"Biden Did You Know?"--An Advent of Truth?

For many Christians, Advent is a a time anticipation for our ultimate salvation via the incarnation of our Messiah Jesus the Christ.  To get to that point, the faithful are asked to prepare by contemplating the end times and final judgment.  That is why the liturgical readings are prophetical and often tinged with a sense of calamity. This preparation exposes hard ultimate truth and raises questions as to how we comport ourselves in the here and now.

In our culture we prefer the unbridled joy of Christmas Carols rather than the brooding meditations of Advent hymns, like "Wake, Oh Wake" and "Veni Emmanuel".  One of the new contributions to the Advent repertoire is "Mary Did You Know?",  a Protestant carol written by Mark Lowry 1984 and later set to music in 1991 by Buddy Green of the Gaither Vocal Band.   The lyric were written as reflections between acts of a Christmas play which posed hard questions as to whether the Blessed Virgin Mary understood everything that would be implicated by her fiat, her assent to what God asked for in the Annunciation. 

In the wake of the instances of election irregularities and accusations of coordinated voter fraud in Election 2020,  Eric Metaxas did a a filk written by by John Zimrak  and produced by Chris Hines of the contemporary Christmas-tide classic in "Biden Did You Know?

This video could be dismissed as a piece of propaganda from a Trump supporter blowing off steam at the victory of his opponent former Vice President Joe Biden (D-DE).  More sympathetic listeners might find it hard to hear as Mr. Metaxas is not a natural soloist.  But the video raises some uncomfortable questions that the presumed President Elect must address as nearly half of Americans are under the impression that Election 2020 was stolen. Metaxas combined pop cultural film references, graphics which illustrated his points along with video evidence indicated election night Malarkey (sic), such as the Fulton County Georgia suitcase of hidden ballots, the Detroit TCF Cobo Center  hidden vote count center and CNN's chyron of over a hundred thousand ballots instantly switching columns. 

Even though Election 2020 was conducted during the COVID19 pandemic, the Biden presidential campaign was conducted in an extremely unorthodox fashion.  During the General Election campaign, Biden basically hid in his basement with a message of  defeating Trump and COVID19  using a wholesale campaign strategy. Biden ads ran heavily, along with allies like the Lincoln Project.  Other campaign events included poorly attended Zoom calls and scripted "interviews" with friendly media (and Biden reading off a teleprompter or being corrected by his wife DOCTOR Jill Biden--sic).    

During the normally intense two months before the November 3rd vote, the Biden campaign called "lids" (no news today) at nine am for a fortnight. Biden's running mate, Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA) did not try to outshine the top of the ticket on the hustings.  When Joe Biden deigned to be seen in public, he mostly appeared in Delaware or within even driving distance of Philadelphia.  Such "rallies" were more media events, with basely a score of attendings sitting in COVID correct socially distanced circles. 

By the end of the General Election campaign, Trump counter-protesters were overshadowing the curated Biden/Harris campaign events, so much so that Joe Biden, the candidate calling for unity, called them chumps and ugly folks.  Harris held "rallies" in secret locations and may have employed body doubles at events. These do not seem like tactics of a campaign which supposedly won 80 million votes, 10 million more than President Barack Obama. 

 This Biden/Harris unorthodox campaign conduct sharply contrasted with President Trump, who help scores of rallies which attracted  tens of thousands of attendees per event, many unruly off the cuff pressers.  Donald Trump definitely won 10 million votes more than 2016, with marked increases of support from African American and Hispanic voters.  Trump had coat tails, with Republicans winning 27 of 27 key House races and the GOP only losing two Senate seats when they had 23 races to defend.  Trump won 18 of 19 bellwether counties.  Yet supposedly Trump lost by six million Popular Votes and lost several battleground states by small margins bolstered by midnight ballot drops thusJoe Biden wins 306 Electoral Votes.  In the abstract, that doesn't make sense, but these facts may be derided as  sour grapes.

In retrospect, there were several odd remarks from Democrats about the Biden campaign the post election aftermath that when they are juxtaposed with the election anomalies that give a skeptical body politic cause for pause as to "Biden did you know?".

One of Joe Biden's persistent traits is being a gaffe maker  So often, his off the cuff remarks seem blunderously off-message,  wrongfully boastful,  and actually quite odd (e.g. "Corn Pop").  I was willing to consider those moments as being the Biden gaffe machine, which has been heighted due to obvious cognitive challenges and overplaying his "aw-shucks Uncle Joe" persona.  But sometimes these gaffes reveal uncomfortable truths, albeit in a clumsy manner.  A pithy maxim in the District of Calamity is that a gaffe is a politician telling the truth.  Joe Biden has said: "A gaffe in Washington is someone telling the truth and telling the truth has never hurt me."  OK, let's test that premise.

One of the most striking verbal blunders was when Joe Biden actually said that [Democrats] had put together the biggest and most extensive voter fraud organization in history. Wow, what a gaffe!

   

Perhaps he meant to say "Get Out the Vote" organization.  But let's examine this gaffe with the facts.  In the 116th Congress of 2019, Speaker Nancy Pelosi put forth HR1, which was a measure that sought to imposes mail in voting nationwide. Note this was a year BEFORE the Wuhan Flu reached the shores of America.  When that measure did not pass, a couple of COVID relief bills were held up in reconciliation bills because Speaker Pelosi insisted that liberal mail in voting laws be imposed nationwide.  The Democrat National Committee spent considerable resources shepherding mail in voting laws in the states, despite the fact that the Carter/Baker Commission concluded in 2004 that mail in voting was prone to fraud. So was it a Biden gaffe or Joe telling an inconvenient truth?

Prior to November 3rd, there were warnings from Democrats and the media that because of COVID19 that we would not know the results of the election immediately.  In fact, I recall some Democrats warning that it might appear that they would be down but in the end they would be victorious.  Former Democrat Presidential candidate First Lady/Senator/Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton implored Joe Biden not concede if the election is close, perhaps ruing her concession which complicated "The Resistance" after the 2016 Trump victory.  

What is more likely is that Democrat leaders realized that when then Vice President Albert Gore, Jr. conceded and then retracted the concession after the 2000 election that they lost some of the narrative which impeded their victory in the contested election coverage. I believe that there was so much pressure on President Trump to promise to abide by the election results, and after November 3rd to extract a concession is to give the psychological impression that the cake is baked and to normalize the presumptive Biden/Harris Presidency.  But true to character, President Trump is a fighter and chooses to brawl in the legal system for what he believes was a wrong result due to illegitimate votes.

Three days before the election, in a prominent rally in the Motor City along with Barack Obama, Joe Biden said something truly strange:  "I don't need you to get me elected, I need you once I'm elected...".  Sure, a candidate might long for support for his policies (whatever the actually are) once in office, but at a Get Out The Vote Rally affirmatively saying "I don't need you to get me elected"--Huh? It's hard to explain that away as a simple verbal blunder.

One other rhetorical oddity which makes one wonder "Biden did you know?" is how readily Biden publicly sees his departure from the Oval Office.  Quite understandably, it is prudent for a frail, gaffe prone 78 year old to announce that he was chary about running for a second term.  But towards the end of the campaign in Tampa, Biden referred to the Harris/Biden Administration. Politicians tend to be ego driven so juxtaposing your running mate as top of the ticket might be telling the public something. That theme was echoed by Kamala Harris proclaiming "The Harris Administration under Joe Biden as President."  It's it's kind of presumptive or is it a plan.  Then there was a the post election Biden/Harris CNN interview when Joe claimed that if we ever really disagree, then I'll develop a disease and resign. 

   ; 

Biden was comparing his relationship with President Biden and applying it to the Harris Administration with President Biden (sic).  One would expect such action with a subordinate.  But isn't Biden supposed to be Chief Executive of the United States?  In and of itself, this might have been another one of Joe being Joe.  Yet a month before Election 2020, Speaker Nancy Pelosi introduced a bill to create a commission to study applying the 25th Amendment to Presidents unable to carry out their duties?  Coincidence or messaging? 

Advent carols are all about anticipation of a messiah as an ultimate truth. Thus we ought apply  Advent principles to our own age.  The truth is that  regardless of who prevails in the Election 2020 overtime, certainly we won't find a messiah.

I may be more like in Monty Python's Life of Brian:  "There's a mess here alright but there's no messiah."

Alas, to shift pop metaphors,  I fear that it may be more of a dark winter and winter is coming.

Hillary Clinton on Civility

Hillary Clinton on the Kavanaugh Nomination to the Supreme Court

When Hillary Clinton was speaking before the American Federation of Teachers conference in Pittsburgh, she intimated that President Trump's nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court is an indication that Republicans want to bring back slavery.

Aside from the irony that the GOP was historically the party that ended slavery thru President Lincoln's  Emancipation Proclamation in 1863 and passage of the 13th  Amendment in 1865, Hillary's hair on fire rhetoric is remarkable.

Instead of Mrs. Clinton continuing her loser tour around liberal circles which offered various excuses why she was beaten by Donald Trump in the 2016 election, she is focusing her wrath more firmly towards the rhetoric of "The Resistance".  Whether or not a old pol who profited off of insider deals, questionable charities and the aura of being an Elite can convince surging Democrat Socialists to support her is another story.

This is not the first time which Democrat operatives have sought to invoke slavery to advance their own campaign.  During the 2012 cycle, ex Vice President Joe Biden proclaimed "They want to put y'all back in chains" during a rally in Danville, Virginia (which was the last capital of the Confederacy).

It is uncertain in the era #WalkAway and record low black unemployment will work to get minorities to the polls in the midterms. 

On Roseanne and The Great Revolt

Coastal Elites are still trying to reconcile in their minds how Donald John Trump became the 45th President of the United States.  They were convicted that First Lady Senator Obama Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton would break the glass ceiling and be ushered into the Oval Office.  After all, she was pitted against a boorish Manhattan mogul who was a political novice and was alienated from key segments of his current political party. 

That unshakable arrogance makes the HBO excerpts  of Obama Administration point player Ben Rhodes on Election Night 2016 all the more delightful to those who chant "Drain the Swamp". In the aftermath of the election upset, Democrats pushed a Russian collusion conceit which managed to have a Special Counsel named but who garnered up scant evidence of a Russian nexus to Trump's campaign.

The mainstream media which became progressive provocateurs broadcast a bevy of anti-Trump material, gorgonizing anyone who supported President Trump as being a racist, sexist homophobic xenophobe instead of investigating how Mr. Trump was able to break the supposed Blue Wall for Democrats in the Upper Midwest. 

Salena Zito and Brad Todd's recent bestseller "The Great Revolt" (2018) examined seven groups of unlikely voters for a populist titularly Republican candidate.  Many of those groups, like "Red Blooded and Blue Collar", "Rough Rebounders" and "Perotistas" were either born and bred Democrats or previously unreliable voters.  During the promotional campaign for "The Great Revolt", Ms. Zito pointed to the resurgence of the Roseanne Show to illustrate how "The Forgotten Man" was gaining prominence in the body politic despite the barrage of anti-Trump sentiment on the airways.

When the Rosanne show was revived as a mid season replacement, it garnered 22 million viewers, in part because it portrayed Trump supporters as having reasons for their sentiments rather than a knee jerk condemnation of their politically incorrect heresy. 

Recently, Rosanne Barr tweeted a crude crack against Obama confidant Valerie Jarrett.  Despite Roseanne Barr offering a quick social media apology, the Roseanne Show was cancelled by by ABC Entertainment and the eleven seasons of reruns were pulled off Hulu and TVLand.  

Some Trump supporters saw nothing wrong with the controversial comparison, noting that Rosanne Barr has a history of making questionable quips. Conservatives have pointed out the numerous cases of hypocrisy that progressives say untoward things against their enemies and there are no consequences.  

MSNBC's Chris Hayes may have unwittingly revealed the progressive playbook by too overtly suggesting that Roseanne reflected the reputation of Trump voters as being racist, sexist, homophobic xenophobes.  But it was Todd Starnes who noted that ABC can't stomach Trump supporters. 

It is dubious that ABC will suffer from an acute boycott by incensed Rosanne viewers.  But their parent company Disney's stock sunk  2.3% on the news of the cancellation.  It may well be that the Rosanne Show is picked up by another outlet, as Fox Television is bringing back  back the ratings winning Tim Allen comedy  "Last Man Standing" which appeals to a conservative audience.  


There are other indications that the steamrolling of "Fly Over Country" values does not always work.  Despite the onslaught of publicity for Black Lives Matter and the Take The Knee campaigns, the NFL instituted a new policy that prohibits player protests on the field during the National Anthem.  Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones claims that Donald Trump told him "You can't win... this one lifts me" on the Take the Knee controversy.  That leads you to believe that Trump's popularity triumphs, rather than understanding that patriotic, non-politically correct American values are the crux of the ratings decline. 

Democrats and elites have positioned themselves to be progressive polemicists, thinking that their political prescriptions are inevitable in its ascent. Seeing the collapse in CNN's ratings and the incredible erosion of Democrat favorability in generic congressional polling ought to shake them of their smugness. 

Hillary Clinton on Politics

Senator Warren Deserves to Don a Civics Dunce Cap

During her recent remarks before the Cap Ideas Conference, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) cited Hillary Clinton's loss in the 2016 Presidential race as a negative indication that America has a healthy democracy. 






It is astounding that a sitting Senator is either so ignorant to not know that the USA is a constitutional Republic with democratic suffrage and an Electoral College or that she is such a demagouge who will blur such distinctions for political advantage. 

Some deride Senator Warren as being Fauxcahontas for her questionable genealogical claims of being a Native American.  A more apt sobriquet may well be Sitting Bull.  

Nevertheless, for Senator Warren's democrat demogougery, the former Harvard Law professor deserves to don a Civics Dunce Cap.

Appraising "The Great Revolt" by Salena Zito and Brad Todd

After Richard Nixon won the 1972 Presidential election in a 49 state landslide, New Yorker film critic was flummoxed at how this could happen as none of her Manhattanite friends would vote for him.  This possibly apocryphal episode illustrated how seaboard elites can be so out of touch with Middle America (sometimes flippantly labeled as  “Fly Over Country”).

A similar cognitive dissonance has occurred at the election of President Donald Trump in 2016. Heading into election night, the 538 blog polling guru Nate Silver predicted that Hillary Clinton had a 72% chance of winning.  Yet when election results were confirmed at 2:30 AM November 9th, Donald J. Trump gave a victory speech.  While Mr. Trump won a huge 304 to 227 (with five disloyal electors), the margins of victory in five Rust Belt states were close.  Had 56,000 voters not voted for Mr. Trump, then Bill Clinton would have returned to the White House as First Gentleman (sic).

To delve into how Donald Trump was able to confound conventional wisdom and assembled a new coalition which led him to the White House, Salena Zito and Brad Todd wrote “The Great Revolt: Inside the Populist Coalition Reshaping American Politics” (2018 Crown Forum 309 pages).  Salena Zito is a reporter from Pittsburgh but made made her mark during the campaign for the New York Post by traveling to these Midwest battleground states and interviewing prospective Trump voters to understand their attraction and enthusiasm for this first time populist candidate. 

These oral histories are backed up by data from Brad Todd’s On Message Inc. polling unit. The metrics were particularly instructive in seeing how sentiments shifted in swing counties between 2008 and 2016.

The Great Revolt featured 21 interviews with voters from two key counties in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa. These interviews felt like an extended coffee talk at a diner with a trusted confidant.  The Great Revolt broke down these voters into seven archetypes: 1) Red Blooded and Blue Collar 2) Perotistas 3) Rough Rebounders 4) Girl Gun Power 5) Rotary Reliables 6) King Cyrus Christians 7) Silent Suburban Moms.  While they all chose to support Trump, their pathways were not straight and narrow and deserve careful consideration. 

Over the past several elections, Democrats seemed to abandon salt of the earth blue collar erstwhile Democrats to favor demographically up and coming minority majorities and those new voters who might be culled from immigration.  During the 2008 Democrat primaries, candidate Barack Obama derisively referred to rural Rust Belt voters as “bitter clingers to their guns and their Bibles”.  Ironically, Ms. Clinton was trying to win their support for her first failed presidential run.   

Yet in 2016, these same segment of voters were ignored by the Hillary! campaign as she declared that half of Trump supporters were a “Basket of Deplorables” which might serve as a caricature of this segment of voters which would be more sympathetically described as The Forgotten Man.  

Hillary Clinton chose to ignore Wisconsin during the 2016 General Election campaign and made only a couple of trips to large population centers in Michigan, figuring that she had those votes already in the bag.  Donald Trump campaigned hard in Rust Belt states in rural precincts and scraped together enough support to win the Wolverine State by about 8,000 votes (0.23%) and the Badger State by about 22,000 votes (0.77%).  

Pundits have pontificated that Republicans face a demographic problem whereas Democrats have a geographic problem, as they continue to lose support in vast swaths of middle America.  In 2016, Mrs. Clinton only won 526 counties compared to the over 1500 counties that her husband President Clinton won in 1992.  What became obvious after election night 2016, racking up large victories in the popular vote does not necessarily win the White House.  Both parties would learn from contemplating the shared psyches of these Trump voters if The Great Revolt was a one time populist phenomenon, if it can transfer unto other populist politicians and if it can be sustained after 2016.

A couple of these Great Revolt subgroups, such as Rotary Reliables and NRA inspired Girl Gun Power types  are likely to continue to actively oppose progressive politics as it directly impacts their intrinsic interests.   It is more dubious for other groups.  In 2016, evangelical voters made a pragmatic decision to back Mr. Trump, who has a messy personal life and whose blithe brashness is an antithetical attitude, because they were concerned about the Supreme Court and pushing back against abortion.  The outlook for Perotistas is unclear as their support seemed personality driven and may not be transferrable.  The three women interviewed as Perotistas were superannuated, so one can surmise that their support will age out.

As much as the iconoclastic mainstream billionaire turned celebrity politician appealed to some segments of The Great Revolt voters, what became quite clear is how his opponent and the nature of the race also impacted the election.  In some of the vignettes, the anti-Hillary! sentiment jumped off the page. 

 Many of the interviewees came from union families or those who served in the military would have been quite at ease in John F. Kennedy’s Democrat Party but who are red headed stepchildren in today’s Democrat Party.  That being said, they probably would not have participated in politics or been motivated to vote GOP had Donald Trump not reached out and appealed to their sensibilities.   They may not always agree with Mr. Trump and may recoil at some of his Tweets or stances but as Salena Zito nailed during the campaign, they know to take Trump seriously but not always literally (unlike the anti-Trump pack press).

Most of the coalition in The Great Revolt worried about their economic security and loss of their rural way of life, it did not seem like there was strong linkage to “Build the Wall” or immigration.  While one union activist was strongly against NAFTA, much of the blue collar sentiments revolved around being forgotten by their erstwhile allies, the Democrats.   

While the interviews in The Great Revolt were vivid, it would have been desirable if there was a bit more uniformity when describing the interlocutors.  Not all of the portraits had demographic details or made it easy to discern the interviewees profession.  There also seemed to be a disconnect between the prefatory analysis with the dialogues of the Trump voters.  The authors rightly proposed that Mr. Trump’s social media instincts allowed him to circumvent curating by the mainstream media and directly reach his coalitions.  Yet many of the interviewees contained in The Great Revolt wished that President Trump would tweet less. 

That being said, surely Salena Zito and Brad Todd appreciated President Trump’s pre-publication post which extolled the virtues of The Great Revolt.

The case histories in The Great Revolt offer insightful context for the unexpected coalition which elected Donald Trump to the White House in 2016.  But the archetypes portrayed in The Great Revolt may point to traits that could appear in other voter segments.   Democrats have opted to appeal to progressive identity politics and rely on the brown wave of new voters in lieu of  “The Forgotten Man” (rural, blue collar, union white males).   A flaw with that strategy is that it relies upon banked voters, which since 1964 have been the bulk of black voters.  The Great Revolt chronicles how slim segments of voters who feel neglected and come to the epiphany that their traditional party no longer represents their values can impact an election.

Recently, Kanye West said some favorable things towards President Trump. Perhaps that was a publicity stunt or an African American celebrity "talking out of turn" as Rep Maxine Waters (D-CA 43rd) claimed. But afterwards polling showed a doubling of his support among African Americans.  Mr. Trump has been making explicit appeals for those voters.  

It is conceivable that an upsurge in black labor participation and showing up to make the case may shift some attitudes, or mollify some of the bile against him. Conservative Black video bloggers Diamond and Silk have shown that elements of the Trump Administration agenda may have some appeal to fed up African American voters.  Black represent about 13% of voters and in recent elections have voted about 95% for Democrats.  If there is a 5% shift in that segment of reliable votes, Democrats’ election strategy may be in trouble. 

Rudy Giuliani on "The Clinton Treatment"

Is Comey Just a Retrograde or a Crackpot Narcissist?

In promotion of ex FBI Director James Comey's new book  Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies and Leadership (2018), he gave a five hour interview with former Clinton press flak George Stephanopolis.  Instead of revealing new information about his untimely exit from the helm of the FBI after the Clinton Email scandal and the allegations of Russian meddling in the 2016 election, Comey's tome seemed to be a self justifying exercise to  settle scores, particularly against President Trump.

Clinton loyalists like Lannie Davis still think that Mr. Comey cost Hillary Clinton the 2016 election, and label his self righteous antics as being a retrograde narcissist.  While those on the right look his stated philosophy about investigations and contrast it to how he wrote an exoneration for Hillary Clinton weeks before interviewing the principal witness, concluding that he was a dirty cop.  

Either way, Mr. Comey sure enjoys the limelights as he blames others for the messes which he is embroiled.  Perhaps surrealist artist Claude Martin conveyed could convey Comey's persona best.

Narcissus (2014) by Claude Martin

Revisiting the Loyalty from the So-Called Basket of Deplorables

Social media reaction to President Donald Trump signing the 2,200 page $1.3 Trillion Omnibus spending bill for the remaining six months of FY 18 has been swift and sharp.  Many who want to Drain the Swamp lamented that Mr. Trump caved in on a spending boondoggle which made Democrat leaders like House Minority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA 11th) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer quite happy.   But in the wake of this spending spree, Trump loyalists took to Twitter as “Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their leader (sic)” with a tenacious and acrimonious approach.

Basically, Deplorables dictated that you are either with him or against him. No criticisms could be countenanced. Agreeing to the Omnibus may have been a bad choice, but what did you expect him to do when everything is arrayed against him. Wondering whether President Trump lost his legislative leverage was considered heresy and such nay sayers were implored to “Stop bitchin’ and get crackin!”.

Reflecting upon the irrational response of Deplorables, it was reminiscent of trepidations of a Troll Party takeover of the GOP as Mr. Trump entered the Republican run for the White House.  That analysis did not anticipate that Mr. Trump would be the last man standing after the Republican 2016 Presidential primaries, much less that he would win the White House that November .

If one were to try to characterize these voters, one would presume that they are previously dis-affected with the political process. Consequently, they seem to dismiss the present political process or are ignorant of the workings of the system.  The Trump phenomenon points to a charismatic ordinary man who is a successful non politician who is poised to shake up the system.

It is easy to appreciate Deplorables’  exasperation over how the political system is not working well, but when one dialogs with them about details of how to change, it devolves into populist platitudes or invincible ignorance about governance of our constitutional Republic.  Tellingly, one colloquy with such a Trump-eteer was summarized as: “pugnacious, smearing and ambiguous”, which seems consistent with contemporary experience. 

Sen. Rand Paul

When pressing for practical policies aside from the ambiguous “stand by your man”, there is a tendency of deflection.  It was surprising that one interlocutor tried to shut down realpolitik post Omnibus analysis by insisting one had no right to comment unless one had a PhD in Political Science.  

Rep. David Brat 

Yet a few exchanges later, the tenor had changed to insist that you have to do your own homework and you didn’t read the Omnibus bill.  Well, neither did Congress, but trusted sources like Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) and Representative David Brat (R-VA 7th) had highlighted egregious examples, but then those pearls of wisdom were suspect because it was mouthing others’ opinions.

For a political junkie who is not part of the Establishment, it can be vexing to have what could be characterized as a dialog with the deaf.

In many ways, this voter segment was an able army in the 2016 election cycle, especially when the opposition was so antithetical. Viscerally, they were probably aligned with Steve Bannon’s “burn down the house” approach to politics.



With the benefit of hindsight, it is easier to see this nascent Troll Party (ironically nicknamed “The Basket of Deplorables) by Hillary Clinton, as being praetorian populists, who are inclined to advocate any line from their dear leader. While it would seem that Deplorables tend to be individuals previously alienated from the political process and who are oriented toward an instinct to "Drain the Swamp", this must take place with conventional politics under our rule of law system. It may be appealing for a President to rail against earmarks, but unless there is a constitutional amendment for the Line Item Veto, these obtuse budgetary battles carry the day. 

Ex Speaker John Boehner

Others who want to Drain the Swamp may well be the rump of Constitutional Conservatives who were instrumental in sweeping the GOP back into power in the House in 2011 and the Senate in 2014.  Despite their tenure on Capitol Hill, they have not successfully infiltrated Republican leadership (though they were decisive in declaring the chair vacant and ousting Speaker John Boehner from power in 2015). 

There have been other prospective rifts in the alliance between Deplorables and Tea Party types, most notably prior to the Schumer shutdown in February 2018, in which President Trump called the Democrats’ bluff about DACA and there was a brief budgetary shut down. Those of a conservative bent expressed consternation that Trump had abandoned his mantra to “Build the Wall” to regularize a large swath of illegal immigrants. Because Schumer was blamed, this did not cause a serious split among those who want to shake up the system. 

It is my supposition that President Trump’s acquiescence on the Omnibus cram down spending spree may precipitate a waning of enthusiasm among the conservative base. This six month funding of the federal government increased domestic spending by 13% while busting the sequester caps on military spending.  Fiscal conservatives wonder if the Federal government will ever really reduce its spending willingly and adding over a trillion in half a year is unsustainable and virtually indistinguishable from the Obama era.

Big “Build the Wall” backers will be chagrined at how President Trump’s primary election promise has been thwarted.  Sure, the Trump Administration brags that $1.6 Billion has been allocated and work will start the next business day.  But if one looks at the specifics, it’s half that amount and there are provisions that the funds can not be spent on any of the Wall prototypes that President Trump traveled to California to inspect. Of course, building the wall is currently estimated to cost $26 Billion, so the allocation is a drop in the bucket.  Maybe Mexico will pick up the rest of the tab. Moreover, despite the pugilistic rhetoric about fighting jurisdictions which thwart immigration laws, Sanctuary Cities received full funding in the Omnibus.

If the conservative base is less than enthused about supporting the Administration, things may become bleak for Republican majorities in the House and the Senate.  In the Senate, the 2018 cycle should be challenging for Democrats to achieve a majority, as they have to defend 25 of 33 seats up for election. But Republicans hold a slim one vote majority, and Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has spent lots of time back in his home state convalescing from acute cancer.

In the House of Representatives , a shift of two dozen seats will bring Democrats back to power. Considering the court imposed redrawing of districts in Pennsylvania, the GOP is likely to lose up to five seats. If Democrats take over the House, they are more likely to impeach President Trump on nearly any grounds rather than work with him.

Despite the apparent depressing of conservative enthusiasm because of President Trump signing the Omnibus bill, the Democrat National Committee and the Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee are dead broke whereas the RNC and the RNCC are flush with cash. Perhaps the smart money is voting with campaign contributions.  However, as the 2016 cycle showed, money is not everything, otherwise it would be Madam President Hillary Clinton.

Some Deplorables are insisting on social media that President Trump has more cards up his sleeve about the budget, and proffer a prediction that Omnibus language is only a suggestion and that the Chief Executive will do what he wants, such as using the military to build the border wall.  If this novel approach was actually pursued, it would be enjoined by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in a nanosecond and would give substance to Democrats filing new articles of impeachment. But it would gladden the heart of the Basket of Deplorables for a bit. 

Rep. Jim Jordan on the Uranium One Scandal

Joe Di Genova on Feeding the FBI False Information

Trey Gowdy on the Steele Dossier

Nikki Haley on the Grammys

Rep. Jim Jordan on Attorneys General

Judge Jeanine Pirro on Hillary Clinton Skirting the Law

'Tis the Season for Resistmas?

Women to Look Up To, a London based company, is producing some eye catching tree toppers in an effort to give tree toppers a feminist makeover.  Among the choices of real women their voters deemed "worthy of wings" for their 3D printed ornaments is Hillary Clinton. 

As a puckish political animal living in the District of Calamity whose W.C. is a Political Room adored with cheeky tchochtki, a Hillary tree topper might be welcomed for the Federal Christmas Tree.  However, this tree topper costs eighty quid, which can tot up to $120.    If I were inclined to air grievances between the beltways, it would be more economical to erect an aluminum pole for Festivus.