The Left Has Money To Burn

Friends, Democrats have to be taken seriously in 2020 and beyond.  Not only do they enjoy the immense advantage of billions of dollars' worth of free, positive media attention, thanks to the MSM -- they have also mobilized a robust network of wealthy liberals to fund their campaigns and movements.  We all know that leftists are supposedly offended by "dark money," and they claim to hate the fact that billionaires and plutocrats can "buy" elections, but the truth is that they are enthusiastic practitioners of both of these electoral strategies.  The Left outspent us in 2016.  It massively outspent us in 2018.  It may well do so again in 2020.  And we're not even talking about the hundreds of millions spent by Tom Steyer and Mike Bloomberg to influence our elections.  That's on top of the Super PACs, the campaign committees, etc etc.  Republicans need to mobilize as never before in 2020, if we're to remain competitive.  Among other things, we need to convince wealthy conservatives and moderates that socialism represents an existential threat to their way of life, as it surely does!  Only by bringing them on board can we hold the Left at bay.

https://freebeacon.com/politics/dark-money-network-funneled-600-million-to-liberal-initiatives-in-2018/

Nixon's ONLY Mistake?

Friends, you and I both know that Richard Nixon was a great President.  Buffeted by the counter-culture, vilified by the media, constantly undermined by the liberal-Democratic establishment, he nonetheless achieved tremendous things for our country -- most importantly, he drove a wedge between the Soviet Union and Red China, and, but for that masterstroke, you and I could be speaking Russian right now, or we could be radioactive dust.

Be all that as it may, Nixon wasn't perfect.  He erred, as is human.  No, I'm not talking about Watergate.  Nixon played the game of politics by the rules that were well-established at the time -- and the establishment decided to alter those rules in the middle of the contest, expressly to destroy Nixon.  And so they did.

When I say Nixon was flawed, I'm thinking in particular of his imprudence in expanding the reach and powers of the federal government.  The EPA, the EEOC, Title IX -- all were created under Nixon, and all mushroomed into forces for the imposition of (leftist) governmental dictates on the American people, whose liberties correspondingly contracted.  Nixon's greatest act of apostasy vis-a-vis limited government, however, came in 1971 with the imposition of price and wage controls.  That is the subject of my latest article, along with the parallel that I see to contemporary efforts to regulate prices in the health care system.

Believe me, it pained me to write an article critical of Dick Nixon, unheralded patriot and genius President, but intellectual honesty requires us to acknowledge that even our heroes can be wrong.  Nixon erred, Reagan erred -- heck, even Trump slips up every once in a while.  Let's learn from their mistakes, shall we?

Note that this article appears on the website of the Foundation for Economic Education.  I'm very honored to be featured there.

https://fee.org/articles/even-nixon-s-ghost-agrees-that-price-controls-wont-fix-our-broken-health-care-system/

Thanksgiving Comes Early, and It's Filled With Newsmaker Stuffing!

Friends, this week's Newsmaker Show is implicitly thankful, insofar as Brian and I spend a lot of time analyzing the declining fortunes of the Democrats' impeachment inquisition.  It looks like the polling momentum has turned against impeachment and removal, and the Dems are starting to sweat.  Some are even talking about censure as an alternative to impeachment.  If they were smart, they wouldn't have boxed themselves in on impeachment, or raised its specter in the first place...but as we all know Democrats are capable of limitless self-mortification.

Brian and I also talk about the enforceability of Congressional subpoenas, why Democrats may fear a trial in the Senate, who President Obama may prefer as the Democratic candidate in 2020, the latest bouts of intolerance on college campuses, and the ongoing "climate strike."  And in This Week in History we cover the Chinese intervention in the Korean War, the First Crusade in the 11th century, and the legacy of the Alger Hiss trial and American Russophobia.

Don't miss a single second!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-ecZQw5ATs&feature=youtu.be

The Incredible Shrinking Impeachment Movement

Friends, you've already seen how polling on impeachment is going south, from the Democrats' perspective.  Well, lefties aren't dumb.  They know a loser when they see one.  Now, liberals are searching for the exits, and the obvious alternative to impeachment is censure.  It's been embraced already by one Democratic Congresswoman, and now the Chicago Tribune is pushing the idea.  When the mainstream media starts balking at impeachment, and even Adam Schiff starts getting shifty about it, you know the Dems have a problem!  Stay tuned.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/editorials/ct-editorial-trump-impeach-censure-congress-ukraine-20191126-gqq2bszaqzhffkd6ybieuxyw2y-story.html

The Bloomberg Factor

Friends, is there any doubt that what Democratic primary voters are pining for is a rich, old, white, male, centrist candidate who only recently became a Democrat?  Uh, yeah.  Good luck with that, Mike.  It amazes me that a well-educated and extremely successful man like Bloomberg could be this naive.  Be that as it may, he's in the race, I believe his only impact will be to draw votes away from Biden and Buttigieg, but mainly Biden.  In other words, he's effectively running to make Elizabeth Warren the Democratic candidate -- so thanks, Mike!  With your help, the Dems will nominate the biggest loser, and Trump might actually put together that landslide that his most fanatical fans have been talking about...  Hooray!

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/michael-bloomberg-launches-2020-presidential-bid-n1090216?cid=sm_npd_ms_tw_ma

In other news, you heard it here first: the polling is trending against the Democrats' impeachment con job.  As time has gone on, Republicans have successfully muddied the waters with counter-charges, and they've convinced many Americans, especially independents, that the inquiry is a frame-up and the Bidens might just be guilty, after all.  Or, from another perspective, Americans have simply gone back to their partisan corners, as they always do, and half the country wants Trump's head on a platter, while the other half thinks he's the greatest thing since sliced bread.  In truth, though, there is a political center in America, and guess what: it's not crazy about impeachment!  Dems -- what's next?

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/471723-independents-souring-on-impeachment-underscores-risk-for-democrats

Are the Dems Sleepwalking Off a Cliff?

Friends, my latest article considers the dynamics in the Democratic primary race, and why the timidity of the Democratic candidates may be their party's collective undoing.  See if you agree with my logic...  Enjoy!

Are the Dems Sleepwalking Towards a Brokered Convention?

Wednesday night's subdued Democratic presidential debate confirmed that no candidate is on a clear trajectory to the nomination. What is truly shocking, however, is that none of the top contenders seem to believe that the Democratic nomination is even worth breaking a sweat, or throwing a punch, over. They are politely asking for the support of the voters, yes, but if the answer is “No, thanks” or “Meh,” they are taking it in stride. 

Witness the fact that, aside from Corey Booker's “I thought you might have been high” dig at Joe Biden, and Kamala Harris's vicious but electorally pointless broadside aimed at Tulsi Gabbard, none of the “big guns” could bestir themselves to fire a shot. How such a flock of sheep is supposed to defeat the ultimate alpha male, Donald Trump, is beyond me.

A more interesting question in the medium term, however, is whether any of the Democrats currently (or, in the case of Mike Bloomberg, prospectively) running can defeat the rest of the field. The unsettled and inconsistent nature of the public polling in this cycle — which has alternately given the edge to Biden, Warren, Sanders, or Buttigieg, and occasionally to all or none of the above — has left the pundits and most voters scratching their heads. The candidates' wariness about attacking one another's records and policy proposals, and the dearth of negative ads run so far, has only reinforced the perception of an electoral stalemate.

It is worth recalling that the delegate allotment rules in 2020 on the Democratic side are broadly proportional. That is, any candidate who reaches a 15% threshold of support in a given state, or in a state legislative or Congressional district, will receive a proportionate share of the delegates. The only way for one of these Democratic candidates to receive his or her party's nomination on the first ballot at the Democratic National Convention, therefore, is to scale up his or her support between now and March (when the lion's share of the delegates will be awarded) to greater than 50%. At the moment, that seems unlikely to occur. For a moderate to triumph, either Biden or Buttigieg would need to get out of the way. For a progressive to triumph, the same could be said of Warren and Sanders. The likelihood of a brokered convention, therefore, where no one wins the nomination on the first ballot, is high and increasing.

What happens then? Under the current set of rules, the Democrats' 758 “automatic delegates” — once known as “superdelegates” — only get to vote starting on the second ballot. That means that party bigwigs like Governors, Congressmen, and Senators would suddenly comprise 16% of the total pool of delegates. Could they throw the nomination to an establishment candidate like Biden? Perhaps, but many other scenarios would become plausible. A long, bloody floor fight could emerge between moderates and liberals. The party could embrace a “dark horse” candidate like Hillary Clinton to foster unity. The party could even fracture ideologically and produce an official candidate and an unofficial, independent challenger — a Pope and an anti-Pope, if you will, as in the Middle Ages. The potential for mischief, betrayal, and self-sabotage is limitless.

Democrats and liberals, who watch much more CNN and MSNBC than is good for them, have a tendency to scoff at the idea that Donald Trump could win reelection in 2020. After all, no one who appears at their sophisticated dinner parties inside the Beltway likes him! Based on that unofficial poll, his goose is cooked.

These Democrats and liberals should get out more. America is a country in which the fundamental strength of the two main parties is in something very close to equilibrium. This simple fact, combined with the Democrats' listlessness, ideological incompatibilities, self-satisfaction, and complacency, makes it not only possible, but likely, that Donald Trump will be residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue for many years to come.

Dr. Nicholas L. Waddy is an Associate Professor of History at SUNY Alfred and blogs at: www.waddyisright.com. He appears weekly on the Newsmaker Show on WLEA 1480.

And here it is at Daily Caller:

https://dailycaller.com/2019/11/22/waddy-brokered-convention-2020 

In other news, ponder the revelations in this well-written article, which suggests that President Trump's concerns about Ukrainian corruption and interference in U.S. elections are well-founded.  Will there be a Senate trial of President Trump?  If so, we could see some startling twists and turns!  The Bidens, as well as the Obama administration, could effectively be put on trial as well.

https://nypost.com/2019/11/21/fiona-hill-and-dems-ignore-the-serious-evidence-of-ukrainian-2016-meddling/ 

The Impeachment Special -- Yum!

Friends, don't miss today's impeachment special, courtesy of me and Brian O'Neil -- it's all the impeachment you can eat for just $4.99.  You won't find a better deal in talk radio!

Brian and I cover the impeachment brouhaha in exhaustive detail, including the latest developments in the hearings, Democrats' political strategy, the polls, the Nielsen ratings, and the sheer madness of it all.  In addition, Brian and I preview tonight's all-important Democratic debate, which I fully expect to be the most vicious yet.  Brian and I also talk about Catholic theology, the Russian counterattack at Stalingrad, and the 72nd wedding anniversary of Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip.  Don't miss it!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKMTRodeiSA&feature=youtu.be

More Waddy = More Power!

Friends, check out my recent letter to the editor of the Albany Times-Union, in which I come to the defense of natural gas as a source of power and heat for New Yorkers.  New York politicians and the "green energy" crowd seem determined to drive us back into the Stone Age, but I'm not having it!

https://www.timesunion.com/opinion/article/Natural-gas-offers-multiple-benefits-14838802.php

In other news, check out this spirited analysis of the impeachment fiasco.  Note the low Nielsen ratings for the impeachment hearings.  I'm not surprised.  Surely, only the true believers could sustain interest in the latest farcical attempt to undermine President Trump.  Everyone with sense knows these hearings are a waste of time.  As the article points out, minimal public interest means it's unlikely the polling numbers for impeachment and removal will change much -- and in fact I believe it's more likely that support for these radical steps will gradually soften.  Mark my words!  Impeachment is going nowhere, and I give the House only a 50/50 chance of passing a single article of impeachment, at the end of the day.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/11/18/americans-ignore-democrats-demands-to-watch-their-impeachment-farce/

Democracy in the Balance

Friends, no doubt you've noticed that, ever since the 2016 election, many leftists have acted as though they live in a fascist dictatorship, and they've called for "resistance" against the horrors of Trumpism.  Attorney General Bill Barr recently gave a speech to the Federalist Society in which he called the Left on its own inflammatory rhetoric.  Liberals like to accuse Trump of violating democratic norms, and once in a while he does, but the truth is that leftists seem prepared to burn our democracy down to the ground if it means they can take Trump with it.  They have been crystal clear that they regard this President, and virtually everything he does and says, as illegitimate.  How can a democracy prosper, or even survive, under such circumstances?  Barr is right: the comprehensive "sabotage" and the campaign of slander waged against this administration is unprecedented, it's deeply unpatriotic, it's hysterical, and it's immensely dangerous, since it provides a precedent for disrespecting and undermining almost any electoral outcome that one deems unacceptable.  Not only the presidency is under attack, but other key elements of our constitutional system, including the Senate, the Supreme Court, and the Electoral College.  Naturally, for his trouble, Barr will be vilified, but I say he should be cheered for having the courage to state some hard truths to the American people.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/attorney-general-barr-left-systemic-sabotage

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeMwdtbPR6g

In other news, Senators are starting to speculate on what a trial of President Trump in the Senate might look like.  By no means is it certain that a trial will happen, or that the House will vote on or pass articles of impeachment...but it's still an amusing parlor game to imagine how Senators might tackle the high drama of a Trump trial.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/470733-gop-divided-over-impeachment-trial-strategy

Dollars and Sense -- The Worst Pun Ever?

Friends, my latest article considers what stance President Trump should take on fiscal matters heading into the 2020 election.  We know where the Democratic candidate will stand: he/she will promise the moon and the stars to American voters -- a veritable bonanza of new federal spending.  See what you make of my advice on how Trump should respond...

President Trump: In 2020, Embrace Fiscal Responsibility, Not Tax Cuts

As Democratic presidential candidates stumble over one another in a headlong rush towards socialism and fiscal insanity — promising trillions in new spending on everything from child care, health care, and higher education for all, to “the Green New Deal,” to slavery reparations — President Trump faces a critical choice. 

 

He could try to match the Democrats and promise more expansive government programs; he could instead offer to put more money in Americans' pockets through tax cuts; or he could do neither and stress the theme of fiscal responsibility, holding the line on new spending and tax cuts in favor of reducing the federal deficit.

Although the last choice is the least exciting, especially in an election year when people expect to be offered a cornucopia of “free stuff,” it is the right choice for America, especially given the fiscal challenges we currently face. This year our deficit will exceed $1 trillion for the first time since the Great Recession. Now is not the time, therefore, to be spending wildly or to be slashing government revenues via tax cuts. Now is the time to tighten our belts and return government finances to long-term sustainability, especially given the fact that the aging of the U.S. population means that massive spending obligations are coming soon.

To date, President Trump's philosophy on federal spending has been ambiguous. On one hand, he touts fiscal responsibility and a commitment to reducing federal deficits. On the other hand, Trump has cut taxes and simultaneously presided over a massive increase in spending. Often, he boasts about his administration's “investments” in Republican priorities like immigration enforcement and defense. Arguably, Trump is playing the Democrats' own game, parroting their view that a politician's virtuosity and even his humanity can be measured by his willingness to spend other people's money.

Lately, there is some evidence that Trump's advisers want to double down on this high spending/low taxation strategy for currying favor with voters. Although the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act already lowered middle class taxes — albeit modestly — now the Trump administration is considering further reductions to the marginal tax rates that apply to the middle class. The idea seems to be to establish a 15% rate that will kick in for those who may now be paying 22-24%.

No one likes income taxes or the IRS, but the American people ought to be skeptical of such proposals. Already, our deficit has inched up to almost 5% of GDP, a level that economists believe to be unsustainable. Trump's previous tax cuts were close to revenue neutral, but cuts on the scale now being proposed could be far more serious. Keep in mind the broader context: Social Security, Medicare, and Obamacare spending is all forecast to surge in the coming years. So far, inflation and interest rates have remained low, and the U.S. has been able to service its huge national debt with relative ease. If we were to depart totally from the path of fiscal responsibility, however, as Trump's advisers suggest, we have to wonder whether the wheels could come off of not just federal finances, but the overall U.S. economy. In that case, a negative feedback loop could lead to a severe recession, or even a depression.

President Trump should also consider the political optics of advocating for further tax cuts in an election year in which the eventual Democratic candidate will be promising the American people a laundry list of new entitlements, as well as tax breaks. Does Trump really want to compete with the Democrats for the job of Benefactor-in-Chief, or would he be better off drawing a sharp contrast with free-spending liberals? The Democratic candidate will be offering a vision of unprecedented growth in governmental power, unbridled hostility to job creators, and almost limitless federal spending. Presumably, it would be easy to argue in response that Democratic promises are empty and/or reckless. If Trump is making irresponsible claims and promises of his own, though, about either spending or taxation, his appeal as the economic voice of reason could be blunted. A socialist could then enter the White House by the back door.

My advice, President Trump, is to be honest with the American people. Tell them that, at this point in our history, huge new spending commitments are neither affordable nor prudent. In addition, given the future expenses that are already locked in, especially for Social Security and Medicare, it's clear that further tax cuts would be irresponsible.

If President Trump makes this his economic message going into 2020, he can frame the election as one of realism versus socialist fanaticism.

That sounds to me like an election that Trump can win. In fact, it sounds like an election in which only a fool would vote against him.

Dr. Nicholas L. Waddy is an Associate Professor of History at SUNY Alfred and blogs at: www.waddyisright.com. He appears weekly on the Newsmaker Show on WLEA 1480.

And here it is at American Greatness:

https://amgreatness.com/2019/11/14/embrace-fiscal-responsibility-not-tax-cuts-in-2020/