CONTENTS: RUSHBO – Liberalism dead; RUSHBO – Treading lightly; GLICK – Israel; HANSON – Carpe Diem.
ISSUES: BATCHELOR – Bannon, Bolton, Ledeen.
“Vice President-elect Mike Pence is one of the most pro-Israel policy-makers in America. Former speaker of the House Newt Gingrich is an outspoken ally of Israel and of the US-Israel alliance.
“Likewise, former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, former senator Rick Santorum, retired general Mike Flynn, and former UN ambassador John Bolton are all extraordinary champions of the US alliance with Israel.” Caroline Glick, http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/11/15/israel_in_the_trump_era_132354.html
Rushbo: “The Depth of Democrat Defeat in 2016: Liberalism Was Rejected and Repudiated”
“I’m gonna stay focused on this because this defeat — do you know how many states in this country now have a Democrat governor, Democrat legislature? Take a guess. How many states, there are 50, not 57. There are 50 states. How many of those states have a Democrat governor and Democrat state legislature? The number is five. However, it’s actually four. In Connecticut there is a tie in the state senate there, and the tiebreaker goes to the Democrats in that case. But in real numbers there are four states that have a legitimate, without using a tiebreaker, Democrat governor and Democrat state legislature.
“They are Rhode Island and Hawaii, both states you could put in a thimble, and Oregon and California. That’s it. Connecticut is number five, if you count the tiebreaker. Now, what constituted this defeat, or what led to it? The Democrats are doing their postmortems on this right now, and, folks, 2002’s repeating itself and the media is in full-fledged BS mode. Remember the story we had yesterday that the Trump campaign had no idea that they had to staff the West Wing?
“Remember the story we had yesterday that Trump had no idea that 4,000 jobs had to be filled and that Trump was going to rely on Obama to help. Do you realize that story is a totally made-up lie? We’re just gonna have to start assuming this when every story in the Drive-By Media — and the New York Times has now come out and said that they essentially are going to be the voice of the opposition. They are once again throwing journalism aside, throwing it overboard in favor of being the loyal opposition. . .”
Rushbo: “Precarious Times: My Theory on Trump’s Behavior since the Election”
“RUSH: I’ve been doing a lot of thinking about the Donald Trump that we’re seeing now.
“I alluded to some of it yesterday when I told you what I really thought was going on, the way Trump’s dealing with Obama, say, at the Oval Office or praising Obama as a great guy or what have you. It’s about a number of things, but among them at the top is that Trump knows we’re precariously balanced as a nation. The people that lost this election are devastated and in stages of denial and anger that makes them volatile-ly dangerous. And they still hold the levers of power.
“So there will be nothing done to provoke them. My theory. I think nothing will be done to provoke them. Trump knows that his presidency begins on January 20th, not before. He can name his cabinet, transition team, do some things in that nature, announce various intentions, but biding time here publicly and advancing the ball behind the scenes is the agenda, is what’s taking place here. And there will be some tolerance for media doing this or that. It’s all about getting to January 20th, folks, and then it’s Katy, bar the door.
“Then it’s look out. . .”
Carolyn Glick, RCP: “Israel in the Trump Era”
“. . . first and foremost that Obamacare will be repealed and replaced with health industry reforms that open the medical insurance market to competition.
“With the support of the Republican-controlled Senate, Trump will end Obama’s push to reshape the US Supreme Court in the image of the activist, indeed, authoritarian Israeli Supreme Court. During his four-year term, Trump may appoint as many as four out of nine justices. In so doing he will shape the court for the next generation. Trump made clear during the race that the justices he selects will oppose the Obama-led leftist plan to transform the court into an imperial judiciary that determines social and cultural norms and legislates from the bench.
“Trump will also clean out the Internal Revenue Service. Under Obama, the IRS became an instrument of political warfare. Conservative and right-wing pro-Israel groups were systematically discriminated against and targeted for abuse. It is possible to assume that Trump will fire the IRS officials who have been involved in this discriminatory abuse of power.
“To be sure, much is still unclear about Trump’s foreign policy. But here, too, certain things are already known. Trump will vacate the US’s signature from the nuclear deal with Iran.
“Trump will not be able to repair the damage the deal has already caused – at least not immediately. He will not be able to reimpose the multilateral and UN Security Council sanctions on Iran that the nuclear deal canceled. Such a move will require prolonged negotiations and their conclusion is far from assured.
“Trump will likewise be unable to take back the billions of dollars that Iran has already received due to the abrogation of economic sanctions and through cash payoffs from the Obama administration.
“At the same time, from his first day in office, Trump will change the trajectory of US policy toward Iran. He will oppose Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons. He will oppose Iran’s rise to regional hegemony.
“A second conclusion that it is already possible to draw about the Trump presidency is that Trump will be much more like the hands-off Ronald Reagan than the hands-on Obama. His past as a businessman along with his lack of governmental or political experience will lead Trump to set general policy guidelines and goals and delegate responsibility for crafting suitable policies and programs to his cabinet secretaries and advisers.
“This means that personnel will very much be policy in the Trump administration. Whereas Obama’s cabinet members and advisers have been more or less interchangeable since Obama himself determined everything from the details of his policies to the ways that the policies would be sold to the public (or hidden from the public), and implemented, Trump’s pick of advisers will be strategically significant. . .”
Victor Davis Hanson, NRO: “Carpe Diem, Mr. Trump”
“Forgive, but do not forget, and be the strong horse. While we speak, a jealous age will have fled. Seize the day! Trust as little as you can in tomorrow.
“The Latin poet Horace’s advice of carpe diem— to seize the day and not worry about tomorrow — should be Trump’s transitional guide.
“The attacks on Trump won’t even wait until he takes office; they begin now, well apart from rioting in the streets. And they will continue to be of several types.
“Of the personal sort, expect more “investigative” reporting and “speaking truth to power” op-eds about his tax returns, his supposed theft of the election, his purported instigation of turbulence and mayhem, his locker-room talks about women, his business conflicts of interests in office, Trump University, and so on — perhaps written from the high moral ground by the WikiLeaks journalists of the Mark Leibovich, Dana Milbank, Glenn Thrush, Wolf Blitzer, or Donna Brazile sort.
“The nexus of attack will not be a dramatic scandalous revelation — it will be intended to induce bleeding from a thousand tiny nicks and cuts, all designed to reduce his moral authority and thus his ability to ratchet back the progressive decade.
“Another trope, as we are now witnessing, will be of the hysterical policy brand: Trump will cook the planet, put y’all back in chains, conduct war on women, traumatize students, destroy dreamers — all the boilerplate extremism designed to put Trump on the defensive so that he will settle for half an agenda and “reach out” to cement his respectability as a “listener” before the court of D.C. fixtures, the campuses, the foundations, the think tanks, the media, the social circles of Silicon Valley and Wall Street.
“The Siren strategy of the Left will also be to point out that his future is already destabilizing America — Trump must therefore reach out right now to the “disaffected” in the streets who are “hurting.” Thereby, he will “heal” the nation, if only he backs off from “right-wing” and “extremist” ideas of selling coal overseas or building a wall and taxing billions of dollars in remittance from illegal aliens to pay for it.
“In extremis, the Left will call on its Never Trump counterparts of like class to convince Trump to play by the accustomed Washington rules of decorum and judicious discourse. In carrot-and-stick fashion, they might even begin to talk of Trump’s “surprising flexibility” or his “unexpected reasonableness” in hopes of watering down his agenda and leaving him addicted to more backhanded praises from the cultural elite.
“Also expect to hear in the next 90 days that the idea of executive orders (of the Obama type) are in retrospect dangerous to the republic and destabilizing. Filibusters will again become essential, and as hallowed a Senate tradition as Harry Reid’s nuclear option will now be denounced as disruptive and nihilistic.
“We will hear that the Supreme Court, after some rethinking, actually works just fine with eight justices for a while. . .”
John Batchelor (11/15/16) Steve Bannon
Tuesday 15 November 2016 / Hour 1, Block B:
Steve Bannon was CEO of the Trump campaign, now is WH senior advisor, was critical in the campaign. He’s not anti-women, not anti-Black, is not a white nationalist. He wants Trump to stick up for the forgotten class, wage-earners. He’s made very positive contributions, is none of the things he’s being called, and he surely will not leave. I suggest to the screamers: just get over it. He may surprise everyone with excellent programs. Same thing happened with Reagan: they asserted there was so much trouble between Jim Baker and Ed Meese, whereas these two worked together calmly and very well. They mostly picked on Ed Meese.
I think they hate Bannon so much because he won. First hundred days: tax cut – Reagan signed in Aug 1981; we can beat that, can get much of it done in 150 days, by early summer.
Kevin Brady: They don’t think they’ll need reconciliation to get the tax bill through. Enough Dems to bring in favoring tax reform and so save reconciliation for the more difficult Obamacare revisions.
Steve – you and I will go fix up Orrin Hatch. . . . I want to see a bunch of Dems in the Trump cabinet.
John Batchelor (11/15/16) John Bolton
“. . . For a century, the sovereignty issue has been central in US foreign-policy debates. Starting with the Senate’s 1919 rejection of the treaty of Versailles, to the 1999 defeat of the comprehensive test ban treaty, to America’s 2002 unsigning the treaty creating the International Criminal Court, preserving American sovereignty has been an important principle.
Similarly, the Brexit referendum was, above all else, a reassertion of British sovereignty, a declaration of independence from would-be rulers who, while geographically close, were remote from the peasantry they sought to rule. The peasants have now spoken. Unable to drain the Brussels swamps alone, Britain walked away, which the US has itself done on occasion, withdrawing from Unesco under Ronald Reagan (joined by Margaret Thatcher’s Britain). The Brexit decision was deplored by British and American elites alike, but not by most US conservatives, and definitely not by Donald Trump.
It does not surprise Americans that British elites have not reconciled themselves to losing: their counterparts in America are equally appalled that somehow mere voters rejected the heir apparent to the presidency, and many are now in the streets protesting. They would all be better advised to heed Alexander Hamilton’s comment about the House of Representatives during New York’s ratification debate over the constitution, “Here, sir, the people govern.”
Indeed, ultimately the people do govern. In America, popular sovereignty is embodied in the constitution’s first three words: “We the people.” By endorsing Brexit, British voters have put the bilateral US-UK relationship at the top of Washington’s agenda after Inauguration Day.
Although the transition is still young, Mr Trump has always had a decidedly different view of Brexit from Mr Obama, who contemptuously warned Britain that it would go “to the back of the queue” in trade negotiations if Leave prevailed.
Now, with some imagination and resolve, London and Washington can fashion a new economic relationship, perhaps involving Canada, with the potential for significant economic growth. Let the EU wallow in strangling economic regulation, and the euro albatross that Britain wisely never joined.
Unravelling Britain’s EU bonds will doubtless be difficult and perilous, especially if EU political theologians prevail over commonsense businesspeople. Rewriting trade rules with the United States will also be complex, but the potential economic upside for both countries is enormous.
This is a unique opportunity, and why a successful trade deal should be at the front of the diplomatic queue for both governments.
Nato received considerable attention during the presidential election as Mr Trump criticised member governments whose defence budgets were inadequate. His concern for European under-spending on national security was no different from what US officials, on a bipartisan basis, have lamented for decades. Importantly, Mr Trump has made it clear that his intent is to strengthen Nato, which has been floundering in the post-Cold War era, with its objectives in doubt and its decision-making increasingly sclerotic.
Nato is America’s kind of international partnership: a classic politico-military alliance of nation states. It has never purported to assume sovereign functions, and is as distant as is imaginable from the EU paradigm.
Looking forward we should urgently consider the proposal by José Maria Aznar, the former Spanish prime minister, to make Nato a global alliance. Mr Aznar has suggested admitting new members such as Japan, Australia, Singapore, and Israel, a dramatic departure from Nato’s original transatlantic focus, but which recognises new global realities.
Tuesday 15 November 2016 / Hour 4, Block B: Michael Ledeen, FDD, in re: So You Say You Want a Revolution? A Working Class Revolution? @Michael Ledeen.
“…America is the most revolutionary country in the world precisely because of our tradition of rejecting big-state ‘solutions,’ and the ideas and doctrines that the big-state elites advocate. The election of Donald Trump shows American revolutionary patriotism at work. He won in the face of overwhelming opposition from the ‘establishment,’ from the political parties to the government bureaucracy (there are still stories of ‘massive resignations’ in the State Department, for example), from big media, big business, self-proclaimed policy experts, Silicon Valley tycoons, and most political pundits….
A Working Class Revolution? Revolutions invariably mobilize people who had been politically apathetic, and the Trump revolution is no exception. He received decisive support from workers who had either defaulted to their unions or stayed at home on election day. They are now politically engaged. Are we seeing a working-class revolution? If so, it is not the sort of class conflict the Marxists imagined. Instead it bespeaks a revolutionary revival against an establishment viewed as selfish, unpatriotic, and, via political correctness, anti-American. As Joel Kotkin put it, “Trump’s America…does not see the United States as part of a global system to be managed.”
Trump understood this. The establishment didn’t. . .”