Share This Article with a Friend!


Assault on America, Day 432: Jealousy and envy of Trump won’t heal Democrats’ deep divisions

Trump town hall
They’d never admit it, but Democrats envy Donald Trump.

It doesn’t mean they like him and the feelings certainly don’t extend to a level of admiration (both being positive qualities). But with each passing day it’s clear liberals envy what the outsider president accomplished four years ago (and what he’s achieved since), namely his storming of the American political scene, overwhelming of his party’s establishment, dispatching of his GOP primary rivals and Hillary Clinton and her machine in the general election and then besting whatever the deep state and media have thrown at him to not only survive but thrive in an atmosphere that flattens, destroys and humiliates smaller and weaker human beings.

The sign entering the nation’s capital should read, “Welcome to Washington, DC, you won’t stay here long and you’ll likely leave shattered and broke.”

The 2020 Democrat presidential race proves the point. Last year political observers and the media waxed poetically on the “deep” and diverse party presidential field chock full of minority candidates (Andrew Yang, Julián Castro, Kamala Harris, Tulsi Gabbard, Cory Booker and Deval Patrick), women, (Elizabeth “Pocahontas” Warren, Amy Klobuchar, Harris, Gabbard, Kirsten Gillibrand, Marianne Williamson), young and promising upstarts (“Beto” O’Rourke, Gabbard, Eric Swalwell, “Mayor Pete” Buttigieg), LGBTQers (Buttigieg), old socialist warriors (Bernie Sanders and Bill de Blasio), lefty billionaires on a mission to save humankind from itself (Tom Steyer and Michael Bloomberg), establishment steady hands (Joe Biden) and even a few governors and assorted congress people with practically zero name recognition but loads of ambition.

Pundits lauded and pitted them all versus Donald Trump and suggested he couldn’t possibly withstand the strength of the forces arrayed in line of battle opposite him. Yet not only did the “competition” fall away one by one, they crumpled like a cheap compact car crushed beneath a freight train. Last week saw the political capitulations of Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Bloomberg and “Pocahontas” as well as the race narrowing to two viable contenders in Biden and “The Bern” Sanders.

My, what a difference a couple weeks makes. Didn’t all of them recently individually vow to stay in the contest until the convention? Were they lying… or was there more to their exits?

And there stands Trump on the GOP ramparts which seem higher and more impregnable every day. Each Democrat took turns assaulting Trump’s record and character; each thought they could replicate his political successes and assume his role as national leader without crediting him for his innate abilities, keen sensibilities and unmatched manner of connecting with ordinary people -- and each discovered it really ain’t as easy as Trump made it look in 2016.

Michael Bloomberg might be the biggest loser of all, having dumped a half billion dollars of his own money into his ill-conceived and lightly supported (at the grassroots level) short-lived campaign, believing if Trump the bombastic New Yorker could pull off the miracle, so would he with a much more highly regarded demeanor (at least by the media) and “moderate” middle-of-the-road message.

Eddie Scarry wrote at The Washington Examiner after “Mini Mike” exited stage left last week, “It’s easy to imagine Bloomberg, doing laps in a pool of gold coins, thinking to himself, ‘If Trump could do it, so can I.’ Bloomberg, after all, is far richer than Trump and, maybe more importantly, had actual campaign and governing experience in America’s biggest city.

“It didn’t take, and not just because Bloomberg gambled that he didn’t need to compete in the first four primary contests. He performed miserably on the debate stage, and he was weak in defending his own positions. All the money in the world couldn't have saved him, as he nearly proved.

“He spent well over half a billion dollars to win a grand total of 12 delegates before dropping out of the race on Wednesday. In contrast, Trump in 2016 spent less than that in total, including all his donors' money, to win both the Republican primary and the presidency.”

Hmpf. Money in politics. It doesn’t mean nearly as much as people on both sides of the political fence give it credit for. How many years did the late John McCain drone on and on about “campaign finance reform” and other First Amendment stifling measures supposedly bent on leveling the political playing field and eliminating the appearance of corruption? Limiting the amount an individual or entity is permitted to contribute to a campaign should be re-labeled the “Incumbency and Political Power Protection Act” (or IPPPA?) since only established pols with broad fundraising nets can raise the money fast enough when they need it.

Or if you’re Tom Steyer or Michael Bloomberg, simply call your asset managers and order them to liquefy a fraction of your portfolio – it makes it much faster and more efficient to write checks to political ad buyers who become your new best friends. I wonder who the media folks appreciate more now, Bloomberg or Steyer? Remember, Mini Mike didn’t invest much in the early states… and he’s a former Republican, right?

Rest assured, leftist groups, both billionaires have plenty of dough leftover to seed your stupid and inane causes, ideological interest groups and well-compensated “activist” armies! Who knows, maybe they’ll even pay to restart Bill Kristol’s Weekly Standard so it appears there are still “conservatives” out there who oppose Trump! No doubt James O’Keefe (of Project Veritas fame) is busy exposing the well-disguised ruse perpetuated by your various campaigns. There’re lots to go ‘round, too. Isn’t Bloomberg worth well over $60 billion (and he even admitted to “buying” 2018 elections in his second and final debate performance)?

“Leaders” like Nancy Pelosi preserve their influence through running in safe districts, using their offices to build an impressive contribution mountain and then slowly sprinkle it (through their establishment leadership PACs and campaign committees) to the struggling efforts of their underlings. Need a vote for impeachment, Nancy? Call up a member from a swing district and dangle a big reelection check in front of his or her nose. Want a unanimous senate Democrat impeachment vote, “Chucky” (Schumer)? Do the same thing.

Make no mistake, it does take resources to wage successful campaigns – but it ain’t everything. We’ve been taught a college course’s worth of lessons on the subject this cycle.

Americans actually owe a debt of gratitude to Bloomberg and Steyer – and Trump – for proving the point. The Beatles famously crooned “I don’t care too much for money, money can’t buy me love,” but the former New York City Mayor and climate change loon (Steyer) demonstrated it won’t buy you votes either. If Trump had remained the only victorious rich-guy self-funding politician then the liberal media would’ve kept equating large personal fortunes with political prowess.

“Buying access” or “purchasing a political office” was formerly in vogue, but not anymore! What’s “The Bern” going to gripe about in the next debate (if there is one, set for next week)?

Needless to say, “Pocahontas” Warren won’t be on stage any longer to join with Sanders in bashing billionaires and the buying of political position. The Massachusetts senator apparently heeded the shrieks of “get out!” from Bernie and his hordes of “bros” who saw her as draining votes that otherwise could’ve gone to fighting Joe Biden and the hated Democrat establishment.

Warren was suitably unapologetic in her post-announcement remarks, saying she gained the opportunity to talk with millions of people about the problems they’re experiencing. That’s all well and good -- she’s a major party candidate and is well-known enough to draw the type of support to keep her on the trail for over a year -- but did Liz ever figure in the overall race?

It seems like an eternity ago that “Pocahontas” overtook Biden for the national polling lead (for a day or two in October), clearly the beneficiary of liberal Democrats seeking an alternative to dopey Biden’s gaffes and Bernie Sanders’s extreme socialism. Warren maintained her “plans” would solve everyone’s problems and they’d be funded by a tax on the uber-rich. She injected universal childcare and abortion-to-the-max into the conversation and swore her government health takeover could be paid for…by some unnamed deep-pocketed force.

Commentators gushed over Warren’s aggressive debate performances until she couldn’t adequately explain whether she’d propose raising taxes on the middle class to pay for her schemes. Meanwhile, “The Bern” recovered from his heart attack at about the same time and ultra-liberals began losing interest in the 1/1024 Cherokee Indian squaw. Heck, if they were opting for socialism, they might as well get a guy who truly touted it!

“Pocahontas” was essentially squeezed out of any viable lane. “Moderates” began looking closer at Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar and the increasingly vocal leftist kooks consolidated around Sanders. Warren’s truth-challenged (on her background – such as claiming she was once fired because she was pregnant and her son’s private vs. public education, among others) statements didn’t help her and she ran fresh out of goodwill from the pundit class.

Now she’s back home on the (DC) reservation, hoping and praying (a rain dance?) that Biden chooses her for his running mate. Don’t bet the farm on it happening though.

And contrary to the trends and what common sense would indicate, Democrats might again turn away from the frontrunner. Byron York wrote at The Washington Examiner, “Yes, Biden was the front-runner in the national Democratic race from the moment he declared until early February; Democratic voters are familiar with his name atop the leader board. But because of the peculiar circumstances of 2019, Biden has not been subjected to the withering, extended scrutiny that being a presidential front-runner can bring. During the impeachment of President Trump, some press accounts seemed to spend more time defending Biden against Republican attacks than delving into his positions or his long public life.

“Then, when Biden crashed after terrible performances in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada, the scrutiny machine shut off...

“What is at stake is the resolution of a deep divide in the Democratic Party between Sanders' young, revolution-minded constituency, now strengthened by significant numbers of Hispanic voters, and Biden's older, more cautious electorate. The outcome might be decided less on the substance of issues than on the temperament and stamina of two men who, were either elected, would turn 80 shortly after entering the White House. Many Democrats, especially those who were proud of their candidates' diversity, will wonder how they got here.”

One can’t help but surmise there are lots of Democrats who aren’t happy with their remaining options, and the possibility of a “White Knight” candidate even took a hit with the political rebirth of Biden (who looks like he’s in good enough position to secure the nomination on the first ballot now).

Don’t expect much sympathy from Republicans and conservatives, Democrats. We went through our own struggles four years ago and now we’re feeling great about how the intra-party skirmish turned out. But ours was more a difference over swamp culture and party leadership than an ideological split. Democrats are in a world of hurt, stuck between two extremes, one being the establishment status quo and the other, “revolution.”

Again, they wouldn’t admit it, but Democrats envy Donald Trump, and the jealousy doesn’t end there. Liberals see a Republican Party united like never before and the daunting prospect of battling an incumbent president who’s (literally) survived trial after trial. There are dark clouds on the horizon and Democrats are justifiably terrified.

Share this