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.
Showing posts with label US Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label US Politics. Show all posts
Tuesday, 1 September 2020
Wednesday, 26 August 2020
Joe Biden and the Brownshirts
Joe Biden’s ‘Four Crises’ Deliberately Ignore Rising Crime and Left-Wing Riots
John Nolte
Breitbart News
A startling rise in violent crime and months of left-wing riots are not included on Joe Biden’s list of presidential priorities.
On Thursday night, Biden gave his speech accepting the Democrat nomination for president. The address clearly laid out his priorities, what he called the “four historic crises.”
We all know why this makes the left uncomfortable. The riots and violent crime explosion are all happening in Democrat-run cities. What’s more, the riots are almost exclusively led by the Democrats’ Brownshirts, the left-wing terrorists in Antifa and Black Lives Matter.
The fact Biden deliberately ignored two legitimate crises proves the most crucial part of his speech, his biggest promise, a lie… “But while I will be a Democratic candidate,” Biden said, “I will be an American president. I will work as hard for those who didn’t support me as I will for those who did.”
“That’s the job of a president,” he added. “To represent all of us, not just our base or our party. This is not a partisan moment. This must be an American moment.”
How can Biden be America’s president?
John Nolte
Breitbart News
A startling rise in violent crime and months of left-wing riots are not included on Joe Biden’s list of presidential priorities.
On Thursday night, Biden gave his speech accepting the Democrat nomination for president. The address clearly laid out his priorities, what he called the “four historic crises.”
And now history has delivered us to one of the most difficult moments America has ever faced. Four historic crises. All at the same time. A perfect storm. The worst pandemic in over 100 years. The worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. The most compelling call for racial justice since the 60’s. And the undeniable realities and accelerating threats of climate change. So, the question for us is simple: Are we ready? I believe we are.There’s no way around the fact that like the rest of the Democrat party and the corporate media propaganda machine, Biden has decided to pretend months of rioting and an explosion of violent crime just isn’t happening.
We all know why this makes the left uncomfortable. The riots and violent crime explosion are all happening in Democrat-run cities. What’s more, the riots are almost exclusively led by the Democrats’ Brownshirts, the left-wing terrorists in Antifa and Black Lives Matter.
The fact Biden deliberately ignored two legitimate crises proves the most crucial part of his speech, his biggest promise, a lie… “But while I will be a Democratic candidate,” Biden said, “I will be an American president. I will work as hard for those who didn’t support me as I will for those who did.”
“That’s the job of a president,” he added. “To represent all of us, not just our base or our party. This is not a partisan moment. This must be an American moment.”
How can Biden be America’s president?
Tuesday, 25 August 2020
The Ascendance of Wall-Street Democrats
Democrat Party Captured by Self-Serving Elites
Kamala Harris's Nod Tells Blue-Collar Workers Democrats Are Done With Them
Harris is now the voice of a new, aloof, wealthier liberalism that seeks only to manage the decline of America’s economic might.
Kyle Sammin
The Federalist
In the presidential election of 2016, voters in each of the major parties were dissatisfied with their faction’s presidential nominee in such large numbers that we witnessed a massive shift in the two-party system. The nomination of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris means the 2020 election will further entrench those changes. Indeed, Biden’s nomination is less consequential: in his dotage, he is merely a screen onto which every faction of the Democratic Party may project its vision.
In choosing Harris as his running mate, however, Biden signals that the ascendance of Wall Street Democrats over working-class factions is nearly complete. A candidate beloved of Hollywood and Big Business, Harris puts a rainbow flag over a government boot and calls it progress. Her nomination as president-in-waiting means the future of the Democratic Party will be hashed out in corporate boardrooms, not church basements and union halls.
Shifting Coalitions
The Republican Party began with a good claim on the workingman’s loyalties. Fighting for free labor and high tariffs meant that the GOP of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries stood for American jobs. The Great Depression changed that perception. America’s version of that tragic era began with a Republican in the White House and meant that a Democrat, Franklin D. Roosevelt, could rhetorically unite his party as the new savior of working Americans.
We can disagree on which of his party’s policies actually helped working people — some clearly did, others absolutely did not — but his message was on point. In the popular mind, Democrats became the friend of the farmer, the laborer, and the little man, while Republicans were portrayed as the party of Manhattan boardrooms and Connecticut country clubs. Fair or not, this perception stuck for many years.
Since that time, pieces of FDR’s big coalition have fallen away.
Kamala Harris's Nod Tells Blue-Collar Workers Democrats Are Done With Them
Harris is now the voice of a new, aloof, wealthier liberalism that seeks only to manage the decline of America’s economic might.
Kyle Sammin
The Federalist
In the presidential election of 2016, voters in each of the major parties were dissatisfied with their faction’s presidential nominee in such large numbers that we witnessed a massive shift in the two-party system. The nomination of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris means the 2020 election will further entrench those changes. Indeed, Biden’s nomination is less consequential: in his dotage, he is merely a screen onto which every faction of the Democratic Party may project its vision.
In choosing Harris as his running mate, however, Biden signals that the ascendance of Wall Street Democrats over working-class factions is nearly complete. A candidate beloved of Hollywood and Big Business, Harris puts a rainbow flag over a government boot and calls it progress. Her nomination as president-in-waiting means the future of the Democratic Party will be hashed out in corporate boardrooms, not church basements and union halls.
Shifting Coalitions
The Republican Party began with a good claim on the workingman’s loyalties. Fighting for free labor and high tariffs meant that the GOP of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries stood for American jobs. The Great Depression changed that perception. America’s version of that tragic era began with a Republican in the White House and meant that a Democrat, Franklin D. Roosevelt, could rhetorically unite his party as the new savior of working Americans.
We can disagree on which of his party’s policies actually helped working people — some clearly did, others absolutely did not — but his message was on point. In the popular mind, Democrats became the friend of the farmer, the laborer, and the little man, while Republicans were portrayed as the party of Manhattan boardrooms and Connecticut country clubs. Fair or not, this perception stuck for many years.
Since that time, pieces of FDR’s big coalition have fallen away.
Friday, 14 August 2020
Shoe's On Another Foot Entirely, It Would Seem
The Left’s New Civil-Rights Heroes
Molotov-Cocktail-Throwing Lawyers
Colinford Mattis and Urooj Rahman aren’t outliers; they’re living examples of how hatred of Trump has morphed into a willingness to justify the unjustifiable
By Jonathan Tobin
National Review Online
In the two months since the death of George Floyd, the nation has been beset by often-violent protests and riots. Yet the mainstream media and Democratic politicians have tended to describe the demonstrations as “mostly peaceful,” and to rationalize and minimize them. For many on the left, the real story has not been the violence directed at law-enforcement personnel, the assaults on federal courthouses and police precincts, the toppling of statues, or the destruction of private property; it’s been the use of federal personnel in response.
It is only in that context that we can hope to understand the sympathy being generated for Colinford Mattis and Urooj Rahman.
Mattis and Rahman are the lawyers who were caught on camera throwing a Molotov cocktail into an empty, already-vandalized NYPD patrol car in Brooklyn. After setting the vehicle on fire in full of view of the cops, they drove away in Mattis’s van and were quickly chased down and arrested. In their possession, officers found yet another Bud Light bottle turned into a homemade incendiary device and the makings of more in the back seat. Prosecutors later said Rahman had offered Molotov cocktails to other protesters, as well.
There could hardly be any doubt about their guilt.
Molotov-Cocktail-Throwing Lawyers
Colinford Mattis and Urooj Rahman aren’t outliers; they’re living examples of how hatred of Trump has morphed into a willingness to justify the unjustifiable
By Jonathan Tobin
National Review Online
In the two months since the death of George Floyd, the nation has been beset by often-violent protests and riots. Yet the mainstream media and Democratic politicians have tended to describe the demonstrations as “mostly peaceful,” and to rationalize and minimize them. For many on the left, the real story has not been the violence directed at law-enforcement personnel, the assaults on federal courthouses and police precincts, the toppling of statues, or the destruction of private property; it’s been the use of federal personnel in response.
It is only in that context that we can hope to understand the sympathy being generated for Colinford Mattis and Urooj Rahman.
Mattis and Rahman are the lawyers who were caught on camera throwing a Molotov cocktail into an empty, already-vandalized NYPD patrol car in Brooklyn. After setting the vehicle on fire in full of view of the cops, they drove away in Mattis’s van and were quickly chased down and arrested. In their possession, officers found yet another Bud Light bottle turned into a homemade incendiary device and the makings of more in the back seat. Prosecutors later said Rahman had offered Molotov cocktails to other protesters, as well.
There could hardly be any doubt about their guilt.
Monday, 3 August 2020
Let's Hope VDH is On the Money!
Waiting for the Counterrevolution
As the rioting continues, Democrats and the media attempt to blame it all on Trump, and most Americans watch and worry, in silence.
By Victor Davis Hanson
National Review Online
We are in the midst of a revolution, a cultural and racial one, that seeks to refute the past, damn the present, and hijack the future. So far, however, we have only heard from one side, the revolutionaries and their enablers themselves.
Those trying to reject and then reboot America are small as a percentage of the population, but their tactics are diverse, and their frightened abettors and closet appeasers numerous. The result for now is that, as with most cultural revolutions, a tiny percentage of the population seems to be ascending, given that there is no real organized resistance other than isolated and disgusted individuals.
The cultural revolutionaries are a tripartite group.
On the front lines are the shock troops. For the most part, middle-class urban and suburban white kids, many of them in college, graduated, or dropped out, make up Antifa and its affiliates. They seem to organize the statue toppling, graffiti, and vandalism, as well as the violence at the demonstrations. They show up in ridiculous black-clad Road Warrior outfits, fitted out with cobbled-together hoodies, bicycle helmets, knee pads, and various sports-equipment armor, and occasionally with testudo-like umbrellas and assorted fireworks, rocks, bottle, and bats. All that is a psychodrama far more interesting than showing up at Starbucks at 5 a.m. to start the day’s machinery.
They are the new superfluous elite, in that their college investments brought them neither prestige nor money, but only debt and sloganeering memorized from the sermons of their tenured and comfortable lounge professors. History shows that when would-be, self-important elites are in surfeit and extraneous, they grow volatile. They wake up to learn that their vaunted education and training were not appreciated and properly compensated by society.
And so they often can turn to violence and indeed revolution if it comes their way. In the profiles of the Jacobin, Bolshevik, and Arab Spring second-stage revolutions, the common denominators are frustration and the feeling that the agitators deserved honor, money, and influence that either never was forthcoming or went to undeserving others.
Antifa’s aim is to cause chaos and anarchy, in hopes of eliciting a police response that will fuel nonstop street brawling, akin to Germany’s in the 1920s, and a general sense of pandemonium that will leave the democratic capitalist state weak, directionless, and without a reply.
Then the more unhinged among them believe that they can carve out “autonomous” zones of “resistance” in places such as Portland and Seattle and gradually spread their revolution through threats and intimidation — and perhaps more formally hijack the Democratic Party and come to power. Cellphones, selfies, networking, and childish coloring-book graffiti make the whole thing a sort of carnival where the like-minded frustrated agitators can vent about the unfairness of the world.
Many of these self-righteous are indeed racist, as we see from the sheer joy they show at yelling in the face of black policemen and orchestrating the demonstrations while avoiding the televised looting.
As the rioting continues, Democrats and the media attempt to blame it all on Trump, and most Americans watch and worry, in silence.
By Victor Davis Hanson
National Review Online
We are in the midst of a revolution, a cultural and racial one, that seeks to refute the past, damn the present, and hijack the future. So far, however, we have only heard from one side, the revolutionaries and their enablers themselves.
Those trying to reject and then reboot America are small as a percentage of the population, but their tactics are diverse, and their frightened abettors and closet appeasers numerous. The result for now is that, as with most cultural revolutions, a tiny percentage of the population seems to be ascending, given that there is no real organized resistance other than isolated and disgusted individuals.
The cultural revolutionaries are a tripartite group.
On the front lines are the shock troops. For the most part, middle-class urban and suburban white kids, many of them in college, graduated, or dropped out, make up Antifa and its affiliates. They seem to organize the statue toppling, graffiti, and vandalism, as well as the violence at the demonstrations. They show up in ridiculous black-clad Road Warrior outfits, fitted out with cobbled-together hoodies, bicycle helmets, knee pads, and various sports-equipment armor, and occasionally with testudo-like umbrellas and assorted fireworks, rocks, bottle, and bats. All that is a psychodrama far more interesting than showing up at Starbucks at 5 a.m. to start the day’s machinery.
They are the new superfluous elite, in that their college investments brought them neither prestige nor money, but only debt and sloganeering memorized from the sermons of their tenured and comfortable lounge professors. History shows that when would-be, self-important elites are in surfeit and extraneous, they grow volatile. They wake up to learn that their vaunted education and training were not appreciated and properly compensated by society.
And so they often can turn to violence and indeed revolution if it comes their way. In the profiles of the Jacobin, Bolshevik, and Arab Spring second-stage revolutions, the common denominators are frustration and the feeling that the agitators deserved honor, money, and influence that either never was forthcoming or went to undeserving others.
Antifa’s aim is to cause chaos and anarchy, in hopes of eliciting a police response that will fuel nonstop street brawling, akin to Germany’s in the 1920s, and a general sense of pandemonium that will leave the democratic capitalist state weak, directionless, and without a reply.
Then the more unhinged among them believe that they can carve out “autonomous” zones of “resistance” in places such as Portland and Seattle and gradually spread their revolution through threats and intimidation — and perhaps more formally hijack the Democratic Party and come to power. Cellphones, selfies, networking, and childish coloring-book graffiti make the whole thing a sort of carnival where the like-minded frustrated agitators can vent about the unfairness of the world.
Many of these self-righteous are indeed racist, as we see from the sheer joy they show at yelling in the face of black policemen and orchestrating the demonstrations while avoiding the televised looting.
Fallacy of False Causes
Stupid Is as Stupid Does
Getting Rid Of The Police, Or Trump, Will Only Enable More Riots
Our political and media elite think that Trump and the police are the cause of the ongoing unrest. They couldn’t be more wrong.
John Daniel Davidson
The Federalist
The conventional wisdom congealing among elites in Washington, D.C., is that the ongoing riots in cities like Portland and Seattle are the result of otherwise peaceful protesters simply reacting to the presence of police and federal law enforcement. If these officers stood down or were simply removed, so the thinking goes, all would be calm.
Video footage and images of violent mobs setting buildings on fire, lobbing bricks and explosives, cutting through fences with blowtorches, and assaulting police and federal officers are all, according to this fashionable theory, merely evidence of the grave threat posed by fascist federal stormtroopers that Trump has unleashed on a quiescent populace.
As Democrat Rep. Zoe Lofgren put it during a House Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday, “People are showing up because the troops are there.” She was quick to add that most of them are nonviolent, which has become a kind of mantra adopted by Democrats and their courtiers in the mainstream press.
For their part, corporate media outlets have settled on variations of the phrase “mostly peaceful protests” to describe scenes of utter mayhem and violence.
Getting Rid Of The Police, Or Trump, Will Only Enable More Riots
Our political and media elite think that Trump and the police are the cause of the ongoing unrest. They couldn’t be more wrong.
John Daniel Davidson
The Federalist
The conventional wisdom congealing among elites in Washington, D.C., is that the ongoing riots in cities like Portland and Seattle are the result of otherwise peaceful protesters simply reacting to the presence of police and federal law enforcement. If these officers stood down or were simply removed, so the thinking goes, all would be calm.
Video footage and images of violent mobs setting buildings on fire, lobbing bricks and explosives, cutting through fences with blowtorches, and assaulting police and federal officers are all, according to this fashionable theory, merely evidence of the grave threat posed by fascist federal stormtroopers that Trump has unleashed on a quiescent populace.
As Democrat Rep. Zoe Lofgren put it during a House Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday, “People are showing up because the troops are there.” She was quick to add that most of them are nonviolent, which has become a kind of mantra adopted by Democrats and their courtiers in the mainstream press.
For their part, corporate media outlets have settled on variations of the phrase “mostly peaceful protests” to describe scenes of utter mayhem and violence.
Thursday, 25 June 2020
An Attempt to Tear Down and Destroy All
BLM Seeks to Destroy Western Civilisation, Nations, and the Family Unit
Nigel Farage Exposes The Grand Conspiracy
Victoria Friedman
Breitbart London
Free speech has never been so at risk as it is now, Nigel Farage has said, because this time its opponents are highly organised and their networks are putting pressure on anyone questioning the tactics of far-left movements like Black Lives Matter.
Speaking to Fox News’s Laura Ingraham on Tuesday, the Brexit Party leader warned that what makes this battle for free speech different to others in the past is “the sheer level of organisation” and support that groups like Black Lives Matter receive from the powerful progressive institutions.
“Black Lives Matter is backed up, of course, by other organisations like Media Matters. You can trace much of the funding of this back to George Soros and many other people,” Mr Farage said on The Ingraham Angle.
The former radio host recently parted ways with talk radio station LBC, over what he had suggested this week may have been as a result of leftist pressure on advertisers. Mr Farage told Ingraham that this tactic has become a tool in silencing those who question far-left orthodoxy in the media.
Nigel Farage Exposes The Grand Conspiracy
Victoria Friedman
Breitbart London
Free speech has never been so at risk as it is now, Nigel Farage has said, because this time its opponents are highly organised and their networks are putting pressure on anyone questioning the tactics of far-left movements like Black Lives Matter.
Speaking to Fox News’s Laura Ingraham on Tuesday, the Brexit Party leader warned that what makes this battle for free speech different to others in the past is “the sheer level of organisation” and support that groups like Black Lives Matter receive from the powerful progressive institutions.
“Black Lives Matter is backed up, of course, by other organisations like Media Matters. You can trace much of the funding of this back to George Soros and many other people,” Mr Farage said on The Ingraham Angle.
The former radio host recently parted ways with talk radio station LBC, over what he had suggested this week may have been as a result of leftist pressure on advertisers. Mr Farage told Ingraham that this tactic has become a tool in silencing those who question far-left orthodoxy in the media.
Saturday, 6 June 2020
Success Measured By Biden's Standards And Aspirations
Biden as Paradox
His weaknesses are his strength, and he’s not running for the presidency.
Victor Davis Hanson
National Review Online
It is now conventional punditry that should Joe Biden win in November, his vice president, in 1944-style, will sooner rather than later become president.
Biden, to reboot and secure the identity-politics base, thought he had to discriminate by sex and race in advance by selecting his vice president. But given recent poor performances, Biden’s promise to select a woman or minority or both on the ticket is a wink-and-nod admission that she or he will soon be the real president while on the ballot as vice president.
In 2019–20, Biden had moved hard left to get nominated and more or less renounced all his previous old-style liberal voting record, such as tough sentencing of drug dealers, opposition to court-mandated school busing, opposition to illegal immigration, and support for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. His contrition over his most recent offensive putdown (“If you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t black”), alongside the nationwide protesting and rioting, will make it even more likely that Biden will select a progressive with the sort of agendas that went nowhere even in liberal Democrat primaries, and will stay nowhere after the rioting.
Yet Biden apparently believes that his dilemmas and personal foibles will soon be turned upside down, and that his weakness somehow will be seen as strength. A limp Biden in seclusion believes he is far more effective than fighting Joe Biden on the stump. And in a strange way, he could be sort of right.
His weaknesses are his strength, and he’s not running for the presidency.
Victor Davis Hanson
National Review Online
It is now conventional punditry that should Joe Biden win in November, his vice president, in 1944-style, will sooner rather than later become president.
Biden, to reboot and secure the identity-politics base, thought he had to discriminate by sex and race in advance by selecting his vice president. But given recent poor performances, Biden’s promise to select a woman or minority or both on the ticket is a wink-and-nod admission that she or he will soon be the real president while on the ballot as vice president.
In 2019–20, Biden had moved hard left to get nominated and more or less renounced all his previous old-style liberal voting record, such as tough sentencing of drug dealers, opposition to court-mandated school busing, opposition to illegal immigration, and support for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. His contrition over his most recent offensive putdown (“If you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t black”), alongside the nationwide protesting and rioting, will make it even more likely that Biden will select a progressive with the sort of agendas that went nowhere even in liberal Democrat primaries, and will stay nowhere after the rioting.
Yet Biden apparently believes that his dilemmas and personal foibles will soon be turned upside down, and that his weakness somehow will be seen as strength. A limp Biden in seclusion believes he is far more effective than fighting Joe Biden on the stump. And in a strange way, he could be sort of right.
Thursday, 14 May 2020
Women Must Be Believed--Except This One!
Democrats’ Desperation about Tara Reade Is Growing. So Is Their Hypocrisy.
By David Harsanyi
National Review Online
Sufficient evidence that Joe Biden somehow mistreated Tara Reade has emerged for the double standard to become obvious.
There aren’t a ton of synonyms for the word “hypocrisy.” I’ve become aware of this problem ever since I began writing about the Tara Reade–Joe Biden situation. I keep gravitating towards phrases such as “despicable hypocrisy,” or “partisan hypocrisy,” or “unconscionable hypocrisy,” but you can only go to the well so often. Really, though, I’m not sure how else to describe the actions of someone like Senator Dianne Feinstein.
You might recall that it was Feinstein, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, who withheld Christine Blasey Ford’s allegation of sexual misconduct against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh from the Senate so that it could not be properly vetted, in a last-ditch effort to sink the nomination.
Feinstein knew that Ford’s credibility was brittle — the alleged victim could not tell us where or when the attack occurred, hadn’t mentioned Kavanugh’s name to anyone for over 30 years, and offered nothing approaching a contemporaneous witness.
At first, Feinstein did not want to provide Ford’s name, or a place or time of the alleged attack, or allow the accused to see any evidence against him, denying him the ability to answer the charges. . . .
When finally asked about Reade yesterday, Feinstein responded: “And I don’t know this person at all who has made the allegations. She came out of nowhere. Where has she been all these years? He was vice president.” To put this in perspective, when Ford came forward “out of nowhere,” Feinstein said: “Victims must be able to come forward only when they are ready.” [Emphasis, ours]
What’s changed?
During the Kavanaugh hearings Feinstein noted that “sharing an experience involving sexual assault — particularly when it involves a politically connected man with influence, authority and power — is extraordinarily difficult.” Is Biden not a politically connected man with influence, authority, and power? Feinstein is now arguing the opposite: She is saying we should dismiss Reade’s allegations because she failed to come forward against a powerful man earlier.
By David Harsanyi
National Review Online
Sufficient evidence that Joe Biden somehow mistreated Tara Reade has emerged for the double standard to become obvious.
There aren’t a ton of synonyms for the word “hypocrisy.” I’ve become aware of this problem ever since I began writing about the Tara Reade–Joe Biden situation. I keep gravitating towards phrases such as “despicable hypocrisy,” or “partisan hypocrisy,” or “unconscionable hypocrisy,” but you can only go to the well so often. Really, though, I’m not sure how else to describe the actions of someone like Senator Dianne Feinstein.
You might recall that it was Feinstein, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, who withheld Christine Blasey Ford’s allegation of sexual misconduct against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh from the Senate so that it could not be properly vetted, in a last-ditch effort to sink the nomination.
Feinstein knew that Ford’s credibility was brittle — the alleged victim could not tell us where or when the attack occurred, hadn’t mentioned Kavanugh’s name to anyone for over 30 years, and offered nothing approaching a contemporaneous witness.
At first, Feinstein did not want to provide Ford’s name, or a place or time of the alleged attack, or allow the accused to see any evidence against him, denying him the ability to answer the charges. . . .
When finally asked about Reade yesterday, Feinstein responded: “And I don’t know this person at all who has made the allegations. She came out of nowhere. Where has she been all these years? He was vice president.” To put this in perspective, when Ford came forward “out of nowhere,” Feinstein said: “Victims must be able to come forward only when they are ready.” [Emphasis, ours]
What’s changed?
During the Kavanaugh hearings Feinstein noted that “sharing an experience involving sexual assault — particularly when it involves a politically connected man with influence, authority and power — is extraordinarily difficult.” Is Biden not a politically connected man with influence, authority, and power? Feinstein is now arguing the opposite: She is saying we should dismiss Reade’s allegations because she failed to come forward against a powerful man earlier.
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.
Wednesday, 25 March 2020
Let’s Be Honest.
Impeachment Hurt Trump’s Response to Coronavirus.
Henry Olsen
Columnist
Washington Post
President Trump has been roundly criticized for allegedly failing to prepare for the coronavirus crisis before it arrived in the United States. Those critics conveniently overlook something else that could have been distracting the president’s attention during that crucial period: impeachment.
It seems forever ago, but Trump’s impeachment was the major story in January and early February — the same time that disease was forcing China to lock down cities. Despite the near certainty that Republicans would not vote to convict the president, Democrats and most of the major media were almost entirely focused on impeachment. As a result, the White House was focused on addressing this threat to its survival, not on preparing for a threat from China that might never even materialize.
Trump’s efforts to prepare the nation for this pandemic has been far from perfect, but the one thing the president did do to stop the virus’s spread to the United States during that period — stopping air travel from China — was heavily criticized.
Henry Olsen
Columnist
Washington Post
President Trump has been roundly criticized for allegedly failing to prepare for the coronavirus crisis before it arrived in the United States. Those critics conveniently overlook something else that could have been distracting the president’s attention during that crucial period: impeachment.
It seems forever ago, but Trump’s impeachment was the major story in January and early February — the same time that disease was forcing China to lock down cities. Despite the near certainty that Republicans would not vote to convict the president, Democrats and most of the major media were almost entirely focused on impeachment. As a result, the White House was focused on addressing this threat to its survival, not on preparing for a threat from China that might never even materialize.
Trump’s efforts to prepare the nation for this pandemic has been far from perfect, but the one thing the president did do to stop the virus’s spread to the United States during that period — stopping air travel from China — was heavily criticized.
Tuesday, 17 March 2020
More on Biden's Second Childhood
Brit Hume: No Doubt Joe Biden ‘Losing His Memory… Getting Senile’
Tuesday on Fox News Channel’s Tucker Carlson Tonight, network senior political analyst Brit Hume said there is no doubt that former Vice President Joe Biden, the 2020 Democrat frontrunner, is “losing his memory and is getting senile.”
A partial transcript is as follows:
TUCKER CARLSON: I don’t want to be unfair to Biden, sincerely, I don’t want to pull one clip out of context. But, there have been a number of them recently, where the former vice president explodes in aggression. It’s noticeable. I don’t remember him doing that in years past. What do you think this is?
BRIT HUME: I’ve known him a long time. He can sometimes work himself up into a passion in speeches and so on when he’s arguing about issues in a debate. I don’t remember him exploding at voters, like he did [in Michigan] today and hurling profanity like he did, telling the guy he’s full of spit, expect he didn’t say spit…
I always liked him on a personal basis, very much. More recently, however, he’s begun to forget things. He didn’t know what state he is in. He couldn’t remember exactly where he was when he met with the Parkland students, when he said it was in the White House and it was long after he had been out of the White House. That sort of thing. Suggesting that he, like so many people his age, is losing his memory and is getting senile. I don’t think there is any doubt about it.
I have traces of this myself. I know what it feels like. Sometimes you get confused and sometimes you can’t remember what you’re supposed to do the next morning. I’m not running for president, and it’s probably a good thing I’m not. And I think that over time, the danger for him and for his party is that he may say something that is so outlandish and so suggestive, that his cognitive faculties have failed him, that the Democratic voters will say, “Oh, my lord, what do we got here?”
At the moment, they are so eager to deny Bernie Sanders the nomination and to press forward with someone more familiar that I think this step is lost on Democratic voters. But over time, under the pressures of a campaign, who knows what will happen.
Tuesday on Fox News Channel’s Tucker Carlson Tonight, network senior political analyst Brit Hume said there is no doubt that former Vice President Joe Biden, the 2020 Democrat frontrunner, is “losing his memory and is getting senile.”
A partial transcript is as follows:
TUCKER CARLSON: I don’t want to be unfair to Biden, sincerely, I don’t want to pull one clip out of context. But, there have been a number of them recently, where the former vice president explodes in aggression. It’s noticeable. I don’t remember him doing that in years past. What do you think this is?
BRIT HUME: I’ve known him a long time. He can sometimes work himself up into a passion in speeches and so on when he’s arguing about issues in a debate. I don’t remember him exploding at voters, like he did [in Michigan] today and hurling profanity like he did, telling the guy he’s full of spit, expect he didn’t say spit…
I always liked him on a personal basis, very much. More recently, however, he’s begun to forget things. He didn’t know what state he is in. He couldn’t remember exactly where he was when he met with the Parkland students, when he said it was in the White House and it was long after he had been out of the White House. That sort of thing. Suggesting that he, like so many people his age, is losing his memory and is getting senile. I don’t think there is any doubt about it.
I have traces of this myself. I know what it feels like. Sometimes you get confused and sometimes you can’t remember what you’re supposed to do the next morning. I’m not running for president, and it’s probably a good thing I’m not. And I think that over time, the danger for him and for his party is that he may say something that is so outlandish and so suggestive, that his cognitive faculties have failed him, that the Democratic voters will say, “Oh, my lord, what do we got here?”
At the moment, they are so eager to deny Bernie Sanders the nomination and to press forward with someone more familiar that I think this step is lost on Democratic voters. But over time, under the pressures of a campaign, who knows what will happen.
Biden: Second Childhood Well Advanced
Joe Biden Displays a Panoply of Pre-Teen Immaturities
Joe Biden Should Probably Stop Threatening Voters
Mollie Hemingway
The Federalist
Former Vice President Joe Biden has long fantasized about beating up Donald Trump, but during the 2020 Democratic primary, he began challenging voters who challenged him. He called an Iowa farmer a “damn liar,” for example, then challenged him to an IQ test and a push-up contest.
At a campaign event at a factory in Michigan on Tuesday, a voter asked Biden a tough but fair question about how he hoped to get the votes of gun enthusiasts who are union members. What followed must be seen to be believed.
Biden tells the voter he’s full of “sh-t,” wags his finger in his face, and when the voter complains, he suggests that they go outside.
Many people have focused on the erroneous comments Biden frequently makes about guns. He falsely claims he has no desire to limit AR-15s (which he calls AR-14s) but he previously told Anderson Cooper he did.
‘To gun owners out there who say, well, a Biden Administration means they’re going to come for my guns,’ Cooper asks. ‘Bingo, you’re right if you have an ‘assault weapon,” which is his term for AR-15s. . . .
I’m not opposed to more physical fighting in politics, although I wish it were the bad politicians getting roughed up more than the voters. But I can’t get past the issue that Biden keeps picking on people who would most definitely destroy him in an actual fight.
Joe Biden Should Probably Stop Threatening Voters
Mollie Hemingway
The Federalist
Former Vice President Joe Biden has long fantasized about beating up Donald Trump, but during the 2020 Democratic primary, he began challenging voters who challenged him. He called an Iowa farmer a “damn liar,” for example, then challenged him to an IQ test and a push-up contest.
At a campaign event at a factory in Michigan on Tuesday, a voter asked Biden a tough but fair question about how he hoped to get the votes of gun enthusiasts who are union members. What followed must be seen to be believed.
Biden tells the voter he’s full of “sh-t,” wags his finger in his face, and when the voter complains, he suggests that they go outside.
Many people have focused on the erroneous comments Biden frequently makes about guns. He falsely claims he has no desire to limit AR-15s (which he calls AR-14s) but he previously told Anderson Cooper he did.
‘To gun owners out there who say, well, a Biden Administration means they’re going to come for my guns,’ Cooper asks. ‘Bingo, you’re right if you have an ‘assault weapon,” which is his term for AR-15s. . . .
I’m not opposed to more physical fighting in politics, although I wish it were the bad politicians getting roughed up more than the voters. But I can’t get past the issue that Biden keeps picking on people who would most definitely destroy him in an actual fight.
Monday, 16 March 2020
A "Lying, Dog-Faced Pony Soldier"
The Portentous Biden Blow-up
Victor Davis Hanson
National Review Online
Joe Biden lost it again on the campaign trail at an auto plant being built in Detroit, and in a now familiar script.
His blow-up had all his characteristic theatrics of prior such encounters. There were the shouting at blue-collar workers, the he-man, corn-pop-like braggadocio, the ad hominem expletives (“you’re full of s***!), the invasion of one personal space with his habitual wagging finger, the personal invective (“horse’s a**”), and, of course, being wrong on the issues and accusations.
It certainly is reasonable to assume that, given Biden’s promise to put Beto O’Rourke (“Hell, yes, we’re going to take your AR-15”) in charge of a President Biden’s Second Amendment policies, a normal voter rightly could fear that Biden either wants, or would allow, bans on certain type of guns.
This latest incident joins lots of others, such as the Iowa one-on-one with an apparently portly male questioner: “You’re a damn liar, and that’s not true . . . I’m not sedentary. You want to check my shape on, let’s do push-ups together, let’s run, let’s do whatever you want to do, let’s take an IQ test . . . Look, fat,”.
Or the brush-up with the young woman in New Hampshire, “You ever been to a caucus? No, you haven’t. You’re a lying, dog-faced pony soldier.”
We are told all this is baked into the Good Ol’ Joe from Scranton persona, and his supporters no more care than are MAGA audiences offended by Trump’s tweets and disparaging epithets.
Perhaps. But Biden is being sold as the alternative to Bernie’s assumed Armageddon of the down-ticket Democratic Party on two counts: one, he is a nice guy unlike the supposedly scowling Bernie or the crude Trump, and being 77 this year is no big deal given Bernie’s 78, Bloomberg’s 78, and Trump’s 73.
These incidents —and there will be lots more of them in the next eight months — after a while erode both those arguments.
Joe is not just folksy affable Joe, but rather than a thin-skinned bully, as we know from his lies about the tragic circumstances of his first wife’s death, as well as the idea that his 77 is any way analogous to other septuagenarians in the race.
Victor Davis Hanson
National Review Online
Joe Biden lost it again on the campaign trail at an auto plant being built in Detroit, and in a now familiar script.
His blow-up had all his characteristic theatrics of prior such encounters. There were the shouting at blue-collar workers, the he-man, corn-pop-like braggadocio, the ad hominem expletives (“you’re full of s***!), the invasion of one personal space with his habitual wagging finger, the personal invective (“horse’s a**”), and, of course, being wrong on the issues and accusations.
It certainly is reasonable to assume that, given Biden’s promise to put Beto O’Rourke (“Hell, yes, we’re going to take your AR-15”) in charge of a President Biden’s Second Amendment policies, a normal voter rightly could fear that Biden either wants, or would allow, bans on certain type of guns.
This latest incident joins lots of others, such as the Iowa one-on-one with an apparently portly male questioner: “You’re a damn liar, and that’s not true . . . I’m not sedentary. You want to check my shape on, let’s do push-ups together, let’s run, let’s do whatever you want to do, let’s take an IQ test . . . Look, fat,”.
Or the brush-up with the young woman in New Hampshire, “You ever been to a caucus? No, you haven’t. You’re a lying, dog-faced pony soldier.”
We are told all this is baked into the Good Ol’ Joe from Scranton persona, and his supporters no more care than are MAGA audiences offended by Trump’s tweets and disparaging epithets.
Perhaps. But Biden is being sold as the alternative to Bernie’s assumed Armageddon of the down-ticket Democratic Party on two counts: one, he is a nice guy unlike the supposedly scowling Bernie or the crude Trump, and being 77 this year is no big deal given Bernie’s 78, Bloomberg’s 78, and Trump’s 73.
These incidents —and there will be lots more of them in the next eight months — after a while erode both those arguments.
Joe is not just folksy affable Joe, but rather than a thin-skinned bully, as we know from his lies about the tragic circumstances of his first wife’s death, as well as the idea that his 77 is any way analogous to other septuagenarians in the race.
A Lawless Voice
Black Pastors Group Calls for Censure of Chuck Schumer
Dr Susan Berry
Breitbart News
The president and founder of the Coalition of African American Pastors (CAAP) has launched a petition calling on the Senate to censure Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) for his threatening remarks against two Supreme Court justices.
Rev. William Owens said in a statement that Schumer’s remarks against Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh promote “violence and hate”:
Schumer said:
Dr Susan Berry
Breitbart News
The president and founder of the Coalition of African American Pastors (CAAP) has launched a petition calling on the Senate to censure Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) for his threatening remarks against two Supreme Court justices.
Rev. William Owens said in a statement that Schumer’s remarks against Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh promote “violence and hate”:
This is the kind of language that promotes violence and hate. We’ve had enough of politicians who bemoan partisanship on the campaign trail while still catering to the most extremist elements of the hard Left. To make an open threat against two sitting judges – in an attempt to influence a case currently before the Court – goes far beyond acceptable behavior for a U.S. Senator.Last week, during a rally near the Supreme Court where oral arguments were heard regarding a Louisiana abortion safety law, Schumer stated that Gorsuch and Kavanaugh will “pay the price” if they vote against pro-choice advocates in the case.
Schumer said:
Over the last three years, women’s reproductive rights have come under attack in a way we haven’t seen in modern history. From Louisiana, to Missouri, to Texas, Republican legislatures are waging a war on women, all women, and they’re taking away fundamental rights.Schumer’s comments drew a rare rebuke from Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and, on Thursday, a Senate floor speech by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), in which he referred to Schumer’s remarks as “unhinged” and “shameful.”
I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you, if you go forward with these awful decisions.
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.
Wednesday, 11 March 2020
All Too Convenient
Joe Biden Is ‘Mentally Deteriorating’
Hannah Bleu
Breitbart News
Democrat strategist and backer of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) Justin Horwitz said during a Thursday appearance on Tucker Carlson Tonight that Joe Biden (D) is “mentally deteriorating” and that it will be a “disaster” if the Democrat establishment’s purported efforts to “shield” the former vice president prevail, leading to a head to head matchup with President Trump.
Horwitz, an outspoken Sanders supporter, spoke with Tucker Carlson Thursday night and discussed the Democrat establishment’s purported efforts to “shield” a “mentally deteriorating” Biden from the public.
“He is a candidate that is mentally deteriorating. People in the Democratic establishment say, ‘Oh don’t say that.’ They really believe that they can shield Joe Biden from public scrutiny and the reality is, they can’t,” he said. “We all see what’s going on here and it’s going to be a disaster if we nominate Joe Biden,” he added.
When asked by Carlson if he believes that the Democrat establishment is “perfectly aware” of what is happening with Biden, Horwitz noted that “everyone is perfectly aware with what is happening with Joe Biden,” calling him a “candidate in decline.”
Hannah Bleu
Breitbart News
Democrat strategist and backer of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) Justin Horwitz said during a Thursday appearance on Tucker Carlson Tonight that Joe Biden (D) is “mentally deteriorating” and that it will be a “disaster” if the Democrat establishment’s purported efforts to “shield” the former vice president prevail, leading to a head to head matchup with President Trump.
Horwitz, an outspoken Sanders supporter, spoke with Tucker Carlson Thursday night and discussed the Democrat establishment’s purported efforts to “shield” a “mentally deteriorating” Biden from the public.
“He is a candidate that is mentally deteriorating. People in the Democratic establishment say, ‘Oh don’t say that.’ They really believe that they can shield Joe Biden from public scrutiny and the reality is, they can’t,” he said. “We all see what’s going on here and it’s going to be a disaster if we nominate Joe Biden,” he added.
When asked by Carlson if he believes that the Democrat establishment is “perfectly aware” of what is happening with Biden, Horwitz noted that “everyone is perfectly aware with what is happening with Joe Biden,” calling him a “candidate in decline.”
Tuesday, 10 March 2020
A Small Matter of Perspective
Joe Biden’s Big Night And His Bernie Sanders Problem
The Super Tuesday narrative is that Biden was vindicated and he’s stronger than ever, but the primary map and the upcoming states suggest otherwise.
John Daniel Davidson
The Federalist
With a sweep of the south and key victories in Minnesota and Massachusetts, the media narrative will be all about how Joe Biden is the comeback kid, back from the dead, risen like a Phoenix from the ashes. That sort of thing.
It’s the kind of story the media loves. They love it so much it doesn’t matter whether it’s true, or whether the media was writing Biden off less than a week ago. The surprise comeback, vindicated frontrunner narrative is going to be pushed so hard by the mainstream press and the Democratic establishment in the coming days, you’ll think Biden’s nomination is pretty much a done deal.
What the headlines and the narrative won’t tell you is what any casual survey of the Democratic primary map plainly shows: Super Tuesday didn’t solve the Democratic Party’s Bernie Sanders problem.
Yes, Biden had a good night, but so did Sanders.
The Super Tuesday narrative is that Biden was vindicated and he’s stronger than ever, but the primary map and the upcoming states suggest otherwise.
John Daniel Davidson
The Federalist
With a sweep of the south and key victories in Minnesota and Massachusetts, the media narrative will be all about how Joe Biden is the comeback kid, back from the dead, risen like a Phoenix from the ashes. That sort of thing.
It’s the kind of story the media loves. They love it so much it doesn’t matter whether it’s true, or whether the media was writing Biden off less than a week ago. The surprise comeback, vindicated frontrunner narrative is going to be pushed so hard by the mainstream press and the Democratic establishment in the coming days, you’ll think Biden’s nomination is pretty much a done deal.
What the headlines and the narrative won’t tell you is what any casual survey of the Democratic primary map plainly shows: Super Tuesday didn’t solve the Democratic Party’s Bernie Sanders problem.
Yes, Biden had a good night, but so did Sanders.
Tuesday, 3 March 2020
A Bridge Too Far
No, Not Sanders, Not Ever
By David Brooks
Opinion Columnist
NY Times
A few months ago, I wrote a column saying I would vote for Elizabeth Warren over Donald Trump. I may not agree with some of her policies, but culture is more important than politics. She does not spread moral rot the way Trump does.
Now I have to decide if I’d support Bernie Sanders over Trump.
We all start from personal experience. I covered the Soviet Union in its final decrepit years. The Soviet and allied regimes had already slaughtered 20 million people through things like mass executions and intentional famines. Those regimes were slave states. They enslaved whole peoples and took away the right to say what they wanted, live where they wanted and harvest the fruits of their labor.
And yet every day we find more old quotes from Sanders apologizing for this sort of slave regime, whether in the Soviet Union, Cuba or Nicaragua. He excused the Nicaraguan communists when they took away the civil liberties of their citizens. He’s still making excuses for Castro.
To sympathize with these revolutions in the 1920s was acceptable, given their original high ideals. To do so after the Hitler-Stalin pact, or in the 1950s, is appalling. To do so in the 1980s is morally unfathomable.
He is not a liberal, he’s the end of liberalism.
By David Brooks
Opinion Columnist
NY Times
A few months ago, I wrote a column saying I would vote for Elizabeth Warren over Donald Trump. I may not agree with some of her policies, but culture is more important than politics. She does not spread moral rot the way Trump does.
Now I have to decide if I’d support Bernie Sanders over Trump.
We all start from personal experience. I covered the Soviet Union in its final decrepit years. The Soviet and allied regimes had already slaughtered 20 million people through things like mass executions and intentional famines. Those regimes were slave states. They enslaved whole peoples and took away the right to say what they wanted, live where they wanted and harvest the fruits of their labor.
And yet every day we find more old quotes from Sanders apologizing for this sort of slave regime, whether in the Soviet Union, Cuba or Nicaragua. He excused the Nicaraguan communists when they took away the civil liberties of their citizens. He’s still making excuses for Castro.
To sympathize with these revolutions in the 1920s was acceptable, given their original high ideals. To do so after the Hitler-Stalin pact, or in the 1950s, is appalling. To do so in the 1980s is morally unfathomable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)