April 26-30, 2019
Apr 26 00:34 Vikings get their (line)man
Apr 26 16:19 Joe Biden's pathetic launch
Apr 26 22:56 President Trump has failed
Prior Years:
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
Vikings get their (line)man
Approximately a month ago, I started reading articles about how the Vikings were paying attention to NC State center Garrett Bradbury. As the draft approached, it became clear that offensive line was one of the positions that the Vikings were focusing on in the first round. (The other position group was defensive line.)
Thursday night, the Vikings got the man they wanted all along when they drafted Mr. Bradbury with the 18th pick in the NFL Entry Draft. The thing that jumped out at me with Bradbury was something Coach Zimmer said in his interview with Voice of the Vikings Paul Allen. With about a minute left in this interview, Coach Zimmer talked about a conversation he had with Defensive Line Coach Andre Patterson:
[Video no longer available]
Patterson was watching tape of the trio of Clemson Tiger defensive linemen that were drafted in the top half of tonight's first round. Patterson walked into Zimmer's office and asked who this NC State center was that was standing up to Clemson's D-Line. That pretty much cemented the Vikings' attitude about drafting Bradbury.
It sounds like the Vikings will now move Pat Elflein, last year's center, out to offensive guard, then plug in Bradbury at center for the next 10 years. I'm giving this pick an A- grade, partially because he's the best interior lineman in the draft, partially because the Vikings upgrade 2 positions with a single pick.
Tune in to LFR on Saturday morning for more updates on the Vikings draft picks.
Posted Friday, April 26, 2019 12:34 AM
Comment 1 by Chad Q at 26-Apr-19 06:56 PM
Not sure why you get excited about the Vikings anymore with how they continue to disappointed what fans they have left. With that said, they did the smartest thing they have done in years by drafting for what they have so badly needed for about 5 years. Now they should go out and get a QB so they can cut the $90 mil dollar dud loose when his guaranteed contract is up.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 26-Apr-19 11:09 PM
I've been a Vikings fan since 1967, when I was 11-years-old. They're part of my DNA, just like the Twins are. I can't walk away after all I've seen.
Joe Biden's pathetic launch
Watching former VP Biden's presidential launch has been painful, even for a conservative like me. Josh Marshall's latest post at TPM is titled "The Perfect Candidate Who's Totally Ill-Suited to the Times." That's worded about as perfectly as it gets.
Democrat moderates keep saying that VP Biden is the only Democrat candidate who can win back blue collar workers that Democrats lost in 2016. It's my opinion that they're talking about the Democrat I call 'Theoretical Joe.' Theoretical Joe was born in Scranton, PA, and supposedly loves blue collar workers. Democrats won't retake the White House without re-establishing their support from blue collar workers. That's why moderate Democrats support Theoretical Joe.
The guy who showed up this morning on The View, however, couldn't fill a diner, much less an arena. I call this morning's Biden 'Real Joe' because, unfortunately for Democrats, is the real Joe Biden. This is a disaster:
[Video no longer available]
He looks totally unequipped to answer a question he had to know was coming. I'm old enough to remember President Reagan's great line in his debate with Walter Mondale. In their first presidential debate, President Reagan looked tired and off his game. The press said he looked old. Then came the second debate. This is what happens when you're prepared:
[Video no longer available]
It's worth noting that the journalist at the end said "I'd like to leave early before it heads over the fence." In other words, the journalist thought that President Reagan had hit a homerun with that answer.
Joe Biden knew that question was coming. His handlers should've had him prepared for it. Instead, he stuttered and stammered his way through the answer. He looked befuddled when there was no reason for him to be.
Real Joe Biden isn't capable of winning anything, starting with the nomination. I think he'll have difficulty winning more than a handful of Democrat primaries.
Posted Friday, April 26, 2019 4:19 PM
No comments.
President Trump has failed
James Freeman's WSJ article has a wonderful tongue-in-cheek quality to it.
Freeman's article starts by saying "What would we do without experts? As U.S. workers continue to enjoy a vibrant job market, they should spare a thought for laborers in one category of professional services who remain mired in a multi-year slump. Established manufacturers of Keynesian economic forecasts have entered a prolonged period of secular stagnation. Some may even wonder if they can ever break out of a 'new normal' of declining prestige."
Freeman's article continues, saying "At the New York Times recently, economist Paul Krugman valiantly attempted to overcome his history of underrating American potential by making another call on tax policy and the macroeconomy. On April 8, Mr. Krugman wrote about one of President Trump's signature policy achievements: '...his one major legislative success, the 2017 tax cut - which he predicted would be 'rocket fuel' for the economy, has turned out to be a big fizzle, economically and, especially, politically. It's true that U.S. economic growth got a bump for two quarters last year, and Trumpists are still pretending to believe that we'll have great growth for a decade. But at this point last year's growth is looking like a brief and rapidly fading sugar high."
On the old show Hee-Haw, one of their famous skits showed 4 men singing:
[Video no longer available]
The famous line was "If it weren't for bad luck, I'd have no luck at all." I'd say that's pretty fitting for the 'slump' that Mr. Krugman is in. He once was a world-renowned economist. These days, he's just a partisan hack for the NYTimes. It isn't limited to Krugman, though:
A former Clinton and Obama economic adviser, Mr. Summers wrote in May of 2017 in the Washington Post:
Details of President Trump's first budget have now been released. Much can and will be said about the dire social consequences of what is in it and the ludicrously optimistic economic assumptions it embodies. My observation is that there appears to be a logical error of the kind that would justify failing a student in an introductory economics course.
Apparently, the budget forecasts that U.S. economic growth will rise to 3.0 percent because of the administration's policies, largely its tax cuts and perhaps also its regulatory policies. Fair enough if you believe in tooth fairies and ludicrous supply-side economics.
These days, Summers and Krugman are nothing more than elitist economic snobs sneering down their noses at the notion that supply-side economics is the stuff that only tooth fairies peddled. Forgive me if I ignore their snobbishness.
Finally, there's this:
Harriet Torry reports in the Journal on the optimism among corporate executives, including JPMorgan Chase & Co. Chief Executive Jamie Dimon:
"People are going back to the workforce. Companies have plenty of capital," he said, adding that "business confidence and consumer confidence are both rather high: it could go on for years. There's no law that says it has to stop," he said.
At some point, it will stop. It's just that there's no guarantee it'll be anytime soon.
Posted Friday, April 26, 2019 10:56 PM
No comments.
What is Biden's advantage?
Salena Zito's column does a great job highlighting the advantages that Joe Biden has in winning the Democrats' nomination, then the general election. Personally, I don't think that Biden's got any chance in the general election but that's just my opinion.
Ms. Zito starts by writing "Joe Biden joined the 2020 race for president last week by declaring that the next election will be 'a battle for the soul of this nation.' But his decision to make a Western Pennsylvania Teamster hall his first campaign stop on Tuesday shows he truly understands the heart of it."
I don't doubt that Biden identifies with western Pennsylvania. It's just that I think he starts with an albatross around his neck. The name of that particular albatross is President Obama. During their 8 years in office together, the Obama-Biden team tried to demolish the coal industry, the manufacturing industry and the steel industry.
In his announcement video, Biden said that "I believe that history will look back on 4 years of this president and all that he embraces as an aberrant moment in time. But if we give Donald Trump 8 years in the White House, he will forever and fundamentally alter the character of this nation."
[Video no longer available]
That's odd considering the fact that the president he served said "We are 5 days away from fundamentally transforming America."
[Video no longer available]
Sleepy Joe, along with his other Democrat presidential aspirants, sat idly by while President Obama tried destroying steel mill towns, the coal-mining industry and the manufacturing industry. That isn't the only disturbing thing Obama said. This statement is something else that will live in infamy:
They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.
He was talking specifically about Pennsylvania. Why hasn't Vice President Biden stepped forward and criticized President Obama for essentially saying that voters in rural Pennsylvania, Ohio and other midwestern states were racists? This might be Biden's biggest mistake of the campaign.
I don't doubt that Democrats will let him off the hook for not criticizing President Obama but I'm betting blue-collar Trump voters who felt forgotten under President Obama don't feel forgotten with President Trump. A major part of President Trump's accomplishments have benefitted these voters. What reason would they have for leaving the guy whose policies have helped restore their towns and their industries?
I don't disagree that Biden has some strengths that will help him. It's just that I think he's got a ton of liabilities that will hurt him as much as his strengths will help him.
Posted Saturday, April 27, 2019 11:41 PM
Comment 1 by Chad Q at 28-Apr-19 07:38 AM
When someone on his staff says she doesn't want white people leading the party, I think he has a problem.
That and Obama, his and his son's questionable activities, and then the whole touchy/feely thing he has.
Democrat chairmen as constitutional illiterates
Let's be clear about something. A number of Democrat committee chairs are constitutional illiterates. Either that or they're exceptionally corrupt or both. It's something I've spent a big chunk of time thinking about. Here's what finished things off for me.
When House Oversight and Reform Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings issued subpoenas for President Trump's private financial records when he was a private citizen, President Trump's attorneys filed a lawsuit to prevent the production of those records.
The legal complaint from Trump's legal team reads "Chairman Cummings has ignored the constitutional limits on Congress' power to investigate. Article I of the Constitution does not contain an 'Investigations Clause' or an 'Oversight Clause.' It gives Congress the power to enact certain legislation. Accordingly, investigations are legitimate only insofar as they further some legitimate legislative purpose."
That's true as far as it goes but I'd add that they didn't mention a separation of powers conflict, too. Congress isn't tasked with investigating private citizens before they were part of the government. That's the jurisdiction of the executive branch. Specifically, the Department of Justice has the statutory authority to investigate private citizens. The investigations of private citizens is the responsibility of the FBI or the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. The only people vested with the responsibility of convening grand juries are the DOJ attorneys, U.S. attorneys or a special counsel.
This won't be a terribly difficult case to decide. The legislative branch has the constitutional authority to give advice and consent, pass legislation, provide legislative oversight and to ratify treaties.
House Democrats don't have the authority to investigate the private activities of private citizens. That's the job of the executive branch. Period. Mark Levin discussed another possible explanation with former Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli on Sunday night's Life, Liberty & Levin:
[Video no longer available]
I don't know if that's what these Democrats are trying to do but I won't rule it out. It's pretty frightening when the People's House is weaponized to torment private citizens. Though that precedent hasn't been sent, Speaker Pelosi did say that subpoenas might be a way to negotiate with President Trump:
[Video no longer available]
Apparently, Pelosi and other Democrats don't think playing fair is required. That's why they need to voted out of office in 2020. The bigger the landslide in the House and Senate, the better. It's clear that Democrats don't see limits on their investigative powers:
[Video no longer available]
I suspect that they'll be stopped cold by the Supreme Court. I can't wait to hear about that ruling. What's chilling is hearing E.J. Dionne say that going after a private citizen's private financial records "is the right thing to do."
Posted Monday, April 29, 2019 4:17 AM
No comments.
Sugar high economy keeps chugging along
Yesterday, I wrote this post that highlighted how progressive hacks have gotten pretty much everything wrong in predicting the trajectory of the US economy. Andy Puzder's op-ed does a fantastic job highlighting what's actually happening with the economy.
Puzder wrote "This is no 'sugar high' for the U.S. economy. To the great shock and disappointment of liberals who have been desperately hoping for an economic downturn, the U.S. economy once again blew away expectations, recording a 3.2 percent GDP growth rate in the first quarter of this year. Even MSNBC described the quarterly growth as 'extraordinary.'"
Here's what's really happening:
Liberals have been predicting an impending recession for months. Frustrated with the obvious success of President Trump's sweeping middle-class tax cuts, which they had claimed would result in 'Armageddon', Democrats next argued that the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) would only produce a 'sugar high' for the economy. With each successive quarter that their predictions have failed to materialize, they've only become more frustrated with the economy's long-term prospects.
After Ms. Pelosi started talk about Armageddon, she quickly shifted to talking about the crumbs workers were getting:
[Video no longer available]
It's obvious that Democrats are deploying a multitude of lies to tell the American people that Trump's policies are a failure. Admitting that President Trump's policies are working simply won't do. Admitting that they're working would upset the Resistance. Pelosi and the Democrats are being held hostage by the Resistance movement. The Resistance Democrats don't put America first. They put acquiring political power first.
In the end, Democrats will get hurt because they can't admit the truth. That'll hurt the Democrats' credibility in an election cycle where voters are craving authenticity. Think back to how Fauxahontas got crucified for her grabbing a beer. The other thing that'll hurt Democrats is the economy. It's going strong, despite Krugman's and Summers' predictions. It isn't going to slow down significantly before Election Day.
Democrat frontrunner Joe Biden's campaign theme essentially calls them back to the supposedly good old days of the Obama administration. I can't wait to watch President Trump and the RNC hit him with ads highlighting stagnant wage growth and stagnant economic growth during the Obama-Biden administration vs. the strong wage and GDP growth during President Trump's administration.
Posted Monday, April 29, 2019 4:57 AM
No comments.
Juan Williams, Journolist member?
The common theme amongst Democrat propagandists, aka Resistance journalists, is that the economy isn't nearly as fantastic as people know it is. Take Juan Williams latest article , for instance.
Williams writes "After almost two-and-a-half years with Trump in the White House, including two years with Republican control of both houses of Congress, the middle class is getting squeezed to a pulp. The rich got their Trump tax cut. GDP looks good. And the stock market is doing great for people with money to invest. But it is only the rich who get the big rewards in Trump's economy. What about the middle class?"
Kevin Hassett, the chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisors, has an explanation for Williams in this interview with Paul Gigot of the Wall Street Journal:
Incomes keep rising, with the lowest incomes growing at the fastest rate. Minority unemployment is the lowest in history. The unemployment rate for women is the lowest it's been in 50+ years. Paychecks are bigger, partially because of the rising wages, partially because of the tax cuts. Disposable incomes are rising, too. Williams' spin that "the middle class is getting squeezed to a pulp" is fiction.
The average family making $75,000 saved $2,300 in taxes last year. How is that like "getting squeezed to a pulp"? If that's Williams' definition of getting squeezed to a pulp, sign me up. Lost in all of this is the fact that wage growth for people in the bottom quintile are rising at a 6.4% rate, almost doubling the wage growth overall, which is at 3.4%.
I don't know what Williams is talking about when he asks "What about the middle class"? Does he automatically trust everything that Media Matters feeds him? Listen to this BS:
Wages remain stagnant . Trump's trade wars are hurting farmers. Coal mines keep closing. Teachers in several states have been on strike.
That first sentence is utter BS. That isn't my opinion. That's what the BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics) is reporting. Further, people that'd left the workforce are returning to the workforce.
Further, President Obama's trade deals had already been hurting farmers. At least with President Trump, there's a strong possibility that they won't be hurt in the future. As for coal mines closing, the markets are determining what's happening; with newer power plants switching to natural gas, the switch was inevitable. With the Obama administration, they simply attempted shutting down the entire coal industry through regulations.
Do people who watch the markets agree with Trump? Not Rick Newman of Yahoo Finance. He wrote in his column last week:
"If Trump deserves credit for a roaring stock market then Barack Obama, Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan do as well. In fact, all of them presided over more total highs in the S&P 500 than Trump so far."
Certainly, Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan deserve credit for robust economic growth. President Obama can't take credit for robust economic growth during his time in office because economic growth during his administration was pathetic. Stock market growth the result of the Federal Reserve's quantitative easing, not President Obama's economic policies.
When President Trump took office, economic growth was pathetic, wages were legitimately stagnant and people were leaving the workforce in droves. President Trump got rid of the Obama administration's policies and replaced them with pro-growth economic policies. Since President Trump's and the GOP's policies have kicked in, economic growth has doubled, consumer confidence and small business confidence have hit all-time highs and people are returning to work. If Williams thinks that President Obama deserves part of the credit or that it's purely coincidental, he isn't paying attention.
Posted Tuesday, April 30, 2019 3:05 AM
No comments.
