web analytics
a

Facebook

Twitter

Copyright 2015 Libero Themes.
All Rights Reserved.

8:30 - 6:00

Our Office Hours Mon. - Fri.

703-406-7616

Call For Free 15/M Consultation

Facebook

Twitter

Search
Menu
Westlake Legal Group > Posts tagged "The Blog"

Gavin Newsom 2020?

Westlake Legal Group Gavin-Newsom Gavin Newsom 2020? The Blog governor Gavin Newsom facebook California 2020 Democratic primaries

Is there an unexpected entry in the 2020 Democratic primary circus preparing to step into the center ring? People who have been carefully monitoring ad buys by potential candidates noticed something rather unusual this week. There were a number of list-building Facebook advertisements showing up in key swing states and they were paid for by the newly inaugurated Governor of California, Gavin Newsom. Considering that he’s barely had time to find all the bathrooms in the governor’s mansion, that’s a rather unusual move. (Ntk Network)

The newly sworn-in governor of California, Gavin Newsom (D-CA), ran Facebook ads in Ohio, Florida, and other swing states from January 12 to 16 that were focused on list building, according to the progressive digital firm ACRONYM.

“And the big find from this week: Newly-elected California Governor @GavinNewsom was running hundreds of list-building ads in Ohio, Florida, and other swing states from Jan 12-16,” the ACRONYM Twitter account tweeted on Friday.

The tweet included screenshots of the Facebook posts that Newsom boosted with ad money. One of the posts was focused on attacking President Trump for his border wall, while another focused on universal health care.

It’s worth noting that Newsom has repeatedly said that he didn’t have any plans to run in 2020 and he’s committed to serving his full four-year term as governor. How much is that declaration worth? Let’s remember that’s been less than three months since Kirsten Gillibrand solemnly stated during a debate that she would serve her full six years in the Senate and she just launched her own presidential bid.

Newsom would be an interesting entry because of his very far-left standing in the progressive community, his youth, and his history as an early, controversial figure in the gay marriage debate. (As Mayor of San Francisco, Newsom issued marriage licenses to gay couples long before it was legal anywhere.) But he also has the problem of being yet another straight, white male potentially jumping into the nomination battle. That’s not the demographic the left’s base is looking for or Joe Biden would already be the nominee in waiting.

One other popcorn aspect of this story is the question of his spouse. Let’s just say for a moment that Newsom is not only getting into the race but he wins the nomination and then the general election. His wife already declared that she’s the “First Partner” of California instead of the First Lady. Would she stick with that choice as FLOTUS?

If you thought American politics was about to return to normal (whatever that means these days), don’t get your hopes up. We’re in for a long, bumpy ride.

The post Gavin Newsom 2020? appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group Gavin-Newsom-300x159 Gavin Newsom 2020? The Blog governor Gavin Newsom facebook California 2020 Democratic primaries   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

So what’s Trump’s “major announcement” on the border?

Westlake Legal Group trump-wall So what’s Trump’s “major announcement” on the border? The Blog shutdown theater donald trump border crisis announcement

Yesterday we learned that the President would today be making what’s being billed as a major announcement about the crisis at the border and the shutdown. John Sexton offered some of the results of the guessing game as to what the announcement might be last night, but thus far the details have been surprisingly resistant to leaks. Of course, when it comes to predicting what the President might say at any given moment, the only safe advice is to buckle your seatbelts and expect the unexpected. (Associated Press)

Democrats are now proposing hundreds of millions of dollars for new immigration judges and improvements to ports of entry from Mexico but nothing for the wall, a House aide said, as the party begins fleshing out its vision of improving border security.

After days of bitter clashes between Trump and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, it was unclear if the twin developments represented serious steps toward resolving the nasty partisan fight or posturing. But they were the first tangible signs of movement in a dispute that has caused a partial government shutdown, which Saturday was entering its record 29th day.

Trump’s refusal to sign spending bills that lack $5.7 billion he wants to start constructing that wall, which Democrats oppose, has prompted the shutdown.

A couple of thoughts on the announcement follow, but I first wanted to highlight that final sentence from the Associated Press because it’s fairly typical of the media message this year. Their position is that “Trump’s refusal to sign spending bills that lack $5.7 billion” for the wall “has prompted the shutdown.”

That may be true. But it would be equally true to say, “Democrats refusal to provide $5.7 billion for border construction that they previously supported has prompted the shutdown.” Funny how that works, eh? Another point to ponder is that nothing specific has leaked out yet. That tells me that Trump hasn’t even told his own inner circle. In fact, he may still be working it out in his own head.

With that said, I’ll share a couple of observations about today’s announcement. Nearly every observer out there is now convinced that the President won’t be announcing a national emergency to fund the wall today. That was pretty much my opinion also. Why change course now after drawing hard lines in the sand? But if our experience with Donald Trump has taught us anything we should realize that as soon as we’re all sure he’s going to do one thing he does something else entirely. With that in mind, the odds of a national emergency being declared just went up.

But if we stick to the assumption that today’s news won’t fall that way, what else does the President have to offer? I’m sure he’d be happy to accept Pelosi’s offer of funding for more immigration judges and border monitoring technology, but that doesn’t get him the wall. Has the President left the Democrats to stew in their own juices long enough that he’s willing to put something on the table? If so, the most likely deal sweetener he could throw in right now would be some sort of DACA fix, possibly including permanent legal resident status for the dreamers.

If Pelosi turned that down over a relatively paltry $5.7B in wall funding she would be inviting the wolves to her own door. But the other half of this equation is to consider whether that’s actually a card that the President has in his hand. He can say he would support a DACA fix all day long but if he can’t get the GOP leadership and a majority of the members to go along with it, it’s all for nothing.

My prediction: Another demand that Chuck and Nancy come back to the table and negotiate in good faith. And being a dealmaker, Trump will put something outrageous on the table that he thinks will cripple Pelosi if she turns it down. What that “something” might be remains an unknown.

The post So what’s Trump’s “major announcement” on the border? appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group trump-wall-300x173 So what’s Trump’s “major announcement” on the border? The Blog shutdown theater donald trump border crisis announcement   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Special Counsel’s office disputes Buzzfeed’s report on Cohen’s testimony

Well, this seems like it might be a significant problem for Buzzfeed’s credibility, despite the fact that Buzzfeed is reporting the error. “BuzzFeed’s description of specific statements to the Special Counsel’s Office, and characterization of documents and testimony obtained by this office, regarding Michael Cohen’s Congressional testimony are not accurate.”

As a quick refresher, here’s what the Buzzfeed story claimed [emphasis added]:

Two sources have told BuzzFeed News that Cohen also told the special counsel that after the election, the president personally instructed him to lie — by claiming that negotiations ended months earlier than they actually did — in order to obscure Trump’s involvement.

The special counsel’s office learned about Trump’s directive for Cohen to lie to Congress through interviews with multiple witnesses from the Trump Organization and internal company emails, text messages, and a cache of other documents. Cohen then acknowledged those instructions during his interviews with that office.

I don’t see a lot of wiggle room in that statement for those still hoping Buzzfeed’s report was going to be the beginning of the end for President Trump. The Special Counsel has undercut not just the claim about Cohen’s testimony but the claim about other documents and testimony as well. There doesn’t seem to be anything left to prop this up.

This allegation published by Buzzfeed was so significant that throughout the day people have been saying if it were confirmed it would definitely result in Trump’s impeachment. Others were reacting with outrage at the suggestion that maybe Buzzfeed didn’t have it right, but as the day wore on, no one seemed able to confirm it. As Allahpundit noted a couple hours ago, that silence from top papers began to seem very strange. But now that’s it’s been disputed, Ronan Farrow says other sources he spoke with disputed the claim about Trump ordering Cohen to lie.

Buzzfeed really hung its credibility on this one and it looks like they got it badly wrong. It’s not hard to imagine what Trump is going to do with this on Twitter. And, like it or not, he’ll have a point. As many others have noted, the problem with these media mistakes is that they always happen in one direction. I’ll end with this tweet from Buzzfeed News’ Director of Communications from earlier in the day when they were riding high.

The post Special Counsel’s office disputes Buzzfeed’s report on Cohen’s testimony appeared first on Hot Air.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Kirsten Gillibrand 2007: “You have to close the borders”

Westlake Legal Group k-2 Kirsten Gillibrand 2007: “You have to close the borders” The Blog senator immigration immigrant illegal House gillibrand E-Verify Drivers Licenses CNN close borders amnesty

It’s common knowledge that she was waaaaaaay more conservative on immigration as a member of the House in 2008 than she was as an appointee to the Senate a year later. One minute she was facing reelection in a conservative district upstate, the next minute she was facing reelection in a statewide race in one of the most liberal states in the country. Her constituency changed and thus so did Gillibrand’s principles — in the blink of an eye, for no grander reason than that that’s what getting reelected required.

All of this is known. What’s less known is just how hardcore a border enforcer she was. Take 10 minutes to read this CNN compilation of her greatest hits on immigration and let your mind boggle at how many planks of the border-hawk platform Gillibrand supported. Closing the border. Building hundreds of miles of fencing. Punishing employers who hired illegal immigrants. Blocking state driver’s licenses for illegals. More funding for ICE. Making English the official language of the United States. You name it, she was for it. Seriously, read. Drink it all in. I’m tempted to say she was to Trump’s right on the issue. That’d be an exaggeration but only a mild one.

So here’s my question, and may God forgive me for the thought: Should righties … be rooting for Gillibrand in the Democratic primary?

Running for the House in 2006, Gillibrand attacked her opponent from the right on immigration and called securing the border “a national security priority.” In a 2007 interview, Gillibrand said “you have to close the borders” as a first step to “right size” immigration. In a 2008 mailer sent from her congressional office, Gillibrand touted her efforts to expedite “the removal of illegal aliens by expanding detention capacity and increasing the number of Federal District Court judges.”…

Gillibrand was also a co-sponsor of the SAVE Act, a bill from Democratic Rep. Heath Shuler, opposed by pro-immigration groups but largely supported by Republicans. The bill was an enforcement-only approach to immigration that would have increased border security by adding 8,000 new border patrol agents, made it easier to deport undocumented immigrants, required companies verify the legal status of their workers and added an additional 1,150 ICE agents

She voted in favor of an amendment to increase border fencing and technology by almost $90 million. She also voted in favor of an amendment to increase ICE funding by $9 million to work with local law enforcement to identify and remove undocumented immigrants who have committed crimes. She voted in favor of an amendment from then-Republican Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado, a leading immigration hardliner at the time, that would bar the use of funds in a Department of Homeland Security spending bill from assisting local and state governments that “refuse to share information with the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement on an individual’s citizenship or immigration status.”

The excerpt only scratches the surface. Asked about all of this later, after her magical transformation into a garden-variety open-borders New York liberal, Gillibrand would mumble about being ashamed of her prior stances and pointed to her meetings with pro-immigration groups as having helped educate her about “the perspective of undocumented immigrants living in fear of the deportation of a family member.” About which we might say two things. One: If you vote yes on a thousand enforcement bills and then have a total change of heart after meeting with some activists, you’re not much of a legislator. Either your position was glib and weakly held before or it’s glib and weakly held now. Bad either way. Two: Deportation has nothing to do with many of the enforcement measures she previously supported. Removing illegals who are already here is one thing, creating obstacles to new illegals arriving is another. Why doesn’t Gillibrand continue to support the latter even if she no longer supports the former?

Here’s my dilemma. On the one hand, she’s a reptile. She’s one of the most cynically opportunistic politicians in America, as you’ve already read me say a dozen times before. There’s no better illustration of it than CNN’s timeline of her immigration reversals. It’s simply impossible to respect her the way one might respect, say, Bernie Sanders or even Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for having the courage of their convictions, however bananas those convictions might be. Gillibrand is the ultimate tell-them-what-they-want-to-hear candidate. One reason I wanted to write about the CNN piece, in fact, was to help circulate it online. It will be pure poison to her in the Democratic primary and we will, and should, enjoy the resulting political pain.

And yet. Revisiting all of the above, we should want her to win, no? Do you really want President Bernie in office trying to use “emergency powers” to nationalize the health insurance industry or whatever? Or do you want President Reptile, who’ll take a hard look at the 2024 map, realize that her newest constituency is a redder one than she faced running for Senate in New York state, and will recalibrate accordingly? Needless to say, she’s never going to be the Gillibrand of 2007 again on immigration. She’d lose the left if she went that route. But the President Gillibrand of 2021 might be more equivocal on the issue than the hardcore liberal Gillibrand of 2019, who’s only thinking about kissing leftists’ asses right now. It grieves me to say it but there’s no other serious-ish contender in the Democratic field more likely to tack to the center for reasons of pure political expediency as president than Gillibrand is.

So should we … root for the reptile? The person who looked the other way at Bill Clinton’s sins for decades before deciding that she was going to be “the women’s candidate” in 2020 and concluded 20 years after the fact that he probably should have resigned during the Lewinsky scandal? We should do it. But I don’t know if we can do it. She’s so repellent.

The post Kirsten Gillibrand 2007: “You have to close the borders” appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group k-2-300x153 Kirsten Gillibrand 2007: “You have to close the borders” The Blog senator immigration immigrant illegal House gillibrand E-Verify Drivers Licenses CNN close borders amnesty   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

President Trump plans ‘major announcement’ tomorrow afternoon (Update)

Westlake Legal Group Trump-announcement President Trump plans ‘major announcement’ tomorrow afternoon (Update) The Blog Government Shutdown donald trump Border wall border crisis

There has been a lot of speculation about how the government shutdown might end. One theory was that it would end with an emergency declaration by the president premised on a crisis along the southern border. That speculation may have moved one step closer to reality. A short time ago, Trump tweeted that he’d be making a big announcement about the border and the shutdown tomorrow:

That’s not much to go on and no one else is talking.

But earlier today Trump also tweeted this brief video: “Everything we’re asking for…this is what law enforcement wants,” Trump says in the clip, referencing his request for more border security. He adds, “Wait ’til you see the results. They’ll be proud of it and we’ll be even prouder.”

That certainly makes it sound as if Trump has a plan to move forward but as recently as Monday Trump said he did not want to go down the emergency declaration path. That’s because the expectation is that it won’t actually achieve anything for border security in the short term.

Trump has the authority to declare the emergency and he can use that as a justification to shuffle around several billion dollars from existing projects. But everyone anticipates that some Democratic AG will immediately file a lawsuit and the whole thing will be held up in the courts for months, possibly into 2020. So long as the funding is held up, Democrats can campaign on his failure to keep one of his major campaign promises, which is what they wanted all along.

The upside is that the declaration would make it possible for Congress to pass some funding bills (without the $5.7 billion border security money) and the government would reopen. That would presumably mean the State of the Union, scheduled for a week from Tuesday, would be back on. Democrats will spend the time between now and then declaring victory but Trump will get his chance to do the same before a larger audience at the SOTU.

This battle over the border, or at least this phase of the battle, might be ending but the war will go on. We’ll have to tune in tomorrow at 3 pm to find out what happens next.

Update: So maybe not an emergency declaration…

The post President Trump plans ‘major announcement’ tomorrow afternoon (Update) appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group Trump-announcement-300x153 President Trump plans ‘major announcement’ tomorrow afternoon (Update) The Blog Government Shutdown donald trump Border wall border crisis   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Shep Smith and Chris Wallace: Why haven’t any media outlets been able to corroborate BuzzFeed’s Trump story?

Westlake Legal Group w-1 Shep Smith and Chris Wallace: Why haven’t any media outlets been able to corroborate BuzzFeed’s Trump story? Trump The Blog Shepard Smith Michael Cohen journalist Jason Leopold fox news Chris Wallace Buzzfeed

Goooooood question. BuzzFeed does do plenty of worthy original reporting but you’d never have guessed that they’d be the newsroom to break a story that might lead directly to Trump’s impeachment if proved. And you’d certainly never have guessed that their sources would be so far superior to those of the New York Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal that those three mega-papers would still have nothing on this mega-bombshell almost 24 hours later. You know they’re working hard to get it; you know that collectively they’re sourced to the gills in all sorts of government offices. Somehow BuzzFeed seems to have found two federal law enforcement officials who are (a) sufficiently high up to have seen evidence of the president suborning perjury, (b) willing and able to confirm that to BuzzFeed, and (c) unwilling or unable to confirm that to anyone else, so far as we know.

That is awfully strange. If the weekend passes without corroboration by any other outlets, BuzzFeed will be under a dark cloud by Monday.

On the other hand, it’s also strange that the White House has been quiet about it. Sarah Sanders finally told reporters this afternoon that the story is “categorically false,” but as I noted earlier, Hogan Gidley was reluctant to flatly deny the charges on Fox this morning. And the tweeter-in-chief has ignored the story all day (apart from an oblique reference to Cohen’s untrustworthiness) despite the fact that normally this would be primo “fake news!” material for him, especially considering BuzzFeed’s role in publicizing the Steele dossier. You can write the missing tweet yourself: “Dopey left-wing listicle site BuzzFeed pushed phony dossier to smear me, now pushing Cohen lies to smear me again! FAKE NEWS! The Chive is better!” How come he hasn’t said that?

And while we’re at it, how come Cohen himself and his (former) lawyer are so reluctant to confirm or deny?

Exit question: Can I get odds in Vegas on BuzzFeed’s story being a bust? I’m in at 2-1.

The post Shep Smith and Chris Wallace: Why haven’t any media outlets been able to corroborate BuzzFeed’s Trump story? appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group w-1-300x159 Shep Smith and Chris Wallace: Why haven’t any media outlets been able to corroborate BuzzFeed’s Trump story? Trump The Blog Shepard Smith Michael Cohen journalist Jason Leopold fox news Chris Wallace Buzzfeed   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Question for Women’s March co-founder: Does Israel have the right to exist?

Westlake Legal Group tm-1 Question for Women’s March co-founder: Does Israel have the right to exist? Women's March The Blog Tamika Mallory right to exist palestinian Middle East Israel farrakhan

Why is this Farrakhanist nitwit still fielding questions about Israel and the Palestinians? How does it benefit her to do so, now that her group has begun bleeding mainstream Democratic support because she won’t shut up when asked about it? If she won’t condemn Farrakhan’s views because, uh, pretty clearly she agrees with them, she should just no-comment when asked about anything other than the Women’s March. Here’s a free stock answer: “The history of that region is complicated and I’m not an expert on it. I don’t want to say anything that might betray my ignorance but I’m trying to learn more about it. I’m going to focus on problems closer to home.”

You know why she’s still taking questions about this subject? Because her views on Jews and Israel, nurtured by Farrakhan’s “teachings,” are more important to her than the Women’s March is. There’s no other explanation.

Should an organization of people devoted to changing the United States through protest want to be led by someone who’d let it slowly bleed goodwill in the name of defending her other pet causes? Whether they should or not, it looks like they’re going to:

A national board member with the Women’s March defended the organization’s co-president amid a growing controversy over the latter’s relationship with Louis Farrakhan, the Nation of Islam leader who has drawn criticism for his alleged anti-Semitic remarks.

Linda Sarsour, a Women’s March national board member, said that she believes in co-president Tamika Mallory’s leadership, calling her a “woman who stands up for all people.”

How hard is it to organize a big feminist march in America 2019 without having an apologist for Louis Farrakhan at the top? For cripes sake. There must be some mainstream women’s organization that can step in here to lead a generic “Men Suck” rally.

The post Question for Women’s March co-founder: Does Israel have the right to exist? appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group tm-1-300x159 Question for Women’s March co-founder: Does Israel have the right to exist? Women's March The Blog Tamika Mallory right to exist palestinian Middle East Israel farrakhan   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Washington Post editorial board slams LA Teacher’s Union

Westlake Legal Group LA-teachers Washington Post editorial board slams LA Teacher’s Union the washington post The Blog teacher's unions los angeles Charter Schools

You may have heard that teachers in Los Angeles are on strike this week. It turns out that one of the key drivers of the strike isn’t salary demands, where the negotiators from both sides are reportedly close, but charter schools. LA teachers want the charter schools reigned in because they claim they are siphoning money away from non-charter schools. Yesterday, the Washington Post editorial board criticized that stance:

The union, casting the impasse as “a struggle over the future of public education,” has taken direct aim at the charters, largely non-union, which enroll about 1 in 5 of all L.A. public school students. The union wants a cap on their growth, along with stricter regulation. Trotted out is the now-familiar and phony trope about charters “draining” or “siphoning” money from public schools. Charters are public schools. In California, they are operated by nonprofit organizations, and the money they receive is public per-pupil funding that follows students. It is not the district’s money, nor the union’s money; it is the students’ money. In Los Angeles, 88 percent of these students are Latino and black, and 82 percent are low-income. A 2015 Stanford University study found that students at charters in Southern California are learning more than their counterparts in traditional public schools. No question that charters must be held accountable, as all schools should be. But whose interest would be served by capping their growth and inhibiting their operations? Not the children’s.

One of the common complaints made by supporters of traditional public schools is that charter schools take the cream of the crop and don’t have the same share of disabled students. That’s true but the difference is fairly slight according to the 2015 Stanford study mentioned above. So, for instance, traditional schools in southern CA have 6% of their students in special education while charter schools have 5 percent. Traditional schools have 76% of their students living in poverty while charter schools have 68%. That’s a difference but it’s still the case that two-thirds of charter students are living in poverty (in southern CA).

The same study found charter schools had the most impact (nationwide) with black and Hispanic students in poverty and with Hispanic students who were learning English as a second language. The report states, “In most urban regions with strong charter sectors, the major drivers of these effects are their high performance with students in poverty, Black and Hispanic students, and English Language Learners.” In other words, exactly the sort of students who attend school in Los Angeles.

The Post editorial concludes:

Teachers in Los Angeles, like those in West Virginia and other states that saw a wave of protests last year, are right to focus attention on the need for public support of public education. California, despite its liberal image, lags behind much of the country on education spending, and the union would be more than justified to address its protests to Sacramento. But to the California Charter Schools Association? Depriving poor children of public-school options does not strike us as a progressive value.

Charter schools are benefiting kids in Los Angeles. Why would the teacher’s union want to shut down schools over that?

Here’s a Vice News report on the reasons for the strike:

The post Washington Post editorial board slams LA Teacher’s Union appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group LA-teachers-300x159 Washington Post editorial board slams LA Teacher’s Union the washington post The Blog teacher's unions los angeles Charter Schools   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

New primary challenger to Trump emerges: Larry Hogan?

Westlake Legal Group h-1 New primary challenger to Trump emerges: Larry Hogan? Trump The Blog republican primary larry hogan challenge Abortion 2020

Fascinating for various reasons, starting with the fact that Hogan is an unusually successful blue-state Republican governor who’s somehow completely avoided being entangled in the moderates-versus-populists-versus-conservatives Republican civil war. You almost never see him mentioned in any context in right-wing political activism. He’s just sort of his own thing, like one of those genial oatmeal-y Republican governors that Massachusetts tends to produce to whom no one pays attention.

Actually, I suppose you do hear about those guys now and then.

Let’s stipulate up front that Hogan wouldn’t have a prayer of defeating Trump. What’s interesting about his potential candidacy isn’t that he might win, it’s how sharp the contrast would be between him and POTUS.

The second-term Maryland governor has been implicitly going after Trump in speeches, meeting with Never Trump Republicans, and planning a March trip to Iowa as vice chair of the National Governors Association…

Hogan used his inaugural address on Wednesday to repudiate the “debilitating politics” of Washington — and to raise the specter of impeachment. He recalled how his father, former Rep. Lawrence Hogan, was the first Republican congressman to support the removal of Richard Nixon…

The White House is paying close attention. The president’s political aides have been monitoring the Maryland governor for months, and several said they regarded the inauguration speech as an unmistakable act of aggression. They noted that Trump 2016 primary rival Jeb Bush was a featured speaker at the ceremony, and that Mark Salter, a longtime Republican speechwriter and a fierce Trump critic, helped craft Hogan’s address.

His claim to fame is having freakishly high approval ratings despite being a Republican governing the deep-blue state of Maryland. He’s frequently one of the top two in polls of most popular governors. (The other is the, er, oatmeal-y Republican governor of Massachusetts.) Two months ago, weighed down by Trump fatigue, Republicans got blitzed in purple jurisdictions from coast to coast. Hogan, meanwhile, was coasting to a double-digit reelection win over his Democratic opponent, the former head of the NAACP. To voters too, it seems, he’s his own thing. You can hate the Trump-era GOP and have no problem waving Larry Hogan through for a second term.

The secret to his success would also be the chief line of attack against him in a contest with Trump. The man is a liberal Republican *at best*. He’s strongly anti-Trump, pro-choice, pro-gay-marriage, open to some gun-control regulation, supports the Paris Accord — he’s a centrist Democrat, in other words. And Trump would wallop him every day for being one. A primary challenge from the right would at least force Republican voters to consider who’s more reliably right-wing on the issues, Trump or that challenger. With Hogan, there’d be no question. Conservatives who are leery of POTUS and willing to at least take a look at an alternative would roll their eyes at Hogan and stick with Trump.

Wouldn’t they? Here’s the thing about Hogan: Stylistically he’s about as un-Trumpish as one can get. Trump is obsessed with image, is forever boasting about this or that, is right now engaged in a staring contest with Democrats over the wall to prove how steely his resolve is. Many millions of Republicans like all of that about him. Many millions of other Republicans are less enthused:

It’s a weird but true fact in our political era that voters seem to seek out strong stylistic contrasts in candidates to challenge the status quo they despise. Dubya was a folksy WASP scion of a Republican dynasty; he was replaced by the first black president, a former Ivy League professor; he in turn was replaced by a tell-it-like-it-is reactionary from Queens vowing to champion the “forgotten” white working class. A Republican as liberal as Hogan would have been dead on arrival in a multi-candidate primary like the GOP held in 2016. But in 2020, his brand wouldn’t be defined by his own beliefs so much as they’d be defined by the contrast with Trump, in every sense. He’s low-key, schlubby, compromise-minded, interested in policy details, critical of Trump’s excesses — in almost every way he’d be the un-Trump in a primary. And that’s exactly what some Republican voters want, a contrast. A protest vote. Jeff Flake and John Kasich aren’t ideal protest votes because they’re already fairly well-defined figures in Republican minds; you can dislike Trump but also feel “eh” about either of them because of your exposure to them over time. But Hogan might be the closest the party could come to a generic likable Not Trump alternative. How would that fare?

He wouldn’t win. But there’s a solid chance he’d do better than Flake would.

And who knows? Maybe the faction of righties who voted for Hogan in the primary *because* of his liberal stances would be larger than we expect. That’s another feature of Trump-era politics, especially on the right. The base is far more open to heresies against traditional Republican orthodoxy than anyone guessed during the tea party era. A good Republican supports free trade, right? Er, not really. A good Republican opposes hiking taxes on the rich, believing that that will slow economic growth that benefits everyone, correct? No, not correct. A good Republican supports an aggressive interventionist foreign policy in the conviction that we should fight them over there instead of over here! Except no, not so much that one either. If Hogan runs we may get a glimpse of what other alleged guiding principles the GOP electorate will and won’t tolerate deviations from. How many Republicans who dislike Trump would be willing to vote for a pro-choice alternative, even if they’d prefer a pro-life one? More than we think, I’d bet.

The post New primary challenger to Trump emerges: Larry Hogan? appeared first on Hot Air.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

CNN anchor: Should taxpayers pay for Karen Pence’s Secret Service given that her school disapproves of homosexuality?

Westlake Legal Group k-1 CNN anchor: Should taxpayers pay for Karen Pence’s Secret Service given that her school disapproves of homosexuality? The Blog school religion Mike Pence LGBT Karen Pence John King gays First Amendment CNN

What … what is he even suggesting?

Before you watch, possibly relevant new data from Pew:

Westlake Legal Group p-7 CNN anchor: Should taxpayers pay for Karen Pence’s Secret Service given that her school disapproves of homosexuality? The Blog school religion Mike Pence LGBT Karen Pence John King gays First Amendment CNN

I can’t imagine why. The fearless defenders of First Amendment liberties at the ACLU are also laser-focused on Karen Pence’s rights whether our country can tolerate Karen Pence:

Stipulate that “we” don’t want to live in such a country. What solution do they recommend to this knotty problem? Suing Karen Pence so that she can’t take a job teaching art part-time at a traditionalist Christian school?

I think that’s what John King is trying to get at it in the clip below. The idea is that American taxpayers, who of course include gay men and women, shouldn’t be forced to subsidize government perks for a quasi-official who’s chosen to join an organization that discriminates against them. (Whether the school would be willing to hire someone who’s attracted to the same sex but who eschews sexual activity is unclear from its stated policy.) But instead of arguing that Pence should somehow be blocked from taking the job — how? — King toys with the idea of cutting off those perks. The chief one of which is security to ensure her personal safety. W-w-w-what?

And why would this thought occur with respect to someone as marginal as the vice president’s wife and a teaching job, of all things? The media spent many months chattering about the Muslim travel ban proposed by Trump on the trail in 2015. He was lambasted daily for it by lefties. But I don’t remember ever once hearing that we should maybe reconsider whether to fund his Secret Service protection since, after all, American Muslims are among the U.S. taxpayers covering the cost of it. It’s weird that Karen Pence’s affront to gays would draw a suggestion this draconian when Trump’s various demagoguery doesn’t.

Via the Free Beacon, here’s the clip. Note the puzzlement by reporter Olivier Knox. I think the broader left is at a place right now with respect to Christian education roughly equivalent to where they were with border security 10 years ago. Back then they were still all for it publicly, reasoning that open hostility to enforcement would have been a liability with voters. Nowadays you have members of Congress calling for the abolition of ICE and Nancy Pelosi herself dismissing the border wall as “immoral” for reasons only she seems to understand. By the same logic, I don’t think many Democrats would publicly sign on to a blanket statement like “traditional Christian education is bad.” But give ’em time. The Overton window doesn’t move overnight. Their baseline belief, that Christians should treat gays equally in all things regardless of what the First Amendment and Christian dogma might say about it, is already well established. Inevitably it’ll drift towards “Christianity is immoral, full stop” as it becomes safer politically to hold it. The drift in Congress has already begun.

The post CNN anchor: Should taxpayers pay for Karen Pence’s Secret Service given that her school disapproves of homosexuality? appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group k-1-300x159 CNN anchor: Should taxpayers pay for Karen Pence’s Secret Service given that her school disapproves of homosexuality? The Blog school religion Mike Pence LGBT Karen Pence John King gays First Amendment CNN   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com