#i may be opposed to the House on the grounds of my politics... but Mike's a good egg. he can stay.

[waitmyturtles]

From The New York Times: [Thai] Lawmakers Block Prime Minister Candidate From New Vote, Drawing Protests

[July 19, 2023: Pasting here to bypass the NYT paywall. I thought this was an excellent overview of the recent history of Thai elections, and how the Senate confirmation process works. Again, remember: references to what’s happening politically will likely make it into the dramas we watch later this year and next. By Mike Ives and Muktita Suhartoto.] 

Protests erupted in Bangkok on Wednesday, hours after Thailand’s conservative establishment suspended a progressive leader and lawmakers denied him the chance to stand for a second parliamentary vote for prime minister.

The candidate, Pita Limjaroenrat, leads a party that won the most votes in a May election after campaigning on an ambitious reform platform that challenged the country’s powerful conservative establishment. He lost an initial parliamentary vote for prime minister last week.

Late Wednesday, lawmakers voted to deny Mr. Pita, 42, the chance to stand for a second vote on the grounds that Parliament’s rules do not permit a “repeat motion.” Mr. Pita’s supporters see that as a not-so-subtle move to keep him out of power.

The mood in Bangkok, Thailand’s muggy capital, was anxious as protesters hit the streets on Wednesday afternoon. Mr. Pita’s supporters have been expressing outrage online toward an establishment that often pushes back against Thailand’s democratic process.

“In my heart, I knew this would happen, so it didn’t come as a shock,” said Wichuda Rotphai, 41, one of hundreds of people who gathered outside Parliament on Wednesday to support Mr. Pita’s doomed bid for premier. “But I’m still disappointed, and I can’t accept it.”

Here’s what to know.

What does Pita Limjaroenrat stand for?

Mr. Pita’s party, Move Forward, has proposed ambitious policies for challenging Thailand’s powerful institutions like the military and the monarchy. The party won 151 seats in Parliament, the most of any party, and 10 more than Pheu Thai, the party founded by the exiled populist Thaksin Shinawatra, whose influence still towers over Thai politics.

Mr. Pita’s party has formed an eight-party coalition, which nominated him for prime minister last week. He came up short in the first vote because the Senate is controlled by military-appointed lawmakers who oppose his candidacy and the Move Forward platform.

I’m confused. Why are senators so tied to the military?

Becoming prime minister requires a simple majority of the 500-seat House of Representatives and the 250-seat Senate.

But the rules governing Senate appointments were drafted by the military junta that seized power from a democratically elected government in a 2014 coup. They effectively give senators veto power over prime ministerial candidates.

Last week, Mr. Pita won only 13 votes from the 249 senators who voted for prime minister. Mr. Pita acknowledged in an Instagram post on Wednesday afternoon that he was unlikely to become prime minister.

“It’s clear now that in the current system, winning the people’s trust isn’t enough to run the country,” he wrote.

Why was it such an uphill battle?

Mr. Pita had faced a slew of challenges even before Parliament denied him a chance to stand for a second vote.

The Constitutional Court said on Wednesday morning, for example, that it was suspending Mr. Pita from Parliament until a ruling is made in a case involving his shares of a media company. Investigators are trying to determine whether Mr. Pita properly disclosed owning the shares before running for office, as required by Thai law.

The court’s ruling forced Mr. Pita to leave the chamber. It would not necessarily have prevented his coalition from nominating for a second time. But Parliament saw to that on its own.

Mr. Pita’s supporters have said the investigation is one of many ways that the establishment has been trying to unfairly derail his candidacy.

So who will be prime minister?

Before the drama on Wednesday, Mr. Pita had said if it became clear that he could not win, his party would allow its coalition partner, Pheu Thai, to nominate its own candidate.

Pheu Thai probably will do just that, but is also likely to form a brand-new coalition, one that is more palatable to conservative lawmakers who cannot stomach Mr. Pita and Move Forward.

Pheu Thai’s candidate would likely be Srettha Thavisin, 60, a property mogul with little political experience. If a new coalition materializes, he could be voted in as prime minister as early as this week.

Mr. Srettha would immediately present a sharp contrast to the current prime minister, former Gen. Prayuth Chan-ocha, who led the 2014 military coup.

A more remote, but not impossible, scenario is that Pheu Thai allows a party from the conservative establishment to nominate a candidate as a condition for joining a new coalition. That candidate could be Gen. Prawit Wongsuwan, 77, the deputy prime minister in the current government.

What would a Srettha victory represent?

Many would see it as a triumph for the democratic process in Thailand, a country with a long history of mass protests and military coups. Some foreign investors would also see a potential boost for a sluggish, coronavirus-battered economy.

But many of Move Forward’s progressive supporters would be angry about the establishment blocking their party from forming a government. On Wednesday evening, a demonstration reflecting that anger was taking shape at the city’s Democracy Monument.

The size of the protests over the next days or weeks will likely depend on who becomes prime minister. If it’s Mr. Srettha, demonstrations could be sporadic and modest. If it’s General Prawit or another military figure, they could be sustained and intense.

Ms. Wichuda, the protester, was one of hundreds who gathered outside Parliament on Wednesday afternoon, peering through its gates at police officers in riot gear. She said that while she did not agree with Mr. Pita’s contentious pledge to revise a law that criminalizes criticism of the monarchy, she still felt he had been “robbed” by politicians who were afraid to give a younger generation the chance to improve the country.

“If they can do such things to people with money and power,” she said, “what will be left for us, the common people, who have no position and no title?”

[johnrossbowie]

LEAVING TWITTER

I wrote this earlier in the fall, before the election, after dissolving my Twitter account. I wasn’t sure where to put it (“try up your ass!” – someone, I’m sure) and then I remembered I have a tumblr I never use. Anyway, here tis.

How do you shame someone who thinks Trumps’ half-baked policies and quarter-baked messaging put him in the pantheon of great Presidents? How do you shame someone so lacking in introspection that they will call Obama arrogant while praising Trump’s decisiveness and yet at the same time vehemently deny that they’re racist? How do you shame someone for whom that racism is endearing and maybe long overdue?

You don’t. It’s silly to think otherwise.

Twitter is an addiction of mine, and true to form, my dependence on it grew more serious after I quit drinking in 2010. At first it was a chance to mouth off, make jokes both stupid and erudite and occasionally stick my foot in my mouth (I owe New Yorker writer Tad Friend an apology. He knows why, or (God willing) he’s forgotten. Either way. Sorry.) I blew off steam, steam that was accumulating without booze to dampen the flames. Not always constructive venting, but I also met new friends, and connected with people whose work I’ve admired for literal decades and ended up seeing plays with Lin-Manuel Miranda and hanging backstage with Jane Wiedlin after a Go-Go’s show and exchanging sober thoughts with Mike Doughty. When my mom passed in 2018, a lot of people reached out to tell me they were thinking of me. This was nice. For a while, Twitter was a huge help when I needed it.

I used to hate going to parties and really hated dancing and mingling, but a couple of drinks would fix that. Point is, for a while, booze was a huge help, too.

But my engagement with Twitter changed, and I started calling people my ‘friends’ even though I’d never once met them or even heard their voices. These weren’t even penpals, these were people whose jokes or stances I enjoyed, so with Arthurian benevolence I clicked on a little heart icon, liked their tweet, and assumed therefore that we had signed some sort of blood oath.

We had not. I got glib, and cheap, and a little lazy. And then to make matters much worse, Trump came along and extended his reach with the medium.

There was a while there where I thought I could be a sort of voice for the voiceless, and I thought I was doing that. I tried very hard to only contribute things that I felt were not being said – It wasn’t accomplishing anything to notice “Haha Trump looks like he’s bullshitting his way through an oral report” – such things were self-evident. I tried to point out very specific inconsistencies in his policies, like the Muslim ban meant to curb terrorism that still favored the country that brought forth 13 of the 9/11 hijackers. Like his full-throated cries against media bias performed while he suckled at Roger Ailes’ wrinkly teat.  Like his fondness for evangelical votes that coincided with a scriptural knowledge that lagged far behind mine, even though I’m a lapsed Episcopalian, and there is no one less religiously observant than a lapsed Episcopalian. But that eventually gave way to unleashing ad hominem attacks against his higher profile supporters, who I felt weren’t being questioned enough, who I felt were in turn being fawned over by theirdim supporters. If you’re one of these guys, and you think I’m talking about you, you’re probably right, but don’t mistake this for an apology. You suck, and you support someone who sucks, and your idolatry is hurting our country and its standing in the world. Fuck you entirely, but that’s not the point. The point is that me screaming into the toilet of Twitter helps no one – it doesn’t help a family stuck at the border because they’re trying to secure a better life for their kids. It doesn’t help a poor teenager who can’t get an abortion because the party of ���small government’ has squeezed their tiny jurisdiction into her uterus. It doesn’t help the coal miner who’s staking all his hopes on a dying industry and a President’s empty promises to resurrect it. I was born in New York City, and I currently live in Los Angeles. Those are the only two places I’ve ever lived, if you don’t count the 4 years I spent in Ithaca[1]. So, yes, I live in a liberal bubble, and while I’ve driven across the country a couple of times and did a few weeks in a touring band and am as crushed as any heartlander about the demise of Waffle House, you have me dead to rights if you call me a coastal elitist. And with that in mind, I offer few surprises. A guy who grew up in the theater district and was vehemently opposed to same-sex marriage or felt you should own an AR-15? THAT would be newsworthy. I am not newsworthy. I can preach to the choir, I can confirm people’s biases, but I will likely not sway anyone who is eager to dismiss a Native New Yorker who lives in Hollywood. I grew up in the New York of the 1970s, and that part of my identity did shape my politics. My mom’s boss was gay and the Son of Sam posed a realistic threat. As such, gays are job creators[2] and guns are used for homicide much more often than they are used for self-defense[3]. I have found this to be generally true over the years, and there’s even data to back it up.

“But Mr. Bowie,” you might say, though I insist you call me John - “those studies are conducted by elitist institutions and those institutions suck!” And again, I am not going to reason with people who will dismiss anything that doesn’t fit their limited world view as elitist or, God Help Us, fake news. But the studies above are peer-reviewed, convincing, and there are more where those came from.

“But John,” you might say, and I am soothed that we’re one a first name basis - “Can’t you just stay on Twitter for the jokes?” Ugh. A) apparently not and B) the jokes are few and far between, and I am 100% part of that problem.

I have stuff to offer, but Twitter is not the place from which to offer it.

After years of academically understanding that Twitter is not the real world, Super Tuesday 2020 made the abstract pretty fucking concrete. If you had looked at my feed on the Monday beforehand – my feed which is admittedly curated towards the left, but not monolithic (Hi, Rich Lowry!) – you’d have felt that a solid Bernie surge was imminent, but also that your candidate was going surprise her more vocal critics. When the Biden sweep swept, when Bernie was diminished and when Warren was defeated, I realized that Twitter is not only not the real world, it’s almost some sort of Phillip K. Dickian alternate timeline, untethered to anything we’re actually experiencing in our day to day life. This is both good news and bad news – one, we’re not heading towards a utopia of single payer health care and the eradication of American medical debt any time soon, but two, we’re also not being increasingly governed by diaper-clad jungen like Charlie Kirk. Clouds and their linings. Leaving Twitter may look like ceding ground to the assclowns but get this – the ground. Is not. There.

It’s just air.

There are tangible things I can do with my time - volunteer with a local organization called Food On Foot, who provide food and job training for people experiencing homelessness here in my adopted Los Angeles. I can give money to candidates and causes I support, and I can occasionally even drop by social media to boost a project or an issue and then vanish, like a sort of Caucasian Zorro who doesn’t read his mentions. I can also model good behavior for my kids (ages 10 and 13) who don’t need to see their father glued to his phone, arguing about Trumps incompetence with Constitutional scholars who have a misspelled Bible verse in their bio (three s’ in Ecclesiastes, folks).

So farewell Twitter. I’ll miss a lot of you. Perhaps not as badly as I miss Simon Maloy and Roger Ebert and Harris Wittels and others whose deaths created an unfillable void on the platform. But I won’t miss the yelling, and the lionization of poor grammar, and anonymous trolls telling my Jewish friends that they were gonna leave the country “via chimney.” I will not miss people who think Trump is a stable genius calling me a “fucktard.” I will not miss transphobia or cancelling but I will miss hashtag games, particularly my stellar work during #mypunkmusical (Probably should have quit after that surge, I was on fire that night, real blaze of glory stuff I mean, Christ, Sunday in the Park with the Germs? Husker Du I Hear A Waltz? Fiddler on the Roof (keeping an eye out for the cops)? These are Pulitzer contenders.). Twitter makes me feel lousy, even when I’m right, and I’m often right. There’s just no point in barking bumperstickers at each other, and there are people who are speaking truth to power and doing a cleaner job of it – Aaron Rupar, Steven Pasquale, Louise Mensch, Imani Gandy and Ijeoma Oluo to name five solid mostly politically based accounts (Yes, Pasquale is a Broadway tenor. He’s also a tenacious lefty with good points and research and a dreamy voice. You think you’re straight and then you hear him sing anything from Bridges of Madison County and you want him to spoon you.). You’re probably already following those mentioned, but on the off chance you’re not, get to it. You’ll thank me, but you won’t be able to unless you actually have my email.

_______

[1] And Jesus, that’s worse – Ithaca is such a lefty enclave that they had an actual socialist mayor FOR WHOM I VOTED while I was there. And not socialist the way some people think all Democrats are socialist – I mean Ben Nichols actually ran on the socialist ticket and was re-elected twice for a total of six years.

[2] The National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce, “America’s LGBT Economy” Jan 20th, 2017

[3] The Violence Policy Institute, Firearm Justifiable Homicides and Non-Fatal Self Defense Gun Use, July 2019.

[good-doctor-imagine]

Scar » three

two // four

Pairing: Richie Tozier x Fem!Reader

Summary: You decide to go to the Quarry with Richie despite being worried about what his friends might think.

Word Count: 2574

You made sure to leave your house early, not risking being late because of your mom’s lecturing. Luckily, she wasn’t as ticked off today. When you came home the day before, telling her about the kids you met and actually knowing their names, she was elated that you were making friends. When you asked her if you could go out tomorrow as well, she said yes without a second thought.

After you finished your chores, you exchanged a short goodbye with your mom before leaving out of the house in a rush. Even though you were early, having thirty minutes to get to the arcade, you were worried that you would somehow get lost on the way there. Your nerves consumed you as you biked down the empty road, your breath caught in your chest.

You had no clue what to expect except for Richie and Eddie to be there. How many friends did he have? Was it just him and Eddie? What do they even do at the quarry? Are they doing some kind of satanic ritual and they need another person?

You shook your head at your last thought. From the amount of time you’ve spent with Richie, you would never believe that he would be involved in satanic acts. Although he swore quite a lot, he didn’t peg you as the ‘bad boy’ type. Maybe it was because you both invested yourselves in the arcade game and you hadn’t seen him outside of that environment. No, it was probably just because of his appearance. His thick-rimmed glasses and hawaiian button-ups didn’t scream ‘bad boy’ to you. Now that you think of it, Eddie also labeled themselves as losers and admitted to being bullied by a guy named Henry so there was no way that Richie could be a renowned bad boy.

Soon enough, you pulled into the front of the arcade, where Richie was already standing, his familiar Hawaiian shirt from yesterday resting on his shoulders.

“Ready to go, sugar?”

“Sure am, trashmouth,” You chuckled, watching as he climbed onto his own bike.

There wasn’t much conversation as you both traveled to the quarry. Your heart was beating out of your chest, not from physical exhaustion but from not knowing what was coming next. However, you did your best to not show the nervousness on your face. The last thing you wanted was his friends to think you were scared of them.

Richie skidded to a stop when you two came up to a small dirt clearing where a few other bikes were parked, clothes scattered on the ground next to them. Instantly, your mind began to spin. We’re they stripping? You definitely weren’t prepared for that.

“It looks like your eyes are going to pop out of your head,” The boy next to you laughed, making fun of your shock as you stared at the clothes on the ground.

Your eyes shot upwards when you heard light footsteps coming around the bushes, revealing a girl that looked no older than you. Her red hair was short and curly, some of it hanging in front of her face. She wore a bra and panties, confirming your suspicion that they did undress but you were relieved that they didn’t strip down completely. You were a bit worried that you were finding out Derry was full of teenage creeps that stripped down with their friends and did god knows what.

The ginger offered you a smile as she came up to you, introducing herself. “Hey, I’m Beverly.”

“I’m (Y/n),” You smiled back at her, climbing off of your bike to stand in front of her.

“You have no clue how happy I am to see another girl-”

“(Y/n)!” Eddie hollered, walking up behind Beverly. “Is the loogie based on mass or on distance?” Your eyes blinked a couple of times as you stared at the boy standing only in his underwear.

“It’s based on distance, dumbass,” Richie responded for you, dropping his bike on the dirt before starting to shed his clothes.

“I didn’t ask you, Richie,” Eddie argued with the dark-haired brunette.

You watched as the two started bickering at each other, throwing little insults between. How are these two even friends? Beverly must have seen your confusion because she put a hand on your shoulder, shaking her head at the two best friends.

“It’s okay, they do that all the time.”

You nodded your head absentmindedly, switching your attention back to the ginger. “Do I have to undress too?”

“Yeah, unless you want to get all your clothes wet,” She responded.

You laid your bike down like everyone else and moved your hand to the button of the dress you were wearing. Hesitating, your eyes glanced over to the two boys that were still bickering.

Beverly caught onto your hesitation and leaned close to you before whispering, “Don’t worry about them, they’re all a bunch of sissies.”

Richie must have caught onto her words because his head immediately shot up. “What did you say?”

Beverly let out a chuckle, rolling her eyes at the trashmouth. “Nothing, Tozier.”

You found yourself smiling at the ginger’s teasing, shoulders relaxing the more she talked. Once you took off your dress, Beverly took a hold of your hand and led you to a clearing where there were several boys standing on the edge of a cliff.

“See? A bunch of sissies,” She shook her head, the corner of her lip turning up in a smirk.

You took a step next to the boys to see how far the drop was. “Oh shit,” You mumbled, seeing the water so far down. Even though Beverly talked like the drop was nothing, the height was daunting as you looked straight down off the cliff edge.

“It’s not as bad as it looks,” Richie said, coming up behind you.

“You weren’t saying that the last time,” One of the boys grumbled. Your head tilted to the side to see a boy with light brown curly hair that reminded you of pasta noodles.

“Shut up Stanley,” Richie hissed, “It’s not like you were any better.”

As your eyes shot between the two boys, you wondered if their friend group did this all the time. Did they enjoy teasing each other? You would be lying if you said your old friend group didn’t do the same. You all had a great time poking fun at each other.

“H-H-Have you e-e-ever d-done this b-b-before?” A boy stuttered next to you, catching your attention.

“Uh,” You started, head swinging to the other side to look at the boy. His hair was auburn brown and his eyes were large. He looked almost innocent looking. “No, I’ve never done this before.”

“Oh, so we’re taking one of your firsts?” Richie spoke up, earning a slap on the arm from Eddie.

“Beep beep Richie,” Beverly warned.

“What? It wasn’t even that ba-”

“It’s okay,” Another one of the teenage boys spoke up, “It’s my first time too.”

You looked over at the dark-skinned boy. He looked more in shape than the other boys, his arms large like he was used to carrying large objects. “That’s good,” You smiled at him, “I’m glad I’m not the only one.”

Beverly stood close to you but she leaned in closer and whispered to you so the boys wouldn’t hear. “Do you want to show these sissies up?”

Your eyebrows furrowed as you faced the girl. “How?” You whispered back just as quietly.

“Follow my lead.” She gripped your hand as she took a few steps back, taking you with her. “Look out boys!” Beverly shouted, feet launching her forward. You didn’t have any time to process, her hand dragging you with her as she pushed off the cliff. Although the drop was only a few seconds, your heart dropped to the bottom of your chest, your hair violently moving because of the rush.

“Not again!”

You heard someone shout right before you hit the water, almost knocking the wind out of you. Luckily, you were able to take a gasp of breath before being submerged in the cool water.

You didn’t waste any time to resurface as soon as you were dunked in, feet pushing off of the muddy floor. When your head popped out of the water, you took a deep breath, pushing hair out of your face so you could see in front of you.

“You might want to move away a bit,” You heard Beverly say a little bit away, gesturing at the cliff you both just jumped off of.

Listening to her warning, you moved more to the side, watching as the boys started jumping off the cliff as well.

You all had been in the water for who knows how long, splashing and dunking each other until someone spit up water. Beverly, Bill, Richie, and Mike were playing chicken fight, Beverly and Richie battling it out as Bill and Mike were supporting them.

You decided to sit out for that. You may have a competitive spirit but you didn’t want a mouth full of water when someone pushed you down.

“(Y/n), right?” Someone spoke beside you, making your head swivel to the left. The boy who spoke to you had light brown hair and full cheeks that were tinted pink.

“Uh, yeah,” You responded, almost cursing to yourself when you stuttered. “I’m sorry I don’t know your name.”

“O-Oh, I’m Ben,” He introduces himself, a small smile appearing on his face.

“Nice to meet you, Ben,” You smiled back, trying your best to be polite to the boy. He was incredibly nice and the last thing you wanted to do was scare him away.

“It’s nice to meet yo-”

Suddenly, your whole body was submerged in the cool water. You barely had time to take a breath before you were dunked.

Immediately, you knew that you didn’t just trip, or a weird violent surge knocked you down. There was someone gripping onto your ankle and you heard an all too muffled familiar laugh from above the water.

When you finally surfaced, you glared at the boy, tugging at your leg in an attempt to loosen his grip.

“You asshole, give me my foot back,” You hissed, hopping on one leg to keep yourself from going back under.

Richie clicked his tongue and did his best to keep his grip on your ankle. “No can do, princess. You’re going to have to earn it.”

“Earn it?” You scoffed, your upper lip curling in disgust.

“Yes,” He chimed.

“How?”

“Well, I wouldn’t be opposed to a kiss-”

Before he could finish, you did your best to push off the foot that you had control of and launch yourself forward, knocking Richie in the shoulder.

He completely let go of your ankle as soon as he felt the impact, making the water around him splash up.

“Oh fuck!” He shouted, trying to regain his balance.

Retracting your right foot, you started to wonder if Richie caught a glance of your scar. It didn’t really matter, you were 13 and something like finding your soulmate was not one of your top priorities at the moment. However, you still found yourself thinking about who your soulmate was, what they looked like if they had an accent or not. Everything was a mystery except for the two scars on your body.

Richie thought he had seen a pale line tracing the bottom of your foot but dismissed it as you pushed him back. He accused his mind of playing games with him, making him imagine a line that really wasn’t there. There was no way he would find his soulmate at 13 anyway. Sure, some teenagers found their soulmates already but he was convinced his soulmate was somewhere else. He believed that he would find his soulmate once he finally escaped Derry. His mind playing a cruel trick on him wouldn’t suddenly change his opinion.

You laughed as Richie started to push water at you, successfully soaking your top half again. You tried to splash him back, gradually taking steps to him until you could grasp his shoulders and push him down with all of your weight. When you let go, Richie didn’t make a move to surface, letting his back float instead.

“Richie,” You rolled your eyes, “You’re not going to fool me.” Richie didn’t respond, he didn’t even twitch when you poked his back. Your heart started to gain speed as you tried to tilt him up to get his head out of the water. “Hey, Richie?”

Once his head was pulled out of the water, Richie popped up and shoved you down, just like you did to him. “That’s what you get! Don’t try to mess with me, sugar!”

You took a sharp breath when you resurfaced, not wasting any time to smack Richie in the arm. “You idiot, I thought something was wrong!”

“Stop fucking hitting me!” Richie whined, smoothing his hand over the mark you made on his arm.

“Then don’t fucking play games with me Tozier!”

Since it was already 6:30, Richie offered to take you home. You had a bike and could easily get home by yourself but you were a bit freaked out since the sun was starting to set. You knew about the weird disappearances of children and the 7 pm curfew did little to stop the unsolved cases. You were worried that you would become part of that statistic.

Richie would have been worried too but he knew that it really didn’t matter anymore. He and his friends already got rid of the clown and Henry was taken away so there really wasn’t any danger. When he saw your face fall at the realization of how late it was, he asked Eddie if it would be okay to take you home instead. Eddie was kind enough to say yes and he would join the other losers.

“What about you though?” You asked when Richie offered to take you home.

“No need to worry, angel. I can go lightning fast if I need to.”

Although you were still worried, Richie’s playful grin made your nerves settle slightly. “Okay.”

The ride home consisted of some small talk between the two of you. Richie boasted about how much of a womanizer he was, which you only rolled your eyes at. Although he may seem a bit charming to you, there was no way he was a womanizer. His crude jokes and foul language was not something that girls normally swooned over.

When you arrived at your driveway, the sun was almost set. Every second that ticked by made your nerves rise, even if Richie was there to comfort you. “Are you sure you’re okay going home at this time?” You asked again, picking at the handlebars of your bike. “I can ask my dad if you can stay over because it’s too dangerous to be out in the dark.”

Richie brushed you off even though he too was starting to worry. What if the clown wasn’t the only thing snatching kids during the night? “It’s all good sugar. But if you want me to sleep with you so bad-”

“Okay, okay,” You cut him off, climbing off of your bike, “That’s enough from you.”

Richie chuckled and gripped on his handlebars, preparing to leave. “See you tomorrow?”

You shot him a grin. “Yep! Same place?”

“Sounds perfect, sugar.”

four

Masterlist

[bountyofbeads]

Trump Names Mike Pence to Lead Coronavirus Response https://nyti.ms/391M7tj

The president’s budget request for the fiscal year that begins in October would slash the C.D.C.’s budget by almost 16 percent, and the Health and Human Services Department’s by almost 10 percent. Tens of millions of dollars would come from the department’s Office of Public Health Preparedness and Response and its Hospital Preparedness Program, which helps hospitals handle surges of patients during disease outbreaks." I'm sure it seemed like a great idea at the time."

TRUMP NAMES MIKE PENCE TO LEAD CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE

President Trump sought to reassure the country that his government was controlling the spread of the coronavirus after his administration weathered days of criticism.

By Michael D. Shear, Noah Weiland  and  Katie Roger's | Published Feb. 26, 2020 Updated 9:54 p.m. ET | New York Times | Posted February 26, 2020 |

WASHINGTON — President Trump named Vice President Mike Pence on Wednesday to coordinate the government’s response to the coronavirus, even as he repeatedly played down the danger to the United States of a widespread domestic outbreak.

Mr. Trump’s announcement, at a White House news conference, followed mounting bipartisan criticism that the administration’s response had been sluggish and came after two days of contradictory messages about the virus, which has infected more than 81,000 people globally, killing nearly 3,000.

“The risk to the American people remains very low,” said Mr. Trump, flanked by top health officials from several government agencies. “We have the greatest experts, really in the world, right here.”

The president said he would accept whatever amount of money congressional Democrats wanted to give for the virus response, adding, “We’re ready to adapt and we’re ready to do whatever we have to as the disease spreads, if it spreads.”

“We’ll spend whatever is appropriate,” he said.

Several top health care experts at the news conference echoed Mr. Trump’s optimism but also offered a more sober assessment of the future risks. Dr. Anne Schuchat, the principal deputy director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, warned Americans that there would be more infections.

“Our aggressive containment strategy here in the United States has been working and is responsible for the low levels of cases that we have so far. However, we do expect more cases,” she said as the president stood behind her. “The trajectory of what we’re looking at over the weeks and months ahead is very uncertain.”

About a half-hour later, Mr. Trump contradicted Ms. Schuchat’s assessment, telling reporters that “I don’t think it’s inevitable.” He left the door open to travel restrictions beyond China, to other hard-hit countries such as South Korea and Italy and said his early decision to stop flights from China had held the virus at bay.

But the C.D.C. confirmed minutes later that a new infection in California was contracted by a person who did not appear to have traveled to countries hard hit by the virus or been exposed to a known coronavirus patient. That raised the prospect that the virus was spreading through unknown means.

Health experts have questioned the C.D.C.’s decision to limit testing for the virus to people who have traveled in China or have come into contact with someone who has. Other countries are testing more broadly for the coronavirus among people from countries where outbreaks have been growing, including Italy, Iran and South Korea.

“We’re testing everybody that we need to test,” Mr. Trump insisted, “and we’re finding very little problem, very little problem.”

Earlier in the day, Mr. Trump had accused journalists of making the situation “look as bad as possible” even as government health experts warned that the coronavirus threat in the United States is only beginning. Without offering any details on transmission, Alex M. Azar II, the health and human services secretary, confirmed the new case on Wednesday afternoon, bringing to 60 the total number of infections that have been counted in the United States. Mr. Azar said that health officials were still figuring out how the new person became infected.

The politics of coronavirus shifted drastically on Tuesday when Dr. Nancy Messonnier, the director of the C.D.C.’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, told reporters that “it’s not so much of a question of if this will happen anymore but rather more of a question of exactly when this will happen.” She said that hospitals and schools should begin preparing for an outbreak, and that she had even spoken to her own family about “significant disruption of our lives.”

Mr. Trump sought on Wednesday to counter that message with a much less dire one, holding up a Johns Hopkins University study that he said showed the United States as the most prepared country in the world to confront a virus. He said he was “amazed” that tens of thousands of people died from the flu each year, contrasting that number with the several dozen currently infected with coronavirus.

“We’re very, very ready for this, for anything, whether it’s going to be a breakout of larger proportions or whether or not we’re, you know, we’re at that very low level,” Mr. Trump said.

The president, who is a well-known germophobe, urged Americans to be vigilant about covering their coughs and washing their hands, and he told the story of a man who recently came up to him and hugged him.

“I said are you well? He says no,” Mr. Trump said. “He said, ‘I have the worst fever, and the worst flu.’ He’s hugging and kissing me. I said, ‘Excuse me,’ I went and started washing my hands.”

Mr. Trump has been reluctant to give in to what he considers an “alarmist” view about the virus, an administration official said. The president has repeatedly said that, like the flu, the new coronavirus will dissipate with warmer, more humid weather even though officials have warned him that relatively little is known about the virus, and it may not behave as others do.

The possibility of the virus spreading in the United States comes as the administration grapples with budget cuts and personnel moves that critics say have weakened the system for dealing with such health crises. The White House in 2018 eliminated a dedicated position on the National Security Council to coordinate pandemic response, the same year that the Trump administration narrowed its epidemiological work to 10 countries from 49.

In November, a task force at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, which included five current and former Republican senators and House members, warned that “the United States remains woefully ill prepared to respond to global health security threats” and recommended the reinstatement of an N.S.C. coordinator and a recommitment of funding and attention to global health programs.

Instead, the president’s budget request this month for the fiscal year that begins in October would cut the C.D.C.’s budget by almost 16 percent, and the Health and Human Services Department’s by almost 10 percent. The proposal’s $3 billion in cuts to global health programs included a 53 percent cut to the World Health Organization and a 75 percent cut to the Pan American Health Organization.

And his naming of Mr. Pence as his point person immediately drew partisan fire even as he vowed to ensure that the “full resources of the American government” were deployed to protect Americans from the coronavirus.

The Democratic National Committee immediately pointed out that as governor of Indiana, Mr. Pence was blamed for aggravating a severe AIDS outbreak among intravenous drug users in a rural Indiana county when he opposed calls for a clean needle exchange program on the grounds it would encourage more drug use.

It has fallen to Mr. Azar to make the case that the government is up to the task of containing the virus as anxiety grew around the world about vulnerability to a still-mysterious affliction that does not respect international borders.

New cases popped up across Europe, dozens of infections in Iran raised fears of an unbridled spread through the Middle East, and the first confirmed case was reported in Latin America — a Brazilian man who had returned from Italy just as Brazil is in the midst of its Carnival celebrations.

For the first time, more new cases were reported outside China — where the outbreak began two months ago — than inside, according to figures from the World Health Organization.

The Chinese authorities cautioned that the falling infection rate might be only temporary, while South Korean officials scrambled to contain the largest outbreak of cases outside China — including an American soldier deployed in South Korea. Across the United States, universities began bringing students home from abroad and canceling overseas study programs.

Mr. Trump has privately expressed frustration to numerous officials about his administration’s efforts confront the virus, according to someone familiar with his comments.

[ VIDEO 01:12‘Someone Needs to Be in Charge’: Alex Azar Grilled in Coronavirus Hearing

The secretary of health and human services, Alex M. Azar II, testified to lawmakers about efforts to respond to the coronavirus outbreak.Feb. 26, 2020Image by T.J. Kirkpatrick for The New York Times]

As recently as last weekend, the president grew furious that he had been sidelined from a decision to return some Americans infected with the virus to the United States, and he made his anger to Mr. Azar known. Officials in the White House have since wrestled with how best to present Mr. Trump with information during a fast-moving situation, one aide said.

The White House’s muscular internal messaging efforts kicked in on Wednesday. Supporters were pelted with multiple emails assuring them that Mr. Trump was overseeing an “aggressive coronavirus response,” and that the “full weight of the U.S. government” was working to safeguard Americans from illness, according to one message.

Mr. Trump’s attempts to calm the American public have also occasionally been laced with a degree of alarm, with Mr. Trump telling reporters at a news conference in India on Tuesday that “there’s a very good chance you’re not going to die.”

Some of Mr. Trump’s political allies tried to question the motivation of some of his top health officials for warning the public about the spread of the virus.

Rush Limbaugh, the conservative talk radio host, on Wednesday argued without foundation that Dr. Messonnier was being purposely alarmist to undermine Mr. Trump because she is the sister of Rod Rosenstein, the former deputy attorney general who was a frequent target of Mr. Trump’s ire.

“In that town, I’m telling you, everything is incestuous,” Mr. Limbaugh said on his show. “Most of that town is establishment oriented or rooted, which means they despise Trump.”

Mr. Trump’s reassurances to the public appear at least in part aimed at calming global markets. On Tuesday, a day after its worst one-day slide in two years, the S&P 500 closed down 3 percent. The S&P 500 ended Wednesday down about 0.4 percent, bringing its losses for the week to close to more than 6 percent.

Moody’s Analytics predicted a 40 percent chance that the virus would grow into a global pandemic that would push the United States and the world into a recession. On Wednesday, Mr. Trump said he believed that “the stock market will recover. The economy is very strong.”

For a second day, Mr. Azar was on Capitol Hill Wednesday defending his work, telling lawmakers that he was overseeing “the smoothest interagency process I’ve experienced in my 20 years of dealing with public health emergencies.”

Mr. Azar said that the C.D.C. had already exhausted the $105 million rapid response fund that the federal government had been using in its initial response efforts. He has proposed shifting $136 million from other health programs to the coronavirus to replenish the government’s efforts.

A day earlier, he told a Senate panel that medical supplies were badly needed for the nation’s emergency stockpile, including 300 million masks for health care workers alone.

But on Wednesday, he faced bipartisan concern about the administration’s $2.5 billion request. Lawmakers from both parties have said the White House request is far short of what is needed and relies on the transfer of existing funds — including $535 million intended to counter the spread of the Ebola virus.

“These cuts are shameful,” Representative Anna G. Eshoo, Democrat of California, said Wednesday evening at a separate House hearing with Mr. Azar.

Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader, proposed on Wednesday to increase the president’s emergency request drastically, to $8.5 billion in new funds, including$3 billion for a public health emergency fund, $1.5 billion for the C.D.C., $1 billion for vaccine development and $2 billion for reimbursing states and cities for efforts they have so far made to monitor and prepare for potential cases of the virus.

Mr. Trump said he would gladly accept the additional funds.

_____

Reporting was contributed by Emily Cochrane, Maggie Haberman, Jim Tankersley, Sheryl Gay Stolberg, Catie Edmondson, Eileen Sullivan and Carl Hulse.

_____

"The problem with the president speaking up now is that no matter what he says -- from expecting the worst pandemic the world has ever seen to the best administration response to what is really no health issue at all -- who is going to believe him? When Nancy Messonnier speaks, I will believe her. But Trump has proven that he never tells the truth. Why should he change now? Anything coming from Trump and his administration I will totally disregard as propaganda meant to salvage Trump's reelection campaign and the failing stock market. Nothing more. Nothing less." AVRDS, MONTANA

"Here's the actual Trump record on protecting its citizens and public health: In 2018, the Trump administration fired the government’s entire pandemic response chain of command, including the White House management infrastructure. In May 2018, Trump ordered the National Security Council’s entire global health security unit shut down, calling for reassignment of Rear Adm. Timothy Ziemer and dissolution of his team inside the agency. The month before, then-White House National Security Advisor John Bolton pressured Ziemer’s DHS counterpart, Tom Bossert, to resign along with his team. Neither the NSC nor DHS epidemic teams have been replaced. The global health section of the CDC was so drastically cut in 2018 that much of its staff was laid off and the number of countries it was working in was reduced from 49 to merely 10. Meanwhile, throughout 2018, the U.S. Agency for International Development and its director, Mark Green, came repeatedly under fire from both the White House and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. And though Congress has so far managed to block Trump administration plans to cut the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps by 40%, the disease-fighting cadres have steadily eroded as retiring officers go unreplaced. Trump - and his GOP aiders and abetters - are singlehandledly responsible for 'small government' incompetence, negligence and abandonment of the American people. Americans will die because Donald Trump and the GOP hate the government." SOCRATES, VERONA NJ

"This is a potential event of a magnitude of impact we haven't seen since World War II. At this point, the bombers are headed toward Pearl Harbor, and it's unlikely our radar will find them before it's too late. We are sitting ducks and the current administration has already eliminated much of the infrastructure we need to address this. As a retired physician, I worry greatly about the coming impact on our health care system, the "soldiers" in this response. When health workers get sick, and they will because of the contagiousness no matter how well they try to protect themselves, then the system will be even more severely stressed. Patients with seemingly benign presentations will be infectious. Those who in "normal times" need advanced care in hospitals will be impacted. Supplies of protective gear are inadequate at this time. Every facet of life - work, school, public transit, food distribution, social events - may see profound impacts. And at the top of the heap, our president is the worst possible person to be in charge at this time. We need truth, transparency, and compassion from this man, and he is incapable of delivering those things. We need competent leadership (Jared can't be the czar of this too!) and a huge amount of resources - not borrowing from other important programs. We're in trouble." JOE, LAFAYETTE CA

"So how is Trump going to blame the media when the virus does get here? The progression of the disease is just beginning. It's early, very early. So far, it appears the virus can be carried and passed around for a week or two before any symptoms develop. That is a sure fire mechanism for widespread infection. In the US and other free societies, we don't lock people up just to prevent the spread of disease. We do quarantine people after they get sick, but by then the disease would have been passed on to others. With international travel commonplace, especially in the business world, there will be no way to stop the spread of the disease short of locking down borders. That would cripple the global economy. Won't happen. Besides, the virus is already widespread. The proverbial genie is already out of the bottle. Keep in mind that for most people, the symptoms are mild, like a cold. So now everyone who sniffles gets quarantined? That won't happen either. So far, the death rate is about 3% which is slightly greater than the death rate of the flu pandemic of 1918-19. The potential for deaths ranges in the many tens of millions. This is the real deal. This is not a time for political spin and disinformation from government officials, especially from the President of the United States."BRUCE, KANSAS CITY MO

"First and foremost, we need to have a reliable testing kit. The CDC tests are barely working. Not all states have the test kit. Therefore, a large reason we are not seeing the virus in the US is because we are NOT testing for it! The infection is most likely brewing at a low level in some cities already. Oh yea, we also need masks, ventilators, antibiotics (for superimposed bacterial infections), classes online, social distancing, and a different president." MIDWEST DOC, CLEVELAND

"Our lack of universal health care and social safety net can only exacerbate the spread and the damage the virus causes. When workers don't have paid sick leave, can't afford the loss of income, and fear the loss of their job, they will come to work when they're sick. When a sick person fears destitution from lack of health insurance, or from copays, deductibles, and/or surprise bills, they will avoid or delay medical care. When the emergency room is the only available access to health care, crowded waiting rooms will offer the virus an ideal place to propagate. When American health care corporations outsource manufacturing of pharmaceuticals and raw ingredients to China and rely on just-in-time supply chains, all in the name of maximizing short-term shareholder value, shortages of critical drugs and supplies will compromise treatment and result in needless deaths. When vaccines and antivirals are eventually developed, the manufacturers will gouge Americans with exorbitant unregulated prices. By limiting availability to the wealthy and those with the best insurance, an opportunity to curb the spread of infection will be sacrificed in the name of shareholder value. But maybe some good may ultimately come from this virus. By exposing the indefensible failures of a system focused on wealth care for Wall Street rather than health care for people, it may be what finally forces the US to join the rest of the civilized world and adopt universal health care." TED, CALIFORNIA

"“A great job?!” Most states don’t even have testing kits yet." SUMMER, SEATTLE WA

"@Joe As a retired Microbiologist (virology) I couldn't agree with you more. We have the people who are experts at CDC. and they need to be totally supported in every way. We have capacity in terms of providing the resources as well. What we need is is a big, broad-based, organized education program since we are seeing a lot of mis-information being spread already. Despite what Rush Limbaugh says it is more than the common cold. What Trump says is true, in that it eventually will die out, but that will be when the supply of potential victims disappears. That will be quite a while." GSS, AUGUSTA GA

"When I was a kid half the city of Chicago were quarantined in their homes----especially in the summer when polio raged, but also for an array of other diseases--it was one of the few weapons we had. Walking to school, every other house had a huge "quarantine" sign on it. At the time we had not been blessed by having a president who knows absolutely everything about everything. What we did have was a stable government and a well funded and managed system of public health. Public Health agencies now will march to the anti-science, anti public health tune being boomed by the GOP over the loudspeakers. Hup, two, three." MARY, ARIZONA

"As I prepare to cast my vote on Super Tuesday what is guiding my choice at this moment is which of the current democratic candidates would I most want in office during this type of potential global health crisis."

REDBED, NH

Again POTUS shows more concern on how a crisis affects him and not the country. Instead of being concerned that there are people infected in this country and containing the virus for the sake of the American people, his concern is to whether it will hurt his chances at re-election. Attacking the media again to shift the blame to them instead of on his decision to cut funding to another Dept. that would have been our first line of defense. I think Nancy Pelosi stated correctly, "I don't think the President knows what he is talking about, again!" RUSSELL SMITH, FLORIDA

*********

C.D.C. CONFIRMS FIRST POSSIBLE COMMUNITY TRANSMISSION OF CORONAVIRUS IN U.S..... A case in California may be the first infection without a known link to travel abroad.

By Roni Caryn Rabin | Published Feb. 26, 2020 Updated 9:03 p.m. ET | New York Times | Posted February 26, 2020

A person in California who was not exposed to anyone known to be infected with the coronavirus, and had not traveled to countries in which the virus is circulating, has tested positive for the infection.

It may be the first case of community spread in the United States, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said on Wednesday.

“At this point, the patient’s exposure is unknown,” the C.D.C. statement said. “The case was detected through the U.S. public health system and picked up by astute clinicians.”

The case was announced shortly after President Trump concluded a news briefing in which he said that aggressive public health containment measures and travel entry restrictions had successfully limited the spread of coronavirus in the United States.

It brings the number of cases in the country to 60, including the 45 cases among Americans who were repatriated from Wuhan, China — the epicenter of the outbreak — and the Diamond Princess cruise ship, which was overwhelmed by the virus after it docked in Japan.

Until now, public health officials have been able to trace all of the infections in the country to a recent trip abroad or a known patient, and to identify the sources of exposure.

Though C.D.C. officials said it was possible the patient was exposed to a returning traveler who was infected, the new case appears to be one of community spread — one in which the source of infection is unknown.

“The thing that would immediately make all of us uneasy is if this person has no direct contact with someone who comes from an affected country,” said Dr. William Schaffner, an infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University.

“That would suggest there are other undetected cases out there, and we have already started some low-grade transmission.”

Public health officials said the infected individual was a resident of Solano County, Calif., and was receiving medical care in Sacramento County, but they have not disclosed any other information to protect the patient’s privacy.

Doctors in the patient’s community may want to expand testing for the coronavirus among their patients in order to identify other infected individuals there, Dr. Schaffner said.

“Physicians are going to want to start testing everybody with a fever and a cough,” he said. “They’re going to want to do that and the patients are going to want to do that.”

Right now, however, testing capacity is limited in the United States.

The C.D.C. developed a diagnostic test and distributed testing kits to local health departments around the country.

But the kits were flawed, and the agency must manufacture new ones. Although a dozen states are capable of testing for coronavirus infection, confirmatory tests must still be done by the C.D.C., a process that can take days.

*********

TRUMP HAS A PROBLEM AS THE CORONAVIRUS THREATENS THE U.S.: HIS CREDIBILITY Even his allies worry that Mr. Trump has undermined his ability to appear presidential in a moment of national emergency,

By Annie Karni, Michael Crowley  and Maggie Haberman | Published Feb. 26, 2020 Updated 10:10 p.m. ET | New York Times | Posted Feb 26, 2020 |

WASHINGTON — When Hurricane Dorian crashed into the Atlantic Coast in September, President Trump assumed a take-charge role in response. But he undermined his own effectiveness after it became apparent that before displaying a map in front of the television cameras in the Oval Office, he had altered it with a Sharpie pen to match his inaccurate forecast of where the storm was headed.

For years, experts have warned that Mr. Trump has been squandering the credibility he could need in a moment of national emergency, like a terrorist attack or a public health crisis.

Now, as the coronavirus races across the globe and has begun to threaten the United States, Mr. Trump could face a moment of reckoning. Maintaining a calm and orderly response during an epidemic, in which countless lives could be at stake, requires that the president be a reliable public messenger.

“I think the president has a unique opportunity to dispel fears and calm the situation — if people believe he is telling the truth,” said Kathleen Sebelius, who served as secretary of health and human services in the Obama administration. “And I think that’s really where a great disconnect occurs.”

On Wednesday evening, Mr. Trump delivered an almost casual account of the administration’s response to the coronavirus, leaving it to the experts appearing with him to relay the real information and assure a jittery public. Still, he kept trying to suggest the risk was low.

“We will see what happens,” the president said as he addressed the nation. “But we are very, very ready for this, for anything.”

Mr. Trump said that Johns Hopkins University rated the United States “No. 1 for being prepared,” holding up a chart printed on an 8 ½ by 11 sheet of paper.

“This will end,” he said, comparing the coronavirus to the everyday flu. “We really have done a very good job.”

During a crisis, presidents are looked to for direct and honest assessments of threats and for reassurance to the public about their impact.

During the swine flu outbreak of 1976, President Gerald R. Ford announced at a news conference that the government planned to vaccinate “every man, woman and child in the United States.” Mr. Ford himself was photographed receiving the vaccine in the White House as part of a public awareness campaign.

Responding to the Ebola outbreak in West Africa in 2014, President Barack Obama visited the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta to announce that the administration would send as many as 3,000 people to the region.

Mr. Trump, in contrast, contradicted his own health experts in a news conference Wednesday evening, insisting that the spread of the virus was not inevitable, and excoriating two of his favorite foils, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senator Chuck Schumer, the minority leader, for “trying to create a panic.”

For three and a half years, Mr. Trump has repeatedly proved an unreliable narrator on a range of subjects.

At times, he has exaggerated threats, like talking up the caravans of migrants he claimed were storming the southern border before the 2018 midterm elections. Other times, he has minimized potentially serious dangers that could be politically damaging, like the renewed nuclear threat posed by North Korea after the failure of his talks with its leader, Kim Jong-un, and now, the global spread of the coronavirus, which he has persistently tried to play down.

In his response to the coronavirus, Mr. Trump has made inaccurate or questionable claims, twice misstating the number of Americans infected with the virus and insisting that it “miraculously goes away” when warmer spring weather arrives — a prediction that health experts have said is premature.

He based that prediction on a comment made at one of his briefings, when an expert noted that temperatures can affect the spread of viruses. Mr. Trump has used that data point as evidence in saying in public and in private to guests at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Fla., that the global outbreak will be behind him by April.

The president, as he often does, has also focused on coverage of his response, complaining that he is being treated unfairly and blaming the news media. “If the virus disappeared tomorrow, they would say we did a really poor, and even incompetent, job,” he tweeted on Tuesday. “Not fair, but it is what it is. So far, by the way, we have not had one death. Let’s keep it that way!”

Before he took office, Mr. Trump was an outspoken critic of the Obama administration’s handling of the Ebola outbreak, arguing that infected people should not be allowed back into the United States.

Current Trump allies said the fact that the president chose to address the growing public health crisis quickly after returning from a trip to India showed how seriously he was taking the outbreak.

But privately, they say he has been reluctant to give in to what he has called an “alarmist” view of the virus’s potential to cause damage as he warily watches the effect of the outbreak on the stock market. He has been rattled by the Wall Street reaction to the spread of the virus in places like Italy, lashing out at the news media in tweets and accusing journalists of intentionally trying to harm the stock market.

And polls show that Mr. Trump’s credibility with much of the United States is low after an impeachment inquiry in which a majority of voters said they did not believe that he was telling the truth about his actions involving Ukraine.

Federal health officials had been bracing for the arrival of the virus in the country with minimal intervention by the White House.

As Ebola presented both a health and political threat to his administration in 2014, Mr. Obama carefully hewed to proven science, which he repeatedly invoked in his carefully calibrated public messages.

“We have to be guided by the science. We have to remember the basic facts,” he said in an October 2014 radio message.

Mr. Trump, in contrast, has not been focused on scientific detail. The secretary of health and human services, Alex M. Azar II, has told officials they should give the notoriously impatient president simple, paint-by-numbers briefings on coronavirus.

But a larger fear among experts in the field has been that he would contradict scientific experts. “That’s where Trump is most pernicious, potentially,” said Ron Klain, who served as Mr. Obama’s “Ebola czar,” and now is an adviser to the presidential campaign of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. “When he contradicts those experts, when he suggests they have biases, or when he intimidates them not to be straight, that’s when the risk really grows.”

As Mr. Trump faces this emergency, his history of issuing false claims could make it harder to sell the public on any plans to address coronavirus.

“When you’re trying to build trust in the government’s response, people have to have trust,” said Leslie Dach, a senior counselor at health and human services during the Ebola outbreak.

“Making false promises and them turning out not to be true undermines people’s confidence,” Mr. Dach said. He pointed to Mr. Trump’s claim this month about the virus that, “We did shut it down, yes.”

As recently as this week, the president appeared to simply want to put the coronavirus response in his rearview mirror. “I think that’s a problem that’s going to go away,” he said in remarks on Tuesday to a group of business leaders in New Delhi.

On Wednesday, before Mr. Trump’s news conference, his allies on television and radio appeared to be speaking to the proverbial “audience of one” as they sought to give their unsolicited advice to the president.

Jason Miller, a top adviser to Mr. Trump’s 2016 campaign who hosts a podcast that is currently focused on the coronavirus, tweeted that the president had to “make clear full Administration working around the clock on this, and explain in everyday, layman’s terms what we need to both do and avoid to remain safe.”

On Fox News, daytime hosts noted the news conference presented an “opportunity for him to act presidential.”

Mr. Trump, however, chose to conduct the news conference his own way.

“It is what it is,” he said of the potential for a virus with a higher fatality than the flu to spread through communities. “We’ve got the greatest people in the world.”

_____

Noah Weiland contributed reporting from Washington, and Donald G. McNeil Jr. from New York.

*********

WHAT WOULD A CORONAVIRUS OUTBREAK IN THE U.S. MEAN FOR SCHOOLS? Districts have infectious disease protocols. But few have detailed plans to teach online if schools were closed for long periods.

By Dana Goldstein and Julie Bosman | Published Feb. 27, 2020, 5:00 a.m. ET| New York Times | Posted Feb 27, 2020 |

Schools in the United States prepare for all manner of disasters and threats, whether hurricanes, mass shooters, tornadoes, influenza or head lice.

But this week, a stark new order came from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Get ready for the coronavirus.

Around the nation, school officials and parents were flummoxed by the sudden warning that if a coronavirus epidemic hit the United States, school buildings could be shut down for long periods of time, leaving children sequestered at home and schools scrambling to provide remote instruction.

In warning that the coronavirus will almost certainly spread in the United States, Dr. Nancy Messonnier, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, said she had contacted her own local school superintendent this week and asked if the district was prepared. She advised parents to do the same. And she suggested that a temporary system of “internet-based teleschooling” could replace traditional schools.

It was not clear how such a system would work.

The obstacles to teaching remotely were evident: American children have uneven access to home computers and broadband internet. Schools have limited expertise in providing instruction online on a large scale. And parents would be forced to juggle their own work responsibilities with what could amount to “a vast unplanned experiment in mass home-schooling,” said Kevin Carey, vice president for education policy at New America, a think tank.

Across the country, as federal authorities announced that 60 people in the United States had been infected with the virus, mainly from travel abroad, families were grappling with the new alarm raised over the virus and how a possible outbreak could play out in their own communities.

In Denver, Meg Conley’s 11-year-old daughter, Margaret, interrupted breakfast on Wednesday morning with a worried question. She told her mother that her elementary school classmates were gripped by fears about the coronavirus, and she asked when it was coming and how many people it would kill.

“I had no idea,” Ms. Conley, 35, a freelance writer, said of the children’s anxieties. “Apparently it’s all the kids are talking about on the playground.”

Schools are hastily making their own plans, or updating those drafted during previous scares over viruses like H1N1 and Ebola. The Washington State health department held a webinar for about 250 school superintendents on Tuesday to discuss coronavirus preparations, including plans to close schools and allow students to continue to do schoolwork at home.

Dennis Kosuth, a nurse for Chicago Public Schools, said his district’s ability to handle an outbreak could be compromised by circumstances like families who could not afford child care costs to keep sick children at home. Nursing shortages are a concern, too, he said. Mr. Kosuth said he was responsible for nursing care at four schools.

Some Chicago schools also lack rooms dedicated to health needs, Mr. Kosuth said. In one school where many students and staff members became ill with an ordinary infection last semester, “Patient Zero was sitting in the main office coughing and sneezing all over the place” as the sick child waited to be picked up, he said.

On a more positive note, Mr. Kosuth said that evidence from China suggested that children were more resilient to the coronavirus than adults were.

In Miami-Dade County, Fla., Alberto M. Carvalho, superintendent of one of the nation’s largest school districts, said his system’s preparation for hurricanes put it at an advantage in preparing for the coronavirus. The district has provided laptops, tablets and smartphones for some students to take home, as well as internet connectivity for some low-income students. Teachers would be asked to assign work remotely and could even teach some high school courses live online.

“I was a bit surprised that it took this long to offer national guidance specifically to school districts,” Mr. Carvalho said of the C.D.C. statement this week.

Many districts have already sent home letters about the coronavirus, asking parents to keep sick children away from school and to remember basic prevention measures such as hand washing, cough covering and vaccination against the flu. They have highlighted C.D.C. advice issued early this month, calling for all travelers returning from China to “self-quarantine” for 14 days.

School officials have often tried to ratchet down panic among parents, reminding families that face masks are not broadly recommended and that the overall risk of infection is low.

But few districts have publicly addressed what would happen to classes in the case of widespread infection and school closings like those that have taken place in China, Italy and Bahrain.

The vast majority of districts have access to broadband internet, but they do not necessarily have expertise in how to effectively organize and teach classes online when schools are shuttered. Further complicating matters, not all families have home computers and high-speed internet. While 90 percent of households with children under 18 had broadband access in 2016, according to federal data, gaps remained along the lines of income, race and education level.

Less affluent families were more likely to depend on smartphones but to lack computers or tablets, which are often needed to fully participate in online learning.

While school districts may not be ready for widespread remote learning, many of the larger districts have had plans for the possibility of pandemics for years, according to Chris Dorn, a school safety consultant with the nonprofit Safe Havens International.

Districts without such plans will need to work with local health agencies to come up with protocols, he said. Among the questions to tackle: Should students at risk for coronavirus who show symptoms at school be transported immediately to hospitals or should they be kept on school grounds until a parent or caretaker can pick them up?

In the San José Unified School District in California, Melinda Landau, who manages school nursing, said the district’s response to flu season would also help in the case of a coronavirus outbreak.

It has ordered additional thermometers and hand-washing lesson kits, which allow nurses to sprinkle powder that glows when exposed to ultraviolet light, demonstrating how thoroughly students have washed their hands and how important simple personal-hygiene measures can be.

The district also asks parents who call their children in sick to describe symptoms. Schools with clusters of sick students are cleaned more deeply with disinfecting products.

There have been no confirmed cases of the coronavirus in the district, Ms. Landau said. Two students returned from trips to China in late January. Their parents voluntarily kept them home from school for a time to monitor their health.

Going forward, the district is waiting to see how the coronavirus progresses, Ms. Landau said.

She added, “We don’t quite know where to move yet.”

Closing schools may not be the best option, especially since children appear to be at lower risk of infection, said Amy Acton, the director of Ohio’s health department. Beyond contingency plans for closing, she said, schools need to consider lining up substitute teachers and planning for absences of other staff members, like cafeteria workers. And Dr. Acton said schools can also play another, more traditional, role: science and health education.

“Schools can be telling families what they can be doing to stay healthy, and we can teach about viruses, and what is a zoonotic disease? Why is it important to get a flu vaccine?” Dr. Acton said. “This is a teachable moment.”

______

Jack Healy, Amy Harmon and Sarah Mervosh contributed reporting.

*********

WELCOME TO THE AGE OF PANDEMICS

We need to stop what drives mass epidemics rather than just respond to individual diseases.

By Peter Daszak, Mr. Daszak is a disease ecologist. | Published Feb. 27, 2020, 5:01 a.m. ET | New York Times | Posted February 27, 2020 |

In early 2018, during a meeting at the World Health Organization in Geneva, a group of experts I belong to (the R&D Blueprint) coined the term “Disease X”: We were referring to the next pandemic, which would be caused by an unknown, novel pathogen that hadn’t yet entered the human population. As the world stands today on the edge of the pandemic precipice, it’s worth taking a moment to consider whether Covid-19 is the disease our group was warning about.

Disease X, we said back then, would likely result from a virus originating in animals and would emerge somewhere on the planet where economic development drives people and wildlife together. Disease X would probably be confused with other diseases early in the outbreak and would spread quickly and silently; exploiting networks of human travel and trade, it would reach multiple countries and thwart containment. Disease X would have a mortality rate higher than a seasonal flu but would spread as easily as the flu. It would shake financial markets even before it achieved pandemic status.

IN A NUTSHELL, COVID-19 IS

DISEASE X.

Even as there are signs that the epidemic’s spread might be slowing in China, multiple communities and countries have now reported sustained transmission in their midst. The number of confirmed cases has exploded in South Korea in recent days. In Italy, villages and towns are on lockdown, Fashion Week in Milan has been disrupted and festivals are being canceled while public health authorities search for patient zero to identify who else is likely infected and may spread the disease in Europe. Iran appears to have become a new hub of transmission. The looming pandemic will challenge us in new ways, as people try to evade quarantines, and misinformation campaigns and conspiracy theorists ply their trade in open democracies.

But as the world struggles to respond to Covid-19, we risk missing the really big picture: Pandemics are on the rise, and we need to contain the process that drives them, not just the individual diseases.

Plagues are not only part of our culture; they are caused by it. The Black Death spread into Europe in the mid-14th century with the growth of trade along the Silk Road. New strains of influenza have emerged from livestock farming. Ebola, SARS, MERS and now Covid-19 have been linked to wildlife. Pandemics usually begin as viruses in animals that jump to people when we make contact with them.

These spillovers are increasing exponentially as our ecological footprint brings us closer to wildlife in remote areas and the wildlife trade brings these animals into urban centers. Unprecedented road-building, deforestation, land clearing and agricultural development, as well as globalized travel and trade, make us supremely susceptible to pathogens like coronaviruses.

Yet the world’s strategy for dealing with pandemics is woefully inadequate. Across the board, from politicians to the public, we treat pandemics as a disaster-response issue: We wait for them to happen and hope a vaccine or drug can be developed quickly in their aftermath. But even as Covid-19 rages, there still is no vaccine available for the SARS virus of 2002-3, nor for HIV/AIDS or Zika or a host of emerging pathogens. The problem is that between outbreaks, the will to spend money on prevention wanes, and the market for vaccines and drugs against sporadic viral diseases isn’t enough to drive research and development.

During its World Health Assembly in 2016, the W.H.O. set up the R&D Blueprint to bridge this gap and announced a priority list of pathogens that most threaten global health and for which no vaccines or drugs were in the pipeline. SARS made the list, as did MERS, Nipah, Ebola and other rare but serious diseases caused by epidemic viruses. The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations — a global partnership between public, private, philanthropic and civil society organizations launched at Davos in 2017 — stepped up to the plate and sourced funding to develop vaccines and therapeutics against some of these.

To escape from the Age of Pandemics, we’ll need to treat them as a public health issue and start working on prevention in addition to responses. Our first goal should be to broaden our armory against potential mass epidemics. When some of us added “Disease X” to the W.H.O.’s priority list two years ago, we wanted to make the point that it’s not sufficient to develop vaccines and drugs for known agents when the next big one is likely to be a different pathogen — a virus close to SARS, say, but not close enough that the same vaccine can work against both.

As Covid-19 strikes today and a spate of other pathogens are ready to emerge in the future, we continue to butt up against nature. Scientists estimate that there are 1.67 million unknown viruses of the type that have previously emerged in people. Discovering and sequencing them should be a priority — a simple case of “know your enemy.” In the aftermath of SARS, research on coronaviruses originating in bats has discovered more than 50 related viruses, some of which have the potential to infect people; this information can now be used to test for broad-action vaccines and drugs. Scaling up this effort to cover all viral families, as the Global Virome Project proposes to do, is a logical first step toward prevention.

A radical shift is also needed in the way that tests, vaccines and drugs are designed so that entire groups of pathogens are targeted instead of individual pathogens that are already known. The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases in the United States is working on a universal flu vaccine that would cover all known strains of influenza; a universal coronavirus vaccine, an Ebola-virus vaccine and others will also be needed.

With a smaller investment, we can also try to get ahead of pandemics by working with communities in hot spots of emerging diseases. Disease surveillance should be focused on farmers, rural communities and anyone who has extensive contact with wildlife, to look for unusual illnesses, test for novel pathogens and work with people to develop alternatives to high-risk activities such as the wildlife trade.

Pandemics are like terrorist attacks: We know roughly where they originate and what’s responsible for them, but we don’t know exactly when the next one will happen. They need to be handled the same way — by identifying all possible sources and dismantling those before the next pandemic strikes.

_____

Peter Daszak is a disease ecologist and the president of EcoHealth Alliance, in New York.

**********

[cheapjerseysaleusa-blog]

uncertainty mentioned above

Keep adequate records of any immunisation provided. Follow the information on vaccination in the general page for harmful micro organisms.Blood borne viruses (BBVs) are viruses that some people carry in their blood and can be spread from one person to another. Those infected with a BBV may show little or no symptoms of serious disease, but other infected people may be severely ill. wholesale nfl jerseys from china (E) Overexpression of R Smads 1, 5, and 8 along with the co Smad Smad4. Only when Smad5 and Smad4 were co transfected, BMP 6 further increased the cell count of LNCaP in the absence of androgen. (F) When siRNA targeting each of the R Smads was transfected into LNCaP cells, only the knockdown of Smad5 blocked the BMP 6 cheap jerseys induced cellular proliferation https://www.wholesalejerseyslan.com of LNCaP cells. wholesale nfl jerseys from china cheap jerseys Robin holds a degree in journalism/public relations from the University of Southern California (USC), and spent most of her professional career working for the leading advertising agency Ogilvy Mather. Her husband Daniel is the CEO of SF Party, a San Francisco based wholesale/retail party supply company. Robin has three sons who live in Los Angeles and Santa Barbara.. cheap jerseys Cheap Jerseys free shipping I sure you know impeachment requires two thirds of the senate and, if I recall, half the house. The odds the e democrats take the house are good, but there almost no chance they get impeachment majority in the senate. It would require at least twelve Republicans voting to impeach, in states cheap jerseys Trump won and would win again, with his approval ratings among Republicans at 83% if I recall right. Cheap Jerseys free shipping For close to the same price, a better product can be purchased without the uncertainty mentioned above. An Ubiquiti AC Lite for example is $79, cheap jerseys whereas the Netgear Nighthawk starts at $149. Granted, with an Ubiquiti AP it just the AP, it doesn have a router. Everyone thinks they are so woke, but the truth is if you all were so "woke" then you wouldn be triggered by the natural order of things. Men and women are a perfect match for one another physiologically, emotionally, and psychologically. You want to talk about a true systemic issue plauging our societies? It the degradation of men and women, families, and normal human behavior, and it been going on for millennia, but we are just now starting to see the rotten fruits of it labor. We have big round bellies, hairy backs, thick and furry wrists, knuckles callused from dragging along the ground, and slabs of Angus like beef stuck to our ribs (well, some of us do, anyway), and that salad beat the hunger out of us. If you feel like a beer and some first rate seafood at a cut rate price, go to Flanigan's. Yes, it is a chain and we rarely recommend cookie cutter restaurants, but Flanigan's warrants an exception, at least the one in Deerfield Beach. Cheap Jerseys from china I let my 6yr old play GTA. I probably a bad parent, but besides having to correct his language on occasion (with explanation), he seems a pretty standard little boy. I maybe naive, but I kind of think the earlier children are exposed to the complexity of the world, the more time I have to shape their attitudes towards it.. Cheap Jerseys from china wholesale jerseys I think one aspect to consider is how other members respond to his interactions. If they are fine letting him say those things to a potential member, I imagine even more is allowed with a pledge or cheap jerseys brother whome they are not trying to attract. I also question any group that stands by while a member is casually using slurs. wholesale jerseys wholesale jerseys from china It is definitely worthy of a visit from the POTUS (president of the United States). Our son will always remember this very special day. Hollingsworth said he was impressed with the president's address."Regardless of your political views," he said,"I was impressed with his communication skills. wholesale jerseys from china wholesale nfl jerseys They account for more than half of the Yellow Jackets' yardage on the ground. Latta would rather pitch the ball around the lot. Receivers Deonte Stanley and Kendall Moultrie each have more than 300 receiving yards through five games.. No bat needed: Miguel Cabrera, Bryce Harper and other hitters will sometimes be able to leave their lumber in the bat rack under this new rule change opposing managers can order intentional walks without a single pitch being thrown. And if a team tries to pitch around Mike Trout and falls behind 2 0, the skipper can just send him to first base, at any time in the count. No set signal yet on how to make the move four fingers, a wave or a point, they all work.. wholesale nfl jerseys cheap nfl jerseys His aim was a little off or I got out of the way (can't remember) so he hits the tracks just as a train was going by and he was completely annihilated. He was a smoldering fireball in a just split second. I ran away laughing maniacally and he tried to get mad about it.. cheap nfl jerseys Cheap Jerseys china Using a decentralized exchange protocol such as 0x protocol, the developer can programmatically purchase a single {ComputeStoreToken} which is composed of 100x Golem and 100x Storj tokens. Then cheap jerseys the developer can call the redeem function in the {ComputeStore Token} contract to get the underlying Golem and Storj tokens for usage on the Golem and Storj networks. Any unused tokens can be traded, sold, or issued into a new {Set} Cheap Jerseys china.

[theliberaltony]

via Politics – FiveThirtyEight

Welcome to a special weekend-edition of FiveThirtyEight’s weekly politics chat. The transcript below has been lightly edited.

micah (Micah Cohen, managing editor): Hey, everyone! We’ve convened here on a weekend(!) to talk about President Trump’s address to the nation on Saturday. Trump called the country together to make an offer to Democrats to try to end the partial government shutdown, now more than 28 days old.

Here’s Trump’s offer, summarized by Bloomberg News reporter Sahil Kapur:

President Trump outlines his offer:

• $800 million for “urgent humanitarian assistance”

• $805 million for drug detection technology

• 2,750 new border agents

• 75 new immigration judge teams

• $5.7 billion for a wall

• 3-year DACA protection for 700k

• 3-year TPS

— Sahil Kapur (@sahilkapur) January 19, 2019

So, the question in front of us: Is this offer likely to end the shutdown? And, more generally, is this a smart move politically by Trump, who’s seen his job approval rating erode as the shutdown has dragged on?

Let’s briefly start with that first question. What do you make of Trump’s offer? Will it bring about the end of the shutdown?

sarahf (Sarah Frostenson, politics editor): No.

micah: lol.

natesilver (Nate Silver, editor in chief): Nyet.

perry (Perry Bacon Jr., senior writer): It’s not at all likely to end the shutdown. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi bashed the proposal before the speech started (once reports came out with Trump’s offer). He didn’t consult Democrats before the proposal was released. It’s not clear he was even really trying to get Democrats to sign onto this.

sarahf: Yeah, what I don’t understand about the proposal is that it was negotiated without any Democratic input. It was just Vice President Mike Pence, Senior Adviser Jared Kushner and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell talking with fellow Republicans.

natesilver: I mean, there are some permutations where this is the beginning of the end of the shutdown, I suppose.

Those have to involve some combination of (i) Trump offering a better deal than what he’s offering right now, and (ii) public opinion shifting to put more pressure on Democrats.

micah: So is the best way to look at this address as basically a political ploy — an attempt to change the politics of the shutdown? (I don’t mean “ploy” in a negative sense.)

perry: I think that’s the only way to look at this.

natesilver: The real audience for the speech is likely the media. Because we’re the only people sick enough to actually waste our Saturdays watching this thing.

slackbot: I’m sorry you aren’t feeling well. There is Advil, Aleve and Tylenol in the cabinet in front of Nate’s office/Vanessa’s desk.

micah: lol

natesilver: lol, slackbot

Anyway, in theory, “we’re willing to compromise and Democrats” aren’t is a perfectly decent message. It’s BS in various ways (mostly because the compromise Trump is offering isn’t too good). But it’s a fairly conventional message — to sell a not-very-great compromise as being a good deal.

sarahf: Right now, Americans overwhelmingly continue to blame Trump and congressional Republicans for the shutdown. Saturday’s speech seemed like an attempt on his part to try and shift some of that narrative by outlining a proposal that definitely seemed like a compromise.

perry: And I think it has as few potential good effects for Trump. First, it may help keep Republicans on Capitol Hill aligned with him. They were getting leery of his wall-only strategy. This makes it easier for the party to unify around him.

Second, Trump’s proposal allows McConnell to hold a vote and suggest he and his chamber are trying to resolve the shutdown too, just like the House is doing.

Finally, I assume, when pollsters ask people about this proposal, it will be more popular than the wall itself. My guess is it will be near 50 percent support and perhaps higher. Most people I assume aren’t totally against any money for the wall and feel like Dreamers must have a path to citizenship or else.

sarahf: And I don’t know if it’s a good look for Democratic leaders like Pelosi to immediately come out the gate saying, “nope this doesn’t work.” Then again, they weren’t consulted in the making of the deal it sounds like, so maybe she’d be better off highlighting that.

natesilver: I did think it was weird that Trump opened the address with a sort of uncharacteristically gentle paean to the virtues of legal immigration, but then careened to talking about drugs and gangs and violence and some of the other stuff that doesn’t usually pass a fact check. If you actually wanted to portray an image of bipartisanship, you could skip most of that stuff. Or you could talk about how there were extremists on both sides — call out Republicans for X and Y reason.

micah: Well …

I do wonder if this could change the politics of the shutdown in more than one way, as Perry was getting at.

It could make Democrats look like the intransigent side, as you were all saying.

But, it could also shift the narrative towards more “border crisis” and less “wall.” And that’s better political ground for Trump. Polls show more people believe there is a crisis at the border than support a wall.

sarahf: Right, last week we looked at different pollsters who asked Americans what they thought of the situation at the U.S.-Mexico border. I was surprised by the number of Americans who thought it was a serious problem or a crisis. Fifty-four percent of respondents in a Quinnipiac poll said they believed there was a security crisis along the border with Mexico. And in a CBS News/YouGov poll, 55 percent said the situation was “a problem, but not a crisis.”

natesilver: It could shift things — although, again, it’s worth mentioning that the deal Trump offered isn’t really much of a deal at all.

In fact, it offers a bit less than what they floated last night.

That was my read too -& this is a crucial distinction Democrats are already seizing upon. WH officials last night said it was the Bridge Act-& confirmed that to other reporters today-but what Trump announced just now is NOT the Bridge Act, it's a more limited twist on it. https://t.co/CxX154n9As

— Jonathan Swan (@jonathanvswan) January 19, 2019

The DACA part itself is a compromise, but to get that compromise, Democrats have to give up something (wall funding) that they’re firmly opposed to.

Although, it probably is fair to say that the wall is also a compromise of sorts. As Trump actually emphasized. It’s not all that much wall. It’s certainly not a big concrete wall stretching the length of the border.

sarahf: I know! OMG, what a 180 from him on that!

And, as Democrats will be quick to point out, they were already working on their own legislation that would give $1 billion in funding for border security (but not a wall – to be clear).

natesilver: Right, and Trump hasn’t really made the case as to why a wall is necessary to stop the humanitarian crisis at the border.

The other thing is that … none of this is really new. This compromise, if you want to call it that, has been around for a long time. Democrats have rejected it because it doesn’t give them enough. They rejected better versions of this compromise before the shutdown began, in fact.

And Democrats have more leverage now than then because Trump needs the shutdown to end a lot more than they do — it’s hurting him politically.

micah: I guess my point is more that the convo may change.

perry: To put this bluntly, I think this speech had two audiences the media (so they will do “both sides” coverage) and Republicans (so they will stay loyal to Trump on this issue). I assume this speech will buy him at least of few days of that. And both of those, as Micah suggests, will help with the public opinion.

sarahf: I was kind of surprised that he made no mention of the thousands of furloughed government workers.

Like some kind of nod to their hardship. But nada.

perry: They’re all Democrats.

I’m joking, but that is what he thinks.

natesilver: The question is partly: will the press run with Trump’s frame?

micah: Nate, I don’t know if the media will run with it.

Probably?

The headline in the lower-third on CNN right now is “Pelosi rejects Trump’s proposal to end shutdown.”

perry: Trump may have bought himself at least another week to sustain this shutdown. Next week will be 1. Pelosi rejected Trump’s idea before he spoke, and 2. Senate holds vote and Democrats filibuster.

You all disagree?

micah: I think that’s right, Perry.

As we’re chatting, here’s Politico’s headline: “Trump’s bid to negotiate on wall met by Democratic rejection”

The Washington Post: “Trump offers to protect ‘dreamers’ temporarily in exchange for wall funds”

Dallas Morning News: “Trump seeks border wall funding in exchange for DACA protections to end shutdown”

natesilver: There’s at least some semi-intelligent understanding on the White House’s part of how media dynamics work.

At least parts of the speech play well into the media’s “both sides-ism.”

micah: NBC News: “Trump offers new shutdown deal, Democrats expected to reject it”

Los Angeles Times: “President Trump proposes to extend protections for ‘Dreamers’ in exchange for border wall funding”

ABC News: “Trump will extend ‘Dreamers,’ TPS protection in exchange for full border wall funding”

CBS News: “Trump proposes deal on immigration, Pelosi calls shutdown offer a ‘non-starter’”

natesilver: But the thing about that NBC headline is that the “new” part is pretty misleading.

perry: Those are great headlines for Trump. Considering the reality is closer to this:

Isn't this a kind of hostage-taking squared? First end the programs. Then shut the government. Then promise to temporarily restore the programs you've ended & reopen the govt you have closed, in return for the ransom of $ for a wall that 55-60% of country consistent opposes? https://t.co/PhsMABh6VC

— Ronald Brownstein (@RonBrownstein) January 19, 2019

micah: Yeah, at least in the very very early going, this seems like a good move by Trump.

natesilver: Keep in mind that media might feel a little chastened this week by the mess that’s become of the BuzzFeed story.

micah: Yeah, I was thinking that.

perry: I also think that keeping the Lindsey Graham’s of the world happy is something Trump cares about. The Republicans on the Sunday shows now have something to say. So do the Will Hurd’s.

micah: Very good point.

perry: Pelosi and Democrats, I would argue, were more unified than Republicans before this speech. But I wonder if some moderate Democrats start getting nervous now.

natesilver: The path here is like:

1. Trump and Republicans maintain some degree of message discipline for a week or so; 1b. Trump and Republicans don’t face too many defections from their own base; 2. Polling and other indications show that blame for the shutdown is shifting away from Trump and toward Democrats; 2b. There aren’t any strikes or planes falling from the sky that create a crisis and force an immediate end to the shutdown; 3. Trump offers Democrats a little bit — maybe quite a bit — more.

If all of that happens, maybe he gets a deal!

And no one of those steps is *that* crazy.

perry: So the fundamentals of this issue have not changed, you are saying, Nate?

natesilver: I don’t really think it changed anything.

perry: I agree.

natesilver: Except Trump made a chess move to advance the game instead of just sitting there petulantly staring at his opponent and watching his clock run down.

micah: “It gives him some more time” is a good read, I think.

natesilver: It was an extremely standard chess move, but at least it was a move!

sarahf: Well, I mean leading up to this speech there had been some speculation he’d declare a national emergency. And he didn’t do that.

So all things considered, I think this was a much smarter political move to make.

natesilver: Oh yeah, this is definitely better than that.

sarahf: Because I do think at this point Democrats have to say something other than, “we won’t support this.”

natesilver: It was, like, almost what a normal president with a competent group of advisors would do!

sarahf: Hahaha yeah

natesilver: But it will require a lot of follow through.

perry: I think Trump is aware that declaring a national emergency is a “loss.” He doesn’t want a “loss.” I don’t know how he gets a win. I actually think, this proposal, if it was passed, would very much irritate the right.

I will be curious how the right receives this idea.

perry: Ann Coulter attacked it hard.

natesilver: Coulter attacked it … although… you could almost say that’s helpful for Trump.

perry: Good point.

It makes it seem like more of a compromise if the right hates it.

natesilver: Now, if he loses the votes from several conservative Republicans in the Senate, then he’s screwed.

Or if he himself has second thoughts because Sean Hannity calls him tonight, he could screw himself.

perry: That’s an interesting question: Can Sen. Ted Cruz vote for this?

Can it actually pass the Senate?

micah: That is interesting!

perry: Because I assume part of the play here is for Republicans in the Senate to be seen doing something about the shutdown.

Would Sens. Susan Collins and Cory Gardner support this from the left-wing of the GOP? I think yes. But would Cruz, and some of the more hard-core immigration members on the more conservative wing of the party?

I assume yes, but I’m not sure.

micah: Wouldn’t you assume he cleared this with the Cruz’s of the world before unveiling it?

perry: I would not at all assume that.

micah: LOL.

That was a soft-ball.

perry: McConnell maybe.

sarahf: Yeah, I’m not picturing mass Republican defections here in the Senate … I guess just because McConnell seems to have been so heavily involved in negotiating this.

natesilver: Right, yeah

perry: Do we think any Democrats vote for it?

Doug Jones? Joe Manchin?

I assume no, right?

natesilver: Manchin maybe.

He voted to confirm Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, so it’s not exactly like he’s worried about stoking the ire of the Democratic base.

sarahf: But it does make you wonder why Trump ever listened to Mark Meadows and the Freedom Caucus in the first place getting into this mess.

Wouldn’t have $1.7 billion or whatever it was and no extension for DACA, TPS, etc. have been more popular for them?

I guess none of it went to the wall. So maybe not. No way to appease anyone!

natesilver: Right, the $1.7 billion didn’t specifically include border wall funding though.

perry: Another question: I think I’m a believer in the distraction theory, so would Trump have scheduled this speech if he knew Buzzfeed’s Michael Cohen story would be so heavily criticized?

micah: He sorta stepped on a pretty good news cycle for him.

Though Buzzfeed is standing by its reporting.

natesilver: Hmm. But the fact that he had a good news cycle probably means that today will be portrayed more favorably by the press.

So that gave him more incentive to do it.

perry: So you think the media, cowed by the coverage of the Cohen story, will cover this announcement more favorably than otherwise?

natesilver: The headlines we’re seeing are not “Embattled Trump desperately proposes already-rejected compromise in meandering speech,” but rather “Trump proposes new compromise and Pelosi rejects.”

micah: And you think the former is more accurate than the latter?

natesilver: I think “Trump again proposes already-rejected compromise in competent speech; Pelosi reiterates that she won’t agree” is roughly correct.

micah: The other thing maybe worth keeping in mind: The politics of the shutdown right now are really bad for Trump. Trump is unpopular, and the wall is even more unpopular. This is from our friends at The Upshot:

micah: And this is from us:

I guess what I’m saying is that it wouldn’t be too surprising if the politics of this improved for Trump after his speech, given where they are now. There’s plenty of room to improve.

Anyway … final thoughts?

perry: We know that presidential addresses generally don’t work. But Trump is making those political scientists look really smart.

sarahf: I think the fact that Trump didn’t consult Democratic leadership is a big ding against this proposal. But the fact that Trump did put forward some kind of compromise is something. It has the potential to change the politics around the shutdown.

It’ll be interesting to see what congressional Republicans actually put forward and what Democrats choose to counter with.

natesilver: I thought it was a bit weird at the end when Trump said this was just the start of negotiations on a much bigger immigration solution.

If this is just small potatoes stuff, Pelosi might ask, why do we need to keep the government shut down, when we’re going to have a much bigger discussion about immigration anyway?

That’s ultimately the question that Trump doesn’t really have a good answer for. Why do we need to keep the government shut down to have this negotiation?

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Pelosi will need to be clear about that in their own messaging.

At the same … I wonder if they also want to float, maybe on background because it does sort of contradict the message of “no negotiations at all while there’s a shutdown,” some notion of what a real compromise would look like. e.g. the full DREAM Act.

Or my idea: Offer HR1, the Democrats’ election reform/voting rights bill, in exchange for the border wall.

perry: The one reason I have a hard time seeing any deal being cut: “the wall is a monument to racism” is a real view on the left and has real influence. That makes it much harder Democrats to sign off on any money for the wall.

natesilver: Also, Republicans would presumably never agree to HR 1. But it moves the Overton Window (sorry if that’s become an overused concept now) and frames the idea that Republicans are nowhere near offering a fair compromise.

If the wall is so important to Trump — and he’s often talked about it as his signature priority — a fair offer now that we have bipartisan control of government would be to give Democrats what’s literally their No. 1 priority (given that they named the bill HR1) as well.

(That’s Pelosi’s hypothetical argument, not me necessarily endorsing the deal as fair to Republicans.)

micah: Yeah, that kind of deal seems a looooooong ways off.

[nobszone]

#ChangeTheChannel: The Decline and Fall of an Empire

(With apologies to UrinatingTree)

After several days on twitter swapping stories, the former producers of Channel Awesome came together to compile a google doc of the experiences they had while working with the website (the doc is rather long so here’s a condensed version for those who don’t have the time or energy to go through it all). 

The #ChangeTheChannel hashtag has gained a ton of steam. Tweets, videos, even articles are being written now about the movement. Channel Awesome’s response has been to simply say “We regret you feel that way.”

#ChangeTheChannel symbolizes a lot of things to a lot of people. For some, it’s a strike back against privileged white men, for others it’s another instance of the cntrl-left making a mountain out of a molehill and ruining the internet, and for others it’s just a nice fire to watch burn.

But for me? This symbolizes one thing and one thing only: the end of an era.

Because what we’re witnessing is the fall of the once mighty empire that was Channel Awesome.

Make no mistake though, this empire has long been dying. For the past few years Channel Awesome has been desperately trying to keep up the facade of its former glory as opposed to recognizing and attempting to fix its flaws. And with this whole debacle, Channel Awesome is now siphoning whatever reputation it may have had for the sake of its immediate and long term future.

Since 2013 this website has been doing whatever it could to remind itself of its glory days. The constant over reliance on Doug Walker’s character The Nostalgia Critic, trotting him out barely a year removed from his very public retirement of the character to just do the same style of reviews that he’s done in the past, only now for movies that are barely out of theaters.

But not to worry, he’s still forward thinking. After all, he brought on two actors to help him out in Malcolm Ray and Tamara Lynn Chambers who play various supporting characters in his reviews. He also now includes various little skits to break up the monotony of him sitting in front of a wall and talking to a camera, and now he even does reviews that have no clips in order to get around unscrupulous companies that abuse Fair Use laws.

Unfortunately to say that these new reviews suck is a bit of an understatement. About the only thing that people like about them are Tamara and Malcolm, and that’s more to do with their personalities and acting skills as opposed to the material they have to work with.

But surely it’s not just Nostalgia Critic all the time. Channel Awesome said they were trotting out new shows as well. Well most of those shows turned out to either not be very good, stagnated in development, or were so bad that they tried to sweep them under the rug and hope that everyone forgot they spent a hefty sum of money on them.

And now, thanks to these revelations (that were first reported on by folks like Mister Metokur but confirmed through the google doc), the site is literally hemorrhaging talent. CEO Mike Michaud now runs a company with a bleak present and virtually no future.

But still, the question must be asked; where did everything go wrong? How did a website that was the first name in online content creation become such a train wreck? For this, we have to find the precise moment that signaled the beginning of the end of the empire.

If you’ve watched any of the Channel Awesome critics, then you’re probably familiar with the term “Jumping the shark.” It refers to a moment when a franchise begins a sharp decline in quality that it’s never able to recover from. The term specifically refers to an episode of Happy Days when The Fonz literally jumps over a shark, a moment that began the show’s painful spiral into oblivion.

This thinking can be applied elsewhere as well. In sports you have moments like the 49ers firing Jim Harbaugh. In politics, the Republican party nominating Donald Drumpf. 

For Channel Awesome, this moment wasn’t when Demo Reel was announced, or even when Noah “Spoony One” Antwiler left the site (he’s a good producer but his behavior had become increasingly erratic, not to mention that as of late his work ethic has been...non existent). 

To find out when Channel Awesome jumped the shark, we have to go back a bit farther.

Starting in 2009, Channel Awesome (then under its old name, ThatGuyWithTheGlasses) filmed major crossover events to commemorate the site’s anniversary. The first one was nothing more than an impromptu brawl between The Nostalgia Critic, James Rolfe’s Angry Video Game Nerd, and the other contributors on the site. 

The second year movie, Kickassia, was more ambitious. The TGWTG crew traveled to Molossia to take over the micronation. While in many ways the shoot went well, this is where problems started to emerge.

(Just a quick disclaimer, I was originally going to go over in detail about the problems encountered in the anniversary films, but they’re so extensive that I simply don’t have time to fit them all in here. I strongly recommend reading the google doc for all the gory details.)

But it wasn’t until production of the third Anniversary special, Suburban Knights that things really started to become unsustainable. Things got so bad in fact that the entire movie was nearly scrapped. It only was finished at all because the producers were determined to do so.

So you’d think after such a miserable experience, Channel Awesome (or at the very least the Walker brothers) would recognize that they were in over their head. They would have to scale back production considerably for the next film and make it a smaller affair that’s more suited to their skills, or at the very least up their game. In trying to straddle the line between “amateur” and “professional” they were failing spectacularly.

But nothing was done. And Doug Walker proceeded to write To Boldly Flee. A four-hour long epic involving every single producer he could cram into his house and framed as a critique of acts like SOPA and the abuse of Fair Use laws.

Only when the producers actually read the script did they realize the true purpose of the film: the retirement of the Nostalgia Critic as a character. And the way the film was written, it seemed like it was also meant to be the end of just about everyone else on the site.

RIGHT THERE. THAT is the moment Channel Awesome jumped the shark.

But of course, the Critic’s retirement party wasn’t going to be denied. Doug Walker was still adored by the Internet after all. To refuse to let him retire his character on his own terms? The fandom’s jimmies would’ve been ruffled.

And besides, now they had a studio! And Doug was still on the site, now starring in a brand new show called Demo Reel. The empire will continue to live on!

Well, we all know what happened then.

While To Boldly Flee and the decision to retire the Nostalgia Critic may have been the moment that Channel Awesome jumped the shark, the reality is that there were many problems with the site long before. These were issues that the producers repeatedly voiced their concerns about and attempted to fix. Nothing was done.

To go over every single possible offense that was committed would be redundant as the google doc already does that for us. So instead, I shall do my best to list the “highlights” of the issues that were rampant with Channel Awesome.

Tellingly, it seems the problems with the site focused mainly on two individuals. CEO Mike Michaud, and CCO Rob Walker, though Doug Walker doesn’t exactly come off scott-free here.

So what exactly did these individuals do? Let’s break it down:

Mike Michaud:

He is a majority shareholder in the company and owns the rights to the Nostalgia Critic character.

He was very difficult to reach, regularly disappearing for long periods of time.

He was very reluctant to actually be involved with anything when it came to management of the company or daily operations.

The Pop Quiz Hotshot gameshow was his idea. No one wanted to actually do it, and he forced Doug and Rob to upload the pilot episode (which had to be reshot over a dozen times) to avoid an investigation by IndieGoGo.

When Allison Pregler (Obscurus Lupa) added midrolls to her videos in order to generate revenue, Michaud angrily confronted her while she was filming at the studio. He also left up incendiary comments about the midrolls on her videos to goad her into trying to take them down.

Lupa was literally fired for not answering Michaud on Skype within 15 minutes.

Kaylyn Saucedo (MarzGurl)’s videos were frequently mislabeled when Michaud uploaded them and he was very antagonistic towards her over the fact that she was affiliated with ScrewAttack (whom he perceived as Channel Awesome’s rivals).

Lewis Lovhaug (Linkara) requested to use the Channel Awesome studio to film the Atop The Fourth Wall movie. Michaud refused on the grounds that it would interfere with production of the Nostalgia Critic.

He attempted to fire Jacob Chapman (JesuOtaku) for simply criticizing the site.

When Dr. Gonzo inquired about the numbers for his podcast, he was repeatedly told to stop asking because “they suck and no one comes here to listen to you.” When he tried to create a tribute video for Justin Carmichael (JewWario), he was shot down for the same reason.

During the anniversary specials, Michaud asked that any crossover reviews that were filmed be handed over to Channel Awesome to recoup the costs of the production (none of the producers were ever paid for their part in the anniversary movies).

Was aware that Mike Ellis (another founding member of Channel Awesome) was sexually harassing members of the site, but did not act upon this information until nearly a year later. 

Overall Mike Michaud has engaged in behavior that could be considered immature, arrogant, unprofessional, and sexist.

Rob Walker:

He is the brother of Doug Walker and Channel Awesome’s CCO. He also frequently assists with the production of Nostalgia Critic episodes.

When producers came to Rob with concerns or complaints, he would call them “children” behind their backs.

Frequently fought with Doug over the script for To Boldly Flee.

When Lupa brought up that Doug should’ve told the other producers beforehand that he was retiring the Critic, Rob laughed it off.

He claimed that producers advertising their personal Patreon accounts was a “slap in the face” to the fans while also justifying their IndieGoGo as “executive authority.”

Topher Ames (Fool Fantastic) took a leave of absence to address the repercussions he was facing in his personal life due to coming out. Despite informing Channel Awesome’s HR rep at the time (Holly Brown) his videos were removed from the site. When he tried to explain what had happened to Rob, he was belittled and mocked.

During the filming of Suburban Knights, Iron Liz suffered a knee injury. Rob pressured her to sign a form that would absolve Channel Awesome of liability for any injuries, and refused to offer treatment until she did.

Doug Walker:

He is the most well known of the producers on the website, the man behind Nostalgia Critic.

Despite the fact that he’s officially considered “talent”, he is frequently involved with business decisions made by the company.

He’s described as being rather incompetent when it comes to the technical side of production, with Lupa claiming that he didn’t even know how to record a Skype conversation.

There are a limited number of slots on the site to feature videos. Doug tends to hog most of them, especially with series such as “Disneycember.”

By and large, the producers felt that Channel Awesome management was more concerned with what Doug wanted and needed rather than the producers as a whole.

The scene in To Boldly Flee where the Nostalgia Chick is assimilated was written in the guise of a sexual act. Both Linkara and Lindsay Ellis (Nostalgia Chick) were very uncomfortable with the scene and did not want to do it. Doug was unable to understand their reluctance.

Doug was legitimately unaware of how miserable the other producers were during the filming of To Boldly Flee. He had to be told later in a private meeting. He discusses this in the commentary track for To Boldly Flee where he expresses guilt over it and explains it’s one of the reasons he’s no longer doing large scale productions.

Phelan Porteous (Phelous) did some of the VFX for To Boldly Flee. Doug expressed his approval of the VFX. Later, Mat Williams (Welshy) was asked to “spy” on Phelous to make sure he wasn’t phoning in the work.

Doug was the deciding vote on whether or not to fire HR Rep Holly Brown (the decision came the day after she had surgery).

The decision to rebrand “ThatGuyWithTheGlasses” to “Channel Awesome” was to make it seem like the site wasn’t entirely focused on Doug’s work.

Doug did not tell anyone ahead of filming To Boldly Flee that he was retiring the Nostalgia Critic character, and the way he wrote the film gave the impression that he expected all the other producers to retire along with him (or at the very least that he no longer needed them)

Again, these are just the highlights that I could pull up in a quick timespan. I once again encourage you to read the google doc linked above.

Not just because it validates and substantiates these claims, but because it paints a clear picture of the decline and fall of a once mighty empire. The senate became complacent, refused to fix the glaring issues, and the barbarians sacked countless cities as a result.

Mike Michaud chose to focus the site on promoting the Walkers and figured that everyone else would be thankful for the “exposure.” This unfortunately doesn’t work when people expect that over time you’ll gradually move towards a more professional outfit, and especially when platforms like YouTube become more viable in terms of earning revenue.

And the sad part? This all could’ve been avoided. And not by just communicating more openly with the producers and treating them with respect.

When Doug Walker announced the sudden retirement of the Critic, the site’s traffic fell off a cliff and to this day has never been able to recover. The fact that it came seemingly out of nowhere was as much as a shock for the producers as it was for the fans.

Imagine if Doug had announced ahead of time that he was ending The Nostalgia Critic. At the very least, fans would’ve been able to prepare themselves for the end, and the producers who were reliant on Doug’s traffic to bring in views would’ve also been able to make plans for what to do in the aftermath. 

Going further, imagine if Demo Reel had started up as a side show before the end of the Critic. People would’ve had time to get used to the show’s more serious tone and docu-style format. Instead of having to reshoot the second episode on the fly, Doug would’ve been able to figure out what worked and what didn’t. It would’ve had time to grow a proper audience and flourish. 

Just imagine, people knowing ahead of time that Doug was retiring the Critic and trying a different show. The Critic would’ve gotten a proper sendoff that everyone was on board with and didn’t come out of nowhere. Demo Reel would’ve gotten through its early missteps and been able to grow. The traffic would’ve probably taken a hit but still be sustainable. The other producers would’ve at least felt like they weren’t being unceremoniously tossed to the side for the sake of a vanity project.

The empire could still be living on.

This could’ve been Channel Awesome had Doug told people ahead of time what his intentions were. Or even if Mike Michaud had truly tried to expand the site’s brand instead of focusing solely on the content produced by two men. But instead he’s chosen to be stubborn and cling on to what worked in the early days, back when no one would truly complain that the site was very much amateur hour.

That’s the other side of what’s lead to the fall of the empire: the stagnation. The fact that Channel Awesome hasn’t produced any original content worth a damn in nearly a decade, that they still think the show’s they did back in 2009 and 2010 are what people want to see today.

Take Rooster Teeth and Team FourStar. These studio’s have become so diversified in their portfolio’s you’d be forgiven for not knowing they started off as a Halo Machinma and a DBZ Gag Dub. But they do these things for the greater good.

Look at what focusing on one brand gets you:

Hell, this whole #ChangeTheChannel thing is giving CA the first real spike in trends they’ve had in a while, and it’s for all the wrong reasons. 

Even worse, there’s no hope of this going away any time soon.

Literally as I was writing this, Channel Awesome put out their “official” response to the aforementioned google doc.

If you haven’t read the google doc by now, I’d like to bring to your attention the fact that, for the most part, all the former producers want is simply an admission that they screwed up. All they ask is for Channel Awesome to apologize for mistakes they’ve made in the past and vow to do better.

But much like their tweeted statement where they said they “regret (the former producers) feel that way.” This is anything but that. I don’t have to link you the comments or tweets to tell you that this is about as tone-deaf as you can get. 

What’s more is that producers are claiming that Channel Awesome is flat out lying in their rebuttal. Only time will tell who’s telling the truth, but given that there’s been multiple accounts about how Channel Awesome told producers that they weren’t really going to do the thing they said they were going to do and that the things the producers were mad about was definitely their fault and not Channel Awesome’s, I’m not inclined to believe this statement.

Because at this point who are you going to believe? Mike Michaud, or your lying eyes?

Sadly, it gets even worse.

Consider this photo. This is the cast photo of To Boldly Flee. These were the headliners of Channel Awesome back in 2012. 

Fast forward nearly 6 years later. Most of the people in this photo? They’re gone.

And with Angry Joe now leaving as well, the only people in this photo who are still affiliated with the site are Bennett the Sage, Brad Jones, and The Walker Brothers.

Even worse, the people that are still on the site are getting roped into this regardless if they’re involved or not. Malcolm Ray and Tamara Lynn Chambers are both feeling the heat for their continued affiliation with the site, and both have promised their own response will be coming soon.

Let me be clear, no one has the right to attack Malcolm or Tamara or any producers over their decision to stay. As far as we know, they are completely innocent in these ongoing events. All the same though, I would counsel both of them to have a good look at the document so they can see for themselves what “loyalty” got for their predecessors.

In the end this website has done the unthinkable. Channel Awesome has gone from the envy of the Internet to its newest punchline. This is a feat that takes a special kind of incompetence. In all my life I can only recall one other incident like it.

But the reason why this has happened comes from the top down.

Mike Michaud is truly the Dave Brandon of the Internet. He’s the embodiment of the Dunning-Kruger effect, and overall just seems to be a terrible person. This is a man who desires to be in charge of everything while at the same time being in charge of nothing. He will chew out producers for doing things that make him look bad. He is a hollow shell filled with nothing but arrogance, immaturity and greed. 

Rob Walker doesn’t seem to be much better. While his list of transgressions is not as extensive as Mike Michaud’s, they give off the air of someone who lords an unwarranted superiority over others. A man who lucked into the position he’s in and is determined not to let anyone find out. A man who lied to his own brother about the problems Demo Reel was having, just for the sake of keeping everything running like clockwork.

Channel Awesome deserved caretakers that could nurture and grow the channel into something special. Instead it got two empty suits who are both convinced they’re the smartest one in the room.

And then there’s Doug.

This is where I suspect many of us on the outside looking in are having the biggest ethical dilemma. That someone like this man could do the things he’s accused of doing.

In the past I have come to this man’s defense. It can be no more.

To be honest, I do find him to be something of a tragic figure. This is the kind of stuff that can (and in all honesty probably should) end his career. And while I don’t know what kind of person Doug Walker is, I doubt that when he started off doing movie reviews on YouTube that he had any of this in mind. I doubt he wanted to do anything besides make movies and entertain people.

But at some point in time, we all need to grow up. We all need to understand that what we might have gotten away with in the past we can’t get away with anymore. That there are things expected of us, responsibilities we are expected to uphold.

For better or worse, Doug Walker does not seem to have realized that.

It’s one thing to be described as being “out to lunch” or off in your own little world when you’re in a social setting hanging out with people. Those kinds of traits can be seen as endearing and lovable. But they simply don’t work when you’re expected, fairly or otherwise, to be in charge of other people, or to help people out of a bad situation.

I have no idea if Doug is management, talent, or both. I don’t know what he considers himself to be. But the fact that he’s been allowed to make sweeping decisions that affect Channel Awesome as a whole seem to indicate that he doesn’t have a grasp of what he does or how his actions affect those around him.

And as a result, the things that we loved about him have now become the things we hate.

Remember when we laughed at the opening of Suburban Knights?

That joke isn’t funny anymore.

The thing that’s really disheartening to me, is that Doug is still being the same person he always is, even as all this stuff piles up. Simply parroting Channel Awesome’s response on his Facebook page.

I think many of us just want him to say something about this, something that doesn’t come from a prewritten statement. Snap at a fan at a con who asks him about the doc, say his boss was a total idiot who’s more or less ensured he’s stuck doing the same thing for the rest of his life, just do something, anything at all that’s not the same stuff he’s been doing for the last 5 years.

Whether Doug is naive, callous or a coward is in the eye of the beholder. I don’t know enough about him to say otherwise, except that he seems like exactly the kind of person who would shut down as his dream job becomes a nightmare.

And like I said, I truly believe this is it for him. This is the kind of thing that many people simply don’t come back from. If he thinks that he can simply tune this out, well he also thought that production of To Boldly Flee was a hoot and a half.

At least Malcolm and Tamara came out and said “That’s not us, that’s not what we do or who we are.”

Doug Walker seems content to burn amongst the flames without so much as shaking a fist at the heavens.

In the end, my hope is that if nothing else what happened with Channel Awesome will be seen as a cautionary tale, for there are two very important lessons here that we would all do well to learn.

The first; we all have an expiration date. One day, whether by chance or design, the Internet shall declare us irrelevant. Even if we don’t have a career destroying scandal, the simple truth is that eventually new mediums and ideas will come along. People will try to do what we do, only do it better. And unless we can adapt and evolve, we will die.

The second; no one escapes judgement. In a day and age when even an innocuous tweet made years ago can be dug up and presented to the world, it’s a reality that no one escapes their past and no one escapes judgement. We’ve all done things we aren’t proud of, and someday we will have to answer for them. And the more we try to bury or deflect the truth, the worse it becomes for all of us.

These are two lessons that all of us, no matter who we are or what we do, should always keep in mind. Because no matter how big or important we may think we are, we are all replaceable, especially on the Internet.

What happens when you don’t adapt and try to run from your past?

You become Channel Awesome.

(Damn this might be the most depressing thing I’ve written yet, I suddenly remember why I don’t do this fandom stuff anymore.)

[patriotsnet]

Why Did Republicans Vote Against The First Responders Bill

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/why-did-republicans-vote-against-the-first-responders-bill/

Why Did Republicans Vote Against The First Responders Bill

Biden Pushed For Bipartisanship What Happened

Why Did the Republican Congress Argue AGAINST the COVID Stimulus Bill?

Biden ran on wanting bipartisanship efforts on Capitol Hill, and being a;negotiator during his 36 years in the Senate.;

More:Amid calls for unity, President Biden and Republicans don’t agree what that looks like

Bipartisan efforts were made in the beginning of negotiations, with a;group of 10 Republicans meeting with Biden at the White House in early February to propose a counteroffer: a;$618 billion package.

But, those talks and communication have;since fizzled, according to Romney, who was;one of the senators who met with Biden. He told reporters;there has been very little effort on the part of the White House to find common ground with Republicans.

More:How much money will your state get if Biden’s COVID-19 relief bill passes?

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Me., who was also in the group of 10 Republicans, said;talks between the White House and her colleagues stalled.”

Biden said he hoped;”Republicans in Congress listen to their constituents,”;citing the popularity of the bill in some polls.;

Romney told reporters Thursday if some Republican amendments;got into the bill, some of his colleagues may support it.;

“But my guess is it’s not likely that many of our amendments will get any Democrat support so I think it’s very unlikely that any Republicans will support the final bill,” he said.

McConnell and other Republicans have also criticized Democrats for using;a special process called reconciliation to push forward;the legislation;without much input from the GOP.;

Gop Claims Afghan Refugees Are Arriving Unvetted That’s Not True

Thirty-five House Republican broke ranks Wednesday evening to support legislation that would establish an independent commission to investigate the January 6 insurrection at the US Capitol.

Liz Cheney of Wyoming

Tom Rice of South Carolina

Dan Newhouse of Washington

Jaime Herrera Beutler of Washington

Peter Meijer of Michigan

John Katko of New York

David Valadao of California

Tom Reed of New York

Don Bacon of Nebraska

Andrew Garbarino of New York

Tony Gonzales of Texas

Dusty Johnson of South Dakota

David Joyce of Ohio

Chris Smith of New Jersey

Van Taylor of Texas

Chris Jacobs of New York

David McKinley of West Virginia

Jeff Fortenberry of Nebraska

Why 21 House Republicans Balked At Medals For Capitol Police

There was a brief political consensus in the immediate aftermath of the insurrectionist attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6. The left, right, and center could all agree on a simple truth: participating in a riotous assault against the nation’s seat of government, in the hopes of derailing our electoral system, is a serious attack against our democracy.

As we’ve discussed, however, that consensus broke down soon after. As winter turned to spring, many House Republicans decided to rewrite recent history, recasting the villains as heroes, and the police as heavy-handed abusers who interfered with “peaceful patriots” engaged in a lawful protest. There was fresh evidence of this yesterday: TPM reported, “During a House Oversight committee hearing Tuesday, several Republicans spent their speaking time expressing concern for a specific group of people involved in the January 6 attack: the insurrectionists themselves.”

Soon after the hearing, the House took up a measure to honor the law-enforcement officials who defended the Capitol on Jan. 6. The resolution passed, but not unanimously.

To be sure, a 406-to-21 vote is lopsided, but under normal circumstances, we’d expect zero members of Congress to vote against a measure honoring Capitol Police who kept them safe during an attack on their own institution. Yesterday, however, 21 lawmakers — each of them conservative Republicans — voted “no,” despite knowing that the resolution would pass anyway.

You May Like: Who Makes More Money Democrats Or Republicans

House Republicans Voted Against Giving Medals To Officers Who Responded To Jan 6 Riot

The House passed a bill Tuesday to award the Congressional Gold Medal to all law enforcement officers who defended the Capitol during the Jan. 6 riot, with 21 Republicans opposing the bill.

Why it matters via the Washington Post:“he vote underscored the still-lingering tensions in Congress amid efforts by some GOP lawmakers to whitewash the events of that day.”

Stay on top of the latest market trends and economic insights with Axios Markets.

The measure passed the House with a bipartisan vote of 406-21.

Details: The four medals awarded under the bill one of the highest civilian honors would be displayed in the Capitol Police and Metropolitan Police headquarters, Smithsonian Institution and the Capitol building.

The bill names the three law enforcement officers who died following the attack, and singles out U.S. Capitol Police officer Eugene Goodman, who lured a mob away from members of Congress.

The resolution recognizes their actions as an example of “the patriotism and the commitment of Capitol Police officers, and those of other law enforcement agencies, to risk their lives in service of our country.”

The Republicans who voted against:

Rep. Thomas Massie

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene

Rep. Andy Harris

The Long Fight To Funding

Congress passed the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act in 2010, over opposition from some Republicans who balked at its original $7 billion price tag. The act was reauthorized in 2015 for 90 years. But a portion of the law the Victim Compensation Fund was only funded for five years, through the end of 2020.; The fund aimed to provide necessary financial support for the thousands who suffered serious medical issues, including a spate of cancer diagnoses, after the 2001 attacks.;

The House voted 402 to 12 to permanently reauthorize the fund through 2092 earlier in July, with the Congressional Budget Office estimating $10.2 billion in costs over the next ten years. However, Sen. Rand Paul prevented the Senate from voting to approve the bill by unanimous consent last week because of its high cost. Fellow Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah also placed a procedural hold on the legislation, further preventing it from passing in the Senate.;

Under Senate rules, any one senator can propose that a bill be considered for unanimous consent, but one senator can also block it. The bill was then brought to the floor for debate and a full vote this week.

Comedian and 9/11 first responder advocate Jon Stewart blasted Paul;over the issue, telling Fox News the move was “absolutely outrageous.”;

In a last-minute pitch before Tuesday’s vote, Paul offered an amendment he said would help offset the bill’s spending costs.;

Don’t Miss: How Many Democrats And Republicans Are In The House

/11 Responders Bill Defeated By Senate Gop Filibuster

the CNN Wire StaffSTORY HIGHLIGHTS

Motion for cloture falls three votes short of ending GOP filibuster

Republicans oppose the $7.4 billion cost; supporters hope to revive the measure

Bill would provide medical benefits, compensation for 9/11 first responders

NYC Mayor Bloomberg calls it an “example of partisan politics trumping patriotism”

Washington — Senate Democrats failed Thursday to win a procedural vote to open debate on a bill that would provide medical benefits and compensation for emergency workers who were first on the scene of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

The motion for cloture, or to begin debate, needed 60 votes to pass due to a Republican filibuster, but fell short at 57-42 in favor.

While supporters said they would try to bring the bill up again, either on its own or as part of other legislation to be considered, the vote Thursday jeopardized the measure’s chances for approval in the final weeks of the current congressional session.

The House previously passed the bill on a mostly partisan 268-160 vote.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg reacted to Thursday’s result by calling it “a tragic example of partisan politics trumping patriotism.”

RELATED TOPICS

Michael Bloomberg

“I urge Senate Republicans to reconsider their wrong-headed political strategy and allow the bill to come to the floor for a vote,” Bloomberg said in a statement.

Zadroga Act Opponents Including Paul Ryan Observe September 11 Anniversary

WASHINGTON — The nation’s leading Republicans marked the 11th anniversary of 9/11 with the words “never forget” on their lips — most of those using the occasion to promote legislation — but nearly all of them opposed the bill passed two years ago to help the first responders who suffered health problems in the wake of the attacks.

Prominent among them was vice presidential nominee, Rep. Paul Ryan , who voted twice against the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act, and opposed the final passage of the bill.

“Eleven years ago today, from Capitol Hill, I could see the smoke rising from the fires burning in the Pentagon. Like all Americans, I will never forget the moment that our homeland came under attack,” Ryan said in a statement. “For me, this is a day to remember those who perished on that day of terror, including the first responders.”

A spokesman for Ryan, Brendan Buck, insisted that Ryan supports 9/11 responders and pointed to the congressman’s votes soon after the attacks in favor of aid for those suffering. He explained Ryan’s Dec. 2010 comments on the House floor in opposition to the Zadroga bill by noting that Ryan said he didn’t like the bill because he thought it was flawed, was “rushed” onto the floor by Democrats, and created a new mandatory spending program.

“Gov. Romney supports government assistance to the victims of terrorism,” Saul said.

Recommended Reading: What Witnesses Did The Republicans Want To Call

Texas Elections Bill Was Near Party

Friday’s vote;saw only one representative;cross;party lines; Rep. Lyle Larson, R-San Antonio, who voted against SB 1.;

All 40 Democrats who were present Friday voted against the bill, with several saying efforts should focus on improving;voter access with such initiatives as online or election day voter registration.

Instead, Republicans squandered an opportunity by focusing on restrictions that will have a disproportionate impact on voters of color, said Rep. Chris Turner, D-Grand Prairie,;one of nine Democrats to speak against SB 1 to close Friday’s debate.

The bill, Turner said, was inspired by the “big lie” that President Donald Trump was denied a second term because of widespread election fraud, a conspiracy theory unleashing a toxic and dangerous threat to democracy.

“He and other Republicans whipped their base into a frenzy with crazy conspiracies about election fraud,” Turner said.

“This bill was never about election security or voter integrity.;It was always about using the big lie to justify restricting access to the ballot box,” he said.

More:From polls to ballots, here’s what a new Texas voting bill would mean for you

Rep. Senfronia Thompson, D-Houston, a Black woman who recalled having to pay a poll tax to vote when she was young, said SB 1 was a continuation of an attack on the right to vote for nonwhite citizens.

“We have 90 days to act,” he said. “The clock is ticking.”

Utah Sen Mike Lee Votes Against 9/11 First Responders Bill After Losing Bid To Limit Spending

Why Ted Cruz Voted Against 9/11 Relief Funds | MSNBC

Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah.

Washington The Senate passed a measure Tuesday extending for decades the fund for victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks after defeating an amendment by Sen. Mike Lee that would have limited the payout to about $20 billion over the life of the program.

The bill, which passed overwhelmingly in the Senate 97-2 and was previously approved by the House, now heads to President Donald Trump’s desk for his signature.

Lee, a Utah Republican, had held up the bill while attempting to curtail the expansion to only what is needed in the next decade. His amendment, shot down by a 32-66 vote, would have given $10.18 billion to the fund in the next 10 years and another $10 billion after that.

After his amendment failed, Lee voted against the final bill. Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, supported the overall measure.

Lee walked off the floor shortly after it was clear his amendment didnt have the 60 votes it needed to pass.

His office declined to comment on the vote and pointed to a statement from last week when the senator said that the victims fund has had an excellent record avoiding waste and abuse and has always been funded for a time-certain extension.

These two things are not coincidental, he said in that statement. They go together.

The Senate also rejected an amendment by Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., that would have cut other programs to pay for extending the 9/11 fund. Paul cast the only other no vote.

You May Like: Who Are The Three Republicans Running Against Trump

Republicans Vote Against Awarding Medals To Police Who Defended Capitol

The House passed legislation on Tuesday to award Congressional Gold Medals; one of the highest civilian honors; to police officers who defended the Capitol during the violent Jan. 6 insurrection.

Lawmakers handily passed the legislation. Members of both parties supported it, 406-21, with all of the votes in opposition coming from conservative Republicans.

The four medals awarded under the bill would be displayed at the Capitol Police headquarters, at the D.C. Metropolitan Police headquarters, at the Smithsonian Institution and in a “prominent location” in the Capitol.

The medal displayed in the Capitol would be accompanied with a plaque listing all of the law enforcement agencies that helped protect the building on Jan. 6 from the mob of former President TrumpJoe BidenSpotlight turns to GOP’s McCarthy in Jan. 6 probeBiden visits union hall to mark Labor DayBiden approves disaster funds for NJ, NY after Ida floodingMOREs election victory.

The resolution names three police officers; Brian Sicknick and Howard Liebengood of the Capitol Police and;Jeffrey Smith of the Metropolitan Police; who died in the days after they were on duty at the Capitol on Jan. 6.

The measure states that their actions “exemplify the patriotism and the commitment of Capitol Police officers, and those of other law enforcement agencies, to risk their lives in service of our country.”

‘we’ll See You At The Polls’

But the bill’s House sponsor, Rep. Andrew Murr, R-Junction, said SB 1 was the product of more than 35 hours of House debate between the regular session that ended in May and two special sessions.

“We all strive for improvement, and I believe that’s what we’re looking at with this legislation, is improving the Election Code of Texas,” Murr said, his voice scratchy from almost 13 hours of debate Thursday over SB 1.

Moments before the House took its final vote on SB 1, Rep. Harold Dutton, D-Houston, engaged Murr in a back-and-forth discussion on the House floor.

“Do you think there’s fraud in Texas elections?” Dutton asked.

“Generally speaking, I;think there is always a likelihood of fraud,” Murr replied. “We have;seen past examples of fraud.”

Dutton ended with an acknowledgement that the fight over SB 1 was almost over, but he said a larger fight is looming: “We’re going to;go;vote, and so we’ll see you at the polls.”

Once the House names its five members to the conference committee, they will negotiate a final version of SB 1 that will need to be approved;by both chambers.

The bill’s author, Sen. Bryan Hughes, R-Mineola, said Friday that;he will determine the next step after;studying House changes.

Also Check: How Many Republicans Are Against Trump

Sign Up For The Intelligencer Newsletter

DOJ wades in against Texas abortion ban

Attorney General Merrick Garland said Monday that the Justice Department would protect women seeking an abortion in Texas as the agency explores ways to challenge one of the most restrictive laws in the nation. In a statement, Garland said the department would protect those seeking to obtain or provide reproductive health services pursuant to our criminal and civil enforcement of the law known as the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act.

The announcement from the Justice Department comes days after the conservative-majority Supreme Court declined to block the Texas law that bans abortion as early as six weeks into a pregnancy, with no exceptions for rape or incest. The law also allows anyone to file a lawsuit against any other person who has aided someone in obtaining an abortion, with the potential for a $10,000 payoff.

The Internet responds

Pro-choice users on TikTok and;Reddit;have launched a guerrilla effort to thwart Texass extreme new abortion law, flooding an online tip website that encourages people to report violators of the law with false reports, Shrek memes and porn.

The law makes it illegal to help women in;Texas;access abortion after the sixth week of pregnancy. To help enforce it, anti-abortion group Texas Right to Life established the digital tipline where people can send anonymous information about potential violations.

A Legislative Win But At What Cost

As the bill now heads to the president’s desk for final signature, advocates and living survivors can’t help but think the battle was won but at the expense of hundreds of their brothers in arms.

In the process of the reauthorization, over 200 firefighters and first responders died as a result of cancers and other medical ailments related to the 2001 terror attacks.;

The daughter of William Gormley, a former New York City firefighter who died after his own battle with cancer in 2017, told CBS that her family had filed a claim for benefits from the victims fund immediately after her father’s death and was assured that the money would be there.

“They went back on their promise but they had to. It was better for everyone to get a little money than no one at all,” Bridget Gormley said.

Gormley says the fund was unfortunately a “victim of its own success” after the fund quickly ran out of money because of a rise in cancer-related illnesses in the 9/11 community.;

“This is not going to be a cause for celebration,” Gormley noted importantly. “We unfortunately have to learn some lessons form our failures in this situation. It’ll be a milestone but it’ll serve as a testament to the first responders who fought.”

Recommended Reading: What Were The Reconstruction Goals Of The Radical Republicans

[dipulb3]

House Democrats weigh ejecting GOP winner of contested Iowa race, dismissing comparisons to Trump

New Post has been published on https://appradab.com/house-democrats-weigh-ejecting-gop-winner-of-contested-iowa-race-dismissing-comparisons-to-trump/

House Democrats weigh ejecting GOP winner of contested Iowa race, dismissing comparisons to Trump

While Democrats say what’s happening in Iowa’s 2nd Congressional District is nothing like Trump’s lies about widespread fraud and a stolen election that ultimately led to the January 6 attack on the US Capitol, they are aware of the optics of potentially booting out a member of Congress from the opposing party who was declared the winner by bipartisan state election officials.

“The critical thing is when you go to a judicial forum, bring some proof, bring some evidence with you,” Raskin told Appradab.

But Hart’s campaign has argued that if 22 other legally cast ballots are counted, she would win the race by nine votes rather than lose it by six. (The campaign has released a couple of voter testimonies claiming that their ballots were improperly tossed because of issues with the envelopes.) And since the Constitution makes the House the ultimate “judge” of its own elections, Hart has made an unusual petition to investigate her claims and seat her instead.

Republicans are outraged that she’s taken her case to a friendly audience in the Democratic-led House, rather than to the courts, and say it’s a brazen attempt by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to pad her razor-thin majority with an extra seat.

“They were complaining because Republicans wouldn’t tell people that Biden won the election on November 4, the day after the election, and now they’re playing this game? It just doesn’t add up,” said Chuck Grassley, the state’s long-serving GOP senator.

But Democrats say there’s nothing untoward about Hart using a process laid out by federal law giving her a chance to make her case before Congress.

“We can’t be concerned about optics,” said North Carolina Rep. G.K. Butterfield, who sits on the House panel considering the challenge. “We’ve got to review the evidence and see where it leads us.”

Raskin, a member of the committee, downplayed how the public might view the matter if the House overturned the election. “We live in cynical, jaded time, but that doesn’t mean we all have to give into it,” he said. “We just have to do our jobs.”

The lawyers for the two sides have until Monday to send their initial briefs to a House panel, which voted on party lines last week to consider the case. The House, which Democrats control by a 219-211 margin, could ultimately decide the election. The chairwoman of the House Administration Committee, Rep. Zoe Lofgren of California, said in an interview she hopes the case is resolved this spring.

Democrats could then face a controversial vote just months after defending the state officials who certified the 2020 presidential election. Some Democrats may be uneasy at the prospect.

California Rep. Lou Correa, a Blue Dog Democrat who sits on the Judiciary Committee, said he wanted to “look at the facts” about “what motivates Congress to look at something that should be a state issue.”

“I want to see what compelling reasons there are for the feds to get involved in this,” he said. “I think these are issues that right now are probably best left at the state level.”

The vote could be particularly tricky for Democrats like Reps. Jared Golden of Maine and Cindy Axne of Iowa, who could face difficult reelection races in 2022.

Golden, who narrowly defeated a Republican incumbent in 2018 who challenged his loss in court, told Appradab that he did not have a problem with the House Administration Committee’s actions so far.

“My instinct is that on these types of things, it’s always best to count every vote, look under every stone,” Golden said. “I think it’s best for either the incumbent or the challenger to allow the process to go as far as there are legal options to do so.”

But Republicans are eager to use any Democratic vote to unseat a lawmaker as a liability in the 2022 midterms.

Iowa GOP Sen. Joni Ernst said in an interview that Hart’s challenge puts the only remaining Iowa Democrat in Congress — Axne — in “jeopardy.”

Ernst asked, “Where is Cindy Axne saying, ‘This is an outrage and the Iowa voters have spoken?’ ”

Axne’s spokesperson pointed Appradab to a statement the congresswoman released in December. Axne said at the time that Hart has the “Constitutional and legal grounds to pursue” her case. “I support a transparent process that ensures every properly-cast vote in this contest is counted,” she added.

A rare House review of an electoral victory

It’s extremely rare for a congressional candidate to successfully challenge their loss in Congress. From 1933 to 2009, the House considered 107 contested election cases, according to the Congressional Research Service. In only three cases did it seat the candidate who contested the results; in one instance, it declared a vacancy.

But Miller-Meeks’ attorney Alan Ostergren told Appradab “it is a worry” that the Democratic-controlled House will reprise its 1985 decision to seat the Democrat over the state-certified Republican. He said that Hart could’ve gone to court instead of Congress.

“Our focus is on the fact that we have a certificate of election, and that there was a process that Hart could have chosen that was based on law, administered by judges, that she bypassed in favor of one administered by her own political party,” said Ostergren.

“The argument on their 22 ballots is almost exclusively that state law should not matter,” he added. “That’s a pretty troubling argument to make.”

Democrats have argued there wasn’t enough time after the state certification of the race for Hart to wage her case in court in order to comply with a December deadline. Marc Elias, a lawyer for Hart who helped lead the Democratic efforts against Trump-inspired lawsuits to overturn Biden’s win, did not respond to requests for comment.

“Voters who cast their ballots legally in this election deserve to have their voices heard and we are going to continue working to make sure that is the case,” said Hart spokesman Riley Kilburg. “This is a historically close race and we appreciate that the committee is taking seriously the need to ensure every vote is counted in this race by following this legal process.”

Republicans say that Democrats are trying to steal the seat. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said on Thursday that they were “trying to use brute political power to kick” out Miller-Meeks.

“Rita Hart and Speaker Pelosi are trying to subvert Democracy,” said National Republican Congressional Committee spokesman Mike Berg. “Every Democrat member should condemn this partisan power-grab.”

Lofgren said they are simply “following the law and the Constitution.”

When asked if she was worried about the optics of a partisan body determining the election, Lofgren said that the last time she evaluated an election, she made the motion that favored the Republican. (In 2008, Lofgren served on the panel’s task force that unanimously voted to dismiss a Florida Democrat’s case over her 2006 loss.)

“You have to just do it on the facts,” she said.

Other Democrats on the panel said that the GOP attacks shouldn’t deter them from reviewing the case.

“I don’t ever question Republicans’ ability to conflate what’s actually happening with the facts,” said California Rep. Pete Aguilar.

Democrats said that the cases of Trump and Hart could not be more different.

“I think you’re comparing apples to oranges,” said Iowa Democratic strategist Jeff Link. “Trump was trying to find ballots that didn’t exist. In this case, there are 22 ballots that were legitimately cast that hadn’t been counted. So, it’s a different situation.”

Pelosi reiterated as much to ABC this weekend.

“For them to call anybody hypocritical about elections when two-thirds of them in the House voted against accepting the presidency of Joe Biden is — well, it’s just who they are,” Pelosi said.

But Republicans say the House panel, which is divided between six Democrats and three GOP members, should keep the ultimate decision in the hands of Iowans.

“If six votes are not good enough for Marianette Miller-Meeks to be declared the winner, have a certificate and go through multiple recounts in a bipartisan way in Iowa, how is six partisan votes on the smallest committee in Congress reason enough to overturn the will of Iowa’s voters?” said Illinois Rep. Rodney Davis, the ranking Republican on the committee.

This story has been updated with additional developments Thursday.

Appradab’s Sarah Fortinsky and Annie Grayer contributed to this report.

[xtruss]

A Mob Out For Blood: Hindu Fascists India’s Protest Pit Hindus Against Muslims

Before this week's clashes, 25 people had been killed in running battles between protesters and police across India. That number has now nearly doubled after two days of arson, lootings, beatings and shootings in parts of New Delhi.

Mohammad Zubair was on his way home from a local mosque in northeast New Delhi when he came across a large crowd. He turned towards an underpass to avoid the commotion; it proved to be a mistake.

Within seconds, he was cowering on the ground surrounded by more than a dozen young men, who began beating him with wooden sticks and metal rods. Blood flowed from his head, spattering his clothes. The blows intensified. He thought he would die.

Zubair sits inside his relative's house.

Zubair provided his version of events at a relative's home in another part of the capital, his head wrapped in bandages.

The mid-afternoon attack on Monday, captured in a dramatic Reuters photograph, came against a backdrop of tension and violence.

Near the area of the Indian capital where it occurred, Muslim and Hindu protesters had been fighting pitched battles for hours across a concrete and metal barrier that divided the main thoroughfare, throwing rocks and primitive petrol bombs.

But the sight of a mob screaming pro-Hindu slogans suddenly turning on an unarmed individual, apparently because he was a Muslim, was a sign that growing tensions between members of India's two dominant religions may be hard to contain.

Unrest across India began in December with the passing of a law that makes non-Muslims from some neighbouring nations eligible for fast-tracked citizenship - a move many Muslims say is discriminatory and marks a break from India's secular traditions.

Persecuted religious minorities including from Hindu, Sikh, or Christian communities are eligible for citizenship, but those from Islam do not enjoy all the same advantages.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi's Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) says the new citizenship law is necessary to protect persecuted minorities from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan, and denies any bias against India's Muslims.

"They saw I was alone, they saw my cap, beard, shalwar kameez (clothes) and saw me as a Muslim," Zubair told Reuters.

"They just started attacking, shouting slogans. What kind of humanity is this?"

BJP spokesman Tajinder Pal Singh Bagga said his party did not support any kind of violence, including the attack on Zubair. He blamed rival parties for stoking the chaos during U.S. President Donald Trump's visit in order to damage India's image.

"This was 100 percent pre-planned," he said of the violence, adding that his party or its policies had nothing to do with the chaos. Reuters has no independent evidence that the protests were planned in advance.

Bagga said that the federal government, which controls Delhi police, moved to deploy paramilitary forces in order to bring the situation under control.

"I believe within 24 hours everything will be fine," he added.

Delhi police were not immediately available for comment on the attack on Zubair.

Since cruising back to power in May, Modi has pursued a Hindu-first agenda that has emboldened his followers, who account for about 80 percent of the population, and left India's 180 million Muslims reeling.

Now opponents and supporters of the law, largely divided between Muslims and Hindus, are facing off against each other. Some say the polarization evokes a dark chapter in India's past.

"The violence is now happening in tiny pockets of Delhi and reminds you of the beginning of the 1984 anti-Sikh riots," said Yogendra Yadav, a political scientist who leads a small political party opposed to the BJP.

He was referring to mob attacks on the Sikh minority after members of the community assassinated then-Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. Thousands of Sikhs were killed in cities including Delhi in what Indian investigators said was organised violence.

Modi appealed for calm on Wednesday after at least 20 people were killed and more than 200 injured in some of the worst sectarian violence in New Delhi in decades.

The citizenship law behind the unrest is one of several steps taken by Modi's government since its re-election in May that have appealed to the Hindu majority.

In August, it stripped Kashmir, India's only Muslim-majority state, of its special status, a move which Modi defended as a way of integrating the region with the rest of the country.

In November, the Supreme Court handed Hindu groups control of a contested site in the city of Ayodhya that paves the way for a temple to be built on a site where a mosque once stood. That was a central election promise made by the BJP.

Modi's position as chief minister of Gujarat state during some of the worst riots in India's independent history that took place there in 2002 has long stoked mistrust among some Muslims.

Up to 2,500 people, mostly Muslims, were killed during riots sparked after 59 Hindu pilgrims were burned to death when their train was set alight by suspected Muslims.

In the subsequent investigation, Modi was absolved of wrongdoing, even as dozens of others on both sides of the riots were convicted.

Before this week's clashes in New Delhi, 25 people had been killed in running battles between protesters and police across the country.

That number has now nearly doubled after two days of arson, lootings, beatings and shootings in parts of northeastern New Delhi that police forces have struggled to contain.

Delhi police said in a statement late on Tuesday that they were making every effort to contain the clashes and urged people to maintain the peace.

Witnesses said police and paramilitary forces were patrolling the streets in far greater numbers on Wednesday. Parts of the riot-hit areas were deserted.

Several of those killed and injured had been shot, according to two medics at the Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, where many of the victims were taken. Reuters could not determine who had fired on them.

Among them, Yatinder Vikal, a 33-year-old Hindu, was brought in with a gunshot wound to his right knee. His brother said Yatinder was driving a scooter when a bullet hit him.

Reuters witnesses at a local hospital spoke to both Hindu and Muslim victims who were injured in the violence.

An unconscious Zubair was eventually dragged to safety by fellow Muslims who came to his aid after throwing stones to disperse his attackers.

The 37-year-old, who makes a living doing odd jobs, was rushed to hospital where he was treated for wounds to his head and released late on Monday.

"I was thinking 'I'm not going to survive this'," he recalled. "I was remembering my Allah."

— PHOTO EDITING MARIKA KOCHIASHVILI; TEXT EDITING MIKE COLLETT-WHITE; LAYOUT JULIA DALRYMPLE

— Danish Siddiqi | Reuter | February 27, 2020

[thisdaynews]

'Barely interested' Republicans tune out Mueller

New Post has been published on https://thebiafrastar.com/barely-interested-republicans-tune-out-mueller/

'Barely interested' Republicans tune out Mueller

“It’s a great media spectacle. … He’s already said he’s going to talk about the report. That’s it!” said Senate Intelligence Chairman Richard Burr of Robert Mueller’s testimony. | Alex Wong/Getty Images

congress

GOP senators are brushing off the historic hearing before it even happens.

Democrats hope to bring Robert Mueller’s report to life on Wednesday. But at least one member of the target audience says “they’re just grooming a corpse.”

Senate Republicans are dismissing Mueller’s testimony to the House before it even happens. Most say they are too busy and won’t watch it, others say it’s a waste of time, and still more say it’s redundant after the special counsel already issued his springtime report on Russian interference in the 2016 election and potential obstruction of justice by President Donald Trump.

Story Continued Below

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has long said any decision on impeachment should take into account how Senate Republicans would react, wary of making a polarizing, partisan move to oust Trump that falls flat in the Senate. And the GOP is clearly signaling back that Mueller’s historic appearance has almost no chance of moving the needle for them.

“Don’t you think if I thought there was some value I would have invited him in?” said Senate Intelligence Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.). “It’s a great media spectacle… he’s already said he’s going to talk about the report. That’s it!”

“I understand what my Democratic friends are trying to do, but they’re just grooming a corpse,” said Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.). “They’re trying to keep this alive politically and they’re hoping that Mr. Mueller will say something to try to breathe new life in this. I don’t think it will succeed.”

The Senate GOP has been eager to shoot down any inkling that they would support convicting and removing the president if the House impeaches him. It’s a message that amounts to a strong signal of political support for Trump ahead one of the most highly anticipated congressional hearings in years.

It also seems to be a bet that average Americans won’t be watching, just as most Americans didn’t read the Mueller report itself, according to polls. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said the “American people have moved on” and that he, for one, won’t be watching it.

So if the rest of the country is tuned out, Republicans argue, why should they tune in?

“The report is public, we’ve all been able to review it, read it. What the heck? It’s done. There’s no collusion, there was no coordination. End of story,” said Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), echoing Trump’s talking points. “This will not change anybody’s mind.”

Republicans seem to be outdoing themselves in trying to appear as disinterested as possible. The idea that their minds could possibly be changed by Mueller’s testimony is laughable, they say.

“I’m barely interested in it. Most voters aren’t interested in it. Move on,” said Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-ND.).

“I actually read the report. It’s mind-numbing. It is a snoozer,” said Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), who chairs the primary oversight committee in the Senate. “I’m supposed to be worried about obstruction of justice charges against an investigation where there was no crime at all? And the whole narrative was manufactured?”

Mueller could not establish a criminal conspiracy, but Trump critics note that the president engaged in 10 instances of potential obstruction of justice — and they say he would have likely been charged with a crime if he did not occupy the Oval Office. But that’s not what you will hear from any Senate Republicans.

Instead they are sending a message to make House Democrats think twice before joining the pro-impeachment wing that now nears 100 members. That’s particularly true considering Pelosi’s opposition to a partisan impeachment vote.

And barring something extraordinary on Wednesday, that’s the trajectory the impeachment push is on.

“From our members’ standpoint, they can try and plow new ground over there but I think most people have lost interest. If we’re their audience they may be wasting their time,” said Senate Majority Whip John Thune (R-S.D.).

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) said he was too busy trying to lower health care costs to monitor the hearing. Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) said he doesn’t watch TV during the day and hasn’t been following the drama surrounding Mueller’s testimony. Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) said he would check out parts of it but might wait for the highlights from the media.

Democrats who have not yet endorsed impeachment seemed more eager to watch Mueller and willing to be influenced by his testimony.

“I tend to take Nancy Pelosi’s position, that this is such a serious decision. And you ought to really hear the evidence and see if you have enough to move forward,” said Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), who hopes to watch as much of the hearing as possible. “I want them to move forward on the investigation but I haven’t reached a conclusion on how I would vote.”

There are a handful of GOP senators who said they are eager to see what Mueller says and how he says it.

Both Sens. Mitt Romney of Utah and Susan Collins of Maine said they would review the hearing with interest. And even as some of her colleagues dismissed the event as manufactured for TV, Collins said that “since this was a taxpayer-funded investigation that Mueller should come before Congress.”

But the centrist Collins also opposes impeachment and doesn’t expect anything game-changing on Wednesday, remarks echoed by Romney, who said: “I’m not expecting any great revelation from his testimony.”

“I don’t expect that new conclusions will come from this hearing,” Collins added. “But it may fill in some of the gaps, such as more explanation of why he reached a conclusion that there was no conspiracy but didn’t reach a conclusion on the obstruction issue.”

That those two senators are skeptical about changing their minds about the underlying conclusions of the Mueller report underscores the virtual impossibility, at least for now, of finding 20 GOP votes to convict the president in the Senate.

So if the House moves forward with impeachment, it will be because its members felt obligated to sanction the president, not make a real attempt to remove Trump from office.

And some Republicans are daring the Democrats to go for it.

“The Mueller report is insufficient to impeach the president in my view,” said Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). “They’ve got a base problem. Nadler has already said there’s a case for impeachment. Just do it. Just do it if you think there’s a case there.”

Marianne LeVine contributed to this report.

Read More

[duaneodavila]

Donald Trump’s Lessons On Management

At a corporation, you’re often asked to lead teams.

So I naturally looked to our leader-in-chief, the President, for examples of how best to lead people.

I had been told by many folks, for example, to “praise publicly, criticize privately.”  People who do praiseworthy things should feel that they’re getting proper recognition for their work.  People whose work needs improvement, on the other hand, should be spared public embarrassment and shouldn’t come to resent their supervisor.  I thought you should praise publicly and criticize privately.

But Donald Trump corrected my misperception.

I told Rex Tillerson, our wonderful Secretary of State, that he is wasting his time trying to negotiate with Little Rocket Man… Save your energy Rex, we’ll do what has to be done!

The Russian Witch Hunt Hoax continues, all because Jeff Sessions didn’t tell me he was going to recuse himself…I would have quickly picked someone else. So much time and money wasted, so many lives ruined…and Sessions knew better than most that there was No Collusion!

I had learned from other folks who think about management that criticism should be leveled carefully and neutrally.  Depersonalize the situation.  Just describe the performance that must be improved.  That maximizes the chance that the person being criticized will take the criticism to heart and improve his or her performance.

But Donald Trump corrected my misperception.

Jeff Sessions said he wouldn’t allow politics to influence him only because he doesn’t understand what is happening underneath his command position. Highly conflicted Bob Mueller and his gang of 17 Angry Dems are having a field day as real corruption goes untouched. No Collusion!

I learned not to call people names.  That would be puerile, of course, but that’s not why management gurus tell you to avoid. it.  The problem is that calling people names destroys relationships and makes it very difficult later to work constructively with people whom you’ve insulted.

Donald Trump corrected my misperception.

Michael Wolff is a total loser who made up stories in order to sell this really boring and untruthful book. He used Sloppy Steve Bannon, who cried when he got fired and begged for his job.

So funny to see little Adam Schitt (D-CA) talking about the fact that Acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker was not approved by the Senate, but not mentioning the fact that Bob Mueller (who is highly conflicted) was not approved by the Senate!

I had been told that good leaders don’t hog all the credit.  Rather, give credit to members of your team.  Indeed, crediting your team and helping other team members advance their careers is the hallmark of a great manager.  Take yourself out of the picture.

Donald Trump corrected my misperception.

So great that oil prices are falling (thank you President T). Add that, which is like a big Tax Cut, to our other good Economic news. Inflation down (are you listening Fed)!

I had learned that good leaders take the blame when things go wrong.  Sometimes, the leader is actually to blame.  Other times, the leader may not have been at fault, but the good leader nonetheless accepts responsibility, protecting those who work for him from criticism.

Donald Trump corrected my misperception.

I think the Fed right now is a much bigger problem than China. I think it’s — I think it’s incorrect what they’re doing. I don’t like what they’re doing. I don’t like the $50 billion. I don’t like what they’re doing in terms of interest rates. And they’re not being accommodative at all. And I’m doing trade deals, and they’re great trade deals, but the Fed is not helping.

I had learned that negotiations should always be conducted professionally.  Never insult the person with whom you’re negotiating.  After all, I was told, you’ll want to settle most of the lawsuits in which you’re involved.  That means you must be able to pick up the phone and talk sensibly to opposing counsel.  You don’t want to ruin that relationship by insulting the other side.

Donald Trump corrected my misperception.

‘Federal Judge throws out Stormy Danials lawsuit versus Trump. Trump is entitled to full legal fees.’  Great, now I can go after Horseface and her 3rd rate lawyer in the Great State of Texas. She will confirm the letter she signed! She knows nothing about me, a total con!

Why would Kim Jong-un insult me by calling me “old,” when I would NEVER call him “short and fat?” Oh well, I try so hard to be his friend – and maybe someday that will happen!

I had learned that negotiations should be conducted in private.  That ensures that both you and your counterparty can retreat from positions without being forced to admit publicly that you’ve given ground.

Donald Trump corrected my misperception.

Did China ask us if it was OK to devalue their currency (making it hard for our companies to compete), heavily tax our products going into…  their country (the U.S. doesn’t tax them) or to build a massive military complex in the middle of the South China Sea? I don’t think so!

I had learned that you should try to leave a job on good terms.  Whether you’re firing someone or quitting, be nice.  You never know where life will lead; don’t make enemies unnecessarily.

Donald Trump corrected my misperception.

Wacky Omarosa, who got fired 3 times on the Apprentice, now got fired for the last time. She never made it, never will. She begged me for a job, tears in her eyes, I said Ok. People in the White House hated her. She was vicious, but not smart. 

Mike Pompeo is doing a great job, I am very proud of him. His predecessor, Rex Tillerson, didn’t have the mental capacity needed. He was dumb as a rock and I couldn’t get rid of him fast enough. He was lazy as hell. Now it is a whole new ballgame, great spirit at State!

I had learned that you always argue the merits of a dispute; never attack the other side’s motives.  The other side’s motives are, of course, irrelevant.  If the other side’s arguments are correct, then you should lose.  If the other side’s arguments are incorrect, then you should win.  It doesn’t matter why the other side is making an argument.

Donald Trump corrected my misperception.

Robert Mueller and Leakin’ Lyin’ James Comey are Best Friends, just one of many Mueller Conflicts of Interest. And bye the way, wasn’t the woman in charge of prosecuting Jerome Corsi (who I do not know) in charge of “legal” at the corrupt Clinton Foundation? A total Witch Hunt…….Will Robert Mueller’s big time conflicts of interest be listed at the top of his Republicans only Report. Will Andrew Weissman’s horrible and vicious prosecutorial past be listed in the Report.

Finally, I looked to the President for help with my writing style.  I had often been told that good writers rarely need to add emphasis.  If you compose a sentence correctly, the sentence will naturally stress the word that requires emphasis; you won’t have to underscore or capitalize that word.  Similarly, there’s almost no use for exclamation points.  If a sentence is composed correctly, the sentence will emphasize itself.

SAD!

Mark Herrmann spent 17 years as a partner at a leading international law firm and is now deputy general counsel at a large international company. He is the author of The Curmudgeon’s Guide to Practicing Law and Inside Straight: Advice About Lawyering, In-House And Out, That Only The Internet Could Provide (affiliate links). You can reach him by email at inhouse@abovethelaw.com.

[h-bailey]

Like most things in politics today, Montana House race is a referendum on Donald Trump

Montana congressional candidates, Republican Greg Gianforte and Democrat Rob Quist. (Photo illustration: Yahoo News; photos: Bobby Calvan/AP, Matthew Brown/AP)

EAST HELENA, Mont.—After losing a close election last year with a campaign during which he barely mentioned the words “Donald Trump,” Greg Gianforte appears to have learned his lesson.

Possibly too well.

As the Republican candidate for governor, Gianforte, a billionaire technology entrepreneur from Bozeman, ran as far away as possible from Trump’s chaotic presidential bid. He declined to publicly endorse him after he was the party’s presumptive nominee. And he skipped the New York businessman’s lone visit to the state last May, issuing a press release that didn’t even use Trump’s name. (“Gianforte Welcomes Presidential Candidate to Montana,” the headline read.)

Though Gianforte later said he supported Trump as the GOP nominee, he rarely spoke of the former reality television star at his campaign events. And that support became even more tepid after a tape emerged of Trump making vulgar comments about women during a 2005 interview with Access Hollywood. Gianforte condemned Trump’s remarks and said he would only “reluctantly” continue to back the GOP nominee’s campaign because he didn’t want to see Hillary Clinton win the presidency. “This is all the more reason we need to have effective leadership at the state level,” Gianforte said at the time.

In November, Trump won Montana in a blowout, defeating Hillary Clinton by 20 points, and his victory had coattails. Republicans retained control of the state legislature and won every statewide office, except for one: by a margin of less than four points, Gianforte narrowly lost to Gov. Steve Bullock, the incumbent Democrat.

Many Republicans here still think Gianforte could have pulled off a party sweep had he cozied up to Trump a little more during the campaign. And Gianforte now evidently agrees. As a candidate in the special election to fill Montana’s single U.S. House seat, the former tech CEO is fully on the “Trump Train,” as he often puts it, presenting himself as an unwavering ally to the president—just in time to watch Trump’s poll numbers plummet, after months of scandals that threaten to cripple his agenda and undermine his political capital.

Greg Gianforte, right, receives congratulations from a supporter in Helena, Montana after winning the Republican nomination for Montana’s special election for U.S. House on March 6, 2017. (Photo: Matt Volz/AP)

The special election here, scheduled for May 25th, could be a crucial first test for Republicans looking ahead to next year’s 2018 midterm elections on the tricky question of whether it is politically safer to stick with Trump or run against him. And it could help Democrats in red states, like Montana Sen. Jon Tester, who is up for re-election next year, learn how to best position themselves to win back working class and rural Americans widely credited for Trump’s victory last year.

In television ads and on the campaign trail, Gianforte has fully assumed the Trump playbook, endorsing the president’s decision to fire James Comey, the former FBI director, and expressing skepticism about investigations into Russian attempts to influence the presidential election. Like many Republicans, Gianforte has revamped his public remarks to embrace familiar catchphrases of the Trump lexicon.

Speaking to about 100 supporters here in an old converted barn in the rolling countryside not far from the state capital on a recent Thursday morning, Gianforte, at times, sounded like he was playing Trump Mad Libs, pepping his own words with the president’s slogans. “I want to help Donald Trump drain the swamp back in Washington,” he declared. “Let’s make America great again!”

But for Gianforte, the reshaping of his political persona has been more than just rhetoric.

On the campaign trail, he has presented himself in the mold of Trump—a wealthy businessman who didn’t need to seek public office but feels duty bound to give back to the country that has given him so much. Born in New Jersey, Gianforte moved to Montana two decades ago, where he founded a software company, RightNow Technologies, which he sold to Oracle in 2011 for $1.5 billion.

In recent weeks, he has received significant help in delivering that message. Though he has been criticized for holding fewer public campaign events than his rival, Democrat Rob Quist, when Gianforte has been out in public, he’s been joined by VIPs like Vice President Mike Pence and Donald Trump Jr., the president’s oldest son, who has repeatedly likened Gianforte to his father.

Republican Greg Gianforte, right, welcomes Donald Trump Jr., the president’s son, onto the stage at a rally in East Helena, Mont., Thursday, May 11, 2017. Trump Jr. urged voters to support Gianforte in the May 25 special U.S. House election to fill the seat of Ryan Zinke, now President Donald Trump’s Interior secretary. (Photo: Bobby Caina Calvan/AP)

“We need more people in DC to help my father. When I think of the similarities… He’s not someone like so much of DC. They need that job. He doesn’t need this,” Trump Jr told supporters during a joint appearance with Gianforte in East Helena. “He built an incredible business, that employed hundreds of people. …That’s like my father.”

Speaking to a crowd where many in attendance wore the “Make America Great Again” hat that became ubiquitous during last year’s campaign, Trump’s son pleaded with those who backed his father to turn out for Gianforte. He acknowledged the election could be viewed as a referendum on his father’s popularity. “Help him help my father,” he said.

This was widely regarded as a safely red seat. It had long been held by Republicans, most recently Ryan Zinke, who resigned in January after Trump appointed him secretary of Interior. But the race to replace him has become a focal point for liberal activists looking to score at least a symbolic victory over Trump.

Working in the Dems’ favor is an independent streak that has led Montanans to elect conservative Democrats like Bullock, Tester and former Sen. Max Baucus. And whether it’s that or the belief that Democrats have been newly energized to turn out against Trump, private polling on both sides suggests that Quist has cut Gianforte’s lead in the race to single digits in recent weeks. That’s in spite of massive spending by outside GOP groups and by Gianforte himself, who recently loaned his campaign $1 million—money that has mostly been spent on TV ads attacking Quist as a stooge of House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi.

But Quist has also stepped gingerly around Trump in the race, which has likely benefitted his campaign even if it is at odds with Democrats who are contributing heavily to his campaign and surrogates like Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who is set to campaign with the candidate in the state this weekend.

Montana Democrat Rob Quist campaigns on March 10, 2017 in Livingston, Montana. (Photo: William Campbell/Corbis via Getty Images)

A political novice who has never run for public office, Quist is a singer-songwriter who works the trail with a folksy charisma and dresses the part, too. At a recent stop in Great Falls, he wore his ubiquitous white Stetson cowboy hat, which he kept on during his one and only debate Gianforte; a Western-style shirt and worn-in Wranglers and boots. He spoke softly and earnestly, peppering his stump speech with stories about growing on a ranch in a tiny town near the Canadian border. As he does at nearly every stop—he has held a public campaign event nearly every day in recent weeks—he spoke about his key agenda: the need to preserve and protect public lands—a huge issue in Big Sky Montana.

After a few minutes, as he has at dozens of campaign stops all over the state in recent months, the self-described “cowboy poet” slung his guitar over his chest and performed a few numbers, including what he describes as his campaign theme song, a ballad that rails against critics and bullies that he says are hurting hard-working Americans. “If you stand with me,” he sang, “then I will stand up for you.”

For Quist, who has cast himself as a populist outsider, the song is a clear dig at Gianforte, whom he has cast as a rich guy out of touch with everyday Montanans. It is also an implicit critique of Trump, and though Quist criticizes many of the president’s policies, including the effort to repeal Obamacare and anti-immigrant policies, the Democrat rarely attacks Trump by name.

Speaking after a recent stop at a bar in Billings, where he recited a poem about Montana because a sore throat kept him from singing, Quist explained why he has mostly kept the president’s name out of the race.

“To me, it’s not about Donald Trump. This is about Montana … and the things that are important to Montana,” Quist said, insisting that he didn’t want to “nationalize” the race.”

But he also emphasized he was also trying to win over conservatives and libertarians who had been swayed by Trump’s populist message in November. And, echoing what Tester has said in recent months, Quist promised not to automatically oppose Trump, but to try to find common ground with the administration if he could.

Montana Democrat Rob Quist campaigns on March 10, 2017 in Livingston, Montana. (Photo: William Campbell/Corbis via Getty Images)

“We need to focus on the things that we have in common,” he said. “If he truly is for getting dark money out of politics, if he truly is for that, I am for that too. And if he’s for infrastructure (spending) and manufacturing, that makes a lot of sense for the people of Montana.”

And it’s that centrist appeal that has many Republicans nervous heading into May 25th election. Though Gianforte and his allies have blanketed Montana airwaves with ads attacking Quist, including for his personal finances and for having once performed at a nudist resort, the race is closer than anyone imagined.

Speaking ahead of a Gianforte rally here, a local Republican activist complained that Montana voters were being fooled by Quist, whom she derided as a “showboat entertainer with no substance” and whom seemed to be “Teflon” against attacks. Reminded that her complaints sounded similar to those lobbed by Democrats against Trump last year, she rolled her eyes. “It’s not the same,” she insisted.

On stage, Gianforte attacked Quist repeatedly as someone who was hiding his more liberal beliefs, would take away guns and turn Montana into a “sanctuary” state for illegal immigrants. “Rob Quist is Nancy Pelosi in a cowboy hat,” he declared.

Working the rope line with Trump’s son nearby, Gianforte continued to press his case as he pressed the flesh. The choice, he said, using his trademark metaphor of a “Trump Train,” was this: “Do we put the brakes on the Trump train or do we pick up speed?”

_____

Read more from Yahoo News:

Trump escaping chaos at home to turmoil abroad

Pence’s role as loyal soldier risks long-term damage

Five things to know about Joe Lieberman, potential FBI pick

Bai: Is John Kasich finishing the tour, or just getting started?

Photos: Nat Geo marks Endangered Species Day displaying stunning Photo Ark images

[successtomigration-blog]

Colleges Face Growing International Student-Visa Issues

The Trump administration’s immigration policies are beginning to be felt acutely by universities, as international students struggle to get the visas they need to study in the United States. Representatives from 10 schools recently told The Atlantic that they are facing an increasing workload as they try to help students navigate bureaucracy and advocate on their behalf—a sentiment echoed by various college presidents at a dinner with reporters last night. Several of those presidents said some enrolled international students never made it onto campus for the start of the current semester.

After steadily climbing for more than a decade, the number of new international students enrolled at U.S. colleges has declined in recent years. According to survey data collected by the Institute of International Education during the 2016–17 school year, enrollment of these students fell by 3 percent from the previous year. Results from the institute’s 2017–18 survey, the most recent data available, show that it fell again—this time by close to 7 percent.

“I think that both [the Trump administration’s] immigration policy and the messaging of the day are literally turning [international] students away … and making them less inclined to want to study in the United States,” said Brian Rosenberg, the president of Macalester College, a liberal-arts institution in St. Paul, Minnesota, at the dinner. (The dinner, held at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., was hosted by the Pennsylvania college Bucknell University and convened the heads of several schools, mostly liberal-arts colleges, to discuss challenges facing higher education.)

MORE STORIES

It’s Getting Harder for International STEM Students to Find Work After Graduation AMY MERRICK RCMP officer looks on as a woman carrying a child waits to cross the U.S.-Canada border. Canada Has Its Own Ways of Keeping Out Unwanted Immigrants TONY KELLER Peruvian citizens applying for U.S. visas wait in line at the American embassy in Lima. The Real Illegal Immigration Crisis Isn’t on the Southern Border KRISHNADEV CALAMUR A major source of this international-student trend appears to be something over which campus administrators have little control. The majority of institutions���83 percent—that participated in the Institute of International Education’s 2017–18 survey cited the delay or denial of student visas as a factor contributing to the decline.

Another president at the dinner, Philip A. Glotzbach of Skidmore College, said that while his liberal-arts school in Saratoga Springs, New York, hasn’t yet experienced a decline in international students, it has had to “work a lot harder” to recruit and retain them. Barbara K. Altmann, the president of Franklin & Marshall College, said that the “latest diplomatic skirmish about visas”—combined with political tensions abroad—has compelled her school, too, to “take extraordinary measures … so international students know [they’re welcome here].” One in five students at the Lancaster, Pennsylvania, liberal-arts institution comes from outside the U.S.—most of them from China. So over the summer, Franklin & Marshall “activated a network” of Chinese nationals affiliated with the college, including upperclassmen, asking them to send reassuring messages to incoming students and their families via social media and other platforms.

Read: Should America’s universities stop taking so many international students?

Many of these visa obstacles, according to NAFSA: Association of International Educators, in part trace back to a memorandum issued in 2017 by President Donald Trump that called for the “heightened screening and vetting of applications for visas and other immigration benefits” as well as new or updated requirements for visa holders studying or working at U.S. colleges. For instance, changes implemented by the Trump administration last year made it more difficult for recent graduates with student visas to continue living in the country legally. Since then, international students’ visa issues have created unprecedented workloads for many institutions, whose international-services offices traditionally focused on supporting students with, say, workshops about setting up American bank accounts, English-tutoring services, and basic visa-application guidance.

Before the presidents’ dinner, The Atlantic reached out to numerous schools—including several members of the Ivy League and an assortment of colleges with large populations of non-Americans—to learn what it’s like behind the scenes of their international-students offices. How, if at all, have these offices’ responsibilities evolved in recent years? The 10 that responded described an increase in visa holdups for their international students since the Trump administration issued its directives, and a corresponding increase in work for schools.

“I’ve been in the field for almost 20 years,” Kristy Magner, who oversees Tulane University’s Office of International Students and Scholars, said in an email, “and the amount of immigration changes during the last three years has been exponential.” (Non-Americans make up 6 percent of incoming freshmen this fall at Tulane, a highly selective research university in New Orleans.)

A recent high-profile example of the sort of issues students are facing was the fiasco involving Ismail B. Ajjawi, a Palestinian refugee and incoming freshman at Harvard who, upon landing in Boston late last month, was allegedly detained and interrogated by a U.S. Customs and Border Patrol officer for hours.

In a letter sent to Harvard’s student newspaper The Crimson shortly after the alleged incident, Ajjawi said that the agent found “people posting political points of view that oppose the U.S. on my friend list” and used this as grounds to cancel his visa. Being detained at an international airport spares a person from being officially deported, the CBP spokesman Michael McCarthy told The Atlantic in a phone interview, meaning Ajjawi could immediately reapply for a visa rather than remain blacklisted from travel to the U.S. for years. Still, once the CBP had deemed him “inadmissible” to the U.S., Ajjawi had to return home and face the daunting task of convincing the U.S. government to change its mind. After a “difficult and anxiety filled 10 days,” Ajjawi managed to make it back to Boston, according to a statement released on behalf of his family.

While the situation Ajjawi allegedly faced is extreme, it offers a peek into the kinds of headaches immigration can cause not only for students but also for colleges like Harvard—which, by sponsoring students’ (and visiting scholars’) visas, are on the hook for ensuring that those visa holders fulfill their paperwork requirements.

The priorities of colleges’ international-services offices shift in response to policy developments—from legislation targeting undocumented immigrants in the mid-1990s to the flood of homeland-security restrictions following 9/11—according to William Stock, an immigration lawyer who works with universities. But he says colleges have never before contended with the kinds of demands with which they’re currently grappling: the growing suite of clerical requirements for the alphabet soup of visas and related authorizations ( F-1s, J-1s, OPTs, H-1Bs) their students and scholars hold; the varying degrees of scrutiny of international visas that can evolve with the changing winds of White House immigration policy and rhetoric.

Several college administrators said students are experiencing lengthier processing times for visa applications in recent years than they have in the past; Josh Taylor, who oversees global programs for NYU, said in an email that in the past couple of school years he has seen more students denied travel in advance of their trips.

Stock, who formerly presided over the American Immigration Lawyers Association, described in a phone interview the Trump administration’s approach to immigration as a “cramped view on the world.” By deterring international students from attending U.S. colleges, the administration’s stance, Stock argued, is hindering schools’ ability to build diverse student bodies—and depleting their budgets. International students, who typically pay full tuition, bring significant revenue to colleges.

Read: The globalization of America’s colleges

In a June 2019 letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Kevin McAleenan, the acting secretary of homeland security, Harvard President Larry Bacow described his institution as a “vibrant, free, and open community that develops talent, produces leaders, and creates new knowledge.” He conveyed his “deep concern over growing uncertainty and anxiety around issues involving international students and scholars,” and pleaded for policy makers to help streamline the student-immigration process on behalf of higher education as a whole.

Some schools are being especially proactive in their efforts to assist international students. In January 2017, just days after Trump’s inauguration, NYU created (in partnership with its law school)—the Immigrant Defense Initiative, which offers “free, confidential advice and representation” to students and staff who may be at risk for deportation.

Other schools, including Columbia University, the California State University system, and George Washington University, have also established free immigration-related legal services for students. In the aftermath of the Trump administration’s executive order in 2017 barring travel for individuals coming from certain countries, 30 colleges and universities signed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to overturn the legislation, taking particular issue with the ban’s focus on six Muslim-majority countries. The executive order, they wrote, would “threaten [their] ability to attract persons not only from the specified countries, but from around the world.”

The advocacy, however, has done little to offset the uncertainty and anxiety that permeates colleges’ international-services offices these days. Much of the feedback The Atlantic received from college administrators was tinged with apprehension—and, a sense of fatigue: These staff members not only help students and scholars navigate paperwork headaches; they also provide those individuals emotional support as they juggle bureaucracy with the everyday stressors of college life.

Reference:  

Joann Ng Hartmann, who oversees NAFSA: Association of International Educators’ work on international-student enrollment, attributed the visa triage taking place on campuses to the Trump administration’s posture of treating all immigrants as “guilty until proven innocent.” The “complicated visa applications and adjudications and misunderstandings,” she argued in an email, almost always trace back to the administration’s new stipulations. A feeling of helplessness can be inevitable, she suggested; a visa process can, as Ajjawi’s case demonstrated, go awry at the very last minute, and “it is very difficult for school officials to assist when problems arise.”

Still, schools hope these challenges are only temporary. “The openness of [the U.S.] higher-education system has traditionally generated enormous good will around the world,” NYU’s Taylor said. “Hopefully we, as a nation, have stored up enough of it to make it through what has clearly been a reputation rough patch.

Read more: migration student visa agent australia

[newsnigeria]

Check out New Post published on Ọmọ Oòduà

New Post has been published on http://ooduarere.com/news-from-nigeria/world-news/hate-news-fake-news-is-western/

Hate News or Fake News: Is Western Media credible anymore?

by Prof. Engr. Zamir Ahmed Awan for Ooduarere via The Saker Blog

Western media is spreading fake news and fabricating stories with evil intentions. Western Media is biased and creating unrest and chaos in various parts of the world. Media is being used by the Western world to coerce, influence and achieve their ill-political motives. Unfortunately, Western Media is already dominating and controlling public opinion throughout the world.

Let me give you a particular example of the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation). BBC reported that the Saddam Hussain regime in Iraq possesses Weapons of Mass Destructions (WMD). America along with its allies attacked Iraq, destructed Iraq, killed millions of people, damaged Infrastructure, Power Houses, Telecommunication, Hospitals, Schools, Churches, Mosques, Roads, Industry, Oil Wells, Refineries, etc. Finally noticed that there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). Later on, the British Prime Minister of that time, acknowledged that the BBC news was not accurate, and information about WMD was not correct. But after damaging a country totally and harming millions of people, pushing Iraq into stone ages, one’s mere apology may not be accepted and may not be forgiven by humanity, irreversible damage to Iraq may never be forgotten by the history.

It is worth mentioning, Iraq was a very stable, oil-rich, and total welfare state under President Saddam Hussain. Education, health care was free of cost to its citizens, plenty of food, variety of food was available abundantly. Electricity was available in all parts of the country in abundance sufficiently. Fuel and items of daily use were available everywhere conveniently. The society was very much stable, satisfied and living a comfortable life. All factions of the society were enjoying harmony and was a tolerant society. It might be possible a few exceptionally politicians opposing the ruling party “Bath” or President Saddam Hussain, were victimized. They might be few in numbers or two digits only. But the vast majority of the nation was comfortable with the rulers.

But after the US war on Iraq, today, people of Iraq are facing a shortage of food, fuel, electricity, medicines, and items of daily life. No free education and health care are provided by the government. The society is extremely polarized, intolerance and factionist are very much common. Terrorism, lawlessness, and chaos are witnesses everywhere.

Is publically apology is sufficient to cool down the suffering of millions of Iraqis? Can anyone ignore the dirty role of the BBC? Is it possible, people of Iraq forget the BBC? Can the victim forgive the BBC?

It is only one example only. The same trick was played in the case of Syria. BBC reported that the Syrian Government possesses Chemical Weapons and is using against rebellions. Western Alliance NATO, under the US leadership, attacked Syria, killed millions of innocent people, displace millions of common citizens, damaged the whole country, and pushed the Syrian into stone ages. Forced the Syrian people to take asylum in the Western World where they are humiliated, especial the women and children are being abused. A huge portion is forced to live in temporary camps within the country, where life is very hard and lacks the basic amenities of daily life. Western World has made the life on common Syrian misery and curse only. While Syrians was a very stable country, may not be very rich, but with all basic amenities available conveniently. Nature has blessed the Syrians with best fruits and vegetables, and traditional Syrian food is one of the important attractions in the region. The people of Syria are very pretty and a superior creature. They can compete any beauty villain in the world easily. The law and order situation was very much comfortable and society was stable and living in harmony.

The same is the case of Libya, where ill-motivated fake News led to the destruction of a sovereign country. A very stable, oil-rich nation turned into chaos and lawlessness. A nation with all comforts and facilities has been deprived of even basic needs of life. A sate with total welfare for its citizens has been changed into a lack of everything like food, medicines, fuel, electricity, etc.

The situation in Yemen, Egypt, Tunisia, and Afghanistan is not much different than this. The US admits its role in spreading fake information about Afghanistan and admits its failure in Afghanistan. Pakistan, Turkey, and Iran are on the list and Western World is engaged in a hybrid war, where media is the basic weapon and in some cases over-engaged in spreading fake news and fabrication of stories to create chaos and promote instability.

In Pakistan only, we noticed many illegal radio stations operating by Western-funded NGOs, spreading hate, misinformation, and troubles only. Many media houses and individual journalists are hired by Western World and used as front-man or under-cover operation of hybrid war in Pakistan.

Only in the Middle East, around two million people have been killed, several million have been displaced from their homes, either to live in Camps or to move to other countries seeking asylums.

In fact, the world is full of such examples and unfortunately, the developing world is the victim and under direct target.

The recent reports regarding Mike Pompeo regarding lies, cheating, stealing, etc are further confirmation that information is deliberately changed to achieve designed results. The US role in

1970s ‘Operation Condor,’ in which South American dictators systematically tortured and killed dissidents in the region. An estimated 60,000 people were killed by the Latin American states in the clandestine operation, 30,000 in Argentina alone. Another 30,000 were disappeared and 400,000 imprisoned during the Operation. It is now known that the CIA was a guiding hand throughout the whole process, by training and helping military and civilian personnel. “Diplomacy and military strength go hand in hand. They are indeed intimately related. Each relies on the other,” Pompeo also admitted during the conference called “Why Diplomacy Matters.”

Covert operations, ousting democratically elected governments, inciting revolts and supporting transnational companies are run of the mill actions for the CIA, all justified as part of the fight against those who question U.S. interests. Actions that continue until this day. In 2018, one of its offshoots, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) channeled over US$23 million to meddle in the internal affairs of key Latin American countries, under the flagship of “human rights” or “democracy,” which represent a real menace for national sovereignty and the continuity of progressive governments in the region and the world.

These are the only few known facts, there must be much more in various parts of the world similar incidents and fake news or spread of misinformation.

I believe the Western World is misusing Media and the spread of distorted information as an unarmed wing or tool of defense and diplomatic strategies, to achieve their evil goals. It seems Western media is notorious for spreading fake news and the fabrication of stories. They have lost their credibility at all. The intellectuals and people with common sense no more believe Western Media anymore. The credibility of Western Media is challenged and lost recognition among the people having conscious.

I have been traveling internationally frequently and come across many foreigners. Most of them have a very negative impression about Pakistan. But those who have travelled to Pakistan, are very different and praise Pakistan. In fact, media is projecting negative image of Pakistan, however, the ground realities are very different. I do not claim that Pakistan is perfect and everything is ideal, but reject the extremely negative impression posed in the Western Media. There might be many problems in Pakistan but just like other countries, not much different from the rest of world. In some respect, Pakistan is better than many other nations awhile facing few challenges too like other nations. Misinformation and distorted stories regarding Pakistan are part of Western Media war launched against Pakistan.

I understand some of you may disagree with my opinion and maybe offended but at least it may initiate an open debate. Let’s explore the avenues of a common ground where we can seek the truth. The common man is interested only in seeking the real facts and figures. Let’s judge the reports and news on an impartial basis and reach conclusion at our own. With the improvement of technology, and especially with the help of the internet and ICT (Information and Communication Technologies), it is possible for the dissemination of facts instantly. We should conceive the facts with open-minded and be receptive to facts only.

I wish for a peaceful world where justice, freedom, and truth will prevail. Let’s join hands toward this goal and all those willing to achieve this goal, be struggling till the victory. In fact, journalist is a holy profession and must not be politicized. Let the media work for the welfare of humanity. There are many media houses working very well and are serving humanity properly. We must salute them and extend our full cooperation. We must differential among good and bad News agencies or media houses. It is our own duty to judge the good and evil media and should appreciate the positive role of media where ever necessary.

I must offer my heartiest apology if offended a few of you. But willing to find common ground and extend my full cooperation, if it is desired by some of you. Let’s build a better world, where tomorrow should be better than yesterday. Our next-generation must not face the same challenges which we have faced. Love humanity, love peace, seek the truth.

Author: Prof. Engr. Zamir Ahmed Awan, Sinologist, ex-Diplomat, Academician, Researcher, member editorial board (World Scientific), Peace-activist, Geo-analyst, Non-Resident Fellow of CCG (Center for China and Globalization), Islamabad, Pakistan. E-mail: awanzamir@yahoo.com)

[theliberaltony]

via Politics – FiveThirtyEight

Welcome to FiveThirtyEight’s politics chat. The transcript below has been lightly edited.

sarah (Sarah Frostenson, politics editor): President Trump may still not be out of the woods with his coronavirus diagnosis — he is back at the White House now after three days at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center and still receiving treatment — but the vice presidential debate is moving ahead as planned.

There are a number of new precautions in place for the debate, too, given the renewed focus on the coronavirus, including a hotly disputed plexiglass barrier to separate the candidates and no handshakes upon arrival.

We have less of an idea this time around about which topics Vice President Mike Pence and Sen. Kamala Harris will debate, but without a doubt the coronavirus will be front and center — in fact, it might be hard for other topics to break through in the 90 minutes they have.

So let’s start there.

We know from our poll with Ipsos before the last presidential debate that the coronavirus is the most important issue to voters here in 2020, and that most voters think Biden is better on the issue.

On COVID-19, almost everyone prefers Biden

Share of people who named each issue as the most important one facing the U.S., and whether they think Trump or Biden would handle that issue better, according to a FiveThirtyEight/Ipsos poll

Who’s better on the issue… issue share TRUMP biden COVID-19 31.7% 19.5%

–

78.8%

–

The economy 21.6 79.1

–

19.6

–

Health care 7.9 22.0

–

76.1

–

Racial inequality 7.4 8.4

–

86.6

–

Climate change 5.2 2.6

–

96.4

–

Violent crime 4.8 79.3

–

17.7

–

The Supreme Court 4.5 50.7

–

47.8

–

Economic inequality 3.0 15.1

–

76.8

–

Immigration 2.8 70.1

–

29.9

–

Education 2.6 52.1

–

45.9

–

Abortion 2.3 96.0

–

2.1

–

Gun policy 1.9 66.9

–

30.3

–

Other 1.6 55.1

–

43.5

–

Respondents who didn’t name a top issue are not shown.

Data comes from polling done by Ipsos for FiveThirtyEight, using Ipsos’s KnowledgePanel, a probability-based online panel that is recruited to be representative of the U.S. population. The poll was conducted Sept. 21-28 among a general population sample of adults, with 3,133 respondents and a margin of error of +/- 1.9 percentage points.

How do you see the conversation around the coronavirus playing out tonight? What will be Harris’s stance? Pence’s? This will be the issue tonight, right?

meredithconroy (Meredith Conroy, political science professor at California State University, San Bernardino, and FiveThirtyEight contributor): Yeah, Sarah, there’s little doubt that coronavirus will be the issue tonight. After months of Trump trying to downplay the virus, Pence will be forced to grapple with it more directly, given the president’s recent diagnosis.

nrakich (Nathaniel Rakich, elections analyst): I would be shocked if the debate doesn’t kick off with the coronavirus and spend a substantial amount of time on it. And I am really curious to see whether the share of Americans who say that the coronavirus is the most important issue to them rises in our Ipsos poll. I haven’t seen the new data yet, but it will be available to you, dear reader, on the live blog tonight!

Specifically, I’m curious to see whether the share of voters who back Trump and prioritize the coronavirus rises. There was a big partisan split on the issue last time, with Democrats far more likely to say it was their top issue.

meredithconroy: That will be interesting to see. I think it’s possible it is still below the economy for Republicans in the poll, though. The administration hasn’t really changed its tune on the severity of the virus, despite the president’s diagnosis, right? In fact, you could argue their messaging is even more reckless?

nrakich: Right — in fact, the president has downplayed the severity of the virus in the last couple days, tweeting “don’t be afraid of Covid” and taking off his mask when he returned to the White House.

sarah: Does Pence lean into that messaging, then?

nrakich: I kind of think he will try to walk it back. Pence is kind of the ticket’s “what the president meant to say was …” ambassador.

meredithconroy: Right. And Pence comes at this from a somewhat different position than Trump — he is charged with leading the White House Coronavirus Task Force. I’m not sure that means he echoes guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or corrects his boss’s recent tweets and messages, though.

In fact, perhaps foreshadowing what to expect, Pence’s spokesperson, Katie Miller, already chided Harris’s camp for asking for more precautions at the debate, saying, “If Sen. Harris wants to use a fortress around herself, have at it.”

nrakich: A more interesting question might be, how hard does Harris attack Trump for this? She has a lot of material to work with (e.g., not wearing a mask, not taking the proper precautions to prevent spread among White House staffers), but will it come off in bad taste?

perry (Perry Bacon Jr., senior writer): Doesn’t seem too hard for Harris to say, “I wish the president good health,” but then harp on his failures in dealing with the virus.

And I don’t expect Pence to walk back a ton of what Trump has said or done. The kind of non-Trump Republican position on the coronavirus has been: “We can’t shut down the country in fear of this virus, kids need to go to school, our economy can’t be closed,” and I assume Pence will say versions of that throughout the debate. It’s a more polite version of what Trump says, but not necessarily all that different.

meredithconroy: Yeah. I think you’re right, Perry.

nrakich: I don’t know about that, Perry. The polls suggest people are really turned off by Trump’s blasé attitude toward the virus.

I think Pence will want to counter the perception that Trump isn’t taking it seriously — which by definition I think involves telling people to, well, “worry about Covid” (though of course not in those exact words).

meredithconroy: I think it’s possible they’re past that now, Nathaniel, given that Trump is doubling down on downplaying the seriousness of the virus.

sarah: If anything, Pence might want to actively pivot away from conversation on the coronavirus as much as he can, because this is something Trump has consistently gotten poor marks on:

nrakich: That would kind of be the strategy we saw at the Republican National Convention? Try to change the subject to something like the pre-pandemic roaring economy or democratic socialism. It’s harder to do in a debate, though.

meredithconroy: Yes. I think Harris would want to keep the focus on the coronavirus and those most affected by it. Plus, she’s a good messenger for that. More women than men are facing job losses, and Black communities account for a disproportionate number of deaths.

sarah: But if you’re Pence, maybe pivot to something like talk around an upcoming vaccine, or the upcoming Supreme Court nomination?

meredithconroy: Speaking of messengers … Pence is a great spokesperson for the SCOTUS nomination, as a religious liberty conservative.

perry: A debate with a lot of focus on COVID-19 will be bad for Trump-Pence. So I would assume the moderator, to show balance, will harp on some subject that is designed to make Harris look bad. My assumption is this will be about abolishing/defunding the police. Also, Biden kind of non-answered on abolishing the filibuster and adding seats to the Supreme Court in the last debate, so I would assume that is a subject that Harris will be pushed on, too.

sarah: That’s a good point, Perry. And I can see how a debate around the Supreme Court could possibly back Harris into a corner, too, if Pence is adamant about the GOP’s timeline to confirm Amy Coney Barrett before the election, which might push Harris into saying something about increasing the number of justices on the court.

nrakich: Harris is also on the Senate Judiciary Committee and was a big Brett Kavanaugh opponent. Pence may try to accuse her of obstructing Republican-appointed judges out of hand.

But again, the polls are not on Republicans’ side here. Most Americans think the Senate should wait until after the election to confirm a replacement for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

perry: Only 32 percent of Americans support adding justices to the Supreme Court, compared to 54 percent opposed, in a recent ABC News/Washington Post poll. At the same time, a 6-3 court might strike down Biden’s entire legislative agenda. So I would assume Harris wants to stay vague on that issue, as Biden has.

nrakich: Why do you think they are being coy on that, Perry? I don’t really get it.

Even in a dream Democratic scenario, there won’t be enough votes in the Senate to pack the court anyway. And as Perry said, polling shows most people are opposed to it. So saying “we oppose court packing” seems like the politically expedient answer.

perry: Because I think a 6-3 court will be open to striking down any Democratic legislation even on the flimsiest of grounds, so I think they have to keep the idea open.

nrakich: That’s fair. And I don’t think court packing is high on voters’ radar. I just thought it was a weird unforced error by Biden to dodge the question at the last debate.

perry: The Democrats’ actual position is probably closer to: “A Supreme Court that strikes down Obamacare, Roe v. Wade and the Voting Rights Act with Barrett and Gorsuch in the majority is illegitimate, in our view, and we would take action to address that.” I just don’t know if Harris can say that right now.

sarah: I’m surprised either candidate got in anything substantive in the last debate with all the interruptions. But speaking of debates … even though we’re pretty skeptical that debates move the needle all that much (although we did see a slight uptick for Biden following the first debate), do you think this debate might have more of an effect just given the uncertainty around the last two debates actually happening?

Trump has said he plans to debate next week, but is it possible the debate commission won’t let him because of his diagnosis?

nrakich: I don’t see next week’s debate happening as planned. If Trump insists on going, I don’t think Biden will go.

I do think that makes today’s debate more important than a vice-presidential debate usually is (which is not very important).

Also, I think Trump’s diagnosis has highlighted, erm, shall I say, the fragility of both presidential candidates, which might have voters taking a closer look at their No. 2s.

perry: I am really skeptical the debate commission stops the sitting president from debating. The people in charge of these debates didn’t force his staff to wear masks or stop him from interrupting every 10 seconds in the last debate.

sarah: But at the very least, they’ll make him take a COVID-19 test and if it comes back positive … I think they’d have to stop him, or at least that’s what their guidelines seem to suggest.

perry: I don’t think they have the power to make the sitting president take a COVID-19 test and reveal the results. I might be wrong. But this is a really interesting test of power.

And I think Trump will not back down.

meredithconroy: I don’t want to speculate, but depending on Trump’s health, he may hope they do cancel the debate. We’ll just have to wait and see.

But another reason this debate might be more important than a typical VP debate is simply that more people are paying attention right now, right?

sarah: Or more seriously considering who is in the No. 2 role?

nrakich: Not sure about that, Meredith. The TV ratings for the first debate were down from 2016, just like they were for the conventions. (Insert obligatory caveat about how TV ratings are falling across the board and it’s possible people just switched from watching the debate on TV to streaming it online.)

perry: So focusing on this debate, I actually think this debate matters electorally. Some of these polls have Trump in the low 40s, down by double digits. I assume that means some GOP-leaning voters are undecided right now. So if Pence kind of reminds those people that they really hate the Democrats, even if they aren’t that into Trump, that is helpful for the GOP side.

meredithconroy: Yeah, I think that’s a possibility, Perry. I think a lot of people — maybe more moderate people or the less politically engaged — came away from that first debate saying “Wow that was chaos, and American politics is a mess,” but not necessarily attributing the chaos to the instigator (Trump). If Pence can assuage those feelings, I think people on the fence might, for now, stay on the fence instead of deciding to stay home or vote for Biden.

sarah: Trump’s approval rating has slowly been ticking back up, too, even though his standing in the national polls hasn’t improved …

How do you take into account Trump’s approval rating when thinking about his standing in the horse race? Is this some of the upside Pence could possibly tap into tonight?

nrakich: We at FiveThirtyEight are skeptical about weighting polls by partisanship, but it’s at least possible there’s a touch of nonresponse bias (i.e., demoralized Republicans don’t want to take polls right now) in the polls immediately following the first debate.

Do you hear that sound? It’s the partisan non-response alarm going off https://t.co/0ENKBW2kov

— G. Elliott Morris (@gelliottmorris) October 6, 2020

So a more, er, conventional performance by Pence could correct that.

But I wouldn’t read too much into Trump’s approval rating. We’re less than a month until the election; head-to-head polls have fully come into their predictive power. Plus, it’s not like Trump’s approval rating has improved to 50 percent or even 45 percent. It’s at 43 percent — right around where it’s been for most of his term.

sarah: OK, to wrap. Tonight we see the other half of the ticket. What case does Harris need to make for Biden-Harris? And what case does Pence need to make for Trump-Pence?

perry: Biden is winning. Harris’s job is to do no harm. To me, Pence can’t fully explain away Trump’s handling of COVID-19. So he needs to hammer other issues (the police, the Supreme Court, taxes) where Republicans are stronger.

nrakich: I don’t think voters decide who to vote for based on the bottom half of the ticket. So I think Pence and Harris need to successfully argue that their running mates are the best choice for the country.

But voters already know Trump and Biden so well — very, very few have no opinion of them in polls — that I’m not sure the candidates can say anything to change their minds. Honestly, maybe what Pence needs to do is create some highly newsworthy moment that distracts from what is frankly a terrible news cycle right now for Trump.

meredithconroy: Ha! Interesting theory, Nathaniel. But has Pence ever driven the news cycle?

I anticipate that Pence will use the debate to tie Harris to the “far/radical left,” like Trump attempted to do to Biden in the debate last week. And I am going to risk being very wrong and speculate that Pence also doubles down on Trump’s recent messages around the coronavirus and tries to play down its seriousness.

nrakich: “But has Pence ever driven the news cycle?” –> No.

And that’s the ballgame.