Last week at the Democratic Party State Convention in Syracuse, New York, Governor Kathy Hochul accepted her party's nomination to run for reelection this year, and she chose former New York City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams as her running mate. On Sunday, Hochul appeared on MS NOW's Politics Nation, where she and Host, Reverend Al Sharpton, celebrated Adam's selection, never mentioning the controversy surrounding the pick, while also attempting to portray Hochul as a moderate. Sharpton began the segment by admitting that he has a personal connection to Adams. "I want to start with your reelection race and your pick for Lieutenant Governor, former New York City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams, who I'm proud to say is a member of National Action Network." Sharpton is the Founder of NAN.  HOCHUL ..I picked the most experienced person I could find who had an in-depth knowledge of New York City like no others. And it's a hard job to be the Speaker of the City Council, with many diverse voices and competing interests. So my job is to make sure there's a Lieutenant Governor who understands the power of government to lift people up, understands how we can continue to promote our agenda, and also knows how to fight back against Donald Trump, which does seem to be an all day long exercise. Not what we asked for, but we have to stand up for New Yorkers. So she's going to be terrific. I've seen her in action for years. We've been friends a long time, and so this is going to be great for New York. Maybe not. What both the Governor and Sharpton failed to mention was what some of the reaction has been to the selection of Adams. As noted in the link to the New York Post story above, "But some Democrats immediately revolted against the Adams pick, with the Brooklyn Democratic Party saying it would rescind its endorsement of Hochul over the choice." How did that one get past Reverend Al? Or this line: "But some, including powerful city Dems and Jewish pols and activists, disapproved of the choice."  Why? This New York Post op-ed from early 2025, when it was rumored that Adams would run for Mayor, describes her this way: "Speaker Adams as a Mayoral contender would compete for the title of candidate most in thrall to the antisemitic far left. As Speaker, she has shown her willingness to use her office to condemn Jews — and her unwillingness to safeguard them." The Post piece went on to report, "As speaker, Adams backed controversial measures to ban solitary confinement at Rikers Island jail complex and to require NYPD cops to report on all low-level stops that critics said would drown officers in paperwork...She also pushed for a housing voucher program to be implemented that has helped contribute to the city’s $12 billion budget gap.." No big deal I guess, since none of this was mentioned.  Sharpton then turned to Hochul's politics, calling her "a self-described moderate." A most generous self-description, especially since she had ripped President Trump earlier. So nice of Sharpton to repeat it. Hochul gave a brief summary of her political history, and claimed, "I have to represent everybody. And so I, I'm not going to be defined by a label... And I'm going to make sure that we have, a city and a state that can thrive and help our families. And as I've said, your family is my fight. That's personal, as the first mom Governor and actually the first grandma Governor. So I don't think it matters what we call each other. All I know is coming out of the convention, people have said they've never seen our state party more unified." Of course Sharpton didn't challenge that claim. Hochul probably could have said almost anything, and Sharpton would have proceeded to the next question. It's liberal media protocol.

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell loves singer Bad Bunny, the league declared on social media Sunday following the notorious Latino singer’s divisive halftime performance in Spanish disenfranchising English-speaking fans during Sunday's Super Bowl. “Commish [heart emoji] Benito,” the NFL captioned a video it posted on X.com of Goodell and Benito Bad Bunny hugging and smiling. While Bad Bunny is known for kissing other men, the two stopped at hugs during their on-camera embrace on Sunday. Likewise, Bad Bunny is also infamous for wearing women’s clothes, such as dresses and skirts. It had been rumored that he would do so again on Sunday, but both he and Goodell restrained themselves from flouting sartorial convention on-camera at the Super Bowl that night. Bad Bunny has become a polarizing entertainer due to his anti-federal law enforcement and anti-American culture sentiments, as well as for his explicit, controversial lyrics. The choice of Bad Bunny is just the latest chapter in the NFL's ongoing descent into promotion of radical leftist ideology, at the expense of providing nonpartisan entertainment - and that hasn't been popular with its traditional fan base. Turning Point USA streamed an alternative halftime show headlined by singer Kid Rock, which a TMZ poll found was about twice as popular with viewers as Bad Bunny's performance. On social media, the NFL’s Bad Bunny offering is being deemed the league’s Bud Light, referring to how the beer label lost sales due to backlash over an ad touting transgender social media biological male Dylan Mulvaney. Commish

NPR critic-at-large Eric Deggans evaluated Super Bowl commercials before the game, and updated his picks for NPR’s Morning Edition on Monday after the Super Bowl itself, predictably taking a few potshots from the left, including sniping about two ad buys from the Trump Administration. Deggans did launch the cavalcade of ads with an arguably conservative-leaning or at least religious-leaning tone of one ad, the “pro-Jesus advertising campaign He Gets Us,” which he used to highlight why companies would spend so massively on Super Bowl ads, before the left-leaning critiques.   Few commercials tackled social issues. And when they did, the messaging was subtle, friendly and welcoming – even when used to promote initiatives from the government that might not be clear if you did not know the issues. More on that later. He found a racial issue in a benign ad from a mortgage company with the tag “America Needs Neighbors Like You.” Best covert pushback on political divisions: Redfin x Rocket Mortgage's "America Needs Neighbors Like You" Sure, some knuckleheads online are complaining about how Lady Gaga recorded a new version of the theme from Mister Rogers' Neighborhood, "Won't You Be My Neighbor," for this ad. But the visuals here – where a kid with brown skin helps find a little white girl's missing dog and the dog finder's father helps an old white dude remove a downed tree branch after a storm – seem to send a message of unity at a time when that's in short supply offscreen. (We'll overlook the subtext; that these neighbors may be considered good because they're helping the white people). The tagline, "America could use a neighbor just like you," is a message of inclusion that also feels right on time. On to Round 2, casting aspersions on the administration's revised dietary guidelines: Slyest packaging of a controversial government policy: the MAHA Center's Mike Tyson ad Featuring the former heavyweight champion in a tight, black and white closeup talking about the perils of obesity while eating an apple, this ad gives little clue that it's promoting Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) initiative, beyond urging viewers to visit its website, realfood.gov. Of course, the new dietary guidelines recommended by Kennedy have been criticized by some experts, but that's not obvious from the footage of Iron Mike eating an apple. Deggans linked to a PBS News transcript featuring guest host William Brangham summarizing those supposedly controversial new guidelines: “That's significantly more protein and dairy, numerous servings of fruits and vegetables and other healthy fats, all of that at the top, and fewer whole grains down at the bottom.” Next up, a “suspicious”-sounding Trump policy: Slyest packaging of a government policy, Part 2: Invest America, "Dear America, We Can Change Their Future" This ad, which aired a bit before the game's kickoff, featured a succession of cute kids across a range of ethnicities and ages, touting "free money" available to "every American child" to fund everything from future college dreams to a couple of trampolines. What the ad doesn't detail is that the kids are referring to legislation signed last year by President Trump that establishes $1,000 from the government to create savings accounts for kids born between Jan. 1, 2025, and Dec. 31, 2028. The ad's lack of specificity about the program, which the president has dubbed Trump Accounts, might be self-defeating – without references to the government or the legislation, the idea sounds kind of suspicious, despite its roots in actual policy. In contrast, he approved of a commercial using “class warfare” in health care and the line “the wealth gap is a health gap,” though he did snipe at the “big corporation,” Hims & Hers’, selling its telehealth services “at a time when medical expenses are one of the leading causes of bankruptcy in the U.S.”

A TMZ poll conducted following Sunday’s Super Bowl reveals football fans much preferred an alternative halftime show provided by Turning Point USA on social media, compared to the game’s broadcast halftime performance by a notorious, polarizing, anti-American, anti-law enforcement singer with a penchant for explicit lyrics. The game’s halftime musical break on NBC and streamed on Peacock pitted singer Bad Bunny performing (almost entirely in Spanish) against TPUSA’s halftime show, headlined by singer Kid Rock (who sang in English). In terms of viewer approval, it wasn’t much of a contest, according to the TMZ online poll. “The people have spoken when it comes to Bad Bunny and Turning Point USA’s Halftime show. Fans who were upset at the NFL over the selection of Bad Bunny had their choice to choose from on Sunday,” concluded TotalProSports after the game as the poll was taking place: “Once both shows concluded, TMZ took to X and created a poll to see which fans thought did better. ‘Who had the better halftime show — Bad Bunny or Kid Rock?’ they asked. At one point, Kid Rock had 83% of the votes.” By 9:31 am Monday, the vote was still in favor of Kid Rock, by a two-to-one margin. At that time, nearly 20 million people had watched the show on Turning Point USA’s YouTube page alone. TPUSA offered Super Bowl fans the alternative halftime show this year because the NFL continues to focus more on promoting leftwing ideology - such as denouncing federal enforcement of the nation’s immigration laws - and less on providing a nonpartisan sports-based product that brings football fans of all views together to enjoy entertainment. On social media, the NFL’s Bad Bunny offering is being deemed the league’s “Bud Light moment,” referring to how the beer label lost sales due to backlash over an ad touting a transgender influencer. Watch the full Kid Rock-headlined TPUSA halftime show embedded below.

On her eponymous Friday show, MSNOW host Chris Jansing had on liberal researcher Michael Mann to fret over predictions that few countries will have enough snow to host future Olympic games due to the use of fossil fuels. He also eventually blamed global warming for recent extremely cold temperatures. Introducing the segment, Jansing recalled: Well, today, Mikaela Shiffrin, Lindsey Vonn, Chloe Kim are preparing to hit the slopes and the halfpipe for the Winter Olympics, but recent games have had to take increasingly elaborate measures to counter the warming effects of climate change. A recent study flagged by the Washington Post found that by the middle of this century, there could be fewer than 20 countries with the right conditions and infrastructure to host the games. She added: "One climate science researcher told the L.A. Times, 'We're going to see more warming around the world. We're actually seeing the Winter Olympic games literally melting before our very eyes.'" After bringing aboard Professor Mann, Jansing began by posing: "Are we looking at a future winter games that are that much of a challenge melting before our eyes?" He immediately went along with the doom-pushing premise: Yeah, I mean, this is an example of just the profound impact that we are having on the planet that we are having on, you know, everyday life. You know, it's not just some far off problem in the future that impacts polar bears -- it's influencing us and our way of life right now. And this is just another reminder of that. The MS NOW host followed up by fretting that there will be problems with the 2034 Olympics: One study estimates that by 2050, only four countries would be able to host the Olympics without machine-made snow. The IOC has said it is considering moving up future games from February to January when conditions might be better. The Salt Lake City mayor told the L.A. Times he bets that the 2034 games won't happen in his city as planned due to climate change. Quote, "If that's happening now, why do we think 2034 is going to be any better?" If there's the will, could change happen fast enough to change the equation for Utah eight years from now? Mann recalled that there had not been enough snow in Vancouver for the 2010 Olympics, and soon tied in the burning of fossil fuels: We can't produce enough snow and enough cooling to allow for these events to proceed if we continue to warm the planet. That's a big if because let's keep in mind that this is under the assumption that we continue to warm the planet through carbon pollution -- through the burning of fossil fuels. And we do have a choice here. Jansing cued up her guest to take a shot at global warming skeptics: ...whether it's the Olympics or just winter sports destinations, the financial stakes are really high. Salt Lake alone is projecting $6.6 billion in economic activity from the Olympics over a decade. Have you been surprised that folks who argue climate change mitigation is too expensive don't see the long term expense? The liberal activist responded: Yeah, that's absolutely right. You know, we hear from climate critics, from opponents of taking climate action that is too expensive to act when just the opposite is the case. It's far too expensive not to act. And here we're talking about the expense of relocating and building infrastructure in a changing climate for a winter, winter sports events, the Winter Olympics. But think about the extreme weather events, the floods, the heatwaves, the wildfires, the superstorms that we've contended with in recent years that cost billions of dollars in terms of insured damages. And in some places, you can't even get insurance anymore because of wildfire risk, because of flooding risk. And so the reality is that it's too expensive not to act. Jansing concluded the segment by reading a Truth Social post by President Donald Trump questioning the existence of global warming during the current cold weather, leading Mann to predictably blame the extremely low temperatures on "climate change." Transcript follows: MS NOW's Chris Jansing Reports February 6, 2026 12:42 p.m. Eastern CHRIS JANSING: Well, today, Mikaela Shiffrin, Lindsey Vonn, Chloe Kim are preparing to hit the slopes and the halfpipe for the Winter Olympics, but recent games have had to take increasingly elaborate measures to counter the warming effects of climate change. A recent study flagged by the Washington Post found that by the middle of this century, there could be fewer than 20 countries with the right conditions and infrastructure to host the games. One climate science researcher told the L.A. Times, "We're going to see more warming around the world. We're actually seeing the Winter Olympic games literally melting before our very eyes." Let me bring in Michael Mann, author of Science Under Siege and UPenn presidential distinguished professor of Earth and environmental science. It's always good to see you, Michael. Are we looking at a future winter games that are that much of a challenge melting before our eyes? PROFESSOR MICHAEL MANN, UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: Yeah. Hi, Chris. It's good to be with you. And, yeah, I mean, this is an example of just the profound impact that we are having on the planet that we are having on, you know, everyday life. You know, it's not just some far off problem in the future that impacts polar bears -- it's influencing us and our way of life right now. And this is just another reminder of that. JANSING: One study estimates that by 2050, only four countries would be able to host the Olympics without machine-made snow. The IOC has said it is considering moving up future games from February to January when conditions might be better. The Salt Lake City mayor told the L.A. Times he bets that the 2034 games won't happen in his city as planned due to climate change. Quote, "If that's happening now, why do we think 2034 is going to be any better?" If there's the will, could change happen fast enough to change the equation for Utah eight years from now? MANN: Yeah, absolutely. I mean, in 2010, in Vancouver, the Winter Olympics nearly had to be canceled because there was no snow in Vancouver, you know, in the middle of the winter. And they had to do everything they could to try to move in enough snow from other locations, manufacture snow. And so it's getting more and more difficult to actually hold this, you know, this event, this, this classic event, the Winter Olympics, in the traditional locations that we associate with them right now in Cortina -- Milan-Cortina, one of the classic ski resorts in the world. And they are going to have trouble in the future in being able to hold the Winter Olympics because there just isn't the infrastructure. We can't produce enough snow and enough cooling to allow for these events to proceed if we continue to warm the planet. That's a big if because let's keep in mind that this is under the assumption that we continue to warm the planet through carbon pollution -- through the burning of fossil fuels. And we do have a choice here. JANSING: Well, just to punctuate what you said, I've covered a lot of Olympics. The Vancouver games were many days warmer than the London summer games that I also covered. And in Sochi, there's a bunch of pictures of me sitting outside the venues in like a T shirt. So you're right, it was already leading up to this. And I think, you know, whether it's the Olympics or just winter sports destinations, the financial stakes are really high. Salt Lake alone is projecting $6.6 billion in economic activity from the Olympics over a decade. Have you been surprised that folks who argue climate change mitigation is too expensive don't see the long term expense? MANN: Yeah, that's absolutely right. You know, we hear from climate critics, from opponents of taking climate action that is too expensive to act when just the opposite is the case. It's far too expensive not to act. And here we're talking about the expense of relocating and building infrastructure in a changing climate for a winter, winter sports events, the Winter Olympics. But think about the extreme weather events, the floods, the heatwaves, the wildfires, the superstorms that we've contended with in recent years that cost billions of dollars in terms of insured damages. And in some places, you can't even get insurance anymore because of wildfire risk, because of flooding risk. And so the reality is that it's too expensive not to act. JANSING: We've only got a minute left, but I want to ask you this because during last month's cold wave, this is what President Trump posted: "Could the environmental insurrectionists please explain whatever happened to global warming?" I mean, he's not alone. Plenty of folks look at the cold wave now. They say, "What climate change?" What don't they understand? MANN: Yeah. So there's so much in that short tweet that's -- or that short post that's wrong and misleading. You know, we actually have published some research recently, just this last summer that shows that these classic winter storms that we call nor'easters, that bring huge amounts of snowfall and often frigid temperatures along the U.S. East Coast -- climate change is intensifying those storms. So even though overall it's warming up and overall the snow cover season is shorter, individual storms can actually produce larger amounts of snow, and they can produce more extreme temperatures because they are becoming stronger and they're becoming stronger in this case because we're warming up the oceans. And those coastal winter storms actually feed off of the heat of the oceans. And so we actually expect more of these very intense winter storms, these nor'easters, in the future as we continue to warm the planet.