Share This Article with a Friend!

Assault on America, Day 334: Democrats should realize a bad candidate isn’t better than none

Trump and Troops
It's often said that even a bad decision is better than none at all, but the old saying was certainly formulated long before the originator had an opportunity to assess the qualities -- or lack thereof -- of the 2020 Democrat presidential field.

It’s December now, roughly two months before the first votes are cast in the Democrat presidential primary race (in Iowa on February 3). The party’s congressional delegation is still sending signals that Democrats intend to impeach and try to remove President Donald Trump over a purported (but certainly not proved by witness testimony) quid pro quo with Ukraine, asserting the Oval Office occupant sought to fix the 2020 election in advance by leaning on the eastern European country (and Russia’s neighbor and enemy) to investigate his would-be opponent Joe Biden.

Facts matter in such circumstances -- and so does public opinion -- and the Democrats are coming up hopelessly short in both respects.

The grand spectacle in Washington has dragged the spotlight away from the campaign trail and held it hostage, which somewhat shielded the Democrat competitors from the type of scrutiny and vetting that normally goes on every four years when the party out of power moves to anoint their next presidential nominee. It’s also served to benefit race frontrunner Joe Biden, who’s maintained a healthy national polling lead since he officially announced in late April.

Seven-plus months is an eternity in American politics and, though the overall contest hasn’t changed all that much, the dynamics certainly have. Biden is seemingly cruising along, but below the surface there’s potential for his campaign to self-destruct big-time. Grampa Joe can’t screen his son Hunter’s dirty and embarrassing exploits forever. Will the sins of the son -- and of the father who surreptitiously greased the monetary wheels for his son -- come back to bite them?

Time will tell. For now, Elizabeth “Pocahontas” Warren is experiencing a bit of her own campaign implosion, the product of an incredibly annoying personality, noticeable lack of substance and most damaging of all, a credibility deficit. “Vodkapundit” Stephen Green observed at PJ Media that because of Warren’s precipitous recent drop, liberal Democrats are basically down to a choice between Bernie Sanders and sleazy, sleepy Joe Biden. Green wrote, “[I]f you're a concerned progressive (is there any other kind?) you're pretty much left with Pete Buttigieg, Bernie Sanders, or Elizabeth Warren. You fear that Mayor Pete can't win the nomination, because of his very real problem with black voters. So now you're down to Sanders and Warren.

“Warren hits all the right buttons: She's female, she may or may not be some kind of minority, she wants to tax the bejeebus out of rich people, and she supports Medicare for All. And at a mere 70 years old, she's in the middle age bracket of your party's potential nominees. What's not to love?

“Well... there's that secret fear, that nagging itch, that in her tone and composure Liz Warren might be a little too much like Hillary Clinton to beat Trump. And you can't have that -- not again! … That leaves Bernie.”

The most “progressive” of Democrats would never liken “The Bern” to a decision between a bad candidate and nothing, but are they being honest here? In his article, Green pointed out that “Pocahontas” has receded terribly since her early October polling apex. The Real Clear Politics average showed Liz besting Biden by .2 points (26.6 to 26.4) on October 7. In the nearly two months since, Warren’s trend has steadily waned. Now she’s at a shade under 16 points, over a ten-point freefall in those intervening weeks.

Why? Probably a multitude of reasons. Impeachment kicked into full throttle just as Warren reached her high ebb, which sucked much of the air out of the Democrat presidential race balloon. She was no longer one of the leading Trump critics when Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff embarked on their officially sanctioned Trump-hunt.  Plus, Democrat voters simply got bored with her.

“Pocahontas” now exhibits all the signs of a traditional flash-in-the-pan candidate, one who appeared to appeal to all the right Democrat constituencies searching for an alternative to the doddering and physically faltering Biden. Joe’s hardly enjoyed a great popularity surge since October (he’s about a half point higher now), but Democrats are still struggling with Warren’s perceived electability shortfall. The Massachusetts senator won’t satisfactorily explain her Medicare for All proposal or how the government would ever pay for it. And her “I have a plan for that” agenda’s been overstretched to the extent where even cost-ignorant Democrats are seeing future red ink in epic proportions.

In contrast, as Bernie says on every occasion possible, “I wrote the damn [Medicare for All] bill.” “Pocahontas” has her wealth tax, which Democrats must enjoy and appreciate, but she’s not nearly as skilled at bashing billionaires, corporations and anyone with means as Sanders is. Brash Bernie isn’t the least bit reticent to look filthy rich folks (like fellow Democrat candidates Tom Steyer and Michael Bloomberg) in the eye and tell them they shouldn’t exist. Or that their fortunes must be confiscated from them to make it fair for those on the lower rungs of the economic ladder who aren’t nearly as self-assured that they’ll have a roof over their heads the next day.

That’s socialism in a nutshell. Instead of tasking government with creating conditions whereby more people can become billionaires -- or to trust the free market to accomplish the feat on its own -- Democrats strive to take the existing wealthy class, cut them down to size and redistribute their superfluous stocks, bonds, Ferraris, diamond jewelry and mansions until they’re just as destitute as everyone else! As far as I know there’s never been a billionaire on the street begging for spare change or holding up a convenience store at gunpoint, but Bernie -- and “Pocahontas” want to make us all the same!

Likewise, rich people don’t erect tents wherever they find an open public spot or celebrate the coming of each day with a needle in their veins. Not to disparage the legitimate poor and people with substance abuse issues (or the mentally ill), but much of this country’s homeless problem is attributable to individuals who just don’t want to be part of society. That’s their choice -- and we don’t need Warren and Bernie shaming the rest of us for desiring to keep taxes low, regulations and restrictions to a minimum and government to its smallest practicable size.

In contrast, socialists would love it if everyone was poor, there was no food on supermarket shelves, people bought and sold stuff on the black market to obtain luxuries and the jackboot of government rested comfortably on everyone’s neck. In such a leftist utopia, no one speaks out for fear of reprisal or imprisonment from the powerful and citizens live in holy terror of possessing too many goodies…unless you’re a member of the ruling elites, that is.

As far as Democrats are concerned, Bernie and “Pocahontas” combined still command a solid third of the primary vote. If you throw in those backing “Mayor Pete” Buttigieg, Kamala Harris and Andrew Yang, you have over 50 percent who aren’t wild about Joe Biden. As is the case every party nominating cycle, when candidates begin dropping out their backers migrate to other candidates. Well, Warren is still the highest ranking “second choice” candidate. So, who knows, maybe she’s not completely out of the running yet.

What appears to be emerging from the polling numbers is a Democrat electorate extremely uneasy about the party’s direction. Remember, the old saying goes that even a bad decision is better than none at all. It’s almost like liberal voters would prefer a “none of the above” option in 2020 because Biden is so shaky, Bernie is so old and kooky, “Pocahontas” isn’t trustworthy, “Mayor Pete” is too young and untried -- and the rest are milquetoast, uninspiring, or excessively angry (Kamala Harris?).

Having Michael Bloomberg and Deval Patrick enter the race in the past couple weeks hasn’t improved the party outlook much either. Bloomberg could’ve made a splash six months ago but chose to sit it out and see how the others handled the pressure. He’s too late to the game to get a foothold now. Meanwhile, Patrick is too unknown, even if he is Obama’s buddy and shares similar political characteristics and talents with the former president.

Speaking of Obama, he’s back in the news bashing on Trump’s presidential proficiency again. Madison Dibble reported at The Washington Examiner, “The former president hoped that he would be able to guide Trump after his first meeting with him following the 2016 election. According to a report on the encounter from Politico, Obama thought Trump knew very little about how to run the country.

“He told a White House visitor after his first meeting with Trump, ‘He knows absolutely nothing.’ ...

“Those close to Obama claimed he ‘held out hope’ that Trump would call on him for advice while navigating the presidency. His first post-presidential press secretary claimed Obama ‘didn’t expect’ Trump to continue to attack him after he left office. ‘He wanted to be a resource,’ Kevin Lewis explained. ‘What we didn’t expect at the level that it was done were the attacks.’”

Huh? What did Obama want to be a “resource” for… lessons on how to fail as president? Who can blame Trump for rejecting Obama’s vast intellectual expertise for restraining the economy, conducting feckless and ineffective foreign policy, dividing the country culturally to the point where we can’t even talk to each other, laying the groundwork for sanctuary cities and states, allowing NATO members to continue to shirk their financial commitments, tolerating China’s walking all over us with trade imbalances and cheating, choking off energy production expansion and last but not least (had to end somewhere), permitting the “climate change” lobby to steer the economic ship?

Trump came to the White House bent on draining the swamp and changing the political direction of the country, not to follow in Obama’s uneven footsteps. If you were Trump, would you have kept Obama in the loop and gone to him for advice on how to do things? Wouldn’t Obama have then ran to his deep state pals and undermined the president?

As far as “knowing nothing” upon entering the presidency, if true, maybe it was good for Trump. The New York outsider hadn’t already been coopted by the ruling elites, didn’t care about pleasing the GOP establishment, was resistant to taking counsel from the old guard and determined to reverse much of the enormous amount of damage his predecessor had caused.

And the results have been pretty darn positive. Americans are working, richer and happy.

Unlike Obama, President Trump has shown that a bad decision isn’t superior to none at all. Trump knew if he simply trusted the American people to make their own choices and dissolved the shackles of government oversight, that folks would prosper. Could any of the 2020 Democrats deliver the same? No chance.

Share this

What did he expect?

I wonder what Obama is thinking, if he thought himself and Trump would get along after the election. I think this is him living in an alternate reality where Spygate didn't happen; his henchmen weren't spying and attempting to sabotage Trump's campaign. I thought Obama had it in for Trump personally. In 2011, Trump became the face of the birther movement, which Michelle Obama indicated was a sore spot for her. We know that Obama didn't like or respect Mitt Romney, his 2012 opponent, so imagine what he thought of Trump. I think it was personal, that's why he and his team pulled out all the stops to get Hillary over the top. Trump found out about this 2 months into his presidency, the "shock" tweets where he's calling Obama sick and saying he was spied on. The big deception is that a lot of people out there still dispute that Spygate happened. Wikipedia has it characterized as a "conspiracy theory" (I've stopped donating to them once I realized they are all in against Trump). Because the media has worked to cover that up, Obama can look like a victim because the mean Orange Man keeps attacking him and his legacy. Just recall all the times before the election, where Obama asserted that Trump would not be president. Why so confident? Then the headline from Politico: "Obama meets his nemesis" (after the election). Obama hated Trump. As far as "knowing nothing" about being president, that can be said of many of the presidents that have taken office. Certainly Obama himself "knew nothing" when he took over. Bush 43 had class and did not try to embarrass Obama over what he may not have known on Day 1. What's gotta be bugging Obama is that Trump is actually doing the "change" that Obama promised all those years ago. Obama didn't change Washington. He gave up after two years. When he wasn't using his "pen" and "phone" (for executive orders), he was golfing. On the other hand, Trump found the "magic wand," got the economy going, brought back manufacturing, renegotiated trade deals, getting the Wall built, pushing forward on the agenda that got him elected. Obama said none of that could happen. So what is his advice worth? Who wants to learn the art of unenforced "red lines," or how to fold in negotiations to give enemies like Iran what they want?