One of the media’s favorite themes in reporting on the 2016 campaign was predicting how fatal it would be to any Republican’s election or re-election chances if he or she openly embraced Donald Trump’s anti-establishment candidacy.
These “experts” reasoned Trump was so radioactive with certain groups of voters that he would doom anyone who got too close to him.
The dire warnings scared many a weak-kneed Republican into holding back when it came time to decide on support. Of course the pundits were wrong. If you don’t believe it, just ask “Senator” Joe Heck from Nevada. (Actually, these days you’ll probably have more luck finding Heck wandering alone in the Nevada desert, since he refused to endorse Trump and subsequently lost a very winnable race for an open seat.)
Or you might also ask “Senator” Kelly Ayotte, who won re-election despite failing to endorse Trump in New Hampshire. Oops…she lost too, by about a thousand votes. Make that “former” Senator Ayotte. (At least Trump isn’t bitter – he gave her a great job!)
Politicians seemingly never learn that it’s almost always a bad idea to reject the leader of your party in a bitterly contested partisan election, or as is more commonly said these days, “run against” him or her.
But this rule of thumb is not universally true. Democrats are discovering quickly that getting too near Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren (who’s widely rumored to be considering a 2020 presidential run) is more than likely a ticket to defeat. Simply put, “Pocahontas” (as Trump calls her) has the kind of jagged disposition that cracks walnuts.
Naturally, Republicans realize Warren’s toxicity and are encouraging a higher profile for the polarizing Bay State pol. David M. Drucker of the Washington Examiner reports, “In Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Republicans see a next-generation liberal bogeyman they can use to trip up vulnerable Democrats running for re-election in red states.
“Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell might not have consciously elevated the Massachusetts firebrand's national profile when he abruptly cut off her floor remarks during the heated debate over the confirmation of Jeff Sessions to serve as U.S. attorney general. But while some commentators said the Kentucky Republican erred in giving her a newly raised platform, he and other senior Republicans preparing for 2018 were pleased if that was the result.”
Drucker’s article quotes one anonymous Democrat as saying Warren isn’t well-known enough to cause real damage in 2018. I disagree. With the media’s fawning coverage of the hysterical anti-Trump movement in the weeks since inauguration day, Warren’s mug has been plastered all over TV screens from sea to shining sea.
She’s a kook and a nasty one at that. Her rhetoric is so hot she could melt the polar ice cap.
It can easily be argued Warren’s politics aren’t all that different than 2016 Democrat runner-up Bernie Sanders’. But while Bernie is seen by many people as at least an honest semi-humble if still wacked-out socialist, Warren is little more than a caricature for angry feminist academic bra-burning broom-riding witches.
Most people in middle America would no doubt rather hug a cactus than embrace Warren. She’s prickly to say the least. If you have time, take a gander at Warren’s speech in Boston a few weeks ago. Frightening. The woman’s even wearing a Planned Parenthood scarf while she screams out her venom.
Drucker’s article further indicates Republicans are planning to take full advantage of Warren’s screechy voice, grating personality and ultra-liberal views in running ads tying her to vulnerable Democrat senators in the states Trump won in 2016. That’s smart politics.
While they’re at it, GOPers should also do everything in their power to encourage Warren to run for president in 2020, too. She’ll likely pick up the socialist Bernie Sanders voters from 2016 and perhaps even add a healthy slice of Hillary Clinton’s “Vote for me, I’m a woman!” coalition in addition.
Warren seems like a perfect fit for the Democrats these days. And besides, a recent poll shows that she’s the one Democrat Trump is already running ahead of.
Jake Sherman of Politico reports, “[I]n the fourth week of Trump's presidency, a new POLITICO/Morning Consult poll shows that Democrats could be in trouble — and Trump could triumph — if they continue their lurch to the left.
“Despite the public's increasing misgivings about Trump's behavior and tactics in the White House, he still beats Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) in a hypothetical matchup, 42 percent to 36 percent — a fairly impressive margin for a less-than-popular president against the prominent senator.”
As would be expected considering the source, the slant of the Politico article has Trump losing to a “generic” Democrat in 2020. Yes, we’re less than four weeks into Trump’s presidency and already liberal pollsters are seeking solace from the thought of the next election.
The problem for them is there’s no such thing as a “generic” Democrat any longer. In real life each one of them comes with a face -- and a mouth – and the more the public learns about them individually the more they’ll dislike all of them. Except Obama. But he was a special once-in-a-generation politician for many folks. He’s gone now and so is the luster off the Democrat party.
As always, Republicans will win in 2018 and 2020 by nationalizing the election. Buffoons like Senator Elizabeth Warren will help them do so by making the case that the more Democrats there are in the Senate the more power and say-so “Pocahontas” will have over future nominees and legislation.
Warren may have found a political niche with the leftist/anarchist crowd by being a truly heinous and unlikable senator who hates Trump; but that doesn’t mean she can’t still be useful to the cause of liberty. As the standard bearer for the new Democrats, Warren can be a big help in exposing the differences between the parties.
If that happens, Republicans can’t lose. So I say, you go, Lizzy!
Liberals get a dose of their own medicine in congressional investigation of leakers
“Be careful what you wish for” is an oft-used refrain among the ruling class when forecasting disaster for whomever would dare vote for a candidate outside of the liberal establishment, but the saying can just as easily be applied to those who “wished for” and spurred on leakers within the new Donald Trump administration.
Now it appears the information sieves have gone too far. Congress is going after them.
Jonathan Easley of The Hill reports, “House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) says he won’t open an investigation into President Trump’s former national security adviser Michael Flynn, citing executive privilege.
“But the committee will investigate who leaked the story that led to Flynn’s resignation and why Trump's national security adviser was being recorded, CNN reported Tuesday...
“Nunes told the Washington Post he is more concerned ‘that you have an American citizen who had his phone calls recorded.’ Nunes will investigate how the story was exposed...”
All this time, lost in the witch hunt that ended with Michael Flynn’s resignation was the very serious issue of where this damaging information originated from. Assuming Flynn was talking to the Russian ambassador prior to officially taking his post as National Security Adviser, who would be privy to the type of information that was exchanged in the conversation?
Isn’t it just one private citizen talking to a foreign diplomat?
While the conversation would not be privileged in an official sense that doesn’t mean there aren’t ethical protocols in place to prevent leakers from sharing the content of consequential discussions with the world. Who’s doing it?
For his part, Flynn denies he did anything out of bounds and the president had urged him to speak out.
Richard Pollock of the Daily Caller reports, “In the final hours before his resignation, now-former White House National Security Adviser Michael T. Flynn said he ‘crossed no lines’ in his discussion with Russia’s ambassador, but ultimately he was most concerned about the steady stream of leaks to reporters based on classified information.
“’In some of these cases, you’re talking about stuff that’s taken off of a classified system and given to a reporter. That’s a crime,’ Flynn told The Daily Caller News Foundation Investigative Group during a telephone interview from his White House office on Monday…
“Flynn said he didn’t know where the leaks originated. ‘One has to wonder, ‘Are they coming out of people in the National Security Council? Are they coming out of people in the intel community? Or State? Or Defense?’”
Pollock’s article cites one source who surmised the leaks stemmed from Obama supporters hidden within the intelligence community, with the theory being that nothing leaked out about Hillary’s conversations during the height of the Benghazi controversy.
Someone must have known something; they kept it to themselves. Trump comes into office and now everything’s a public matter. Put two and two together.
Clearly some insider has a political agenda to not only expose Trump’s people but also to protect the previous administration’s record. Since the House Intelligence Committee is now going to look into the matter, they likely already have some pretty good suspects.
In a larger sense, this is the type of investigation that needed to happen regardless. A presidential administration cannot operate under the threat of information leaks hanging over its head. This issue is completely separate from the generally positive concept of a “whistleblower” that exposes illegal conduct by bureaucrats, such as that the IRS used against conservative organizations for the past half-decade.
Some might suggest there’s a fine line between a whistleblower and a leaker. If that’s the case, thankfully Congress is about to define it.
Cheerleaders of the left are mad because Trump’s people won’t use their pompoms
One of the offshoots from Michael Flynn’s resignation this week concerns Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway. The media is so upset with Conway for saying Flynn had the “full confidence of the president” just hours before his resignation was revealed that they’re literally barring the former campaign manager from their programs because of it.
And they’re calling her a phony and a liar, too.
Hadas Gold of Politico reports, “Kellyanne Conway has an on-air credibility crisis.
“On MSNBC’s ‘Morning Joe’ on Tuesday, co-anchor Mika Brzezinski declared that she ‘will not interview her.’…
“An anchor from a different network said Conway hasn’t been invited on the anchor's show for months, saying the viewer gets ‘nothing out of her’ because ‘she constantly obfuscates and misrepresents the truth.’”
The truth according to whom? And who gave some stupid establishment media news anchor the vaunted position of arbiter of truth?
I think the media’s main problem with Conway is she simply won’t play the game according to their rules. In their own minds they see an administration that is guilty of all the “deplorables” sins, but since Conway won’t come out and say exactly what they want her to utter, they instead dismiss her answers as “obfuscation” and “lies”.
Conway is a lawyer and long-time political commentator who has been on TV hundreds of times so she knows how to answer questions according to her point-of-view. That means she won’t be giving the liberals what they want – ever -- and they hate it.
The talkers just want her to admit, “Yeah, he’s guilty so we tossed him out. Next question?” That’s just not going to happen. Like a prosecutor who gets frustrated with a defendant because he won’t confess that he committed the crime on the witness stand, the media talking heads are outraged the Trump administration is not affirming their narratives.
In the case of a prosecutor, it’s his job to bring out the truth through cross examination, pointing out inconsistencies in evidence or testimony. If these media folks are as good as they think they are at determining where the “truth” lies, they should be capable of doing the same thing.
Instead they just gripe and moan about how Conway is a “manipulator” and a “liar.”
In my mind, they would have all flunked out of law school.
But some also think Conway and other administration spokesmen are doing too many interviews -- and it’s only hurting them.
Jonathan Easley of The Hill reports, “Trump administration officials need to be more disciplined in their television appearances, Fox News host Bill O’Reilly said Tuesday, arguing that their frequent presence on news shows stirs controversy.
“’It seems every time someone from the Trump administration goes on television, there’s controversy,’ O’Reilly said, pointing to White House counselor Kellyanne Conway’s regular appearances on network news as a flashpoint.
“’What I don’t think the Trump administration is understanding is everything they say can and will be used against them,’ he added.”
I disagree. I do think they understand -- after all, Trump knows the media better than anyone. Nothing the Trump people could say would satisfy the interviewers, short of telling them precisely what they want to hear.
Again, the root of the problem is Conway and others simply won’t play by the leftist media’s rules. In essence, the cheerleaders of the left are mad because Trump’s people won’t use their pompoms.
So instead of doing their jobs they’re taking the ball and heading home. Good riddance!