hotair--2020-08-01--Appellate court throws out death sentence for Boston Marathon terrorist -- for now

Not only did a three-judge panel of the First Circuit Court of Appeals throw out Dzokhar Tsarnaev ’ s death sentence , they also threw out three counts on which he was convicted .
That still leaves more than enough convictions to ensure the Boston Marathon terrorist remains in prison for the rest of his life , the court writes in attempting to reassure everyone of the impact of the ruling , but it will likely be cold comfort to his victims .
Tsarnaev didn ’ t raise innocence as a defense in his first trial , which means the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do-over in a new penalty phase : Tsarnaev ’ s legal team had pushed to change the venue of the trial to a courthouse that wasn ’ t so close to the site of the bombing , in the heart of a town so affected by the tragedy .
The appeals court judges agreed , saying , “ One could not turn on the radio either without hearing something about these stunningly sad events.
” The appeals judges ruled that US District Court Judge George O ’ Toole , who oversaw Tsarnaev ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of his promise to question jurors thoroughly enough to identify the degree to which they had been exposed to facts of the case through media coverage , “ providing sufficient ground to vacate his death sentences.
” Part of the appeals court ’ s ruling was a decision to reverse three convictions for charges that Tsarnaev was carrying a firearm in connection with his possession of a pressure cooker bomb .
The ruling tells the district court to enter judgments of acquittal on those charges , put together a new jury and preside @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on what penalty Tsarnaev should receive for the counts that are eligible for the death penalty .
Tsarnaev ’ s attorneys had filed a post-trial motion for judgments of acquittal on these convictions that the district court judge denied .
The court ’ s opinion , meandering and written like a bad novel at times , orders a new penalty-phase trial with more detailed voir dire and potentially ( but not likely ) reopening a debate over venue .
The panel objected to the judge ’ s decisions to remove very case-specific questions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had promised to cover the same ground with jurors in instructions but failed to do so .
The court ruled that just asking whether jurors had generally heard about the case was not sufficient , but that the judge had the duty to require them to specifically state what they had heard : Even assuming ( favorably to the government ) that the judge did not reversibly err on the venue question , he still had to oversee a voir-dire process capable of winnowing out partial jurors through careful questioning — indeed , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the judge premised his analysis in part on a pledge to run a “ voir dire sufficient to identify prejudice.
” 25 But performance fell short of promise , providing ( as Dzhokhar ’ s counsel said at oral argument ) a sufficient ground to vacate his death sentences — even on abuse-of-discretion review .
… The rationale for the Patriarca standard is obvious .
Decisions about prospective jurors ’ impartiality are for the judge , not for the potential jurors themselves .
See , e.g.
, United States v. Rhodes , 556 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
1977 ) .
And that is because prospective jurors “ may have an interest in concealing [ their ] own bias ” or “ may be unaware of it.
” Smith v. Phillips , 455 U.S. 209 , 221-22 ( 1982 ) ( O ’ Connor , J. , concurring ) ; see also Sampson v. United States , 724 F.3d 150 , 164 ( 1st Cir .
2013 ) ( “ Sampson II ” ) ( emphasizing that “ a person who harbors a bias may not appreciate it and , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to admit her lack of objectivity ” ) .
So asking them only “ whether they had read anything that might influence their opinion ” does not suffice , for that question “ in no way elicit [ s ] what , if anything , ” they have “ learned , but let [ s ] [ them ] decide for themselves the ultimate question whether what they [ have ] learned had prejudiced them.
” Rhodes , 556 F.2d at 601 .
With these principles in mind , we have held that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fully complied with ” Patriarca by asking potential jurors if they “ had read or heard anything about the case in the newspapers , on television [ , ] or radio ” — and if so , by “ prob [ ing ] further as to the extent of such knowledge.
” … With Patriarca ’ s prerequisites satisfied , the judge had to ascertain not just the “ degree ” but the “ kind ” of “ exposure to the case or the parties ” that the prospective jurors had experienced , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is , “ what [ they ] ha [ d ] read and heard about the case , ” see Am .
Bar Ass ’ n , Standards Relating to Fair Trial and Free Press § 3.4 ( a ) , at 130 ( cited in Patriarca , 402 F.2d at 318 ) .
But as to 9 of the 12 seated jurors , the judge fell short on this front .
This seems reasonable — if the defendant was raising innocence as a positive defense at trial .
Tsarnaev , however , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He only put on a defense against the death penalty .
The court even notes that “ most of the publicity was true , ” thanks to the opening and closing statements of Tsarnaev ’ s attorneys .
The opinion even has a footnote that “ the government proved the death-resulting element beyond a reasonable doubt , ” which makes this even more of a head-scratcher .
The jury wasn ’ t asked to consider innocence , but whether the crimes qualified for the death penalty , which means that none of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ either way .
The defense still got to present its mitigation arguments ; the government presented its evidence of the suffering of the victims ; and the insult of a terrorist act to any community would have been obvious even to people brought out of a 20-year hibernation to make this judgment .
The arguments in this appeal all make sense only if Tsarnaev didn ’ t stipulate to being the perpetrator of the crime and forced the government to prove those elements at trial .
The only dissent on this case didn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rather , in his partial concurrence , one judge wanted the death penalty and all other sentencing thrown out over the venue decision .
That one actually makes some sense , but again mainly for a trial rather than a sentencing .
The errors in presented in the opinion on the voir dire seem trivial and perhaps not much like errors at all , given the circumstances of the guilty plea .
Will the government appeal this decision to the Supreme Court ?
It might just be easier to hold another penalty-phase hearing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the Supreme Court to rule on this .
One can easily imagine a split court on a case like this , and it might be tough to predict just where that split would occur .
Tsarnaev will spend the rest of his life in prison either way ; it ’ s just a question as to when it will come to an end , and how .
That ’ s still the bottom line , and it hasn ’ t actually changed all that much yet .

Not only did a three-judge panel of the First Circuit Court of Appeals throw out Dzokhar Tsarnaev’s death sentence, they also threw out three counts on which he was convicted. That still leaves more than enough convictions to ensure the Boston Marathon terrorist remains in prison for the rest of his life, the court writes in attempting to reassure everyone of the impact of the ruling, but it will likely be cold comfort to his victims. Tsarnaev didn’t raise innocence as a defense in his first trial, which means the witnesses will have to endure a full do-over in a new penalty phase:
Tsarnaev’s legal team had pushed to change the venue of the trial to a courthouse that wasn’t so close to the site of the bombing, in the heart of a town so affected by the tragedy. The appeals court judges agreed, saying, “One could not turn on the radio either without hearing something about these stunningly sad events.” The appeals judges ruled that US District Court Judge George O’Toole, who oversaw Tsarnaev’s trial, “fell short” of his promise to question jurors thoroughly enough to identify the degree to which they had been exposed to facts of the case through media coverage, “providing sufficient ground to vacate his death sentences.” Part of the appeals court’s ruling was a decision to reverse three convictions for charges that Tsarnaev was carrying a firearm in connection with his possession of a pressure cooker bomb. The ruling tells the district court to enter judgments of acquittal on those charges, put together a new jury and preside over a new trial that strictly focuses on what penalty Tsarnaev should receive for the counts that are eligible for the death penalty. Tsarnaev’s attorneys had filed a post-trial motion for judgments of acquittal on these convictions that the district court judge denied.
The court’s opinion, meandering and written like a bad novel at times, orders a new penalty-phase trial with more detailed voir dire and potentially (but not likely) reopening a debate over venue. The panel objected to the judge’s decisions to remove very case-specific questions the defense proposed, noting that he had promised to cover the same ground with jurors in instructions but failed to do so. The court ruled that just asking whether jurors had generally heard about the case was not sufficient, but that the judge had the duty to require them to specifically state what they had heard:
Even assuming (favorably to the government) that the judge did not reversibly err on the venue question, he still had to oversee a voir-dire process capable of winnowing out partial jurors through careful questioning — indeed, in denying Dzhokhar a venue change, the judge premised his analysis in part on a pledge to run a “voir dire sufficient to identify prejudice.”25 But performance fell short of promise, providing (as Dzhokhar’s counsel said at oral argument) a sufficient ground to vacate his death sentences — even on abuse-of-discretion review. … The rationale for the Patriarca standard is obvious. Decisions about prospective jurors’ impartiality are for the judge, not for the potential jurors themselves. See, e.g., United States v. Rhodes, 556 F.2d 599, 601 (1st Cir. 1977). And that is because prospective jurors “may have an interest in concealing [their] own bias” or “may be unaware of it.” Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 221-22 (1982) (O’Connor, J., concurring); see also Sampson v. United States, 724 F.3d 150, 164 (1st Cir. 2013) (“Sampson II”) (emphasizing that “a person who harbors a bias may not appreciate it and, in any event, may be reluctant to admit her lack of objectivity”). So asking them only “whether they had read anything that might influence their opinion” does not suffice, for that question “in no way elicit[s] what, if anything,” they have “learned, but let[s] [them] decide for themselves the ultimate question whether what they [have] learned had prejudiced them.” Rhodes, 556 F.2d at 601. With these principles in mind, we have held that a judge in a high-profile case “fully complied with” Patriarca by asking potential jurors if they “had read or heard anything about the case in the newspapers, on television[,] or radio” — and if so, by “prob[ing] further as to the extent of such knowledge.” … With Patriarca’s prerequisites satisfied, the judge had to ascertain not just the “degree” but the “kind” of “exposure to the case or the parties” that the prospective jurors had experienced, see 402 F.2d at 318 — that is, “what [they] ha[d] read and heard about the case,” see Am. Bar Ass’n, Standards Relating to Fair Trial and Free Press § 3.4(a), at 130 (cited in Patriarca, 402 F.2d at 318). But as to 9 of the 12 seated jurors, the judge fell short on this front.
This seems reasonable — if the defendant was raising innocence as a positive defense at trial. Tsarnaev, however, wasn’t contesting the charges. He only put on a defense against the death penalty. The court even notes that “most of the publicity was true,” thanks to the opening and closing statements of Tsarnaev’s attorneys. The opinion even has a footnote that “the government proved
the death-resulting element beyond a reasonable doubt,” which makes this even more of a head-scratcher.
The jury wasn’t asked to consider innocence, but whether the crimes qualified for the death penalty, which means that none of the usual pre-trial publicity would have mattered much either way. The defense still got to present its mitigation arguments; the government presented its evidence of the suffering of the victims; and the insult of a terrorist act to any community would have been obvious even to people brought out of a 20-year hibernation to make this judgment. The arguments in this appeal all make sense only if Tsarnaev didn’t stipulate to being the perpetrator of the crime and forced the government to prove those elements at trial.
The only dissent on this case didn’t go in that direction. Rather, in his partial concurrence, one judge wanted the death penalty and all other sentencing thrown out over the venue decision. That one actually makes some sense, but again mainly for a trial rather than a sentencing. The errors in presented in the opinion on the voir dire seem trivial and perhaps not much like errors at all, given the circumstances of the guilty plea.
Will the government appeal this decision to the Supreme Court? It might just be easier to hold another penalty-phase hearing, as it could take a year for the Supreme Court to rule on this. One can easily imagine a split court on a case like this, and it might be tough to predict just where that split would occur. Tsarnaev will spend the rest of his life in prison either way; it’s just a question as to when it will come to an end, and how. That’s still the bottom line, and it hasn’t actually changed all that much yet.


hotair--2020-08-01--Will Trump ban Tik Tok today?

Will Trump ban Tik Tok today?

Well , he said he was going to do it during comments he made during his flight back from Florida yesterday .
Between the aggressive stance we ’ ve been taking in the western Pacific and sanctions on certain Chinese officials and companies , cutting off access to one of China ’ s data-burrowing channels probably shouldn ’ t come as too much of a surprise .
Of course , given how many people have seemingly become addicted to the app , the White House will have to do a far better job in explaining why this move is necessary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lot of aspiring internet influencers out there on social media ripping the President a new one .
( Associated Press ) President Donald Trump says he will take action as soon as Saturday to ban Chinese-owned video app TikTok from the United States .
Trump made the announcement to reporters Friday on Air Force One as he returned from Florida .
“ As far as TikTok is concerned , we ’ re banning them from the United States , ” Trump said .
U.S. lawmakers have raised intelligence and privacy concerns about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has denied allegations that it shares user data with the Chinese government .
Communicating the rationale for an action that may be unpopular isn ’ t exactly on-brand for Trump ’ s White House , but it ’ s still going to need to be done .
As far as shutting down Tik Tok in the United States , I certainly hope that Trump carries through on this threat .
India already shut it down for precisely the same reasons that we need to be concerned .
The app is yet another “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all manner of user data , supposedly doing so even if you set the privacy options to the maximum .
And it ’ s not keeping the data locally , either .
When you ’ re online it ’ s shipping all of those ones and zeros back into the cloud .
The idea that the information isn ’ t winding up in the hands of the Chinese Communist Party is laughable in the opinion of most analysts .
This is far from the first instance we ’ ve seen of the Chinese @ @ @ @ @ @ @ across the world to capture and store data .
Data analysts were raising the alarm years ago over the way that Chinese devices were embedded in the Internet of Things so extensively that they could probably shut the entire system down with one flick of a switch in Beijing .
We also recently learned that the Chinese have completed testing on highly mobile “ hunter ” satellites that could disable our GPS system while keeping their own GPS functions intact using new , hardened satellites .
All of these events point to a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ United States and the west to anticipate and deal with China ’ s true motivations and methods .
Just yesterday I was listening to a discussion on a podcast where the hosts were talking about the absurdity of what they called America ’ s “ Pokemon diplomacy ” theory regarding the CCP dating back to the Clinton administration .
Back then the thinking was that if we just engaged in enough trade and economic interactions with China , the would eventually just “ evolve ” ( like a Pokemon ) into a capitalism-loving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intent of the CCP .
They skillfully mix truth and lies when trying to manipulate global opinions about them , using either just as smoothly and easily as needs dictate .
They keep insisting that they only want peace and prosperity for everyone but they are clearly positioning themselves to be a global superpower in a way the world hasn ’ t seen before .
Rather than trying to keep up with the United States in building warship and fighter jets , they ’ re fighting in cyberspace and taking a daunting lead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we are on GPS and satellite data these days , the threat posed by the CCP is alarming .
In the private sector , everything from navigation to communications and power distribution relies on those data networks .
Our most advanced military systems reportedly are similarly tied into the cloud .
In a worst-case scenario , China could potentially knock everything off-line and effectively win World War 3 without needing to kick off an EMP or even fire a shot .
Banning Tik Tok might not make much of a dent in those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they have .
But it would at least send a clear message that the world is on to what they ’ ve been up to and is willing to fight back .

Well, he said he was going to do it during comments he made during his flight back from Florida yesterday. Between the aggressive stance we’ve been taking in the western Pacific and sanctions on certain Chinese officials and companies, cutting off access to one of China’s data-burrowing channels probably shouldn’t come as too much of a surprise. Of course, given how many people have seemingly become addicted to the app, the White House will have to do a far better job in explaining why this move is necessary or there are going to be a lot of aspiring internet influencers out there on social media ripping the President a new one. (Associated Press)
President Donald Trump says he will take action as soon as Saturday to ban Chinese-owned video app TikTok from the United States. Trump made the announcement to reporters Friday on Air Force One as he returned from Florida. “As far as TikTok is concerned, we’re banning them from the United States,” Trump said. U.S. lawmakers have raised intelligence and privacy concerns about the company’s ownership. The company has denied allegations that it shares user data with the Chinese government.
Communicating the rationale for an action that may be unpopular isn’t exactly on-brand for Trump’s White House, but it’s still going to need to be done. As far as shutting down Tik Tok in the United States, I certainly hope that Trump carries through on this threat. India already shut it down for precisely the same reasons that we need to be concerned. The app is yet another “free” popular service that mysteriously tracks all manner of user data, supposedly doing so even if you set the privacy options to the maximum. And it’s not keeping the data locally, either. When you’re online it’s shipping all of those ones and zeros back into the cloud. The idea that the information isn’t winding up in the hands of the Chinese Communist Party is laughable in the opinion of most analysts.
This is far from the first instance we’ve seen of the Chinese using cutting-edge devices or applications that spread across the world to capture and store data. Data analysts were raising the alarm years ago over the way that Chinese devices were embedded in the Internet of Things so extensively that they could probably shut the entire system down with one flick of a switch in Beijing. We also recently learned that the Chinese have completed testing on highly mobile “hunter” satellites that could disable our GPS system while keeping their own GPS functions intact using new, hardened satellites.
All of these events point to a larger failure on the part of the United States and the west to anticipate and deal with China’s true motivations and methods. Just yesterday I was listening to a discussion on a podcast where the hosts were talking about the absurdity of what they called America’s “Pokemon diplomacy” theory regarding the CCP dating back to the Clinton administration. Back then the thinking was that if we just engaged in enough trade and economic interactions with China, the would eventually just “evolve” (like a Pokemon) into a capitalism-loving democracy.
But that was never the intent of the CCP. They skillfully mix truth and lies when trying to manipulate global opinions about them, using either just as smoothly and easily as needs dictate. They keep insisting that they only want peace and prosperity for everyone but they are clearly positioning themselves to be a global superpower in a way the world hasn’t seen before. Rather than trying to keep up with the United States in building warship and fighter jets, they’re fighting in cyberspace and taking a daunting lead.
When you think about how dependent we are on GPS and satellite data these days, the threat posed by the CCP is alarming. In the private sector, everything from navigation to communications and power distribution relies on those data networks. Our most advanced military systems reportedly are similarly tied into the cloud. In a worst-case scenario, China could potentially knock everything off-line and effectively win World War 3 without needing to kick off an EMP or even fire a shot.
Banning Tik Tok might not make much of a dent in those efforts considering what a huge head start they have. But it would at least send a clear message that the world is on to what they’ve been up to and is willing to fight back.


hotair--2020-08-01--Go home. Pelosi was never going to deal on unemployment benefits

Yesterday evening we learned that talks between the two parties over extending the enhanced unemployment benefits had broken down and the current $ 600 per week enhancement came to an end .
There were plenty of other items on the agenda where Pelosi , McConnell and Trump couldn ’ t see eye to eye , but the unemployment question was obviously one of the most urgent targets to tackle .
Congress headed out of town for the weekend , but some of the key players were sticking around to see if a last-minute deal could be cut .
That led @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were beginning to get nervous and they might toss in some additional sweeteners this morning .
( Associated Press ) The White House and its GOP allies appear to be retreating from their opposition to a $ 600-per-week supplemental unemployment benefit that has propped up the economy and family budgets but expired Friday .
President Donald Trump is eager to extend the benefit , undercutting his GOP allies on Capitol Hill who have spent considerable effort devising an alternative that could unite Republicans… “ There are two things to remember .
One is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has to want something ” for the American people , Pelosi said .
“ And they have to know you will walk ” if you don ’ t get a good enough agreement .
Pelosi ’ s “ tutorial on negotiating ” is nonsense and she knows it .
There are three parties involved in getting any sort of agreement out the door : the House , the Senate , and the Oval Office .
The Democrats only control one of the three so they can ’ t unilaterally do anything .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on here we need to look at more than just policy disagreements .
First , let ’ s look at what the Speaker has been offered thus far over the course of the past week .
The package approved by the Senate GOP included $ 200 per week through the end of the year .
Both Pelosi and Schumer blew that off as a non-starter .
Next , according to Mark Meadows , Pelosi was offered $ 400 per week for four months .
She turned her nose up at that also .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 600 for one week just to give them time to continue working on a compromise deal .
Even knowing that that the entire program was about to turn into a pumpkin at midnight , Pelosi scoffed at that offer as well , intentionally choosing to let the benefit expire .
And now she wants to try to blame the President and the GOP for the benefit running out ?
It should be obvious by now that both Donald Trump and Nancy Pelosi are looking at this argument entirely in terms of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to see the unemployment benefits extended for the time being so that people won ’ t be going broke and growing increasingly restless .
Conversely – and this is the key point to remember – Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats have been doing their level best to keep the country shut down as much as possible and block any sort of economic recovery until November .
If people are hurting , they tend to vote against the party in power .
Canceling the enhanced unemployment benefits works precisely toward that purpose .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and other bills , public satisfaction will plummet even faster .
The Democrats see this as a bonus because they believe it helps their chances in November .
Sadly , history shows us that they may be correct .
Right from the beginning , both Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer have approached these negotiations with a “ my way or the highway ” attitude .
Pass the House version of next stimulus package and give them 100 % of what they want or there ’ s no deal .
If they had managed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House to go along with it they could claim the victory “ for the people ” and fundraise off of that .
If not , they manage to tank the economy even further and just try to ride out the storm until November when they believe the battered condition of the country will pave the way for a Democratic takeover of the Senate majority and a Joe Biden presidency .
At this point , the GOP should just walk away .
Nancy Pelosi has no intention of acting reasonably and sees no benefit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would probably make better use of their time by pointing out exactly what the Democrats are up to and leaving Chuck and Nancy to stew in their own juices .

Yesterday evening we learned that talks between the two parties over extending the enhanced unemployment benefits had broken down and the current $600 per week enhancement came to an end. There were plenty of other items on the agenda where Pelosi, McConnell and Trump couldn’t see eye to eye, but the unemployment question was obviously one of the most urgent targets to tackle. Congress headed out of town for the weekend, but some of the key players were sticking around to see if a last-minute deal could be cut. That led to reports that Trump and the GOP were beginning to get nervous and they might toss in some additional sweeteners this morning. (Associated Press)
The White House and its GOP allies appear to be retreating from their opposition to a $600-per-week supplemental unemployment benefit that has propped up the economy and family budgets but expired Friday. President Donald Trump is eager to extend the benefit, undercutting his GOP allies on Capitol Hill who have spent considerable effort devising an alternative that could unite Republicans… Pelosi, brimming with confidence, offered a tutorial on negotiating Friday. “There are two things to remember. One is the person you’re negotiating with has to want something” for the American people, Pelosi said. “And they have to know you will walk” if you don’t get a good enough agreement.
Pelosi’s “tutorial on negotiating” is nonsense and she knows it. There are three parties involved in getting any sort of agreement out the door: the House, the Senate, and the Oval Office. The Democrats only control one of the three so they can’t unilaterally do anything. But to understand what’s really going on here we need to look at more than just policy disagreements.
First, let’s look at what the Speaker has been offered thus far over the course of the past week. The package approved by the Senate GOP included $200 per week through the end of the year. Both Pelosi and Schumer blew that off as a non-starter. Next, according to Mark Meadows, Pelosi was offered $400 per week for four months. She turned her nose up at that also. Yesterday the GOP offered her the full $600 for one week just to give them time to continue working on a compromise deal. Even knowing that that the entire program was about to turn into a pumpkin at midnight, Pelosi scoffed at that offer as well, intentionally choosing to let the benefit expire. And now she wants to try to blame the President and the GOP for the benefit running out?
It should be obvious by now that both Donald Trump and Nancy Pelosi are looking at this argument entirely in terms of the politics behind it. The President wants to see the unemployment benefits extended for the time being so that people won’t be going broke and growing increasingly restless. Conversely – and this is the key point to remember – Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats have been doing their level best to keep the country shut down as much as possible and block any sort of economic recovery until November. If people are hurting, they tend to vote against the party in power. Canceling the enhanced unemployment benefits works precisely toward that purpose. If people can’t pay their rent and other bills, public satisfaction will plummet even faster. The Democrats see this as a bonus because they believe it helps their chances in November. Sadly, history shows us that they may be correct.
Right from the beginning, both Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer have approached these negotiations with a “my way or the highway” attitude. Pass the House version of next stimulus package and give them 100% of what they want or there’s no deal. If they had managed to get the GOP and the White House to go along with it they could claim the victory “for the people” and fundraise off of that. If not, they manage to tank the economy even further and just try to ride out the storm until November when they believe the battered condition of the country will pave the way for a Democratic takeover of the Senate majority and a Joe Biden presidency.
At this point, the GOP should just walk away. Nancy Pelosi has no intention of acting reasonably and sees no benefit in making a deal. Team GOP would probably make better use of their time by pointing out exactly what the Democrats are up to and leaving Chuck and Nancy to stew in their own juices.


hotair--2020-08-02--Sunday morning talking heads

Sunday morning talking heads

It ’ s the home stretch for the Biden veepstakes , with two supposedly top-tier candidates set to plead their respective cases on this morning ’ s Sunday shows .
The lead guest is Rep. Karen Bass , who ’ s too much of a liability in Florida to actually be chosen but whose popularity among House Democrats requires that she be given nominal “ strong consideration.
” She ’ ll be on “ Meet the Press ” and “ Fox News Sunday ” to explain how deep her admiration for Castro ’ s Cuba runs and why she ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ churches .
Sen. Tammy Duckworth will also appear on “ Fox News Sunday ” to burnish her own VP cred , although I continue to believe there ’ s no way Biden will snub the many African-American women on his shortlist by ultimately choosing someone from outside that demographic .
Kamala Harris isn ’ t scheduled to appear as I write this on Saturday morning , interestingly .
Maybe , as Biden ’ s most likely choice , she wants to project confidence by not lobbying publicly for the job .
( She @ @ @ @ @ @ @ . )
Someone who was all too happy to lobby publicly for the VP role will be on instead : Also-ran Stacey Abrams will chat with “ State of the Union ” about the election , although that discussion is more likely to focus on voter suppression and Trump ’ s “ delay the election ” tweet this week than on the vice presidential contest .
Elsewhere we ’ ll have a reprise of last week ’ s battle royal as representatives from the White House and Congress fight over who ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of coronavirus stimulus .
For Team Trump it ’ ll be Steve Mnuchin on “ This Week , ” Mark Meadows on “ Face the Nation , ” and Jason Miller on “ Fox News Sunday.
” For Team Pelosi it ’ ll be , uh , Pelosi , who ’ ll talk to “ This Week ” as well .
They ’ ll all try to answer the question of how the hell unemployment benefits were allowed to lapse when both sides had many months to avert that eventuality .
One more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , whose endorsement of Biden a few days before the South Carolina may have changed the trajectory of the primaries by propelling Sleepy Joe to a landslide victory .
If Clyburn shows his cards on whom he favors for VP , it might influence Biden and other top Democrats .
Alternately , if Clyburn already has an inkling of who Biden ’ s choice is , his warm words for that candidate this morning could help reconcile the rest of the party to the pick .
He ’ ll chat with “ Face @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Union.
” The full line-up is at the AP .

It’s the home stretch for the Biden veepstakes, with two supposedly top-tier candidates set to plead their respective cases on this morning’s Sunday shows. The lead guest is Rep. Karen Bass, who’s too much of a liability in Florida to actually be chosen but whose popularity among House Democrats requires that she be given nominal “strong consideration.” She’ll be on “Meet the Press” and “Fox News Sunday” to explain how deep her admiration for Castro’s Cuba runs and why she’s been known to help open Scientologist churches. Sen. Tammy Duckworth will also appear on “Fox News Sunday” to burnish her own VP cred, although I continue to believe there’s no way Biden will snub the many African-American women on his shortlist by ultimately choosing someone from outside that demographic.
Kamala Harris isn’t scheduled to appear as I write this on Saturday morning, interestingly. Maybe, as Biden’s most likely choice, she wants to project confidence by not lobbying publicly for the job. (She’ll do her lobbying in private.) Someone who was all too happy to lobby publicly for the VP role will be on instead: Also-ran Stacey Abrams will chat with “State of the Union” about the election, although that discussion is more likely to focus on voter suppression and Trump’s “delay the election” tweet this week than on the vice presidential contest.
Elsewhere we’ll have a reprise of last week’s battle royal as representatives from the White House and Congress fight over who’s to blame for stalling the next round of coronavirus stimulus. For Team Trump it’ll be Steve Mnuchin on “This Week,” Mark Meadows on “Face the Nation,” and Jason Miller on “Fox News Sunday.” For Team Pelosi it’ll be, uh, Pelosi, who’ll talk to “This Week” as well. They’ll all try to answer the question of how the hell unemployment benefits were allowed to lapse when both sides had many months to avert that eventuality.
One more guest of note: Rep. James Clyburn, whose endorsement of Biden a few days before the South Carolina may have changed the trajectory of the primaries by propelling Sleepy Joe to a landslide victory. If Clyburn shows his cards on whom he favors for VP, it might influence Biden and other top Democrats. Alternately, if Clyburn already has an inkling of who Biden’s choice is, his warm words for that candidate this morning could help reconcile the rest of the party to the pick. He’ll chat with “Face the Nation” and “State of the Union.” The full line-up is at the AP.


hotair--2020-08-02--Sit down, Nancy: Pelosi doubles down while Birx forcefully pushes back

Good for her .
A Sunday morning political show gave Dr. Birx a chance to respond to Speaker Pelosi ’ s snide remarks about her as she was interviewed on CNN .
She was asked about Pelosi ’ s criticism of her during a private meeting with White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchen on Friday night .
Birx delivered an unequivocal response .
Pelosi ’ s remarks against Birx were leaked to the press , of course , and it seems that her vitriol toward Birx came from a New York Times article in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dr. Birx and her performance during the coronavirus pandemic , Birx was described as “ Pollyannish ” and avoids delivering bad news to President Trump .
This accusation revolved around the fact that Birx thought at the time that the coronavirus spread in the U.S. would resemble that of as in Italy .
She predicted that the virus would rise dramatically but then peak and begin to decline .
No one from the NYT bothered to interview Dr. Birx before publishing the hit piece , by the way .
When the coronavirus moved @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was proven to have been overly optimistic .
San Fran Gran accused Birx of delivering misinformation .
She called her “ the worst.
” “ Wow , what horrible hands you ’ re in , ” she told Meadows and Mnuchen .
When asked about her trash-talking Birx on ABC ’ s Sunday morning show , Pelosi dug in .
Sure , her remarks are mostly a slam against Trump because she can ’ t talk about anything without bringing in her contempt for him , and Republicans in general , back into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dr. Birx a liar .
Birx was asked for her response by CNN ’ s Dana Bash .
Birx began by politely acknowledging her respect for Pelosi ’ s very long political career and then opened fire .
“ I have tremendous respect for the speaker , and I have tremendous respect for her long dedication to the American people , ” Birx said , adding , though , that she could have “ brought forth the data ” to back up her analysis had the Times spoken with her .
“ I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nonscientific , or non-data driven , ” Birx said .
“ And I will stake my 40-year career on those fundamental principles of utilizing data to really implement better programs to save more lives.
” She went on to say that the NYT ’ s ran that piece without speaking with her .
Birx prides herself on her data collection and using it to put forth the best recommendations during a pandemic .
It ’ s what she does .
Pelosi , an 80-year-old woman who can barely string together a couple of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , is a power-thirsty swamp creature determined to keep everything as dire as possible until after November 3 .
Dr. Birx has been more humble throughout the pandemic than , say , Dr. Fauci who is reveling in the spotlight as the left ’ s superstar .
Birx thinks we have entered a new phase of the coronavirus outbreak .
She noted it is “ extraordinarily widespread ” in urban and rural areas .
“ What we are seeing today is different from March and April .
It is extraordinarily widespread .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ urban areas , ” Birx , the White House coronavirus task force coordinator , told CNN ’ s Dana Bash on “ State of the Union.
” Birx stressed that Americans need to follow health recommendations , including wearing a mask and practicing social distancing .
“ To everybody who lives in a rural area , you are not immune or protected from this virus , ” Birx said .
“ If you ’ re in multi-generational households , and there ’ s an outbreak in your rural area or in your city @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a mask at home , assuming that you ’ re positive , if you have individuals in your households with comorbidities.
” “ This epidemic right now is different and it ’ s more widespread and it ’ s both rural and urban , ” she added .
She didn ’ t want to predict how many deaths would be recorded by the end of the year from the virus but said it depends on how southern and western states , the current hot spots , maintain and accelerate their mitigation efforts .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ individuals , it ’ s super spreading events and we need to stop those .
We definitely need to take more precautions.
” This is a remark that I heard from several “ experts ” on the coronavirus during the Sunday morning shows .
All were concerned that people don ’ t take the seriousness of the virus into account and protect themselves accordingly .
Dr. Birx spoke of listening to the CDC ’ s recommendation to re-open schools .
However , it sounded more like she puts school re-opening in the same @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is against at this point .
What continues to amaze me is how much everyone is still flying by the seat of our pants , almost six months into this plague .
It ’ s no wonder people are stressed out and on edge .
Advice one day changes the next .
Cases are surging , no they are not surging .
It ’ s a second wave , no the second wave isn ’ t here .
It ’ s maddening .
On my own local level , cases are still spiking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are being hospitalized with such serious cases but younger people are becoming more seriously ill .
Even with countywide shutdowns , cases rose so that isn ’ t necessarily the answer .
Lockdowns destroy businesses but haven ’ t destroyed the virus .
The coronavirus isn ’ t going away and now the midwest is on alert as being the next hot spot area .
The virus is traveling the country , section by section , with no end in sight .

Good for her. A Sunday morning political show gave Dr. Birx a chance to respond to Speaker Pelosi’s snide remarks about her as she was interviewed on CNN. She was asked about Pelosi’s criticism of her during a private meeting with White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchen on Friday night. Birx delivered an unequivocal response.
Pelosi’s remarks against Birx were leaked to the press, of course, and it seems that her vitriol toward Birx came from a New York Times article in July. In that critical piece against Dr. Birx and her performance during the coronavirus pandemic, Birx was described as “Pollyannish” and avoids delivering bad news to President Trump. This accusation revolved around the fact that Birx thought at the time that the coronavirus spread in the U.S. would resemble that of as in Italy. She predicted that the virus would rise dramatically but then peak and begin to decline. No one from the NYT bothered to interview Dr. Birx before publishing the hit piece, by the way. When the coronavirus moved aggressively to southern states, her prediction was proven to have been overly optimistic.
San Fran Gran accused Birx of delivering misinformation. She called her “the worst.” “Wow, what horrible hands you’re in,” she told Meadows and Mnuchen. When asked about her trash-talking Birx on ABC’s Sunday morning show, Pelosi dug in.
Asked on ABC’s “This Week” whether the account was true and if she has confidence in Birx, Pelosi said, “I think the President is spreading disinformation about the virus and she is his appointee, so I don’t have confidence there, no.”
Sure, her remarks are mostly a slam against Trump because she can’t talk about anything without bringing in her contempt for him, and Republicans in general, back into focus. Nonetheless, she was calling Dr. Birx a liar. Birx was asked for her response by CNN’s Dana Bash. Birx began by politely acknowledging her respect for Pelosi’s very long political career and then opened fire.
“I have tremendous respect for the speaker, and I have tremendous respect for her long dedication to the American people,” Birx said, adding, though, that she could have “brought forth the data” to back up her analysis had the Times spoken with her. “I have never been called pollyannish, or nonscientific, or non-data driven,” Birx said. “And I will stake my 40-year career on those fundamental principles of utilizing data to really implement better programs to save more lives.”
She went on to say that the NYT’s ran that piece without speaking with her. Birx prides herself on her data collection and using it to put forth the best recommendations during a pandemic. It’s what she does. Pelosi, an 80-year-old woman who can barely string together a couple of sentences which would make her sound articulate, is a power-thirsty swamp creature determined to keep everything as dire as possible until after November 3. Dr. Birx has been more humble throughout the pandemic than, say, Dr. Fauci who is reveling in the spotlight as the left’s superstar.
Birx thinks we have entered a new phase of the coronavirus outbreak. She noted it is “extraordinarily widespread” in urban and rural areas.
“What we are seeing today is different from March and April. It is extraordinarily widespread. It’s into the rural as equal urban areas,” Birx, the White House coronavirus task force coordinator, told CNN’s Dana Bash on “State of the Union.” Birx stressed that Americans need to follow health recommendations, including wearing a mask and practicing social distancing. “To everybody who lives in a rural area, you are not immune or protected from this virus,” Birx said. “If you’re in multi-generational households, and there’s an outbreak in your rural area or in your city, you need to really consider wearing a mask at home, assuming that you’re positive, if you have individuals in your households with comorbidities.” “This epidemic right now is different and it’s more widespread and it’s both rural and urban,” she added.
She didn’t want to predict how many deaths would be recorded by the end of the year from the virus but said it depends on how southern and western states, the current hot spots, maintain and accelerate their mitigation efforts. “It’s not super spreading individuals, it’s super spreading events and we need to stop those. We definitely need to take more precautions.” This is a remark that I heard from several “experts” on the coronavirus during the Sunday morning shows. All were concerned that people don’t take the seriousness of the virus into account and protect themselves accordingly.
Dr. Birx spoke of listening to the CDC’s recommendation to re-open schools. However, it sounded more like she puts school re-opening in the same category as large gatherings, which she is against at this point.
Bash on Sunday asked Birx if schools in states with a 5% positivity rate should remained closed or have distance learning only. “If you have high case load and active community spread, just like we are asking people not to go to bars, not to have household parties, not to create large spreading events, we are asking people to distance learn at this moment so we can get this epidemic under control,” Birx responded, though she deferred to CDC guidelines on school reopenings.
What continues to amaze me is how much everyone is still flying by the seat of our pants, almost six months into this plague. It’s no wonder people are stressed out and on edge. Advice one day changes the next. Cases are surging, no they are not surging. It’s a second wave, no the second wave isn’t here. It’s maddening. On my own local level, cases are still spiking but deaths are not. Fewer people are being hospitalized with such serious cases but younger people are becoming more seriously ill. Even with countywide shutdowns, cases rose so that isn’t necessarily the answer. Lockdowns destroy businesses but haven’t destroyed the virus. The coronavirus isn’t going away and now the midwest is on alert as being the next hot spot area. The virus is traveling the country, section by section, with no end in sight.


hotair--2020-08-02--Donald Trump's October surprise: Aliens?

While some recent movement in the polls shows the presidential race tightening in the battleground states , there ’ s no denying that President Trump is far from assured a second term at this point and he has plenty of work in front of him between now and November .
And if the pandemic keeps the economy in the dumps across much of the nation and the employment numbers don ’ t start bouncing back , that could be a tough job indeed .
But does the President have a Trump card ( pardon the pun ) up his sleeve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Bryce Zabel raises this interesting question .
What might Donald Trump do if it looks like he ’ s actually going to lose to Joe Biden ?
Bryce suggests in all seriousness that Trump just might “ play the wildest card in all of human history.
” And what card is that ?
He could tip over the entire applecart by emptying the bag and telling America everything that ’ s known about UFO study programs and , just possibly , the presence of extraterrestrial life on Earth , either now or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Donald Trump is just crazy enough to do it .
And by “ do it , ” we mean throw the entire UFO issue into the upcoming presidential election at the last minute in a wild attempt to deflect , distract and scare enough people to win the election .
That ’ s right .
Unidentified flying objects dumped smack into the middle of a presidential election by a sitting president who actually loves the idea of how disruptive it could be .
It sounds crazy .
It ’ s not going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , right ?
Even Bryce admits this is a long shot , but it ’ s not off the table .
He notes , as we have discussed recently , that UFOs have become a legitimate subject for news coverage and there ’ s been a lot of it recently .
In addition to multiple articles in the New York Times , CNN has done two segments on the subject this week alone , with both Jake Tapper and Michael Smerconish .
NBC News just published an opinion piece on the subject of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ life visiting Earth ( which I ’ ll have more to say about this week ) , something unheard of for them for quite some time .
This is something that ’ s happening right before all of our eyes .
So with that in mind , would the President throw this wildcard on the table in October in an attempt to shore up his reelection chances ?
And if so , would it work ?
Bryce argues that we know a couple of things about this President by now that are hard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s a disruptor who cares not one bit for traditional political rules .
He ’ s heard of the “ norms of politics ” but has no interest in them .
And second , he ’ s a showman by nature who is very media savvy and knows how to play the press .
He ’ s well aware that every time he ’ s mentioned the subject of UFOs ( and he ’ s done it several times now ) he generates massive headlines .
And even MSNBC can ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an alien invasion on him .
( But if we give Chris Hayes enough time he ’ ll come up with something , I ’ m sure . )
When might this happen ?
Zabel speculates that the President might decide to empty the bag right in the middle of the final debate on October 22nd .
Personally , I think that ’ s a bit late in the game , particularly if the poll numbers continue to go south for him .
But the “ when ” isn ’ t nearly as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this case .
There ’ s the real $ 64,000 question .
What , if anything , does Donald Trump know about UFOs , aliens or all the rest that he could let us all in on ?
As I ’ ve argued here repeatedly ( and Bryce gives a nod to this idea as well ) , I highly doubt that the people in the most secretive intelligence chimneys who know anything huge about such things ( assuming such information exists ) tell Donald Trump or any other president much of anything @ @ @ @ @ @ @ military-industrial complex is dug in like bedrock .
But that doesn ’ t mean that Trump doesn ’ t know anything about it .
He ’ s hinted that he knows some things about Roswell that he found “ very interesting.
” And he said he would “ think about ” disclosing some of what he knows .
Shouldn ’ t we take him at his word ?
I understand this sounds crazy , but I think there ’ s a non-zero percent chance that he would do it if he thought it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on November 3rd .
But would that do the trick ?
My crystal ball has gone completely dark on that question .
It would be a massively disruptive , potentially world-changing moment if he really had any huge news to break .
Whether or not that would sway any persuadable voters to come back to his side is another matter .
And what would Joe Biden say in response ?
Nobody would have prepped him for this question .
I suppose he might try to piggyback off Trump ’ s announcement and say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But to be honest , even that wouldn ’ t be enough to get me to vote for Uncle Joe .

While some recent movement in the polls shows the presidential race tightening in the battleground states, there’s no denying that President Trump is far from assured a second term at this point and he has plenty of work in front of him between now and November. And if the pandemic keeps the economy in the dumps across much of the nation and the employment numbers don’t start bouncing back, that could be a tough job indeed. But does the President have a Trump card (pardon the pun) up his sleeve in that event?
Over at Medium, Bryce Zabel raises this interesting question. What might Donald Trump do if it looks like he’s actually going to lose to Joe Biden? Bryce suggests in all seriousness that Trump just might “play the wildest card in all of human history.” And what card is that? He could tip over the entire applecart by emptying the bag and telling America everything that’s known about UFO study programs and, just possibly, the presence of extraterrestrial life on Earth, either now or in the past.
We all know that Donald Trump is just crazy enough to do it. And by “do it,” we mean throw the entire UFO issue into the upcoming presidential election at the last minute in a wild attempt to deflect, distract and scare enough people to win the election. That’s right. Unidentified flying objects dumped smack into the middle of a presidential election by a sitting president who actually loves the idea of how disruptive it could be. It sounds crazy. It’s not going to happen. Right? I mean, right?
Even Bryce admits this is a long shot, but it’s not off the table. He notes, as we have discussed recently, that UFOs have become a legitimate subject for news coverage and there’s been a lot of it recently. In addition to multiple articles in the New York Times, CNN has done two segments on the subject this week alone, with both Jake Tapper and Michael Smerconish. NBC News just published an opinion piece on the subject of both UFOs and the possibility of extraterrestrial life visiting Earth (which I’ll have more to say about this week), something unheard of for them for quite some time. This is something that’s happening right before all of our eyes.
So with that in mind, would the President throw this wildcard on the table in October in an attempt to shore up his reelection chances? And if so, would it work?
Bryce argues that we know a couple of things about this President by now that are hard to deny. One is that he’s a disruptor who cares not one bit for traditional political rules. He’s heard of the “norms of politics” but has no interest in them. And second, he’s a showman by nature who is very media savvy and knows how to play the press. He’s well aware that every time he’s mentioned the subject of UFOs (and he’s done it several times now) he generates massive headlines. And even MSNBC can’t come up with a way to blame an alien invasion on him. (But if we give Chris Hayes enough time he’ll come up with something, I’m sure.)
When might this happen? Zabel speculates that the President might decide to empty the bag right in the middle of the final debate on October 22nd. Personally, I think that’s a bit late in the game, particularly if the poll numbers continue to go south for him. But the “when” isn’t nearly as important as the “what” in this case.
There’s the real $64,000 question. What, if anything, does Donald Trump know about UFOs, aliens or all the rest that he could let us all in on? As I’ve argued here repeatedly (and Bryce gives a nod to this idea as well), I highly doubt that the people in the most secretive intelligence chimneys who know anything huge about such things (assuming such information exists) tell Donald Trump or any other president much of anything. Presidents come and go. The military-industrial complex is dug in like bedrock.
But that doesn’t mean that Trump doesn’t know anything about it. He’s hinted that he knows some things about Roswell that he found “very interesting.” And he said he would “think about” disclosing some of what he knows. Shouldn’t we take him at his word? I understand this sounds crazy, but I think there’s a non-zero percent chance that he would do it if he thought it would carry him over the finish line on November 3rd.
But would that do the trick? My crystal ball has gone completely dark on that question. It would be a massively disruptive, potentially world-changing moment if he really had any huge news to break. Whether or not that would sway any persuadable voters to come back to his side is another matter. And what would Joe Biden say in response? Nobody would have prepped him for this question. I suppose he might try to piggyback off Trump’s announcement and say that would also be the disclosure president. But to be honest, even that wouldn’t be enough to get me to vote for Uncle Joe.


hotair--2020-08-02--Bored kids turn to old-school entertainment... Classic Mattel toys make a comeback

Mattel is seeing sales beat expectations and that is good news during the days of the coronavirus pandemic .
The credit can be given to bored kids stuck at home and desperate parents trying to keep them entertained .
North American consumers are splurging on old-school entertainment favorites like Barbie dolls and the card game Uno , which makes Mattel a winner in an otherwise depressed economy .
Sales are expected to continue to be strong in the coming months as schools remain closed .
Mattel has seen its shares rise by about 4 % .
The reopening of toy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Officer Ynon Kreiz reports that only about 4 % of retail stores were closed at the end of June , while 30 % of retail stores were shut at the end of March .
Thus , reopenings were a factor in the rise in quarterly earnings .
Gross sales rose in North America by 3 % in the second quarter .
Besides pointing to Barbie and Uno , Baby Yoda plush toys are credited for the increase in sales numbers .
Gross sales of Barbie dolls increased 7 % to $ 199.3 million @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sales fell nearly 15 % to $ 732.1 million in the economic fallout from the global coronavirus pandemic and overseas sales .
But that number still beat analysts ’ average estimate of $ 678.5 million .
There is a political component to Barbie sales , too , because this is 2020 .
Mattel has packaged a Campaign Team Set “ to expose girls to public leadership roles and pique their interest in shaping the future.
” That ’ s fine but I do wonder why this didn ’ t happen in 2016 when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a major political party in the United States .
Seems like a no-brainer , right ?
Nonetheless , Mattel has teamed up with She Should Run , a nonpartisan nonprofit providing “ guidance and support to women considering a run for office.
” Yes , as a conservative , I usually roll my eyes when a group calls itself nonpartisan but that is how it describes itself .
In this case , the candidate Barbie doll is a Black woman and her three top “ counterparts ” look to be two White @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , again , this is 2020 .
( If Mattel did this in 2016 it would have been awkward for Democrats since , you know , Hillary is a White woman . )
The other three Barbie dolls are the candidate ’ s campaign manager , fundraiser , and voter .
The set is priced at $ 39.99 .
The set of dolls is meant to show the importance of a political team working together for victory .
And , yes , the color choices are deliberate .
Ironically , I am reading @ @ @ @ @ @ @ numbers of women running for office this cycle , as well as the high number of minority women running , Black women in particular .
Most importantly , to me , is the record number of Republican women running for office .
Let ’ s just say this package deal of Barbies looks to be checking identity boxes , which is a typically Democrat move .
They are the party of identity politics .
Barbie has run for office seven times before this year .
The campaign set is the latest offering from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aims to mitigate self-limiting beliefs in young girls .
And because political engagement and ambition aren ’ t a game , the Barbie Dream Gap Project has also donated funds to She Should Run , with a portion of resources specifically dedicated to Help Her Lead , “ a course designed to support young girls , particularly girls of color , in their pathway to political leadership by giving adult role models the resources and guidance to engage and inspire them early in life ” through intentional conversations , fundraising , volunteer efforts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ upcoming elections and the current push for equality and representation , 2020 is an incredible time for us to inspire young women and girls to lead , ” said Erin Loos Cutraro , founder and CEO of She Should Run .
“ Understanding the role we play in empowering our daughters is the first step—we have to have healthy conversations at home and encourage curiosity .
By getting them excited today , we ’ re giving them the confidence to raise their voices and run for office tomorrow.
” If I was a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Barbie dolls , I ’ d probably think of this set as a contribution to the Democrats .
Most importantly , little girls need to know that women run for office all the time and the first woman elected to Congress was a Republican from Montana in 1916 .
The color of a woman ’ s skin shouldn ’ t be a factor , though we know it is for many voters .

Mattel is seeing sales beat expectations and that is good news during the days of the coronavirus pandemic. The credit can be given to bored kids stuck at home and desperate parents trying to keep them entertained.
North American consumers are splurging on old-school entertainment favorites like Barbie dolls and the card game Uno, which makes Mattel a winner in an otherwise depressed economy. Sales are expected to continue to be strong in the coming months as schools remain closed. Mattel has seen its shares rise by about 4%.
The reopening of toy stores helps, too. Chief Executive Officer Ynon Kreiz reports that only about 4% of retail stores were closed at the end of June, while 30% of retail stores were shut at the end of March. Thus, reopenings were a factor in the rise in quarterly earnings. Gross sales rose in North America by 3% in the second quarter. Besides pointing to Barbie and Uno, Baby Yoda plush toys are credited for the increase in sales numbers. Gross sales of Barbie dolls increased 7% to $199.3 million in the second quarter. Overall net sales fell nearly 15% to $732.1 million in the economic fallout from the global coronavirus pandemic and overseas sales. But that number still beat analysts’ average estimate of $678.5 million.
There is a political component to Barbie sales, too, because this is 2020. Mattel has packaged a Campaign Team Set “to expose girls to public leadership roles and pique their interest in shaping the future.” That’s fine but I do wonder why this didn’t happen in 2016 when there was the first female presidential nominee of a major political party in the United States. Seems like a no-brainer, right? Nonetheless, Mattel has teamed up with She Should Run, a nonpartisan nonprofit providing “guidance and support to women considering a run for office.” Yes, as a conservative, I usually roll my eyes when a group calls itself nonpartisan but that is how it describes itself. In this case, the candidate Barbie doll is a Black woman and her three top “counterparts” look to be two White women and one Hispanic woman, because, again, this is 2020. (If Mattel did this in 2016 it would have been awkward for Democrats since, you know, Hillary is a White woman.) The other three Barbie dolls are the candidate’s campaign manager, fundraiser, and voter. The set is priced at $39.99.
The set of dolls is meant to show the importance of a political team working together for victory. And, yes, the color choices are deliberate.
“[T]he brand made the political candidate Black because there are fewer Black female elected officials and fewer Black women exploring a path to political leadership. Of the 127 women serving in the 116th Congress, 22 are Black and of the 90 women serving in statewide elective executive offices, only 5 are Black. Additionally, since voter turnout for Latinos lags around 20 percent behind that of white and Black voters, Barbie designed the voter doll to highlight this underrepresentation for girls.”
Ironically, I am reading more and more articles about the record numbers of women running for office this cycle, as well as the high number of minority women running, Black women in particular. Most importantly, to me, is the record number of Republican women running for office. Let’s just say this package deal of Barbies looks to be checking identity boxes, which is a typically Democrat move. They are the party of identity politics.
We already know the power of the Black female vote, but when it comes to Black women running for elected office, those numbers are thankfully swiftly improving. After a record number of female candidates running—and winning—during the midterm elections in 2018, a report released on Monday showed that Black women are throwing their hats in the congressional ring in record numbers in 2020, showing little Black girls everywhere what is possible.
Barbie has run for office seven times before this year.
Of course, this isn’t Barbie’s first run for office since her birth in 1959. “With seven runs for office since 1992, Barbie has a long history of showing girls they can and should be in office,” says the brand. “Ahead of the 2020 election, the brand is launching this new doll set alongside a full marketing program aimed at the next generation of leaders by highlighting the importance of voting and taking a stand and showing girls how to run a campaign.”
The campaign set is the latest offering from the Barbie Dream Gap Project, which aims to mitigate self-limiting beliefs in young girls.
And because political engagement and ambition aren’t a game, the Barbie Dream Gap Project has also donated funds to She Should Run, with a portion of resources specifically dedicated to Help Her Lead, “a course designed to support young girls, particularly girls of color, in their pathway to political leadership by giving adult role models the resources and guidance to engage and inspire them early in life” through intentional conversations, fundraising, volunteer efforts and leadership activities. “With the upcoming elections and the current push for equality and representation, 2020 is an incredible time for us to inspire young women and girls to lead,” said Erin Loos Cutraro, founder and CEO of She Should Run. “Understanding the role we play in empowering our daughters is the first step—we have to have healthy conversations at home and encourage curiosity. By getting them excited today, we’re giving them the confidence to raise their voices and run for office tomorrow.”
If I was a parent of a little girl who plays with Barbie dolls, I’d probably think of this set as a contribution to the Democrats. Most importantly, little girls need to know that women run for office all the time and the first woman elected to Congress was a Republican from Montana in 1916. The color of a woman’s skin shouldn’t be a factor, though we know it is for many voters.


hotair--2020-08-02--Pittsburgh launching guaranteed income program

This is a trend that started on the west coast in Stockton , California , later expanding to a discussion of doing it for the entire state .
And now it ’ s jumped across the country to Pittsburgh , Pennsylvania .
We ’ re talking yet again about the idea of a basic income guarantee program , where select citizens are assured some level of income even if they are unable or unwilling to work .
The Mayor of the city that ’ s home to the Steelers is Bill Peduto and he sounds as if he thinks this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( CBS Pittsburgh ) “ A number of people in the city of Pittsburgh will be chosen to be able to receive a monthly stipend , basically a debit card , ” said Mayor Peduto .
He said the “ guaranteed income ” means an extra $ 500 a month .
The city will jump-start the program using a portion of the $ 10 million from Jack Dorsey at Twitter .
Mayor Peduto said he is looking for three qualities in the people selected : People who are struggling financially The ability to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ different types of demographics and backgrounds to be able to do a study You may be wondering how Pittsburgh can afford all of this generosity and if the taxpayers are willing to foot the bill .
As it turns out , that ’ s not really a concern in this case , at least during the pilot phase of the program .
The money is coming from a ten million dollar grant provided to the city by Twitter founder Jack Dorsey .
( How nice of him , eh ? )
Selected individuals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ month , no questions asked .
Well… that ’ s not technically correct .
There will be a lot of questions asked to see if you qualify for the program to begin with .
As noted in the excerpt above , the Mayor will be looking for people who are “ struggling ” and could see their lives change with an extra half a grand every month .
And he wants to make sure they come from “ diverse ” backgrounds so the city can study the results and individual outcomes .
One @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is if the money creates “ a less likely chance that they end up back in jail ?
” Wait a minute , here .
Did you say you ’ re hoping it will be less likely that they ’ ll wind up back in jail ?
So I assume there will be a preference established for people who have broken the law and been punished for it rather than those who have struggled financially while managing to obey the law .
What they do with Dorsey ’ s money is obviously up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t seem like the fairest way to distribute it .
Keep in mind that the test program in Stockton produced mixed results at best .
In the beginning , they had a hard time finding enough people to even apply for the program because everyone assumed the letters they received in the mail were some sort of scam .
( Who gives away free money > ) After it had been in operation for a while , Stockton also discovered that they were having a hard time tracking where the money had gone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of it out as cash from ATMs .
As to the impact it had on people ’ s lives , the results were somewhat hit and miss .
Even if this winds up working out well , what happens when the Dorsey money dries up ?
At that point , the Mayor will have to go to the taxpayers and ask them if they want to fund monthly paychecks for those unable or unwilling to work .
Maybe it ’ s just me , but that doesn ’ t sound like a winner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will tell .

This is a trend that started on the west coast in Stockton, California, later expanding to a discussion of doing it for the entire state. And now it’s jumped across the country to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. We’re talking yet again about the idea of a basic income guarantee program, where select citizens are assured some level of income even if they are unable or unwilling to work. The Mayor of the city that’s home to the Steelers is Bill Peduto and he sounds as if he thinks this program could be a real winner. (CBS Pittsburgh)
“A number of people in the city of Pittsburgh will be chosen to be able to receive a monthly stipend, basically a debit card,” said Mayor Peduto. He said the “guaranteed income” means an extra $500 a month. The city will jump-start the program using a portion of the $10 million from Jack Dorsey at Twitter. Mayor Peduto said he is looking for three qualities in the people selected: People who are struggling financially
The ability to have it change their lives
People from different types of demographics and backgrounds to be able to do a study
You may be wondering how Pittsburgh can afford all of this generosity and if the taxpayers are willing to foot the bill. As it turns out, that’s not really a concern in this case, at least during the pilot phase of the program. The money is coming from a ten million dollar grant provided to the city by Twitter founder Jack Dorsey. (How nice of him, eh?) Selected individuals will be given five hundred dollars per month, no questions asked. Well… that’s not technically correct. There will be a lot of questions asked to see if you qualify for the program to begin with.
As noted in the excerpt above, the Mayor will be looking for people who are “struggling” and could see their lives change with an extra half a grand every month. And he wants to make sure they come from “diverse” backgrounds so the city can study the results and individual outcomes. One outcome he’s hoping to see is if the money creates “a less likely chance that they end up back in jail?”
Wait a minute, here. Did you say you’re hoping it will be less likely that they’ll wind up back in jail? So I assume there will be a preference established for people who have broken the law and been punished for it rather than those who have struggled financially while managing to obey the law. What they do with Dorsey’s money is obviously up to them, but that doesn’t seem like the fairest way to distribute it.
Keep in mind that the test program in Stockton produced mixed results at best. In the beginning, they had a hard time finding enough people to even apply for the program because everyone assumed the letters they received in the mail were some sort of scam. (Who gives away free money>) After it had been in operation for a while, Stockton also discovered that they were having a hard time tracking where the money had gone because most people wound up taking most of it out as cash from ATMs. As to the impact it had on people’s lives, the results were somewhat hit and miss.
Even if this winds up working out well, what happens when the Dorsey money dries up? At that point, the Mayor will have to go to the taxpayers and ask them if they want to fund monthly paychecks for those unable or unwilling to work. Maybe it’s just me, but that doesn’t sound like a winner at the ballot box. But time will tell.


hotair--2020-08-02--D.C. cops arrest pro-life protesters for chalking "Black Pre-Born Lives Matter" in front of Planned

D.C. cops arrest pro-life protesters for chalking "Black Pre-Born Lives Matter" in front of Planned Parenthood

A leftover from yesterday via Breitbart and the Daily Caller .
D.C. ’ s policy against writing on public property is neutral on its face : You can ’ t do it without a permit .
But whether it ’ s neutrally enforced is a separate question .
Breitbart captured a few minutes of the confrontation with police : Washington is the same city where the mayor recently ordered “ Black Lives Matter ” painted on the asphalt of a street near the White House to signal the city ’ s support for the movement .
Importantly , she also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nearby .
Muriel Bowser can have a strict or lax policy against private citizens writing on public spaces as she sees fit but she can ’ t discriminate based on viewpoint in deciding how to apply it .
Is that what the cops did here ?
Ever since Bowser commissioned the painting of “ Black Lives Matter ” on 16th Street NW near the White House in June , activists across the country have demanded the right to paint their own messages .
City officials have conceded in some cases , allowing protesters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to paint “ Defund the police ” next to Bowser ’ s original declaration… Representatives of the group led by the Students for Life of America and the Frederick Douglass Foundation said they received a D.C. police permit to hold an event and were told by an officer that he would not prevent them from writing on the asphalt… The group said it also sent a letter to Bowser requesting permission to paint on the street , writing , “ Having opened the streets of your city for public expression , Students for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ add our voices to those concerned about how people of color are treated in America.
” The mayor did not respond to the letter , according to Kristi Hamrick , a spokeswoman for the group .
The group is planning to sue her on First Amendment grounds .
David French notes the absurdity of hauling in a pair of kids for chalking — not even painting , just chalking — at a moment when BLM-associated protesters across the country are defacing buildings and monuments in more durable ways : The word “ broadcasts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is ultimately about public perception .
We ’ ll have to wait for more details to see if SLA failed to follow proper procedure somehow in applying for a painting/chalking permit , but if the cops wanted to send a “ broken windows ” -style message about not defacing public property , it ’ s interesting that a group that ’ s far afield of the District ’ s politics was the one that was made an example of .
Being hard-asses about chalking amid a national wave of politically driven vandalism is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ boy , these cops mean business about not defacing public property ” than “ I can ’ t make any sense of how these laws are being applied .
It seems completely arbitrary.
” This wasn ’ t the only politically suspect double standard practiced by Bowser ’ s government this week .
Just the News noticed an unusual exemption from D.C. ’ s quarantine rules granted to residents who attended John Lewis ’ s funeral in Atlanta : Under current District of Columbia rules , all of those individuals would normally be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ returning to D.C. City Mayor Muriel Bowser ’ s recent quarantine order dictates that any individual traveling to a “ high-risk area ” for “ non-essential ” reasons must self-quarantine for 14 days upon entering the District .
The entire state of Georgia is among the locations deemed “ high-risk ” by the mayor ’ s office .
But a spokeswoman for Bowser confirmed that attendees of the funeral would not have to follow the mayor ’ s quarantine rules .
“ Government activity is essential , and the Capitol of the United @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Order , ” Bowser Press Secretary Susana Castillo told Just the News on Friday .
Castillo confirmed that all other residents traveling to high-risk areas for funerals would still need to follow the 14-day quarantine rules upon their return .
You can understand why D.C. might feel obliged to make an exception for true “ government activity ” : It ’ d be impossible for members of Congress to conduct public business on the Hill if they had to isolate for weeks every time they traveled from their home districts to Washington @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from pandemic precautions should be as high as we can make it , but “ governing America ” clears it .
Lewis ’ s funeral wasn ’ t true “ government activity , ” though .
No one ’ s attendance was required in order to carry out public business .
Everyone who was there should have been expected to follow the 14-day rule after arriving back in Washington as a matter of basic safety .
Exempting them is an isolated instance of the same broad double standard followed by Democratic politicians and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the country saw in June .
If the powers that be agree with your politics , you ’ re given a pass on social-distancing rules designed to prevent the virus from spreading .
If they don ’ t , you aren ’ t .
If your cause is BLM , you can gather in giant numbers and maybe even paint your slogans on city streets without consequence .
If your cause is something else , particularly something disfavored by local leaders , you might find yourself thrown in a squad car for writing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a sidewalk somewhere .
Here ’ s more of the arrest via the Daily Caller .

A leftover from yesterday via Breitbart and the Daily Caller. D.C.’s policy against writing on public property is neutral on its face: You can’t do it without a permit.
But whether it’s neutrally enforced is a separate question.
Breitbart captured a few minutes of the confrontation with police:
DC police arrest peaceful pro-life activists who wrote on the sidewalk in chalk "black pre-born lives matter" outside a Planned Parenthood. pic.twitter.com/oamI4u9Fhs — Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) August 1, 2020
Washington is the same city where the mayor recently ordered “Black Lives Matter” painted on the asphalt of a street near the White House to signal the city’s support for the movement. Importantly, she also allowed protesters to paint their own message nearby. Muriel Bowser can have a strict or lax policy against private citizens writing on public spaces as she sees fit but she can’t discriminate based on viewpoint in deciding how to apply it.
Is that what the cops did here?
Ever since Bowser commissioned the painting of “Black Lives Matter” on 16th Street NW near the White House in June, activists across the country have demanded the right to paint their own messages. City officials have conceded in some cases, allowing protesters in the District, for example, to paint “Defund the police” next to Bowser’s original declaration… Representatives of the group led by the Students for Life of America and the Frederick Douglass Foundation said they received a D.C. police permit to hold an event and were told by an officer that he would not prevent them from writing on the asphalt… The group said it also sent a letter to Bowser requesting permission to paint on the street, writing, “Having opened the streets of your city for public expression, Students for Life of America requests the opportunity to add our voices to those concerned about how people of color are treated in America.” The mayor did not respond to the letter, according to Kristi Hamrick, a spokeswoman for the group.
The group is planning to sue her on First Amendment grounds. David French notes the absurdity of hauling in a pair of kids for chalking — not even painting, just chalking — at a moment when BLM-associated protesters across the country are defacing buildings and monuments in more durable ways:
Why arrest anyone for mere chalking? Especially on a public sidewalk? — David French (@DavidAFrench) August 2, 2020
The word “broadcasts” is well chosen, as this is ultimately about public perception. We’ll have to wait for more details to see if SLA failed to follow proper procedure somehow in applying for a painting/chalking permit, but if the cops wanted to send a “broken windows”-style message about not defacing public property, it’s interesting that a group that’s far afield of the District’s politics was the one that was made an example of. Being hard-asses about chalking amid a national wave of politically driven vandalism is less apt to make people think “boy, these cops mean business about not defacing public property” than “I can’t make any sense of how these laws are being applied. It seems completely arbitrary.”
This wasn’t the only politically suspect double standard practiced by Bowser’s government this week. Just the News noticed an unusual exemption from D.C.’s quarantine rules granted to residents who attended John Lewis’s funeral in Atlanta:
Under current District of Columbia rules, all of those individuals would normally be required to self-quarantine for two weeks upon returning to D.C. City Mayor Muriel Bowser’s recent quarantine order dictates that any individual traveling to a “high-risk area” for “non-essential” reasons must self-quarantine for 14 days upon entering the District. The entire state of Georgia is among the locations deemed “high-risk” by the mayor’s office. But a spokeswoman for Bowser confirmed that attendees of the funeral would not have to follow the mayor’s quarantine rules. “Government activity is essential, and the Capitol of the United States is exempt from the Mayor’s Order,” Bowser Press Secretary Susana Castillo told Just the News on Friday. Asked if Lewis’s funeral constituted “government activity,” Castillo responded: “Yes.”
Castillo confirmed that all other residents traveling to high-risk areas for funerals would still need to follow the 14-day quarantine rules upon their return. You can understand why D.C. might feel obliged to make an exception for true “government activity”: It’d be impossible for members of Congress to conduct public business on the Hill if they had to isolate for weeks every time they traveled from their home districts to Washington. The bar for granting special exceptions from pandemic precautions should be as high as we can make it, but “governing America” clears it.
Lewis’s funeral wasn’t true “government activity,” though. No one’s attendance was required in order to carry out public business. Everyone who was there should have been expected to follow the 14-day rule after arriving back in Washington as a matter of basic safety. Exempting them is an isolated instance of the same broad double standard followed by Democratic politicians and woke public-health experts during the mass protests the country saw in June. If the powers that be agree with your politics, you’re given a pass on social-distancing rules designed to prevent the virus from spreading. If they don’t, you aren’t. If your cause is BLM, you can gather in giant numbers and maybe even paint your slogans on city streets without consequence. If your cause is something else, particularly something disfavored by local leaders, you might find yourself thrown in a squad car for writing your opposition to baby-killing in chalk on a sidewalk somewhere.
Here’s more of the arrest via the Daily Caller.


hotair--2020-08-02--RNC to ban press from on-site convention coverage in Charlotte

The RNC convention , as it stands now , is in Charlotte , North Carolina .
The proposed Jacksonville part of the convention has been canceled due to health and safety concerns .
The coronavirus pandemic has turned the planning of the convention on its head , as it did for the Democrats , too , who planned a convention in Milwaukee .
Now there is an added twist – the press will not be allowed on-site when RNC delegates vote to formally nominate President Donald Trump as the party ’ s 2020 Republican presidential nominee .
This is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ convention planners can conveniently point to the fact that the number of people in attendance is limited due to the coronavirus restrictions in place for mitigating the spread of the virus .
The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette was the first to report the news .
The press will not be present to watch as delegates renominate Trump as the Republican nominee .
Reporters will also not be allowed in the room when the Republican National Committee meets to conduct official party business .
So far there is no word on whether or not C-SPAN will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proceedings .
“ [ W ] e are planning for all of the Charlotte activities to be closed press : Friday , August 21 – Monday , 24th given the health restrictions and limitations in place in the state , ” the convention spokesperson said in an email .
“ We are happy to let you know if this changes , but we are working within the parameters set before us by state and local guidelines regarding the number of people who can attend events.
” Because of the coronavirus pandemic , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Convention had already been lowered from 2,550 to 336 .
Alternate delegates have been disinvited .
Media seating has been eliminated .
The president is scheduled to give his acceptance speech Aug. 27 but there has not been a decision on where he will do that yet .
He planned to make that a part of the Jacksonville portion of the convention but that has been scrapped .
The RNC plans to live-stream all of the proceedings at the convention .
The DNC originally planned their convention for July 13-16 in Milwaukee , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take place Aug. 17-20 .
Only about 300 delegates are expected to attend .
That number includes party officials , security personnel , and members of the news media .
Media outlets have already begun planning on scaling back their coverage .
Steve Scully , C-SPAN ’ s political editor and “ Washington Journal ” host , said the network will have a reduced crew , but still plans to provide “ gavel-to-gavel coverage of the proceedings ” each night in Milwaukee .
Rather than an evening-long extravaganza , Democrats will offer two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said .
“ It ’ s going to be much smaller .
You ’ re not going to have all the pomp and ceremony , ” he said .
Former President Barack Obama is likely to speak on the second night , with the vice presidential nominee appearing on the third , Scully said .
The fourth and final evening belongs to presumptive nominee Joe Biden .
Trump ’ s programming , for the most part , remains a mystery .
“ We ’ re now three weeks from the Republican convention and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clue right now in terms of the schedule , ” Scully said .
C-SPAN hasn ’ t yet received press credentials to attend , though Scully expressed confidence that they will ultimately be issued .
C-SPAN will air the convention ’ s business sessions if allowed .
Watching conventions on C-SPAN is usually how I view conventions .
Regular network coverage is rife with partisan comments , no matter who the on-air host happens to be .
That ’ s been the reality since long before the Trump years .
C-SPAN has moved @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the years since Brian Lamb retired but it still offers the least-biased coverage of politics .
As a general rule , I come down on the side that traditional political conventions are past their prime .
To be honest , most delegates attend to socialize and network with others in the party .
A small minority of convention-goers actually do the business of a convention – putting together the party ’ s platform and rules , for example – while delegates come together to vote when necessary .
The restrictions due to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ long-needed changes to streamline the process and make it more productive .

The RNC convention, as it stands now, is in Charlotte, North Carolina. The proposed Jacksonville part of the convention has been canceled due to health and safety concerns. The coronavirus pandemic has turned the planning of the convention on its head, as it did for the Democrats, too, who planned a convention in Milwaukee. Now there is an added twist – the press will not be allowed on-site when RNC delegates vote to formally nominate President Donald Trump as the party’s 2020 Republican presidential nominee. This is a historic first for either party.
The convention planners can conveniently point to the fact that the number of people in attendance is limited due to the coronavirus restrictions in place for mitigating the spread of the virus. The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette was the first to report the news. The press will not be present to watch as delegates renominate Trump as the Republican nominee. Reporters will also not be allowed in the room when the Republican National Committee meets to conduct official party business. So far there is no word on whether or not C-SPAN will be allowed in to film the convention proceedings.
“[W]e are planning for all of the Charlotte activities to be closed press: Friday, August 21 – Monday, 24th given the health restrictions and limitations in place in the state,” the convention spokesperson said in an email. “We are happy to let you know if this changes, but we are working within the parameters set before us by state and local guidelines regarding the number of people who can attend events.” Because of the coronavirus pandemic, the number of delegates at the Republican National Convention had already been lowered from 2,550 to 336. Alternate delegates have been disinvited. Media seating has been eliminated.
The president is scheduled to give his acceptance speech Aug. 27 but there has not been a decision on where he will do that yet. He planned to make that a part of the Jacksonville portion of the convention but that has been scrapped. The RNC plans to live-stream all of the proceedings at the convention.
The DNC originally planned their convention for July 13-16 in Milwaukee, but it has since been moved to take place Aug. 17-20. Only about 300 delegates are expected to attend. That number includes party officials, security personnel, and members of the news media. Media outlets have already begun planning on scaling back their coverage.
Steve Scully, C-SPAN’s political editor and “Washington Journal” host, said the network will have a reduced crew, but still plans to provide “gavel-to-gavel coverage of the proceedings” each night in Milwaukee. Rather than an evening-long extravaganza, Democrats will offer two hours of messaging each evening, he said. “It’s going to be much smaller. You’re not going to have all the pomp and ceremony,” he said. Former President Barack Obama is likely to speak on the second night, with the vice presidential nominee appearing on the third, Scully said. The fourth and final evening belongs to presumptive nominee Joe Biden. Trump’s programming, for the most part, remains a mystery. “We’re now three weeks from the Republican convention and we really don’t have a clue right now in terms of the schedule,” Scully said. C-SPAN hasn’t yet received press credentials to attend, though Scully expressed confidence that they will ultimately be issued. C-SPAN will air the convention’s business sessions if allowed.
Watching conventions on C-SPAN is usually how I view conventions. Regular network coverage is rife with partisan comments, no matter who the on-air host happens to be. That’s been the reality since long before the Trump years. C-SPAN has moved a little bit in the wrong direction in the years since Brian Lamb retired but it still offers the least-biased coverage of politics.
As a general rule, I come down on the side that traditional political conventions are past their prime. To be honest, most delegates attend to socialize and network with others in the party. A small minority of convention-goers actually do the business of a convention – putting together the party’s platform and rules, for example – while delegates come together to vote when necessary. The restrictions due to the coronavirus may just bring about some long-needed changes to streamline the process and make it more productive.