On with the news...
The New Yorker:
[Democratic candidate Jon Ossoff for Georgia’s Sixth Congressional District seat (to replace President Trump’s Secretary of Health and Human Services, Tom Price)] has risen to the head of an eighteen-candidate pack, garnering forty-five per cent of the vote in a poll released this past Friday.
(hat tip to WSB TV for the graphic)
It sounds good for Democrat Ossoff, until you consider how packed the field is with Republicans splitting the vote:
[Republican Karen] Handel has the lead among the Republicans in the race, at between seventeen and twenty-one per cent, according to the latest polls. On Tuesday, Democrats, Republicans, and independents will all appear on one ballot. Unless one candidate captures a full fifty per cent of the vote, there will be a runoff between the top two finishers, on June 20th. Ossoff’s overall polling lead is formidable, but it also reflects a crowded conservative field that features pro-Trump Republicans, establishment Republicans, at least one vocally anti-Trump Republican, and a John Wayne-quoting Muslim Republican named Mohammad Ali Bhuiyan. Their résumés are just as varied: at a nonpartisan candidate forum and luncheon in late March, Handel and Ossoff were joined onstage by a former flight attendant, a Georgia State University Italian professor, a cardiologist, the Trump campaign’s “diversity chief,” and twelve others.This creates the likely scenario of a run-off election between Handel and Ossoff in a Republican-leaning district, which will most likely vote for Handel in the end.
The only reason this is nationwide news is because Leftist editors in the mainstream media are having wet dreams about a Democrat winning a House seat in a Republican district. It isn't impossible, but these are also the same people who thought Hillary was a shoe-in last November.
This shouldn't even be news outside Georgia.
In other fake news...
NBC News:
A review of the surveillance material flagged by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes shows no inappropriate action by Susan Rice or any other Obama administration official, Republican and Democratic Congressional aides who have been briefed on the matter told NBC News.Before going any further, please notice that nowhere in this article is the question of whether the government should be allowed to knowingly gather intelligence on Americans who are not under active investigation. When the Americans in question are involved in the presidential campaign for an opposing party, this becomes the ethical equivalent of being able to perform a Watergate break-in without ever leaving your office, and with it all being fully sanctioned by the laws of the United States.
President Donald Trump told the New York Times he believed former National Security Adviser Rice broke the law by asking for the identities of Trump aides who were mentioned in transcripts of U.S. surveillance of foreign targets. Normally, the identities of Americans are blacked out in transcripts circulated by the National Security Agency, but they may be "unmasked," if their identities are relevant to understanding the intelligence.
Here are the money quotes in the article:
Members of the House and Senate intelligence committees from both parties have traveled to NSA headquarters to review the relevant intelligence reports.We know the first official is a Democrat, since the article says they had sources from both parties. However, the second Republican source is not quoted, so we have no idea to what extent they supposedly "shared" the democrat's opinion. It could have been the Republican only admitted what Rice did was legal.
"I saw no evidence of any wrongdoing," said one U.S. official who reviewed the documents, who would not agree to be identified further. "It was all completely normal."
His assessment was shared by a senior Republican aide who had been briefed on the matter but declined to speak on the record.
Before you jump into the "it's legal so it's ok" camp, ask yourself this question: How will you feel if Trump's NSA director does the same thing to a Democratic presidential candidate's campaign in 2020?
Speaking of Trump...
Newsweek:
The Trumps are set to become the most expensive first family in history if they don’t immediately begin reducing their lavish spending habits and frequent trips across the globe – and taxpayers are set to continue picking up the tab for as long as they keep it up. For context, President Donald Trump is expected to outpace the entirety of former President Barack Obama’s eight-year travel costs with plenty of time to spare in just his first year as the leader of the free world.
Whereas Obama spent close to $12.1 million annually in travel costs, Trump may have already doubled that benchmark on trips to Mar-A-Lago alone before the close of his first 100 days. But getting the new president from point A to point B isn’t the only expenditure raising eyebrows: the price tag that comes with the new first family is quickly becoming equally concerning to Trump’s opponents and supporters alike.Sadly, the article doesn't reveal any total figures, but a rough ballpark puts the costs mentioned at $109 million for the first 100 days, which will work out close to $400 million for the first year. Even accounting for the fact that Trump's family (7, including himself) is larger than Obama's (4, including himself), there is also the fact that 4 of Trump's children are grown and live jet-setting lifestyles, whereas Obama's children were still in school during his presidency.
Mind you, this doesn't excuse the Trump family for their lavish lifestyles and how much it costs the American public in security for them. But this one falls under the "elections have consequences" category. When you elect an older wealthy man with a large family like Trump has, this is what it costs to provide extra security on that lifestyle.
However, we can make some reasonable cuts to these expenses. Hotel and transportation costs for adult children should be paid for by them. We can still provide security, but that is all we should be paying.
No comments:
Post a Comment