Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[johnu]

re: cheating at golf -- I played a lot of golf over the years with my dad who was a very competitive golfer. He got into and out of a lot of tough spots over the years and never doubted that he could thread a 4-iron through a 3 foot opening between two trees. No guts, no glory was one of his favorite sayings. I remember playing with him at Army Navy in Arlington and seeing then President Clinton slice a drive into the trees on an adjacent hole and then kicking it out into the rough. We both just shook our heads. You can learn a lot about people on the golf course.

 

Have you seen Welcome to Mooseport with Gene Hackman and Ray Romano. A couple of funny scenes where the (ex) President (Hackman) hits his drive deep into the woods and the ball bounces back into the fairway about 5 seconds later, courtesy of the Secret Service detail. He also took lots of mulligans, and gave himself 10-20 foot putts. Hackman, like Dennison, was delusional in thinking he was actually an excellent golfer.

 

The thing about Clinton is that he never claimed to be a great, or even good golfer and didn't brag about how good he was. Unlike Dennison who claims to be a many times club champion at many different clubs. At most of the better clubs, the club champion is one of the better amateurs in the local area, maybe as good as a former Division 1 college golf team member. Dennison would probably be a 3rd or 4th flight participant if he counted all his strokes. In practice, he would be disqualified from any tournament he played in because he cheats, unless he was playing at one of the courses he controls.

[johnu]

Dennison and Republicans care a lot about fetuses, not so much about babies

 

After hundreds of crashes, this Britax jogging stroller faced recall. Then Trump appointees stepped in.

 

The crashes were brutal. With no warning, the front wheel on the three-wheeled BOB jogging strollers fell off, causing the carriages to careen and even flip over. Adults shattered bones. They tore ligaments. Children smashed their teeth. They gashed their faces. One child bled from his ear canal.

Ann Marie Buerkle, a Republican, was named acting chairwoman in February 2017. Trump has nominated her to take on the role permanently.

 

Buerkle, who has served on the commission since 2013, was the only commissioner to oppose proposed portable generator rules aimed at reducing carbon monoxide poisoning in 2016. She was again the lone vote that year against a then-record $15.45 million penalty for a company accused of making humidifiers prone to catching fire.

 

Buerkle declined to be interviewed by The Post.

 

In Buerkle’s first two years as chairwoman, the number of companies fined for misconduct declined to five in 2017-2018 from 12 in 2015-2016. Public voluntary recalls fell about 13 percent during the same period, resulting in approximately 80 fewer recalls, according to agency data. Last year, the number of public recalls fell to its lowest level in a decade, consumer advocates say.

Two months later, just two days before Thanksgiving, Britax and the agency announced an end to the recall lawsuit with a settlement, which required the company to run a public safety campaign and offer replacement parts or discounts on new strollers to some users in what was clearly not a traditional safety recall. The commission voted 3 to 2 along party lines to accept it.

 

Don't depend on the federal government to protect you from unsafe products, or consumer fraud. There is profit to be made and payoffs to be doled out.

[johnu]

Trump taunts Biden amid misconduct allegations: 'You having a good time, Joe?'

 

We've seen this hundreds of times. When Dennison attacks others, it a clear signal that he is acknowledging that he is guilty of the same or worse behavior. By trying to deflect attention away from himself, he is actually confirming everybody's worst suspicions. If he took up high stakes poker, his surefire tell would make him lose so much money that he would be living on skid row in a week.

[y66]

Have you seen Welcome to Mooseport with Gene Hackman and Ray Romano. A couple of funny scenes where the (ex) President (Hackman) hits his drive deep into the woods and the ball bounces back into the fairway about 5 seconds later, courtesy of the Secret Service detail. He also took lots of mulligans, and gave himself 10-20 foot putts. Hackman, like Dennison, was delusional in thinking he was actually an excellent golfer.

 

The thing about Clinton is that he never claimed to be a great, or even good golfer and didn't brag about how good he was. Unlike Dennison who claims to be a many times club champion at many different clubs. At most of the better clubs, the club champion is one of the better amateurs in the local area, maybe as good as a former Division 1 college golf team member. Dennison would probably be a 3rd or 4th flight participant if he counted all his strokes. In practice, he would be disqualified from any tournament he played in because he cheats, unless he was playing at one of the courses he controls.

I'm a Gene Hackman fan but I haven't seen Welcome to Mooseport. Trump's cheating and bragging dwarf Judge Smails in Caddyshack and are several orders of magnitude more pathetic than Clinton's mulligans.

[y66]

From How Rupert Murdoch's Empire Of Influence Remade the World by Jonathan Mahler and Jim Rutenberg at NYT:

 

The right-wing populist wave that looked like a fleeting cultural phenomenon a few years ago has turned into the defining political movement of the times, disrupting the world order of the last half-century. The Murdoch empire did not cause this wave. But more than any single media company, it enabled it, promoted it and profited from it. Across the English-speaking world, the family’s outlets have helped elevate marginal demagogues, mainstream ethnonationalism and politicize the very notion of truth. The results have been striking. It may not have been the family’s mission to destabilize democracies around the world, but that has been its most consequential legacy.

 

Over the last six months, we have spoken to more than 150 people across three continents about the Murdochs and their empire — some who know the family intimately, some who have helped them achieve their aims, some who have fought against them with varying degrees of success. (Most of these people insisted on anonymity to share intimate details about the family and its business so as not to risk retribution.) The media tend to pay a lot of attention to the media: Fox News is covered almost as closely as the White House and often in the same story. The Murdochs themselves are an enduring object of cultural fascination: “Ink,” a play about Rupert’s rise, is opening soon on Broadway. The second season of HBO’s “Succession,” whose fictional media family, the Roys, bears a striking resemblance to the Murdochs, airs this summer. But what we as reporters had not fully appreciated until now is the extent to which these two stories — one of an illiberal, right-wing reaction sweeping the globe, the other of a dynastic media family — are really one. To see Fox News as an arm of the Trump White House risks missing the larger picture. It may be more accurate to say that the White House — just like the prime ministers’ offices in Britain and Australia — is just one tool among many that this family uses to exert influence over world events.

 

What do the Murdochs want? Family dynamics are complex, too, and media dynasties are animated by different factors — workaday business imperatives, the desire to pass on wealth, an old-fashioned sense of civic duty. But the Murdochs’ global operations suggest a different dynastic orientation, one centered on empire building in the original sense of the term: territorial conquest. Murdoch began with a small regional paper in Australia, inherited from his father. He quickly expanded the business into a national and then an international force, in part by ruthlessly using his platform to help elect his preferred candidates and then ruthlessly using those candidates to help extend his reach. Murdoch’s news empire is a monument to decades’ worth of transactional relationships with elected officials. Murdoch has said that he “never asked a prime minister for anything.” But press barons don’t have to ask when their media outlets can broadcast their desires. Politicians know what Murdoch wants, and they know what he can deliver: the base, their voters — power.

 

The Murdoch approach to empire building has reached its apotheosis in the Trump era. Murdoch had long dreamed of having a close relationship with an American president. On the surface, he and Trump have very little in common: One is a global citizen with homes around the world, a voracious reader with at least some sense of self-awareness. (Murdoch was photographed last year on the beach reading “Utopia for Realists,” by Rutger Bregman, the Dutch historian who later told Tucker Carlson in an interview that Carlson was a “millionaire funded by billionaires.”) The other is a proudly crass American who vacations at his own country clubs, dines on fast food and watches a lot of TV. But they are each a son of an aspiring empire builder, and their respective dynasties shared the same core value — growth through territorial conquest — and employed the same methods to achieve it, leveraging political relationships to gain power and influence. In Trump’s case, these relationships helped him secure zoning exemptions, tax abatements and global licensing deals; in Murdoch’s case, they allowed him to influence and evade antimonopoly and foreign-ownership rules.

 

Murdoch has carefully built an image during his six decades in media as a pragmatist who will support liberal governments when it suits him. Yet his various news outlets have inexorably pushed the flow of history to the right across the Anglosphere, whether they were advocating for the United States and its allies to go to war in Iraq in 2003, undermining global efforts to combat climate change or vilifying people of color at home or from abroad as dangerous threats to a white majority.

[barmar]

I don't know if I can clearly explain how offensive I find this.I imagine myself as one of the invited felons. Of course I am glad that I have not been forgotten and maybe I can have a future outside of prison. But I am also sure I would realize that I am being used as a political prop. I find this repulsive.

Isn't that true of most non-politicians invited to the WH? Is there any government purpose to hosting the winners of a big sports event? When signing a major bill, it's quite common to surround POTUS with people related to the issue.

 

These kinds things are always just for show.

[kenberg]

Isn't that true of most non-politicians invited to the WH? Is there any government purpose to hosting the winners of a big sports event? When signing a major bill, it's quite common to surround POTUS with people related to the issue.

 

These kinds things are always just for show.

 

I have thought a little since I posted it. The post was impulsive after an immediate reaction. If some person or some group has accomplished something, I am fine with a WH awards ceremony. It might be an act of bravery, it might be musical achievement, or scientific achievement, it might be any of a lot of things. The president may get some rub-off from this, but clearly the person being admired is the awardee. This dinner for felons is different. There is no mistaking the intent. "I, your president, am doing a great thing and I have brought these people here to show you what a great thing it is that I am actually doing". Yuk and double yuk.I have never much liked being singled out, even if it is for favorable attention, but if I were, say, a low level drug dealer and the president brought me to the WH so he could show what a great guy he is for helping low level drug dealers I can imagine spitting on the rug. At least.

[Winstonm]

I have thought a little since I posted it. The post was impulsive after an immediate reaction. If some person or some group has .... if I were, say, a low level drug dealer and the president brought me to the WH so he could show what a great guy he is for helping low level drug dealers I can imagine spitting on the rug. At least.

 

Better yet, apply for a cabinet position.

[johnu]

NYT reported this today

 

I don't know if I can clearly explain how offensive I find this.I imagine myself as one of the invited felons. Of course I am glad that I have not been forgotten and maybe I can have a future outside of prison. But I am also sure I would realize that I am being used as a political prop. I find this repulsive.

 

Of course, there was this high profile prop

 

Rashida Tlaib berates Mark Meadows for using black woman as ‘a prop’ at hearing

 

During the long-anticipated House Oversight Committee hearing with Michael Cohen, the former personal lawyer to Trump accused the president of making racist comments about African Americans. In turn, Meadows asked Housing and Urban Development staffer Lynne Patton, who is black, to silently stand before the committee to disprove that Trump is racist.

 

 

According to Meadows (R-N.C.), Patton had said there was "no way that she would work for an individual who was racist."

 

LOL, tell that to Omarosa Manigault Newman :lol:

[johnu]

Is Dennison letting foreign spies steal classified and top secret information?

 

Why Mar-a-Lago is vulnerable to foreign espionage, according to ex-spies

 

I don't think this includes Russian spies who just ask Putin to get the information from Dennison firsthand.

 

I don't know why China is working so hard to infiltrate Dennison's operation. If they offered to build the world's most expensive, tallest and largest hotel in the world. I'm sure Dennison would make sure they got value for their investment.

[hrothgar]

 

If you want to claim that Barr is misleading the public with his summation, go ahead. Barr impresses me as a very straight shooter who wouldn't tarnish his already illustrious reputation by trying to hoodwink the public about what Mueller came up with when that information will eventually become public.

 

Front page of the NYT

 

Some of Robert S. Mueller III’s investigators have told associates that Attorney General William P. Barr failed to adequately portray the findings of their inquiry and that they were more troubling for President Trump than Mr. Barr indicated, according to government officials and others familiar with their simmering frustrations.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/03/us/politics/mueller-findings-barr.html

[johnu]

Some on Mueller’s Team See Their Findings as More Damaging for Trump Than Barr Revealed

 

Some of Robert S. Mueller III’s investigators have told associates that Attorney General William P. Barr failed to adequately portray the findings of their inquiry and that they were more troubling for President Trump than Mr. Barr indicated, according to government officials and others familiar with their simmering frustrations.

 

Hmmm, political hack Barr, who got his job by writing an uninformed and unsolicited 19 page memo ripping the Mueller probe, and then basically refused to answer any pertinent questions during his confirmation hearings, deliberately wrote a misleading letter summarizing the Mueller summary? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

 

I have to tell everybody in this forum that I am shocked to hear this B-)

[johnu]

More questions about the mental health of Dennison

 

Tim Apple. Oranges. German Dad. Mental Health Experts Warn That Trump Is Losing It.

 

“The ‘Tim Apple’ episode a few weeks ago, his calling Venezuela a company, and then yesterday, confusing his grandfather’s birthplace with his father’s, mispronouncing ‘oranges’ for ‘origins,’ and stating out of the blue, ‘I’m very normal,’” recited Bandy Lee, a professor of psychiatry at Yale University who has been waving red flags about Trump’s mental state for years. “There is no question he needs an examination.”

 

“I think he’s suffering from pre-dementia. And it’s only getting worse,” said John Gartner, a clinical psychologist with practices in New York City and Baltimore.

 

Problems with apples, oranges, etc. A lot of people think Dennison is bananas.

[barmar]

I have thought a little since I posted it. The post was impulsive after an immediate reaction. If some person or some group has accomplished something, I am fine with a WH awards ceremony. It might be an act of bravery, it might be musical achievement, or scientific achievement, it might be any of a lot of things. The president may get some rub-off from this, but clearly the person being admired is the awardee. This dinner for felons is different. There is no mistaking the intent. "I, your president, am doing a great thing and I have brought these people here to show you what a great thing it is that I am actually doing". Yuk and double yuk.I have never much liked being singled out, even if it is for favorable attention, but if I were, say, a low level drug dealer and the president brought me to the WH so he could show what a great guy he is for helping low level drug dealers I can imagine spitting on the rug. At least.

You're right, it was unfair to lump together honoring accomplished people with showing off beneficiaries of legislation. But both are common political tactics. People react most to visible actions, Jerry Lewis's telethons wouldn't have raised nearly as much money if he didn't put the afflicted children on the screen. And talking about rehabilitating felons is not as effective as showing off the felons who will benefit.

[awm]

It’s often bothered me the way politicians do this dog and pony show where they talk about individual people and then have a few beneficiaries of whatever program in th audience. Certainly I feel like statistics would be more convincing — pass gun laws because thousands of children die from guns every year in the US, not because Bob and Mary Smith lost their son to a shooter in Bumbleville Oregon...

 

But both parties do this, and apparently it works to “personalize” the issues for voters who are perhaps less mathematically inclined. I’ve mostly learned to ignore it.

[johnu]

Tough guy Dennison fights with another dead person:

 

'Look what I did to her sons.' Trump fires back at Barbara Bush remarks in new biography

 

“I have heard that she was nasty to me, but she should be," the president told The Washington Times in an interview published on Thursday. "Look what I did to her sons.”

 

There was no reply from Barbara Bush :rolleyes:

 

No wonder Republicans are so proud of their Manchurian Puppet.

[johnu]

O'Rourke compares Trump's immigrant rhetoric to Third Reich

 

At a town hall in Iowa on Thursday, O'Rourke called out "the rhetoric of a president who not only describes immigrants as rapists and criminals but as animals and an infestation," in response to a question on how he would address attacks from Republicans.

 

The former congressman from Texas says, "Now, I might expect someone to describe another human being as an infestation in the Third Reich. I would not expect that in the United States of America."

 

It has not been confirmed that the American Nazi Party has disavowed Dennison for his over the top hate speech. B-)

[Winstonm]

Tough guy Dennison fights with another dead person:

 

'Look what I did to her sons.' Trump fires back at Barbara Bush remarks in new biography

 

 

Sounds like a song:

 

Look what I've done to your sons, Ma

Look what I've done to your sons, Ma

If you'd had moons, instead of sons,

it wouldn't have been so wrong, Ma

Look what I've done to your sons

[Winstonm]

Individual-1 is threatening that in a year, to fight drug smuggling, he will place tariffs on Mexican automobiles. That is a shame, as I really had my heart set on a 2020 Avacado from Mexico.

[y66]

Bad news from the cheese head state and David Leonhardt at NYT:

 

Democrats received doubly bad news in a Wisconsin Supreme Court election this week.

 

Brian Hagedorn, a conservative judge who also worked for former Gov. Scott Walker, seems to have beaten the liberal candidate, Lisa Neubauer. The margin — 0.5 percentage points, or about 6,000 votes — is narrow enough that Neubauer is requesting a recount. But a 6,000-vote lead rarely disappears in a recount.

 

The first problem for Democrats is what Hagedorn’s win will mean for the Wisconsin Supreme Court. He will have flipped a seat previously held by a liberal, giving conservatives a five-to-two majority. Only one seat is up for election next year. (Judicial elections are officially nonpartisan in Wisconsin, but effectively become left-vs.-right races.)

 

So even if conservatives lose a seat next year, they will keep their majority for the redistricting process after the 2020 census. That process draws boundaries for both congressional and state-legislature districts, which means it will play a big role in shaping future Wisconsin politics.

 

Hagedorn’s apparent win, as the Daily Kos Elections newsletter explains, “almost certainly means the Wisconsin Supreme Court won’t act as a check on the extreme gerrymanders that Republicans have perpetrated for years.” (My colleague Emily Bazelon wrote about the ridiculousness of Wisconsin gerrymandering in a 2017 Times Magazine piece.)

 

The second bit of bad news for Democrats was the outcome’s political signal.

 

Wisconsin Supreme Court races are statewide, and Hagedorn’s win suggests that Wisconsin remains up for grabs heading into President Trump’s re-election campaign. Republican voters now seem quite energized, and turnout was high in conservative areas, like Waukesha County, just west of Milwaukee. “The GOP’s win in Wisconsin Supreme Court race showed a base that’s waking up,” Reid Wilson of The Hill noted.

 

Conservative writers were celebrating the victory.

 

In The Washington Post, Henry Olsen wrote: “Simply put, if Trump wins Wisconsin, he is almost certain to win re-election. That’s because a win for Trump in Wisconsin would likely mean victories for him in swing states that he carried that are more Republican than Wisconsin — such as Florida, Ohio, North Carolina and Iowa.”

 

The Wall Street Journal editorial board wrote: “The left’s un­expected de­feat in the high-stakes and rel­a­tively high-turnout elec­tion is a no­table turn from the last two years in the bellwether state … Perhaps the emerging radicalism on the left is causing voters to think twice about returning them to power.”

 

There are still reasons to consider Trump an underdog in Wisconsin next year. His approval rating there is only slightly above 40 percent, according to Morning Consult. And as Craig Gilbert of The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel noted, turnout in Milwaukee, which is strongly Democratic, often slips in off-year elections like this one.

 

But Democrats would be mistaken to dismiss the Wisconsin result. Their big wins in last year’s midterms were foreshadowed by wins in state and local races in 2017 and early 2018, and there weren’t many downside surprises like Hagedorn’s victory.

 

It’s a reminder, says Amy Walter of The Cook Political Report, that Wisconsin is the “top battleground state in 2020.”

[Winstonm]

We will now get to see with whom lies the interests of Individual-1, the U.S. or others.

 

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates – Saudi Arabia detained eight people, including two dual U.S.-Saudi citizens, in a new round of arrests in the kingdom targeting individuals supportive of women’s rights and those with ties to jailed activists, a person with knowledge of the apprehensions said Friday.

[Winstonm]

A reality check about the "great economy" of Individual-1.

 

“Forty percent of American workers earn less than $15 an hour, and about 5% of full-time American workers earn the minimum wage or less, which is certainly not a living wage,” Dimon wrote. “In addition, 40% of Americans don’t have $400 to deal with unexpected expenses, such as medical bills or car repairs.“

[johnu]

We will now get to see with whom lies the interests of Individual-1, the U.S. or others.

 

Clearly a rhetorical question. Dennison's interests follow the money. Wherever the Manchurian Puppet President thinks he can get the most money is where his interest lies on any particular topic.

 

President Trump has a massive conflict of interest on Saudi Arabia

[y66]

From Elizabeth Warren’s ambitious plan to fight the opioid epidemic, explained by German Lopez at Vox:

 

Elizabeth Warren is widely known for her public battles with big banks and Wall Street. She’s gotten attention for her wealth tax proposal. She’s praised, even by some conservatives, for her book The Two-Income Trap.

 

One part of the 2020 presidential hopeful’s record doesn’t get as much attention: her efforts to fight America’s opioid crisis.

 

As a US senator for Massachusetts, Warren has built a formidable record on the opioid crisis, which now kills more Americans than gun violence or car crashes. She’s called for more research into alternative painkillers, including medical marijuana. She’s tried to hold President Donald Trump’s administration accountable for its weak response, even pushing a government watchdog agency to investigate the administration.

 

And Warren, along with Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD), in 2018 introduced what experts regularly cite as the best bill in Congress on the issue: the Comprehensive Addiction Resources Emergency (CARE) Act. The bill would authorize $100 billion over 10 years to combat drug addiction, funneling money to cities, counties, and states — particularly those hardest hit by drug overdoses — and other organizations to boost spending on addiction treatment, harm reduction services, and prevention programs.

 

“Our communities are on the front lines of the epidemic, and they’re working hard to fight back,” Warren told me in an interview. “But they can’t do it alone. They can’t keep nibbling around the edges.”

 

Warren is now running for president, and her record could set her apart on one of America’s worst public health crises. In 2017, there were a record 70,000 drug overdose deaths, about two-thirds of which were linked to opioids. The number of overdose deaths was so high that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention linked it to a rare drop in US life expectancy that year. Preliminary data suggests 2018 was about the same, or perhaps a bit worse, nationwide.

 

There’s wide agreement, among activists and drug policy experts, that much more action is needed to reverse the opioid crisis. Congress has changed some regulations and rules to open up access to treatment, and it’s allocated some funds here and there, in the single-digit billions, to the crisis. But advocates and experts argue something far more comprehensive — tens of billions of dollars over the next few years — is needed. Republicans, however, have resisted such calls, voicing skepticism of running up government spending (outside tax cuts for the wealthy).

 

Yet so far, no presidential candidate but Warren has put forward a concrete plan to confront the opioid epidemic. Her Massachusetts Senate seat has likely influenced her actions: Like the rest of New England, Massachusetts has seen a disproportionate number of overdose deaths. Its rate of drug overdose deaths was 31.8 per 100,000 people in 2017, far above the national average of 21.7.

 

The CARE Act makes the kind of commitment that advocates and experts have called for. As I’ve traveled around North America and talked to people on the ground about the opioid epidemic, experts and activists have, without even being asked about federal legislation, pointed to the CARE Act as an example of a serious attempt to tackle the crisis.

 

The bill “is the only one that really grasps the nettle of how big the problem is,” Keith Humphreys, a drug policy expert at Stanford University, told me. “Whatever else people might say about it, this is the first thing that really recognizes that [the opioid crisis] is a massive public health problem, like AIDS, and is not going to be solved by a tweak here, a tweak there.”

 

This comparison to the HIV/AIDS epidemic is one that experts and activists — and Warren — frequently use, because it’s an example both of the death toll of government indifference and of the power of Congress to actually make change. (Relatedly, drug overdoses now kill more people in the US each year than HIV/AIDS did at its peak.)

[johnu]

Dennison and Republicans care a lot about fetuses, not so much about babies

 

After hundreds of crashes, this Britax jogging stroller faced recall. Then Trump appointees stepped in.

 

The crashes were brutal. With no warning, the front wheel on the three-wheeled BOB jogging strollers fell off, causing the carriages to careen and even flip over. Adults shattered bones. They tore ligaments. Children smashed their teeth. They gashed their faces. One child bled from his ear canal.

Ann Marie Buerkle, a Republican, was named acting chairwoman in February 2017. Trump has nominated her to take on the role permanently.

 

Buerkle, who has served on the commission since 2013, was the only commissioner to oppose proposed portable generator rules aimed at reducing carbon monoxide poisoning in 2016. She was again the lone vote that year against a then-record $15.45 million penalty for a company accused of making humidifiers prone to catching fire.

 

Buerkle declined to be interviewed by The Post.

 

In Buerkle’s first two years as chairwoman, the number of companies fined for misconduct declined to five in 2017-2018 from 12 in 2015-2016. Public voluntary recalls fell about 13 percent during the same period, resulting in approximately 80 fewer recalls, according to agency data. Last year, the number of public recalls fell to its lowest level in a decade, consumer advocates say.

Two months later, just two days before Thanksgiving, Britax and the agency announced an end to the recall lawsuit with a settlement, which required the company to run a public safety campaign and offer replacement parts or discounts on new strollers to some users in what was clearly not a traditional safety recall. The commission voted 3 to 2 along party lines to accept it.

 

Don't depend on the federal government to protect you from unsafe products, or consumer fraud. There is profit to be made and payoffs to be doled out.

 

U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission is certainly on the job.

 

Fisher-Price Issues Warning After 10 Babies Die In Rock ‘N Play Sleeper

 

The most recent death linked to the Rock ’n Play occurred last month, CPSC spokeswoman Patty Davis told CNN. The commission has not issued a recall.

 

“If it turns out that it needs to be recalled, we will move forward with that,” Davis told the cable news channel.

No recall??? :rolleyes: Why not?

 

Fisher-Price defended the Rock ’n Play as a safe product in a statement to its customers shared Friday night.

 

“Generations of parents have trusted us for almost 90 years to provide safe products for their children,” the company said in a tweet. “In keeping with that trust, the Rock ’n Play Sleeper meets all applicable safety standards.”

Parent should feel very safe in using a product that meets safety standards.