The official Democratic response by given by losing (but still not conceding – in fact, she might be both a Never-Trumper and a Never-Conceder) Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams. Abrams got some flak for making much of her speech about herself and her family background, but I actually thought that was the best part. From her description of her father, he sounds like a fine man, and I liked her story about him giving his coat to a homeless person and his teaching his family that in America, when we’re in trouble, we can count on our friends and neighbors and first responders to “come for us.”
I also liked the fact that because those were personal family memories, I didn’t have to deal with the cognitive dissonance I suffered during the policy portion of her speech, when she kept saying things that I knew were patently false. For instance, describing this red-hot economy with record low unemployment, rising wages and job creation at double the expected rate as some sort of depressed wasteland where “plants are closing, layoffs are looming and wages struggle to keep pace with the actual cost of living” (has she not looked at the business news since Obama left office?)
Or hauling out the fake news about how Trump wants to put children in cages (that started with a meme of a border detention center photo taken during the Obama Administration – and would she rather that children apprehended when their parents try to sneak them into the country illegally be kept with people who may not really be their parents, along with the general population of detainees, including sex offenders and drug gangsters?)
Abrams also used the now-familiar Democratic tactic of trying to win a losing argument by redefining terms. Americans are not in favor of illegal immigration, so Democrats defend it by calling illegal aliens “immigrants” and accusing anyone who wants to enforce existing immigration laws of being a bigot who hates immigrants. Sorry, but President Trump just make it abundantly clear that he thinks legal immigrants are a great resource for America and he wants to welcome many more of them, as long as they respect the process and follow the rules.
Kudos to her for coming up with a new (to me, anyway) fuzzy euphemism for murdering babies in the womb: “reproductive justice.” I wish the approximately 60 million children who have been killed by abortionists since Roe v. Wade had voices because I bet they would tell you their executions didn’t feel like “justice” to them. It was also blindingly ironic that the theme of her speech was that in America, someone will always “come for you” when you’re in trouble, at the very moment when her party is actually defending leaving a post-birth baby to struggle for its life while doctors stand around having a discussion about whether or not to give it help or let it die.
Abrams’ official SOTU response was the aural equivalent of the sour faces on the Democrats in the House chamber, and was predictable: a collection of euphemisms, obfuscations, obstructionism, misrepresentations, partisanship and denials of reality. Rather than go through it line-by-line, I’ll refer you to this excellent analysis by Beth Baumann, who fileted it like a flounder.
While Abrams gave the “official” Party response, for Democrats, the impulse to run to a camera and contradict everything President Trump says is as impossible to resist as asking them to vote against a tax increase. And so, as usual, Bernie Sanders followed Abrams with his own response. I won’t bother to encapsulate it; just check out the sick look on his face when Trump declared that America would NEVER be socialist, and you’ve got the gist. Also note that even he couldn’t get through defending the Democrats’ radical stance on abortion without his voice rebelling on him.
Presidential hopeful Sen. Kamala Harris risked ticking off fellow Democrats by giving her own unofficial SOTU response, before Trump even made his speech. It sounds as if she’s as unclear on the meaning of the term “response” as she is on the terms “affordable” or “limited government.” Not knowing what he was going to say, she relied on the usual grab-bag of anti-Trump media slurs, such as the phony ripping-babies-from-their-mothers’-arms-to-put-them-in-cages cliché (better that babies should be ripped from their mothers’ wombs and put in Dumpsters).
But the Democratic responses aren’t over yet, and I’m not referring to all the media attempts to slam Trump, downplay his obvious homerun with viewers, or contradict him, like Time magazine rushing out a tweet to flog a story about how “Democratic” Socialism is a “viable platform.” I don’t think it got the responses on Twitter that they hoped for.
Kamala Harris also promoted yet another Democrat's response to the SOTU, which is coming today in Spanish from California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, whom she described as “a tireless voice for justice” who “has stood up for our values every single day since this President took office.”
I’ll add that Becerra’s idea of standing up for justice and Democratic values is to sue the Little Sisters of the Poor, an order of impoverished nuns who provide end-of-life care to the indigent, to force them to provide contraceptives and abortion drugs to employees in violation of their sacred beliefs. When the Supreme Court rightly sided with the nuns, he defied the SCOTUS, common decency and the First Amendment and found a different legal tack to use to drag them back into federal court again.
What is the Spanish word for “swine”?
In these days when Democrats think wearing blackface 40 years ago is a career-ending offense (but killing a newborn baby isn’t), is it safe to assume that the bombshell new evidence of Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s “cultural appropriation” on her 1986 Texas State Bar registration form will mark the end of her presidential hopes?
Virginia Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax’s odds of replacing the odious Gov. Ralph Northam seem to be dropping as his defense against a 2004 sexual assault allegation is being called into question – not by Republicans but by the Washington Post.
He used WaPo’s decision not to cover the story previously to claim that the paper found inconsistencies and “red flags” in the woman’s story. But WaPo says that’s not what they said. They found that Fairfax and his accuser told different stories (he said it was consensual, she says she was physically forced), but they found no corroborating evidence or witnesses to disprove or support either version.
So it’s still “he said, she said,” but they found nothing suspicious about what she said. Only now, he’s been accused of lying about what the Washington Post said about the incident, which doesn’t look good when being the more believable person is his chief defense. He still deserves the presumption of innocence, but his ground just got shakier. And this development isn’t going to make his case any easier either:
I know what you’re thinking, but sorry: the next in line for Governor is Attorney General Mark Herring, and he’s a Democrat, too. On the other hand, he is a Democrat, too, so this may not be the end of it.
I’m glad to hear that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has a favorite Bible verse that she quotes “all the time.” I’d be even gladder if it were actually in the Bible. She said, “I know it’s in there someplace, it’s supposed to be in Isaiah.” She says that “in some words or another” (her grasp of the meaning of the word “quote” is also tenuous), it says that “to administer to the needs of God’s creation is an act of worship. To ignore those needs is to dishonor the God who made us.”
I’ve spent quite a bit of my life studying the Bible, and I have to confess, I’m baffled as to how I missed that. I suspect that it’s the Biblical version of “fake news.” Call it “fake Good News.”
Even if it is fictional, though, I’m happy to hear that she believes that we dishonor God when we refuse to administer to the needs of God’s creations. Since babies are unquestionably one of God’s greatest creations, I assume this means she will support a bill to ban late-term abortions and not providing medical care to babies born alive during abortion procedures.
If she doesn’t, then I’ll have to assume that she is, as it says somewhere in Deuteronomy, a “liar, liar, pants on fire.”