Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez launches her Intersectional Environmentalism proposal to de-carbonize the US economy and solve every social problem within ten years.
Megan Mcardle, David Harsanyi and Jon Chait wack the pinata. I'll give Megan props for the best headline:
‘We’re nuts!’ isn’t a great pitch for a Green New Deal
But this proposal, and especially the accompanying (and withdrawn) fact sheet isn't merely ludicrously ambitious and devoid of common sense (Eliminate air travel?!? Retrofit "every" building in America?!?). It also reveals a stunning absence of basic knowledge of history and public finance.
One wonders whether Ms. AOC actually has the time and temperament to collaborate with experts and study an issue (yet another reason she is the Trump of the left!). Or did Democratic leadership cut her loose and send the real Washington hands off on other projects? Let her primary herself!
On to specifics. This passage on how the extreme environmental makeover might be financed may have sounded great in a college dorm. A freshman dorm. But this is a frightening level of ignorance about the structure, legal authorities, independence and role of the Federal Reserve when it comes from a Congressperson as part of a legislative package (my emphasis):
How will you pay for it?
The same way we paid for the New Deal, the 2008 bank bailout and extended quantitative easing programs. The same way we paid for World War II and all our current wars. The Federal Reserve can extend credit to power these projects and investments and new public banks can be created to extend credit. There is also space for the government to take an equity stake in projects to get a return on investment. At the end of the day, this is an investment in our economy that should grow our wealth as a nation, so the question isn’t how will we pay for it, but what will we do with our new shared prosperity.
Ah, well, what? The Federal Reserve is an independent entity - it won't be financing this green agenda just because AOC thinks it ought to. As to their legal authority, well, it is widely agreed the Fed can purchase government backed debt. They crept beyond that during the 2008 financial meltdown and used their lending authority to finance parts of the AIG bailout in what was widely perceived as an dire, backs against the wall, emergency meltdown scenario. But it is not at all obvious why an independent Fed would choose to finance these green projects or whether it would be within their legal scope.
Back on the history front, this JFK/Ike/FDR nostalgia is ahistorical nonsense:
Americans love a challenge. This is our moonshot.
When JFK said we’d go to the by the end of the decade, people said impossible.
If Eisenhower wanted to build the interstate highway system today, people would ask how we’d pay for it.
When FDR called on America to build 185,000 planes to fight World War 2, every business leader, CEO, and general laughed at him... At the time, the U.S. had produced 3,000 planes in the last year. By the end of the war, we produced 300,000 planes. That’s what we are capable of if we have real leadership.
One at a time: Kennedy first laid out the man-on-the-moon vision in May 1961. The US was losing the space race to the Soviet Union, which had the first satellite and the first man in space (their legacy rocket program from WWII gave them a head start).
Did people say "impossible"? The relevant Senate Committee unanimously approved funding a few weeks later. Polling was scattered: per Forbes, in 1959 52% thought a man on the moon was doable within 20 years; in early 1961, 65% approved of the attempt. Well, until the price tag was announced: per Wikipedia, 58% opposed the use of funds for that purpose. But "impossible"? Not seeing it.
And Ike? Well, he didn't wait for people to ask how we'd pay for the highway program - he asked Congress to extend the gasoline tax in his original proposal. No, fiscal conservatism wasn't invented last weekend to thwart Green Dreams.
As to FDR, my goodness: his speech calling for a massive rearmament effort was delivered on May 15, 1940, five days after Germany began their invasion of France. The French collapse along the Meuse was well underway, although the public (and possibly Allied military leadership) may not have been fully aware. The Times front page, with the Roosevelt speech in the upper left:
Although AOC is surely hearing laughter today, people were not laughing in May of 1940 (Geez, did she see "Churchill"? "Dunkirk"? How about "Avengers - Infinity War"?). In fact, FDR pressed into service William Knudsen, the head of General Motors, to dial up America's industrial base. Here is how historian Arthur Herman described Knudsen's approach:
“I’m no soldier,” Knudsen told Roosevelt when he got to Washington that May, “But I know if we get into war, the winning of it will be purely a question of material production.” He persuaded FDR that three steps were needed to get America’s businesses and factories ready for getting back to work, and getting ready for war.
The first was to rethink Roosevelt’s own anti-business instincts, and to bring industry leaders into the administration to deal with the production crisis.
The second was to scrap many of the New Deal’s anti-business regulations and tax policies, in order to give businesses an incentive to switch to wartime production and hire workers, retool, and expand their plants.
The third was to take control of the war mobilization process away from Washington bureaucrats and give it to America’s most innovative and productive companies.
That sounds sort of the opposite of the AOC plan to put the government in charge of everything.
Well. Other than showing no grasp of common sense, history or public finance I would say AOC is good to go.
Roberts declared it a tax to open the door for anyone making the argument that tax bills can't originate in the Senate.
Then he refused to hear any of those arguments.
4D
Posted by: Threadkiller | February 08, 2019 at 03:44 PM
Iggy,
OK lets pretend you are correct and Roberts was wrong about the individual mandate being a tax. What would have been the grounds to rule it unconstitutional and strike the entire law down? As a conservative I am opposed to the idea of socialized medicine but just because I disapprove of the law isn't grounds for believing it was unconstitutional.
Posted by: Tom R | February 08, 2019 at 03:52 PM
The American prision system is overloaded with jailhouse lawyers, maybe instead of the SCOTUS critical appeals like Obamacare should go there for an opinion and ruling. I will guarantee that it will more astute and convincing than anything coming out of SCOTUS.
Posted by: Jack is Back (Again)! | February 08, 2019 at 03:54 PM
They had the perfect opportunity to overrule Wickard v. Filburn but disgraced themselves instead.
Posted by: Extraneus | February 08, 2019 at 03:58 PM
:-) Jack!
Posted by: Old Lurker | February 08, 2019 at 03:59 PM
CH,
Here you go, from my neck of woods to make your day:)
https://www.sbnation.com/2019/2/8/18217461/botched-dunk-full-court-hail-mary-three-overtime-defeat-florida-high-school-basketball-is-wild
Posted by: Jack is Back (Again)! | February 08, 2019 at 04:05 PM
Uganda tourism minister slammed for using ‘women’s curves’ as tourist attraction
The idea was attacked, of course, and the pageant is even being sued, but apparently the show will go on.
(Click to open pic.)
Posted by: Extraneus | February 08, 2019 at 04:12 PM
Sorry.
What is FFS?
Posted by: President-Elect Jim,SunnyvaleCA | February 08, 2019 at 04:17 PM
Never mind, looked it up on the internet
Posted by: President-Elect Jim,SunnyvaleCA | February 08, 2019 at 04:18 PM
Via iowahawk, the drink your own pee thing is in the notes... not made up. Plus free massage chairs.
https://twitter.com/iowahawkblog/status/1093859125581283328?s=21
Posted by: henry | February 08, 2019 at 04:20 PM
There is a soccer team in the Premier League of the UK, Aresenal, who is sponsored by Visit Rwanda, famous for the latest genocide of a particular tribe. But to do a one's up on that, a soccer team at the sixth level of UK soccer, Blyth, up near Newcastle is sponsored by Visit North Korea.
Like I tell my friends, you first.
Posted by: Jack is Back (Again)! | February 08, 2019 at 04:21 PM
Link goes to letter from second accuser.
Posted by: MissMarple2 | February 08, 2019 at 04:26 PM
hat would have been the grounds to rule it unconstitutional and strike the entire law down?
How about that there is nothing in the Constitution that even vaguely gives Congress the power to force all adult citizens to buy a specific product from the government, even by the broadest imaginable reading of the Commerce power (or anything else in that document)?
Posted by: James D. | February 08, 2019 at 04:31 PM
MM,
its not official until the Rolling Stone publishes the accusation.
Posted by: Jack is Back (Again)! | February 08, 2019 at 04:32 PM
Someone needs to make sure the Rear Admiral takes his meds...
Kristol:
If Bezos’s investigator was getting close to exposing collusion between AMI, the Saudis, and Kushner-Trump in illegal hacking of Bezos’s phone, that would explain the panic at AMI.
Posted by: henry | February 08, 2019 at 04:36 PM
James D @ 4:31
Obamacare did not force anyone to buy health insurance from the government. If you wanted a shitty healthcare plan with a ridiculously high annual deductible you had the option of buying an Obamacare policy but you weren't forced to.
Posted by: Tom R | February 08, 2019 at 04:37 PM
Might be just me but interpreting the constitution in ways that the government rules rather than serves the people are bad.
Obamacare was a rule the people interpretation.
Posted by: boris | February 08, 2019 at 04:38 PM
It's one thing to have SCOTUS tell the people that a law they want is not permitted by the constitution. It is quite another to have some new heretofore unimagined power granted to government on the basis that almost anything can be called a tax in order to pass constitutional muster.
Posted by: boris | February 08, 2019 at 04:42 PM
Obamacare did not force anyone to buy health insurance from the government.
This is getting off on a tangent. What gives gov't the right to force citizens to buy a product, regardless of the source?
Wickard v. Filburn.
Posted by: Extraneus | February 08, 2019 at 04:48 PM
Hey Boris...is it just you and me, but didn't we learn that the Constitution was a document which granted only clearly specified and limited powers to the government until such time as those are taken back by We the People, not the other way around, right?
Posted by: Old Lurker | February 08, 2019 at 04:48 PM
You know what the Amazon HQ2 dispute is all about, right?
25,000 jobs that no one wants because it will interfere with their free shit status in NYC.
And it's a huge giveaway forced by pols on the taxpayers. Similar to taxpayer financed sports stadiums. AOC is a blind squirrel, but she may have stumbled on an acorn with this.
Posted by: jimmyk | February 08, 2019 at 04:56 PM
Boris @ 4:42
Would you have preferred Roberts agree with Obama and classify the individual mandate as a penalty? If he had done that do you think it would have changed the ruling?
Posted by: Tom R | February 08, 2019 at 04:56 PM
Virginia:
Julia Arciga
Verified account @JuliaArciga
The firm of the accuser claims they have corroborating emails, FB messages, and statements
Posted by: MissMarple2 | February 08, 2019 at 04:58 PM
Since Marbrury v. Madison, the most grevious fault of the Constitution was giving the SCOTUS those powers. They now believe they are more than an equal branch of goverment but that they are the government.
And there is no such thing as equal branches of government. Show me in the Constitution where it says that.
Roberts thinks he is equal to Trump and shows it in his commentary. He is not and never will be equal to the POTUS but that is what the prog indoctrinated media will continue to spill on the LIV's and non-attention span public.
Back to the Ledge for a nice Wet Goose Martini:)
Posted by: Jack is Back (Again)! | February 08, 2019 at 04:58 PM
What would have been the grounds to rule it unconstitutional and strike the entire law down?
Why not read the dissenting opinion of Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Kennedy? At least the first three of those seem to have had a pretty good understanding of what the Constitution permits.
Posted by: jimmyk | February 08, 2019 at 04:59 PM
Photo at link.
Posted by: MissMarple2 | February 08, 2019 at 05:00 PM
Got it waiting for you right here, Jack.
Posted by: Old Lurker | February 08, 2019 at 05:00 PM
Donald J. Trump
Verified account @realDonaldTrump
2h2 hours ago
Deepest sympathies to Congresswoman Debbie Dingell and the entire family of John Dingell. Longest serving Congressman in Country’s history which, if people understand politics, means he was very smart. A great reputation and highly respected man.
Posted by: MissMarple2 | February 08, 2019 at 05:00 PM
Donald J. Trump
Verified account @realDonaldTrump
I was a big fan of Frank Robinson, both as a great player and man. He was the first African American manager in baseball and was highly respected at everything he did. He will he missed!
Posted by: MissMarple2 | February 08, 2019 at 05:01 PM
And there is no such thing as equal branches of government. Show me in the Constitution where it says that.
I think the concept of checks and balances was one of the wisest decisions the Founding Fathers made. How exactly do you think the SCOTUS would have a check against the power of the other two branches without the ability to rule a law unconstitutional?
Posted by: Tom R | February 08, 2019 at 05:06 PM
I’m still on the old thread so I don’t know if Pagar got his pdf issue fixed. I’ve used pdfescape to edit pdfs prior to getting access to adobe acrobat yesterday. Pdfescape allows you to create, edit including fillable fields, etc.
Back to ketchup.
Posted by: Gentlejim | February 08, 2019 at 05:06 PM
Want a new American hero. I give you Matt Whitaker.
Off to dinner, but did he destroy the Dems on that committe or what. I have new respect for the Iowa Hawkeyes football team:-)
Posted by: Jack is Back (Again)! | February 08, 2019 at 05:07 PM
Someone needs to make sure the Rear Admiral takes his meds...
The obtuseness, to put the most positive spin on his behavior, of that dimwit still shocks me. The more realistic view is that he's an evil POS.
Posted by: Captain Hate | February 08, 2019 at 05:15 PM
--Iggy,
OK lets pretend you are correct and Roberts was wrong about the individual mandate being a tax. What would have been the grounds to rule it unconstitutional and strike the entire law down?--
I don't think you're grasping the issues correctly.
There were essentially two prongs to the government's case for why it was constitutionally authorized; the commerce clause and/or the taxing power of congress. This is why the government at times argued it was a tax [if the commerce clause strategy failed] and at others it was a penalty or fine. Their preferred and primary argument was a cc one. They lost on those grounds.
It was self evidently not a tax. So if you're interested in the rule of law their case would have failed on that prong as well, leaving the government with very little case left.
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki | February 08, 2019 at 05:15 PM
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1093926896801333248.html
This is a thoughtful article on Ginsburg's prognosis , whereabouts, and why we haven't heard anything.
Posted by: MissMarple2 | February 08, 2019 at 05:16 PM
LOL https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/321206/
Posted by: Dave (in MA) | February 08, 2019 at 05:20 PM
BTW in trying to find the old article that talked about how Roberts decision was being misinterpreted by conservatives, I found this one.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/06/how-obama-broke-his-promise-on-individual-mandates/259183/
During debate on the Affordable Care Act, Republicans tried to call the mandate's penalty provision a tax. The bill stated (and the law now states) that those who do not buy health insurance must pay a "penalty" to the IRS. When Republicans labeled it a tax, Obama strongly objected.
Sounds like Roberts and Congressional Republicans were in agreement that it was a tax.
Posted by: Tom R | February 08, 2019 at 05:21 PM
No, the problem with Obamacare is that it forces the owners of a product to hand it over to the people who chose not to buy the product. The 18th Amendment didn’t actually prohibit alcohol, it simply outlawed charging for it. In the same way, Obamacare prohibited health insurance by outlawing the charging for a key component of insurance. (By the outlawing of pre-existing condition exclusions.) The constitutional problem is that somewhere between 1917 and 2010 we went from needing a supermajority of House & Senate and ratification by a supermajority of states in order to amend the constitution, to being able to just pretend that what Obama chose to implement had actually passed the House or Senate at all.
Of course that’s in the Constitution. The Constitution is all about forcing people to buy products from the government which they would rather get for free — the legislative, judicial, & executive branches of government. Which includes salaries of all those people, salaries and supplies for our armed forces, all of which are explicitly allowed for in the Constitution.Posted by: cathyf | February 08, 2019 at 05:21 PM
Speaking of the Rear Admiral:
http://acecomments.mu.nu/?post=379705
Posted by: Captain Hate | February 08, 2019 at 05:22 PM
Northam's trying to get back in the D's good graces by reading Roots and some articles by Tennessee Coatrack.
Posted by: Dave (in MA) | February 08, 2019 at 05:23 PM
GentleJim, I have not got it resolved. The adobe thing did not work out. They don't sell it in Panama and apprently the work around program did not work.
Posted by: pagar | February 08, 2019 at 05:24 PM
I'm going to your program now.
Posted by: pagar | February 08, 2019 at 05:25 PM
The program gentlejim recommended is one I recommended as well. I use it for work. Let me know if you have success with it.
Posted by: Stephanie Nene Not Your Normal Granma | February 08, 2019 at 05:30 PM
So Accuracy in Media [aim.org] ran a piece about the Associated Press coverage of the SOTU address compared to the one in the Rome Sentinel.
Several people contacted us with compliments.
Posted by: sbwaters | February 08, 2019 at 05:31 PM
We are refighting the ACA SCOTUS ruling why?
Posted by: Old Lurker | February 08, 2019 at 05:33 PM
Iggy @ 5:15
IMO Obama and the Democrats knew all along the individual mandate was a tax but they were quibbling over semantics because Obama did not want to admit it was a tax strictly for optics reasons. That would have forced him to admit Hillary had been right all along in the campaign on that subject.
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/27/health/policy/arguing-that-health-mandate-is-not-a-tax-except-when-it-is.html
In other words, the Justice Department is essentially arguing that the penalty is not a tax, except when the government says it is one.
Roberts called BS and said you can't have it both ways.
Posted by: Tom R | February 08, 2019 at 05:33 PM
https://www.aim.org/aim-column/newspaper-editor-rewrites-aps-sotu-coverage-to-remove-bias/
Posted by: Dave (in MA) | February 08, 2019 at 05:34 PM
I have a beer waiting for me so I'm checking out for a while.
Posted by: Tom R | February 08, 2019 at 05:37 PM
--We are refighting the ACA SCOTUS ruling why?--
Because the actual name of this blog should be Excuse Me While I Beat This Dead Horse for Just One Minute?
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki | February 08, 2019 at 05:42 PM
Gives us something to do until CW2.
:-)
Posted by: Threadkiller | February 08, 2019 at 05:43 PM
We are refighting the ACA SCOTUS ruling why?
We're trying to figure out if Roberts should have his head on a pike or merely tarred and feathered.
And no, a mandate is not a tax, except in the Humpty-Dumpty sense:
Prescient, no?
Posted by: jimmyk | February 08, 2019 at 05:44 PM
Gillibrand Cancels South Carolina Campaign Event Less Than 30 Minutes Before Start Time
The claws are out between some of the female reporters and candidates.
Posted by: Extraneus | February 08, 2019 at 05:45 PM
Jimmyk, embrace the power of “and”. A feathered head on a pike attracts more attention.
Posted by: henry | February 08, 2019 at 05:46 PM
Kirsten JelloBrain
Posted by: Captain Hate | February 08, 2019 at 05:47 PM
If it were possible Gillibrand is an even bigger liar than E Warren.
Posted by: clarice | February 08, 2019 at 05:49 PM
This is a thoughtful article on Ginsburg's prognosis , whereabouts, and why we haven't heard anything.
Reminds me of an old Pat & Mike joke. Pat died and his devout Irish Catholic wife wanted Mike's advice. She felt Pat should have a traditional Catholic funeral mass and burial, but Pat's wish was to be cremated. She asked Mike about it at the wake. A well oiled Mike offered an alternative. "Why don't we stuff 'em and keep the party goin'?" [Brogue in the original]
Probably under consideration for RBG. Keep the party goin' until Trump is out of office.
Posted by: Tom Bowler | February 08, 2019 at 05:49 PM
I'd bet it has something to do with St. Franken.
Posted by: Extraneus | February 08, 2019 at 05:49 PM
No one else caught this elision from the ignorant twat’s commie manifesto that our esteemed host quoted?
What word is missing? Moon or soundstage?
And this stupid bint is the “Trump of the left”? Really? Yeah, drawing draft beer and building a RE empire: same dif.
Posted by: lyle | February 08, 2019 at 05:50 PM
So if the EPS fines a polluter they've levied a tax?
The IRS penalizes someone for late filing they pay their tax and then another tax not a "penalty"?
A Federal court fines someone for committing a Federal crime, they've actually taxed them?
Obey the law, don't owe the penalty. Don't obey and you're penalized.
It's irrelevant what Reps in congress said since they're political animals too. It is sufficient to look at the circumstances.
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki | February 08, 2019 at 05:53 PM
.
.
Posted by: Porchlight | February 08, 2019 at 05:53 PM
BK's timeline is always full of obvious fake/bot posts about how great he is.
Every tweet has at least 2 or 3 "liberals" who say "I can't believe I agree with Bill!" or "I love the new Woke Bill Kristol!"
He's just hanging his ass out for Lefty followers.
Twitter is an addiction. A disease, really.
Posted by: Yudhishthira's Dice at February 08, 2019 05:42 PM (AzW6q)
Bot-followers. Jeez. That's like buying a blow-up doll just so you have someone else to cook for... what a fucking tool.
Posted by: Warai-otoko at February 08, 2019 05:44 PM (Ct55T)
Posted by: Captain Hate | February 08, 2019 at 05:53 PM
Keep the party goin' until Trump is out of office.
I figure they will wait until next year and claim that since 2020 is the final year of the term, Trump can't expect to replace a SCOTUS judge. Same as Obama's last year.
Posted by: Threadkiller | February 08, 2019 at 05:54 PM
"Sounds like Roberts and Congressional Republicans were in agreement that it was a tax."
They're both on the side of the elites. They call it legislative/political strategy, But, bottom line, it's a form of tyranny.
MissM, I didn't read the RBG twitter feed. Will the Court soon be ruthless?
Posted by: President-Elect Jim,SunnyvaleCA | February 08, 2019 at 05:56 PM
Yuk it up, Porchlight. See if you're still laughing when you're using your guaranteed income to pay for taking the sail train to Hawaii in 10 years.

Posted by: Dave (in MA) | February 08, 2019 at 06:01 PM
RIP, Albert Finney.
I loved him most in Tom Jones, the film that launched him.
But also Scrooge. He didn't wear any makeup for the part - their only alteration was to give him thin wispy hair. He was only in his mid-30s and still extremely handsome, but he was able to scrunch up his face and use his voice to come across as a feeble dried up man twice his age.
I also remember him in an overlooked divorce film with Diane Keaton from the 1980s called Shoot The Moon. It was hard to watch at times, but excellent. Worth seeking out. TCM might run it as part of a tribute.
Posted by: Porchlight | February 08, 2019 at 06:03 PM
If it were possible Gillibrand is an even bigger liar than E Warren.
She really is a disgusting fraud. Not long ago, she had a good rating from the NRA, for example, and was against illegal migration. She's a political whore, and might not need the qualifier.
Posted by: Extraneus | February 08, 2019 at 06:04 PM
Yes, TK. Except McConnell can tell them to go pound sand. "Win the Senate, then come talk to me."
Posted by: Tom Bowler | February 08, 2019 at 06:05 PM
Sail train? We’ll be in pens until some random Chinese needs our organs by year 11.
Posted by: henry | February 08, 2019 at 06:05 PM
Moar sidebar Ewok:
Are Any of the Establishment/Cocktail Circuit Alleged Conservatives Going to Admit That Their Pal Bill Kristol is No Longer a Republican (and Probably Never Was a Conservative)? If Not, Aren't They Engaging in the Same Corrupt Cover-Up-Practices of the Media They Pretend to Oppose but Chiefly Emulate?
The same people who will quickly demand that everyone to the right of Little Benny Shapiro be purged continue protecting and promoting Bill Kristol. These are the same people who can't wait to say that "Conservatism can no longer tolerate this person and he must be anathematized." And yet they seem to think conservatism has infinite tolerance for a full-on liberal and Democrat acting as a Franco-Iranian leftwinger's paid saboteur.
Could it be that maybe that's because half of the staff at their own magazine is compromised by this same kind of corruption, and would join The Bulwark if only Pierre Omidyar paid better?
Hey Guys, how about a hundred more repetitive, macro-ized rewrites of your endless "Trumpism Corrupts" screeds while you simultaneously corruptly protect your Pal Bill Kristol because you're afraid of what he might reveal you said to him in private? I could sure use some more moral scolding from the immoral and the corrupt and the bought-and-paid-for.
NeverTrumpism corrupts. You shriek about tribalism; you're viciously tribal. You scream about honesty; you hide your actual beliefs from your readers and you routinely con conservatives into supporting measures you know they'd oppose if they had the facts. You demand that John Bircher Society purgings; yet you won't purge your very own conspiracists and lunatics.
Hah: A commenter says, basically, "Just because you're some fat old smug money-grifting white guys covering for each other for mutual pecuniary gain doesn't actually make you conservative. It takes a bit more than that."
Posted by: Captain Hate | February 08, 2019 at 06:07 PM
FAIRFAX DENIES SECOND ALLEGATION, REFUSES TO RESIGN
"Unsubstantiated" is the word the MSM keeps using for Fairfax, substituting it for "credible" which was used in Kavanaugh's case.
Posted by: Extraneus | February 08, 2019 at 06:09 PM
Sounds familiar, huh?
Posted by: Porchlight | February 08, 2019 at 06:13 PM
AIM"ran a piece about the Associated Press coverage of the SOTU address compared to the one in the Rome Sentinel."
Congrats, sbw!
Posted by: President-Elect Jim,SunnyvaleCA | February 08, 2019 at 06:14 PM
Of course they have the same attorneys, so....
Posted by: Porchlight | February 08, 2019 at 06:14 PM
Confirming the non sbw field:
http://acecomments.mu.nu/?post=379663
Posted by: Captain Hate | February 08, 2019 at 06:18 PM
McAuliffe Calls on Fairfax to Resign After Second Sexual Assault Accusation
I guess that means the blackfacers plan to survive.
Posted by: Extraneus | February 08, 2019 at 06:23 PM
The bleating of a particularly smarmy scumbag:
Posted by: Extraneus | February 08, 2019 at 06:24 PM
Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam Tells Staff He Will Not Resign Over Racist Yearbook Photo
Posted by: Extraneus | February 08, 2019 at 06:33 PM
Good Morning!
Odd how the WaPo owner Bezos is so up in arms claiming that it is outrageous that possibly someone in Government leaked pics to a newspaper, yet not a frickin' word about the illegal leak by someone in Government of General Flynn’s name to the WaPo and every other paper on the planet. They sure are hypocritical over there until it’s their own ox being gored.
Posted by: daddy | February 08, 2019 at 06:37 PM
Daddy, Bezos blew $80 billion by grabbing some strange. Now he has to blame anyone but Ms Strange for leaking his mini me selfie (and exact replica of his portrait, minus the ears). Hacked texts? Hell no. It’s always an inside job (online security is unpossible in general, but it rarely is a hack unless a credit card, bank account, or weapon design is involved... even then it is usually an inside job). His new squeeze bragged, some friend got copied the goods and sold them. The rest is right up there with DNC emails “hacked” (copied to a thumb drive internally).
Posted by: henry | February 08, 2019 at 06:46 PM
Link goes to statement.
Posted by: MissMarple2 | February 08, 2019 at 06:49 PM
Did Shiela Jackson Lee actually pass the bar? Serious question: Does the Texas Bar Association have a Ladies Tee?
Posted by: Pinandpuller | February 08, 2019 at 06:53 PM
@hopeforvirginia:
On Monday, I will be introducing articles of impeachment for Lt. Governor Justin Fairfax if he has not resigned before then.
Posted by: henry | February 08, 2019 at 06:56 PM
Sean Davis:
Have Virginia Democrats paused to consider the implications of a statewide blackface/KKK scandal that somehow results only in the resignation of the black guy?
Posted by: henry | February 08, 2019 at 06:58 PM
lol 6:58
Posted by: Extraneus | February 08, 2019 at 07:02 PM
Ryan Nobles
Verified account @ryanobles
27m27 minutes ago
BREAKING: Del. Patrick Hope is preparing articles of impeachment against Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax. He will file them Monday unless the LG resigns on his own before then.
Posted by: MissMarple2 | February 08, 2019 at 07:03 PM
If this is solid perect white shoe virginia can you imagine what is going on in California?
Posted by: Jack is Back (Again)! | February 08, 2019 at 07:03 PM
Hes a dem rep from Arlington, I linked what was going on my old berg from front page in the last thread.
Posted by: Narciso79 | February 08, 2019 at 07:07 PM
I raise my glass to Virginia. Superb entertainment.
Posted by: henry | February 08, 2019 at 07:07 PM
Popcorn with caramel topping
https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2019-02-08/lights-go-out-twice-on-maduro-s-international-press-conference?__twitter_impression=true&fbclid=IwAR31KerylLgN7tjLRHDNe4Cri1xDONe3aJ-HpA6upqUW_BJWBJX98LkjRgA
Posted by: Narciso79 | February 08, 2019 at 07:12 PM
One of the deep staters that Schiff for brains has hired
https://www.cnas.org/people/abby-grace
Posted by: Narciso79 | February 08, 2019 at 07:15 PM
Adam Baldwin:
Bombshell!
Specific American names are listed in the redacted section of Rosenstein’s updated Scope Memo.
Corroborating that the DoJ was investigating not crimes, but people.
Witch hunt!
https://twitter.com/adambaldwin/status/1093920792272764929?s=21
Posted by: henry | February 08, 2019 at 07:19 PM
Anyone else having problems with Yahoo mail's servers?
Posted by: Captain Hate | February 08, 2019 at 07:21 PM
Gorka reviews the SOTU, and reminds us of one of Trump's finer statements during the campaign:
https://www.sebgorka.com/column/the-art-of-the-sotu/
Posted by: MissMarple2 | February 08, 2019 at 07:21 PM
Still catching up. Did Rich Lowry excuse Fairfax's alleged Sexual Assault, or was he only excusing the BlackFace boys?
Posted by: daddy | February 08, 2019 at 07:22 PM
I think it was a package day daddy.
Posted by: Narciso79 | February 08, 2019 at 07:25 PM
Daddy now two sexual assaults. Possibly three or more (the second was not who one reporter thought it would be).
Posted by: henry | February 08, 2019 at 07:25 PM
In other news:
https://babalublog.com/2019/02/08/cuban-state-security-ex-chief-arrested-by-fbi-in-miami/
Posted by: Narciso79 | February 08, 2019 at 07:28 PM
Trump should do a rally in Virginia soon.
Posted by: Extraneus | February 08, 2019 at 07:29 PM
I just saw this:
Clif Garrett
🇺🇸
🇮🇱
@GarrettClif
Feb 7
The LA Times has dropped a bombshell this afternoon. It seems thatCongressman Adam Schiff’s gay lover has accused him of cruelty and other violent happenings that would occur in the California gay community. Even so far as pimping out his gay lover to other people. Bad news
Posted by: MissMarple2 | February 08, 2019 at 07:30 PM
Thanks, Henry.
Glad to hear there's a Chapter 2 in "Uncle Tom's Cabinet."
Posted by: daddy | February 08, 2019 at 07:30 PM