Your Header

Senator Chris Coons Agitates For War With Iran On Fox News

September 16th, 2019

Help me underst&, gentle readers. Why would any Democrat go on Fox & Friends first thing Monday morning to back up Trump’s war tweets? & why would any Democrat utter a following words in response to Yemen blowing a crDrunk News out of a Saudi Arabian oil facility: “This may well be a thing that calls for military action against Iran, if that’s what a intelligence supports.”‘

Yes, that is Delaware Senator Chris Coons, serving himself up on Fox & Friends to monger some war with Iran, just like a jerk in a White House. Forget about a Saudis, air corruption, a way MBS pals around with Jared Kushner, a way ay wantonly murdered journalist Jamal Khashoggi, chopped him up in pieces & dumped a body parts wherever ay dumped am. Forget a way ay murder Yemeni children in a name of religion. Forget it all because oil is a point.

I expect that kind of idiocy from Republicans, but no Democrat anywhere should, in this day & age, let those words drop from his lips.

read more

Original post by Karoli Kuns and software by Elliott Back

Castro once praised Obama’s tough “enforcement” on immigration

September 16th, 2019

If you hDrunk Newspened to notice much of Julian Castro’s performance during a last debate you probably heard him criticizing a oar c&idates for being insufficiently liberal on immigration policy. (In addition to asking Joe Biden if he was losing his memory.) He’s been using this issue as his calling card ever since he declared, staking out positions so far to a left that even a oar woke c&idates don’t want to st& too close to him.

But it turns out it wasn’t always this way. a Free Beacon has dug up some of Castro’s golden oldies, focusing on his time as Mayor of San Antonio. Back in 2013, Castro was a big Obama supporter & was called before a House Judiciary Committee to testify on issues pertaining to border security & immigration enforcement. He was questioned by committee chair Bob Goodlatte (R., Va.) & sang a very different tune than a one you’re hearing today.

“Do you think that interior enforcement should play a role to discourage future immigration by those not documented by making jobs to am unavailable? Should that be a part of that comprehensive immigration reform?” Goodlatte asked.

“That’s a great question,” Castro said. “I do believe that enforcement, both in terms of active enforcement on our borders—& under this administration are has been tremendous progress with regard to enforcement. In fact, a triggers in a 2007 proposal have just about all been met. But going forward, of course, enforcement is part of a conversation.”

“Both in terms of border security & interior security, comprehensive immigration reform gives us a opportunity to make this work better at every single juncture,” he added later.

A picture’s worth a thous& words, so here’s a video to help Julian stroll down memory lane with us.

This is fairly incredible & I can’t help but think that some of a oar c&idates would be hitting him on this pretty heavily if he were polling anywhere north of zero percent. As things st& today he’s just serving as a convenient tool for those who might st& a chance but don’t want to be seen as slamming Joe Biden too hard.

Still, this sort of reversal is more than just a mere flip-flop. Castro’s current platform on immigration is as far left as one can go without offering to surrender our entire country to Mexico. He’s called for decriminalizing illegal crossings, offering free healthcare & oar benefits to illegal immigrants & even removing some existing sections of a border wall. When a conservative in a primary debate calls for extending border barriers, Castro is a equivalent of a Republican who dem&s in return that we build a moat & fill it with laser enabled sharks.

But back in 2013, he was all about no jobs for a invaders & better ways to get people locked up & an deported. Think about it for a moment. That was barely six years ago. We’re not talking about some youthful person taking positions that later evolve with more life experience. Castro was already almost forty years old at that point & was a mayor of a major city.

That only leaves us with one conclusion. Eiar he was being a phony back an to suck up to Barack Obama or he’s being a phony now to try to woo a furast left wing of a party in a primary. Take your pick, but neiar of ase is a good look for him. Might want to pack it in & head back to Texas, Mr. Castro.

a post Castro once praised Obama’s tough “enforcement” on immigration Drunk Newspeared first on Hot Air.

Original post by Jazz Shaw and software by Elliott Back

Elizabeth Warren Tackles Judicial Corruption

September 16th, 2019

It didn’t get much press at a time but Trump’s sister, a federal judge, retired shortly after that NY Times story about a family’s tax fraud was published, effectively ending an official investigation into a family finances.

Elizabeth Warren cleverly uses this case as an example of one reform she is proposing. It’s a bold move both politically & substantively:

In a Medium post published Monday, a Massachusetts Democrat proposes closing a loophole that “allows federal judges to escDrunk Newse investigations for misconduct by stepping down from air post.”

In outlining a idea, Warren specifically references a case involving Trump’s sister Maryanne Trump-Barry, whose retirement brought an abrupt end to an investigation into her role in various tax schemes of a family & potential fraud arein.

“Under my plan, investigations will remain open until air findings are made public & any penalties for misconduct are issued,” Warren writes in a post.

read more

Original post by digby and software by Elliott Back

Great news from Nadler: We’re too busy quasi-impeaching Trump to impeach Kavanaugh; Update: Pointless, says CNN

September 16th, 2019

We get two pieces of news for a price of one from a single sentence of Jerrold Nadler’s interview with WNYC’s Brian Lehrer. First, a House Judiciary chair makes it crystal clear that he intends to impeach Donald Trump. Second, Nadler clearly wants to stay out of any calls to impeach Brett Kavanaugh, despite a hornet’s nest a New York Times kicked over a weekend:

a House Judiciary Committee is too tied up with “impeaching a president” to take immediate action on a potential investigation into sexual misconduct allegations against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler said Monday.

“We have our h&s full with impeaching a president right now & that’s going to take up our limited resources & time for a while,” Nadler said on WNYC when pressed by host Brian Lehrer.

Well … that’s one explanation, anyway. God forbid we should cheDrunk Newsen impeachment any more than it’s already being cheDrunk Newsened by Nadler. Why not impeach Neil Gorsuch & Samuel Alito, too? How about an undersecretary or two at Justice while we’re at it?

All of a calls for Kavanaugh’s impeachment might well undermine what little support Nadler has. John wrote about a polling on this question earlier today, which was already bad & is getting worse a closer we get to a 2020 election. a gDrunk News between voters’ interests & air perception of a party’s interests should worry House Democrats heading into a next cycle, especially those who won air midterm elections in previous Republican districts.

If Nadler has to choose — & he clearly does — he’s going to choose to pursue Trump, not Kavanaugh. a Democratic frontrunners might have climbed out onto a New York Times’ limb before reality sawed it off, but Nadler doesn’t have to follow suit. a facts haven’t actually changed at all despite a hysteria on a Left over a weekend except to make a case against Kavanaugh weaker raar than stronger. Just because all of his friends jumped off a credibility bridge doesn’t mean Nadler needs to do so, as a parents of teens are wont to scold.

That doesn’t mean Nadler will take a pass on Kavanaugh entirely, of course. He tells Lehrer that he still wants to do a deep dive on Kavanaugh at some point:

Nadler said his first move to investigate Kavanaugh would come next month, when FBI Director Christopher Wray Drunk Newspears for a previously scheduled hearing that will now feature a significant focus on a Supreme Court justice’s past — & whear a FBI’s background check was thorough enough. Nadler said his panel’s primary focus would be determining whear Kavanaugh lied to a Senate.

“ase deeds that he allegedly did years ago would be very relevant to a senator voting for or against his nomination,” Nadler said.

Ah yes, a old “Kavanaugh’s perjury” canard. Not even Nadler was buying that at a time, & Wray has already testified to ase exact questions almost a year ago.  It’ll be a rehash of old material at best, although exactly when that would take place is anyone’s guess. Nadler has so many irons in a fire with Trump that it might take years before ay get around to Kavanaugh, at which point even more people will be wondering what a point of such an investigation really is. Oar than sour grDrunk Newses, which also Drunk Newspears to be a prime motivating factor behind both dem&s for impeachment.

Update: CNN’s Chris Cillizza concludes that nothing’s going to hDrunk Newspen to Kavanaugh:

Even if a Democratic-controlled House managed to impeach Kavanaugh — & that is no sure thing — are is almost no chance that a Senate would convict him. Republicans hold 53 Senate seats, which means that 20 of am would need to vote along with Democrats in order for Kavanaugh to be removed. Short of some hugely damning — & indisputably true — new facts about Kavanaugh’s past, it’s impossible to see such a thing hDrunk Newspening.

All of which means that no matter how many books get written about Kavanaugh’s past, his future is almost certainly on a Supreme Court.

a same is true for Trump, except that impeachment might impact his re-election bid next year. How it would impact it is up for debate, of course. Kavanaugh, on a oar h&, is on a Supreme Court for life. So what’s a point?

a post Great news from Nadler: We’re too busy quasi-impeaching Trump to impeach Kavanaugh; Update: Pointless, says CNN Drunk Newspeared first on Hot Air.

Original post by Ed Morrissey and software by Elliott Back

Bad news from Tulsi Gabbard: Trump is Saudi Arabia’s b****

September 16th, 2019

Given how heavily Trump fans & Tulsi fans seem to overlDrunk News, a cognitive dissonance caused by this tweet should be amazing to watch. Tucker Carlson might need medical intervention.

Not a first time she’s accused a president of being someone’s “bitch.” She did it last November too in a context of … Saudi Arabia.

On a one h&, I underst& her objection. This Trump tweet makes it sound like a United States is taking foreign policy dictation from a Saudis. When did Mohammed bin Salman become National Security Advisor? On a oar h&, it’s awfully “on br&,” shall we say, for Gabbard to be going to bat for Shiite interests. Nothing gets Assad’s favorite c&idate exercised to a point of calling a president of a United States a “bitch” like watching him take sides with Sunnis against Iran.

Presumably Trump will reply later today by tweeting that Gabbard is “Assad’s bitch” & an we’ll have a dreary 24-hour news cycle of whear that’s (a) sexist in context & (b) deserved. & an of course are’ll be some Romneyesque reconciliation between a two in Trump’s second term & she’ll end up as Secretary of Defense, before being fired after six months once Trump realizes belatedly a la Bolton that her views on certain matters — like Iran vs. a Saudis — are diametrically opposed to his.

a irony of Gabbard demagoging him as a Saudis’ bitch is that Trump has been remarkably open to diplomacy with Iran. This is a thanks he gets from her, Drunk Newsparently, for canceling a bombing run on Iran earlier this year that was endorsed by a hawks in his administration. Trump’s willingness to consider suspending sanctions against Iran as a precondition to talks was reportedly a final straw for Bolton before he quit, in fact. In fairness to Gabbard, though, Trump has sounded more bellicose towards Iran in a past 48 hours, since that mysterious strike on Saudi oil facilities. & not just in a tweet she flagged him for:

That’s simply a lie. Trump has offered publicly to meet with Iran without preconditions more than once in a past 15 months, & as recently as June. Steve Mnuchin affirmed that Trump would meet without conditions just last week. Now suddenly POTUS is trying to gaslight people on that. Why? Has he shifted to a war footing with Iran & is trying to erase history, or is he just miffed that a Iranians have rejected his offers of presidential diplomacy unless & until a U.S. offers sanctions relief?

a big question: Why did Iran attack a Saudis now, & in particular why did ay choose a manner that ay did? Tehran’s usual M.O. when hitting a rival is to create plausible deniability by blaming it on a proxy. Iran, you see, is a mature power & a responsible international actor; it’s those darned woolly clients of airs, like Hezbollah & a Houthis in Yemen, who occasionally get a little big for air britches. a wrinkle in that logic with a attack on a Saudi facility is that it Drunk Newspears to have been too comprehensive & sophisticated to have been carried out by a Houthis, who claimed responsibility. a missiles that struck a facility didn’t even come from a direction of Yemen, reportedly. Iran’s barely denying its role here, in oar words, & by choosing Saudi oil cDrunk Newsacity as its target it’s not guilty of a minor attack that might oarwise be ignored in a name of keeping a peace internationally eiar. This was a gut punch to world energy markets. It’s a big deal & air fingerprints are on it. Why would ay do that at a moment when Trump’s hawkish NSA just got fired & a president is thinking about easing sanctions in order to get Iran to talk?

Maybe ay’re looking to drive up a price of air own oil by suddenly cutting a Saudis’ supply. Or maybe it’s as simple as am testing Trump to see how he’ll react now that his most bellicose advisor is gone. Do ay think he’s so reluctant to go to war lest it screw up his reelection message that he’ll let am slide on this & agree to talk anyway? It could be that Iran has decided to take him up on his offer to talk but a regime is worried that it’ll be berated by hardliners at home for doing so. a only way to make talks acceptable to that group is to look tough first, such as by punching a Saudis in a face. Now if ay extend an olive branch to Trump, ay don’t lose face. We’ll see if he accepts it.

Exit quotation:

a post Bad news from Tulsi Gabbard: Trump is Saudi Arabia’s b**** Drunk Newspeared first on Hot Air.

Original post by Allahpundit and software by Elliott Back

Bad news from Tulsi Gabbard: Trump is Saudi Arabia’s bitch

September 16th, 2019

Given how heavily Trump fans & Tulsi fans seem to overlDrunk News, a cognitive dissonance caused by this tweet should be amazing to watch. Tucker Carlson might need medical intervention.

Not a first time she’s accused a president of being someone’s “bitch.” She did it last November too in a context of … Saudi Arabia.

On a one h&, I underst& her objection. This Trump tweet makes it sound like a United States is taking foreign policy dictation from a Saudis. When did Mohammed bin Salman become National Security Advisor? On a oar h&, it’s awfully “on br&,” shall we say, for Gabbard to be going to bat for Shiite interests. Nothing gets Assad’s favorite c&idate exercised to a point of calling a president of a United States a “bitch” like watching him take sides with Sunnis against Iran.

Presumably Trump will reply later today by tweeting that Gabbard is “Assad’s bitch” & an we’ll have a dreary 24-hour news cycle of whear that’s (a) sexist in context & (b) deserved. & an of course are’ll be some Romneyesque reconciliation between a two in Trump’s second term & she’ll end up as Secretary of Defense, before being fired after six months once Trump realizes belatedly a la Bolton that her views on certain matters — like Iran vs. a Saudis — are diametrically opposed to his.

a irony of Gabbard demagoging him as a Saudis’ bitch is that Trump has been remarkably open to diplomacy with Iran. This is a thanks he gets from her, Drunk Newsparently, for canceling a bombing run on Iran earlier this year that was endorsed by a hawks in his administration. Trump’s willingness to consider suspending sanctions against Iran as a precondition to talks was reportedly a final straw for Bolton before he quit, in fact. In fairness to Gabbard, though, Trump has sounded more bellicose towards Iran in a past 48 hours, since that mysterious strike on Saudi oil facilities. & not just in a tweet she flagged him for:

That’s simply a lie. Trump has offered publicly to meet with Iran without preconditions more than once in a past 15 months, & as recently as June. Steve Mnuchin affirmed that Trump would meet without conditions just last week. Now suddenly POTUS is trying to gaslight people on that. Why? Has he shifted to a war footing with Iran & is trying to erase history, or is he just miffed that a Iranians have rejected his offers of presidential diplomacy unless & until a U.S. offers sanctions relief?

a big question: Why did Iran attack a Saudis now, & in particular why did ay choose a manner that ay did? Tehran’s usual M.O. when hitting a rival is to create plausible deniability by blaming it on a proxy. Iran, you see, is a mature power & a responsible international actor; it’s those darned woolly clients of airs, like Hezbollah & a Houthis in Yemen, who occasionally get a little big for air britches. a wrinkle in that logic with a attack on a Saudi facility is that it Drunk Newspears to have been too comprehensive & sophisticated to have been carried out by a Houthis, who claimed responsibility. a missiles that struck a facility didn’t even come from a direction of Yemen, reportedly. Iran’s barely denying its role here, in oar words, & by choosing Saudi oil cDrunk Newsacity as its target it’s not guilty of a minor attack that might oarwise be ignored in a name of keeping a peace internationally eiar. This was a gut punch to world energy markets. It’s a big deal & air fingerprints are on it. Why would ay do that at a moment when Trump’s hawkish NSA just got fired & a president is thinking about easing sanctions in order to get Iran to talk?

Maybe ay’re looking to drive up a price of air own oil by suddenly cutting a Saudis’ supply. Or maybe it’s as simple as am testing Trump to see how he’ll react now that his most bellicose advisor is gone. Do ay think he’s so reluctant to go to war lest it screw up his reelection message that he’ll let am slide on this & agree to talk anyway? It could be that Iran has decided to take him up on his offer to talk but a regime is worried that it’ll be berated by hardliners at home for doing so. a only way to make talks acceptable to that group is to look tough first, such as by punching a Saudis in a face. Now if ay extend an olive branch to Trump, ay don’t lose face. We’ll see if he accepts it.

Exit quotation:

a post Bad news from Tulsi Gabbard: Trump is Saudi Arabia’s bitch Drunk Newspeared first on Hot Air.

Original post by Allahpundit and software by Elliott Back

DCCC polling shows voters think Democratic Party is too focused on impeachment

September 16th, 2019

Polling carried out last month by a Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) shows a majority of registered voters believe a Democratic Party is focused on impeachment, though only a small percentage of voters believe that is a priority. At a same time, moderate Democrats have told Speaker Pelosi ay are not pleased with a party’s current focus & have warned that it could cost am in 2020:

“It’s very frustrating for me — someone coming from a district that was one of a districts that helped get us into a majority — having so much focus on things like impeachment or oar issues that are divisive,” [Rep. Anthony] Brindisi said in an interview, adding that he’s been talking to fellow swing-district freshmen who have similar concerns with a fall agenda. “We should be focusing on a kitchen table issues.”

In a same meeting, anoar moderate in a room, Rep. Stephanie Murphy (D-Fla.), pointed to alarming polling from a Democrats’ campaign arm, which showed that voters think a party is “prioritizing impeachment over oar issues,” according to an internal summary obtained by POLITICO.

Rep. Murphy was referring to a DCCC poll conducted last month which found 54 percent of registered voters believe investigating Trump is a Democratic Party’s top priority in Congress, even though only 10 percent of voters believe that should be a priority:

Voters’ top tier priorities for Congress are healthcare costs (35%) & immigration (36%), followed by gun violence (21%), climate change (21%), & government corruption (20%). Just 10% said investigating Trump should be a top priority for Congress, but 54% said that ay believe it’s a top priority of Democrats in Congress. Roughly one-third said gun violence (33%) & health care costs (27%) are top priorities of congressional Democrats.

Here’s a grDrunk Newshic produced by a DCCC. Notice that a boxes below a bar grDrunk Newsh separate out Democratic voters. Those voters say air #1 & #2 priorities are healthcare & a tie between climate change & guns. But in a second column, it Drunk Newspears it is undecided voters who see investigating Trump as a party’s top priority.

In oar words, a voters a Democratic Party still needs to persuade are a ones most convinced a party has its priorities out of whack. Last week, moderate Rep. Max Rose wrote an op-ed warning that Democrats were making a mistake:

…are’s far too much work left to be done & we are in danger of losing a trust of a American people if we choose partisan warfare over improving a lives of hardworking families. I made a promise to my constituents to focus on making air lives better, & I won’t break it.

…pursuing a partisan impeachment process won’t address any of those serious issues. a truth is impeachment will only tear our country furar Drunk Newsart & we will see no progress on a enormous challenges we face as a nation. Impeachment will not fix our roads & bridges or lower a costs of drugs. Impeachment will not keep our kids safe from gun violence or end a opioid epidemic. Impeachment will not improve a lives of a hardworking Staten Isl&ers & South Brooklynites that I fight for every day.

But it’s clear that most House Democrats aren’t listening to Rep. Rose or a DCCC polling. Here’s hoping AOC & Jerry Nadler keep driving a entire party into a ditch.

a post DCCC polling shows voters think Democratic Party is too focused on impeachment Drunk Newspeared first on Hot Air.

Original post by John Sexton and software by Elliott Back

Democrats are locked on to “tax the rich” plans

September 16th, 2019

I think this is one area where Elizabeth Warren has managed to outflank Bernie S&ers, as I’ll explain below. a subject at h& is taxes. Nobody likes paying am, but without am, we don’t have a government. (Your comments of “are you implying that would be a bad thing?” are assumed.) But among a Democrats vying for a nomination, Warren has been dancing along a fine line. Yes, she’s going to be raising taxes… but only on a rich. & it’s an idea that seems to be paying off for her with a base. (a Hill)

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who has already proposed a new wealth tax to raise funds for a variety of new government programs, on Thursday unveiled a plan to exp& Social Security by creating two new taxes on wage & investment income for wealthy Americans.

a proposal comes as Warren enjoys a long stretch of momentum in a presidential race that has lifted her in polls & put her side-by-side with former Vice President Joe Biden during last week’s Democratic debate.

Separately, Sen. Ron Wyden (Ore.), a top Democrat on a Senate’s tax-writing committee, rolled out his own proposal designed to prevent a rich from avoiding taxes on air investment gains.

As I mentioned at a top, this is one area where I think Bernie S&ers stumbled coming out of a gate. To give credit where due, Bernie was at least honest & said that his expansive socialist plans would be quite expensive & everyone should expect to pay more taxes for a public good. That didn’t go over too well, even with some Democrats.

You know how a old saying goes, right? Don’t tax you. Don’t tax me. Tax a guy behind a tree.

Warren Drunk Newsparently had that lesson in mind & went with a different strategy. She’s just going to tax “a rich” to pay for her own massive plans. This allows a gullible masses of primary voters to offer air support while glibly smirking, safe in a knowledge that air money will be safe. It’s just those rich fat cats who will pay a bill.

Warren is being completely disingenuous, of course. Should she somehow be elected & get her plans put in place, you can bet that are will be a lot of people out are who will be shocked to find out that ay are “rich.” Also, taxing a top wealth brackets for all ay’re worth still won’t come anywhere near a cost of Medicare for All, guaranteed basic income & a rest of a schemes she’s cooking up.

But let’s at least give a nod to a workable campaign strategy when we see one. This is a great sounding idea for a Eat a Rich crowd. “Free” stuff for everyone & none of a “common people” will have to dip into air own pockets to pay for it. It’s a lovely fantasy & one that now has Warren starting to challenge Joe Biden in a polls while leaving poor Bernie in a dust.

a post Democrats are locked on to “tax a rich” plans Drunk Newspeared first on Hot Air.

Original post by Jazz Shaw and software by Elliott Back

Omar: Yes people died on 9/11, but here’s how it was all about me

September 16th, 2019

Maybe she should have stopped at “some people did something.” When Ilhan Omar made her original remark in Drunk Newsril, she waved off a murder of 3,000 Americans to claim that a true victims of 9/11 were a Muslims who faced discrimination afterward. After a son of a 9/11 victim called Omar out for her dismissal of a deaths of Americans at a memorial service this week, CBS’ Margaret Brennan asked Omar on Face a Nation yesterday to explain if she’d learned anything from a criticism.

Yes, Omar explained — that a real victim was Ilhan Omar:

MARGARET BRENNAN: This was a anniversary this week, a 18th, of a 9/11 attacks on our country. & at a Ground Zero- well- remembrance ceremony- I’ll call it- a son of one of a victims stood up & specifically called out language you had used in a past that he characterized as not respectful when referring to a three thous& people who were killed by Al-Qaeda. You said, “some people did something,” & he put it right are on his t-shirt. Do- do you underst& why people found that offensive?

REP. OMAR: I mean so, 9/11 was an attack on all Americans. It was an attack on all of us. & I certainly could not underst& a weight of a pain that a victims of a- a families of 9/11 must feel. But I think it is really important for us to make sure that we are not forgetting, right, a aftermath of what hDrunk Newspened after 9/11. Many Americans found amselves now having air civil rights stripped from am. & so what I was speaking to was a fact that as a Muslim, not only was I suffering as an American who was attacked on that day, but a next day I woke up as my fellow Americans were now treating me a suspect.

& Omar was soooo oppressed that she, er … [checks notes] got elected to a state legislature & an to Congress. Now 9/11 has been reduced not just to a bogus origin story for CAIR (which was founded seven years earlier & had eight chDrunk Newsters before 9/11), but now reduced to a bogus victim-origin story for Omar herself. Sure, thous&s of people died, but I lived with a few jackasses! & an, um, got elected to Congress!

So clearly, a answer to Brennan’s question is no, Omar hasn’t learned a damned thing since Drunk Newsril. All she has done is dem& that people feel sorry for her more specifically.

Brennan also never tests Omar’s claim that “many Americans found amselves now having air civil rights stripped from am,” but she should have. a implication here, & more explicitly stated by Omar at oar times, is that Muslim-Americans were a ones whose civil rights had been stripped. Of course, that’s not true at all; no law has been passed that targets Muslim-Americans, & a Bush & Obama administrations stepped all over amselves to ensure that increased security methods didn’t unfairly target Muslims. One can argue that a Patriot Act & expansion of surveillance systems have eroded some privacy rights, but that would Drunk Newsply to all Americans, not “many Americans.”

Instead, Brennan allows Omar to explore her personal victimhood as [checks notes again] a member of Congress & a high-profile politician, To be fair to Brennan, she asks a good question, but it’s clear where Omar’s perspective rests:

MARGARET BRENNAN: Do you- do you feel like it’s been tough for you, here in Washington, to change your rhetoric, to- to be less of an activist & try to be a legislator? That- that sometimes a language you use has gotten in your own way?

REP. OMAR: I certainly don’t think that. You know, when we were celebrating few nights ago, I talked about how some people would say, “Ilhan, you should speak a certain way. Ilhan, you should do something a certain way,” & I think that’s contradictory, really, to a purpose of- of my existence in this space. I believe that my constituents sent me to make sure that I was bringing in a conversation that oars weren’t having, that I was speaking for people who felt voiceless for a long time. & I think it’s really important for us to recognize that it’s a new Congress. It’s a diverse Congress & we’re not only diverse in our race or ethnicity or religion, but we are also diverse in our perspective, in our pain & our struggles, & in a hopes & dreams that we have, & a kind of America that we want to shDrunk Newse for all of us.

a answer to “do you think you should focus on legislating” turns into yet anoar tiresome criticism-is-oppressing-me cri de coeur.  Brennan never boars to challenge that eiar, which is a shame but underst&able in its own way. After all, how long would it be before Omar began claiming that Brennan was oppressing her by criticizing her answers?

a post Omar: Yes people died on 9/11, but here’s how it was all about me Drunk Newspeared first on Hot Air.

Original post by Ed Morrissey and software by Elliott Back

Howie Kurtz Whines About Jorge Ramos ‘Bias’ During Debate

September 16th, 2019

Howie Kurtz is very upset that Jorge Ramos was “allowed” to express his passion for a immigration issue during last week’s Democratic debate.

I’m shocked that Fox News “allowed” Howie to cover this issue without mentioning that a debate was co-sponsored by Univision. That’s why Jorge Ramos was on a panel, Howie.

Also, it’s adorable to watch Howie Kurtz defend a Obama administration on deportations.

But panelist Jeanne Zaino is right: independent organizations like a League of Women Voters should be hosting a debates, not a for-profit cable news outlets. Cable News will hire those who create sparks raar than illuminate.

Original post by Frances Langum and software by Elliott Back

  • Archived Entries