All errors should be reported to DonSurber@gmail.com

Saturday, December 28, 2019

An apology would be a good start


Bret Stephens, a counterfeit conservative columnist at the New York Times, asked, "What Will It Take to Beat Donald Trump?"

Glenn Reynolds wrote it is "weird how the NY Times 'conservative' columnist is still plotting to get rid of Trump. Come to think of it, the NYT doesn’t have any pro-Trump conservatives. I mean, even the WaPo does better."

We know Stephens is a fraud because no real conservative opposes President Trump now. Donald Trump has proved to be the most conservative (and successful) president since Ronald Wilson Reagan.

But Stephens is paid to pretend he is something he is not. His argument against President Trump is one of style not substance. After 4 years of hearing this, it is white noise.

Stephens wrote, "Bill Clinton and Barack Obama both campaigned for, and won, the White House on the watchword hope. What watchword will it take for a Democrat to win this time?

"My suggestion: soap."

Oh, I get it. Soap rhymes with hope. How clever. It also rhymes with mope, rope, and rope-a-dope.

Stephens wrote, "Nearly three years into Donald Trump’s presidency, America needs a hard scrub and a deep cleanse. It needs to wash out the grime and grease of an administration that every day does something to make the country feel soiled."

Oh come now.

Has President Trump delivered billions in pallets of cash overnight to a foreign enemy?

Has President Trump used the national security apparatus to spy on political opponents and journalists he does not like?

Has President Trump allowed his vice president to extort Ukraine to fire a prosecutor who was going after his crooked son?

After excoriating The Donald acting like a New Yorker, Stephens suddenly dropped the whole soap bit. He wrote of a poll that said Republicans are not always happy with The Donald's tweets and such.

Then Stephens wrote, "These numbers should devastate Trump’s chances of re-election. They don’t, for three reasons."

So why did he even bring soap and the like up? The Times could have sold to advertisers the space he used to make his false start about soap, and pocketed $1,000.

To be fair, his next paragraph was a decent summary of what Democrats face.

He wrote, "First, 76% of Americans rate economic conditions positively, up from 48% at the time of Trump’s election. Second, the progressive left’s values seem increasingly hostile to mainstream ones, as suggested by the titanic row over J.K. Rowling’s recent tweet defending a woman who was fired over her outspoken views on transgenderism. Third, the more the left rages about Trump and predicts nothing but catastrophe and conspiracy from him, the more out of touch it seems when the catastrophes don’t happen and the conspiracy theories come up short."

His solutions were to abandon talk about "an unconstitutional and ineffective wealth tax" and instead talk about "new taxes on carbon offset by tax cuts on income and saving." It is still a new tax no matter which pocket Democrats pick.

He also said, "the winning Democrat will need to make Trump’s presidency seem insignificant rather than monumental — an unsightly pimple on our long republican experiment, not a fatal cancer within it. Mike Bloomberg has the financial wherewithal to make Trump’s wealth seem nearly trivial. Joe Biden has the life experience to make Trump’s attacks seem petty. Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar have the rhetorical skills to turn Trump’s taunts against him."

Then he went on to call President Trump a bully and he ended with soap.

Even though in the middle of his column he said it wouldn't work.

The left is clueless. They know not how to defeat President Trump. They fear 4 more years of him because despite their best efforts, Donald John Trump has gone and made America great again. And a great nation does not need socialism.

The entire column is an admission that Donald John Trump's presidency has been successful. The proof of the panic is 76% of Americans having a positive outlook on the economy.

46% of the voters voted for him in 2016. Where did that other 30% come from? Do they want to go back to the mediocrity we had before President Trump?

Stephens and Krugman and all the rest can credit Obama all they want, but the fact is President Trump ditched Obamanomics in favor of capitalism -- and capitalism is winning the day.

Everyone knows this and denying this reality only discredits the speaker.

But the biggest denial -- the one that has rendered his opposition impotent -- is that Donald John Trump won the presidency fair and square. Democrats are too hung upon his 46% share of the vote.

They ignore that they got only 48% of the vote. The majority of Americans were NOT with her.

Donald Trump won by flipping 6 states that Obama took in 2012: Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

To win, Democrats will have to convince many of President Trump's supporters to abandon him, and hope they can flip enough states to win.

But after calling his voters deplorable and worse for 4 years, how in the heck do Democrats expect to win them back? Heck, this crew of Democrat contenders cannot convince Democrats to vote for them.

If Democrats have any hope in 2020, they need to win back the Obama voters who went for Donald Trump in 2016.

I suggest Democrats start with an apology. And I suggest the apology come from Obama himself. No one likes to be called racist and those other horrible things that Hillary and others have called Trump supporters while Obama -- the man they supported in 2008 and 2012 -- was silent.

That's the stain that Democrats need to cleanse.

Taking comfort in knowing phony conservatives like Stephens has led them down the primrose path to second place in presidential races.

No comments:

Post a Comment