AP: President Trump 10 for 38 in first 100 days

The Associated Press (AP) yesterday had an article saying president Trump had delivered on 10 of 38 promises for his first 100 days - not a flattering percentage, and not a flattering article:

...where's that wall? Or the promised trade punishment against China — will the Chinese get off scot-free from "the greatest theft in the history of the world"? What about that "easy" replacement for Obamacare? How about the trillion-dollar infrastructure plan and huge tax cut that were supposed to be in motion by now?

Trump's road to the White House, paved in big, sometimes impossible pledges, has detoured onto a byway of promises deferred or left behind, an AP analysis found.

Of 38 specific promises Trump made in his 100-day "contract" with voters — "This is my pledge to you" — he's accomplished 10, mostly through executive orders that don't require legislation, such as withdrawing the U.S. from the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal.

The talking points of the left seem to have shifted, for now, from Trump is an illegitimate president, to a tamer but possible more effective narrative - president Trump cannot deliver on his promises because the promises were way too outlandish to begin with. Facing the reality of the presidency, the postulation goes, Trump has had to pull back and try to govern like a reasonable man, given dire world circumstances.

No mention need be given to the fact that they might not be so dire had his predecessor governed like a reasonable man. Democrats are banking on the fact that Trump supporters will grow impatient and eventually disillusioned with Trump and see him as all talk no action by the time the next election rolls around. Ironically, they are in no position to be the party of no and have the REpublican congress to thank for the barriers to Trump accomplishments - at least so far.

But the new tack by Democrats gives no credit to Trump supporters' patience. There is, so far, little buyer's remorse:

While just 4 percent of Trump's supporters say they would back someone else if there was a redo of the election, fully 15 percent of Clinton supporters say they would ditch her. Trump leads in a re-do of the 2016 election 43 percent to 40 percent after losing the popular vote 46-44.

That 15 percent is split between those who say they would vote for Trump (2 percent), Gary Johnson (4 percent), Jill Stein (2 percent), and either other candidates or not vote (7 percent).

We've always considered the first 100 days as the benchmark of success for an agenda.  While the AP piece clearly sells short president Trump's eventual success (using words like "abandoned"), 100 days is an artificial timeline that may not be as relevant in the Trump era as it had been in the past. There is no objective evidence that President Trump has abandon anything.  His agenda is not a small potatoes to do list. Ask his supporters again at day 200.  If 10 of 38 has become 20 of 38, the buyer's remorse will be even lower.

Leaker Snowden crossed a line

Prior to today, Edward Snowden who leaked a lot of details about the government's secret collection of vast amounts of electronic data of citizens without a warrant or probable cause, has crossed a line.  Previously it could be argued that he was putting liberty ahead of national security. After all, what does national security matter if the principles the nation was founded on and which were enshrined in the Constitution, aren't being protected? Is the nation worth defending at that point?

The debate over those questions has gone away, the debate over whether Snowden himself was a patriot or a traitor, just went south.  There's no doubt he's a traitor now, after this:

Via the decidedly liberal partisan Washington Post, it turns out, that Snowden has started to reveal details about U.S. spying on China.  That's aiding and abetting a rival (if not adversary).

HONG KONG — Edward Snowden, the self-confessed leaker of secret surveillance documents, claimed Wednesday that the United States has mounted massive hacking operations against hundreds of Chinese targets since 2009.

The former contractor, whose work at the National Security Agency gave him access to highly classified U.S. intelligence, made the assertions in an interview with the South China Morning Post. The newspaper said he showed it “unverified documents” describing an extensive U.S. campaign to obtain information from computers in Hong Kong and mainland China.

Despite the Washington Post's political bent, it's hard to argue that Snowden is clearly sharing information with the Chinese after that South China Morning Post interview.  Snowden is no hero, he's a traitor.  China does not need to know that we are spying on them (or how).  I mean, we know it, they know it but he has damaged both the details and the deniability for America.  But that does not one thing to undercut the information he has shared about government spying on its own citizens.  That is a scandal with serious implications and needs to be investigated, and explained and discussed with all of the seriousness it deserves.  Liberty versus security deserves a lot more than a two minute drill and not to be derailed by the actions of Snowden.  After all, the spying on citizens (the AP scandal, the Prism scandal and the Verizon scandal) and the enemies list (the IRS scandal), are reminiscent of a past president who faced impeachment and ultimately resigned.  

Palin explains OWS hypocrisy

Yesterday I caught a little bit of flack for saying Sarah Palin is still not running for president (in 2012). I think the overall point may have been missed by some people.  I think Palin would make a great president but I have two problems with 2012 for her.  (1) She missed her window of opportunity and (2) if she gets a political executive role (e.g. a governorship) she's better positioned for the next time around be that 2016 or 2020.

That doesn't mean I don't like her or wouldn't support her bid.  I would, but only under the right circumstances.  Nevertheless, to counterweight the negative impression some had, let me provide a pro-Palin note today.   She is so bang-on correct in this AP piece, it deserves recognition;

LAKE BUENA VISTA, Fla. (AP) — Sarah Palin told Republican donors Thursday that Occupy Wall Street protesters want the same thing as the "fat cats" they're upset with — a government bailout.

Palin criticized the protesters as believing they're entitled to other people's productivity and money and said they've drawn the wrong conclusions. Instead, the former Alaska governor said people should look to the tea party.

"They say 'Wall Street fat cats got a bailout so now I want one too.' And the correct answer is no one is entitled to a bailout," Palin told the crowd of about 1,000 at the Republican Party of Florida dinner. "The American dream, our foundation, is about work ethic and empowerment, not entitlement."

 You can't be more correct than that.

Slow news day at AP - Unions Not Happy

You know it's a slow news day when the AP has a headline pointing out that unions are not happy with President Obama anymore.  The real news flash is the one for the unions - waking up to the reality that Obama's a best friend of...Obama.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- In the early days of the Obama administration, organized labor had grand visions of pushing through a sweeping agenda that would help boost sagging membership and help revive union strength.

Now labor faces this reality: Public employee unions are in a drawn-out fight for their very survival in Wisconsin, Ohio and other states where GOP lawmakers have curbed collective bargaining rights.

Also, many union leaders are grousing that the president they worked so hard to elect has not focused enough on job creation and other bold plans to get their members back to work.

"Obama campaigned big, but he's governing small," said Larry Hanley, president of the Amalgamated Transit Union.

Too bad, so sad.  Not for the unions, for AP.  That just shows how little is going on at this moment.

Iraq: Smells Like Victory

An interesting comparison of Democrat lack of foresight, lack of honesty versus the situation on the ground today.

Harry Reid:



Nancy Pelosi:



Iraqi's blame Iran for the turmoil.



And in the news today:

"The withdrawal of American troops is completed now from all cities after everything they sacrificed for the sake of security," said Sadiq al-Rikabi, a senior adviser to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. "We are now celebrating the restoration of sovereignty."

The Pentagon did not offer any comment to mark the passing of the deadline.

Fireworks, not bombings, colored the Baghdad skyline late Monday, and thousands attended a party in a park where singers performed patriotic songs. Loudspeakers at police stations and military checkpoints played recordings of similar tunes throughout the day, as Iraqi military vehicles decorated with flowers and national flags patrolled the capital.

To the point about dishonesty, the AP news story felt compelled to include this comment, but none from those Iraqi's thankful to America.

"All of us are happy — Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds on this day," Waleed al-Bahadili said as he celebrated at the park. "The Americans harmed and insulted us too much."

Isn't that just wonderful? I'm sure every Iraqi feels the way al-Bahadili feels and to a man, woman or child, no one is happy to be free of Saddam and grateful to America for giving them freedom and quelling the violence (for the most part) before leaving.

AP Still carrying Obama's water

According to a story in the AP, despite the slew of problems that President Obama has faced with his appointments - the misfires, the vetting problems, the withdrawals from consideration - he's still doing a better job that either Bush or Clinton.

The rationale is that despite the 'increasingly cumbersome' system, he's going to have the second level appointments done faster than his predecessors. That's the bar for success now? And if it follows the pattern with cabinet appointments will the measure of success change again? Perhaps it can be based on 'most diverse'. Or most names beginning with 'O'. Whatever happened to best person for the job?

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama doesn't have time for a victory lap now that his Cabinet is finally largely in place. One level down, he faces gaping holes in the ranks he needs to fill if there is to be any hope of turning his ambitious agenda into action on health care, the environment and much more.

After a spurt of recent activity that followed a problem-plagued start, Obama is outpacing George W. Bush and Bill Clinton on appointments. But Obama, like his two immediate predecessors, is bogged down in a system that has grown increasingly cumbersome over the years. And he's added tougher-than-ever background checks and ethics rules.

"Obama will be faster than Clinton and Bush when all is said and done, but it's still a slow process," said New York University professor Paul Light, an expert on the federal government. "A turtle is a turtle is a turtle. The Obama administration is a pretty fast turtle, but it's no hare."

The AP even tries to sound impartial by pointing out that despite his speed, he's still slow. The whole premise of the article is biased, how is saying he's a 'fast turtle' even remotely close to journalistic integrity?

The source they are citing, professor Paul Light, is a fellow at the liberal leaning Brookings Institute (the same one that the Huffington Post views as conservative). Who better to 'criticize' the president's transition than someone who leans in the same direction?

The criticism grows more intense at the bottom of the article;

Darrell West, director of governance studies at the Brookings Institution, a think tank, said Obama was setting "Mother Teresa standards in a city with very few saints."

West called the number of appointees in place "dangerously low given the enormity of the challenges we face. Obama is holding his people to such a high standard it is wounding his administration."

Now the criticism is that he's setting standards too high? What a terrible character flaw. Worse, what bunk. Daschle, Geithner, Richardson, Solis...

Let's suppose he's learned his lessons from those names and is finally being more careful. That's a best case scenario. But the word saints doesn't belong in the same paragraph as the likes of some of his top-line appointees, clearly with their own sets of very real problems. Mother Theresa standards apparently only apply to underlings, and not the top brass.