Share This Article with a Friend!


Assault on America, Day 377: Are they serious? Will Bernie Sanders really win in Iowa?

Sanders and Iowa
“It all makes sense now!” It was all about the debate…!

Who knows if it’s the true rationale, but as I was contemplating what tonight’s Democrat debate would be like, a thought came to me like a flash in the night -- the reason why Speaker Nancy Pelosi sat on the House’s articles of impeachment all this time is… she did it to maneuver Mitch McConnell and the senate! San Fran Nan’s been doing the manipulating already, of course, but probably not for the causes she’s specified to the press.

How, then? Well, if Pelosi had sent the impeachment articles over as she was supposed to do, McConnell, being the upper chamber’s Majority Leader, could’ve set the trial for anytime he wanted. “The Turtle,” “Grim Reaper” or whatever Mitch is called at the moment, could easily have rigged the trial to maximize a multi-car pile-up on the Democrat presidential race freeway, which surely could’ve included scheduling an evening hearing for tonight, which would’ve preempted the final candidates debate prior to the Iowa caucuses on February 3!

No Bernie Sanders? No Liz Warren? No Amy Klobuchar? Imagine it… Now wipe the smile off your face.

What good fun it would’ve been! But now the debate will go forward as intended at Drake University in Des Moines, the Democrat presidential hopefuls will get two more nationally televised hours (9 p.m. EST on CNN, moderated by CNN's Wolf Blitzer and Abby Phillip as well as The Des Moines Register's Brianne Pfannenstiel) to state and restate their well-established socialistic and otherwise unrealistic positions, and the Democrat senators won’t be bothered a bit by the upcoming trial (assuming there is one).

Prepare yourself for a very white affair in Des Moines, and we’re not talking about snow. A number of Democrats complained last month’s debate lacked minority representation and tonight’s will be even more pale-faced. The qualifying contestants are, current Iowa polling leader Sen. Bernie Sanders, South Bend, Indiana “Mayor Pete” Buttigieg, national leader Joe Biden, Sen. Elizabeth “Pocahontas” Warren, Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar and, as a last minute qualifier, ultra-rich environmental-obsessed billionaire Tom Steyer.

It certainly looks like the only minority face in the entire program will be Abby Phillip’s (of CNN), so expect the race-is-everything Democrats to practically mount her on stage to give it a little dose of color. To provide a token of perspective, in 2016, Republicans had one black candidate, (Ben Carson) and two Hispanics (Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz) heading into the Iowa caucuses. And they say Republicans are the racist party?

According to the Washington Post, the Democrat National Committee’s debate qualification criteria after tonight’s forum may or may not include a prerequisite for small donors, the removal of which could pave the way for yet another pasty white face -- New York billionaire Michael Bloomberg -- to appear in the next round. Bloomberg is self-funding his longshot bid -- this means no donations -- and would therefore not come close to any grassroots fundraising standard.

Imagine the fireworks on stage if DNC Chairman Tom Perez caves on the small donor mandate this late in the game to accommodate Bloomberg -- Bernie Sanders might just have another coronary right there in full view while griping and moaning about the influence of billionaires in politics. For added effect, Democrats could position Sanders -- and Elizabeth Warren, another too-much-money-in-politics hypocrite -- between Steyer and Bloomberg. All the moderators would need to do is toss them a bone, and let the fireworks show commence!

Who knows, a nasty confrontation might inject some excitement into the otherwise dull and boring party race. For now, Sanders appears primed to pull a double in Iowa and New Hampshire, where he holds narrow leads in both locales. Perhaps because of it, President Donald Trump’s campaign increased its well-warranted jabs on the enemy-appeasing, socialism-loving Sanders.

Jonathan Easley reported at The Hill, “The Trump campaign is stepping up its attacks on Bernie Sanders, a reflection of the Vermont senator’s momentum in the race for the Democratic nomination and his sharp criticism of a U.S. military strike against an Iran official that has provoked turmoil in the Middle East…

“Earlier in the week, the Trump campaign attacked Sanders as a ‘wealthy, fossil fuel-guzzling millionaire’ who ‘lectures Americans on how to live their lives while doing the exact opposite.’ That statement also described Sanders as the ‘Democrats’ leading candidate for president,’ highlighting the Vermont senator’s improved position in a tight race for the nomination.

“Among some Trump allies, there is a level of respect for Sanders, who they view as having built an outsider movement in the same vein as Trump despite receiving unfair treatment from the media and the national party.”

Some comparisons are warranted here. Both Trump and Sanders are what conservative icon Richard Viguerie labeled “message carrier” candidates, namely those who don’t closely toe the establishment party line and wouldn’t consult with or crawl to the elites when in power. They’re no Mitt Romney, put it that way. As president, Trump has been as good as he promised in terms of doing what he felt was best for the country regardless of the ever-cautious ruling class telling him to hold back on policy positions such as moving the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem or meeting face-to-face with North Korean strongman Kim Jong-un.

Sanders does possess some Trump-like qualities. The nearly octogenarian Vermont senator does speak truth to power -- or more aptly shouts truth to power -- and draws followers through employing simple language and frames his agenda in easy to understand terms. Sanders has become notorious of late for saying there should be no such thing as billionaires in America, which does more than suggest he’d tax the stuffing out of the top echelon of earnings.

The comparisons end there, as Sanders is about as extreme a candidate as the Democrats have ever produced, which is saying a lot. A Sanders presidency would bring about wholesale changes to the tradition-oriented United States and open up the country to an invasion of illegal aliens as well as embolden enemies to nitpick and assault our interests overseas. The recent Trump-ordered drone strike on heinous Iranian terrorist Qasem Soleimani is a prime example of where philosophical departures would meet reality.

Based on Democrats’ criticisms of Trump’s bold move, Soleimani’s ticker would still be beating strong if one of them were in the White House instead of the Republican. And he’d be plotting further strikes against Americans using the cash stores the evil Iran regime “negotiated” away from the overly-compliant Barack Obama and John Kerry. It’s also likely Sanders wouldn’t make our NATO allies pay their fair share for their defense, and we all know how much “The Bern” loves Russia and the old Soviet Union.

Bernie’s domestic program, if implemented, would essentially end America as we know it. Sanders is every bit as kooky for “climate change” as Steyer is, which means from day one he would place regulatory shackles on the burgeoning and thriving energy industry, effectively throwing tens of thousands -- if not millions -- out of work. To be fair, every Democrat, even supposed “moderate” Joe Biden, has basically sworn a similar greenie oath. But we know Sanders is just nutty enough to go through with it.

Easley’s article reported that Republicans feel confident that if Sanders ends up the nominee, his more extreme utterances from his decades-long political career will reveal his true socialist self and make him practically unelectable. Some in the GOP are also afraid “The Bern” could compete with Trump for the affections of the white working class, though this is probably of less concern because of Sanders’ ultra-liberal positions on gun control and other issues the group cares about en masse.

The Trump Democrats (once fondly referred to as Reagan Democrats) have changed a lot in recent times, becoming a fairly reliable Republican vote. They’re the “bitter clingers” and “deplorables” as condescendingly synopsized by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Here’s thinking Bernie Sanders wouldn’t appeal to the demographic in large enough numbers to matter nationally, but he could impact certain midwestern swing states such as Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan.

Because of Bernie’s frontrunner status in the early voting states (and solid second place showing nationally), Sanders will likely be the most frequently assaulted target in tonight’s debate. Biden enjoys a near double-digit lead over Sanders (nationally) and an even greater margin over third-place Warren, but the numbers will fluctuate somewhat after Iowa and New Hampshire (they always do). Buttigieg’s national polling figures aren’t great, but strong finishes in the early states will definitely bolster him.   

One topic Democrats will likely be asked to address but will try their best to avoid is the unemployment rate and how it’s reached historic lows in the presidency of Donald Trump. How could they hope to get around it? Matt Margolis wrote at PJ Media, “With the latest unemployment statistics in, we can see that Trump has presided over the lowest average unemployment rate of any president  (at the same point in their presidency) in recorded history. Philip Klein of the Washington Examiner notes, ‘Since February 2017, Trump's first full month in office, the monthly unemployment rate has averaged 3.9%. No prior president has averaged less than 4% over the first 35 months of his presidency. The closest was Dwight Eisenhower, when the rate averaged 4.3% between February 1953 and December 1955.’

“Modern unemployment statistics began in 1948, so the analysis only includes presidents back to Dwight Eisenhower. This analysis, according to Klein, illustrates ‘the unprecedented nature of this consistently low level of unemployment,’ but notes that ‘this statistic isn't predictive of the election outcome.’”

Tonight’s Democrat candidates wish it isn’t predictive of an election outcome, or they’re facing an even more arduous uphill climb to defeat Trump. No president -- including Trump -- deserves all the credit or blame for economic conditions, but the current chief executive definitely warrants kudos for his policy choices that have kept a good thing going strong.

It doesn’t take a genius to figure that cutting taxes, regulations and overburdensome restrictions would engender a positive economic result, and that’s exactly what Trump’s done. Slicing the corporate tax alone likely made a huge difference in national employment outlooks.

It's a no brainer -- if people have more money, they’re going to use it (to save, spend or invest). Incomes are rising in America at all levels, particularly at the bottom. Trump merits congratulations, not condemnation, censure and impeachment.

Tonight’s seventh Democrat debate will probably be much like the previous six editions, only even whiter and more contentious. The dividing line between the liberal candidates is clearer than ever and the top tier is digging-in for a final push to Iowa. Will Bernie blow a gasket tonight? We all want to know.

Share this