≡ Menu

That’s what political analyst Jay Cost thinks. In a recent article for National Review, titled Why a Democratic Wave Looks Likely.

First, it should be noted, as Cost acknowledges, that the party out of power nearly always does well in the mid-term elections. Should the House fall to the Democrats, this would not be a unique event.

Despite the fact that history favors the Democrats this November, Republicans have reason to believe that they are in reasonably good shape for the mid-terms. The economy is still growing; indeed, it just registered 4.1% GDP growth. This is notable, especially after the tepid and lackluster growth rates under Obama. Furthermore, unemployment is at the lowest level since 1968. Additionally, the country is not bogged down in any overseas conflicts. Despite these favorable factors, that at first blush would seem to inure to the GOP’s benefit, Cost nonetheless argues that a blue wave is likely.

The major premise of Cost’s argument is that even though the economy is humming along, most Americans want their president to behave in a dignified manner that does justice to the office.

Cost initially notes that, “Trump is incapable of acting the way most Americans expect their president to act.” He then contrasts Trump’s demeanor with that of George Washington,

Our monument to George Washington may be a plain, white obelisk, but it is still a monument. The person who occupies Washington’s chair is expected to act like that great man, at least a little bit. He is supposed to be measured, restrained, and dignified.

Trump has been none of those things. He has undoubtedly advanced the conservative agenda, but he has not done so in a presidential manner.

As an example of Trump’s unpresidential behavior that Cost believes many swing voters will find not befitting the office was the firing of Comey. Here Cost makes an inductive leap that simply is not warranted by the political facts that not only propelled Trump to the Oval Office, but that have kept his approval ratings fairly steady in the 40-45% range — a rating that is similar to that for Obama at the same period in his presidency.

Cost’s reasoning is that the manner in which Trump fired Comey was so undignified, or“unpresidential” that swing voters will pull the lever for the Democrats come November because previous presidents would have behaved differently.

“The president was well within his constitutional rights to fire Comey, but the way he went about it was erratic and capricious. The left-wing #Resistance and diehard Never Trumpers took this as evidence of a crime, but that is not how the average swing voter — the sort who may well hand Democrats control of the House — came to see it. She saw it as unpresidential.”

Cost’s argument is rather weak and his conclusions specious. The Democrats may very will capture the House this November, but it will most likely not be due to the fact that Trump is unpresidential — a term that Cost leaves pristinely undefined. The degree to which Cost’s unpresidential thesis rests, in whole or in part, on a comparison of Trump to George Washington, is not only unfair, it makes his imminent blue wave conclusion wholly suspect. It must be noted in this regard that any president, past or future, is going to to be found wanting if they are compared to George Washington.

Furthermore, Cost does not address the fact that throughout the Republican primaries and during the general election, Trump was consistently “unpresidential” according to the few examples he offers, but he nonetheless defeated Hillary Clinton. The very same swing voters that Cost claims will give the House to the Democrats, simply found Clinton too corrupt, shifty and dishonest — in short, to paraphrase Cost, many voters found her unfit for the presidency.

Finally, Cost ignores the radical shift that has occurred within the Democratic Party lately. The radical left wing has held the party hostage. Many of its illuminates, such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, an unabashed and self-proclaimed Bernie Sanders socialist, all favor open borders, eliminating ICE, free college education, etc. Many of their policy pronouncements are utterly incoherent.

These positions are far outside the mainstream.

The defining issue for voters come November, may not be so much Trump’s unpresidential behavior, but whether or not Americans want to transform the country into a larger version of Denmark.

{ 0 comments }

We keep hearing the perennial phrase: America is a nation divided. And, indeed it is — particularly with regards to their policies on illegal immigrants. A recent Rasmussen poll has revealed that only a slight majority of Democrats , 54%, oppose giving noncitizens the right to vote. By contrast, 91% of Republicans polled said they oppose the idea.

Already some cities, like San Francisco are granting illegal immigrants the right to vote in local school board elections.

It is a certainty that left-wing Democrats are not going to stop at bestowing the right to vote in local districts only, thereby widening the gap between the parties on this issue.

The position of Democrats on the granting illegal immigrants the right to vote debases the whole notion of citizenship, which puts them outside the mainstream on this issue.

In fact, those districts that have either introduced or implemented the idea have all been located on either coast. San Francisco has the policy and Boston has recently proposed a similar measure.

A Rasmussen poll, that phrased the questions differently had an even more astonishing result. The Rasmussen poll found that a majority of Democrats favor granting noncitizens the right to vote. Two questions were put to respondents.

The first question asked: Should illegal immigrants be allowed to vote if they can prove that they live in this county and pay taxes? The second , Do you favor or oppose letting illegal immigrants vote for local officials in the area where you live?

As noted in Hot Air,

Note how much more expansive the phrasing of the first question is than the second. The second specifies local elections; the first doesn’t, and yet there’s actually more support for letting them vote in the first case than in the second. I assume that’s because of the reference to paying taxes. A small but meaningful minority may believe that if you’re paying into the system then you deserve a say in how it operates, whether or not you have any legal right to be present in the United States. Either way, Democrats clearly prefer a residency requirement rather than a citizenship requirement for democratic participation. Is there any more basic disagreement between the two parties right now?

Reviewing these results, a question arises: Which party is the extremist on the issue of illegal immigrants?

{ 0 comments }

After stonewalling for months, last Saturday, the FBI released documents related to the Carter Page FISA warrants including the applications, the certifications made by FBI agents and the warrants themselves.

Even though the documents are heavily redacted, Andy McCarthy writing in National Review, notes that the unverified Steele dossier with its salacious and sensational allegations paid for by the Clinton campaign was the basis on which the Trump Russian collusion investigation was initiated.

McCarthy is a former federal prosector and in that role, he has worked on numerous occasions with FBI agents who were charged with verifying and certifying to the court information on which various warrants were based. McCarthy has been a credible analyst and knowledgeable commentator of the entire Russia collusion proceedings and his comments on the disclosed documents is damning.

The facts revealed by the released documents are particularly disturbing because McCarthy had previously asserted, adamantly, that those who argued the raw uncorroborated Steele dossier, in and of itself, was the sole evidence on which the FISA court issued the warrants to spy on Carter Page were badly mistaken.

McCarthy’s position was based on his own involvement with FBI agents and the procedures they assiduously and rigorously employed in connection with verifying and certifying facts on which warrants were based when an application was made to the court. McCarthy’s original position was based on his justifiable credulity that the FBI and Justice Department would never have engaged in such chicanery. After a review of the recently disclosed material, McCarthy has been forced to retract his earlier statements on the entire FISA matter, as in his own words,

“I am embarrassed by this not just because I assured people it could not have happened, and not just because it is so beneath the bureau — especially in a politically fraught case in which the brass green-lighted the investigation of a presidential campaign. I am embarrassed because what happened here flouts rudimentary investigative standards. Any trained FBI agent would know that even the best FBI agent in the country could not get a warrant based on his own stellar reputation. A fortiori, you would never seek a warrant based solely on the reputation of Christopher Steele — a non-American former intelligence agent who had political and financial incentives to undermine Donald Trump. It is always, always necessary to persuade the court that the actual sources of information allegedly amounting to probable cause are believable.”

In this case, the FBI’s own standard operating procedures were intentionally jettisoned in order to obtain a warrant to surveil an American citizen based on a document whose information was based on double and triple hearsay from questionable sources.

McCarthy reviews the various Carter Page applications and his conclusions should trouble every American — regardless of their political affiliation. Astonishingly, as McCarty states,

The bulk of the first Carter Page FISA application consists of allegations against Page that were disclosed to the FBI by Mr. Steele and are also outlined in the Steele dossier. The application appears to contain no additional information corroborating the dossier allegations against Mr. Page.

McCarthy correctly outlines standard FBI protocol,

The FBI would go to the FISA court only with independent evidence corroborated through standard FBI rigor.

[click to continue…]

{ 0 comments }

The most newsworthy event to emerge from the Maxine Waters affair wasn’t her call for mob harassment tactics against Trump Administration officials, nor the attendant inflammatory language employed, but rather, the swift reaction of two women’s activist groups who castigated House Minority Leader, Nancy Pelosi, for her audacity in reproaching Waters.

The two letters are significant because they not only convey the ideological principles on which the progressive opposition to the Trump Administration will be based but also, because they forebode the inevitable internecine conflict that will soon engulf the Democratic Party.

The contents of both letters are rife with extremism and provide a glimpse into the soul of modern progressive identity politics.

The letters also are evidence that the zany social theories and concepts of group identity politics, spawned by diversity beast’s need for instances of perpetual grievance and once confined to the fringes of the academic left, have now become incorporated into the mainstream vocabulary and policies of the Democratic Party.

The first letter from a group of black women politicians states an obvious but unpleasant identity politics political reality for the Democratic Party. In order to win national elections, Democrats needs to capture almost ninety percent of the black vote. The letter indelicately reminds Pelosi of the long-term fealty of African-Americans to the party in stark and unforgiving terms.

“For Black women, who are the most loyal base of the Democratic Party and the Progressive Movement, Congresswoman Waters is our shero sic.”

The letter further reminds the Minority Leader that,

“Disparaging or failing to support Congresswoman Waters is an affront to her and Black women across the country and telegraphs a message that the Democratic Party can ill afford: that it does not respect Black women’s leadership and political power and discounts the impact of Black women and millennial voters.”

For purposes of gleaning the nature of Pelosi’s insolence, here is what Waters said,

“Let’s make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd,” Waters said at an event in Los Angeles. “And you push back on them. And you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere.”

How is it possible to denounce the ultra-liberal House Minority Leader of the party for criticizing these incendiary remarks? How can a congresswoman who utters such rabble-rousing comments not be subject to censure? [click to continue…]

{ 0 comments }

Democrats continue their implacable lurch leftward right off the cliff by showering praise on the latest star of their party, unabashed Socialist, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. None other than DNC chairman, Tom Perez has claimed she is the new face of the Democratic Party.

Ocasio-Cortez, like her mentor Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders, has called upon the Democratic Party to offer voters a lot of free stuff. In addition, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez  has issued the battle cry for progressives to occupy airports to protest the treatment of migrants at the border. That stunt, if attempted, will truly put them in the good graces of voters. In addition of course, she is calling for the abolition of ICE, a position no different from every one of the Democratic 2020 presidential hopefuls.

Ocasio-Cortez now feels enabled to continue spreading her gospel of socialism, no doubt due to the effusive praise showered upon her by leading Democrats as well as from a solicitous media who has been treating her like a rock star.

I thought the GOP was the stupid party but the Democrats have one-upped them by associating the party with this idiot.

It is going to be great fun watching the Democrats walk themselves right off the cliff as they continue to embrace the philosophy of the perpetually-angry Bernie SandersSmatters, whose ultimate goal is to turn the United States in to a 21st century version of Denmark.

If Democrats truly believe that Ocasio-Cortez is the wave of the future, then Republican should do everything they can to assist the Democratic Party destroy itself by political acts of self-immolation.

I agree with Guy Benson who wrote in Townhall recently,

“Abolish ICE” is an ascendant litmus test for the Democratic Party’s left-wing base, attracting sufficient support as to inspire hilarious backflips from craven panderers with presidential ambitions. Some “progressives” went so far as to file a bill to dismantle the immigration enforcement agency.”

In short, their own bill would have given them enough rope to hang themselves. It would have forced the finger-in-the wind politician, Kristen Gillibrand to vote and then ultimately reverse her position. Why then did the stupid party not force a vote on the issue? As Benson further notes,

The GOP plan, based on widespread reports, was to give Democrats a chance to actually vote on their colleagues’ (will unpopular) idea. Recognizing the trap, the authors of the legislation balked at their own idea, amusingly denouncing the planned vote, on the exact bill they championed, as a “stunt.”

It is mystifying then, why the GOP congressional leadership would refuse to assist Democrats in their walk-back?

It seems like the Republican Party is incapable of capitalizing on gifts handed to them on a silver platter.

{ 0 comments }

Why Trump Rattles the Europeans

Ever since the G7 summit, president Trump has criticized European leaders harshly. Trump is no Metternich, Disraeli or Kissinger; he is blunt and his comments indecorous. But the pointed criticisms he has made to the Europeans, especial Germany’s Angela Merkel, are not only well deserved, they are long overdue.

Since the beginning of the Cold War a rapacious Soviet foreign policy was kept in check by United States troops stationed primarily in Germany. These troops were often characterized as a “trip wire”, that if engaged by the Russians, would lead to inevitable armed hostilities. The peace was kept due to the deterrent effect of the American strategic nuclear umbrella.

The unconditional and unwavering military commitments made by the United States for the defense of Europe during the Cold War as well as the Marshall Plan, were primarily responsible for Europe’s ability to rebuild their post-war economies. During this period of recovery, Europe ran up trade surpluses with the United States that continued up until the recent G7 meeting.

Trump indelicately informed the spoiled and haughty Europeans that this grotesque imbalance was going to be redressed.

Trump merely asked the Europeans to pay their fair share of military expenditures as members of NATO. Indeed, under the treaty the Europeans were required to pledge a specified amount of their GNP for defensive capabilities; most of them balked, and with the exception of Great Britain, have contributed a pittance. Germany, the economic power house of Europe, was only paying a laughable 1% and simultaneously running trade surpluses with America, while the U.S. taxpayer subsidized its defense capabilities.

This was obscene and Trump indelicately informed the stunned and militarily dependent Europeans that their days of post-war freeloading were over.

Relieved of the mettlesome cost of providing for their own defense, the European, especially Germany, spent enormous sums on lavish social welfare programs that in the end, were indirectly subsidized by U.S. taxpayers.

Despite the collapse of the former Soviet Union, did any previous American president ever ask why U.S. troops are still stationed in Germany long after the fall of the Berlin Wall?

Europe has been drifting away from the United States culturally and economically. Political elites favor consolidation of decision making with European Union bureaucrats in Brussels. Many of the old European countries have willingly ceded their sovereignty for the idea of a common or unified Europe. Merkel has opened her borders to migrants from the Middle East and they have flooded in, unwilling to adopt or assimilate to the cultural and national mores of their host country.

Replacement birth rates in Europe are dangerously low. In short, Europe is dying a slow death; a fate suffered by its own hands.

There is very little substance or commonality left within the Transatlantic alliance. Trump understands this reality and has acted accordingly, reversing decades of counterproductive and unenlightened U.S. foreign policy that had never adopted to the changing geopolitical realities.

{ 0 comments }

Trump has thrown down the Pochahantos gauntlet on Senator Elizabeth Warren to prove she has a Cherokee heritage.

Last Thursday In his typical trademark bombastic style, presidnet Trump challenged Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts to take a blood test in exchange for $1 million that would definitively prove whether or not she has Cherokee blood.

Trump spoke as if he were debating Warren in a presidential election contest, Trump said his team would purchase a DNA blood test kit and during the debate,

“And we will say, ‘I will give you a million dollars, paid for by Trump, to

your favorite charity if you take the test and it shows you’re an Indian,”

Trump said. “And we’ll see what she does. I have a feeling she will say no

but we will hold it for the debates.”

Warren naturally changed the subject when she responded,

“Hey, @realDonaldTrump: While you obsess over my genes, your Admin is conducting DNA tests on little kids because you ripped them from their mamas & you are too incompetent to reunite them in time to meet a court order. Maybe you should focus on fixing the lives you’re destroying.”

Through this challenge, Trump did more in one day to halt the pernicious influence of identiy politics that has coursed through the political veins of the country than the entire Republican establishment has done since the Reagan presidency.

In fairness to the anti-Trump wing of the party, when you contrast something against nothing, Trump will always prevail.

Trump is going to prove to be one of the most brilliant politicians of our lifetime for the simple reason that he came to Wasahington with a wrecking ball and he hasn’t stopped swinging it. Trump has no political experinece and that is just what the times call for to shake up the corrupt swamp in Washington. Those in flyover country who are not enthralled with the political elites who have overseen the nations decline are cheering raucously at Trump’s takedown of the the patent fraud, Elizabeth Warren.

Trump’s audacious and unorthodox stunt was another adroit political move unappreciated by the brain-dead establishment and anti-Trump wing of the party. Trump accomplished three things with the good natured contest. First, he insures that the entire identiy politics scam for which Warren is an exemplar is exposed for what it is: an exercise in monuental silliness that lays bare progressives obsession with race as the determinative factor in politics.

Second, Trump can resurrect the phoniness of Warren at will. He refused to be bound by the strictures and rules that were established by the mainstream media to circumscribe Republican president’s choices in the political arena. Since starting in office, Trump has gone over the heads of the media and communicated directly wiht the American people. This insures that the Pocahontas story will not be buried or ingnored completely by the mainstream media.

Third, by publicly shaming Warren, Trump is going to put the nail in the coffin of a pernicious political idelogy that provides succor for the hard left and now for the entire Democratic Party.

Trump is not going to let Warren off the hook. Rest assured, we have not heard the last about Warren’s shameful saga.

It is gong to be great fun watching Warren squirm as she steadfastly refuses to take the simple blood test that would exonerate her claims of Cherokee ancestry and end the mystery once and for all.

And that is precisely the reason Trump is going to keep pressing the issue.

Warren’s refusal to take the test will have the same effect as a criminal defendant taking the Fifth.

On multiple occasions, Warren had an opportunity to rescind her silly claims and end the matter definitively. She chose to cotinue to stick her foot in her party’s sacrosanct identity politics muck and she will never be able to extract herself from the morass.

The Republican attack ads will practically write themselves.

{ 0 comments }

Michael Goodwin has an article in the New York Post this morning in which he argues that based on recent email communications from her various super PAC’s to various activist groups in the party, she is contemplating another run at the presidency.

Clinton has reminded many rank and file Democrats that her groups have stood in the bulwark in fighting the policies of the Trump Administration, particularly, given the recent migrant child crisis on the border, his immigration policies. She noted that her group, Onward Together, has raised $1 million to various groups including the ACLU to change border policy.

She also introduced another one of her groups called Demand Justice, shortly after Supreme Court Justice, Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement, to vigorously contest any of Trump’s nominees. The Director of Demand Justice is Brian Fallon, Clinton’s campaign press secretary.

In support of his argument that Hillary is contemplating another run, Goodwin argues that,

“With the Democratic Party locked in a battle between its far left wing and its far, far left wing, no single leader has emerged to unite it. Clinton is trying to play that role by being a mother hen to the fledgling activists drawn to politics by their hatred of Trump.

If they were active in 2016, most probably supported Bernie Sanders in his primary challenge to Clinton. But by helping to fund them now, she is putting them in her debt for later.

Ah, but will she need their support later? Is she really going to make a third run for the White House?”

However intriguing the idea of another Clinton campaign may be, there are a host of factors that insure that the idea will never gain traction, save among die-hard Hillary devotees.

There is the not insignificant problem of Bill Clinton’s unpredictable and potentially damaging behavior. He has a habit of straying from the campaign script and sticking his foot in his mouth. Any one of his intemperate and impolitic comments could cause irreparable damage to any third campaign. Furthermore, Bill Clinton’s unrepentant posture during his book tour will not play well during the primaries among the #MeToo crowd.

Those who spoke out against his White House depravity in the wake of the Harvey Weinstein disclosures, would be forced to deal with the indelicate question of why the party would want to reward and take the risk of sending Bill Clinton back to the White House again. The Democratic Party cannot possibly be that stupid. Although, they could always chose, yet again, to commit Hari Kari by tying themselves to the Bonnie and Clyde of American politics.

Goodwin claims that Hillary would easily beat presidential contender Kamala Harris in her home state of California. I think Goodwin here is way off the mark. Many in the Democratic Party view Harris as a female Obama. Given the party’s undying devotion to identity politics, Harris would defeat Clinton handily in any California primary.

Finally, it is highly unlikely there are any high-level strategists in the Democratic Party that would view favorably a third try for Clinton. If they decide to support another of Clinton’s bids for the presidency, they will have taken leave of their senses, given the party’s disastrous decision to hand her the keys to the kingdom in 2015, despite having notice of her email chicanery and the brewing troubles with the Clinton Foundation.

The Republican Party can only hope and pray that the Democrats nominate a has-been as their candidate.

One would naturally be inclined to ask: Has the Democratic Party a death wish?

{ 0 comments }

Eugene Robinson’s Tuesday article in The Washington Post is entitled: GOP Trying to Make Democrats Self-Implode. The brief answer to Robinson is that the Democratic Party is doing a fine job of imploding all on its own. The GOP has nothing to do with the civil war raging between its left wing and old line establishment of the Democratic Party; Republicans are merely gleeful bystanders witnessing Democrats acts of self-immolation.

Let’s start with the lunatic Congresswoman from California, Maxine Waters. After the incident at the border, she called on a mob to harass Trump Administration officials and then in the same breath had the gall to tell a cheering crowd that “God is on our side.” In Waters, the Democratic Party has found its Robespierre and will henceforth operate under the watchful eye of cooky fringe liberals like Waters who they have delegated as head of the Committee on Public Safety.

As historian Crane Briton, chronicled in his notable work, The Anatomy of a Revolution, most insurrectionists or left wing radicals who seek to upset or destroy the existing political order, wind up eating their own. During the final stages of the convulsions released during the French Revolution, it was Robespierre himself, in the end, who was forced to walk up the wooden stairs to the guillotine, where he had sent so many before him.

The party elders dare not rebuke Waters because she truly represents the radical wing of the party and that is where the energy lies in today’s Democratic Party. Democratic Party officials have encouraged the Bernie Sanders wing them to declare war against the Administration, in the hopes that stoking the rage will help them in the upcoming mid-term elections.

Sarah Sanders was asked to leave a restaurant in Virginia called the Red Hen by its owner. Because of her standing in the Trump Administration the owner felt it was her moral duty to refuse to server Sanders. After all, Trump’s odious policy of child separation at the border — an occurrence that happened during the Obama Administration — was indicative [click to continue…]

{ 0 comments }

Democrats Continue to Walk off the Cliff on Immigration

The latest indication that the Democratic Party harbors extreme views about immigration, more particularly, immigration enforcement, comes from Zephyr Teachout, a candidate for Attorney General of New York and a law professor at Fordham.

In an incoherent article entitled, ICE is a tool of illegality. It must be abolished, Teachout, (remember, he is a professor of law), writes that,

“the United States is in a legal and moral emergency, and lawyers have a special responsibility to speak up. Lawyers, as the protectors of the rule of law, must demand the end of indefinite family detention centers, must insist that all children get guaranteed legal representation, and should join the growing movement to abolish US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice).”

Here is a question for our distinguished law professor, isn’t crossing the border illegally a crime? Or, does Teachout, like a growing number of liberals, believe, without any foundation in American jurisprudence, that migrants have a universal right to emigrate to the U.S.? Teachout, like so many other left-wing critics of Trump never address the question.

Teachout further inveighs against Trump, for enforcing the law through ICE, by calling such action, “a tool of unconstitutional illegal behavior.”

Did Teachout get the memo, that the U.S. Supreme Court just upheld Trump’s travel ban as constitutional.?

Teachout is an example of the madness of the left on immigration and how out of the mainstream their views are on illegal immigration with the rest of the country.

As Rich Lowry writes in the New York Post,

“the one thing the American people know about Donald Trump is that he believes we have a border and it should be enforced. About his opponents, they know no such thing — and how could they?”

Teachout perfectly illustrates the real position of liberals on illegal immigration: they don’t believe anyone who crosses the border without permission is committing a crime. For Democrats, migrants are entitled to remain in the U.S. and the country is obligated to pay for their care and well-being.

As Lowry further notes,

“At a time when Democrats should be cognizant of their vulnerabilities on immigration, many of them consider US immigration authorities the interlopers rather than illegal aliens.”

Do Democrats like Teachout, believe the American people share their open borders views? They are going down in flames next November if they let people like Teachout be their spokesman on illegal immigration.

{ 0 comments }