Patterico's Pontifications


For Liz Cheney, Silence Is Not An Option (ADDED)

Filed under: General — Dana @ 11:09 am

[guest post by Dana]

ADDED: I’m putting these two snippets at the top of the post because I think Rep. Elise Stefanik, who has been voted in to replace Rep. Cheney, makes it clear that the Republican Party will continue to embrace Donald Trump as a “critical part of the Republican team” and as the leader of the Republican Party. It’s a stunning contrast with what Rep. Cheney said below. Moreover, it’s a sad reminder of just how far a once solid, viable party that valued the Rule of Law and founding principles has fallen. Apparently, the Party is no longer concerned with conservatism, given that Club for Growth awarded Stefanik a “35% CFGF lifetime rating, 4th worst in the House GOP”. But hey, Trump.

At the end of the day, the lifelong conservative and Republican who spoke the truth no matter the cost, and who refused to bend her knee to Trump and go along with his big lie was punished by the Party. And yet, the big liar pushing the big lie remains the leader of the Republican Party.

And look who’s feeling pretty smug about the MAGA leadership in the House GOP:

Congratulations to Elise Stefanik for her Big and Overwhelming victory! The House GOP is united and the Make America Great Again movement is Strong!


It’s unfortunate that the majority of her colleagues choose to remain deaf, dumb and blind to the very real and long-lasting damage from the threat before us:

For reasons that I don’t understand, leaders in my party have decided to embrace the former President who launched that attack [Jan. 6]. And I think you’ve watched over the course of the last several months, the former President get more aggressive, more vocal, pushing the lie, and I think that’s a really important thing for people to understand. This isn’t about looking backwards. This is about the real-time current potential damage that he’s doing, that he continues to do. It’s an ongoing threat, so silence is not an option.


Gov. Cuomo And His Special Definition of Harassment

Filed under: General — Dana @ 10:53 am

[guest post by Dana]

Getting testy:

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo had a tense exchange with reporters on Thursday, attempting to offer his own definition of sexual harassment while denying all allegations against him.

“Harassment is not making someone feel uncomfortable,” the scandal-ridden governor said.

When asked about how he squares his initial apology with state law stating that intent is irrelevant in workplace harassment, Cuomo brought a woman reporter into a hypothetical scenario.

“You can leave this press conference today and say, ‘Oh, the governor harassed me,'” Cuomo said.

“You can say that,” he continued. “I would say, ‘I never said anything I believed was inappropriate. I never meant to make you feel that way.’ You may hear it that way. You may interpret it that way, and I respect that. And I apologize to you, if I said something you think is offensive.”

Cuomo was then asked if he would acknowledge that none of those comments on intent have any bearing on the law.

“Harassment is not making someone feel uncomfortable,” he replied. “That is not harassment. If I just made you feel uncomfortable, that is not harassment. That is you feeling uncomfortable.”

Ten women have now come forward and accused Gov. Cuomo of sexual harassment or misconduct.


Golden State Gab

Filed under: General — Dana @ 10:24 am

[guest post by Dana]

[Ed. While California news is usually JVW’s bailiwick, he is currently sailing the seven seas on the Patterico yacht like the international tycoon that he is…so here goes.]

Interestingly, and perhaps coincidentally, Gov. Newsom, who is facing a recall, has announced that he is planning on a “recall refund” (as Republicans are calling it):

A year after slashing spending to fill a record-breaking deficit spurred by the pandemic, California Gov. Gavin Newsom is eyeing a massive surplus and hopes to send out a second, larger round of stimulus checks to residents.

California’s progressive tax structure means the state budget suffered early in the pandemic but quickly rebounded, bolstered by capital gains taxes and high-income earners who’ve seen their wealth grow over the past year.

Newsom, who will likely face a recall election later this year, announced a plan to send billions of dollars back to taxpayers. If approved, the state would give $600 checks to workers who earn up to $75,000 annually, with $500 bonuses for tax filers with dependents and undocumented families.

Newsom said 80% of the state’s workers and two-thirds of all residents would benefit from the plan.

Newsom said his stimulus proposal, which totals just under $12 billion in relief, goes “well above and beyond what is projected to be required” by the law. He claimed it is “the largest tax relief year-over-year in U.S. history as well, not just California history.”

The announcement comes just weeks after the California Secretary of State confirmed that there are more than enough valid signatures for a recall election of the governor.

Recent polling shows support for Newsom has inched up:

A growing number of Californians oppose the forthcoming recall of Gavin Newsom, according to a survey released Tuesday morning, a boost for the sitting governor who has suffered a series of political blows over the past year.

Roughly 49 percent said they were against removing Newsom, a tick higher than the 45 percent who responded similarly in January.

The poll found that only 36 percent of the registered voters queried supported recalling Newsom, virtually unchanged from the prior survey. Both were conducted by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies and co-sponsored by the Los Angeles Times.

Opposition to the recall has grown as Newsom recovers politically somewhat and as Democrats begin to take more seriously the first gubernatorial recall since 2003 when former Gov. Gray Davis was removed in favor of Arnold Schwarzenegger.

The state’s budget has also been buoyed by its pandemic-resistant tech sector, highly progressive tax structure and an approximately $26 billion windfall from the recent federal relief package.

With that, the 120-day extension of the original signature-gathering deadline granted by a judge is being challenged as a violation of the California constitution. Organizers claimed that the extension was necessary because of the COVID-19 pandemic (limiting the ability to gather signatures):

A Sacramento-area resident has challenged the legitimacy of the recall drive against Gov. Gavin Newsom, telling a state appellate court that a Superior Court judge violated the California constitution when he gave recall proponents more time to gather voter signatures.

The appeal, filed Monday with the 3rd District Court of Appeals in San Francisco, said Sacramento County Superior Court Judge James Arguelles violated a voter-approved constitutional amendment that limits signature gathering to 160 days to qualify an initiative for the ballot.

The filing asks the justices to block the recall until the court rules on the issue.

The law has been on the books for nearly 45 years as Proposition 14 of 1976.

Per the governor, because of the state’s high vaccination rate and low Covid-19 infection rate, California will reopen on June 15. When asked about whether there will continue to be mask requirements, Newsom answered “no”:

So far, no Democrats have announced that they will be running in the special election. Rather they appear to have coalesced around the sitting governor. It looks like it’s all coming together for Newsom.


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0579 secs.