Friday, February 28, 2020

POPULISM TRIUMPHANT


[Published on Newsmax]

Senator Bernie Sanders’ rise to front runner for the Democratic Party’s nomination should be welcomed. The underlying cause of his ascendancy is very similar to Trump’s.  It represents a bipartisan rebellion against the elites and is healthy for America.

Since Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal expansion of government in the 1930’s there has been an entrenched elite that runs America.  The bureaucrats in Washington, DC make common cause with crony capitalist lobbyists and pliable Members and staff in the Legislative Branch.  Together with their media allies, they have relentlessly thwarted the will of the people.  Government has expanded, waste of tax dollars has gone unchecked, and breaching our privacy is now commonplace. 

The denizens of the “Swamp” and “Deep State” have become rich and arrogant.  They have banked on the complexity and longevity of their schemes to bewilder and intimidate those unlucky enough to exist outside their circles of power. Their defense systems have been perfected to absorb and neutralize even the most assertive reformers. 

The Swamp/Deep State players depend on both Democrats and Republicans to nominate Presidents who are either already loyal to the status quo or, after winning with reformist rhetoric, revert to passivity.  This has been a reliable strategy for generations.

The Swamp/Deep State have had shocks as the grassroots can stir and surprise.  Ronald Reagan’s election in 1980 was built upon a conservative movement that arose in the 1940s.  The elites had dismissed conservatives for years and viewed them like a newly discovered Amazon tribe when they took the Presidency and Senate.  The Reagan Revolution overturned the common wisdom that the Soviets would never be defeated, and that big government would forever expand.  It took 12 years of the Bush dynasty to dilute Reagan’s achievements. 

The Gingrich Revolution became another shock to the power elites.  They never saw the ground swell against the Congressional Kleptocracy that burst out of the ballot boxes in November 1994.  The Congressional breakthrough was short-lived.  By 2006, exploiting earmarks and the lobbyist revolving door stemmed the reformist tide.

While the elites celebrated their triumphs, Americans grew restive.

On February 16, 2009, the Tea Party Movement erupted to counter the political power grabs of Obamacare and the unchecked spending under the Recovery Act.  Two years later, Occupy Wall Street (OWS) took over Zuccotti Park in New York City, calling attention to “crony capitalism”.

Commentators across the political spectrum denounced both movements as “AstroTurf” – fake grass roots.  Both movements were accused of being funded and organized by nefarious forces.  Their motives were assailed.  According to the elites, the Tea Party was racist and OWS was communist.  Everyone within the political elites, conservative/liberal, Republican/Democrat, studiously avoided linking the growing dissatisfaction with the status quo as the unifying theme of these two populist protest movements.

Populism defined Andrew Jackson’s victory in 1828.  He tapped the concerns of western settlers who were tired of Eastern elites dominating the White House.   It arose again in the1890s as farmers felt unaccountable moneyed interests were exploiting and ignoring them.  Donald Trump tapped similar sentiments as he shocked the status quo in first winning the Republican nomination against heavily favored establishment candidates and then toppling Hillary Clinton, the anointed one, in November 2016.

President Trump openly draws inspiration from Andrew Jackson.  Trump’s policies are very Jacksonian, challenging elites and boosting America first.

It is no surprise that rallying the disaffection on the right would inspire a candidate to tap the disaffection on the left.  Sanders rise scares the establishment, just like Trump.  Sanders has assailed the Democratic National Committee for aiding the elites, just like they did in 2016.  He has called out the media for unfair treatment.  His legions of supporters are filling auditoriums. His is a real movement.

Americans should look forward to a Trump-Sanders race.  There have only been a few times in our lifetime when two candidates offered stark and fundamentally different futures for our country.  It will be a clarifying moment, awarding the winner a crystal-clear mandate to boldly act.  Only Johnson-Goldwater 1964, McGovern-Nixon 1972, Carter-Reagan 1980, and Mondale-Reagan 1984 have provided such opportunities. 

Americans should rejoice that a Trump-Sanders general election campaign would be the first time since Davis-Coolidge in 1924 to shut out the elites across the political spectrum. 

2020 could be the triumph of Populism. 

Thursday, February 27, 2020

Apocalypse Now: July 13, 2020

[Guest Contributor - Donald G. Mutersbaugh Sr.]

I can’t help but to think about the Democrat Convention this summer. I might be wrong but I believe that there has been another paradigm shift in the electorate. I predicted one before, and I’m predicting another one now: the candidate of choice is going to be based on emotions, feelings and about who can beat Trump – but not qualifications.

I predicted in an earlier writing that neither Biden nor Sanders would get the nomination. This was based on Biden’s performance and Sanders – always the bridesmaid with his socialist programs. Further, I predicted that two women may head the ticket. While this may still come to pass (I believe that Elizabeth Warren will lose consideration because of her untruthfulness), I’m going to propose a different scenario for consideration: a brokered convention. While this hasn’t happened in either party since 1952 and despite all of the rewrite of the rules, the Democrat party may have no choice but to wrest its way through one this summer. The hatred of Trump is overwhelming.

The old monkey wrench seems to be the Democrat establishment; despite the popularity of Bernie, they do not feel his progressive socialism will win the hearts and minds of the people – therefore, he’s got to go. And poor old Joe, he’s caught up in a maelstrom of family problems and political gaffes. Plus: “Here’s something ‘everybody knows' that is almost certainly true. The two most widely respected figures in the Democratic Party — Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi — are worried that a Sanders nomination could be disastrous for the party in the fall, increasing the likelihood that Trump is reelected or that enough marginal House Democrats lose their seats to turn congressional control back to the GOP. Of course, the reason an outsider like Trump took over the Republican Party is the same reason a socialist like Sanders might take over the Democratic Party: Party leaders simply do not wield the same levers of power in an era of online ideological movements. But that doesn’t mean they have no leverage.” https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/25/why-bernie-sanders-might-not-lock-democratic-nomination-117339

“Imagine that Sanders comes into the convention with a weak plurality, far short of 1,991 delegates. When he asserts that the candidate with the most delegates should be awarded the delegation, and rails against the establishment, he is confronted with his comments from 2016 like this one.

“The responsibility that superdelegates have is to decide what is best for this country and what is best for the Democratic Party,” Sanders said. “And if those superdelegates conclude that Bernie Sanders is the best candidate, the strongest candidate to defeat Trump and anybody else, yes, I would very much welcome their support.”

“His brand is suddenly tarnished – he looks like every other self-serving politician.” (Ibid) Oops! So, everybody has to consider what other likely strategies could come from this.

Remember: this is an emotional election and not a qualification election. So, qualifications aside what would be the most popular ticket (it is evident that one candidate alone is not going to shift this).

In a previous article that I wrote, I predicted that Michelle Obama would run for the presidency in 2024 – and that the interim time period would be spent grooming her for that event. What if the establishment proposed a ticket that had her as the vice president and the next most eligible candidate at this time for president? Bloomberg and Obama? Or how about Buttigieg and Obama? 

Even more outrageous – despite her record – could be Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama be the most reasonable compromise at this time? I believe that any ticket like this basically decided by the superdelegates could possibly cause Trump a problem especially if it were presented with an outstanding cabinet of people – perhaps, those no-Trumpers that have recently received the boot from the Trump administration.

This action by the establishment would obviously all but destroy the Democrat party. It would be a political calculation of how many of Bernie’s people would leave the party and how many would rejoin the party because of the excitement generated with this ticket. I have not seen any polls that have attempted to project these numbers – either coming or going. But over the long run, if the strategy were successful, I think the Democrat party would heal very quickly. I’m sure as part of this deal, all horse-trading aside, Bernie would be taken care of with some type of a political plum and indebtedness from the party leaders for his part in taking down Trump – however indirectly this may have occurred.
Now to return to the part about this being an emotional election. The Democrat party is going to have a hard time dislodging an incumbent president whose accomplishments and current popularity are so high. 
“Americans are more positive about the state of the nation than they have been in over a decade, and Trump and the GOP appear to be benefiting. Still, in this era of extreme party polarization, that puts his approval rating at 49%, as Republicans' already high ratings have risen further while Democrats' negative opinions of him aren't budging. Independents' ratings of Trump have improved, but they are still more likely to disapprove than approve of the job he is doing.
“The significance of the trend is clear. An approval rating near 50% greatly increases Trump's chances of being re-elected, a prospect that seemed unlikely with his approval stuck near 40% for most of his term.” https://news.gallup.com/poll/286280/trump-job-approval-steady.aspx 
There was one other poll taken recently that maybe speaks volumes to Trump’s reelection prospects: “New High of 90% of Americans Satisfied With Personal Life” https://news.gallup.com/poll/284285/new-high-americans-satisfied-personal-life.aspx When you examine the individual cohorts of this poll, the Democrat party faces a daunting task indeed! 
This will be an interesting election to see which matters most to the American people: emotions or results!

Donald G. Mutersbaugh, Sr. earned his Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Maryland and his Master of Business Administration degree from Mary Washington College. He is the former Associate Administrator of Information Resources for the U.S House of Representatives under Speaker Newt Gingrich.



Friday, February 14, 2020

Shakespeare Explains Democrats


[Guest Contributor - Donald G. Mutersbaugh Sr.]

 “Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day
To the last syllable of recorded time.
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death [substitute all recent Democrat initiatives]. Out, out, brief candle.
Life’s [substitute Presidential Debates and Primaries] but a walking shadow, a poor player [substitute Democrat presidential candidates]
That struts and frets his [her] hour upon the stage [substitute Election Day],
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.” [Shakespeare: McBeth, Act V, Scene 5]

Presented with apologies to William Shakespeare. These classic verses just echoed in my mind as I watched the Democrat debates. Then, I watched the Iowa Democrat primaries unfold. As all of the world – literally – watched the primary results on television, I’m sure most of us stared at them in disbelief that anything as important as this could go so wrong. And my fellow newscasters and bloggers are absolutely correct when they point out the people responsible for this debacle want to run the country – good luck!

Without belaboring the point, truly this was a proxy of things to come. How these candidates can be supported by people who hold themselves out to be journalists – can say with a straight face the Democrats could do better than President Trump is amazing. When you look at all of his accomplishments in the face of what he and his family has had to endure, it presents an insurmountable venture for the Democrat candidates to even describe, much less try to argue, that they will do better.

As a taxpayer I am beyond disgusted to think of the millions of dollars that the House of Representatives has spent trying to impeach President Trump and otherwise completely destroy our country. They have done nothing productive. It is too bad that our tax laws do not allow us to designate which representatives can be paid or not paid – although the Democrats are so ravenous in their attempts to destroy this President that I doubt it would make any difference whether they were paid or not!

And even more amazing is that the message they have presented is so far from the American dream as to make it even more confusing and idiotic why they are even running. You don’t have to be driven by the almighty dollar to sort through the rubble they wish to push on us. As the statistic shows over 90% of Americans are satisfied with their current personal life status https://news.gallup.com/poll/284285/new-high-americans-satisfied-personal-life.aspx .

Good grief! Besides the unbelievable economic statistics concerning rising wages, declining unemployment, booming retirement portfolios, etc. – what part of this calculus don’t these candidates understand? How can they continue to lie to the American people and expect us to take them seriously and vote for them in November? They get up on stage for the debates and look each other in the eye and tell lies in a manner such as to outdo their opponents – that is, they try to one best them. 

The words of William Shakespeare are so applicable when he says “…It is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.” The only thing more discouraging than watching these candidates enjoying themselves bloviating on national television is the fact that I have to watch it for eight more months – oh dear. "Have more than thou showest, speak less than thou knowest, lend less than thou owest" [Shakespeare: King Lear, Act I, Scene 4]. Sorry William, but thou speaketh so eloquently!

Donald G. Mutersbaugh, Sr. earned his Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Maryland and his Master of Business Administration degree from Mary Washington College. He is the former Associate Administrator of Information Resources for the U.S House of Representatives under Speaker Newt Gingrich.


Sunday, January 19, 2020

GAO’s Ukraine Smear


[Published on Newsmax]

The anti-Trump chorus is breathlessly declaring the January 16, Government Accountability Office (GAO) report asserts “Trump broke the law” regarding Ukraine aid. 

That is not what the report states and that is not what happened.

The GAO serves a vital oversight function for the Federal Government.  Annually, GAO reports on waste, fraud, and mismanagement identify billions of dollars in potential savings. The Agency studiously avoids politics by outlining procedural and legal compliance issues.

GAO Report B-331564 is different, as it is incomplete on facts while overstating the Trump Administration’s noncompliance with a controversial law.

The report never admits that the Ukraine Aid in question was, in fact, released on September 11, prior to the deadline of September 30, 2019.

This omission is fundamental to the entire Ukraine matter and undermines GAO’s credibility.

The GAO report centers on the Impoundment Control Act (ICA). This was passed as part of Congress reining-in President Richard Nixon.  Nixon had impounded funds for many programs and agencies to counter Congressional spending sprees.  His actions continued a long-standing practice, going back to Thomas Jefferson, of Presidents exercising fiscal discipline to thwart Congressional overspending.


The Congress took advantage of Nixon’s ebbing power by pushing through the ICA and other legislation to open the spending flood gates.  Discretionary spending has ballooned out of control ever since.

Presidents, Republican and Democrat, have attempted to restore the balance in budgeting and spending policy.  The GAO’s Ukraine report cites numerous court cases where Clinton and other Presidents have sought court assistance to set limits and clarify processes.

All funds were released prior to the Congressional deadline.  The delay in releasing Ukraine funds never crossed these legal lines. 

In fact, the delays fully complied with the law authorizing the funds (PL 115-232), as it explicitly stated that, “In order to obligate more than fifty percent of the amount appropriated, DOD was also required to certify to Congress that Ukraine had taken ‘substantial actions’ on defense institutional reforms’”.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued numerous “apportionment schedules” with footnotes explaining the delay in releasing the funds was to “allow for an interagency process to determine best use of such funds”.  Each memo consistently stated that, “this brief pause in obligations will not preclude DOD’s timely execution of the final policy direction.”

One part of the foreign military financing (FMF) earmarked for Ukraine was delayed only six days.

The GAO Ukraine report, clearly states that:

The President may temporarily withhold funds from obligation—but not beyond the end of the fiscal year in which the President transmits the special message—by proposing a “deferral.”  2 U.S.C. § 684”

At no point in the Ukraine Report does the GAO find that OMB or the President triggered a deferral or impoundment.  Therefore, there was no violation of the Impoundment Control Act (ICA).

However, the GAO pours through countless memos from the OMB, as well as OMB responses to GAO questions.  Unfortunately, OMB’s responses dug avoidable holes into which the Trump Administration fell by raising needless challenges to the ICA.

OMB engaged in a battle it did not need to fight.  This triggered GAO having to recount the ICA battles from other Administrations and pointing out the flaws in OMB’s arguments.  OMB responded by not responding.  As the GAO-OMB dialogue dissipated, political rhetoric seeped-in.

The GAO stepped over their line by asserting there may be “potential impoundments” where none exist.  You either impound or you don’t.  There is no “potential”. The GAO ascribes “policy reasons” for the delay of funds without providing any evidence. 

Finally, to carve out its own place in the Impeachment, the GAO violated decades of its own professional code of conduct by declaring, “We consider a reluctance to provide a fulsome response to have constitutional significance”.

Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), a dedicated Never-Trumper, requested the GAO Ukraine report on October 30, 2019.  He kept demanding GAO provide a report sooner versus later in a letter dated December 23, 2019.  The GAO admits that its report is a work in progress and states it is waiting on additional information from the State Department and OMB. 

Unfortunately, Thomas Armstrong, GAO General Counsel, was willing to risk the agency’s reputation as the gold standard of oversight, by prematurely releasing an incomplete and flawed report, immediately relegating it to just another politically charged smear.

Wednesday, December 4, 2019

THE LEFT’s FINAL SOLUTION



[Also Published on Newsmax]

Leftists have launched their final assault on America.

Their goal is to obliterate America’s memory and sow the seeds for future generations to revile and reject everything that is good and noble in our country.

They intend to fundamentally change America’s historical narrative away from events and circumstances that made our country the world’s beacon of hope for freedom and representative government.  They strive to replace well-documented reality with a false narrative of America being the scourge of the world, based on its enslaving and stealing from everyone to enrich and aggrandize the white ruling elite.

Their plan is called the “1619 Project”, an alternative history curriculum for American elementary and secondary students.  It was announced in July 2019 with a series of front-page stories in the New York Times, and other major newspapers, explaining its content and the need to:

“reframe the country’s history, understanding 1619 as our true founding, and placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of the story we tell ourselves about who we are.”

The 1619 premise is, “our democracy’s founding ideals were false when they were written”.  Everything that happened in American history flows from the “original sin” of slavery.  Every concept, document, and institution that shapes and guides America was designed to promote slavery and therefore must all be eradicated to atone for centuries of racial oppression.

1619 proponents declare that we must “make amends” for America’s crimes against humanity by eliminating monuments, the Electoral College, the Senate, appointed Supreme Court justices, the Constitution, Bill of Rights, federalism, capitalism, and all vestiges of white history and culture.  The 1619 Project is partnering with those who deem the American Flag, Pledge of Allegiance, and National Anthem as offensive vestiges of racism, slavery, and white privilege.

We could ignore the 1619 Project if it was just the ravings of a coddled leftist professor in some Ivy League sinecure.  It is not.

The New York Times leads an array of news media, academia, think tanks, and public officials who see the 1619 Project as the final solution for turning America against itself.  Once they indoctrinate the current generation of elementary and secondary school students with hatred for America, drowning out dissenting voices with charges of racism and white privilege, they will have free rein to establish a permanent socialist state.

The 1619 Project was embraced by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, when she led members of the Congressional Black Caucus to Ghana during the August Recess.  They wanted the 1619 narrative of the first African slaves arriving at Jamestown to upstage commemorating the first session of an elected government at Jamestown.

To succeed, the 1619 Project must ignore mountains of facts, and fabricate a mountain of lies.

The centerpiece of the 1619 Project is that slavery was a uniquely American crime, infecting everything and everybody it touched to the present day.

The capture and enslavement of defeated foes is as old as humankind.  Slavery was integral to establishing regional dominance for the Egyptian Pharaohs, Muslim Emirs, Roman Emperors, and countless other rulers.  The Western Hemisphere’s great civilizations of the Mayans, Incas, and Aztecs enslaved their subjugated people for labor and ritual sacrifice. African rulers trading their slaves to Europeans was born from new sailing technology and the need for forced labor.

The 1619 Project ignores the fact that only 9.7 percent of the Atlantic slave trade involved England’s American colonies.  90.3 percent of African slaves were shipped to South America and the Caribbean.

The 1619 Project ignores that while 12 million West Africans were shipped by Europeans to the Americas, over 17 million East Africans were shipped by Arabs into the Middle East.  The 1619 Project ignores that the American colonies began banning slave importation in 1778, during the Revolutionary War, leading to a formal ban for the entire United States in 1794.  England did not ban slavery in its colonies until 1807.  Conversely, the Arab slave trade in East Africa was not eradicated until England destroyed the last slave forts in Zanzibar in 1909.  Slavery remains active, if officially banned, in much of the Arab world today.

The year 1619 is important, not because slaves arrived in the new world, but because for the first time in the Western Hemisphere, a free people elected representatives to govern and be held accountable at subsequent elections.  This was the first step to America becoming the most exceptional civic culture in world history.

Americans must do all they can to stop the 1619 Project and stand-up for the greatest nation on earth, before it’s too late.


Wednesday, November 20, 2019

ENDING THE DEEP STATE


[Published on NewsMax]

The surreal world of the Trump Impeachment Inquiry is assailing those who respect the will of the voters.  Those defying this fundamental principle of American democracy are being lauded.

It is perverse to allow opponents of voter-mandated change to remain in policy positions.

Trump’s predicament was completely avoidable.  All he had to do was be as assertive with government personnel as he was with his company’s hiring and firing.  

It is doubtful that Trump left legacy executives in place when he acquired hotels, golf courses, and casinos.  Trump brought in his own team.  They assessed the management and service team members, to align them with Trump’s corporate culture and branding.  Those who displayed loyalty and competence remained, all others were replaced.  This happened quickly.  Once the Trump logo was unfurled, Trump’s operational culture and customer service experience had to exist. 

It is, therefore, disappointing that Trump approached the Executive Branch with such hesitancy.

Like any large vessel, the federal “ship of state” has a command bridge from where the captain leads the ship.  A new President quickly realizes that, while his bridge, the Oval Office, affords a wonderful view, its steering wheel and control levers must be hooked-up to run the ship.  Control of the engine room is fundamental to moving in the intended direction. The ship’s crew must follow the captain’s decisions.  It is the same in the Executive Branch.  People equal policy.

The Executive Branch is far more complex than any ship or corporation.  The outgoing party leaves behind cadres of guerrilla fighters to frustrate, hinder, and destroy the new President’s agenda.  This preserves the old and enables defeating the new.  

Cabinet Departments and agencies each have unique cultures that shape those serving in the career service.  Depending on the party in power, some agencies will be more friendly or hostile than others.  

Careerists can be just as political as political appointees.  Their politics is about preserving power, funding, turf, prestige, and policy.  Those aligned with the previous Administration will have benefited from rapid advancement.  Those less enthusiastic, will have been relegated to dark recesses, well away from critical policy paths.

An incoming Administration uses its network of friendly Congressional offices, policy organizations, and media outlets to map out its allies and enemies within the Executive Branch.  This is what Transitions are for.

Trump was ill-served from the start.  He ignored the advice and offers of help from Ronald Reagan alumni, who ran the last fully successful Republican transition.  Instead, Trump turned to Governor Christie.  Christie turned to his friends in the Romney, Bush, and Ford circles.  They recommended that the Boston Consulting Group, the epicenter of Bush operatives, run the Trump Transition.  The rest, sadly, is history.  

It could have been so different.  

Starting in 1978, Reagan’s inner circle worked closely with the vast network of conservative groups: The Heritage Foundation, Kingston, Stanton, Library Court, Chesapeake Society, Federalist Society, Monday Club, Conservative Caucus, American Legislative Exchange Council, Committee for the Survival of a Free Congress, and the Eagle Forum.   

This conservative network placed key operatives into Reagan’s national campaign and transition.  They identified over 17,000 positions that affected Executive Branch operations.  A separate team identified the key positions in each cabinet department and major agency that had to be under Reagan’s control in the first week of his presidency.

On January 21, 1981, Reagan’s personnel team immediately removed every Carter political appointee.  They were walked out the door, identification badge taken, files sealed, and their security clearance terminated.  In one instance, a Carter political appointee at ACTION was physically prevented from signing the nearly one million dollars of leftist grants sitting on his desk.  The Carter era ended completely and instantaneously.

Over the next sixty days, Ambassadors were recalled, White House detailees were reassigned. Every management and supervisory careerist who had been hired or promoted during the previous year was reviewed, and those not truly there on their merits, were removed.

American voters soundly rejected Carter and wanted the Reagan Revolution.  They got it.

Reagan loyalists, as temporary appointees, entered every cabinet department and agency to enforce policy, review contracts, and terminate anyone or any entity that were there to promote Carter policy.  Every legal action, regulation, negotiation, and grant was stopped until assessed based upon Reagan policy.  Overwhelming numbers of fulltime Reagan loyalists rapidly implemented his revolution.

By May 1981, Reagan was in full command of the Executive Branch.  Core management teams in every department and agency moved deeper into the bureaucracy.  Wave after wave of management and personnel changes occurred, paving the way for the Reagan Era to flourish.

Thorough planning and expert implementation by solid loyalists resulted in no leaks and no sabotage. 

Reagan had a sign on his desk “It CAN be done”.  

It was.

Saturday, October 19, 2019

Democrats Concede 2020 Presidential Election



[Guest Contributor - Donald G. Mutersbaugh Sr.]

“Dewey Defeats Truman” was the banner headline on the Chicago Daily Tribune November 3, 1948. I am guessing that the above headline probably seemed as strange. But it’s true! The Democrat Party has all but overtly given up the 2020 presidential election.

Let’s examine the facts and see why this conclusion is probable. First the candidates. Joe Biden will be out of the race in the very near future. It is only a matter of time before all of his problems sink him. Between his gaffes and other issues while he was the Vice President, his son, Hunter, will probably provide the ignominious ending to a political career that should’ve ended years ago. 


And Bernie? Beyond his advanced age, he is like a mediocre boxer entering the ring with one arm tied behind his back. People will not ignore the fact that he has health issues – including “chest pains” – even before he assumes the position of President! “He has continued to raise substantial amounts of money [however] from his dedicated supporters — on Tuesday, his campaign celebrated an impressive third-quarter fund-raising haul of $25.3 million — and has remained among the top three contenders in the primary. But he has been unable to expand his base beyond those enthusiasts. In recent weeks, he shook up his staff in Iowa and New Hampshire, the first two nominating states, in an effort to jump-start his candidacy as Ms. Warren passed him in some polls….

“In recent weeks, he has struggled with hoarseness, which forced him to cancel several events last month, but he then returned to the campaign trail. In March, he hit his head on the edge of a glass shower door, requiring seven stitches.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/02/us/politics/bernie-sanders-health.html

Elizabeth Warren seems to be getting traction. But every time she opens her mouth to deliver some sort of pithy anecdote, a falsehood rolls out of her mouth. “Elizabeth Warren is telling a lie about herself. Again. The media are covering for her. Again.

“It is by now well established that Elizabeth Warren is a serial liar. She lied about her parents having to elope because of racism against her mother, who was white. She lied about being the first nursing mother to take the bar exam in New Jersey (which doesn’t keep such records). She lied about being a “single mom” when she met her second and present husband (she was still married, and had not yet filed for divorce). She lied about the death of Michael Brown, which was not a murder. Only recently, after more than 30 years, has she stopped lying about being a Cherokee and a woman of color.


“Lately Warren has been telling a story about how a boss supposedly fired her from a teaching gig after discerning at a glance that she was pregnant. Her own previous telling was otherwise: She walked away from that job.” https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/10/media-cover-for-elizabeth-warren-lies-again/

I’m only presenting the top three candidates because after that – there is no hope. All of the other candidates have already demonstrated they would not be able to handle the duties of President of the United States – and the American voters understand that. Do not believe the polls because the media have skewed all possible angles of this election to accentuate the positives of any Democrat candidate to make them a better candidate than President Trump. The problem is that the extreme right and the extreme left get most of the headlines because the media reports on them as if they represent all of the moderates who may simply lean slightly to the left or slightly to the right. This means that elections are won in the middle and currently not enough Democrats recognize it. If you are a registered Democrat and you always have been, but you are considering voting for Trump – well, that really sums up the trouble that party is in now. Also, don’t forget about the silent majority.

Going beyond the candidate will be the problem of the platform that any Democrat candidate will have to support (one or more of the following): Socialism (in general), Laxer Abortion Laws and Infanticide, Raise Income Taxes, Increase Social Security Payouts, Open Borders, Defund Military, Confiscate Guns, Eliminate Usage of Fossil Fuels, Defend/Support Illegal Aliens, Suppress Free Speech, Reparations for Slavery, Abolish Electoral College, Free College/Forgive College Loan Debt, Universal Child Care, Ban Fracking/Offshore Drilling, Increase the Estate Tax, Implement a Wealth Tax, Raise Minimum Wage, Rejoin Iran Nuclear Deal, Support DC and Puerto Rico Statehoods, Contraceptive Mandate, Increase Funding of  Planned Parenthood, Repeal Hyde Amendment, End Capital Punishment, Never Implement Voter ID, Pack the Supreme Court, Housing Give-away, Medicare for All, Weaken the Economy, and the Green New Deal. Most Americans don't want any these changes – especially once they understand them and how they will be financed.


Finally, “According to 
Moody’s Analytics, Trump is headed toward another four years in the White House. And, if the numbers are right, it won’t even be close….

Under the current Moody’s Analytics baseline economic outlook, which does not forecast any recession, the 2020 election looks like Trump’s to lose,” the authors wrote. “Democrats can still win if they are able to turn out the vote at record levels, but, under normal turnout conditions, the president is projected to win.”
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/trump-in-a-landslide-this-historically-accurate-model-predicts-exactly-that-2019-10-15?siteid=yhoof2&yptr=yahoo

Granted the “Moody’s Analytics” is a pocketbook analysis: If the economy is strong, Trump Wins; if it is a recession, Trump may lose. But as the article points out, it has only been incorrect once since 1980 – and that was with Trump! 

So, what is a Democrat to do? Wait and see. Between now and February 2020 there may be some last-minute changes – like Hillary Clinton joining the fray and running for President. Another possibility: Michelle Obama. While she has professed no interest in running for President, there are many people who have encouraged her and believe she could win.


Other people believe Trump would shred her. I personally believe that she will reenter politics at some point. Right now, I think that the Democrat Party is trying to groom her for a Presidential run in 2024.


The bottom line: The Democrat party does not have a viable candidate – and they know it! I believe President Trump will be reelected – and there will be no need for a recount!


Donald G. Mutersbaugh, Sr. earned his Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Maryland and his Master of Business Administration degree from Mary Washington College. He is the former Associate Administrator of Information Resources for the U.S House of Representatives under Speaker Newt Gingrich.