More subterfuge from the prior administration found

The Hill is reporting this secret government 'reverse racism' but I think it might be more about just bankrupting America in 1000 small cuts:

It might actually happen.

As Let's Go Brandon poll numbers continue to crumble, it's more and more plausible that Democrats dump Let's Go Brandon after the upcoming CNN debate. When even The Hill is pointing Let's Go Brandon mistakes and freeze ups, the Democrat playbook is being exposed - they are probably going to replace him.  I don't like saying that because he is an albatross around the necks of the Democrats.  He will help the chances of a red wave in November. A replacement candidate would be a wildcard.  I don't think it helps the Democrats much and might even be worse. But you never know. 

The Democrats cannot run this guy and win. I think they are starting to finally realize that.  They can no longer lie their way into victory. They can probably continue to cheat, but when the scope of the cheating becomes too big, they have to roll the dice.   I once thought they Democrats wouldn't do that, but now, I'm starting to think it's a more than 50% chance.

The irony is that if they had eased up on the lawfare cheating, and actually started giving a damn about the  border, they might have continued to have a chance at a 2024 win. Not that I would have liked it, but those two changes could have really helped them. 

Haley paints Trump as the establishment

The Hill shares a video on two stories, first Nikki Haley claiming, laughably, that Donald Trump is a puppet of the establishment elite.  The same elite who are resoundingly against him.  Makes sense.  It's the weirdest play for Trump voters imaginable.

The new segment goes on to talk about about Let's Go Brandon's age issue (more on that in my next post):

Media Matters' sliminess exposed

The Hill welcomes Michael Shellenberger to discuss how Media Matters tried to ruin Twitter a.k.a. X using slimey, underhanded and untruthful media manipulation:

No Mask discussion on The Hill

The Hill?  A left leaning outfit saying no masks? Or even discussing it?  Is normal returning?  Probably not but this is still progress in the right direction.

Quick Hit: Mueller has nothing, but you wouldn't know it

The Mueller investigation apparently doesn't currently hold the president as a criminal  target of it's investigation.  The media hasn't really mentioned that much. In fact, the Washington Post which reported it yesterday, are holding out hope that he could still become a target.

Nevertheless, there are some important considerations as Johnathan Turley at The Hill points out:

That Mueller does not believe there is “substantial evidence linking [Trump] to the commission of a crime” would seem to merit some, albeit grudging, recognition. However, there has been a disturbing lack of objectivity in the coverage of this investigation from the start. Throughout it, some of us have cautioned that the criminal case against Trump was far weaker than media suggested. Fired FBI Director James Comey himself told Congress that Trump was not a target of his investigation. Indeed, Trump was reportedly upset with Comey largely because Comey would not say that publicly.

When Trump fired Comey, I supported the call for a special counsel, and I still support Mueller in completing his investigation. However, the case of criminal conduct by Trump has not materially improved over the last year. Last October, Mueller brought the first indictments against former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and his deputy, Richard Gates. Notably, none of the indictments were linked to the campaign, let alone Trump. When that obvious point was raised, we were told that it meant nothing and Mueller was likely holding back the really damaging indictments while pressuring Trump aides. Commentators continue to announce “bombshell” disclosures against Trump on a daily basis, with experts alleging clear cases for treason to obstruction to witness tampering and other crimes.

But time and again, evidence continued to indicate that chances of president trump becoming a target were evaporating.

Then, in November, came the disclosure of plea agreements with former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn and former campaign foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos. However, these pleas were for making individual false statements to federal investigators. Neither the charges nor the narratives in the filings tied Trump or his campaign to any criminal act. Later indictments involving lawyer Alex van der Zwaan and internet operator Richard Pinedo involved a false statement and a single count of identity fraud, again unrelated to Trump or his campaign. Nevertheless, commentators insisted Mueller was just laying the groundwork for his major filing.

In February, Mueller handed down indictments of 13 Russian nationals and three Russian organizations for election-related crimes, from hacking to identity fraud. Not only did these charges not implicate Trump or his campaign, but the filing expressly stated that no one in the Trump campaign knowingly engaged Russians in these efforts. Now, Mueller reportedly has said he does not consider Trump a “target” of the criminal investigation. Looking at each of the prior filings, the disclosure would seem consistent with a lack of compelling evidence of a crime by Trump. Indeed, it would indicate Trump’s status has not changed from when Comey told Congress that Trump was not a target.

And yet, the mainstream media continues to be purveyors of self-deluded Trump-prosecution porn:

Still, some analysts immediately denied that Mueller’s disclosure was anything but bad news for Trump. On CNN, legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin insisted that “being a ‘subject’ is a very serious thing” and a “very significant designation” because it is clear “the FBI is investigating the president.”

The only outstanding question is when will Mueller wrap up his investigation.

Captured for posterity: "Non-partisan" assessment of the Trump tax plan

The Hill quotes a "non-partisan" organization that spells doom and gloom for the that will result from the Trump tax plan.  I'm capturing this from The Hill, because it will be proven wrong:

The GOP tax bill would cost significantly more if tax cuts that are temporary in the legislation are eventually made permanent, according to two new reports.

Most of the bill's changes for individuals sunsets in 2025, even as a cut to the corporate rate from 35 percent to 21 percent is made permanent.

If future Congresses decide to extend the lower tax rates for individuals and families rather than allow them to expire, and also extends other temporary provisions, the bill will end up costing $2 trillion to $2.2 trillion, according to a report by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonpartisan deficit hawk group.

Even accounting for economic growth, it predicts the bill would add $1.5 trillion to $1.7 trillion to the debt — bringing debt levels close to 100 percent of the nation's GDP.

Where to begin?  Cutting a budget does not COST anything.  It means collecting less tax  from consumers and producers.  It does not mean the government spends more money.  Quite the contrary, it SHOULD mean that the government is forced to spend less.  It costs the government revenue I supposed - but even that notion is wrong. As has been pointed out, lower taxes means more taxable activity and therefore more tax revenue, not less (see video at the bottom for details).

Most importantly the idea that it is a "Non-partisan" organization is laughable. The "Non-partisan" Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget is headed by Maya MacGuineas, a walking establishment-liberal resume if ever there was one;

MacGuineas has run the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget since 2003, and works mainly on issues related to fiscal, tax, economic, and retirement policy. Senator Mark Warner called her "a trusted intermediary"[4] as she has worked with Democratic and Republican lawmakers.[5] She has also been called "an obsessively nonpartisan, data-driven, well-connected champion of...fiscal responsibility."[6]

She has also published a number of articles, including in The Atlantic Monthly, The Washington Post, The New York Times, the Financial Times and the Los Angeles Times. Once dubbed "an anti-deficit warrior" by The Wall Street Journal[7] and "queen of the deficit scolds" by economist Paul Krugman,[8] MacGuineas has appeared on broadcast news and is often cited by the national press. She also is a regular contributor to the Wall Street Journal 'Think Tank' feature.

MacGuineas also served on The Washington Post editorial board in the Spring of 2009, where she covered economic and fiscal policy and wrote extensively on the health care reform debate.

She was the Director of the Fiscal Policy Program at the New America Foundation—a nonpartisan think tank based in Washington, DC.[9]

Before joining the New America Foundation,[10] MacGuineas worked at the Brookings Institution, the Concord Coalition, and on Wall Street. She has also advised numerous candidates for office from both parties, and works regularly with members of United States Congress on health, economic, tax, and budget policy.

MacGuineas served as a member of the Debt Reduction Task Force[11] at the Bipartisan Policy Center.

Everything mentioned there except the debt reduction task force screams liberal, and indicates that anything to do with responsible budgeting is a cover for the liberal agenda.  She's obviously a progressive mole and has been given cover by her organizations seemingly centric title.

But she's not the only one.  The umbrella organization it operates under is rife with far left liberalism. If you follow the trail of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, besides being co-founded by a Republican, it seems to be housed at New America which is clearly, very liberal. Need I go on with the links? Disproving the absurdity of the non-partisan claim is just too easy.

So I'm not buying it.  I'm holding onto the quotes, so that 5 years down the road these people can be pounded with the truth and exposed for the political hacks they really are. 

The Hill's story on Mueller, is the story

This story in political website The Hill, is really in and of itself, the story.

Much has been written about the prosecutorial prowess of Robert Mueller’s team assembled to investigate allegations of Russia’s involvement in the Trump campaign. Little has been said of the danger of prosecutorial overreach and the true history of Mueller’s lead prosecutor.

What was supposed to have been a search for Russia’s cyberspace intrusions into our electoral politics has morphed into a malevolent mission targeting friends, family and colleagues of the president. The Mueller investigation has become an all-out assault to find crimes to pin on them — and it won’t matter if there are no crimes to be found. This team can make some.

Many Americans despise President Trump and anyone associated with him. Yet turning our system of justice into a political weapon is a danger we must guard against.

Potent stuff you'd expect to see on Breitbart, not an establishment type website. True, it's not front page splash type stuff, but it's there. And it makes me wonder - with the revelation that the Justice Department might be going after Obama and the Clintons for the nefarious, possibly treasonous Uranium One deal, maybe they (The Left) are considering trying to downplay the Trump-Russia collusion as sort of an unspoken truce because there side is about to be caught out. Or perhaps it's just starting to become apparent that there's no 'there' there as far as any Trump Russia collusion. In either case, when voters on the left realize they were busy chasing phantoms, it will be interesting to see how they react to being fed misleading, misdirection from the media and the Democratic leadership.

Sunday Morning Roundup

Here's a Sunday morning roundup of some political discussion around the web.

The Hill reports;

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.

Also from The Hill, Dick Armey gets it;

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.

GOP 2010: The Journey back - Part 2

Previously I looked at the GOP chances in the Senate 2010 and it didn't look too promising out of the gate. But there are some mitigating circumstances that help the GOP. Before moving on to some of those factors, let's take a look at Congress. All 435 seats are of course up for election. Currently the Democrats hold a 257-178 advantage.

That translates to a 79 seat advantage meaning that Republicans would need to make up 40 seats to overtake the Democrats. That has occurred only 2 times in the last 60 years, and is far greater than the changes over the last two election. Most races are in strongholds and not likely to change but many liberals are salivating at further gains in 2010, pushing the Democrats passed the 2/3 majority point in Congress. In fact in recent polling the Democrats in Congress are outperforming their Republican counterparts. This early on, even in a tiny two year election cycle, that's not too meaningful. Still, it's better to be on the plus side of that polling than the minus, even though it doesn't count until November 2010.

What are the seat specific pick-up opportunities and loss threats? It's too early and too hard to tell at this point. But for both the House and Senate, there's an ace up the sleeve of Republicans that has yet to be factored into the comeback road and that is redistricting. True, it's longer term than 2010, but 2010 still factors into it;

The 2010 census could add multiple House seats to red-leaning states — as many as four districts to Texas and two each to Arizona and Florida. And it could subtract seats from blue-trending states like Michigan, New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania. 

Most of the states slated to gain seats in reapportionment next cycle feature Republican-controlled state legislatures and governor’s mansions — the powerhouses that decide how to allocate congressional districts.

So while there is no immediate impact in redistricting in 2010 it does help for 2012. But there are other factors at play that will impact 2010. The current economic crisis, if not solved by the summer of 2010 will definitely cause voters to sour on the Democrats. Another factor is that the youth turnout, so crucial to Obama's win, is not likely to be as much a critical block in a non-Presidential cycle. The mainstream media, caught in the hype of 2008, may have soured a bit on Obama by 2010, but even if they haven't and even if they are as fervent about 2010 as they were about 2008, they won't be able to generate the hype amongst the electorate - particularly if the downturn turns out to be very significant in the interim.

Conversely the Republican base will be re-energized by the battering they took in 2008 and the chance to make back some ground. And the conservative base will be even more engaged if the current rate of scandals holds up. Party identification, having shifted towards Democrats is likely to drift back towards the norm, albeit not back to the best levels the GOP has ever seen.

Taking some positives from the Gregg situation, there are possibilities for further retirements in the GOP in both the House and Senate and while pollsters might look at it as giving up an incumbency advantage, there is a flip side to that coin; new nominees could be more in line with real conservative values and thereby energize the base. As much as it is a threat it's an opportunity. Coupled with Michael Steele's GOPAC connections - there's a strong chance the party gets better talent for it's nominees. Not to mention potentially better fundraising, better message communication and better outreach opportunities than under Bush's handpicked RNC Chair, Mike Duncan. Just the way '94 ushered in a new flock of idealistic Republicans, 2010 offers at least a starting point to do the same.

The field in 2010, while still tilted against the GOP, offers ample opportunity in Congress to see substantial gains and in the Senate, which takes longer to change, at least no more losses and potentially a modest gain.

And then there's the possibility of in-fighting amongst Democrats adding to the chaos of the next two years. How that image plays out remains to be seen, but an article in RealClearPolitics indicates that the in-fighting is not Republican wishful thinking. It also presents an opportunity to the GOP to point out how the committee process has been stripped and that power are being concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. Those who worried about a Bush fascist state should be if not up in arms over this, at least visibly nervous about the possible ramifications of an Obama, Pelosi, Reid triumvirate of power, locking out not only the remainder of the 535 Congressmen and Senators, but all 300 million other Americans.

If things keep up like this, you will start to see shrill conservatives screaming about a socialist dictatorship and the same silliness as the Bushitler meme from the left but this against Obama, Pelosi and Reid. It's not merited because for conservatives the focus should be simply on two things that do not include name calling - obstructing any agenda that makes America more socialist and winning back its lost seats in 2010.

With all this background I'm going to make a ridiculously early prediction about the Senate and Congress in 2010. Don't hold me to it because at this point I'm trying to temper my optimism with the reality of so many unknowns this far out.

Senate - Republicans +2. Congress - Republicans +15.

But I'm not signing any contract on that.