Filed under: Bureaucracy, Domestic Policy, Education, Intelligence, Law, Politics | Tags: Informed or Not, The Progressives, Trump's Cabinet Nominees
I have watched as many of the committee hearings on President-Elect Trump’s Cabinet nominees as I can, to find out more about just who they are. I am very impressed by the quality of these people. Donald Trump and Mike Pence have selected individuals who bring special knowledge and ability to the office to which they were nominated. The difference in the caliber of people is notable.
The questioning in the hearings by Democrats was largely embarrassing. Someone has done a deep dive into the media to see what they can turn up, and issued talking points for the questions, trying to prove the Democrats’ constant cries of “racist, sexist, and homophobe” and throw in “Islamophobe, fascist,” and anything Russian as well. If that sounds like I’m saying the questioning wasn’t very useful, well yes, that’s what I’m saying. It’s the oft-repeated observation that “how can they be qualified to hold a cabinet office when they have never served in government?”
The obvious responses would be Constitutional requirements, being bureaucrats is not a qualification for anything, and that old “We the People” thing.
The nominees were clearly selected for their individual abilities and ideas, rather than because they gave money to the campaign or were early supporters. It’s quite a contrast with President Obama who appointed Hillary as Secretary of State as the candidate he had defeated for the presidency. And seemingly, created a cabinet of yes-men (or women). Obama’s approach was a little different. He famously said:
“I think that I’m a better speechwriter than my speechwriters,” Mr. Obama told Patrick Gaspard, his political director, at the start of the 2008 campaign, according to The New Yorker. “I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors. And I’ll tell you right now that I’m going to think I’m a better political director than my political director.”
He also chose, it was reported, to have intelligence briefings delivered in a short paper that he could read, rather than be “briefed” by intelligence personnel. It is a choice of the way to conduct the office, but telling.
The Left, in general, blames everybody else for Hillary’s loss. The media describes her frequently as “beloved” which clearly does not seem to be the case. John Lewis not only blames the Russians for Hillary’s loss, but will not attend the inauguration since he believes that Donald Trump did not legitimately win the election. Hillary claims that the “Russian hacking” was because of Vladimir Putin’s personal animus against her.
Andy McCarthy wrote that “Disclosure of embarrassing information should not be confused with disinformation.” When the public hears reference to cyber-espionage they are inclined to think spies and sinister stuff, not “an effort to publicize true but embarrassing information.”
Hillary’s improper emails and the court fights to get them released had long been public knowledge and worrisome for those who pay close attention to political matters. Hillary’s emails were a very big deal because 1. they included highly classified national security State Department secrets and 2. She put them on an unsecured computer open to any capable hacker at any time — which she was forbidden by law from doing, because she wanted to hide the graft of the Clinton Foundation, which had considerably enriched the family.
Hillary was a known compulsive liar and had been known as such since she was the wife of the Governor of Arkansas. She was also publicly known as vicious and rude to aides, military personnel, and the Secret Service members assigned to protect her life. No one could name an accomplishment from her tenure as Secretary of State, except for racking up air miles. Benghazi and Libya rankled for those who were paying attention. I know that there are many people who don’t like politics and don’t pay attention. It’s a choice. But they do damage to all of us because they are not informed voters.
The latest excuse for Hillary’s loss is grocery store checkout lines. Those awful headlines on the National Enquirer and it’s competitors, made voters change their minds at the last minute.
Obama believed that the media was to blame for rural Americans not voting Democrat this election despite his administration pumping billions of dollars into rural economies.
Obama made the remarks as part of an “exit interview” put out by CNN. The U.S. Department of Agriculture pumped out $6.5 billion in 2016 to fund rural electrical utilities, housing and community development. …
There are a lot of folks in places like West Virginia or Kentucky who didn’t vote for Hillary, didn’t vote for me, but are being helped by this,” Obama said.
Those coal mining communities were really helped by getting unemployment and food stamps when Obama closed down the mines because of his climate illusions. “Deplorables” indeed. As someone who grew up very, very rural, I can assure you that rural America is not exactly populated by the backward or unintelligent. Or Deplorable.
Democratic California Rep. Maxine Waters will join John Lewis in boycotting the inauguration because she believes that Donald Trump’s campaign attacks against Hillary Clinton are impeachable offenses. Here’s Maxine on Chris Matthews:
“Well here’s what I’m trying to get to,” Waters responded. “If we discover that Donald Trump or his advocates played a role to help provide strategy — if they’re the ones who came up with ‘Crooked Hillary,’ if they’re the ones who came up with, ‘she’s ill, something’s wrong with her energy,’ and the way that he basically described her during the campaign — I think that is something that would put the question squarely on the table whether or not he should be impeached.”
So, you think you can commit an impeachable offense before you take office?” Matthews incredulously asked the California Democrat.
“Well, I think that at the point that investigations discover and confirm and can document any of that role in helping to strategize — they had a role in attempting to determine the outcome,” she answered regardless of the actual question. “That in many ways they used the information they got when they hacked into emails etc. — if that was used against Hillary Clinton in some way, yes I think that’s impeachable.”
Oh my! I rest my case.
4 Comments so far
Leave a comment