Please note that you can leave a comment on any of our posts at our Facebook page.  Subscribers can also comment at length at our Angel's Corner Forum.

Our Angel's Corner archive is here.

MARCH 1,  2017

SHORT TAKES ON THE DRIFTING WRECKAGE – AT 11:54 P.M. ET:

DONALD BEATS OSCAR – FROM ADWEEK:   More than 43 million watched Pres. Donald Trump‘s first address to Congress last night on the broadcast and cable news networks, according to Nielsen.  Fox News was the most-watched on all of TV for the speech, drawing 10.765 million. NBC was second (first among the broadcasters) drawing 9.144 million. Among the younger news demo (A25-54) NBC was first, followed by Fox News. NBC had The Voice as its lead-in. As these are Nielsen numbers, this only includes TV viewing and not viewers who watched on streaming services.  Trump beat the Oscars, which only drew 32.9 million viewers.

MAJOR EQUALITY NEWS – FROM THE MINNEAPOLIS STAR-TRIBUNE:   The University of Minnesota is shedding its "king" and "queen" titles for homecoming, organizers said Monday. Instead "royalty" will be the term of choice.  The Student Unions and Activities office said in its announcement that the change come this fall is "an effort toward gender inclusivity."  "We wish to promote a spirit of inclusion at the University of Minnesota," the announcement continued. "This change allows the University to select the best student representatives for the U based on campus and community involvement — regardless of gender."  Organizers said they "can be any combination of any gender identity."  The move away from gender-specific labels has been going on for several years on campuses around the country.  Anyone hear of any conservative inclusivity?  How about some campus royalty wearing Reagan T-shirts?  I don't hear much interest from the Anthropology Department.

HOUSEGUEST – FROM THE DAILY MAIL:   Barack Obama is turning his new home in the posh Kalorama section of the nation's capital - just two miles away from the White House - into the nerve center of the mounting insurgency against his successor, President Donald J. Trump.  Obama's goal, according to a close family friend, is to oust Trump from the presidency either by forcing his resignation or through his impeachment.  And Obama is being aided in his political crusade by his longtime consigliere, Valerie Jarrett, who has moved into the 8,200-square-foot, $5.3-million Kaloroma mansion with the former president and Michelle Obama, long time best friends.  Jarrett played a vital - if at times low-key - role in the Obama presidency. She lived in the White House, dined with the Obamas, and helped shape his domestic and foreign policies.  The gossip will now begin.

March 1, 2017       Permalink

TAKING CARE OF BARACK – AT 11:43 A.M. ET:   Going the way of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama plans to market the presidency in a grand manner.  From The New York Times:

Penguin Random House will publish coming books by former President Barack Obama and the former first lady Michelle Obama, the publishing company announced Tuesday night, concluding a heated auction among multiple publishers.

The terms of the agreement were not disclosed, but publishing industry executives with knowledge of the bidding process said it probably stretched well into eight figures. Robert B. Barnett and Deneen C. Howell of Williams & Connolly represented the Obamas.

Eight figures?  Eight figures?  Well, Hillary made eight figures.  Why not Barack and Michelle, those servants of the people?

Penguin Random House acquired world rights to the books, and worldwide sales could be substantial. No decision has been made yet as to which of the company’s major imprints — which include Random House, Doubleday, Alfred A. Knopf and Crown — will publish the books. Mr. Obama’s previous books were published by Crown, which also published Mrs. Obama’s book “American Grown,” about the White House garden.

A spokeswoman for Penguin Random House would not say whether the books would be memoirs and referred questions to representatives of the Obamas.

COMMENT:  Have you noticed that Democrats make more money?  No wonder they lost contact with their former working-class base?  Aren't they the help?  The flyover people?  The poor saps who cling to their guns and their religion? 

The Dems claim they are anti-corporation...unless of course it's their corporation.

What a seedy mess.

March 1, 2017       Permalink

GOOD START – AT 10:50 A.M. ET:  The Trump administration is starting to dismantle some of the lesser aspects (many, many) of the Obama administration.  Get this one.  From Fox: 

The Obama administration funneled billions of dollars to activist organizations through a Department of Justice slush fund scheme, according to congressional investigators.

“It’s clear partisan politics played a role in the illicit actions that were made,” Rep. John Ratcliffe, R-Texas, told Fox News. “The DOJ is the last place this should have occurred.”

Findings spearheaded by the House Judiciary Committee point to a process shrouded in secrecy whereby monies were distributed to a labyrinth of nonprofit organizations involved with grass-roots activism.

“Advocates for big government and progressive power are using the Justice Department to extort money from corporations,” Judicial Watch’s Tom Fitton told Fox News. “It’s a shakedown. It’s corrupt, pure and simple.”

There is a recent effort by Republicans to eliminate the practice, which many believe was widely abused during the Obama administration.

When big banks are sued by the government for discrimination or mortgage abuse, they can settle the cases by donating to third-party non-victims. The settlements do not specify how these third-party groups could use the windfall.

So far, investigators have accounted for $3 billion paid to “non-victim entities.”

Critics say banks are incentivized to donate the funds to non-profits rather than giving it to consumers.

COMMENT:  Incredible.  That is a major scandal.  I'm sure The New York Times is on the case.  Yeah, right.

March 1, 2017        Permalink

ME, ME, ME – AT 10:08 A.M. ET:  The president's speech continues to get overwhelmingly positive reviews, even from grudging liberal commentators.  Dems rushed out of the House chamber after the speech, apparently realizing it wasn't their best night.

An interesting comparison of two presidents comes from the Washington Examiner: 

In his first presidential speech to a joint session of Congress in 2009, Barack Obama referenced himself roughly 84 times (that number is approximate). By contrast, President Trump made only 53 such references in his address to the joint session on Tuesday night.

In 2010, Obama actually referenced himself approximately 117 times per Vocativ's count.

Trump, who's often accused of being self-absorbed, used his remarks to the joint session of Congress convened Tuesday to focus significant time on promoting national unity.

Vanity Fair published an article in November 2015 entitled, "Is Donald Trump Actually a Narcissist? Therapists weight in!"

Yet in his remarks Tuesday night, President Trump used the word "we" more than 100 times.

COMMENT:  Good move by Trump.  I'm sure his speech editors went through the text carefully to be sure there were not too many references to "I."  All presidents have substantial egos, but Obama abused the privilege.  Trump got it just right last night.

March 1,  2017     Permalink

FEBRUARY 28,  2017

SHORT TAKES ON THE DRIFTING WRECKAGE – AT 11:56 P.M. ET: 

REACTION TO THE PRESIDENT'S SPEECH:  The most commonly made remark, at least that I've heard, is that Donald Trump became president tonight.  His speech was the best of his career, and would have been excellent coming from any president.  It was well-written, obviously polished several times.  The language was spare and clean.  There was no confusion, no vague phrases, no bluster, no insults.  It was a flawed man drowning the flaws and bringing out his best.

The delivery was also superb.  I had the feeling that Trump had a coach, and that's all to the better.  I also had the feeling he had rehearsed and rehearsed, which is exactly what any pro would do.  Ronald Reagan could be seen rehearsing a major speech in the Oval Office.  A speech is a performance, and the performer prepares.  Even Trump's physical gestures seemed prepared – things like turning graciously to the gallery to introduce a guest.  Gone was the awkwardness, the too-long tie, the casualness of the candidate. 

This was a great speech because it was meant to be, and because Trump realized his new administration was on the line.  No new president has been as ridiculed and as savaged as this one.  He had to prove the assassins wrong, and he did.  Michael Goodwin wrote, in the New York Post:

"Sometimes a speech is just a speech. And sometimes it heralds the prospect of a great national revival.

"Donald Trump gave the best speech of his short political life last night, and it had nothing to do with grand oratory. He was thoroughly presidential, speaking plainly and yet masterfully in projecting an optimistic vision of the America he aims to build.

It is a vision so optimistic and encompassing that even steaming Democrats had to join boisterous Republicans in the applause at times."

I wish the Democrats had joined in more often.  Most of them sat there glumly, perhaps realizing that Trump was becoming a formidable president. 

Now it will be up to the president to build on his night of triumph, and up to the Republicans in Congress to help him build.

February 28, 2017       Permalink

TOO KIND, MR. BUSH – AT 12:22 P.M. ET:   Former President George W. Bush has been making the rounds of interview shows, demonstrating his considerable decency.  However, his vigorous defense of the media on the Today Show left me disappointed.  Investors Business Daily notes how savagely the mainstreamers treated Bush, and accuses the former president, correctly, of being too soft on them.

Media Bias: President George W. Bush has issued a full-throated defense of the media's role in modern society. He's being way too generous.

"I consider the media to be indispensable to democracy. … Power can be very addictive," Bush said in remarks on NBC's "Today."

"We need an independent media to hold people like me to account," he said.

Yes, we agree wholeheartedly. But he seemed to imply today's media were fulfilling that role. They aren't. And there's no better example than Bush's own two terms in office.

While we deeply admire the former president for not holding a grudge, the media spent much of Bush's eight years in office actively lying about what he was doing and what he was trying to do.

It's one thing to disagree with Bush on Iraq; even some conservative media outlets loudly criticized Bush's strategy, down to the very presence of U.S. troops in Iraq.

But the media consistently mischaracterized Bush's actions, and served as a willing mouthpiece for the "Bush lied, people died" mantra of the left that served to undermine the effort to end the Iraq War.

Likewise, the media outright lied about what happened during Hurricane Katrina, painting a picture of an out-of-touch, racist chief executive who didn't really care about the deaths of African Americans from the ravaging floodwaters.

They virtually ignored the massive rescue and aid effort that followed, while making up stories of savagery on the ground and rape and murder in the temporary storm shelter set up in Houston's Astrodome. Anything to make Bush look bad.

Then in 2008, during the election campaign, came the "Bush did it" finger pointing about the financial crisis.

The Bush administration was on record as early as 2001 warning about the excesses of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but Democrats in Congress would have none of it, lambasting Bush and other Republicans as heartless tools of Wall Street.

COMMENT:  And there's more.  It's fine to reflect on the need for a free press, but wrong to remain silent in the face of press failure and distortion.  Those who revere a free press should be the first to be outraged by the state of the media today.

February 28, 2017       Permalink

THE TRUMP EFFECT – AT 10:31 A.M. ET:  People may not always love Donald Trump.   A Ronald Reagan he is not.  But he seems to be having a positive effect on how Americans view the future of their country.  From Business Insider:

The Conference Board's consumer confidence index surged to 114.8 in February from January's print of 111.8, making for the best reading since July 2001.

The internals of the report looked good as the Present Situation Index jumped 3.4 points to 133.4 and the Expectations Index climbed 3.1 points to 102.4.

February's reading topped the 15-year high of 113.7 set back in December after Donald Trump's election victory.

“Consumers rated current business and labor market conditions more favorably this month than in January," Lynn Franco, Director of Economic Indicators at The Conference Board, said in the report. "Expectations improved regarding the short-term outlook for business, and to a lesser degree jobs and income prospects. Overall, consumers expect the economy to continue expanding in the months ahead.”

COMMENT:  The key question is whether the American people are learning to filter out the media coverage of Trump and concentrate on what he's actually doing, and plans to do.

Tonight's speech is critical in that regard.  I think we're all curious as to what the president will say, and how the public will react in polls.  The New York Times is already rejecting what it believes will be the content of the speech, which is not surprising. 

Give Trump credit where it's due.  He has inspired at least a large chunk of the nation to be optimistic for the first time in a long time.  Maybe the press isn't as powerful as it thinks.

February 28, 2017       Permalink

VOTERS REJECT DEM OBSTRUCTION – AT 9:53 A.M. ET:  The Democratic strategy is clearly to obstruct, obstruct, obstruct.  The Dem base is demanding absolute opposition to all things Trump.  It's so brilliant and creative.

But the people of the nation are rejecting that madness.  From Rasmussen: 

Most voters agree that it’s bad for America and bad for the Democratic Party if Democrats continue to flat out oppose everything President Trump does. Even Democrats are conflicted about their party’s scorched earth policy.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that only 29% of all Likely U.S. Voters think it’s better for the country if Democrats oppose the president in every way possible. Sixty-three percent (63%) say it’s better for the country if Democrats try to work with the president instead.

The findings are identical when voters are asked about the impact of the Democrats’ reported strategy on the fortunes of their own party. Just 29% say it’s better for the Democratic Party if Democrats oppose the president in every way possible. Sixty-three percent (63%) disagree and think it’s better for the party if Democrats try to work with Trump.

Forty-four percent (44%) of Democrats feel it’s better for both the country and their party if they oppose the new president as much as possible. But 46% say it’s better for America if Democrats try to work with Trump, and 45% say it’s better for their party, too.

COMMENT:  Problem is, the troops of the Democratic base are crude and threatening.  They want blood.  They are left, not center left.  They would rather lose elections and maintain their ideological purity.  And Democratic leaders are afraid of them.  So they have an outsized influence.

I don't see much chance for cooperation, although, if he is shrewd, Trump will offer a cooperative spirit in his speech to Congress tonight.  Good politics and good government.

February 28,  2017     Permalink