*See link to this important article at bottom of this post.
This morning I had planned on detailing some opinion on president Trump's budget proposal. I went on Google to get some details and did a search. Actually I did two searches, and the second search gave me pause because it's probably the more common search term being used. The reason it troubled me was the results, which just provided me a sense of search engine bias.
The term I put in for that second search was "gop budget proposal 2017". The top 2 returns were in regard to the proposal put forward from March 2016 by the GOP. Fair enough, because technically that was the budget proposal for 2017. But look at the next set of results:
There's the Top 10 list of search results. 2 links to last year's proposal. A conservative friendly view of the same, and 7 negative articles on how terrible president Trump's budget proposal is. Look at the sources - clear a highly liberal group of search results - New York Times, The Atlantic, The Washington Post, Politico, Reuters and then a less obviously liberal source The Denver Post (read the article and tell me it is not a liberal bent article).
Search Engine Bias? Intentional or not, yes, yes there is.
Donald Trump's speech to congress last night was about as expected. The reaction was not what I'd expected though. Nevertheless, come to think of it, the reaction is not at all surprising. In fact it's informative, or more aptly, confirmational that while perceptions are not changing, tactics definitely are.
Let's start with CNN, and their relatively positive response. It's possible that CNN has been licking their wounds from the banishment from the White House press conferences, and felt obligated to ratchet down the constant negative spin. Maybe they've realized that it's costing them viewership, or credibility, or both. I don't think that's their motivation, but take a look at the result, regardless of the reason:
(CNN) President Donald Trump's first address to Congress received largely positive reviews from viewers, with 57% who tuned in saying they had a very positive reaction to the speech, according to a new CNN/ORC poll of speech-watchers.
Nearly 7-in-10 who watched said the President's proposed policies would move the country in the right direction and almost two-thirds said the president has the right priorities for the country. Overall, about 7-in-10 said the speech made them feel more optimistic about the direction of the country.
There's no negative spin there. The negative spin would have been not to share the poll results, because that's pretty good for president Trump. And then there was this from their semi-permanent panelist and socialist darling Van Jones:
Clearly CNN is cutting back on the vitriolic attacks and admitting, yes, Trump is president. He's a president to be disagreed with on issues, but still president. They are not alone though. And that's why I don't think this is about access rights, or ratings. It's about a different tack on the liberal agenda. Maybe the smart Democrats are finally being heard.
The Washington Post, in addition to highlighting the van Jones piece above in an opinion piece, also had this story about liberal actress Jennifer Garner as an unlikely Trump ally:
Jennifer Garner has not given up on Donald Trump’s Washington.
The 44-year-old actress spent the weekend lobbying the town’s pillars of power to support early education for poor rural children. She spent Friday on Capitol Hill meeting dozens of top staff members. On Saturday, she delivered the keynote address before the annual National Governors Association winter meeting here. A potential sit-down with Ivanka Trump, who is advocating for more funding for child care, fell apart because of scheduling conflicts, but Garner remained optimistic about a face-to-face discussion soon.
Voters seem to agree, regardless of how they feel about Trump's priorities. A new POLITICO/Morning Consult poll shows that 56 percent of 2,000 registered voters polled Feb. 24 through Feb. 26 say that Trump is staying true to his 2016 campaign message, and 66 percent say Trump has accomplished what was expected of him — or more. Overall, half of voters approve of the job Trump is doing as president, while 45 percent disapprove.
There's more but three pillars of liberal punditry all saying Trump was presidential last night, he hit the right notes (politically) etc., is enough to make the point. Democrat elites have started saying the impeachment talk has to stop. They get it apparently; they have only been hurting themselves with the never ending drumbeat of hate. That's too bad for conservatives, because it was definitely working in our favor. That said, it doesn't mean that liberals will be able to fight on policy. They haven't tried that approach for decades, so I'd expect some rust. Furthermore, who is to say they can sustain a logic-based counter-argument long enough not to fall back into angry Social Justice Warrior space? The new approach is both refreshing and annoying at the same time, but it isn't likely to be significantly more or less effective than the riot-in-the-streets approach. What matters now is results, and the results are going to be driven, or not driven by president Trump. In other words, the Republicans have the ball; they're on offense. Democrats seem to finally understand that they are on defense and do not get act, only react. If president Trump is successful, how they oppose him won't matter. But if he fails to deliver, how they oppose does matter. That's where the policy driven opposition over the impeachment type arguments will matter.
Interestingly at the other end of the spectrum, libertarian John Zeigler believes Trump has killed conservatism.
...we would not have massive increases in government spending and power instituted under a ‘Republican’ president, thus ending, for all time, any chance that we ever return to Reagan-like principles of smaller government before we inevitably suffer a financial implosion under the weight of massive debt.
For the first time since taking office, Trump was, for him, remarkably disciplined and, yes, really rather ‘presidential.’ Ironically, that was mostly because he stuck strictly to the very same teleprompter which he has roundly mocked Barack Obama for relying on too much.
While he is no Obama when it comes to his mastery of reading skills, he benefits from such incredibly low expectations that him simply not having a Ron Burgundy-like Anchorman meltdown makes him seem like Brian Williams in his prime. There were no moments of extreme egotism (at least by his standards), no attacks on the media or even Hillary, and no overtly apparent bald-faced lies. He didn’t even say anything nice about his BFF Vladimir Putin.
He hit on all the major points that got him elected (even while shifting his positions on some of them) and laid out a populist agenda, which had to sound real good to a lot of ‘regular’ people who haven’t already completely written him off.
Maybe the left has, pardon the phrase Moved On, but it appears many of those who are/were/identify with the Never Trump crowd on the right, still might not have managed to do so. That's a pity. Donald Trump may have recognized before many on the right, that conservatism of the Reagan era is not possible in this era of demographics and coalitions of overlapping interests. Reagan era conservatism is not forever gone. The road back to it however, is more than a single step. President Trump's delivery on jobs will make further steps back possible. The path back to real conservatism in America might not be the straight line conservatives would hope for, but it is a path. And considering how far along the progressive socialist path America has travelled since the 1980's, any path back should be welcome. It's a bad sign that more elites on the left seem to get that Trump's populism presents an opportunity than those elites on the right seem to realize. They may better recognize Trump as transitory to something else. That's the real danger to the future of conservatism, not that Trump wants to spend a trillion on infrastructure and won't get it, or will only get a portion of it.
Hillary Clinton stepped into the 2016 presidential race hoping voters would effortlessly pass the torch from President Barack Obama to her, yet found herself surrounded by a raging anti-establishment inferno. “Burn it down” was the unofficial slogan of the Republican primary. And Bernie Sanders gave her a run for her money by metaphorically lighting all her Wall Street speaking fee money on fire.
Today, as she is unofficially crowned the “presumptive nominee,” Clinton has officially done what Jeb Bush, John Kasich, Marco Rubio and Lindsey Graham could not: survive the populist wave while being perceived as an insider. Now, as Donald Trump tries to assemble a potent pitchfork brigade to seize Washington, the establishment’s lonely eyes are turning to Hillary Clinton.
...she and Obama have begun crafting arguments more associated with establishment politics than populism.
Make no mistake: this is nothing less than a political high-wire act being attempted by a meticulous but not always agile candidate. Many Sanders voters say they don’t trust her when she claims to be a “progressive,” and any new rightward lean will only confirm their suspicions.
And there's what's wrong - the establishment is not worth saving because the establishment has twisted itself into a self-serving mass of bloat and avarice. The establishment are not benign overlords looking to do the best for the most as they claim. They seek power for the sake of power and the hell with everyone else. All that they offer is the pretense of concern.
Trump blows that apart as does Sanders, whereas Clinton is the embodiment of the self-serving establishment seeking the status quo. Even asking the question, shows what side you are on. I was never impressed with Politico, this only reinforces the reason why.
Yep, it's a coronation. Hillary Clinton is delaying her campaign because she doesn't need to start yet. No competition is forthcoming.
Via Politico this morning, the following story about Hillary delaying her announcement to run for president by 3 full months. Why? She doesn't need to do it yet because the field is wide open for her.
Hillary Clinton, expecting no major challenge for the Democratic nomination, is strongly considering delaying the formal launch of her presidential campaign until July, three months later than originally planned, top Democrats tell POLITICO.
The delay from the original April target will give her more time to develop her message, policy and organization, without the chaos and spotlight of a public campaign.
...A huge advantage to waiting is that Clinton postpones the time when she goes before the public as a politician rather than as a former secretary of state. Polling by both Democrats and Republicans shows that one of her biggest vulnerabilities is looking political.
Silly me. Here I was thinking her biggest vulnerability was her lack of a meaningful resume or maybe an astounding lack of real qualification for the job.
Please America do me a favor (not to mention the world, and yourself), do not elect another superficial senator for president.
Hillary Clinton once had an enemies list. Perhaps she still does. But that list should not include the media going forward according to Politico. In a lengthy 6-page article in which Politico tries to accomplish a number of things to help Hillary Clinton decide to run for president in 2016, the headline glares a message that is at odds with the true intent of the article. It reads as a quote from former Clinton press secretary Mike McCurry and it screams animosity from Hillary towards the press.
“Look, she hates you. Period. That’s never going to change.”
CBS and Vanity Fair have either let the cat out of the bag, or wasted 90 seconds of a bunch of people's lives. They've concocted a poll that shows that in a head-to-head match up, President Obama would beat President Bush 40/31 in an election.
Not only will that race never happen, it never did. What an absolute waste of time! Of course maybe that's not the case. Maybe Obama 2012, in an effort to sound fresh, will run against Bush instead of the eventual Republican nominee. Maybe CBS in its leftist agenda, has let the cat out of the bag. After all, Obama spent the first 2+ years of his presidency blaming Bush for everything. Now, seeking to deflect any blame directed at him, perhaps he'll resort to his winning formula of 2008 - class warfare, blame Bush for everything, and promise vague hope and change and hope nobody calls you on the details you are throwing out there. Rely on a complicit media like CBS to whitewash your own flaws and mistakes, while tearing apart the opposition for you, and voila, you're all set for another term.
This is why I'm leaning more and more towards Gingrich as the nominee. He'll mop the floor with Obama in debates and no manner of whitewashing will be able to hide that. I'm not seeing that potential from other nominees whom I would rather see beat Obama than Newt. But massive defeat in head-to-head debates is the one thing the press can't sugar coat enough.
The Senate voted Wednesday for the first time to repeal a piece of President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul, rolling back a new tax reporting requirement that’s been universally panned by business owners.
The amendment to repeal the 1099 reporting requirement passed 81-17 with broad bipartisan support.
The provision was one that Obama identified in his State of the Union speech as something that Democrats were willing to change.
The Senate voted several times last year on repealing the requirement, but all the attempts failed amid partisan bickering over how to pay for it. Republicans made an attempt to repeal the provision by taking money from the health reform law’s prevention and wellness fund. Democrats tried to repeal it without paying for it.
The provision would have required business owners to file 1099 tax documents on all cumulative purchases from a single vendor that total more than $600 in a year.
This is good news for business owners because the onerous tracking task is gone. The question though is now that it's going to be repealed (as it seems further passage has bi-partisan support), where is the $17 billion in revenue this was expected to generate to help pay for Obamacare going to come from? The answer is nowhere. It's going to add to the net debt that this health care program will fuel. More debt is not a win.
And with Obamacare not yet dead, it means that there is no guarantee that future enacting of this requirement is still possible. No, likely. That is because the end game for liberals is state funded single payer health care. As a result of that goal, any burden that can be put in place that generates revenue for government and frustrates business adds fuel to the fire of those wishing to do away with insurance companies and simply switch to a simple health tax. The game will be let's get rid of this burdensome tax and just go with a simple health care system. So, this 1099 burden is not gone for good, just for now. Some liberals are thinking long term for their single payer game. It's a second reason the repeal of this section of Obamacare is not a win.
The narrative on President Obama is finally turning. Liberals are becoming disillusioned with him. But their reasons for the disillusion, are still based in their own misconception of the state of the nation.
Senator Orrin Hatch laid out a case against Supreme Court Judicial nominee Elena Kagan as Politico reported today;
Will the Constitution control Elena Kagan, or will she try to control the Constitution? Does she believe that judges may change the meaning of the Constitution, and of the law generally? Is there any evidence that her personal or political views drive her legal views?
Hatch's reservations are important because he's a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. But as a Republican, it's likely that his opinion won't matter. Short of a filibuster, expect Kagan to be confirmed. No Harriet Myers style popular backlash will fell this nominee, if that were the case, health care reform a la Obama would not have passed. Democrats have been largely quiet on the Kagan matter, except to endorse her qualification for the Supreme Court at the start of the hearings. Democrat Senators are the ones who have to blink in order to put a stop to the nominee - that doesn't appear to be happening.
This might be a time to contact your Senator about their vote - Presidents come and go, but Supreme Court Justices linger on for years.
You and I look at a West Virginia state law that declares an election must be called if a vacancy occurs more than two-and-a-half years before a term expires, and note that Byrd’s term would have had two-and-a-half years left as of next week — July 3, and so we conclude, there ought to be a Senate election in 2010.
Earlier I predicted where the Mainstream Media would take the discussion on last nights results. It would seem that I was not incorrect. Here's some of the headlines today.
The 2010 elections are the most important focus for conservatives this year. Anything else is a diversion from the main focus. Yet it is incumbent on the Senate Republicans to keep an eye out for more Democrat Trojan horses. They are sure to come along all the time. The latest is the newest 9th Circuit Court judicial nominee.
“It is mainly the least interested, least informed, and least politically active members of the public who are clustered near the center of the ideological spectrum. The most interested, informed, and active citizens are much more polarized in their political views.”
The $700 billion bailout program for the financial industry has so far done little to boost bank lending, aid small businesses or reduce home foreclosures, a top government watchdog said in a report.
Armey (R-Texas) explained in an interview that “in 1994 all we had to say to America was trust us, we aren’t them, and nobody ever remembered being disappointed in us in the majority. Now we have to say, ‘trust us, we’re not them and we’re not the guys that broke your hearts a few years ago.’ So they have a bigger task. But that’s not an insurmountable task.”
From Roll Call, it turns out that 8 of the 10 richest people in Congress are Democrats - the same party that brought you class warfare. By the way, Democrat Charlie Rangel spent over $500,000 in legal fees - in the last quarter.
Politico has two reports about health care - one claiming Democrats believe the health care ball is on the 5 yeard line, perhaps because the other indicates that Olympia Snowe has been talking with the Democrats about it.
The Washington Post continues to try to force the wedge between the GOP and the grass roots Tea Parties. the left's agenda is not to siphon off votes from the GOP to the Democrats, but rather to dampen the grass roots and independents expected turnout in November - something that will help protect incumbents, particularly Democrats.
Gallup has Obama's approval even - appproval/disapproval 47/47 and Rasmussen meanwhile saw a huge spike in his strong approval ratings, leaving him a mere 7 points underwater versus strong disapproval, and his overall approval/disapproval also back to even at 50/50.
“We’ve incurred this debt. We have to pay our bills,” House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer told POLITICO Wednesday. And the Maryland Democrat confirmed that the anticipated increase could be as high as $1.8 trillion — nearly twice what had been assumed in last spring’s budget resolution for the 2010 fiscal year.
Wow. I'm speechless, somebody help me here. How is raising the debt ceiling the same as paying your bills?
From Politico comes an interesting little sidebar story a couple of weeks ago that has an ominous portending for the future. The whole story is here: POLITICO: Shenanigans - No more questions, please
During Monday night’s meeting, Chairwoman Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) cut off ranking member and former Rules Chairman David Dreier (R-Calif.) while he was questioning Appropriations Committee Chairman Dave Obey (D-Wis.) on a commerce, Justice and Science Appropriations bill. Chairwoman Slaughter asked Dreier: “You want to talk about the previous bill?”
Dreier responded, “There are a number of things I want to talk about. Do I not have a right to do that? Do I not have a right to question the chairman of the Appropriations Committee on the process we are about to begin here for the 13 appropriations bills that he and his subcommittee chairmen are going to be considering? Am I not allowed to ask him questions?”
Slaughter basically told him no, saying, “We have already finished the roll call and accepted that bill, and we are ready to move on now.”
Dreier responded, “So I am not allowed. So I am sorry, I have overstepped my bounds if I am not allowed to talk about the overall appropriations process with the chairman of the committee. So thank you very much. I yield back my time.”
At that, Slaughter looked at Dreier and moved on without any more GOP input, we’re told. “Even the Democrats on the committee were stunned to silence,” an observer tells Shenan, adding, “We knew this day was coming, but it really is a sad day when the Democrats stop any form of questioning between the Republicans and chairmen who are presenting their bills before the committee.”
Parliamentary process semantics? Perhaps. Democrats drunk with power? Maybe. Good for American? Absolutely not. When debate disappears, so does democracy.
