ around us to push off that day of reckoning as long as possible .
This comes to mind in today ’ s readings , especially in Paul ’ s epistle to the Hebrews , where he confronts this directly .
Christ died for our sins and rose again to prove conclusively that the Lord has much more in store for us : Since the children share in blood and flesh , Jesus likewise shared in them , that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those who through fear of death had been subject to slavery all their life .
Surely he did not help angels but rather the descendants of Abraham ; therefore , he had to become like his brothers and sisters in every way , that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest before God to expiate the sins of the people .
Because he himself was tested through what he suffered , he is able to help those who are being tested .
Paul does not mince words about the impact of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ psyche .
He describes it as “ slavery ” for a reason .
It is this finality which appears to render us insignificant and convince us that the only reality is this physical world .
That is what leads us to sin , and causes us to neglect or outright reject the health of our spiritual nature .
This is a self-imposed slavery of the mind , strengthened further the more popular these notions become .
And as this process continues , the more despair enters into it — because if we have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rely on the material , and the material passes into dust as surely as anything we know .
With this in mind , let ’ s look at the two people who prophesy in today ’ s Gospel .
Both are elderly , much closer to death than most if not on its brink .
Simeon in particular is presented as a man who communes closely with the Lord and has waited patiently for his one task to come .
His age is not given but it ’ s clear that Simeon has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a glimpse of the Messiah .
He has not given in to despair over the fear of death , but welcomes it as his reward for a job faithfully executed in the end .
Not only does Simeon see the role of death clearly in this moment , he also sees the nature of the Messiah to come much more clearly than the temple authorities .
“ Behold , this child is destined for the fall and rise of many in Israel , ” Simeon tells Mary “ and to be a sign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a sword will pierce— so that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.
” The Messiah will come to open hearts , not establish armies and fiefdoms on earth .
This is a Messiah not focused on the material world but on gaining entry for all to a perfected material-spiritual world in the Lord in the next life .
Anna gives us another such example .
At 84 , she has survived her husband and has remained a faithful servant of the Lord at the temple .
Anna echoes Simeon ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ less detail about her specific words .
Like Simeon , Anna did not give in to despair over age and death , but instead kept herself free from the chains of fear of them by relying on her faith in the Lord .
This task might be even more difficult today than it was in those times .
We have the Gospels and the Holy Spirit , but we live in an age not just of science but scientism , a philosophy that science explains everything .
It certainly explains our physical world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spiritual life nor any purpose .
In this age , we can discern songs of the shining wire all around us , emphasized as the inevitable conclusion of all things , where surrender and despair become virtues rather than vices .
Paul understood this 2,000 years before now , and writes to us from that place and time to warn us that this is nothing new .
It only comes to us in different guises , with different ways to envelop us in hopelessness .
Christ has broken through all of those barricades @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is have faith and remember that the Holy Spirit will fill our hearts with love rather than despair , if we only allow Him to do so .
The front-page image is a detail from “ Simeon in the Temple ” by Rembrandt , 1631 .
On display at Mauritshuis , The Hague , Netherlands , via WikiArt .
“ Sunday Reflection ” is a regular feature , looking at the specific readings used in today ’ s Mass in Catholic parishes around the world .
The reflection represents only my own point @ @ @ @ @ @ @ myself for the Lord ’ s day and perhaps spark a meaningful discussion .
Previous Sunday Reflections from the main page can be found here .
For previous Green Room entries , click here .

This morning’s Gospel reading is Luke 2:22–40:
When the days were completed for their purification according to the law of Moses, Mary and Joseph took Jesus up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord, just as it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that opens the womb shall be consecrated to the Lord, and to offer the sacrifice of a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons, in accordance with the dictate in the law of the Lord. Now there was a man in Jerusalem whose name was Simeon. This man was righteous and devout, awaiting the consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was upon him. It had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he should not see death before he had seen the Christ of the Lord. He came in the Spirit into the temple; and when the parents brought in the child Jesus to perform the custom of the law in regard to him, he took him into his arms and blessed God, saying: “Now, Master, you may let your servant go in peace, according to your word, for my eyes have seen your salvation, which you prepared in sight of all the peoples: a light for revelation to the Gentiles, and glory for your people Israel.” The child’s father and mother were amazed at what was said about him; and Simeon blessed them and said to Mary his mother, “Behold, this child is destined for the fall and rise of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be contradicted —and you yourself a sword will pierce— so that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.” There was also a prophetess, Anna, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was advanced in years, having lived seven years with her husband after her marriage, and then as a widow until she was eighty-four. She never left the temple, but worshiped night and day with fasting and prayer. And coming forward at that very time, she gave thanks to God and spoke about the child to all who were awaiting the redemption of Jerusalem. When they had fulfilled all the prescriptions of the law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee, to their own town of Nazareth. The child grew and became strong, filled with wisdom; and the favor of God was upon him.
A very long time ago, I read the remarkable novel Watership Down by Richard Adams, a sort of Odyssey set in the English countryside, with rabbits as characters. Adams wrote it in a highly accessible prose that allowed younger readers to enjoy the book, but the themes of the novel still resonate with me to this day. The story follows several rabbits who break free of an autocratic warren and look for a new home, coming into contact with other societies along the way and often barely escaping with their lives.
One of Adams’ characters haunts me in particular, a rabbit named Silverweed, who writes poetry for a warren which at first glance seems prosperous and peaceful. Silverweed’s poetry is all about surrender and fatalism, with talk of a shining wire. This greatly disturbs the visionary of the adventurers, who prophesies — correctly — that death is all around them. The warren is in fact a rabbit farm, and the residents have welcomed the wanderers to sacrifice them to the farmer to turn them into meat rather than themselves.
Silverweed’s poetry and this warren in particular demonstrated what happens to us when we obsess over death and allow fear of it to paralyze us. We end up surrendering to despair, and imagine that it is all that we will have in the end. If that’s the case, then nothing really matters, and we can exploit others around us to push off that day of reckoning as long as possible.
This comes to mind in today’s readings, especially in Paul’s epistle to the Hebrews, where he confronts this directly. Christ died for our sins and rose again to prove conclusively that the Lord has much more in store for us:
Since the children share in blood and flesh, Jesus likewise shared in them, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and free those who through fear of death had been subject to slavery all their life. Surely he did not help angels but rather the descendants of Abraham; therefore, he had to become like his brothers and sisters in every way, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest before God to expiate the sins of the people. Because he himself was tested through what he suffered, he is able to help those who are being tested.
Paul does not mince words about the impact of the fear of death on the human psyche. He describes it as “slavery” for a reason. It is this finality which appears to render us insignificant and convince us that the only reality is this physical world. That is what leads us to sin, and causes us to neglect or outright reject the health of our spiritual nature. This is a self-imposed slavery of the mind, strengthened further the more popular these notions become. And as this process continues, the more despair enters into it — because if we have no spiritual life, we can only rely on the material, and the material passes into dust as surely as anything we know.
With this in mind, let’s look at the two people who prophesy in today’s Gospel. Both are elderly, much closer to death than most if not on its brink. Simeon in particular is presented as a man who communes closely with the Lord and has waited patiently for his one task to come. His age is not given but it’s clear that Simeon has lived many years in hope for just a glimpse of the Messiah. He has not given in to despair over the fear of death, but welcomes it as his reward for a job faithfully executed in the end.
Not only does Simeon see the role of death clearly in this moment, he also sees the nature of the Messiah to come much more clearly than the temple authorities. “Behold, this child is destined for the fall and rise of many in Israel,” Simeon tells Mary “and to be a sign that will be contradicted —and you yourself a sword will pierce— so that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.” The Messiah will come to open hearts, not establish armies and fiefdoms on earth. This is a Messiah not focused on the material world but on gaining entry for all to a perfected material-spiritual world in the Lord in the next life.
Anna gives us another such example. At 84, she has survived her husband and has remained a faithful servant of the Lord at the temple. Anna echoes Simeon’s prophesy, although the Gospel gives us less detail about her specific words. Like Simeon, Anna did not give in to despair over age and death, but instead kept herself free from the chains of fear of them by relying on her faith in the Lord.
This task might be even more difficult today than it was in those times. We have the Gospels and the Holy Spirit, but we live in an age not just of science but scientism, a philosophy that science explains everything. It certainly explains our physical world, but it does not explain our spiritual life nor any purpose. In this age, we can discern songs of the shining wire all around us, emphasized as the inevitable conclusion of all things, where surrender and despair become virtues rather than vices.
Paul understood this 2,000 years before now, and writes to us from that place and time to warn us that this is nothing new. It only comes to us in different guises, with different ways to envelop us in hopelessness. Christ has broken through all of those barricades already; all we need to do is have faith and remember that the Holy Spirit will fill our hearts with love rather than despair, if we only allow Him to do so.
The front-page image is a detail from “Simeon in the Temple” by Rembrandt, 1631. On display at Mauritshuis, The Hague, Netherlands, via WikiArt.
“Sunday Reflection” is a regular feature, looking at the specific readings used in today’s Mass in Catholic parishes around the world. The reflection represents only my own point of view, intended to help prepare myself for the Lord’s day and perhaps spark a meaningful discussion. Previous Sunday Reflections from the main page can be found here. For previous Green Room entries, click here.


hotair--2020-02-02--Guess who Stacey Abrams predicts to win the 2040 election?

Stacey Abrams did an interview with journalist Clare Malone of FiveThirtyEight on Friday .
She has some big plans for herself and shared them .
Abrams even predicted the outcome of a presidential election twenty years in the future .
She will be the winner because America will be ready to elect a black woman and it will be her .
That ’ s a pretty bold prediction , right ?
Who knew Abrams possesses psychic powers ?
Clare Malone teed it up for Abrams .
She asked if America will be ready to elect a black woman as president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a follow-up question – “ Do you think they ’ ll elect you ?
” Abrams ’ response was “ Yes .
I do .
That ’ s my plan .
And I ’ m very pragmatic.
” This leads me to question why she was given this platform right now and why she is making such an egotistical prediction for an election so far off into the future .
Twenty years is a lifetime in politics , especially in today ’ s politics .
There are reports that she is on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the candidates running in the Democrat primary now .
Well , ok , the only candidate I ’ ve read about that has talked to her is Joe Biden .
Biden may be the nominee , though , especially since it is looking like the DNC is putting a thumb on the scale for him already .
An old white guy as the Democrat nominee will need a younger woman to balance out the ticket , preferably a black woman .
Biden ’ s support among black voters is often pointed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ general election .
Abrams famously lost the gubernatorial election in Georgia in 2018 and pulled a Hillary .
She refused to concede and to this day has not done so .
She has only acknowledged that Governor Brian Kemp was the legal victor .
In April 2019 she stood her ground and defiantly said that no one will convince her to actually concede the election .
She ’ s a lawyer , you know .
“ Concession needs to say something is right and true and proper , ” Abrams told the crowd @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lawyer .
And I understand that the law of the land said that Brian Kemp became governor that day .
And I acknowledge that.
” She added : “ But you can ’ t trick me into saying it was right .
You can ’ t shame me into pretending that what happened should have happened.
” “ I ’ m not saying they stole it from me , ” Abrams added of Georgia Republicans ’ role in the race .
“ They stole it from the voters of Georgia.
” Talk about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all along that it is because of voter suppression that she lost the election .
She ’ s had plenty of support in that narrative – Hillary Clinton and Beto O ’ Rourke are two examples of enablers that come to mind right away .
It must have been quite a blow to lose after Oprah Winfrey made a big show of going to Georgia to campaign for Stacey .
Alyssa Milano is one of the actresses who films in Georgia and she jumped on the bandwagon , too .
Abrams was the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Georgia Democrats couldn ’ t quite get the job done .
Abrams has been less than steady in announcing her political timeline .
She was considering a run for president in the 2020 primary but soon realized she would not be any more successful than , say , Beto O ’ Rourke , and decided to not get in .
In March she said she wouldn ’ t be ready to run until 2028 at the earliest .
She now says she ’ ll be honored to be considered for vice-president .
She @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has political experience at the state level as the former minority leader of the Georgia House .
She has the ambition and ego to hang in there until she sees an opening .
In the meantime , she can continue working with Fair Fight , a group she formed to promote fair elections .
Nothing plays better than victimhood in Democrat politics .
She plays the game really well and has no immediate intentions of moving on , apparently .
There is no way to predict where the majority in the country will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ five years ago someone had told me that today Donald Trump would be running for re-election after a very successful first term in office , I would have laughed .
Yet this is where we are .
Abrams can be “ pragmatic ” and plan for the future .
Of course , she can always go back to writing romance novels .

Stacey Abrams did an interview with journalist Clare Malone of FiveThirtyEight on Friday. She has some big plans for herself and shared them.
Abrams even predicted the outcome of a presidential election twenty years in the future. She will be the winner because America will be ready to elect a black woman and it will be her. That’s a pretty bold prediction, right? Who knew Abrams possesses psychic powers?
Clare Malone teed it up for Abrams. She asked if America will be ready to elect a black woman as president and Abrams said yes. Malone asked a follow-up question – “Do you think they’ll elect you?” Abrams’ response was “Yes. I do. That’s my plan. And I’m very pragmatic.”
This leads me to question why she was given this platform right now and why she is making such an egotistical prediction for an election so far off into the future. Twenty years is a lifetime in politics, especially in today’s politics. There are reports that she is on the shortlist of potential vice-presidential picks by some of the candidates running in the Democrat primary now. Well, ok, the only candidate I’ve read about that has talked to her is Joe Biden. Biden may be the nominee, though, especially since it is looking like the DNC is putting a thumb on the scale for him already. An old white guy as the Democrat nominee will need a younger woman to balance out the ticket, preferably a black woman. Biden’s support among black voters is often pointed to as an important part of winning the general election.
Abrams famously lost the gubernatorial election in Georgia in 2018 and pulled a Hillary. She refused to concede and to this day has not done so. She has only acknowledged that Governor Brian Kemp was the legal victor. In April 2019 she stood her ground and defiantly said that no one will convince her to actually concede the election. She’s a lawyer, you know.
“Concession needs to say something is right and true and proper,” Abrams told the crowd. “I’m a good lawyer. And I understand that the law of the land said that Brian Kemp became governor that day. And I acknowledge that.” She added: “But you can’t trick me into saying it was right. You can’t shame me into pretending that what happened should have happened.” “I’m not saying they stole it from me,” Abrams added of Georgia Republicans’ role in the race. “They stole it from the voters of Georgia.”
Talk about a sore loser. She has maintained all along that it is because of voter suppression that she lost the election. She’s had plenty of support in that narrative – Hillary Clinton and Beto O’Rourke are two examples of enablers that come to mind right away. It must have been quite a blow to lose after Oprah Winfrey made a big show of going to Georgia to campaign for Stacey. Alyssa Milano is one of the actresses who films in Georgia and she jumped on the bandwagon, too. Abrams was the darling of the left coast elitists yet Georgia Democrats couldn’t quite get the job done.
Abrams has been less than steady in announcing her political timeline. She was considering a run for president in the 2020 primary but soon realized she would not be any more successful than, say, Beto O’Rourke, and decided to not get in. In March she said she wouldn’t be ready to run until 2028 at the earliest. She now says she’ll be honored to be considered for vice-president.
She is only 46 years old. She has political experience at the state level as the former minority leader of the Georgia House. She has the ambition and ego to hang in there until she sees an opening. In the meantime, she can continue working with Fair Fight, a group she formed to promote fair elections. Nothing plays better than victimhood in Democrat politics. She plays the game really well and has no immediate intentions of moving on, apparently.
There is no way to predict where the majority in the country will be in twenty years. If just five years ago someone had told me that today Donald Trump would be running for re-election after a very successful first term in office, I would have laughed. Yet this is where we are. Abrams can be “pragmatic” and plan for the future. Of course, she can always go back to writing romance novels.


hotair--2020-02-02--The mystery of CNN's disappearing Iowa poll

We were supposed to have had the final Iowa poll from CNN and the Des Moines Register to break down this morning but that didn ’ t wind up happening .
The poll results have been shelved by the sponsors out of “ an abundance of caution ” over fears that the results had been compromised .
While that sounds like something ominous , raising fears of hacking , the explanation offered by the newspaper is far less dramatic .
They claim that somebody set the font size incorrectly on their laptop .
Really ?
( Associated Press ) The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ polling partner have decided not release the final installment of its presidential preference poll , fearing its results may have been compromised .
Carol Hunter , the executive editor of the Iowa newspaper , posted the announcement Saturday night at the same time the results of highly anticipated survey were supposed to be released… “ It appears a candidate ’ s name was omitted in at least one interview in which the respondent was asked to name their preferred candidate , ” Hunter wrote in an article posted on the Register ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ value , it might not sound all that suspicious .
At my age , with my eyesight not being what it once was , even with my glasses on I sometimes adjust the zoom on my browser up to 110 % or even 125 % for some websites .
And if you do that , some of the content at the bottom of the screen drops off , so the pollster might have omitted the name of one candidate that fell at the bottom .
In the case of the only confirmed instance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ left off the list .
But is that really a good enough reason to scrap the entire poll right before the caucus ?
They ’ re saying the discovery was based on a single complaint from one voter and the font size error only affected one of the people conducting the survey .
How big would the impact have been on the final results ?
The sample size for the last Des Moines Register Iowa poll was 701 likely caucus-goers .
Let ’ s say there were ten people making the calls .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ was off , there might have been roughly 70 calls where a name was left off the list of choices .
But they randomize the order of the names , so all the candidates would have missed being listed , likely less than a dozen times each .
Wouldn ’ t that randomization balance out ?
It ’ s also curious that the respondent didn ’ t alert the person calling them , but instead called the newspaper after the survey was finished .
But at the same time , having been surveyed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I can see how the mistake might only be noticed by somebody if their favorite candidate was the one left out .
If you ’ re waiting to hear Biden ’ s name and it ’ s not offered , you ’ d notice .
But if it was Warren that was left off you might just respond with Biden ’ s name and move on .
Hearing about a critical poll like this one suddenly disappearing on the eve of the caucuses is bound to trigger some conspiracy theory impulses in some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nature of the technical error .
But what the heck .
We ’ ve got some time to kill before the Super Bowl , so let ’ s put on our tinfoil hats and figure out what CNN and the Des Moines Register are really up to , shall we ?
First of all , the error took place because of a bad font setting on a screen ?
How many years have you people been doing polls now ?
C ’ mon , man .
We ’ re supposed to believe you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bugs worked out of the system by now ?
So if it wasn ’ t a technical glitch , why else would major media outlets suddenly disappear a poll like this ?
The answer should be obvious .
Because they didn ’ t like the results .
If their preferred candidate was suddenly tanking a the eleventh hour , potentially depressing turnout among his or her supporters , shelving it might make sense .
The problem is , who is the media really pulling for this time ?
The answer in 2016 was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before the race even began in earnest .
But this year it ’ s not nearly as clear .
Priority number one is to make sure Trump loses , so you can assume that they wouldn ’ t want to push any results showing the candidates who fare the worst in head-to-head polls doing well , such as Sanders or Buttigieg .
Biden previously looked like the safe bet , but his “ senior moments ” have become a concern for many in the MSM .
So is there one candidate out there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the horizon with both the money and the legs to make it all the way through the primary ?
Bingo .
CNN clearly wants Michael Bloomberg to win , but he didn ’ t even campaign in Iowa and probably polled at less than 2 % so they tanked the results .
Mystery solved !
Or , you know… they might have just had a font glitch on one of their screens .
But that ’ s such a boring explanation .
All joking aside , we ’ ll close with one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eye on .
Other surveys have shown Amy Klobuchar slowly moving up and she ’ s now cracked into double digits , while still below the 15 % required to move past the first round in the caucuses .
At the same time , Warren has continued to sag and may fall short of 15 % herself at many of the caucus meetings .
If we assume that Klobuchar ’ s more moderate supporters go to Biden in the second round and Warren ’ s go to Sanders , that could really tank @ @ @ @ @ @ @ delegates between two people .
But if Warren breaks 15 and Klobuchar doesn ’ t ( or vice versa ) we could see either Bernie of Uncle Joe walk away with a significantly wide margin of victory .
So in the end , it may wind up being Warren and Klobuchar who decide the real winner in Iowa rather than the raw number of votes received by Biden or Sanders .
Such is the strange nature of the caucus process .

We were supposed to have had the final Iowa poll from CNN and the Des Moines Register to break down this morning but that didn’t wind up happening. The poll results have been shelved by the sponsors out of “an abundance of caution” over fears that the results had been compromised. While that sounds like something ominous, raising fears of hacking, the explanation offered by the newspaper is far less dramatic. They claim that somebody set the font size incorrectly on their laptop. Really? (Associated Press)
The Des Moines Register, CNN and its polling partner have decided not release the final installment of its presidential preference poll, fearing its results may have been compromised. Carol Hunter, the executive editor of the Iowa newspaper, posted the announcement Saturday night at the same time the results of highly anticipated survey were supposed to be released… “It appears a candidate’s name was omitted in at least one interview in which the respondent was asked to name their preferred candidate,” Hunter wrote in an article posted on the Register’s website.
Taking this explanation at face value, it might not sound all that suspicious. At my age, with my eyesight not being what it once was, even with my glasses on I sometimes adjust the zoom on my browser up to 110% or even 125% for some websites. And if you do that, some of the content at the bottom of the screen drops off, so the pollster might have omitted the name of one candidate that fell at the bottom. In the case of the only confirmed instance of this happening, Pete Buttigieg was left off the list.
But is that really a good enough reason to scrap the entire poll right before the caucus? They’re saying the discovery was based on a single complaint from one voter and the font size error only affected one of the people conducting the survey. How big would the impact have been on the final results? The sample size for the last Des Moines Register Iowa poll was 701 likely caucus-goers. Let’s say there were ten people making the calls. If one person’s font size was off, there might have been roughly 70 calls where a name was left off the list of choices. But they randomize the order of the names, so all the candidates would have missed being listed, likely less than a dozen times each. Wouldn’t that randomization balance out?
It’s also curious that the respondent didn’t alert the person calling them, but instead called the newspaper after the survey was finished. But at the same time, having been surveyed myself more than a few times, I can see how the mistake might only be noticed by somebody if their favorite candidate was the one left out. If you’re waiting to hear Biden’s name and it’s not offered, you’d notice. But if it was Warren that was left off you might just respond with Biden’s name and move on.
Hearing about a critical poll like this one suddenly disappearing on the eve of the caucuses is bound to trigger some conspiracy theory impulses in some of you, despite the rather banal nature of the technical error. But what the heck. We’ve got some time to kill before the Super Bowl, so let’s put on our tinfoil hats and figure out what CNN and the Des Moines Register are really up to, shall we?
First of all, the error took place because of a bad font setting on a screen? How many years have you people been doing polls now? C’mon, man. We’re supposed to believe you didn’t have those kinds of bugs worked out of the system by now?
So if it wasn’t a technical glitch, why else would major media outlets suddenly disappear a poll like this? The answer should be obvious. Because they didn’t like the results. If their preferred candidate was suddenly tanking a the eleventh hour, potentially depressing turnout among his or her supporters, shelving it might make sense. The problem is, who is the media really pulling for this time? The answer in 2016 was obvious. CNN was coronating Hillary Clinton before the race even began in earnest.
But this year it’s not nearly as clear. Priority number one is to make sure Trump loses, so you can assume that they wouldn’t want to push any results showing the candidates who fare the worst in head-to-head polls doing well, such as Sanders or Buttigieg. Biden previously looked like the safe bet, but his “senior moments” have become a concern for many in the MSM. So is there one candidate out there who was seen as the potential savior on the horizon with both the money and the legs to make it all the way through the primary?
Bingo. CNN clearly wants Michael Bloomberg to win, but he didn’t even campaign in Iowa and probably polled at less than 2% so they tanked the results. Mystery solved!
Or, you know… they might have just had a font glitch on one of their screens. But that’s such a boring explanation.
All joking aside, we’ll close with one tidbit out of Iowa to keep an eye on. Other surveys have shown Amy Klobuchar slowly moving up and she’s now cracked into double digits, while still below the 15% required to move past the first round in the caucuses. At the same time, Warren has continued to sag and may fall short of 15% herself at many of the caucus meetings. If we assume that Klobuchar’s more moderate supporters go to Biden in the second round and Warren’s go to Sanders, that could really tank Buttigieg and split pretty much all the delegates between two people.
But if Warren breaks 15 and Klobuchar doesn’t (or vice versa) we could see either Bernie of Uncle Joe walk away with a significantly wide margin of victory. So in the end, it may wind up being Warren and Klobuchar who decide the real winner in Iowa rather than the raw number of votes received by Biden or Sanders. Such is the strange nature of the caucus process.


hotair--2020-02-02--Sunday morning talking heads

Sunday morning talking heads

Our many months of impeachment-flavored Sunday shows are mercifully almost over but we ’ re not quite past them yet .
Two more weeks at least before this topic is officially stale ( and maybe not even then , depending upon when John Bolton finally finds himself in a talkative mood ) .
The star guest this morning is the man who almost singlehandedly assured that Bolton wouldn ’ t be hauled before the Senate this week : That ’ s Lamar Alexander , the would-be 51st vote for calling witnesses who decided in the end against doing so and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him .
To his credit , he ’ s not hiding from his vote .
He ’ ll face the music this morning on “ Meet the Press , ” answering questions about why it wasn ’ t worth hearing from Bolton firsthand despite the fact that we can ’ t know how much incriminating information he might have .
Expect Chuck Todd to come after him hard over his claim description in his statement Thursday night that Trump ’ s actions towards Ukraine were “ inappropriate.
” If that ’ s true @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aimed at the president ?
He must feel reeeeeally sure that Trump misbehaved if he didn ’ t want to give Bolton a chance to clear the president on the stand .
The other main topic this morning is tomorrow ’ s Iowa caucus , of course .
The two Democrats whose chances at the nomination depend most heavily on a good showing on Monday night are set to make their final argument to Iowans to send them on to New Hampshire with altitude .
Pete Buttigieg will guest on “ Meet the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” and “ State of the Union , ” where he ’ ll address the bogus controversy over his “ heartland ” tweet earlier this week .
Meanwhile , Amy Klobuchar will chat with “ Fox News Sunday ” about the prospects for a last-second burst of Klomentum at the caucus .
She needs centrist votes and Buttigieg and Joe Biden are hoarding them .
Biden ’ s support won ’ t collapse .
Could Mayor Pete ’ s ?
Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst will also be on “ State of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trial , tomorrow ’ s caucus , and the … interesting connection she drew between the two a few days ago .
And Trump lawyer Alan Dershowitz will talk with “ Fox News Sunday ” about his own … interesting theory that pretty much anything a president does short of a statutory crime to help his reelection is in the public interest and therefore not impeachable .
Oh , and yes , of course Adam Schiff will be on TV .
“ Face the Nation.
” You shouldn ’ t even need to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ line-up is at the AP .

Our many months of impeachment-flavored Sunday shows are mercifully almost over but we’re not quite past them yet. Two more weeks at least before this topic is officially stale (and maybe not even then, depending upon when John Bolton finally finds himself in a talkative mood). The star guest this morning is the man who almost singlehandedly assured that Bolton wouldn’t be hauled before the Senate this week: That’s Lamar Alexander, the would-be 51st vote for calling witnesses who decided in the end against doing so and ended up dragging Lisa Murkowski along with him. To his credit, he’s not hiding from his vote. He’ll face the music this morning on “Meet the Press,” answering questions about why it wasn’t worth hearing from Bolton firsthand despite the fact that we can’t know how much incriminating information he might have. Expect Chuck Todd to come after him hard over his claim description in his statement Thursday night that Trump’s actions towards Ukraine were “inappropriate.” If that’s true, would he support a censure resolution aimed at the president?
He must feel reeeeeally sure that Trump misbehaved if he didn’t want to give Bolton a chance to clear the president on the stand.
The other main topic this morning is tomorrow’s Iowa caucus, of course. The two Democrats whose chances at the nomination depend most heavily on a good showing on Monday night are set to make their final argument to Iowans to send them on to New Hampshire with altitude. Pete Buttigieg will guest on “Meet the Press,” “Face the Nation,” and “State of the Union,” where he’ll address the bogus controversy over his “heartland” tweet earlier this week. Meanwhile, Amy Klobuchar will chat with “Fox News Sunday” about the prospects for a last-second burst of Klomentum at the caucus. She needs centrist votes and Buttigieg and Joe Biden are hoarding them. Biden’s support won’t collapse. Could Mayor Pete’s?
Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst will also be on “State of the Union” to discuss Trump’s trial, tomorrow’s caucus, and the … interesting connection she drew between the two a few days ago. And Trump lawyer Alan Dershowitz will talk with “Fox News Sunday” about his own … interesting theory that pretty much anything a president does short of a statutory crime to help his reelection is in the public interest and therefore not impeachable.
Oh, and yes, of course Adam Schiff will be on TV. “Face the Nation.” You shouldn’t even need to ask at this point. The full line-up is at the AP.


hotair--2020-02-02--Attacking Doug Collins on justice reform is a bad idea

There ’ s been plenty of criticism for Georgia Congressman Doug Collins following his decision to run for U.S. Senate .
The NRSC called Collins ’ run against Senator Kelly Loeffler shortsighted and selfish with Executive Director Kevin McLaughlin suggesting it would hurt Georgia for years to come .
A little hyperbolic , even though Senator David Perdue is also up for re-election and Georgia ’ s possible status as a swing state in this year ’ s presidential election – depending on the poll .
One of the more bizarre lines of attack against Collins is his stance on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one of the lead champions of justice reform in Washington , supporting and sponsoring bills giving non-violent offenders a second chance and reducing federal prison spending .
President Trump has made this reform a hallmark of his reelection campaign .
“ Rep .
Collins has worked closely with Rep. Hakeem Jeffries ( D-NY ) on radical criminal justice reform legislation , ” Reagan McCarthy sternly warned on TownHall.com last week with the odd suggestion that had his bill passed , violent criminals would end up roaming the streets .
“ The Prison Reform @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s First Step Act , with some arguing it endangers communities with dangerous provisions.
” A bit of a history lesson for McCarthy and those who are unfamiliar with justice reform activity in Congress .
PRRA was a prison reform bill first introduced by Collins in July 2017 .
The approach was in contrast to Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley , who had reintroduced a more comprehensive approach in October 2017 , the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act , which included prison reform and sentencing reform .
PRRA was the basis for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Reenter Society Transformed Safely Transitioning Every Person ( FIRST STEP ) Act that passed the House in May 2018 .
Grassley modified the FIRST STEP Act by adding modest sentencing reforms based on those in SRCA and the reauthorization of the Second Chance Act .
The Senate dropped the acronym but still called the bill the “ First Step Act.
” The Senate used S. 756 as the vehicle for the First Step Act , and the bill was signed into law by President Trump in December 2018 .
PRRA , the House-passed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the First Step Act that became law feature recidivism risk reduction programming and incentives for prisoners to reduce their risk of becoming repeat offenders .
In other words , ways prisoners can reduce the likelihood of committing a crime after release from prison and rules for placement in prerelease custody involving earned time credits .
It ’ s here where McCarthy makes a fatal mistake in her criticism of Collins and PRRA .
McCarthy opines the time credits release inmates early , however , this isn ’ t the case .
Instead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , meaning they are still subject to supervision by the Office of Probation and Pretrial Services or the Bureau of Prisons .
This includes home confinement , halfway house lodging , and GPS monitoring if they ’ re allowed to attend work , perform community service , go to church , participate in recidivism reduction training , crime victim restoration activities , or receive medical treatment .
It ’ s far from running around the community willy-nilly and in both bills .
The other error by McCarthy is the suggestion PRRA put violent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not include several crimes listed in the First Step on its earned time credits exception list .
This completely forgets the risk assessment portion within the bill itself .
The risk assessment portion is meant to weed out the prisoners who are a threat to the community or a high-risk of recidivism and allows the judge to “ deny such a recommendation if the judge finds by clear and convincing evidence that the prisoner should not be transferred into prerelease custody ( emphasis mine ) based only on evidence of the prisoner ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prisoner and not based on evidence from the underlying conviction.
” Not exactly letting a revolving door .
The other major differences between PRRA and First Step is the fact the Senate version includes sentencing reform whereas the House version did not and good time credit fix covering all prisoners except those who are serving at least a year in prison and not life .
The good time credit fix was added when the House Judiciary Committee considered the FIRST STEP Act .
Good time credits already existed .
Prisoners could earn up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but the Bureau of Prisoners interpreted that 54 days to mean 47 days .
The fix reestablished congressional intent to make 54 days mean 54 days and made the change retroactive .
By July , some 3,100 prisoners had been released under this provision alone .
That ’ s right .
The First Step , the bill which became law , went further than PPRA !
However , there is still the risk assessment part of the First Step and PPRA meaning it ’ s up to prison wardens , BOP officials , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prisoners .
Something to consider before labeling Collins a ‘ radical ’ on justice reform .
Collins is not a candidate I would support for Senate due to his stances on foreign policy , general government spending , mass surveillance , and American military intervention .
It is likely his decision to run for Senate is based on self-interest and the fear Loeffler is not enough of a Trump supporter .
However , it ’ s a major mistake to criticize his position on justice reform .
It ’ s a policy driven @ @ @ @ @ @ @ isn ’ t working and costing the government too much taxpayer dollars .
Shouldn ’ t conservatives be in favor of reducing the burden on taxpayers , especially when crime is down in the country ?

There’s been plenty of criticism for Georgia Congressman Doug Collins following his decision to run for U.S. Senate. The NRSC called Collins’ run against Senator Kelly Loeffler shortsighted and selfish with Executive Director Kevin McLaughlin suggesting it would hurt Georgia for years to come. A little hyperbolic, even though Senator David Perdue is also up for re-election and Georgia’s possible status as a swing state in this year’s presidential election – depending on the poll.
One of the more bizarre lines of attack against Collins is his stance on justice reform. He’s been one of the lead champions of justice reform in Washington, supporting and sponsoring bills giving non-violent offenders a second chance and reducing federal prison spending. President Trump has made this reform a hallmark of his reelection campaign.
“Rep. Collins has worked closely with Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) on radical criminal justice reform legislation,” Reagan McCarthy sternly warned on TownHall.com last week with the odd suggestion that had his bill passed, violent criminals would end up roaming the streets. “The Prison Reform and Redemption Act reaches further than President Trump’s First Step Act, with some arguing it endangers communities with dangerous provisions.”
A bit of a history lesson for McCarthy and those who are unfamiliar with justice reform activity in Congress. PRRA was a prison reform bill first introduced by Collins in July 2017. The approach was in contrast to Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley, who had reintroduced a more comprehensive approach in October 2017, the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act, which included prison reform and sentencing reform. PRRA was the basis for the original version of the Formerly Incarcerated Reenter Society Transformed Safely Transitioning Every Person (FIRST STEP) Act that passed the House in May 2018.
Grassley modified the FIRST STEP Act by adding modest sentencing reforms based on those in SRCA and the reauthorization of the Second Chance Act. The Senate dropped the acronym but still called the bill the “First Step Act.” The Senate used S. 756 as the vehicle for the First Step Act, and the bill was signed into law by President Trump in December 2018.
PRRA, the House-passed FIRST STEP Act, and the version of the First Step Act that became law feature recidivism risk reduction programming and incentives for prisoners to reduce their risk of becoming repeat offenders. In other words, ways prisoners can reduce the likelihood of committing a crime after release from prison and rules for placement in prerelease custody involving earned time credits.
It’s here where McCarthy makes a fatal mistake in her criticism of Collins and PRRA. McCarthy opines the time credits release inmates early, however, this isn’t the case. Instead, prisoners are put into prerelease custody, meaning they are still subject to supervision by the Office of Probation and Pretrial Services or the Bureau of Prisons. This includes home confinement, halfway house lodging, and GPS monitoring if they’re allowed to attend work, perform community service, go to church, participate in recidivism reduction training, crime victim restoration activities, or receive medical treatment. It’s far from running around the community willy-nilly and in both bills.
The other error by McCarthy is the suggestion PRRA put violent criminals on the street because it did not include several crimes listed in the First Step on its earned time credits exception list. This completely forgets the risk assessment portion within the bill itself. The risk assessment portion is meant to weed out the prisoners who are a threat to the community or a high-risk of recidivism and allows the judge to “deny such a recommendation if the judge finds by clear and convincing evidence that the prisoner should not be transferred into prerelease custody (emphasis mine) based only on evidence of the prisoner’s actions after the conviction of such prisoner and not based on evidence from the underlying conviction.” Not exactly letting a revolving door.
The other major differences between PRRA and First Step is the fact the Senate version includes sentencing reform whereas the House version did not and good time credit fix covering all prisoners except those who are serving at least a year in prison and not life. The good time credit fix was added when the House Judiciary Committee considered the FIRST STEP Act. Good time credits already existed. Prisoners could earn up to 54 days of good time, but the Bureau of Prisoners interpreted that 54 days to mean 47 days. The fix reestablished congressional intent to make 54 days mean 54 days and made the change retroactive. By July, some 3,100 prisoners had been released under this provision alone.
That’s right. The First Step, the bill which became law, went further than PPRA! However, there is still the risk assessment part of the First Step and PPRA meaning it’s up to prison wardens, BOP officials, and judges to approve the prerelease of prisoners. Something to consider before labeling Collins a ‘radical’ on justice reform.
Collins is not a candidate I would support for Senate due to his stances on foreign policy, general government spending, mass surveillance, and American military intervention. It is likely his decision to run for Senate is based on self-interest and the fear Loeffler is not enough of a Trump supporter. However, it’s a major mistake to criticize his position on justice reform. It’s a policy driven by conservatives who realize the current system isn’t working and costing the government too much taxpayer dollars. Shouldn’t conservatives be in favor of reducing the burden on taxpayers, especially when crime is down in the country?


hotair--2020-02-01--Trump, Bloomberg spend big for political Super Bowl ads

Michael Bloomberg has no intention of letting President Trump dominate the political side of Super Bowl ads this year .
The two candidates have spent at least $ 10 million each on commercials during the Super Bowl , which expects about 100 million viewers ( the year ’ s largest TV audience ) when it airs on Fox tomorrow evening .
30-second spots for this year ’ s game have sold for up to $ 5.6 million and Bloomberg is running a one-minute ad while Trump has two 30-second ads .
The inclusion of national political ads during the Super @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the first time that a presidential candidate , in this case , two candidates , has purchased ads in the Super Bowl .
This year ’ s championship game is wedged between some big days in politics , though , so maybe it isn ’ t so unusual for politics to seep into the advertising spots .
It ’ s a sign of the times where politics has become inescapable , no matter what the activity .
The president has been impeached by the House , his impeachment trial in the Senate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be held Monday , and the impeachment trial reconvenes on Wednesday .
The battle between Bloomberg and Trump will be epic if Bloomberg remains in the primary race .
Bloomberg has pledged to spend up to $ 2B to take out Trump .
Trump has a huge war chest thanks to some extraordinary fundraising by the RNC , besides his own campaign operation .
Both men released ads Thursday so we can get a sneak peek .
To prove the competitiveness of the two New York billionaires , Bloomberg released his 60-minute ad @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ads was released by the Trump campaign just hours later .
The Bloomberg ad will run after half-time and it is all about gun control .
The ad doesn ’ t mention Trump , however , and Bloomberg isn ’ t in the ad himself .
Bloomberg released a statement explaining his choice of subject of the ad .
“ I chose to devote the entire 60-second ad to gun safety because it matters to communities across the country and it will be a top priority for me as president , ” Bloomberg @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be rooting for different teams in the Super Bowl , but virtually all Americans—including people in both parties and a majority of gun owners—support universal background checks and other common sense gun laws.
” The ad , which cost a little north of $ 10 million , is just the most recent from Bloomberg , who is running on a slogan of “ Fighting for our future ” and only joined the presidential race in November .
But what he ’ s lacked in time building up a national organization of volunteers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has made up for in advertising , spending $ 100 million over the last month .
The Trump campaign released one of its two 30-second ads titled “ Stronger , Safer , More Prosperous ” .
Instead of a single , divisive issue , this ad focuses on the president ’ s economic accomplishments .
And , if that isn ’ t enough for you , Bloomberg has put advertisements on Google to compete with those seeking out the Trump ad .
Let ’ s face it – viewers tune in for Super @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at least a bit of fun to watch them , especially if the team I prefer is losing or if I don ’ t really care about either team – which is the case for me this year .
Sorry , Chiefs and 49er fans .
Thankfully , most of the ads will be politics-free .
Companies know that consumers are just plain tired of all the noise and want to tune out and watch the ultimate football game event of the season .
One exception will be Saucony .
That company will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a nod to climate change .
My favorite of the ones I ’ ve seen so far is one from WeatherTech .
It tells the story of cancer survival and a very good boy .

Michael Bloomberg has no intention of letting President Trump dominate the political side of Super Bowl ads this year. The two candidates have spent at least $10 million each on commercials during the Super Bowl, which expects about 100 million viewers (the year’s largest TV audience) when it airs on Fox tomorrow evening.
30-second spots for this year’s game have sold for up to $5.6 million and Bloomberg is running a one-minute ad while Trump has two 30-second ads. The inclusion of national political ads during the Super Bowl is being called unprecedented. It is the first time that a presidential candidate, in this case, two candidates, has purchased ads in the Super Bowl.
The very presence of national campaign ads during the Super Bowl is unprecedented, said Charles Taylor, a marketing professor at Villanova University. January is usually too early for national politics, given that the presidential election isn’t until November. But this year, “taking out a Super Bowl ad in this context can be viewed as a show of strength or signal of confidence,” he said.
This year’s championship game is wedged between some big days in politics, though, so maybe it isn’t so unusual for politics to seep into the advertising spots. It’s a sign of the times where politics has become inescapable, no matter what the activity. The president has been impeached by the House, his impeachment trial in the Senate is ongoing, the Iowa caucuses will be held Monday, and the impeachment trial reconvenes on Wednesday.
The battle between Bloomberg and Trump will be epic if Bloomberg remains in the primary race. Bloomberg has pledged to spend up to $2B to take out Trump. Trump has a huge war chest thanks to some extraordinary fundraising by the RNC, besides his own campaign operation. Both men released ads Thursday so we can get a sneak peek. To prove the competitiveness of the two New York billionaires, Bloomberg released his 60-minute ad first, then one of the 30-second ads was released by the Trump campaign just hours later.
The Bloomberg ad will run after half-time and it is all about gun control. The ad doesn’t mention Trump, however, and Bloomberg isn’t in the ad himself.
100 Americans die from gun violence every single day. Every. Single. Day.https://t.co/k1Nre24hUO pic.twitter.com/igVZqYpNrM — Team Bloomberg (@Mike2020) January 30, 2020
Bloomberg released a statement explaining his choice of subject of the ad.
“I chose to devote the entire 60-second ad to gun safety because it matters to communities across the country and it will be a top priority for me as president,” Bloomberg said in a statement. “People will be rooting for different teams in the Super Bowl, but virtually all Americans—including people in both parties and a majority of gun owners—support universal background checks and other common sense gun laws.” The ad, which cost a little north of $10 million, is just the most recent from Bloomberg, who is running on a slogan of “Fighting for our future” and only joined the presidential race in November. But what he’s lacked in time building up a national organization of volunteers like his other Democratic candidates, he has made up for in advertising, spending $100 million over the last month.
The Trump campaign released one of its two 30-second ads titled “Stronger, Safer, More Prosperous”. Instead of a single, divisive issue, this ad focuses on the president’s economic accomplishments.
And, if that isn’t enough for you, Bloomberg has put advertisements on Google to compete with those seeking out the Trump ad.
When a user searches on Google for “donald trump super bowl ad,” a paid advertisement from Bloomberg’s campaign appears with the heading: “Trump’s Broken Promises | Enough Is Enough.” The link redirects users to the former New York mayor’s campaign website, featuring his own Super Bowl ad.
Let’s face it – viewers tune in for Super Bowl ads. I know it is at least a bit of fun to watch them, especially if the team I prefer is losing or if I don’t really care about either team – which is the case for me this year. Sorry, Chiefs and 49er fans. Thankfully, most of the ads will be politics-free. Companies know that consumers are just plain tired of all the noise and want to tune out and watch the ultimate football game event of the season. One exception will be Saucony. That company will run an ad about a biodegradable shoe as a nod to climate change.
Saucony will take a big step toward growing its national footprint with its first Super Bowl ad this year. The Lexington-based athletic shoe maker will air a 30-second spot about its efforts to develop a biodegradable shoe, which will be made from natural materials and renewable resources. “What if the shoes we threw away actually went away?” a voiceover asks, as dozens, then hundreds of shoes begin floating in the air.
My favorite of the ones I’ve seen so far is one from WeatherTech. It tells the story of cancer survival and a very good boy.


hotair--2020-02-01--Tlaib boos Hillary at Bernie rally, Hillary slams Bernie

Rashida Tlaib attended a campaign rally for Bernie Sanders in Clive , Iowa Friday night .
She participated in a panel discussion that included her sister squad members Reps. Pramila Jayapal and Ilhan Omar .
During their discussion , Hillary Clinton ’ s name came up and Tlaib took the opportunity to boo her from the stage .
The panel moderator , Dionna Langford , is a Des Moines school board member .
She teed it up for Tlaib , frankly .
She brought up the fact that Hillary trashed Bernie recently as someone that nobody likes .
Then she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gon na boo , we ’ re not gon na boo .
We ’ re classy here.
” She had to have known that Tlaib would do exactly that .
Of course , she was going to boo .
Tlaib has no filter and is known for her crude outbursts .
Remember during her celebration of being sworn into office that she told her supporters “ We ’ re going to impeach the m*****f***** ” .
If she was quick to do that in public on that day , she certainly would have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s ugly remarks about Bernie .
Most of the squad has endorsed Bernie in the primary ( Rep. Ayanna Pressley endorsed Elizabeth Warren .
There is a Massachusetts connection . )
Bernie and Hillary have a lot of bad blood between them .
That ’ s not news .
Hillary ’ s trash talking of Bernie so recently , though , just adds fuel to the fire that she is unable to accept the fact that she is not on the debate stage with the rest of the candidates .
She even said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ again .
She said that the BernieBros culture attacks women .
In Hillary ’ s world , any time a woman doesn ’ t reach a goal she works for , it ’ s because of sexism .
So , with four outspoken women on stage in support of Bernie – the moderator wrote an op-ed in support of Bernie for the Iowa Starting Line – it was a reminder of accusations of how the DNC rigged the 2016 primary for Hillary .
Bernie is having a moment and it is causing the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ panic .
Hillary fans were not amused by Tlaib ’ s booing .
You ’ d think after Hillary stepped in it over her remarks of Bernie recently which brought so much backlash from other Democrats that she had to swallow her pride and backtrack that she ’ d be a bit more cautious in her remarks now .
But , no .
She did it again .
On Friday , Hillary was interviewed on Emily Tisch Sussman ’ s podcast “ Your Primary Playlist.
” She spoke about the 2016 Democrat convention @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supporters , too .
His supporters were rightfully angry that Bernie was not treated well by the DNC and Hillary is suddenly now a voice for unity , apparently .
Sanders ’ supporters weren ’ t interested in party unity back then and she is holding a grudge .
Clinton said some of the behavior of Sanders ’ supporters at the Democratic National Convention that year was “ very distressing , ” specifically mentioning how speakers Rep. John Lewis and then first lady Michelle Obama were booed .
“ All the way up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people highly identified with his campaign were urging people to vote third party , urging people not to vote , ” she said .
She called it a contrast to how Democrats united after her loss to then Sen. Barack Obama in the 2008 primary , when she said she did 100 events for the eventual president .
Hillary even acknowledged how united Republican voters are for President Trump ’ s re-election and there is a bit of panic as she realizes that some “ caring , smart , concerned Americans ” may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ choice .
In Hillary ’ s world , Trump supporters are not caring , smart , or concerned , you know .
She told Sussman she thinks the Democratic Party is “ light years ” better than the Republican Party , “ but just look at the price we paid for a Trump presidency.
” Clinton said she can ’ t imagine how any “ caring , smart , concerned American ” who identifies on the party ’ s left would want four more years of “ destructive ” President Trump .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she added .
“ I don ’ t care who the nominee is .
I don ’ t care .
As long as it ’ s somebody who can win , and as long as it ’ s somebody who understands politics is the art of addition , not subtraction.
” Pretty ironic that Hillary Clinton sees herself as the person who must insist that the party unites , right ?
She is easily one of the most divisive political figures in my lifetime .
Yet , here we are .
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 2016 election and blaming everyone else but herself for her loss to Trump .
This won ’ t be the last time Hillary inserts herself into the conversation .
Just wait until Bernie wins the Iowa caucuses .
If he does pull it off , Hillary and her ilk are going to find themselves in for a very long primary process .
And , the DNC will have to tread lightly this time in order to not appear to be rigging it all for Joe Biden , or another moderate candidate against @ @

Rashida Tlaib attended a campaign rally for Bernie Sanders in Clive, Iowa Friday night. She participated in a panel discussion that included her sister squad members Reps. Pramila Jayapal and Ilhan Omar. During their discussion, Hillary Clinton’s name came up and Tlaib took the opportunity to boo her from the stage.
The panel moderator, Dionna Langford, is a Des Moines school board member. She teed it up for Tlaib, frankly. She brought up the fact that Hillary trashed Bernie recently as someone that nobody likes. Then she said, “We’re not gonna boo, we’re not gonna boo. We’re classy here.” She had to have known that Tlaib would do exactly that.
“No, I’ll boo. Boo!” Tlaib, who was seated onstage next to laughing Reps. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., and Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., interrupted. “You all know, I can’t be quiet. No, we’re going to boo. That’s alright. The haters will shut up on Monday when we win.”
Of course, she was going to boo. Tlaib has no filter and is known for her crude outbursts. Remember during her celebration of being sworn into office that she told her supporters “We’re going to impeach the m*****f*****”. If she was quick to do that in public on that day, she certainly would have no problem booing Hillary after Clinton’s ugly remarks about Bernie. Most of the squad has endorsed Bernie in the primary (Rep. Ayanna Pressley endorsed Elizabeth Warren. There is a Massachusetts connection.)
BREAKING: At a @BernieSanders rally in Iowa tonight, a leading Sanders’ surrogate @RashidaTlaib led the crowd in booing @HillaryClinton. pic.twitter.com/AKdi2psI2h — Christopher J. Hale (@chrisjollyhale) February 1, 2020
Bernie and Hillary have a lot of bad blood between them. That’s not news. Hillary’s trash talking of Bernie so recently, though, just adds fuel to the fire that she is unable to accept the fact that she is not on the debate stage with the rest of the candidates. She even said she still has the urge to run again. She said that the BernieBros culture attacks women. In Hillary’s world, any time a woman doesn’t reach a goal she works for, it’s because of sexism.
So, with four outspoken women on stage in support of Bernie – the moderator wrote an op-ed in support of Bernie for the Iowa Starting Line – it was a reminder of accusations of how the DNC rigged the 2016 primary for Hillary. Bernie is having a moment and it is causing the more moderate wing of the party to panic. Hillary fans were not amused by Tlaib’s booing.
So just like a #MAGA rally, then?
Not booing Trump, booing the woman he stole the White House from. How incalculably disappointing from women l otherwise respect. It is always disheartening to witness women who claim to be progressive parroting GOP talking points. https://t.co/bq4o4OW240 — Victoria Brownworth (@VABVOX) February 1, 2020
You guys might need some of those Hillary voters later. In the general and in your own careers as legislators. Also: could our elected officials show some of the leadership qualities they always campaign on? This means all of you. https://t.co/hlaZ3kXBxe — Soledad O'Brien (@soledadobrien) February 1, 2020
You’d think after Hillary stepped in it over her remarks of Bernie recently which brought so much backlash from other Democrats that she had to swallow her pride and backtrack that she’d be a bit more cautious in her remarks now. But, no. She did it again.
On Friday, Hillary was interviewed on Emily Tisch Sussman’s podcast “Your Primary Playlist.” She spoke about the 2016 Democrat convention and bashed not only Bernie but his supporters, too. His supporters were rightfully angry that Bernie was not treated well by the DNC and Hillary is suddenly now a voice for unity, apparently. Sanders’ supporters weren’t interested in party unity back then and she is holding a grudge.
Clinton said some of the behavior of Sanders’ supporters at the Democratic National Convention that year was “very distressing,” specifically mentioning how speakers Rep. John Lewis and then first lady Michelle Obama were booed. “All the way up until the end, a lot of people highly identified with his campaign were urging people to vote third party, urging people not to vote,” she said. She called it a contrast to how Democrats united after her loss to then Sen. Barack Obama in the 2008 primary, when she said she did 100 events for the eventual president.
Hillary even acknowledged how united Republican voters are for President Trump’s re-election and there is a bit of panic as she realizes that some “caring, smart, concerned Americans” may not unite to vote for the Democrat choice. In Hillary’s world, Trump supporters are not caring, smart, or concerned, you know.
She told Sussman she thinks the Democratic Party is “light years” better than the Republican Party, “but just look at the price we paid for a Trump presidency.” Clinton said she can’t imagine how any “caring, smart, concerned American” who identifies on the party’s left would want four more years of “destructive” President Trump. “That cannot happen again,” she added. “I don’t care who the nominee is. I don’t care. As long as it’s somebody who can win, and as long as it’s somebody who understands politics is the art of addition, not subtraction.”
Pretty ironic that Hillary Clinton sees herself as the person who must insist that the party unites, right? She is easily one of the most divisive political figures in my lifetime. Yet, here we are. It’s 2020 and she is still replaying the 2016 election and blaming everyone else but herself for her loss to Trump.
This won’t be the last time Hillary inserts herself into the conversation. Just wait until Bernie wins the Iowa caucuses. If he does pull it off, Hillary and her ilk are going to find themselves in for a very long primary process. And, the DNC will have to tread lightly this time in order to not appear to be rigging it all for Joe Biden, or another moderate candidate against Bernie.


hotair--2020-02-01--Michael Moore goes berserk on DNC: Why are they changing the rules to let billionaire Mike Bloomberg

Michael Moore goes berserk on DNC: Why are they changing the rules to let billionaire Mike Bloomberg into the debates?

Stop right here and read John ’ s post about this if you haven ’ t already .
It ’ s important , because what the DNC did has the potential to tear its party apart .
Think I ’ m exaggerating ?
Behold the progressive id on display last night in Iowa , reacting to the news that the DNC abruptly decided to lift the requirement for the debates that each candidate receive a certain number of donations from the public in order to qualify .
Just as Democratic voters are getting serious about their choices , coincidentally enough @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Moore knows .
I don ’ t know what they were thinking .
At the very moment that the left ’ s hero is on the cusp of an historic victory in Iowa , the same organization that worked against him in 2016 turns around and decides to revamp the rules to benefit … one of the world ’ s richest men , a former Republican and Wall Street institution .
If you were the head of the DNC and you were trying to get the progressive base to hate you and your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do to make that happen ?
Let Trump have Bernie ’ s slot at the next debate , maybe ?
That ’ s all I can think of .
Their stated rationale for the rule change makes no sense : If the rules need to change once actual voting begins then why is the DNC still requiring candidates to meet a certain threshold in public polling to qualify for the debate stage ?
Just use the results in Iowa and New Hampshire to determine who makes the cut .
Anyone who clears the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ night and wins some delegates gets to participate in the debate before Nevada .
Anyone who doesn ’ t is out .
Easy peasy .
Dropping the donor requirement but retaining the polling requirement reeks of designing the new rule specifically to benefit Mike Bloomberg .
He ’ s risen to fourth in national surveys based on name recognition amid his mammoth ad campaign but he won ’ t be on the ballot in Iowa and New Hampshire because he joined the race too late .
Bloomy won ’ t be getting any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after — but the DNC ’ s going to find an excuse to let him debate anyway .
How come ?
Two obvious reasons .
One is that Bloomberg has donated big bucks to the DNC in the past and , more importantly , he ’ s considering donating big big big bucks to the effort to beat Trump next fall regardless of whether or not he ’ s the nominee .
He ’ s even talked about keeping his campaign organization going if and when he drops out so that it can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defeats him .
Whether that promise extends to socialist Bernie Sanders is unclear but it would certainly extend to Joe Biden or Amy Klobuchar .
The DNC may be bending the rules purely in the name of keeping Bloomberg happy , knowing that the debates haven ’ t mattered much to Democratic voters and expecting that giving him a little camera time will guarantee his continuing generosity this summer .
But there ’ s a second possibility .
There ’ s a chance that Bernie wins easily in Iowa and New Hampshire , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ happens the media will be ruthless in attacking Biden as a chronic underachiever in presidential contests , the guy who just can ’ t get it done .
The stink of campaign death will be on him even though he ’ ll limp on to Nevada and South Carolina .
But establishment Dems will be panicking and looking for a longshot centrist option who might somehow be able to hold off Sanders .
That ’ s Bloomberg , a guy who ’ s already bought his way into the top tier nationally and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to promote himself .
He may well be the only Democrat who can outspend the Sanders money machine , and he can do it by an order of magnitude .
If Biden flames out early Bloomy may be the only game in town for centrist Democrats on Super Tuesday .
Go figure that the DNC wants to start introducing him to the primary electorate as soon as possible at the debates .
There ’ s just one thing I can ’ t figure out about that strategy .
Even if Bloomberg somehow buys @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could Dems expect progressives to turn out for him after this ?
They probably weren ’ t going to turn out for him regardless , but watching the DNC rewrite the rules to elevate a centrist billionaire as a potential last-ditch nuclear option against Sanders will drive them batty .
They already see Bloomberg as “ cheating ” because of his limitless financial resources .
Now the DNC is complicit in it .
I guess the idea is that Bloomberg has such strong centrist appeal that he can pull enough independents away from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even though huge chunks of the Democratic base would stay home in protest .
Good luck with the Mike Bloomberg campaign in the Rust Belt , guys .
I ’ ll leave you with Joe Biden reacting to the news about the debate rule change and bringing up a good point to counter it .

Stop right here and read John’s post about this if you haven’t already. It’s important, because what the DNC did has the potential to tear its party apart.
Think I’m exaggerating? Behold the progressive id on display last night in Iowa, reacting to the news that the DNC abruptly decided to lift the requirement for the debates that each candidate receive a certain number of donations from the public in order to qualify. Just as Democratic voters are getting serious about their choices, coincidentally enough.
Who does that benefit? Michael Moore knows.
I don’t know what they were thinking. At the very moment that the left’s hero is on the cusp of an historic victory in Iowa, the same organization that worked against him in 2016 turns around and decides to revamp the rules to benefit … one of the world’s richest men, a former Republican and Wall Street institution. If you were the head of the DNC and you were trying to get the progressive base to hate you and your preferred candidates, what more could you do to make that happen?
Let Trump have Bernie’s slot at the next debate, maybe? That’s all I can think of.
Their stated rationale for the rule change makes no sense:
“Now that the grassroots support is actually captured in real voting, the criteria will no longer require a donor threshold,” said Adrienne Watson, a DNC spokeswoman. “The donor threshold was appropriate for the opening stages of the race, when candidates were building their organizations, and there were no metrics available outside of polling to distinguish those making progress from those who weren’t.”
If the rules need to change once actual voting begins then why is the DNC still requiring candidates to meet a certain threshold in public polling to qualify for the debate stage? Just use the results in Iowa and New Hampshire to determine who makes the cut. Anyone who clears the 15-percent bar in either state on election night and wins some delegates gets to participate in the debate before Nevada. Anyone who doesn’t is out. Easy peasy.
Dropping the donor requirement but retaining the polling requirement reeks of designing the new rule specifically to benefit Mike Bloomberg. He’s risen to fourth in national surveys based on name recognition amid his mammoth ad campaign but he won’t be on the ballot in Iowa and New Hampshire because he joined the race too late. Bloomy won’t be getting any delegates on Monday night or the week after — but the DNC’s going to find an excuse to let him debate anyway. How come?
Two obvious reasons. One is that Bloomberg has donated big bucks to the DNC in the past and, more importantly, he’s considering donating big big big bucks to the effort to beat Trump next fall regardless of whether or not he’s the nominee. He’s even talked about keeping his campaign organization going if and when he drops out so that it can hit the ground running for whichever Democrat defeats him. Whether that promise extends to socialist Bernie Sanders is unclear but it would certainly extend to Joe Biden or Amy Klobuchar. The DNC may be bending the rules purely in the name of keeping Bloomberg happy, knowing that the debates haven’t mattered much to Democratic voters and expecting that giving him a little camera time will guarantee his continuing generosity this summer.
But there’s a second possibility. There’s a chance that Bernie wins easily in Iowa and New Hampshire, with Biden underperforming dismally. If that happens the media will be ruthless in attacking Biden as a chronic underachiever in presidential contests, the guy who just can’t get it done. The stink of campaign death will be on him even though he’ll limp on to Nevada and South Carolina. But establishment Dems will be panicking and looking for a longshot centrist option who might somehow be able to hold off Sanders. That’s Bloomberg, a guy who’s already bought his way into the top tier nationally and who seems willing to pay any price to promote himself. He may well be the only Democrat who can outspend the Sanders money machine, and he can do it by an order of magnitude. If Biden flames out early Bloomy may be the only game in town for centrist Democrats on Super Tuesday. Go figure that the DNC wants to start introducing him to the primary electorate as soon as possible at the debates.
There’s just one thing I can’t figure out about that strategy. Even if Bloomberg somehow buys his way to the nomination, how could Dems expect progressives to turn out for him after this? They probably weren’t going to turn out for him regardless, but watching the DNC rewrite the rules to elevate a centrist billionaire as a potential last-ditch nuclear option against Sanders will drive them batty. They already see Bloomberg as “cheating” because of his limitless financial resources. Now the DNC is complicit in it.
I guess the idea is that Bloomberg has such strong centrist appeal that he can pull enough independents away from Trump in the general election to win even though huge chunks of the Democratic base would stay home in protest. Good luck with the Mike Bloomberg campaign in the Rust Belt, guys. I’ll leave you with Joe Biden reacting to the news about the debate rule change and bringing up a good point to counter it.