CPAC 2019 - Van Jones & Matt Schlapp

I've had plenty of criticism of Van Jones in the past, but kudos to him for showing up at CPAC, and additionally, he's discussing an issue with Matt Schlapp that is a seemingly bi-partisan issue where common ground can be found.

MUST SEE: CNN is crashing and burning, slowly.

Just wow.  "Nothing burger".

A reaction to reactions on Trump speech (left and right)

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.

And Politico;

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.

Go back to the beginning!

“I am waiting for you, Vizzini. You told me to go back to the beginning. So I have. This is where I am, and this is where I’ll stay. I will not be moved.”

Inigo Montoya in The Princess Bride, waits in the Thieves' Forest for a new set of instructions because the plan he was part of has fallen apart and that was the instruction if the plan fell apart.

That's not a bad idea.  Let's go back to the beginning of the Obama administration and take a look at what the common thread was, early on in the administration.  From Timothy Geithner, to Bill Richardson to a number of others, there were concerns out of the gate that the president was not vetting his appointees very well.  In fact, it was downright bad.  At that point it should have been clear - the administration was being formed based on ideology and not competence.

Obama scandal free since 2008. Are you kidding me?

Jonathon Alter is either as sharp as a tennis ball or as dishonest as the man he seeks to glorify.  Get this from his recent Bloomberg article;

Although it’s possible that the Solyndra LLC story will become a classic feeding frenzy, don’t bet on it. Providing $535 million in loan guarantees to a solar-panel maker that goes bankrupt was dumb, but so far not criminal or even unethical on the part of the administration. These kinds of stories are unlikely to derail Obama in 2012. If he loses, it will be because of the economy -- period.

Even so, the president’s Teflon is intriguing. How did we end up in such a scandal-less state? After investigating the question for a recent Washington Monthly article, I’ve been developing some theories.

Beyond Solyndra (which does have scandalous issues to be dealt with - improper vetting among them) there's Gunwalker, Van Jones, to name just a few.  If you are looking for a running total, there's a pretty good list here.  If you read Alter's article you'll either pull your hair out or laugh until your stomach muscles hurt.  You'd swear he was in 2008 happy unicorn magic mode. Alter is flat out wrong on this and it's so bad it's disgusting.

Occupy Wall Street - Duped by progressive elite, again

Van Jones wants you to march (it stirs the pot and keeps him in the headlines). President Obama wants you to march because it's free publicity for his re-election campaign.  It also gets you mobilized which will help turn you out for the next election.  Warren Buffett wants you to march because it helps him too - he gets to keep an ally in the White House who will allow him to say he wants to pay more taxes while paying less than he should.

You are a dupe.  You are being tricked, and you are being used.

Van Jones' Progressive October Offensive

A lot of people think this is not meaningful.  Never underestimate your opponent - that's all I'm saying.  True Van Jones is not as powerful as this video portrays.  True progressives have lost an awful awful lot of credibility since 2008 and it showed in the 2010 midterm elections and is showing in president Obama's underwater approval ratings.

Gateway Pundit: Audio: Obama's "Safe Schools Czar" Admits Hiding Pedophilia From Officials

Uh...this IS worse than the Van Jones thing isn't it? He WILL resign or be terminated, won't he?

Gateway Pundit: Audio: Obama's "Safe Schools Czar" Admits Hiding Pedophilia From Officials

All I can say is sham, wow!

Van Jones just the lastest Obama accident

Van Jones, President Obama's erstwhile green czar, ousted for being outed as an apparent Truther, is just the latest Obama recruiting problem. Remember those?

Coincidentally, it's also not the first Van problem. There was this last year;



[Maybe if they all had free health care they wouldn't have run].

And less recently, also cut short, Van McCoy who died at 39 of a heart attack. However at least he accomplished something productive before his untimely end;




Not to mention the Van mistake involving Sammy Hagar...