RUTHFULLY YOURS

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

The strategic mistake to which I refer was the one made by Michael Bloomberg to enter the Democrat primary for President, rather than to run as an independent. At least, that is my belief. The error was understandable in that no third-party candidate has won the Presidency, since the current two parties began competing in 1860. But, to use those over-worked and dangerous words, this time is different. The incumbent is a man who has never received more than 50% approval, despite the fact that the economy and employment are doing well. At the same time, Democrats have moved decidedly leftward, leaving their center undefended.

In his recently published book, A Time to Build, Yuval Levin wrote, “…[political] parties have been de-professionalized, cannot control their own internal processes, and are increasingly exposed to the power and pressure of political celebrity culture.” What he wrote is visible to anyone with eyes to see. The 2016 presidential election changed the Republican Party. The old way of doing things no longer applied. The 2018 midterm elections, which brought Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) and Ilhan Omar (D-MI) to the House, changed the Democrat Party, swinging it far to the left. Optimism for the future was replaced with hatred of the past. In both cases, the change reflects the fact that elections have become less about policy and enacting bi-partisan legislation, and more about platforms for radical ideas. Traditional party members, on both sides of the aisle, have become as isolated from real concerns of the people, as they are distanced from the victorious radical newbies who joined their party. In part, this has to do with the mathematical fact that our national legislature is less representative of the people than it once was. In 1800, the House of Representatives consisted of 106 members; in 2020, there were 435 House members. So, while the overall population has grown by a factor of 72, the number of Representatives has increased by just over four times. In other words, legislators are less representative – in sheer numbers – than they were two hundred and twenty years ago. But these changes also reflect a cultural shift that demeans family, history and tradition. Both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders have taken advantage of the fact that many voters feel that politics as usual no longer applies.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/02/the_democrat_response_to_the_coronavirus_is_scarier_than_the_virus.html

The Democrats claim Trump is mishandling the coronavirus threat and that they’d do better. They’re wrong. Their proposals are redundant, vapid, or dangerous.

During the recent debate, three candidates discussed coronavirus:

Amy Klobuchar urged treatment and quarantine – which is (a) obvious and (b) what Trump is doing. She accused Trump of ignoring the world (he hasn’t) and wants to improve education.

Biden did his inevitable “I already did that response,” referring to Ebola (which, thankfully for America, stayed in Africa).

Bernie Sanders accused Trump of idiocy for predicting the virus would end in April. What Trump said was that influenzas generally go away once winter ends, something that is scientifically correct. Bernie said he would work with WHO (which Trump has done).

In addition to those statements, all three say Trump cannot address coronavirus because he withdrew funds from the CDC and NIH.

On Wednesday, Pelosi issued a formal statement that also says Trump cannot fight the virus because he has shrunk government:

“The American people need a well-coordinated, whole-of-government, fully-funded response to keep them safe from the coronavirus threat.  Unfortunately, the Trump Administration has mounted an opaque and chaotic response to this outbreak. 

“The Trump Administration has left critical positions in charge of managing pandemics at the National Security Council and the Department of Homeland Security vacant.  The Trump Budget called for slashing almost $700 million from the Centers for Disease Control.  And even now, the Administration continues to devalue Americans’ health security by ransacking funding from other vital public health needs.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/bernies-foreign-sympathies-11582763907?mod=opinion_lead_pos1

Bernie Sanders wants Americans to believe he’s a garden variety “democratic socialist,” with the emphasis on democratic. But as media scrutiny of the Democratic presidential front-runner increases, we’re learning more about where his political sympathies lie, and they’re revealing about what a Sanders foreign policy would look like.

The latest example came this week when Mr. Sanders rejected an invitation to speak at the annual American Israel Public Affairs Committee summit in Washington next week. The conference is a campaign staple for candidates of both parties, though there is no obligation to attend.

But Mr. Sanders didn’t merely reply with a polite “sorry I’m busy.” The Senator took to Twitter on Sunday to say that “I remain concerned about the platform AIPAC provides for leaders who express bigotry and oppose basic Palestinian rights. For that reason I will not attend their conference.”

Bigotry? America’s pro-Israel lobby that includes more than 100,000 members nurtures racial hatred?

Apparently Mr. Sanders meant what he said because in the Charleston debate Tuesday night he was asked about the tweet and whether he would move the U.S. Embassy back to Tel Aviv from Jerusalem. President Trump moved the Embassy to Jerusalem in 2018 after many years of bipartisan Congressional support for doing so that included Joe Biden.

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/bloomberg-the-nanny/

Good for Mike Bloomberg.

During his first debate, he slammed Bernie Sanders by saying: “We’re not going to throw out capitalism. We tried that. Other countries tried that. It was called communism, and it just didn’t work!” Exactly right. It’s safe to say Bloomberg is not a communist. I wonder if that means there’s still room for him in the Democratic Party.

Unfortunately, Bloomberg is no principled, limited-government capitalist, either.

Like his fellow New York billionaire Donald Trump, he’s used to getting his own way at his own company.

Unfortunately, he assumes government should function in a similar fashion.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/02/even_anderson_coopers_polite_interview_with_bernie_reveals_bernies_extremism.html

Anderson Cooper did a decent-ish job challenging some of Bernie’s more extreme positions on Sunday’s 60 Minutes. Despite Cooper’s delicacy, Bernie gave away the fact that he dislikes America and dreams of Marxist socialism.

With Bernie now the frontrunner in the Democrat Party, it was natural that 60 Minutes would interview him. In terms of real journalism, the interview is inadequate. You’ll get more information about Bernie’s lifelong Marxism and love for dictators from the videos at the bottom of this post. Still, there were illuminating moments.

Cooper’s narrative reiterates that Sanders is now claiming Denmark, not Cuba or Venezuela, as his model. It doesn’t matter. Denmark’s reality is strikingly different from the myth.

Sanders, without evidence, calls Trump is a “pathological liar.” Untrue. Trump is an exaggerator; Biden is a fabulist; and Bernie is the pathological liar. Anyone who sells communism, as he has for decades, despite the 100 million dead bodies left behind in the 20th century alone, is lying at an almost incomprehensible scale.

Cooper did note that, in the 1980s, Sanders was a fan of the Soviet Union and the Sandinistas. A brief video from the 1980s, interrupted by Cooper’s voiceovers, has Bernie decrying the “authoritarian nature of Cuba” while lauding its “massive literacy program. Is that a bad thing?” Only a Marxist could value literacy over food and freedom.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/02/can_bloomberg_ever_recover_from_his_disastrous_debate_debut.html

Michael Bloomberg is at the crux of a battle of clichés. America may be the land of second chances, but you never get a second chance to make a first impression.

The level of saturation of Bloomberg’s television advertising actually is working against him now. Few are potential voters who have not been bombarded with the theme that “Mike can get it done,” featuring a candidate who appears strong yet accessible, powerful but caring. However in Las Vegas, Bloomberg pulled back his own curtain, having bribed the DNC to change its rules and allow him onstage, and Americans saw an uncertain-yet-imperious, cold, little man being bullied and out-talked by Elizabeth Warren, mumbling excuses for non-disclosure agreements that lasted just a few days until the mighty oligarch capitulated to the fake Native American.

The stark contrast between what the ads promised and what the reality delivered will take roughly forever to fade from memory. Bloomberg provided his own gotcha, debunking his marketing thrust as a strong man of action.  

Americans instinctively distrust politicians, and they instinctively distrust manipulative advertising.  We love to scorn the pretentious, the high and mighty brought down from their lofty perches.

Even worse for Bloomberg, television advertising is not a welcome interruption of the programming that attracted the eyeballs in the first place. Why do you suppose so many ads these days use humor? It’s as if insurance companies are in the comedy business, not selling a product whose necessity is unpleasant to contemplate. They will happily settle for a  vague association with a cute talking animal or a working class heroine, sold with a sugar coating of humor.

When those television interruptions are all for the same product – a politician – and come with stirring music and visuals, but no humor, resentment starts to kick in, and more ads produce more resentment. The only humor related to Bloomberg ads now is scornful laughter directed at him.