March 3-5, 2020
Mar 03 00:56 Blatant CNN bias vs. reality Mar 03 03:16 The story of Heather Kass Mar 03 11:38 Biden's Super Tuesday surprises? Mar 04 03:24 Joe Biden's Super Tuesday wins? Mar 04 09:56 The Bloomberg experiment ends Mar 05 00:49 Josh Hawley's censure motion Mar 05 02:49 The ABA's criticism of Sen. Schumer Mar 05 08:38 Schumer's intimidation tactics aren't a first for Senate Democrats Mar 05 11:09 Did Democrats save Pelosi's majority?
Prior Years:
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
Blatant CNN bias vs. reality
It's stunning when you come face-to-face with CNN's blatant bias. The sloppy reporting and the assumptions are offensive. If you think that I'm talking about Jim Acosta, that's understandable. That isn't who I'm talking about, though. I'm referring to Peter Bergen, CNN's National Security Analyst. I'm talking about today's article from Monday.
First, let's hear what Mr. Bergen thinks of President Trump. We needn't be Sherlock Holmes to find that out. Bergen supplies the words when he said "First, Trump doesn't do any homework. As reported in my book, 'Trump and his Generals,' in early 2017 Trump's former chief strategist, Steve Bannon, told Trump's former national security adviser, H.R. McMaster, that Trump never studied an issue: 'Trump is a guy who never went to class. Never got the syllabus. Never bought a book. Never took a note. He basically comes in the night before the final exams after partying all night, puts on a pot of coffee, takes your notes, memorizes what he's got to memorize. Walks in at eight o'clock in the morning and gets whatever grade he needs. That's the reason he doesn't like professors. He doesn't like being lectured to.'"
Clearly, Bergen isn't an analyst like Brit Hume is a political analyst at Fox News. Hume is a professional; Bergen isn't. Bergen's implication is that President Trump is either stupid or lazy in addition to being egotistical. That doesn't match with the results. While he was investigated and impeached in the House and being tried in the Senate, President Trump put together a task force to prevent the spread of COVID-19. Going against the advice of his advisors, President Trump put in place a two-way travel ban with China. At the time, VP Biden wrote this:
Trump's demonstrated failures of judgment and his repeated rejection of science make him the worst possible person to lead our country through a global health challenge. So far, Trump has blithely tweeted that 'it will all work out well.' Yet the steps he has taken as president have only weakened our capacity to respond.
Sean Hannity put together a timeline that included this statement from Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security:
The US scored 83.5 and ranked first in 5 of 6 categories: prevention, early detection and reporting, rapid response and mitigation, sufficient and robust health system, and compliance with international norms.
On Jan. 7, 2020, "a new coronavirus (SARS CoV-02) was identified from these patients." On "January 31, 2020, the Trump administration declared a 'public health emergency.'" That meant that people returning from "areas most impacted were subjected to mandatory quarantine" on military bases.
By comparison, the Obama/Biden administration waited 6 months before declaring the H1N1 virus a public health emergency. In that 6 months, 1,000 people died of H1N1. Let's compare: 6 months, 1,000 deaths with H1N1, 3 weeks, 6 deaths with COVID-19. Media judgment: Trump is incompetent, Obama walks on water. Next, let's examine the medical personnel that's on Team Trump:
[Video no longer available]
Here's the timeline video:
[Video no longer available]
Trump should spend less time campaigning in places where he isn't even on the ballot (South Carolina) and bone up on some briefing books, start listening to some experts, including those who challenge his preconceptions, and start acting like the president of all Americans.
Does Bergen sound like a national security analyst? Or does he sound like another third-rate political hack hired by CNN? I'm voting for the latter.
Posted Tuesday, March 3, 2020 12:56 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 03-Mar-20 10:31 AM
CNN bad. Breitbart good. Life can be so simple. So easy.
Comment 2 by Chad Q at 03-Mar-20 05:22 PM
Again, you missed Gary's point completely.
The story of Heather Kass
This article highlights the dissent within the Democratic Party. This isn't a riff between 2 competing but similar wings of the party. It's the type of article that rips the mask off the Democrats.
The setting of the first story is Allegheny County. The article talks about "committeewoman Heather Kass, who is running for the state House. Several years ago, Kass posted on social media criticism of Obamacare and the distribution of free Narcan for addicts - and insinuated support for President Donald Trump."
The article then talks about the criticism Kass received:
Fortunately for Kass, she received 49 votes from the committee to secure its endorsement. Her opponent, liberal activist Jess Benham, received just 19. That's when things got interesting. Darrin Kelly, an influential local labor leader, issued a statement blasting Kass's previous statements. The party hierarchy followed that up by saying her social media history was disqualifying.
The fight soon unraveled in many different directions and tested a party that has comfortably come together and built a force that helped keep a Democrat as the chief executive officer for five consecutive terms and keep a majority of the county council seats. Now accusations of disloyalty and closet Trumpism are being tossed around by the liberal wing of the party. The factions that once worked together well enough to enjoy a healthy coalition are splintering.
Party Chairwoman Eileen Kelly held a press conference defending the endorsement process and encouraging forgiveness of Kass's past social media posts. But in response, locally elected Democrats including two of the county's congressmen, Representatives Mike Doyle and Conor Lamb, demanded her resignation.
What's with that? I thought that Lamb was a centrist. Now he's demanding the resignation of a party chairwoman who's defended the endorsed candidate. That's the opposite of being a centrist. This helps explain why the Democrats are falling apart:
Places such as Allegheny and Lancaster counties have made strides in elections with Democratic candidates who ran and won as centrists. Once they are elected, however, local party apparatuses start to demand more fidelity to liberalism, and the national party stresses it in messaging. But these are the kinds of places where any gains that were made since Trump was elected may start to fall apart.
This fits with my theory that moderate Democrats are Democrats while they're running for office the first time. After they've served one term, they accumulate the worst thing a centrist can acquire -- a voting record. That's what I call Tarryl Clark Disease, named after the woman Michele Bachmann gave the nickname Taxin' Tarryl Clark . Here's how she became famous:
[Video no longer available]
Conor Lamb isn't a moderate. He's just moderate compared with crazies like Maxine Waters, Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler. That trio are looney toons. Despite the Democrats' foolishness, Republicans must work hard. Republicans need to run like they're 1 point behind with 3 weeks left in the race. If they maintain that attitude, they'll win. If Republicans get complacent, they'll lose. It's that simple.
Posted Tuesday, March 3, 2020 3:16 AM
No comments.
Biden's Super Tuesday surprises?
Is Joe Biden poised to surprise Bernie Sanders in a couple of big Super Tuesday states? Based on RealClearPolitics aggregation of polling in Texas and North Carolina, the answer is yes. I'm not predicting the outcome of those states' primaries but I'm seeing some late changes in the polling. Let's start with the Texas polling:
If Biden can pull off the upset in Texas, something that's still very much in doubt, that changes everything delegate-wise. Even if Biden and Bloomberg don't win but have strong showings, those are delegates that Bernie very much wants and needs. Then there's North Carolina:
Notice the margin in the final polling. It looks like an outlier but I'm not certain of that. Remember Biden's wide margin of victory in South Carolina. Biden doubled up Bernie's support so I'm totally willing to accept this as legitimate. If it's a wipeout in North Carolina and if Biden and Bloomberg grab a bunch of delegates in Texas, that mitigates a large portion of the California damage from Bernie.
Posted Tuesday, March 3, 2020 11:38 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 03-Mar-20 02:18 PM
Below the Mason-Dixon line is where Biden gets primary strength. Solid red states; meaning a thumb on the primary scale translates to zippo in the general. Strange politics about four more and stopping Bernie. They want to do it without having to go nuclear via superdelegates. They do not care if progressives stay home in November. They care more of derailing Bernie than derailing Trump. Proprietary in attitude, the young can wait and be winnowed.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 04-Mar-20 03:32 AM
Biden didn't campaign in MN & only spent $11,000 in Massachusetts & won both states. Credit the establishment for that. Biden didn't win those states.
Comment 2 by Chad Q at 03-Mar-20 05:18 PM
The smart democrats (oxymoron I know) know what a disaster a Sanders nomination would be not only for them but for the US. I'm not sure why anyone is for a guy who has literally done nothing his entire life except bitch about the US and praise communists.
Joe Biden's Super Tuesday wins?
Saying that Joe Biden's Super Tuesday exceeded expectations is understatement. As I write this, Biden has won Alabama, Arkansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia. Bernie has won California, Colorado, Utah and Vermont. At this point, Maine remains too close to call.
At this point, Biden leads Bernie in delegates by 88 delegates. To be precise, Biden leads Bernie in delegates by a 390-312 margin. Thus far tonight, Biden had won 341 delegates to Bernie's 257.
In other Super Tuesday news, the AP is reporting that "Democratic presidential candidate Mike Bloomberg will reassess on Wednesday whether he should stay in the race after getting disappointing results in Super Tuesday primaries despite spending more than a half billion dollars on his campaign. A person close to the Bloomberg campaign confirmed the deliberations. The person wasn't authorized to discuss the matter by name and requested anonymity."
Elizabeth Warren had a disappointing night , too:
Sen. Elizabeth Warren was poised to place third in Massachusetts' Democratic primary, a blow to the liberal lawmaker's presidential candidacy in a state that sent her to the U.S. Senate twice. The Associated Press declared Joe Biden the winner Tuesday evening, with Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont trailing in second place with about 62% of the vote reported.
She's essentially crippled. Finishing second in your home state is bad enough. Finishing third is terrible. This race isn't over yet, though. Joe Biden still has some glaring weaknesses, which this video does a nice job of highlighting:
[Video no longer available]
The expectation is that Bloomberg and Warren will drop out before the next set of primaries. Also worth noting: Biden supposedly only spent $11,000 in winning Massachusetts. He pulled a Hillary in Minnesota (0 visits) and still won. Apparently, the Democrat Establishment had more to do with Biden winning than Biden had to do with his winning. MSNBC reported on-air that Obama got the word out that Joe was the Establishment's candidate. Since he allegedly put the word out, Klobuchar and Buttigieg dropped out and the Establishment fell into line. This wasn't just a win for the Establishment. This represents the best shot at saving Pelosi's gavel. Jonathan Karl kinda lets the secret out with this tweet:
. @jonkarl on Biden: "[He] has basically spent nothing...we are seeing him winning and doing very well in states that he did not spend a dime in...that is a new phenomenon." https://t.co/BxTduNCjxv #SuperTuesday pic.twitter.com/MBdKh0qtzg
- ABC News (@ABC) March 4, 2020
Joe Biden is still a deeply flawed candidate. No amount of endorsements will hide his flaws. Does anyone seriously think that a guy who hasn't won a single primary in 3 presidential campaigns finally wins a primary, then wins 9 primaries a week later without visiting some of the states and while spending $11,000 in another state? Anyone that thinks that isn't mentally fit for office.
Posted Wednesday, March 4, 2020 3:24 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 04-Mar-20 09:09 AM
Joe Biden? JOE BIDEN! Joe f#&*ing Biden. Why??????
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 04-Mar-20 02:25 PM
Because the Establishment sent the word out that they didn't want Bernie.
Comment 2 by eric z at 04-Mar-20 05:15 PM
That was clear back when Perez aced out Ellison at DNC. Why any person outside of the Dem inner party operatives voted Biden is what mystifies me. There are better people. Klobuchar was talked aside, for Biden, Hunter and all. It is crazy.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 05-Mar-20 07:08 AM
Eric, I agree with you. This doesn't make any sense. At this point, & I mean this sincerely, I'm not certain that Biden is still all there. It's one thing to say things that you disagree with or whatever. There are times when I question whether Biden's got dementia.
Comment 3 by Chad Q at 04-Mar-20 05:29 PM
Well what were they going to do, vote Bloomberg or Warren? The establishment doesn't want crazy Bernie so why would they want the same in a rich guy or a fake Indian?
Looks like the young crowd hoping to get a bunch of free stuff from Bernie are going to sit out another election unless Uncle Joe dies before Nov. 4 which could happen as he stokes out every time he speaks.
The Bloomberg experiment ends
Just moments ago, Mini Mike Bloomberg suspended his campaign . After spending well over $750,000,000 of his own money, Bloomberg had little to show for it. As a result, the 'moderate lane' is a little less congested.
Former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg suspended his presidential campaign Wednesday after a disappointing Super Tuesday performance. The decision comes after the Democratic candidate won only the American Samoa caucuses. This, after spending hundreds of millions of dollars from his own fortune on his 2020 bid -- centered on a strategy of skipping the early-primary stories in favor of Super Tuesday.
He immediately announced he would be endorsing Joe Biden.
This is shaping up to be a Bernie vs. Biden race, though Elizabeth Warren still remains in the race. The odds of a contested convention just dropped as a result of this. It's difficult to picture any of Bloomberg's supporters voting for Bernie. They're polar opposites.
"I'm a believer in using data to inform decisions. After yesterday's results, the delegate math has become virtually impossible - and a viable path to the nomination no longer exists. But I remain clear-eyed about my overriding objective: victory in November," Bloomberg said in his statement.
With that statement, a bunch of campaign employees are unemployed, though they are paid through Election Day. This day was predictable after Elizabeth Warren took him apart in the debate:
[Video no longer available]
Here's Bloomberg's announcement:
[Video no longer available]
Posted Wednesday, March 4, 2020 9:56 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 04-Mar-20 04:58 PM
Tulsi is still in.
Josh Hawley's censure motion
The day after the Democrats' establishment ended Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign, Chuck Schumer threatened a pair of Supreme Court justices . Standing in front of the Supreme Court while the justices heard oral arguments, Sen. Schumer threatened Associate Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. It didn't take long for Josh Hawley to jump into action. Hawley announced that he'll introduce a censure resolution that criticizes Sen. Schumer .
First, Sen. Schumer criticized the Justices, saying "I want to tell you, Gorsuch. I want to tell you, Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won't know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions." After a predictable backlash forming, Schumer spokesman Justin Goodman tried spinning Sen. Schumer's statement :
Sen. Schumer's comments were a reference to the political price Senate Republicans will pay for putting these justices on the court, and a warning that the justices will unleash a major grassroots movement on the issue of reproductive rights against the decision. For Justice Roberts to follow the right wing's deliberate misinterpretation of what Sen. Schumer said, while remaining silent when President Trump attacked Justices [Sonia] Sotomayor and [Ruth Bader] Ginsburg last week, shows Justice Roberts does not just call balls and strikes.
This wasn't a "misinterpretation." Here's what Sen. Schumer said:
[Video no longer available]
Goodman is lying. There's no question that Sen. Schumer made comments that went after GOP senators. The important point, though, is noticing that Sen. Schumer didn't' make that statement until after Sen. Schumer threatened Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. Any person with a sixth grade comprehension level understands that.
Sen. Josh Hawley is introducing legislation to censure Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer for saying that two Supreme Court justices 'will pay the price' for voting against the wishes of abortion advocates.
Hawley, a Republican from Missouri, announced on Twitter Wednesday that he plans to introduce a motion to censure the New York Democrat for threatening Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. Hawley's announcement follows a torrent of criticism toward Schumer for his comments, including from Chief Justice John Roberts.
"I would call on Schumer to apologize, but we all know he has no shame. So tomorrow I will introduce a motion to censure Schumer for his pathetic attempt at intimidation of #SupremeCourt," Hawley wrote.
This is the appropriate action to take. Removal from the Senate requires a two-thirds majority vote of all the senators. That means 67 or more votes. Censure requires a simple majority.
It's important to understand that Sen. Schumer would run the Senate if Republicans lost their majority this November. Further, it's important to note that Sen. Schumer is a nastier partisan than Harry Reid. In terms of honesty, in a two-man contest on honesty, they'd both finish 4th.
It's time to help Republicans gain seats in the Senate this November. That means contributing to GOP candidates and GOP incumbents. In the interest of full disclosure, I just contributed to Jason Lewis' campaign. Follow this link to contribute to Jason's campaign to unseat Tina Smith.
Posted Thursday, March 5, 2020 12:49 AM
No comments.
The ABA's criticism of Sen. Schumer
When I read the title of this article , I was a little surprised. Frankly, I was a little suspicious that the ABA would actually criticize a Democrat, much less the Senate Minority Leader. It didn't take long to figure out that my suspicions were justified.
The ABA's statement said, in part, that "Personal attacks on judges by any elected officials, including the president, are simply inappropriate. Such comments challenge the reputation of the third, co-equal branch of our government; the independence of the judiciary; and the personal safety of judicial officers. They are never acceptable."
President Trump didn't threaten any Supreme Court justices. He said that Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor should recuse themselves from specific cases, which isn't anything like a threat. Meanwhile, Sen. Schumer emphatically stated "I want to tell you, Gorsuch. I want to tell you, Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won't know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions."
Then Sen. Schumer added "The bottom line is very simple. We will stand with the American people. We will stand with American women. We will tell President Trump and Senate Republicans who have stacked the courts with right-wing ideologues that you're going to be gone in November and you will never be able to do what you're trying to do now."
Anyone with a third-grade reading comprehension understands that Sen. Schumer threatened Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, then predicted that Republicans who voted for Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh's confirmation would be defeated this November. Justin Goodman's spin isn't convincing. He's a third-rate political hack. The ABA is in the same category.
[Video no longer available]
Posted Thursday, March 5, 2020 2:49 AM
No comments.
Schumer's intimidation tactics aren't a first for Senate Democrats
When Sen. Chuck Schumer attempted to intimidate Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, it wasn't the first time Senate Democrats criticized members of the Supreme Court. Senate Democrats attempted to intimidate the Supreme Court when they submitted this brief , which closed by saying "The Supreme Court is not well. And the people know it. Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be 'restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.' Particularly on the urgent issue of gun control, a nation desperately needs it to heal."
That's a thinly veiled threat by Senate Democrats to pack the courts because they don't like the Supreme Court's rulings. What's clearly meant here is that the Supreme Court could avoid the Democrats' court-packing if the justices delivered the right ruling in that lawsuit. This highlights the fact that Democrats view the Supreme Court as a legislature.
The Supreme Court is supposed to rule on cases by determining whether a statute lives within the Constitution's limitations on government. The Constitution was designed to limit the reach of the federal government. The federal government was built by the states to take care of a limited, enumerated, list of things.
The Constitution's Bill of Rights sought to expand individuals' rights by codifying the right to seek redress of grievances before one's government, the right to defend one's family. It also guaranteed the right to a speedy trial and the right to confront one's accusers. Article III wasn't written to give Democrats political victories it couldn't earn through the legislative process.
Democrats should stop using the courts in this fashion. That isn't what they were designed to do. The reason why there are protests in front of the Supreme Court is because Democrats politicized it 50-75 years ago. President Trump is depoliticizing the Supreme Court by picking judges that apply the Constitution to the lawsuits they hear. Democrat justices rule in favor of the outcome they prefer, regardless of whether it fits the Constitution's mandates.
Expect Democrats to continue their intimidation tactics as President Trump straightens out the judiciary.
Posted Thursday, March 5, 2020 8:38 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 05-Mar-20 11:27 AM
Each of those two Trump appointees is garbage. It will come home to roost. Hopefully in my remaining lifetime, but eventually, it will. The appointment of the two however was not a deathknell for the credibility of the Court. Citizens United already did that. Biden's dump on Anita Hill was a big part of killing off the credibility the Court had held back in time to when Thurgood Marshall was a Justice. William Douglas. Earl Warren. Hugo Black. Tall figures, with shadows obscuring the Bush/Trump disasters; Roberts being the most dangerous politician in DC. Not that you'd agree Gary, but it is how I feel.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 05-Mar-20 10:38 PM
Eric, I guess you think that people with money don't have the right to say what's on their minds or to complain to the government for injustices imposed by the government on people. During impeachment, Democrats of all stripes said that "Nobody is above the law." I agreed with that statement. The thing is that the Constitution demands equal application of the laws. That means billionaires are protected by the Constitution just as much as poor people in terms of political speech.
Comment 2 by Chad Q at 05-Mar-20 05:36 PM
The same can be said of Obama's appointees as they were far less qualified to hold their seats.
Roberts is the most dangerous politician in DC? I'm sure you were jumping for joy when he upheld Obamacare though so he can't be that dangerous.
You and every other progressive liberal keeps harping on the citizens united case but are happy to allow unions to spend their members money on causes they don't support. Until progressives stand up and say they want unions to stop spending, your cries will fall on deaf ears.
Did Democrats save Pelosi's majority?
In the aftermath of Sleepy Joe's stunning set of victories, did Democrats save Pelosi's majority? Conventional wisdom, already being recited by the MSM and other Democrats, says that it did. Considering the fact that conventional wisdom is rarely right, it's time to examine what's likely to happen.
First, the fact that Democrats are breathing a sigh of relief isn't proof that Democrats can coast. As it stands now, the Democrats' frontrunner is a mentally unstable, gaffe-prone former vice president. The good news for Democrats is that he isn't the grumpy curmudgeon that the previous frontrunner is. The bad news is that the new frontrunner is corrupt, totally lacking in charisma and perhaps mentally unfit to serve.
Had Bernie won the Democrats' presidential nomination, which is still an outside possibility, Pelosi's gavel would've been gone. With Biden, the Establishment Democrats think that there's still a chance of holding the majority in the House. That's perhaps wishful thinking, though. Democrats are still just as nutty as ever. Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler are still the leaders of the nutty wing of the House Democrats. Another question to play up is whether voters want a majority led by AOC + 3.
Far from certain is whether VP Biden can keep it together 2 sentences in a row. I'm betting against that.
"It was amazing. I never would have predicted such a victorious evening. I've seen many elections over decades, but I have never witnessed anything so phenomenal. It's almost like all the stars aligned with the moon and the sun to cause this domino effect to take place on behalf of this good man who should be president," said Rep. Frederica Wilson (D-Fla.), a supporter of Biden. "That was in no master plan, in no one's vision, in no one's blueprint as to what was going to happen on Super Tuesday."
That isn't what happened. The Establishment laid down the law and everyone complied. This was the Democrats' admission that they'd likely not defeat President Trump so they had to hold onto Pelosi's House majority.
Posted Thursday, March 5, 2020 11:09 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 05-Mar-20 11:15 AM
Bernie can defeat Trump. Biden cannot. Therefore the brain trust at DNC wants Biden. Why? Because he is pliant. He can be bought. E.g., Burisma. If it ends up Biden, I am staying home in November. I have no love for Republican-lite, and a disaster down ticket is what the brain trust deserves and may get. And could learn from, but that's a tall order.
Comment 2 by Chad Q at 05-Mar-20 05:28 PM
Bernie would get smoked in an election by Trump, plain and simple. There aren't enough dim blubs out there believing that Bernie would actually come through on his free for all promises for him to win. BTW, Biden will get smoked too, he just won't know it.
