Share This Article with a Friend!


Outsiders vs. Insiders: Democrats’ inane SOTU spoiled brat act will not go unnoticed by voters

For a party that’s staked its claim to legitimacy on how well they conduct themselves in public (at least compared to the man who won the 2016 election and now resides in the White House), the Democrats sure behaved badly the other night.

Their abhorrent and disrespectful deportment may or may not have been obvious to President Donald Trump during the speech itself – he was busy delivering a lengthy but well-tailored address which included pauses to profusely thank a number of true American heroes and freedom lovers in the gallery – but the dour frowns, Nancy Pelosi SOTUoutright contempt for traditional American beliefs (as articulated by Trump) and arms-crossed demonstrations by most members of the minority party was plainly evident for the tens of millions in the viewing audience to see.

That’s not good for Democrats, especially since post-State of the Union polls indicated Americans liked the speech. Naomi Lim of the Washington Examiner reported, “Three in four Americans who watched President Trump's State of the Union on Tuesday approved of his inaugural address, according to a poll.

“A quarter of those surveyed said they disapproved, per the CBS News survey.

“Viewers also had favorable reactions to Trump's talking points on infrastructure, immigration, and national security, with a majority believing the policies mentioned would ‘help’ them.”

Lim also pointed out that the poll in question skewed Republican but other post-address surveys offered similar positive numbers for Trump. Even a comparatively healthy number of Democrats liked the speech (over 40%), with only a bare majority of self-identified party members indicating Trump’s words made them feel “angry.”

What wasn’t to like? Trump didn’t insult anyone directly, offered a friendly “join us” hand to the Democrats on numerous occasions and tastefully recited the usual planks that every president utters when standing behind the central podium in the House Chamber. Trump even went out of his way to touch on diversity themes as well, including highlighting the historically improved employment figures among American black and Hispanic populations.

Unfortunately Trump also took pains to trample on his anti-amnesty campaign pledge from 2016, all-but stating he now prefers to not only legalize but offer the precious gift of United States citizenship to the so-called “Dreamers” -- the kids of illegal aliens who jumped the border in years passed and are now just as “undocumented” as they were when they arrived here.

Republicans politely applauded but it’s hard to gather where everyone stands on the proposal.

All the while Democrats sat and looked on dejectedly appearing as catatonic and annoyed as grown adults possibly could when dressed in business attire. If they’d acted like that as kids in grade school they would’ve earned a rap on the wrist from the schoolmaster’s yardstick, or perhaps more appropriately a timeout for their impolite sulking tantrums and a trip to the principal’s office for a lecture on respect.

Democrats couldn’t even bring themselves to applaud the mention of simple cultural norms like standing for the national anthem or Trump’s suggestion that “Americans are ‘dreamers’ too”. In behaving so badly Democrats established themselves as a party that either receives a pre-determined guarantee of victory or they don’t show up to play the game.

By now it’s no secret that Democrats don’t like Donald Trump but what is becoming increasingly clear is they despise anything related to the concept of American nationalism and putting American citizens’ interests before those of foreigners – including, of course, those who broke the law to come here and remain on U.S. soil without official sanction from the same government Democrats swore to serve.

Never before has it been so unmistakable that elections have consequences. If Hillary Clinton had been successful in turning her narrow popular vote plurality into 270 electoral votes on Election Day 2016 then things would be very different in America right now. The Democrats banked on a sure Clinton victory and when they didn’t get it, they panicked.

The intelligence community (or “deep state”) is particularly off-put by current reality. As the emerging evidence shows federal officers did all they could in the months leading up to the vote to help Clinton win the election, clearly anticipating that any wrongdoing committed in pursuit of Democrat victory would never be investigated or prosecuted under a grateful Democrat’s reign.

Victor Davis Hanson wrote at National Review, “Had Hillary Clinton polled ten points behind Donald Trump in early 2016, we’d have none of these scandals — not because those involved were moral actors (none were), but because Hillary would have been considered yesterday’s damaged goods and not worth any extra-legal exposure taken on her behalf.

“Similarly, if the clear front-runner Hillary Clinton had won the election, we’d now have no scandals. Again, the reason is not that she and her careerist enablers did not engage in scandalous behavior, but that such foul play would have been recalibrated as rewardable fealty and absorbed into the folds of the progressive deep state.

“The only mystery in these sordid scandals is how a president Hillary Clinton would have rewarded her various appendages. In short, how would a President Clinton have calibrated the many rewards for any-means-necessary help?”

As an example of potential “rewards” Hanson suggested Loretta Lynch might have stayed on as Attorney General and Andrew McCabe would’ve taken James Comey’s place after the former (now fired) FBI Director took over at the CIA. In those positions of power no congressional investigatory body could’ve touched the “fix” perpetrated by the deep state in favor of Crooked Hillary. Any hint of scandal would’ve consequently been buried so deep that Monica Lewinsky herself probably would be found sleeping on top of it.

Fortunately for Americans the people saw fit to prevent another Clinton presidency and the truth is slowly coming to light. For his part President Trump appears to be onboard with releasing to the public the now famous House memo detailing the Obama Justice Department’s FISA Court abuses. Through extensive discussion and plentiful clues we already have a pretty good idea of what’s contained in the memo – with the only question remaining being how many more higher-up heads are gonna roll.

Will it ever be enough? It appears that the FBI’s rank and file is made up of mostly good public servants who take their oaths seriously, but the brain trust at the top levels is corrupt to the hilt. President Trump would do well to completely clean house – one can only imagine the fury from Democrats if that were to happen.

Despite the overwhelmingly positive impression from Tuesday night’s speech there were some elements – in addition to his call for amnesty – that were potentially troubling to conservatives. Take for example the enormous price tag the president mentioned for his proposed infrastructure overhaul.

It even caught some Republicans by surprise. Susan Ferrechio of the Washington Examiner reported, “President Trump surprised House and Senate lawmakers in his State of the Union address Tuesday by announcing a proposal to spend $1.5 trillion on the nation’s crumbling infrastructure — a half trillion more than the GOP had anticipated.

“’The $1.5 trillion kind of sucked the oxygen out of the room,’ Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., said as he exited the House chamber after Trump’s address…

“The infrastructure bill puts the GOP in a political quandary because of the cost, and raising the price will make it even harder to achieve, lawmakers worried Tuesday.”

$1.5 trillion is a staggering amount; by comparison the 2018 defense budget is just under $700 billion, so Trump is essentially recommending to spend double what the military receives in a year (of course the timeframe of the infrastructure package could be spread out over several years).

No one disputes that the nation’s roads, bridges and airports couldn’t use a massive upgrade but it shouldn’t be forgotten the country already devotes billions and billions to the construction, care and upkeep of such things. Every so often we hear of bridges collapsing or of giant potholes developing on freeways but for the most part America’s engineers do an excellent job of keeping us on the roads, train tracks and airways with an exceptional (considering the scale) safety record.

Gasoline taxes are already quite high in certain states – any federal levies on top of those will only hurt the poorest residents. In addition it goes without saying that a tremendous amount of transportation money is wasted by state bureaucracies like in my home state of California, with an excessive number of management types with benefits and pensions to match.

For every guy with a shovel actually working on a project there’s a bureaucrat holed up in an office hundreds of miles away drawing a fat paycheck and counting the days until retirement with full pay. And we haven’t even delved into the subject of public employee unions yet.

Obama’s “shovel ready” stimulus plan didn’t do much to improve the situation; it turned out to be a huge slush fund for unions and other Democrat constituencies. Having Trump behind a new infrastructure package would certainly be reassuring but needless to say we must hear more about the “partnering with private sources” details behind the idea to feel good about it.

The overall tone of Trump’s speech was conservative but it’s clear the president believes government can have a hand in solving all problems. He’s a good manager but his big government push is hardly reassuring. Does it mean the Republicans’ Tea Party spirit has completely waned?

Jonah Goldberg observed at National Review, “[T]he most striking thing about the speech was how much it fell into an almost Trumpian version of compassionate conservatism — as if the tea parties had never existed. This was for the most part a conservative speech culturally and thematically. But except for some laudable bits about streamlining the bureaucracy and improving FDA policy, there wasn’t a hint of fiscal conservatism to it.

“Trump wants a huge increase in infrastructure spending and an end to the sequester for military spending, but he never mentioned the debt or deficit. Well, there was one mention of the word ‘deficit’ — the ‘infrastructure deficit.’ And he endorsed a new entitlement — paid family leave — while failing to mention any effort to reform the existing entitlements.

“I’m not sure it matters politically. But I’m pretty sure it does economically and philosophically.”

For once I agree with #NeverTrumper Goldberg who, to his credit, offered a very fair assessment of Trump’s address. Gone are the days when Republicans regularly talked about reducing the size and (to some extent) scope of government. Conservatives must continue to work towards electing more conservatives – maybe then limited government will make a comeback.

Trump’s State of the Union address wasn’t perfect but it deserved a better reception from roughly half of those in attendance. Democrats didn’t do themselves any favors by acting like spoiled children in front of the whole world. Americans aren’t unified – but the right side is winning.

Share this