Archive for the ‘Debates’ Category

If people still entertained the silly notion that CNN was impartial about who wins the Democrats’ presidential nomination, that notion just disappeared. That notion disappeared because CNN moderator Abby Phillips ignored Sen. Sanders’ answer to her question.

The fight started when Phillips asked “Senator Sanders, CNN reported yesterday, and Senator Warren confirmed in a statement, that in 2018, you told her that you did not believe that a woman could win the election. Why did you say that?” Sen. Sanders replied, saying “Well, in fact, I didn’t say that.” Sen. Sanders’ answer apparently didn’t fit CNN’s narrative so Phillip asked Sen. Warren “what did you think when Senator Sanders told you a woman could not win the election?”

Welcome to the club, Bernie. You now know how Republicans feel when the Agenda Media ignore their answers. Implicit in the Agenda Media’s response is the inference that both parties know that the aggrieved party is lying. The answer isn’t important. What’s important to CNN is whether they maintain the narrative.

After the debate, CNN went further in antagonizing Sen. Sanders, releasing audio of Sanders and Warren fighting. During that fight, Sen. Warren said “I think you just called me a liar on national TV.” After that accusation, Sen. Sanders replied “What?” That led Sen. Warren to respond, saying “I think you called me a liar on national TV.”

Bernie’s supporters aren’t taking this lightly:


Sen. Warren went into this debate needing to regain momentum going into the first contest for the Democrat presidential nomination. Sen. Warren came across as dishonest and vindictive during the debate and afterwards, too.

I didn’t watch last night’s Democrat presidential debate but it sounds like the fight between Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren took a nasty turn after the debate. This upsets the Democrats happy little family storyline:

Sanders and Warren approached one another and he stuck out his hand. She did not shake it. What followed was a brief but clearly uncomfortable conversation. As Sanders’ campaign co-chair Nina Turner put it on CNN: “I’m not sure what she said, but you can read the body language. Obviously, their conversation was not pleasant.”

Then the fight turned to social media. As of Wednesday morning, the hashtag “#neverWarren” was trending as Bernie allies took to Twitter to attack the Massachusetts senator as a lying snake.

There’s little doubt that Warren is lying, not Sanders. Sanders doesn’t have a history of lying. Warren does. This is from last night’s debate:

Elizabeth Warren has a lengthy history of lying:

Policy-wise, Bernie and Pocahontas are nuttier than fruitcake. From a character standpoint, though, they’re different. Warren is utterly corrupt.

This reeks of desperation on Warren’s part. She’s been sinking in the polls ever since she couldn’t explain how she’d pay for her health care plan. With the first votes looming, she needs, to use a football metaphor, a Hail Mary pass. This intentional leak is likely Sen. Warren’s attempt to regain momentum and relevance.

Jim Geraghty’s article on Sen. Klobuchar doesn’t hide the things that the Twin Cities press has ignored for years. In his article, Geraghty writes that “If you squint, you can make the “Klobuchar’s getting hot at the right time” argument, as the latest Monmouth poll has her at 8 percentage points, her second-highest number yet. Except … getting any delegates out of Iowa requires getting 15 percent of the vote. Klobuchar needs to more or less double her current support to walk out of the state with any delegates.”

Then Geraghty cuts to the heart of Sen. Klobuchar’s problem, saying “Klobuchar wasn’t that well-known when the race began; it was a crowded field; her debate performances ranged from okay to easily forgotten; she’s not the choice of the party establishment or the progressive grassroots, she doesn’t have the resources to blanket the airwaves the way Bloomberg and Steyer can … she’s a perfectly fine, almost generic Democratic candidate in a field that was bursting with more exciting options.”

Don’t mistake Sen. Klobuchar’s lack of presence as proof that she’s a moderate Democrat. That’s BS. She thought that Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh were extremists. In fact, she thought that Kavanaugh didn’t deserve the presumption of innocence. On the other hand, she thought that Sonia Sotomayor was a centrist. Klobuchar voted for the ACA, which destroyed Minnesota’s health care system but voted against the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which has produced the strongest economy in the last 20 years. That doesn’t sound too bright, does it?

While she’s been protected by the Twin Cities media, she’s been portrayed as a moderate/centrist. Clearly, that isn’t accurate. While she isn’t as far left as Ilhan Omar or Keith Ellison, her policies are more than a little leftist. On her campaign website, Klobuchar has a page titled a safer world. On the subject of foreign policy, she says:

Amy believes that we need to stand strong, and consistently, with our allies and that we must respect our frontline troops, diplomats and intelligence officers, who are out there every day risking their lives for our country, and deserve better than foreign policy by tweet. She would invest in diplomacy and rebuild the State Department and modernize our military to stay one step ahead of China and Russia, including with serious investments in cybersecurity.

This past week, President Trump has convinced the British, French and Germans to force Iran’s mullahs back into compliance with the JCPOA. Next, President Trump has rebuilt the military the past 3 years, too. Third, President Trump has seen to it that the troops have gotten pay raises the past 2 years. Fourth, rebuilding the State Department, aka the Deep State, is downright stupid. The last thing we need are ‘diplomats’ who think it’s their job to undermine a president they think isn’t qualified. Finally, President Trump, working with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, have significantly upgraded our cybersecurity.

In other words, the things Sen. Klobuchar says she’d do are things that President Trump has already done. This is a perfect example of how the Twin Cities media protect St. Amy of Hennepin County:

Sen. Klobuchar is kinda right in that tensions are rising in Iran. It’s just that the pressure on Iran is increasing. Tuesday was a major breakthrough for US-British diplomacy. Thanks in large part to British Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s behind-the-scenes work, we’re on the verge of getting Iran back to the negotiating table where a proper treaty will get negotiated. When the JCPOA was negotiated, Iran didn’t have a worry in the world. Now, 5 years later, Iran’s mullahs are worried about students protesting, Iran’s economy is in virtual freefall and the international community is exerting maximum pressure on the regime.

Last night’s Democrat presidential debate got stupid fast when the moderators changed the subject to Iran. Democrats didn’t attempt to abandon the DNC’s talking points. From there, things went downhill fast.

Amy Klobuchar and Joe Biden stood out but not in a good way. Sen. Klobuchar said “Because of the actions of Donald Trump, we are in a situation where Iran is starting to enrich uranium again in violation of the original agreement. What I would do is negotiate. I would bring people together just as president Obama did years ago. And I think that we can get this done. But you have to have a president that sees this as a number one goal. I would not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.”

First, it’s stupid to negotiate if the country you’re negotiating with isn’t feeling pain or is frightened of you. When John Kerry negotiated with Iran, Iran wasn’t worried about whether their people would overthrow the regime. The product was an agreement that was so weak that the Obama administration wouldn’t submit it as a treaty for ratification. The agreement was so terrible that most Democrats opposed it.

Next, President Trump’s taking out of Gen. Soleimani triggered an uprising against the Regime, with 5 straight nights of protests against the regime. With Iran’s economy collapsing, unemployment skyrocketing, inflation hitting 50% and students having lots of time to protest, there’s reason for Iran’s regime to worry about getting overthrown.

Third, Sen. Klobuchar should pay attention to events. Yesterday, Boris Johnson announced that the British, French and Germans had taken the first step in dragging Iran back into compliance with the JCPOA:

Britain, France and Germany on Tuesday formally accused Iran of breaking the 2015 agreement that limited its nuclear program, taking the first step toward re-imposing United Nations sanctions.

The European countries started the clock running on what could be some 60 days of negotiations with Iran about coming back into full compliance with the nuclear deal. Under the agreement, if they cannot resolve their dispute, that could revive United Nations sanctions on Iran that had been suspended under the deal, including an arms embargo.

Call me crazy but I’d argue that President Trump’s strategy is working beautifully. Biden sounded almost as incoherent:

“I was part of that deal. It was working,” he said. “It was being held tightly. There was no movement on the part of the Iranian government to get closer to a nuclear weapon. And look what’s happened. We’re now isolated,” he continued. “We’re in a situation where our allies in Europe are making a comparison between the United States and Iran saying both ought to stand down, making a moral equivalence. We have lost our standing in the region; we have lost the support of our allies.

“The next president has to be able to pull those folks back together, reestablish our alliances and insist that Iran go back into the agreement, which I believe with the pressure applied as we put on before we can get done. And quite frankly, I think he’s flat out lied about saying the reason he went after [Soleimani] was because our embassies were about to be bombed,” Biden added.

That’s breathtakingly uninformed, which is dangerous for us. Biden being this uninformed gives credence to his nickname of Sleepy Joe. We can’t afford a president who isn’t paying attention to the world around him.

It’s either that Biden is uninformed or he’s unwilling to admit that President Trump’s strategy is well thought out and working. This information about the British, French and Germans accusing Iran of breaking the JCPOA didn’t happen right before last night’s debate. It was announced during Tuesday morning’s BBC Breakfast Show. That should’ve been part of these candidates’ morning briefing.

In short, the Democrats’ presidential candidates couldn’t admit that a) President Trump’s strategy is working and b) US allies are joining us in increasing pressure on the Iranian regime. This is what the Democrats’ stupidity towards Iran looks like:

God help us if any of these idiots becomes our next commander-in-chief.

This article isn’t rare enough. It’s the type of article I’d expect from desperate Democrats hoping and praying that nobody will notice that the economy is actually lifting all ships. Laced throughout the article are paragraphs like this:

On paper, Esther Mabior should be fine. She has a degree from Iowa State University, where she majored in economics, and lives in a city where her chosen profession, the insurance business, employs thousands of people.

But Ms. Mabior, 26, can’t find a job as an insurance adjuster. And she says her own experience is a lot like the stock market highs and the ever-expanding gross domestic product she keeps hearing about: It all looks good on the surface, but deeper down things aren’t so rosy. “There may be people doing well,” Ms. Mabior said after attending an event for Pete Buttigieg’s campaign in Des Moines over the weekend, calling herself “living proof” that as far as the economy is concerned, “it’s not that great.”

That’s the type of story that I’d call an anecdote. That doesn’t mean Ms. Mabior isn’t tell us the truth about her life. I don’t find a reason to doubt her. What I don’t find is a reason to make policy based on her testimony.

Let’s look at actual data. This is from the Atlanta Federal Reserve:

On November 25, Fed chair Jay Powell gave a speech titled “Building on the Gains from the Long Expansion,” in which he observed that “Recent years’ data paint a hopeful picture of more people in their prime years in the workforce and wages rising for low- and middle-income workers.

This is the supporting graph:

In making this point, Chair Powell used a cut of the Atlanta Fed’s Wage Growth Tracker that looks at the median annual wage growth of workers in the lowest 25 percent of the wage distribution. As the following chart shows, the lowest-paid workers have been experiencing higher median wage growth (the blue line) in the last few years than workers overall (the green line). This reverses the pattern seen in the wake of the Great Recession, when median wage growth for lower-paid workers slowed by more than for workers overall.

It’s time to reject the Democrats’ version of the economy. At the Democrats’ last presidential debate, Vice President Biden insisted that the economy wasn’t that great. Today, a Democrat strategist insisted that people were worse off thanks to higher health insurance premiums. What this strategist didn’t mention was that the Trump-GOP tax cuts put lots more money in families’ pockets so they could afford higher health insurance premiums.

It’s worth noting that every Democrat in Congress voted against the Trump-GOP tax cuts. Imagine how families would be fighting if not for the tax cuts and if President Trump hadn’t cut energy-related regulations. Those regulation cuts alone restored a dying energy industry. That, in turn, has led to rising wages for blue collar workers. The guy that’s supposed to connect with blue collar workers, Joe Biden, is regurgitating the Democrats’ spin:

“An awful lot of people, middle-class folks, are in real trouble, and they’re not at all certain about their future,” Mr. Biden said in Fairfield, Iowa, on Saturday. “So the idea that everybody’s doing well is just simply not true. The very, very wealthy are doing very, very well, but the rest are scraping along.”

If VP Biden’s speeches were rated by the Washington Post’s fact-checker, he’d get 4 Pinocchios each speech.

When she took the stage herself, Ms. Warren of Massachusetts argued that the economic recovery had failed to touch the most marginalized communities or rural areas. “Why is America’s middle class being hollowed out?” she asked. “And the answer is in who our government in Washington works for.”

Let’s see how plays with this news:

Overall, 35 percent of respondents said that economic conditions were “very good,” and 41 percent said they were “somewhat good.” According to CNN’s analysis of the data, the 76 percent net positive is the largest share of Americans to feel good about the economy since 2001, when 80 percent of those queried said things were going well.

When three-fourths of the people think that the economy is very good or somewhat good, it’s difficult selling what the Democrats are pushing. I’d rather sell ice cubes in Antarctica than talk down this economy heading into President Trump’s SOTU Address.

Biden must think that we’re dumb enough to think that Schiff and Nadler are honest. The only way Biden maintains his frontrunner status for the nomination is because the others are worse candidates than he is. Actually, that’s precisely the case.

Joe Biden’s Democrat moderate credentials aren’t rock-solid. They’re situational or comparative more than solid. For instance, President Trump’s energy credentials are mostly mainstream. Joe Biden’s energy credentials, especially in places like Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan, would be seen as extremist.

At last week’s Democrat presidential debate, Biden was asked “Vice President Biden, I’d like to ask you. Three consecutive American presidents have enjoyed stints of explosive economic growth due to a boom in oil and natural gas production. As president, would you be willing to sacrifice some of that growth, even knowing potentially that it could displace thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of blue-collar workers in the interest of transitioning to that greener economy?” He replied “The answer is yes.”

That’s the Democrats’ definition of a moderate? That isn’t the only example of Vice President Biden’s immoderation. Here’s another unserious answer:

JUDY WOODRUFF: Vice President Biden, what is your argument to the voter watching this debate tonight who may not like everything that President Trump does but they really like this economy and they don’t know why they should make a change?
BIDEN: Well, I don’t think they really do like the economy. Go back and talk to the neighbors in the old middle class neighborhoods that you grew up in. The middle class is getting killed. The middle class is getting crushed. The working class has no way up as a consequence of that.

If Biden is the Democrats’ nominee, he’ll get crushed spewing such stupidity. I quoted from Marc Thiessen’s column in this post. In his article, Thiessen quoted from a Marist poll:

A Marist poll asked voters whether “the economy is working well for you personally.” Nearly two-thirds of Americans said yes. This includes large majorities in almost every demographic group. Sixty-seven percent of college graduates and 64 percent of those without a college education say the economy is working for them. So do 68 percent of whites and 61 percent of nonwhite people.

So do Americans of every generation: 63 percent of Generation Z and millennials; 69 percent of Generation X; 63 percent of baby boomers; and 69 percent of Greatest Generation and Silent Generation voters. So do supermajorities in every region in the country: 60 percent in the West, 65 percent in the Northeast, 67 percent in the Midwest, and 68 percent in the South. So do most voters in every type of American community: 63 percent of both big and small city voters; 64 percent of small-town voters; 66 percent of rural voters and 72 percent of suburban voters.

Joe should contact some of these voters who he thinks don’t like the Trump economy. He’s losing credibility spewing that type of stupidity. Telling large majorities of virtually every demographic group that they really aren’t doing as well as they think they’re doing is foolish.

How does Biden explain this?

Super Saturday’s sales reached $34.4 billion, beating out Black Friday spending by 10%. The research firm says job growth, more disposable income, and stronger household finances contributed to the boosted buying mood this holiday season, and that mega-retailers like Walmart, Amazon, Costco and Target saw their best traffic in years.

Notice that the most popular retailers weren’t Nieman-Marcus and Macy’s. They were Walmart, Amazon, Costco and Target. If the Trump economy had left the middle class high and dry, these retailers wouldn’t have set records. Put bluntly, do you want Biden paying attention to the economy or would you prefer the man who helped put this economy into high gear running the show? This isn’t a close choice, is it?

Thursday night’s debate showed just how much contempt Democrat presidential candidates have for the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. Kamala Harris said that she’d issue an executive order to confiscate (my word, not hers) AR-15s and AK-47s if Congress didn’t act on banning assault weapons. I quoted from the DC v. Heller case in this post why she’d get slammed 9-0 in the Supreme Court:

Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56. 3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense.

The Supreme Court has ruled that guns that are in common use are beyond Congress because they’re protected by the Second Amendment. Period.

Harris isn’t the only Democrat that thinks they’re above the Constitution. Robert Francis O’Rourke, the rich brat from El Paso, went on this tirade during the debate:

O’Rourke himself is just a punk who won’t be president. With that tirade, he took himself out of the running for being a serious challenger to Sen. Cornyn, too. That’s why I couldn’t care less about Robert Francis. What I’m bothered about was the applause he received from the audience at the Democrats’ debate in Houston. Those idiots are our neighbors, co-workers and friends.

This is what happens when our schools don’t emphasize civics in the classroom. Increasingly, our society thinks that they’re beyond the law and the Constitution. Chief of those that think that way is AOC. Harris apparently thinks that she can ignore the Constitution, too:

Harris responded, “I would just say, hey, Joe, instead of saying, no, we can’t, let’s say, yes, we can. And yes, we can. Because I’ll tell you something, the way that I think about this is, I’ve seen more autopsy photographs than I care to tell you. I have attended more police officer funerals than I care to tell you. I have hugged more mothers of homicide victims than I care to tell you. And the idea that we would wait for this Congress, which has just done nothing, to act, is just — it is overlooking the fact that every day in America, our babies are going to school to have drills.”

To Sen. Harris: I’ve read the Bill of Rights. It trumps the autopsy pictures that Sen. Harris has seen. It trumps the attempt to play on victims’ emotions, too.

Perhaps it’s just me but Sen. Harris sounded like she was high when she said “Hey, Joe, instead of saying ‘no, we can’t,’ let’s say ‘yes, we can.’ That laughter made her sound like she was high.

Whether Sen. Harris was high or not, she’s definitely wrong on the Constitution.

Last week, the Democrats, both those running for president and those activists in the MSM, repeatedly talked about the looming recession. At last night’s third Democrat presidential debate, hardly a word was said about the economy. Chief Washington Examiner Politics Correspondent Byron York notice that the subject of the economy didn’t make an appearance at the Democrats’ third presidential debate. Amazingly, ABC moderators didn’t ask a single question about the economy, either.

How can you have a 3-hour-long debate and not talk about the topic that most people want to talk about? That’s journalistic malpractice. In his article, York wrote “at the Democratic Party’s first one-night presidential debate, the first opportunity to showcase the party’s ten leading candidates, what role did the nation’s widespread economic anxieties play? Almost none. The candidates simply didn’t talk about it. (Nor did the ABC News moderators ask.) The word “recession” was uttered just once in the entire debate. (By Julian Castro, who noted the poll’s finding of recession fears.) Nor was the word “unemployment” ever spoken. Nor was there a discussion of job creation. Nor was there much of a discussion of wages.”

It’s almost as if ABC got the word from their boss (in this instance, DNC Chair Tom Perez) to not talk about the subject. I’m not accusing Chairman Perez of that. I’m merely stating that it’s as if Perez did that. It isn’t like Clintonista George Stephanopoulos was ever accused of rigging a debate by his former bosses. Oh wait. He has:

BRZEZINSKI:Jonathan Capehart, help me understand, tell me if I’m going down the wrong path here. It appears the Clinton campaign wants to do either a debate that no one will see, or a debate with a moderator that might not be completely fair towards Bernie Sanders. What do you think of the concept of a GMA debate with George Stephanopoulos.

Democrats understand that it’s virtually impossible to convince people that are spending extra money at Walmart because their take-home pay has increased thanks to the Tax Cuts & Jobs Act and because pay has increased by 3% over the past year. It’s easier to talk about ‘Democrat’ issues like health care and gun confiscation. DNC Chairman Tom Perez, in an attempt to spin what happened, said that health care is an economic issue:

Sorry, Tom, but creating jobs, tax policy, regulatory policy and rebuilding communities through a solid, comprehensive economic package qualifies as a discussion on the economy.

This article highlights the difference between Democrats debating the Second Amendment and the GOP debating it. Rich Lowry highlights Amy Klobuchar’s statement that “I look at [gun legislation] and I always say, ‘Does this hurt Uncle Dick in his deer stand?'” Lowry then notes ” That’s not the question, though. The Second Amendment isn’t fundamentally about Uncle Dick bagging deer, but about his ability to defend himself and his family.”

As a Minnesotan, I’ve gotten tired of listening to the DFL yapping about being pro-Second Amendment, then backing it up by saying that they’ve been hunting ducks or deer for decades. My reflexive reaction has consistently been that the Second Amendment was put into the Bill of Rights to guarantee Uncle Dick the right to hunt deer or ducks.

The text of the Second Amendment is “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The exceptionally clear intent of the men who wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights was to explicitly give people the right to protect their families and to explicitly tell militias that they had the right to secure our nation from invading nations and to provide for stopping tyrannical rulers.

If you think it’s insane to think that stopping tyrannical rulers is the stuff of conspiracy theories, think about this: during the last presidential election, the incumbent administration surveilled the opposition party’s nominee. That isn’t a theory. That’s a finding of fact in multiple congressional reports and the recent IG report.

It isn’t a stretch to think that the Deep State wouldn’t hesitate in undercutting an administration it didn’t like. Further, it isn’t a stretch to think that the Deep State would squash people that it thought was a threat to its way of conducting business.

As for the current debate about what to do about curbing gun violence, Sen. John Kennedy, (R-LA), has the right idea:

“Some of my colleagues argue that by further curtailing our Second Amendment rights, they can enhance public safety. Fine, the burden of proof is on them. I’m willing to have that debate, but I want the bacon without the sizzle — no speculation, no false comfort, no pulling stuff out of your orifices.”

This past week, Juan Williams’ statement was that the problem in the United States was the availability of guns. If that’s true, and I don’t think he is, then he’s got a major obstacle to pass. It’s called the Second Amendment. It’s one thing to rewrite a bill. It’s quite another to repeal a constitutional amendment and one of the cornerstones of the Bill of Rights. That requires 290 yes votes in the U.S. House of Representatives and 67 yes votes in the Senate. BTW, that only applies if the language is identical in both bills. If one sentence is different from one bill or the other, then a conference committee is required to eliminate the differences.

At that point, another daunting task faces the proposed repeal of the Second Amendment. After all that commotion in the U.S. House and Senate, it needs to be ratified by the state legislatures of 38 states. That means both houses of those state legislatures must vote to ratify the repeal of the Second Amendment. If the DFL House votes to ratify the repeal but the Republican Senate votes to stop the repeal, then that state wouldn’t ratify the repeal. If 12 other states did the same, the repeal of the Second Amendment fails.

It’s worth noting this from Rich Lowry’s article:

It is out of this historical soil that we got the Second Amendment. Guns would make it possible for Americans to defend themselves, and to defend their liberties. Alexander Hamilton wrote in The Federalist of “the original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government.” This right can be used if necessary, per Hamilton, “against the usurpations of the national rulers.”

Here is the video of Sen. Kennedy’s interview on the Second Amendment:

Icicles must be forming in hell because Ted Cruz will meet with Alyssa Milano in Sen. Cruz’s Senate office to discuss gun control and the Bible in the spirit of I Peter 4:8. For those not familiar with that verse (I wasn’t), it says “And above all things have fervent love for one another, for ‘love will cover a multitude of sins.'” Here’s my sincere prayer that that’s the spirit that this political odd couple will meet.

This all started when Miss Milano initially tweeted “I’d love to come in and meet with you on the gun issue and many other issues that include life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, @tedcruz and also, 1 Peter 4:8. I’ll be in DC next week. We can live-stream the meeting so the American people can hear your bullshit 1st hand.” Cruz then replied, saying “I’d be happy to sit down & visit next week about uniting to stop gun violence & about the Constitution. If we can have a civil & positive conversation—in the spirit of 1 Peter 4:8 as you suggest—despite our political differences, that might help resolve the discord in our Nation.”

I don’t doubt Sen. Cruz’s sincerity. He’s a solid Christian man who isn’t afraid of a debate. Since he’s said that he wants to have a conversation “in the spirit of I Peter 4:8,” then I’ll accept that as Sen. Cruz’s intent. What’s interesting is Miss Milano’s reply:


Sen. Cruz’s reply might’ve surprised Miss Milano:


There’s more to Sen. Cruz’s reply, which I’d recommend everyone read, but you get the picture. Nonetheless, Miss Milano replied thusly:


This should be interesting. I’d love it if all of the cable networks covered it live. If they did, I’m betting that they’d get monstrous ratings. I’d be surprised if each network couldn’t find a major sponsor to allow them to cover the discussion/debate without interruption.

Perhaps, this odd couple might even do something positive that would help break the partisan logjam on this and other issues.