<div>
Sarah Silverman, who&#8217;s nearly as unfunny as Amy Schumer, has decided to dabble in treason by calling for the overthrow of the U.S. government.
She says it would be a good idea if the military stormed the White House and 86&#8217;ed President Trump.
&#8220;WAKE UP &amp; JOIN THE RESISTANCE. ONCE THE MILITARY IS W US FASCISTS GET OVERTHROWN. MAD KING &amp; HIS HANDLERS GO BYE BYE,&#8221; she said in a tweet. While shouting in all caps, she did also add some little hearts, so maybe she was only kidding (in her unfunny way).
SWome of her 10 million followers, of course, responded in kind, loving her call to violence. But others took issue with the incendiary post. Roger Ewing tweeted: &#8220;You&#8217;re *literally* calling for a military coup. Do you think that ends in democracy?&#8221; &#8220;Chire Unitew Merica&#8221; responded: &#8220;She is just the most un-American human being in America and should be punished for her treasonous mouth.&#8221;
Silverman&#8217;s tweet came as violence broke out in Berkeley, California, over Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos&#8217; now-canceled speech at UC Berkeley.
Director Judd Apatow, known for &#8220;Knocked Up&#8221; and &#8220;Trainwreck,&#8221; said in a now-deleted tweet about the riots, &#8220;This is just the beginning. When will all the fools who are still supporting Trump realize what is at stake?&#8221;
But Silverman sought to undo her incitement of violence the next day, tweeting &#8220;FEAR can motivate even peacenik snowflakes 2 incite violence &amp; last night I felt it hard. Trying 2 keep in check bc damnit I love u America.&#8221; That was followed by this tweet: &#8220;Yo I&#8217;m the peacenick snowflake in this tweet &#8211; thought that was obvs. Oy.&#8221;
Silverman was a Bernie Sanders backer, but after he lost in the primaries, she took the opportunity at the Democratic National Convention, where she was a speaker, to tell those who still supported the Vermont Socialist they were &#8220;being ridiculous.&#8221;
But all of this could have been avoided if Silverman had simply kept her word after the election: She pledged ton move to Mexico if Trump won. Maybe they wouldn&#8217;t take her south of the border.

</div>

Another Unfunny Comedian Goes After Trump

&#8203;President Trump, who apparently almost never sleeps (given the fact that he sometimes tweets at 2 a.m. in the morning and said this week he rises before 6 a.m. to begin his work day), has set a blistering pace since taking office midday on Friday.
It hasn&#8217;t even been a week and Trump, who worked through his first weekend on the job, hitting the ground running on Saturday morning after a late night dancing at inaugural balls, has already done, like, 700 things. 
&#8220;One Trump ally familiar with the president&#8217;s routines said his White House schedule is similar to the one he&#8217;s held for years, and described him as &#8216;a late-night guy and early morning riser,&#8217; &#8221; <a href="http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/316204-trump-sets-dizzying-wh-pace-in-first-days">The Hill</a> reported.
&#8220;&#8216;His body clock is one that is very conducive to running on little sleep,&#8217; the ally said, adding that Trump is known to get up before 6 a.m.&#8221;
And the 70-year-old is in the Oval Office late, sometimes taking dinner there, according to reports. On Wednesday night, for instance, Trump declared a disaster in Georgia, sending out notice at 9:51 p.m. that federal assistance is on its way.
In case you&#8217;ve been busy with your own schedule and missed the dizzying pace Trump has set, here&#8217;s what he&#8217;s done in just five days: 
Day One: Trump, Pence and their families attend the National Prayer Service at the Washington National Cathedral; Trump visits the CIA (where he was greeted with a five-minute ovation).
Day Two: Trump speaks with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over the phone, attends the White House Senior Staff Swearing In and hosts the Inaugural Law Enforcement Officers and First Responders Reception. 
Day Three: Trump hosts a breakfast and listening session with key business leaders, speaks with Egyptian President Fattah al-Sisi by phone, signs Executive Orders, participates in the President&#8217;s Daily Briefing, has lunch with the Vice President, holds a listening session with Union Leaders and American Workers, hosts Bicameral Leadership Reception, and meets with House Speaker Paul Ryan. 
Day Four: Trump hosts a breakfast and listening session with key automobile industry leaders, meets with Chief of Staff, Reince Priebus, signs Executive Order, speaks with Indian Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, meets with CIA Director Mike Pompeo, meets with Key Senate Leadership, meets with Senator McConnell.
Day Five: Trump meets with Chief of Staff, Reince Priebus, visits the Department of Homeland Security, talks with Phil Bryant, Governor of Mississippi. 
And Day Six is no different. On Thursday, Trump will travel to Philadelphia to attend Congress of Tomorrow Republican Member Retreat, hold White House meetings, and meet with Sen. Orrin Hatch and Rep. Kevin Brady. 
It&#8217;s a crazy pace, but Trump knows no other. And like his days as president of a multi-billion-dollar corporation (where he worked in offices at Trump Tower), his bedroom is right upstairs when he&#8217;s ready for bed &#8212; which isn&#8217;t often.

Trump Sets Insane Pace in Just Five Days

Donald Trump

Trump Administration

President Trump campaigned on promises to be a strong ally to Israel, counter to everything President Obama did while in office. 
And so far, he&#8217;s followed through on his vows. Yesterday, the State Department announced it had put a hold on the Obama administration&#8217;s last-minute plan to send $220 million to the Palestinians over the objections of congressional Republicans.
The department says it will weigh the merits of the massive payout and decided whether to follow through.
Obama Secretary of State John Kerry formally notified Congress &#8212; with just hours left in Obama&#8217;s term &#8212; that the State Department would dispatch the money by Friday. 
&#8220;In a final act, then-secretary of state John Kerry instructed USAID to release $220.3 million for Gaza recovery programs,&#8221; acting State Department spokesman Mark Toner said.
&#8220;The Department of State is currently reviewing last minute spending approved by the previous administration and will make adjustments if needed to ensure that it aligns with the priorities of the Trump-Pence administration,&#8221; he said.
It is still unclear exactly where the money was intended to go. Some reports say the State Department intended the whopping sum to go through the U.S. Agency for International Development to be used for Gaza recovery programs. Other <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/us-221-million-palestinians-obamas-hours-44992868">reports</a>, like one from the Associated Press, suggested the money would be used for &#8220;humanitarian aid in the West Bank and Gaza, to support political and security reforms as well as help prepare for good governance and the rule of law in a future Palestinian state, according to the notification sent to Congress.&#8221;
But Congress is none too happy with the plan. Rep. Kay Granger, Texas Republican and a member of the House Appropriations Committee, said, &#8220;I am deeply disappointed that President Obama defied congressional oversight and released $221 million to the Palestinian territories.
&#8220;I worked to make sure that no American taxpayer dollars would fund the Palestinian Authority unless very strict conditions were met. While none of these funds will go to the Palestinian Authority because of those conditions, they will go to programs in the Palestinian territories that were still under review by Congress. The Obama administration&#8217;s decision to release these funds was inappropriate,&#8221; Granger said.

Clawback: Trump Puts Hold on Obama’s $220M Gift to Palestinians

Foreign Policy

Israel

Palestinians

Terrorism

You know all those teenagers with their face plastered in their iPhones, the ones skateboarding everywhere and whiling away their free time playing video games? Turns out they&#8217;re actually paying attention to politics &#8212; and they aren&#8217;t big fans of the only political party they&#8217;ve known up until now, the Democrats.
A <a href="http://hispanicheritage.org/50000-generation-z-high-school-students-identify-republican/">new national survey</a> by My College Options and the Hispanic Heritage Foundation gathered info from a whopping 50,000 &#8220;Generation Z&#8221; high school students ages 14 to 18 to gauge their political attitudes on the 2016 election. In what will surely be a surprise to the older generations yelling at Gen Z to get off our lawns, the survey found that a majority identify as Republican.
While all these kids will be able to vote in the 2020 election, let&#8217;s take first-time voters alone to start. The survey found that 46 percent of the 18-year-olds surveyed voted for Trump; just 31 percent went for Hillary Clinton. Sure, 6 percent said they &#8220;would choose not to vote in this election,&#8221; but just 11 percent went third party.
The survey, which began in September 2016 and continued through the election, found that 73 percent of respondents are engaged or &#8220;somewhat engaged&#8221; in politics. And among the entire group of first-time voters, the economy was the top issue (44 percent), followed by education (39 percent), gun rights (28 percent) and health care (18 percent). Nearly half (47 percent) said they get their news from social media sites or online news sites.
&#8220;Our findings shocked us and clearly state that the Trump effect was not only felt by adults and can have an impact going forward with Generation Z,&#8221; said Jose Antonio Tijerino, president and CEO of the Hispanic Heritage Foundation. &#8220;It&#8217;s also an important message that youth can&#8217;t be taken for granted as to how they lean politically by either side of the aisle.&#8221;
The overall findings &#8212; which include all of the 14-to-18 year olds surveyed, so some numbers point to whom participants WOULD vote for &#8212; found that 34 percent picked Trump, 20 percent Clinton, but 31 percent said &#8220;I would choose not to vote in this election.&#8221; Fifty-five percent said the direction of the country was &#8220;not positive&#8221; and 54 percent said they were engaged or somewhat engaged in politics.
&#8220;It&#8217;s critical to understand what the students&#8217; priorities and preferences are, as we found out in the Presidential Pulse Study, to better engage this potentially powerful subset of the electorate at an early stage for the 2020 elections,&#8221; Tijerino said.

GOP Tsunami Looms As Generation Z Skews Republican

Democratic Party

Millennials

Republican Party

President Trump has four choice words for the state-funded media and pseudo-arts program: Not on my watch.
Plans are in the works to eliminate both the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH). And Trump wants to privatize the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), which helps fund National Public Radio (NPR) and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS).
The CPB currently draws nearly half a billion dollars ($445.5 million) a year from taxpayers. 
Trump&#8217;s plan, first reported by <a href="http://thehill.com/policy/finance/314991-trump-team-prepares-dramatic-cuts">The Hill</a>, is part of a blueprint to slash federal spending by $10.5 trillion over the next decade. &#8220;Many of the specific cuts were included in the 2017 budget adopted by the conservative Republican Study Committee (RSC), a caucus that represents a majority of House Republicans,&#8221; The Hill reported.
&#8220;A free society should not have government-supported media outlets, especially ones that so often convey political news and opinion,&#8221; the RSC report said. &#8220;There is no shortage of media outlets and news services available to consumers,&#8221; the report said.
&#8220;The federal government should not be in the business of funding the arts,&#8221; the RSC said of eliminating the taxpayer-subsidized programs.&#8217;
The RSC report follows budget proposals from the conservative Heritage Foundation. &#8220;Without federal funding for the CPB, services such as the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) and National Public Radio (NPR), which receive funding from the CPB, could make up the lost money by increasing revenues from corporate sponsors, foundations, and members,&#8221; the Heritage report concluded.
The idea of doing away with the NEA stretches back to the Reagan administration, although President Reagan eventually dismissed the idea. And Mitt Romney took a boatload of criticism in the 2012 presidential campaign when he proposed killing the CPB (President Obama even ran an ad that said the Republican nominee wanted to <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZxs09eV-Vc">murder Big Bird</a>). 
The NEA has been awash in controversy, most notably when the &#8220;arts&#8221; endowment funded an exhibit by photographer Andres Serrano. &#8220;The work at the center of the controversy was Piss Christ, a photo of a plastic crucifix submerged in a vial of an amber fluid described by the artist as his own urine,&#8221; according to the Wikipedia entry.
More recently, the NEA was involved in a controversy when &#8220;an official at the White House Office of Public Engagement encouraged a group of artists on a conference call with the National Endowment for the Arts to produce works that supported the Obama administration&#8217;s agenda, a transcript of the call reveals,&#8221; Fox News reported in 2009.
PBS and NPR also both skew liberal, with the radio arm &#8212; which has 700 affiliates across the country &#8212; even <a href="http://townhall.com/columnists/brentbozell/2003/10/22/npr_admits_a_liberal_bias">admitting so in 2003</a>. 
Although a 1985 rule mandates all PBS shows must be &#8220;noncommercial, nonpartisan and nonsectarian,&#8221; their tax-subsidized programming includes &#8220;celebrating lesbian-feminist choirs, &#8216;transgender&#8217; riots, and a liberal teenager fighting against abstinence education. As part of its wave of secular fundamentalism, PBS celebrates even late-term abortionists with a fanaticism. The PBS show NOW was devoted to smearing the pro-life movement as terrorists,&#8221; the Wiki entry on &#8220;liberal bias&#8221; says.
It&#8217;s anyone&#8217;s guess as to whether Trump will follow through on his threats &#8212; he does have a pretty full plate right now, and funding for public news and arts programs likely falls well down the list. But our guess is that he&#8217;ll circle back around to the proposal, especially when budget time comes around because, let&#8217;s admit it, $500 million is an awful lot to spend for a Piss Christ.

Death to Big Bird: Trump Gunning for Taxpayer-Subsidized ‘News’ and ‘Art’

Media

Media Bias

Some time in the course of yesterday, the editors at The Atlantic magazine opened a pre-med textbook, read one of the hundreds of texts they got from doctors, or just sat quietly on a couch and pondered the question: Does a fetus have a heart?
Now, to you, that sounds like a really stupid question. Fetuses grow into babies which grow in to (wait for it) editors at The Atlantic (if they&#8217;re profoundly unlucky), so, yes, duh, they have hearts so, ergo, they have heartbeats. But these editors were stuck in an ontological argument only Samuel Beckett would have conceived and they actually posted a story in their latest mag that fetal heartbeats seen in ultrasound at six weeks are &#8220;imaginary.&#8221;
&#8220;It is dubious to call this movement a &#8216;heartbeat&#8217;; there is no heart to speak of [at six weeks],&#8221; the 2,500-word article said.
The error-filled article, written by Moira Weigel, a doctoral candidate at Yale (like, medical doctor? Nuh-uh. In comparative literature, which, as everyone at Yale knows, makes her an expert in everything), turned out to be woefully wrong.
The mag needled up the headline to read &#8220;How the Ultrasound Pushed the Idea That a Fetus Is a Person.&#8221; That oughta&#8217; show those non-Ivy League morons who think life begins at conception. Weigel, pondering the very building blocks of Life, wrote: &#8220;What is a fetal heartbeat? And why does it matter?&#8230;. [Fetal heartbeat measures] are based on two assumptions: First, that an ultrasound image has an obvious meaning. Second, that any pregnant woman who sees an ultrasound will recognize this meaning. Science does not bear either assumption out.&#8221;
Except, it does. And unlike climate change, the facts about fetal heart development are accepted by all.
Here&#8217;s what the Mayo Clinic writes about Week 5 of a pregnancy (which is actually four weeks after conception): &#8220;Growth is rapid this week. Just four weeks after conception, the neural tube along your baby&#8217;s back is closing and your baby&#8217;s heart is pumping blood.&#8221; 
The Mayo Clinic. Enough said. So the editors rewrote the headline: &#8220;How Ultrasounds Became Political: The technology has been used to create sped-up videos that falsely depict a response to stimulus.&#8221; OK, a lot more wordy, but more accurate. Oh, and they also deleted all that stuff about the fetal heartbeat being &#8220;imaginary.&#8221; 
And in a shocking turn, they admitted they were wrong, way wrong. In a correction now attached to the story, they wrote: &#8220;This article originally stated that there is &#8216;no heart to speak of&#8217; in a six-week-old fetus. By that point in a pregnancy, a heart has already begun to form. We regret the error.&#8221;
The article also incorrectly said John Kasich is governor of Indiana (which would be a shock to the millions of Ohio residents who voted for him). Editors fixed that, too. Maybe next time they&#8217;ll take the time to actually read the story before they send it to press.

Oops. Our Bad. Fetuses DO Have Heartbeats!

Abortion

Fake News

The Atlantic

The breathless coverage of the Woman&#8217;s March &#8212; even with the multitude of NSFW signs and costumes &#8212; shows that the mainstream media has every intent of pushing an anti-Trump message throughout the outsider&#8217;s presidency.
But what will highlight that fact even more will be Friday&#8217;s massive March For Life, which routinely draws hundreds of thousands of people who simply believe that abortion is not an ideal solution to an unwanted pregnancy.
Of course, the Women&#8217;s March deserved coverage. There were hundreds of thousands of people who gathered in more than 250 cities across America to voice their views. That is what America is all about. Hillary Clinton did, after all, get 65 million votes, some 3 million more than Trump, and the voices of those supporters should also be heard.
In that news coverage, though, the MSM often avoided the worst of the march: The violent attacks (a Muslim immigrant who owns a limo service saw his $70,000 vehicle set on fire by a pack of anarchists); the disgusting speeches filled with profanity (and threats of violence, as when singer Madonna said she wanted to blow up the White House); and the more belligerent and gross signs (like the one that said, for some reason: &#8220;Shut Your B*tthole&#8221;).
Everyone who follows politics inside the Beltway knows that the March For Life certainly will NOT get the same degree of coverage as the Women&#8217;s March. In a National Review piece this week titled &#8220;Crowd Sizes Matter To The Media Only When The Cause is Liberal,&#8221; writer Dan McLaughlin says: &#8221; &#8230;virtually any reliable source on the March for Life acknowledges the sprawling size of the annual turnout, year in and year out, including busloads arriving from Catholic parishes and colleges across the country. But the media annually yawns and treats this simply as a ho-hum part of the annual DC landscape, not as a sign of broad popular resistance, after all these years, to the brutality of abortion, and tends to bury the story far from the front page. I can predict with great confidence that they will do so again this year.&#8221;
The March For Life has been growing larger each year. The Wikpedia page for the March says about 250,000 attended in the mid- and late-00&#8217;s, that number rose to 400,000 in 2011 and 2012. The crowd reached a whopping 650,000 people in 2013. 
Terry Schilling, executive director of American Principles Project, a nonprofit supporting the nation&#8217;s founding principles, laid out what he&#8217;s become accustomed to expecting from the media when it comes to the March For Life: 
<blockquote>
Americans are growing increasingly skeptical of the mainstream media. This is happening for a legitimate reason. Media executives and political reporters would be wise to acknowledge this phenomenon and commit to a little self-examination. This weekend we saw an incredible case of anti-Trump, anti-conservative bias with the breathless coverage of the pro-abortion, non-inclusive &#8220;Women&#8217;s March on Washington.&#8221; This event received wall-to-wall coverage, with lionizing words like &#8216;historic&#8217; repeated in headlines ad nauseum.
But every year, when the March for Life attracts hundreds of thousands of dedicated pro-life activists to Washington, D.C., political reporters tend to ignore it entirely. If the media wants to continue to be seen as a propaganda arm of the Democratic Party, ignore the march as usual. But if journalists are serious about improving their perceived objectivity and serving the American people at large, they should show up this Friday and give the tremendous pro-life crowds the news cycle they warrant.
This is a defining year for the pro-life movement. With a Republican House, Senate, and President, pro-life legislative goals are about to become pro-life legislative realities. The story is significant. Cover the March for Life.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
This is a defining moment for America&#8217;s fourth estate.

</blockquote>
This is a defining moment for America&#8217;s fourth estate. The media&#8217;s pathetic cheer-leading for Hillary Clinton brought the once-vaunted press to new lows, and their failure to see a resounding Trump victory &#8212; most MSM outlets predicted a huge win for Clinton &#8212; certainly didn&#8217;t help. 
How the mainstream media covers the March For Life will foreshadow how they will cover the real issues Americans care about across the country. But don&#8217;t hold your breath for the same breathless coverage the Women&#8217;s March got. It ain&#8217;t gonna&#8217; happen.
<div>
<div>
<div> </div>
</div>
</div>

Will March For Life Get Equal MSM Coverage? (Hint: No!)

Feminism

Former Democratic National Committee Chairman Debbie Wasserman Schultz either has a sublime sense of humor, or she just didn&#8217;t see the irony of alleging that Russia interfered in the U.S. presidential election &#8212; exactly like she did.
In an interview with CNN host Erin Burnett, DWS said there was &#8220;no question&#8221; the Russians interfered in the election (but again, like all those making the charge, offered no proof). Asked if she believes Trump is a &#8220;legitimate president,&#8221; Schultz said: 
<blockquote>
&#8220;What I believe is that there&#8217;s no question that the outcome of this election was affected by the Russian interference with the campaign and who &#8212; because our intelligence community has unequivocally stated that Russia&#8217;s intent was to influence the outcome of the election in favor of Donald Trump I believe, one, that the investigation that the United States Senate is going to do into the relationship and interaction potentially between the Trump campaign and Russian officials &#8212; that&#8217;s essential.
&#8220;But I think there&#8217;s no question that the outcome of this election was affected by Russian interference with the campaign. No doubt.&#8221;
</blockquote>
Now, it is true the some in the intelligence community have alleged that Russia sought to affect the outcome of the election, but to this date no one has offered hard proof &#8212; a brief report made public was heavily redacted and delivered only anecdotal &#8220;evidence.&#8221;
But we DO know for certain that Schultz took an active role in helping Hillary Clinton defeat Sen. Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primaries. Rather than acting as a disinterested referee in the intra-party battle for the nomination, DWS took an active role to defeat Sanders and tip the scales toward Clinton.
Schultz called a top Sanders aide a &#8220;<a href="https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/5823">damn liar</a>,&#8221; and stood by as a top DNC staffer targeted Sanders&#8217; religion: &#8220;It might may no difference, but for KY and WVA can we get someone to ask his belief. Does he believe in a God. He had skated on saying he has a Jewish heritage. I think I read he is an atheist. This could make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist,&#8221; DNC chief financial officer Brad Marshall wrote in an email released by WikiLeaks.
And an email titled &#8220;<a href="https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/11056">Bernie narrative</a>,&#8221; sent by DNC National Press Secretary Mark Paustenbach, shows the DNC was busy trying to bash the Vermont senator in the press.
&#8220;Wondering if there&#8217;s a good Bernie narrative for a story, which is that Bernie never ever had his act together, that his campaign was a mess,&#8221; Paustenbach wrote. &#8220;Specifically, [Debbie Wasserman Schultz] had to call Bernie directly in order to get the campaign to do things because they&#8217;d either ignored or forgotten to something critical.&#8221;
WikiLeaks dumped thousands of emails just like those above, which detail how Schultz and top Democrats actively sought to deep-six Sanders. And Democrats say this &#8220;proves&#8221; Russia was trying to interfere in the election (although WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has repeatedly said his group did not get the leaked emails from Russia).
So, the spectacular irony is that DWS alleges there is &#8220;no question that the outcome of this election was affected by the Russian interference with the campaign&#8221; &#8212; which it did by releasing emails from her and top party leaders that show they embarked on a mission to affect the outcome of this election. And when she was caught, Schultz had to resign. 
You can&#8217;t make this stuff up, people.

Irony Alert: DWS Says Russians Interfered in Election, Forgets to Mention She Did, Too

Bernie Sanders

Debbie Wasserman Schultz

Hillary Clinton

Russia

WikiLeaks

The Patriots are beloved across New England, but nowhere quite as much as Massachusetts, where the Super Bowl-bound team plays its home games. The liberal bastion of blueblood Democrats also loves its senators &#8212; or at least it once did.
A new poll from Boston&#8217;s NPR affiliate shows that nearly half of voters don&#8217;t like Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who set herself up as a potential 2020 candidate by aligning with Hillary Clinton and smacking down Sen. Bernie Sanders every chance she got. 
While just more than half (51 percent) view the combative senator favorably, only 44 percent think she &#8220;deserves re-election&#8221; &#8212; and 46 percent Warren ought to &#8220;give someone else a chance,&#8221; according to the WBUR survey. 
So how bad are the numbers? Let&#8217;s let Steve Koczela, president of The MassINC Polling Group, which conducts surveys for WBUR, sum it up. &#8220;No one&#8217;s going to look at a 44 percent re-elect number and think that that&#8217;s a good number. No one&#8217;s going to look at it being close to even between &#8216;re-elect&#8217; and &#8216;give someone else a chance&#8217; and think that that&#8217;s reassuring.&#8221;
But wait, it gets worse. While Democrats outnumber Republicans by a 3-1 margin in Massachusetts, the state&#8217;s governor &#8212; a Republican &#8212; is viewed favorably by 59 percent of the residents, a whopping eight points higher than Warren. And still worse, three out of five Democrats view the GOP guv favorably, while only about one in 10 Republicans like Warren.
Again, Koczela sums it up perfectly. &#8220;When you look at Elizabeth Warren&#8217;s favorables, only 12 percent of Republicans have a favorable view of her,&#8221; he told WBUR. &#8220;When you look at Baker, 60 percent of Democrats view him favorably. So he has bipartisan appeal where Elizabeth Warren really never has.&#8221;
During her 2012 campaign, Warren vowed to be bipartisan and put petty partisan politics behind her. After she defeated Republican Scott Brown by about 200,000 votes out of 3 million cast, she said in a CBS interview: &#8220;I understand that there was a message for people who voted for Senator Brown. I think a lot of them were saying, &#8216;you&#8217;ve got to be willing to reach across the aisle.&#8217; I want them to know I heard that loud and clear, and it&#8217;s what I want to do &#8211; I don&#8217;t want to go to Washington to be able to say, &#8216;whoa, I&#8217;m a senator.&#8217; I want to go to Washington because I want to help get something done.&#8221;
But she has been perhaps the most partisan liberal Democrat in the Senate since assuming office in 2013. Now, She pledges to obstruct Donald Trump as often as she can and, after a contentious confirmation hearing for Betsy DeVos, Warren even refused to shake the Education Secretary nominee&#8217;s hand. 
For Warren, 2020 is a long way off. She&#8217;ll have to survive 2018 in her home state, and with these numbers, that prospect is no sure bet.

Who Hates Elizabeth Warren? Lots of People in Massachusetts, That’s Who.

Elizabeth Warren

Republicans go home, but Democrats cash in and get the hell out of Dodge.
For the last 30 years, Republican presidents have served their nation and then gone&#8230; home. Democrats? Nuh uh.
After eight years in the White House, Ronald Reagan returned to Rancho del Cielo, a 688-acre ranch atop the Santa Ynez Mountain range northwest of Santa Barbara, Calif. He lived out his days there at the magnificent tract of land, also known as Heaven&#8217;s Ranch.
Four years later, George Herbert Walker Bush returned to his boyhood home at Walker&#8217;s Point, which juts into the Atlantic Ocean just outside the sleepy resort town of Kennebunkport, Maine. He built a retirement house near the Houston home he lived in when he was a congressman from Texas, not far from his presidential library. 
And his son, George W. Bush, also went home after eight years office, returning to Prairie Chapel Ranch, a 1,583-acre tract in Crawford, Texas, about 25 miles from Waco. He and wife Laura also bought a house in Dallas, close to his presidential library (and, more accurately, his favorite golf course). 
But Democrats don&#8217;t go home. After eight years at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Bill Clinton and his wife bought a house in New York for the prime purpose of setting up a carpet-bagging Senate run for Hillary. They also bought a $5 million mansion in Washington, D.C., not far from the vice presidential residence. Bill spends some time in a loft in his presidential library in Little Rock, Ark. (which features a replica of the Oval Office, where Bubba no doubt plays when the cat&#8217;s away), but not much time.
And now, Barack Obama is abandoning his so-called hometown of Chicago. &#8220;According to sources, the Obamas have purchased a house in Rancho Mirage, Calif., not far from Sunnylands,&#8221; the New York Post reported on Monday. According to Page Six, &#8220;the Obamas have been reported as buying a home in Rancho Mirage for at least two years, but the White House has denied previous reports.
&#8220;Michael S. Smith, who also has a home in Rancho Mirage, is believed to have the task of designing the home along with a vacation home in Hawaii that the Obamas also bought recently, Page Six said. Smith helped the Obamas decorate the White House and the Obamas have visited his home as well.&#8221;
And there&#8217;s good reason for Obama to stay away from Chicago, even though his presidential library will be located there. Although he helped his former chief of staff Rahm Emanuel win the mayor&#8217;s post there (through some highly shifty shenanigans), the city has since turned in to hell on earth. Some 762 people were killed there in 2016, the deadliest year in two decades. 
So Obama will split his time between a mansion in Cali and a mansion in Hawaii. He&#8217;ll jet in for the opening of his library in Chicago, but just like when he was president, he won&#8217;t be staying in the city for long.
So it&#8217;s true what they say, at least for Democrats: &#8220;You can&#8217;t go home.&#8221; But that means it really wasn&#8217;t ever home, doesn&#8217;t it? Republicans can&#8217;t wait to get back to their roots, while Democrats can&#8217;t wait to run from them. We&#8217;ll leave it to you to decide just what that really means.

Menu

Lemuel Pitkin