Trump Hit Piece Could Be Wrong
Atlantic Editor Concedes Central Claim
Jordan Davidson
The Federalist
On Sunday, Atlantic Editor in Chief Jeffrey Goldberg admitted the White House’s account that President Trump’s trip to a cemetery of fallen World War I soldiers in France in 2018 was modified due to bad weather is probably accurate. “I’m sure all of those things are true,” Goldberg told CNN in an interview on Friday when asked to respond to evidence a story he published saying otherwise is false.
In the story published in The Atlantic on Thursday, Goldberg asserted that multiple senior White House staffers heard President Trump express a desire to cancel his visit to the cemetery because “It’s filled with losers.”
“When President Donald Trump cancelled a visit to the Aisne-Marne American Cemetery near Paris in 2018, he blamed the rain for the last-minute decision, saying ‘the helicopter couldn’t fly’ and that the Secret Service wouldn’t drive him there. Neither claim was true. Trump rejected the idea of the visit because he feared his hair would become dishevelled in the rain, and because he did not believe it important to honor American war dead,” Goldberg wrote, citing only anonymous sources.
Showing posts with label Trump. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Trump. Show all posts
Monday, 14 September 2020
Tuesday, 1 September 2020
Political Re-calibrations
I Was Wrong About Trump
He Didn’t Destroy the GOP, He Saved It
At the RNC four years ago, I thought Trump couldn’t win the White House and that his nomination would destroy the Republican Party. I was wrong.
John Daniel Davidson
The Federalist
When the Republican Party formally nominated Donald Trump four years ago at the national convention in Cleveland, I thought the GOP was making huge mistake. It seemed Trump would certainly lose in November, and that every Republican officeholder who climbed aboard the Trump train that summer would be purged from whatever came after his inevitable defeat. It would be the end of the GOP as we knew it.
I was wrong about all of that—and in hindsight, I’m glad I was wrong.
Like a lot of observers at the time, I thought Trump had no real policy agenda to define his campaign beyond a vague pro-America sentiment and a withering disdain for the political establishments of both major parties. I thought his political inexperience was a liability, that his penchant for insulting his opponents would turn voters off, and that the GOP had missed an opportunity to defeat Hillary Clinton by nominating someone else—anyone, really, besides Trump.
But it turned out Trump was the best candidate to beat Clinton because Clinton embodied nearly everything voters had come to hate about America’s political class: the falsity, the naked hypocrisy, the barely disguised disdain for ordinary people.
He Didn’t Destroy the GOP, He Saved It
At the RNC four years ago, I thought Trump couldn’t win the White House and that his nomination would destroy the Republican Party. I was wrong.
John Daniel Davidson
The Federalist
When the Republican Party formally nominated Donald Trump four years ago at the national convention in Cleveland, I thought the GOP was making huge mistake. It seemed Trump would certainly lose in November, and that every Republican officeholder who climbed aboard the Trump train that summer would be purged from whatever came after his inevitable defeat. It would be the end of the GOP as we knew it.
I was wrong about all of that—and in hindsight, I’m glad I was wrong.
Like a lot of observers at the time, I thought Trump had no real policy agenda to define his campaign beyond a vague pro-America sentiment and a withering disdain for the political establishments of both major parties. I thought his political inexperience was a liability, that his penchant for insulting his opponents would turn voters off, and that the GOP had missed an opportunity to defeat Hillary Clinton by nominating someone else—anyone, really, besides Trump.
But it turned out Trump was the best candidate to beat Clinton because Clinton embodied nearly everything voters had come to hate about America’s political class: the falsity, the naked hypocrisy, the barely disguised disdain for ordinary people.
Friday, 21 August 2020
UK Pundit Stumps For Trump
Nigel Farage Predicts Donald Trump Will Win in November
Joe Biden is ‘Wholly Unfit for High Office’
Kurt Zindulka
Breitbart News
The architect of the Brexit movement in the United Kingdom, Nigel Farage, said that Americans should not believe the national polls, saying that he will “stick his neck out” and predict that President Donald Trump will indeed win his re-election bid in November.
The leading Brexiteer and long-time Trump ally said that “national polls should not be trusted” and that a better predictor of the presidential election is to analyse voter enthusiasm for the respective candidates. He argued that compared to President Trump’s loyal base, Joe Biden’s support is based largely on anti-Trump sentiment, rather than true support for the 77-year-old former Vice President.
“I have seen this data in private polling,” Mr Farage wrote in Newsweek, adding: “It shows a distinct lack of enthusiasm for and confidence in Biden’s ability to discharge his duties as would-be president of the United States of America. I am not surprised. The truth is that he is past it. He is not up to the job. He is wholly unfit for high office, and the voters can see it.”
Joe Biden is ‘Wholly Unfit for High Office’
Kurt Zindulka
Breitbart News
The architect of the Brexit movement in the United Kingdom, Nigel Farage, said that Americans should not believe the national polls, saying that he will “stick his neck out” and predict that President Donald Trump will indeed win his re-election bid in November.
The leading Brexiteer and long-time Trump ally said that “national polls should not be trusted” and that a better predictor of the presidential election is to analyse voter enthusiasm for the respective candidates. He argued that compared to President Trump’s loyal base, Joe Biden’s support is based largely on anti-Trump sentiment, rather than true support for the 77-year-old former Vice President.
“I have seen this data in private polling,” Mr Farage wrote in Newsweek, adding: “It shows a distinct lack of enthusiasm for and confidence in Biden’s ability to discharge his duties as would-be president of the United States of America. I am not surprised. The truth is that he is past it. He is not up to the job. He is wholly unfit for high office, and the voters can see it.”
Saturday, 27 June 2020
Only So Many Days of Good Sailing Weather
Storm-Tossed Galleon
A Presidential Campaign Simile
By Victor Davis Hanson
National Review
Presidential campaigns are like galleons sailing into port, their metaphorical Election Day destinations. Some arrive there first, others not at all.
The news cycle is the propellant wind, their own campaigns the ship and its sails, and the candidates the captains on the bridge. Sometimes, no matter how tall the masts and huge the canvas, the wind blows against them or is all but nonexistent. Then the campaign ship stays in the doldrums or goes backward in the polls because of the headwinds — even despite brilliant rigging, clever tacking, and an adroit captain’s seamanship.
Right now, Trump’s ship has been hit in succession by sudden headwinds and violent storms of impeachment, the contagion, the lockdown, the tragic killing of George Floyd, and both the ensuring peaceful protests and violent looting, rioting, and arson. The result is that his voyage to port has nearly stopped. Even warped polls suggest that in the past few days he has caught little wind in his sails, while Joe Biden, asleep at the wheel, lets his crew ever so slowly capture a tiny breeze or two and drift ahead.
A Presidential Campaign Simile
By Victor Davis Hanson
National Review
Presidential campaigns are like galleons sailing into port, their metaphorical Election Day destinations. Some arrive there first, others not at all.
The news cycle is the propellant wind, their own campaigns the ship and its sails, and the candidates the captains on the bridge. Sometimes, no matter how tall the masts and huge the canvas, the wind blows against them or is all but nonexistent. Then the campaign ship stays in the doldrums or goes backward in the polls because of the headwinds — even despite brilliant rigging, clever tacking, and an adroit captain’s seamanship.
Right now, Trump’s ship has been hit in succession by sudden headwinds and violent storms of impeachment, the contagion, the lockdown, the tragic killing of George Floyd, and both the ensuring peaceful protests and violent looting, rioting, and arson. The result is that his voyage to port has nearly stopped. Even warped polls suggest that in the past few days he has caught little wind in his sails, while Joe Biden, asleep at the wheel, lets his crew ever so slowly capture a tiny breeze or two and drift ahead.
Wednesday, 24 June 2020
Trump Starts to Squeeze Germany Over Its Failure to Pay For US Troops In Europe
Trump Confirms
Major U.S. Troop Drawdown in ‘Delinquent’ Germany
Simon Kent
Breitbart London
President Donald Trump confirmed Monday a major reduction in U.S. troop strength in Germany will go ahead as he faulted the “delinquent” NATO ally for failing to pay enough for its own defense. “We’re putting the number down to 25,000 soldiers,” Trump said at the White House.
“We’re protecting Germany and they’re delinquent. That doesn’t make sense,” the president continued, referring to Germany’s failure to attain a goal set by all NATO members in 2014 to spend at least two percent of gross national product on defense by 2024. Germany says it hopes to reach two percent by 2031. “Until they pay, we’re removing our soldiers, a number of our soldiers,” Trump said, noting America bears the burden of militarily defending Europe and gets precious little in return.
Major U.S. Troop Drawdown in ‘Delinquent’ Germany
Simon Kent
Breitbart London
President Donald Trump confirmed Monday a major reduction in U.S. troop strength in Germany will go ahead as he faulted the “delinquent” NATO ally for failing to pay enough for its own defense. “We’re putting the number down to 25,000 soldiers,” Trump said at the White House.
“We’re protecting Germany and they’re delinquent. That doesn’t make sense,” the president continued, referring to Germany’s failure to attain a goal set by all NATO members in 2014 to spend at least two percent of gross national product on defense by 2024. Germany says it hopes to reach two percent by 2031. “Until they pay, we’re removing our soldiers, a number of our soldiers,” Trump said, noting America bears the burden of militarily defending Europe and gets precious little in return.
Wednesday, 10 June 2020
Wax-Nose "Truth"
Lancetgate Is a Humiliation for Trump’s Medical Critics
Nude Emperor Caught Out Once Again
James Delingpole
Breitbart News
The Lancet — one of the world’s oldest, best known, and most respected medical journals — has formally retracted a paper which claimed that hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) is ineffective and potentially dangerous in the treatment of Chinese coronavirus.
The paper — ‘Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: a multinational registry analysis’ — received widespread publicity across the mainstream media because it was the biggest and most damning study about HCQ.
Supposedly based on the records of 96,032 patients in 671 hospitals, the study claimed that coronavirus patients who took HCQ were more likely to die than those who took nothing. It was so damning that the World Health Organization (WHO) immediately halted all its trials of HCQ. France banned its use altogether in treatments for Covid-19.
But arguably the main reason the study got so much publicity was because HCQ has been championed by President Donald Trump. Trump has admitted to taking HCQ himself as a prophylactic against the Chinese coronavirus. So here was a perfect opportunity for his many critics in the mainstream media to make him look ignorant and foolish.
This story by the BBC was fairly typical, headlined ‘Trump drug hydroxychloroquine raises death risk in Covid patients, study says’.
It began:
This antipathy towards Trump was very much shared by the Lancet, which, for 25 years, has been edited by a hard-left activist Richard Horton. As Rebecca Weisser notes in a piece for Spectator Australia, Horton has a long track record of championing fashionable leftist causes:
Horton and the Lancet are also, it goes almost without saying, fanatical proponents of the man-made global warming narrative.
Last month, the Lancet published an editorial urging Americans to “put a president in the White House…who will understand that public health should not be guided by partisan politics.” This month, however, it has been exposed as having engaged in what look very much like “partisan politics” itself. The way the Lancet has suddenly taken a paper of “such consequence” only to discard it “like a used tissue” has been described as ‘one of the most consequential retractions in modern history’.
Oddly it was the left-wing Guardian that blew the whistle.
A writer for its Australian edition, Melissa Davey, rang round Australian hospitals and found that the real Australian data did not tally with the claims made in the study. This raised serious questions about the credibility of Surgisphere, the hitherto unknown analytics company which had produced the study.
As the Guardian reported:
Why was a once-respected medical journal prepared to run a study from so dubious a source having apparently submitted it to so little scrutiny? As Toby Young, among others, argues at Lockdown Sceptics, the decision appears as if it had more to do with political activism than with disinterested science.
The question is, why did the “independent” fact-checkers fail to spot this bit of fake news when they’ve been so quick to jump on anything purporting to show HCQ is effective? Could it be that they’re not actually independent at all, but Establishment lackeys determined to discredit anything that suggests COVID-19 isn’t the deadly pathogen it’s made out to be by governments around the world, particularly if it emanates from the White House?
With suspiciously convenient timing, within 24 hours of the Lancet retraction, yet another study — from the University of Oxford, part of the so-called Recovery Trial — allegedly debunking hydroxychloroquine was publicised in the mainstream media.
In the Telegraph, the story was reported under the headline ‘Researchers halt trial into hydroxychloroquine after they found it was “useless” against coronavirus’.
Immediately underneath, an anti-Trump standfirst:
Of course it’s quite possible that the many doctors (such as France’s Didier Raoult) who claim to have used HCQ successfully as a treatment for Covid-19 — often in conjunction with zinc — may yet be confounded by a definitive study.
But it’s equally possible that Trump — and those doctors — may yet be vindicated.
Nude Emperor Caught Out Once Again
James Delingpole
Breitbart News
The Lancet — one of the world’s oldest, best known, and most respected medical journals — has formally retracted a paper which claimed that hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) is ineffective and potentially dangerous in the treatment of Chinese coronavirus.
The paper — ‘Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: a multinational registry analysis’ — received widespread publicity across the mainstream media because it was the biggest and most damning study about HCQ.
Supposedly based on the records of 96,032 patients in 671 hospitals, the study claimed that coronavirus patients who took HCQ were more likely to die than those who took nothing. It was so damning that the World Health Organization (WHO) immediately halted all its trials of HCQ. France banned its use altogether in treatments for Covid-19.
But arguably the main reason the study got so much publicity was because HCQ has been championed by President Donald Trump. Trump has admitted to taking HCQ himself as a prophylactic against the Chinese coronavirus. So here was a perfect opportunity for his many critics in the mainstream media to make him look ignorant and foolish.
This story by the BBC was fairly typical, headlined ‘Trump drug hydroxychloroquine raises death risk in Covid patients, study says’.
It began:
The drug U.S. President Donald Trump said he was taking to ward off Covid-19 actually increases the risk of patients with the disease dying from it, a study in the Lancet has found.In other words, the MSM was in no doubt where the real significance of the Lancet study lay: it represented a humiliation for Trump. Trump’s ideological enemies were quite unable to hide their glee. Senator Ed Markey (D-Mass.) tweeted that “the science is clear and the president, as usual is dangerously wrong”.
This antipathy towards Trump was very much shared by the Lancet, which, for 25 years, has been edited by a hard-left activist Richard Horton. As Rebecca Weisser notes in a piece for Spectator Australia, Horton has a long track record of championing fashionable leftist causes:
Horton’s causes célèbres include publishing an inflated Iraq War death toll, a letter on Gaza from pro-Hamas doctors and calling for physicians to join Extinction Rebellion.
Horton and the Lancet are also, it goes almost without saying, fanatical proponents of the man-made global warming narrative.
Last month, the Lancet published an editorial urging Americans to “put a president in the White House…who will understand that public health should not be guided by partisan politics.” This month, however, it has been exposed as having engaged in what look very much like “partisan politics” itself. The way the Lancet has suddenly taken a paper of “such consequence” only to discard it “like a used tissue” has been described as ‘one of the most consequential retractions in modern history’.
Oddly it was the left-wing Guardian that blew the whistle.
A writer for its Australian edition, Melissa Davey, rang round Australian hospitals and found that the real Australian data did not tally with the claims made in the study. This raised serious questions about the credibility of Surgisphere, the hitherto unknown analytics company which had produced the study.
As the Guardian reported:
- A search of publicly available material suggests several of Surgisphere’s employees have little or no data or scientific background. An employee listed as a science editor appears to be a science fiction author and fantasy artist whose professional profile suggests writing is her fulltime job. Another employee listed as a marketing executive is an adult model and events hostess, who also acts in videos for organisations.
- The company’s LinkedIn page has fewer than 100 followers and last week listed just six employees. This was changed to three employees as of Wednesday.
- While Surgisphere claims to run one of the largest and fastest hospital databases in the world, it has almost no online presence. Its Twitter handle has fewer than 170 followers, with no posts between October 2017 and March 2020.
- Until Monday, the “get in touch” link on Surgisphere’s homepage redirected to a WordPress template for a cryptocurrency website, raising questions about how hospitals could easily contact the company to join its database.
- Desai has been named in three medical malpractice suits, unrelated to the Surgisphere database. In an interview with the Scientist, Desai previously described the allegations as “unfounded”.
- In 2008, Desai launched a crowdfunding campaign on the website Indiegogo promoting a wearable “next generation human augmentation device that can help you achieve what you never thought was possible”. The device never came to fruition.
- Desai’s Wikipedia page has been deleted following questions about Surgisphere and his history, first raised in 2010.
Why was a once-respected medical journal prepared to run a study from so dubious a source having apparently submitted it to so little scrutiny? As Toby Young, among others, argues at Lockdown Sceptics, the decision appears as if it had more to do with political activism than with disinterested science.
The question is, why did the “independent” fact-checkers fail to spot this bit of fake news when they’ve been so quick to jump on anything purporting to show HCQ is effective? Could it be that they’re not actually independent at all, but Establishment lackeys determined to discredit anything that suggests COVID-19 isn’t the deadly pathogen it’s made out to be by governments around the world, particularly if it emanates from the White House?
With suspiciously convenient timing, within 24 hours of the Lancet retraction, yet another study — from the University of Oxford, part of the so-called Recovery Trial — allegedly debunking hydroxychloroquine was publicised in the mainstream media.
In the Telegraph, the story was reported under the headline ‘Researchers halt trial into hydroxychloroquine after they found it was “useless” against coronavirus’.
Immediately underneath, an anti-Trump standfirst:
‘This could be the end of the road for a drug touted as a ‘game-changer’ by U.S. president Donald Trump’.Well it could. Except, almost immediately, doubts were being raised about the reliability of this trial too, especially with regard to the dosage of HCQ used.
Of course it’s quite possible that the many doctors (such as France’s Didier Raoult) who claim to have used HCQ successfully as a treatment for Covid-19 — often in conjunction with zinc — may yet be confounded by a definitive study.
But it’s equally possible that Trump — and those doctors — may yet be vindicated.
Friday, 5 June 2020
"Incompetent," Then.
Senator Cruz Unloads On Rosenstein
"Your Handling Of Mueller Probe Proves You Were Either Corrupt Or Incompetent"
Madeline Osburn
The Federalist
[The following piece reveals the extent to which some of the opponents of Donald Trump and his staff had become subject to secretive, conniving "Group Think" where integrity and truth had long ago made a disgraceful exit.]
When questioned by Texas Sen. Ted Cruz during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Wednesday, former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein admitted that at the time of his involvement in the FBI’s Russia investigation, he was unaware of the ongoing misbehavior at the highest levels of law enforcement.
“You came into a profoundly politicized world [at DOJ], and yet all of this was allowed to go forward under your leadership. That unfortunately only leads to two possible conclusions,” Cruz said. “Either you were complicit in the wrongdoing, which I don’t believe is the case, or that the performance of your duties was grossly negligent.”
In getting to the bottom of Rosenstein’s alleged negligence to the crimes committed at the highest levels of law enforcement under his watch, Cruz asked, “Was there any more important case the Department of Justice had than an investigation into whether the president of the United States is a Russian asset colluding against the United States?”
“There was certainly lots of important investigations, but I viewed this as one of the most important,” Rosenstein said.
Rosenstein’s involvement at the top of the Department of Justice included appointing Robert Mueller as special counsel and signing Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant renewals based off fraudulent material, but he testified Wednesday he was unaware at the time of much of the wrongdoing he signed off on.
“At the time you read the FISA application, did you know the primary source behind the Steele dossier had disavowed it and said it’s not true?” Cruz asked.
“At the time I reviewed it, no I did not know that,” Rosenstein said.
“Did you know there was significant exculpatory evidence omitted from it?” Cruz asked.
“Absolutely not,” Rosenstein said.
“Did you know a lawyer on your staff had fraudulently altered material as a basis for a FISA application?” Cruz asked.
“That lawyer was not on my staff, but I was not aware of it,” Rosenstein said.
"Your Handling Of Mueller Probe Proves You Were Either Corrupt Or Incompetent"
Madeline Osburn
The Federalist
[The following piece reveals the extent to which some of the opponents of Donald Trump and his staff had become subject to secretive, conniving "Group Think" where integrity and truth had long ago made a disgraceful exit.]
When questioned by Texas Sen. Ted Cruz during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Wednesday, former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein admitted that at the time of his involvement in the FBI’s Russia investigation, he was unaware of the ongoing misbehavior at the highest levels of law enforcement.
“You came into a profoundly politicized world [at DOJ], and yet all of this was allowed to go forward under your leadership. That unfortunately only leads to two possible conclusions,” Cruz said. “Either you were complicit in the wrongdoing, which I don’t believe is the case, or that the performance of your duties was grossly negligent.”
In getting to the bottom of Rosenstein’s alleged negligence to the crimes committed at the highest levels of law enforcement under his watch, Cruz asked, “Was there any more important case the Department of Justice had than an investigation into whether the president of the United States is a Russian asset colluding against the United States?”
“There was certainly lots of important investigations, but I viewed this as one of the most important,” Rosenstein said.
Rosenstein’s involvement at the top of the Department of Justice included appointing Robert Mueller as special counsel and signing Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant renewals based off fraudulent material, but he testified Wednesday he was unaware at the time of much of the wrongdoing he signed off on.
“At the time you read the FISA application, did you know the primary source behind the Steele dossier had disavowed it and said it’s not true?” Cruz asked.
“At the time I reviewed it, no I did not know that,” Rosenstein said.
“Did you know there was significant exculpatory evidence omitted from it?” Cruz asked.
“Absolutely not,” Rosenstein said.
“Did you know a lawyer on your staff had fraudulently altered material as a basis for a FISA application?” Cruz asked.
“That lawyer was not on my staff, but I was not aware of it,” Rosenstein said.
Thursday, 30 April 2020
The Coronavirus Fatality Rate
Looks Like Trump Was Right
Two new studies suggest that President Trump was right in early March when he guessed the fatality rate for coronavirus is under 1 percent.
David Marcus
The Federalist
In early March, President Donald Trump was lambasted for saying on Sean Hannity’s Fox News show that he had a hunch the coronavirus fatality rate, which the World Health Organization pegged then at 3 to 4 percent, was in fact much lower, under 1 percent. Many commentators, myself included pointed out that the beginning of a pandemic medical crisis was not the time to be floating hunches. But, as we always knew was possible, it looks now like the president might well have been right.
New data from random antibody tests conducted in New York State suggest that as many as 2.7 million people statewide have had the coronavirus. That along with the just over 15,000 deaths that have occurred leads to a fatality rate for the virus of .5 percent according to Gov. Andrew Cuomo.
Here is what Trump said on March 4:
While this data is preliminary, it is backed up by another study in Los Angeles that found 40 times more people had carried the virus then were previously known. This dropped the fatality rate in LA from 4.5 percent to .1-.3 percent.
It is difficult to stress how important these findings are.
Two new studies suggest that President Trump was right in early March when he guessed the fatality rate for coronavirus is under 1 percent.
David Marcus
The Federalist
In early March, President Donald Trump was lambasted for saying on Sean Hannity’s Fox News show that he had a hunch the coronavirus fatality rate, which the World Health Organization pegged then at 3 to 4 percent, was in fact much lower, under 1 percent. Many commentators, myself included pointed out that the beginning of a pandemic medical crisis was not the time to be floating hunches. But, as we always knew was possible, it looks now like the president might well have been right.
New data from random antibody tests conducted in New York State suggest that as many as 2.7 million people statewide have had the coronavirus. That along with the just over 15,000 deaths that have occurred leads to a fatality rate for the virus of .5 percent according to Gov. Andrew Cuomo.
Here is what Trump said on March 4:
“Well, I think the 3.4 percent is really a false number. Now, and this is just my hunch, and — but based on a lot of conversations with a lot of people that do this. Because a lot people will have this and it’s very mild. They’ll get better very rapidly. They don’t even see a doctor. They don’t even call a doctor.”He went on to say:
“I think that that number (the WHO number) is very high. I think the number, personally, I would say the number is way under 1 percent.”Democrats and media pundits blasted Trump for spreading “misinformation.”
While this data is preliminary, it is backed up by another study in Los Angeles that found 40 times more people had carried the virus then were previously known. This dropped the fatality rate in LA from 4.5 percent to .1-.3 percent.
It is difficult to stress how important these findings are.
Thursday, 16 April 2020
Too Silly For Words
Media’s Latest Strategy To Fight Trump
Remove Him From His Own Press Conferences
After failing to censor President Trump's press conferences, media are working on a new plan of pressuring him to remove himself from his press conferences.
Mollie Hemingway
The Federalist
For years, the media complained that President Donald Trump wasn’t holding enough press conferences. Now, as the media’s poor performance in his daily coronavirus press conferences is on worldwide display, they’re begging him to leave his own press conferences, and leave them alone to craft their anti-Trump storylines.
When March polls showed Trump receiving unusually high marks for his handling of the Coronavirus pandemic, and the media receiving their traditionally low marks for it, many journalists began pushing for censorship of the press conferences. While many outlets tried this approach, it obviously failed with viewers who turned to other outlets for the news they sought.
The media, however, continued to be mocked for the prevalence of silly and unserious questions from reporters who clearly think they come off better outside their echo chambers than they do.
In an attempt to regain control, the media have shifted to a new approach. Trump’s daily press conferences with updates on the Wuhan Coronavirus pandemic are actually bad for him, yeah that’s the ticket!
The New York Times’ Jonathan Martin and Maggie Haberman, who would be known for their extreme anti-Trump posture and histrionic analysis if it weren’t shared by nearly everyone else in the White House press corps, laid out their case in a tendentious essay that the usual followers at many media outlets echoed throughout the day.
The article claims that “White House allies and Republican lawmakers” — not the embarrassed media — are deeply concerned by the briefings.
Remove Him From His Own Press Conferences
After failing to censor President Trump's press conferences, media are working on a new plan of pressuring him to remove himself from his press conferences.
Mollie Hemingway
The Federalist
For years, the media complained that President Donald Trump wasn’t holding enough press conferences. Now, as the media’s poor performance in his daily coronavirus press conferences is on worldwide display, they’re begging him to leave his own press conferences, and leave them alone to craft their anti-Trump storylines.
When March polls showed Trump receiving unusually high marks for his handling of the Coronavirus pandemic, and the media receiving their traditionally low marks for it, many journalists began pushing for censorship of the press conferences. While many outlets tried this approach, it obviously failed with viewers who turned to other outlets for the news they sought.
The media, however, continued to be mocked for the prevalence of silly and unserious questions from reporters who clearly think they come off better outside their echo chambers than they do.
In an attempt to regain control, the media have shifted to a new approach. Trump’s daily press conferences with updates on the Wuhan Coronavirus pandemic are actually bad for him, yeah that’s the ticket!
The New York Times’ Jonathan Martin and Maggie Haberman, who would be known for their extreme anti-Trump posture and histrionic analysis if it weren’t shared by nearly everyone else in the White House press corps, laid out their case in a tendentious essay that the usual followers at many media outlets echoed throughout the day.
The article claims that “White House allies and Republican lawmakers” — not the embarrassed media — are deeply concerned by the briefings.
A Great Piece!
Understanding Why Religious Conservatives Would Vote for Trump
By Andrew Walker
National Review Online
It’s a complicated situation for religious conservatives. But these are complicated times.
In January 2021, someone will take the presidential oath of office, and religious conservatives will undoubtedly play a crucial role in whom it will be. Their influence will be the focus of an untold number of postmortems, of the type they’ve been accustomed to hearing since 2016, when the notorious “81 percent” of evangelicals voted for the unlikeliest of candidates: Donald Trump. There are two competing interpretations of Trump’s enthusiastic support from religious conservatives: that it is a lesser-of-two-evils transaction based on self-interest, or that it shows a voting bloc compromised by every form of democratic vice, whether racism, nativism, or nationalism.
If trends hold, there will be a similar turnout in 2020. Rather than wait for the postmortem, I can tell you what will happen now: Millions of religious conservatives will approach their votes with a political realism that requires balancing undesirable tensions and conflicting realities. They will vote not so much for Donald Trump — with his uncouth speech and incessantly immature tweets — as they will vote against the worldview of the Democratic platform.
By Andrew Walker
National Review Online
It’s a complicated situation for religious conservatives. But these are complicated times.
In January 2021, someone will take the presidential oath of office, and religious conservatives will undoubtedly play a crucial role in whom it will be. Their influence will be the focus of an untold number of postmortems, of the type they’ve been accustomed to hearing since 2016, when the notorious “81 percent” of evangelicals voted for the unlikeliest of candidates: Donald Trump. There are two competing interpretations of Trump’s enthusiastic support from religious conservatives: that it is a lesser-of-two-evils transaction based on self-interest, or that it shows a voting bloc compromised by every form of democratic vice, whether racism, nativism, or nationalism.
If trends hold, there will be a similar turnout in 2020. Rather than wait for the postmortem, I can tell you what will happen now: Millions of religious conservatives will approach their votes with a political realism that requires balancing undesirable tensions and conflicting realities. They will vote not so much for Donald Trump — with his uncouth speech and incessantly immature tweets — as they will vote against the worldview of the Democratic platform.
Friday, 3 April 2020
The Ideological War Continues
Trump’s Approval Is Spiking
The Left Can’t Stand It
David Marcus
The Federalist
Over the past two weeks, President Trump’s overall approval rating and specifically approval of his handling of the Chinese virus have been spiking. You would think that most people would view this as good thing, I mean, in the middle of a crisis, having faith in leadership is better than not having faith in leadership, right? For many on the left, though, these numbers are cause for consternation. . . . .
Trump’s initial response to virus, in late January and into February, was not great.
The Left Can’t Stand It
David Marcus
The Federalist
Over the past two weeks, President Trump’s overall approval rating and specifically approval of his handling of the Chinese virus have been spiking. You would think that most people would view this as good thing, I mean, in the middle of a crisis, having faith in leadership is better than not having faith in leadership, right? For many on the left, though, these numbers are cause for consternation. . . . .
Trump’s initial response to virus, in late January and into February, was not great.
Thursday, 2 April 2020
Media Conniptions
Trump’s Poll Numbers Rise
Media Begin Censoring Press Conferences
Media continue to make their coverage choices based on whether they believe it will harm or help Trump.
Mollie Hemingway
The Federalist
When polls showed that President Donald Trump was receiving unusually high marks for his handling of the Coronavirus pandemic, the first stage of grief the media went through was denial:
The political media have been working extremely hard to craft a narrative that the spread of the coronavirus was essentially the fault of the man they had blamed for all other ills in recent years. How could the people not accept that narrative, particularly considering that most everyone in the media was pushing it?
Things got worse when additional polls showed Trump receiving high ratings at the same time that the media received poor ratings. A brand new Gallup study — “Coronavirus Response: Hospitals Rated Best, News Media Worst” — was particularly bad news. When Americans were asked about nine different institutions and political leaders, they gave majority approval to all but the media. President Trump has a 22-point net approval rating while the media’s net approval rating was negative 11 points. The RealClearPolitics approval average for Trump was its highest during his entire presidency.
In response, the media were angry and depressed and began blaming his press conferences. Their theory seemed to be that the more Americans saw Trump, unfiltered, they liked him and the more Americans saw the behavior of the media, they didn’t like it.
Media Begin Censoring Press Conferences
Media continue to make their coverage choices based on whether they believe it will harm or help Trump.
Mollie Hemingway
The Federalist
When polls showed that President Donald Trump was receiving unusually high marks for his handling of the Coronavirus pandemic, the first stage of grief the media went through was denial:
The political media have been working extremely hard to craft a narrative that the spread of the coronavirus was essentially the fault of the man they had blamed for all other ills in recent years. How could the people not accept that narrative, particularly considering that most everyone in the media was pushing it?
Things got worse when additional polls showed Trump receiving high ratings at the same time that the media received poor ratings. A brand new Gallup study — “Coronavirus Response: Hospitals Rated Best, News Media Worst” — was particularly bad news. When Americans were asked about nine different institutions and political leaders, they gave majority approval to all but the media. President Trump has a 22-point net approval rating while the media’s net approval rating was negative 11 points. The RealClearPolitics approval average for Trump was its highest during his entire presidency.
In response, the media were angry and depressed and began blaming his press conferences. Their theory seemed to be that the more Americans saw Trump, unfiltered, they liked him and the more Americans saw the behavior of the media, they didn’t like it.
Saturday, 21 March 2020
The Sick Man of Western Europe
Trump Was Right to Shut the Gates on Europe
James Delingpole
Breitbart London
President Trump has suspended all travel from mainland Europe. If this sounds excessive you clearly haven’t been paying attention to just how bad things have got with the coronavirus in parts of the continent. Northern Italy, especially, is experiencing horrors more redolent of a Medieval plague than of an advanced economy in the 21st century.
This thread, reportedly from a doctor working in an Accident and Emergency department in a Northern Italian hospital, gives a grim taste:
Unless Trump takes drastic action — presuming it isn’t already too late — then this is the fate that awaits America too. That’s why he was absolutely right to act in this dramatic way and for at least two good reasons.
James Delingpole
Breitbart London
President Trump has suspended all travel from mainland Europe. If this sounds excessive you clearly haven’t been paying attention to just how bad things have got with the coronavirus in parts of the continent. Northern Italy, especially, is experiencing horrors more redolent of a Medieval plague than of an advanced economy in the 21st century.
This thread, reportedly from a doctor working in an Accident and Emergency department in a Northern Italian hospital, gives a grim taste:
The current situation is difficult to imagine and numbers do not explain things at all. Our hospitals are overwhelmed by Covid-19, they are running 200% capacity.In other words, many of Italy’s hospitals are overwhelmed. Every day they are having to make terrible Sophie’s Choice style decisions about which patients to save and which ones should be condemned to death — because they simply don’t have enough staff or equipment to keep them all alive.
We’ve stopped all routine, all ORs have been converted to ITUs and they are now diverting or not treating all other emergencies like trauma or strokes. There are hundreds of pts with severe resp failure and many of them do not have access to anything above a reservoir mask.
Patients above 65 or younger with comorbidities are not even assessed by ITU, I am not saying not tubed, I’m saying not assessed and no ITU staff attends when they arrest. Staff are working as much as they can but they are starting to get sick and are emotionally overwhelmed.
Unless Trump takes drastic action — presuming it isn’t already too late — then this is the fate that awaits America too. That’s why he was absolutely right to act in this dramatic way and for at least two good reasons.
Saturday, 14 March 2020
Trump Hit the Mark
Oval Office Address Was What The Country Needed
Calm, cool, collected, yet urgent, Trump's Oval Office remarks were an illustration in the kind of leadership Americans crave in moments of crisis.
Tristan Justice
The Federalist
President Donald Trump struck a different tone in his prime time address to the nation Wednesday night announcing new measures to combat the Wuhan virus pandemic, and urging Americans to heed the advice of public health officials to halt the spread. Calm, cool, collected, yet urgent, Trump’s Oval Office remarks were an illustration in the kind of presidential leadership Americans crave in moments of crisis.
Rather than downplaying the threat that the Wuhan virus presents, the president confronted the scale of the pandemic and acknowledged the challenges ahead while reassuring the American people that the nation would emerge with minimal harm despite a sinking stock market.
“We are marshalling the full power of the federal government and the private sector to protect the American people,” Trump said. “This is not a financial crisis, this is just a temporary moment of time that we will overcome as a nation and as a world.”
Americans look to the nation’s presidents in times of disaster and crises to provide comfort and leadership.
Calm, cool, collected, yet urgent, Trump's Oval Office remarks were an illustration in the kind of leadership Americans crave in moments of crisis.
Tristan Justice
The Federalist
President Donald Trump struck a different tone in his prime time address to the nation Wednesday night announcing new measures to combat the Wuhan virus pandemic, and urging Americans to heed the advice of public health officials to halt the spread. Calm, cool, collected, yet urgent, Trump’s Oval Office remarks were an illustration in the kind of presidential leadership Americans crave in moments of crisis.
Rather than downplaying the threat that the Wuhan virus presents, the president confronted the scale of the pandemic and acknowledged the challenges ahead while reassuring the American people that the nation would emerge with minimal harm despite a sinking stock market.
“We are marshalling the full power of the federal government and the private sector to protect the American people,” Trump said. “This is not a financial crisis, this is just a temporary moment of time that we will overcome as a nation and as a world.”
Americans look to the nation’s presidents in times of disaster and crises to provide comfort and leadership.
Saturday, 15 February 2020
Understanding Trump's Foreign Policy
Is Trump’s Unorthodoxy Becoming Orthodox?
By Victor Davis Hanson
National Review Online
The U.S. has become no better friend to an increasing number of allies and neutrals, and no worse an adversary to a shrinking group of enemies.
When candidate Donald Trump campaigned on calling China to account for its trade piracy, observers thought he was either crazy or dangerous. Conventional Washington wisdom had assumed that an ascendant Beijing was almost preordained to world hegemony. Trump’s tariffs and polarization of China were considered about the worst thing an American president could do.
The accepted bipartisan strategy was to accommodate, not oppose, China’s growing power. The hope was that its newfound wealth and global influence would liberalize the ruling Communist government. Four years later, only a naif believes that. Instead, there is an emerging consensus that China’s cutthroat violations of international norms were long ago overdue for an accounting.
China’s re-education camps, its Orwellian internal surveillance, its crackdown on Hong Kong democracy activists, and its secrecy about the deadly coronavirus outbreak have all convinced the world that China has now become a dangerous international outlier.
Trump courted moderate Arab nations in forming an anti-Iranian coalition opposed to Iran’s terrorist and nuclear agendas. His policies utterly reversed the Obama administration’s estrangement from Israel and outreach to Tehran.
Last week, Trump nonchalantly offered the Palestinians a take-it-or-leave-it independent state on the West Bank, but without believing that a West Bank settlement was the key to peace in the entire Middle East.
Trump’s cancelation of the Iran deal, in particular, was met with international outrage. More global anger followed after the targeted killing of Iranian terrorist leader general Qasem Soleimani.
In short, Trump’s Middle East recalibrations won few supporters among the bipartisan establishment.
But recently, Europeans have privately started to agree that more sanctions are needed on Iran, that the world is better off with Soleimani gone, and that the West Bank is not central to regional peace.
By Victor Davis Hanson
National Review Online
The U.S. has become no better friend to an increasing number of allies and neutrals, and no worse an adversary to a shrinking group of enemies.
When candidate Donald Trump campaigned on calling China to account for its trade piracy, observers thought he was either crazy or dangerous. Conventional Washington wisdom had assumed that an ascendant Beijing was almost preordained to world hegemony. Trump’s tariffs and polarization of China were considered about the worst thing an American president could do.
The accepted bipartisan strategy was to accommodate, not oppose, China’s growing power. The hope was that its newfound wealth and global influence would liberalize the ruling Communist government. Four years later, only a naif believes that. Instead, there is an emerging consensus that China’s cutthroat violations of international norms were long ago overdue for an accounting.
China’s re-education camps, its Orwellian internal surveillance, its crackdown on Hong Kong democracy activists, and its secrecy about the deadly coronavirus outbreak have all convinced the world that China has now become a dangerous international outlier.
Trump courted moderate Arab nations in forming an anti-Iranian coalition opposed to Iran’s terrorist and nuclear agendas. His policies utterly reversed the Obama administration’s estrangement from Israel and outreach to Tehran.
Last week, Trump nonchalantly offered the Palestinians a take-it-or-leave-it independent state on the West Bank, but without believing that a West Bank settlement was the key to peace in the entire Middle East.
Trump’s cancelation of the Iran deal, in particular, was met with international outrage. More global anger followed after the targeted killing of Iranian terrorist leader general Qasem Soleimani.
In short, Trump’s Middle East recalibrations won few supporters among the bipartisan establishment.
But recently, Europeans have privately started to agree that more sanctions are needed on Iran, that the world is better off with Soleimani gone, and that the West Bank is not central to regional peace.
Mitt Romney--A Strange Person
What Does Mitt Romney Stand For?
Asking just shy of two dozen Senate staffers, reporters, and observers what they thought of the question, on background, the answers ranged from bewildered to hysterical to depressing.
Christopher Bedford
The Federalist
What does Mitt Romney stand for? Not what is he against — we know that — but does he stand for.
It’s a serious question: What motivates Mitt? Why did the junior Republican from Utah come to Washington? Was it for the military? Families? Business? Abortion? Guns? The old Reagan-Republican way? It’s truly hard to say.
He’s generally toed the line on the military, failing to distinguish himself as either a hawk or a dove. He sure likes his family, but he voted to shut down Catholic adoption in Massachusetts a full 13 years before President Barack Obama followed suit. He’s generally pro-business but no outspoken champion, and he actively opposed an Arizona law that protected religious business owners from having to violate their consciences.
On abortion, he went after nuns for opposing it in Massachusetts (once again, before Obama made that policy popular), but voted against federal funding for abortion when he came to D.C. He’s gone back and forth on guns as well, and was actually against Ronald Reagan before he was for him.
See? This is hard work. When he launched his Senate bid two years ago this month, Romney touted his experience from the Winter Olympics, called Utah beautiful, lauded its character, expressed an open-armed embrace of immigrants, and made a promise: “If you give me this opportunity, I will owe the Senate seat to no one but the people of Utah.”
Asking just shy of two dozen Senate staffers, reporters, and observers what they thought of the question, on background, the answers ranged from bewildered to hysterical to depressing.
Christopher Bedford
The Federalist
What does Mitt Romney stand for? Not what is he against — we know that — but does he stand for.
It’s a serious question: What motivates Mitt? Why did the junior Republican from Utah come to Washington? Was it for the military? Families? Business? Abortion? Guns? The old Reagan-Republican way? It’s truly hard to say.
He’s generally toed the line on the military, failing to distinguish himself as either a hawk or a dove. He sure likes his family, but he voted to shut down Catholic adoption in Massachusetts a full 13 years before President Barack Obama followed suit. He’s generally pro-business but no outspoken champion, and he actively opposed an Arizona law that protected religious business owners from having to violate their consciences.
On abortion, he went after nuns for opposing it in Massachusetts (once again, before Obama made that policy popular), but voted against federal funding for abortion when he came to D.C. He’s gone back and forth on guns as well, and was actually against Ronald Reagan before he was for him.
See? This is hard work. When he launched his Senate bid two years ago this month, Romney touted his experience from the Winter Olympics, called Utah beautiful, lauded its character, expressed an open-armed embrace of immigrants, and made a promise: “If you give me this opportunity, I will owe the Senate seat to no one but the people of Utah.”
Thursday, 13 February 2020
More Progress
Cleaning Out the Swamp
Trump Administration Has Removed 70 Obama Holdovers at NSC
Hannah Bleau
Breitbart
President Trump and National Security Adviser Robert O’Brien have removed 70 Obama holdovers from the NSC, which previously boasted a staff of roughly 200 people, according to the Washington Examiner.
The news follows Saturday’s CNN report, which indicated “major cuts” to NSC staff in the coming days, citing “two sources familiar with the matter.”
It comes days after the contentious impeachment battle on Capitol Hill — a battle ignited by a complaint from a so-called “whistleblower.” The “whistleblower’s” complaint, regarding Trump’s phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, sparked the House Democrats’ partisan impeachment inquiry, which ultimately ended in a full acquittal.
The administration removed Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, a key witness in the Democrats’ impeachment inquiry, from his post at the NSC last week. It also removed his twin brother Yevgeny, who worked as a lawyer on the NSC.
While Vindman has denied knowing the identity of the “whistleblower,” he has been suspected of being a leaker in the past.
Trump Administration Has Removed 70 Obama Holdovers at NSC
Hannah Bleau
Breitbart
President Trump and National Security Adviser Robert O’Brien have removed 70 Obama holdovers from the NSC, which previously boasted a staff of roughly 200 people, according to the Washington Examiner.
The news follows Saturday’s CNN report, which indicated “major cuts” to NSC staff in the coming days, citing “two sources familiar with the matter.”
It comes days after the contentious impeachment battle on Capitol Hill — a battle ignited by a complaint from a so-called “whistleblower.” The “whistleblower’s” complaint, regarding Trump’s phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, sparked the House Democrats’ partisan impeachment inquiry, which ultimately ended in a full acquittal.
The administration removed Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, a key witness in the Democrats’ impeachment inquiry, from his post at the NSC last week. It also removed his twin brother Yevgeny, who worked as a lawyer on the NSC.
While Vindman has denied knowing the identity of the “whistleblower,” he has been suspected of being a leaker in the past.
Friday, 7 February 2020
What's Sauce For the Goose Is Poison For the Gander
Trump Is Right.
Adam Schiff Has Not Paid For Damaging The Country With Years Of Lies
Mollie Hemingway
The Federalist
January 27, 2020
When President Trump tweeted on Sunday that Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., was a “CORRUPT POLITICIAN” who “has not paid the price, yet, for what he has done to our Country!” the media and Democrats loudly protested, as they do, that this was a threat.
“Schiff ‘has not paid the price’ for impeachment, Trump says in what appears to be veiled threat,” said a Washington Post headline. “Schiff, Calling Trump ‘Wrathful and Vindictive,’ Sees Tweet as a Threat” The New York Times headlined. “Trump makes ‘threat’ against Rep. Adam Schiff,” was the New York Daily News headline. “Adam Schiff: Trump Saying I Should Pay a Price Is ‘Intended to Be’ a Threat,” headlined The Daily Beast. “Trump tweet was ‘threat’ against Adam Schiff, Democrats say,” went the story in USA Today.
What a ludicrous spin that Democrats and the media pushed in lockstep. When Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said Republicans would “pay a price” for not acquiescing to her demands regarding a Senate impeachment trial, none of these reporters or outlets claimed she was threatening them.
Adam Schiff Has Not Paid For Damaging The Country With Years Of Lies
Schiff was not telling the truth when he kept dripping out lies to compliant reporters. Because he helped them accomplish their political goals against their nemesis Trump, however, they have not held him accountable.
Mollie Hemingway
The Federalist
January 27, 2020
When President Trump tweeted on Sunday that Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., was a “CORRUPT POLITICIAN” who “has not paid the price, yet, for what he has done to our Country!” the media and Democrats loudly protested, as they do, that this was a threat.
“Schiff ‘has not paid the price’ for impeachment, Trump says in what appears to be veiled threat,” said a Washington Post headline. “Schiff, Calling Trump ‘Wrathful and Vindictive,’ Sees Tweet as a Threat” The New York Times headlined. “Trump makes ‘threat’ against Rep. Adam Schiff,” was the New York Daily News headline. “Adam Schiff: Trump Saying I Should Pay a Price Is ‘Intended to Be’ a Threat,” headlined The Daily Beast. “Trump tweet was ‘threat’ against Adam Schiff, Democrats say,” went the story in USA Today.
What a ludicrous spin that Democrats and the media pushed in lockstep. When Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said Republicans would “pay a price” for not acquiescing to her demands regarding a Senate impeachment trial, none of these reporters or outlets claimed she was threatening them.
Thursday, 6 February 2020
"His Kind Must Not Rise Again . . . "
Loosing Touch With Reality
US President Donald Trump seems to have a knack of causing his political opponents to go loopy. They become so fixated with destroying Trump and his presidency that they lose reasonable perspective. This loss of touch with reality and reasonableness was on perfect display during the recent "Trump Trial".
Here is a description of what Trump Derangement Syndrome looks like in action.
John Daniel Davidson
The Federalist
. . . Even before the Mueller probe, Democrats have been angling to destroy Trump. Four months before the 2016 election, President Obama’s former campaign manager David Plouffe wrote in a since-deleted tweet, “It is not enough to simply beat Trump. He must be destroyed thoroughly. His kind must not rise again.” Elaborating on this to a New York Times reporter, Plouffe said, “This could still be a relatively close race, but it’s more likely to be a blowout than a Trump win.” (Funnily enough, Plouffe has a book coming out in March called, “A Citizen’s Guide to Defeating Donald Trump.”)
The point is that Democrats are not interested in subtle arguments about what’s an impeachable offense and what isn’t. They aren’t even interested in basic details of their own case against the president, like whether there was a legitimate basis for Trump to ask for an investigation into a notoriously corrupt Ukrainian energy company. Did Trump ask President Zelensky of Ukraine for an investigation, or did he ask him to fabricate dirt on a political rival?
As National Review’s own Andrew McCarthy pointed out this week, Rep. Adam Schiff has from the start ignored that distinction, instead simply asserting that there was no legitimate reason for Trump’s request—as if his say-so should be enough to put the matter to rest and move forward with the removal of a duly elected president.
Only the most rabid partisan would find that convincing in the least—the sort of partisan who would take any admission by Senate Republicans of Trump’s wrongdoing as proof positive that he must be removed from office, niceties about what constitutes an impeachable offense be damned. As it happens, those are precisely the kind of partisans now in charge of the Democratic Party, and they won’t stop until Trump has been destroyed thoroughly.
An excerpt from an article published in The Federalist.
John is the Political Editor at The Federalist.
US President Donald Trump seems to have a knack of causing his political opponents to go loopy. They become so fixated with destroying Trump and his presidency that they lose reasonable perspective. This loss of touch with reality and reasonableness was on perfect display during the recent "Trump Trial".
Here is a description of what Trump Derangement Syndrome looks like in action.
John Daniel Davidson
The Federalist
. . . Even before the Mueller probe, Democrats have been angling to destroy Trump. Four months before the 2016 election, President Obama’s former campaign manager David Plouffe wrote in a since-deleted tweet, “It is not enough to simply beat Trump. He must be destroyed thoroughly. His kind must not rise again.” Elaborating on this to a New York Times reporter, Plouffe said, “This could still be a relatively close race, but it’s more likely to be a blowout than a Trump win.” (Funnily enough, Plouffe has a book coming out in March called, “A Citizen’s Guide to Defeating Donald Trump.”)
The point is that Democrats are not interested in subtle arguments about what’s an impeachable offense and what isn’t. They aren’t even interested in basic details of their own case against the president, like whether there was a legitimate basis for Trump to ask for an investigation into a notoriously corrupt Ukrainian energy company. Did Trump ask President Zelensky of Ukraine for an investigation, or did he ask him to fabricate dirt on a political rival?
As National Review’s own Andrew McCarthy pointed out this week, Rep. Adam Schiff has from the start ignored that distinction, instead simply asserting that there was no legitimate reason for Trump’s request—as if his say-so should be enough to put the matter to rest and move forward with the removal of a duly elected president.
Only the most rabid partisan would find that convincing in the least—the sort of partisan who would take any admission by Senate Republicans of Trump’s wrongdoing as proof positive that he must be removed from office, niceties about what constitutes an impeachable offense be damned. As it happens, those are precisely the kind of partisans now in charge of the Democratic Party, and they won’t stop until Trump has been destroyed thoroughly.
An excerpt from an article published in The Federalist.
John is the Political Editor at The Federalist.
Tuesday, 28 January 2020
Going Direct
100,000 People Seeking Tickets to Trump’s ‘Keep America Great’ Rally in NJ
Katherine Rodriguez
Breitbart News
More than 100,000 people are seeking tickets to President Donald Trump’s “Keep America Great” rally in Wildwood, New Jersey, on January 28. Democrat-turned-Republican Rep. Jeff Van Drew (R-NJ) announced that 100,000 people are looking for tickets to the rally, which is being held at the Wildwoods Convention Center, a 7,500-seat venue, NJ.com reported.
“It’s exciting. And I’m proud to say for this event — of all the events President Trump has done — we’ve had the most ticket requests,” Van Drew told Fox News on Sunday. The last time a president visited Wildwood was in 1891 when Benjamin Harrison traveled to the area.
Trump and Van Drew are slated to appear together at the rally at 7 p.m. on January 28. Trump’s re-election campaign announced this month he was coming to Cape May County to hold a rally in support of Van Drew.
Van Drew was one of two Democrats who voted against Trump’s impeachment and switched parties over the issue. “We’re proud to have him,” Van Drew told NJ.com. “It shows he cares about the big towns and big places, and he also cares about the little places.”
Tickets for the Wildwood rally were made available online for free, and event organizers are already expecting there will be overflow crowds.
Katherine Rodriguez
Breitbart News
More than 100,000 people are seeking tickets to President Donald Trump’s “Keep America Great” rally in Wildwood, New Jersey, on January 28. Democrat-turned-Republican Rep. Jeff Van Drew (R-NJ) announced that 100,000 people are looking for tickets to the rally, which is being held at the Wildwoods Convention Center, a 7,500-seat venue, NJ.com reported.
“It’s exciting. And I’m proud to say for this event — of all the events President Trump has done — we’ve had the most ticket requests,” Van Drew told Fox News on Sunday. The last time a president visited Wildwood was in 1891 when Benjamin Harrison traveled to the area.
Trump and Van Drew are slated to appear together at the rally at 7 p.m. on January 28. Trump’s re-election campaign announced this month he was coming to Cape May County to hold a rally in support of Van Drew.
Van Drew was one of two Democrats who voted against Trump’s impeachment and switched parties over the issue. “We’re proud to have him,” Van Drew told NJ.com. “It shows he cares about the big towns and big places, and he also cares about the little places.”
Tickets for the Wildwood rally were made available online for free, and event organizers are already expecting there will be overflow crowds.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)