December 29-31, 2019
Dec 29 07:40 Underperformers of the year Dec 29 13:00 The McConnell-Murkowski kerfuffle Dec 30 04:37 Adam Schiff: 2019 Man of the Year Dec 31 00:10 Soup Lines America vs. reality? Dec 31 01:48 President Trump's Impeachment: 2019's Story of the Year Dec 31 02:49 Reapportionment update
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov
Prior Years:
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
Underperformers of the year
Never have so many been this wrong this often as this year. This was a difficult year for Democrats, especially the institutions that support them. Let's start with the most obvious perpetrators. The Agenda Media, aka the MSM, had the worst year in their history. If they had played a drinking game with their most-used words, they would've been sloppy drunk from Mid-February onward. Pundits like Carl Bernstein, John Brennan, Don Lemon, Joe Scarborough, Rachel Maddow, Mika Brzezinski, Chris Matthews, Eugene Robinson, Juan Williams and others still wouldn't be sober.
Similarly, if people got paid $50 each time a pundit used words of phrases like the walls are closing in, worse than Watergate, Russian collusion, constitutional crisis, existential threat or obstruction of justice, they'd be wealthy. Additionally, imagine the money we could've made just this month on the phrases national security, violated his oath, this isn't about politics; it's about patriotism or this is a solemn moment for our country.
Democrats have hit a new high for hitting lows. Never before has a president been impeached without committing a crime. Never before has a president been impeached with prosecutors introducing just hearsay evidence. Never before has a president been impeached without the president's legal team being able to call a single witness.
Nixon's legal team got to call witnesses to present a defense. Clinton's legal team got to call witnesses to present a defense. President Trump's team wasn't allowed to call witnesses or present a defense.
In February, 2018, then-Chairman Devin Nunes issued a memo about FISA abuse that he'd discovered. The DC media immediately criticized Chairman Nunes for being President Trump's shill on Capitol Hill. Shortly thereafter, Adam Schiff published a memo that insisted that Chairman Nunes' memo got everything wrong. This year, Michael Horowitz, the DOJ IG, published the Horowitz Report. The Horowitz Report was published on Dec. 9. Horowitz testified in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Dec. 11.
One thing that the Horowitz Report clarified was that then-Chairman Nunes got virtually everything right in his published memo. Another thing that IG Horowitz's report stated was that Chairman Schiff got virtually every major statement wrong. Further, the media still hasn't admitted that Nunes got it right. Finally, they'll never admit that Nunes isn't President Trump's shill.
The great news is that President Trump has rendered the MSM impotent. The MSM used to tell the people that they were stupid. Enter President Trump. Suddenly, President Trump is telling Jim Acosta that he's "a rude, terrible person":
[Video no longer available]
Saying that the MSM underperformed is like saying that Adam Schiff isn't trustworthy. The reaction from the masses is, putting it gently, predictable.
Posted Sunday, December 29, 2019 7:40 AM
No comments.
The McConnell-Murkowski kerfuffle
Much was made this week of Sen. Mitch McConnell's statement that he'll be working closely with the Trump administration on the Senate impeachment trial. When told of that, Sen. Murkowski told Anchorage TV station KTUU "And in fairness, when I heard that I was disturbed. To me it means that we have to take that step back from being hand in glove with the defense, and so I heard what leader McConnell had said, I happened to think that that has further confused the process."
I wasn't upset with either senator's statement. When Sen. Schumer and other Democrats criticize Sen. McConnell for already having made up his mind, they left out the fact that each of the Democrat senators who've run for president this year have answered affirmatively that they'd vote to convict President Trump. The obvious question is then If McConnell is disqualified for that statement, why aren't Senators Booker, Harris, Klobuchar, Sanders and Warren disqualified, too?
The other question that Democrats haven't addressed is why anyone should think that partisan senators like Blumenthal, Schumer, Whitehouse, Leahy, Hirono, Smith, van Hollen, Durbin, Markey and others have kept an open mind. They haven't so let's stop pretending.
Rep. Guy Reschenthaler, (R-PA), stated things perfectly in this interview:
[Video no longer available]
Rep. Reschenthaler said "If it was a judicial proceeding, let me tell you as a magisterial district judge, I would've dismissed these charges on day no. 1 for lack of merit."
This is much adieu about nothing. This isn't a court trial. If it was, the judge would've already thrown it out because it's built almost totally on hearsay testimony. Further, Democrats ignored the testimony given during cross-examination. Virtually every testifier has made a provocative statement in their opening statement. Every testifier has then been demolished on cross-examination. Bill Taylor got demolished by Jim Jordan. Gordon Sondland got demolished by Mike Turner. Marie Yovanovitch got demolished, too.
This impeachment is a sham. President Trump is the first president impeached who isn't accused of committing a crime. The articles of impeachment will be laughed at when the history books are written. They're both so open-ended that I could drive a truck through them. What are the elements that must be proved for abuse of power? What are the elements that must be proven to convict a president for abuse of congress? Senators can't identify the elements because they're making this up on the fly.
That's the difference between made-up charges like these vs. the articles that were voted on with Nixon. Those articles involved real crimes. These don't. That's why this trial shouldn't happen. It shouldn't happen because President Trump shouldn't have gotten impeached.
Posted Sunday, December 29, 2019 1:00 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 31-Dec-19 12:25 PM
Senators Booker, Harris, Klobuchar, Sanders and Warren will each vote. Mitch will preside. If you see no difference there, well ---
Why in a neighboring post do you dump a load on Schiff, for having the same leadership role and a comparable bias? Your dogs are all pretty, not an ugly one among them, but, oh, on the other side ---
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 31-Dec-19 09:36 PM
McConnell doesn't preside. That's Chief Justice Roberts presides. McConnell will have a significant role to play in crafting the rules. That's it.
I dumped on Schiff because his rulings from the chair weren't contested. Sen. McConnell doesn't make rulings because that's Chief Justice Roberts' responsibility. If that isn't a night-and-day difference, what is?
Adam Schiff: 2019 Man of the Year
Adam Schiff finally got what he wanted. House Democrats finally impeached President Trump. The fact that President Trump is the first president impeached without committing a crime isn't important to Schiff. The fact that he was impeached with just hearsay testimony and a purely partisan vote is immaterial to Schiff, too.
What Schiff wanted was President Trump impeached. If Chuck Todd had told him that the only way to impeach President Trump was for Schiff to admit that he'd met space aliens, Schiff would've done that without hesitating. This award isn't an honor in the traditional sense. It's simply admitting that Adam Schiff figured into many of 2019's biggest stories.
The bad news for Chairman Schiff is that his 'contributions' to this year's biggest stories weren't positive contributions. Chairman Schiff's contribution to President Trump's impeachment was historic but it wasn't positive. Making up the things that Chairman Schiff accused President Trump of saying to President Zelenskiy is, in my opinion, the lowest moment in the history of House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, aka HPSCI, chairmen. That 'honor' comes with an asterisk in that it's the worst thing that's happened during a hearing.
Another 'contribution' that Chairman Schiff made was in the Horowitz Report. Specifically, the darkest contribution by the HPSCI chairman has made is what's said by Rep. Devin Nunes :
"After publishing false conclusions of such enormity on a topic directly within this committee's oversight responsibilities, it is clear you are in need of rehabilitation, and I hope this letter will serve as the first step in that vital process," Nunes wrote to Schiff on Sunday.
"As part of your rehabilitation," Nunes added, "it's crucial that you admit you have a problem - you are hijacking the Intelligence Committee for political purposes while excusing and covering up intelligence agency abuses."
Schiff is the first chairman of the HPSCI to be recommended to seek "rehabilitation" and to admit he's got a problem. This happened after the Horowitz Report said that the Nunes Memo got pretty much everything right about the FISA warrant application to surveil Carter Page. The Schiff Memo, meanwhile, contradicted pretty much everything in the Nunes Memo. Here's the claims made in the Schiff Memo:
- FBI and Justice Department officials did not omit material information from the FISA warrant.
- The Justice Department 'made only narrow use of information' from former British spy Christopher Steele's discredited anti-Trump dossier to obtain the warrant on Mr. Page.
- In subsequent FISA renewals of the wiretap warrant, DOJ provided additional information that corroborated Mr. Steele's reporting.
- The Page FISA warrant allowed the FBI to collect 'valuable intelligence.'
- 'Far from 'omitting' material facts about Steele, as the [the GOP-Majority] claims, DOJ repeatedly informed the Court about Steele's background, credibility, and potential bias.'
- The FBI conducted a 'rigorous process' to vet Steele's allegations and the FISA application to wiretap Mr. Page explained the FBI's reasonable basis for finding Steele credible.
- Steele's prior reporting was used in criminal proceedings.
It isn't just anybody who can get excoriated in an official government investigation. What's more is the fact that this same politician got excoriated for needing to seek rehabilitation to fix his frequent prevarications:
[Video no longer available]
For his lack on honesty, Adam Schiff is this year's Man of the Year.
Posted Monday, December 30, 2019 4:37 AM
No comments.
Soup Lines America vs. reality?
This article isn't rare enough. It's the type of article I'd expect from desperate Democrats hoping and praying that nobody will notice that the economy is actually lifting all ships. Laced throughout the article are paragraphs like this:
On paper, Esther Mabior should be fine. She has a degree from Iowa State University, where she majored in economics, and lives in a city where her chosen profession, the insurance business, employs thousands of people.
But Ms. Mabior, 26, can't find a job as an insurance adjuster. And she says her own experience is a lot like the stock market highs and the ever-expanding gross domestic product she keeps hearing about: It all looks good on the surface, but deeper down things aren't so rosy. "There may be people doing well," Ms. Mabior said after attending an event for Pete Buttigieg's campaign in Des Moines over the weekend, calling herself "living proof" that as far as the economy is concerned, "it's not that great."
That's the type of story that I'd call an anecdote. That doesn't mean Ms. Mabior isn't tell us the truth about her life. I don't find a reason to doubt her. What I don't find is a reason to make policy based on her testimony.
Let's look at actual data. This is from the Atlanta Federal Reserve:
On November 25, Fed chair Jay Powell gave a speech titled "Building on the Gains from the Long Expansion," in which he observed that "Recent years' data paint a hopeful picture of more people in their prime years in the workforce and wages rising for low- and middle-income workers . "
This is the supporting graph:
In making this point, Chair Powell used a cut of the Atlanta Fed's Wage Growth Tracker that looks at the median annual wage growth of workers in the lowest 25 percent of the wage distribution. As the following chart shows, the lowest-paid workers have been experiencing higher median wage growth (the blue line) in the last few years than workers overall (the green line). This reverses the pattern seen in the wake of the Great Recession, when median wage growth for lower-paid workers slowed by more than for workers overall .
It's time to reject the Democrats' version of the economy. At the Democrats' last presidential debate, Vice President Biden insisted that the economy wasn't that great. Today, a Democrat strategist insisted that people were worse off thanks to higher health insurance premiums. What this strategist didn't mention was that the Trump-GOP tax cuts put lots more money in families' pockets so they could afford higher health insurance premiums.
It's worth noting that every Democrat in Congress voted against the Trump-GOP tax cuts. Imagine how families would be fighting if not for the tax cuts and if President Trump hadn't cut energy-related regulations. Those regulation cuts alone restored a dying energy industry. That, in turn, has led to rising wages for blue collar workers. The guy that's supposed to connect with blue collar workers, Joe Biden, is regurgitating the Democrats' spin:
"An awful lot of people, middle-class folks, are in real trouble, and they're not at all certain about their future," Mr. Biden said in Fairfield, Iowa, on Saturday. "So the idea that everybody's doing well is just simply not true. The very, very wealthy are doing very, very well, but the rest are scraping along."
If VP Biden's speeches were rated by the Washington Post's fact-checker, he'd get 4 Pinocchios each speech.
When she took the stage herself, Ms. Warren of Massachusetts argued that the economic recovery had failed to touch the most marginalized communities or rural areas. "Why is America's middle class being hollowed out?" she asked. "And the answer is in who our government in Washington works for."
Let's see how plays with this news :
Overall, 35 percent of respondents said that economic conditions were "very good," and 41 percent said they were "somewhat good." According to CNN's analysis of the data, the 76 percent net positive is the largest share of Americans to feel good about the economy since 2001, when 80 percent of those queried said things were going well.
When three-fourths of the people think that the economy is very good or somewhat good, it's difficult selling what the Democrats are pushing. I'd rather sell ice cubes in Antarctica than talk down this economy heading into President Trump's SOTU Address.
[Video no longer available]
Biden must think that we're dumb enough to think that Schiff and Nadler are honest. The only way Biden maintains his frontrunner status for the nomination is because the others are worse candidates than he is. Actually, that's precisely the case.
Posted Tuesday, December 31, 2019 12:10 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 31-Dec-19 12:19 PM
Bush tanked the economy and was voted out. Or you may say the economy "cycled" near the end of his term; the business cycle being a reality as well as an excuse. Trump does fear a repeat of that scenario, and blusters, as you do, over the place the busines cycle stands now, but with wages frozen for years while prices climb. You might be correct the GOP can sell your version, but that is something where we have to wait and see when the down-cycle hits, hoping only that it will not be a comparable disaster with banks bailed out without a Wall Street criminal going to jail. It will be an adjustment when it happens. Union membership might even grow.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 31-Dec-19 09:32 PM
The Bush 41 economy tanked when he raised taxes. There's no chance that will happen in the next year. Job growth & economic growth are strong, especially with the bottom 25% of the income scale. Consumer confidence has skyrocketed. Anyone that thinks that this economy is in danger of crashing in the next 9-12 months is kidding themselves.
Comment 2 by John Palmer at 01-Jan-20 11:14 PM
Gary do not forget the economic impact the recently signed trade deals will have on wages and GDP growth. The only negative for our economy is debt (deficit spending each year, unfunded promises and national debt). Growth in wealth is the answer to debt and the faster our country can grow wealth the better able we will pay down that debt and stop it from growing..
President Trump's Impeachment: 2019's Story of the Year
It's easy to name the Democrats' corrupt impeachment of President Trump as 2019's Story of the Year. There were other stories that deserve recognition but this story has all the elements of a heartbreaking story of corruption, media bias, partisanship at its worst and civil rights abuses. First, this story exemplifies partisanship at its worst. Democrats have literally tried impeaching President Trump since the morning after his election. Mark Zaid, the faux whistle-blower's attorney, posted this tweet 10 days after President Trump's inauguration:
#coup has started. First of many steps. #rebellion. #impeachment will follow ultimately. #lawyers https://t.co/FiNBQo6v0S
- Mark S. Zaid (@MarkSZaidEsq) January 31, 2017
This wasn't a solemn event, as Ms. Pelosi insisted. This was the culmination of 3 years of deceit and corruption:
[Video no longer available]
We had Chairman Schiff acting as the faux whistle-blower's defense attorney, protecting the faux whistle-blower's anonymity during public committee hearings. When Schiff wasn't protecting the faux whistle-blower's anonymity, he was violating President Trump's civil rights by preventing President Trump's legal team from representing him during the deposition phase. Schiff also violated President Trump's civil rights when he refused to let Republicans call witnesses in defense of President Trump.
The impeachment hearings were filled with partisanship, too. This is what partisanship looks like:
[Video no longer available]
Chairman Nadler was required by House rules to schedule a minority hearing day. That didn't happen. One day of hearings was dedicated to listen to 3 Democrat activists masquerading as law school professors argue with Prof. Jonathan Turley about whether the evidence submitted by Democrats was sufficient for impeachment. Another hearing was dedicated to congressmen and women essentially making closing statements.
The hearings throughout 'featured' (I use that term exceptionally loosely) the worst in media bias. Day after day, the media breathlessly insisted that that day's witness provided "bombshell" testimony. Night-after-night, the bombshell didn't detonate. In instance-after-instance, the provocative statements in the witnesses' opening statements turned into dud during cross-examination. Mike Turner's cross-examination of Ambassador Sondland was the nastiest cross-examination I've ever seen:
[Video no longer available]
That's the personification of media bias and Adam Schiff's corruption. Each day, networks like CNN and MSNBC and programs like the Maddow Report and Meet the Press Weekdays omitted the part about the exculpatory evidence. That's why President Trump's accusations of the Fake News Media resonates. People of integrity admit that CNN and shows like Rachel Maddow's are corrupt.
They've carved out a niche, albeit a limited niche, that serves a political purpose in the Democrats' quest for power. There was a time when Democrats cared about people's civil rights. That Democrat Party, apart from Jonathan Turley and Alan Dershowitz is history. That Democrat Party doesn't exist.
Impeachment is 2019's Story of the Year but for all the wrong reasons. Impeaching President Trump with hearsay testimony while violating President Trump's civil rights is awful. Impeaching him while Democrats displayed the nastiest partisanship of this century is worst. Impeaching President Trump with the enthusiastic assistance of the most corrupt media of our lifetimes is a trifecta Democrats should be ashamed of.
Posted Tuesday, December 31, 2019 1:48 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 31-Dec-19 12:10 PM
The extreme partisanship of the spectacle, knowing the Senate under Mitch will acquit - whether or not the glove fits - that is the story. A preordained outcome, so why the pissing match? Coincidently, Mitch would make a better minority leader than majority boss. Hubris lessens when the hammer gets into other hands. Mitch having a hubris reduction, ASAP. Unless the corporatist Dems screw things up, Bernie will be in the White House, but having blue dogs and such nipping at his heels. Hillary pouting big time, should it happen that way. Howard Schultz having to sell more lattes to keep up his lifestyle wealth level, if the Dems restore a fairer taxation protocol; all the games being in setting margins and marginal rates, for income and for wealth taxation.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 31-Dec-19 09:28 PM
It isn't preordained. Everyone has heard the testimony thanks to the public hearing. The story is that the media jumped all over each daily story about "bombshell testimony" and Adam Schiff's willingness to lie to the press, who accepted his BS without questioning him whatsoever.
It doesn't take a genius to reach a verdict when the prosecutors' case relies on hearsay testimony that wouldn't be admitted at a court trial. Do you really want to overturn an election based on gossip?
Reapportionment update
It's beginning to look like a historic year in terms of reapportionment after this year's census. Once a decade, a census is taken to determine each state's population. After that step in the process, Congress determines which states gain seats in the US House, which states lose seats and which states stay the same.
If this is right, California will lose a seat for the first time in its history. For the first time in its history, Montana will gain a seat. Prior to this year's reapportionment, Montana always had a single at-large seat. Starting in 2022, they apparently will have 2 seats in the US House. According to this report , "California, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and West Virginia are expected to lose one seat."
The figures also suggest Texas will gain two congressional seats . Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Montana, North Carolina, and Oregon are each expected to gain one.
This is statistically fascinating:
Out of the four regions of the country, the South saw the largest growth. The growth was primarily driven by natural increase and net domestic migration. The Northeast region saw a population decrease, declining by about 63,000 people, which was mainly due to net domestic migration (minus 294,331).
To be blunt, people are voting with their mortgages to distance themselves from hardline progressive policies. The biggest gains were in the South:
Out of the four regions of the country, the South saw the largest growth. The growth was primarily driven by natural increase and net domestic migration.
That didn't prevent politicians from polluting the report with partisanship:
State leaders attributed the loss to a shortage of housing. "Our failure to build enough housing is at the heart of CA's challenges: It's exploding housing costs; It's fueling homelessness & poverty; It's creating sprawl, increasing traffic, commutes & wildfire risk," state Sen. Scott Wiener, a Democrat representing California's 11th District, said in a statement.
"The cost of housing is the defining quality-of-life concern for people across this state. That's why California passed the nation's strongest statewide renter protection legislation to combat the housing crisis. #CaliforniaForAll," Gov. Gavin Newsom said in a statement.
People left California because it's turning into a pig sty. Why live where some homeless encampments are as big as some Midwest cities? Why live where the legislature passes laws that incentivize massive commercial theft? Why live at the edge of a breakout of the Bubonic Plague? Why live where the governor talks trash on TV, then doesn't have a solution for the state's many crises?
California set another first in that census as it didn't gain a seat for the first time since it became a state.
The statistics don't lie. First, California didn't gain a seat in 2010 for the first time in state history, then lost a seat for the first time in California's history this year. That's 20 years of decline in California. Gov. Newsom can trash-talk all he wants but the statistics are the statistics. Total Democrat control has led to 20 years of precipitous declines in California's reputation.
Posted Tuesday, December 31, 2019 2:49 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 31-Dec-19 12:00 PM
So, Minnesota loses a seat. Congressional districts will have to be adjusted (as well as local state Senate and House districts). The bipartisan trend is to lock in incumbency at all levels. The "We got, we keep" mentality where each party scratches the other's back, on safe districts continuing. But if Minnesota loses a district, your minions will not let it be CD6, where idiot Republicans end up sent to DC [Bachmann, Emmer a hair better]. Hopefully, you find time for a post on how losing a seat might play out. Ideally and actually. With luck my Rep will change from Emmer to Omar; if I get cut into her safe district. Other readers - any thought on "What if Minnesota loses a seat?"
Comment 2 by Chad Q at 01-Jan-20 08:21 PM
If MN loses a seat, it means we are not as great of a state as all the liberal socialists think we are because if we were, people would be moving here instead of fleeing. Only people moving here now are coming for the government benefits, not the jobs. I'll be gone in another year or two because this state and especially St. Paul is doing nothing for the people who actually pay the taxes.
Eric, if you want to be represented by a vile and disgusting person who more than likely shouldn't legally even be in the country and doesn't give on crap about her constituents, you can move into her district. CD5 needs more people to fill the soviet style housing and ride the crimerail.
Comment 3 by John Palmer at 01-Jan-20 10:42 PM
Eric my best guess based on the 2019 census estimate is that the eighth and the first will split up the voters from today's 7th. The sixth may gain some voters from the 8th and the 7th and then lose voters into 3, 4, and 5. 2 & 3 lose voters into 4 & 5 and gain some from 1 making them higher R indexed. The sixth may lose some voters into 4 & 5. With all the shifting the Dems will hold the two core city districts and is a swing district 3rd and lose all the rest for a 4 R v 2 D split safe seats alignment unless the 3rd can gain enough urban voters to turn it into a safe DFL seat. Statewide races will be determined by voter turnout in the core urban areas with a high D vote v. the rest of the state's turnout. If past is prologue, Ds win statewide but R's win one or sometimes both legislative houses. Remember this is a guess based on an estimate.
