Like many Republicans, independents – and Democrats – President Trump is a pro-lifer. He is joined in that belief by most Republican leaders and a sprinkling of Democrat leaders. Abortion is arguably the most significant moral issue of our day. It is an understatement to say that it is a highly emotional issue with very strong feelings on both sides.
It is not a simple pro and con issue. – abortion at any time for any reason versus a total ban on all abortions for any reason. The public has varying beliefs regarding abortion – such as when an abortion can take place, procedures used or medical necessity.
The general pro-life view is that an abortion should only take place where there is a compelling necessity – such as the life of the mother, rape or incest. It should never be considered for questions of convenience, economics or simple desire – abortion-on-demand, as they put it.
Pro-lifers believe that the fetus in the womb is a human being with all the rights and protections of a moral and just society. Pro-lifers reject the illogical and scientifically inaccurate description of the fetus as an integral “part of a woman’s body” over which she has exclusive right to keep or discard – with all the moral vaue of getting a haircut or clipping fingernails.
Even though past presidents have described themselves as pro-lifers, they have too often dealt with the issue by avoidance rather than activity – lip service over policy. In the modern era, only President Reagan was an active abortion critic. Regardless of their stated stand on the issue, no President has ever participated in or even attended the annual pro-life demonstration in Washington. In fact, it was newsworthy when Vice President Pence spoke at the rally in recent years.
That all changed this year.
For the first time ever, a President of the United States attended the rally to underscore his commitment to pro-life policies. In view of Trump’s view on the subject — and his policies and appointments that clearly established his view – it should not have been surprising that he would underscore his commitment to the pro-life agenda by speaking at the rally.
The left reacted as if Trump was creating new controversy. How could he weigh-in on the issue in such an obvious manner? FOX News regular, Juan Williams personified the reaction of the pro-abortion left. He accused Trump of intentionally using his appearance to divide the nation. He should have stayed out of the issue. After all, there are lots of people who favor abortion and it is “the law of the land.” Williams – as a black media personality — should be one of the last to need reminding that slavery, too, was once “the law of the land.”
In Williams view, no president has ever done such a dastardly thing. Williams did not actually call it “dastardly,” but from the tone of his rant, the word is not an inappropriate description. That seems to be the strategy of the left. Do not talk about abortion. Do not debate it. And above all, do not show all those images of all those crushed skulls and dismembered bodies.
For those of us who believe that life in the womb is an imbued with what we call inalienable rights, it is as fitting and proper for Trump to put his belief on the record as it is for him to fight for policies that would make abortions EXTREMELY rare. As a pro-lifer, myself, I applaud Trump for standing tall on the issue.
So, there ‘tis.
After more than three years of promising to find a reason to impeach President Trump, Democrats finally achieved their objective on December 18, 2019. The next constitutionally required step was simple and easy. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was to send the Article over to the Senate to begin the trial phase. That could have happened the next day – but it did not.
The House rushed the impeachment process for two reasons – so they said.. They claimed that it would take too long for the Supreme court to decide the issue of Executive Privilege – and compel testimony of what Democrats referred to as “key witnesses.” AND THEN, in a reverse of logic, Democrats said they could proceed because they had “all the evidence” they needed to have Trump both impeached and removed from office. They claimed they had to expedite the process to prevent Trump from rigging the 2020 presidential election, which – they alleged—he was doing every day. There was no time to wait. But that was then, and this is now.
All those House Democrats who claimed that urgency was a primary consideration must have been – or at least should have been — embarrassed when Pelosi pulled the rug out from under that political narrative. Instead of rushing the Articles to the Senate, Pelosi said she would not transfer the Articles until the Senate formally established the rules for the trial that were satisfactory to … HER. Suddenly, there was no need to hurry things along. Congress went on vacation for the holidays and the Articles sat on Pelosi’s desk.
In the sort of logic that can only come out of the politicians in Washington, Pelosi – without batting an eye – determined that there was no real rush after all. Instead, she decided that SHE would set the rules for the Senate even though she has zero right or authority to do so. Instead of doing her job, she has been trying to do the Senate’s job.
Even more bizarre, Pelosi was insisting that THE SENATE should be required to call all those witnesses that she had said were not critical to the case. They had all they needed to advance the Articles of Impeachment.
Of course, there was no guarantee that any of the witness she designated would have responded to the Senate any more than they did to the House – with the possible exception of former National Security Advisor John Bolton, who has since indicated a willingness to respond to a subpoena. In other words, Pelosi was asking the Senate to take up precious time to go to the Supreme Court to compel their testimony – something the House was unwilling to do.
Getting the Senate to bend to her will was a battle that Pelosi was destined to lose. At best, she could pre-emptively badmouth the Senate for being too political in addressing the upcoming trial – blunting the fact that the House impeachment was a badly handled partisan political process.
Her willingness to further delay the process – and her demand for more witnesses – betrays the fact that even Pelosi knows that the House undertook the weakest and most political impeachment effort in American history. Not only was there no “high crime or misdemeanor,” there was no crime whatsoever – just dubious accusations of alleged bad behavior.
Soon, Pelosi will do what she had to do all along – unconditional surrender to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. He will set the rules for the Senate trial as he would have back in December. Pelosi’s meaningless political tantrum will have had no effect on the process. In fact, it may have made it easier for the Senate to dismiss the impeachment process as nothing more than political chicanery and irrational partisan obsession that grew out of the 2016 election.
Hypocritically, Democrats are saying that Senate Republicans are violating their special impeachment oath and they are not open-minded when virtually no Democrat is open-minded. There may be a couple of votes on both sides of the aisle that are not yet locked in, but that is about it. Virtually every member of the United States Senate knows how he or she will vote.
Pelosi correctly said that any impeachment needs to have bipartisan support. These Articles do not. The only example of bipartisanship was the four Democrats who did NOT vote in favor of impeachment.
It was said that any impeachment must have overwhelming public support. These Articles do not. Traditionally, impeachment is based on a judicial crime. These Articles are not. Impeachment should only be advanced when there is a reasonable – maybe even a remote – possibility that the Senate could convict and remove a President based on convincing evidence. These Articles have no such expectation because they have no such evidence.
For all the game playing by Pelosi & Co., the Articles of Impeachment will be DOA when they finally reach the Senate. In fact, they were stillborn – and everyone knew it.
So, there ‘tis.
It is possible – perhaps even probable – that Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders could win in both Iowa and New Hampshire. In terms of delegates to the Democratic National Convention, Iowa has 49 delegates and New Hampshire has 33 – out of the 3979 regular delegates and the 771 so-called superdelegates that are designated by the Party. The superdelegates will not be allowed to vote unless no one gets the required majority on the first ballot.
If Sanders should win in the first two states, he will gain a psychological or perception advantage. To date, Sanders has been splitting the hardcore left vote with Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren. This division has given the lead to former Vice President Joe Biden – but he does not have more support than Sanders and Warren combined.
For months, Sanders and Warren have essentially been vying for second place – one topping the other in one poll or another. In more recent weeks, Sanders seems to have secured the lead among the progressive left – but Warren still holds enough support to remain in the race and for most of her supporters to remain loyal. Unless her numbers collapse or she drops out of the race, Biden could hold the lead.
BUT … if Sanders wins both Iowa and New Hampshire, it could be the death blow to the Warren campaign. This is especially true if Warren winds up coming in third or fourth in either Iowa or New Hampshire.
Going into the South Carolina primary, the race for the Democrat presidential nomination could polarize around Biden and Sanders as the respective leaders of moderate and progressive factions of the starkly divided Democratic Party going into Super Tuesday.
As the leading progressive candidate, Sanders may have a few advantages heading into Super Tuesday. That is where uber billionaire and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has staked his claim. With hundreds of millions of dollars to buy ads and hire staff, he could rise out of the ranks of single-digit candidates. He could further divide the moderate vote currently being shared by Biden, Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar and South Bend Major Pete Buttigieg.
If Warren is out of the race – or has descended into single digits – Sanders has no real competition for the left-wing vote.
Sanders may benefit from the fact that many of the states casting ballots on Super Tuesday have a tradition of leaning far left in primary elections. They include California, Massachusetts, Colorado, Maine, and Minnesota.
Three of the states have candidates in the race at this point – but maybe not then. They are Warren in Massachusetts, Klobuchar in Minnesota and Senator Michael Bennet in Colorado. None of these, however, are likely to significantly cut into the Sanders vote.
A third advantage Sanders gains by winning Iowa and New Hampshire is increased donations. He is already doing very well with his small-donor strategy – and that pace would likely pick up as he becomes an increasingly viable candidate.
More and more, it looks like Sanders is going to be the leader of the progressive faction. It is the moderate faction leadership that is in doubt. Biden is ahead now, but he constantly looks like he is about to fall off the top of the political mountain. If Buttigieg or Klobuchar pick up steam, it is not likely to get them a nomination. But it could pave the way for Bloomberg – as the moderate candidate without the baggage, the gaffes, and the age issue.
Anything can happen in politics – and life – but it is starting to look like the Sanders/Warren contest is shifting to advantage Sanders. For the moderates – too soon to tell.
So, there ‘tis.
The complaint that there are no minority candidates on the Democrats left on the debate stage, got me thinking. A couple years ago, I wrote a commentary arguing that America is not only NOT a racist country, but that we are one of the most open and tolerant nations on earth. That is borne out by our long history of being the world’s leading nation of immigration.
It is literally absurd to call a nation racist that elects a black President. It is absurd to call a nation racist when you see every so-called minority group taking up positive roles on all the news channels, in advertisements, in movies and on television shows. It is also borne out by contemporary life. In that commentary, I wrote:
“If we take a fresh look at America, we might just discover that we are not a nation of racists after all, but rather the victims of racial baiting by politicians and the mainstream media. We should keep in mind that billions of times every day … yes, billions … black and white Americans smile and nod to each other as we pass on the streets. We serve each other in restaurants and stores. We work side-by-side in factories and offices. We do favors for each other. We come to each other’s aid. We cheer alongside each other on both sides of every sports arena. We play on the same teams. We chat on social media. We die alongside each other in battle. We become lifelong friends. We adopt each other. We fall in love and marry each other. We laugh together at the same movies and we weep together at shared tragedies.”
Of course, racism exists on the edges of society, but most of today’s institutional racism is confined to the segregated and impoverished communities in all those major cities that have been long ruled over by Democrat machines. But even in those environments where we so readily see racist governance, the people – white and black – are not racists.
The Democrat presidential campaign has given us yet another refutation or two of the accusations of pandemic racism. In an interesting juxtaposition, we see two seemingly conflicting examples that racism is not at the core of the American soul.
The first and most obvious example is the number of minorities in the presidential race – representing a variety of ancestral backgrounds. New Jersey Senator Cory Booker is African American, former candidate California Senator Kamala Harris is half African American and half Indian, former candidate and former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Julian Castro is Mexican, businessman Andrew Yang is Chinese.
If we were a racist society, none of these individuals would have had the gravitas to credibly run for President of the United States, and they would not likely have been so successful in their careers.
At this time, all the leading candidates of the Democratic Party are not drawn from the minority ranks. They are all white men – and one woman. The leading candidate is an old white male of the kind demeaned and distained by the folks on the extreme left.
Understandably, Booker is lamenting the lack of minority representation on the ever-dwindling debate stage. His implication that it is due to racism is a bit racist on his part. He seems to believe that the color of one’s skin should determine standing in the Democrat primary. In fact, the all-while leadership in the primaries – at least up to this point – further establishes that America is not racist.
Perhaps that requires a bit of explanation.
The reason old white man Biden is in the lead position is because he has the support of approximately 48 percent of the black Democrat voters. They are not voting skin color as Booker would like. They are making a non-racial voting decision.
I suspect that Booker, Harris and Castro believed that just because they were minorities, “their people” would vote for them. Suspect? Hell, they have said as much. Part of their racist sales pitch was their assumed ability to “attract black voters” – or Hispanic, in the case of Castro. They did not. Castro and Harris had to drop out, and Booker – who seems to think he should get all the black votes – is hovering in the low single digits in the most recent polls – and has failed to make it to the stage for the debates in the past two rounds. He has a meager four percent of the black vote and will soon be joining Castro and Harris on the sidelines.
It is most certainly ironic that the majority of black Democrat voters are going with white candidates, but it is something to be celebrated by anyone who believes – as Martin Luther King said – that people should be judged on the content of the character rather than the color of their skin. Modern America is apparently living up to King’s dream more than ever. And a lot more than the politicians and news media – who find political advantage in constantly and dishonestly playing the race card — will ever admit.
So, there ‘tis,
Iranian propaganda mill is working overtime to undermine President Trump’s foreign policy as part of their anti-American efforts. Attempting to justify the attacks on American assets, America’s enemies – especially the Iranian leadership — are proffering a number of anti-American narratives. Here is what they are saying.
- The drone that was shot down by the Iranian Republican Guard Corps was in Iran airspace.
- There is no evidence to prove that Iran was behind the rocket attack that killed an American contractor.
- There is no evidence that Iran orchestrated the attack on the American embassy in Baghdad.
- Qasem Soleimani is a general in the Iran military and not a terrorist – therefor it was an act of war to kill him.
- Although designated as such, the Iran Republican Guard is a legitimate Irani military unit and is not a terrorist organization.
- The killing of Soleimani was a reckless act of war.
- The killing of Soleimani was a violation of Iraqi sovereignty – even though Osama Bin Laden and Bakr al Baghdadi were killed in surprise attacks in foreign nation – Pakistan and Syria respectively.
- Iran has been repeatedly and needlessly provoked by Trump’s warmongering.
- Despite widespread demonstrations against the Irani regime, the people of Iran are now united in their hatred of America under Trump.
- In Killing Soleimani, Trump violated international law.
- In killing Soleimani, Trump violated the United States Constitution.
- The conflict between the United States and Iran has been precipitated by Trump pulling out of the Iran nuclear deal.
- Iran has not attacked any American assets since the Nuclear deal – at least not until Trump provoked them.
- The death of Soleimani will make the people of the United States less safe.
- Soleimani was a beloved hero in Iran – much like Americans admired Elvis Presley and the British admire Princess Diana.
- The shooting down of the Ukrainian commercial airliner was a result of Trump’s provocative policies – specifically the killing of Soleimani.
- The Irani retaliation was specifically measured because they did not intend to kill any American soldiers – when, in fact, it was good preparation and luck that those in the target zone narrowly escaped death or injury.
- Trump is dangerously stupid in dealing with the complex issues of the Middle East.
- Sanctions are needlessly hurting Iran and preventing more productive diplomacy.
In one form or another, these have been the sentiments, narratives and opinions emanating from Tehran in recent days – and the list could go on. If there is an air of familiarity with them, you are not wrong. Everyone of these comments have been made by one or more Democrats and echoed throughout the left-wing media-sphere by their cronies.
I would not go so far as to say that a lot of Democrats love terrorists, as did Republican Congressman Collins (with an immediate apology), but it can be fairly said that in their obsession to spin all things against Trump, Democrats are giving aide to terrorists by providing credibility to the baseless propaganda pouring out of Iran – and other anti-American entities. In terms of shaping the narratives, Democrats – including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi – are aiding and abetting the propaganda operations of America’s enemies. It is hard to believe that they do not see the unfortunate consequences of their words and actions. Even sadder if they do see them.
So, there ‘tis.
During this pre-primary season, the media has little to report except poll numbers and money raised. Yes, the candidates talk about their issues, but who cares what a candidate proposes who is struggling to rise beyond one percent in the polls and cannot raise enough money to take a bus to Dubuque.
The simplest – and simplistic – analysis of candidate strength is to see who is ahead in the polls and who raises the most money. That is generally the viewpoint of the pundits and the candidates who happen to have the best numbers in one or both categories.
On the Republican side, there is no real contest. President Trump is the frontrunner because there is no serious competition. And as far as fundraising, Trump – with $46 million raised in the latest cycle — is the leader among all candidates – Republican or Democrats. The level of Trump’s fundraising suggests that despite all that the Democrats and the media have thrown at him, his supporters are holding firm.
The real race for the nomination is naturally on the Democrat side.
In most polls, former Vice President Joe Biden is ahead with Senators Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg duking it out for second place. Contrary to expectations and tradition, the person leading in the polls is not leading in fundraising. Far from it.
In the latest cycle, it is Sanders who swamps the field with a total of $35 million raised from millions of supporters – averaging approximately $18 per contribution. That is a phenomenal contribution report and suggests strength beyond his polling numbers – which are not all that bad.
Buttigieg claimed second place with a haul of $25 million. Frontrunner Biden had to settle for third place with $23 million. Senator Elizbeth Warren’s donations dropped with her polling numbers. She took in $21 million. While Buttigieg, Biden and Warren are within a few million dollars of each other, they are trailing Sanders by $10 million or more.
Of course, the two billionaires in the race – former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and businessman Tom Steyer — are ahead of everyone in financial resources. They are not raising diddly-squat because they are mostly self-funding, as in Steyer’s case, and totally self-funding in Bloomberg’s case. And even Steyer cannot match Bloomberg even if he spent his entire $1.4 billion fortune. Bloomberg could match that and still have more than $50 billion left over.
Steyer is proof that money is not everything. He has the worst expenditure to polling numbers ratio of any candidate – although Bloomberg could eventually also best Steyer in that, too.
As candidates drop out, both the polling numbers and money raised will change. Sanders and Warren are currently splitting the far-left progressive polling numbers and money. When – not if – one of them drops out, the other is likely to get the lion’s share of the other’s support. Right now, it looks like that will be Sanders – but nothing can be certain. One more Sanders heart attack and Warren could again be on top.
There are still a lot of single digit Democrat candidates pulling in a lot of money. As they drop out the numbers will shift.
Some analysts note that combined, the Democrat candidates are raising more money than Trump. They suggest that once it is a one-on-one between Trump and whoever, whoever will be getting all that money. That will not happen. If Biden is the nominee, those supporting Sanders or Warren will put away their wallets. If Sanders or Warren is the nominee, all that Wall Street money will stay on Wall Street. If Bloomberg is the nominee, the left will not show up at the polls no matter how much he spends.
The large field of Democrat candidates is soaking up a lot of money. By the time a candidate is selected there is likely to be a LOT of donor fatigue. Trump and the Republicans should go into the General Election with an enormous financial advantage.
So, there ‘tis.
Democrats and the left-wing media have been sadly successful at creating a now widely held belief surrounding the 2003 Iraq War. They have relied on the public’s short memory span to re-cast history.
The current narrative goes something like this.
The Iraq War was a huge diplomatic and military failure. It was entered into by the United States unilaterally because President Bush wanted to take out Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. The War was solely predicated on the presence of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) by the Hussein regime. Bush lied to the public regarding such weapons to justify his personal decision to affect regime change in Iraq. His administration concocted phony intelligence. The War was Bush’s personal decision – and turned out to be an expensive failure – in life and assets. The most prominent Democrats point to the Iraq War as Bush’s failure.
The problem with the above narrative is that NONE of it is true. Let us look at the FACTS.
Weapons of Mass Destruction
The existence of WMD’s was not the only predicate for the War. It was not even the most important consideration. The reasons to affect regime change in Iraq was that Hussein was a dangerous rogue leader whose personal expansionist ambitions were destabilizing the entire Middle East. He had already undertaken aggressive military actions against neighbors, resulting in the 1990-1991 Gulf War that pushed back the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.
By 2000, the International intelligence community established that Hussein was developing nuclear weaponry. That was not a theory but an established fact. It led to several resolutions by the United Nations condemning Iraq.
It was also well established that the concern over WMDs at the time was not limited to the nuclear program, but to chemical weaponry. Again, that was not a matter of theory. Hussein had repeatedly used such weapons on his own people and others.
On the eve of the War, satellite intelligence showed the movement of massive equipment into Syria. It was theorized at the time that equipment being exported were WMDs. Post War investigation showed what appeared to be the remnants of facilities engaged in the research and production of WMDs.
But again, the existence of WMD’s was not the only issue.
There is no doubt that SOME of the intelligence was inaccurate. Hussein did not possess WMDs – at least at that time. But he was developing nuclear weaponry. The error in intelligence was not created in the White House. It came from both the American and British intelligence operations. Bush was as susceptible – no more or no less – to the erroneous information as were all those members of Congress. In fact, the Senate Intelligence Committee had its own sources of misinformation – contrary to the narrative that it was the White House deceiving the Congress.
In the final analysis, the flawed intelligence was NOT the deciding factor in the need to oust Hussein. The case was much bigger than one issue.
Role of the United Nations
Hussein was condemned by more than a dozen resolutions of the United Nations – warning him to cease his belligerent activities, end his development of nuclear weaponry and comply with international inspection agreements. Failure to do so would result in international military action against his regime.
In fact, the United Nations authorized an invasion of Iraq for the purpose of removing Hussein. Sixty-five nations participated in the action. It was not a solo performance by the United States.
The Role of Congress
In addition to seeking the support of the world community through the United Nations, President Bush also took the case to Congress to authorize American participation in the UN-authorized operation. Congress gave overwhelming support to the War. He did NOT act alone. It was approved by the votes of many who have since re-cast history – including then Senators Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Chuck Schumer and Joe Biden.
Winning the War
Considering the objectives laid out by the UN and the United States, the War, itself, was a great victory. Under the leadership of the United States, the UN forces advanced surprisingly quickly to the gates of Baghdad. In a display of military might labeled “shock and awe,” Hussein was quickly toppled and went into hiding. He was later found, tried and executed by the new Iraq government. The people of Iraq were in the streets celebrating – mobs were tearing down images and statues of Hussein — and America was heralded as a friend of the people. The War was essentially over in approximately one month. All this with very limited loses to the UN forces.
The War of Peace
Some revisionists refer to the 2003 action as the “first phase” of the War. That is not entirely accurate. The WAR was over. It was now a matter of building post-war Iraq. Nouri al-Maliki was selected to lead that effort . THAT was the big mistake. Rather than fulfill his promise of a government of all the people, Maliki’s partisan policies triggered a civil war between Sunnis and Shiites. This is when American interests and American presence got even more problematic. The United States was drawn into the internal secular battle.
Battleground Iraq War
What was essentially an internal civil war was transformed to Iraq being a field of battle for international forces when President Obama pulled out American troops and created a vacuum filled by ISIS, Iran, Syria and Russia – leaving behind billions of dollars of military equipment that was seized by our enemies.. Essentially, this was yet another third war in Iraq – the one in which we are engaged to this day.
For better or for worse, the United States must play the ball where it lies in the Middle East. But nothing can be gained – and much can be lost – if we allow the mendacious and hypocritical political accusations based on false narratives to muddy the situation.
So, there ‘tis.
Following the killing of the head of the largest terrorist conglomerate in the world, Democrats were torn on the recognition that the death of Qasem Soleimani was a big win for the United States and the civilized world. It was in keeping with the celebrations attendant to the death of Osama Bin Laden and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. It was a good thing, by any measure.
But somehow, the current state of the Democrats’ irrational anti-Trump obsession could not allow any solidarity with the President – much less any praise for anything he did. Consequently, they used the “but” strategy. Soleimani was a pathological killer, but … Soleimani deserved to die, but …
Suddenly – for Democrats – process became more important than the actual facts of the event. They intimated, without a whit of evidence, that Trump acted individually and impulsively. Killing an avowed enemy of the United States and western world was suddenly secondary to the when and how congressional leaders were informed.
Even though Trump, the Department of Defense (DOD), the State Department and the intelligence community stated that the attack on Soleimani was triggered by information that showed he was actively plotting multiple international attacks on American personnel and assets, Democrats kept questioning the motivation. It was a defensive action, according to the DOD. It was the last straw by a man who had been given repeated – far too many — passes by previous administrations allowing Soleimani to continue his murderous activities.
Despite this explanation from all involved agencies, Democrats and the left-wing media repeatedly posed the question “Why now?” as a means of casting suspicion and distrust on the decision to take out Soleimani. One CNN contributor cast doubt on the rationale for the action by saying that Soleimani and Iran had not attacked the United States in years – until recently. He justified Irani-sponsored deadly attacks in recent years on Trump for provoking Tehran.
Colorado Democrat Senator Tom Udall went even further. He claims to have been briefed by individuals in the intelligence community who were not aware of the specific threats alluded to in the various statements. He said he was “suspicious” that there were no real imminent threats. In other words, Trump, the DOD, the State Department and the intel community were all lying.
It is impossible to miss the irony of Udall distrusting the same intelligence folks that they accuse Trump of distrusting. But such hypocrisy is not new to politics.
It should bother every American that Democrats – best personified by Udall – are falling in line with the propaganda emanating from Iran – that it was an unprovoked attack on a prominent military leader. From the Democrats’ and media descriptions of Soleimani as an “icon,” “charismatic,” “respected,” “genius” and “much beloved” by the people of Iran and the various terrorist cells he created and managed. They distinguished him from Bin Laden and al-Baghdadi for reasons that make no sense unless you want to disparage the military action.
Democrats and the media refuse to accept the claims of imminent threats to America at face value. They claim a right to know all the details as a condition of belief. It is nothing more than political grandstanding. They know full well that it would not be possible for our government to lay out such highly confidential and classified information. Yet, they play into the Iranian gamebook.
If the Irani propaganda agencies are not using Udall’s statements to reinforce their own claims of victimization, it is only because the have not picked up on them. Udall could not have provided better grist for Tehran’s bogus media responses if he tried.
So, there ‘tis.
If you follow recent polls, you see that somewhere between 45 and 50 percent of Americans wanted President Trump impeached and removed from office. The anti-Trump media is touting those numbers as evidence that Trump cannot possibly win the 2020 election. And if you take those numbers at face value, you might be inclined to believe them.
But right now, the odds are in favor of Trump winning re-election – and the savvy Democrats know it. But how can that be with such terrible numbers. There are several reasons these polls will not be predictive.
First, historically polls have always favored the Democrats – and the further away from an election the greater the bias. No one knows why that is for sure, but one theory is that most of the polling companies are hired or run by … Democrats. It is just a bit of unavoidable bias that creeps into the building of the demographics and the framing of the questions.
The bias may also lead to another problem – one that can be seen when polling numbers are matched with actual results. Most polling models have been shown to overestimate Democrat turn-out and vote.
There is almost always a general shift toward Republican candidates as the election nears. One only need recall Hillary Clinton’s substantial lead over Trump just a month or so before the election. Even on the eve of the election, polls predicted a Clinton victory – closer, but a victory just the same.
There are also specific reasons why Trump is likely to do better in future polling – and he already is in some polls. He is coming out of the Impeachment process with a bit higher favorable rating – and the number of those clamoring for his impeachment and removal is declining. That is a problem for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats because they impeached Trump as their support among the general public was declining.
House Democrats orchestrated the impeachment process for maximum negative impact on Trump. They expected it and need it. Having gotten ahead of the public – and facing the certainty of an acquittal by the Republican-controlled Senate – the Democrat impeachment strategy is collapsing like a wooden tower stacking game.
But perhaps the most important reason for Trump optimism is who gets polled. Some polls cover the American public. Some registered voters. Some likely voters. The value and accuracy of these decline in descending order – with public polling and registered voter polling being utterly worthless.
Even likely voters will not indicate an election outcome. That is because of the Electoral College and the unique distribution of Democrat voters. They are highly concentrated in the big cities of the big very blue states.
To understand why polling can be so inaccurate, you have to look at the 2016 election, in which Trump won the all-important Electoral Collage while losing the popular vote. That was because Clinton racked up HUGE majorities in a few big Democrat states – including California, Illinois and New York. Her margin over Trump was achieved in California alone.
Trump, on the other hand, won narrow victories in 30 states – giving him 304 electoral votes to Clinton’s 227. It does not matter how huge a candidate’s win is in a single state, they get the same number of electoral votes.
That is also true of national polling. Trump is actually losing ground in those very blue states, but it will not negatively impact on his Electoral Collage vote. By polling only on a state-by-state base – the only way to go – many analysts believe that were the election held today, Trump would again lose the popular vote – even by a wider margin — but still win re-election. One credible analysis even predicts that Trump would lose the popular vote by a greater margin today and still win even more electoral votes than he got in 2016.
Even the mere POSSIBILITY that Trump could be re-elected at the point of his impeachment is a huge red flag for the Democrats. A lot can happen between now and election day, but those who are firmly convinced that Trump will be trounced next November may wind-up reliving election day 2016.
So, there ‘tis.
While the number on stage diminished, but talking points remained the same. And if you think that you are getting debate weary – like going through Disney’s Small World tunnel over and over – you ain’t seen nothing yet.
The pace of debates will increase with another in January and THREE in February. Whoever at the Democratic National Committee signed off on these debates should be looking for a new job.
For sure, the liberal media is always enthused – praising every event, while trying to never criticize any candidate. They will heap lavish praise on their media colleague moderators for their banal softball questions. The December debate was no different – and that was the overarching problem. There was nothing of substance to be learned.
In the aftermath, the folks at CNN and MSNBC could not say enough good things about everyone’s performance. According to the propagandizing pundits, all the candidates did an outstanding job.
I would concur that they all came out relatively even, but not as winners. Rather, they were united in demonstrating that none of them are what America needs. Even with fewer candidates on the stage they all seemed to appear individually smaller. They were all losers.
The seven-candidate debate brought about a much different dynamic, however. It was the day of the moderates. Unlike the previous debates – where progressives outnumbered the so-called moderates of the Democratic Party — this was a 5-to-1 advantage for the Biden wing of the Party. Elizbeth Warren and Bernie Sanders were left to hold up the increasingly tattered flag of the radical left.
Suddenly progressives did not look like the future of the Democratic Party, but a philosophic albatross. All that talk about everything for everybody got slapped down over and over. When Warren was told that most economists say her multi-trillion-dollar plans are way too expensive, her feeble response was, “They’re wrong.”
The debate led off with virtually identical no-surprise mentally pre-recorded statements in support of President Trump’s impeachment. Oh hum.
There were a few notable moments if you had not nodded off or switched over to the movie channel. The fellow with the sharpest blade was the usually mild-mannered mayor of South Bend, Indiana, Pete Buttigieg. He was attacked by the two ladies on the dais, Warren and Amy Klobuchar.
Warren walked into a well-set trap when she blasted Buttigieg for being willing to take money from rich people and holding big-donor fundraisers in a fancy California wine cave. Buttigieg snapped like a bear trap. He said the Democrat candidate should not exclude any legal donations because the nominee will be facing the mega-million-dollar Trump campaign.
And then he went on the counterattack, noting that Warren is the very person – a multimillionaire – that she condemns. Punch number one. In a hard right to jaw, Buttigieg next noted that Warren had partially funded her campaign by transferring millions from her Senate account – money raised in the good old fashion soak-the-rich tradition. Punch two – and Warren is left staggering. Award the round to the small-town mayor.
Klobuchar played the experience card – diminishing Buttigieg by comparing her Washington experience to his as a small-town mayor. Often derisively referring to him as “mayor.” Buttigieg correctly noted that Washington experience is exactly what most voters do not want. While Klobuchar said she did not mean to demean his experience, Buttigieg hit back with, “But you did.” Mayor Pete may not have knocked Klobuchar to the canvas, but he showed he could take a punch and hit back.
Most of the post-debate pundits agreed that former Vice President Joe Biden was as good as he gets — not great, but at the top of HIS game. His level of performance was unintentionally damned with faint praise when CNN’s Chris Cuomo suggested that at least Biden did not have any of those senior moments that characterized his past performances.
Biden did stumble once – in my judgment. When asked if he would sacrifice hundreds of thousands of jobs to shut down the fossil fuel industry, he said he would. With that answer, the former VP won himself a spot in innumerable Republican campaign commercials.
Now in all fairness, Biden said all those people would get even better jobs – union jobs. No worker is going to believe that political sop. Biden made it sound like you lose your job on Friday and start a better job on Monday. No Joe. It does not happen that way.
Promising unemployment for hundreds of thousands of highly unionized mining and drilling workers may even lose Biden a few points with some of the labor bosses. That comment should have the head of the United Mine Workers heading to the White House for a photo-op.
Sanders was Sanders – reprising his role as the understudy for the Muppets’ grumpy old man. We were again … and again … reminded that a few people at the top of the economic ladder have a lot more wealth than a lot of us down at the lower rungs. His call for “revolution” in America is starting to sound like the wishful reminiscences of a retired general in a military home.
Businessman Tom Steyer reminded the audience that he was among the first to call for Trump’s impeachment – not long after the 2016 election. I wrote a commentary at the time, that he was collecting names for a future presidential run. Ironically, Steyer’s proud claim gives credence to the Republican charge that Democrats have been obsessed with impeachment from day one.
That leaves businessman Andrew Yang. According to the clock watchers, he had the least talking time – and I cannot think of anything he said that was new or significant. So, I guess he won the debate.
So, there ‘tis.