Lots of religious guests on tap for Easter Sunday morning, including Cardinal Dolan of New York discussing Obama’s contraception “compromise” on CBS and Rick Warren sitting down with Jake Tapper on ABC. If you’re dead set on politics, though, Ron Johnson and Kent Conrad will battle over Paul Ryan’s budget on Fox and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz will turn up on CNN to repeat whichever Democratic talking points her operating system has been configured to run this week. Expect lots of “war on women” nonsense in keeping with Obama’s recent pander-monium.
The line-up via WaPo:
NBC’s Meet the Press: Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL); Sen. John Kasich (R-OH); Archbishop-designate of Baltimore William Lori; daughter of Billy Graham, Anne Graham Lotz; United Methodist Pastor Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO); member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Rep. Raul Labrador (R-ID); Executive Editor at Random House Jon Meacham
ABC’s This Week: Pastor Rick and Kay Warren; George Will, ABC; David Chalian, Yahoo!; Michael Eric Dyson, Georgetown University; Chrystia Freeland, Reuters; Peggy Noonan, Wall Street Journal
CBS’ Face the Nation: Cardinal Timothy Dolan
Fox News Sunday: Sen. Kent Conrad, (D-ND); Sen. Ron Johnson, (R-WI); Brit Hume, Fox News; Mara Liasson, National Public Radio; Steve Hayes, The Weekly Standard; David Drucker, Roll Call
CNN’s State of the Union: Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL); Mark Penn, pollster; Linda DiVallKen, pollster; Starr, former Solicitor General; Neal Katyal, former Acting Solicitor General; Ralph Reed, Faith and Freedom Coalition; Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO); David Brody, Christian Broadcasting Network
It takes real nerve to insist that “women are not some monolithic group, women are not an interest group” at an event entitled “The White House Forum on Women and the Economy,” so good for you, champ. There are voters in every demographic group who enjoy being reduced to an “identity” and then patronized for it; you earned ‘em today in the demographic you’re targeting with this unctuous display. Special congrats on the ol’ crowdpleaser about how Congress would get more done if only it had more women and less of those darned men. I’ll bet Hillary, especially, enjoyed that rhetorical consolation prize after falling short in 2008.
Even ABC, in a straight-up news report on the event, couldn’t refrain from wincing:
In a much-publicized event at the White House, Obama, who has already called the liberal Georgetown student harangued by Rush Limbaugh, joined the fray again. As women from around the country crowded into an auditorium to hear Obama speak, the president told them that they don’t amount to some political “interest group” and that “you shouldn’t be treated that way.”
He then pandered to them by reminding them that he signed into law a bill that works to help women get paid as much as men do for the same jobs, and that he appointed two women to the Supreme Court…
There was little nonpolitical about the ordeal. Even Holder, who conceded in a workgroup with a couple dozen women that he’s not supposed to veer into politics as attorney general, said that “at the end of this electoral process,” women would be better served by having Obama and Vice President Biden in charge to work on issues important to them.
That’s today’s event in microcosm — nonpolitical, yet ridiculously political. No wonder Holder lapsed into campaign mode. Why bother keeping up the charade? They needed to organize something at the White House that would give the media an excuse to keep blathering about the “war on women” and this is what they came up, replete with a few soundbite-ready lines for The One (including a gross exaggeration about Planned Parenthood offering mammograms) so that cable news would have some footage to air as an intro to yet another navel-gazing segment about Republican misogyny. Case in point: After you’re done here with O, go watch the predictably hackish hit piece on Bashir’s show this afternoon that left Mediaite aghast. Or read this paint-by-numbers attempt by lefty Brent Budowsky at The Hill to tie the Supreme Court to the “war on women” theme. Lots of water-carriers for Obama out there in the media. Today he refilled their buckets.
Exit question: In honor of O’s attempt to reduce women to a monolithic interest group based on gender, here’s one for the moms out there. How do you like it that this chump keeps dropping anvils of debt on your kids’ heads and then, when asked to stop, the best he can do is offer this pathetic travesty?
“House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) released the following statement today regarding ongoing debt limit discussions with the White House:
“Despite good-faith efforts to find common ground, the White House will not pursue a bigger debt reduction agreement without tax hikes. I believe the best approach may be to focus on producing a smaller measure, based on the cuts identified in the Biden-led negotiations, that still meets our call for spending reforms and cuts greater than the amount of any debt limit increase.”
***
“I got this from a GOP congressional source later in the afternoon:
“WH is demanding major, unambiguous tax hikes. To get spending caps & entitlement tweaks, greater economic pain appears to be the WH’s asking price. It is increasingly likely that we aren’t going to see a ‘big’ deal if the WH doesn’t budge. Speaker looks to be holding strong…
“[Update 7:39 PM] Appears that the basic framework for future tax reform could not be resolved.
“The bipartisan consensus on tax reform (broader base & lower rates) was championed by President’s fiscal commission, and yet now is being rebuked by the President. Lowering top rates that would help make America more competitive was too large a leap for a true class warrior.”
***
“Tax reform is a worthwhile policy goal, and Mr. Boehner is right to pursue it. But the only way he can avoid being taken for a ride by Democrats is if all parts of any deal are negotiated, voted on and then implemented immediately. Two men, one deal, once. Promises of future action aren’t credible.
“Even if Mr. Obama is sincere on tax reform, he can’t guarantee he can deliver Senate Democrats who are desperate to keep their majority in 2012, much less Nancy Pelosi. We’re told that in Thursday’s White House meeting, Mr. Obama promised to veto any short-term debt-limit deal to give the two sides more time to negotiate. If that’s true, then the President isn’t serious. It means he is using the pressure of the August 2 deadline to bull-rush Mr. Boehner into a bad deal.
“If Mr. Obama is sincere about a long-term spending and tax reform agreement, he’ll take the time to get it right. If he insists on issuing ultimatums, then House Republicans would be better off passing a debt-limit ceiling for a few months with comparable spending cuts and letting Senate Democrats do the same. Mr. Boehner shouldn’t bet his majority on Mr. Obama’s promises.”
***
“In the latest salvo in their campaign to portray Republicans as extremists for not wanting to accept tax increases as part of a budget deal, liberal bloggers led by Ezra Klein have been promoting a chart showing that in the past, the GOP has been willing to accept deals that are far less generous than what President Obama is supposedly offering them. Yet as Conn Carroll pointed out earlier, there’s a big difference between budget deals as negotiated, and budget deals as implemented. The reason why today’s conservatives are much less tolerant of deals that include tax hikes is that they’ve learned from history that the reality of such agreements is that taxes go up as negotiated, but Congress doesn’t deliver the promised spending cuts. No past deal poisoned the well more than the 1990 budget pact, in which President Bush infamously broke his ‘no new taxes’ pledge…
“Back in 1990, the establishment was saying the same things about the need for a ‘balanced approach’ in which all sides sacrifice something to reduce the deficit. Yet what we ended up with in reality was a deal that raised taxes and slashed military spending (in other words, the liberal approach) while entitlements and non-defense discretionary spending rose by an even higher amount than was projected before a deal. Is it any wonder that today’s conservatives are deeply suspicious of budget deals in which Republicans agree to raise taxes in exchange for promised spending cuts?”
***
“The media will initially be all excited about the deal, but will turn almost instantly towards declaring it has no chance to pass, seizing on every criticism of the package or declaration of opposition as sure-fire signs the proposal is dead. The outcry against the package (both before and after the details are known) will be intense on both the left and the right. Interest groups from all quarters will denounce the measure as unacceptable. National security conservatives, for example, will declare that the Pentagon cuts will eviscerate America’s ability to defend itself; liberal groups will deem the entitlement reductions unacceptable. Thumbs down will also come from Paul Krugman, Rush Limbaugh, and every Republican running for president in 2012…
“As the House prepares to vote, the media will declare again that there is virtually no chance of passage. Strange-bedfellow allies, including prominent elements of Big Business and Big Labor – plus, inevitably, Bill Clinton – will make the ‘don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good’ argument in public and in private. As the measure’s details become more known, there will be another round of fly-specking from webizens of the left and the right, declaring the package the worst thing ever considered by Congress in American history. Obama will give some blockbuster speech explaining why the bill must pass. The measure will appear dead both before and immediately after his speech. Then a handful of liberal and conservative House members will come off the fence and declare themselves in favor (some might even flip from declared opposition)…
“And, then, the bill will heart-stoppingly pass the House, with some secret backroom deals and lobbying that will be revealed (if ever) only long after the fact. Reps. Bachmann and Pelosi will vote against. And then it will fully dawn on Boehner and McConnell at the White House signing ceremony (likely as Obama is handing them their souvenir pens) that they were part of history, including part of the part where Obama was able to take off the table the single most damaging issue that could be used against him in 2012.”
***
“Politicians have always postured in public and played poker in private, but as both sides dithered over the debt ceiling, even grizzled veterans grew disgusted. ‘My side’s just as guilty. I think we’re going to have a crisis because politics is going to trump the good of the country,’ says Republican Sen. Tom Coburn. ‘It doesn’t sound like there are any real adults any more, including in the White House.’”
How far will Republican lawmakers go to protect millionaires? Those who think a default on the federal government’s credit seems implausible should take a sobering look at the “closed” signs dotting Minnesota. The Republican Party there readily shut down the state’s government on Friday by refusing to raise taxes on the 7,700 Minnesotans who make more than $1 million a year.
Well, no.
The GOP refused to raise taxes. Period. Dayton chose to make it about “millionaires”, and before that “the rich”. Had Dayton chosen to raise, say, the gas tax (like the DFL majority in 2009 did), a terribly regressive tax that squats all over working-class prosperity, the GOP would have opposed that, as well.
For the Times to turn the GOP’s opposition to a tax into ”protecting millionaires” is a craven bit of rhetorical dishonesty.
Gov. Mark Dayton, a Democrat, campaigned for office last year promising to raise taxes on high earners, so it was no surprise when he proposed a tax increase on families making more than $150,000 a year to help close a $5 billion budget gap. In negotiations with the Republican majority in the Legislature, he compromised and reduced the increase to those making $1 million or more, but Republicans are refusing to consider any income tax increase.
Note the rhetoric: Dayton keeping a campaign promise? Good. The GOP? Can’t be good, can it?
Like Republicans in Washington, they have the delusion that they can balance the budget entirely from cuts.
The Times’ “editorial” was apparently written by the MNDFL’s chair, Ken Martin. The GOP budget is the biggest spending increase in Minnesota history.
The governor proposed more than $2 billion in cuts but refused to slash billions more from education, health care and public safety programs.
All of which the GOP compromised on, meeting Dayton much more than halfway.
The Legislature also wanted new abortion restrictions and a voter ID law that Mr. Dayton had already vetoed. When he said no, lawmakers allowed the fiscal year to end without a budget, and state government officially shut on July 1.
The Times apparently believes the GOP should “negotiate” like a Saturn dealer; start with their “final offer” and work backward from there.
Also unmentioned by “the Times” editorial writer: Dayton walked out of the negotiations every time. The GOP Legislature was waiting in the Capitol, ready to negotiate and/or pass a “lights on” bill, to keep govermment running
More than 40 state agencies have closed, including the state parks over the July Fourth holiday. Courts and public safety agencies are operating, but essential services for the poor, like food pantries and child care subsidies, have evaporated. Many parents say they may have to quit their jobs if state-subsidized child care does not resume quickly. The shutdown will cost the state money, since many of the 22,000 laid-off workers will receive unemployment benefits and health insurance, while the treasury is unable to collect on tax audits, lottery tickets and park fees.
Unmentioned by the Times (or any of the Twin Cities media); the evidence is overwhelming that Governor Dayton rigged the shutdown to cause as much pain as possible, specifically to drive those dependent on state employment or services to try to push moderate Republicans into wobbling.
As painful as the closure may become, the governor is right not to yield to the extremist ideology the Republicans are pursuing in St. Paul, Washington and across the country.
“Extremist ideology”.
The GOP ran very openly on a platform of holding the line on taxes and spending. Perhaps you remember the Tea Party – it was in all the papers, including the Times.
Extremist? Governor Dayton won with 43% of the vote; the GOP majorities had, by definition, over 50% of the state’s voters pick them (since the third-party challenges were virtually nonexistant in legislative races in 2010). Can a policy chosen by over half the voters be “extemist?”
Time’s Jay Newton-Small asks this question after former Speaker Nancy Pelosi asked a question that made her appear completely out of touch in the debt-ceiling debate. Despite losing the midterm elections on the issue of spending and deficits, Pelosi wondered aloud in a White House strategy meeting why debt-ceiling negotiations had to involve spending cuts at all, surprising everyone else in the room:
At Thursday’s White House meeting between President Obama and congressional leaders, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner laid out in stark terms the awful economic repercussions of allowing the debt ceiling to lapse. Everyone in the room agreed that defaulting on U.S. debt would be disastrous and that something must be done. At that point, Nancy Pelosi asked: Why couldn’t the debt ceiling be decoupled from deficit reduction?
Her query, after so many weeks of reports and talks centered on deficit reduction tied to a debt ceiling deal, visibly surprised some leaders in the room, several Republican and Democratic sources say. Obama politely informed the House Minority Leader, those same sources say, that that train had left the station weeks ago.
As the leader of a House caucus in a clear minority, Pelosi has already become largely irrelevant, especially after losing the midterms in such spectacular fashion. Now Newton-Small says that Barack Obama might make her even more obsolete by directly dealing with her lieutenant, Steny Hoyer, to get the moderate Democrats on board any deal:
But some Republican and Democratic sources point to Pelosi’s question in Thursday’s meeting as one that highlights how out of touch Pelosi has become on policy as she crisscrosses the country fundraising and recruiting candidates, working to regain the majority and her speakership. The President, these same sources suggested, could rely on House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer to deliver moderate Democrats to help pass the debt ceiling, thus circumventing Pelosi.”I think it’s clear she is not taken seriously by White House, Senate and Republican leadership,” said one Democratic member on the condition of anonymity. …
Boehner will likely need Democratic votes to get a debt ceiling increase passed, which is why Pelosi last week demanded a seat at the negotiating table. She has drawn a line – and made it clear to the President – that she would vehemently oppose cuts to entitlement benefits. Of all the participants in negotiations, Pelosi has the most to lose if Boehner and Obama pass a sweeping grand bargain. Such a move would burnish Boehner’s credentials as someone who can get things done, while shoring up his Tea Party support by cutting trillions of dollars from the budget. His success would undercut her argument that America would be better served with Democrats running the House.
True enough, although that train left the station long ago, too. Pelosi and the DCCC tried using a Republicans-are-Tea-Party-extremist-nutjobs campaign in 2010, and it didn’t exactly work out too well for them the first time. Republicans managed to craft a deal on the FY2011 budget within weeks while only controlling one chamber of Congress, something Pelosi couldn’t do all year with total Democratic control in Washington.
Still, I expect that this report from The Hill that provides some corroboration of Boehner’s increasing stature will make a lot of conservatives … nervous:
The relationship between Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and President Obama is building as they head into a critical meeting aimed at ending the impasse over raising the nation’s debt limit.
Since their high-profile golf outing last month, Boehner and Obama have held two private meetings to discuss a debt-limit remedy. Details of the meetings weren’t leaked to the media, and the White House has even refused to confirm they occurred.
After successfully navigating the first major legislative battle over a measure to fund the government through the remainder of the fiscal year, the two men have been “building” their relationship, according to a source close to Boehner.
“They are getting to know each other better, they’re talking more often,” the official told The Hill.
Shouldn’t this be good news? After all, Republicans only control the House. In order to get any of the GOP agenda enacted, it will have to get Obama’s signature, as well as passing the Senate. The House cannot dictate policy, after all, and Republicans need cooperation at some point to succeed in getting spending reductions and other major goals of the party in this session. In order to get that kind of cooperation, Boehner needs to build a relationship with the President, who is never irrelevant, as Democrats discovered in 2007-8 when they controlled both chambers of Congress.
Still, Boehner has never really enjoyed the full trust of conservatives, not even when he held the Republican House caucus in unity against the Obama agenda in the first two years. The perception will be that Boehner is likely to get rolled rather than accomplish the rolling himself. People will point to the resolution of the FY2011 budget and their dissatisfaction with the meager level of cuts, and not without some justification, but it’s also true that Boehner has led a sea change in the terms of the debate on Capitol Hill. The debate is no longer whether to cut, but how much and where.
I’m neither encouraged nor discouraged by this development; I’d call it expected. Boehner needs to get cooperation from the White House before he can accomplish anything, and he’s doing his job — and it’s the changed political environment that has Obama suddenly seeking a cross-aisle relationship. Pelosi’s downfall demonstrates how effective Boehner has become in avoiding marginalization himself. Indeed, Democrats seem more suspicious of this development than perhaps conservatives are:
Democrats, meanwhile, have been growing more frustrated with the president for not consulting them more.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), a respected member who rarely speaks out against the White House, warned the administration this week that it should not take Democratic votes for granted.
In an interview with The New York Times, Whitehouse said called it “a risky thing for the White House to basically take the bet that we can be presented with something at the last minute and we will go for it.”
Some Democrats are very worried that Obama will blink in his negotiations with the GOP. Some of them contend that Boehner got the best of Obama in the negotiations on tax cuts late last year and the fiscal 2011 budget showdown.
Well, he did, in large part because the terms of the debate changed among voters. The midterms delivered that unmistakable message, and Obama needs to respond to it in some credible manner. Democrats in the Senate ignore that reality at their peril, including Whitehouse, who has to stand for re-election in 2012. Rhode Island is usually a reliable Democratic stronghold, but even there voters may be tiring of the spendthrift federal government and those who continue to enable it.
It’s funny sometimes how the plastic, contrived world of national politics can mimic the real world. While it is surely of little interest to the readership at large, I have a friend who is a local musician. I don’t know if he’s ever going to be showing up on any top ten lists, but as a local blues / folk guy he’s pretty good. Last summer he had a show scheduled at a local bar which is fairly popular with the denizens of our area.
Unfortunately, the date coincided with an annual street festival in the city which features a major music event in the park with many talented groups. The bar wasn’t expecting much and went so far as to offer two for one drinks for ladies in a vain effort to draw in a crowd. My friend was resigned to playing to an empty room, but I said I’d drop by anyway in a show of moral support. (Even if I didn’t qualify for the free drinks.)
President Barack Obama still refuses to take any responsibility for delayed action on the budget, to acknowledge that, perhaps, he could have led differently (and more effectively) on this issue. This morning, when he gave his brief reaction to today’s dismal jobs report, he implied he has been doing everything possible to strengthen the economy and again deflected blame to Congress, calling on the House and Senate to take action “right now” to alleviate the economic hardship of millions of Americans.
On Friday, Governor Scott Walker signed a bill that made Wisconsin the 49th state to allow law-abiding citizens to carry firearms. Walker had tried to get the bill passed for years while a state legislator, but his Democratic predecessor, Jim Doyle, and Democrats in the legislature had stymied those efforts. This time the bill passed with bipartisan support and allows Wisconsin residents to get permits on a must-issue basis — meaning that the state cannot deny a permit application without justifiable cause, such as a felony record:
In one stroke, the legislation takes Wisconsin from being one of the final pair of remaining holdouts on concealed carry to having one of the more permissive bills in the country.
The proposal, which takes effect Nov. 1, joins other long-sought measures that Republicans passed this year, including requiring photo IDs from voters and making health savings accounts tax-exempt.
Signing the bill in Rothschild, near Wausau, Walker noted the length of the fight over the legislation, which he had once also supported as a lawmaker.
“By signing concealed carry into law today we are making Wisconsin safer for all responsible, law abiding citizens,” he said in a statement.
The measure includes provisions requiring training and permits, which were sought by both Walker and Democrats. Some Republicans unsuccessfully pushed “constitutional carry” bills that would have allowed people to carry concealed guns without permits.
Protesters shouted about the threat to public safety facing Wisconsin residents that has been seen in, er, how many carry states? Zero. In fact, most states see a decrease in crime after the enactment of such legislation, as Rep. Cliff Stearns noted in 2009:
Allowing law-abiding people to arm themselves offers more than piece of mind for those individuals — it pays off for everybody through lower crime rates. Statistics from the FBI’s Uniformed Crime Report of 2007 show that states with right-to-carry laws have a 30% lower homicide rate, 46% lower robbery, and 12% lower aggravated assault rate and a 22% lower overall violent crime rate than do states without such laws. That is why more and more states have passed right-to-carry laws over the past decade.
In 1987, my home state of Florida enacted a “shall issue” law that has become the model for other states. Anti-gun groups, politicians and the news media predicted the new law would lead to vigilante justice and “Wild West” shootouts on every corner.
But since adopting a concealed carry law Florida’s total violent crime rate has dropped 32% and its homicide rate has dropped 58%. Floridians, except for criminals, are safer due to this law. And Florida is not alone. Texas’ violent crime rate has dropped 20% and homicide rate has dropped 31%, since enactment of its 1996 carry law.
Another study makes the moral case for expanding and enhancing right-to-carry laws. A report by John Lott, Jr. and David Mustard of the University of Chicago released in 1996 found “that allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent crimes and it appears to produce no increase in accidental deaths.” Further, the Lott-Mustard study noted, “If those states which did not have right-to-carry concealed gun provisions had adopted them in 1992, approximately 1,570 murders; 4,177 rapes; and over 60,000 aggravate assaults would have been avoided yearly.”
Think about it. Nearly 8,000 of our fellow citizens have died between 1992 and 1996 because of the irrational fear that law-abiding Americans would abuse their right to self defense. In fact concealed carry permit holders are more law-abiding than the rest of the public. For example, Florida, which has issued more carry permits than any state has issued 1.36 million permits, but revoked only 165 (0.01%) due to gun crimes by permit-holders.
John Lott wrote about the dynamics of self-defense in his seminal book, More Guns Less Crime, which is in its third edition (and is available on Kindle now, too). Here in Minnesota, opponents also warned about the return of the Wild Wild West and blood flowing in the streets, and the scare tactics turned out to be entirely false. That’s because going through the training process provides a sobering douse of cold water on gun owners about the realities of using a firearm for self-defense. My late friend Joel Rosenberg’s excellent book on the subject Everything You Need to Know About (Legally) Carrying a Gun in Minnesota and his most recent effort The Carry Book gave an entertainingly dire warning to those who thought that a carry permit was the same thing as a Junior Deputy badge.
Law-abiding citizens who seek out and receive the necessary training to get the permit know exactly the stakes involved, which is why (besides the fact that they were law-abiding in the first place) these states don’t see increases in crime rates, especially in relation to permit holders. But having law-abiding citizens carry firearms may be why criminals suddenly take less interest in victimizing them, which may well be the reason for the drops in crime seen after adoption of carry-permit laws.
We’ll be celebrating Joel’s life and work at the MOB Day at the Range this Thursday evening, as well as raising funds for his family. Looks like we can also celebrate the fact that our neighbors to the east have won the right to protect themselves, too.
Via Mediaite, a screechy follow-up on “Caylee’s Law,” which I touched on in yesterday’s post about the deep, deep thoughts of the Anthony jury. This could have been an interesting segment: See, for example, this survey in Salon of laws passed in response to specific crimes and how they’ve fared in practice. How often will police and prosecutors need Caylee’s Law? Will it do more harm than good by exposing the innocent to unfair charges? Shouldn’t there be a cooling-off period of reflection before writing legislation in response to an infuriating event? (“Yes!” say Patriot Act opponents.) Good questions all, but we never get to them because Shep’s too busy trying to parse whether Caylee Anthony was ever really “missing” when she was almost certainly dead from the start and mommy dearest knew it. Except … mommy dearest insisted that she didn’t know it and she got 12 people to kinda sorta believe her on that. From the jury’s perspective, Casey did think Caylee was genuinely missing and just didn’t care enough to report it. That’s what the law’s designed to address. Would have come in handy once all the other charges fell apart, no?
Maybe all Shep’s saying is that it’s unlikely the law will deter anyone. Any innocent parent will report their kid missing the instant they know about it whereas any guilty parent who’s responsible for their kid’s disappearance either won’t report it, notwithstanding Caylee’s Law, or will report it only after they think the incriminating evidence is gone. Fair enough, but deterrence isn’t the point. The point is to give prosecutors a fallback charge in cases like Anthony’s where there’s good reason to believe that a parent’s killed or abducted their kid but not enough evidence to convict them of one of those more serious crimes. How often that unusual set of circumstances obtains, I don’t know, but unless you think we’re in for a wave of future child killers refusing to call the police because they saw how that strategy worked for Casey, the effect will likely be negligible.
Oh — since we’re on the subject, you’ll be pleased to know that the first million-dollar interview offer has been withdrawn by “The Jerry Springer Show” after an immediate backlash. That’s how toxic she is. Too toxic for … Jerry Springer.
