On Detente with Dictatorships and Double Standards

On Tolerance, Pardons, Politics and Dinesh D'Souza

In 2012, conservative polemicist Dinesh D'Souza contributed $20,000  via a straw donor for his friend Wend Long's quixotic campaign to become Senator from New York.   His infraction was zealously prosecuted by politically connected US Prosecutor from the Southern District of New York Preet Bharara.   

In 2014, D'Souza entered a plea for a one count felony charge. D'Souza's sentence was for eight months in a half way house, five years probation and a $30,000 fine. 

 This was perhaps the first time that someone was sentenced to prison for a minor FEC infraction.  Liberal Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz noted that such campaign violations were common and questioned if it was a proper exercise of prosecutorial discretion.   Many conservatives believe that Bharara threw the book at D'Souza as payback for cinematic success of  "2016: Obama's America" (2012).   Bharara was thought to be a front runner to replace Obama Attorney General Eric Holder in 2014. 

On May 31, 2018  President Donald Trump announced via Twitter that he would grant D'Souza a full pardon because  he was very unfairly treated by our government.

President Barack Obama granted clemency to 1,715 nonviolent criminals, many of them were for drug dealers and even a terrorist.  Obama granted more commutations  than the prior twelve Presidents. The mainstream media lauded the Obama Administration as being tolerant.  

It is dubious that the media accredited Democrat steno-pool will apply the same standards towards President Trump regarding Dinesh D'Souza.

Appraising "The Great Revolt" by Salena Zito and Brad Todd

After Richard Nixon won the 1972 Presidential election in a 49 state landslide, New Yorker film critic was flummoxed at how this could happen as none of her Manhattanite friends would vote for him.  This possibly apocryphal episode illustrated how seaboard elites can be so out of touch with Middle America (sometimes flippantly labeled as  “Fly Over Country”).

A similar cognitive dissonance has occurred at the election of President Donald Trump in 2016. Heading into election night, the 538 blog polling guru Nate Silver predicted that Hillary Clinton had a 72% chance of winning.  Yet when election results were confirmed at 2:30 AM November 9th, Donald J. Trump gave a victory speech.  While Mr. Trump won a huge 304 to 227 (with five disloyal electors), the margins of victory in five Rust Belt states were close.  Had 56,000 voters not voted for Mr. Trump, then Bill Clinton would have returned to the White House as First Gentleman (sic).

To delve into how Donald Trump was able to confound conventional wisdom and assembled a new coalition which led him to the White House, Salena Zito and Brad Todd wrote “The Great Revolt: Inside the Populist Coalition Reshaping American Politics” (2018 Crown Forum 309 pages).  Salena Zito is a reporter from Pittsburgh but made made her mark during the campaign for the New York Post by traveling to these Midwest battleground states and interviewing prospective Trump voters to understand their attraction and enthusiasm for this first time populist candidate. 

These oral histories are backed up by data from Brad Todd’s On Message Inc. polling unit. The metrics were particularly instructive in seeing how sentiments shifted in swing counties between 2008 and 2016.

The Great Revolt featured 21 interviews with voters from two key counties in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa. These interviews felt like an extended coffee talk at a diner with a trusted confidant.  The Great Revolt broke down these voters into seven archetypes: 1) Red Blooded and Blue Collar 2) Perotistas 3) Rough Rebounders 4) Girl Gun Power 5) Rotary Reliables 6) King Cyrus Christians 7) Silent Suburban Moms.  While they all chose to support Trump, their pathways were not straight and narrow and deserve careful consideration. 

Over the past several elections, Democrats seemed to abandon salt of the earth blue collar erstwhile Democrats to favor demographically up and coming minority majorities and those new voters who might be culled from immigration.  During the 2008 Democrat primaries, candidate Barack Obama derisively referred to rural Rust Belt voters as “bitter clingers to their guns and their Bibles”.  Ironically, Ms. Clinton was trying to win their support for her first failed presidential run.   

Yet in 2016, these same segment of voters were ignored by the Hillary! campaign as she declared that half of Trump supporters were a “Basket of Deplorables” which might serve as a caricature of this segment of voters which would be more sympathetically described as The Forgotten Man.  

Hillary Clinton chose to ignore Wisconsin during the 2016 General Election campaign and made only a couple of trips to large population centers in Michigan, figuring that she had those votes already in the bag.  Donald Trump campaigned hard in Rust Belt states in rural precincts and scraped together enough support to win the Wolverine State by about 8,000 votes (0.23%) and the Badger State by about 22,000 votes (0.77%).  

Pundits have pontificated that Republicans face a demographic problem whereas Democrats have a geographic problem, as they continue to lose support in vast swaths of middle America.  In 2016, Mrs. Clinton only won 526 counties compared to the over 1500 counties that her husband President Clinton won in 1992.  What became obvious after election night 2016, racking up large victories in the popular vote does not necessarily win the White House.  Both parties would learn from contemplating the shared psyches of these Trump voters  if The Great Revolt was a one time populist phenomenon, if it can transfer unto other populist politicians and if it can be sustained after 2016.

A couple of these Great Revolt subgroups, such as Rotary Reliables and NRA inspired Girl Gun Power types  are likely to continue to actively oppose progressive politics as it directly impacts their intrinsic interests.   It is more dubious for other groups.  In 2016, evangelical voters made a pragmatic decision to back Mr. Trump, who has a messy personal life and whose blithe brashness is an antithetical attitude, because they were concerned about the Supreme Court and pushing back against abortion.  The outlook for Perotistas is unclear as their support seemed personality driven and may not be transferrable.  The three women interviewed as Perotistas were superannuated, so one can surmise that their support will age out.

As much as the iconoclastic mainstream billionaire turned celebrity politician appealed to some segments of The Great Revolt voters, what became quite clear is how his opponent and the nature of the race also impacted the election.  In some of the vignettes, the anti-Hillary! sentiment jumped off the page. 

 Many of the interviewees came from union families or those who served in the military would have been quite at ease in John F. Kennedy’s Democrat Party but who are red headed stepchildren in today’s Democrat Party.  That being said, they probably would not have participated in politics or been motivated to vote GOP had Donald Trump not reached out and appealed to their sensibilities.   They may not always agree with Mr. Trump and may recoil at some of his Tweets or stances but as Salena Zito nailed during the campaign, they know to take Trump seriously but not always literally (unlike the anti-Trump pack press).

Most of the coalition in The Great Revolt worried about their economic security and loss of their rural way of life, it did not seem like there was strong linkage to “Build the Wall” or immigration.  While one union activist was strongly against NAFTA, much of the blue collar sentiments revolved around being forgotten by their erstwhile allies, the Democrats.   

While the interviews in The Great Revolt were vivid, it would have been desirable if there was a bit more uniformity when describing the interlocutors.  Not all of the portraits had demographic details or made it easy to discern the interviewees profession.  There also seemed to be a disconnect between the prefatory analysis with the dialogues of the Trump voters.  The authors rightly proposed that Mr. Trump’s social media instincts allowed him to circumvent curating by the mainstream media and directly reach his coalitions.  Yet many of the interviewees contained in The Great Revolt wished that President Trump would tweet less. 

That being said, surely Salena Zito and Brad Todd appreciated President Trump’s pre-publication post which extolled the virtues of The Great Revolt.

The case histories in The Great Revolt offer insightful context for the unexpected coalition which elected Donald Trump to the White House in 2016.  But the archetypes portrayed in The Great Revolt may point to traits that could appear in other voter segments.   Democrats have opted to appeal to progressive identity politics and rely on the brown wave of new voters in lieu of  “The Forgotten Man” (rural, blue collar, union white males).   A flaw with that strategy is that it relies upon banked voters, which since 1964 have been the bulk of black voters.  The Great Revolt chronicles how slim segments of voters who feel neglected and come to the epiphany that their traditional party no longer represents their values can impact an election.

Recently, Kanye West said some favorable things towards President Trump. Perhaps that was a publicity stunt or an African American celebrity "talking out of turn" as Rep Maxine Waters (D-CA 43rd) claimed. But afterwards polling showed a doubling of his support among African Americans.  Mr. Trump has been making explicit appeals for those voters.  

It is conceivable that an upsurge in black labor participation and showing up to make the case may shift some attitudes, or mollify some of the bile against him. Conservative Black video bloggers Diamond and Silk have shown that elements of the Trump Administration agenda may have some appeal to fed up African American voters.  Black represent about 13% of voters and in recent elections have voted about 95% for Democrats.  If there is a 5% shift in that segment of reliable votes, Democrats’ election strategy may be in trouble. 

Remembering Barbara Bush

Nikki Haley on Red Lines

Is Barack Obama Really Trying to Bridge News Universes?

During the initial episode of David Letterman's new limited run program on Netflix "My Guest Needs No Introduction", former President Barack Obama laments the lack of a common baseline of facts for the news.

 In some ways, this echoes a theme that Mr. Obama emphasized in his BBC Radio interview with Prince Harry about finding common realities on the internet. And during the speech at the Dallas Police Shooting Memorial, then President Obama lamented political polarization stemming from news coverage.  

Yet is is hard not to appreciate Obama's implication that those watching Fox News are "way out there" vis-a-vis the Mainstream Media represented by  taxpayer supported National Public Radio. His quip served as a laugh line to the Netflix audience at City College, New York. Such a jibe will affirm the biases of coastal elites who cannot fathom how fly over country could vote for a guy like President Donald Trump.  But it inspires a broader question of what is news and what is the prudent way to discern truth on current events. 

Some have fantasized about having a group that evaluates the news for its truthfulness.  But as it has been tried by Politifact's Truth-o-Meter  and the Washington Post's Fact Check with the Pinocchio scale, it has proven to be skewed and lacking. 

It is repugnant to the First Amendment to contemplate having the government take a role in vetting media.  It is bad enough that social media giants like Facebook and Twitter are using "curating" newfeeds to avoid conservative stories deemed as "fake news" and algorithms which shadowbans opinions not in favor with the social media powers that be. 

Then there is the question of how to cover a story.  Recently, CNN launched an advertising campaign with the spot "This is an apple" touting "Facts First".   The Media Research Center's study of coverage of the first eight months of the Trump Administration was 91% negative stories. In another study, the MRC examined one day of coverage on CNN, when 92% of the airtime was focused on President Trump, and CNN used 96 critics and seven supporters to back up their coverage. That hardly seems like facts first or fair and balanced news.

A more difficult thing to detect is the news that the mainstream media chooses not to report. A concrete example is when undercover video exposed that Planned Parenthood clinics were selling baby body parts.  Network news did not give one second of coverage, probably because it sullied a cause with which the networks suits agree. No wonder why there is a populist outcry against "Fake News".

Another niggling aspect is what "news" mainstream media outlets choose to report.  It is interesting to see how much that makes it on a network nightly news is just recycled packages that were creating for fluffy morning news shows. ABC is notorious for cross promoting entertainment programming as news.  The Tonya Harding 20/20 episode seemed to give as much airtime to its affiliated journalists as the protagonists in order to hype a film poised for Best Picture for the Oscars, which will be broadcast on ABC.  One should expect that NBC's News will be chock full of Olympic feature stories (as it broadcasts the Winter Olympics in February) when it is not bashing the Trump Administration.

As a news junkie, it is laudable to seek out news sources which do not comfortably give "confirmation bias".  In addition, it is necessary to vet the reliability of news sources when considering stories.  However, it is dubious that President Obama wants to find a real "baseline of common facts".  His out of this world comment seems more inclined to smear those who do not buy into the line from the mainstream media, shaped by the likes of the Journo-list and then disseminated via papers of record, like the New York Times and the Washington Post, which then dictates the coverage in most of the rest of the media.

As much as one would like to believe that Mr. Obama is trying to bridge news consumption universes, this comes from a leader who gathered lawmakers around a table supposedly to work together on health care and then wanted to dictate terms.  It is likely that politically correct pressure about the consensus on the news would drown out minority opinions and counter facts.  So it would be like the pre-internet "fairness doctrine" days when there was little choice and the public could be simply swayed. 

Democrats Said to Be Up and Cummings (sic)

MSNBC's Donnie Deutsch asked Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD 7th) who were the rising stars of the Democrat Party.  The Baltimore Democrat gave an eyebrow raising list:

It was curious that two of the up and Cummings (sic) stars of the Democrat Party in the District of Calamity had haunted the halls of Congress for years.  It seems strange to consider Rep. Barbara Lee (D-13th) as a rising star, considering her 22 years in Congress.  She was infamous for voting against going to war after the terror attacks of 2001. But maybe just missing being voted Vice Chair of the DNC gave her that stature in Cumming's mind.

There is some merit in citing Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA 28th) as a rising star.  His stature as the Ranking Member on the House Intelligence Committee gives him a place of prominence when making television hits, particularly regarding Benghazi and accusations of Russia electoral interference.  But this is Schiff's 8th term, so he's hardly a rising star.

Then there is Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA).  Had Hillary Clinton won the 2016 election, Kaine would have been Vice President, and spoken of in reverential tones like the predecessor former Vice President Joe Biden.  But that fate was not to be. Kaine distinguished himself as being a disagreeable debater during his match up against his counterpart, then Governor (now Vice President) Mike Pence (R-IN). This compensated for Kaine's charisma deficit during most of the 2016 General Election campaign.  After the electoral defeat, Kaine declined to take a position of prominence amongst DC Democrats, yet Cummings cites him as a up and coming Democrat star.



All three of these Up and Cummings stars seemed to have thrown their lot in with the progressive wing of the Democrat party.  In the past, Kaine had been known for some moderate as well as liberal positions, but the inclination for being a squish seems to have past. Of course, Blue Dog Democrats are dead in the eyes of most Democrat loyalists. If Democrats were keen on a fresher face in DC, they could turn to Rep. Tim Ryan (D-OH 13), a blue collar Democrat from Youngstown/Akron who made a quixotic bid to unseat Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA 12th) from being House Minority Leader.  Between Ryan's willingness to consider working with the GOP on some bills where there is mutual agreement and payback for challenging the leader (and losing), it is no surprise that Ryan of Ohio was not mentioned.

It is telling that DC Democrats only looked among themselves for rising stars, instead of looking of not looking between the beltways.  But considering how many seats Democrats have lost since President Barack Obama, there may not be many success stories to which to point.

DC Republicans may be in trouble with voters unless they can achieve some successes with health care, taxes, and immigration issues.  But if the Up and Cummings pols  are really the bench for DC Democrats, I weep for their future.

On Domestic Spying

Senator Ron Johnson on Politically Weaponizing Government

Stephen Bannon on the Politization of Intelligence

On Blue Dogs and Beltway Democrats Being on the Endangered Species List

The Blue Dog Coalition was formed in 1995 in reaction to devastating losses in President Clinton's first mid-term election.  The moniker played off of the expression "Yellow Dog Democrats" of the South who were so loyal to the party after the Civil War.   Blue Dogs could also refer to the idea that when dogs are not let in the house, they stay outside in the cold and turn blue.   

The Blue Dogs sought to find a compromise between conservative and liberal positions.  They tended to be Democrats who were from rural districts who were pro-guns, pro-life and fiscal hawks. Blue Dogs were successful in 1996 and then Democrat National Committee Chairman Rahm Emmanuel used Blue Dogs to retake the House in 2006. 

However, in the same 2006 election cycle, progressive began to retake the Democrat Party.  A Progressive candidate beat Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CN) in the Democrat primary, forcing the veteran lawmaker (who was quite an orthodox liberal except on staunch support for Israel and being a war hawk) to successfully run as an "Independent Democrat" in the general election. But this bode as a bad omen for Blue Dog Democrats.

At their  high water mark, Blue Dog Democrats had 44 members, which was roughly 20% of the Democrat Caucus.  But progressive tides and internecine battles have lowered Blue Dogs ranks to 17 members which again puts them out in the cold. 


At the beginning of the 115th Congress, Representative Tim Ryan (D-OH 13th formerly 17th) sought to run for House Minority Leader against the incumbent Representative Nancy Pelosi (D-12th formerly 5th & 8th).  The final vote was for unseating Pelosi  not even close 134-63.  

Considering the way that close to 70 Democrats (all from safe Democrat districts) boycotted President Trump's inaugural festivities shows that Congressional Democrats seem dedicated to the progressive cause, under the delusion that they will retake the House in the 2018 elections.  

The Democrats continue to be obsessed with gun control, abortion rights, liberal immigration and an ever expanding government.Thus it seems that Democrats continue to count on winning urban voters along with educated white collar suburban voters in their path to victory.  This sort strategy leaves Blue Dog in the cold, forcing them to accept  irrelevance amongst the DC Democrat party or to go against their tradition and aversions to vote GOP to remain relevant.

It was fascinating to see how 2016 Democrat Presidential nominee Hillary Clinton (D-NY) ran against coal country in her futile bid for the White House.  Hillary lost the Keystone State by about 46,000 votes.  That slim margin of victory may have been taken from President Trump's increased support in Central Pennsylvania, which epitomized Blue Dog Coalition voters.

In  Washington Examiner, Salina Zito noted how Cambria County, Pennsylvania, which contains the old industrial city of Johnstown, has shifted from being a 70 reliably Democrat area in 2006 to today being a 70% Republican area. It is these working class white voters that Democrat strategist Dane Strother worries that imposing a progressive purity test will drive Democrats into the political wilderness for forty years.  


President Trump may have sensed the alienation that Blue Dogs (who also comprised "Reagan Democrats" in the 1980s) felt, and now seeks to cement the relationship with them.  Thus the overtures to labor leaders and winning back manufacturing jobs as well as fulfilling campaign promises which validate voters who then candidate  Barack Obama derided as those who were "Bitter Clingers" to their bibles and their guns.

Dinesh D'Souza on a Post President Obama

Chicago Crony Capitalism on the Links

Consternation Over the Obama Commutation of Chelsea Manning's Sentence

On Obama's Narcissism

Obama Claims to Be Father of the Tea Party

Ann Coulter on Obama's Executive Actions

On an Obama Eviction

Barack Obama on Democracy

Is Obama Advocating Illegals Voting?

In the run up to Election Day, President Barack Obama gave an interview to MITU, a media service aimed at millennial Hispanics.  This softball interview by Gina Rodriguez has generated considerable controversy because many have discerned that Mr. Obama muddied the waters about illegal immigrants voting.



If one watches the entire segment, Snopes purports that Mr. Obama makes some distinctions that only Latino citizens can vote and they ought to do so to represent all in their community. The controversial colloquy reads:

RODRIGUEZ: Many of the millennials, Dreamers, undocumented citizens -- and I call them citizens because they contribute to this country -- are fearful of voting. So if I vote, will immigration know where I live? Will they come for my family and deport us?

OBAMA: Not true. And the reason is, first of all, when you vote, you are a citizen yourself. And there is not a situation where the voting rolls somehow are transferred over and people start investigating, et cetera. The sanctity of the vote is strictly confidential in terms of who you voted for. If you have a family member who maybe is undocumented, then you have an even greater reason to vote.

RODRIGUEZ: This has been a huge fear presented especially during this election.

OBAMA: And the reason that fear is promoted is because they don't want people voting. People are discouraged from voting and part of what is important for Latino citizens is to make your voice heard, because you're not just speaking for yourself. You're speaking for family members, friends, classmates of yours in school...

RODRIGUEZ: Your entire community.

OBAMA: ... who may not have a voice. Who can't legally vote. But they're counting on you to make sure that you have the courage to make your voice heard.

 This would be typical Democrat identity politics.

The problem is that the interviewer led off the segment by declaring that because illegal aliens "contribute to the country", they are undocumented citizens.   Rather than disabuse Ms. Rodriguez of little things like the law, Obama vaguely states that you are a citizen when you are voting and the anonymity of a vote is sacrosant. 

In addition, this generous take on an oleaginous interview on illegals and voting was a blanket statement from President Obama in which he claimed that if you show up at the polls, no one will stop you from voting.  The young reporter deliberately turns to the camera and flashes a smarmy smile. 

Perhaps this would explain why the Department of Justice warned conservative poll watchers that they might face imprisonment for voter intimidation if they interfere with voter access.

For a lawyer, Barack Obama imprecise rhetoric about voting may well have been intended to encourage as many people to the polls as possible and encouraging illegal votes. Some states allow for same day registration. And the Supreme Court has made it difficult to prove identity or citizenship, to echo Hillary Clinton's Benghazi testimony, "At this point, what difference does it make".