But even one Republican defection on the vote to convict could badly damage Trump, casting doubt on his insistence that the impeachment is a purely partisan prosecution with no merit on the facts.
I fail to see how Romney going full RINO traitor hurts Trump. Seems like it would be pretty easy for Team Trump to point out the main reason Romney opposes Trump is because Romney is a permanent member of the DC Swamp that Trump is in the process of draining.
TomR, agree completely; Romney hasn't done anything for anybody for a long, long time. And unlike McCain, he sure wasn't a POW; after failing to get the Sec'y of State slot, Romney has no claims to any credibility or moral high ground regarding his stance on Trump.
I don't so quickly dismiss the possibility a keto diet is not beneficial in the long term.
Blue zones do seem to be a real phenomenon and none feature keto diets. There are populations that do. They just don't live all that long. That seems to contraindicate that "carbs kill".
We don't really have a very good understanding of how the climate works and interacts. And it is much simpler than our biology and its interaction with our environment, including the fuel we use.
I'm with henry, in a couple thousand years perhaps we'll have a handle on it.
Gregg Jarrett
@GreggJarrett
·
22m
New Poll Shows Dem’s Impeachment Hopes are Doomed https://trib.al/abb7Lig
================================
The interesting thing about this poll is that the GOP and independents have become apparently impervious to Democrat ads, TV appearances, and crap in newspapers. The article points this out.
It isn't that no one is watching TV, because 61^ of the democrats think there is going to be some sort of explosive revelation. HA!
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
·
7m
READ THE TRANSCRIPTS!
===============================
I take it the President is watching the impeachment fiasco while he's getting ready to go to the March for Life.
I was countering the premise of that article that just one GOP defector would be enough to cause major political damage to Trump. I think that is a silly belief especially if the one defector is Romney.
The argument that “even one” Senate Republican vote to convict would “badly damage” Trump seems to me to be a very blatant case of Dem goal post re positioning. They are defining victory as loosely as possible — and may well not achieve even that.
Plus, if “even one” defection among Republican Senators would be a big deal, what would the impact be of “even one” (or more) Democrats in the Senate? And what about the two House Dems who voted not to impeach?
I suspect that this is a case of asymmetrical goal post relocation.
I don't think even Romney could listen to the Dem presentation and figure out how to make an anti-Trump "moral case" for conviction on that basis, especially in light of impeachment polling... Besides, the other day, I heard him say something that actually sounded like a Republican take on the process. Wish I could remember exactly what it was, but I remember feeling relieved that he seemed to be onboard the train.
A Mom made a good point bon the old thread about how Kamala Harris could be tainted in the campaign if she were VP candidate by the fact that when in her 20s she had “a relationship” with Willie Brown, a powerful California Democrat who was both much older and married at the time. It could be seen as trading sex for career advancement.
The Dems of course never played this card against Harris and it turns out that they did not need to. Trump and his campaign might bring it up however.
I am not sure that this rules out Harris as a potential VP candidate however. I think that there must be a woman on the Dem ticket and she remains one of the few realistic possibilities. But it’s an issue for her to be sure.
I don’t think Sinema of Arizona works well for the Dems. She is too bipartisan for the liberal base and too bisexual for another slice of the electorate.
And anyway, I think he sees through the scam perfectly well, but that won't matter when there's the chance to do some really first class virtue signalling and earn some belly rubs from the editorial board of the NYT.
My favorite part is at the end where libs start asking if CAREER people will be there so that someone will tell the truth, one guy saying that anyone who works for Trump is a pathological liar.
I asked him if that included Dr. Ben Carson, because I personally don't trust the career employees, given the ones that got dragged before the committees.
Really. Do they think China wouldn't bribe people to get goods shipped, or a relative okayed by a lower level career official at the embassy or a consulate?
I think Willard will vote to acquit and intone some negative things about Trump to maintain his sense of virtue. He can say the grave and serious charges were not proven, a la Arlen Spector or something like that. Or say that Trump was very bad but it did not warrant removal. Voting to convict would make him very lonely in the Senate going forward and obviously cut him off from getting anything from the administration. Insincere belly rubs from the NYT are not worth it.
I'm gonna stick with my initial gut feeling from a few months back. Trump wants a full trial because it gives him the opportunity to reveal to the public all the quid pro quo corruption multiple Democrats engaged in with the previous Ukrainian government. I think going into the 2020 election that providing evidence of how many millions of dollars of US taxpayer money that the Ukraine government helped launder and send back to Democrats will turn 2020 into an electoral bloodbath. Even better if the trial extends for a few months and keeps a few candidates off the campaign trail.
I think the Democrats are hoping the GOP Senators vote for no witnesses and then acquittal because that will allow them to nonstop claim a coverup every day until the election.
Even if she ticks your box, why would Biden pick a lousy campaigner that even Democrats don't like for his VP? His choice will be particularly important, because it's a toss-up between whether a heart attack or dementia incapacitates him before he can serve a full term. He'd be better off looking for someone with executive or business experience.
You make good points. I am NOT saying that Joe WILL pick her if he is the nominee.
My point is simply that if Biden is nominated he is absolutely certain to pick a woman as running mate. And Harris is one of a handful of potential picks. She has some flaws to be sure but they all do. She MIGHT get the call is all that I am saying.
Who would you think would be a better choice for Joe?
I suspect that McConnell et al have persuaded Trump to do all that after he's been acquitted, (assuming the President did, in fact, really want to go to trial bigly in the Senate). If we can retake the House in Nov., we might actually be able to do something about it in Trump's second term..
By the way, the Dems basically always pick a Senator as VP candidate. Since 1940 the only exception— other than incumbent VPs — was Ferraro. I don’t know why this is and they could break tradition this year (Abrams?) but it’s a good place to start looking. Harris, Gillebrand, Klobuchar or Sinema I guess.
If the nominee is Biden he pretty much has to pick a flamin commie to shut the bolshevik base up.
Fortunately for him there is no shortage of Trotskyites in the Dem party.
If the nominee is Bernie...hmmmm.
If the nominee is Bernie I don't even want to think about an America that could nominate a frickin open communist to the top of one of the major parties.
So, if the nominee is Bernie it is irrelevant who he picks. Just buy more ammo because you may not be interested in civil war but Trotsky's descendants are interested in you.
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
·
29m
The Do Nothing Democrats just keep repeating and repeating, over and over again, the same old “stuff” on the Impeachment Hoax. They want to use up ALL of their time, even though it is the wrong thing to do. They ought to go back to work for our great American people!
I think for this purpose Eagleton, a Senator, was the pick in 1972, but technically you have a point. Still, a Senator in the overwhelming majority of cases.
They’d be smart to pick Sinema, a centrist woman from a swing state. But they’re not smart, and I still think she could be a “no” vote on conviction, which would make her persona non grata with the Dems.
I think its safe to conclude one thing for certain. Whether Trump wants a full trial with witnesses or a quick acquittal with no witnesses was discussed with McConnell, Graham and others a long time ago. Whether the GOP Senate agreed or disagreed to go along with whatever Trump wanted was also decided a long time ago. All we are seeing now is the script getting played out of whoever won the discussion.
If it’s Biden, he will pick a female flaming commie, and probably a Senator.
If it’s Bernie, well, it’s not going to be Bernie, but if it is it will be someone like Klobuchar— a less flaming commie female Senator. Even the commies wil, want to pretend that they appeal to moderate Dems.
"I am NOT saying that Joe WILL pick her if he is the nominee.... She MIGHT get the call is all that I am saying."
D'oh.
Shoot, maybe he picks Deval Patrick, for an interesting twist. Who knows? I'm really not that into all the horse racy speculation that people use to fill up their time till the choices are actually made and votes taken. I'm just here to suggest that Trump has already defied a lot of conventional wisdom, and that putting people in demographic boxes (which is very much a Democrat modus operandi) will (hopefully) continue to be less and less useful politically. That might ultimately be the greatest gift from President Trump to America.
Biden’s positions seem indistinguishable from Bernie’s or Lizzie’s, so I’m not sure how he gets put in the moderate camp, though maybe if he gets the nod he’ll pivot to the center.
You make a good philosophical point. But on the lower plane of horse racy speculation, it seems obvious that the Dems remain hung up on demographics.
Patrick does not really do much for Biden. Patrick will not generate black enthusiasm. I agree that IF he picks a male (he won’t) it would not be a straight white male. Bad optics for the Dems.
I could see Biden choosing a more obscure female Senator, maybe Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire or Tina Smith of Minnesota. She would have to put some kind of repellent in her hair on the campaign trail.
Beltway Establishment types continue to be baffled by Trump. In their view it’s quaint and humorous for people to run for President as an “outsider” who will “shake things up” in Washington. But once they are in, they are supposed to be beholden to the very Establishment that they ran against.
After weight discrimination I'm guessing competence discrimination will be the next targeted bias.
After that I would think the soft bigotry of not-actually-showing-up-at-work discrimination will be in the crosshairs.
I assume that you are trying to be satirical, but I think the craziness of some people has mooted that effort. I read where some professor wrote that showing up on time was a form of white supremacy.
I stay away from Chinese food and Dragon parades.
Posted by: Jim Eagle | January 24, 2020 at 10:14 AM
It could wipe out the next Dem debate.
Posted by: henry | January 24, 2020 at 11:00 AM
Also, now confirmed in Chicago.
Posted by: henry | January 24, 2020 at 11:01 AM
There are a probably a large number of climatistas who feel that these large epidemics are a good development.
Posted by: peter | January 24, 2020 at 11:07 AM
Heh, henry.
Posted by: Dave (in MA) | January 24, 2020 at 11:08 AM
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7923755/GOP-Senators-warned-not-break-ranks-Trump-impeachment-vote.html
But even one Republican defection on the vote to convict could badly damage Trump, casting doubt on his insistence that the impeachment is a purely partisan prosecution with no merit on the facts.
I fail to see how Romney going full RINO traitor hurts Trump. Seems like it would be pretty easy for Team Trump to point out the main reason Romney opposes Trump is because Romney is a permanent member of the DC Swamp that Trump is in the process of draining.
Posted by: Tom R | January 24, 2020 at 11:12 AM
Boeing-built DirecTV satellite may explode in orbit after suffering unexpected malfunction
DirecTV says satellite "Spaceway-1 suffered a major anomaly that resulted in significant and irreversible thermal damage to its batteries."
Why is this not shocking ?
Posted by: Neo | January 24, 2020 at 11:13 AM
"I fail to see how Romney going full RINO traitor hurts Trump"
Agree.
Might've been different in a different time or place.
But not now.
Not here.
Posted by: JimNorCal | January 24, 2020 at 11:14 AM
Its a gouald mothership ot encountered or a laser from a chinese space station.
Posted by: Narciso | January 24, 2020 at 11:15 AM
Tom R.
Especially when we start pointing out his son is sitting on some board over there in Ukraine.
I have no hesitation of posting that all over Twitter, given what an a***ole he has been.
Posted by: MissMarple2 | January 24, 2020 at 11:15 AM
One is teminded that contagion also began in china as well as world war z
Posted by: Narciso | January 24, 2020 at 11:16 AM
Its not his son, its his fmr foreign policy vizier the only they threw grenell under the bus for.
Posted by: Narciso | January 24, 2020 at 11:18 AM
Because Trump People are not interested in backing down.
It's just fantasy by the MSM.
(Tom Petty)
https://youtu.be/nvlTJrNJ5lA
Posted by: JimNorCal | January 24, 2020 at 11:18 AM
TomR, agree completely; Romney hasn't done anything for anybody for a long, long time. And unlike McCain, he sure wasn't a POW; after failing to get the Sec'y of State slot, Romney has no claims to any credibility or moral high ground regarding his stance on Trump.
Posted by: hrtshpdbox | January 24, 2020 at 11:18 AM
I don't so quickly dismiss the possibility a keto diet is not beneficial in the long term.
Blue zones do seem to be a real phenomenon and none feature keto diets. There are populations that do. They just don't live all that long. That seems to contraindicate that "carbs kill".
We don't really have a very good understanding of how the climate works and interacts. And it is much simpler than our biology and its interaction with our environment, including the fuel we use.
I'm with henry, in a couple thousand years perhaps we'll have a handle on it.
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki | January 24, 2020 at 11:19 AM
Retweeted by the President:
Gregg Jarrett
@GreggJarrett
·
22m
New Poll Shows Dem’s Impeachment Hopes are Doomed https://trib.al/abb7Lig
================================
The interesting thing about this poll is that the GOP and independents have become apparently impervious to Democrat ads, TV appearances, and crap in newspapers. The article points this out.
It isn't that no one is watching TV, because 61^ of the democrats think there is going to be some sort of explosive revelation. HA!
Posted by: MissMarple2 | January 24, 2020 at 11:19 AM
The other day Sidney Powell said there was supposed to be something significant involving the Flynn case happening today correct?
Posted by: Tom R | January 24, 2020 at 11:20 AM
Neo, that satellite launched in 2005. Expected useful life (and warranty) of 12 years. It’s been 15.
Posted by: henry | January 24, 2020 at 11:21 AM
Why not wait to see if Romney is an ass first?
He's not always an ass, but when he is his hair is perfect.
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki | January 24, 2020 at 11:22 AM
I dont see from mcconnell or subturtle cornyn.
Posted by: Narciso | January 24, 2020 at 11:23 AM
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
·
7m
READ THE TRANSCRIPTS!
===============================
I take it the President is watching the impeachment fiasco while he's getting ready to go to the March for Life.
Posted by: MissMarple2 | January 24, 2020 at 11:24 AM
Any signs from, climate is a complex cycle but man bearpig and his fellow mutants have to flagellate us as the sole variable.
Posted by: Narciso | January 24, 2020 at 11:26 AM
https://www.indystar.com/story/news/health/2020/01/22/wuhan-coronavirus-china-what-you-need-know/4541010002/
Posted by: MissMarple2 | January 24, 2020 at 11:26 AM
Rudy Link:
https://youtu.be/hCm9HkVaVYk
Posted by: Melinda | January 24, 2020 at 11:27 AM
"why not wait to see if Romney is an ass first?"
Asked and Answered, IG?
Posted by: Old Lurker | January 24, 2020 at 11:27 AM
Note dont say himself, and the planet of the apes metaphor is fully intended.
Posted by: Narciso | January 24, 2020 at 11:29 AM
Iggy @ 11:22
I was countering the premise of that article that just one GOP defector would be enough to cause major political damage to Trump. I think that is a silly belief especially if the one defector is Romney.
Posted by: Tom R | January 24, 2020 at 11:32 AM
The argument that “even one” Senate Republican vote to convict would “badly damage” Trump seems to me to be a very blatant case of Dem goal post re positioning. They are defining victory as loosely as possible — and may well not achieve even that.
Plus, if “even one” defection among Republican Senators would be a big deal, what would the impact be of “even one” (or more) Democrats in the Senate? And what about the two House Dems who voted not to impeach?
I suspect that this is a case of asymmetrical goal post relocation.
Posted by: Theo | January 24, 2020 at 11:33 AM
I don’t think Romney will defect. The impeachment isn’t on yet MM.
Posted by: Jane | January 24, 2020 at 11:35 AM
I think romneys dramatic reading like menelius have already been anticipated,
Posted by: Narciso | January 24, 2020 at 11:37 AM
1984 is not supposed to be a how to manual
https://mobile.twitter.com/LeeSmithDC/status/1220733892468060160
Posted by: Narciso | January 24, 2020 at 11:39 AM
I don't think even Romney could listen to the Dem presentation and figure out how to make an anti-Trump "moral case" for conviction on that basis, especially in light of impeachment polling... Besides, the other day, I heard him say something that actually sounded like a Republican take on the process. Wish I could remember exactly what it was, but I remember feeling relieved that he seemed to be onboard the train.
Posted by: JM Hanes | January 24, 2020 at 11:41 AM
You dont call a witness you dont already know the answer from, as much as they think bolton will turn its not really a major concern.
Posted by: Narciso | January 24, 2020 at 11:45 AM
This is funny and creative
https://mobile.twitter.com/Lumrunner/status/1220405947333521415
Posted by: Captain Hate | January 24, 2020 at 11:46 AM
A Mom made a good point bon the old thread about how Kamala Harris could be tainted in the campaign if she were VP candidate by the fact that when in her 20s she had “a relationship” with Willie Brown, a powerful California Democrat who was both much older and married at the time. It could be seen as trading sex for career advancement.
The Dems of course never played this card against Harris and it turns out that they did not need to. Trump and his campaign might bring it up however.
I am not sure that this rules out Harris as a potential VP candidate however. I think that there must be a woman on the Dem ticket and she remains one of the few realistic possibilities. But it’s an issue for her to be sure.
I don’t think Sinema of Arizona works well for the Dems. She is too bipartisan for the liberal base and too bisexual for another slice of the electorate.
Posted by: Theo | January 24, 2020 at 11:46 AM
For a change I'll give Romney the benefit of the doubt to see through the scam.
Posted by: Captain Hate | January 24, 2020 at 11:47 AM
JMH it was something like if you call everything outrageous, then nothing is.
Posted by: Old Lurker | January 24, 2020 at 11:47 AM
Fingers in ears, "La-La-La-La-La-La" gets him right there to Peach Mintz.
Posted by: Melinda | January 24, 2020 at 11:47 AM
Most likely that something else significant will happen between now and November.
Peach Mint will be a vague memory.
Posted by: Buckeye | January 24, 2020 at 11:49 AM
Well watch if like captain ramius he 'turns to starboard'
Posted by: Narciso | January 24, 2020 at 11:49 AM
No benefit of the doubt from me, CH.
And anyway, I think he sees through the scam perfectly well, but that won't matter when there's the chance to do some really first class virtue signalling and earn some belly rubs from the editorial board of the NYT.
Posted by: James D. | January 24, 2020 at 11:50 AM
Veruca on the other hand
https://legalinsurrection.com/2020/01/murkowski-wants-to-know-why-the-house-didnt-use-courts-to-get-testimony-but-demands-senate-do-it/?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=3a4f6989-5c49-4f0b-a95d-afb041f78045&fbclid=IwAR1WKEUyvC_0aBM-lDGV94_LnplArdm9cgvQlRU6E0maCqFjFBgARRjQxLs
Posted by: Narciso | January 24, 2020 at 11:51 AM
Yes he probably will, but he doesnt want to be alone on the gang plank.
Posted by: Narciso | January 24, 2020 at 11:52 AM
It's as if there isn't enough corruption in Ukraine to go around .. thus it must come from Russia
Posted by: Neo | January 24, 2020 at 11:54 AM
Narciso: Murkowski will get to ask questions after the POTUS gets his turn
Posted by: Neo | January 24, 2020 at 11:56 AM
The Senators were called into a closed-door meeting about the coronavirus, discussed in this thread by a reporter from The Hill.
https://twitter.com/scottwongDC/status/1220728660371689478
My favorite part is at the end where libs start asking if CAREER people will be there so that someone will tell the truth, one guy saying that anyone who works for Trump is a pathological liar.
I asked him if that included Dr. Ben Carson, because I personally don't trust the career employees, given the ones that got dragged before the committees.
Really. Do they think China wouldn't bribe people to get goods shipped, or a relative okayed by a lower level career official at the embassy or a consulate?
Posted by: MissMarple2 | January 24, 2020 at 11:57 AM
I think Willard will vote to acquit and intone some negative things about Trump to maintain his sense of virtue. He can say the grave and serious charges were not proven, a la Arlen Spector or something like that. Or say that Trump was very bad but it did not warrant removal. Voting to convict would make him very lonely in the Senate going forward and obviously cut him off from getting anything from the administration. Insincere belly rubs from the NYT are not worth it.
Posted by: Theo | January 24, 2020 at 11:59 AM
Well we had soda jerk freiden was it, (that can be taken two ways) during the ebola crisis.
Posted by: Narciso | January 24, 2020 at 11:59 AM
I'm gonna stick with my initial gut feeling from a few months back. Trump wants a full trial because it gives him the opportunity to reveal to the public all the quid pro quo corruption multiple Democrats engaged in with the previous Ukrainian government. I think going into the 2020 election that providing evidence of how many millions of dollars of US taxpayer money that the Ukraine government helped launder and send back to Democrats will turn 2020 into an electoral bloodbath. Even better if the trial extends for a few months and keeps a few candidates off the campaign trail.
I think the Democrats are hoping the GOP Senators vote for no witnesses and then acquittal because that will allow them to nonstop claim a coverup every day until the election.
Posted by: Tom R | January 24, 2020 at 12:02 PM
Theo:
Even if she ticks your box, why would Biden pick a lousy campaigner that even Democrats don't like for his VP? His choice will be particularly important, because it's a toss-up between whether a heart attack or dementia incapacitates him before he can serve a full term. He'd be better off looking for someone with executive or business experience.
Posted by: JM Hanes | January 24, 2020 at 12:05 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzKgsOSf-Xg
White House live stream for the President's speech at the March for Life.
I am going to watch it live because I am afraid You Tube might sabotage it.
Posted by: MissMarple2 | January 24, 2020 at 12:07 PM
JMH —
You make good points. I am NOT saying that Joe WILL pick her if he is the nominee.
My point is simply that if Biden is nominated he is absolutely certain to pick a woman as running mate. And Harris is one of a handful of potential picks. She has some flaws to be sure but they all do. She MIGHT get the call is all that I am saying.
Who would you think would be a better choice for Joe?
Posted by: Theo | January 24, 2020 at 12:10 PM
He can say the grave and serious charges were not proven, a la Arlen Spector or something like that.
I'd love to hear Romney saying he's applying Scottish law. What a dope (both Arlen and Mittens).
Posted by: hrtshpdbox | January 24, 2020 at 12:11 PM
TomR:
I suspect that McConnell et al have persuaded Trump to do all that after he's been acquitted, (assuming the President did, in fact, really want to go to trial bigly in the Senate). If we can retake the House in Nov., we might actually be able to do something about it in Trump's second term..
Posted by: JM Hanes | January 24, 2020 at 12:14 PM
JMH —
By the way, the Dems basically always pick a Senator as VP candidate. Since 1940 the only exception— other than incumbent VPs — was Ferraro. I don’t know why this is and they could break tradition this year (Abrams?) but it’s a good place to start looking. Harris, Gillebrand, Klobuchar or Sinema I guess.
Posted by: Theo | January 24, 2020 at 12:14 PM
Theo, you swore to us that it would absolutely be Kamala, and we're holding you to it. Better not be wrong.
Posted by: hrtshpdbox | January 24, 2020 at 12:17 PM
Hrtshpdbox —
I did? Gulp.
Posted by: Theo | January 24, 2020 at 12:18 PM
Adam Schiff brings a whole new meaning to "Red Scare"
Posted by: Neo | January 24, 2020 at 12:19 PM
Rudy’s podcast.
http://rudygiulianics.com/podcast/
Posted by: henry | January 24, 2020 at 12:19 PM
You left out wallace in 44, who was agriculture secretary, and i forget what shriver was in 72.
Posted by: Narciso | January 24, 2020 at 12:23 PM
Correction wallace would have been in 40
Posted by: Narciso | January 24, 2020 at 12:24 PM
If the nominee is Biden he pretty much has to pick a flamin commie to shut the bolshevik base up.
Fortunately for him there is no shortage of Trotskyites in the Dem party.
If the nominee is Bernie...hmmmm.
If the nominee is Bernie I don't even want to think about an America that could nominate a frickin open communist to the top of one of the major parties.
So, if the nominee is Bernie it is irrelevant who he picks. Just buy more ammo because you may not be interested in civil war but Trotsky's descendants are interested in you.
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki | January 24, 2020 at 12:25 PM
oh, Theo! :o
Posted by: KevlarKid | January 24, 2020 at 12:26 PM
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
·
29m
The Do Nothing Democrats just keep repeating and repeating, over and over again, the same old “stuff” on the Impeachment Hoax. They want to use up ALL of their time, even though it is the wrong thing to do. They ought to go back to work for our great American people!
Posted by: MissMarple2 | January 24, 2020 at 12:26 PM
Narc —
Wallace was in 1940, not 1944. Truman was 1944.
I think for this purpose Eagleton, a Senator, was the pick in 1972, but technically you have a point. Still, a Senator in the overwhelming majority of cases.
Posted by: Theo | January 24, 2020 at 12:26 PM
Mike Lee is at the march for life.
Posted by: Jane | January 24, 2020 at 12:29 PM
As ignatz says it doesnt really matter who is his running mate, whether its warfarin or strychnine its still poison
Posted by: Narciso | January 24, 2020 at 12:29 PM
The President just came on and gave a big hug to Alveda King as he came on.
Huge cheer from the crowd!
Posted by: MissMarple2 | January 24, 2020 at 12:29 PM
They’d be smart to pick Sinema, a centrist woman from a swing state. But they’re not smart, and I still think she could be a “no” vote on conviction, which would make her persona non grata with the Dems.
Posted by: jimmyk | January 24, 2020 at 12:30 PM
JMH @ 12:14
I think its safe to conclude one thing for certain. Whether Trump wants a full trial with witnesses or a quick acquittal with no witnesses was discussed with McConnell, Graham and others a long time ago. Whether the GOP Senate agreed or disagreed to go along with whatever Trump wanted was also decided a long time ago. All we are seeing now is the script getting played out of whoever won the discussion.
Posted by: Tom R | January 24, 2020 at 12:30 PM
Kamala is as corrupt as Joe. Perfect choice.
Posted by: Jane | January 24, 2020 at 12:30 PM
Ig —
If it’s Biden, he will pick a female flaming commie, and probably a Senator.
If it’s Bernie, well, it’s not going to be Bernie, but if it is it will be someone like Klobuchar— a less flaming commie female Senator. Even the commies wil, want to pretend that they appeal to moderate Dems.
Posted by: Theo | January 24, 2020 at 12:30 PM
Sinema might be a good pick for Bernie. But as Ig says, Joe will need to go to his left with his running mate.
Posted by: Theo | January 24, 2020 at 12:32 PM
Bernie / Klobuchar.... neither knows what a comb is used for.
Posted by: henry | January 24, 2020 at 12:34 PM
Theo:
"I am NOT saying that Joe WILL pick her if he is the nominee.... She MIGHT get the call is all that I am saying."
D'oh.
Shoot, maybe he picks Deval Patrick, for an interesting twist. Who knows? I'm really not that into all the horse racy speculation that people use to fill up their time till the choices are actually made and votes taken. I'm just here to suggest that Trump has already defied a lot of conventional wisdom, and that putting people in demographic boxes (which is very much a Democrat modus operandi) will (hopefully) continue to be less and less useful politically. That might ultimately be the greatest gift from President Trump to America.
Posted by: JM Hanes | January 24, 2020 at 12:35 PM
The horserace was one of the more annoying aspects of campaign coverage.
Posted by: Narciso | January 24, 2020 at 12:38 PM
Biden’s positions seem indistinguishable from Bernie’s or Lizzie’s, so I’m not sure how he gets put in the moderate camp, though maybe if he gets the nod he’ll pivot to the center.
Posted by: jimmyk | January 24, 2020 at 12:40 PM
JMH —
You make a good philosophical point. But on the lower plane of horse racy speculation, it seems obvious that the Dems remain hung up on demographics.
Patrick does not really do much for Biden. Patrick will not generate black enthusiasm. I agree that IF he picks a male (he won’t) it would not be a straight white male. Bad optics for the Dems.
Posted by: Theo | January 24, 2020 at 12:40 PM
Its like bad soap opera,
Biden is like bob crane in that last film, trying to be hip
https://mobile.twitter.com/rebeccaballhaus/status/1220741595068321793
Posted by: Narciso | January 24, 2020 at 12:42 PM
I could see Biden choosing a more obscure female Senator, maybe Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire or Tina Smith of Minnesota. She would have to put some kind of repellent in her hair on the campaign trail.
Posted by: peter | January 24, 2020 at 12:43 PM
jimmyk -
Among Dems, Joe is considered a moderate. He is clearly distinguishable from Warren and Sanders on health care.
Posted by: Theo | January 24, 2020 at 12:43 PM
So it appears if they get in they will push the more extreme position.
Posted by: Narciso | January 24, 2020 at 12:45 PM
Sanders is more right-wing (or less left-wing) than Biden on immigration.
Posted by: hrtshpdbox | January 24, 2020 at 12:45 PM
Once upon a time so where obama and hillary, it means nothing to their objectives.
Posted by: Narciso | January 24, 2020 at 12:47 PM
Biden is morphing into the very epitome of a geezer.
Posted by: MissMarple2 | January 24, 2020 at 12:50 PM
I repeatedly underestimate how stupid, condescending and ineducable this fat headed baboon is;
Our Nation Is Paying for Trump’s Refusal to Be Presidential.
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki | January 24, 2020 at 12:50 PM
Who cares whit assholes the Dems anoint in Milwaukee? We are truly screwed if any get in office.
Posted by: henry | January 24, 2020 at 12:51 PM
Ignatz!
Do not link people like Goldberg without warning me! I do not like to give him any clicks at all.
Posted by: MissMarple2 | January 24, 2020 at 12:52 PM
Jimmy,
Biden is not a moderate, but he is perceived as one, just as the Bernie endorsing Gabbard is.
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki | January 24, 2020 at 12:53 PM
Biden doesn't make it through the primaries.
Posted by: Melinda | January 24, 2020 at 12:53 PM
It occurs to me I should issue a warning to anyone who might be concerned; that fat headed baboon at 12:50 is Jonah Goldberg.
Do ex post facto warnings count, MM?
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki | January 24, 2020 at 12:56 PM
Oh my. It’s come to this...
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/24/why-weight-discrimination-permeates-the-us-workplace.html
Posted by: henry | January 24, 2020 at 12:56 PM
Buttigieg’s Hollow Military Bragging
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki | January 24, 2020 at 12:57 PM
Kf you haven't seen it, this tweet links to the video of Georgie S giving the "cut" sign to Jay Sekulow on ABC News.
Posted by: MissMarple2 | January 24, 2020 at 12:57 PM
Well it could be rick wilson david frum its not a one off,
Posted by: Narciso | January 24, 2020 at 12:57 PM
I think Biden would pick Klobuchar because among other things the Dems are in danger of losing Minnesota.
Posted by: John S | January 24, 2020 at 12:59 PM
Ignatz —
Beltway Establishment types continue to be baffled by Trump. In their view it’s quaint and humorous for people to run for President as an “outsider” who will “shake things up” in Washington. But once they are in, they are supposed to be beholden to the very Establishment that they ran against.
Posted by: Theo | January 24, 2020 at 01:00 PM
After weight discrimination I'm guessing competence discrimination will be the next targeted bias.
After that I would think the soft bigotry of not-actually-showing-up-at-work discrimination will be in the crosshairs.
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki | January 24, 2020 at 01:00 PM
Ignatz @ 1:00 —
I assume that you are trying to be satirical, but I think the craziness of some people has mooted that effort. I read where some professor wrote that showing up on time was a form of white supremacy.
Posted by: Theo | January 24, 2020 at 01:05 PM
Interesting
https://thefederalist.com/2020/01/24/heres-a-timely-book-to-honor-holocaust-remembrance-day/
Posted by: Narciso | January 24, 2020 at 01:07 PM