Televised Town Halls Are Stacking ‘Undecided’ Voters With Democrats

(The Federalist) – Thursday evening was never going to be a fair night for President Donald Trump no matter what.

First, the incumbent Republican president was supposed to participate in a traditional town hall debate with former Vice President Joe Biden moderated by C-SPAN’s Steve Scully, a former intern for the Democratic candidate. Then, Scully publicly consulted fired anti-Trump Communications Director Anthony Scaramucci on how to handle the president in a since-deleted tweet. Scully claimed his account was hacked, which he would admit one week later was a lie. C-SPAN suspended Scully indefinitely.

Meanwhile, the supposedly independent Commission on Presidential Debates run by Biden supporters spiked plans for the in-person town hall and announced the debate would be a virtual event without consulting the Trump campaign to Biden’s obvious benefit. Trump immediately rejected the idea, and the commission responded by cancelling the debate altogether, in turn protecting Biden from being forced to share the same prime time stage with the president.

While the debate commission claimed public health was of concern following Trump’s diagnosis with the coronavirus and therefore a hazard to those on stage and in the audience, the president was on track for a complete recovery from the infection.

This week’s events then became two competing town halls at the same time featuring Biden in Philadelphia hosted by ABC, and Trump in Miami hosted by NBC. Each network had previously hosted nearly identical town halls with the opposite candidates within the last month. By Thursday night, there remained no reason why the two contenders could not share the same stage as candidates have done for decades. Trump had tested negative for the virus and was deemed by White House doctors, including infectious diseases expert Anthony Fauci, as no longer contagious.

Still, the show went on featuring who the networks advertised as undecided voters. While NBC’s Savannah Guthrie hijacked the town hall to engage in a sparring match of her own with the president, former President Bill Clinton’s White House Communications Director George Stephanopoulos moderated a town hall that included a former speechwriter in the Obama-Biden administration along with the wife of a prominent 2018 Democratic candidate for the Pennsylvania State Senate.

Nathan Osburn, who worked for the Office of Public Affairs at the Commerce Department and at the Small Business Administration under Obama, asked Biden about the former vice president’s position on implementing “safeguards” to prevent Republicans from ever nominating more Supreme Court justices. In other words, Osburn asked, did Biden want to pack the court?

“Amy Coney Barrett’s being pushed through at the last minute, even though millions have already voted. So what do you think about ideas from people like Pete Buttigieg and others to put in place safeguards that will help ensure more long-term balance and stability?” Osburn asked, who was identified by ABC News as merely a “communications” professional. “And what do you say to LGBTQ Americans and others who are very worried right now about erosions of their rights and our democracy as a whole?”

The Philadelphia Inquirer had identified Osburn as “a former Obama administration speechwriter,” in June of last year, and as a prominent activist for then-South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg in the primaries.

The ABC event also featured Mieke Haeck, listed as a physical therapist. Haeck happens to be the wife of Ezra Nanes, who ran unsuccessfully for the Pennsylvania State Senate two years ago. Nanes now serves as on the Centre County Democratic Committee.

“My youngest daughter is transgender. The Trump administration has attacked the rights of transgender people, banning them from military service, weakening nondiscrimination protections and even removing the word ‘transgender’ from some government websites,” Haeck said in the near empty auditorium. “How will you as president reverse this dangerous and discriminatory agenda and ensure that the lives and rights of LGBTQ people are protected under U.S. law?”

Sounds like an undecided voter.

The inclusion of Democratic voters masquerading as undecided in the televised town halls is becoming a recurring theme, and a predictable one at that.

Just last month, during the same formatted event with the same former Clinton White House staffer moderating an event with Trump, at least two individuals who asked questions had previously blasted the president on social media. One even expressed enthusiasm for volunteering on California Sen. Kamala Harris’ campaign last summer.

Just last week, NBC News featured “undecided” voters who had already declared their support for the Democratic candidate on stage.

Meanwhile, the mainstream media has obsessed over the silhouette of a woman who appeared to be nodding behind Trump during NBC’s town hall throughout the entire prime time hour. The woman had not even asked a single question.

The American people deserve three full and fair debates to compare and contrast the two major candidates, which is why Joe Rogan, who Trump has already signaled willingness to allow moderate, ought to host a conversation between the president and Biden in lieu of this week’s public disservice by legacy media.

Why The Left Needs Us All To Believe The United States Is Racist Forever

(The Federalist) – That America is a racist country is the great self-evident truth of the left and of the ruling class whose moral opinions are shaped by it. This truth is self-evident in the sense of being readily apparent to them, as evidenced by the countless disparities in life outcomes between blacks and whites. No explanation for these disparities is ever required. Their mere existence is proof of racism.

The disparities between Asians and whites, between Indians and whites, and between Nigerian immigrants and whites all go studiously ignored since these groups generally outperform whites in income and educational attainment. Also ignored is the role that the pathologies of inner-city black culture — fatherlessness, crime, nihilistic alienation, and the exaltation of thuggery — play in producing and sustaining disparities.

America’s racist nature is also self-evident in the philosophical sense. It is an axiomatic truth: the predicate (racism) is contained in the subject (America). In the same way that all bachelors are, by definition, single, so is America, by definition, racist.

Formulated as such, the self-evident truth of American racism cannot be refuted. It is impervious to counterarguments, data, and historical developments. Believers in American racism don’t care about your facts. In 1991, Derrick Bell, one of the founders of critical race theory, declared that blacks had made no progress in America since 1865. He made this claim with a straight face at Harvard University, where he had been a tenured professor for two decades. In 1865, Harvard did not admit black students.

In 2020, the claim that America is fundamentally racist is a lie. But it is a lie tenaciously defended by those on the left who most benefit from it: the Democratic Party, its progressive allies in the academy, the intelligentsia and the media, and black political leadership. As the ultimate arbiters of all racial controversies, the left have positioned themselves to occupy the moral high ground in America — the most important strategic position in any political conflict.

Using Racism as a Smokescreen

The accusation of racism is their most powerful political weapon. Playing the race card allows them to detract attention from their own corruption and the radical ideas they espouse. Whatever faults they have, at least they’re not racists like Donald Trump, the Republicans, and their base of deplorables. The right is thus constrained to fight the enemy on the enemy’s own terms. Republican claims that “Democrats are the real racists” inevitably fall flat.

The national obsession with racism is also obviously beneficial to those who work in the diversity and grievance industries. It is perhaps most useful for corporate and financial elites, who use it to distract Americans and direct their ire away from urban oligarchs like themselves toward the nebulous forces of racism. Corporate America is afraid of socialism, not of Black Lives Matter. The anti-capitalists hate the rich and corporations. The anti-racists do not; they can readily be bought off with performative wokeness and a sprinkling of diversity hires in the C-Suite.

Well-intentioned Americans of all races must understand that these powerful constituencies have a vested interest in keeping America “racist” forever. No set of attainable conditions would ever lead them to admit that America is no longer racist. No sooner would the reparations checks be issued than new demands would arise.

None of this is to deny that America was racist for centuries, that the legacy of racism is still with us, and that some racism endures to this day. But the Constitution of the United States is colorblind, and America’s Declaration of Independence proclaims that “all men are created equal.” There are no racist laws or regulations on the books anywhere in America — not at the federal level, not in any of the 50 states, and not in any of the 19,502 incorporated cities, towns, and villages.

The Actual Reality of ‘Racist’ Police

Since 1964, America has also had a Civil Rights Act that prohibits discrimination on the basis of race in both the public and private sectors. In explicit violation of the legislative history and text of the law, the act has been interpreted by the highest court of the land to countenance so-called “affirmative action,” i.e. racial preferences to benefit blacks (and to a lesser extent, Hispanics). America thus finds itself in the paradoxical position of being a purportedly white supremacist nation that officially sanctions and practices discrimination against whites.

Well, a critic might say, the laws may not be racist, but don’t police enforce them in a racist way? The overpublicized deaths of George Floyd, Rayshard Brooks, James Blake, and others before them supposedly prove that a “legalized genocide of colored people” is taking place.

Yet none of the major studies of lethal shootings by police officers find evidence of racial bias. In fact, controlling for the very high black crime rate — African-Americans make up 13 percent of the population but commit more than 50 percent of homicides and about 60 percent of robberies — and the higher rate at which black suspects resist arrest, the share of blacks killed by cops is lower than one would expect.

Somehow, America remains a racist country even as elected officials in both parties openly pander to racial minorities, blacks in particular, while paying no attention to whites as a group. The Republican Party studiously ignores whites, busy as it is courting the “naturally conservative” Hispanic vote, while the Democratic Party increasingly adopts the anti-white animus of Black Lives Matter and the rest of the woke left. Because the demand for racism so completely outstrips the actual supply, we are left with unfalsifiable accusations of “dog-whistling” — non-racist statements that supposedly send covert racist messages.

Once every few years, it is true, a Republican will put his foot in his mouth and speak indelicately about race. Whenever this happens, the offender is universally condemned, with the loudest denunciations coming from the Republican Party and the conservative establishment, and the offender promptly apologizes. Such is the odd nature of “systemic” American racism, that racists are immediately denounced and eager to repent.

The New Unforgivable Sin

African-Americans occupy a larger place in the country’s collective imagination than any other group. They exert enormous cultural influence not just in America, but across the globe. At home, no group is more honored for its accomplishments, real or fake (no, a black man did not invent the lightbulb). The closest thing America has to a secular saint is Martin Luther King, Jr. Even the recent allegations that he may have been a serial philanderer who laughed as a woman was raped in front of him did not dent his reputation.

In the public square, at school, and at work, Americans are also increasingly compelled to profess devotion to the creed of Anti-Racism. The thought police are everywhere. No one gets canceled for abandoning their children, betraying the country, or committing any number of immoral, indecent, or criminal acts. There is only one unforgivable sin: to deviate from the accepted script when speaking of African-Americans — and to a lesser extent, any of the other protected identity groups.

Amid widespread sympathy for blacks, affirmative action policies, and the absence of racist laws, we are told that racism is nonetheless institutionalized — though there are no institutions of any significance in America committed to racism, let alone to white supremacy.

The Southern Poverty Law Center, an alarmist fundraising machine for its now disgraced founder Morris Dees, keeps track of about 940 hate groups operating within our borders (more than a quarter of which are black separatists). By focusing on the number of groups, the SPLC can ignore their insignificant size, lack of funds, and complete marginalization in American life.

By the SPLC’s count, there are 47 Ku Klux Klan groups in America — but their total membership is between 5,000 and 8,000 (the Anti-Defamation League puts the total at 3,000). At its peak in the mid-1920s, the Klan had 6 million members (in a country with a third of our current population).

So much for the institutions of hate. Meanwhile, corporate America, the media, Hollywood, professional sports, philanthropic foundations, nonprofits, churches, the academy, the arts, and the military all vociferously denounce racism. All eagerly embrace the diversity agenda. All are obsessed with hiring and promoting people of color.

The Mind is the Last Frontier

And this brings us to perhaps the strangest feature of America’s purportedly racist society: the growing phenomenon of whites passing as nonwhites. Elizabeth Warren claims to be Cherokee, BLM’s Shaun King claims to be biracial, and a Jewish professor of African history at George Washington University is the new Rachel Dolezal. Needless to say, no Afrikaner ever pretended to be “colored” under apartheid.

Where, then, is racism to be found in America, if it is not in its law, its public rhetoric, and its institutions? Polls make it hard to find, too. Eighty-seven percent of Americans approve of black-white marriage, up from 4 percent in 1954. Gallup calls it “one of the largest shifts of public opinion in Gallup history.” When researchers asked teenagers to name the most famous Americans in history (excluding presidents), their top three picks were MLK, Rosa Parks, and Harriet Tubman.

The last frontier is now the subconscious. Because the quantity of racism is held to be constant throughout American history, the absence of racist sentiments in people can only mean that racism is hiding deep in the recesses of their minds.

With the help of Harvard University’s widely touted Implicit Association Test, everyone’s latent racism can now be brought to the fore. The test, of course, reveals no such thing. A peer-reviewed study found “little evidence to support [its] more provocative claim: that people possess unconscious racist attitudes.” Even Vox had to admit that “it might not work at all.”

In the end, all we are left with as the definitive proof of American racism today is “systemic racism,” the meaning of which boils down to: America is racist because, well, it just is. Racism somehow suffuses the whole even though it is not visible in any of its major parts. Whereas all other racist regimes in history openly proclaimed their racism, America has pulled off the amazing feat of purging its laws, institutions, and culture of racism — all in the interest, of course, of perpetuating racism.

White House Expert Scott Atlas Censored By Twitter

(The Federalist) – Social media company Twitter finished its week of apparently politically motivated censorship on its platform by banning tweets regarding the efficacy of masks from Scott Atlas, a member of the White House scientific team battling the coronavirus.

Atlas, a senior fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institute, not only had his tweets removed, he was banned from tweeting until he deleted the tweets that Twitter for unclear reasons objects to. Here are the tweets in question:

In an email to The Federalist, Atlas outlined the evidence behind his tweet.

In the deleted tweet, I cited the following evidence against general population masks:

1) Cases exploded even with mandates: Los Angeles County, Miami-Dade County, Hawaii, Alabama, the Philippines, Japan, the United Kingdom, Spain, France, Israel.

2) Dr. Carl Heneghan, University of Oxford, director of the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine and editor in chief of British Medical Journal Evidence-Based Medicine: ‘It would appear that despite two decades of pandemic preparedness, there is considerable uncertainty as to the value of wearing masks.’


3) The WHO: ‘The widespread use of masks by healthy people in the community setting is not yet supported by high quality or direct scientific evidence and there are potential benefits and harms to consider’ (

4) The CDC: ‘Our systematic review found no significant effect of face masks on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.’ (

I also cited an article giving detailed explanation of the reasons why masks might not prevent spread:

Notwithstanding this evidence regarding arguably the most important and contentious debate raging in American society — the constant mandate of masks — it appears some 20-something with his pronouns in his Twitter bio just pushed a button and erased scientifically accurate information. For some reason, which hopefully Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey can explain when he is dragged before the Senate, Atlas was silenced by the tech giant.

This comes the same week that Twitter blocked New York Post articles alleging improprieties involving presidential candidate Joe Biden, his son Hunter, and the Ukrainian energy company Burisma revealed by a laptop now held by the FBI. For good measure, Twitter also banned the New York Post’s official Twitter account from the platform.

Universal masking is a subject of scientific dispute, and just happens to be a contentious political argument in the midst of the 2020 presidential election. Under the dubious policy of stopping the spread of disinformation, Twitter has silenced an expert on the matter for what seems to be politically motivated purposes.

Twitter, which claims to be a neutral platform and enjoys legal protection as such, has once again proven that not only does it have an editorial agenda, it has a political one. You see, the information overlords at Twitter dot com will decide what information and what facts the masses like you and me are allowed to consume on their platform.

That would be fine if they were a publisher and treated as such legally, but for now they are not. Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act gives Twitter special protection to engage in censorship, but after this week of obviously politically motivated silencing, many in Congress are looking to stripping the company of that protection.

Twitter’s reasoning behind banning information that questions the efficacy of masks is as opaque as a smile behind one. Like much of the traditional media, it seems to believe that the American people are too stupid to confront and analyze actual information, and instead must be spoon-fed instructions like toddlers. You don’t have to know why you must cover your face everywhere you go, you just have to do it!

This is enough; it was well past enough already, frankly. Twitter is now censoring important and much-needed scientific information that the American people need to make informed decisions about their health. If Dorsey wants to be a mask busybody while he parties maskless with Beyonce and Jay Z on a yacht, so be it. The mask rules don’t apply to him. But the laws of the United States should and must.

Twitter is no neutral platform. This fact is as obvious as a punch in the mouth, which is exactly what Congress needs to give it. Free speech is as central to the American experiment as any concept is, and as foreign to Twitter as could be.

It would be a shame if screen captures of Atlas’s tweets somehow found their way onto Twitter, I know @Jack would be dismayed — if he’s not in Indonesia engaging in fasting and spiritual development.

The Biden Emails Prove Impeachment Was A Sham

(The Federalist) – Remember January? I know it feels like several lifetimes ago, the before times of life as we used to know it. But think back to the biggest story of those chilly days. It wasn’t the Chinese virus slowly spreading to our shores or the Democratic presidential primary. No, it was the impeachment of the president of the United States. This week’s bombshell New York Post story on Hunter Biden now shows what many of us suspected: The impeachment was a ridiculous sham.

The basis for the impeachment, for those whose recollections are understandably shaky, was that President Trump pressured the president of Ukraine to launch investigations into the energy company Burisma for the purely political purpose of hurting Joe Biden. Central to that allegation was the argument that Trump and the United States had no legitimate interest in seeing Burisma investigated. If the trove of emails from Hunter Biden’s laptop are accurate, and they have not been disputed, then this argument falls to pieces.

Pam Bondi, working for the Trump defense team, said this back during the national ordeal about the Democratic House managers’ constant attempts to call allegations against the Bidens “baseless”:

In their trial memorandum, the House managers describe this as baseless. Now, why did they say that? Why did they invoke Biden or Burisma over 400 times? The reason they needed to do that is because they’re here saying that the president must be impeached and removed from office for raising a concern. And that’s why we have to talk about this today. They say ‘sham.’ They say ‘baseless.’ They say this because if it’s OK for someone to say, ‘Hey, you know what? Maybe there’s something here worth raising,’ then their case crumbles.

And here we are. If these emails are accurate, then it is as clear as is the summer sun that Hunter Biden was absolutely selling access to his father and the Obama administration in exchange for his lavish salary. This was literally at the heart of the Trump defense, and it really is a silver bullet. What reasonable person would even suggest that the president of the United States may not push allies to investigate legitimate corruption involving the executive branch of the federal government?

House Republicans this week sent requests for information to the FBI to see if they were in possession of these emails at the time of impeachment. It is an important question that the American people deserve an answer to. To borrow a phrase from another show-stopping trial of the century, if the email’s legit, you must acquit. As far as I know, there is no way to reverse an impeachment, but if there were one, now would be the time.

Remember, “Impeachment is forever”? It was the big catchphrase right before “Don’t touch your face” shot up to No. 1. When was the last time you even heard a Democrat say the word impeachment? If this black mark on Trump’s presidency is so very damning, then why isn’t the Biden campaign making a big deal about it? Or frankly, talking about it at all? The reason, of course, is that even back in January, Democrats were concerned that should Biden win the nomination, some of these chickens could come home to roost. Now they have, and my goodness, they are laying some heavy eggs.

What Trump must make clear in the final weeks of the election is that not only was his impeachment a giant lie, a despicable ploy by desperate Democrats, but it was also a massive cover-up on behalf of Joe Biden. It is time for what we naively thought would be the biggest story of 2020, namely impeachment, to make its way back into this election — not as Democrats intended as a negative for Trump, but as his ultimate vindication against charges we now know to be baseless, crude, and deeply cynical.

Left Targets Dianne Feinstein For Not Attacking Amy Coney Barrett Hard Enough

(The Federalist) – It turns out Democrats aren’t as forgiving of elderly politicians as we might have thought. After several months of doing their best to ignore former Vice President Joe Biden’s declining abilities and his unending string of inexplicable gaffes, Democrats have had it with one particular senior citizen: Sen. Dianne Feinstein.

In a story published by The New York Times the weekend before Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation hearings began, various sources within the party voiced no confidence in the California senator’s ability to lead Democrats’ efforts to stop the nomination. Like a previous article published last month in Politico, the point of the effort was to highlight a belief expressed by the two liberal outlets’ sources — both on the record and anonymous — that Feinstein is simply too old and lacks the mental and physical capacity to do her job.

There was more at play here, however, than just pointing out the inherent problem of having the Senate’s oldest member being on the firing line when Democrats feel they must have their sharpest and toughest advocates front and center in an effort to discredit Barrett and President Donald Trump. Both articles were also warning shots fired in Feinstein’s direction.

Although there was no danger that Feinstein would be anything less than hostile to the conservative judge, leftist Democrats seemed to be saying that any deviation from the party line regarding their scorched-earth war against Trump and his nominee — such as Feinstein’s criticism of leftist plans to do away with the filibuster or to pack the Supreme Court — would be harshly punished when Democrats hope to control the Senate next year.

That’s why leftist groups weighed in at the conclusion of the four days of Judiciary Committee hearings to demand that she be forced to step down as ranking member. Demand Justice, an advocacy group headed by former Hillary Clinton press secretary Brian Fallon, denounced her for treating Republicans with “kid gloves.” The evidence for this accusation was the collegial hug she gave Sen. Lindsey Graham, the committee’s chairman, for the way he handled the hearings

She was performing an act of courtesy to an old colleague who had done his best to give both sides a fair shot at Barrett, even if Democrats were unhappy about the nomination. But in this era of politics being practiced as a form of a tribal culture war, nothing short of daggers-drawn advocacy can be tolerated. In the eyes of left-wingers like Fallon or a liberal group calling itself Fix Our Senate, the only explanations for friendly behavior to the other party are senility or treason.

Feinstein Isn’t Unique in Her Frailty

Although Feinstein is the oldest senator, she’s hardly the only senior citizen. She is one of eight members who are at least 80 and one of 29 who are at least 70. The Senate has a long tradition of tolerating members who were clearly in decline, with Republican Strom Thurmond lingering in the Senate until he was 100 years old and Democrat Robert Byrd dying in office at age 92, when both were long past the point of effective service.

But the idea of the Senate as the world’s most exclusive club, which always protected its members from accountability about their age or personal misconduct, with the late Sen. Ted Kennedy being the most outrageous example, seems to be one more relic of a discarded past. In an age of hyper-partisan warfare in which every senator, especially committee chairs, are expected to act as participants in an all-out culture war rather than collegial members of a deliberative body, toleration of diminished members or those who are out of touch with the spirit of the times might no longer be put up with.

The carping about Feinstein seems fundamentally unfair at a time the party’s presidential nominee has labored, sometimes with great difficulty, to withstand the rigors of the campaign. Although talk of Biden’s senility might be overstated, no one who observed closely in the past can pretend his difficulties in keeping facts straight and speaking either extemporaneously or from a teleprompter can honestly say his current performance is not diminished from what it once was.

Like Biden, Feinstein is not quite as sharp as she used to be when speaking to the public or reporters or questioning witnesses in committee hearings. During the first day of Barrett’s questioning by the Judiciary Committee, Feinstein followed the same script that other Democrats were reciting throughout the hearings, which sought to refocus the discussion from judicial issues to partisan talking points about preserving Obamacare.

At one point, she interjected a mention of Roe v. Wade in the middle of a discussion about gun control cases. Barrett responded with a quizzical look, but then the conversation got back on course with no further stumbles on Feinstein’s part. While Feinstein’s performance was far from impressive, it was no worse than that of the other two most senior members of the committee, Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley or Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy.

Democrats Pile on Feinstein

The sniping at Feinstein was both curious and ironic. Feinstein might take a dim view of the plans of radicals to blow up the system should the Democrats take complete control of the government in 2021, but there was no chance she would express sympathy or support for Barrett.

Indeed, Feinstein probably can take the most credit for Barrett’s elevation to the high court than anyone other than Trump. It was Feinstein’s unfair questioning during Barrett’s confirmation hearing for her 2017 appointment to the court of appeals that made the judge a conservative folk hero. Feinstein’s questions seemed to be saying that Barrett’s Catholic faith would render her unsuitable for high office because the church’s “dogma lives loudly within you.”

By crossing over the line with comments that seemed to be advocating an unconstitutional religious test for office, Feinstein effectively robbed Democrats of their ability to hint at prejudice against Christian conservatives while retaining plausible deniability about such prejudice.

Yet in making that point, Feinstein was speaking for many Democrats, as the effort to smear Barrett as an extremist or a religious nutcase during the last month makes plain. Moreover, it was very much in line with other grillings of Republican nominees, such as Sen. Kamala Harris’s questioning of Brian Buescher, a candidate for a federal district judgeship, about his membership in the Knights of Columbus.

While Feinstein’s comments were inappropriate, it is more than a little unfair for her party to think her comments were the result of early-onset senility rather than an expression of the views most of its members uphold. That was further illustrated by a hot mic moment on the fourth day of the hearings when, Feinstein, not realizing she was being recorded, doubled down on her attack on Barrett’s religion.

“She’s been pro-life for a long time,” Feinstein said. So I suspect with her, it’s deeply personal and comes with her religion.”

Catholics aren’t the only Americans who oppose the Democrats’ insistence on legal — and government-funded — abortions up until the moment of birth, but to Feinstein the way to make it sound deplorable is to link it to the judge’s faith.

The Politico and Times articles also seemed to blame Feinstein for the belated revelations of unsubstantiated accusations of sexual misconduct against Justice Brett Kavanaugh in 2018. As unfair and inappropriate as Feinstein’s actions were, however, they were not due to her age or infirmity but were part of a calculated Democratic attempt to derail the Kavanaugh nomination.

The Senior Senator Just Isn’t Radical Enough

Leftist Democrats’ real beef with Feinstein isn’t her attitude toward Barrett, it’s the independent streak that has always characterized her Senate career.

Feinstein’s opposition to ending the filibuster is a genuine threat to her party’s hopes to ram through a host of radical measures next year if they get a Senate majority and win the White House. If enough moderate Democrats go along with her, that would stop their leader Sen. Chuck Schumer from taking the next step toward abolishing a measure that would otherwise prevent them from packing the Supreme Court with leftist justices and admitting the District of Columbia and even Puerto Rico as states, which would enable them to ensure their domination over the government for the foreseeable future.

Nor has anyone on the left forgotten her viral moment with a group of schoolchildren who arrived at Feinstein’s office to lecture her about supporting the Green New Deal. The crotchety senator had no patience for listening to ultimatums from middle-schoolers and instead lectured them about politics being the art of the possible rather than “my way or the highway.” That, as much as anything, demonstrates just what Feinstein thinks about the younger generation of Democrats.

Thus, the whispering campaign against the senator, amplified by articles in leftist publications, isn’t so much about her being more impaired than other Democrats, let alone their presidential nominee, but about their reliability in sticking to whatever the party line of the moment might be.

It is Feinstein’s potential for heresy against the new liberal orthodoxy that is causing some in her party to threaten to take away her status as a ranking member or to serve as a chair if the Democrats are in the majority in January, not her age. After all, if Biden wins in November, Democrats are counting on a president they can control and are wanting a senator they can crush.