If you listen to the media today, the big news is that the partial shutdown of the government is now the longest such shutdown in history. The other big news in the mainstream media is that the NY Times reported that when President Trump fired Jim Comey as head of the FBI, the FBI opened an investigation into Trump to see if he was working for the Russians. Last night on MSNBC, the joy with which the panelists discussed this report was essentially orgasmic. There's also been big coverage that the President has "walked back" his threat to declare a national emergency and use emergency powers to build the wall. Put this all together and what does it mean?
The most likely answer is that the polling being done with regard to the government shutdown is shifting strongly against the Democrats and in favor of Trump and the Republicans. "What?" you may say. "How can that be?"
Think about it. President Trump has the power to declare an emergency, build the wall and get the government fully open again. He was on a trajectory that would likely have had him declare the emergency early next week. If the polls were showing growing discontent with his position, that would be the way out of a mess for him. The government would reopen. Either the wall would be built or some liberal court would block construction. Either way, he would have fought the good fight and satisfied his supporters. But Trump chose not to make the declaration now. Instead he said that it was up to Congress to resolve this. Trump left the door open to a future declaration of emergency, but for now he gave the burden back to Congress. That indicates that the President thinks that the continuing shutdown benefits his position.
Then there's the NY Times story. It is, in the favorite expression of last year, a "nothing burger". Trump fires the head of the FBI, and in retaliation, the FBI opens an investigation into Trump. The investigation, however, was a total non-event. Remember, just a few days later the Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein appointed a special counsel Robert Mueller and any FBI investigation ended. Mueller was then in charge. Remember also that the new acting head of the FBI when Comey was fired was Andy McCabe. McCabe is the one who was fired after a DOJ investigation revealed that he had lied repeatedly about leaking anti-Trump material to the media. McCabe is also the "Andy" in whose office Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, among others, came up with their "insurance policy" plan to destroy Trump in case he won the 2016 election. Indeed, Peter Strzok was involved in this supposed FBI investigation into Trump according to multiple reports. Most likely, the "investigation" itself was part of the "insurance policy". Finally, it is almost two years since this supposed investigation was opened. Nothing has ever come of it. The FBI found nothing to suggest that Trump is working for Russia. If it had, you can be sure that either someone in the FBI or in Congress would have leaked that news by now. No, the investigation was a big nothing, but news that there was an investigation is still being made into a big media splash.
The real question to consider is this: why did the NY Times publish the story about the investigation now? It can't be that the Times just learned of the existence of this short-lived investigation. That makes no sense. More likely, the Times knew that the polling on the big issue of the day, the shutdown, was shifting against the Democrats. As a result, the investigation story was put out there to give the media something else on which to focus. It was also intended to incite the Democrat base to being more stridently anti-Trump and to try to build back up the support by the base of the Democrats in the shutdown showdown.
Remember, the initial polls when the shutdown began put more responsibility for the shutdown on Trump than on the Democrats (although not by a great margin.) About a week ago, Nate Silver's 538 site published an article that reported that despite the initial view of who caused the shutdown, the public seemed to be moving against the Democrats in polling regarding how those involved were handling the ongoing shutdown and efforts to resolve it. Then we had the two national speeches. Trump was factual and calm and spoke of compromise and the terrible price being put on many American families by the avalanche of drugs and the criminal element among illegal aliens entering the USA. His delivery was soft, not like his usual animated self. Even so, he was much better than the totally wooden presence of Pelosi and Schumer as they responded. That response described Trump's address in ways that were clearly wrong for anyone who had seen the President's speech five minutes before. The Democrats spoke of congressional process and budgeting and did not address the drugs and criminal element. Trump's speech was clearly better. The next day, Trump brought the Democrats to the White House to negotiate, something Pelosi and Schumer refused to do. Again, the optics presented to the American people was Trump was trying to resolve things while the Democrats wouldn't budge. It isn't hard to conclude that many across the country moved to conclude that it is the Democrats who are keeping the government closed despite the costs inflicted on federal workers and many others.
If this is correct (and I admit that I could be wrong), the Democrat position is eroding as the shutdown continues. That would explain the items listed above and much more.
The most likely answer is that the polling being done with regard to the government shutdown is shifting strongly against the Democrats and in favor of Trump and the Republicans. "What?" you may say. "How can that be?"
Think about it. President Trump has the power to declare an emergency, build the wall and get the government fully open again. He was on a trajectory that would likely have had him declare the emergency early next week. If the polls were showing growing discontent with his position, that would be the way out of a mess for him. The government would reopen. Either the wall would be built or some liberal court would block construction. Either way, he would have fought the good fight and satisfied his supporters. But Trump chose not to make the declaration now. Instead he said that it was up to Congress to resolve this. Trump left the door open to a future declaration of emergency, but for now he gave the burden back to Congress. That indicates that the President thinks that the continuing shutdown benefits his position.
Then there's the NY Times story. It is, in the favorite expression of last year, a "nothing burger". Trump fires the head of the FBI, and in retaliation, the FBI opens an investigation into Trump. The investigation, however, was a total non-event. Remember, just a few days later the Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein appointed a special counsel Robert Mueller and any FBI investigation ended. Mueller was then in charge. Remember also that the new acting head of the FBI when Comey was fired was Andy McCabe. McCabe is the one who was fired after a DOJ investigation revealed that he had lied repeatedly about leaking anti-Trump material to the media. McCabe is also the "Andy" in whose office Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, among others, came up with their "insurance policy" plan to destroy Trump in case he won the 2016 election. Indeed, Peter Strzok was involved in this supposed FBI investigation into Trump according to multiple reports. Most likely, the "investigation" itself was part of the "insurance policy". Finally, it is almost two years since this supposed investigation was opened. Nothing has ever come of it. The FBI found nothing to suggest that Trump is working for Russia. If it had, you can be sure that either someone in the FBI or in Congress would have leaked that news by now. No, the investigation was a big nothing, but news that there was an investigation is still being made into a big media splash.
The real question to consider is this: why did the NY Times publish the story about the investigation now? It can't be that the Times just learned of the existence of this short-lived investigation. That makes no sense. More likely, the Times knew that the polling on the big issue of the day, the shutdown, was shifting against the Democrats. As a result, the investigation story was put out there to give the media something else on which to focus. It was also intended to incite the Democrat base to being more stridently anti-Trump and to try to build back up the support by the base of the Democrats in the shutdown showdown.
Remember, the initial polls when the shutdown began put more responsibility for the shutdown on Trump than on the Democrats (although not by a great margin.) About a week ago, Nate Silver's 538 site published an article that reported that despite the initial view of who caused the shutdown, the public seemed to be moving against the Democrats in polling regarding how those involved were handling the ongoing shutdown and efforts to resolve it. Then we had the two national speeches. Trump was factual and calm and spoke of compromise and the terrible price being put on many American families by the avalanche of drugs and the criminal element among illegal aliens entering the USA. His delivery was soft, not like his usual animated self. Even so, he was much better than the totally wooden presence of Pelosi and Schumer as they responded. That response described Trump's address in ways that were clearly wrong for anyone who had seen the President's speech five minutes before. The Democrats spoke of congressional process and budgeting and did not address the drugs and criminal element. Trump's speech was clearly better. The next day, Trump brought the Democrats to the White House to negotiate, something Pelosi and Schumer refused to do. Again, the optics presented to the American people was Trump was trying to resolve things while the Democrats wouldn't budge. It isn't hard to conclude that many across the country moved to conclude that it is the Democrats who are keeping the government closed despite the costs inflicted on federal workers and many others.
If this is correct (and I admit that I could be wrong), the Democrat position is eroding as the shutdown continues. That would explain the items listed above and much more.
No comments:
Post a Comment