February 1-3, 2020
Feb 01 05:48 President Trump's impeachment, Jason Lewis vs. Tina Smith edition Feb 01 07:51 NBC's stunning admission Feb 01 09:23 The upcoming campaigns Feb 02 04:35 Time for Republicans to go on offense on Ukraine interference Feb 02 12:42 Bloomberg's domestic agenda Feb 02 21:23 What's behind the unpublished CNN/Des Moines Register Poll? Feb 03 05:37 Disgusting anti-democracy Democrats Feb 03 10:40 What to expect from Trump's SOTU
Prior Months: Jan
Prior Years:
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
President Trump's impeachment, Jason Lewis vs. Tina Smith edition
Years ago, I coined a phrase about Democrats. In that phrase, I said that "Democrats always do the right thing -- when it's the only option left." That cliche rang true to me when I saw Jason Lewis's statement calling on Tina Smith "to do right thing for a change and acquit President Trump." There's a better chance of the Devil handing out figure skates in Hell this weekend than there is of Tina Smith doing the right thing.
Don't mistake what I'm saying. It's important (and right) for Jason to call Tina Smith out on this. Several times this past week, she's stood right behind Sen. Schumer at his press conferences. How appropriate for Sen. Schumer's shill. Sen. Smith is Sen. Schumer's shill. She's never voted against Sen. Schumer on anything. Why think that she'll suddenly do the right thing? That's as foolish as thinking that you'll be ok taunting a cobra with quick movements.
It's just the nature of the beast that Democrats won't do the right thing. Tina Smith is a creature of the Resistance. She doesn't dare cross Resistance activists. The Resist Movement activists are absolutists and anarchists. Here's Jason Lewis's statement in full:
The question facing Minnesota's voters is whether they way to waste their vote on a do-nothing placeholder Democrat or whether they'd prefer a get-big-things-done senator with a history of tackling problems while protecting our constitutional rights. I've watched Jason Lewis in action. From a policy standpoint, he's a man of stature while Tina Smith is a lightweight who does as she's told by Sen. Schumer.
Electing Jason Lewis would mean having a senator who is part of the majority getting important things done. Re-electing Tina Smith means having a senator who will be in the minority for the next term while getting nothing done. Jason Lewis already voted for the Trump-GOP tax cuts that've lifted the economy, made the US energy independent while rebuilding the military.
In her time in office, Tina Smith voted against highly qualified judges and justices, voted against energy independence and wasn't impartial as she claimed :
"Even in the Clinton impeachment, which was a pretty partisan time, the Democrats and the Republicans came together to agree on rules that were bipartisan, nonpartisan, and that is not happening here, which I think is a detriment to the overall fairness of the trial," Smith said.
It's obvious that Tina Smith wasn't impartial before the trial started. She voted for each one of Sen. Schumer's amendments the first Tuesday night of the impeachment trial. Each of those amendments was designed to force vulnerable Republicans to cast difficult votes.
After that night of voting, there's no question whether Tina Smith is a partisan hack. That night of voting was about tipping control of the Senate to a Democrat majority and nothing more. That isn't the definition of "overall fairness."
On a totally different front, Tina Smith apparently won't stand with the hard-working people of the Iron Range. Apparently, she'd rather team with Betty McCollum in preventing prosperity on the Iron Range:
[Video no longer available]
Posted Saturday, February 1, 2020 5:48 AM
Comment 1 by Rex Newman at 01-Feb-20 07:00 PM
Much as I would want my Senators to 'do the right thing' - which clearly means acquittal of President Trump this occasion - I must disagree with Jason Lewis here. He should not be telling Senator Tina Smith how to vote, but rather, not to vote at all. As an appointed representative, she is free to make all manner of votes, including her recent vote to expand the Senate impeachment trial via additional witnesses and documents. But as an otherwise unelected representative, she has no moral or ethical standing to remove anyone duly elected. She should abstain when that vote is called. The same logic would apply to a hypothetical Senator Jason Lewis appointed by a hypothetical Governor Jeff Johnson.
It does seem unfair at first blush to limit Minnesota's voice, but that's on us. We elected Al Franken and then re-elected him despite his record. We took the risk, he failed us, and we in effect took the vote out of his interim replacement. It's not personal or partisan Ms. Smith. You simply don't have the authority to convict - or acquit.
A related question has been posed in national media: should the three Senators running for President recuse themselves from removing their opposition? I say no. They were elected. They can walk and chew gum at the same time. But a vote to convict on the basis of this tawdry banana republic case certainly should be taken into consideration by the voters should one of them be the Democratic party nominee for President this fall.
Comment 2 by Gretchen L Leisen at 01-Feb-20 08:42 PM
Tina Smith was appointed to fill the unexpired term of Al Franken. However, in 2018 she ran for election for the senate seat, and she defeated Karin Housely [much to the shame of Minnesota voters]. So, she is now a senator because the MN voters elected her.
In 2020 it is imperative that Conservatives and pro-lifers support Jason Lewis. Tina Smith is the former head of the Mpls Planned Parenthood. She is a radical feminist and leftist, and in no way do her values represent Minnesota values. I feel that the only way we can get Conservative candidates elected statewide in MN is to have Donald Trump campaign here at least twice this year and to put the GOP candidates at the forefront of the stage. Too many otherwise good citizens do not pay attention until about 1 week prior to the election. They do not weigh the significance of the DFL left-wingers controlling all our state offices and our legislatures and senates. If every Trump voter would support only for the GOP candidates and NOT VOTE FOR ANY DFLers, maybe we could overcome the problems this state had had.
Comment 3 by Rex Newman at 02-Feb-20 02:31 PM
I am so embarrassed! Disregard my last transmission. It seemed like only yesterday she was appointed. It fit my template so I ran with it, which I guess means I'm qualified to work for major media or impeachment committees.
My apologies to all, including Jason Lewis and the esteemed proprietor of this blog.
Comment 4 by Gretchen Leisen at 02-Feb-20 04:27 PM
You are absolved, Rex. As we get older, it is a fact that time goes faster and the years begin to run together. Of course, I am speaking from a perspective of a Goldwater voter - a sign of my old age.
Comment 5 by Gary Gross at 02-Feb-20 04:41 PM
Rex & Gretchen, you're both alert enough to whip the average DFL rising star. Just keep doing what you're doing. You're both doing fantastic.
NBC's stunning admission
NBC News just made a stunning admission about impeachment when it said "American soap operas are not popular these days. And yet, the Senate trial to remove President Donald Trump from office is currently garnering fewer viewers than the soaps ." This isn't surprising to most Americans. The Democrats' partisan impeachment was seen as a travesty by fair-minded people.
Another contributing factor to the terrible ratings is the lack of star power on the House Democrats' team of impeachment managers. When Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler are the 'star' prosecutors, people will tune out. Couple that with 3 days of the Democrats repeating the same allegations over and over and over again and you have the makings of something exceptionally boring.
The good news is that this nightmare will finish on Wednesday:
[Video no longer available]
The bad news is that the next round of impeachment is right around the corner:
[Video no longer available]
The only thing that will prevent Democrats from attempting another impeachment is massive amounts of public pressure in the form of telling Pelosi that another round of impeachment will cost her the Speaker's Gavel. It will require the American people telling Angie Craig and Dean Phillips that they'll be one-term wonders if they support another round of impeachment. The NRSC and other campaign committees and PACs should spend boatloads of campaign cash into the 30 Trump districts where Democrats currently serve. It's time to let them know there's a steep price to pay for ignoring the people's business while pursuing impeachment.
Let's highlight the fact that Adam Schiff is a total liar. In March, 2017, he told Chuck Todd that he'd seen evidence "stronger than circumstantial" that President Trump colluded with Russia to win the 2016 election. This fall, he read into the congressional record a mythical conversation between President Trump and President Zelenskiy.
Do Democrats really want to hitch their wagon to Schiff's star? Or to Jerry Nadler's star? The Democrats' other problem is that anyone with firsthand knowledge of anything is likely to be covered by executive privilege. Does Schiff think that he can get away with another impeachment investigation without giving the White House Counsel's Office access to cross-examining Schiff's witnesses? Does Schiff think that these vulnerable freshman Democrats will want to vote for starting another impeachment inquiry?
Last time, Speaker Pelosi coerced vulnerable freshmen into voting for initiating the impeachment investigation by holding USMCA over their head. USMCA is now the law of the land. Does anyone seriously think that those freshmen Democrats will willingly vote to end their political careers?
The only way to stop this impeachment charade is by vanquishing 50+ Democrats from the House this November. If Democrats still have gavels, we'll keep getting one round of impeachment after another. It's that simple.
Posted Saturday, February 1, 2020 7:51 AM
No comments.
The upcoming campaigns
Voters need to ask themselves some serious questions about what they want from the 2020 elections. First, is it better to have politicians that listen to the people than having politicians who ignore the needs of the people? It's clear that Democrats ran on fixing health care. Instead, they've spent this entire congress impeaching President Trump. What's worse is that Democrats apparently will pursue another round of impeachment hearings once this impeachment trial ends.
Next, is it better to have politicians who keep their promises than it is to break their promises? House Democrats promised to fix health care and lower prescription drug prices. That was dropped virtually the minute that they got gavels. Yes, they passed a bill on prescription drugs. It was virtually all about price controls from the federal government. That isn't a solution. That's the opposite of fixing it.
Meanwhile, when Republicans were in the majority, they passed the tax cuts that have acted like jet fuel to the economy. Republicans did that without a single vote from Democrats in either the House or Senate. (Isn't that what's called obstruction?) Republicans used the Congressional Review Act to eliminate tons of Obama administration regulations. Eliminating those regulations have led to the fracking boom and the energy boom. As a result of that, we're no longer dependent on Mideast oil that travel through the Straits of Hormuz.
President Trump has flaws but he's got some incredible strengths, too. Think of the BS that Democrats have thrown at him via impeachment, improperly surveilling his campaign, his transition and his administration. Think of the BS that the media has thrown at him. For example, this week, John Dean and Carl Bernstein were part of a panel on CNN. Bernstein emphatically insisted that the Senate participated in a cover-up because they didn't call additional witnesses:
[Video no longer available]
During the public House Permanent Special Committee on Intelligence hearings, the media 'reported' of that day's "bombshell testimony" like they were obligated to do it. The people need to decide whether we want responsible journalists who tell the truth or whether we want tabloid journalists who work as propagandists for Establishment Democrats.
Imagine what would've gotten done if President Trump had a congress that worked with him. Imagine what would've gotten accomplished if the press simply reported the truth.
Fourth, the people need to determine whether we want a corrupt Democrat as Senate Majority Leader or whether we want a Republican who works with President Trump on confirming judges to the district, appellate and Supreme courts and criminal justice reform.
There's tons of proof that Sen. Schumer and Speaker Pelosi prefer acting like Resist Movement activists as opposed to acting like the loyal opposition. Finally, do the people want these haters controlling the Democrat Party?
BREAKING: At a @BernieSanders rally in Iowa tonight, a leading Sanders' surrogate @RashidaTlaib led the crowd in booing @HillaryClinton. pic.twitter.com/AKdi2psI2h
- Christopher J. Hale (@chrisjollyhale) February 1, 2020
Much is at stake in this election. Voting Democrat isn't a serious option. Look at the damage that they've already done.
Posted Saturday, February 1, 2020 9:23 AM
No comments.
Time for Republicans to go on offense on Ukraine interference
After reading this statement , I'd argue that it's time for Republicans to go on the offensive against the Democrats' corruption. Specifically, it's time Senate Republicans exposed just how corrupt the Obama administration was.
The key part of the statement said "According to Andrii Telizhenko, a political officer in the Ukraine Embassy in Washington, D.C. who participated in a January 2016 meeting, 'U.S. officials volunteered : that they had an interest in reviving a closed investigation into payments to U.S. figures from Ukraine's Russia-backed Party of Regions,' which refers to the investigation that involved Paul Manafort ." It doesn't stop there. Here's what it says when it continues:
"During that same meeting, U.S. officials also reportedly brought up investigations relating to Burisma Holdings, the Ukrainian gas company that had hired then-Vice President Joe Biden's son, Hunter , to serve as a board member. According to Telizhenko, 'U.S. officials told the Ukrainians they would prefer that Kiev drop the Burisma probe and allow the FBI to take it over."
Doesn't that sound like "U.S. officials" saying that they planned on making the Burisma-Biden scandal disappear? What better way to make it disappear than to give it to Jim Comey's FBI? Why did "U.S. officials" want to restart the Manafort investigation, too? Schiff said that the Ukraine election interference story had been debunked. With official WH records showing these meetings happened, that takes this from being a conspiracy theory to being investigation-worthy.
This isn't surprising. Democrats, starting with Schiff, have said that the Biden fiasco has been debunked. They've never said who debunked the story or who conducted the investigation that exonerated Hunter. This will give the Democrats some indigestion:
According to Telizhenko:
[Chalupa] said the DNC wanted to collect evidence that Trump, his organization and Manafort were Russian assets, working to hurt the U.S. and working with [Russian President Vladimir] Putin against the U.S. interests. She indicated if we could find the evidence they would introduce it in Congress in September and try to build a case that Trump should be removed from the ballot, from the election.
Democrats pretend to care about Russian interference in our elections. Democrats did this while they cultivated foreign contacts with the goal of getting President Trump kicked off the ballot. Apparently, Democrats don't want the American people to decide who their president is. Apparently, Democrats are happy to spread propaganda on hide the truth about their corrupt intentions with Ukraine through Ms. Chalupa.
[Video no longer available]
Posted Sunday, February 2, 2020 4:35 AM
No comments.
Bloomberg's domestic agenda
Anyone that thinks that a Bloomberg administration would keep the economy humming is kidding themselves. Bloomberg's economic blueprint, which was outlined in this article , would be catastrophic. According to the article, the Bloomberg blueprint says "The 2020 presidential candidate unveiled $5 trillion in proposed new taxes Saturday as part of his sweeping domestic program. They would pay for infrastructure projects, as well as investments in green energy, affordable housing, education and health care, the billionaire Democratic candidate said."
It continues with a quote from Bloomberg, which says "[the] plan I am releasing today raises rates on wealthy individuals and corporations, closes loopholes, cracks down on tax avoidance, expands the estate tax, and reduces the tax advantages that investors have over workers." Finally, there's this:
Among the proposals: rolling back President Trump's corporate tax cuts; a new 5% surtax on incomes above $5 million a year; taxes on capital gains; lowering the threshold for the estate tax; and restoring top rates back to the Obama-era 39.6%.
In other words, Bloomberg's plan would incentivize manufacturers to leave the US for places like Mexico, China and other foreign nations. Further, it would incentivize companies to not invest their money but rather to sit their cash on the sidelines. That's the fastest way to slow job growth.
Then there's this part of Bloomberg's plan for economic justice for African Americans:
Black Americans have been disproportionately incarcerated, politically disenfranchised and subject to systematic discrimination. The enduring legacy of discrimination is reflected in the fact that the typical Black family has one-tenth the wealth of the typical white family.
Bill Clinton signed the bill that started mass incarcerations. President Trump signed the First Step Act that's starting to reverse that incarceration trend. Democrats have taken African-Americans for granted. Democrats want their votes. They haven't done anything to warrant the previously monolithic vote, though. Third, Ben Carson and Tim Scott have led the GOP's efforts to create wealth for African-Americans through enterprise zones. President Trump signed significant increases in Historically Black Colleges and Universities, aka HSBU. Now, President Trump and his team are working on the Second Step Act to improve African-Americans' lives.
Whatever Bloomberg promises to do, President Trump has already started doing. Bloomberg's immigration policies are open border policies:
- Mike formed the pro-immigration organization New American Economy, representing more than 500 mayors and CEOs from all 50 states who are highlighting the contributions of immigrants.
- Mike ensured confidentiality of immigration status for all people who interacted with New York City government.
- Mike made New York City's 311 government services hotline available in 170 languages and required city service agencies to provide translation and interpretation.
If you want the Democrat's counterproductive policies on steroids, vote Bloomberg. Here's a preview of Bloomberg's TV ad that will air during the Super Bowl:
[Video no longer available]
This won't stop gun violence. It will only take guns out of law-abiding citizens. That's the definition of counterproductive.
Posted Sunday, February 2, 2020 12:42 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 03-Feb-20 10:11 AM
Gary and readers, any thought about the DNC changing its debate rules to include Bloomberg, despite his approach which clearly disses campaigning, beyond spending millions to buy the election? In particular, if you like or dislike particular parts of what you see of Bloomberg, what?
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 03-Feb-20 02:43 PM
I think the DNC's stunt is disgusting. I don't agree with anything in Bernie's agenda but I hate the dirty tricks that the DNC is pulling on him because they hate him & don't want to listen to his ideas. Justice is about thoughtful rules that are upheld time after time after time. At this point, it's painfully obvious that the DNC wants Bernie's voters but that they don't want much of his agenda. That's plain wrong.
Comment 2 by Chad Q at 03-Feb-20 05:36 PM
Bloomberg is just another arrogant rich guy who thinks he can tall others how to live their lives while he does not walk the walk he talks.
I would find it hilarious if the guy is the democrat nominee seeing how the socialists hate rich people. Oh wait, that's all the democrat's running. A bunch of rich, white, old people who think they know best how you should live you life.
What's behind the unpublished CNN/Des Moines Register Poll?
When it was first reported that the final CNN-Des Moines Register poll before the caucuses wouldn't be published, the Des Moines Register issued this explanation on why it wouldn't be published:
The Des Moines Register, CNN and Selzer & Co. have made the decision to not release the final installment of the CNN/Des Moines Register/Mediacom poll as planned Saturday evening. Nothing is more important to the Register and its polling partners than the integrity of the Iowa Poll. Today, a respondent raised an issue with the way the survey was administered, which could have compromised the results of the poll. It appears a candidate's name was omitted in at least one interview in which the respondent was asked to name their preferred candidate.
Jazz Shaw's article asks some important questions that stop well short of conspiracy theories:
How big would the impact have been on the final results? The sample size for the last Des Moines Register Iowa poll was 701 likely caucus-goers. Let's say there were ten people making the calls. If one person's font size was off, there might have been roughly 70 calls where a name was left off the list of choices. But they randomize the order of the names, so all the candidates would have missed being listed, likely less than a dozen times each. Wouldn't that randomization balance out?
I'm not a statistician but couldn't this be fixed by weighting the results differently? To the statisticians reading this, feel free to offer insights into this question in the comments section.
UPDATE: Powerline has an update on this story that's worth checking out:
Des Moines Iowa poll was spiked, here are the results:
Sanders: 22%
Warren: 18%
Buttigieg: 16%
Biden: 13%
- Mike Cernovich (@Cernovich) February 2, 2020
I won't say that I'll trust this information. I'll just offer this opinion: if it's true, then the Klobuchar campaign ends in Iowa.
The other thing worth noting is that the DMR poll is the gold standard in Iowa polling, much like the Marquette Law School poll is the gold standard in Wisconsin. We'll still have to wait on the results but the DMR poll is usually accurate.
Posted Sunday, February 2, 2020 9:23 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 03-Feb-20 10:06 AM
Klobuchar will stay in no matter what. She's running for VP. She's noting to lose. She keeps Biden and Buttigeig percentages down by being female and a clone of the other two; with cosmetic differences between the three: Biden's slipping; Buttigeig being clearly smart but South Bend is no proof of mettle to justify the man's galling ego; and Amy IS the best of those three. Voters may disagree, but she's honest and not arrogant.
Finally, if those ghost [unofficial] numbers you give turn out spot-on, it would be great. Possibly the start of reckoning within the Republican wing of the Democratic Party. Sooner is better for that to happen. Honor the Bern.
Comment 2 by eric z at 03-Feb-20 10:21 AM
Just rotored over to the Powerline item. Thanks for posting the link. I like the "Biden sinking like a stone," thought. However, it's not a fully kosher impression to take, this early, and, after all, Iowa. If not the first from the gate, nobody would care a thing about Iowa. Iowa is about as unrepresentative as you can get, or it seems so. Does anybody want to suggest it makes any real sense to have this Iowa stuff first, as with South Carolina being early.
Super Tuesday will tell, and Bloomberg's spending there has sense to it. If he does well it may redefine campaign strategy, both parties, from now on. Billionaires buying the office for themselves instead of buying politicians and then seeing some that don't stay bought.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 03-Feb-20 02:39 PM
Eric, I think it makes perfect sense to start with Iowa & NH because they're states that measure up the prospective candidates, their strengths & weaknesses, then evaluate their organizing strengths. Finally, they test whether a candidate' supporters would run through a brick wall for their candidate or whether their support is half-hearted.
Disgusting anti-democracy Democrats
Kevin McCullough's latest article highlights the Democrats' disdain for voters. Apparently, that applies even if they're voting in Democrat primaries. McCullough's article starts by talking about the Democrats' attempt to disenfranchise Trump voters. A couple paragraphs later, McCullough's article highlights how the DNC is changing the rules to prevent Bernie Sanders from being the Democrats' nominee:
This weekend the Bernie Sanders campaign got a second dose of these tactics. Late Friday the Democratic National Committee waived a requirement for the upcoming debates. No longer does the candidate need to meet both a voter poll threshold and have a predetermined number of donors to qualify to participate. Sanders, Biden, and Warren have all met the thresholds.
Mike Bloomberg has not. Even if he meets the poll numbers before the Nevada cut off he still would not have come close to meeting the number-of-donors requirement. This is largely due to the fact that he is his own donor. He's proven this by already blowing through more cash in just a handful of weeks on the campaign trail than President Trump spent for all of the campaign (both primary and general elections) of 2016.
Bloomberg's billions won't win him the nomination. He just doesn't have any personality, much less charisma. More importantly, the DNC doesn't trust its voters. That's why the DNC is attempting to rig another presidential election.
Calling these leftists Democrats might've been appropriate fifty years ago. It isn't appropriate in 2020. Maryanne Marsh used to work on John Kerry's staff. She recently wrote this article about what Trump's upcoming acquittal in his impeachment trial has in common with Brexit. Here's what she wrote:
Vladimir Putin had his best day ever last Friday when he achieved two of his longest-held goals: a divided Europe and a divided United States. Putin succeeded without any shots fired or missiles launched.
Brexit happened because the EU is Putin's ally. Brexit extricated the British through a vote. The leader of the Remain faction is Jeremy Corbyn, who might be more communist than Putin.
Why does Marsh hate the Brexit vote? People won't forget what Chairman Schiff said about voting:
[Video no longer available]
These leftists don't believe in democracy anymore. Their actions prove that.
Posted Monday, February 3, 2020 5:37 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 03-Feb-20 09:56 AM
Disdain for voters? Nobody lies to them the way Trump does. Do you think he does it out of respect? Get real.
And as to Putin, please try to remember Slick Willie and team foisted drunken Yeltsen on Russia, so Russia owes us one. And with Yeltsen the Chicago Boys did in the Russian economy leading to emigre oligarchs who all ended up in Trump Tower and Florida. You cannot blame Putin for an attitude similar to Iran once Shah got his due. What goes around comes around. Trump, firing Bolton and not going to immediate war with Iran was better foreign policy than Ms. Clinton's handling of Libya.
Bottom line, Yellow Cake Bolton is a clear and present danger. Despite Trump's incredible folder of lies and flaws, firing Bolton was not a flaw, but good judgment. Even a blind pig can find a truffle is the applicable old saying.
Comment 2 by Chad Q at 03-Feb-20 05:29 PM
Really, Trump lies to the voters? He's probably the first president in my lifetime that has actually kept the promises he ran on. Every democrat politician has willing lied to voters for well over 60 years telling them the rich are going to pay when it is really the middle and lower classes who generally pay for all the worthless programs dreamt up by democrats. And by paying for it, I mean being kept in democrat servitude while never getting ahead. We know the rich actually pay the taxes that fund the programs. Look up democrat voter in the dictionary and you'll have to look under sucker.
What to expect from Trump's SOTU
I expect President Trump's State of the Union Address, aka SOTU, to focus mostly on his accomplishments. That part should take up an hour of his speech. Further, I expect him to highlight the results of his criminal justice reform. Last year, he highlighted Alice Johnson from the First Lady's box:
[Video no longer available]
This year, Alice was featured in this Super Bowl ad:
[Video no longer available]
It's inevitable that President Trump's SOTU Address will include a lengthy conversation about how his economic policies are leading a blue collar boom. That will let him talk about blue collar workers' rising wages. It'll start with him touting the lowest unemployment rates amongst minorities and women. Consider that portion of the speech to be the meat-and-potatoes section of the speech. Consider the Alice Johnson-criminal justice reform part of the speech the heart-and-soul section of the speech.
An election year SOTU isn't complete without the President laying out his vision for his second term. That portion of the speech will talk about infrastructure, finishing the wall, cleaning up the antiquated immigration laws and additional middle class tax cuts, including making these tax cuts permanent.
I hope President Trump spends some time criticizing House Democrats for their hyperpartisan impeachment inquiry. I hope he scolds House Democrats for impeaching him for exercising his constitutional right to executive privilege. I hope he scolds them for not giving him the right to call witnesses during the House impeachment hearings. I hope he finishes that section by lecturing House Democrats for spending 3+ years on impeaching him rather than working with him on the people's business.
Finally, I hope he finishes the SOTU by talking directly to the American people, essentially saying 'You sent me here to drain the swamp, fix the economy, build the wall and make America great again. We've accomplished a lot but we've still got work to do. To finish that task, I need a congress that will work with me, not a congress that will fight me and investigate me.'
That won't sit well with the nattering nabobs of negativism found throughout the Swamp. That's ok. The Swamp isn't his constituency. The American people are his constituents. That's who this SOTU Address should address.
Posted Monday, February 3, 2020 10:40 AM
No comments.
