Erin Burnett has left a new comment on your post "Martha McSally blasts CNN reporter Manu Raju: "I'm...":
Martha McSally's staggering cynicism
Virtue signaling is all the rage in politics these days.
Witness the show Arizona Sen. Martha McSally (R) put on Thursday morning when asked a simple -- and totally fair -- question by CNN's Manu Raju.
As McSally was walking to her office, Raju asked her if she had made a decision about whether she would support the calling of witnesses during the Senate impeachment trial. "You're a liberal hack," she replied. "I'm not talking to you. You're a liberal hack."
Now, that is a rude and inappropriate response to a reporter asking an entirely relevant and non-adversarial question. But maybe McSally could be forgiven for that. After all, we all lose our temper from time to time. But that's not what was going on here. Far from it.
This wasn't McSally getting frustrated in the moment. This was a purposeful piece of performance art designed to endear the senator to the President of the United States and his political base.
Consider:
1) Within minutes of the exchange, McSally had tweeted a video of the exchange with Manu (meaning she or someone on her staff was filming it the entire time)
2) Within an hour of the exchange, McSally's campaign had registered the domain name "liberalhack.com"
3) Within 2 hours of the exchange, the @Trumpwarroom Twitter handle, which is managed by the President's reelection campaign, was touting her attack on Manu -- and urging donations to her 2020 reelection campaign
4) Within 8 hours of the exchange, McSally's campaign was selling "Liberal Hack" T-shirts on its newly registered "LiberalHack.com" website.
5) Within 10 hours of the exchange, McSally was on Fox News Channel -- laughing with Laura Ingraham about the incident.
The only thing missing at this point is a tweet from Trump himself celebrating McSally. Of course, knowing Trump, that could well be coming soon.
The point is that none of this was accidental. McSally knew exactly what she was doing -- and why. After losing a Senate race in 2018 and then being appointed to replace retiring Sen. Jon Kyl (R) shortly after, McSally is facing a very difficult race in 2020. She's trailing astronaut Mark Kelly, the likely Democratic nominee, in polling and fundraising. She needs a boost. She needs to rally the Republican base, which has never been all that enthusiastic about her record of relative moderation. And so, she does this.
That it works speaks to the Pavlovian characteristics of our modern political moment -- particularly within the Republican Party. Trump has made attacking journalists -- no matter how baseless, pre-planned and just plain wrong it is -- the sort of thing that elicits cheers (and money) from his base. There's no debate about whether McSally was out of line in responding the way she did to a totally innocuous question. (She was.) Instead she is celebrated as some sort of conservative champion for being rude. That she quite clearly did it purposely to drive exactly the reaction that the Trump base had is ignored or discounted. The bell rings, the dog salivates. The end.
"McSally isn't a strong candidate and her performance art isn't really going to matter, wasn't really appropriate, and won't cost or win her an election," tweeted conservative pundit Erick Erickson on Friday morning. "But it reinforces she's not a strong candidate and is trying to excite the base.
That McSally acted the way she did is bad. That she did it on purpose is even worse. That she's being rewarded for it is just plain appalling.
Unsubscribe from comment emails for this blog.
Posted by Erin Burnett to Erin Burnett at January 18, 2020 at 2:30 AM
Saturday, January 18, 2020
Monday, January 13, 2020
[Học Để Thi] New comment on Bernie Sanders campaign manager responds to report....
Erin Burnett has left a new comment on your post "Bernie Sanders campaign manager responds to report...":
Warren says Sanders 'disagreed' with her belief a woman could win the White House race
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., ramped up the tension with fellow progressive presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., on Monday night, saying she "thought a woman could win" the White House race, but he "disagreed."
Warren's statement followed a CNN report citing four accounts of a December 2018 meeting between Warren and Sanders, the two progressive rivals in the primary contest, claiming Sanders told Warren he did not believe a women could win the race. Sanders denied the report.
"Bernie and I met for more than two hours in December 2018 to discuss the 2020 election, our past work together and our shared goals: beating Donald Trump, taking back our government from the wealthy and well-connected, and building an economy that works for everyone. Among the topics that came up was what would happen if Democrats nominated a female candidate. I thought a woman could win; he disagreed," Warren said in her statement.
She continued, "I have no interest in discussing this private meeting any further because Bernie and I have far more in common than our differences on punditry. I'm in this race to talk about what's broken in this country and how to fix it -- and that's what I'm going to continue to do. I know Bernie is in the race for the same reason. We have been friends and allies in this fight for a long time, and I have no doubt we will continue to work together to defeat Donald Trump and put our government on the side of the people."
"It is ludicrous to believe that at the same meeting where Elizabeth Warren told me she was going to run for president, I would tell her that a woman couldn't win," Sanders said earlier, in a statement provided to Fox News. "It's sad that, three weeks before the Iowa caucus and a year after that private conversation, staff who weren't in the room are lying about what happened."
Sanders also took the opportunity to slam President Trump, stating, "What I did say that night was that Donald Trump is a sexist, a racist and a liar who would weaponize whatever he could."
The Vermont senator went on to say he did believe a woman could win the race, referencing the popular vote in the 2016 election.
"Do I believe a woman can win in 2020? Of course!" he said. "After all, Hillary Clinton beat Donald Trump by 3 million votes in 2016." Trump, however, defeated Clinton in the electoral vote.
Politico reported earlier on a series of talking points from the Sanders campaign that aimed to paint Warren as a candidate attracting "highly educated, more affluent people who are going to show up and vote Democratic no matter what."
The script added, "She's bringing no new bases into the Democratic Party."
Speaking on Sunday in Iowa, Warren said she was disappointed in the talking points from Sanders' campaign and said it ultimately will divide voters at the Democrats' peril.
"I was disappointed to hear that Bernie is sending his volunteers out to trash me," Warren told reporters. "Bernie knows me and has known me for a long time. He knows who I am, where I come from, what I have worked on and fought for."
Unsubscribe from comment emails for this blog.
Posted by Erin Burnett to Học Để Thi at January 14, 2020 at 12:36 PM
Warren says Sanders 'disagreed' with her belief a woman could win the White House race
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., ramped up the tension with fellow progressive presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., on Monday night, saying she "thought a woman could win" the White House race, but he "disagreed."
Warren's statement followed a CNN report citing four accounts of a December 2018 meeting between Warren and Sanders, the two progressive rivals in the primary contest, claiming Sanders told Warren he did not believe a women could win the race. Sanders denied the report.
"Bernie and I met for more than two hours in December 2018 to discuss the 2020 election, our past work together and our shared goals: beating Donald Trump, taking back our government from the wealthy and well-connected, and building an economy that works for everyone. Among the topics that came up was what would happen if Democrats nominated a female candidate. I thought a woman could win; he disagreed," Warren said in her statement.
She continued, "I have no interest in discussing this private meeting any further because Bernie and I have far more in common than our differences on punditry. I'm in this race to talk about what's broken in this country and how to fix it -- and that's what I'm going to continue to do. I know Bernie is in the race for the same reason. We have been friends and allies in this fight for a long time, and I have no doubt we will continue to work together to defeat Donald Trump and put our government on the side of the people."
"It is ludicrous to believe that at the same meeting where Elizabeth Warren told me she was going to run for president, I would tell her that a woman couldn't win," Sanders said earlier, in a statement provided to Fox News. "It's sad that, three weeks before the Iowa caucus and a year after that private conversation, staff who weren't in the room are lying about what happened."
Sanders also took the opportunity to slam President Trump, stating, "What I did say that night was that Donald Trump is a sexist, a racist and a liar who would weaponize whatever he could."
The Vermont senator went on to say he did believe a woman could win the race, referencing the popular vote in the 2016 election.
"Do I believe a woman can win in 2020? Of course!" he said. "After all, Hillary Clinton beat Donald Trump by 3 million votes in 2016." Trump, however, defeated Clinton in the electoral vote.
Politico reported earlier on a series of talking points from the Sanders campaign that aimed to paint Warren as a candidate attracting "highly educated, more affluent people who are going to show up and vote Democratic no matter what."
The script added, "She's bringing no new bases into the Democratic Party."
Speaking on Sunday in Iowa, Warren said she was disappointed in the talking points from Sanders' campaign and said it ultimately will divide voters at the Democrats' peril.
"I was disappointed to hear that Bernie is sending his volunteers out to trash me," Warren told reporters. "Bernie knows me and has known me for a long time. He knows who I am, where I come from, what I have worked on and fought for."
Unsubscribe from comment emails for this blog.
Posted by Erin Burnett to Học Để Thi at January 14, 2020 at 12:36 PM
[Học Để Thi] New comment on Bernie Sanders campaign manager responds to report....
Erin Burnett has left a new comment on your post "Bernie Sanders campaign manager responds to report...":
Elizabeth Warren claims Bernie Sanders told her he didn't think a woman could win the presidency
Senator Elizabeth Warren released a statement Monday night alleging that fellow 2020 contender Senator Bernie Sanders told her he didn't think a woman could win the presidency during a meeting in 2018. Her statement comes hours after CNN reported the alleged comment, which Sanders denies.
"Bernie and I met for more than two hours in December 2018 to discuss the 2020 election, our past work together and our shared goals: beating Donald Trump, taking back our government from the wealthy and well-connected, and building an economy that works for everyone," Warren said in the statement.
"Among the topics that came up was what would happen if Democrats nominated a female candidate. I thought a woman could win; he disagreed. I have no interest in discussing this private meeting any further because Bernie and I have far more in common than our differences on punditry," she added.
"We have been friends and allies in this fight for a long time, and I have no doubt we will continue to work together to defeat Donald Trump and put our government on the side of the people."
Sanders and Warren appeared to have an unspoken agreement not to attack one another during the primary campaign. But on the eve of the seventh presidential debate and weeks away from the Iowa caucuses, the courtesy they've shown toward each other is sure to be tested on the debate stage Tuesday night.
Sanders' campaign released an angry statement from the Vermont senator in response to the CNN report.
"It is ludicrous to believe that at the same meeting where Elizabeth Warren told me she was going to run for president, I would tell her that a woman couldn't win," Sanders said. "It's sad that, three weeks before the Iowa caucus and a year after that private conversation, staff who weren't in the room are lying about what happened."
But in a discussion of President Trump's tactics, according to Sanders, sexism did come up during their conversation.
"What I did say that night was that Donald Trump is a sexist, a racist and a liar who would weaponize whatever he could," he said.
He went on to invoke his primary opponent in 2016, who defeated him for the Democratic nod but lost to Mr. Trump in the general election. "Do I believe a woman can win in 2020? Of course! After all Hillary Clinton beat Donald Trump by 3 million votes in 2016," Sanders said.
To refute the accusation, Sanders' supporters are also pointing to video of a comment he made in 1988, when he said, "The real issue is not whether you're black or white, whether you're a woman or a man — in my view a woman could be elected president of the United States — the real issue is whose side are you on?"
Unsubscribe from comment emails for this blog.
Posted by Erin Burnett to Học Để Thi at January 14, 2020 at 12:34 PM
Elizabeth Warren claims Bernie Sanders told her he didn't think a woman could win the presidency
Senator Elizabeth Warren released a statement Monday night alleging that fellow 2020 contender Senator Bernie Sanders told her he didn't think a woman could win the presidency during a meeting in 2018. Her statement comes hours after CNN reported the alleged comment, which Sanders denies.
"Bernie and I met for more than two hours in December 2018 to discuss the 2020 election, our past work together and our shared goals: beating Donald Trump, taking back our government from the wealthy and well-connected, and building an economy that works for everyone," Warren said in the statement.
"Among the topics that came up was what would happen if Democrats nominated a female candidate. I thought a woman could win; he disagreed. I have no interest in discussing this private meeting any further because Bernie and I have far more in common than our differences on punditry," she added.
"We have been friends and allies in this fight for a long time, and I have no doubt we will continue to work together to defeat Donald Trump and put our government on the side of the people."
Sanders and Warren appeared to have an unspoken agreement not to attack one another during the primary campaign. But on the eve of the seventh presidential debate and weeks away from the Iowa caucuses, the courtesy they've shown toward each other is sure to be tested on the debate stage Tuesday night.
Sanders' campaign released an angry statement from the Vermont senator in response to the CNN report.
"It is ludicrous to believe that at the same meeting where Elizabeth Warren told me she was going to run for president, I would tell her that a woman couldn't win," Sanders said. "It's sad that, three weeks before the Iowa caucus and a year after that private conversation, staff who weren't in the room are lying about what happened."
But in a discussion of President Trump's tactics, according to Sanders, sexism did come up during their conversation.
"What I did say that night was that Donald Trump is a sexist, a racist and a liar who would weaponize whatever he could," he said.
He went on to invoke his primary opponent in 2016, who defeated him for the Democratic nod but lost to Mr. Trump in the general election. "Do I believe a woman can win in 2020? Of course! After all Hillary Clinton beat Donald Trump by 3 million votes in 2016," Sanders said.
To refute the accusation, Sanders' supporters are also pointing to video of a comment he made in 1988, when he said, "The real issue is not whether you're black or white, whether you're a woman or a man — in my view a woman could be elected president of the United States — the real issue is whose side are you on?"
Unsubscribe from comment emails for this blog.
Posted by Erin Burnett to Học Để Thi at January 14, 2020 at 12:34 PM
Sunday, January 12, 2020
Ocasio-Cortez told : “I’m a Democrat, I’m proud to be on this team. I’m proud to be part of the Democratic majority,”
Ocasio-Cortez told : “I’m a Democrat, I’m proud to be on this team. I’m proud to be part of the Democratic majority,” |
| Posted: 12 Jan 2020 07:24 AM PST Ocasio-Cortez said there's a "distinct possibility" she'll be backing more primary challengers, though she said of the two groups: "I don't anticipate our endorsements will overlap 100... Thank you for spending some time at my site : "www.tranganhnam.xyzand in my blog : http://hocdethi.blogspot.com/. I hope you come to visit again soon!  |
| You are subscribed to email updates from www.Tranganhnam.xyz. To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States | |
[Erin Burnett] New comment on CNN’s Erin Burnett says "You cannot make this up .....
Trang Ánh Nam has left a new comment on your post "CNN's Erin Burnett says "You cannot make this up ....":
Stephen Colbert to Trump and Bloomberg: Get out of my Super Bowl ads
Presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg has spent a whopping $100 million on campaign ads in one month, with his biggest drop yet on a $10 million Super Bowl ad, saying "the biggest point is getting under Trump's skin," — the president's re-election campaign has also booked an ad during the game on Feb. 2.
Well, friends, The Late Show host Stephen Colbert had one thing to say to politicians on Wednesday night: "Get out of my SuperBowl commercials."
Is it too much to ask? Colbert just wants what we all want. "I don't want to see politicians. That's not what the day is for. I don't want to see candidates for political office. I only want to see friendships between horses and puppies. And inter-racial couples enjoying cereal. I want to cry because of a truck."
But it's not just any old ad truck that can make Colbert cry. It's the father-son relationship built around the truck. Look, just watch it.
Unsubscribe from comment emails for this blog.
Posted by Trang Ánh Nam to Erin Burnett at January 12, 2020 at 12:51 AM
Stephen Colbert to Trump and Bloomberg: Get out of my Super Bowl ads
Presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg has spent a whopping $100 million on campaign ads in one month, with his biggest drop yet on a $10 million Super Bowl ad, saying "the biggest point is getting under Trump's skin," — the president's re-election campaign has also booked an ad during the game on Feb. 2.
Well, friends, The Late Show host Stephen Colbert had one thing to say to politicians on Wednesday night: "Get out of my SuperBowl commercials."
Is it too much to ask? Colbert just wants what we all want. "I don't want to see politicians. That's not what the day is for. I don't want to see candidates for political office. I only want to see friendships between horses and puppies. And inter-racial couples enjoying cereal. I want to cry because of a truck."
But it's not just any old ad truck that can make Colbert cry. It's the father-son relationship built around the truck. Look, just watch it.
Unsubscribe from comment emails for this blog.
Posted by Trang Ánh Nam to Erin Burnett at January 12, 2020 at 12:51 AM
[Erin Burnett] New comment on CNN’s Erin Burnett says "You cannot make this up .....
Trang Ánh Nam has left a new comment on your post "CNN's Erin Burnett says "You cannot make this up ....":
TReport Pokes More Holes In Dubious Claim Soleimani Was Plotting 'Imminent' Attack
A lengthy new report pokes yet more holes in the Trump administration's already-dubious claims that it needed to kill a top Iranian general in order to prevent an "imminent" threat.
The general, Qassem Soleimani, was killed by a done strike outside Baghad International Airport last Friday.
The administration has argued that Soleimani's killing was necessary to prevent an "imminent" attack, but its changing rhetoric about the danger Soleimani posed has weakened its case.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, for example, said Thursday that "we don't know precisely when and we don't know precisely where" the supposedly imminent attack, or attacks, plotted by Soleimani would've occurred.
"Soleimani was actively planning new attacks, and he was looking very seriously at our embassies, and not just the embassy in Baghdad," President Trump said in an interview with Fox News' Laura Ingraham aired Friday, adding: "I believe it probably would've been four embassies."
That was the first time the administration had offered that detail.
Meanwhile, a lengthy report from The New York Times published Saturday matched multiple outlets' reporting that Soleimani's killing was one of a number of options presented to Trump as a response to the storming of the U.S. embassy compound in Baghdad by an Iranian-backed militia.
One unnamed State Department official told the Times it was "a mistake" for Pompeo to refer to the purported attack being plotted by Soleimani as "imminent."
At the CIA, officers referred to a "mosaic effect" of information about a large-scale attack Soleimani was planning that targeted American assets.
But several unnamed officials told the Times that there was not sufficient information to describe the threat as "imminent."
Other unnamed officials told the Times there was no specific intelligence supporting Pompeo's claim that the attack could've killed "hundreds" of people.
The administration's classified briefings to members of Congress about the Soleimani killing — which Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) called "the worst briefing" on a military issue he'd seen — was similarly fraught.
In the briefings, several top Trump administration officials attempted to sell Congress on the imminent threat Soleimani posed, but many legislators left unconvinced after the briefers skimped on detail.
At one point, Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, reportedly listed three specific dates on which Soleimani had discussed potential attacks.
"What were the threats?" lawmakers shouted, per the Times. Milley didn't say.
One lawmaker, unnamed in the report, noted that the dates Milley listed, in late December or early January, had passed before Soleimani's killing without any attacks.
Unsubscribe from comment emails for this blog.
Posted by Trang Ánh Nam to Erin Burnett at January 12, 2020 at 12:40 AM
TReport Pokes More Holes In Dubious Claim Soleimani Was Plotting 'Imminent' Attack
A lengthy new report pokes yet more holes in the Trump administration's already-dubious claims that it needed to kill a top Iranian general in order to prevent an "imminent" threat.
The general, Qassem Soleimani, was killed by a done strike outside Baghad International Airport last Friday.
The administration has argued that Soleimani's killing was necessary to prevent an "imminent" attack, but its changing rhetoric about the danger Soleimani posed has weakened its case.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, for example, said Thursday that "we don't know precisely when and we don't know precisely where" the supposedly imminent attack, or attacks, plotted by Soleimani would've occurred.
"Soleimani was actively planning new attacks, and he was looking very seriously at our embassies, and not just the embassy in Baghdad," President Trump said in an interview with Fox News' Laura Ingraham aired Friday, adding: "I believe it probably would've been four embassies."
That was the first time the administration had offered that detail.
Meanwhile, a lengthy report from The New York Times published Saturday matched multiple outlets' reporting that Soleimani's killing was one of a number of options presented to Trump as a response to the storming of the U.S. embassy compound in Baghdad by an Iranian-backed militia.
One unnamed State Department official told the Times it was "a mistake" for Pompeo to refer to the purported attack being plotted by Soleimani as "imminent."
At the CIA, officers referred to a "mosaic effect" of information about a large-scale attack Soleimani was planning that targeted American assets.
But several unnamed officials told the Times that there was not sufficient information to describe the threat as "imminent."
Other unnamed officials told the Times there was no specific intelligence supporting Pompeo's claim that the attack could've killed "hundreds" of people.
The administration's classified briefings to members of Congress about the Soleimani killing — which Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) called "the worst briefing" on a military issue he'd seen — was similarly fraught.
In the briefings, several top Trump administration officials attempted to sell Congress on the imminent threat Soleimani posed, but many legislators left unconvinced after the briefers skimped on detail.
At one point, Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, reportedly listed three specific dates on which Soleimani had discussed potential attacks.
"What were the threats?" lawmakers shouted, per the Times. Milley didn't say.
One lawmaker, unnamed in the report, noted that the dates Milley listed, in late December or early January, had passed before Soleimani's killing without any attacks.
Unsubscribe from comment emails for this blog.
Posted by Trang Ánh Nam to Erin Burnett at January 12, 2020 at 12:40 AM
[Erin Burnett] New comment on CNN’s Erin Burnett says "You cannot make this up .....
Trang Ánh Nam has left a new comment on your post "CNN's Erin Burnett says "You cannot make this up ....":
WSJ: Trump Admin Threatened Iraq's Access To NY Fed Account Over Proposed Troop Withdrawal
The Trump administration reportedly threatened to cut off Iraq's access to its account with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York over a proposed withdrawal of American troops.
The Wall Street Journal reported Saturday that the State Department threatened to cut off Iraq's New York Fed account in a phone call Wednesday with Prime Minister Adel Abdul-Mahdi, according to unnamed Iraqi officials. The resulting cash shortage would hurt Iraq's economy.
Many countries maintain accounts with the New York Fed in order to store government revenue in the form of U.S. dollars. In Iraq's case, much of that comes from oil sales.
The State Department didn't respond to TPM's request for comment on Saturday.
Abdul-Mahdi and Iraq's parliament have called for American troops to exit the country following the killing, ordered by President Donald Trump, of the top Iranian general Qassem Soleimani outside Baghdad International Airport a week ago.
Trump in turn threatened to sanction Iraq if U.S. troops were expelled. The State Department has refused to recognize Iraq's call for the troops to leave.
"At this time, any delegation sent to Iraq would be dedicated to discussing how best to recommit to our strategic partnership — not to discuss troop withdrawal," the State Department said in a statement quoted by The Washington Post Friday.
Unsubscribe from comment emails for this blog.
Posted by Trang Ánh Nam to Erin Burnett at January 12, 2020 at 12:37 AM
WSJ: Trump Admin Threatened Iraq's Access To NY Fed Account Over Proposed Troop Withdrawal
The Trump administration reportedly threatened to cut off Iraq's access to its account with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York over a proposed withdrawal of American troops.
The Wall Street Journal reported Saturday that the State Department threatened to cut off Iraq's New York Fed account in a phone call Wednesday with Prime Minister Adel Abdul-Mahdi, according to unnamed Iraqi officials. The resulting cash shortage would hurt Iraq's economy.
Many countries maintain accounts with the New York Fed in order to store government revenue in the form of U.S. dollars. In Iraq's case, much of that comes from oil sales.
The State Department didn't respond to TPM's request for comment on Saturday.
Abdul-Mahdi and Iraq's parliament have called for American troops to exit the country following the killing, ordered by President Donald Trump, of the top Iranian general Qassem Soleimani outside Baghdad International Airport a week ago.
Trump in turn threatened to sanction Iraq if U.S. troops were expelled. The State Department has refused to recognize Iraq's call for the troops to leave.
"At this time, any delegation sent to Iraq would be dedicated to discussing how best to recommit to our strategic partnership — not to discuss troop withdrawal," the State Department said in a statement quoted by The Washington Post Friday.
Unsubscribe from comment emails for this blog.
Posted by Trang Ánh Nam to Erin Burnett at January 12, 2020 at 12:37 AM
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)