Recently Robert Mueller issued yet another non-exhoneration-exhoneration of Donald Trump. Much like James Comey's July 2016 non-indictment-indictment of Hillary Clinton it was a duplicitous statement designed strictly for face saving and to gain political advantage. Robert Mueller's statement gave the Democratic party what they have been lacking: a viable strategy for the 2020 elections.
Donald Trump has an almost insurmountable advantage going into 2020. He is an incumbent President who has had economic success. Since the Civil War incumbency has been an electoral advantage. Prior to the Civil War two-term presidents were rare. Only Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe and Jackson won re-election. After the Civil War only Hayes, Harrison, Taft, Hoover, Ford, Carter and Bush (41) were one-termers. Hayes, election was questionable: the electoral delegation of 3 states were questioned. The Republican controlled Congress, with out any legal authority, appointed an electoral commission made up of majority Republicans to elect Hayes. Despite a relatively good record the public resented the political shenanigans that got him in office. Hayes choose not to run for re-election. Harrison lost the general after a challenge for the nomination from his own party. Taft lost due to a third party bid mounted by the former Republican President Theodore Roosevelt; George H. W. Bush faced a third Party challenge from businessman Ross Perot. Ford and Carter both faced challenges from within their own party. Only Hoover was defeated for a second term after an uncontested nomination and only a democratic party opponent. Incumbency gives Trump a very strong advantage. Trump has another advantage a prosperous peace-time economy.
The Obama administration failed in everything it attempted except the capturing of Osama Ben Laden. The nation labored under a non-recovery recovery. There was a mass shooting a terrorist attack, or a race-riot every month of the administration. The crisis at the border got worse. The liberal Supreme court began restructuring the very foundations of American law and culture. Anyone who disagreed with Obama or with his radical social agenda was labeled a hater. We had troops in several theaters in the Middle East (eight by my count). We nearly faced a nuclear war with N. Korea, and despite $150B payoff to Iran we made no progress in diminishing their threat.The left and the mainstream Media praised Obama as the Savior of a racist nation, and nominated the person they felt most likely to continue the progress toward utopia -- Hillary Rodam Clinton.
So what are the Democrats to do? None of the circus performing contenders for the Democratic nomination compare to Donald Trump. Their campaigns must consist entirely on negatives. Their mantra Trump is so evil he must not be reelected. Hard to sell in view of his record This is the strategy behind continuing the investigation into collusion and obstruction of Justice; it is to demonize Trump as they did Nixon his entire political career. Hence the people testifying before the committee have more to say about Trump's personality then about his actions or policies, Michael Cohen, John Dean, Hope Hix. While some laugh at this strategy I disagree with the view that Impeachment will automatically damage the Democratic party. While many point argue that the Clinton impeachment damaged the Republicans electoral change in 2000, I think that assumption ignores the record.
A look at the 2000 campaign makes it clear that impeachment did not help the Democrats, but neither did it hurt the Republicans. The democrats did everything they could in 2000 to separate themselves from Bill Clinton. They even tried, but failed to keep the President away from the convention. The Democratic nominee was Clinton's Vice President Al Gore. Seated Vice Presidents who run for President almost all ways run on the promise to continue the legacy of their predecessor. No seated Vice President who follows a failed or unpopular President runs for office. (Hubert Humphrey did but he was the choice of a brokered convention). Gore selected Senator Joseph Leiberman as his running mate. It was clear repudiation of Bill Cliton. Leibermann was the only democratic Senator who voted in favor of Clinton's conviction and removal from office. The democrats in the 2000 election did everything they could to distance themselves from the Clinton impeachment. While the impeachment clearly did not help Gore, neither did it hurt him or the party. Despite a mediocre Clinton Presidency and an impeachment George W. Bush squeaked out a 1 vote electoral college win in a contested election? Neither did separating themselves from an impeached President give impetus to Gore. Al Gore lost for the same reason Hillary did. He ran a lousy campaign compared to George Bush's mediocre campaign. The impeachment had little affect on the election outcome. So there is no correspondence between impeachment and election. Impeachment is a political and media event. The two impeachment attempts by Congress since World War 2 have been prosecuted by the media. It is the media that forced Richard Nixon out of office and protected Bill Clinton's second term tenure.
Democrats have a distinct advantage in any impeachment proceeding because they control the main stream media. The media will create and sustain the public narrative to behind the impeachment proceedings As a matter of fact I believe an impeachment or censure action is the only effective strategy the Democrats can mount in the 2020 campaign. I would argue that rather than impeachment proceedings driving Richard Nixon out of office a vitriolic media did. More damage was done to Nixon by the secret meeting with Deep Throat, a disgruntle FBI executive who did not like the President, then was done by any testimony. The mere surreptitious reporting made him seem like some courageous whistle blower when in fact he was seeking to eliminate Nixon to advance his own career agenda. So much for Peter Strock's actions being extraordinary behavior for the FBI. Clinton's acquittal occurred principally because of his media defenders.
All you have to do is ask any person who has graduated from High School in the US in the past 20 years why Clinton was impeached and you will hear the media narrative. "Clinton was impeached because he had sex with Monica Lewinsky in the oval office," when in fact the Articles of impeachment had to do with purgery in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit, and the Presdident attempt to interfere with Lewinski's testimony in that case. It had nothing to do with sex, or his relationship with Miss Lewinski. Most people believed, and still do that it was about, sexual misconduct. The media drove the narrative so that the public to this day believes Clinton was impeached because of his private life, and not his public. People believed the impeachment was an unfair, prudish investigation. This because the media drove the narrative.
Rest assured in a Donald Trump impeachment proceeding the drive by media will drive the narrative. Today we have an alternate media that will have a different narrative to be sure, but what an impeachment or even censure proceeding will accomplish is to deny Donald Trump the media advantage incumbency usually provides. It is the only national strategy the democrats have and it has been supplied to them by the Special Council. Rest assured these proceedings will continue in some form throughout the 2020 election and they offer no advantage for Trump. Whether he can overcome the negative publicity and whether the alternate narrative of the Spygate scandal will propel him to the White House is yet to be seen, but rest assured impeachment is no advantage for Trump.
All you have to do is look at the coverage over the last four years. How many people really understand the economic boom that Trump's policies have set in motion. How many people know about the social progress of African American's and Latinos, and the Democratic party has been able to minimize progress on the border, and what progress is being made is not being reported. When the media does report on economic progress the claim is that it is the belated result of Barak Obama's policies, who blamed his failure on the belated results of George W. Bush's. These concepts are so ludicrous that the alternate media spends so much time defending against false charges that very little time is spent reporting on the success. Only Richard Nixon had as hostile a press as Donald Trump. He was forced out of office. Seldom has a President as corrupt as Bill Clinton been so aggrandized by the press. They kept him from being removed.
While Donald Trump has some advantages Nixon did not have, such as an alternate media, plus 40 years of havoc wreaked on the country by the establishment of both parties impeachment proceeding will fail to provide an electoral advantage for Trump and the Republicans. There are still people who believe the Russians "colluded" with Trump to defeat Hillary Clinton. Although there is no one who can tell you what they did or how it helped Donald Trump or hurt Hillary Clinton. And while the advantage still rests with Donald Trump in 2020 impeachment proceeding or even a lesser action like a censure will enable the media to continue their false motive. The furor this week over the President's answer to George Stephanopolous's question about whether he would take information from a foreign source if offered is a case in point. The media quickly spun that to give the impression that Trump had cheated once and was willing to again.
It is going to be a long vitriolic struggle for either party to get the White House in 2020. Those of us on the Trump side should hardly welcome impeachment proceedings, though I fully expect them to ensue. It is all the Democrats have.
Donald Trump has an almost insurmountable advantage going into 2020. He is an incumbent President who has had economic success. Since the Civil War incumbency has been an electoral advantage. Prior to the Civil War two-term presidents were rare. Only Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe and Jackson won re-election. After the Civil War only Hayes, Harrison, Taft, Hoover, Ford, Carter and Bush (41) were one-termers. Hayes, election was questionable: the electoral delegation of 3 states were questioned. The Republican controlled Congress, with out any legal authority, appointed an electoral commission made up of majority Republicans to elect Hayes. Despite a relatively good record the public resented the political shenanigans that got him in office. Hayes choose not to run for re-election. Harrison lost the general after a challenge for the nomination from his own party. Taft lost due to a third party bid mounted by the former Republican President Theodore Roosevelt; George H. W. Bush faced a third Party challenge from businessman Ross Perot. Ford and Carter both faced challenges from within their own party. Only Hoover was defeated for a second term after an uncontested nomination and only a democratic party opponent. Incumbency gives Trump a very strong advantage. Trump has another advantage a prosperous peace-time economy.
The Obama administration failed in everything it attempted except the capturing of Osama Ben Laden. The nation labored under a non-recovery recovery. There was a mass shooting a terrorist attack, or a race-riot every month of the administration. The crisis at the border got worse. The liberal Supreme court began restructuring the very foundations of American law and culture. Anyone who disagreed with Obama or with his radical social agenda was labeled a hater. We had troops in several theaters in the Middle East (eight by my count). We nearly faced a nuclear war with N. Korea, and despite $150B payoff to Iran we made no progress in diminishing their threat.The left and the mainstream Media praised Obama as the Savior of a racist nation, and nominated the person they felt most likely to continue the progress toward utopia -- Hillary Rodam Clinton.
Hillary Clinton is a mediocre to poor practitioner of the political arts. Her record as a U.S Senator was abysmal. She was chosen for the Obama cabinet despite her record, to guarantee the President Bill Clinton' would at least give token support to the new President. The party would appear united around him. Hillary had no substantial domestic political record? She was a tired, weak candidate, who took her election for granted and did not even campaign in several must win states until it was too late. Her candidacy was so weak that even a conspiracy run within the Obama Justice and State departments to criminalize the Trump campaign that carried over to a post election coup attempt failed to help her. The Clinton have left the party in shambles with no heir apparent, and Bob Mueller failed to deliver any indictments connect to Russia Collusion or obstruction.
So what are the Democrats to do? None of the circus performing contenders for the Democratic nomination compare to Donald Trump. Their campaigns must consist entirely on negatives. Their mantra Trump is so evil he must not be reelected. Hard to sell in view of his record This is the strategy behind continuing the investigation into collusion and obstruction of Justice; it is to demonize Trump as they did Nixon his entire political career. Hence the people testifying before the committee have more to say about Trump's personality then about his actions or policies, Michael Cohen, John Dean, Hope Hix. While some laugh at this strategy I disagree with the view that Impeachment will automatically damage the Democratic party. While many point argue that the Clinton impeachment damaged the Republicans electoral change in 2000, I think that assumption ignores the record.
A look at the 2000 campaign makes it clear that impeachment did not help the Democrats, but neither did it hurt the Republicans. The democrats did everything they could in 2000 to separate themselves from Bill Clinton. They even tried, but failed to keep the President away from the convention. The Democratic nominee was Clinton's Vice President Al Gore. Seated Vice Presidents who run for President almost all ways run on the promise to continue the legacy of their predecessor. No seated Vice President who follows a failed or unpopular President runs for office. (Hubert Humphrey did but he was the choice of a brokered convention). Gore selected Senator Joseph Leiberman as his running mate. It was clear repudiation of Bill Cliton. Leibermann was the only democratic Senator who voted in favor of Clinton's conviction and removal from office. The democrats in the 2000 election did everything they could to distance themselves from the Clinton impeachment. While the impeachment clearly did not help Gore, neither did it hurt him or the party. Despite a mediocre Clinton Presidency and an impeachment George W. Bush squeaked out a 1 vote electoral college win in a contested election? Neither did separating themselves from an impeached President give impetus to Gore. Al Gore lost for the same reason Hillary did. He ran a lousy campaign compared to George Bush's mediocre campaign. The impeachment had little affect on the election outcome. So there is no correspondence between impeachment and election. Impeachment is a political and media event. The two impeachment attempts by Congress since World War 2 have been prosecuted by the media. It is the media that forced Richard Nixon out of office and protected Bill Clinton's second term tenure.
Democrats have a distinct advantage in any impeachment proceeding because they control the main stream media. The media will create and sustain the public narrative to behind the impeachment proceedings As a matter of fact I believe an impeachment or censure action is the only effective strategy the Democrats can mount in the 2020 campaign. I would argue that rather than impeachment proceedings driving Richard Nixon out of office a vitriolic media did. More damage was done to Nixon by the secret meeting with Deep Throat, a disgruntle FBI executive who did not like the President, then was done by any testimony. The mere surreptitious reporting made him seem like some courageous whistle blower when in fact he was seeking to eliminate Nixon to advance his own career agenda. So much for Peter Strock's actions being extraordinary behavior for the FBI. Clinton's acquittal occurred principally because of his media defenders.
All you have to do is ask any person who has graduated from High School in the US in the past 20 years why Clinton was impeached and you will hear the media narrative. "Clinton was impeached because he had sex with Monica Lewinsky in the oval office," when in fact the Articles of impeachment had to do with purgery in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit, and the Presdident attempt to interfere with Lewinski's testimony in that case. It had nothing to do with sex, or his relationship with Miss Lewinski. Most people believed, and still do that it was about, sexual misconduct. The media drove the narrative so that the public to this day believes Clinton was impeached because of his private life, and not his public. People believed the impeachment was an unfair, prudish investigation. This because the media drove the narrative.
Rest assured in a Donald Trump impeachment proceeding the drive by media will drive the narrative. Today we have an alternate media that will have a different narrative to be sure, but what an impeachment or even censure proceeding will accomplish is to deny Donald Trump the media advantage incumbency usually provides. It is the only national strategy the democrats have and it has been supplied to them by the Special Council. Rest assured these proceedings will continue in some form throughout the 2020 election and they offer no advantage for Trump. Whether he can overcome the negative publicity and whether the alternate narrative of the Spygate scandal will propel him to the White House is yet to be seen, but rest assured impeachment is no advantage for Trump.
All you have to do is look at the coverage over the last four years. How many people really understand the economic boom that Trump's policies have set in motion. How many people know about the social progress of African American's and Latinos, and the Democratic party has been able to minimize progress on the border, and what progress is being made is not being reported. When the media does report on economic progress the claim is that it is the belated result of Barak Obama's policies, who blamed his failure on the belated results of George W. Bush's. These concepts are so ludicrous that the alternate media spends so much time defending against false charges that very little time is spent reporting on the success. Only Richard Nixon had as hostile a press as Donald Trump. He was forced out of office. Seldom has a President as corrupt as Bill Clinton been so aggrandized by the press. They kept him from being removed.
While Donald Trump has some advantages Nixon did not have, such as an alternate media, plus 40 years of havoc wreaked on the country by the establishment of both parties impeachment proceeding will fail to provide an electoral advantage for Trump and the Republicans. There are still people who believe the Russians "colluded" with Trump to defeat Hillary Clinton. Although there is no one who can tell you what they did or how it helped Donald Trump or hurt Hillary Clinton. And while the advantage still rests with Donald Trump in 2020 impeachment proceeding or even a lesser action like a censure will enable the media to continue their false motive. The furor this week over the President's answer to George Stephanopolous's question about whether he would take information from a foreign source if offered is a case in point. The media quickly spun that to give the impression that Trump had cheated once and was willing to again.
It is going to be a long vitriolic struggle for either party to get the White House in 2020. Those of us on the Trump side should hardly welcome impeachment proceedings, though I fully expect them to ensue. It is all the Democrats have.
