March 6-8, 2020
Mar 06 04:02 President Trump invades Scranton Mar 06 04:45 Growing President Trump's GOP Mar 06 10:27 February's fantastic jobs report Mar 07 05:15 Bulletproofing the Supreme Court Mar 07 15:59 Schumer isn't that ignorant Mar 08 00:08 Is this how Democrats view African-Americans? Mar 08 06:42 The Democrats' dangerous rhetoric
Prior Years:
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
President Trump invades Scranton
Everyone is used to President Trump's 'rally persona.' Thursday night, people got to see a different side of President Trump when they got to see President Trump's townhall persona. This Trump persona was relaxed, confident and informed. When asked about the coronavirus, he had strong command of the latest news. He enumerated then explained the decisions he'd made. He took the opportunity to praise Vice President Pence for the job he's doing leading the task force and to emphatically state that Pence will be his running mate again in 2020.
When asked about the border wall, President Trump told the questioner that he'd already gotten rid of 129 miles that was easy to get over and replace it with 129 miles of wall that's 30' tall and is virtually impossible to climb. President Trump said that he's building the wall that the border patrol wanted him to build. Trump said the new fencing is virtually impossible to climb.
The third questioner identified himself as David Hines. Mr. Hines identified himself as a Democrat who is the Director of Operations for the City of Pittston. Mr. Hines asked about regulations:
[Video no longer available]
DAVID HINES: Mr. President, welcome back to Scranton. Everyone supports protecting the environment but the EPA seems to focus on complex regulations, fines, fees and lawsuits. What can you do to lead the EPA to focus more on proactive compliance than on punitive enforcement to protect the environment?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: David, I love the question because our EPA is much different. We're very tough but we get things done and we're taking regulations off the books like nobody's ever seen and I say I want to have the cleanest air on the planet. I want to have the cleanest, crystal clear, beautiful water on the planet. The conditions we have now are much cleaner now than they were 3 years ago.
Let's be clear about President Trump's performance. He spoke with great specificity. He spoke with a better command of the facts than he speaks with at his rallies. If this President Trump shows up for the presidential debates this fall, he'll win over the majority of the independents/undecideds.
Here is Part II of the town hall:
[Video no longer available]
Here's Part III:
[Video no longer available]
You'll want to watch the closing of the town hall in Part III. The electricity in the room was excellent. I thought President Trump answered the people's questions directly, which is his style. After the town hall, Byron York joined Martha MacCallum on an abbreviated version of her show. Here's what York said:
Here he was much more relaxed. And it was interesting to see him defend his administration, certainly on coronavirus and on a number of other issues, said some really interesting things about Obamacare. [Trump] said that he had basically inherited the carcass of Obamacare and would like to kill it altogether if Republicans could somehow come up with something better, which they haven't been able to do.
Last night's Trump will be quite the formidable opponent.
Posted Friday, March 6, 2020 4:02 AM
No comments.
Growing President Trump's GOP
Byron York's article eliminates the MSM-peddled myth that this will be a base election. There's little question whether President Trump's base is fired up. You can't read this information and reach another conclusion:
Trump won the Texas primary with 94.1% of the vote. In 2004, the last time an incumbent Republican president ran for reelection, George W. Bush, a former Texas governor, won the Texas primary with 92.5% of the vote. This year, Trump won with 1,889,006 votes out of 2,007,314 Republican votes cast. Democrat Joe Biden won Texas with 716,030 votes out of 2,075,862 Democratic votes cast.
Republicans didn't have a competitive primary to drive turnout. Democrats had a huge primary to drive turnout. Despite that, Trump outdistanced Democrats. This information should put to rest this silliness that Democrats will flip Texas this year. That isn't happening.
The story was similar in other states. In Alabama, Trump won the Republican primary with 96.2% of the vote. In 2004, Bush won the Alabama primary with 92.8% of the vote. This year, Trump won with 695,469 votes out of 722,809 Republican votes cast. Biden won with 286,065 votes out of 452,278 Democratic votes cast.
I could continue with other ruby-red states but you get the picture. This lets the Trump campaign focus their resources and attention on battleground states. While Democrats fight with each other, Republicans focus on maximizing their victory. This paragraph says everything:
"There is unprecedented support and enthusiasm for President Trump in the Republican Party, and supporters are turning out in state primaries because they just can't wait to get involved in the process that will end with his re-election," said campaign spokesman Tim Murtaugh in an email exchange. "The president has inspired record turnout and record vote totals, but it's not just Republicans who are fired up. Our data shows that a quarter of people who register for the president's rallies are independents or Democrats . The president has unified Republicans, but he's also attracting new voters to his side as well."
Republicans have the opportunity to do something special this year. Republicans should work their buns off so they strengthen their Senate majority and recapture their House majority while re-electing President Trump for 4 more years. If Republicans can pull off that trifecta, the nation will be in incredibly strong shape for the next 4 years.
This is a fitting conclusion:
Kristol told NPR he thought it was "unlikely" that Trump could be defeated in the primaries. Still, NPR reported, the Never Trumpers' "secondary goal" is to "bruise Trump enough to hurt his chances come November 2020."
Bill Kristol is a petty, bitter man. He, Steve Hayes and George Will should move to Bloomberg Island, aka, American Samoa, and leave the rest of us alone.
Posted Friday, March 6, 2020 4:45 AM
No comments.
February's fantastic jobs report
President Trump got another great jobs report this morning, with the economy creating 273,000 jobs in February. Adding to that good news were the revisions for January and December, which were revised upward by 48,000 jobs and 37,000 jobs respectively. The 3-month average for December-February was 243,000 jobs created per month.
There weren't many parts of the report that inspired pessimism:
The Labor Department reported Friday that the U.S. economy added 273,000 new jobs during the month, while the unemployment rate was 3.5%, matching its lowest level in more than 50 years. An alternative measure of joblessness that counts those not looking for work and holding part-time jobs for economic reasons edged higher to 7%.
Economists surveyed by Dow Jones had been looking for payroll growth of 175,000 and a 3.5% jobless level. Average hourly earnings grew by 3% over the past year, in line with estimates, while the average work week, considered a key measure of productivity, nudged up to 34.4 hours.
According to this video, 15,000 manufacturing jobs were created:
[Video no longer available]
Year-over-year wage growth stayed steady at 3.0%, too. The coronavirus will likely have an effect in the upcoming months. Still, with economy this strong, it's ok to question how much of an impact that might have. As James Freeman said "If we want to assume that the coronavirus is not a civilization-busting plague, then this economy is really ready to roll."
Steve Moore added that President Trump loves thinking of himself as a blue-collar president, which led Moore to note that Trump would love this jobs report because of all the blue collar jobs that were created in February. Moore also said that he's "a policy guy and you're so right James. You get the taxes down, you get the regulations off the back of the businesses and then you get the trade deal. We forget how important the trade deal, both the China and the USMCA, have been."
Rest assured, Steve, we haven't forgotten the importance of those trade deals. I wish we could forget Nancy Pelosi's monthly jobs report statement . Still here it is:
February's jobs report comes as families across America face an uncertain economic future as a result of the worsening coronavirus outbreak. The coronavirus epidemic endangers both the health and financial security of our communities. That is why House Democrats ensured that the emergency coronavirus response package also includes measures to protect the stability of local economies by providing an estimated $7 billion in low-interest SBA loans to support small businesses impacted by this epidemic.
Americans need a smart, strong and science-based response to this epidemic. House Democrats will continue to listen to the experts and continue to work to ensure every community is receiving what it needs to combat this urgent public health crisis.
Pelosi's statement on the jobs report is almost entirely about the coronavirus, which is a semi-legitimate topic on the economy. It will play a role. Still, it's worth noting that Pelosi didn't say anything about the impact that the trade deals have had on the economy. She also didn't say anything about the tax cuts that Democrats voted unanimously against.
Posted Friday, March 6, 2020 10:27 AM
Comment 1 by Chad Q at 07-Mar-20 11:59 AM
The democrats wanted more money to "fight" the virus so they could dole out the pork to their donors.
Hopefully the democrats aren't listening to "experts" who got them into the Russia collusion and impeachment fiascos.
Comment 2 by eric z at 07-Mar-20 01:04 PM
And about the equities and bond markets?
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 07-Mar-20 06:42 PM
Lately, the professionals have gotten things wrong because they're pessimists. The people have faith in President Trump's policies. That's why he'll get re-elected.
Bulletproofing the Supreme Court
Multiple times in the past year, Democrats have threatened to change the composition of the Supreme Court because Republicans confirmed Constitution-loving justices. It isn't a secret that Democrats prefer outcome-based justices. During John Roberts' confirmation hearing, Sen. Durbin asked a question about what assurances the American people would have that Roberts would rule in the little guy's favor. Roberts replied, saying that he'd guarantee that he'd rule in the little guy's favor every time the Constitution was on the little guy's side.
The Constitution isn't meant to give "the little guy" an advantage. That's what legislatures are for. In this post , I wrote about a brief that the Democrat senators Whitehouse, Rosenthal, Hirono and Durbin sent to the Supreme Court. In that brief, they wrote "The Supreme Court is not well. And the people know it. Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be 'restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.' Particularly on the urgent issue of gun control, a nation desperately needs it to heal."
This was clearly a threat from the Democrats to pack the Supreme Court with additional justices if Democrats didn't get the outcome they wanted on a gun control lawsuit. Democrats haven't been bashful about their desire to pack the courts. This article highlights the Democrats' politicization of the Supreme Court:
Democratic candidates are increasingly advocating "court packing," that is, upping the number of Supreme Court justices to balance the bench -- or ensure a liberal majority. The idea is unlikely to succeed for historical and practical reasons but its resonance on the campaign trail reflects Democrats' new emphasis on the judiciary during the Trump era.
While the Supreme Court is established by the Constitution, the number of members of the Supreme Court is dictated by the Legislative Branch. In other words, a simple majority of Democrats in the House, a simple majority of Democrats in the Senate and a signature of a Democrat president could pack the Supreme Court for a generation or more.
It's time to take that matter out of the hands of partisans. It's time to pass a constitutional amendment that forever establishes a 9-member Supreme Court. That's what we have now. The Court works just fine. Let's see how many Democrats vote against such an amendment. I triple-dog dare Democrats to admit that they favor the full politicization of the Supreme Court. This is a campaign ad from Elizabeth Warren's senate campaign:
[Video no longer available]
There's no way she wouldn't pack the courts to tip the Supreme Court in the Democrats' favor.
Posted Saturday, March 7, 2020 5:15 AM
Comment 1 by Chad Q at 07-Mar-20 11:57 AM
Liberals/progressives/socialists/communists, or whatever the democrat party is calling themselves these days can't win elections with policy so they need the courts to fight their battles. They'd better be care what they wish for because it could backfire on them just like the nuclear option did in the senate.
Comment 2 by eric z at 07-Mar-20 01:01 PM
Roosevelt's proposed Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937 did what was needed even though it failed to pass, and the approach is a template for today. What we need is Bernie doing fireside chats rather than Orange Man tweeting. Interestingly back then it was a Justice Roberts who did not need a weatherman to know which way the wind was blowing.
And you know, but for Ukraine Joe, Clarence Thomas likely would not be on the Court to be part of the problem.
Anita Hill got screwed, Ukraine Joe being committee chair then, and he felt stopping Bork was enough so he could appease by ultimately rubber-stamping John Danforth's choice. It was shameful, there were three other women who had allegations against Thomas, and Ukraine Joe declined to call them, or even one of them. History has lessons if people have memories.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 07-Mar-20 06:40 PM
FDR's economic policies sucked in terms of growing the economy. What got the economy started was WWII, not Roosevelt's policies. Roosevelt was a great president in that he created Social Security when we needed it & he was a great war president but in terms of economic policies, he sucked.
If it wasn't for Ted Kennedy & Joe Biden, Clarence Thomas would've gotten approved by a much bigger margin. I watched his confirmation hearings. Anita Hill's testimony was total BS. If he harassed Hill, why did she follow him wherever he went in government? I trust Hill more than I'd trust Avenatti but that isn't saying much.
If history has taught us anything, it's that skirt-chasing politicians keep doing what they've gotten away with. Ted Kennedy & Bill Clinton didn't stop chasing skirts. Clarence Thomas never did. So much for this BS.
Schumer isn't that ignorant
Mollie Hemingway's article highlights the threat posed by Chuck Schumer's statement poses to the justices. First, it's worth noting something that former US Attorney Guy Lewis told Harris Faulkner shortly after Schumer's threats. Lewis said that US marshals were likely called into action minutes after Schumer's threats. When Ms. Faulkner asked if this was speculation or whether it was fact, Lewis replied that that's the procedure that's been used in the past. He said that a dozen US marshals would be detailed to the justices, their wives and their kids for the next 6 months to protect them from violence.
Sol Wisenberg, a former assistant independent counsel on the Whitewater investigation, insists that Schumer's statements are protected by the First Amendment. I disagree. What Schumer did was the equivalent of yelling fire in a crowded theater. This is what Schumer said, along with a discussion on Schumer's threat:
[Video no longer available]
With the things that Antifa and other thugs have done, with the exhortations made by Maxine Waters, with the Bernie Bro who shot Steve Scalise, why wouldn't Sen. Schumer's statement be treated as a threat?
[Video no longer available]
These statements can't be taken as idle chatter. That might've been fine 20 years ago but that isn't the world we're living in today. Sen. Schumer's statement was a threat and he knows it. Since Ted Kennedy's hate-filled diatribe against Judge Robert Bork, Democrats have thoroughly politicized the judicial confirmation process.
[Video no longer available]
The justices that were nominated by Republican presidents got confirmed since then but they've been scrutinized unlike any justices in history. Democrats have made these confirmation hearings like Armageddon. Democrats understand that their ideas aren't popular enough to win passage through the legislative process. That's why they need an outcomes-based judiciary to implement their social agenda.
Justices that interpret laws through a constitutional lens won't give Democrats the legislative victories that they're looking for. More than any other reason, that's why Sen. Schumer got the activists riled up with his threats.
Posted Saturday, March 7, 2020 3:59 PM
No comments.
Is this how Democrats view African-Americans?
Thomas Edsall's article is a lengthy read but a worthwhile read. Deep into the article, Edsall quoted Ismail K. White and Chryl N. Laird, political scientists at Duke and Bowdoin, as saying "Political solidarity has been a crucial political asset of black Americans during a long struggle against racial injustice, and a few symbolic gestures or policy initiatives won't win significant black support for Republicans."
Do White and Laird think that criminal justice reform, opportunity scholarships, record minority unemployment and the IMPACT Act as "a few symbolic gestures or policy initiatives?" It isn't surprising that White and Laird are "the authors of a new book 'Steadfast Democrats: How Social Forces Shape Black Political Behavior." I haven't read the book but it sounds like White and Laird think that African-Americans are monolithic voters. I find that impossible to believe.
The definition of monolithic is "characterized by massiveness, total uniformity, rigidity, invulnerability, etc.; a monolithic society ." During the early primaries, liberal pundits speculated that Pete Buttigieg would have difficulty attracting African-American voters because he's gay. Some African-Americans still voted for Buttigieg but African-Americans who were also evangelical Christians found Buttigieg's holier-than-thou attitude off-putting.
White and Laird's theory might turn out right. Still, betting on monoliths is foolish. Betting on monolithic structures when we've seen dynamic changes like this happen isn't foolish, it's stupid:
[Video no longer available]
The definition of symbolic gesture is "an act that has no purpose or effect other than to show support, respect, etc." Opportunity Zones aren't symbolic. They're substantive. According to Sen. Tim Scott, his legislation will provide "workforce training opportunities to better education to businesses being attracted into these opportunity zones."
Those aren't token gestures. Those are the types of things that make multi-generational, substantive improvements. Charles Payne is right in stating that Sen. Scott would be on the cover of Time Magazine if he was a Democrat who got this legislation enacted.
This article is pessimistic about the Republicans making gains with African-Americans. I think that too many African-American people's lives have improved for the vote to essentially stay the same. This fall, we'll see whose prediction is right.
PS- Anyone betting against Candace Owens and Tim Scott is foolish.
Posted Sunday, March 8, 2020 12:08 AM
Comment 1 by Chad Q at 08-Mar-20 05:56 PM
Democrats view blacks as people who are either too stupid or lazy to do things on their own so the bar must be lowered for them to succeed. If I were black or any other minority, I'd tell democrats to get off my side as you are not doing me any favors treating me as less of a person as you do whites.
Comment 2 by John Palmer at 08-Mar-20 11:07 PM
Was the Civil War effort simply symbolic? How about the Emancipation Proclamation? It must have been symbolic because a Republican President signed it. It should be remembered that the first black congressional members were Republicans and the former slaves voted Republican in overwhelming numbers as a tribute to Lincoln. It took the "Jim Crow" laws enacted by white Democrats and the lynching of Republicans both black and white to suppress the black republican vote. It was not until FDR and his welfare state came along that blacks began to vote for the party of the KKK. Chad is right the democrats approach to the black vote is to make them wards of the state since they could not possibly succeed on their own merit. It is long since time that black voters return to their historic home in the Republican Party.
Comment 3 by eric z at 09-Mar-20 11:52 AM
You guys should be tweeting such thinking for a broader audience to see the premises and conclusions behind the post and the comments. It would help the Democrats.
I've never heard of Candace Owens and Tim Scott. They must be regular Fox talking heads. Why should I care about a couple of unknown voices, or is there something beyond Fox where there'd be gravitas?
Last, is that video link correct, or a dead item now? I got a video unavailable window trying to see what you'd embedded. Is it my browser configuration blocking something, or is the link now dead? All that displayed were a few link boxes at the bottom, Fox on the market tanking, Liberty University in another, all Fox.
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 09-Mar-20 01:34 PM
Eric, this shows your ignorance of all thing conservative. Candace Owens has testified multiple times before Congress. She made Jerry Nadler look like a blithering idiot. Tim Scott's other name is Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina. He's the gentleman who has made life for inner city African-Americans much better. I guess making people's lives better isn't important to you. It's important to us. That's why we'll win again in 2020.
The Democrats' dangerous rhetoric
Democrats used to attribute acts of violence to President Trump's rhetoric or conservative talk radio. When Gabby Giffords was shot, Sarah Palin was blamed. When the facts were known, we found out that the gunman was a deranged leftist with a history of mental illness. It had nothing to do with the Democrats' conventional wisdom.
This past week, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer joined a group of leftists on the steps of the US Supreme Court to specifically threaten Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. In his threatening diatribe, Sen. Schumer said "I want to tell you, Gorsuch. I want to tell you, Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won't know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions." That caused Chief Justice John Roberts to publicly rebuke Sen. Schumer for threatening his justices.
In this post , I highlighted Maxine Waters exhortation to violence against members of President Trump's staff and cabinet:
[Video no longer available]
Now that we've established that Democrats are the instigators of violence, let's highlight yesterday's threat against Elise Stefanik :
Stefanik wrote Saturday on Twitter that when she returned to her car earlier in the day after grocery shopping with her husband, she found what she described as a "vile anonymous note."
"Rot in Hell FASCIST PIG," the hand-scrawled note said.
Later, she took to Twitter:
It is truly sad that the radical Far-Left cannot see beyond their vicious hate.
My husband and I went grocery shopping this morning before district events and enjoyed chatting with constituents throughout the store.
This vile anonymous note was left on our car. pic.twitter.com/4K5OBN8qVj
- Elise Stefanik (@EliseStefanik) March 7, 2020
This article highlights other acts of violence against Republicans:
Other incidents this year involving incivility - or even violence - against conservatives and Republicans have included a vehicle smashing a GOP voter-registration table in Florida, an alleged assault of a 15-year-old Trump supporter in New Hampshire, the smashing of a College Republicans information table in California, an individual's threat, caught on video, to 'slash Republicans' throats" in Arizona, an alleged assault of a retired police officer wearing a Trump-style hat and shirt in Tennessee and a suspect being sentenced to 90 days in jail for slapping and spitting on a Trump supporter in Florida.
It used to be said that Democrats were the evil party and that Republicans were the stupid party. These days, thanks to Antifa, Black Lives Matter and other domestic terrorist organizations, Democrats are the violent party.
Democrats haven't had a worthwhile new thought in years. It's time they started thinking logically again rather than lashing out with violence. Leaders like Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters and Adam Schiff need to be thrown to the curb in the next leadership elections. They aren't inspiring leaders. They're backstabbing lowlifes who never will be leaders.
It would be a mistake for voters to give Democrats the White House or a majority in the House or Senate. Democrats first need to fix their anger management problems before they're worthy of leadership positions.
Posted Sunday, March 8, 2020 6:42 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 09-Mar-20 11:37 AM
I've not heard that evil/stupid characterization. What I recall is evil, more evil, respectively. Are you reflecting back to Lyndon Johnson days? Lyndon running the Senate must make Mitch green with SOB envy.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 09-Mar-20 01:36 PM
First, Mitch is totally cool. He faced down Pelosi & made her look foolish. The "evil/stupid" characterization has been around 25+ yrs. It's still applicable.
