Please note that you can leave a comment on any of our posts at our Facebook page.  Subscribers can also comment at length at our Angel's Corner Forum.

JULY 10,  2018

SHORT TAKES ON THE DRIFTING WRECKAGE – AT 11:55 P.M. ET: 

CYNTHIA, NOT DICK – FROM THE NEW YORK POST:  Cynthia Nixon on Tuesday proudly proclaimed herself a democratic socialist.  The actress-turned-candidate for governor explicitly embraced the democratic socialist label for the first time in a statement provided to Politico.  “Yes. Some more establishment, corporate Democrats get very scared by this term but if democratic socialism means that you believe health care, housing, education and the things we need to thrive should be a basic right not a privilege then count me in,” Nixon said in the statement.  Nixon, who is backed by the left-leaning Working Families Party, is challenging two-term incumbent Gov. Andrew Cuomo in the Sept. 13 primary.  Another genius.

THE CHICKEN WINGS PLOT – FROM COLLEGE FIX:  Have you ever watched two men devour spicy chicken wings and been so affected by the absence of women that you wrote an academic paper about it?  If not, then you’re not as enlightened as the University of Tulsa’s Emily J.H. Contois.  The professor of media studies apparently sees toxic masculinity at work in the popular YouTube show Hot Ones, whose host and celebrity guest each eat a plate of hot wings “dressed with hot sauces of increasing intensity.”  Her research “examines how media representations of food, cooking, and dieting construct and negotiate masculinities in our current historical moment,” and Contois’s paper in Feminist Media Studies sees dark forces at work in the three-year-old web series produced by First We Feast.  I've worried about this, too.   You can never be too careful. 

BE OPTIMISTIC – FROM DAILYWIRE:  The two woman GOP senators who seemed recalcitrant about supporting President Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court are hinting they will be fine supporting Trump’s actual nominee, Judge Brett Kavanaugh.  According to Politico, Lisa Murkowski (R-AL) and Susan Collins (R-ME) were far less confrontational after Trump’s announcement Monday night than they had been with the possibility of Judge Amy Coney Barrett joining the Court.  Murkowski allowed, “Let’s put it this way: There were some who have been on the list that I would have had a very, very difficult time supporting, just based on what was already publicly known about them. We’re not dealing with that.”  Collins said she wouldn’t compare Kavanaugh to Barrett, then added, “It will be very difficult for anyone to argue that he’s not qualified for the job. He clearly is qualified for the job. But there are other issues involving judicial temperament and his political or rather his judicial philosophy that also will play into my decision.”  I think we're making progress.  Rational senators should be embarrassed if a man like Brett Kavanaugh cannot be confirmed.

July 10,  2018     Permalink

AND THEY'RE LOOKING AT THEIR PATHETIC CANDIDATES, TOO – AT 12:56 P.M. ET:   Yes, it's true.  Some Democrats are actually interested in finding a presidential candidate for 2020 who can actually win an election.  They are rare.  Some may be in museums.  A number are in cemeteries.  Maybe there's someone walkin' around.  From The Hill: 

Can Elizabeth Warren win back blue-collar Democrats from President Trump in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania?

It’s a question many Democrats are pondering as Warren — one of the leading contenders for her party’s presidential nomination, if she chooses to run in 2020 — goes back and forth with the president over immigration and other issues.

Warren (D-Mass.) has shown an ability to rally and excite progressives, she’s a proven fundraiser and she has policy bona fides from her work in the Senate.

Yet there are creeping doubts among some Democrats that she’s the best candidate to take on Trump.

Some worry the former Harvard professor will have a tough time winning back the Rust Belt centrists and independents who abandoned Hillary Clinton and Democrats for Trump.

“I just can’t see a blue-collar, Rust Belt guy voting for her,” said one Democratic strategist who has worked on presidential campaigns. “I think the party needs to be realistic about that.”

Some Democrats almost certainly remain shellshocked from the last election after Trump’s surprise win. He became the first Republican to win the states of Pennsylvania and Michigan in a presidential election since 1988 and the first Republican to win Wisconsin since President Reagan in 1984.

If Democrats don’t retake those states in 2020, their chances of winning the Electoral College will fall.

Teeth-gnashing over who is best-positioned to take on Trump, as a result, is already taking place ahead of the midterm elections.

Warren’s gender and her political identity as a voice on the left are both likely to be issues for primary voters sizing up Democratic candidates in potential head-to-head matchups with Trump.

Would she be stronger than former Vice President Joe Biden? What about Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)? Does the party need the face of a new political generation, such as Sens. Kamala Harris (Calif.), Cory Booker (N.J.) or Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.)?

Warren has her advocates, who say the senator’s anti-corporate economic message will resonate with the types of voters who left the party for Trump.

COMMENT:  No it won't.  First, Trump's message wasn't anti-corporate.  It was "pro you."  Trump, with all his wealth, knew his voters.   He knew what they'd experienced.  He knew their fears.  Hillary Clinton not only didn't know them, she referred to them as "deplorables," the word that may have cost her the election.

Has Elizabeth Warren ever met anyone outside her group?  I doubt it.

There's a wonderful story told by Doris Kearns Goodwin (and other historians) about the day FDR died.  A reporter saw a soldier at the White House gate, just looking at the presidential mansion, with tears in his eyes.  The reporter asked the soldier, "Did you know him?"  "No," the soldier replied, "but he knew me."

And that's what wins elections.  That connection.  That ability to reach people inside.

Elizabeth Warren?  I don't think so.  And you can throw in Kamala Harris and our own local candidate, Kirsten Gillibrand.  They're faculty lounge, not the local eatery.

July 10, 2018       Permalink

THE MORNING AFTER – AT 12:18 P.M. ET:  What an amusing morning, going over the reactions to the president's nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the high court.  I say, send free bottles of Zoloft to those on the left who just can't control the depth of their emotions. 

Actually, I have noticed a bit of thought on the part of some Dems.  True, it's a trifle, like the weak heartbeat of a very sick guy, but it's something.  And some Dems are showing at least a slice of common sense.  Maybe they watched a Netflix documentary of the Democratic Party of Roosevelt, Truman, and Kennedy.  From The Hill: 

Senate Democratic candidates are breaking with progressives who are calling for the abolishment of ICE.

The push to nix Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has gained steam among the party’s resurgent liberal base in response President Trump’s immigration policies that led to the separation of thousands of immigrant families along the U.S.-Mexico border.

House candidate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez brought the issue into the national spotlight with her shocking defeat of Rep. Joseph Crowley (D) in last month’s New York primary. And some of the party’s 2020 presidential hopefuls, including Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.) and Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), have rallied behind the effort to dismantle ICE.

But Democratic candidates locked in tight races that will likely determine which party controls the Senate next year are stopping short of embracing the idea as they try to win over moderate voters.
“No, I don’t think we should,” Sen. Bill Nelson (Fla.), a vulnerable Democrat seeking reelection, said on Monday when asked if he agreed with calls to abolish ICE.

And it’s not just Senate incumbents who are unwilling to commit to scrapping the agency.
Rep. Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.), a progressive lawmaker hoping to defeat Sen. Dean Heller (R), isn’t endorsing the push to abolish ICE.

When asked about the issue on Monday, a spokeswoman for her campaign pointed to a recent CNN interview, where Rosen said ICE “does a lot of other things people don’t realize,” and Congress should instead “ask the president to stop his reckless and harmful policies right now.”

A spokesperson for Rep. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.), who’s running to fill the seat being vacated by GOP Sen. Jeff Flake, didn’t respond to a request for comment on Monday. But the Democratic Senate hopeful told an Arizona TV station last week that getting rid of ICE “isn’t realistic and doesn’t make sense.”

COMMENT:  Well, it's a start, I guess.  But these voices of caution will probably be shouted down pretty quickly over their political treason.  The party has become frightening.

July 10,  2018     Permalink

JULY 9,  2018

SHORT TAKES ON THE DRIFTING WRECKAGE – AT 11:55 P.M. ET:

AMERICAN REALITY – FROM FOX:   Protests turned tense at the steps of the Supreme Court Monday night after President Trump chose Judge Brett Kavanaugh to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy.
Some protesters were screaming back and forth at each other amid a heavy law-enforcement presence.
Pro-choice activists held purple signs reading “Protect Roe” and “Don’t Criminalize Abortion.” Others chanted: “Kavanaugh has got to go!” Others shouted into bullhorns, “abortion is violence” and “uphold the Constitution of the United States of America.”  Democratic leaders such as New York Democrat Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand and Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., attended to speak to the crowd -- and occasionally were drowned out by the activists.  You can be sure Kirsten Gillibrand, our senator, showed up.  She's the greatest opportunist in the Senate.  The demonstrations are a symbol of what's to come – a thoroughly debased confirmation process dominated by the loudest voices.  Kavanaugh is a quality nominee, and should be confirmed.

CIVIC VIRTUE – FROM FOX:   Fans of “The Bachelorette” took to Twitter ahead of President Trump's Supreme Court announcement to complain that the breaking news will interrupt the reality dating show.
The competition typically runs on Mondays from 8 p.m. to 10 p.m. EST — but Trump is expected to reveal his nominee for the nation's highest court at 9 p.m.   “Can he just tweet it? I don’t want this cutting into The Bachelorette tonight,” one person complained.   A Twitter user claimed, "If they interrupt The Bachelorette for Trump’s Supreme Court nomination then I am 100% done with this country."  Please leave.

CLASS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD – FROM CNS:    On Sunday, Netflix aired a “Salute to Abortion,” hosted by “comedian” Michelle Wolf, who closed the segment with a star-spangled, flag-waving, drum corps declaration: “God bless abortion!”  On her weekly Netflix program, “The Break with Michelle Wolf,” Wolf used Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy’s announced retirement to tout abortion rights and demean pro-life Americans..."  Such taste.  When you don't have talent or intelligence, I guess this is what you do.

July 9,  2018     Permalink

THE CHOICE – AT 9:40 P.M. ET:  The president announced his nomination of Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh to be an associate justice of the United States Supreme Court. 

Judge Kavanaugh currently serves on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia circuit, the most influential federal appeals court in the country.   The judge has often been described as the most influential appellate judge serving right now. 

He is a conservative.  It is a quality appointment.  In his acceptance speech, Judge Kavanaugh acquitted himself with dignity and intelligence.  I was happy to see that he proudly described his participation in religious life.   He is a practicing Catholic. 

None of Judge Kavanaugh's brilliance and intelligence will matter to the already hysterical Democratic opposition.  They are opposed.  They would be opposed to Solomon himself.  Chuck Schumer, whose job as leader of Senate Democrats is already in doubt because he's seen by the lunatic fringe as too moderate, was on the attack even before Mr. Trump announced the name of his selection.  Chuck pictured a dark day for America.  We are doomed.  We are going right to Hell.  This is worse than the Civil War.

The fun begins tomorrow when the judge makes his rounds.  The focus will be on two Republican female senators, Collins of Maine, and Murkowski of Alaska, who could be wobbly on confirmation if they think Kavanaugh will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.  Attention will also focus on Rand Paul, who has some objection to Kavanaugh, but, I suspect, will come through at the end.  And then there are the Democrats who are up this year for re-election in states that voted heavily for Trump.  Can they really vote against a man like Kavanaugh and win their races?  That may be the key political question of the next four months.

Stand by for a tough confirmation.  But I am optimistic.  The White House has been preparing for the fight.  I think the Dems will overplay their hand, and many will wind up at clinics seeking treatment for self-imposed depression.

July 9, 2018       Permalink

THOSE TOUGH KOREAN TALKS – AT 1:25 P.M. ET:   We knew the talks with North Korea would be tough, and that's the way things have turned out.  The session between Secretary Pompeo and the Norks several days ago was bumpy.  Talks with North Korea always has been.  President Trump is hoping for a breakthrough, which is what drove him to arrange a summit with North Korea's leader, Kim Jung Un.  Now for the hard part.

The Trump haters are rejoicing that the first real negotiating session was tough.  Anything to discredit the president.  These are the same haters who had no problem at all with President Obama's foreign policy of endless concessions.  That policy is over.  From Fox: 

President Trump suggested Monday that China could be “exerting negative pressure” on North Korea to stray from the denuclearization “deal” signed last month, amid trade tensions between the U.S. and Beijing.

The president expressed “confidence” that North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un will “honor” the deal, despite tense talks with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo over the weekend.

“I have confidence that Kim Jong Un will honor the contract we signed &, even more importantly, our handshake. We agreed to the denuclearization of North Korea,” Trump tweeted. “China, on the other hand, may be exerting negative pressure on a deal because of our posture on Chinese Trade—Hope Not!”

The president’s tweet comes days after the administration increased tariffs on $34 billion worth of Chinese imports as Beijing said it would be “forced to make a necessary counterattack.”

Chinese President Xi Jinping instructed various levels of government to get ready for a full-on trade war, The Wall Street Journal reported last week, citing Chinese officials.

China is expected to hit back against the Trump administration’s 25 percent tax on those Chinese goods with taxes on an equal amount of American products, including soybeans, lobsters, sport-utility vehicles, and whiskey. But according to the Journal, China has not yet outlined exact targets.

But the president’s confidence in North Korea comes after the rogue regime over the weekend accused the U.S. of undermining the spirit of last month’s summit between Trump and Kim in Singapore, calling talks with Pompeo “regrettable.”

COMMENT:  No crisis, just the usual aggravation.  There will be more negotiating coming up, and we will know if there is any chance for real progress.  If not, both the president and the secretary have pledged that the sanctions on North Korea will remain in place, and we will have shown the world that we at least tried.

July 9, 2018       Permalink

THE DAY – AT 1:05 P.M. ET:  It is Supreme Court day, and that's sad.  It's sad that the appointment of one justice, to be announced by President Trump at 9 p.m. ET tonight, is arousing so much tension, controversy...and hatred.

It wasn't that way at one time, although the Court has always had its moments of controversy.  FDR tried to pack the Court during his second term, frustrated by the hostility of some justices toward his New Deal measures.  He failed.  The American people wouldn't have it.

The Court erupted in controversy when it ruled segregated schools unconstitutional in 1954.  The South hated the decision, and the choice of justices became an issue in politics.  That trend was strengthened in 1962, when the Court again offended sensibilities in its famous "school prayer" decision, which actually only said that the state could not impose prayers on public schools.

But it wasn't really until Roe v. Wade, the famous abortion decision, in 1973, that the Court became the political presence that it is today. The reason, of course, is that school segregation and school prayer are logical issues for a federal court, as they involve interpretation of Constitutional protections.  On the other hand, abortion was traditionally seen, and is still seen by many today, as a social issue, a matter of personal morality, not subject to judicial review. 

The same with the issue of gay marriage.  Why would a Court decide on an issue of personal, religious, and traditional morality?  But it did.

So the Court today is seen as a place where people with social causes, which may well be legitimate, can come for relief.  In my view, no matter how you feel about particular issues, that trend has damaged the Court severely, made it a political branch of the government, and lowered its prestige.

President Trump has promised to appoint a strict constructionist, in the tradition of Justice Neil Gorsuch, who was his first appointment to the Supreme Court.  We'll know tonight.

July 9,  2018     Permalink