Whether we’re talking about Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch or Sally Yates, we aren’t talking about people of integrity. Holder is the only US Attorney General to be held in contempt of Congress. In fact, the “vote was 255-67, with 17 Democrats voting in support of a criminal contempt resolution, which authorizes Republicans leaders to seek criminal charges against Holder.”

Loretta Lynch met with Bill Clinton to talk about their grandkids while she, coincidentally I’m sure, was investigating his wife. Sally Yates served as acting US Attorney General before getting terminated. Later, Jeff Sessions was confirmed as President Trump’s Attorney General. Yates was terminated because she “ordered Justice Dept. lawyers to stop defending Mr. Trump’s executive order banning new arrivals to the U.S. from seven Muslim-majority countries.” It’s worth noting that the Supreme Court eventually upheld President Trump’s executive order.

In this article, Ms. Yates wrote “The president has attempted to order up investigations of his perceived political enemies and enlist the department to protect his friends. With every blow, the wall of Justice independence has wobbled a bit more. This week, it teetered on the verge of collapse.”

That’s frightening, but predictable. It’s predictable because Ms. Yates was terminated for insubordination. She defied President Trump’s order to defend his travel ban, a ban that the Supreme Court upheld as constitutional. That’s the textbook case of insubordination or mutiny. Yates continued:

The facts are well known: After federal prosecutors in the Roger Stone case filed the department’s sentencing memorandum, the president publicly attacked Justice’s position as “horrible and very unfair.” He called for prosecution of the “real crimes … on the other side,” a mantra that has become so commonplace from him that it goes largely without comment. The prosecutors were ordered by Justice Department leadership to significantly cut their recommendation; they refused, and all four resigned from the case, with one quitting his job entirely.

What’s most disgusting is that Bill Barr, the properly confirmed Attorney General, overruled the rogue prosecutors, not President Trump. What’s next most disgusting is Ms. Yates’ insinuation that the so-called career prosecutors are pure-hearted people who play by the rules and only have America’s best interests at heart. That’s BS.

These prosecutors ignored what the Attorney General and the US Attorney for DC recommended for sentencing. Then these rogue prosecutors quit when their supervisors clipped their wings after the prosecutors recommended Roger Stone serve a prison sentence of 7-to-9 years. That’s twice the length that the average rapist in DC receives in that court.

I’d love hearing Ms. Yates justify why a first time offender who didn’t commit a violent crime should receive a 9-year sentence but a violent offender should get a 4 year sentence. Further, I’d love hearing Ms. Yates explain why she thinks it’s ok for prosecutors to ignore the orders of their supervisors. Frankly, if they hadn’t quit, I would’ve wished that Barr would’ve fired them. Check out the montage in this video:

Since Ms. Yates didn’t tell you what happened, Kim Strassel will:

Justice sources tell me that interim U.S. Attorney Tim Shea had told the department’s leadership he and other career officials in the office felt the proposed sentence was excessive. As the deadline for the filing neared, the prosecutors on the case nonetheless threatened to withdraw from the case unless they got their demands for these stiffest of penalties. Mr. Shea—new to the job—suffered a moment of cowardice and submitted to this ultimatum. The filing took Justice Department leaders by surprise, and the decision to reverse was made well before Mr. Trump tweeted, and with no communication with the White House. The revised filing, meanwhile, had the signature of the acting supervisor of the office’s criminal division, who is a career civil servant, not a political appointee.

In other words, the rogue prosecutors persecuted Mr. Stone because he’s a longtime political ally of President Trump. I’m not condoning what Stone did, though I don’t know that there shouldn’t be a mistrial due to the jury foreperson’s blatant bias. If he’s guilty of lying to Congress, then it’s proper for him to serve 2-3 years.

The DOJ can’t properly function without people of integrity who follow the rules. These prosecutors aren’t, in my opinion, people of integrity. They certainly didn’t follow the chain of command. President Trump tweeted after Bill Barr filed a new recommendation with the court. It’s impossible for President Trump to interfere after-the-fact.

This past week, a variety of articles on the 2020 presidential election have caught my attention. They’ve left me wondering whether (or how much) the dynamics of the 2020 race are changing. This article has me wondering whether President Trump will win a significantly higher percentage of the African-American vote. In 2016, he won 8% of the African-American vote nationwide. Imagine what would happen if President Trump got 15% of the African-American vote in Pennsylvania.

If Democrats don’t flip back Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, they can’t get to 270 electoral votes. Technically, they can but it isn’t likely. According to Pete Hegseth’s reporting, First Immanuel Baptist Church Pastor Todd Johnson has seen a change in his congregation. According to Pastor Johnson, “the Opportunity Zone [provision] in the city of brotherly love — created by the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act — is working.”

Johnson then said “Some who were hardcore Democrats are not quite as hardcore now. And then there are some who are leaving the Democratic Party in Philadelphia. I’m hopeful that by the time the election rolls around in November, we will see more people leaving the Democratic Party and giving President Trump and the Republican Party a chance.”

President Trump’s Super Bowl ad featuring Alice Johnson was powerful:

When President Trump announced that Jenayah Davis was getting awarded an opportunity scholarship, everyone in the gallery applauded. All the Republicans seated on the House floor stood and applauded. Democrats stayed sitting. Democrats were overwhelmed with Trump hatred. Democrats didn’t applaud Jenayah. What isn’t shown in the video is President Trump’s exhortation to Congress to create 1,000,000 new opportunity scholarships this year.

Pelosi’s Democrats won’t do that. They can’t do that. That’s because they’re a wholly-owned subsidiary of the NEA and AFT. African-American voters are watching and noticing. They’re noticing what President Trump is doing to make their lives better. They’re noticing in increasing numbers that Democrats are all talk and no action.

Mischaracterizations are getting dismissed. By now, Prof. Borysenko’s article has become legendary. Still, it’s worth talking about the most important message from the article:

So, I headed over an hour and a half before the doors were scheduled to open—which was four hours before Trump was set to take the stage—and the line already stretched a mile away from the entrance to the arena. As I waited, I chatted with the folks around me. And contrary to all the fears expressed, they were so nice. I was not harassed or intimidated, and I was never in fear of my safety even for a moment. These were average, everyday people. They were veterans, schoolteachers, and small business owners who had come from all over the place for the thrill of attending this rally. They were upbeat and excited. In chatting, I even let it slip that I was a Democrat. The reaction: “Good for you! Welcome!”

Myths are getting shattered. It’s indisputable that President is far from perfect. Prof. Borysenko cut to the heart of the matter:

The reality is that many people I spoke to do disagree with Trump on things. They don’t always like his attitude. They wish he wouldn’t tweet so much. People who are in cults don’t question their leaders. The people I spoke with did, but the pros in their eyes far outweighed the cons. They don’t love him because they think he’s perfect. They love him despite his flaws, because they believe he has their back.

Bingo. I know that Democrats will dump a person in a heartbeat if they think it’s to their political advantage. President Trump hasn’t kept all of his promises but he’s worked tirelessly to keep them. President Trump’s policies have improved life for literally millions of Americans. He’s worked with the African-American community by including the Opportunity Zone provision in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. He did that at the request of HUD Secretary Ben Carson and Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC).

Lives are getting improved. Minority communities are noticing. That’s why it’s looking like the dynamics of this race are changing. As the saying goes, good policies make for great politics.

This week, House Republicans boycotted a public hearing of the House Intelligence Committee. They didn’t attend because Democrats refuse to investigate FISA abuse outlined in the Horowitz Report. According to Ranking Member Devin Nunes, the Committee he used to chair goes months between closed-door intelligence briefings.

That leads to this question: why won’t Adam Schiff’s Democrats do the work of oversight and investigation? Perhaps, it’s because he’s implicated in the FISA wrongdoing? We know with certainty that Schiff insisted that the FBI followed the FISA warrant process perfectly. The truth is that they didn’t. This letter identifies “17 serious shortcomings”:


The letter criticizes Schiff’s unserious oversight of the Intel Community. Nunes and the other signatories criticizes Schiff for conducting PR stunt hearings rather than substantive, private hearings and briefings. This is once-powerful committee. They literally deal with protecting Americans both at home and overseas. At least, that’s what they did with Devin Nunes chaired the committee.

Having a failed Hollywood screenwriter as chairman is a surefire way to demolish the Committee’s sterling reputation in the past. That’s what happened with Schiff as chairman. This must be reversed ASAP.

If anything is true about St. Amy of Hennepin County, aka Amy Klobuchar, it’s that she’s economically illiterate. St. Amy’s issues page is filled with liberal gobbledygook. St. Amy’s plan for the economy is titled “Shared prosperity and economic justice.”

On the page, is says “Too many people aren’t sharing in our country’s economic prosperity. Shared prosperity is about ensuring all families have a fair shot in today’s economy, and Amy believes that this means investing in quality child care, overhauling our country’s housing policy, raising the minimum wage, providing paid family leave, supporting small business owners and entrepreneurs, as well as helping Americans save for retirement. She will also cut child poverty in half in a decade and end it in a generation with policies based on a report from the National Academies of Sciences. Read more about Amy’s child care and paid family leave policy here.”

Following the “helping Americans save for retirement link leads you to an article with a title of “Democrats want to force businesses to contribute to retirement plans and they’ll pay for it by raising taxes on the wealthy.” Apparently, St. Amy is a Obama Democrat in terms of economic philosophy. Taxing companies to pay for counterproductive policies isn’t foolish. It’s stupid. It’s the basis of socialism.

First, is there a capitalist alive that thinks that taking capital away from a company is wise? When the government steals money from productive companies (it’s the company’s money, after all), then gives that money to someone who isn’t productive, how does that strengthen the economy and provide jobs? Hint: It doesn’t.

Jobs aren’t created unless capital is created. Further, companies and labor are mobile. Sen. Klobuchar apparently didn’t learn that. When the Obama corporate tax hikes went into effect, companies left for Mexico, China, South Korea, Vietnam and other nations. When President Trump cut the corporate and individual tax rates, companies returned, then started investing in labor, plants and equipment. Workers were hired. New equipment was purchased and installed. Training for employees was required, which made employees more valuable. Employees got bonuses, better benefits (including retirement accounts) and higher wages without raising taxes.

We’ve seen how high taxes cripples the economy. It’s called Obamanomics. We’ve seen economic growth, wages, job creation accelerate since the implementation of President Trump’s policies. Millions of people say that they’re in better financial shape today than they were 3 years ago. President Trump’s approval rating on the economy is 63%. People are confident that they’ll be better off a year from now than they are today.

Klobuchar wants to tear down the most productive economy of my lifetime and replace it with the most foolish economic policies of the past 50 years. Imagine what would happen if the Fed didn’t keep interest rates virtually at 0% during the Obama administration. Imagine what the GDP would be right now if Jerome Powell had kept interest rates low instead of raising them.

Adam Schiff thought that he had another impeachment scandal within his grasp. Unfortunately for him, Nancy Pelosi won’t get rolled by AOC this time. Kim Strassel’s article highlights the silliness of the latest fiasco. Democrats of all persuasions criticized Bill Barr for politicizing the Roger Stone case. Virtually immediately, Pelosi and Schumer insisted that Barr resign and that an investigation be started. Richard Blumenthal demanded Barr’s resignation. From the campaign trail, Elizabeth Warren said that Barr should be impeached if Barr doesn’t resign.

Well.

Let’s get to the bottom of the situation. Thanks to Ms. Strassel, we know that she acted like the adult in charge rather than the infants whining for attention. (The infants are Schiff, Schumer, Pelosi, Warren and Blumenthal.) Rather than whining, Ms. Strassel called one of her contacts within the DOJ and asked some basic questions. Here’s what Ms. Strassel found out:

Justice sources tell me that interim U.S. Attorney Tim Shea had told the department’s leadership he and other career officials in the office felt the proposed sentence was excessive. As the deadline for the filing neared, the prosecutors on the case nonetheless threatened to withdraw from the case unless they got their demands for these stiffest of penalties. Mr. Shea—new to the job—suffered a moment of cowardice and submitted to this ultimatum. The filing took Justice Department leaders by surprise, and the decision to reverse was made well before Mr. Trump tweeted, and with no communication with the White House. The revised filing, meanwhile, had the signature of the acting supervisor of the office’s criminal division, who is a career civil servant, not a political appointee.

My first reaction is this: that’s it? My next reaction is similar. Democrats must really hate President Trump if they’re going to make this molehill into a mountain. Either that or they’re too stupid to run anything beyond a kid’s lemonade stand.

Ms. Strassel didn’t act like an infant. Instead, she asked some questions before insisting that Barr resign or be impeached. That’s what rational people do. They find out the facts first. Democrats (like Schiff, Pelosi and Schumer) insist that Barr resign. That’s immaturity personified.

Next, let’s factor in Andy McCarthy’s opinions on the Stone sentence:

The fact is, it was well within the legitimate power of the attorney general to countermand the Stone prosecutors’ submission to the court — i.e., to substitute a recommendation that the court impose a stiff but reasonable prison sentence on Stone, in place of the prosecutors’ suggestion of an excessive term.

More to the point, what we are witnessing in the media-Democrat commentariat is a manufactured controversy, reminiscent of their mau-mauing the president’s Ukraine indiscretion into an impeachable offense. Hence, the unhinged calls for Barr’s impeachment. The judge, not the Department of Justice (DOJ), will determine Stone’s sentence. The shrieking over DOJ’s Stone sentencing memos, topped by the theatrical resignation of the four prosecutors (who now want to be seen as stalwarts against politicized law enforcement after they conducted a patently politicized prosecution), is much ado about nothing.

This might’ve been a bigger deal if President Trump had interfered with an investigation, instead of with a sentencing. It isn’t like President Trump has the authority to overrule the jury without pardoning Stone. That’s something that’s done for all the world to see. The people would get to consider that when voting. That’s the ultimate check and balance.

It’s time for Adam Schiff to put his impeachment gavel down, take a deep breath, then go back to doing intelligence oversight like he’s supposed to do.

Every other year, people question whether Collin Peterson will retire. It’s like a fifth season in Minnesota. The order goes spring, summer, fall, is Collin Peterson retiring, then winter. Last fall, Peterson announced that he’d announce whether he’d seek another term “in January or February.” February is half gone and we still haven’t heard anything from Peterson.

What we have heard is that, if he runs, Peterson has a primary challenger:

Thaddeus Laugisch, of Moorhead, on Thursday, Feb. 13, said he planned to challenge U.S. Rep. Collin Peterson for his 7th District seat. Laugisch is seeking the Democratic endorsement for the seat and said he could be a better advocate than Peterson, the nearly three-decade incumbent, for Minnesota’s workers.

“Families of western Minnesota are struggling while CEO profits are at all-time highs,” Laugisch said in a news release. “Minnesotans deserve a fresh perspective in Washington that fits their needs, instead of the needs of the wealthy.”

I’ve never heard of Mr. Laugisch. I’m not surprised by that because Collin Peterson is the DFL bench in CD-7.

Peterson has not yet announced whether he will seek another term and several GOP candidates have signed up to take on Peterson in the district that favored President Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton in 2016 by 30 percentage points. Peterson said last year that he expected to make an announcement about his plans in January or early February, but two weeks into February Peterson still hadn’t made public his plan.

It’s impossible to know what Peterson’s plans are at this point but nothing will surprise me. In one way, I think the retirement question is almost irrelevant. Peterson votes against President Trump 85% of the time in a district that Trump won by 31 points in 2016. That’s a strong structural disadvantage to start a campaign.

Peterson has won by smaller and smaller margins the past few cycles. In 2018, which was a strong DFL year, Peterson won by 4.26%. In 2016, Peterson won by 5.06%. In 2014, Peterson won by 8 points. In 2012, Peterson won by 20 points.

Republicans have several top-tier, well-financed, challengers running. In the interest of full disclosure, I contributed to Michelle Fischbach. That being said, I don’t have a vote in the matter. If he runs, the people might involuntarily retire him.

When former White House Chief of Staff John Kelly tried defending Lt. Col. Vindman, he made a major mistake. That isn’t in dispute. What’s still in question is whether it was a mistake or whether it was intentional.

Vindman was rightly disturbed by Trump’s phone call to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in July, Kelly suggested: Having seen something “questionable,” Vindman properly notified his superiors, Kelly said.

In his testimony, Lt. Col. Vindman said that his first call was to a lawyer. His first call should have been to Tim Morrison. This actually happened during Jim Jordan’s cross-examination of Lt. Col. Vindman:

During Jordan’s cross-examination, Lt. Col. Vindman said that he first called a lawyer named John Eisenberg. Later, Lt. Col. Vindman testified that he attempted to contact “Tim Morrison, the former top Russia and Europe adviser on President Donald Trump’s National Security Council.”

Jordan followed up, saying “Not only didn’t you go to your boss. You said you tried but you didn’t go to your boss, you went straight to the lawyer and the lawyer told you not to go to your boss? Lt. Col. Vindman replied “No, he didn’t tell me until — what ended up unfolding is I had the conversation with the attorney, I did my coordination. I did my core function, which is coordination. I spoke with the appropriate people in the interagency and then I circled back around to Mr. Eisenberg told me not to talk with anyone else.”

Congressman Jordan then read from the transcript. He asked Lt. Col. Vindman “Why didn’t you go to your direct report, Mr. Morrison? This is page 102. Because Mr. Eisenberg had told me to take my concerns to him. Then I asked you ‘Did Mr. Eisenberg tell you not to report, to go around Mr. Morrison?’ And you said “Actually, he did say that, that you shouldn’t talk to any other people. Is that right?'”

That’s a pretty major difference. At the time of the call, Tim Morrison was the top Russia and Europe adviser on President Donald Trump’s National Security Council. According to this article, “Moments after President Trump ended his phone call with Ukraine’s president on July 25, an unsettled national security aide rushed to the office of White House lawyer John Eisenberg.”

I’m betting that Gen. Kelly doesn’t think that the military trains its officers to go around the military’s chain of command. That wouldn’t make sense. In that light, Gen. Kelly’s previous comment sounds more like a generic defense of Lt. Col. Vindman than a full-throated defense of Lt. Col. Vindman. It also sounds a bit like sour grapes.

The truth is that Lt. Col. Vindman isn’t the hero that the MSM consistently portrays him as. Lt. Col. Vindman is a military veteran who earned a Purple Heart. For that, I salute him. For his work at the NSC, I thank him but I don’t think of him as a hero.

The SC Times editorial board apparently didn’t learn from President Trump’s impeachment. At least, that’s the impression I got from this Our View Editorial. The editorial starts by lecturing its readership, saying “The scariest aspect of the impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump is how both sides of the aisle dramatically weakened the tools the Founding Fathers provided to allow the three branches of government to hold each other accountable.”

This isn’t that complicated. Jonathan Turley, a far wiser man than anyone sitting on the Editorial Board, made an important point when he made an emphatic point when he said this:

I can’t emphasize this enough and I’ll say it just one more time: If you impeach a president, if you make a high crime and misdemeanor out of going to the courts; it is an abuse of power. It’s your abuse of power.

It isn’t surprising that the Editorial Board didn’t notice their intellectual stupidity was showing.

This is how the Editorial Board expressed their foolishness:

Had that been the case, the Democrat-led House impeachment team would have used the full force of the courts to enforce subpoenas issued to key witnesses, hear their testimony and gain access to key documents the Trump White House refused to release. Instead, with eyes clearly focused on the next election, they rushed through their process, apparently hoping the Senate trial would do that hard work for them. Or perhaps they realized their case was not going to rise to the justifiably high standards for removal from office set by the founders.

The Republican-led Senate proved even more pathetic. When confronted with overwhelming proof that the House did not provide all the evidence, a majority of senators chose blind allegiance to party and voted in favor of the president instead of pursuit of the truth. Among the tools at their disposal, but not used, are hearing witness testimony and cross-examining those witnesses.

I’d love hearing the Times’ explanation for them saying that House Democrats probably “realized their case wasn’t going to rise to the justifiably high standards for removal from office set by the founders”, then have them say that Republicans, “when confronted with overwhelming proof that the House didn’t provide all the evidence” … “chose blind allegiance to party” rather than pursuing the truth. The case can’t have overwhelming proof and not rise to the justifiably high standards for removal from office.”

The Constitution gives the House “sole authority for impeachment.” That means the House receives the report from the special counsel or their own investigation, then the House Judiciary Committee writes up the articles of impeachment. This isn’t a joint responsibility shared between the House and Senate. That’s because the Constitution gives the Senate “sole authority” to try impeachments. They aren’t investigators. They are, literally, both judges and jury. The Senate determines what comes in as evidence. The Senate can overrule the Chief Justice of the United States. They are also the jury.

The Senate sent the message that they wouldn’t accept House Democrats’ shoddy investigation. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell called these articles of impeachment “a half-baked censure resolution.” That’s being charitable. They also sent the message that they wouldn’t accept a flimsy case because articles of impeachment are considered a privileged resolution. That means, literally, that everything stops in the Senate until the verdict is reached.

Finally, this paragraph is downright stupid:

Rather read this for what it is: a commentary about elected officials from both parties who put their partisan allegiances above the constitutional oaths they took after you elected them.

The Founding Fathers were reluctant to put impeachment into the Constitution. When they finally agreed that such a provision was required, they established 2 important requirements. They required a) a two-thirds majority to convict and remove and b) that people could only be impeached for “Treason, Bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

They wanted to guarantee that impeachment was only used as a tool of last resort. That didn’t happen here. The Founding Fathers wanted impeachment used only when it was clear that something so egregious had happened that a bipartisan majority agreed that such a high crime had been committed. House Democrats impeached knowing that there wasn’t a chance of conviction and removal.

The simple fact is this: House Democrats screwed things up badly. Senate Republicans rendered the only just verdict allowed by the Constitution.

Tom Perez is likely a better DNC Chairman than Keith Ellison would’ve been. That doesn’t mean he hasn’t been terrible. Thus far, Perez has been terrible at fundraising, corrupt at following the rules for the Democrats’ debates. For Democrat troublemakers like Tulsi Gabbard and Corey Booker, the rules are etched in stone. They can’t be changed. Period. For Democrat saviors like Mike Bloomberg, the debate rules are written in quicksand. They’re as meaningful as President Obama’s red lines in Syria.

MSDNC’s Ari Melber, perhaps the only anchor at that network with a spine, didn’t hesitate in criticizing the DNC:

After pointing out Perez’s explanation of the donor rule last year, which was to empower “grassroots” movements for more unknown candidates, and his defense of the debate rules after they were criticized by former 2020 candidate Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J, Melber asked his viewers if it’s “fair” for the DNC to change the rules “in the middle of the game.”

“No,” Melber answered the question. “It’s not fair to change the rules in the middle. That would be true if it was the government changing the voting laws in the middle or either political party or any political party in the middle of a primary. And I think that’s obvious from a position of fairness.”

This isn’t surprising. Few Democrats have the character required to be people of integrity. People my age remember J.C. Watts’ definition of character from the 1996 Republican National Convention from San Diego. That’s when he said that “Character is doing the right thing even when no one is watching.”

Tom Perez falls far short of that definition. He hasn’t done the right thing even when the whole world is watching. This is what happens when a political party wants the voters but doesn’t want those voters’ agenda. It’s obvious that the DNC wants Bernie’s voters but they don’t want Bernie’s socialist agenda, at least not in the in-your-face way that Bernie preaches to his choir. They don’t have a problem with his agenda once the election is over. They just don’t want to admit it in public before the election.

If Tom Perez thinks that Bloomberg is the DNC’s savior, he’s a blithering idiot. I’m betting that Perez giving special privileges to Bloomberg will motivate Bernie’s voters in ways that Bernie alone couldn’t do. The only transparency left within the DNC is the transparency being shown that they’re frightened of Bernie being at the top of their ticket.

This isn’t the way to build a party. It’s the way to piss off tons of potential voters. The thing that Democrats need to learn is that this isn’t a nation in need of radical transformation. It’s a nation in need of people of integrity. I won’t insult people by saying that Republicans are a bottomless pit of integrity. I’ll say that there’s more people of integrity in the GOP than there are in the Democratic Party by far. The other thing that President Trump is teaching the GOP is that he’s teaching them how to make rallies fun again. He’s teaching the GOP how to make rallies productive again, too.

The article finishes strongly:

Melber then posed the same fairness question to Perez and pointed out the chairman’s conflicting stances on the debate rules. “We are living through a time when our democracy is being tested. No party is immune from scrutiny and vetting for fairness. And as for Democratic Party Chairman Perez, the question is simple: Is it fair and transparent to change the rules midstream? No. Just ask Tom Perez,” Melber concluded before playing a clip of the chairman in January saying, “We made the rules, they were very transparent, they’re very inclusive, and we can’t change the rules midstream because there’s a candidate I wish were on but didn’t make the debate stage.”

Matt Vespa’s article is the worst news Bernie Sanders has received in quite some time. Inside his article is this tidbit of information:

Nevada’s powerful Culinary Workers Union will not endorse in the presidential primary, while criticizing Bernie Sanders’ signature Medicare for All proposal, according to three sources with knowledge of the decision. In declining to pick a candidate, but sharply criticizing Sen. Bernie Sanders’ signature policy position, Medicare for All, the union created an opening for Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar, two moderate Democrats with little demonstrated support in the state.

That’s truly throwing Bernie under the bus. Taking direct aim at Bernie’s signature issue isn’t what he’d like to hear. The question is whether this issue will sink him in other states. This suggests it will:

In Pennsylvania, some top union leaders were also adamant that they would tell their people to stay home or vote for Trump should Sanders or Warren become the 2020 Democratic nominee. In the Keystone State, Sanders’ commitment to a universal ban on fracking, which will kill hundreds of thousands of jobs in the must-win state, is just a bridge too far.

LFR has frequently said that the Democrats’ opposition to fracking and fossil fuels is their Achilles heel. That’s the thing that puts Democrats in God’s little acre: just east of the rock, just west of the hard place. Some issues have multiple solutions. Energy is a binary choice. If you oppose fossil fuels, you’re the enemy. Period.

This is predictable. Bernie truly believes in Medicare-for-All. What he can’t do anything about is the fact that unions have often negotiated for Cadillac plans, which aren’t taxed, while settling for lower wages. Meanwhile, Bernie is on the wrong side of the fossil fuels issue. Dan Crenshaw and Kevin McCarthy are offering a better way forward:

Congressmen including House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, of California, and Dan Crenshaw, of Texas, are pitching the legislation as a common sense alternative to Democrats’ calls for limiting the use of fossil fuels. “There’s this false choice between doing nothing and over regulating,” Crenshaw said. “That would do nothing, because the United States is only 15 percent of emissions.”

International corporations like Exxon-Mobil and Chevron favor a carbon tax, likely because that’s a competition-killer. That doesn’t do anything to fix what’s wrong. Expect union rank-and-file to agree with Republicans on this issue.