I realized where this speech was going early in the night, during the section on economics and tax cuts. Donald Trump said that Americans were going to be seeing more take-home pay as a result of Congress' having passed tax cuts. Democrats sat on their hands rather than applaud Americans having more take home pay.
There are a lot of summaries of all the things that Democrats refused to applaud going around this morning. Some of them are things you'd have thought they'd applaud even if it meant giving a moment of credit or sunshine to a President they'd prefer wasn't there. Black and Hispanic unemployment being at record lows, for example: that seems like a good thing no matter who gets the credit for it.
Other things are more damning admissions. Some of these continue this morning. You can see, in the moment, a representative storming out of the chamber to protest a chant of "USA! USA!", even though you'd think such a display of patriotism unsurprising at a political event discussing the state of the American union. Still, passions run high in the moment. What is harder to understand is a considered statement by the American Civil Liberties Union, which says that the repeated use of the word America is 'exclusionary.'
Vox, which is tasked with making the speech look as bad as possible, can be forgiven for trying to paint the speech as 'lacking solutions for America's problems.' In fact a good part of the speech was about celebrating solutions for America's problems that have already been achieved, such as robust economic growth and the end to stagnation caused by over-regulation and high taxes. But it's their job to write that piece, and anyway by 'solutions' they mean 'government programs' (of which I thought there were actually far too many in last night's speech, but community standards differ). But how to explain them deciding to paint the story of a North Korean's defiant search for freedom and dignity as 'scary'?
In this speech as in any speech, there's plenty of room for disagreement on policy. It is surprising to see the opposition decide instead to oppose prosperity, the defiance of tyranny, or the celebration of America itself.
4 comments:
What I object to is the whole notion of a State of the Union devoted to a description of how the Union is doing. I mean, it's the American Union. Where do we get off focusing on how American is doing? Why not a State of Galaxy? It's so jingoistic and self-involved.
Pelosi looked, as Bookworm Room said, as if she were sucking on a sour lemon.
And what, I wonder, could a story like that of the North Korean escapee be but scary? It was terrifying. We should be terrified. That's what tyranny looks like. North Korea is not some cute socialistic country trying to rid the world of the evils of capitalism so we can all share cuddly life stories of how we avoided starvation.
You can see, in the moment, a representative storming out of the chamber to protest a chant of "USA! USA!"....
The Congressman was the Progressive-Democrat from Illinois and open prostitute, Luis Gutierrez. He nakedly sold his vote for Obamacare in return for Obama's promise to take concrete action on immigration, with particular attention to immigration from south of our border.
Then he bent over his desk and spread ... while Obama gave it to him good and hard with a vapid Executive Order instructing his Cabinet to try to figure something out. No member of #MeToo is Gutierrez. But, hey, he knew it would all be Trump's fault someday.
Eric Hines
And what, I wonder, could a story like that of the North Korean escapee be but scary? It was terrifying. We should be terrified.
I think Vox was scared of what Trump would do, not what the Kims would do, but fair point. I don't find the DPRK especially scary, but mostly because I suspect it to be a rusted shell that would shatter with a good knock. Their whole military program is just trying to be scary enough that nobody gives them that knock. Their political program -- which is built around trying to reunify Korea under the Kims' leadership -- is completely insane. Even if they could bring off unification under their flag, there's no way that the DPRK political structure could digest a nation like the ROK.
I do worry about northern Korea, especially once they figure out how to put nuclear warheads on their missiles. Our missile defense systems are pretty good, but they're not perfect. A single warhead getting through would have strongly suboptimal outcomes--especially were that one to hit one of our cities, with the Left already screaming, Kissinger-like, for preemptive surrender.
Shatter with a good knock? Who will deliver it? Our own Left are so terrified of getting a sock in the face from a war that they're pushing for appeasement.
Eric Hines
Post a Comment