Monday, December 2, 2019

Trump Hasn't Changed the Republican Party. But He Has Changed the Democrat Party.

The fake Republicans, those that are allowed to appear on CNN, like to claim that President Trump has changed the Republican party beyond all recognition. They claim that they really are conservative, they just can't support President Trump.

No, most of the never Trumpers are liberal Republicans. The kind who believe that if Trump would just stop tweeting, and appoint Merrick Garland to the supreme court, the country would be more harmonious. The media would then like us. We wouldn't be deplorable.

Now over time (decades) parties can change. The Republican party came out of the Whig Party. At one point the Republican party was the party of the tariff and the eastern establishment. The Democrat party was formed by supporters of Andrew Jackson, who were convinced that a national bank would ruin the country.

In the second decade of the 21st century we can say that President Trump is committed to the Republican party's orthodoxy of tax cuts, deregulation, strong national defense, commitment to law and order, and the appointment of conservative Judges. Neither, of his SCOTUS picks appear to be Souter or O'Conner like. Both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, excellent picks, seem more in the mold of Scalia and Thomas.

On trade Trump has been a free trader, but has pushed back on what he perceives as unfair trade practices. Reagan did the same thing.

The Republican party of 2019 would be easily recognizable to Ronald Reagan. The gipper would back Trump, despite what Ron Jr. and Patti Davis say.

While Trump has not changed the Republican party he has changed the Democrat party. See, Trump Derangement Syndrome has driven the Democrats to the far left. They have followed the advice of Queens New York Democrat George Costanza. They will do the opposite of everything that reeks of Trump.

Trump is for capitalism, so they will be for socialism. Trump is for stopping illegal immigration, so the Democrats will be for open borders. Trump is pro Israel, so Democrats will stand up for Hamas. Trump concludes that anthropogenic global warming is a very weak theory not backed by science. Democrats will double down on it. The electoral college seems to favor Trump, so Democrats will seek to abolish it.

Even Al Gore, who lost the election in 2000, said he still favored the electoral college, right after he conceded. My Democrats have switch sides.

This leftward drift would not have happen, at least so rapidly, had it not been for Donald Trump. He is in their heads.

Saturday, November 2, 2019

Amanda Carpenter's Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Trump Derangement Syndrome is real. It is displayed on cable network television, newspapers, colleges and universities. This syndrome takes a normal, well, relatively normal, intelligent person(relatively) and drives them to insanity.

A case in point, a pundit with, of course CNN, Amanda Carpenter. Her hatred of President Trump is so great that she imagines impossible and irrational theories.
She wrote a column for Time magazine, “Trump’s Treatment of Women is his Original Abuse of Power”

She prefaced the column with a post on twitter:
"Perhaps now, in light of the impending impeachment proceedings, is an apt moment to reflect upon the mindset of an abuser. What does it mean when a man who believes 'when you are a star they let you do it' becomes President?"

Well, I read the column. It's ridiculous. Carpenter tries, and fails, because it is impossible, to link 12 unsubstantiated assault allegations against President Trump with failure to protect the Kurds, and then with separation of families at the border. She even links a bomb being sent to CNN to Trump.

Her claim is that just as Trump uses power to abuse women (unsubstantiated), he is prone to abuse the Constitution (unsubstantiated), abuse the Kurds and abuse immigrants.

There is no rational connection to any of these points.

First, feminist theory dictates that a woman never lies, but commonsense tells us that men and woman are equally prone to lying. So, for Carpenter if 12 women come to the media and say that they were attack by Donald Trump 30 years ago they are automatically credible.

Actually, she includes a link to a story that claims the attack number is now at 53, but as we get closer to election it is likely to grow. I would not be surprised if there are 45,000 Democrat and some Republican woman that might realize that they too were once attacked by Donald Trump and come forward and tell a reporter at the Washington Post.

Would I believe them or find them credible?

My first question would be did they file a police report after the alleged attack? Carpenter didn’t mention whether any of them did. Somehow, I doubt they did.

For good measure she throws in Trump’s affair with a porn star and playmate. But those were consensual relationships. She also mentions a conversation, Trump thought it was private, with Billy Bush. A conversation that included lewd guy talk. In my McLean High school gym class I heard worse.

Other problems with her theory. She fails to point out that we have no treaty with Kurdistan, actually I don’t think there is any such county. She fails to mention that Turkey is a fellow NATO member and ally. She fails to mention that the Kurdish group the PKK is considered a terrorist group.

And she claims Trump’s abuse of women is kind of like his immigration policies (yes, that is absurd). In talking about the border, Carpenter doesn’t seem to realize that we separate adults when arrested. The President is not abusing power. He is enforcing our immigration laws. Laws which he has an obligation to enforce.

She complains that aliens are moved by the INS all over the country to different facilities (cages she calls them). As opposed to what, being allowed to roam the streets of America? Being allowed to sleep in a park of their choosing in San Francisco?

Trump didn’t force anyone to break our immigration laws. He didn’t force them to come here. But he does have an obligation to deport and detain people here illegally. This is not an abuse of power.

She includes a clip of President Trump saying that there were “fine people on both sides” in Charlottesville. She must not have watched the clip that she posted. If she did, she would find that it was obvious that both sides referred to the debate over statues, not to being a neo nazi.

The last poll on I saw on the statue issue here in Virginia was about evenly split. So of course there are fine people on both sides.

She also tries to link a synagogue shooter with Trump. Seems that they both used the word “invader” Well, millions of people use the same words. An invasion is an “unwanted intrusion.” And by law illegal immigration is an unwanted intrusion. Trump is accurately using the word. But now the word can’t be used? Perhaps it might set off another shooter? Nonsense.

Carpenter disgustingly tries to link Trump to a bomber who attempted to hit CNN. But the bomber Cesar Sayoc had mental issues; his lawyer described him as lacking the ability to comprehend reality. Trump had no control over him. Shame on Carpenter for trying to blame Trump.

She laments the alleged harassment that E. Jean Carroll is going through. Even claiming Carroll sleeps with a loaded gun under her bed.
Carroll claimed Trump attacked her in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room decades ago. Co incidentally there was a “law and order” episode, in the 1990’s where a woman was attacked in a Bergdorf Goodman changing room.

Carpenter doesn’t mention that Carroll never went to the police. She still could today. In fact, the only reason that we know the name E. Jean Carroll is because she wrote a book outlining the charge against Trump. It sells on Amazon and other fine book stores.

She has made the rounds on talk shows talking about the charge. Seems she doesn’t feel that it is necessary to go to the police, but certainly she will tell Anderson Cooper all about it on his prime time, but low rated show. She even told him, "It is fun talking to you."

Of the other women who have alleged that they were attacked by Trump she says “his accusers have paid dearly in terms of their reputation and safety.”

Well, if they didn’t go to the media, we never would have heard of them. And if they had gone to the police they would have been protected, kept anonymous, would have saved evidence, and maybe gotten justice.

Why didn’t they go to the police, well one possible reason, filing a false police report is a crime. Lying to Anderson Cooper is not.

Normally when we are wronged we use the courts to get justice. Carpenter and some of the alleged victims want to use the ballot box.

Carpenter concludes the piece with a wistful lament, if only we had listened to the women “who came forward in 2016 (and) tried to warn us about the harm he was capable of.”

Listening to people who were attacked and decided not to call the police are probably not people we should take advice from. Including advice on whom to vote for.

Monday, October 21, 2019

"How Can You Continue to Defend Trump?" Wife Asks.

I was lying in bed with the wife the other night – don’t stop reading this story I promise it’s G rated – and she rolls over and says to me, “How can you continue to defend Trump?”

What started the discussion, and prompted the question, was the Doral G7 controversy. I was defending Trump. Needless to say, my view of the controversy was more benign than hers. In a nutshell Trump genuinely thought that the Doral would be a great place for the summit, and he was floating a trial balloon.

Well, my immediate response to her question, “How can you continue to defend Trump?” was, well, I admit fairly glib and blunt, but it was basically this:

“He may be the biggest a**hole in the world, but if he cuts taxes, deregulates the economy, deports criminal illegal aliens, and appoints conservative judges I will vote for him.”

She didn’t seem to buy that argument and rolled back over. But as I laid there in the dark, watching the ceiling fan rotate, the thought crossed my mind. How can I defend Trump? How can I defend Trump?

Well, there are two aspects to consider. Trump the person and Trump the President. I realize that I will never meet him, work for, or with him, socialize with him, hang out with him. Go bowling with him. And that’s probably a good thing. So, I won’t really know if he is an a**hole or a really nice guy. Both are possible.

I am sure his wife thinks he is a great guy. His kids and grandkids think he is a great guy.

I remember my Father met Jerry Ford when Ford was in Congress. Dad liked him a lot, so I was shocked when I learned that Dad didn’t vote for him. I said Dad you said you liked him. Why didn’t you vote for him? My Fathers response: “Just because I like someone doesn’t mean that I will vote for them for President.”

Conversely, just because I personally dislike someone does not mean that I won’t vote for them.

Our politics have been personalized.

It seems every election year our superficial media asks the question, which presidential candidate would you rather have a beer with? And when I hear the question, I ask myself, who cares? You will never have a beer the President. But most people in the fake media think this is an important question.

I remember the 1992 Presidential campaign. Bill Clinton would bite his lip, squint his eyes and say, “I feel your pain.” People were impressed! They thought, just what we need, a President that feels our pain. In fact, Clinton could, on command, shed a politically necessary tear when hearing a heartbreaking story from a voter.

The voter would tell him that they were about to be evicted, or would lose their health insurance etc. Clinton hugged them, shook his head - showed he really cared.
He was likable. He created, with the liberal media’s assistance, the image that he cared, as if a caring is an important quality in a President.

Whether Trump is a “nice guy” or a raging “a**hole” is mostly a media image. Created both by the media and Trump. Trump could work on his public image if he wanted to, but he doesn’t seem to care. And in some ways that makes me like him more.

In the past when Presidents wanted to improve their image, they would bring in photographers, do glossy photo shoots with the family for Life Magazine. They would do an interview with Diane Sawyer or Barbara Walters. Take the dog for a walk on the White House lawn.

Remember President Kennedy. He had those nice photos taken of him, Jackie, John Jr. and Caroline in the White House. Beautiful pictures. Now, earlier that day he was probably having sex the intern, but you don’t need to know that. What a beautiful family! What a great guy!

Now, it is tougher for a Republican to get fluff coverage, but if he wanted to, Trump could improve his personal image. Take some pictures with Baron. Pictures of him taking a walk or reading to Baron. Holding Melania’s hand on the couch, with TV dinner trays in front of them as they are watching dancing with the stars. Show some pictures of himself in a casual shirt doing some yard work. Maybe, loading the dishwasher. Pictures of himself shooting pool with friends.

Could you imagine if he got a dog, say a black lab. He walks the dog on the White Lawn in front of the press. On cue the dog poops, Trump reaches into his pocket, pulls out an environmentally correct compostable bag. Picks up the poop. The video would go viral. I believe It would greatly soften his image.

But to everlasting great credit, Trump won’t do it. He’d tell his political advisors I not picking up a dog’s poop. Every politician in America would pick up a dogs poop for the camera. Trump won't.

So, for me what matters are issues. Tangible results. My 401 K is doing great because of Trump policies. The tax cut and deregulation has led to the lowest unemployment level in 50 years. He has even outdone Ronald Reagan when it comes to deregulation.

Trump has appointed 2 supreme court judges, and 150 lower court judges. Good men and women who will strictly interpret the constitution and not legislate from the bench.

He has re-negotiated NAFTA, which now languishes in the House. Nancy is probably not going to bring it up for a vote. It could interfere with an impeachment- Democrats have their priorities.

He threatened tariffs on Mexico to pressure them to do more to stop caravans of illegals from getting into our country. It seems to be working. Mexico is helping.

He is pushing our allies to contribute more to our common defense. Pushing to re-negotiate trade deals to become more advantageous to our businesses and workers. In others words advancing Americas interest.

Would I personally like Trump? Would I like to have a beer with him? Probably not. But will I vote for him? Yes.

Monday, September 30, 2019

Matt Lewis; My Favorite Never Trumper.

I will admit up front that I like the never Trumper Matt Lewis. Yes, that Matt Lewis, the mainstream media’s house conservative, or at least one of the more articulate ones. He is sometimes on CNN and writes for the Daily Beast.

The MSM believes one of the best ways to attack Trump is through Republican surrogates. They can claim "Hey we are balanced, we bring on Republicans", but of course only self identified Republicans who hate Trump. And those never Trump Republicans don’t mind being used. And who knows, Jake Tapper might be a great guy to work with. I hear people that work with him describe him as “intellectually honest”, but perhaps a bit of a virtue signaler.

Well, Lewis latest piece in the Daily Beast is so cynical, so deceitful, so banal, that I have to share it. The headline is priceless: “I am a conservative and Nancy Pelosi is right On Here.”

First red flag, if you have to state in the first sentence that you are a conservative, you probably are not. In fairness to him I will assume his editors wrote the title.

He doesn’t disclose in his piece that he is a never Trumper. Perhaps someone reading the column will think wow a Republican thinks Trump should be impeached! Next thing you know Bill Weld, or Bill Kristol, both of whom claim to be Republicans, will follow the Lewis lead and also claim that Trump should be impeached.

He starts off with this: “It feels awfully weird to be on the Democratic speaker’s side. But it feels weirder to be disappointed in people who have been my allies.”

What allies? He didn’t vote for Trump. Now he's disappointed that Republicans, allegedly "his once allies", don’t want to side with Nancy Pelosi and undo an election? Republicans don’t want to switch over to his CNN never Trump side?

He may feel disappointment, but no real conservative with any sense is going to join Nancy Pelosi in a coup against a conservative President. A tax cutting President. A de regulating President. A President that is appointing great conservative judges. A conservative President fighting to enforce our immigration laws.

Lewis claims that the administration “pressured” the Ukrainians into investigating Joe Biden. He also says such pressure constitutes an impeachable offense. He posts 3 links to back up the claim, but if you check those out, you’ll find that they don’t prove it at all.

As for the belief that pressuring a foreign government is an impeachable event, I would refer him to Article I, section 4 of the Constitution that says that a President can ONLY be removed for “Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

If a President wants to find out what the previous administration did in another country, say the Ukraine, how can that be illegal, let alone impeachable?

Joe Biden is not President Trumps opponent. And any such “dirt”, a word Trump never used, would go to the Attorney General, not a campaign manager. Doesn't a President have an obligation to investigate whether a previous administration abused its power? Maybe it is wise to ignore the past administration and move on, but such a question is not impeachable.

Lewis then describes Nancy Pelosi as being "patient and pragmatic", regarding her handling of the impeachment matter. He ignores the fact that she admitted that she hadn’t read the transcript of the President’s call. And despite not reading it she claimed that Trump asked the Ukrainians for help in the 2020 election.

I read the transcript. The President never mentioned the upcoming 2020 election. Nancy claimed today that Trump did in, “other words.” I guess in words no one but her, and perhaps Lewis, can hear.

Half way through his column he makes a claim that Democrat members, in districts that Trump carried, are showing great “courage and integrity” by coming out for impeachment.

No, they are not showing courage or integrity. They are caving to their party’s leaders and donors. They have Potomac fever. They are telling their voters we don’t care about how you voted in the election. Trump is not a fellow Democrat, you failed to vote for Hillary, well, screw you we are getting rid of the guy.

Lewis then claims Pelosi is standing up for American values, and that the Democrats who support impeachment know it will probably fail in the senate. And that the knowledge of ultimate failure is “all the more a testament to their sacrifice”. Like the boys of the Alamo perhaps?

Lewis, seems touched by Pelosi’s use of the Ben Franklin line “a Republic if you can keep it.” This line was probably told to Elizabeth Powell. Powell was a friend of Washington and Franklin, but I digress.

Lewis is wrong. It's not the Democrats who are fighting for the Constitution. For to remove a Democratically elected President for purely political reasons is not something Ben Franklin would have supported.