hotair--2020-09-10--Senate Dems kill GOP's "skinny" coronavirus stimulus, 52/47

It ’ s very clear what the Democrats ’ grand strategy is in wanting to go big on a new stimulus , less clear what the GOP ’ s is in wanting to go small .
But today ’ s vote on the $ 500 billion Senate Republican “ skinny ” stimulus is really just a blame game for both sides .
In a 52-to-47 procedural vote , the bill failed to garner the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster by Democrats .
Senator Rand Paul was the only Republican who voted against the measure .
No Democrats voted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ school aid , expanded unemployment benefits of $ 300 more per week , and authorized new loans for small businesses .
Democrats opposed the bill because it did not include state and local government relief , food aid , or rental and mortgage assistance .
The bill also did not include a second $ 1,200 direct payment to individual Americans .
The only senator not voting : Kamala Harris , who ’ s busy with more important things these days .
The fact that the bill got 52 votes is a minor victory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spent most of the summer divided on whether to go biggish , go small , or go nowhere at all , eschewing a new round of stimulus altogether lest America ’ s national debt grow even more grotesquely huge .
If the party had failed to produce 51 votes for any bill , it would have handed Democrats a gift-wrapped talking point that Republicans alone are to blame for the lack of further economic relief for taxpayers .
( “ They can ’ t even agree among themselves !
” ) McConnell ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ package that could get to 51 , which would force Senate Dems to vote it down .
Then vulnerable incumbents like Cory Gardner and Susan Collins could go back home and tell voters that they wanted to restore some beefed-up unemployment benefits for laid-off workers but Chuck Schumer and the caucus of “ no ” refused to go along .
In the end , Cocaine Mitch succeeded .
Now Dems are stuck arguing on the campaign trail that Republicans are too stingy in helping taxpayers in their hour of need , not that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As I say , the Pelosi/Schumer strategy is obvious .
Go big , big , big on the new stimulus — the House passed a $ 3.5 trillion package a few months ago — then agree to come down only a little , to $ 2 trillion or so , to seem reasonable-ish while maintaining the political advantage of offering more money than Republicans .
No doubt Pelosi was hoping all along that the GOP would never agree to meet her exorbitant demands , leading to a breakdown in talks , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and an economic downturn before the election that would wash Trump and various congressional Republicans out of office .
What ’ s harder to explain is why the GOP didn ’ t grit its teeth and call her bluff by compromising with her on $ 2 trillion .
The obvious answer is “ Because they ’ re the party of fiscal responsibility and they ’ re worried about the debt , dummy !
” That would have been a believable answer circa 2011 , at the height of tea-party fever ; it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many trillions of dollars in debt later .
It ’ s especially weird considering we ’ re two months out from an election — the most important election in history , we ’ re constantly reminded — and voters tend to blame the party that controls the White House for their economic problems .
In fact , recent polls suggest that Trump ’ s lead over Biden on the economy , his greatest electoral strength , has already begun to erode : Today ’ s vote allows the GOP to say , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aid and Democrats wouldn ’ t go along !
” To which Democrats will reply , “ We wanted four times as much in aid , including new stimulus checks , but Republicans wouldn ’ t go along !
” If you ’ re a laid-off worker facing eviction because you can ’ t make rent , which pitch is more likely to resonate ?
We ’ ll find out in two months .
Weirdest of all is the fact that the White House itself was reluctant to come up to $ 2 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a scenario in which Trump wants to compromise with Democrats , if only to make sure he ’ s not exposed on the economy before Election Day , but some of the tea-party alumni in the Senate say no because they ’ re suddenly pretending to care about fiscal responsibility again .
Some of those senators *did* balk at the price tag for another big stimulus this time — as noted , Rand Paul voted no — but if Trump had twisted their arms and threatened to blame them for his defeat in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on to whatever bill he wanted , how many of them would have stood their ground ?
The reason there was no compromise with Pelosi is because the White House itself was reluctant to spend another $ 2 trillion on relief , which is admirable from a fiscal-conservative standpoint but , uh , uncharacteristic .
And damned strange given the potential electoral consequences .
My favorite theory about the fiscal hawks in the GOP caucus suddenly rediscovering their principles is that they ’ re convinced Trump will lose this fall no matter what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ getting a jump on refashioning themselves as tea partiers again ahead of next spring .
I ’ m not sure how well it ’ s going to work out for them , though , to remind voters next year that they wanted to cheap out on the last round of COVID stimulus while Biden ’ s party wanted to toss money at them from helicopters .
Here ’ s Pelosi getting her shots in this afternoon .
Trump is reportedly considering a new round of executive action to show voters that he ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on them , but there ’ s only so much he can do .
He can ’ t get new unemployment benefits rolling and he can ’ t get stimulus checks sent out .
Everything else is noise , really .

It’s very clear what the Democrats’ grand strategy is in wanting to go big on a new stimulus, less clear what the GOP’s is in wanting to go small. But today’s vote on the $500 billion Senate Republican “skinny” stimulus is really just a blame game for both sides.
In a 52-to-47 procedural vote, the bill failed to garner the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster by Democrats. Senator Rand Paul was the only Republican who voted against the measure. No Democrats voted for the bill. The bill included school aid, expanded unemployment benefits of $300 more per week, and authorized new loans for small businesses. Democrats opposed the bill because it did not include state and local government relief, food aid, or rental and mortgage assistance. The bill also did not include a second $1,200 direct payment to individual Americans.
The only senator not voting: Kamala Harris, who’s busy with more important things these days.
The fact that the bill got 52 votes is a minor victory for Mitch McConnell, as his caucus spent most of the summer divided on whether to go biggish, go small, or go nowhere at all, eschewing a new round of stimulus altogether lest America’s national debt grow even more grotesquely huge. If the party had failed to produce 51 votes for any bill, it would have handed Democrats a gift-wrapped talking point that Republicans alone are to blame for the lack of further economic relief for taxpayers. (“They can’t even agree among themselves!”) McConnell’s task was to put together a package that could get to 51, which would force Senate Dems to vote it down. Then vulnerable incumbents like Cory Gardner and Susan Collins could go back home and tell voters that they wanted to restore some beefed-up unemployment benefits for laid-off workers but Chuck Schumer and the caucus of “no” refused to go along. In the end, Cocaine Mitch succeeded. Now Dems are stuck arguing on the campaign trail that Republicans are too stingy in helping taxpayers in their hour of need, not that they refused to do anything at all.
As I say, the Pelosi/Schumer strategy is obvious. Go big, big, big on the new stimulus — the House passed a $3.5 trillion package a few months ago — then agree to come down only a little, to $2 trillion or so, to seem reasonable-ish while maintaining the political advantage of offering more money than Republicans. No doubt Pelosi was hoping all along that the GOP would never agree to meet her exorbitant demands, leading to a breakdown in talks, a failure to provide any new stimulus, and an economic downturn before the election that would wash Trump and various congressional Republicans out of office.
What’s harder to explain is why the GOP didn’t grit its teeth and call her bluff by compromising with her on $2 trillion. The obvious answer is “Because they’re the party of fiscal responsibility and they’re worried about the debt, dummy!” That would have been a believable answer circa 2011, at the height of tea-party fever; it’s not a believable answer today, many trillions of dollars in debt later. It’s especially weird considering we’re two months out from an election — the most important election in history, we’re constantly reminded — and voters tend to blame the party that controls the White House for their economic problems. In fact, recent polls suggest that Trump’s lead over Biden on the economy, his greatest electoral strength, has already begun to erode:
Today’s vote allows the GOP to say, “We wanted hundred of billions in new aid and Democrats wouldn’t go along!” To which Democrats will reply, “We wanted four times as much in aid, including new stimulus checks, but Republicans wouldn’t go along!” If you’re a laid-off worker facing eviction because you can’t make rent, which pitch is more likely to resonate? We’ll find out in two months.
Weirdest of all is the fact that the White House itself was reluctant to come up to $2 trillion for Pelosi. You can imagine a scenario in which Trump wants to compromise with Democrats, if only to make sure he’s not exposed on the economy before Election Day, but some of the tea-party alumni in the Senate say no because they’re suddenly pretending to care about fiscal responsibility again. Some of those senators *did* balk at the price tag for another big stimulus this time — as noted, Rand Paul voted no — but if Trump had twisted their arms and threatened to blame them for his defeat in November if they didn’t sign on to whatever bill he wanted, how many of them would have stood their ground? The reason there was no compromise with Pelosi is because the White House itself was reluctant to spend another $2 trillion on relief, which is admirable from a fiscal-conservative standpoint but, uh, uncharacteristic. And damned strange given the potential electoral consequences.
My favorite theory about the fiscal hawks in the GOP caucus suddenly rediscovering their principles is that they’re convinced Trump will lose this fall no matter what they do, so they’re getting a jump on refashioning themselves as tea partiers again ahead of next spring. I’m not sure how well it’s going to work out for them, though, to remind voters next year that they wanted to cheap out on the last round of COVID stimulus while Biden’s party wanted to toss money at them from helicopters.
Here’s Pelosi getting her shots in this afternoon. Trump is reportedly considering a new round of executive action to show voters that he’s trying to ease the financial pressure on them, but there’s only so much he can do. He can’t get new unemployment benefits rolling and he can’t get stimulus checks sent out. Everything else is noise, really.


hotair--2020-09-10--Today's hot topics on #TEMS: <i>Unbiased</i> event, PEUs spent, GOP's PA dent, Trump's lament, and m

Today's hot topics on #TEMS: <i>Unbiased</i> event, PEUs spent, GOP's PA dent, Trump's lament, and more!

Today on The Ed Morrissey Show ( 4 pm ET ) , we have another great lineup for the news of the day !
The show will be streamed on Hot Air ’ s Facebook page and embedded here and on the show page for those who are not on Facebook .
Join us as we welcome : • Duane “ Generalissimo ” Patterson brings us up to date on the week ’ s top stories and gives us a preview of tomorrow ’ s Hugh Hewitt show .
What does the latest polling from MN show , and what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in PA ?
We ’ ll also review Donald Trump ’ s comments to Bob Woodward , how public-employee unions might get sidelined in 2020 , and much much more !
• One week from tonight , I will moderate an online event for AM1280 The Patriot starring Larry Elder and Candace Owens !
Starting at 8 pm CT on September 17 , Unbiased : Unvarnished Truth Behind Race in America will delve into the unrest following the death of George Floyd : • “ Are we tackling the issue of race in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ correct to believe that one ’ s skin color should play a larger role in our interactions than the content of one ’ s character ?
” These questions and more are here to stay and demand fair and truthful responses if we want to move toward a better collective future .
That ’ s why we ’ re bringing AM 1280 The Patriot ’ s , Larry Elder together with author and commentator , Candace Owens for a one-of-a-kind virtual event called : Unbiased : Unvarnished Truth Behind Race in America.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 8 — an incredible deal for the opportunity to hear from Larry Elder and Candace Owens in this live online event !
The Ed Morrissey Show and its dynamic chatroom can be seen on the permanent TEMS page .
Be sure to join us , and don ’ t forget to keep up with the debate on my Facebook page , too !
How can Republicans and conservatives keep winning after 2016 ?
Find out in GOING RED , published in April from Crown Forum !

Today on The Ed Morrissey Show (4 pm ET), we have another great lineup for the news of the day! The show will be streamed on Hot Air’s Facebook page and embedded here and on the show page for those who are not on Facebook.
Join us as we welcome:
Duane “Generalissimo” Patterson brings us up to date on the week’s top stories and gives us a preview of tomorrow’s Hugh Hewitt show. What does the latest polling from MN show, and what can we deduce from voter registration data in PA? We’ll also review Donald Trump’s comments to Bob Woodward, how public-employee unions might get sidelined in 2020, and much much more!
One week from tonight, I will moderate an online event for AM1280 The Patriot starring Larry Elder and Candace Owens! Starting at 8 pm CT on September 17, Unbiased: Unvarnished Truth Behind Race in America will delve into the unrest following the death of George Floyd:
“Are we tackling the issue of race in America honestly? And, are we correct to believe that one’s skin color should play a larger role in our interactions than the content of one’s character?”These questions and more are here to stay and demand fair and truthful responses if we want to move toward a better collective future. That’s why we’re bringing AM 1280 The Patriot’s, Larry Elder together with author and commentator, Candace Owens for a one-of-a-kind virtual event called: Unbiased: Unvarnished Truth Behind Race in America.”
Tickets for the event cost $8 — an incredible deal for the opportunity to hear from Larry Elder and Candace Owens in this live online event!
The Ed Morrissey Show and its dynamic chatroom can be seen on the permanent TEMS page. Be sure to join us, and don’t forget to keep up with the debate on my Facebook page, too!
How can Republicans and conservatives keep winning after 2016? Find out in GOING RED, published in April from Crown Forum!


hotair--2020-09-10--Hmmmmm: Biden announces Minnesota campaign stop next week

Color me as skeptical about this result from KSTP/Survey USA as I am about Team Trump ’ s claims of winning Minnesota this November .
And maybe Joe Biden ’ s equally skeptical about his purported nine-point lead in the state , too .
It ’ s not just the five-point-plus margin of error in the poll released last night that calls this result into question , either .
Biden ’ s support in the core Metro area looks too soft for a nine-point cushion , and that ’ s not the only problem he faces with Donald Trump in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of recent events : President Donald Trump likes to say if he had campaigned in Minnesota one more time in 2016 he would have beaten Hillary Clinton here .
Instead , Clinton narrowly defeated Trump in Minnesota even though Clinton didn ’ t campaign here even once .
It turns out Trump might need multiple visits to win Minnesota in 2020 .
According to our new KSTP/SurveyUSA poll , former Vice President Joe Biden leads Trump 49 % to 40 % , with 7 % undecided and 4 % considering other candidates .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2016 poll showing Clinton leading Trump 49 % to 39 % and then clinging to a victory of just 1.5 % .
First off , as Tom Hauser notes , this survey series missed pretty badly in 2016 .
Their final call on the race showed Hillary Clinton up by ten points in the state , but instead she narrowly won by less than 1.5 points .
The KSTP/SUSA surveys vastly overestimated turnout for Clinton in Minnesota , missing the fact that she wasn ’ t generating enthusiasm among Barack Obama voters , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election .
Trump and his barely-there GOTV ground effort only grew the GOP vote by 2,000 voters , but that was enough to be the closest Republican to take Minnesota since 1972 .
One has to wonder , looking at these numbers , if they ’ re not making the same mistake all over again — especially given the fact that only Trump and the RNC are actually conducting ground operations here and elsewhere in 2020 .
Even without that issue , Biden ’ s relatively anemic numbers in the Metro area should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who gets only 55 % in the Twin Cities — especially against Trump — is not one headed to an easy victory in Minnesota .
In 2016 , Clinton won in the Twin Cities by a 64/28 margin — and still barely escaped with the state ’ s electoral votes .
If Trump has gained six points in the Twin Cities since 2016 , that seems like a rather big accomplishment .
Also , Trump only carried the northeastern part of the state 56/37 in 2016 , so a 61/37 split now suggests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Put that together with a much-improved GOTV effort and Biden ’ s utter lack of such , and that doesn ’ t bode well for Democrats .
Another point : This poll seems to be an outlier , both in the presidential race and in the Senate race .
Jason Lewis trails in other polling against incumbent Democrat Tina Smith , but not nearly to the 11-point extent seen in this poll .
Democratic homer pollster PPP only had Smith up eight last week , and independent Emerson put it in a virtual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which is a GOP-aligned pollster but who used a much larger likely-voter sample , had the presidential race tied three weeks ago .
Plus , this doesn ’ t look like Team Biden thinks they ’ re dominating the field in MN : Finally , turnout matters here just like everywhere else .
Biden hasn ’ t yet made an appearance in Minnesota , while both Trump and Mike Pence have campaigned here this summer and will likely do so again .
The unrest , rioting , and destruction in Minneapolis will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ either by mail or in person , than we saw in 2016 .
It seems far more likely that Biden will struggle just to perform at Clinton ’ s level instead , with no GOTV and no personal appearances to stoke enthusiasm .
I ’ d still bet that the state stays blue , but it ’ s a lot more up for grabs than this poll ’ s toplines show .

Color me as skeptical about this result from KSTP/Survey USA as I am about Team Trump’s claims of winning Minnesota this November. And maybe Joe Biden’s equally skeptical about his purported nine-point lead in the state, too. It’s not just the five-point-plus margin of error in the poll released last night that calls this result into question, either. Biden’s support in the core Metro area looks too soft for a nine-point cushion, and that’s not the only problem he faces with Donald Trump in this poll — and in the context of recent events:
President Donald Trump likes to say if he had campaigned in Minnesota one more time in 2016 he would have beaten Hillary Clinton here. Instead, Clinton narrowly defeated Trump in Minnesota even though Clinton didn’t campaign here even once. It turns out Trump might need multiple visits to win Minnesota in 2020. According to our new KSTP/SurveyUSA poll, former Vice President Joe Biden leads Trump 49% to 40%, with 7% undecided and 4% considering other candidates. That’s compared to our final 2016 poll showing Clinton leading Trump 49% to 39% and then clinging to a victory of just 1.5%.
First off, as Tom Hauser notes, this survey series missed pretty badly in 2016. Their final call on the race showed Hillary Clinton up by ten points in the state, but instead she narrowly won by less than 1.5 points. The KSTP/SUSA surveys vastly overestimated turnout for Clinton in Minnesota, missing the fact that she wasn’t generating enthusiasm among Barack Obama voters, dropping nearly 200,000 of them in the election. Trump and his barely-there GOTV ground effort only grew the GOP vote by 2,000 voters, but that was enough to be the closest Republican to take Minnesota since 1972.
One has to wonder, looking at these numbers, if they’re not making the same mistake all over again — especially given the fact that only Trump and the RNC are actually conducting ground operations here and elsewhere in 2020. Even without that issue, Biden’s relatively anemic numbers in the Metro area should be a red flag:
The poll tells a tale of two Minnesotas: the urban core of Minneapolis and St. Paul and the rural areas of Greater Minnesota. Biden leads 55% to 34% in the Twin Cities. He has a much smaller lead in southern Minnesota, including Rochester, where he leads 48% to 44%. However, Trump has a commanding lead in northeastern Minnesota, 61% to 37%. He also has a big lead in western Minnesota, including much of the 7th Congressional District, 48% to 29%.
A Democrat who gets only 55% in the Twin Cities — especially against Trump — is not one headed to an easy victory in Minnesota. In 2016, Clinton won in the Twin Cities by a 64/28 margin — and still barely escaped with the state’s electoral votes. If Trump has gained six points in the Twin Cities since 2016, that seems like a rather big accomplishment. Also, Trump only carried the northeastern part of the state 56/37 in 2016, so a 61/37 split now suggests at least a little more enthusiasm. Put that together with a much-improved GOTV effort and Biden’s utter lack of such, and that doesn’t bode well for Democrats.
Another point: This poll seems to be an outlier, both in the presidential race and in the Senate race. Jason Lewis trails in other polling against incumbent Democrat Tina Smith, but not nearly to the 11-point extent seen in this poll. Democratic homer pollster PPP only had Smith up eight last week, and independent Emerson put it in a virtual tie at 48/45 in August. Trafalgar, which is a GOP-aligned pollster but who used a much larger likely-voter sample, had the presidential race tied three weeks ago.
Plus, this doesn’t look like Team Biden thinks they’re dominating the field in MN:
BREAKING: Joe Biden will make his first 2020 campaign stop in Minnesota next week, his campaign announced. No additional details were immediately available. https://t.co/5AaHEczXnx — Star Tribune (@StarTribune) September 10, 2020
Finally, turnout matters here just like everywhere else. Biden hasn’t yet made an appearance in Minnesota, while both Trump and Mike Pence have campaigned here this summer and will likely do so again. The unrest, rioting, and destruction in Minneapolis will not likely produce a stronger turnout, either by mail or in person, than we saw in 2016. It seems far more likely that Biden will struggle just to perform at Clinton’s level instead, with no GOTV and no personal appearances to stoke enthusiasm. I’d still bet that the state stays blue, but it’s a lot more up for grabs than this poll’s toplines show.


hotair--2020-09-10--Fake black professor Jessica Krug called her Swedish neighbor 'white trash'

Jessica Krug is the woman who resigned her job as an associate professor of history at George Washington University yesterday .
This came about a week after she announced in a blog post she was a white , Jewish girl from Kansas and not , as she ’ d told people for years , a black woman from the Caribbean .
I sort of assumed that Krug ’ s decade long performance as a black woman involved a lot of Black Lives Matter-esque bullying of people , but Krug didn ’ t offer any specifics in her blog post , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ person who ’ d assumed a false identity .
But this piece at the NY Daily News confirms all my suspicions about how Krug behaved in real life before outing herself as a fraud .
Specifically , she seemed to have a problem with one of her white neighbors who she once labeled “ white trash.
” Documentary filmmaker Anna Anderson , 39 , lived in the same East Harlem building for five years , but first crossed swords with Krug , a history professor at George Washington University , in 2018… “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Spanish , I never thought she was Black , but that was not something I was spending my day worrying about , ” Anderson said .
But Krug made herself impossible to ignore .
On two occasions Anderson said she stole deliveries of food and tossed them in the trash .
Anderson said she knew Krug was responsible because her actions were caught on security video .
On another occasion , Krug locked up her bicycle by locking it to Anderson ’ s bike .
And when Anderson demanded she unlock it , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are you going to do ?
Call the cops ?
You know what cops do to people like me.
” Yes , people like her , i.e .
white women pretending to be black .
And there was more of this kind of racial harassment : Anderson is taller and bigger than Krug so she says she never felt intimidated .
Instead she believed Krug was trying to provoke her .
“ She ’ s like , ‘ Are you gon na hit me , are you gon na hit me ?
Are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me ?
’ ” Krug probably thought having her white neighbor call the police on her would bolster her credibility as a “ black woman.
” She sounds almost eager to become a victim , so long as she could attribute her victimhood to bigotry by a white neighbor .
She ’ s taunting Anderson , begging for a response .
But as mentioned above , Anderson never really bought her act in the first place and assumed she was Spanish .
It ’ s just one bit of testimony from one person @ @ @ @ @ @ @ abused her adopted identity in the worst possible way .
It ’ s not really a surprise though is it .

Jessica Krug is the woman who resigned her job as an associate professor of history at George Washington University yesterday. This came about a week after she announced in a blog post she was a white, Jewish girl from Kansas and not, as she’d told people for years, a black woman from the Caribbean.
I sort of assumed that Krug’s decade long performance as a black woman involved a lot of Black Lives Matter-esque bullying of people, but Krug didn’t offer any specifics in her blog post, she just said she was a terrible person who’d assumed a false identity. But this piece at the NY Daily News confirms all my suspicions about how Krug behaved in real life before outing herself as a fraud. Specifically, she seemed to have a problem with one of her white neighbors who she once labeled “white trash.”
Documentary filmmaker Anna Anderson, 39, lived in the same East Harlem building for five years, but first crossed swords with Krug, a history professor at George Washington University, in 2018… “This whole time I thought she was Spanish, I never thought she was Black, but that was not something I was spending my day worrying about,” Anderson said.
But Krug made herself impossible to ignore. On two occasions Anderson said she stole deliveries of food and tossed them in the trash. Anderson said she knew Krug was responsible because her actions were caught on security video. On another occasion, Krug locked up her bicycle by locking it to Anderson’s bike. And when Anderson demanded she unlock it, Krug’s response was “what are you going to do? Call the cops? You know what cops do to people like me.”
Yes, people like her, i.e. white women pretending to be black. And there was more of this kind of racial harassment:
“I used to go out running, she would pass me when I’m running and say, ‘Gentrifying,’ Anderson said. “She called me ’white trash,’ which is funny because “I’m a white immigrant from Sweden.”
Anderson is taller and bigger than Krug so she says she never felt intimidated. Instead she believed Krug was trying to provoke her. “She’s like, ‘Are you gonna hit me, are you gonna hit me? Are you gonna call the cops on me?’”
Krug probably thought having her white neighbor call the police on her would bolster her credibility as a “black woman.” She sounds almost eager to become a victim, so long as she could attribute her victimhood to bigotry by a white neighbor. She’s taunting Anderson, begging for a response. But as mentioned above, Anderson never really bought her act in the first place and assumed she was Spanish.
It’s just one bit of testimony from one person but it suggests to me that Krug abused her adopted identity in the worst possible way. It’s not really a surprise though is it.


hotair--2020-09-10--Politico: Republicans up big in PA ... in new voter registrations

Want to see what happens when one side has a GOTV organization and the other just runs ads on television ?
It might not show up in opinion polling , but when it comes to new voter registrations , Republicans have taken a big lead in Pennsylvania , Politico reports today .
That effort has shaved off nearly 175,000 off of the Democrats ’ voter-registration advantage since 2016 — when they lost the Keystone State anyway : The GOP has added almost 198,000 registered voters to the books compared to this time four years ago , whereas Democrats have gained @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outnumber Republicans by about 750,000 voters in the state , the GOP has seized on their uptick in party members as a sign that Trump is on track to win this critical Rust Belt swing state a second time .
“ It ’ s one of the reasons why I am very bullish on Donald Trump ’ s prospects in Pennsylvania .
I think he will win again , and I think he will win by more votes than he did in 2016 , ” said Charlie Gerow , a Harrisburg-based Republican strategist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the state .
“ Trump is doing what Ronald Reagan did 40 years ago , which is moving a lot of traditional Democrats into the Republican column.
” The GOP has also seen a larger boost in registrations than Democrats in three critical areas across Pennsylvania : Erie , Luzerne and Northampton counties , all of which helped Trump flip the state by backing him after supporting former President Barack Obama in 2012 .
Hillary Clinton got four years of grief for not showing up in Wisconsin .
Will Democrats in general get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Pennsylvania on voter registrations ?
It ’ s not as though the Keystone State had reached saturation level for Democrats ; as Politico ’ s Holly Otterbein points out , they only made up 49 % of the state ’ s electorate , running eleven points ahead of the GOP in 2016 .
That ’ s down to eight points now , 47/39 , in a state that routinely elects Republican legislative majorities and occasionally GOP statewide officers as well .
The growth in battleground counties shows that this is no accident @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is voter registrations , particularly in areas up for grabs .
That ’ s also a measure of Donald Trump ’ s personal popularity in those areas , which should add another level of concern over GOTV effectiveness and voter enthusiasm : Democrats are choosing to write this off as nothing more than realignment of already-committed GOP voters : That ’ s some monster spin right there .
Even if that were the case , it ’ s still a pretty good indication that PA voters aren ’ t coming back to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of demonizing Trump .
How is that “ less than meets the eye ” ?
If all this amounts to is some lagging party-switching indicators , it still shows voters switching parties at a 4:1 clip favoring the GOP .
Consider that when reading today ’ s warning from the New York Times to Democrats .
It ’ s headlined “ How Trump Could Win Pennsylvania Again , ” although most of Michael Sokolove ’ s reporting leans toward why he and Democrats think Trump won ’ t win the state .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ win it back : One of the hopes among rural Democrats is that Mr. Trump ’ s personal conduct , tone and ceaseless lying will be enough to turn some conservative voters against him .
Mr. Ainey said he ’ s hearing from people who voted for Mr. Trump who tell him they ’ ve had enough .
“ Their feelings toward Biden is that he ’ s not Trump , ” he said .
“ He ’ s got some class .
They ’ re not going to shake their heads every @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he can limit the damage this time around , that he can be a good team player and help get Mr. Biden close to 35 percent of the vote in Susquehanna .
“ I really don ’ t think it ’ s going to be as bad this time , ” he said .
“ People do not usually want to go backward , but in this case , I think some of them want to turn the clock back four or five years.
” Well , that ’ s certainly not the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And given the success of the GOP ’ s GOTV in that metric , and the complete lack of GOTV from Team Biden and the DNC , those numbers speak a lot more loudly than a couple of anecdotes and conjecture about Trump fatigue that ’ s not showing up in the numbers — at least so far .

Want to see what happens when one side has a GOTV organization and the other just runs ads on television? It might not show up in opinion polling, but when it comes to new voter registrations, Republicans have taken a big lead in Pennsylvania, Politico reports today. That effort has shaved off nearly 175,000 off of the Democrats’ voter-registration advantage since 2016 — when they lost the Keystone State anyway:
The GOP has added almost 198,000 registered voters to the books compared to this time four years ago, whereas Democrats have gained an extra 29,000. Though Democrats still outnumber Republicans by about 750,000 voters in the state, the GOP has seized on their uptick in party members as a sign that Trump is on track to win this critical Rust Belt swing state a second time. “It’s one of the reasons why I am very bullish on Donald Trump’s prospects in Pennsylvania. I think he will win again, and I think he will win by more votes than he did in 2016,” said Charlie Gerow, a Harrisburg-based Republican strategist who has worked on presidential campaigns in the state. “Trump is doing what Ronald Reagan did 40 years ago, which is moving a lot of traditional Democrats into the Republican column.” The GOP has also seen a larger boost in registrations than Democrats in three critical areas across Pennsylvania: Erie, Luzerne and Northampton counties, all of which helped Trump flip the state by backing him after supporting former President Barack Obama in 2012.
Hillary Clinton got four years of grief for not showing up in Wisconsin. Will Democrats in general get the same treatment for their poor performance in Pennsylvania on voter registrations? It’s not as though the Keystone State had reached saturation level for Democrats; as Politico’s Holly Otterbein points out, they only made up 49% of the state’s electorate, running eleven points ahead of the GOP in 2016. That’s down to eight points now, 47/39, in a state that routinely elects Republican legislative majorities and occasionally GOP statewide officers as well.
The growth in battleground counties shows that this is no accident. One objective measure of GOTV effectiveness is voter registrations, particularly in areas up for grabs. That’s also a measure of Donald Trump’s personal popularity in those areas, which should add another level of concern over GOTV effectiveness and voter enthusiasm:
“It’s Trump, Trump, Trump,” said Gloria Lee Snover, chair of the Northampton County Republican Party. When she has signed up voters, she added, “They’re like, ‘Oh, I want to be in the Trump party.’ It’s kind of funny. … I’m like, ‘You mean the Republican Party?’ They’re like, ‘Oh, yeah.’”
Democrats are choosing to write this off as nothing more than realignment of already-committed GOP voters:
“It probably means less than meets the eye,” said J.J. Balaban, a Democratic consultant in Pennsylvania. “There’s reason to believe the shift is mostly ‘Democrats’ who haven’t been voting for Democrats for a long time, choosing to re-register as Republican.”
That’s some monster spin right there. Even if that were the case, it’s still a pretty good indication that PA voters aren’t coming back to the Democrats, not even after four years of demonizing Trump. How is that “less than meets the eye”? If all this amounts to is some lagging party-switching indicators, it still shows voters switching parties at a 4:1 clip favoring the GOP.
Consider that when reading today’s warning from the New York Times to Democrats. It’s headlined “How Trump Could Win Pennsylvania Again,” although most of Michael Sokolove’s reporting leans toward why he and Democrats think Trump won’t win the state. But note why Sololove thinks Joe Biden can win it back:
One of the hopes among rural Democrats is that Mr. Trump’s personal conduct, tone and ceaseless lying will be enough to turn some conservative voters against him. Mr. Ainey said he’s hearing from people who voted for Mr. Trump who tell him they’ve had enough. “Their feelings toward Biden is that he’s not Trump,” he said. “He’s got some class. They’re not going to shake their heads every time he says something.” He believes he can limit the damage this time around, that he can be a good team player and help get Mr. Biden close to 35 percent of the vote in Susquehanna. “I really don’t think it’s going to be as bad this time,” he said. “People do not usually want to go backward, but in this case, I think some of them want to turn the clock back four or five years.”
Well, that’s certainly not the message coming from the voter registration numbers. And given the success of the GOP’s GOTV in that metric, and the complete lack of GOTV from Team Biden and the DNC, those numbers speak a lot more loudly than a couple of anecdotes and conjecture about Trump fatigue that’s not showing up in the numbers — at least so far.


hotair--2020-09-10--Cuomo hits back at Trump: Under my leadership, New Yorkers "flattened the curve"

This guy may be the one major politician in America willing to lie more brazenly than Trump himself in the interest of making himself look good .
John did a good job on Tuesday answering Cuomo ’ s claim that “ Donald Trump caused the COVID outbreak in New York.
” I ’ ve written about that too , repeatedly , because Cuomo ’ s made that point repeatedly in hopes of spinning away his many failures in holding down New York ’ s death toll .
The barest gesture he could make towards reality while he ’ s engaged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ catastrophic New York ’ s outcome was .
I.e .
“ yes , this has been a disaster , but it ’ s Trump ’ s disaster , not mine.
” But he can ’ t do that if , six months in , he ’ s still describing this result as an example of “ flattening the curve ” : That ’ s not flattening the curve .
That ’ s being flattened by the curve .
That ’ s what the curve looks like when the virus spreads unchecked and eventually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out of new hosts .
You could caption this graph as the “ Do-Nothing Scenario , ” which is precisely what Cuomo and Bill de Blasio did in early March — effectively nothing .
Yet here he is today , once again celebrating New York ’ s outcome as some sort of achievement .
“ Flattening the curve ” is when you take precautions early enough to avoid the sort of steep spike New York experienced in March and April .
The curve never gets tall because people are social-distancing to limit the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has acted quickly enough to shut down schools and businesses that people are forced to social-distance .
In reality , not only was New York ’ s curve the opposite of flat , it was waaaaaaay steeper than Cuomo ’ s graph suggests .
America was doing limited testing in March and April , remember ; if we had a true picture of how many actual infections there were in New York at that time rather than just the meager number of confirmed cases we were able to detect from limited testing , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this graph be ?
Ten times ?
Twenty ?
New York ’ s outbreak was so uncontrolled that it ’ s an open question right now whether the city has already reached herd immunity .
It takes a loooong time to reach that if you really are flattening the curve , not three months .
Trump noticed Cuomo ’ s comments on Tuesday once again blaming him for New York ’ s outbreak : He retweeted that last one to his followers .
There are many potential political ramifications of his admission to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the virus — although , if you were betting , you ’ d bet that there ’ ll be few or none since nothing ever seems to move perceptions of Trump — but one obvious one is that it should make it easier for Cuomo to escape blame for mishandling New York ’ s epidemic .
Until now , his case that Trump is responsible for what happened in NYC rested largely on how long it took the White House to ban travel from Europe .
( Cuomo has never explained why he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ visitors from Europe in February and March if he was so worried about new arrivals bringing the virus in . )
Now , though , he can argue that he was misled by Trump from the get-go about the risk from the virus .
If only he ’ d known in early February , as Trump did , that coronavirus was airborne and unusually deadly , why , everything would have been different .
He ’ s already flagged the Woodward comments today on Twitter : Phil Murphy of New Jersey , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ COVID , is also moving quickly to capitalize on Trump ’ s admissions to Woodward : It ’ s probably giving Democratic voters in New York and New Jersey too much credit to imagine that , if not for Trump ’ s comments to Woodward , they *might* have been willing to scrutinize Cuomo ’ s and Murphy ’ s records COVID records closely the next time those two are up for reelection .
As it is , though , both of them — and other Dems with poor pandemic records — will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ downplaying the threat in March as a “ get out of political jail free ” card .
The myth of Cuomo as the Churchill of the coronavirus blitz was probably unbeatable at this point anyway thanks to our too-credulous and partisan media , but the Woodward thing will cement it .
Democrats and maybe even some Republicans in the post-Trump era will be able to offload their COVID political baggage on the president .
If only we ’ d known when Trump did… And some of them will have a point .

This guy may be the one major politician in America willing to lie more brazenly than Trump himself in the interest of making himself look good.
John did a good job on Tuesday answering Cuomo’s claim that “Donald Trump caused the COVID outbreak in New York.” I’ve written about that too, repeatedly, because Cuomo’s made that point repeatedly in hopes of spinning away his many failures in holding down New York’s death toll. The barest gesture he could make towards reality while he’s engaged in buck-passing would be to recognize how catastrophic New York’s outcome was. I.e. “yes, this has been a disaster, but it’s Trump’s disaster, not mine.”
But he can’t do that if, six months in, he’s still describing this result as an example of “flattening the curve”:
Today's update on the numbers: Of the 76,813 tests reported yesterday, 757 were positive (0.98% of total). Total hospitalizations are at 482. Sadly, there were 7 COVID fatalities yesterday. pic.twitter.com/dGqKpWij65 — Andrew Cuomo (@NYGovCuomo) September 10, 2020
That’s not flattening the curve. That’s being flattened by the curve. That’s what the curve looks like when the virus spreads unchecked and eventually infects so many people that it runs out of new hosts. You could caption this graph as the “Do-Nothing Scenario,” which is precisely what Cuomo and Bill de Blasio did in early March — effectively nothing. Yet here he is today, once again celebrating New York’s outcome as some sort of achievement.
Trump now criticizes me b/c I speak the truth. He can't handle it. He said my COVID leadership was "great," I was “working hard" & "applauded" me for my "bold" response. FACT: NYers flattened the curve FACT: Trump's failed leadership & incompetence cost thousands of lives — Andrew Cuomo (@NYGovCuomo) September 10, 2020
“Flattening the curve” is when you take precautions early enough to avoid the sort of steep spike New York experienced in March and April. The curve never gets tall because people are social-distancing to limit the spread — or rather, the government has acted quickly enough to shut down schools and businesses that people are forced to social-distance. In reality, not only was New York’s curve the opposite of flat, it was waaaaaaay steeper than Cuomo’s graph suggests. America was doing limited testing in March and April, remember; if we had a true picture of how many actual infections there were in New York at that time rather than just the meager number of confirmed cases we were able to detect from limited testing, how much taller would the curve in this graph be? Ten times? Twenty?
New York’s outbreak was so uncontrolled that it’s an open question right now whether the city has already reached herd immunity. It takes a loooong time to reach that if you really are flattening the curve, not three months.
Trump noticed Cuomo’s comments on Tuesday once again blaming him for New York’s outbreak:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1304036654588534789
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1304036421980893184
You ordered thousands of senior citizens to their death in nursing homes. PRESIDENT @realDonaldTrump has an army, which built hospitals for you, and a navy, with a hospital ship he sent you. Your own NYPD don’t support you. There is no question who is protecting New York. https://t.co/lPlycVQ0C9 — Marc Lotter (@marc_lotter) September 3, 2020
He retweeted that last one to his followers. There are many potential political ramifications of his admission to Bob Woodward in March that he downplayed the virus — although, if you were betting, you’d bet that there’ll be few or none since nothing ever seems to move perceptions of Trump — but one obvious one is that it should make it easier for Cuomo to escape blame for mishandling New York’s epidemic. Until now, his case that Trump is responsible for what happened in NYC rested largely on how long it took the White House to ban travel from Europe. (Cuomo has never explained why he didn’t order mandatory quarantines of visitors from Europe in February and March if he was so worried about new arrivals bringing the virus in.) Now, though, he can argue that he was misled by Trump from the get-go about the risk from the virus. If only he’d known in early February, as Trump did, that coronavirus was airborne and unusually deadly, why, everything would have been different. He’s already flagged the Woodward comments today on Twitter:
Trump doesn't know when he's lying anymore. He admitted on tape to Woodward he lied to Americans about COVID, costing thousands of lives. Concerned about public safety, Trump? 1K Americans are dying a day from COVID—more than any other Western Country—b/c of your incompetence — Andrew Cuomo (@NYGovCuomo) September 10, 2020
Phil Murphy of New Jersey, the state with the second-worst death toll from COVID, is also moving quickly to capitalize on Trump’s admissions to Woodward:
New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy on Trump knowing the coronavirus was airborne early on: “The country looks to the President, governors look to the President … If we had known that earlier, we would have shut the state meaningfully earlier … and undoubtedly would've saved lives" pic.twitter.com/WxzoLAqNme — CNN Politics (@CNNPolitics) September 9, 2020
It’s probably giving Democratic voters in New York and New Jersey too much credit to imagine that, if not for Trump’s comments to Woodward, they *might* have been willing to scrutinize Cuomo’s and Murphy’s records COVID records closely the next time those two are up for reelection. As it is, though, both of them — and other Dems with poor pandemic records — will use the president’s soundbite about downplaying the threat in March as a “get out of political jail free” card. The myth of Cuomo as the Churchill of the coronavirus blitz was probably unbeatable at this point anyway thanks to our too-credulous and partisan media, but the Woodward thing will cement it. Democrats and maybe even some Republicans in the post-Trump era will be able to offload their COVID political baggage on the president. If only we’d known when Trump did… And some of them will have a point.


hotair--2020-09-10--Former Extinction Rebellion spokesperson: 'a strategy including nuclear energy is the only realistic

Former Extinction Rebellion spokesperson: 'a strategy including nuclear energy is the only realistic solution'

Remember Extinction Rebellion ?
They ’ re the group that spent a lot of energy harassing London commuters last year ( among other stupid stunts ) .
One of the group ’ s spokespeople , Zion Lights , has left the group behind and has become a champion for nuclear power .
According to Lights , the turning point was a television interview in which Andrew Neil asked her to defend claims made by the group ’ s founders .
Specifically , the claim that “ billions ” of people were going to die as a result of climate change @ @ @ @ @ @ @ below and it is pretty cringe-inducing .
Neil keeps hammering away at this claim about billions dying and Lights keeps backpedaling .
“ I ’ ve seen young girls on television , part of your demonstration…crying because they think they ’ re going to die in five or six years time , crying because they don ’ t think they ’ ll ever see adulthood , ” Neil said .
He continued , “ And yet there is no scientific basis for the claims that your organization is making.
” Here ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a piece published today by the Telegraph : Note that this is not a minor point to concede for a member of a group called “ Extinction Rebellion.
” The whole justification for the group ’ s extreme actions in the street is that young people are rejecting their own imminent deaths .
Once you step away from that unsupportable claim , it ’ s a lot harder to defend the group ’ s extremism across the board .
So when Neil pointed out that the renewable energy targets the group was publicly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would put an end to air travel , Lights replied , “ possibly ” as if that were a minor thing .
But you can tell that she ’ s toeing the party line at that point .
She doesn ’ t really believe that ’ s reasonable .
In her piece today , Lights admits that some environmentalists really do expect people to live very constrained lives , lives which few of them have actually experienced .
There are some members of environmental groups who truly believe we should live extremely constrained @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Punjab village my parents are from .
I have spent time there and it was heartbreaking .
In many villages in the region they have no electricity and no infrastructure .
Children die from health problems we in the West can easily cure .
Some of those who promote an eco-austerity agenda will tell you , “ They live simpler lives so they ’ re happy.
” Believe me : they are not .
My parents never once looked back after leaving for the UK .
They , like everyone , wanted the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the West .
People who argue we need to all live with less – as I once did – should think hard about what this actually means .
I am personally happy to live with less , but decades of behavioural science study has not convinced most people to take the same path .
We need to accept it ’ s not going to happen , and look to solutions instead .
The focus on solutions is where we get to nuclear power .
Lights says many in the environmental movement are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s the only credible way to move away from reliance on fossil fuels in the near future : Many within XR argue in favour of replacing fossil fuels entirely with renewables .
I favour a pragmatic approach , rather than peer-group tribal pressure to stick to an outdated mainstream green line .
Once you demand that all our power must come from wind and solar , you seriously constrain our options to achieve net zero carbon emissions in the timescale required .
To make a serious contribution to decarbonising the UK @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cover whole counties , and wind farms dominate most of our coastline and uplands .
With less or even no nuclear energy , we would need to devote even more of our land to industrial scale renewables , leaving much less for farming and nature… Unfortunately much of the green movement , including a fair proportion of those in XR , is steeped in an anti-nuclear mindset , when any rational , evidence-based approach shows that a strategy including nuclear energy is the only realistic solution to driving down emissions at the scale @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many of the Extinction Rebellion types in the environmental movement who think that by shouting about impossible solutions in the loudest voice possible they are helping .
I don ’ t think they realize how much harm they are doing to their own cause by putting off reasonable people who can tell pretty quickly that they aren ’ t really serious about what they are saying .
If they were serious , they would sound a bit more like Zion Lights does now , i.e .
drop the doom-saying and present practical options @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But for now Lights remains an exception to the rule .
Here ’ s the Andrew Neil interview .
Below that is a more recent interview by Sky News Australia in which Lights describes her turn to support for nuclear power .

Remember Extinction Rebellion? They’re the group that spent a lot of energy harassing London commuters last year (among other stupid stunts). One of the group’s spokespeople, Zion Lights, has left the group behind and has become a champion for nuclear power. According to Lights, the turning point was a television interview in which Andrew Neil asked her to defend claims made by the group’s founders. Specifically, the claim that “billions” of people were going to die as a result of climate change.
The video of the interview is below and it is pretty cringe-inducing. Neil keeps hammering away at this claim about billions dying and Lights keeps backpedaling. “I’ve seen young girls on television, part of your demonstration…crying because they think they’re going to die in five or six years time, crying because they don’t think they’ll ever see adulthood,” Neil said. He continued, “And yet there is no scientific basis for the claims that your organization is making.” Here’s Zion Lights take on that moment in a piece published today by the Telegraph:
I couldn’t defend those numbers because they didn’t have a basis in science. So I was faced with an awful choice on live TV: either I could stand up for science or I could defend XR. I had to choose the former, because for me, sticking with the evidence is the most important thing of all.
Note that this is not a minor point to concede for a member of a group called “Extinction Rebellion.” The whole justification for the group’s extreme actions in the street is that young people are rejecting their own imminent deaths. Once you step away from that unsupportable claim, it’s a lot harder to defend the group’s extremism across the board.
So when Neil pointed out that the renewable energy targets the group was publicly demanding (100% by 2025) would put an end to air travel, Lights replied, “possibly” as if that were a minor thing. But you can tell that she’s toeing the party line at that point. She doesn’t really believe that’s reasonable. In her piece today, Lights admits that some environmentalists really do expect people to live very constrained lives, lives which few of them have actually experienced.
There are some members of environmental groups who truly believe we should live extremely constrained lifestyles, much like people in the Punjab village my parents are from. I have spent time there and it was heartbreaking. In many villages in the region they have no electricity and no infrastructure. Children die from health problems we in the West can easily cure. Some of those who promote an eco-austerity agenda will tell you, “They live simpler lives so they’re happy.” Believe me: they are not. My parents never once looked back after leaving for the UK. They, like everyone, wanted the vaccines and hospitals and technology we have in the West. People who argue we need to all live with less – as I once did – should think hard about what this actually means. I am personally happy to live with less, but decades of behavioural science study has not convinced most people to take the same path. We need to accept it’s not going to happen, and look to solutions instead.
The focus on solutions is where we get to nuclear power. Lights says many in the environmental movement are strongly against nuclear but she now believes it’s the only credible way to move away from reliance on fossil fuels in the near future:
Many within XR argue in favour of replacing fossil fuels entirely with renewables. I favour a pragmatic approach, rather than peer-group tribal pressure to stick to an outdated mainstream green line. Once you demand that all our power must come from wind and solar, you seriously constrain our options to achieve net zero carbon emissions in the timescale required. To make a serious contribution to decarbonising the UK economy, solar parks would need to cover whole counties, and wind farms dominate most of our coastline and uplands. With less or even no nuclear energy, we would need to devote even more of our land to industrial scale renewables, leaving much less for farming and nature… Unfortunately much of the green movement, including a fair proportion of those in XR, is steeped in an anti-nuclear mindset, when any rational, evidence-based approach shows that a strategy including nuclear energy is the only realistic solution to driving down emissions at the scale and speed required.
There are so many of the Extinction Rebellion types in the environmental movement who think that by shouting about impossible solutions in the loudest voice possible they are helping. I don’t think they realize how much harm they are doing to their own cause by putting off reasonable people who can tell pretty quickly that they aren’t really serious about what they are saying. If they were serious, they would sound a bit more like Zion Lights does now, i.e. drop the doom-saying and present practical options like support for more nuclear energy. But for now Lights remains an exception to the rule.
Here’s the Andrew Neil interview. Below that is a more recent interview by Sky News Australia in which Lights describes her turn to support for nuclear power.


hotair--2020-09-10--Salon owner: “I’m actually afraid to go back" after Pelosi's "set up" claim

The crowdfunding operation was successful , but the patient still died — at least in San Francisco .
Erica Kious will close down her hair salon after getting accused by Nancy Pelosi of conducting a political “ set up ” against the House speaker .
Kious told Tucker Carlson that Pelosi ’ s accusations unleashed attacks on her and her business , and that ’ s she ’ s afraid to return to San Francisco at all : San Francisco salon owner Erica Kious said she is closing her business after the infamous visit by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actually done in San Francisco and closing my doors , unfortunately , ” Kious told Tucker Carlson on Wednesday night .
“ I started to just get a ton of phone calls , text messages , emails , all my Yelp reviews… saying that they hope I go under and that I fail , ” she told the host about her eSalon .
“ So just a lot of negativity towards my business.
” … On Wednesday night , Kious said all the negativity has made her hesitant to return to the city @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years .
“ I ’ m actually afraid to go back… It ’ s a little scary and sad , ” she told Carlson .
“ I do have a lot of positive calls and text messages from clients .
But other than that , nothing but negativity.
” Carlson is aghast that Kious feels the need to leave San Francisco simply for telling the truth .
Regardless of what excuses Pelosi gave after getting exposed , it ’ s clear that she ’ s not living by the same rules she wants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hypocrisy in our governing class is worth exposing — regardless of which party commits it .
Put that aside for a moment , though , and consider the question : Did Kious actually “ set up ” Pelosi ?
Take a watch of this interview and others Kious has given , and it seems like a very dubious explanation .
Kious hardly comes across as Machiavellian , or even all that interested in publicity .
It seems much more likely that Kious just got angry after watching the surveillance video of Pelosi flouting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rules that were already killing Kious ’ business — without any accountability .
Unfortunately , Kious should have known that getting into the arena meant facing off against lions and bloodthirsty crowds , especially against a home-team favorite like Pelosi .
What happens now ?
CBS News notes that the GoFundMe project explicitly advertised that Kious would relocate the business , and clearly it foresaw a need to get out of Frisco to do so : “ I wish I could personally thank every person who sent me their prayers , words of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time when so many are struggling to make ends meet in their own lives , ” Kious wrote in a letter posted Tuesday by the host of the GoFundMe .
She thanked her daughters , their “ loving dad , ” and her family and friends .
The GoFundMe page claims to be set up by a friend of Kious and her family .
It states , “ At the conclusion of this fundraiser , ALL donations will go directly to Erica to pay off any debts from the business that she is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ relocate and reopen in a new location.
” … After Pelosi said the salon owed her “ an apology for setting [ me ] up , ” Kious said the accusation was “ absolutely false , ” claiming she has had her surveillance cameras for five years and adding that Pelosi ’ s stylist is an independent contractor renting space in the salon .
Kious received support after saying she had been getting threats and is thinking of relocating her business .
“ I am very humbled and grateful to have received such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ generosity from people I don ’ t even know , and from all walks of life and all sides of the political spectrum , ” she said in the letter .
“ It ’ s a powerful reminder that the common things that bind us all together as Americans are far more meaningful and lasting than political and ideological differences that get so much attention and focus.
” Kious isn ’ t the first business owner to vote with her feet this summer over lots of different issues .
She won ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @

The crowdfunding operation was successful, but the patient still died — at least in San Francisco. Erica Kious will close down her hair salon after getting accused by Nancy Pelosi of conducting a political “set up” against the House speaker. Kious told Tucker Carlson that Pelosi’s accusations unleashed attacks on her and her business, and that’s she’s afraid to return to San Francisco at all:
San Francisco salon owner Erica Kious said she is closing her business after the infamous visit by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Fox News reported. “I am actually done in San Francisco and closing my doors, unfortunately,” Kious told Tucker Carlson on Wednesday night. “I started to just get a ton of phone calls, text messages, emails, all my Yelp reviews… saying that they hope I go under and that I fail,” she told the host about her eSalon. “So just a lot of negativity towards my business.” … On Wednesday night, Kious said all the negativity has made her hesitant to return to the city, where she has lived for 15 years. “I’m actually afraid to go back… It’s a little scary and sad,” she told Carlson. “I do have a lot of positive calls and text messages from clients. But other than that, nothing but negativity.”
Carlson is aghast that Kious feels the need to leave San Francisco simply for telling the truth. Regardless of what excuses Pelosi gave after getting exposed, it’s clear that she’s not living by the same rules she wants imposed on others. That kind of hypocrisy in our governing class is worth exposing — regardless of which party commits it.
Put that aside for a moment, though, and consider the question: Did Kious actually “set up” Pelosi? Take a watch of this interview and others Kious has given, and it seems like a very dubious explanation. Kious hardly comes across as Machiavellian, or even all that interested in publicity. It seems much more likely that Kious just got angry after watching the surveillance video of Pelosi flouting the rules she’s demanding — rules that were already killing Kious’ business — without any accountability. Unfortunately, Kious should have known that getting into the arena meant facing off against lions and bloodthirsty crowds, especially against a home-team favorite like Pelosi.
What happens now? CBS News notes that the GoFundMe project explicitly advertised that Kious would relocate the business, and clearly it foresaw a need to get out of Frisco to do so:
“I wish I could personally thank every person who sent me their prayers, words of encouragement and support, especially at a time when so many are struggling to make ends meet in their own lives,” Kious wrote in a letter posted Tuesday by the host of the GoFundMe. She thanked her daughters, their “loving dad,” and her family and friends. The GoFundMe page claims to be set up by a friend of Kious and her family. It states, “At the conclusion of this fundraiser, ALL donations will go directly to Erica to pay off any debts from the business that she is forced to shut down, expenses to relocate and reopen in a new location.” … After Pelosi said the salon owed her “an apology for setting [me] up,” Kious said the accusation was “absolutely false,” claiming she has had her surveillance cameras for five years and adding that Pelosi’s stylist is an independent contractor renting space in the salon. Kious received support after saying she had been getting threats and is thinking of relocating her business. “I am very humbled and grateful to have received such an outpouring of kindness, empathy and generosity from people I don’t even know, and from all walks of life and all sides of the political spectrum,” she said in the letter. “It’s a powerful reminder that the common things that bind us all together as Americans are far more meaningful and lasting than political and ideological differences that get so much attention and focus.”
Kious isn’t the first business owner to vote with her feet this summer over lots of different issues. She won’t be the last, either.


hotair--2020-09-10--Tucker Carlson: Let's face it, this Woodward book fiasco is sort of Lindsey Graham's fault

Fine by me .
If Fox primetime ’ s hunt for a scapegoat for Trump ’ s latest mouth-fart requires them to take out one of his most abject sycophants in the Senate , have at it .
By all means , rope Lindsey Graham into this mess when the last poll of his Senate race had him tied with Democrat Jaime Harrison .
Broadly speaking , I think each FNC primetime host has a different approach to bad news for Trump .
Hannity is straight denial : Either it ’ s a hoax or a frame-up or , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can ’ t be outright denied then that it ’ s misleading somehow .
Ingraham is more of a deflector , preferring to redirect the criticism with whataboutism about how bad Democrats are .
Tucker is a scapegoater , searching for the true culprit in whatever ’ s bedeviling the president .
I think back to his rant in May wondering who made a “ buffoon ” like Anthony Fauci head of the country ’ s COVID response .
You and I and he all know the answer to that , just like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t Fauci who spent February and March mumbling that the virus would go away soon , just like it wasn ’ t Fauci who was pushing to reopen the country for business before March was out .
But Carlson understands that criticism of the president needs to be delivered with a light touch in order for his audience ( which includes the president himself , of course ) to tolerate it , sometimes even to the point of not speaking Trump ’ s name .
Just as Trump ’ s failings on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s foreign-policy shortcomings are the neocon defense establishment ’ s fault , his inane decision to give 18 interviews to Bob Woodward is necessarily Graham ’ s fault .
Makes you wonder why we should reelect this poor benighted naif who ’ s so easily manipulated by nefarious elites .
Anyway , Tucker ’ s not wrong about Graham encouraging the Trump/Woodward interviews : “ Yeah .
The last book Woodward wrote , Trump said he didn ’ t know that he had wanted to be interviewed , ” Graham recalled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the guy is a well-known presidential author .
And , you know , you got a chance to tell your side of the story .
The president agreed and there you go.
” Graham went on to dismiss the idea that Trump was wrong to have downplayed the pandemic publicly .
“ The idea , ” he said , “ of the president saying we ’ re not all going to die seems smart to me.
” But the public reaction to the Woodward book was yet another example of how the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on vastly different planes , with Trump supremely confident in his ability to BS his way through any crisis and his aides often left to pick up the mess .
Graham ’ s attitude seems to have come from the traditional , if foolish , belief that if a well-known author ’ s planning a hit piece on you , you ’ re better off agreeing to an interview with him .
You might earn some sympathy from him in your conversations , and even if you don ’ t you ’ ll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ story included in his piece .
For a disciplined politician , that might be a risk worth taking .
For a politician who routinely sabotages himself by riffing stream-of-conscious , it ’ s almost suicidal .
If Graham weren ’ t up for reelection in two months , I might buy Carlson ’ s insinuation that he convinced Trump to talk to Woodward expecting that Trump would do himself damage and it would help Biden get elected .
Graham ’ s sycophancy is likely only an inch deep , after all ; he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more comfortable with an old centrist hand like Sleepy Joe than a firebreathing right-wing populist like Trump .
But since Graham *is* up for reelection in two months , Tucker ’ s theory doesn ’ t wash. A Trump collapse down the stretch might end Lindsey ’ s career too .
Him talking to Woodward becomes more of a murder-suicide in that case .
Why would Graham would want to arrange a hit on himself ?
And why is it Graham ’ s fault that Trump chose to take his advice instead of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people around him who were apparently warning him not to talk to Woodward ?
Aides spent months fretting about President Donald Trump opening up to the famous Watergate journalist , fearing the consequences all the way through Wednesday ’ s bombshell revelations .
Trump bulldozed through them all , believing he could charm the man who helped take down a president and chronicled half a dozen administrations over the past half-century… “ You don ’ t talk the president out of things , ” one White House official said Wednesday , one of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who described the circumstances leading up to the latest book… “ Trump loves brands , and Woodward has been the gold standard for 50 years of investigative journalism around the presidency , so it ’ s the same reason why he likes the Gray Lady , he likes The New York Times .
It ’ s the paper of record traditionally in his hometown , so even though both excoriate him , he ’ s attracted to them the way a low-IQ small moth would be to a flame , ” said Anthony @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House communications director under Trump .
“ Trump is always convinced that if he talks to the person , he is going to elucidate and enlighten that person and get them to like him.
” I think Scaramucci ’ s exactly right .
Trump sees Woodward as a “ prestige ” name and was flattered when that prestige name became keenly interested in talking to him .
It might even seem like a presidential rite of passage to him , practically a perk of the job .
A White House official told the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” at first to be talking to Woodward , suggesting that Graham didn ’ t need to twist his arm much .
And naturally , a guy who ’ s successfully been able to talk himself into national celebrity , TV stardom , and ultimately the presidency — and talk himself out of all kinds of trouble , repeatedly — would believe that he had nothing to fear from Woodward .
A man who could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue without losing a single vote might logically assume he could also get away @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a virus which he knew from the start was much deadlier than flu and would end up killing 200,000 people .
After all , that ’ s Fauci ’ s fault , or Graham ’ s fault , or Antifa ’ s fault , or whoever .

Fine by me. If Fox primetime’s hunt for a scapegoat for Trump’s latest mouth-fart requires them to take out one of his most abject sycophants in the Senate, have at it. By all means, rope Lindsey Graham into this mess when the last poll of his Senate race had him tied with Democrat Jaime Harrison.
Broadly speaking, I think each FNC primetime host has a different approach to bad news for Trump. Hannity is straight denial: Either it’s a hoax or a frame-up or, a la the Woodward tapes, if it can’t be outright denied then that it’s misleading somehow. Ingraham is more of a deflector, preferring to redirect the criticism with whataboutism about how bad Democrats are. Tucker is a scapegoater, searching for the true culprit in whatever’s bedeviling the president. I think back to his rant in May wondering who made a “buffoon” like Anthony Fauci head of the country’s COVID response. You and I and he all know the answer to that, just like we also know that it wasn’t Fauci who spent February and March mumbling that the virus would go away soon, just like it wasn’t Fauci who was pushing to reopen the country for business before March was out. But Carlson understands that criticism of the president needs to be delivered with a light touch in order for his audience (which includes the president himself, of course) to tolerate it, sometimes even to the point of not speaking Trump’s name. Just as Trump’s failings on the virus are Fauci’s fault and Trump’s foreign-policy shortcomings are the neocon defense establishment’s fault, his inane decision to give 18 interviews to Bob Woodward is necessarily Graham’s fault.
Makes you wonder why we should reelect this poor benighted naif who’s so easily manipulated by nefarious elites.
Anyway, Tucker’s not wrong about Graham encouraging the Trump/Woodward interviews:
“Yeah. The last book Woodward wrote, Trump said he didn’t know that he had wanted to be interviewed,” Graham recalled. “So I said, well, the guy is a well-known presidential author. And, you know, you got a chance to tell your side of the story. The president agreed and there you go.” Graham went on to dismiss the idea that Trump was wrong to have downplayed the pandemic publicly. “The idea,” he said, “of the president saying we’re not all going to die seems smart to me.” But the public reaction to the Woodward book was yet another example of how the president and his team are often operating on vastly different planes, with Trump supremely confident in his ability to BS his way through any crisis and his aides often left to pick up the mess.
Graham’s attitude seems to have come from the traditional, if foolish, belief that if a well-known author’s planning a hit piece on you, you’re better off agreeing to an interview with him. You might earn some sympathy from him in your conversations, and even if you don’t you’ll at least have your side of the story included in his piece. For a disciplined politician, that might be a risk worth taking. For a politician who routinely sabotages himself by riffing stream-of-conscious, it’s almost suicidal. If Graham weren’t up for reelection in two months, I might buy Carlson’s insinuation that he convinced Trump to talk to Woodward expecting that Trump would do himself damage and it would help Biden get elected. Graham’s sycophancy is likely only an inch deep, after all; he’s an establishment politician, naturally more comfortable with an old centrist hand like Sleepy Joe than a firebreathing right-wing populist like Trump.
But since Graham *is* up for reelection in two months, Tucker’s theory doesn’t wash. A Trump collapse down the stretch might end Lindsey’s career too. Him talking to Woodward becomes more of a murder-suicide in that case. Why would Graham would want to arrange a hit on himself?
And why is it Graham’s fault that Trump chose to take his advice instead of the advice of the many, many people around him who were apparently warning him not to talk to Woodward?
Aides spent months fretting about President Donald Trump opening up to the famous Watergate journalist, fearing the consequences all the way through Wednesday’s bombshell revelations. Trump bulldozed through them all, believing he could charm the man who helped take down a president and chronicled half a dozen administrations over the past half-century… “You don’t talk the president out of things,” one White House official said Wednesday, one of 10 current and former White House officials who described the circumstances leading up to the latest book… “Trump loves brands, and Woodward has been the gold standard for 50 years of investigative journalism around the presidency, so it’s the same reason why he likes the Gray Lady, he likes The New York Times. It’s the paper of record traditionally in his hometown, so even though both excoriate him, he’s attracted to them the way a low-IQ small moth would be to a flame,” said Anthony Scaramucci, who briefly served as White House communications director under Trump. “Trump is always convinced that if he talks to the person, he is going to elucidate and enlighten that person and get them to like him.”
I think Scaramucci’s exactly right. Trump sees Woodward as a “prestige” name and was flattered when that prestige name became keenly interested in talking to him. It might even seem like a presidential rite of passage to him, practically a perk of the job. A White House official told the Daily Beast that Trump was “ecstatic” at first to be talking to Woodward, suggesting that Graham didn’t need to twist his arm much. And naturally, a guy who’s successfully been able to talk himself into national celebrity, TV stardom, and ultimately the presidency — and talk himself out of all kinds of trouble, repeatedly — would believe that he had nothing to fear from Woodward. A man who could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue without losing a single vote might logically assume he could also get away with admitting on tape that he downplayed a virus which he knew from the start was much deadlier than flu and would end up killing 200,000 people. After all, that’s Fauci’s fault, or Graham’s fault, or Antifa’s fault, or whoever.


hotair--2020-09-10--District Judge orders Texas to fix signature verification process on mail-in ballots

U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia , a Clinton appointee , has ruled that one part of the mail-in ballot process in Texas must be fixed before the November election .
He found that the signature verification process is unconstitutional .
Garcia ordered that a fix is put into place immediately .
The voter ’ s signature must be checked on all mail-in ballots , which means the signature on the ballot envelope and the voter ’ s signature on the ballot application must match in order for that ballot to be counted in an election .
Judge Garcia says this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plainly violates certain voters ’ constitutional rights.
” He has ordered the Texas secretary of state to notify local election officials , within the next ten days , that it is unconstitutional to reject ballots over a “ perceived signature mismatch ” without first notifying the voter and giving him/her a “ meaningful opportunity ” to correct the issue .
But wait , there ’ s more .
There is always more , right ?
In order to protect voter rights in the upcoming election , the secretary of state must also “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may not be rejected using the existing signature comparison process , or notify them that they are required to set up a rejection notification system that would allow voters to challenge a rejection.
” It sounds like the federal judge would just like to toss out the signature verification process altogether .
This kind of convoluted ruling squares with Democrats crying that mean Republican state officials are trying to suppress votes in the presidential election .
As a little background , this ruling is in response to a lawsuit filed more than a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their ballots were rejected over mismatched signatures .
Others joined in the lawsuit – Texans with disabilities , veterans , and young voters , and they claim the local election officials having the right to reject ballots due to signature discrepancies violates the 14th Amendment .
Texas does not mail out ballot applications to all registered voters .
In order to receive a mail-in ballot , Texas voters must meet specific qualifications , such as being age 65 or older , out of the county during the election period , disabled or ill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vote .
Activist Democrat elected officials , like the Harris County Clerk Chris Hollins , are determined to blanket the county with mail-in ballot applications .
Democrats want to scare voters and create doubt surrounding election results , especially should President Trump win re-election .
The verification process is conducted by a committee of local election officials who review them to make sure the signature on the flap of a ballot envelope matches the signature that voters used on their application to vote by mail .
The committee can also compare the signature @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clerk or voter registrar made within the last six years .
That sounds pretty straightforward , right ?
Critics say that because no standard for review is established , the law is applied unequally .
The claim is that each county “ necessarily ” develops “ its own idiosyncratic , arbitrary , and ad hoc procedure to determine that a ballot should be rejected ” .
There is no requirement to notify voters about the rejections until 10 days after Election Day .
Therefore , a voter may or may not know a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the election has taken place .
The solution , according to the federal judge , is to just stop rejecting ballots over signatures .
The only alternate idea he offered is to put in place an “ immediate remedial plan ” .
This would require election officials to notify the voter within one day of finding an alleged mismatch and allowing the voter to challenge the rejection .
The timing of the judge ’ s ruling is suspect .
Ballots are almost ready to be mailed out for the November election .
Local @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voting by mail this election .
Why wait until just before the election to rule on a lawsuit that was filed over a year ago ?
It looks as though the judge is part of those looking to create havoc just before an election .
Are the numbers high for those rejections ?
Not really .
The number is relatively small , which would indicate the system really doesn ’ t have problems .
In the State of Texas , those numbers aren ’ t big .
Every vote should count , of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ votes .
Signature verification is a step to prevent voter fraud .
The fact that this hasn ’ t been an issue in past elections indicates it really isn ’ t an issue now , either .

U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia, a Clinton appointee, has ruled that one part of the mail-in ballot process in Texas must be fixed before the November election. He found that the signature verification process is unconstitutional. Garcia ordered that a fix is put into place immediately.
The voter’s signature must be checked on all mail-in ballots, which means the signature on the ballot envelope and the voter’s signature on the ballot application must match in order for that ballot to be counted in an election. Judge Garcia says this process that is currently in place “plainly violates certain voters’ constitutional rights.” He has ordered the Texas secretary of state to notify local election officials, within the next ten days, that it is unconstitutional to reject ballots over a “perceived signature mismatch” without first notifying the voter and giving him/her a “meaningful opportunity” to correct the issue.
But wait, there’s more. There is always more, right? In order to protect voter rights in the upcoming election, the secretary of state must also “advise local election officials that mail-in ballots may not be rejected using the existing signature comparison process, or notify them that they are required to set up a rejection notification system that would allow voters to challenge a rejection.” It sounds like the federal judge would just like to toss out the signature verification process altogether.
This kind of convoluted ruling squares with Democrats crying that mean Republican state officials are trying to suppress votes in the presidential election. As a little background, this ruling is in response to a lawsuit filed more than a year ago by two voters who claim their ballots were rejected over mismatched signatures. Others joined in the lawsuit – Texans with disabilities, veterans, and young voters, and they claim the local election officials having the right to reject ballots due to signature discrepancies violates the 14th Amendment.
In his order, Garcia agreed and said the state is creating a “severe” burden for voters whose ballots are rejected because they are given late notice of that rejection and are not offered a “meaningful opportunity” to “cure” their ballots. “As a result, those voters face complete disenfranchisement, and thus, their right to vote is at stake,” Garcia wrote.
Texas does not mail out ballot applications to all registered voters. In order to receive a mail-in ballot, Texas voters must meet specific qualifications, such as being age 65 or older, out of the county during the election period, disabled or ill, or in jail but eligible to vote. Activist Democrat elected officials, like the Harris County Clerk Chris Hollins, are determined to blanket the county with mail-in ballot applications. Democrats want to scare voters and create doubt surrounding election results, especially should President Trump win re-election.
The verification process is conducted by a committee of local election officials who review them to make sure the signature on the flap of a ballot envelope matches the signature that voters used on their application to vote by mail. The committee can also compare the signature to signatures on file with the county clerk or voter registrar made within the last six years. That sounds pretty straightforward, right? Critics say that because no standard for review is established, the law is applied unequally. The claim is that each county “necessarily” develops “its own idiosyncratic, arbitrary, and ad hoc procedure to determine that a ballot should be rejected”. There is no requirement to notify voters about the rejections until 10 days after Election Day. Therefore, a voter may or may not know a ballot has been rejected until well after the election has taken place.
The solution, according to the federal judge, is to just stop rejecting ballots over signatures. The only alternate idea he offered is to put in place an“immediate remedial plan”. This would require election officials to notify the voter within one day of finding an alleged mismatch and allowing the voter to challenge the rejection.
Under that plan, voters must be mailed notices of rejection within one day of a mismatch determination by the local review board. Those who provided phone numbers on their applications must be called at least once within one day of the decision.
The timing of the judge’s ruling is suspect. Ballots are almost ready to be mailed out for the November election. Local officials are expecting a marked increase in voting by mail this election. Why wait until just before the election to rule on a lawsuit that was filed over a year ago? It looks as though the judge is part of those looking to create havoc just before an election. Are the numbers high for those rejections? Not really. The number is relatively small, which would indicate the system really doesn’t have problems.
In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs claimed that at least 1,873 mail-in ballots were rejected on the basis of mismatched signatures during the state’s 2018 general election; at least 1,567 were rejected in 2016.
In the State of Texas, those numbers aren’t big. Every vote should count, of course, but that applies to legal votes. Signature verification is a step to prevent voter fraud. The fact that this hasn’t been an issue in past elections indicates it really isn’t an issue now, either.